[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.

                          ____________________