[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 111 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8741-S8777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of H.R. 3540, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3540) making appropriations for foreign
operations and export financing in and related programs for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other
purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
McCain amendment No. 5017, to require information on
cooperation with United States antiterrorism efforts in the
annual country reports on terrorism.
Coverdell amendment No. 5018, to increase the amount of
funds available for international narcotics control programs.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 30 minutes of debate
equally divided on the McCain amendment No. 5017.
The able Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Schedule
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will
immediately resume consideration of the foreign operations
appropriations bill. Under the agreement reached last night, the Senate
will begin 30 minutes of debate on the McCain amendment No. 5017
regarding antiterrorism efforts. Senators can expect a rollcall vote on
or in relation to that amendment no later than 10 o'clock this morning,
if all debate time is used.
Additional amendments are anticipated. Therefore, Senators can expect
votes throughout the session of the Senate today. The majority leader
has indicated that he hopes to complete action on this bill today. I
might say that I think that is entirely possible. We have a number of
amendments that are anticipated to be offered that would be acceptable,
and there is really no reason why we should not be able to complete
this bill today. The leader then plans to turn to the consideration of
the VA-HUD appropriations bill following final passage of this bill.
Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona here. I will yield the
floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield. Mr.
President, I wish to compliment the distinguished Senator from Arizona,
who had worked with this amendment last night and could have asked for
a vote last night. I asked him if he might be willing to withhold while
we discussed it further with him. I know there have been some
discussions. I note that because the Senator from Arizona showed his
usual courtesy and cooperation, I wish to thank him here on the Senate
floor.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Greg Suchan,
a fellow on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the
discussion of H.R. 3540.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5017, as Modified
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and his
staff for working with us last night on this particular amendment. In
accordance with the previous unanimous-consent agreement, I send to the
desk a modification of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his
amendment. The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 5017), as modified, is as follows:
[[Page S8742]]
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
INFORMATION ON COOPERATION WITH UNITED STATES ANTI-TERRORISM EFFORTS IN
ANNUAL COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM
Sec. 580. Section 140 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C.
2656f) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) with respect to each foreign country from which the
United States Government has sought cooperation during the
previous five years in the investigation or prosecution of an
act of international terrorism against United States citizens
or interests, information on--
``(A) the extent to which the government of the foreign
country is cooperating with the United States Government in
apprehending, convicting and punishing the individual or
individuals responsible for the act; and
``(B) the extent to which the government of the foreign
country is cooperating in preventing further acts of
terrorism against United States citizens in the foreign
country; and
(4) With respect to each foreign country from which the
United States Government has sought cooperation during the
previous five years in the prevention of an act of
international terrorism against such citizens or interests,
the information described in paragraph (3)(B).'' and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``The report'' and inserting ``(1) Except
as provided in paragraph (2), the report'';
(B) by indenting the margin of paragraph (1) as so
designated, 2 ems; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) If the Secretary of State determines that the
transmittal of the information with respect to a foreign
country under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) in
classified form would make more likely the cooperation of the
government of the foreign country as specified in such
paragraph, the Secretary may transmit the information under
such paragraph in classified form''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his
cooperation. I think we have reached an agreeable resolution to this
issue, which achieves the goal I was trying to accomplish. I think it
satisfies the concerns not only of the Senator from Vermont had, but
also of the administration.
Mr. President, this amendment would require the Secretary of State,
as part of his annual report to Congress on global terrorism, to
provide information on the extent to which foreign governments are
cooperating with U.S. requests for assistance in investigating
terrorist attacks with Americans. The Secretary will also be required
to provide information on the extent to which foreign countries are
cooperating with U.S. efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks
against Americans.
The recent terrorist attack in Dhahran demonstrates the importance of
cooperation of other governments in investigating and preventing
terrorism against Americans. The proposed amendment would of course
cover terrorist attacks against Americans or U.S. interests abroad,
such as the Riyadh bombing last year or the assassination of two State
Department employees in Karachi. It would also cover terrorist attacks
in the United States, either by foreign terrorists or domestic
terrorists operating with foreign assistance. For example, if the
destruction of TWA flight 800 proves to be a terrorist act--and at this
time we do not know that it was--the amendment would ensure that we
know whether other countries are cooperating with the United States in
investigating the crash and bringing to justice those responsible.
As part of his annual report on terrorism, the Secretary of State is
already required by law to report on the counterterrorism efforts of
countries where major international terrorist attacks occur and on the
response of their judicial systems to matters relating to terrorism
against American citizens and facilities. I believe it would be very
useful to add to this report important information about how foreign
governments are responding to U.S. requests for cooperation in
investigating and preventing terrorist attacks against Americans.
Moreover, the executive branch is already required to provide
information on other countries' antiterrorism cooperation. Section 330
of the recently enacted antiterrorism bill prohibits the export of
defense articles or services to a country that the President certifies
is not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts. Such
cooperation must certainly include investigating terrorists acts
against Americans. If such information is reasonable and useful in the
context of military cooperation, then I see no reason why similar
information cannot be provided for all other countries who are not the
recipients of U.S. defense equipment or services.
The State Department has expressed reservations about the earlier
drafts of this amendment, which included a requirement for
certification along the lines of the anti-terrorism bill. Working with
the Senator from Vermont, we have addressed this concern by requiring
that the Secretary's report provided information, rather than a
certification.
Another concern raised by the State Department is that there may be
times when other countries, for reasons of their own, might not want it
made public that they are cooperating with our anti-terrorism efforts.
The amendment, therefore allows the Secretary to provide this
information in a classified manner when it will enhance foreign
countries' cooperation.
But international terrorism is a global problem that must be
addressed by the joint efforts of all civilized states. If the United
States seeks the cooperation of other countries in pursuing those who
commit acts of terrorism against Americans, then I believe the Congress
and the American people have a right to know whether foreign
governments are indeed cooperating with the United States.
Just last week, I met with the family of a young American woman,
Alisa Flatow, who was killed by an Islamic Jihad truck bomb in the Gaza
Strip last year. According to Alisa's father, Stephen M. Flatow of West
Orange, NJ, when President, Clinton sent an FBI team to investigate the
attack, the Palestinian authority refused to cooperate with the FBI.
``As a result,'' Mr. Flatow writes in a letter to me supporting this
amendment, ``the people responsible for planning my daughter's death
have not been apprehended.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point a letter
from Stephen M. Flatow, of West Orange, NJ, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
West Orange, NJ,
July 15, 1996.
Re H.R. 3540.
Senator John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: It was a pleasure to meet you last
Thursday on the steps of the Longworth Building. I
wholeheartedly support your amendment to the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Bill, H.R. 3540, as it deals with
crimes against Americans in foreign countries.
Following the death of my 20-year-old daughter, Alisa, in
April 1995, President Clinton ordered an FBI team to Israel
and Gaza to investigate the circumstances of her murder by
the Islamic Jihad. While the Israelis cooperated fully, to my
family's chagrin the Palestinian Authority would not
cooperate with the FBI team. As a result, the people
responsible for planning my daughter's death have not been
apprehended.
It seems now that for the second time the Saudis are
blocking a similar investigation by Americans of a crime
involving the deaths of Americans. My sympathies are with the
families of the victims of terror and my prayers are for the
capture and proper adjudication of the perpetrator's guilt.
I am confident that, with your perseverance, justice will
be done.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Flatow.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I might add that this refusal to cooperate
with the FBI is not mentioned at all in the State Department's 1995
report on international terrorism. But this is an excellent example of
the type of information that I believe the executive branch should
routinely provide to the Congress and to the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, Mr. President,
this is not my original proposal. I would have liked to have seen a
certification process. I understand the concerns raised by the Senator
from Vermont and by the State Department. I am pleased as always to
have the opportunity to work with him, as, clearly, this issue of
terrorism transcends any party or political viewpoint.
As I said earlier in my remarks, I do not know if the tragedy of TWA
flight 800 was an act of terror or not. I was
[[Page S8743]]
pleased to note this morning, as we all were, that the black boxes were
recovered, which, in the opinion of most experts, will give us the kind
of factual evidence we need to reach a conclusion. But whether flight
TWA 800 was an act of terror or not, the reality is that terror has now
became part of the world scene and the American scene.
Any expert that you talk to will clearly state that you could not
attack terrorism where the act of terror takes place. You attack it at
the root and the source of the act itself. That means going to places
where the training, equipping, and arming takes place. It also means
obtaining the cooperation of every other civilized nation and taking
whatever action is necessary to go to the source of this act of
terrorism.
Mr. President, as I said, I am not drawing any conclusions, nor would
I advocate any course of action, because there is a wide range of
options that are open to an American President and Congress in the
event that an act of terror is perpetrated on American citizens.
It is instructive to note that some years ago, when there was a bomb
in a cafe in Germany, that a previous administration was able to
identify the source of that act of terror. A bombing raid was mounted
and successfully carried out in Libya, and since that time, Mr. Qadhafi
has been rather quiet. It does not mean that Mr. Qadhafi has abandoned
his revolutionary zeal, but it was certainly a cautionary lesson to Mr.
Qadhafi and his friends.
I do not say that is the remedy in every case of an act of terror. I
think that there are a wide range of options, such as economic
sanctions and others, that are open to us. But if we do not act in
response to acts of terror, and if we do not act in a cooperative
fashion, then it is virtually impossible to address these acts of
terror in an effective fashion.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Senator from Vermont and
the Senator from Kentucky, for their assistance on this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe that there is strong support for
the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I know that I am one
supporting it. Again, I compliment him for the effort that he has made
on this.
I also understand that as a result of efforts to get some Senators
back in here, that we will probably not have this vote until 10
o'clock. I know that meets the satisfaction of leadership. So I might
just make a couple of general comments on the bill along the lines of
what I did yesterday.
This legislation reflects the best compromise that we are able to
make in the Senate in the committee and a compromise between the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky and myself in this legislation. We
had an effort within a very small limit and a very small allocation.
The allocation itself reflected the best efforts of the distinguished
chairman of the overall Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield.
But I think that, Mr. President, we have to ask ourselves at some
point just how long we can go down this road. No matter what the
administration is, Republican or Democrat, we are going to have to face
up to the responsibility of world leadership when we are the most
powerful and wealthiest democracy known to history. We have seen steady
cuts in the area of foreign aid. Maybe it is politically popular to go
back home and talk about those cuts, but let us look at what we have
with the conservative, tight-fisted, anti-foreign-aid rhetoric of the
Reagan administration.
President Reagan's budgets were almost 40 percent higher in foreign
aid than President Clinton's. President Bush's were. Frankly, those
budgets reflected reality. The rhetoric did not reflect reality. The
budget reflected more reality. But we have been so caught up with the
rhetoric. The rhetoric of the Reagan administration rarely reflected
their spending priorities. But we have gotten so caught up with the
rhetoric that we have now made the spending priorities a reality. As a
result, we are not reflecting our responsibilities. Some are just pure
economic sense.
If we help in the development of these other countries, that is
usually the biggest and fastest growing market for our export products.
We create jobs in the United States. The more exports we can create,
the more jobs we create, and our fastest growing and biggest potential
market is in the Third World. That is why Japan and so many other
countries spend more money than the United States does as part of their
budget in these other parts of the world, because they know that with
the United States stepping out of that they can step in. They are
creating jobs. We lose American jobs. They create Japanese jobs,
European jobs, and otherwise. They probably sit there and laugh and
cannot understand why we believe our own rhetoric and give up these
potential jobs. But they will take them over.
Then we have another area, and it is a moral area. We have less than
5 percent of the world's population; we use more than 50 percent of the
world's resources. Don't we as a country have a certain moral
responsibility to parts of the world?
In some parts of the world, the annual--think about this for a
moment, Mr. President--in some parts of the world, the annual per
capita income of a person is less than one page of the cost of printing
the Congressional Record for this debate. We have already spent in the
debate this morning by 10 minutes of 10 more than the per capita income
of parts of the world where we help out with sometimes 20 cents per
capita, sometimes even 25 cents per capita. Are we carrying out our
moral responsibility as the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth?
We can look at pure economic sense. It makes little economic sense to
us. We lose jobs as we cut back. We lose export markets as we cut back.
But we also have some moral responsibility. Most Americans waste more
food in a day than a lot of these hungry countries, the sub-Saharan
countries and others, will ever see on their tables. We spend more
money on diet preparations in this country than most of these nations
will ever see to feed their newborn children or their families.
So I ask, Mr. President, at some point when you feel good about the
rhetoric of going home, Members feel good about the rhetoric of going
home and talking about how they are opposed to foreign aid, they ought
also to look in their soul and conscience and ask what they are doing.
And, if they are not touched in their soul and their conscience, then
also talk to the business people in their State and say: ``We are doing
this even though we are cutting off your export jobs, even though we
are cutting out American jobs by doing this.''
There is an interesting op-ed piece in the Burlington Free Press of
July 24 by George Burrill, and I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Burlington Free Press, July 24, 1996]
U.S. Foreign Aid Helps Americans at Home
(By George Burrill)
Of all the budget cuts enacted last year, none was more
damaging than the reductions in foreign assistance.
Fortunately, the hemorrhaging appears to have stopped. The
Senate is now acting on the foreign operations spending bill,
which will increase the funding slightly over this year's
level. In James Jeffords and Patrick Leahy, Vermont is
fortunate to have two senators who understand the role of
foreign assistance in improving the economic security of
Americans. Both serve on the appropriations subcommittee with
jurisdiction over foreign operations, and both have supported
the programs that helped create future markets for U.S.
exports.
One poll last year showed that nearly six out of 10
Americans incorrectly believed that the U.S. spends more on
foreign aid than on Medicare. In fact, the government
collects only about $11 per person each year from income
taxes to pay for foreign assistance.
Most people know that foreign aid can be humanitarian. But
few Americans realize that 80 percent of the total foreign
assistance budget is spent right here in the United States,
on American goods and services--more than $10 billion in
1994. This translates to about 200,000 U.S. jobs. For
example, Cormier Textile Products in Maine provided tarps for
disaster relief and temporary housing in Africa.
[[Page S8744]]
Closer to home, I am working on a project to enhance the
computer capabilities of the Egyptian parliament. What kind
of computers? IBM--which has over 6,000 employees in Essex
Junction.
Today, exports account for 10 percent of the entire U.S.
economy--double the level of a decade ago. In 1983, the jobs
of five million workers depended on U.S. exports. Today, that
number has reached 12 million.
The fastest growing markets for U.S. goods and services are
in the developing world. Between 1990 and 1995, exports to
developing countries increased by nearly $100 billion,
creating roughly 1.9 million jobs in the United States.
This increase in U.S. exports to the developing world is no
accident. Most of the foreign assistance that we spend on
developing countries today goes toward making them good
customers tomorrow. The American economy is growing today
mainly because other countries want and can afford to buy our
products and services.
U.S. foreign assistance now focuses on encouraging six
reforms in developing countries.
First, we encourage reform of developing countries' overall
economic policy. For example, in the Czech Republic, we
assisted in the transition from a command economy to a free-
market system. The United States helped the Czech government
create a healthy economic environment for investors, which
included a balanced government budget, low inflation and low
unemployment. With over 10 million mostly urban and well-
educated consumers, reforming the Czech economy has meant an
11 percent increase in U.S. exports there between 1993 and
1994.
Second, we encourage developing countries to dismantle laws
and institutions that prevent free trade. Guatemala now
exports specialty fruits, vegetables, and flowers--and the
increased buying power of Guatemalans has meant a 19 percent
increase in U.S. exports there every year since 1989.
Third, we are helping to privatize state-dominated
economies. This dismantling of state-run industries is an
important means of attracting foreign investment. A $3
million U.S. government to investment to support
privatization in the Indonesian energy sector has led to a $2
billion award to an American firm for Indonesia's first
private power contract. In fact, the U.S. foreign assistance
budget has enabled U.S. companies to dominate the global
market for private energy.
Fourth, U.S. foreign assistance encourages developing
countries to establish business codes, regulated stock
markets, fair tax codes and the rule of law. Foreign
assistance helps create the stable business environments that
U.S. companies need in order to cooperate effectively.
Fifth, we are helping to educate a new class of consumers
in developing regions. When the United States helps educate a
population, we help develop the skills needed in modern
economy and a solid middle class with a vested interest in
seeing economic reforms succeed.
Sixth, we help build small businesses. Community-run
lending programs administered by the U.S. government are
expanding small businesses and increasing per capita income
in many developing countries.
The United States spent relatively more on foreign economic
aid in the 1960s and '70s than it does today. The economy
activity we are seeing in the developing world is tightly
linked to the work the U.S. government carried out 20 and 30
years ago. Although the private sector is ultimately
responsible for economic growth, the government's work is
critical. At the very least, our goal should be to match the
mean level of total U.S. economic assistance of the 1960s--
about $18 billion a year.
America is at a crossroads. We can choose to make a smart
investment now or pay a steep price later. The relatively
small amount of money we spend on foreign economic assistance
serves as an engine for our future economic growth.
Mr. LEAHY. So, Mr. President, let us go on with this debate, as we
will. As I said, I support the amendment of the distinguished Senator
from Arizona. But let us understand that there are issues here beyond
what might be in the applause line at a town meeting back home or at a
service club meeting when you say, ``By God, we are taking the money
away from those foreigners and putting it right here in America.'' We
are not doing that really. When we cut back on all our programs for
development and for democracy around the world, we cut back on the
potential of American jobs in export, we cut back our own security, we
increase the potential that our men and women will be sent into trouble
spots worldwide, but also we ignore our moral responsibilities as a
country with 5 percent of the world's population using over 50 percent
of the world's resources.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Hutchison and Senator Cohen as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
The question occurs on amendment No. 5017, as modified, offered by
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]. The yeas and nays have been
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato]
is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is
absent on official business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
D'Amato
Inouye
Lautenberg
Moynihan
The amendment (No. 5017), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of Members of the
Senate, Senator Coverdell has an amendment pending which we are going
to lay aside and immediately go to an amendment to be offered by the
distinguished Senator from Maine.
I see Senator Coverdell is on the floor. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just from a housekeeping point of view from
this side of the aisle, if we have Democrats who have amendments, I
wish they would contact me. We want to be as cooperative with the
distinguished chairman as possible and slot these in. I would be happy
to go to third reading in the next 15 minutes, if we could. I do not
think that is possible. But I urge Senators to move as quickly as
possible if they have amendments and get them up and go forth.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, very quickly, there are 28 amendments
that we are currently aware of. At least seven of those we now know we
can accept. So we should be able to move along here with dispatch.
I see the Senator from Georgia is on the floor. Mr. President, I
yield the floor.
[[Page S8745]]
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Amendment No. 5018
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Thurmond and Senator Hatch as cosponsors to amendment No. 5018.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on
amendment No. 5018.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Coverdell amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5019
(Purpose: To promote the improvement of the lives of the peoples of
Burma through democratization, market reforms and personal freedom)
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], for himself, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. McCain, proposes amendment
numbered 5019.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 188, strike lines 3 through 22 and insert the
following:
policy toward burma
Sec. 569. (a) Until such time as the President determines
and certifies to Congress that Burma has made measurable and
substantial progress in improving human rights practices and
implementing democratic government, the following sanctions
shall be imposed on Burma:
(1) Bilateral assistance.--There shall be no United States
assistance to the Government of Burma, other than:
(A) humanitarian assistance,
(B) counter-narcotics assistance under chapter 8 of part I
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or crop substitution
assistance, if the Secretary of State certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees that:
(i) the Government of Burma is fully cooperating with U.S.
counter-narcotics efforts, and
(ii) the programs are fully consistent with United States
human rights concerns in Burma and serve the United States
national interest, and
(C) assistance promoting human rights and democratic
values.
(2) Multilateral assistance.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall instruct the United States executive director of each
international financial institution to vote against any loan
or other utilization of funds of the respective bank to or
for Burma.
(3) Visas.--Except as required by treaty obligations or to
staff the Burmese mission to the United States, the United
States shall not grant entry visas to any Burmese government
official.
(b) Conditional Sanctions.--The President shall prohibit
United States persons from new investment in Burma, if the
President determines and certifies to Congress that, after
the date of enactment of this act, the Government of Burma
has physically harmed, rearrested for political acts, or
exiled Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or has committed large-scale
repression of or violence against the democratic opposition.
(c) Multilateral Strategy.--The President shall seek to
develop, in coordination with members of ASEAN and other
countries having major trading and investment interests in
Burma, a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to bring
democracy to and improve human rights practices and the
quality of life in Burma, including the development of a
dialogue between the State Law and Order Restoration Council
(SLORC) and democratic opposition groups within Burma.
(d) Presidential Reports.--Every six months following the
enactment of this act, the President shall report to the
Chairmen of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee
on International Relations and the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on the following:
(1) progress toward democratization in Burma;
(2) progress on improving the quality of life of the
Burmese people, including progress on market reforms, living
standards, labor standards, use of forced labor in the
tourism industry, and environmental quality; and
(3) progress made in developing the strategy referred to in
subsection (c).
(e) Waiver Authority.--The President shall have the
authority to waive, temporarily or permanently, any sanction
referred to in subsection (a) or subsection (b) if he
determines and certifies to Congress that the application of
such sanction would be contrary to the national security
interests of the United States.
(f) Definitions.--
(1) The term ``international financial institutions'' shall
include the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the International Development Association, the
International Finance Corporation, the Multilateral
Investment Guarantee Agency, the Asian Development Bank, and
the International Monetary Fund.
(2) The term ``new investment'' shall mean any of the
following activities if such an activity is undertaken
pursuant to an agreement, or pursuant to the exercise of
rights under such an agreement, that is entered into with the
Government of Burma or a non-governmental entity in Burma, on
or after the date of the certification under subsection (b):
(A) the entry into a contract that includes the economical
development of resources located in Burma, or the entry into
a contract providing for the general supervision and
guarantee of another person's performance of such a contract;
(B) the purchase of a share of ownership, including an
equity interest, in that development;
(C) the entry into a contract providing for the
participation in royalties, earnings, or profits in that
development, without regard to the form of the participation;
provided that the term ``new investment'' does not include
the entry into, performance of, or financing of a contract to
sell or purchase goods, services, or technology.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this is one of the so-called Burma
amendments. I will take a few moments to explain the nature of what I
am seeking to achieve.
I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Feinstein,
and Senator Chafee, and Senator McCain. Let me begin, Mr. President, by
stating that nothing that we do or say on the floor of the Senate today
is going to magically bring democracy, freedom and prosperity to the
long-suffering people of Burma.
Burma's history, since gaining independence after World War II, has
been a series of oppressive regimes unable to set the Burmese economy
on its feet, unwilling to grant the peoples of Burma the democracy and
justice that motivated their heroic struggle for independence in the
years leading up to the British withdrawal.
When decades of isolation and economic mismanagement gave way in the
late 1980's to a transitional period under military rule, there was a
slight glimmer of hope that Burma might finally be moving toward a more
bright and democratic future. But stolen elections, student riots, and
the jailing of democratic politicians, including the Nobel Prize
winning leader of the democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, soon made
clear freedom's day had not yet arrived for Burma.
Over the past 5 years, Burma's military junta, the State Law and
Order Restoration Council, or SLORC, as it is called--its acronym--has
pursued policies of economic restructuring, leading to economic growth.
But its continued oppressive tactics and the oppression of the forces
of democracy, the use of conscripted labor, and the quest to pacify
ethnic unrest in various parts of the country have all brought us to
where we are today.
Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering seeks to substitute
language that the Foreign Operations Subcommittee has offered in this
bill.
While I disagree with the subcommittee's approach to the issue, I
would like at this time to pay personal recognition to Senator
McConnell for his longstanding dedication to the issue of Burmese
freedom. It is an issue little discussed in the Senate until recently.
I think that the considerable attention the issue now receives owes a
great deal of credit to Senator McConnell's persistence to this issue.
So I want to commend him for his untiring efforts, drawing our
attention to this issue.
I want to also recognize Senator McCain and Senator Kerry of
Massachusetts for their sustained involvement in the debate over
America's Burma policy.
Mr. President, the choice today is not whether the subcommittee's
approach or the one that I am offering in this amendment is going to
turn Burma into a functioning democracy overnight. Neither will
accomplish that. And it is not a question of who is more committed to
improving the lives of the Burmese people or who has greater respect
for the tireless eloquence and courage of Aung San Suu Kyi. All of us
involved in this matter respect Suu Kyi immensely and share
[[Page S8746]]
her aspirations for a democratic and prosperous future for the Burmese
people.
But the question is, does the approach laid out by the subcommittee
increase America's ability to foster change in Burma and strengthen our
hand and allow the United States to engage in the type of delicate
diplomacy needed to help a poor and oppressed people obtain better
living standards, political and civic freedoms, and a brighter future
as a dynamic Asian economy--one of the next of the so-called Asian
Tigers?
I think, Mr. President, with all due respect, the answer is no. By
adopting the subcommittee language the Senate will be sending the
follow message:
That the United States is ready to relinquish all of its remaining
leverage in Burma;
That America is shutting every door and cutting off all of its
already-depleted stake in Burma's future;
That the Congress is ready to further bind the hands of this and any
future administrations, taking away those tools of diplomacy--
incentives, both in a positive and negative sense--which are crucial if
we are ever going to hope to effect change in a nation where our words
and actions already carry diminished clout.
All of us deplore the behavior of the Burmese junta. We all sense the
plight of the Burmese people. We know the United States must support
the forces of democratic change in Burma. I fully support the
appropriation in this year's foreign operations bill to aid the
democrats in the struggle.
I think we have to recognize the reality of the situation in Burma
and our influence over there. Burma is not identical to previous
situations in which the United States has successfully pressured
governments who are antithetical to our values of democracy and
freedom.
First, let me say Burma is not South Africa. Burma is not South
Africa. Back in the 1970's and 1980's, the oppressive nature of the
apartheid regime in South Africa led the Senate to impose heavy
sanctions and isolation to end the regime. In order to do that, we had
the support of not only our Western European allies but of the front-
line nations, those surrounding South Africa, who also lent their
support and joined in the effort to bring an end to apartheid.
Unlike South Africa in the 1970's and 1980's, Burma is not surrounded
by nations ready to shun it. As a matter of fact, Burma's neighbors and
other states in the region reject the view that isolating Burma is the
best means to encourage change. They are pursuing trade and engagement,
and will do so regardless of what we do or say. Those nations over
there who are closest and in closest proximity are maintaining their
relations with Burma, seeking to bring about change over a period of
time. Isolating Burma is simply not going to work, and we will not have
the support of our allies. We will not have the support of our Asian
friends.
Second, Burma is not Iran. Do not make that comparison to Iran. The
Revolutionary Islamic Government of Iran is known as a sponsor of
terrorism and promoter of sectarian unrest throughout the Middle East
and beyond. Not only does Iran flout the rights of its own citizens, it
sponsors international terrorism, works to undermine neighboring
governments and pursues the development of nuclear weapons. As a result
of this, Iran is largely a pariah state. While we might have
disagreements with our friends and allies around the world regarding
our Iranian policy or our policy toward Iran, there is general
recognition that the revolutionary government there is pursuing
policies contrary to the interests of regional stability and peace.
There is no such consensus on the Burmese junta. While many of their
neighbors express irritation about the refugee flow caused by the
SLORC's ongoing battles with the various ethnic groups, they view the
efforts to oust SLORC as a threat to peace and stability in the region.
The subcommittee's proposal will not make American policy more
effective or make possible a more cooperative policy or regional
consensus in dealing with SLORC.
Let me say that Burma is not China. I do not happen to be a
particular supporter of the Clinton administration's China policy in
general. A central tenet of the policy is that the United States can
threaten sanctions on Chinese exports to the United States in order to
convince the government of Beijing to live up to its agreements. We
have had a longstanding debate over our policy with respect to China. I
know many people might disagree with the administration's proposal.
I recall, for example, when President Bush was in the White House,
there was strong opposition coming from the Democratic side to having
anything to do with China, because we wanted to impose sanctions
because of their terrible record on human rights. I recall many Members
stood on this floor and talked about the butchers of Beijing, kowtowing
to the Chinese, and imposing this policy of sanctions. President
Clinton, when he was candidate Clinton, adopted that policy. Then, when
he took office, he saw it was not going to work. We did not have the
support of our allies. We did not have the support of our other friends
in Asia.
So the administration changed its policy toward China, and it is
because of that we have some leverage; we have considerable leverage
because the Chinese export many billions of dollars of goods to this
country. So now, by engaging the Chinese, we are able to exercise some
influence in some areas of concern to the United States, including
human rights, but also with respect to our intellectual property
rights, which we feel have been violated time and time again.
So we cannot compare this to China because we do not have that kind
of policy leverage over Burma. We do not have the kind of export-import
relationship with Burma that we have with China, so we do not have the
leverage to help in bringing about change.
For all of the reasons I am suggesting, it is important we create a
Burma policy in tune with the realities of Burma today and not the
examples of South Africa, Iran or China. The alternative that I offer
today sets a course for a coherent American Burma policy which upholds
our values and, at the same time, expresses our interests in regional
stability. It does, however, make American values and interests clear
in a way that gives the administration flexibility in reacting to
changes, both positive and negative, with respect to the behavior of
the SLORC.
In addition, I hope that the amendment I propose would not only allow
for exceptions to the subcommittee's proposal, but I want to create
some conditionality here, Mr. President. I propose to allow exceptions
to the policy of no assistance to Burma in three critical areas.
First, humanitarian assistance: We do not want to impose sanctions
that are basically going to be directed against the people, the Burmese
people. That is only going to impoverish them more. So I would have no
sanctions across the board in terms of including humanitarian
assistance.
Second, there is an exception for counternarcotics effort. The
counternarcotics provision, I think, is important, because, as Senator
McCain has pointed out on so many occasions, the real victims of a
failure to crack down on the narcotics trade in Burma are the millions
of Americans who are harmed, both directly and indirectly, by our
Nation's epidemic drug abuse.
Burma is estimated to be the source of two-thirds of the world's
production of heroin. So, does it make sense for us to eliminate all
efforts to have a counternarcotics program in Burma? Are we not serving
our national interests by at least maintaining some policy consistent
with trying to stop the flow, interdict the flow, find other
alternatives for the Burmese people to replace their crops with other
types of crops?
My amendment would allow a limited counternarcotics effort in Burma.
It is certified to be in our national security interests in accord with
our human rights concerns.
The subcommittee's bill would prohibit all counternarcotics efforts
in Burma. My amendment would not end the flow of heroin, but I think at
least it does not throw in the towel in an effort to stem that
poisonous stream. The amendment I offered recognizes that, to be
effective, American policy in Burma has to be coordinated with our
Asian friends and allies. This is not the case of the unilateral
actions offered by the subcommittee.
[[Page S8747]]
Mr. President, I have traveled in recent years throughout Southeast
Asia, and I have discussed foreign policy, certainly, with many of the
leaders there. Frankly, they do not see eye to eye with our policies.
That does not mean that we have to necessarily conform our policies to
the way in which they view the situation in Burma, but it does mean
that we should look on each and every occasion to consult with and,
when possible, cooperate with the other nations of ASEAN, if we hope to
effect change in Burma.
It seems to me that we can get on the floor, point to the oppression
of the Burmese junta, and we can satisfy ourselves that we are seeking
to punish them. But if, in fact, we do not have the support of our
allies, and we do not have the support of those neighbors in the region
friendly to us who are seeking to work us with on a multilateral basis,
then we can stomp on this stage here and produce no visible effect or
improvement on behalf of the Burmese people.
Burma is located in one of the most dynamic regions of the world. It
is the most dynamic region of the world. I suggest, Mr. President, that
we have seen the flowering of democracy and freedom in parts of the
world where values were quite alien to those that we support. We have
seen developments, for example, in South Korea and Taiwan that have
proven democracy can evolve out of formally authoritarian regimes. The
same thing can happen in Burma. The best way to do that is to adopt a
policy which gives the President some tools to influence the situation.
The subcommittee's proposal is all sticks, no carrots. What we seek to
do is give the President some limited flexibility to improve the
situation on behalf of the Burmese people.
I hope my colleagues will recognize this is not an effort to
contradict what the subcommittee seeks to achieve, but rather provides
the President with flexibility. It does not matter whether you support
this President or not.
Someone asked me whether or not I was carrying the water of the
administration. Let me say, Mr. President, I have never considered
myself to be a waterboy for anybody. I have never carried water for any
administration, if I thought it was simply seeking to accommodate the
administration. I think there is only one team. There is not a
Republican or Democratic team; there is only one team when it comes to
foreign policy. We all ought to be on the same side.
We ought to try to develop a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. I
am not seeking to carry the water of the administration, any more than
I have in the past, when I was accused of not acting on behalf of an
administration. What we need to have is a policy which this President
or, what I hope to be President Dole after the next election, has the
flexibility to achieve the goals that we all desire, and that is the
promotion of democracy and humanitarian relief.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my colleague from Maine for his thoughtful
presentation.
I know there are some others on the floor who would like to speak.
Let me make a few observations here at the outset of the debate. My
good friend from Maine mentioned that we had consulted with leaders in
the area. The one leader that we have not consulted with is the duly
elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi. Her party won 82 percent of
the vote in 1990. She is the legitimately elected head of a Burmese
Government that has not been allowed to function. It has not been
allowed to function because the State Law and Order Restoration Council
simply disallowed the election, put her under house arrest until July
1995, and she still effectively is in that state. They say she is not
under arrest anymore, but, in fact, she stays at home most of the time.
That is the safest place to stay. She has to sort of smuggle out
messages to the rest of the world.
So the one leader we have not consulted, Aung San Suu Kyi, has an
opinion about the proposal in the foreign operations bill. The duly
elected leader of Burma, receiving 82 percent of the vote, thinks that
the approach in the underlying bill is the way to go. Maybe the other
people in Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, and other places do not think
it is the way to go, but the one who won the election, the Western-
style supervised election in 1990, thinks that the only thing that will
work are sanctions.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. McCONNELL. Not yet. Mr. President, let me say that in terms of
the pain to American business, there are only two companies, both of
them oil companies, that are in there and plan to stay. Everybody else
is pulling out. One oil company decided not to deal with this regime.
Eddie Bauer pulled out, and Liz Claiborne pulled out. The retailers do
not want to have anything to do with this crowd, which exists for the
sole purpose of terrorizing its own citizens. They have a 400,000-
person army, armed to the teeth, not because of any expansionist goal,
but to suppress and abuse their own citizens. That is all they do. So
if you want to do business in Burma, you cut a deal with the State Law
and Order Restoration Council and you enrich them.
So in terms of the pain to American business, if this sanctions
measure went into effect, it would affect only two companies--not like
South Africa, in which my friend and colleague from Maine supported the
South African sanctions bill, as did I. My friend from Maine voted to
override the President's veto, as did I. A lot of others did, too, a
good number of Senators who are still in the Senate on both sides of
the aisle. That was actually a painful decision because there was a lot
of American investment in South Africa that had to pick up and leave.
There is no question about whether South African sanctions worked. They
worked. Now, I know there is a feeling around here on the part of some
that sanctions never work. The truth of the matter is that sometimes
they do and sometimes they do not. We have to pursue these issues one
at a time, in a pragmatic way, and consider what is appropriate in a
given country.
I say to my friend from Maine, and others, that we did not start
proposing unilateral sanctions the first year. I have been working on
this issue for a couple of years, most of the time sort of by myself,
because there are no Burmese-Americans to get us all interested in
this. America is a melting pot, and a lot of Americans who came from
other places get interested in foreign assistance bills. Whether they
are Jewish-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, Polish-Americans, they take
an interest, or Armenian-Americans. There are not many Burmese-
Americans. So this issue has not been on the radar screen here. But, as
a practical matter, this is one of the most, if not the most, because
it ranks up there with North Korea, repressive regimes in the world.
It has been 6 years since the election. The Bush administration did
not pay any attention to the election, and neither is the Clinton
administration. The problem I have with the proposal of my friend from
Maine--and I know it is well-intentioned and popular with the other
countries in ASEAN--is that I do not think it will have any impact, I
say with all due respect, because the present administration has shown
no interest in doing anything significant.
As I understand the proposal of my friend from Maine, it would, in
effect, mean increasing aid to SLORC, since the Senate voted 50 to 47
in November to put off aid for narcotics. We all understand that the
American interest in Burma is not because we have a lot of Burmese
citizens; it is because we have a lot of Burmese heroin. If you wanted
to look at it from a purely domestic point of view, that is the
interest in Burma.
So I guess the question is whether there would be a serious narcotics
enforcement effort by this crowd running Burma.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I think I know the answer.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a quick observation.
Mr. LEAHY. I think it would be safe to say that if past performance
is any indication--and I think it is an indication --there would not be
any help in stopping the heroin traffic by the group that runs it. I
think the indication is that a number of them are benefiting very
directly from this heroin traffic, as the Senator from Kentucky has
pointed out before.
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Vermont is right on the mark. Since
SLORC seized power, opium production has doubled and seizures dropped
80 percent. The warlord, Khun Sa, has had a complete safe haven. That
is the kind
[[Page S8748]]
of cooperation we are getting from the State Law and Order Restoration
Council, which runs Burma with an iron hand.
Now, some will suggest that unilateral sanctions are a radical step.
Well, there is precedent for it, and my friend from Maine mentioned
some of the other countries. In many of them, we subsequently had help
from others. I think it is reasonable to assume that if the United
States takes the lead, we will not be alone. We will not be alone.
Things are beginning to stir in the European Union, the European
Parliament, and European companies. Two European companies pulled out
just in the last week or so. So the movement is beginning.
If America will lead, there will be a lot of followers, not initially
with ASEAN, I agree with my friend from Maine. They have the biggest
investment there. I can see why they do not want to change the status
quo. They are doing just fine. It is probably a lot easier for
countries that do not have huge investments there to choose not to
invest if they do not already have big investments. Certainly, it is
not going to be much of a hit to U.S. business to take this step. But
it is a beginning. It is a beginning.
We have pursued unilateral sanctions against Libya, Iran, and Cuba.
So we have done this before. It is not completely unique. It is not a
radical step. It has been 6 years, Mr. President, since the election
over there--6 years of terrorism and murder, and the ASEAN countries
are doing business and everybody else is ignoring it.
It seems to me, at this point, it is not reasonable to assume that
this sort of constructive engagement is going to improve. There has
been no improvement--none in 6 years. First, the Bush administration
and then this administration either (a) has ignored the problem or (b)
tried to engage in constructive engagement.
There are plenty of other Senators who would like to speak. I just
wanted to lay out for the Senate, as we begin the debate, what the
committee position suggests is not a particularly radical step. This is
truly one of a handful of pariah regimes in the world. If the United
States doesn't lead, who will?
I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in full support of the Cohen
amendment to the Burma provisions of H.R. 3540.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, I strongly object to the present language in the committee
substitute amendment. My problems with the provision are both
procedural and substantive.
First, on the procedural issue, this matter is clearly one for an
authorizing committee to consider, not--with all due respect--an
appropriating committee. The subject matter of the provision is clearly
legislative in nature; it has absolutely nothing to do with funding.
Consequently, it has no business being included in an appropriations
bill. In the House, this provision would be subject to a point of order
on that grounds alone, and would have been formerly in the Senate too
until the recent Hutchinson precedent.
Second, if enacted into law, the provision would create a significant
change in our relationship with Burma. Although I will readily admit
that our present relationship with Burma is not especially deep, the
imposition of mandatory economic sanctions would certainly downgrade
what little relationship we have. Moreover, it would affect our
relations with many of our allies in Asia as we try to corral them into
following our lead. Finally, and I have heard precious little from the
manager of the bill on this, it would have a substantial and
detrimental impact --to the tune of many millions of dollars--on
several United States businesses with investments in Burma.
Consequently, the provision and its possible ramifications are a
matter which should be carefully considered by the authorizing
committees of jurisdiction: the Committee on Banking and the Committee
on Foreign Relations. To date, Mr. President, neither committee has had
that opportunity. The Banking Committee held a hearing on Burma
sanctions several weeks ago. At that hearing, the committee heard from
only the first of three witness panels; the first panel consisted of
supporters of the legislation, while the second and third consisted of
the administration--which is opposed to the bill--and sanctions
opponents. The remainder of the hearing has been indefinitely
postponed. Under those circumstances, I do not believe that it can be
said that the Banking Committee has had an opportunity to fully
consider the matter.
As for the Foreign Relations Committee, neither the full committee
nor my subcommittee has held a hearing on Burma or the sanctions
provisions in this Congress. We were prevented from holding hearings on
the Burma sanctions bill [Mr. McConnell] Senator from Kentucky because
the Parliamentarian ruled it was referable only to Banking. Yet despite
the fact that the provision strikes at the very heart of bilateral
relations with Burma, neither Senator McConnell or his staff has ever
even discussed this matter with me or the chairman of the full Foreign
Relations Committee. When Congress acts it should do so only after
careful and considered deliberation, something lacking in this case,
and not by a last-minute attachment to appropriations legislation.
Substantively, I believe the sanctions provided for in the bill are a
completely ineffective way to get Burma's attention. We all know very
well that economic sanctions only work if they are multilateral. We've
seen that proven time after time.
It is clear that in this case, we would be the only country imposing
sanctions. All of the ASEAN countries, especially those which border
Burma, have told us point blank that they will not join us in imposing
sanctions. They will continue their policy of constructive engagement
with Burma, and they told a recent United States mission to the area
that imposing sanctions would be foolish. In fact, Mr. President, no
other country I know of has agreed to go along with proposed
sanctions--no other country, Mr. President.
Therefore, we are left in a position of imposing unilateral
sanctions, and unilateral sanctions are just like no sanctions at all.
If we prohibit United States companies from doing business in Burma,
foreign business with no similar handicap will be more than happy to
step in and take our place. There is very little I can think of that we
are in a position to supply to Burma which couldn't be supplied by a
foreign country were we removed from the arena. This was a principal
argument put forward by many Senators against imposing sanctions
against the People's Republic of China. I wonder how many of those
Senators are now arguing in favor of sanctions against Burma?
In addition, the Burma provisions strike me as somewhat hypocritical.
The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, in same region, is a Communist
country that routinely violates human rights and suppresses democracy;
free speech is forbidden, opponents of the government are locked up for
years, just like in Burma. But Mr. President, I don't see anybody
moving to impose sanctions against that government.
On the contrary, we're doing everything we can to increase U.S.
business there because we believe that's the best way to effectuate
change. We've seen that increased business contacts are the best way to
influence China; this seeming truism is the principal reason why we
continue to renew China's most-favored-nation status each year. Most
Senators have apparently concluded that the same is true for Vietnam.
Why, then, are we taking a different position with regards to Burma?
Mr. President, I am the first to agree that democracy needs to be
restored in Burma, that SLORC has to go, and that Daw Aung Sun Suu Kyi
and her party are the rightful government of that country.
Unfortunately, this bill is not going to bring us one step closer to
bringing that about. All it is going to do is hurt U.S. companies, put
us out on a limb without the support of our allies or other countries
in the region, and make us look somewhat foolish.
For these reasons, I oppose the committee amendment and support the
Cohen amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cohen
amendment. I was part of a group that perfected an amendment and put
out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter. It was similar in many
[[Page S8749]]
respects to the Cohen amendment. It had some significant differences,
and we had a broad support I believe for that amendment. But, Mr.
President, we have determined--Senator Nickles and I, and other
supporters of this amendment--that the differences between the
Johnston-Nickles amendment and the Cohen amendment were not sufficient
so as to divide our forces. And we believe that essentially this
amendment incorporates what we think is the central thrust of our
amendment. So, therefore, we support it, and I urge my colleagues to do
so.
Mr. President, this is a difficult question. No one defends the
SLORC, the group that is running Myanmar, or Burma. It is true they are
a bad regime. They are not an Iran in the sense that they do not
practice state terrorism. They are not a Nazi Germany in the sense that
they engage in genocide. But they are plenty bad, Mr. President, and we
do not defend them.
The question is: Would it be effective to do what Senator McConnell
has proposed? Would it be effective? Would it help achieve the end? Mr.
President, I think it would do precisely and exactly the opposite.
Mr. President, to cut off American participation in Burma--not
foreign participation but American participation--would be exactly the
wrong thing. First of all, it is no sanction because Americans are less
than 10 percent of foreign investment in Burma today and the total of
foreign investment is less than Burmese send back--Burmese expatriates
from around the world send back to their own country. The reason for
this is because under the former leader of Burma, General Ne Win, who
was there for over two decades, Burma was one of the most hermetically
sealed countries on the face of the Earth. People did not go outside
Burma. People did not come inside Burma. It was a totally closed not
only economy but society that practiced the most cruel kind of
repression; no doubt about that. It has only been in the last few
years, Mr. President, that Burma has opened up at all. They have begun
to let a little bit of light in. Indeed, Unocal, which is an American
company, is in there together with Total, which is a French company, to
develop the gas fields. Actually they want to send the gas to Thailand.
The Thais are very strong supporters of this, as you might suspect.
And the question is: Is it good to have an American company, or would
it be better to have Total, the French company, have the contract?
Really that is the question proposed by the McConnell approach. I
submit it is better to have an American company there.
Mr. President, I talked to the President of Unocal. He personally
have been talking to these people in what we call the SLORC, the State
Law and Order Restoration Council, the group that is running Burma.
Whether or not he has been successful, or whether or not he is
beginning to be successful, you can argue. But I can tell you, Mr.
President, that the President of Unocal --an American--it is better to
have him in there than to have only the French because the French and
the Europeans have never really helped on human rights matters. I mean
they never helped on China. They never helped on other countries around
the world. It is always the United States who does the propagation of
democracy and human rights. We have a Louisiana company that has a
subcontract there.
The South Koreans are ready, willing, and able. And, as a matter of
fact, it is grooming to take their place in Burma. I ask you, Mr.
President. Do you think that the South Koreans are going to be in
talking about human rights and democracy? Mr. President, it is much
more likely that Americans will do so. When you have a country that has
been so sealed off from Western influences, from civilizing influence,
from moderating influences all these years, it is important to let the
light in--the cleansing light of democracy, the cleansing light of
Western civilization, the dynamic forces of the free market. It is
better to let those in. Then you have something with which to sanction.
If, just as they are letting the light in, you suddenly shut the light
off, there is neither a sanction to be had nor a loss for the Burmese
in continuing with their course of conduct.
My colleague from Kentucky says that there has been no improvement at
all; that they have not responded at all. Mr. President, I would say
that is debatable. We asked the Burmese to do a couple of things, both
of which they did. We asked them to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They did,
as my colleague from Kentucky says. She is not under house arrest. She
stays at home because it is the safest place. Maybe so. But we asked
them to do that, and they did that. She is not in prison. That is not
much but it is something we asked them to do, and they did it.
We asked them to release the Members of Parliament. Most of them have
been released. Several hundred have been released. There are a number
which remain in prison. They say there is no Member of Parliament in
prison, and rather cynically they are able to justify that by saying
they decertified those Members of Parliament.
So I do not mean to make the case that the Burmese are responding
completely, or responding in good faith, or that there is great reason
to hope. But, Mr. President, there is some progress and some measurable
progress where there was none before. When Ne Win was running that
country, you could not even get American news media in; a member of the
news media. Now, Mr. President, there is at least reason to hope.
My friend from Kentucky says Aung San Suu Kyi, that brave woman who
did in fact win the election, has backed his position. Mr. President, I
tried to read everything that she has said. I stand second to none in
my admiration for her. She is a very brave woman. She has risked her
personal safety to stand up for freedom and democracy in Burma. And I
hope eventually that she will be successful.
But I am not aware--I was going to ask my colleague from Kentucky--if
she has endorsed the specific language of the McConnell amendment. Has
she endorsed this specific language?
Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Louisiana that I believe
the answer to that is yes.
Let me read the quote. I have not shown her the language. She said
that ``Foreign investment currently benefits only Burma's military.''
These are direct words from Aung San Suu Kyi. ``Foreign investment
currently benefits only Burma's military rulers and some local
interests but would not help improve the lot of the Burmese in
general.'' She says, ``Investment made now is very much against the
interests of the people of Burma.'' She said further, these are direct
quotes in May 1996, this year: ``Burma is not developing in any way.
Some people are getting very rich. That is not economic development.''
All of those are direct recent quotes.
I think it is safe to say that she hopes that we will begin these
kinds of sanctions.
A further direct quote from the New York Times of July 19, 1996,
direct quote: ``What we want are the kind of sanctions that will make
it quite clear that economic change in Burma is not possible without
political change.''
So I would say to my friend from Louisiana, the answer is no. I have
not shown her the actual language. I am totally confident that she
supports the approach that I have recommended.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for responding on
that. I think the answer to my question is--and I think the Senator was
honest in saying--that Aung San Suu Kyi has neither seen nor endorsed
this language, that she in fact endorsed sanctions, as the Senator from
Maine [Mr. Cohen] has in his amendment. It is sanctions. One of the
central questions is this. I made up a little poem. I am not as good at
poetry as the Senator from Maine is, but my little poem is this:
A sanction will not a sanction be if it hurts the
sanctioner and not the sanctionee.
What that means is if all you do is cost American jobs and influence
by substituting, for Unocal, Total, a French company, when Unocal is
trying its best to influence the SLORC, influence the government, doing
what it can, and all you are doing is getting the Americans out and
putting in the French, getting the Americans out and putting in the
South Koreans, then I submit that is no sanction at all.
Now, we are told by my friend from Kentucky that there is precedent
for this because we have taken unilateral sanctions against Iran and
Libya and Cuba.
[[Page S8750]]
First of all, I think these three countries are greatly
distinguishable, the first two practicing terrorism all around the
world, and in the case of Cuba, shooting down American planes over
international airspace. Whatever else you may say about Burma, they do
not practice state terrorism, nor do they threaten their neighbors.
Moreover, my friend from Kentucky says that sanctions sometimes work
and sometimes do not, and he talks about the example of South Africa.
They did, in fact, work in South Africa where you had a united world.
The whole world was united against South Africa. In the case of Burma,
the United States, to my knowledge, has not one single ally. The
nations of the area, the ASEAN countries, actively oppose sanctions and
actively hope that we will engage Burma not just because they want to
trade with Burma, and they do, but because they believe that the best
way to sanitize that regime, to encourage a dialog, to bring democracy
to Burma is by beginning to engage that country.
The European Union 2 weeks ago voted not to impose unilateral
sanctions. Not even the Danes, whose diplomat there died in prison
under very suspicious circumstances, are willing to engage in sanctions
against Burma.
The Cohen amendment seeks to have our administration get other
nations of the world to engage in multilateral sanctions. Multilateral
sanctions will work. If we can engage the other countries of the region
and of the world to cooperate with us in sanctions, that, in fact, will
be a sanction and will not be what we call friendly fire. Friendly
fire, as we found out in Desert Storm and as we have always known,
never hurts the other side. It hurts yourself. It decreases our
influence with Burma.
So, Mr. President, I strongly urge that we pass the Cohen amendment
and that we seek to help bring democracy to Burma.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Very briefly, I just wanted to make a couple of
observations with regard to the comments of my good friend from
Louisiana.
Aung San Suu Kyi has a cousin, an official spokesman, who resides in
the United States and heads an organization called the National
Coalition of Government of the Union of Burma. He is, in effect, Aung
San Suu Kyi's spokesman in our country. He is here because he has to be
here. He cannot be over there and continue to breathe. I have a copy of
a letter dated July 12, 1996, from him on the very issue that we are
debating here this morning. Dr. Sein Win says:
The immediate imposition of economic sanctions against the
ruling military junta is urgently needed. I do not take the
impositions of sanctions on my country lightly.
He understands what we are talking about here.
I and the democratic forces working to liberate our country
know that foreign investment serves to strengthen SLORC. It
is providing SLORC with the means to finance a massive army
and intelligence service whose only job is to crush
international dissent.
He goes on to say:
The situation in my country has deteriorated into free
fall.
He concludes by saying:
I urge you to stand on the side of 42 million freedom-
loving Burmese and support economic sanctions against this
rogue regime.
I certainly agree with my friend from Louisiana that the State Law
and Order Restoration Council is no threat to its neighbors. It is not.
It is a threat to its own citizens. That is what this is, a regime of
terrorism against the Burmese people. If we do not impose sanctions
unilaterally, who is going to start this? Who is going to take the lead
if the United States does not? Sooner or later, if the international
community is going to notice what is going on there and take some
steps, it is going to happen because of American leadership.
Mr. President, I know the Senator from Missouri is anxious to speak.
I will come back to this later. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment by
my colleague from Maine. I am very much concerned about the impact of
the provisions in the underlying bill. Like most, if not all, of my
colleagues, I would agree and agree wholeheartedly that the present
conditions in Burma, or Myanmar, are deplorable. The conditions of
SLORC cannot and should not be condoned. As I have said in the past on
many occasions, their claim to govern is an illegitimate claim. Their
hold on power through oppression and denial of human rights is one that
I and, I believe, everyone else in this body would like to see come to
end as soon as possible.
Aung San Suu Kyi and her party won an election in 1990 and I am
confident would win again if another election were held today. SLORC
came to power solely due to its ability to coerce. Period. End of
story.
The question that we are now trying to answer is, how do we respond
to the situation? How can the United States influence the activities of
SLORC to bring about change in Burma and to bring the democratically
elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi back to Burma?
One approach that is taken in the foreign operations appropriations
bill is to try to achieve change in Burma through total unilateral
sanctions--unilateral sanctions. This approach assumes that such
actions will influence and pressure SLORC to change its behavior.
I have to commend my colleagues for their eagerness, their dedication
and the leadership of the Senator from Kentucky to try to see that we
do something to bring about change in Burma, but I am not convinced
that cutting off what little contact we do have with that country will
serve the positive purpose we seek. That action, in my opinion, will do
nothing to bring about change in Burma. Such sanctions would be
ineffective in achieving their purpose and would solely deny the
Burmese people, the ones we are trying to assist in this whole debate,
the positive effect of closer and deeper American engagement.
What would be accomplished by implementing sanctions unilaterally on
a country where U.S. investment is relatively insignificant, minor,
almost unimportant and would be quickly taken up by our competitors? We
must remember that all of the nations of Asia and much of Europe,
including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, disagree with this
policy of sanctions.
Like the Senator from Maine, I have had the opportunity to visit with
leaders in the ASEAN countries, and I can tell you that they are not
going to impose sanctions. They believe in engagement. They are going
to continue to engage in Burma.
Is the progress toward peace, human rights, and the recognition of
democratic principles more likely to be furthered by our withdrawing
from the field? I think not. Sanctions did work in South Africa, but
only because the United States was part of a much larger coalition.
They do not work when we go in as the Lone Ranger and try to cut off
our minuscule investment.
The Senator from Kentucky has given us quotes from Aung San Suu Kyi
and her spokesperson, in which they talk about foreign sanctions. If
all countries who are now trading with Burma could be enlisted, then
there could be a major impact. But I can tell you from talking to--and
mostly from listening to--the leaders of the countries that are the
neighbors of Burma, that is not going to happen.
Burma is just beginning to open its doors to the outside world. There
are neighboring countries and other countries in the world anxious and
willing to go in. The opening is a unique opportunity that we have not
seen before, an opportunity to help bring about change, to make things
happen. Frankly, I am not so much concerned, not so much interested in
the very small investment that our companies may now have in Burma. If
we were part of an overall sanctions picture, I would say it would be
worth it, if other countries would get out as well. But I can see us
having a positive effect in the entire region if we continue to be
involved, if we continue to have the opportunity to exercise U.S.
influence to bring U.S. values to that country. It just makes sense.
How can we influence anything if we are the only ones outside the
room while the rest of the world is carrying on without us, probably
happy to see us play the self-righteous outsider and get
[[Page S8751]]
out? I cannot see how punishing United States firms by threatening to
keep them out of Burma is an effective way to bring about change.
United States presence, U.S. firms are the ones on the ground who can
help spread American values.
Obviously, our global competitors and Burma's neighbors see
opportunities arising in Burma. I fear they are more interested in
monetary gain, in many instances, from such change and not the
opportunity to bring about the political change that we in the United
States are seeking. I can imagine that European and Asian trade
competitors would be wildly supportive and happy to see total sanctions
unilaterally imposed by the United States on its own companies.
Another possibility we must start considering is the security issue
of continually isolating Burma. To do so could drive them into the arms
of the Chinese. A strong security relationship between Burma and China
is not, in my view, in the best interests of the United States. I fear
to think what it would mean if such a relationship were to lead to a
port in Southeast Asia for the Chinese Navy.
At this time the United States does not do much for Burma. We
purchase a mere 7 percent of all Burma's exports and provide an
insignificant 1 percent of its imports. We provide them no aid. We
limit international financing by continuing to vote against loans to
Burma through international financial institutions. Frankly, these
votes are likely to be overridden by other voting countries who seek
the opportunities that large-scale projects in Burma would provide. We
have very little leverage even now with Burma. To isolate ourselves
even further from that country would be to give up what little
influence, what positive pressure for change we can bring.
The United States can either be at the table and foster meaningful
dialog and negotiations, or we can walk out of the room. I believe
that, recognizing the opportunity that SLORC is providing by opening
Burma to foreign interests, staying and engaging the country's foreign
leader is the best hope we have for fostering democratic change in
Burma.
We all want to see change in Burma. We all feel that SLORC's actions
are reprehensible and would like to see the legitimately elected
government of Aung San Suu Kyi brought to power. I hope, while making
efforts to bring about these results, we do not give up existing and
future United States interests, not only in Burma but throughout
Southeast Asia. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague for an excellent statement. I
echo his comments. I also compliment Senator Cohen for his amendment.
Senator Johnston and I have been working on a comparable amendment.
It is almost identical. We are not going to offer that. I think it is
important for people to have one alternative to the language in the
appropriations bill.
On page 188 in the bill, it says we are going to have sanctions
against Burma. All of us want to change policies in Burma. Burma has
been repressive. It has denied human rights. We need to make changes.
So, how does the committee, or how does the language that we have
before us in the bill, do that? First, it says, ``No national of the
United States shall make any investment in Burma.''
Some people, some companies, some U.S. citizens have already made
investments. We are going to say no more investments; no investments,
period. That is a very stark punishment. I am not sure it is punishment
so much on Burma and officials in Burma as it is on officials of the
United States and people of the United States. The language continues.
It goes on and says we will deny United States assistance to Burma.
The Cohen amendment does that as well, but it is a little more
targeted. Under the language that we have in the bill, it says United
States assistance to Burma is prohibited. Under the Cohen amendment it
says assistance is prohibited except for humanitarian assistance. We
are trying to help some people. There has been repression over there.
It also says we could continue to have assistance in areas for
counternarcotics. Right now there are a lot of narcotics coming from
Burma. Should we not have United States assistance, some undercover,
some open, used to investigate sources of heroin and other drugs that
might be leaving Burma and ultimately end up in the United States? The
language that is in the bill before us would deny any assistance,
including counternarcotics efforts. I think that would be a serious
mistake.
The idea of having a unilateral sanction, I think, is a mistake. I
think, if we are going to have sanctions, they should be multilateral.
If we are saying only the United States steps forward, no U.S. citizen
shall invest, and no other country comes forward, there may not be any
change whatsoever. Certainly, if we are going to have U.S. sanctions, I
want my colleagues to consider--I will not be offering it at this time,
but I was considering an amendment that we should at least have a
report on the economic impact and whether or not it had any positive
impact on achieving our goal.
If we have sanctions, certainly we want to know whether they are
working or not working. We want to have the changes in Burma, but do we
make those changes when we have unilateral sanctions affecting our very
small investments? I doubt it. Certainly they can be offset by other
countries.
Can you have changes when you have multilateral sanctions? Possibly.
Sanctions are difficult in this day and age. When the Carter
administration imposed a wheat embargo on Russia for some serious
abuses, what happened is we lost markets to one of our weak
competitors. In Russia, it was replaced by a lot of other countries--
Australia, Argentina and other countries. They expanded their wheat
base. They exported to Russia. Russia now does not buy as much from the
United States. They buy from other countries. We just created another
group of competitors in this particular one commodity. Did we change
policy in Russia? I do not think so. I do not think that had, really, a
triggering impact in making policy changes. I want to make the policy
change.
Another important segment of the Cohen amendment is that it does give
the President some discretion, some leverage, which will have influence
on future decisions on Burma. Do we just want to punish them for past
decisions, punish them or punish American citizens? I am afraid we will
be punishing Americans more than we will be punishing the Burmese
officials.
But more important, how do we change future behavior? I think the
Cohen amendment does more toward changing future behavior because it
says we are actually giving some discretion. If we do not see
improvements, then some sanctions will come about, but the President
and the diplomatic efforts can be using those for leverage. There is
not a lot of leverage when it says no national of the United States can
make any investment, the United States can give no assistance
whatsoever. I am afraid that will not influence anything toward the
positive.
Frankly, it will cost the United States. It will be taking
investments away from American citizens, I think unquestionably, and I
doubt it would have the economic impact desired by my colleague from
Kentucky.
I respect greatly the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky. I know he
believes very sincerely in trying to effect change in Burma. I happen
to share the goal of my colleague from Kentucky. I just think the
method toward best achieving that would be through the amendment
offered by my colleague from Maine, Senator Cohen. I compliment him on
that amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I can say quickly to my friend from
Oklahoma before he leaves, I appreciate his kind words about my work on
this issue. If I heard him correctly--and I don't want to misstate his
position--did I hear my friend from Oklahoma say that he thought
assisting the regime there was a good idea? Maybe I misheard him.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, no, I did not. I say to my colleague, I
was referring to the section that says no assistance whatsoever. I
would conclude that to prohibit U.S. contributions involved in any way
dealing with, I think--we have exceptions for drug interdiction. Can we
spend money in
[[Page S8752]]
Burma for drug interdiction, drug identification, undercover or
otherwise? I think we should have an opportunity.
Mr. McCONNELL. The current law forbids that. We just last year
imposed a prohibition on dealing with SLORC. So this would, in effect,
weaken existing law.
I wanted to make sure my friend from Oklahoma knew that. Existing law
says no U.S. cooperation with SLORC on the drug issue, frankly because
we don't trust them. So the Cohen amendment would actually weaken
existing law in terms of the U.S. relationship with SLORC. I just
wanted to make that clear.
Let me make a few observations about the argument that the approach
we are recommending is inevitably going to be unilateral in nature and
nobody will follow us.
Already there is action in the European Parliament. Let me point out
to my colleagues what action has been taken this month in the European
Parliament.
First, the European Parliament has condemned torture, arrests,
detentions, and human rights abuses perpetrated by SLORC. Obviously,
that is an easy thing to do.
It supports the suspension of concessional lending to SLORC, a little
tougher step.
Third, the European Parliament has called upon members to suspend GSP
for exports to Burma because of forced labor conditions.
And fourth, Mr. President, and most important, the European Union has
called upon its members to suspend trade and investment with Burma.
The July 1996 European Union resolution restricts visas to SLORC
officials and their families, something that is in the underlying bill
and I hope we adopt.
The resolution restricts the movement of SLORC diplomatic personnel,
suspends all high-level visits, demands full investigation and
accountability for the death in custody of Denmark, Finland, Norway,
and Switzerland's consul, Leo Nichols. Let me talk about Leo Nichols.
Leo Nichols was Aung San Suu Kyi's best friend. He was the European
consul who represented a number of European countries in Burma as a
sort of local consulate official.
Leo Nichols was arrested a few months ago for the crime of possessing
a fax machine, Mr. President. In Burma, if you are on the wrong side of
this issue, you can be arrested for such things as possessing a fax
machine. So Leo Nichols was arrested for possessing a fax machine and
turned up dead. They had a hard time getting the body. He was denied
medication.
All of a sudden, Europe discovered Burma, because a European citizen
got treated the same way the Burmese citizens are treated on a daily
basis--on a daily basis. All of a sudden, a European citizen got
treated that way, and Europeans have all of a sudden gotten more
interested in this issue.
So I raise this point to suggest that if America has the courage to
take this step unilaterally, we will not be alone for very long. As a
matter of fact, the rest of the world is getting interested in this
issue. Secretary Christopher called me from Indonesia the day before
yesterday to talk about this issue. Obviously, he supports the
amendment of the Senator from Maine, and that is certainly OK.
Mr. COHEN. If the Senator will yield, I don't believe he does. He
does not express support for this amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. I am sorry, I retract that. Let's put it this way. The
Secretary of State would like a proposal, I think, that gives the
administration wide latitude to manage this issue as they see best, and
I hope it is not a misstatement of the Senator's amendment that it does
give the administration a good deal of latitude.
Mr. COHEN. It gives the administration some flexibility. They would
like more. Mine does not give them quite as much as they like.
Mr. McCONNELL. I certainly would not want to misstate the position of
the administration, but I am confident in saying the Secretary of State
would prefer not to have unilateral sanctions. I think the Senator from
Maine would agree with that.
I have been a little surprised the administration has not gotten
interested in this issue, but I think they are getting more interested
in the issue.
The point I was going to make before my friend from Maine stood up
was what Secretary Christopher pointed out to me is it was discussed
for an hour the other night at the ASEAN meeting. Previously, they
acted like Burma was not there. Nobody talks about it. It is being
forced on to the agenda, even in the part of the world that is least
interested in doing anything about the regime, for all the obvious
reasons. They have the biggest investment there.
So this is not going to go away, Mr. President. I don't know what is
going to happen on the vote on the Cohen amendment, but it is not going
to go away until SLORC goes away and until the results of the election
in 1990 are honored.
I don't want to misrepresent at all the position of the
administration on the Cohen proposal. All I can say is it is exactly
what the administration and the National Security Council asked me to
accept on Monday, but they will have to speak for themselves. This
amendment, by the way, is not directed at the Clinton administration.
The Bush administration was worse, from my point of view, on Burma than
this administration has been. At least they discuss it occasionally.
So, Mr. President, let me just conclude this segment by saying I
don't think we will be alone very long if we have the courage to take
this step.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Lis, a
Javits fellow currently working on Senator Biden's personal staff be
extended the privilege of the floor for the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to yield to whomever
wants the floor. If no one is seeking the floor, I will suggest the
absence of a quorum.
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.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I understand there are a number of Senators
who would like to speak on this measure who cannot come to the floor at
this time. So I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum in a
moment, but then agree to lay aside this amendment so that other
amendments that may be pending can be considered.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is going to be further debate on
this amendment. But it is my plan, when Senator Cohen has completed, if
there are no other speakers at this moment, to lay this amendment
aside. I understand Senator Smith is ready to offer an amendment that
he will need a rollcall vote on. We will move to the Smith amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Could I just indicate for the record, during the course of
the debate this morning the question of the administration's position
was raised. I have since been apprised that the administration does
lend its support to the Cohen amendment, which prior to the beginning
of the discussion of this matter it did not. So perhaps they have been
watching C-SPAN and have tuned in to see the better part of wisdom in
supporting the Cohen amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter, signed by
Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Hon. William Cohen,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cohen: The Administration welcomes and
supports the amendment which you and others have offered to
Section 569 (Limitation on Funds for Burma) of H.R. 3540, the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. We believe the
current and conditional sanctions which your language
proposes are
[[Page S8753]]
consistent with Administration policy. As we have stated on
several occasions in the past, we need to maintain our
flexibility to respond to events in Burma and to consult with
Congress on appropriate responses to ongoing and future
development there.
We support a range of tough measures designed to bring
pressure to bear upon the regime in Rangoon. We continue to
urge international financial institutions not to provide
support to Burma under current circumstances. We maintain a
range of unilateral sanctions and do not promote U.S.
commercial investment in or trade with Burma. We refrain from
selling arms to Burma and have an informal agreement with our
G-7 friends and allies to do the same.
On the international level, we have strongly supported
efforts in the UN General Assembly and the International
Labor Organization to condemn human and worker rights
violations in Burma. At the UN Human Rights Commission this
month, we led the effort against attempts to water down the
Burma resolution. We have urged the UN to play an active role
in promoting democratic reform through a political dialogue
with Aung San Suu Kyi.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the
standpoint of the Administration's program there is no
objection to the submission of this report. We note, however,
that the working of two of the sanctions as currently drafted
raises certain constitutional concerns. We look forward to
working with you and the conferees to address this.
We hope this information is useful to you. Please do not
hesitate to call if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara Larkin,
Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to
support the Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee-McCain amendment with respect to
Burma.
Before I begin, I want to express my admiration for the distinguished
manager of the bill, Senator McConnell, who has almost singlehandedly
brought this issue to the floor. He has been doggedly pursuing
adjustments to our Burma policy for many months, and has focused the
attention of the Senate and the administration on this issue in a way
that would not have happened otherwise.
There is clearly no division, I think, at least, in this body, on the
nature of the SLORC regime in Burma. It is an oppressive antidemocratic
regime, and it has systematically deprived the people of Burma of the
right to govern themselves. There is no disagreement on that point, I
think, nor on the desirability of restoration of democracy in Burma.
The key question, though, we need to ask, is what is the most
effective way to advance the goal? In order to answer that question, we
need to have a clear understanding of what leverage we have, or lack
of, on Burma. We also need to have a clear understanding of how other
interests in the region will be affected. The key problem with the
Burma provision, as I view it, in the bill before the Senate, is that
it presumes we can unilaterally affect change on Burma.
I have come, as I have watched world events, to doubt that unilateral
sanctions make much sense. It is absolutely essential that any pressure
we seek to put on the Government of Burma be coordinated with the
nations of ASEAN and our European and Asian allies. If we act
unilaterally, we are more likely to have the opposite affect--
alienating many of these allies, while having no real impact on the
ground.
One of the key aspects of the amendment offered by the Senator from
Maine is that it requires the President to work to develop, in
coordination with members of ASEAN and other nations having major
trading and investment interests in Burma, a comprehensive multilateral
strategy to bring democracy and to improve human rights and the quality
of life in Burma.
This strategy must include the promotion of dialog between the SLORC
and democratic opposition groups in Burma. Only a multilateral approach
is likely to be successful. Knowing that the ASEAN nations, who are
moving now toward more engagement with Burma, not less, will not join
us in sanctions at this time, it is clear that such a policy will not
be effective. For example, on the Unocal pipeline, if we apply
unilateral sanctions, the Unocal pipeline, which is now a joint venture
between France and the United States company, will only be taken over
by either Japanese interests--I am told Mitsui is interested--or South
Korean interests. Therefore, what point do we really prove?
The Cohen-Feinstein amendment does recognize that there are steps we
can and should take at this time. It does ban bilateral assistance to
Burma, but it does so with three important exceptions. First, it allows
humanitarian assistance, which is clearly a reasonable exception in the
case of natural disaster or other humanitarian calamity. Second, it
allows assistance that promotes human rights and democratic values,
which clearly makes sense, since that is what we are trying to promote
in Burma. Finally, it allows an exemption for counternarcotics
assistance, if the Secretary of State can certify that the Government
of Burma is fully cooperating with the United States counternarcotics
effort, and that such assistance is consistent with United States human
rights concerning Burma.
This last exemption goes to perhaps, I believe, our most important
interest in Burma. Sixty percent of the heroin coming into the United
States comes from Burma today, and it is a growing scourge on our
cities. The Burmese Government is not cooperating with the United
States counternarcotics interests and is benefiting from the drug
trade. The President has decertified Burma on these grounds. But this
exemption does recognize that if conditions change, it would be in our
interest to be able to engage a cooperative Burmese Government in a
counternarcotics policy. It is clearly in our interests to have this
ability.
The Cohen-Feinstein amendment also directs the United States to
oppose loans by international financial institutions to Burma, and it
prohibits entry visas to Burmese Government officials, except as
required by treaty obligations.
In addition, the amendment requires the President to report regularly
to the Congress on progress toward democratization in Burma,
improvement in human rights, including the use of forced labor, and
progress toward developing a multilateral strategy with our allies.
The amendment gives us some leverage by making clear that the United
States is prepared to act unilaterally if SLORC takes renewed action to
rearrest, to harm, or to exile Aung San Suu Kyi, or otherwise engages
in large-scale repression of the democratic opposition. The courage and
dignity of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues deserves respect and
support from all of us. This provision may provide some measure of
protection against increased oppression against them. We may be able to
have the effect of nudging the SLORC toward an increased dialog with
the democratic opposition. That is why we also allow the President to
lift sanctions if he determines that Burma has made measurable and
substantial progress toward improving human rights and implementing
democratic government. We need to be able to have the flexibility to
remove sanctions and provide support for Burma if it reaches a
transition stage that is moving toward the restoration of democracy,
which all of us support.
Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine for his
leadership in crafting this amendment. He has worked closely with the
administration, which supports his language. It represents the best
policy, I believe, for us to play a role in moving Burma toward
democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, with all due respect to the able Senator
from Maine, whom I do respect, I have a problem with his amendment. His
amendment is based on the premise that the United States should wait
until a future time--nobody knows when--a future time to impose tougher
sanctions against the illegal SLORC regime in Burma. The Cohen
amendment for conditional sanctions provides for a ban on new
investment only ``if the President [of the United States] determines
and certifies to Congress that,
[[Page S8754]]
[at some future date,] the Government of Burma has physically harmed,
rearrested for political acts, or exiled Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or has
committed large-scale repression of or violence against the democratic
opposition.''
Mr. President, the Government of Burma, the SLORC, S-L-O-R-C, as it
is known, has already done enough to Ms. Suu Kyi, has already committed
large-scale repression and violence, not only against the democratic
opposition, but against the people of Burma.
We know there is forced labor in Burma. There is no question about
that. We know that Burma is the source of more than 60 percent of the
heroin finding its way into the United States, and we know that the
SLORC regime is implicated in this trade. No question about it.
However, we know that the people of Burma elected the National League
for Democracy overwhelmingly in elections 6 years ago, and that it has
been straight downhill ever since that time.
The Cohen amendment also provides a waiver to the administration. I
have to ask the question--I do so with all respect--are we serious or
are we not serious about Burma?
I support Chairman McConnell and my other distinguished colleagues
who have said, enough is enough. Let us stop allowing U.S. investment
to prop up the SLORC regime's repression. I hope that colleagues will
vote in that direction when the vote is taken. I thank the Chair and I
yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee for his support for the sanctions against
Burma. We have been very patient. The chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee and I have been hoping since the Bush administration that
some administration would take this matter seriously.
I do not know whether the chairman agrees with me, but it seems to me
if there were a bunch of Burmese-Americans, we would have gotten
interested in this a long time ago----
Mr. HELMS. That is right.
Mr. McCONNELL. A long time ago because this is a country that ranks
right up there with Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
The proponents of the Cohen amendment will say they are no threat to
their neighbors. I expect that is the case. But 400,000 of these highly
armed, mean-as-a-snake troops, terrorizing their own citizens and
locking up, as the Senator from North Carolina pointed out, the duly
elected leader of this country in internationally supervised, Western-
style real elections in 1990--they are a real pariah regime. Yet the
crux of the Cohen amendment is, as the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee pointed out, that it gives the President total
discretion to keep on doing what he has been doing, which is nothing.
Mr. HELMS. That is right.
Mr. McCONNELL. Nothing. So I thank the chairman for his support for
this cause.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for the
very great work he is doing. I thank the Chair.
burma sanctions
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cohen as an
original cosponsor of his amendment to improve the language on Burma
sanctions contained in the foreign operations bill. This amendment is
constructive and a better approach to addressing the problem that Burma
posses for American foreign policy.
All of us in this body want the people of Burma to enjoy their human
rights. But we must avoid a policy that will only make us feel good,
but that is unlikely to achieve the goals it is intended to serve. The
approach advocated by the Appropriations Committee, while well-
intentioned, is too precipitous. Imposing unilateral sanctions on Burma
immediately and lifting them only at such time as the SLORC allows a
democratically elected government to take power may even provoke a
reaction from the Burmese regime which is the opposite of what the
committee intends.
Burma's regional and investment partners do not share the intensity
of our concern for democracy and definitely do not agree with the
committee imposition of sanctions.
The New York Times Monday reported the attitudes of nations attending
the weekend meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations
[ASEAN]. The Indonesian Foreign Minister is quoted as saying, ``ASEAN
has one cardinal rule, and that is not to interfere in the internal
affairs of other countries.'' Far from agreeing with those in the
United States pushing for sanctions, ASEAN took the first step in
admitting Burma as a member, giving it official observer status.
ASEAN's reaction is important because these are the nations, along
with the People's Republic of China and the other nations of Asia,
whose views most concern the ruling authorities in Burma. The United
States accounts for less than 10 percent of foreign direct investment
in Burma. It receives only 7 percent of Burma's exports and United
States imports account for only 1 percent of Burma's total imports.
Both Thailand and Singapore are bigger investors in Burma than the
United States, as are France and Britain. Given these circumstances, it
is hardly surprising that United States opinion carries less weight in
Burma than it does elsewhere in the world.
Proponents of immediate and sweeping sanctions on Burma have often
invoked the example of South Africa. Indeed, Burma may actually exceed
South Africa in its repression. After all, as repugnant as the system
of apartheid was, South Africa did provide at least a minority of its
people with democratic rights while Burma systematically denies these
rights to all its citizens. Burma certainly deserves the condemnation
of all freedom loving people.
However, Burma is unlike South Africa in a number of ways which make
sanctions unlikely to yield the same result.
First, United States policy toward South Africa was coordinated with
our allies and that nation's most important trading partners. It was
multilateral. There was no serious prospect that when our companies
pulled out of the South African economy others would readily take their
place, thereby undermining the effect of sanctions and making their
chief victim American companies. Second, South Africa was much richer
than Burma is today. Per capita income in South Africa was $2,000 when
we imposed sanctions. In Burma today it is $200, one of the lowest
rates in the world. South Africa had a stake in the world economy.
Burma has just begun to develop an interest in attracting foreign trade
and investment. Third, Burma is an overwhelmingly rural economy, with
manufacturing accounting for 9.4 percent of GDP and 8.2 percent of
employment. Fourth, the South African regime and the elite that
supported it had historical connections to the nations censuring it. It
was not only affected materially by the sanctions imposed on it, but
many in South Africa who treasured their ties to the West were dismayed
by their international isolation.
Burma has a long history of self-imposed isolation. Beginning in
1962, the leaders of Burma believed that their interests were best
served by rejecting the pressures of the outside world. Even today,
after Burma began an economic opening to the world, that opening is
decidedly modest. Tom Vallely of Harvard has pointed out that Vietnam,
a nation struggling with its own market reforms, approved more
investment in 6 months than Burma did in 6 years.
We are right to call for the institution of the democratically
elected government of the National League for Democracy. In 1990, the
people of Burma participated in a democratic election, and
overwhelmingly supported the National League for Democracy. The Burmese
military thwarted that victory and remains in place today as a standing
insult to the proposition of democratic self-rule. They have since
ruled the nation with an iron fist. But as despotic as they are, the
generals who now control Burma constitutes the de-facto government.
The amendment offered by Senator Cohen is an attempt to recognize
both the rights of the Burmese people and the realities of power and
history. It attempts to narrow the focus of our legislative efforts,
and give the President, who, whether Democrat or Republican, is charged
with conducting
[[Page S8755]]
our Nation's foreign policy, some flexibility. This amendment has the
explicit support of the administration.
It has a number of specific advantages beyond giving the
administration more flexibility. Conditioning an investment sanction on
a significant deterioration in the human rights situation in Burma,
namely the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi or a general crackdown on the
democratic opposition, is a key element which commends the alternative.
I know that the committee is greatly interested in the safety and
welfare of Aung San Suu Kyi. However, I believe it may have erred in
not including such a targeted sanction in his own bill. If the language
in the bill were signed into law, a ban on U.S. investment would come
into effect immediately. If the prospect of a United States investment
sanction is restraining them at all, I see no reason why the Burmese
authorities would not rearrest Suu Kyi once the sanction is imposed.
What would they have to lose? What would they have to lose in once
again rounding up prodemocracy activists by the hundreds? The Cohen
approach preserves our options while at the same time making perfectly
clear the action that the United States would take if the situation
deteriorates.
In the meantime, the Cohen amendment imposes three out of the four
McConnell sanctions: prohibition of foreign assistance except
humanitarian and counternarcotics assistance, U.S. opposition to
multilateral lending, and the denial of U.S. visas to members of the
regime. While doubts remain about the efficacy of even these limited
sanctions, they will at a minimum demonstrate American displeasure with
the situation in Burma. More importantly, a Senate vote in favor of the
administration-supported Cohen amendment will demonstrate the unity and
resolve of American policy toward Burma.
The two exceptions made by Senator Cohen to the prohibition on
foreign assistance are, I believe, very constructive.
Last year, Senator Kerry and I fought to permit counternarcotic
assistance for Burma. Ultimately, we failed, but the Cohen substitute,
if passed, will once again permit this vital assistance. As my
colleagues know, the United States has not provided assistance of this
type to Burma since 1988, despite the fact that Burma is the source of
more than 60 percent of the heroin on United States streets. Burma is
the largest opium producer in the world. If we are ever to get a handle
on the heroin problem in our own country, in addition to addressing
demand, we will have to work with the Burmese. Engaging in the battle
and achieving some degree of success will result, at the very least, in
driving down the supply of opium and driving up the price.
To address the concerns of those who point to the possibility that
counternarcotics assistance in the hands of the SLORC might give them
the means to subdue its ethnic minorities, Senator Cohen's amendment
requires the Secretary of State to certify that any proposed
counternarcotic program is consistent with United States human rights
concerns.
The other exception to a ban on assistance in Senator Cohen's
amendment is humanitarian assistance. The committee amendment makes no
allowance for humanitarian assistance. If the intent of the sanction on
humanitarian assistance is to withhold legitimacy from the regime, I
believe its limited value in this respect would be vastly outweighed by
the practical ineffectiveness of unilateral sanctions. I am unconvinced
that gutting funding for Feed the Children and World Vision is going to
make Burma any more disposed toward democracy.
I know that many Senators would rather not impose any sanctions on
Burma. But the committee has decided to weigh in on the formulation of
United States-Burma policy. The SLORC's repression of the Burmese
people's pursuit of their God-given rights have made congressionally
imposed sanctions on Burma inevitable. Senator Cohen has formulated an
approach which is constructive and respectful of the prerogatives of
the President, and more likely to positively influence the situation in
Burma than will the sanctions adopted by the committee. I commend him
for his work on this issue and encourage my colleagues to vote for the
Coehn amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the State Department to
Senator Cohen in support of his amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Hon. William Cohen,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Cohen: The Administration welcomes and
supports the amendment which you and others have offered to
Section 569 (Limitation on Funds for Burma) of H.R. 3540, the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. We believe the
current and conditional sanctions which your language
proposes are consistent with Administration policy. As we
have stated on several occasions in the past, we need to
maintain our flexibility to respond to events to Burma and to
consult with Congress on appropriate responses to ongoing and
future developments there.
We support a range of tough measures designed to bring
pressure to bear upon the regime in Rangoon. We continue to
urge international financial institutions not to provide
support to Burma under current circumstances. We maintain a
range of unilateral sanctions and do not promote U.S.
commercial investment in or trade with Burma. We refrain from
selling arms to Burma and have an informal agreement with our
G-7 friends and allies to do the same.
On the international level, we have strongly supported
efforts in the UN General Assembly and the International
Labor Organization to condemn human and worker rights
violations in Burma. At the UN Human Rights Commission this
month, we led the effort against attempts to water down the
Burma resolution. We have urged the UN to play an active role
in promoting democratic reform through a political dialogue
with Aung San Suu Kyi.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the
standpoint of the Administration's program there is no
objection to the submission of this report. We note, however,
that the wording of two of the sanctions as currently drafted
raises certain constitutional concerns. We look forward to
working with you and the conferees to address this.
We hope this information is useful to you. Please do not
hesitate to call if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara Larkin,
Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], is
recognized.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Maine as a substitute to Section 569 of
this bill regarding sanctions against the regime in Burma.
Section 569 is similar to a bill, S. 1511, offered by the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, which I have had the honor to
cosponsor, and others have done as well. This is very simply a test of
how we will respond to democracy denied.
For the longest while now, from the time, I would suppose, of Woodrow
Wilson's ``Fourteen Points,'' the United States has actively encouraged
the spread of democracy and democratic institutions in the world,
rightfully thinking that the world would be a safer and better place.
We have seen in the course of this century events that would not have
been thought possible at the outset.
Here at the end of the century, we see events that would not have
been thought possible. Russia has had two presidential elections, the
first in Russian history. Mongolia has had free elections. The
distinguished Senator from Virginia was on the floor speaking just the
other day about his experience as an observer in Mongolia. Not only did
Mongolia have a free election, but they had observers from around the
world and, principally, the United States to attest to that fact.
The movement towards democracy is not universal. It has never taken
strong hold on the continent of Africa, and yet it now appears in
Eurasia and in South Asia. The Republic of India has just had its 11th,
I believe, national election since independence, an unbroken sequence
of democratic elections, with one interval of national emergency but it
was for a relatively short period of time and ended with the
constitution intact.
The Government of Bangladesh has just had a free election between two
formidable women political leaders who are descendants, in one form or
another, of leaders previously deposed and shot, events that are too
common in post-colonial nations. But they have
[[Page S8756]]
had a free election and picked an impressive new Prime Minister to form
a government.
British India, as it was called, extended down to the Bay of Bengal
on the eastern side and included not only Bangladesh but what is now
Myanmar, formerly Burma. The choice between the term Burma and Myanmar
is a choice of languages, Myanmar is a Burman term. It is a multiethnic
state, with eight major ethnic groups, as all those states are, each
with many languages--though none at the level of India itself. Burma
has four principal languages and historically has had very strong
disagreements on the periphery with the governments at the center in
what was Rangoon. The name has been changed, which is a perfectly
legitimate thing to do, by the military regime whose initials form the
unenviable acronym SLORC, as if ``SLORCing'' out of the black lagoon.
This is a regime which has not simply failed to move toward a
democratic government, but has overthrown a democratic government,
imprisoned the democratically elected leaders, a Nobel Prize-winning
Prime Minister, sir.
Burma is largely a Buddhist nation. Tensions between the numerous
ethnic groups resulted in a long and not happy post-colonial
experience.
I was once our Ambassador to India, and I remember visiting Mandalay,
where we had a one-man consulate. I was being driven around. I came to
the area of the city where there were Chinese language signs. I asked
the Burmese driver, ``Are there many Chinese here in Mandalay?'' He
said, ``Well, not many now, but before independence, the Indians and
the Chinese owned everything around here. And that's why we had to have
socialism.'' It was simply a form of expelling persons, moving in the
general melee of the 19th century colonial Asia.
After a series of decent enough governments, possibly too passive
from one event to another, the army seized control. Twenty years of a
hard dictatorship followed, with a military junta headed by a general
playing golf in the shadow of a pagoda, while a nation, a potentially
rich nation, all but starved.
It is an experience we have seen before, nothing new, but it was
cruelly inappropriate to Burma. I visited it at that time. Clearly, a
land capable of great agricultural product, an industrial-capable
people, ruined by government. They stayed ruined a long time, until
they rose and realized, no, and in 1990, a free election at long last
was held in Burma. The National League for Democracy won 82 percent of
the vote, but the military junta did not step down.
This was not the beginning. This did not just happen suddenly. There
was a movement for a democratic government that has been out in the
jungles for a generation. I think if I had one photograph that would
say to me more than anything else about our century, it would be a
jungle clearing, I expect it would be up in the Shan state, where some
60 or so young men, aged 18, 19, 20--and this is at a time, about 15
years ago, when Ne Win was still in power.
Senator Kennedy and I had made efforts such as Senator McConnell is
leading today. There in perfect English, perfectly formed letters, a
white sign with black letters, script that must have been 30 feet
long--these young men were holding this sign which said, ``Thank you
Senators Kennedy and Moynihan.'' They were out in the jungle and they
knew, and it mattered that they knew. It kept them going. What we think
matters so much in the world on these matters.
The military regime that overthrew the democratic government--having
stepped aside, then a coup immediately followed. The results of the
election have not yet been implemented. The Prime Minister elected,
Aung San Suu Kyi, has been released from house arrest, but only just
barely. She has, you might say, a patio and a bit of garden, a front
yard.
The world is watching. We are going to hear today--and we will not
hear wrong--that if we impose these sanctions, American firms will lose
opportunities, and European firms or Asian firms will take advantage of
them. And that may be true. But I wonder for how long, and I wonder in
the end at what profit. If our firms are strong and competitive and
international, it is because of the principles the United States has
stood for in this century, and should continue to stand for.
It is one thing when we find we cannot move a nation closer to
democracy. Not many external forces can do that. It comes when the time
is ready, then so often not even then. But when a democratic regime has
not emerged, overwhelmingly supported by an oppressed people who have
resisted that oppression, who have understood it, who looked abroad for
any signs of support and seen in the United States, in this Senate
Chamber, such support, emboldened, encouraged, and have risen to claim
their rights as a people, only to have it crushed by a military regime,
SLORC? No, sir.
This is the time for the United States to stand for what is best in
our Nation, in our national tradition, what is triumphant in the world.
This is not a time to allow the overthrow of the democracy. This is no
time to beat retreat. This is a time for the McConnell provision for
sanctions on Burma.
And I thank the Chair for your courtesy. I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, there is no peer in the Senate, in fact,
in the country, of the Senator from New York in his knowledge of
history. Therefore, I wonder, what is the basis of this hope that other
countries, particularly Asian countries, would join in a unilateral
action started by the United States?
Can the Senator tell me, outside of maybe the South African
situation, where we have had luck with having others joining us
unilaterally? If we cannot get the Europeans to join us with Libya, an
international terrorist organization, Iran, the same, and Cuba, how in
the world are we going to get them to join with sanctions against
Burma?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I do not claim that this is something easily done or we
would have done it long since. But I think that it is something which
can be done. I think the Republic of South Korea is so little
interested in how we feel about matters of Burma, there are ways to
suggest to the Republic of South Korea that it might well reconsider
its position. Not for nothing do we have the United States Army
divisions in Korea. If they think that is not really in their interest,
that can be arranged, too.
I do not dispute the Senator's point. I simply make the argument that
a matter of principle is at stake here. If it is costly, so be it.
Principles are precious.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If I may follow further on the example you mentioned,
South Korea. If you turn the clock back to 1962, when General Ne Win
took control, he had control for over a quarter of a century. At that
time, Burma was a relatively prosperous country. South Korea was not
prosperous and was----
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Was devastated.
Mr. JOHNSTON. A totally repressive regime. The same, I think, would
be said for our friends, the Taiwanese.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The difference between our treatment of the three is
that we isolated Burma, and General Ne Win isolated himself, whereas,
because of the cold war, we embraced the Taiwanese, we embraced the
South Koreans. Today, having been isolated for over a quarter of a
century, Burma continues to be the same country it was, maybe only
worse than 30-odd years ago, whereas South Korea and Taiwan have
developed into thriving, prosperous democracies.
Now, does the Senator see any lesson to be learned from this
difference in treatment?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. Both Taiwan and South Korea have now established
freely elected governments. If they were suddenly to be overthrown by a
military coup, our position would have to be, in my view, very
different. But it is just such a situation in Burma.
I have a letter here from the Office of the Prime Minister of the
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, which says:
Dear Senator Moynihan: I have been closely following the
Burma sanctions bill on the Senate floor and I am extremely
alarmed about the proposal put forth by Senator Cohen. As you
are no doubt aware, the Senate vote is crucial because it
will send a signal to both the prodemocracy movement and the
military junta about how people in the United States view the
struggle for democracy in Burma.
[[Page S8757]]
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma,
Office of the Prime Minister,
Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Moynihan: I have been closely following the
Burma sanctions bill on the Senate floor and I am extremely
alarmed about the proposal put forward by Senator Cohen. As
you are no doubt aware, the Senate vote is crucial because it
will send a signal to both the prodemocracy movement and the
military junta about how people in the United States view the
struggle for democracy in Burma. Given the reality in Burma,
the National Coalition Government categorically opposes
Senator Cohen's legislation. The Senate cannot afford to send
a wrong signal and there is no other time than now to express
its support for the democracy movement through the imposition
of economic sanctions.
Let me be clear, investments will not bring about better
living conditions and democracy to the people because in
Burma investments pay for the soldiers, buy the guns and the
supplies and ammunition that is used to violently suppress
the Burmese people. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has called for the
imposition of economic sanctions because it will hurt the
ruling military junta. She has categorically expressed her
wish that investments in the country cease until a clear
transition to democracy has been established. The National
Coalition Government fully supports Daw Aung San Su Kyi's
call for sanctions and that is why we support Section 569 of
the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, ``Limitation on
Funds for Burma,'' as tabled by Senator Mitch McConnell and
co-sponsored by you.
There can be no middle ground here. As it stands now, the
Burmese people are not benefitting from any investment coming
into the country. These funds are tightly controlled by the
military junta and serves to strengthen the oppression of the
Burmese people. No entrepreneur can start a business in Burma
without enriching either the members of the military regime,
their close associates or relatives. The common people do not
benefit from investments. I look forward to welcoming U.S.
businesses helping rebuild our country once a democratically
elected 1990 Parliament is seated in Rangoon.
The National Coalition Government also opposes any funding
to the military junta in connection with narcotics control. I
cannot see a logical reason for the United States to fund a
military regime that conspires with and provides a safe haven
to the heroin kingpin Khun Sa. It well known that the Burmese
Army are partners in transporting the heroin that is
devastating the streets of America.
I place my trust in the United States Senate to do the
right thing. Each vote for sanctions is a vote for the
democracy movement in Burma and our people who are struggling
to be so desperately free.
Sincerely,
Sein Win,
Prime Minister.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know my friend from New York is in a
conference and needs to return to it. I just wanted to commend the
Senator for his longstanding interest and support for what we are
trying to achieve in the underlying bill and further elaborate on the
observation of Senator Johnston.
I do not think we will be going this alone very long. Both the
European Parliament and the European Union, this month, July, have
begun to get interested in this issue because of the arrest and
subsequent apparent killing of a man named Leo Nichols, who was a
consulate official for a number of European countries and also happened
to be, as my friend from New York knows, one of Aung San Suu Kyi's--
Mr. MOYNIHAN. He was murdered because he was found in possession of a
fax machine.
Mr. McCONNELL. So the Europeans are interested. One of their own has
been treated like the citizens of Burma have been treated for years.
There is an indication that the European Parliament this month, I say
to my friend from New York, called upon members to suspend trade and
investment with Burma. We will be the leader of the parade.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. When the United States leads, others will follow. I am
proud to be associated in this regard.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an editorial from the Washington Post on this issue, ``Burma Beyond the
Pale.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 20, 1996]
Burma Beyond the Pale
On JUNE 22, James ``Leo'' Nichols, 65, died in a Burmese
prison. His crime--for which he had been jailed for six
weeks, deprived of needed heart medication and perhaps
tortured with sleep deprivation--was ownership of a fax
machine. His true sin, in the eyes of the military dictators
who are running the beautiful and resource-rich country of
Burma into the ground, was friendship with Aung San Suu Kyi,
the courageous woman who won an overwhelming victory in
democratic elections six years ago but has been denied power
ever since.
Mr. Nichols's story is not unusual in Burma. The regime has
imprisoned hundreds of democracy activists and press-ganged
thousands of children and adults into slave labor. It
squanders huge sums on arms imported from China while leading
the world in heroin exports. But because Mr. Nichols had
served as consul for Switzerland and three Scandinavian
countries, his death or murder attracted more attention in
Europe. The European Parliament condemned the regime and
called for its economic and diplomatic isolation, to include
a cutoff of trade and investment. Two European breweries,
Carlsberg and Heineken, have said they will pull out of
Burma. And a leading Danish pension fund sold off its
holdings in Total, a French company that with the U.S. firm
Unocal is the biggest foreign investor.
These developments undercut those who have said the United
States should not support democracy in Burma because it would
be acting alone. In fact, strong U.S. action could resonate
and spur greater solidarity in favor of Nobel peace laureate
Aung San Suu Kyi and her rightful government. Already, the
Burmese currency has been tumbling, reflecting nervousness
about the regime's stability and the potential effects of a
Western boycott.
The United States has banned aid and multilateral loans to
the regime, but the junta still refuses to begin a dialogue
with Aung San Suu Kyi. Now there is an opportunity to send a
stronger message. The Senate next week is scheduled to
consider a pro-sanctions bill introduced by Sens. Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). This
would put Washington squarely on the side of the democrats.
Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who will meet next
week with counterparts from Burma's neighbors, should
challenge them to take stronger measures, since their policy
of ``constructive engagement'' has so clearly failed.
The most eloquent call for action came last week from Aung
San Suu Kyi herself, unbowed despite years of house arrest
and enforced separation from her husband and children. In a
video smuggled out, she called for ``the kind of sanctions
that will make it quite clear that economic change in Burma
is not possible without political change.'' The world
responded to similar calls from Nelson Mandela and Lech
Walesa. In memory of Mr. Nichols and his many unnamed
compatriots, it should do no less now.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will my friend from Kentucky yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. JOHNSTON. In that same July meeting of the European Union, did
they not reject sanctions against Burma?
Mr. McCONNELL. I do not know whether that was on the agenda or not,
but even if they did have it on the agenda, and if they did not approve
it, that was July. We are just getting started here.
The point the Senator from New York and I are making is, if the
United States leads, it is reasonable to believe others will follow.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Can the Senator name me some examples of where that has
happened, other than South Africa?
Mr. McCONNELL. Poland, South Africa.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I say other than South Africa.
Mr. McCONNELL. Why rule South Africa out? I think South Africa is
precisely the parallel.
Mr. JOHNSTON. But the whole world was united.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the United States led in South Africa,
and others followed. That is what we suggest here. The United States
ought to stand up for what it believes in, ought to put its principles
first. There is every reason to believe that with American leadership,
the rest of the world would follow. That is what this is about.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to discuss some concerns I have
about section 569 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, H.R.
3540--limiting funds for Burma. Before I begin outlining my concerns, I
want to thank my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for
pursuing this issue. While we may disagree on the details of the best
policy to pursue with Burma, we wouldn't even be having this important
discussion without his leadership
[[Page S8758]]
on this issue. In addition, I doubt that we would be pursuing a much
needed comprehensive, multi-national policy toward Burma. Without such
an effort, we could certainly find ourselves on the floor of the Senate
in the future, reacting to some catastrophic event in Burma, having
done nothing constructive in the interim.
Mr. President, Burma is a nation I have never visited or studied. I
do not come to the floor today to debate this issue as an expert on
Burma. However, I know more than a little about its poor record on
human rights. What we need to debate here is the efficacy of mandatory
unilateral sanctions in the case of Burma.
While we all hope for some small signs of change, I think we all
share the concern that hope is not enough to live on--especially for
the Burmese people. We recognize the problem there and want to develop
a policy to address that problem.
Any change will be slow in coming. However, while patience and
persistence will rule the day, we need to nurture an environment in
which all Burmese people are respected and treated both humanely and
fairly.
In short, we need to look at putting forward a policy that will
encourage the changes we seek. In addition, that policy should not
negatively impact U.S. nationals and business--without the benefit of
establishing changes in Burma.
The United States represents a small percentage of foreign investment
in Burma. It is my understanding that depending on the survey, the U.S.
ranks anywhere from third to seventh. Regardless, the private
investment presence there is not on a grand scale that would likely
have any crippling effects on the operations of the current government
in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council--commonly
referred to as the ``SLORC.''
In addition, indications from our trading partners in Europe and the
region do not demonstrate movement toward the application of sanctions.
Cutting off this trade by prohibiting U.S. nationals' private
investment will not affect the current governing regime in Burma.
However, it will affect American companies and American jobs.
Unilaterally forcing American companies out of Burma at this time will
simply provide an economic opportunity for other nations, who will
quickly step forward to assume the contracts and business opportunities
of the departing American companies.
American companies have taken risks and borne all the startup costs
for the contracts they hold in Burma. If their departure results in
replacement by companies from our trading partners in Europe and the
region, any influence we might have wielded in this foreign policy game
is lost. All indications at this time lead me to believe that any gap
left by U.S. companies in Burma will quickly be filled by others.
In addition to the loss of that private level of interaction between
Americans and Burmese, the benefit of jobs for Burmese citizens with
American companies is also lost.
Mr. President, in order for the United States to encourage Burma to
move toward a free society, an American presence should be felt. This
is best done by private investment in the local economy. Private
investment and other nongovernmental cultural exchanges can provide an
important link with the people of Burma.
Mr. President, let me be perfectly clear, I do not support oppressive
actions such as those taken by the SLORC in its efforts to prevent the
citizens of Burma from exercising their basic human and political
rights. Likewise, I do not support abandoning the 43 million people who
live in Burma by withdrawing all American presence. Many times,
unilateral sanctions hurt only those at the bottom of the economic
scale, when the intended targets are those at the top.
Mr. President, at the core of this debate is the efficacy of
unilateral sanctions as a tool of foreign policy to encourage change.
And, more specifically, the usefulness of unilateral sanctions in the
case of Burma. I feel very strongly that mandatory, unilateral
sanctions are not the most effective tool of foreign policy.
I do not support impacting private industry in this manner if the
projected policy will not yield the intended response. We must all
realize that while we seek change, Burma is not South Africa, nor is it
Iran. We face a unique situation, and the effectiveness of mandatory
unilateral sanctions must be judged independently.
Mr. President, it is very important, not only for the United States
but for other nations as well, to evaluate the situation in Burma and
what ways we can work both independently and together, that will
encourage the improvements in human rights and will move Burma toward a
free and democratic society.
I support amending section 569 of this bill to address the concerns I
have outlined here today. We can encourage humanitarian relief, drug
interdiction efforts, and promote democracy. I believe that these
activities, in addition to denying multilateral assistance through
international financial institutions, and the establishment of a
multilateral strategy will provide the best roadmap to reach these
goals.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think that concludes--at least for
this phase--the number of speakers we have on the Cohen amendment.
Senator Smith is here to offer an amendment.
Senator Leahy and I would like to use this opportunity, before
Senator Smith lays down his amendment, to get approved amendments that
have been cleared by both sides. There are eight amendments.
With the permission of the Senator from Maine, I ask unanimous
consent that the Cohen amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 5020 through 5026, En Bloc
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send amendments, en bloc, to the desk
and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], proposes
amendments, en bloc, numbered 5020 through 5026.
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. 5020
(Purpose: To allocate foreign assistance funds for Mongolia)
On page 119, strike lines 6 and 7 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
``(h)(1) Of the funds appropriated under title II of this
Act, including funds appropriated under this heading, not
less than $11,000,000 shall be available only for assistance
for Mongolia, of which amount not less than $6,000,000 shall
be available only for the Mongolian energy sector.
``(2) Funds made available for assistance for Mongolia
shall be made available in accordance with the purposes and
utilizing the authorities provided in chapter 11 of part I of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.''.
____
amendment no. 5021
(Purpose: To restrict the use of funds for any country that permits the
practice of female genital mutilation)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
female genital mutilation
Sec. . (a) Limitation.--Beginning 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall instruct the United States Executive Director of each
international financial institution to use the voice and vote
of the United States to oppose any loan or other utilization
of the funds of their respective institution, other than to
address basic human needs, for the government of any country
which the Secretary of the Treasury determines--
(1) has, as a cultural custom, a known history of the
practice of female genital mutilation;
(2) has not made the practice of female genital mutilation
illegal; and
(3) has not taken steps to implement educational programs
designed to prevent the practice of female genital
mutilation.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``international financial institution'' shall include the
institutions identified in section 535(b) of this Act.
____
amendment no. 5022
(Purpose: To earmark funds for support of the United States
Telecommunications Training Institute)
On page 107, line 23, strike ``should be made available''
and insert ``shall be available only''.
____
amendment no. 5023
(Purpose: To delete a section of the bill relating to a landmine use
moratorium)
On page 184, line 6, delete the word ``MORATORIUM'' and
everything that follows through the period on page 185, line
3.
[[Page S8759]]
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment deletes a section I included
in the bill entitled ``Moratorium on Antipersonnel Landmines.'' This
section simply reaffirmed current law. Having received the assurance of
the Armed Services Committee that the House conferees on the fiscal
year 1997 Defense Authorization bill will recede to the Senate on the
certification requirement relating to the landmine use moratorium that
is in the House version of that bill, I am striking this section in the
fiscal year 1997 Foreign Operations bill. This assures that current
law, which provides that beginning in 1999 the United States will
observe a 1-year moratorium on the use of antipersonnel landmines
except in certain limited circumstances, remains in effect as
originally adopted by the Senate by a vote of 67 to 27 on August 4,
1995.
I appreciate the efforts by the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Senator Thurmond, and his staff, who negotiated this
agreement with the House conferees. I also want to thank the chairman
of the House National Security Committee, Representative Spence, for
his part.
amendment no. 5024
(Purpose: To provide additional funds to support the International
Development Association)
On page 177, line 24, after ``Jordan,'' insert the
following:
``Tunisia,''
On page 178, line 2, after ``101-179'' insert the
following:
``: Provided, That not later than May 1, 1997, the
Secretary of State shall submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations describing actions by the Government of
Tunisia during the previous six months to improve respect for
civil liberties and promote the independence of the
judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my amendment, which is cosponsored by
Senator Inouye, adds Tunisia to the list of countries that is eligible
to receive excess defense equipment from the United States. I am
offering this amendment because of Tunisia's support for the Middle
East peace process, its geographical location between Libya and
Algeria, and the fact that its armed forces do not have a history of
engaging in violations of human rights.
Recently, Tunisia opened interests sections with Israel. This was a
courageous step, and it is important that the United States affirm its
support for Tunisia's positive role in the Middle East peace process.
Additionally, Tunisia is located in an unstable and dangerous part of
the world. Colonel Qaddaffi is unpredictable, and he has made no secret
of his displeasure with Tunisia's actions vis a vis Israel. Algeria, on
Tunisia's western border, is struggling with civil unrest stemming from
clashes between the secular government and a fervent fundamentalist
movement.
So while I am extremely concerned about the proliferation of
conventional weapons in this volatile region, I understand the
administration's purpose and I am prepared to support modest amounts of
excess defense equipment to Tunisia.
However, this amendment also takes into account the serious human
rights concerns that I and others have about Tunisia. According to the
State Department and respected international human rights monitors,
civil liberties are severely curtailed in Tunisia. Lawyers, journalists
and human rights activists are frequently harassed, intimidated, jailed
and otherwise mistreated for expressing their political opinions. Nejib
Hosni, a well-known human rights lawyer, has been accused of various
misdeeds and imprisoned, after an unfair trial. Mohammed Mouadda,
leader of the largest opposition party in Parliament, has been
similarly silenced. Dr. Moncef Marzouki, former president of the
independent Tunisian Human Rights League, has been repeatedly harassed
and his passport has been revoked. These are only three examples, but
they illustrate a disturbing pattern.
In addition, the State Department reports that the Tunisian judiciary
is ``not independent of the executive branch, and that judges are
susceptible to pressure in politically sensitive cases.''
The Tunisian Government should recognize that it only hurts itself by
acting this way. By attempting to silence its critics, especially
individuals who do not advocate violence, it creates resentment and
closes out alternative forms of expression, which can lead to violence.
This is the antithesis of democracy.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on actions
taken by the Tunisian government to improve respect for civil liberties
and to promote the independence of the judiciary. Our hope is that the
Tunisian government will treat these concerns with the seriousness they
deserve, and initiate a sincere effort to deal with these human rights
problems on an urgent basis.
amendment no. 5025
(Purpose: To provide additional funds to support the International
Development Association)
On page 135, line 7, delete ``$626,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$700,000,000.''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the United States was instrumental in
creating the International Development Association, which provides
concessional loans to the poorest countries in the world. In this bill
we have cut our contribution to IDA $308 million below what the
President requested.
The request for fiscal year 1997 was $934 billion, and that only
covers the arrears we already owe. The money in this bill for IDA is
$74 million below the current level.
This amendment will bring our contribution to IDA up to the current
level. That is still $234 million below the President's request, but it
will at least show that we intend to do everything possible to prevent
further erosion of support for IDA.
Some may think it does not matter if we maintain our leadership in
IDA. They should talk to our economic competitors.
They know that IDA is a worthwhile investment, because of the
contracts their companies get from IDA-financed projects and, even more
importantly, the foreign markets IDA helps create. They know their
ability to influence IDA policies is a direct function of their
contributions. As we cut our contribution and our influence wanes,
their influence grows.
It is influence many people here would miss, because with it the
Congress has had a major role in making IDA lending procedures more
open and subject to public scrutiny, and in eliminating wasteful
policies. Money buys influence in these institutions, there is no two
ways about it.
Mr. President, 40 percent of IDA lending goes to Africa, where the
population is expected to more than double in the next 50 years. It
would be unconscionable for the richest nation to cut its contribution
to the largest source of funding for the poorest region in the world,
which is potentially one of the largest emerging markets for American
exports.
People need to realize that foreign assistance is not simply
assistance for foreigners. It supports our own economic and political
interests.
This is a critical year for IDA. When the United States indicated to
the other IDA donors that we would not be able to contribute to IDA's
replenishment this year and could only continue to pay off our arrears,
the Europeans established an interim fund to get through this year
without a U.S. contribution.
The administration supported that. But the Europeans made a
miscalculation, by insisting that the U.S. would not be eligible for
procurement for projects financed by the interim fund. While I can
understand why they did that, since the interim fund consists entirely
of their money, I believe it is misguided as a matter of policy to
impose procurement restrictions on IDA-financed projects. I would say
that if it were the United States or any other country that was being
penalized, and whether it were IDA or any multilateral institution.
I would have liked to see us fully fund the President's request. That
was not possible, since our budget is less this year than last. But I
am hopeful that by maintaining our current level of funding, the
Europeans will see that we are doing our best to eliminate our arrears,
so we can go on to support IDA's replenishment. With the budget cuts we
are facing there is only so much we can do in any single year.
I hope the Europeans will recognize the significance of what we are
doing, and relent on the procurement restrictions. I think it is in
everyone's interest that the United States remain a strong supporter of
IDA, and that is not likely if these restrictions remain in effect.
[[Page S8760]]
Mr. President, there is one final aspect to this I want to mention.
There has been a lot of talk about what percentage of IDA procurement
American companies receive. Considering IDA alone, it is about 10
percent, largely because American companies have far less experience
doing business in Africa than European companies. But when you consider
World Bank and IDA contracts as a whole, U.S. procurement is about 20
percent, which is consistent with our share of contributions.
I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator McConnell, for
accepting this amendment.
Amendment No. 5026
On page 148, line 10 through line 13, strike the following
language, ``That comparable requirements of any similar
provision in any other Act shall be applicable only to the
extent that funds appropriated by this Act have been
authorized: Provided further,''.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in this group of amendments, there is a
Bumpers amendment on Mongolia, a Reid amendment on female mutilation,
an Inouye-Bennett amendment on USTTI, three Leahy amendments, and one
McConnell-Leahy amendment on authorization restrictions.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have no objection to those.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 5020 through 5026) 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.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 5027
(Purpose: To strike funds made available for the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam)
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an
amendment numbered 5027.
Mr. SMITH. 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:
On page 105, line 17, strike ``provided further,'' and all
that follows through the colon on line 21.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this is really a very simple amendment. I
will not take too much of the Senate's time to discuss it. Oftentimes,
little things that seem rather insignificant get tucked inside these
bills that ought to be looked at more carefully, and they do cost the
taxpayers a considerable amount of money. I think this is an example of
one of them.
The amendment that I am offering removes a provision that now exists
in the committee bill that provides up to $1.5 million in taxpayer
assistance for the Communist Government of Vietnam for economic
assistance. I want to point out to my colleagues that this is not
humanitarian foreign aid. This is economic assistance that is above and
beyond what we would call humanitarian aid.
Very specifically, the bill language states:
Funds appropriated for bilateral economic assistance shall
be made available, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, to assist Vietnam to reform its trade regime through,
among other things, reform of its commercial and investment
legal codes.
The committee report language, I say to my colleagues, is even more
revealing. It is more specific. It says: ``The initiative seeks to
assist the Government of Vietnam's efforts to develop trade relations
with other nations through reforming its legal system and trade regime
so as to provide the necessary framework for commercial transactions,
foreign investments and trade.''
I might just say that, depending on your point of view, it may or may
not be a worthwhile vote. The question is, should the taxpayers of the
United States of America provide that help when, in fact, there are
companies who will stand to gain substantially if this trade does take
place? In other words, under the bill, the money from the American
taxpayers will be spent for the cause of making a Communist nation more
attractive to corporate America. A Communist nation--this does not go
to the people of Vietnam. This goes to no humanitarian aid here; this
goes to the Communist Government of Vietnam.
Mr. President, I believe this is wrong, pure and simple. That is why
I am offering this amendment to strike this provision. We are in a very
difficult time. A lot of cuts--we are trying to balance the Federal
budget. When you talk about $1.5 million, that may not seem like a lot
of money; it is a lot of money where I went to school, a lot of money
in most families in America unless you hit the lottery--$1.5 million to
the Communist Government of Vietnam. We do not provide that kind of
dollars to Cuba or North Korea. Why are we doing it to Vietnam?
The majority of Americans have been very clear over and over again to
this Congress in making their voices heard--reduce foreign aid
spending. This is hardly the time to start a new foreign aid program
for a Communist country. I know those who disagree with me will say the
opposite, but the truth of the matter is, this is the camel's nose
under the tent. This is the beginning of foreign aid to a Communist
country; $1.5 million is so small when you look at some of the other
line items in the foreign aid bill, but it is a substantial sum of
money for many, many families in America today who, I am sure, would
love to have just a very small part of that $1.5 million to help with
their budgets, perhaps their fuel oil, or paying for the mortgage, or
feeding their children.
Why are we providing this money? Why are we putting $1.5 million
tucked in, hidden in the language of this bill, in the report language?
Why are we doing this? Who stands to gain? What is the purpose of this?
This is not a case--I want to make this very clear--this is not a
Vietnam bashing situation. It has nothing to do with POW's and MIA's.
It has nothing to do with MFN. It has nothing to do with how you feel
about normalization, or opening up diplomatic relations with Vietnam.
That is not the issue. We have already debated that. So let us not get
into that corner. But Vietnam is not a struggling democracy out there
like some of the Eastern European countries who are trying to come out
now from under the cloak of communism.
Vietnam criticized the U.S. Government in its relationship with Cuba
by applying the sanctions tighter to Cuba, criticized President Clinton
and criticized Senator Helms and others for Helms-Burton. This is not a
democracy that is getting this $1.5 million. It is a Communist
government, not the people, the Communist Government of Vietnam. They
just finished holding their Communist Party meetings in Hanoi last
month. So they are still there. They are still repressive. They still
have people in forced labor camps. There is still repression.
Why do we provide from the pockets of the American taxpayers $1.5
million to encourage the investment of corporations from America?
Again, that debate has been lost. Corporations are investing in
Vietnam. Let them pay their own money to invest in Vietnam. They will
get a return for their money. The taxpayers do not need to help some of
the largest corporations in America to the tune of $1.5 million.
Again, I want to point out that this is not humanitarian aid. This is
not helping kids who have lost their limbs in the war. It is not
helping people get an education, helping people who may have illnesses.
That is not what this is about. We have done that before, and I have
supported some of that because I believe that in war innocent people do
suffer. Unfortunately, that is the case and in the case of Vietnam,
that was the case. Innocent people sometimes suffer on both sides of
the war, and I have supported humanitarian aid for some of those
people. But the committee provision represents nonhumanitarian
assistance for the Government of Vietnam. There is a big, big
difference.
I want to again repeat it for emphasis because it is the essence of
the argument: This is nonhumanitarian aid. This is helping the
government, the Communist repressive regime of Hanoi, to do better
business with American businesses.
I want to point out, Mr. President, that in the same bill that we are
debating here on the floor, there is a provision which prohibits
foreign aid to
[[Page S8761]]
countries like Vietnam that are in default. It says here--this is again
the same bill, the exact same bill, Mr. President, under ``limitation
on assistance to countries in default,'' section 512: ``No part of any
appropriations contained in this act shall be used to furnish
assistance to any country which is in default during a period in excess
of 1 calendar year in payment to the United States of principal or
interest on any loan made to such country by the United States pursuant
to a program for which funds are appropriated under this act.''
Let me just say that this provision has been law for 20 years. Every
year it is in the committee bill and every year it is passed and signed
into law. I am sure it will again happen this year. Why is it in there?
It is in there because we do not want to reward countries who owe us
money that have not paid us back by giving us more. That is why it is
there.
So I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a report from the
Agency for International Development dated July 3, 1996, which I have
sent around to every Senator's office. I hope every Senator will look
at it because it is important.
According to this report which I just cited, Vietnam has been in
violation of this law, the law that I just referenced, since May 29,
1976, 1 year after the North invaded and conquered the South. When it
toppled the South, we all remember the helicopters, the people falling
off rooftops and falling off helicopters in that terrible tragedy, when
the tanks from the North roared through Saigon, when it toppled the
South, North Vietnam automatically incurred responsibility for over
$150 million in economic loans owed to the United States by the
Government of South Vietnam. Those dollars are still on the books, Mr.
President. The country of Vietnam still owes that money. It is still
unresolved.
I am told that negotiations to resolve this debt have been underway
between the United States and Vietnam for sometime now, but no
timetable for an agreement is in sight. So with $150 million of
outstanding debt being held up, not being paid, we now slide quietly,
ever so slightly, sleight-of-hand, tucked into this bill a little
paragraph that says: ``Here is another $1.5 million. We are going to
reward you. You owe us $150 million. You are still a repressive
Communist regime. You repress your people. And now we are going to
trade with you, and that is fine.'' That decision has been made. I
don't agree with it. The decision has been made. But the question is,
should those who decide to trade, some of the largest corporations in
America, should they be given another $1.5 million of taxpayers' money
to further their efforts in Vietnam to a country, A, that is Communist,
B, that is repressive to its people, and, C, that has not paid its debt
back to the United States of America? That is the basic question. I
know that there are a lot of big issues out here on this bill and other
bills that we face here in Congress, but these little issues, so-
called, really are a lot bigger than they appear to be.
That was not easy. We had to read this bill to find this.
Let me just say there are other countries that are on this list of
countries that owe us money, and they are in violation of the Brooke
amendment. They are such countries as Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan,
Somalia, and others.
So the question you have to ask yourself is, should we reward this
country with another $1.5 million--just under the table: Here it is?
Why should we be asked to make an exception for Vietnam in this bill
for nonhumanitarian assistance? What is the reason? Why was this tucked
in the bill without debate, without any information regarding the
background of this surfacing? Why should we make an exception for
Vietnam among other nations in the world that also owe us money? Why
should we be asked to circumvent the intent of Congress?
My colleagues, that is what we are doing, because it is very clear in
the legislation, very clear, as I said, under section 512, that ``no
part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used to
furnish assistance to any country which is in default.''
So the language is placed in the bill ``notwithstanding any other
provision of law,'' which basically wipes this off for the country of
Vietnam--no explanation, no rationale, just tucked in the language. So
why are we doing it in this manner?
In conclusion, Mr. President, we should not be authorizing a new
foreign aid program on an appropriations bill for the first time in
this clandestine, undebated, secretive manner. That is the issue. That
is what we are doing.
This is neither the time nor the way to start a new development
assistance program to promote trade with Vietnam regardless of the
amount of money involved. These things tend to grow. We all know that
once an economic aid program begins--the Senator from North Carolina,
who is in the Chamber, knows full well once a bureaucracy is started,
once an aid program is begun, it is pretty hard to keep it from getting
an increase, let alone eliminated. It reminds me of the Market Access
Program which the majority of my colleagues have voted to scale back.
So we should keep in mind this is not a case where the taxpayers have
to fund this, No. 1. IMF, the International Monetary Fund, has helped
Vietnam. United States dollars go into that. The World Bank, United
States dollars go into that. They help Vietnam. The Asian Development
Bank, they have already given Vietnam millions of dollars in loans to
help their economy develop. These loans are supported by United States
tax dollars in part.
You can make a case that we should not do that, but I am not making
that case. I am saying those are already out there. That is another
issue. So why provide another $1.5 million in bilateral economic
assistance when we are already contributing through multilateral
organizations?
There are also private foundations helping Vietnam, helping in the
reform of its commercial code, such as the Ford Foundation and IRI.
I can certainly think of, as I said before, a lot better use of $1.5
million. I am simply asking that we delete it. My amendment simply
deletes the dollars, and I do that because I think we can use it
better. A, we can put it on the debt, which would be my first choice,
or B, we might be able to use it for something else, for some other
more needy cause. There are lots of causes out there that I think are
deserving of dollars ahead of this if we want to put $1.5 million
somewhere.
I think the American people would agree.
So, again, Mr. President, this is a small amount of dollars in a big
bill and in a big budget. I agree with that. But it is not a small
amount of dollars for the average family in America today struggling to
make ends meet. The problem is there are a lot of these little $1.5
million tucked away through the 13 appropriations bills as they weave
their way through Congress. They all add up, as Senator Dirksen used to
say, to real money. A million there, a million there. Then it is $1
billion, $1 billion here and $1 billion there. Then it is $1 trillion.
I do not even know what comes after $1 trillion. What is it,
quadrillion? I do not know. But it adds up.
This is a small item. Granted, maybe it is not worth an hour of
debate, somebody will say, but let me tell you something. If you take
care of dollars, hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, and
millions of dollars, you will take care of billions and trillions. They
will take care of themselves.
This is a very important statement we are going to make here. If this
amendment is defeated, if my amendment is defeated, what we have said
is that providing additional taxpayer aid to the country of Vietnam, a
Communist nation like Cuba, is more important than helping children,
helping the sick, helping people with AIDS, helping people who need
help with their education, their student loans or retiring, helping to
retire the national debt.
Again, I cannot emphasize more strongly how I feel that it is wrong
to put this in this legislation. So let me, at this point, Mr.
President, before yielding the floor, ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SMITH. I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, on a
bipartisan
[[Page S8762]]
basis, by big majorities, we have in recent years voted, first, to lift
the sanctions against Vietnam, and then to open diplomatic
relationships with Vietnam because we believe it is important to engage
Vietnam not only in civilized discourse, but to bring them into the
community of nations. We have had that debate, and this has been
successfully completed as far as those of us who wish to engage Vietnam
are concerned.
How do we complete the circle? How do we help Vietnam become the kind
of nation we want it to be? Or to put it another way, what do we want
Vietnam to do? I think if there is one thing we want Vietnam to do it
is to follow the rule of law, to be a law-abiding country rather than
to be a Communist country.
The two are at opposite ends. To be Communistic is not to be a rule-
of-law country. To be a rule-of-law country is the opposite. So what we
have done here is, working with the Vietnamese, to authorize AID to
spend up to $1.5 million, not in aid to Vietnam but to give to the
American Bar Association, the American Law Institute, and the U.S.-
Vietnam Trade Council to help send experts to help Vietnam develop the
rule of law. Not one cent of this goes to the country of Vietnam, Mr.
President--not one cent. What we will do is what we did with Eastern
Europe, and as a matter of fact this initiative, which was my
initiative in the committee, is patterned after that which we had for
Eastern Europe. After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, they
found that they had no legal system in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, et
cetera. And the American Bar Association sent over lawyers and judges
and others, many of them contributing their time, to help them develop
a legal system, a commercial code, a bankruptcy code, a criminal code--
all of the codes; and then to train the judges to help run the system.
That is what we want to do for Vietnam. The Vietnamese have welcomed
this. I spoke to the United States-Vietnam Trade Council. I said the
thing you can do to best ensure investment in Vietnam, to ensure you
will be brought into the community of nations, is to develop a legal
system to follow the rule of law. They were willing and now are anxious
to have this kind of aid.
Within the last 2 weeks, a group of legal scholars from Vietnam were
here in Washington and I visited with them, including the head of the
Vietnamese bar association as well as Vietnamese judges. They are eager
and anxious to learn how to put together a legal system modeled on the
American system. If there is anything we want for Vietnam, how can
anyone in this body be against Vietnam adopting the rule of law? How
can anybody in this body be against training Vietnamese judges to
follow the law, Western-style law, propagated by the American Bar
Association? I just do not understand.
The reasoning seems to be this. Vietnam is a repressive regime, says
my friend, Senator Smith. Therefore, do not give them aid in following
the rule of law. That does not compute, to say you are repressive
therefore we are not going to help you be less repressive; you are
repressive, therefore we are not going to give you and your citizens
legal protection. It does not compute.
Let me also say the whole predicate for this, which is the so-called
Brooke amendment, which says you do not give foreign aid to a country
that owes you money--in the first place this is usually waived. It has
been waived for a broad number of countries: Colombia, Bolivia, Peru,
Nicaragua, a host of African countries, Eastern European countries.
Beyond that, the good news is on the $150 million that is owed by the
Vietnamese--which, by the way, was incurred largely before this regime
came in--we have come to closure and agreement, as I understand it, on
all but about $8 million of that $150 million. And there has been a
commitment to settle the whole thing.
The Vietnamese are trying to do what they can. They have agreed to
resolve and most has been resolved. And even when it is not resolved,
with other countries it is waived. But besides that, it is not foreign
aid. The question is will it help Vietnam? You bet it will help
Vietnam. It will help make Vietnam a law-abiding rule-of-law country.
And that should make it easier for companies to invest there.
What is wrong with that? Do we want this Communist country to stay
Communist? Or do we want them to have a legal code? It is as simple as
that. For the life of me, I do not understand the reasoning that says
it is wrong to help Vietnam follow the rule of law. I think that is a
non sequitur and I hope the Senate will roundly reject the Smith
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Thomas as a cosponsor to my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH. Let me just briefly respond. The Senator from Louisiana is
correct in terms of waivers being applied in the past for countries. I
think he mentioned Colombia and Peru. That is true. And in most cases
where such waivers were granted, it was related to narcotics, in the
sense that we wanted to try to help them to stop the flow of narcotics
into this country. I think if any Senator wanted to look up the
background on that, they would find out that is the reason for the
waiver. I think in most cases they were voted on, these waivers, in the
Senate, and not tucked into a foreign operations bill.
Let me also say I am all for Vietnam coming around to the rule of
law. I hope it happens before the end of my speech. But is it
happening? If they supported the rule of law they would have free
elections. The last time I looked I do not think there are free
elections in Vietnam. If they supported the rule of law they would not
be imprisoning people throughout their country without charging them
with anything.
So, to say we are going to put $1.5 million of taxpayers' money into
this trade council to get into Vietnam to encourage them to live by the
rule of law, we could make the same argument with Cuba. How about North
Korea or Libya? Why do we not pump a few million dollars in there and
see if we can get them to abide by the rule of law?
Let me also respond to the position regarding assistance. For Eastern
Europe, true, we do provide that kind of assistance. But Eastern Europe
is not Vietnam. Eastern Europe broke out from under the yoke of
communism. They are struggling democracies. They have gotten out from
under this Communist tyranny. It is true and I support it. It is true
we should provide and I support providing moneys to help those
countries to set up a rule of law and to set up a viable free
enterprise, free market system, and to continue to grow out from under
the yoke of communism which they are doing so well right now. That is a
different situation.
They first must make the decision that they want the rule of law.
When they make the decision that they want the rule of law, then they
deserve help. And they made that decision when they threw the Soviet
Union out, when they broke up the Soviet Union and threw out the
Communist tyranny. Vietnam has not made that decision, unfortunately.
Not only have they not made it, they have criticized us pretty openly
in recent times, criticized the President of the United States,
criticized this Senator, Senator Helms, and criticized others in the
so-called Helms-Burton amendment here regarding our treatment of Cuba.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. SMITH. Certainly.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is aware that Vietnam is anxious to have
aid from the American Bar Association in helping them develop the rule
of law. We have not had that kind of request from Libya and Cuba and
others. They are anxious to develop the rule of law. They want the
American Bar Association in there to help them do that. That is what
this is all about. Is that not true?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know that you can say emphatically and without
any doubt that Vietnam is ready to embrace the rule of law. I think, if
I understand this amendment and I understand the debate here, it is
more likely that we are trying to encourage them through these dollars
to embrace the rule of law and to make it easier for companies who do
business there to do so under some legal system. That would be my
interpretation of it. I do not think Vietnam has embraced the rule of
law and said we will embrace the rule of law if you provide us this
$1.5 million.
[[Page S8763]]
My point is, I say to my friend, the issue here is really: Have they
made the decision and is it fair for us to put $1.5 million in aid in
there when we have this money that is already owed us? Why make an
exception? That is the issue.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If my friend will yield, what Vietnam has said is that
they are anxious to have this aid. I mean this legal help from the ABA
and the International Law Institute. They are anxious to have this aid
because they want to develop this system.
They are in the process of developing a commercial code, a civil
code, training their judges in criminal codes. Part of it is helping
them draft the laws, and part of it is in training the lawyers and the
judges, and they want this. They were in my office just 2 weeks ago.
What is wrong with that?
Mr. SMITH. Let me tell you what I think is wrong with it. You are
hoping that this works, and it may. No one can answer that question
today. But it didn't work in Europe until after communism fell. I don't
think that you can bifurcate law saying what is here on one side,
business law, is good and not abiding by the rule of law in terms of
its treatment of its own people, in terms of imprisoning people without
having them charged. I don't think you can bifurcate those things and
say this is OK and we will just overlook this.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Is my friend saying he will not give aid to help them
change the legal system until the legal system is already changed?
Mr. SMITH. No.
Mr. JOHNSTON. At that point, they don't need any help.
Mr. SMITH. What I am saying is I think the right approach is to say
to Vietnam, ``You owe us $150 million. Let's work out a payment
schedule instead of avoiding it and ducking it. Let's work out a
payment schedule to return the $150 million that you owe us,'' and once
that schedule is set up and we begin to see payments coming back for
that, then we can work with them to try to help them set up a legal
code that not only applies to helping big business or business do
business in Vietnam, but also helps the people of Vietnam who are
suffering at the hands of a system that does not really have a rule of
law.
Mr. JOHNSTON. On that point, how would my friend say that we should
give that aid? What would be the method of helping them set up that
legal system?
Mr. SMITH. I think we would say to the Vietnamese Government, ``We
want you to repay.''
Mr. JOHNSTON. I understand. But after they made that decision and you
say it is right then to help them set up a legal system, would you not
use the American Bar Association and the International Law Institute,
the United States-Vietnam Trade----
Mr. SMITH. The American Bar Association, I say to my friend,
certainly has the financial capability to send lawyers to Vietnam to
sit down and discuss with them how they might set up a legal system
without having $1.5 million of the American taxpayers' money. The
American Bar Association donates tens of millions of dollars to
political campaigns, frankly in my friend's party more than my own. I
think they certainly have the capability of $1.5 million to go over
there, if that is important to them, to set up this business structure.
But it would help also that instead of just setting up a business
structure to see to it that profits can be made, I hope they also will
work on helping these poor, unfortunate souls who sit in prisons for
years and years and years without even having charges brought against
them because there is no legal system. That is my point.
This is not a situation where we go back and replay the normalization
argument or the MFN argument or diplomatic relations argument. That is
over. But I do think we need to make a statement that this country is
still a hard-line Communist regime.
I have been there. I love the Vietnamese people. I have traveled all
over Vietnam. I have friends there, people I have met. I like the
Vietnamese people. I think they would benefit from a good legal system
in that country. I don't think just providing $1.5 million in aid is
the way to get it. That is the issue.
The issue is very simple, you either support $1.5 million in foreign
aid to a country that still owes us $150 million that is a hard-line
Communist regime or you don't. If you feel that is justified, then you
vote against my amendment.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I came to the floor to address another
amendment, which, as I understand, has been laid aside so this
amendment could be considered.
I have listened with interest to both sides, and I almost have no dog
in this fight, but I have to agree with the distinguished Senator from
New Hampshire. The American Bar Association, if it is so interested in
this program, could raise $1.5 million, or whatever it is, before they
go to lunch today, get on the telephone.
The point I think that Senator Smith is making is that every time
somebody gets an idea, let's do this or let's do that, they ask the
taxpayers to pay for it. They don't raise the money themselves
privately when they could. Some of the fattest cats in this country
think up ideas to be financed by the American taxpayers.
As the result of all this, this Government is in debt well over $5
trillion. I went in the cloakroom one day a couple of months ago in
connection with a report I have been making daily since 1992,
stipulating and reporting the exact Federal debt as of close of
business the day before. We were approaching $5 trillion at that time.
I think we met it a day or two after that. I stepped in and some
Senators were sitting there. I said, ``How many of you know how many
million are in a trillion?'' These are the people who ran up this debt
for the young people of this country to pay. Not one was certain about
the answer. There are 1 million million in a trillion, Mr. President,
as the distinguished occupant of the Chair knows.
We have run up this debt by saying, ``This is a good thing to do,
let's let the taxpayers pay for it.'' ``This is a good thing to do,
let's let the taxpayers pay for it.'' ``This is a good thing to do; oh,
this is going to pay for itself.''
How many times have I heard that? Senator Smith said these
``temporary programs.'' I bet you 75 percent of the programs that are
started by the Federal Government and approved by the Congress are
identified as ``temporary Federal programs.''
For example, the Agency for International Development, when it was
approved by Congress back in the fifties, was a temporary Federal
program. So was ACDA. So is this one and that one, and so forth. All of
them are ``temporary programs'' still going strong with thousands of
employees being paid for by the taxpayers.
I think that is the point that Senator Smith is making. Ronald Reagan
said one time, ``There's nothing so near eternal life as a temporary
Federal program.'' I think that is the point of it.
I suggest you two fellows get together. Call the American Bar
Association and ask them if they will not raise this million and a
half, or whatever it is, before 1 o'clock.
Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
letter of support for the amendment from the American Legion.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
Hon. Robert C. Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: The American Legion supports your
amendment to H.R. 3540, the Foreign Operations bill, which
deletes $1.5 million in bilateral economic assistance to the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam. We have steadfastly opposed
any additional favorable actions toward Vietnam until they
make honest and complete efforts to achieve the fullest
possible accounting for our POW/MIAs.
It is clear that Vietnam can take unilateral actions today
in the areas of remains and records that could account for
many missing Americans. Moreover, our support for your
amendment is further strengthened by the default status of
prior U.S. loans prohibited under the so-called Brooke
Amendment.
An appropriation of $1.5 million to Vietnam at the time to
assist in reforming its trade regime would only encourage
their continuing intransigence and discourage meaningful
unilateral cooperation by them
[[Page S8764]]
in providing the fullest possible accounting. We strongly
support your amendment to H.R. 3540. We appreciate your
continuing leadership on issues of importance to veterans.
Sincerely,
John F. Sommer. Jr.,
Executive Director.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, other than that, I have no further
comments.
Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will yield, if he has no objection, I wish
he would make me a cosponsor of his amendment.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Helms as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the Smith amendment
which would prohibit funding for economic assistance to Vietnam. I just
visited Vietnam 2 months ago and I believe that this amendment would
move us in exactly the wrong direction as we attempt to encourage
economic and political change in Vietnam.
There is a tremendous entrepreneurial spirit pervading the streets of
Hanoi. All along the narrow, winding streets you will find small stores
crammed in next to each other, selling every thing under the Sun--
books, postcards, clothes, car parts. The people of Vietnam very
clearly want to have their own businesses. They want to trade. They
clearly want a market economy, but they need help to develop it. The
foreign operations bill provides funding for us to provide assistance
to teach them economic and legal reforms. This type of assistance will
only encourage the country to move farther away from socialism and
closer to a Western-style market system.
Moreover, this is just the type of reform that United States business
leaders in Hanoi told me they need to see in Vietnam. It is very much
in American commercial interests to have investment and especially
legal reforms in Vietnam. U.S. businesses are losing money now, but
they continue to do business there because they believe change is
coming to both the country and the region as a whole and that change
will be profitable for them. The type of assistance this bill provides
for will encourage that change to come sooner, rather than later.
By prohibiting economic assistance to Vietnam, the amendment we are
discussing would needlessly stifle budding, indigenous market reforms
and hurt United States companies at the same time.
It was truly an amazing sight to see the people in Vietnam in the
streets, Vietnamese and American businessmen working and chatting
together in a friendly way. That would have been impossible to imagine
20 years ago. I hope this amendment is not accepted and that we do what
we can to encourage Vietnam's development. I yield floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, various Senators have been coming over and
bringing up amendments and speaking to them. I encourage others, if
they have them, to do that. I know that we are trying to accommodate
the committees that are meeting, hearings that are going on, and so
forth, and trying to stack votes when we can. But I know the chairman
and I wish to finish the bill at a relatively expeditious time. I
mention this for what it is worth. Mr. President, 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. 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, I am happy to give another stirring speech
if it would help, as I know I will have the unrestrained attention of
the distinguished Presiding Officer who otherwise may find it difficult
keeping both eyes open, but I would rather other Senators present their
amendments so we could, as much as I know everyone prefers staying and
working on this amendment, so we could get out of here on this thing. I
understand the cloakroom is looking for other amendments.
I must say, in seriousness, we end up making policy sometimes
directly and sometimes indirectly on this bill. We do affect the
authorization as well as the appropriation on this bill because we do
not have a piece of authorizing legislation to work from.
I urge Senators to understand what has happened as we have allowed
ourselves to be captured by our rhetoric. The irony is that during the
Reagan administration, I recall Senators still in this body who would
say they strongly applaud President Reagan's efforts to curtail foreign
aid. And yet, of course, President Reagan supported nearly $25 billion
in foreign aid. Now that same rhetoric, they say, ``We have to do
something; now that the Clinton administration is here the foreign aid
has risen.'' Well it is now down around $10 or $11 billion under the
current administration. At some point, we should stop the rhetoric and
face the reality.
The fact of the matter is we have interests worldwide. If we want to
have a fortress America, we should make that decision. But I am afraid
that is a fortress that would find its walls quickly crumbling. Much of
what keeps our economy growing is our export market. What keeps America
strong is the fact we are recognized as a global power with far-
reaching responsibilities and far-reaching benefits.
When we pat ourselves on the back and praise ourselves for the cuts
that we have done in international organizations, in international
efforts, we ought to ask, why is it that some of our strongest economic
competitors like Japan and others are so happy to see us withdraw, so
they can step in. The fact is very simple, Mr. President, they are
creating jobs.
Many countries spend a great deal more than we do as part of their
budget on so-called foreign aid and development. The reason they do it,
of course, is not out of any sense of moral responsibility or altruism.
They do it because it creates jobs. It creates an export market for
their products. It creates a presence in these countries as they
develop their own economic powers. It helps stability so they do not
have to get involved in regional battles. But it creates jobs.
They see the United States withdrawing and withdrawing and refusing
to get involved in international efforts of economic development in
these countries and they see U.S. jobs being lost. Our companies that
export, our companies that have the ability to do so, are just laying
off people left and right as we withdraw.
It is strange to me, Mr. President, how some of the same Members of
this body who brag about how they will try to stop any efforts for
economic development or democracy building in other parts of the world,
will stand here and bemoan the fact that other countries in the Pacific
basin or Europe or elsewhere are taking away our export jobs. They fail
to see the connection. Of course, there is a connection.
As I said this morning, there is also a moral imperative here. In
parts of sub-Saharan Africa we help out with aid, maybe 20 to 50 cents
per capita or less. We have spent more for the costs of the
Congressional Record debating this bill so far today than the per
capita income of many of these countries, of whole families, in many of
these countries. We will spend 25 to 50 cents there, yet we will use 50
percent or more of the world's resources with 5 percent of the world's
population.
We have a moral responsibility. No matter how one looks at it, we can
argue we have a responsibility to help out with other parts of the
world. There is our moral responsibility, but also it makes economic
good sense.
I see the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts on the floor, so I
yield to him.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CAMPBELL). The pending business is
amendment No. 5027, offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. KERRY. I will take a few minutes to speak to that amendment. I
will not spend a lot of time on it.
I strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire but
respect his concern about it. I commend to my colleagues that I think
the concern expressed by the Senator from New Hampshire is misplaced in
this particular instance, and that the real
[[Page S8765]]
interests of the United States are to continue forward in helping to
build a legal code and trade code in Vietnam that is based on our
notions and precepts about both the legal systems and trade.
Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire argues that we should
not go forward with this legal program--legal reform program in
Vietnam, which is what it is--because he says Vietnam is in violation
of the Brooke amendment. The Brooke amendment is an amendment that
limits U.S. aid to countries that are in default to the United States
on money owed. The default that he is referring to is a default that
goes back to the question of debt emanating from the war, back in the
1960's.
Indeed, the United States and Vietnam have already had a number of
rounds of negotiations on this debt. The debt does exist. I am not
suggesting it does not. However, Vietnam has agreed in principle to pay
the debt. It is a debt that has been owed to us from the time that
certain property was expropriated during the war. The debt is about
$150 million in total. As I say, they have agreed to pay that debt,
with the exception of about an $8 million amount that remains in
discussion over the question of USDA loans.
So, Mr. President, we have really resolved the major part of the
issues with respect to this total debt. In addition to that, we have,
in the past, on a number of different occasions, waived the Brooke
amendment when it has been in the national interest to do so. We waived
the Brooke amendment with respect to narcotics assistance in Colombia,
with respect to Peru and Bolivia, for development assistance for
Tanzania, for other African countries, and also for Nicaragua.
Mr. President, the Brooke amendment is not really what is at issue
here. The issue is, Do we or do we not want to move forward with
improving our ability to have a legal system in Vietnam that is based
on our notions and precepts of what the law is and means, and do we
want to have a trade regimen that meets the needs of our companies and
the rest of the world in trying to do business with Vietnam which moves
toward Western values and goals?
Mr. President, a number of years ago, I created the Fulbright
Exchange Program for Vietnam. We are now in the fifth year of that
program, and it has been an enormous success. We brought Vietnamese
academics, officials, and others to the United States. We have trained
them in some of the best schools, some of our best economic
institutions, as well as some of our legal institutions. I think we are
now at a point where we are seeing many American professors in law and
trade and economics going to Vietnam and teaching in Vietnam.
So to suddenly take out of this bill a very small amount of money
that is geared to trying to increase the ability to reform the legal
system and economic structure of Vietnam would literally be to turn our
backs on 30-plus years of aspirations with respect to that country. We
are trying to do now, peacefully, what we invested 58,000-plus American
lives to do during a 10-year war. It just does not make sense to turn
away from the legal reform program that would be created by this bill,
which is the logical, needed follow-on to the Fulbright program.
Vietnam wants our help in developing its legal code. What an
extraordinary thing. What a great opportunity. For us now to suggest
that is not a more peaceful and sensible way of approaching the process
of changing a system of values and cultural--I do not know what is
better than that. It seems to me that, recognizing that the full debt
has been accepted in principle, the only contentious issue within the
debt is $8 million of USDA money, it would simply be wrong to turn our
backs on these 5 years of progress.
I hope my colleagues will join in opposing this amendment and in
affirming that it is in our interest to continue to invest in the legal
and economic reform of Vietnam and to bring Vietnam into the world
community with respect to trade laws and regulations, property laws and
rights, and all of the means of accountability for those companies that
are or will be doing business in Southeast Asia.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, 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, may I ask what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Smith amendment
No. 5027 to the foreign operations appropriations bill.
Mr. HELMS. As I understand it, at least one or maybe two other
amendments have been set aside for that to be the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all necessary
amendments be set aside so that I may call up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Amendment No. 5028
(Purpose: To prohibit United States voluntary contributions to the
United Nations and its specialized agencies if the United Nations
attempts to implement or impose taxation on United States persons to
raise revenue for the United Nations)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself,
Mr. Lott, and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 5028.
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:
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
restrictions on voluntary contributions to united nations agencies
Sec. . (a) Prohibition on Voluntary Contributions for the
United Nations.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be made available to pay any
voluntary contribution of the United States to the United
Nations or any of its specialized agencies (including the
United Nations Development Program) if the United Nations
attempts to implement or impose by taxation or fee on any
United States persons or borrows funds from any international
financial institution.
(b) Certification Required for Disbursement of Funds.--None
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under
this Act may be made available to pay any voluntary
contribution of the United States to the United Nations or
any of its specialized agencies (including the United Nations
Development Program) unless the President certifies to the
Congress 15 days in advance of such payment that the United
Nations or such agency, as the case may be, is not engaged
in, and has not been engaged in during the previous fiscal
year, any effort to develop, advocate, promote, or publize
any proposal concerning taxation or fees on United States
persons in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or
any of its specialized agencies.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term ``international financial institution''
includes the African Development Bank, the African
Development Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American
Development Bank, the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, the International Development Association,
the International Finance Corporation, the International
Monetary Fund, and the Multilateral Insurance Guaranty
Agency; and
(2) The term ``United States person'' refers to--
(A) a natural person who is a citizen or national of the
United States; or
(B) a corporation, partnership, or other legal entity
organized under the United States or any State, territory,
possession, or district of the United States.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by the
distinguished majority leader and the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire, Senator Gregg.
Mr. President, on January 15 of this year, the Secretary General of
the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, while speaking at Oxford
University over in England, of course, outlined a series of revenue-
raising options to pay for the United Nations' day-to-day activities.
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali then went on the British Broadcasting
Corporation suggesting
[[Page S8766]]
that the United Nations should be allowed to collect taxes directly
from American citizens and citizens of all other sovereign nations so
that the United Nations ``would not be under the daily financial will
of member states.'' There was quite a tempest about that idea, and it
was not in a teapot.
Let me say at the outset that I know Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, not
well, but Dot Helms and I went to New York and had dinner with him and
his wife and another friend of ours and his wife, and we had a very
enjoyable evening. Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has his own ideas about
things, and I have been known to have my own ideas about a few things.
It is in that context that I want to comment a little bit about the
Secretary General's proposed scheme.
Absurd as it is, it is not an isolated one. James Tobin, an
international economist, back in 1976 proposed a U.N. tax on currency
transfers, and Gustave Speth, present Director of the United Nations
Development Program--and all through the bureaucracy, here and there,
we always use initials, and that is UNDP--the U.N. Development Program
has called for a ``global human security fund'' financed from global
fees such as the Tobin tax on speculative movements of international
funds and international tax on the consumption of nonrenewable energy
and a tax on arms trade. I am not making that comment just idly. That
is an exact quote of what Mr. Speth proposed.
It is no coincidence that 1 week after Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali made
his chilling announcement about the need and desire for giving the
United Nations power of taxation, the former distinguished majority
leader of the Senate, Bob Dole, and Senators Kerry, Shelby, and I
introduced what was then S. 1519, which was a bill to forbid any U.S.
payments to the United Nations if the United Nations attempts in any
way to levy taxes on the American people. All right.
So, Mr. President, the pending amendment--by the way, what is the
number of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The number is 5028.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. The pending amendment is based on S.
1519, to which I have just referred, and it, like S. 1519, prohibits
all U.S. voluntary contributions to the United Nations if the United
Nations should make an attempt to levy a direct tax on the American
people.
Furthermore, the amendment requires the President of the United
States to certify to Congress that no United Nations agencies,
including the UNDP, are concocting any sort of scheme for a direct tax
on the American people. I am very pleased and honored that the present
majority leader of the Senate, Mr. Lott, and the chairman of the
Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg,
have joined in offering this amendment.
If I could ask whoever is in charge of focusing the television
cameras, I hope that they will focus on the chart at my side. You will
see the bureaucracy of the United Nations. You will also see how we
have entitled it. We call it ``The United Nations: One Big Mess.'' That
is precisely what it is.
The United Nations is an enormous and unwieldy maze of independent
fiefdoms whose bureaucracies are proliferating almost by the hour and
whose costs are spiraling into the stratosphere and whose missions are
constantly expanding far beyond their mandate. Worse, with its
unyielding growth--just look at this bureaucracy, if you will--worse,
with its unyielding growth and its misguided ideology, the United
Nations is rapidly transforming itself from an institution of sovereign
nations into a quasi-sovereign entity itself. This unchecked
transformation and the Clinton administration's unwise over-reliance on
the United Nations, obviously represents a threat to American national
interests. That is the reason I am standing here on this floor with
this chart right beside me.
Mr. President, the 53,000--count them--53,000 international
bureaucrats at the United Nations would find it worthwhile if they
would spend just a few minutes reading the Constitution of the United
States of America. Despite what these bureaucrats may hope and desire,
the United Nations, not being a sovereign entity itself, cannot--
cannot--levy taxes. We could be grateful that it is not a world
government.
You see, the United Nations exists to serve its members, of which the
United States is one. The United States is also the most generous
member of the United Nations--not the other way around.
Yet, when you look at this chart--I wish that the thousands of people
looking at this chart on television at this moment could have a chance
to examine it line-by-line. But judging from it, this insatiable U.N.
bureaucracy has for 50 years now been impervious to any kind of real
reform. It has grown and mushroomed ``like Topsy.''
That is why, from the standpoint of the U.N. bureaucracy, new taxes
on the American people by way of international airline tickets,
financial transactions, postcards sent from overseas--all of these and
others--would provide a seemingly endless stream of resources from
which, Heaven forbid, an ever-increasing number of new U.N. programs
and new personnel and new bureaucrats could be undertaken.
Mr. President, if the Secretary General and his allies at the United
Nations develop a program, and should they make the mistake of
persisting in this U.N. tax scheme, there could very well be the 1996
version of the Boston Tea Party. This time it would be, I guess, in New
York Harbor--because working Americans are already overtaxed beyond
belief.
Today, the visible--the taxes that we can see--the visible tax burden
for the average working family is a whopping 34.6 percent of their
total income. Tax Independence Day, the day upon which American
citizens stop working for the Internal Revenue Service and begin
working to feed and clothe their families, is now May 7, a full week
later than when Mr. Clinton took office.
In addition to this tax burden, every man, woman and child in the
United States now owes an average of $19,494.49 as their share of the
$5,173,226,283,802.71 debt. It should be no surprise, therefore, that
the watchdog group known as the Americans for Tax Reform--a good group
of people--and 14 Governors around the country, all Republicans, I
might add, support the pending amendment.
The prohibition on U.N. taxation upon which this amendment is based
speaks for itself. Yet the Secretary General and U.N. bureaucrats
continue to raise the specter of more and more taxes on the American
people.
So I guess it might be said that I am here today to try to help the
American people make clear that even the consideration of U.N. tax
authority is totally unacceptable. I do not want to hear any more about
it, and I made that clear to Boutros Boutros-Ghali as nicely as
possible. Passage of this amendment would send a clear message to Mr.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the entrenched bureaucracy at the United
Nations that what is necessary at the United Nations is real reform,
not the taxation of the American citizens.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will just answer a
question. I realize he has yielded the floor.
I wonder if I might ask the Senator from North Carolina a question. I
was just glancing over his amendment.
Mr. President, would the Senator tell me, in section (a), the first
section, it speaks of the ``United States persons or borrows funds from
any international financial institution.'' Does that mean that no money
could go to them if they were to borrow money from, say, the New York
City Bank or other international financial institution just to pay
their payroll? If they borrow from an American bank that has
international affiliates to pay whatever housekeeping bills, would that
preclude us?
Mr. HELMS. Of course not. If the Senator had read the amendment, he
would know the answer to his own question.
``(c) Definitions. As used in this section.''
Mr. LEAHY. Would this require in any way cutting money to UNICEF?
Mr. HELMS. I did not understand the Senator. Look at me so I can read
your lips.
[[Page S8767]]
Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry. Unlike others, I was trying to follow the
rules by addressing, Mr. President, the question through the Chair. But
does this require cutting of any funds to UNICEF?
Mr. HELMS. There is no intention, expressed or implicit.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. My last question. If it was found that they had borrowed
money from international financial institutions as defined here, would
we then have to withhold any contributions to UNICEF?
If it was found that they were borrowing funds from one of the
international financial institutions as defined--
Mr. HELMS. The answer to that is no.
Mr. LEAHY. In the amendment, would we then be precluded from
contributions to them?
Mr. HELMS. The answer is no.
Mr. LEAHY. What would we be precluded under those circumstances from
making contributions to? Because we have voluntary contributions to a
specialized agency such as UNICEF. If we are not precluded from giving
to UNICEF, what are we precluded from giving to?
Mr. HELMS. Is the Senator really concerned about UNICEF?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator has had----
Mr. HELMS. If so, I will be glad to exclude it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Senator has spent years supporting
UNICEF. As I read this, we are unable to give money to UNICEF.
Let us be clear. There are a lot of other things in here. Whatever
agency provides funds for river blindness, we would be precluded from
that. We would be precluded from others.
The Senator has an absolute right to have such an intention, but I
just want to make sure we understand precisely what we are doing. If
they borrow funds from any of these international financial
institutions, I would assume this would then preclude our dollars to
UNDP, UN Environmental Program, the World Food Program, International
Atomic Energy Agency, UNICEF, and others. Am I correct?
Mr. HELMS. The answer is no.
Mr. LEAHY. What does it preclude us from giving?
Mr. HELMS. If the Senator wants to read the amendment----
Mr. LEAHY. I have.
Mr. HELMS. I ask the clerk to read the amendment. Apparently the
Senator has not read it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 5028. On page 198, between lines 17 and 18,
insert the following:
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Has the amendment
not already been reported?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been reported.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so let me read then what we have here. It
says, ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this act may be made available to pay any voluntary contribution of the
United States to the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies
(including United Nations Development Program),'' and on and on.
``If''--and what triggers this, among other things--``if the United
Nations * * * borrows funds from any international financial
institution,'' which would include the African Development Bank, the
African Development Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, and others as listed, the
International Monetary Fund, and so on.
Under that, unless some waiver is given, we would be precluded from
contributions to UNICEF, International Atomic Energy Agency, World Food
Program, and any of these others. I do not know how one could read it
otherwise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I will say, Mr. President, in response to the Senator, I
think he is on a fishing expedition and he is not going to catch any
fish. But UNICEF cannot now borrow money, according to my
understanding. Is that correct? So that question is moot. I do not know
what the Senator from Vermont is talking about. If he wants to exclude
UNICEF for some personal reason, I will be glad to exclude it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have a whole lot of things, but it does
not speak of if UNICEF borrows. ``If the United Nations * * * borrows
funds from any international financial institution.'' I am not on a
fishing expedition. I just want to make sure we have a clear record. I
do not favor the United Nations or anybody outside of the United States
or my own State of Vermont raising taxes. But we are talking about if
the United Nations borrows, all of these others will then be precluded
from contributions from us.
I am not trying to get the distinguished Senator from North Carolina
to change his amendment. I just want to make sure we understand what it
does, that is all. He has a perfect right.
Mr. HELMS. I say to the Senator from Vermont, what we are doing, you
read to me from the amendment what gives you a problem and I will
answer a question about that. I do not want you characterizing any
provision of the amendment. I want you to quote from the amendment
itself, and then ask me any question you want to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on page 2 of the amendment, where it
speaks----
Mr. HELMS. What line?
Mr. LEAHY. I am citing line 3: ``* * * if the United Nations attempts
to implement or impose any taxation or fee on any United States persons
or borrows funds from any international financial institution.'' And
then, on line 21, we have the definition of those institutions. And on
line 8, it says, ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act may be made available to pay any voluntary
contribution of the United States to the United Nations or any of its
specialized agencies * * *.''
That prohibition follows, as I read this, ``* * * if the United
Nations * * * borrows funds from any international financial
institution,'' as defined in here. I am not arguing that point. I just
want to make sure we understand what we are doing.
Mr. HELMS. You did not finish reading, Senator. If you had gone ahead
and finished what you were reading, you would have discovered that this
whole thing is based on Boutros Boutros-Ghali's and others'
recommendation that the United Nations be given sovereignty to tax the
American people and other sovereign countries. That is what this whole
section is.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the idea that anybody is trying to give the
Secretary General, whoever he might be, of the United Nations, the
ability to impose taxes on the United States is about in the league of
all these black helicopters that appear in the middle of the night,
bringing U.N. troops around to take over whatever parts of the United
States they are about to do. That is not about to happen.
I just want to make sure we understand, in voting for this, we could
be cutting off our ability, if the United Nations has borrowed from any
of these international organizations, our ability to make payments to
the U.N. Environment Program, the World Food Program, International
Atomic Energy Agency, UNICEF, the International Fund for the
Advancement of Women, the International Fund Against Torture, the U.N.
Environmental Program, and on and on.
That may be wise policy. My suggestion would be that perhaps, as such
policy, it should be debated and included in an authorization bill
which would originate in the committee of the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina, the committee he chairs. Should he wish to do that
in such an authorization bill, he ought to, rather than try to attach
it onto this appropriations bill. But he is, of course free, as any
Senator is, to bring up anything he wants.
I just want to make sure we know exactly what it is we are voting
for. I just wanted the Record to be clear so Senators, those who have
positions in favor of some of these independent agencies like the
International Fund Against Torture or the World Heritage Agency or the
International Fund for the Advancement of Women or UNICEF, or any of
those, probably many others I do not have off the top of my head, they
must know that, for whatever it is worth.
Mr. HELMS. Maybe the Senator would read my lips, as the statement
goes. Nothing in here kicks in unless the United Nations engages in,
during
[[Page S8768]]
the fiscal year, ``* * * any effort to develop, advocate, promote or
publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on United States
persons in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or any of its
specialized agencies.'' Nothing kicks in. I believe the Senator
understands that. I say, again, if he wants us to eliminate UNICEF, I
will be glad to do that. It would be a meaningless gesture, but----
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the suggestion of the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina to read his lips.
Mr. HELMS. North Carolina, I say to the Senator.
Mr. LEAHY. I know Presidential candidates said that, and said they
would not raise taxes: ``Read my lips, there will be no new taxes.''
But because I know what happened when we followed that, I would rather
just read the words. And the words said, ``None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available under this act may be made
available to pay any voluntary contribution of the United States to the
United Nations or any of its specialized agencies,'' which include the
ones I have mentioned, if the United Nations borrows funds from any
international financial institution.
If the U.N. borrows money to make its payments from these
international institutions because the U.S. and others are in arrears
in their dues, then we are not allowed to give money to the World
Heritage Agency, the International Fund for the Advancement of Women,
the International Fund Against Torture, the U.N. Environment Program,
UNICEF, and Lord knows how many others. That is all I am saying. I am
not reading anybody's lips. I am just reading the words of the
amendment.
Mr. HELMS. The Senator is not reading all of it. This amendment will
not, of course, kick in unless there is some effort for the United
Nations to tax American citizens. That is all it is. I think it says
that.
Furthermore, I think, if the Senator will recall, the United Nations
tried to get borrowing authority from these lending institutions last
year, I believe it was, to pay some debts, and that was denied. So that
is a moot question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] is
recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. As has
been mentioned, I believe last year, the U.N. Secretary did state he
intended to pursue the option of imposing a tax on airline tickets,
currency exchanges, postage, energy sources and other programs in order
to raise additional funds for the United Nations. Mr. Boutros Boutros-
Ghali stated: ``It will be the role of the Secretary General''--and he,
of course, is the Secretary General--``to bring this project to
successful fruition in the 21st century.''
So we have an unequivocal statement of policy coming from the leader
of the U.N. that it is the intention of the United Nations' leadership
to pass a tax on, I guess, citizens of the world, but especially
citizens of the United States.
I join with my colleague from North Carolina and congratulate him on
bringing forward this amendment to make it unalterably clear that we
object strongly, and will resist in all ways available to us, the
concept of the United Nations assessing a tax on any American citizen.
The United Nations is an organization which has been mismanaged in the
most grotesque ways. The chart that the Senator from North Carolina
sets forth is only one example of the massive patronage and financial
disarray that represents the United Nations.
Just a few examples, so folks listening to this do not have to take
me at my word. The average United Nations salary for a mid-level
accountant is $84,500. The average salary for comparable non-United
Nations individual would be $41,000, or half of it.
The average U.N. computer analyst, that individual receives
approximately $111,000. That is compared with a counterpart in the
private sector in the New York area of $56,000.
The Assistant Secretary General receives $190,000--this is the
Assistant Secretary General--receives $190,000. That is compared with
the pay for the mayor of New York City, which is $130,000.
On top of all this, U.N. salaries are not subject to tax. What an
irony. You have this Secretary General of the United Nations saying
that he wants to assess a tax against American citizens when he doesn't
pay taxes, nor do the people who work for him, even though they are
stationed in the United States. In fact, U.S. citizens working at the
U.N. don't pay taxes. It is, to say the minimum, ironic.
We now, finally, have an inspector general to take a look at the
money that is being spent there. In the first report, the inspector
general found about $16 million was wasted. The inspector general only
got to look at a small slice of the U.N. activity.
We, for example, know that they put turnstiles in at the U.N. for
security reasons, I guess, but they had to pull the turnstiles out
because the staff of the U.N. protested because the turnstiles were
keeping track of when they came and went. It became very clear fairly
quickly that most of them were coming very late and leaving very early,
so they took the turnstiles out.
The U.N. for years has been a dumping ground of political patronage
for people around the world. If you have a nation where the president
or leadership of that nation wants to pay off a few political cronies,
they send them to the U.N., put them on a U.N. salary and the United
States taxpayer picks up 25 percent of that cost.
Yes, we have significant arrearages at the U.N., but we are, as a
matter of policy, at least in the Congress, stating that we are not
going to pay down those arrearages until the U.N. has gotten its house
in order, and it does not have its house in order.
We addressed a letter, myself and Senator Dole and Senator Helms, to
the General Accounting Office to determine just what rights the
Secretary General has to assess taxes against American citizens. We
asked specifically:
Are there any circumstances under which the U.N. revenue-
raising proposal could be binding on U.S. citizens without an
act of Congress?
What is the process for approval of revenue-raising
proposals by the U.N., including the role of the Security
Council and the General Assembly?
Are there any circumstances under which a U.N. tax proposal
could be adopted over U.S. opposition?
What is the status under U.S. domestic law and relevant
international law of each of the U.N. revenue-raising
proposals?
What funding sources are available to the U.N. organization
apart from contributions from member states?
What authority does the U.N. have for each of these
sources?
We have not yet gotten an answer to this request, but that answer is,
of course, critical to the determination of just what rights American
citizens have given away in chartering the U.N. relative to the issue
of taxation and the policies of the U.N. and the ability of the U.N. to
assess a tax.
Thus, I think it is important that we adopt this amendment so that we
make it clear that as a matter of law, the Congress has spoken, that it
does not intend to tolerate attacks against American citizens assessed
by the U.N.
Therefore, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the Senator
from North Carolina. I appreciate his leadership on this matter, and I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Burma debate be set aside while I offer an amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. The amendment of the Senator from Alaska is one that I
believe is going to be accepted, and I therefore ask unanimous consent
that the pending amendment be laid aside so Senator Murkowski can send
his amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wonder, once we have disposed of the
amendment of the Senator from Alaska, if we could have some idea of the
order of business.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Vermont, as soon as Senator
Murkowski's amendment is disposed of, we could set votes on the Smith
amendment and the Helms amendment.
I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to two rollcall votes, the
Helms amendment and the Smith
[[Page S8769]]
amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order, at the conclusion
of the disposition of the Murkowski amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5029
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding implementation
of United States-Japan Insurance Agreement)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], for himself, Mr.
D'Amato, and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 5029.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 198, between lines 17 an 18, insert the following:
sense of congress regarding the united states-Japan insurance agreement
(a) Findings.--the Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States and Japan share a long and important
bilateral relationship which serves as an anchor of peace and
stability in the Asia Pacific region, an alliance which was
reaffirmed at the recent summit meeting between President
Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto in Tokyo.
(2) The Japanese economy has experienced difficulty over
the past few years, demonstrating that it is no longer
possible for Japan, the world's second largest economy, to
use exports as the sole engine of economic growth, but that
the Government of Japan must promote deregulation of its
domestic economy in order to increase economic growth.
(3) Japan is the second largest insurance market in the
world and the largest life insurance market in the world.
(4) The share of foreign insurance in Japan is less than 3
percent, and large Japanese life and non-life insurers
dominate the market.
(5) The Government of Japan has had as its stated policy
for several years the deregulation and liberalization of the
Japan insurance market, and has developed and adopted a new
insurance business law as a means of achieving this publicly
stated objective of liberalization and deregulation.
(6) The Governments of Japan and the United States
concluded in October of 1994 the United States-Japan
Insurance Agreement, following more than one and one-half
years of negotiations, in which Agreement the Government of
Japan reiterated its intent to deregulate and liberalize its
market.
(7) The Government of Japan in June of 1995 undertook
additional obligations to provide greater foreign access and
liberalization to its market through its schedule of
insurance obligations during the financial services
negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
(8) The United States insurance industry is the most
competitive in the world, operates successfully throughout
the world, and thus could be expected to achieve higher
levels of market access and profitability under a more open,
deregulated and liberalized Japanese market.
(9) Despite more than one and one-half years since the
conclusion of the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement,
despite more than one year since Japan undertook new
commitments under the WTO, despite the entry into force on
April 1, 1996, of the new Insurance Business Law, the
Japanese market remains closed and highly regulated and thus
continues to deny fair and open treatment for foreign
insurers, including competitive United States insurers.
(10) The non-implementation of the United States-Japan
Insurance Agreement is a matter of grave importance of the
United States Government.
(11) Dozens of meetings between the United States Trade
Representative and the Ministry of Finance have taken place
during the past year.
(12) President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Secretary
Rubin, Secretary Christopher, Secretary Kantor, Ambassador
Barshefsky have all indicated to their counterparts in the
Government of Japan the importance of this matter to the
United States.
(13) The United States Senate has written repeatedly to the
Minister of finance and the Ambassador of Japan.
(14) Despite all of these efforts and indications of
importance, the Ministry of finance has failed to implement
the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement.
(15) Several deadlines have already passed for resolution
of this issue with the latest deadline set for July 31, 1996.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the Ministry of Finance of the Government of Japan
should immediately and without further delay completely and
fully comply with all provisions of the United States-Japan
Insurance Agreement, including most especially those which
require the Ministry of Finance to deregulate and liberalize
the primary sectors of the Japanese market, and those which
insure that the current position of foreign insurers in Japan
will not be jeopardized until primary sector deregulation has
been achieved, and a three-year period has elapsed; and
(2) failing satisfactory resolution of this matter on or
before July 31, 1996, the United States Government should use
any and all resources at its disposal to bring about full and
complete compliance with the Agreement.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to the
foreign operations appropriation bill. I think it is timely that we
have an expression of the Congress toward Japan's failure to follow the
letter and the spirit of the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement.
For many years, Madam President, I have been an advocate of
encouraging the Japanese to open up their markets, as we have opened
our markets to Japanese firms, to ensure that we maintain our
competitiveness by having an open-market concept.
It has been very difficult over the years for United States firms to
do business in Japan. One of our more successful U.S. international
markets has been through the competitiveness of the U.S. insurance
industry. The industry has proven its ability to compete in numerous
countries throughout the world, providing a degree of service and
coverage at competitive costs. We seem to have a significant exception
in our ability to do business in Japan.
It is interesting to note that Japan has the second largest insurance
market in the world. However, most of Japan's market is shared by
Japanese companies. Foreign and U.S. competition share less than 3
percent of the Japanese market. In comparison, Japanese and other
foreign insurers have over 10 percent of the United States insurance
market.
What we are talking about, Madam President, is addressing equity. The
United States and Japan negotiated over a year and a half, beginning
October 19, 1994, and the United States-Japan Insurance Agreement was
signed in June 1995. Japan committed to a further liberalization under
the World Trade Organization. In April 1996 Japan passed new insurance
business laws.
Despite these commitments over this extended period of time, no
progress has been made. The United States and Japan spent several
months negotiating over the meaning of an agreement that they signed 19
months ago. This is traditional in many of the business customs in
Japan. You negotiate extensively, you negotiate with a committee, and
time marches on. As the Japanese have observed, time and time again,
many such firms simply give up, go off and do something else, because
they simply cannot afford to spend that much time trying to open the
market.
During this timeframe, Japan threatened to relax rules in the one
small sector where foreign companies have some market share, yet they
continue to protect the larger sectors where Japanese firms are
dominant.
It is the same old story. We have an agreement, then that yields no
results. We have seen it in the construction business analogy, and
there has been this reference, ``Well, to come into the Japanese market
you really need to have experience. You need experience to get a
license.'' How do you get a license? You have to have experience. You
cannot get a license without experience. It is like ping-pong, going
back and forth. You cannot have one without the other. You soon come to
the conclusion you cannot get there from here.
We signed 74 agreements with Japan. I have the utmost respect for the
Japanese negotiators, the Japanese tradition and the Japanese way of
business. I have had an extensive career in business with the Japanese.
They are hard negotiators. They are fair negotiators. They will take
advantage of a person who is not on his toes. But, by the same token,
with regard to access into their markets, for the most part, they
simply stonewall us. This is not something that we have seen much
relief on over the years. The agreements have not translated into
market access. Our trade deficit with Japan was about $60 billion in
1995--the largest with any country.
The insurance issue is important. It has been raised at the highest
level, with our President meeting with Prime Minister Hashimoto. The
last time the meeting was in Japan. We have had dozens of meetings
between the USTR
[[Page S8770]]
and the Ministry of Finance. I have raised it time and time again in
many forums, business discussions, and in interactions with the
Japanese side. Last month, I sent a letter, with the chairman of the
Finance Committee, Chairman Roth and Chairman D'Amato to President
Clinton to express our legitimate concerns about the lack of action. We
noted that ``Congress has a responsibility to ensure that trade
agreements are honored, and to act when they are not.'' It is time to
act, because they are not.
Madam President, this amendment and the resolution I am offering
today would call on the Minister of Finance to fully comply with the
provisions of the agreement. This is the voice of the Congress
speaking. If the matter is not resolved by July 31 of this year, that
would be the deadline that would direct the U.S. Government to use all
of its resources to bring about compliance.
I also call on my colleagues and Chairman Roth to join me in pushing
for the resolution, to hold hearings in the Senate Finance Committee if
the issue is not resolved on the Japanese side. I urge my colleagues to
support this resolution. I understand the floor managers will accept
this.
Mr. ROTH. Madam President, the Senate's unanimous vote in favor of
the Murkowski amendment demonstrates once again the serious concerns
Members of this body have about the lack of action by the Japanese
Ministry of Finance to implement its obligations under the United
States-Japan Insurance Agreement.
The Senate fully expects Japan to live up to its agreements. The
Ministry of Finance's behavior on this issue is particularly
unfortunate because it undermines the credibility of the Government of
Japan.
Congress has a responsibility to ensure trade agreements are honored,
and to act when they are not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
5029 offered by the Senator from Alaska.
The amendment (No. 5029) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, under a unanimous-consent agreement
we entered into, we are about to have two rollcall votes. But Senator
Leahy and I have cleared five amendments. We would like to dispose of
those first, which means we will have completed action on 15
amendments. There will be approximately 20 remaining. But the good news
is only about four of those are going to require rollcall votes.
Amendments Nos. 5030 through 5034
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send five amendments to the desk,
en bloc, 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
amendment numbered 5030 through 5034.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. 5030
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the conflict in
Chechnya)
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE CONFLICT IN CHECHNYA
Sec. . (a) Congressional Declaration.--The Congress
declares that the continuation of the conflict in Chechnya,
the continued killing of innocent civilians, and the ongoing
violation of human rights in that region are unacceptable.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress hereby--
(1) condemns Russia's infringement of the cease-fire
agreements in Chechnya;
(2) calls upon the Government of the Russian Federation to
bring an immediate halt to offensive military actions in
Chechnya and requests President Yeltsin to honor his decree
of June 25, 1996 concerning the withdrawal of Russian armed
forces from Chechnya;
(3) encourages the two warring parties to resume
negotiations without delay so as to find a peaceful political
solution to the Chechen problem; and
(4) supports the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe and its representatives in Chechnya in its efforts
to mediate in Chechnya.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, my purpose in offering this amendment is
to focus the attention of the United States once again on the terrible
tragedy unfolding in Russia. The text of the amendment parallels the
language of a resolution approved last week by the European Parliament
condemning the violence in Chechnya and supports the sentiment of
legislation passed by the Russian State Duma this week criticizing the
actions of the Russian Government.
As I speak, Russian war planes and heavy artillery continue to
devastate civilian areas of Chechnya. While the attention of the
Western news media has faded, the violence in Chechnya continues to
worsen. Based upon pictures of the devastation, I accept estimates of
up to 30,000 civilian casualties--primarily innocent men, women and
children.
Madam President, by breaking the cease fire in Chechnya, the Russian
military has unleashed yet another terrible cycle of abuses on both
sides of this conflict. A recent Russian news report tells of Russian
soldiers cutting the ears off of dead Chechens as trophies. In an
unprovoked act of hatred Russian troops in Chechnya this week opened
fire on three cars of civilians, killing most and finishing off the
survivors with bayonets. The Russian people have endured acts of
terrorism possibly inspired by the fighting in Chechnya, and the
Russian military suffered its own tragedy with the discovery of several
tortured and executed prisoners of war.
Compounding the tragedy in Chechnya is the fact that President
Clinton has failed to voice criticism or complaint of the Russian
actions. He even found occasion at a United States-Russian summit in
May to speak in defense of the Russian actions by comparing them
favorably to our own Civil War. I understand Russia's interest in
maintaining its territorial integrity, but the current action is
inexcusable.
If President Clinton will not speak for the Nation's conscience then
we in the Senate must. The Russian actions in Chechnya must stop. The
massacre of innocents is unacceptable and will negatively affect
relations between our countries.
Madam President, the military action in Chechnya has been conducted--
and continues--with a degree of brutality and reckless regard for
civilian life that no democratic government can sustain. It is my great
concern that, in addition to the killing of countless innocent victims,
this violence in Chechnya is bringing to an end the short journey
Russia has made toward the development of a democratic government.
amendment no. 5031
(Purpose: To allocate funds for demining operations in Afghanistan)
On page 125, line 2, before the period insert the
following: ``: Provided, That, of the funds appropriated
under this heading, $2,000,000 shall be available only for
demining operations in Afghanistan''.
____
amendment no. 5032
(Purpose: To require the United Nations vote report to include
information about American foreign assistance)
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
requirement for disclosure of foreign aid in report of secretary of
state
Sec. . (a) Foreign Aid Reporting Requirement.--In
addition to the voting practices of a foreign country, the
report required to be submitted to Congress under section
406(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2414a), shall include a side-
by-side comparison of individual countries' overall support
for the United States at the United Nations and the amount of
United States assistance provided to such country in that
fiscal year.
(b) United States Assistance.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``United States assistance'' has the
meaning given the term in section 481(e)(4) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291(e)(4)).
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, current law requires the Secretary of
State to publish an annual report that tells the Congress how often
foreign countries voted with the United States at the Union Nations.
Unfortunately, this report leaves out a key statistic, and that is how
much foreign aid we are giving to the countries that vote against us.
This amendment requires the Secretary to include the amount of
foreign
[[Page S8771]]
aid that these nations receive and a side-by-side comparison of voting
records and foreign aid appropriations.
This amendment will assemble this important information in a
convenient and easily accessed resource. It will assist those in the
Congress and in the public in their assessments of the merits of
American foreign aid programs.
I believe that there is good reason to scrutinize these two
statistics. The American taxpayers work hard for the money that flows
to foreign countries through the Treasury. The American taxpayers are
told that foreign aid encourages support for American aims and
diplomatic initiatives.
Analysis of the United Nations votes of foreign aid recipients,
however, reveals the fallacy of this rationale; 64 percent of American
foreign aid recipients voted against the United States more often than
not in the 1995 session of the United Nations.
India, for example, received $156 million in foreign aid in 1996.
India, however, declined to support American diplomatic initiatives as
a gesture of appreciation and voted against the United States in 83
percent of its U.N. votes. India thus offered less support to the
United States than Iran and Cuba.
The ten countries that voted against the United States most often at
the United Nations will nonetheless collect $212 million from the
American taxpayers.
The United Nations sent troops to Haiti to restore President Aristede
and also sent $123 million in aid. Nonetheless, Mr. President, Haiti
voted against the United States 60 percent of the time.
President Clinton engineered a $40 billion bailout for Mexico, and,
yet, Mexico voted against us in 58 percent of its U.N. votes.
Mr. President, the countries that voted against us more than 50
percent of the time at the United Nations collected about $3.1 billion
in American foreign aid in 1996. The American taxpayers worked millions
of hours in fields and factories to earn that money.
Clearly, however, gratitude is not a popular response to a generous
flow of funds from the pockets of the American people.
The American people deserve to know the effects of large streams of
foreign aid. The taxpayers deserve to know that a limited number of
foreign aid recipients did, in fact, thank the American people with
their votes. Israel voted with us 97 percent of the time. Latvia voted
with us 87 percent of the time. Hungary voted with us 83 percent of the
time. This amendment will collect these statistics in a single and
easily accessed source.
This amendment thus adds an informative sunshine provision to the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act. An informed Congress is best able
to make intelligent decisions. I thus believe that it is important to
bring this information together in a single report and hope that my
colleagues will join me in support of this amendment.
amendment no. 5033
(Purpose: To require a GAO study and report on the grants provided to
foreign governments, foreign entities, and international organizations
by United States agencies)
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following
new section:
report on domestic federal agencies furnishing united states assistance
Sec. . (a) In General.--Not later than June 1, 1997, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall study and
report to the Congress on all assistance furnished directly
or indirectly to foreign countries, foreign entities, and
international organizations by domestic Federal agencies and
Federal agencies.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Domestic federal agency.--The term ``domestic Federal
agency'' means a Federal agency the primary mission of which
is to carry out functions other than foreign affairs,
defense, or national security functions.
(2) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the
meaning given the term in section 551(1) of title 5, United
States Code.
(3) International organization.--The term ``international
organization'' has the meaning given the term in section 1 of
the International Organization Immunities Act (22 U.S.C.
288).
(4) United states assistance.--The term ``United States
assistance'' has the meaning given the term in section
481(e)(4) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2291(e)(4)).
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, many people in this Chamber believe
that all the foreign aid that we send to other countries is included in
this one spending bill. But this is not the case. I have discovered
that domestic agencies are also in the foreign aid business.
This amendment will require the General Accounting Office to complete
a report about grants to foreign entities by Federal Government
agencies. This study will be limited to domestic agencies--those not
engaged in foreign affairs or national security matters--and it will
track the amount of aid to foreign countries that flows outside the
Foreign Operations budget.
I took to the floor of this Chamber last week to illustrate the
stream of taxpayer dollars that flows to foreign nations through
domestic Federal agencies.
I pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency spent $28
million on 106 grants to foreign countries from 1993 to 1995.
I revealed that the EPA sent $20,000 to the Chinese Ministry of
Public Security. The Ministry of Public Security is a national police
force that issued shoot-to-kill orders during the pro-democracy rallies
in 1989.
The purpose of this EPA grant to the Ministry of Public Security was
fire extinguisher maintenance. I hope that my colleagues will agree
that a nation that developed nuclear technologies--which it sells to
countries like Iran and Pakistan--can maintain fire extinguishers
without the American taxpayers' money.
The EPA spent another $20,000 to look into methane emissions from
livestock in Nepal. The EPA claims that the Congress is crippling its
ability to protect our environment, and, yet, their budget can manage
$2,000 for fringe benefits and $5,000 for travel expenses for
researchers in Nepal.
The EPA sent $65,000 to Poland to survey local environmental issues.
The taxpayers will be delighted to learn about the uses of their hard-
earned tax dollars: $16,000 for fringe benefits, $18,000 for travel
expenses, and $6,000 for equipment costs.
The EPA sent $300,000 to Bolivia, one of the largest drug-producers
in South America, for an emissions inventory. The EPA approved $23,000
in travel expenses and, while these scientists are on their
international trips, EPA provided a generous $200 per diem.
This chart illustrates that these are not isolated case: $319,000 to
Mexico for a satellite landscape survey; $300,000 grant to Estonia to
collect, analyze and disseminate environmental information for
effective environmental decisionmaking; $50,000 to Sweden for a
database and global distribution of a newsletter about energy-efficient
lighting; $134,000 to Mongolia and $194,000 to Botswana to study
greenhouse gasses.
If this Congress intends to balance the Federal budget--and I believe
that many of us do--we most certainly need to take a good look at the
wasteful spending that benefits foreign countries.
EPA complains that cuts in its budget will devastate their efforts to
protect the environment. The EPA argues that it cuts money for
inspection and enforcement actions. However, the EPA still found $28
million for foreign countries.
I was elected to the Senate in 1992 on a pledge to bring common sense
to Washington.
Clearly, Mr. President, these grants defy common sense.
The Congress debates and passes a foreign aid budget--we sent over
$12 billion abroad last year--that reflects our decisions about foreign
aid. It is not the business of domestic agencies--agencies that
complain that their budgets are too small--to send the taxpayers' money
to foreign countries.
These grants are representative of a culture of waste that pervades
the Federal Government. In fact, not only does the EPA send millions of
taxpayers' dollars abroad every year, but oversight of these grants is
nonexistent.
The EPA Inspector General reported last year that these grant
officers essentially funnel the money overseas and close their eyes.
Domestic agencies need to attend to domestic matters.
Their budgets are separate from the foreign aid budget for good
reason. Their responsibilities are in the United States, not in China
or Mexico.
This amendment calls for a GAO report to examine the depth and scope
of these problems.
I believe that this is the least that the taxpayers deserve and thus
hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment.
[[Page S8772]]
Amendment No. 5034
(Purpose: To clarify the use of certain development funds for Africa)
On page 105, beginning on line 12, strike ``amount'' and
all that follows through ``should'' on line 13 and insert
``amount made available to carry out chapter 10 of part I of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to the
Development Fund for Africa) shall''.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, first, let me thank my colleague from
Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent job he
has done in structuring a good and fair bill in the face of severe
constraints. While it is not everything that any of us would like, he
has been very attentive to the concerns of his colleagues and I
appreciate his efforts.
I rise in support of the amendment offered by the senior Senator from
Illinois. The Senator has been an effective, outspoken, and persistent
defender of assistance to Africa throughout his congressional career.
He, together with the senior Senator from Kansas, have been true
friends of Africa, wielding a stick when appropriate and assuring that
the United States follows through with humanitarian and development
assistance where appropriate. Africa has made dramatic strides over the
last two decades, thanks in some part to the constant efforts of these
two Senators. They will be sorely missed both in this body and around
the world.
The amendment before us is a modest one. It does not change the
funding levels laid out in the bill. It does not earmark a specific
dollar amount, but ties funding for the Development Fund for Africa to
the overall level of funding in the development assistance account.
This amendment does not stake out a bigger pot for Africa, it merely
ensures that Africa will receive the funding that both this committee
and the administration agree it should receive.
I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the chairman to
restructure the foreign aid accounts and reduce earmarks. What this
amendment seeks to do, however, is to ensure that aid to Africa, the
world's most needy continent, is sustained. Traditionally, funding for
Africa has fallen victim to sudden needs elsewhere in the world. This
amendment would protect Africa from suffering a disproportionate share
of future cuts.
Our assistance to Africa is designed to help various nations achieve
important goals over the long term. These goals cannot be reached if
our financial support fluctuates wildly. The problems we are combating
on the continent are entrenched, and will only be rectified if we have
staying power. Unlike other areas of the world, we cannot hope to
achieve our goals in Africa simply by doing short demonstration
projects and assuming that the example will spark comprehensive reform.
Reform in Africa takes significantly more work. But the rewards should
be significantly greater as well. It has tremendous potential for
political evolution, economic development, and growth of markets. In
addition to reducing human suffering and bringing greater stability to
a large area of the world, success in Africa will prove to be very
important to us and our economy in the future.
I appreciate the efforts that the chairman already has made to make
assistance to Africa a priority. But I hope that he will agree to
accept this amendment as a modest way to ensure this does not change.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman
McConnell and Senator Leahy for working to include the amendment I
offered along with Senators Kassebaum, Feingold, Moseley-Braun,
Jeffords, Feinstein, and Mikulski on the Development Fund for Africa.
We all share the conviction that aid to Africa should be a priority.
Africa has two unfortunate distinctions--it is both the poorest and
the most ignored continent. That is why, 8 years ago, Congress
established the Development Fund for Africa to ensure aid for sub-
Saharan Africa was given a high priority within our foreign aid budget.
Unfortunately, aid to Africa was considered expendable when resources
were sought for other purposes. We realized, however, that the United
States has an interest and a duty to help out the impoverished in that
region, and that the Development Fund for Africa was a good way to help
meet our commitment. It would be senseless now, with the measure of
hope that we see in Africa, even while it still suffers from poverty,
pollution, and the scourge of AIDS, to abandon our support for sub-
Saharan Africa.
Our amendment does not add new money. It maintains the language,
worked out by Senators McConnell and Leahy, that protects aid to sub-
Saharan Africa from being cut disproportionately in a development
assistance account that is getting smaller. I commend the chairman and
ranking member of the subcommittee for their support for Africa, and I
think this amendment can strengthen their efforts to see that aid to
this region is maintained as an important priority. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to see that aid to sub-Saharan Africa is
protected in the conference report.
Mr. McCONNELL. These amendments include a Helms amendment on
Chechnya, a Brown amendment on demining Afghanistan, two Faircloth
amendments on foreign aid and domestic agencies, and a Simon amendment
on Africa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 5030 through 5034) were 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. Madam President, I have a request from Senator McCain
to speak for 5 minutes before the vote that we are about to have.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am certainly not going to preclude the
Senator from doing that. I think we are going to be in a position soon
where we are going to have a series of votes.
I ask unanimous consent that prior to each of the votes we will be
having on this legislation there be 4 minutes equally divided under the
control of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and myself, so that
the proponent and opponent would have 2 minutes prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, my assumption is that the Senator
from Arizona is on the way as we speak. I ask unanimous consent that
the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, be allowed to speak for 5
minutes before the votes that we are about to enter into.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Might I inquire of the Senator from Kentucky, would the
order of business following the two votes that are going to be taken
soon be that when those votes are completed, Senator Hatfield and I
will be recognized to offer an amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is my understanding that the
Senator from North Dakota is willing to enter into a time agreement of
40 minutes on that amendment, and it would be my intention to lay aside
the pending amendments and go to the Dorgan amendment as soon as we
dispose of these rollcall votes.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, and I are
willing to enter into a time agreement. We simply ask that we be
allotted 40 minutes to present our amendment. So any time agreement
that is consistent with that requirement is satisfactory with us. We
would be prepared to offer the amendment following the second vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am told on this side that an hour
total time would be acceptable on this side. So I gather that would
give my friend from North Dakota and his supporters 40 minutes and the
opponents 20 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. That would be satisfactory.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I, therefore, ask unanimous consent
that when we turn to the Dorgan amendment, the time be limited to 1
hour, with 40 minutes to be controlled by the Senator from North Dakota
and his supporters and the balance of the time by the opponents of the
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Kentucky further request that there
be
[[Page S8773]]
no second-degree amendments to the amendment by the Senator from North
Dakota?
Mr. McCONNELL. And that there be no second-degree amendments to the
Dorgan amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, since the Senator from Arizona,
Senator McCain, had asked for 5 minutes before the vote, now Senator
Smith understandably would like to have 5 minutes as well. So I would
like to announce to my colleagues that it looks as if we are at least
10 minutes away from a vote on the Smith amendment and a vote on the
Helms amendment.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith be allowed to
proceed for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Kentucky add to that so that people
can know that we are going to vote at 2:30? The Senator from Arizona is
here now.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would object to any further efforts to delay the
votes. So I think Senators can be assured that 10 minutes from now,
there will be two votes: a vote on the Smith amendment, and a vote on
the Helms amendment. Both Senator Smith and Senator McCain have 5
minutes each. The manager of the bill cares not who goes first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the question now occurs on the amendment
No. 5028 offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thought the unanimous-consent
agreement allowed the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and the
Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, to proceed for 5 minutes
each, I gather, in relation to the Smith amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 5027
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I hope that we are not going to make this
amendment something that it is not in the debate here in the closing
moments.
This amendment is very simple. It simply strikes $1.5 million out of
the bill, saves the money, which is, in essence, $1.5 million in
foreign aid to the country of Vietnam. Vietnam is a Communist country.
It has nothing to do with diplomatic relations. It has nothing to do
with any of the other issues--normalization, or other issues that we
have had some differences here on in the past.
This is a question, and I think it is the ultimate question, of $1.5
million going to North Vietnam, or the country of Vietnam. These are
dollars that allegedly, by opposition--by the discussion from the
Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston--are going to be used by the
American Bar Association to somehow make Vietnam suddenly a system that
is going to be falling in line with our legal system here in America,
or at least that is the ultimate goal.
The point is the American Bar Association donates tens of millions of
dollars to candidates, mostly candidates on the other side of the
aisle. They have plenty of money. There is no need to take $1.5 million
of the taxpayers' money to do this. The country of Vietnam, I say to my
colleague, is $150 million in arrears.
The law which is in this very bill says very clearly under bilateral
economic assistance that this is precluded; this is forbidden. Now they
have made an exception in this provision, in this bill. That is what is
wrong.
So the issue here is, Do you believe that North Vietnam, a country
that denies basic human rights to its people, should get $1.5 million
that the American Bar Association can certainly spend on their own, if
they want to promote a legal system in Vietnam that may or may not be
patterned after the United States of America?
We have no guarantee this is going to happen. There are no guarantees
whatsoever that if the American taxpayers spend $1.5 million that
somehow, miraculously, Vietnam is going to adopt our legal system. It
is absolutely outrageous. It is the most outrageous argument I have
heard since I have been in the Senate. It is crazy.
Not only that, if we are really concerned about having a legal system
in Vietnam that is like America, what about a legal system that would
protect these poor unfortunate souls who are imprisoned all over
Vietnam with no charges against them, who have been held in reeducation
camps for years and years with no charges--just held there, no system,
no trial, no nothing? That is what this is issue is about.
If the people in the trade council want to trade with Vietnam, we
have had that debate. Senator McCain and I have had that debate. This
is not that debate. That is fine. The issue is not that. The issue is
whether or not, in the interest of producing a legal system that
somehow is going to reflect ourselves, our own legal system, that we
should spend $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money.
This is a new foreign aid program. It is the camel's nose under the
tent. It is $1.5 million of foreign aid to a Communist country that
owes us $150 million in debts. They have not paid them. They have not
tried to pay them. There has been no restructuring, or anything else,
any attempt whatsoever.
That is the issue. It is not the responsibility of the American
taxpayers to pay for this just because there is a group --if you look
at the corporations, these are big corporations, not to mention the
ABA. There is plenty of private money. We have the world banks and
other international organizations that have helped Vietnam. We donate
to those. We provide dollars. We give dollars to these international
organizations. Why now have another $1.5 million of taxpayers' dollars
in new foreign aid go to this country? It is wrong. It is absolutely
wrong.
No matter how you feel about the issue of trade with Vietnam, that is
not the issue here. The issue is, do we give Vietnam another $1.5
million in foreign aid in the hopes that somehow they are miraculously
going to adopt our legal system and have trial by jury and have this
nice legal system patterned after the United States of America? It is
absolute nonsense. Maybe they will or maybe they will not, but they
will not use $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money to do that. How about
reforming Vietnam's election laws, to become a democracy? This is not
what this is all about.
The argument about the nations of Eastern Europe who have come out
from under the yoke of communism, that is the point. They came out from
under the yoke of communism, and when they did, then we could help them
as we have done. This is not the case here.
What is next? Maybe we ought to help the North Koreans. Maybe we
ought to give them a couple of million bucks, and maybe they will--
maybe they will--pattern their legal system after ours. How about Cuba?
Maybe they will pattern it if we give them a couple million, too.
This is absolutely wrong. I am absolutely shocked that there would be
a lot of opposition to an amendment to take $1.5 million out of this
foreign operations bill for something like this.
So, in conclusion, the point is very simple. If you want to give $1.5
million of new foreign aid to North Vietnam in the hopes that they are
going to pattern their legal system after the United States of America,
vote against the amendment.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, thank you very much.
It is important that the legal system in Vietnam be more aligned to
Western business and Western investment and Western practices and
democracy. I believe that the Vietnamese have agreed in principle to
repay their debt. In fact,
[[Page S8774]]
they have assumed the debt that South Vietnam had incurred in some
respects.
I am also informed by the administration that the only major dispute
is over about $8 million of the $150 million debt. I think it is
important. The language of the bill says that the committee urges AID
to provide up to $1.5 million for the Vietnam legal reform initiative,
and then it goes on to say that the committee is aware of the
particular expertise of the American Bar Association, the International
Law Institute, and the United States-Vietnam Trade Council, which
strongly recommends that AID consider implementing the initiative
through these organizations. So it is my understanding that the money
would not go directly to the Vietnamese Government but to these
organizations.
I believe that the distinguished managers of the bill can help me
out. I believe that is the reason the language was included as it was,
so that there would be development of trade relations and also
assistance to provide the necessary framework for commercial
transactions for foreign investment and trade.
So, as you know, there are many American corporations doing business
over in Vietnam today. I am told that some are doing very well. Some
are not doing very well. One of the reasons some are not doing very
well is because of the lack of a legal framework. I am convinced that
it may be in our national interest to see that happen.
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, is there any time remaining at all?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes on each side under the
previous unanimous consent.
Mr. SMITH. I just would like to respond briefly to the last point
that Senator McCain made.
In the committee bill in question here, the language that my
amendment strikes is under the heading ``Title II,'' which is
``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Agency for International Development,
Development Assistance.'' This is to furnish assistance to any country.
Now, here we have a situation where this is under economic
assistance, so it is going directly to Vietnam because that is exactly
what the language says. The actual committee language reads: ``Funds
appropriated under this heading shall be made available to assist
Vietnam,'' et cetera. That is what the language says. So that is what
is happening. Maybe the intent is different. I do not question
anybody's intent here, but the language says that this money is to
assist Vietnam. And that is what I object to.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished manager of the bill in the hopes that maybe he might
clear this up. Could I ask the Senator from Kentucky if he can help us
out. I am not trying to get him into a problem here.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend I am not sure I can.
Mr. McCAIN. On page 27 of the report accompanying the bill that I am
looking at----
Mr. McCONNELL. I really think Senator Johnston, who is the author,
ought to respond.
Mr. McCAIN. The way I read it, it says the committee ``strongly
recommends that AID consider implementing the initiative through those
organizations.'' I ask the Senator from Louisiana, is that the correct
interpretation of the language in the bill?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arizona that is
precisely what is contemplated. That is precisely what the report
language says.
The bill language says this would aid Vietnam, and, indeed, it does
by aiding Vietnam to set up a legal system. But as the report language
says, the committee is aware of the particular expertise of the
American Bar Association, et cetera, and recommends that AID consider
implementing the initiative through these organizations. So it
explicitly calls for implementing the help to Vietnam's legal system
through the American Bar Association, the International bar----
Mr. McCAIN. International Law Institute and the trade council.
Mr. JOHNSTON. International Law Institute, yes, and the trade
council. So this does not go to Vietnam. It goes to these organizations
which would help Vietnam set up the rule of law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question now is on agreeing to amendment No. 5027 offered by the
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
Lautenberg] is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Coats
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Domenici
Dorgan
Faircloth
Feingold
Frahm
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Nickles
Pressler
Reid
Santorum
Smith
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--56
Akaka
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Specter
Stevens
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 5027) was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5028
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on amendment No. 5028 offered by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Helms].
There are 4 minutes equally divided. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate is not in order.
Mr. FORD. There must be respect for the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will not proceed without order in the
Chamber.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding there are 2 minutes on each
side in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the 2 minutes to the majority leader.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will just be very brief before we go to
the vote on this amendment sponsored by the Senator from North Carolina
and the Senator from New Hampshire.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. The amendment will
shut down any possible U.N. ambitions to tax American citizens. The
amendment, as I understand it, would prohibit U.S. contributions to the
U.N. or U.N. agencies if they develop, advocate or publicize U.N. tax
proposals. I think it is a necessary and important precaution to
include this in the Foreign Operations bill. I urge the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield the 2 minutes under my control to
the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. I thank my friend from Vermont.
Madam President, I wish to speak to the amendment regarding the
United Nations offered by our distinguished colleague and my successor
as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms.
[[Page S8775]]
I have the utmost respect for Senator Helms, but I have deep concerns
about the amendment he proposes.
As one who participated in the San Francisco conference which drew up
the U.N. charter, I have tried over the years since both to support and
improve the organization any way I could.
And the United Nations, I would argue, has accumulated a solid record
of achievement. It has not lived up to all of its potential, but for
every example that critics give of the U.N.'s failures, there are
numerous countervailing examples of success--in brokering peaceful
settlements to violent conflicts worldwide; in halting the
proliferation of nuclear weapons; in protecting the international
environment; and in immunizing the world's children and preventing the
spread of disease.
The U.N.'s record is lofty, not only for its thought, but it has made
the world a truly better place. The United Nations has enabled the
United States to avoid unilateral responsibility for costly and
entangling activities in regions of critical importance, even as it
yields to the United States a position of tremendous authority.
U.S. leadership at the United Nations is threatened by our inability
to pay our dues and meet our obligations. Amendments such as these only
endanger our position further. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. LEAHY. Is there time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this amendment says that if the United
Nations could borrow money from an international lending organization,
as defined in here, we would not be able to make our contributions to
independent agencies. That means we could not make our contributions to
UNICEF, to the various environmental organizations, the protection of
women, or other such organizations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the Senator's side.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. The Senator
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, what the distinguished Senator from
Vermont has said is not applicable at all. He knows--anybody who has
read the amendment knows that nothing happens until the United Nations
begins to talk about taxing the American people. That is clear in the
amendment. It does not need any obfuscation from the Senator from
Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 5028 offered by the Senator from
North Carolina, [Mr. Helms]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] and
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]
YEAS--70
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brown
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Pryor
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--28
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Bryan
Daschle
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Hatfield
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Leahy
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Specter
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Breaux
Lautenberg
The amendment (No. 5028) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there are several more amendments that
have been cleared on both sides that Senator Leahy and I would like to
dispose of at this point before we go to the amendment to be laid down
by the Senator from North Dakota, which is under a time agreement.
Amendments Nos. 5039 Thru 5044, En Bloc
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send some amendments to the desk and
ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes
amendments numbered 5039 through 5044, 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. 5039
(Purpose: To require certain reports on the situation in Burma)
On page 188, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following
new section:
REPORTS ON THE SITUATION IN BURMA
Sec. ____. (a) Labor Practices.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall
submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
on--
(1) Burma's compliance with international labor standards
including, but not limited to, the use of forced labor, slave
labor, and involuntary prison labor by the junta;
(2) the degree to which foreign investment in Burma
contributes to violations of fundamental worker rights;
(3) labor practices in support of Burma's foreign tourist
industry; and
(4) efforts by the United States to end violations of
fundamental labor rights in Burma.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section, 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.
(c) Funding.--(1) There are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, for expenses necessary
to carry out the provisions of this section, $30,000 to the
Department of Labor.
(2) The amount appropriated by this Act under the heading
``Department of State, international narcotics control''
shall be reduced by $30,000.
amendment no. 5040
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . HAITI.
The Government of Haiti shall be eligible to purchase
defense articles and services under the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), for the civilian-led Haitian
National Police and Coast Guard, except as otherwise stated
in law; Provided, That the authority provided by this section
shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of
the Committees on Appropriations.
____
amendment no. 5041
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that the United States
should take steps to improve economic relations between the United
States and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe)
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . TRADE RELATIONS WITH EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania,
Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Bulgaria, are
important to the long-term stability and economic success of
a future Europe freed from the shackles of communism.
(c) The Central and Eastern European countries,
particularly Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, are in
the midst of dramatic reforms to transform their centrally
planned economies into free market economies and to join the
Western community.
(3) It is in the long-term interest of the United States to
encourage and assist the transformation of Central and
Eastern Europe into a free market economy, which is the solid
foundation of democracy, and will contribute to regional
stability and greatly increased opportunities for commerce
with the United States.
(4) Trade with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
accounts for less than one percent of total United States
trade.
(5) The presence of a market with more than 140,000,000
people, with a growing appetite for consumer goods and
services and
[[Page S8776]]
badly in need of modern technology and management, should be
an important market for United States exports and
investments.
(6) The United States has concluded agreements granting
most-favored-nation status to most of the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the President should take steps to promote more open,
fair, and free trade between the United States and the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland,
Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia,
Estonia, Romania, and Slovenia, including--
(1) developing closer commercial contacts;
(2) the mutual elimination of tariff and nontariff
discriminatory barriers in trade with these countries;
(3) exploring the possibility of framework agreements that
would lead to a free trade agreement;
(4) negotiating bilateral investment treaties;
(5) stimulating increased United States exports and
investments to the region;
(6) obtaining further liberalization of investment
regulations and protection against nationalization in these
foreign countries; and
(7) establishing fair and expeditious dispute settlement
procedures.
____
amendment no. 5042
(Purpose: To permit certain claims against foreign states to be heard
in United States courts where no extradition treaty with the state
existed at the time the claim arose and where no other adequate and
available remedies)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. __. LIMITATION ON FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
(a) In General.--Section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(7) in which money damages are sought against a foreign
state for personal injury or death caused by an act of
torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage
taking, or the provision of material support or resources (as
defined in section 2339A of title 18) for such an act, if--
``(A) such act or provision of material support was engaged
in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state
while acting within the scope of his or her office,
employment, or agency;
``(B) the foreign state against whom the claim was
brought--
``(i) was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism under
section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50
U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) or section 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) at the time the act
occurred or was later so designated as a result of such act;
or
``(ii) had no treaty of extradition with the United States
at the time the act occurred and no adequate and available
remedies exist either in such state or in the place in which
the act occurred;
``(C) the claimant has afforded the foreign state a
reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in accordance
with accepted international rules of arbitration; and
``(D) the claimant or victim was a national of the United
States (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act) when the act upon which the
claim is based occurred.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to actions brought in United States
courts on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
____
amendment no. 5043
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Congress regarding Croatia)
At the appropriate place, add the following new section:
SECTION . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CROATIA.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(2) Croatia has politically and financially contributed to
the NATO peacekeeping operations in Bosnia;
(2) The economic stability and security of Croatia is
important to the stability of South Central Europe; and
(3) Croatia is in the process of joining the Partnership
for Peace.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of Congress that:
(1) Croatia should be recognized and commended for its
contributions to NATO and the various peacekeeping efforts in
Bosnia;
(2) the United States should support the active
participation of Croatia in activities appropriate for
qualifying for NATO membership, provided Croatia continues to
adhere fully to the Dayton Peace Accords and continues to
make progress toward establishing democratic institutions, a
free market, and the rule of law.
____
amendment no. 5044
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Congress that Romania is making
significant progress toward admission to NATO)
At the appropriate place, add the following new section:
SECTION . ROMANIA'S PROGRESS TOWARD NATO MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Romania emerged from years of brutal Communist
dictatorship in 1989 and approved a new Constitution and
elected a Parliament by 1991, laying the foundation for a
modern parliamentary democracy charged with guaranteeing
fundamental human rights, freedom of expression, and respect
for private property;
(2) Local elections, parliamentary elections, and
presidential elections have been held in Romania, with 1996
marking the second nationwide presidential elections under
the new Constitution;
(3) Romania was the first former Eastern bloc country to
join NATO's Partnership for Peace program and has hosted
Partnership for Peace military exercises on its soil;
(4) Romania is the second largest country in terms of size
and population in Central Europe and as such is strategically
significant;
(5) Romania formally applied for NATO membership in April
of 1996 and has begun an individualized dialogue with NATO on
its membership application; and
(6) Romania has contributed to the peace and reconstruction
efforts in Bosnia by participating in the Implementation
Force (IFOR).
(b) Sense of the Congress.--Therefore, it is the sense of
the Congress that:
(1) Romania is making significant progress toward
establishing democratic institutions, a free market economy,
civilian control of the armed forces and the rule of law;
(2) Romania is making important progress toward meeting the
criteria for accession into NATO;
(3) Romania deserves commendation for its clear desire to
stand with the West in NATO, as evidenced by its early entry
into the Partnership for Peace, its formal application for
NATO membership, and its participation in IFOR;
(4) Romania should be evaluated for membership in the NATO
Participation Act's transition assistance program at the
earliest opportunity; and
(5) The United States should work closely with Romania and
other countries working toward NATO membership to ensure that
every opportunity is provided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 5039 through 5044), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. If I may give a status report on behalf of Senator
Leahy and myself.
We have disposed of 24 amendments. There are two that have been laid
aside that will be dealt with later. Senator Leahy and I are aware of
only 12 left, of which 3 may need rollcalls. One of the three has a
time agreement, and that is, of course, the amendment of the Senator
from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, which I believe is triggered under a
previous unanimous-consent agreement at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Under the previous
agreement, the Senator from North Dakota is to be recognized to offer
an amendment. One hour of debate has been established, with 40 minutes
under the control of the proponents and 20 minutes for the opponents.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, there are to be no
second-degree amendments. The Senator from Massachusetts had, prior to
that point, asked to offer a second-degree amendment that is acceptable
to myself and Senator Hatfield.
I ask that the unanimous-consent agreement be modified to allow the
Senator from Massachusetts to offer a second-degree amendment when
appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the unanimous consent request provides
that I now offer the amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Hatfield
and others and that we have 40 minutes on our side in the 1-hour time
agreement. The Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Texas have
asked if they could intervene with an amendment that they intend to
offer that will take 5 minutes on each side. I have no objection, by
unanimous consent, to allowing them to go 5 minutes each. I understand
their amendment would be agreed to. Following the 10 minutes, I ask
that we then have the 1 hour, 40 minutes allotted to us to offer the
amendment on foreign arms sales.
So, Mr. President, I make that unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
[[Page S8777]]
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend, I
believe it is a freestanding bill, not an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
____________________