[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 111 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8781-S8820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAM
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from
North Dakota is recognized to offer his amendment. The only second-
degree amendment that would be in order is an amendment offered by the
Senator from Massachusetts. There is to be 1 hour of debate, with 40
minutes under the control of the proponents and 20 minutes under the
control of the opponents.
Mr. DORGAN. Would the Chair please inform me when I have used 20
minutes? I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Amendment No. 5045
(Purpose: To provide congressional review of and clear standards for
the eligibility of foreign governments to be considered for United
States military assistance and arms transfers)
Mr. DORGAN. I am offering an amendment on behalf of myself and
Senator Hatfield with cosponsors, including Senators Bumpers, Jeffords,
Leahy, Harkin, Pryor, Moseley-Braun, Feingold, Pell, Inouye, Wyden,
Kennedy, Simon, Lautenberg and Feinstein.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Pell,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Simon, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment
numbered 5045.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new title:
TITLE --CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF ARMS TRANSFERS ELIGIBILITY ACT OF
1996
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Congressional Review of
Arms Transfers Eligibility Act of 1996''.
SEC. 02. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to provide congressional
review of the eligibility of foreign governments to be
considered for United States military assistance and arms
transfers, and to establish clear standards for such
eligibility including adherence to democratic principles,
protection of human rights, nonaggression, and participation
in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
SEC. 03. ELIGIBILITY FOR UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE
OR ARMS TRANSFERS.
(a) Prohibition; Waiver.--United States military assistance
or arms transfers may not be provided to a foreign government
during a fiscal year unless the President determines and
certifies to the Congress for that fiscal year that--
(1) such government meets the criteria contained in section
____04;
(2) it is in the national security interest of the United
States to provide military assistance and arms transfers to
such government, and the Congress enacts a law approving such
determination; or
(3) an emergency exists under which it is vital to the
interest of the United States to provide military assistance
or arms transfers to such government.
(b) Determination With Respect To Emergency Situations.--
The President shall submit to the Congress at the earliest
possible date reports containing determinations with respect
to emergencies under subsection (a)(3). Each such report
shall contain a description of--
(1) the nature of the emergency;
(2) the type of military assistance and arms transfers
provided to the foreign government; and
(3) the cost to the United States of such assistance and
arms transfers.
SEC. 04. CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATION.
The criteria referred to in section ____03(a)(1) are as
follows:
(1) Promotes democracy.--Such government--
(A) was chosen by and permits free and fair elections;
(B) promotes civilian control of the military and security
forces and has civilian institutions controlling the policy,
operation, and spending of all law enforcement and security
institutions, as well as the armed forces;
(C) promotes the rule of law, equality before the law, and
respect for individual and minority rights, including freedom
to speak, publish, associate, and organize; and
(D) promotes the strengthening of political, legislative,
and civil institutions of democracy, as well as autonomous
institutions
[[Page S8782]]
to monitor the conduct of public officials and to combat
corruption.
(2) Respects human rights.--Such government--
(A) does not engage in gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights, as described in section 502B(d)(1)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
(B) vigorously investigates, disciplines, and prosecutes
those responsible for gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights;
(C) permits access on a regular basis to political
prisoners by international humanitarian organizations such as
the International Committee of the Red Cross;
(D) promotes the independence of the judiciary and other
official bodies that oversee the protection of human rights;
and
(E) does not impede the free functioning of and access of
domestic and international human rights organizations or, in
situations of conflict or famine, of humanitarian
organizations.
(3) Not engaged in certain acts of armed aggression.--Such
government is not currently engaged in acts of armed
aggression in violation of international law.
(4) Full participation in united nations register of
conventional arms.--Such government is fully participating in
the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
SEC. 05. CERTIFICATION AND DECERTIFICATION.
(a) Notification to Congress.--In the case of a
determination by the President under section ____03(a) (1) or
(2) with respect to a foreign government, the President shall
submit to the Congress the initial certification in
conjunction with the submission of the annual request for
enactment of authorizations and appropriations for foreign
assistance programs for a fiscal year and shall, where
appropriate, submit additional or amended certifications at
any time thereafter in the fiscal year.
(b) Decertification.--If a foreign government ceases to
meet the criteria contained in section ____04, the President
shall submit a decertification of the government to the
Congress, whereupon any prior certification under section
____03(a)(1) shall cease to be effective.
SEC. 06. UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND ARMS
TRANSFERS DEFINED.
For purposes of this title, the terms ``United States
military assistance'' and ``arms transfers'' mean--
(1) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to military assistance),
including the transfer of excess defense articles under
section 516 of that Act;
(2) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to international military
education and training);
(4) the transfer of defense articles, defense services, or
design and construction services under the Arms Export
Control Act (except any transfer or other assistance under
section 23 of such Act), including defense articles and
defense services licensed or approved for export under
section 38 of that Act.
SEC. 07. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this title shall
take effect October 1, 1997.
(b) Any initial certification made under section ____03
shall be transmitted to the Congress with the President's
budget submission for fiscal year 1998 under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, 12 years ago in August, on an almost
perfect, beautiful summer morning, I was in the jungle and mountains
between Nicaragua and Honduras and with two other Members of Congress
visiting, as the first officials to do so, a contra camp. I will never
forget the morning that we walked through this jungle. We had traveled
3\1/2\ hours by car, then back up in riverbeds, and finally walked. And
I walked into a jungle clearing somewhere between Nicaragua and
Honduras.
As I began to see a group of people in that clearing, I saw a very
young boy wearing a blue uniform. I found out later that it was a
military uniform purchased from Sears. Yes, our Sears. All of those
soldiers were outfitted in uniforms from Sears. But it was not so much
his uniform that captured my attention. It was seeing a young boy who
appeared to be 10 or 11 years old carrying a machine gun. It turns out
that the machine gun was in that young boy's hands courtesy of the
United States as well.
Well, that conflict and that set of military arms transfers led to a
long debate. We debated for years about whether we should or should not
have sent arms to the contras. But it got me interested. I wondered, to
whom are we sending arms around the world? What kind of arms are we
sending? Who gets America's jet fighter planes? Who acquires American-
made tanks? Who acquires American guns and cluster bombs? And I
discovered that the United States of America is the largest arms
merchant in the world. In 1994, we delivered over $10 billion of the
$20 billion worth of arms spread all over this world, arms used for
defense and for killing, in some cases arms provided to both sides of
the same conflict by American arms merchants and by our Government.
Fifty two percent of the worldwide arms deliveries were from the
United States of America. We offer today an amendment called the code
of conduct amendment, a commonsense approach to address the issue of
the arms trade.
It is interesting and tragic, I think, that selling arms to some
parts of the world comes back to haunt us. American troops in Panama,
Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti lost their lives facing weapons made in this
country or weapons from technology this country furnished others.
Someone made a profit selling arms to someone that should not have
received the arms and American uniformed men and women then faced those
same weapons in a conflict.
U.S. arms are often turned against innocent civilians. The United
States has offered F-16 fighters to Indonesia's military regime despite
the fact that U.S. weapons have already been used in the occupation of
East Timor. Two hundred thousand civilians have been slaughtered there.
The definition in the dictionary of the word ``boomerang'' is ``an
act that backfires on its originator.'' That is what we find with
some--not all, some--of the foreign military arms sales, a boomerang,
an arms trade policy that ends up killing American soldiers, violating
human rights, and giving away American jobs.
We do not come to the floor of the Senate suggesting that we not
furnish arms anywhere in the world. Allies of ours that need arms to
defend themselves should receive those arms. Democracies around the
world that need arms to feel safe and secure should receive those arms.
The question we ask is, should there not be some minimum standard of
conduct that measures whether and when we send those arms?
We propose a commonsense approach in this legislation. And I should
add that this kind of legislation is being considered by our allies in
Europe and other places in the world, and we hope we will have a safer
world if others and ourselves will adopt this kind of code of conduct
with respect to arms transfers. Our commonsense approach is this.
First, to be eligible to receive American-made arms, we would expect
a government must be promoting democracy through fair and free
elections, civilian control of the military, rule of law, freedom of
speech and of the press.
Second, we would expect a country receiving our arms to respect human
rights. We would expect them not to commit gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights.
Third, we would expect that a country receiving our arms would
observe international borders and not be engaged in armed aggression
against its neighbors in violation of international law.
Fourth, we would expect countries receiving our armaments to
participate in the U.N. Conventional Arms Registry, which provides
transparency to the world arms market by listing major arms sales and
transfers.
We provide that a President may waive the criteria on an emergency
basis. I conceive that there are circumstances in which that might well
be necessary. We would provide for that waiver. We do not include arms
export credit arrangements under Section 23 of the Arms Export Control
Act, such as the Foreign Military Financing program.
What we are trying to do is think through the question, is there not
some basic standard by which we judge whether an arms transfer to some
other part of the world makes sense? Is it only profits? Do we only
care that someone can make some additional profits by taking an
incredibly sophisticated weapons machine, a jet fighter, for example,
and selling it anywhere in the world? Is it only profit or is there
some other measure that is important? Senator Hatfield and I and many
others believe there ought to be some measure, and it is called the
code of conduct.
It is interesting that the boomerang I mentioned is not just having
American-made weapons turned on American soldiers. It is also moving
American jobs elsewhere. Lockheed Martin secured a sale of F-16's to
Turkey in
[[Page S8783]]
exchange for the planes being built in Turkey. What that means, of
course, is, to the extent that sale would have made sense in the first
place and met the criteria, someone else has the economic advantage of
that sale.
But our major concern is not jobs. Our major concern is to promote
and create a safer world, and it is not a safer world when we send
American soldiers to deal with trouble in the world and they find
themselves facing the barrel of an American-made weapon provided to a
government that should not have received it in the first instance,
provided without any review, without any standard code that we develop
that says, ``Here are the conditions under which we will transfer these
arms shipments.''
Those who would oppose this might say we are trying to shut off arms
sales. That is simply not the case. There will remain arms sales. Arms
manufacturers in this country produce a sophisticated product, in most
cases the best in the world. Other countries often want those products
for their common defense. We understand and accept that there will be
arms transfers, but we believe it is time for this country to adopt a
code, a standard, by which we judge whether an arms transfer to this
dictator or that dictator or this country or that country makes sense
for this country's long-term well-being. The fact is that weapons have
been sold in circumstances where the sale has not been in the best
interests of United States, and that is why we offer this legislation.
Let me, Mr. President, reserve the remainder of the time, since I see
that my distinguished colleague Senator Hatfield is on the floor. Let
me say, before he begins, that Senator Hatfield has been at this longer
than others of us in the Senate. I deeply admire the work he has done
in the Senate and for this country, and I feel deeply honored to
participate with him in offering this amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask for 8 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the Senator 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 8
minutes.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think it is very obvious I have a
problem of laryngitis.
I thank my good friend, Senator Dorgan, for taking leadership on this
particular amendment. I feel strongly enough about it to be here to do
two things; one, to support the amendment, but the other is to
apologize to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr.
McConnell, for offering a rider to an appropriations bill, which I ask
everybody to refrain from doing. So I guess there is no virtue of
consistency in this particular environment we work in.
Let me associate myself with the eloquent statement made by Senator
Dorgan to explain this bill. I would only try to add perhaps one or two
perspectives.
First of all, I think we have to recognize that we are not locking
the President out of an action that he might have to take if he has a
problem in an emergency situation. In other words, the President would
have the power to make a waiver, a waiver of the criteria we have set
up in this amendment in case he feels that our national interest is at
stake and to make a waiver that is in the interest of our national need
and our national security. So it is flexible in that sense.
Let me pick up on Senator Dorgan's examples of how this expands the
vulnerability of our own troops when they are sent abroad for
peacekeeping activities after we have delivered arms. Let me take a
specific. From 1981 to 1991, $154 million of arms were delivered to
Somalia from the United States. Then when you begin to look at how that
stimulated the arms race and endangered our national security,
ultimately the total cost of arms to Somalia was $1.2 billion--25,800
United States troops were deployed, 23 were killed in action, 143 were
wounded. That is the kind of return we had on that one example, of
sending troops.
Also, today we are building more F-16's in Ankara, Turkey, than we
are in Fort Worth, TX. It does not help American workers, as some may
say, and we, indeed, need to help employment in this country. We find
that 88,000 jobs could be created in the United States in offsetting
some of this extraordinary subsidy of arms. In other words, we do not
lose jobs by cutting down the export of arms. We are creating them in
other sectors of our economy, where there is great need.
Mr. President, I was reared in a generation where among our required
reading in high school was a book called ``Merchants of Death.'' It was
a story of how the Krupp Works and other manufacturers of arms in
Central Europe sent their arms out to both sides. In fact, they were
sometimes guilty of stimulating conflict in order to sell their arms.
We were reared in a manner of saying that is immoral; surely our
Nation would never be guilty of such a crime against humanity. Yet I
have to say, since the Soviet Union has become unraveled, we are now
unquestionably the No. 1 merchants of death in this world by our export
of arms. We not only export them as a market, we go around promoting
it. We go around ballyhooing the arms that we have, the arms that are
exhibited in the Paris Air Show and many international conferences that
supposedly are for some international benefit. It is an arms peddling
activity. We even let our Embassies be instructed to facilitate arms
transfers as part of their duty in the country in which they are
representing the United States. I cannot understand how people around
this country will tolerate much further this kind of export that we
have engaged in.
It started with, perhaps, Charles de Gaulle. That is the way he
funded his military budget, was to sell arms abroad. Unfortunately,
back in 1962, that was the policy of the United States of America. That
became the policy in 1962, when the President decided in order to help
fund some of our own military budgets, we would export arms. This idea
of funding a domestic need by exporting our arms is, to me, immoral and
is counterproductive.
So I am very hopeful we will support this particular amendment. It is
flexible. It takes into consideration emergencies unforeseen. And it
does not lock the President out. In fact, all it does is to say the
Congress has some joint responsibility in that kind of policy that was
recommended by the President's review commission on arms, that the
Congress should have some kind of role in assessing this from time to
time.
We have not had a debate on this floor for 20 years on this subject,
a comprehensive debate. I am not sure in 1 hour we are going to have it
today. But at least it is a small step, I think, in raising this issue
so the American public will understand our failure to uphold our
responsibilities in governing some of this export of death.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts after I make a couple of observations about the comments
of the Senator from Oregon.
In 1993, the United States supplied 75 percent of all weapons sold to
the Third World, the countries who can least afford to be buying arms--
75 percent of the weapons that went to the Third World came from the
United States. According to our State Department and their own human
rights report, more than three-quarters of our arms sales in 1993 went
to undemocratic governments. In other words, three-quarters of the arms
we send around the world goes to governments listed by the State
Department as authoritarian governments with serious human rights
abuses. The people who live in those areas where these American weapons
are coming in have every right to wonder about America. This
legislation allows us to develop some standards that move in the right
direction.
Mr. President, let me yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Amendment No. 5046 to Amendment No. 5045
(Purpose: To promote the establishment of a permanent multilateral
regime to govern the transfer of conventional arms)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk
[[Page S8784]]
for immediate consideration. I assume that will not come up in time----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until the time is used or yielded back, the
second-degree would not be in order.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we had a unanimous-consent agreement a few
moments ago, allowing for the second-degree to be reported at such time
as we deemed appropriate. I ask unanimous consent at this time I be
permitted to submit my second-degree amendment, under the 5 minutes I
have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an
amendment numbered 5046 to amendment No. 5045.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the amendment, add the following new section:
SEC. . INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS REGIME.
(a) International Efforts.--The President shall continue
and expand efforts through the United Nations and other
international forums, such as The Wassernaar Arrangement on
Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and
Technologies, to curb worldwide arms transfers, particularly
to nations that do not meet the criteria establish a section
04, with a goal of establishing a permanent multilateral
regime to govern the transfer of conventional arms.
(b) Report.--The President shall submit an annual report to
the Congress describing efforts he has undertaken to gain
international acceptance of the principles incorporated in
section 04, and evaluating the progress made toward
establishing a multilateral regime to control the transfer of
conventional arms. This report shall be submitted in
conjunction with the submission of the annual request for
authorizations and appropriations for foreign assistance
programs for a fiscal year.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I explain my amendment I thank the
distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, for his
extraordinary, long involvement in an effort to help educate and lead
the U.S. Senate to a more rational approach to this question of
proliferation, nuclear and conventional. When he leaves the Senate
there will be an enormous gap with respect to that leadership and his
voice, always clear even with laryngitis. I also welcome Senator
Dorgan, whose history is not as long, but whose commitment is equally
as passionate. I look forward to working with him in the future.
Their amendment embodies a fundamental shift in the way the United
States needs to deal with the transfer of conventional weapons to the
rest of the world. Like so many other aspects of our national security
today, arms sales and other military assistance needs still to be
adjusted to the realities of the post-cold-war world. The central theme
of our foreign policy has changed from containment of communism to
expansion of democracy. So we no longer need to send these massive
amounts of weaponry to our surrogates around the world in an arms race
against communism.
Instead, we need to evaluate the effect that arms transfers have on
regional stability, on the promotion of democracy, and on the
protection of human rights. The legislation in front of us seeks to do
that. It makes democracy, human rights, and nonaggression the central
criteria for decisions on arms transfers. But equally important, it
forces the U.S. Congress to take responsibility for approving such
transfers to countries that do not meet the criteria set forth in the
legislation.
Under the present system, the President just makes a determination of
which countries will receive what weapons. In theory, the Congress
could act to disapprove a specific sale, but in practice we all know it
is very difficult and extremely rare that happens. We ought to be more
involved as a Congress in making these decisions. This legislation
gives us a prominent role that is appropriate to the money that we
spend on behalf of the taxpayers and to the interests we represent in
the world. There still will be cases when it serves the interests of
our country to transfer arms to countries that do not meet the criteria
of this legislation. But in those cases, the Congress will have to
agree with the President that such a transfer bolsters United States
national security needs.
These changes in this legislation will focus congressional attention
on the question of what really serves our interests and will, I hope,
lead to a reduction in the extraordinarily dangerous worldwide
proliferation of conventional weapons.
My amendment seeks to simply add one new section to this language. It
instructs the President to expand the international efforts to curb
worldwide arms sales and to work toward establishing a multilateral
regime to govern the transfer of conventional weapons.
The amendment also requires the President to report annually to the
Congress on steps that he is taking to gain international acceptance of
the principles incorporated in this legislation and on the progress he
is making toward establishing a permanent multilateral structure for
controlling arms shipments.
I support the goals of this legislation, Mr. President. We ought to
stop selling arms to nations, but the fact is that it is not just
enough for us to set that example. The French, the Germans, Chinese,
the Japanese, a host of other countries will rush in to fill the vacuum
that we leave. What we need to do is create an international effort
with our leadership that will provide the underlying force for this
amendment and to guarantee that we do reduce arms proliferation in the
world and slow the conventional arms race of which we are currently the
leader.
I thank the distinguished Senators from Oregon and North Dakota for
their leadership, and I believe that my amendment is acceptable. If so,
we can act on it immediately.
Mr. President, I believe there is no further debate. If the Chair is
ready, we can act on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The question is on agreeing to
the Kerry amendment No. 5046.
The amendment (No. 5046) was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield back whatever time remains to
the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from
California, Senator Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I commend
both the Senator from Oregon and the distinguished Senator from North
Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan, and the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Simon, who is present on the floor, for their longtime support of this
code of conduct.
I am a newcomer to this. Let me tell you what I feel. I am one who
votes for defense appropriations. I want to see this Nation strong. I
believe there is a deterrent value in having the best equipment, the
best training and the most advanced technology for our armed forces. I
believe that there is a price for freedom, and it is eternal vigilance.
But I did not come to the U.S. Senate to make the entire world less
safe in the future than it was when I arrived. This code of conduct is
an enormous addition to a major public policy debate and there are
human dimensions to these decisions.
Every time I look into the big round eyes of my little 3-year-old
granddaughter, Eileen, it is almost impossible not to ask, ``Am I
contributing to the kind of world in which I want my granddaughter to
live? Is the world a safer place because of what I do in this body?''
And I think about what that world will be like when she is 13 and 23
and 33 years old. That is not so long. Technology moves so fast,
though. What kind of weapons will there be? Who will have them? How
will they be used? Will they be used against her in some way?
I am sorry to say these are not just the ruminations of an
overprotective grandmother. These are very real and very frightening
questions the people of America must ask themselves, because our
country remains the biggest, the boldest and the largest arms purveyor
in the world today.
Which brings us to the question that is before us: What should U.S.
policy be regarding the sale of weapons?
I truly believe we need to take more time in deciding to whom we sell
weapons, not only as a matter of conscience, but as a matter of
national security.
[[Page S8785]]
What happens to the deterrent value of our military strength when we
export technologies and weapons systems that are equal to that which
our own troops use?
For example:
Kuwait had the new M1-A2 main battle tank before it was even
delivered to U.S. forces. Saudi Arabia now has these tanks as well.
We have exported Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the
United Arab Emirates.
F-16 and F-15 fighter planes, almost exactly what our Air Force is
currently flying, have been exported to Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan,
Singapore, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Turkey and South Korea, as has been stated, are building F-16
fighters under coproduction agreements with the United States. In fact,
there are more people, as Senator Hatfield said, building these planes
in Turkey than there are in the United States.
The upgrades of these F-16's will not even be performed by the United
States. They will be done by Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
One of the main reasons the United States overwhelmed Iraq's military
in the Gulf War was because our equipment was more technologically
advanced. What will be the result the next time we go to war and our
troops look across the battlefield at the same tank they are sitting
in?
U.S. weapons have already been used against the United States
overseas.
During the eighties, we sent Somalia 4,800 M-16 rifles, 84 106-
millimeter recoilless rifles, 24 machine guns, 75 81-millimeter mortars
and landmines. Guess what the ``technicals" of Somali warlord Mohammed
Farah Aideed used to ambush and kill 30 Americans soldiers? Our own
weapons.
Iran has deployed the American Hawk anti-aircraft missiles in the
Straits of Hormuz, which were exported to the Shah decades ago before
the revolution.
Three-hundred U.S. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles provided to Afghani
rebels are unaccounted for and are reportedly being sold on the black
market.
Although we don't know the cause, wouldn't it be tragically ironic if
the downing of TWA Flight 800 was because of a Stinger missile obtained
on the black market?
Libya and North Korea may have acquired U.S. Stinger missiles through
this very same black market.
How will these weapons be used? How stable are the regions to which
U.S. weapons and technology are being transferred? Did you know that
Turkey used U.S. COBRA helicopters to destroy small Kurdish villages?
Today, Iran is using the same F-14 fighters we exported to the Shah.
Allies change and governments fall. What happens if the Government of
Saudi Arabia falls into Islamic fundamentalist hands?
What happens if tensions between Pakistan and India reach the boiling
point? We are today escalating an arms race between these two
countries.
Since the Reagan administration, arms have been treated more as items
for international commerce than as tools to advance our national
security. I believe this is dangerous and ultimately self-defeating.
The President, any President, is confronted with strong incentives to
sell arms abroad, to bolster allies whose security is in our interest,
to encourage diplomatic and economic cooperation. I don't believe it is
realistic to think that in the face of these pressures, any American
President alone is able to unilaterally change course and substantially
limit arms sales without strong congressional support and even
initiation. That is what we are considering today, initiating a code of
conduct.
So it is for these reasons that I believe the code of conduct on arms
transfers will help to bring some increased transparency and added
consideration to the whole arms sales process. The code of conduct
requires the President to develop a list of countries to which our
Government may export weapons systems. Their criteria, outlined by the
Dorgan/Hatfield amendment, is very basic, reasonable and flexible.
In instances where a country may not qualify, the President has the
ability to ask the Congress for a national security waiver, or he may
enact an emergency waiver on his own so that nation may receive U.S.
arms. In this way, the President maintains the flexibility he needs to
deter aggressors and conduct foreign policy.
The United States continues to be the unquestioned leader in weapons
technology. However, the United States currently exports 52 percent of
all global arms sales, making us the leader in this dubious category as
well. If we continue to export advanced and often sophisticated best
weapons systems to volatile areas, we put our own troops and our
national security at risk maybe not today, but what about next year and
the next decade?
I am not saying that the United States should export no arms, but we
must have a rational arms sales policy that first and foremost protects
U.S. national security, and second does not gratuitously exacerbate a
global arms race. I am very afraid that if we continue to export the
numbers and kinds of weapons systems and technologies we are currently,
we will be less secure in the future, not more.
It is time for the United States to show a different kind of
leadership, one encouraging restraint and transparency in the sale of
arms around the world. By enacting the Code of Conduct, the United
States will take an important step forward in a global effort to make
the world a safer place for all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 6 minutes have expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Illinois, Senator Simon.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first I want to thank Senator Hatfield and
Senator Dorgan for their leadership on this.
I am rounding out 22 years on Capitol Hill. I am a slow learner, Mr.
President, but I have learned two things, among others. One is, do not
get too cozy with dictators. Eighty-five percent of our weapons sent
abroad are sent to nations the State Department identifies as human
rights abusers. I think we ought to be careful. Second, I have learned
that weapons we send abroad may be used against us. Senator Feinstein
mentioned Somalia. We could be mentioning Panama, Haiti, Iraq, and
other nations.
Back--I do not know--2 or 3 years ago I was in Angola with Senator
Feingold and Senator Reid and visited the Swedish Red Cross place where
they were fitting artificial limbs for children and adults. I saw the
huge numbers of people in Angola being fitted for those limbs in part
because of American mines, in part because of American mines purchased
with American funds. We are today, as has been pointed out, the No. 1
arms merchant in the world. And 56 percent of the arms sold abroad, are
sold by the United States.
While we are the No. 1 arms merchant, do you know where we are in
foreign economic assistance to other countries, compared to the other
Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand and Japan? We are
dead last. One-sixth of 1 percent of our national income goes to help
the poor beyond our borders. Norway is above 1.2 percent, and the other
nations in between. And when you contrast what we do with weapons and
what we do with economic assistance, it is kind of interesting.
From July 11 to 18, the National Basketball Association signed
contracts totaling $927 million for free agents. Do you know what we
are doing in providing development assistance for all of Africa, the
poorest nation, poorest continent today, when you except Egypt? We are
spending a total of $628 million, less than we spent in 1 week for free
agents for the National Basketball Association.
We need some sense of perspective. And for us to spend this amount of
money on development assistance for poor countries, and then eagerly
get every buck we can get so we can sell arms, and we do not care
whether they are dictators or not dictators, that just does not make
sense. Without this particular amendment, frankly, we are not going to
do anything.
We have not turned down an arms request from another country since
the early 1980's when we turned down an AWAC's request from Saudi
Arabia.
This amendment would start to put us in the right direction. Again,
let me go to the bottom line. The No. 1 lesson
[[Page S8786]]
we ought to learn is, do not get too cozy with dictators. And, No. 2,
when you sell arms abroad to dictatorships, they may be used against
you. I think those two lessons are just fundamental. I hope that we get
a good vote on this amendment. I am realistic. Our friends in the
defense industry obviously want to kill this amendment. But the merits
are so overwhelming I hope we can pass it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inouye, I ask
unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Roxanne
Potosky, from his staff, during the consideration of H.R. 3540, the
foreign operations appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Rhode Island, Senator Pell.
Mr. PELL. I thank my Senate colleague.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have been deeply impressed over the years
by the strong and unwavering commitment to arms control shown by the
senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield. The Senator, who I am pleased
to call a friend, has numerous accomplishments in the field of arms
control to which he can point with pride.
As only one example, the current multinational moratorium on nuclear
testing is essentially the result of an initiative he took several
years ago as ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. As many
of my fellow Members are aware, a major effort is under way at the
Conference on Disarmament to bring to a successful close negotiations
on a comprehensive test ban to follow the international moratorium
brought about largely through the efforts of the Senator and others of
like mind.
I am pleased, too, that the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan,
has taken such a strong interest in this amendment, and I note with
pleasure that we are joined by a number of cosponsors in support of the
Arms Transfers Eligibility Act of 1996.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide congressional review of
the eligibility of foreign governments to be considered for United
States military assistance and arms transfers and to establish clear
standards for arms cooperation.
In effect, the major change proposed in the legislation is to
emphasize a requirement for congressional involvement and approval that
does not now exist. For 2 decades now, arms sales have been carried out
under procedures giving Congress the right to disapprove particular
sales if they appear inadvisable. Interestingly enough, in those 20
years, the Congress has come close on several occasions, but it has
never succeeded in getting a resolution of disapproval enacted. This
does not mean that Congress has not had a significant role. A large
number of sales have been modified or withheld by the executive branch
following congressional consultations. As ranking Democratic member and
former Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I can assure you
that the dialog on arms sales with succeeding administrations has been
detailed and in depth and that a number of risky, threatening or
destabilizing transfers have been averted.
I understand and appreciate the Senator from Oregon's deep concern
over continued arms races throughout the world and his desire to apply
serious limits and controls through the legislation now under
consideration. I can also understand why some in this body would prefer
a system under which the positive approval of Congress would be
required for transfers and assistance to a number of particular
counties, as contrasted with the present emphasis on the right of
disapproval.
While I very much support the underlying concept of this initiative,
as we explore this and other concepts further, we will want to take
care to ensure that the legislation is workable in real world
situations in its final form. For instance, certain questions are
raised by the prohibition on arms transfers and assistance to
governments other than democracies. The prohibition would appear to
exclude any monarchy, emirate or sheikdom. All of those nations in the
Persian Gulf that are scared to death of Iran and Iraq are kingdoms,
emirates or sheikdoms, and would thus be ineligible for transfers or
assistance, unless given a Presidential waiver and approved by
Congress.
We will also want to make sure that we do not create a situation in
which our decisions on transfers and some assistance are less balanced
and deliberate and more chaotic or haphazard. It is very important that
our defense industry and its thousands of American workers understand
that we want both to improve the standards under which transfers are
allowed, but that we will remain dedicated to our national security
interests and to the security of our friends and allies throughout the
world.
I am sure that these and other concerns can be met and strong,
positive legislation that earns solid, bipartisan support can emerge. I
would hope that is the case because much more needs to be done to put a
lid on the continuing, desperately costly arms competition throughout
the world.
For the moment, I think it is important that we affirm our belief
that democratic values, respect for human rights, avoidance of armed
conflict in violation of international law, and participation in the
U.N. register of conventional arms are all reasonable standards by
which we should judge whether we wish an arms relationship with another
country.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Congressional Review
of Arms Transfers Eligibility Act I support the amendment of the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, and the
Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan.
The world is awash in weapons, and there is not a political leader
from any of the world's major arms sellers who has not made speeches
about the evils of the arms trade.
Unfortunately, their rhetoric is not matched by action. In the United
States, the defense industry, backed by the Pentagon, is using every
trick in the trade to expand arms exports. The competition is fierce.
Our allies, the Russians, the Chinese, and many others, are doing the
same thing.
One would think that our experience in the Persian Gulf, where our
troops came under fire by Iraqi soldiers armed with weapons we gave to
Iraq during its war with Iran, or in Somalia where our troops were
killed by United States-made weapons, would give us pause.
The weapons we sell have repeatedly fallen into the wrong hands. If
they have not been used against us, they have often been used to commit
abuses against innocent people elsewhere. In Afghanistan today, United
States and Soviet weapons are being used to destroy what little is left
of that country. Liberia is suffering the same fate. Turkey has used
our weapons against Kurdish civilians. Indonesia, which faces no
external threat, uses our weapons to crush internal dissent. In Central
America, our weapons were used to commit unspeakable atrocities.
In the period since the end of the cold war and despite the collapse
of the Soviet Union, we have exported $83 billion worth of military
equipment, an increase of 140 percent. Most of this equipment has gone
to developing countries, including to undemocratic governments whose
armed forces have been among the worst abusers of human rights. U.S.
arms account for almost half of the weapons exported to those
countries.
The governments of many developing countries cannot even feed their
own people, and have no discernable enemy. Yet because of the political
clout of their armed forces, scarce funds that might be available for
education and health care and other social services are spent on
weapons.
One would hope that the days of selling arms to dictators would be
over. But this amendment would not prevent us from selling or giving
arms to a dictator, or even to a government that engages in gross
violations of human rights.
What this amendment would do, is define basic criteria for the
transfer of arms. Even if a government is not democratic, violates
human rights, and fails to participate in the U.N. registry of
conventional arms, it would still be eligible for U.S. military
equipment
[[Page S8787]]
under this amendment, if the Congress agrees.
I suspect if we asked the American people, the majority would say
this amendment does not go far enough.
What could possible be wrong with giving Congress a say over these
decisions? Haven't we had enough of our own weapons coming back to
haunt us?
Some have argued that this amendment would hurt the arms industry.
Baloney. It is a well-kept secret that the economic burdens of arms
transfers is costing taxpayers billions of dollars, including both
direct and indirect costs. By the end of this decade, more than half of
U.S. weapons sales will be paid for by American taxpayers.
The real issue is what is right for national security. That is the
primary criteria for arms transfers, and this amendment does not alter
that one bit.
Mr. President, it is long overdue for Congress to exercise some
meaningful review of decisions to sell arms to governments that do not
meet the most elementary standards of conduct. That is all this
amendment does. It should have been the law a long time ago.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I will cast my vote in favor of
the Hatfield amendment to prevent U.S. arms exports to countries that
are undemocratic or that violate human rights--unless, of course, our
national security interests override those concerns.
I am well aware of this legislation's shortcomings, and I do not cast
this vote lightly. But today I dissent from those who would continue to
expand America's arms exports.
We cannot stand by indefinitely as the current international arms
bazaar continues to grow. And we must in honesty acknowledge that
America's arms export policy has substantially contributed to the
problem. Fully half of all international weapons transfers in 1994 came
from the United States. A year later, in 1995, we more than doubled the
number of major conventional weapons that we sent abroad.
Arms transfers can serve important American interests and, indeed,
the majority of our shipments go to our NATO allies or to our major
strategic allies in other regions of the world. These important
transfers that serve our national interests would withstand closer
scrutiny by Congress.
But too often we have seen arms we transferred abroad used to repress
democracy and human rights rather than to support freedom. As chairman
of the Africa Subcommittee, I have seen teenagers in Liberia and Angola
who have learned to shoot before learning to read. I have seen
countries whose meager coffers have been drained to purchase weapons of
war while their people suffer an unconscionable standard of living.
Perhaps during the cold war, when we were locked in a global struggle
with communism, considerations such as these were necessarily
secondary. But no more.
We cannot be responsible for the misconduct of other governments. But
we can refuse to participate in arming repressive regimes or
strengthening the hand of those who grossly violate human rights. We
can encourage the forces of liberty abroad--in countries friend and foe
alike--by making clear that the price for American arms includes
progress on human rights and democratic government.
The liberal transfer of arms abroad puts our national interest at
risk. Our soldiers already have faced American weapons in combat. More
often, they have faced weapons supplied freely by other major arms
exporters. Yet, as long as we are the world's largest seller of arms,
we have little leverage to press other exporters to curtail transfers
we oppose.
Mr. President, I am under no illusion that this legislation will
become law. But for that very reason, I view this as a vote not just
about the specific language and procedures in this amendment but about
the overall direction of America's arms export policy. I believe that
policy, on the whole, is headed in the wrong direction. For that
reason, I am voting for a change.
The Dorgan-Hatfield Code of Conduct Amendment
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my colleagues the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and
the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield. This amendment would
significantly reform the criteria by which U.S. arms sales are
evaluated and enhance the roll of Congress in the process.
Under the Arms Export Control Act, arms sales are reviewed for their
compliance with several criteria, including whether a foreign
government respects human rights and avoids acts of international
aggression. Under this amendment, consideration would also be given to
whether a government adheres to democratic principles and whether it
participates in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. And
under this amendment, Congress would review and pass judgement on any
sale that the Administration has approved to a nation that did not meet
these requirements.
While Congress technically has the option to disapprove of any sale
that does not meet the criteria of the Arms Export Control Act, in
fact, it rarely exercises that right, and little attention was paid to
many controversial sales. At no time was a comprehensive review of
pending arms sales actively examined and approved by Congress. This
process is no longer acceptable, and the changes that this amendment
would bring to this process are welcome.
Yes, the Cold War is over, but we all realize that in many respects,
the world does not seem like a safer place, in part because American
arms are helping to fuel conflicts around the world that we then must
try to resolve. An obvious way to reduce the frequency of this
happening is to more closely scrutinize the sales being made to
countries who do not share our basic ideology and respect for human
rights. And the Congress should be given a greater role in this
process.
I urge my colleagues to support the Dorgan-Hatfield amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time remains for the opposition to this
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will not use that. I understand
Senator Domenici is lurking and may be available to offer his
amendment. And there is a little more debate on the Burma amendment.
And we may well stack three votes for around 6 o'clock, or thereabouts,
just to give an overview of where we are.
Let me say, Mr. President, with regard to the Dorgan amendment, the
Clinton administration is strongly opposed to the amendment on the
grounds that human rights and democracy are relevant criteria but not
the only criteria about which arms sales should be evaluated. Regional
security and stability may be overriding considerations in making a
decision to proceed with a transaction. Arms transfers serve key
foreign policy concerns and no single issue can be the only or primary
consideration.
Let me give you an example, Mr. President. The amendment could well
cut off the transfer of arms to key allies in the Middle East, for
example, or in central Europe. And so the question arises, is this
really in our best interest to make this kind of certification process
a precondition for the transfer of arms to key allies?
So, Mr. President, I hope that the amendment will not be approved.
Rarely do I find myself speaking on behalf of the Clinton
administration, but my suspicion is that any administration would be
opposed to this, that it would not be in our Nation's best interests.
I hope that the amendment will not be agreed to.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time, if
I can locate Senator Domenici. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is the Senator from Kentucky yielding back
his time? If so, I will take the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have 3 minutes remaining, is that
correct?
[[Page S8788]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suspect most administrations oppose this
kind of proposal because it does not allow them complete and
unrestrained freedom to do whatever they want wherever they want in the
world.
However, this proposal has an enormous amount of common sense. We are
not proposing something that would restrict critically needed arms
transfers to our allies in the Middle East, for example. We
specifically have a provision in this amendment that resolves that
issue. That cannot be argued.
I say this: With respect to arms transfers that have occurred in
other parts of the world over all of these years, this country ought to
start to rethink these issues. We sold Iraq cluster bombs for its war
against Iran, and only because of our superior air power did American
troops not face those same American-made cluster bombs in the Middle
East.
We sold Somalia 4,800 M-16 rifles, 8,400 6-millimeter recoilless
rifles; 24 machine guns, 75 81-millimeter mortars, landmines. Guess
what happened? Mr. Aideed would use them to kill 23 American soldiers.
This has really gone on long enough. There ought to be some basic
standard by which we measure whether it is in our country's interest to
continue shipping arms to every single dictator in the world, to
country after country, dictator after dictator, without regard to how
those countries behave or without regard to whether American men and
women wearing our uniforms may face those same weapons made by American
workers again at some point in the future.
We are not proposing anything radical. We are proposing something
that says arms transfers ought to be made in circumstances where they
are promoting democracy, where they are respecting human rights, not
killing innocent people, where they are observing international
borders, not attacking their neighbors, and where they participate in
the U.N. conventional arms registry. That makes a lot of common sense.
It is especially now time for this country to lead. It is time for
America to provide leadership on this issue. Frankly, this chart is
appalling. This country, the symbol of freedom, the torch of liberty
for the world, ought not be the world's arms merchant. No one ought to
be able to point to a chart and say the United States of America
provides 52 percent of all the arms transfers in the world. And a
substantial majority go to countries in which the State Department says
those countries are countries with authoritarian governments who are
abusing human rights of people in their own countries.
I do not ever want to be able to point to a chart like this in the
future. I want foreign arm sales and military sales and arms transfers
to be made when it represents good common sense, when it is in our
interest, when it is in the world's interest. If we can provide
leadership and the Europeans can provide leadership to develop a code
of conduct on when arms should be transferred, this will be a safer
world--yes, for the children that Senator Feinstein talked about, for
my children, your children and all children.
To keep doing what we are doing makes no good sense at all for anyone
in this world. It provides a more unstable and a more unsafe world.
This amendment, if adopted, would provide for a safer, more stable
world. I hope the Senate, when it votes this evening, will finally,
after some two long decades of having this discussed, take the first
step to say this is the right direction, this is a step toward a safer
world, this is a step toward American leadership to do what is right.
I yield the floor and I yield back the balance of my time. I ask for
the yeas and nays on our amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the Dorgan amendment be
temporarily laid aside to take up an amendment of Senator Domenici and
Senator D'Amato.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 5047
(Purpose: To restrict the availability of funds under the Act for
Mexico until drug kingpins are extradited or prosecuted)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in
behalf of myself, and Senators D'Amato, Hutchison, Feinstein,
Murkowski, Shelby, Helms, Hatch, Gramm of Texas, Bingaman, Kempthorne,
and Faircloth, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself,
Mr. D'Amato, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Murkowski,
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. Faircloth proposes an amendment
numbered 5047.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following
new section:
PROSECUTION OF MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS RESIDING IN MEXICO
Sec. ____. (a) Report.--(1) Not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Drug Enforcement Administration shall submit a report to the
President--
(A) identifying the 10 individuals who are indicted in the
United States for unlawful trafficking or production of
controlled substances most sought by United States law
enforcement officials and who there is reason to believe
reside in Mexico; and
(B) identifying 25 individuals not named under paragraph
(1) who have been indicted for such offenses and who there is
reason to believe reside in Mexico.
(2) The President shall promptly transmit to the Government
of Mexico a copy of the report submitted under paragraph (1).
(b) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--None of the funds appropriated under the
heading ``International Military Education and Training'' may
be made available for any program, project, or activity for
Mexico.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if, not later
than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
President certifies to Congress that--
(A) the Government of Mexico has extradited to the United
States the individuals named pursuant to subsection (a)(1);
or
(B) the Government of Mexico has apprehended and begun
prosecution of the individuals named pursuant to subsection
(a)(1).
(c) Waiver.--Subsection (b) shall not apply if the
President of Mexico certifies to the President of the United
States that--
(1) the Government of Mexico made intensive, good faith
efforts to apprehend the individuals named pursuant to
subsection (a)(1) but did not find one or more of the
individuals within Mexico; and
(2) the Government of Mexico has apprehended and extradited
or apprehended and prosecuted 3 individuals named pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) for each individual not found under
paragraph (1).
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is an amendment that is
urging Mexico, is pleading with Mexico, to cooperate to bring to
justice the 10 most wanted, previously indicted drug lords living in
Mexico.
Now, Mr. President, anyone in the Senate who has read the record over
the past 10 years of what the Senator from New Mexico has said and done
with reference to Mexico would know that I have been a staunch advocate
of those policies in Mexico which are calculated to create a better
standard of living for the Mexican people and to increase their
economic prosperity.
I have from time to time even bragged too about the quality of the
Mexican leadership, as it looks in hindsight. I do not regret that one
bit. Frankly, my State is one of those States that borders on Mexico,
and we know better than the rest of America that unless and until
Mexico prospers and their standard of living for their average people
goes up, the problem of illegal activities on the border can never be
controlled.
What I do today is not a very major monetary measure. There is no
great big money denial. The economic package that is in place is not
taken into account. We do not assault it and remove pieces of it, we
just take a tiny program worth $1 million in foreign aid for military
education and training. The amendment provides that it shall not be
delivered to the Mexican Government unless and until they cooperate
with us to do some things.
Let me talk for just a little bit with the Senate and with the people
who are observing this, and yes, I might say to the leaders of the
Republic of Mexico, we have some very distinguished Senators who are
very pro-Mexico who are
[[Page S8789]]
on this amendment. You will note a couple are from the State of Texas,
my immediate neighbor. You will note one is from California, another
major border State.
I will start by asking a couple of questions: Do you know how much
good law enforcement work and taxpayers' money it takes to get an
indictment of a major drug trafficker or drug kingpin? An indictment is
a grand jury's written accusation issued after it has heard significant
evidence. The next step in the judicial process is supposed to be a
trial. Getting an indictment is the sum of surveillance, interdiction
of evidence, usually massive quantities of drugs, wiretaps, untangling
the money-laundering networks. It is not uncommon for a border agent or
two to lose their lives in a case where an indictment is sought and
obtained.
According to the Department of Justice, there currently are 99
outstanding U.S. extradition requests for 110 criminals known or
believed to be in Mexico who have been indicted in the United States--
107 Mexican nationals have been indicted under our Federal drug kingpin
statute, which is a very large number, at a very large expense, and a
very major risk of life.
This has not occurred because anybody is picking on Mexico. This has
occurred because we know in the United States that the enormous growth
in drug trafficking through Mexico, which I will delineate with more
specificity shortly, is having an enormous negative affect on
Americans, and that unless we take some of those kingpins, some of
those multimillionaires, who have huge cartels that are growing as fast
as the cartels did in Colombia a decade ago, and we put some of those
people in jail--whether it is Mexican jails or American jails--then at
least one-half of the equation of trying to get drug trafficking under
control is going untended. We are leaving a huge portion of it
unattended and doing nothing about it.
Now, many of these requests, Mr. President, are for violent
individuals involved in the drug trade. They include the top leaders of
four major Mexican cartels. In the U.S., we get indictments, but the
indictments are not worth the paper they are written on because the
Mexicans won't try these people in their own courts, and they will not
honor our extradition requests.
Now, Mr. President, I know that Mexican officials will say they are
trying, and they will say we must be understanding, and that they are
having difficult times. Well, let me suggest that this Senator
understands that. What I am trying to do with this amendment is to let
the Senate go on record saying to Mexico: Do something about it. Your
friend from the north, the United States, wants to be helpful. If you
need more help in terms of apprehending these criminals and trying
them, if you need more help from the executive branch of our
Government, speak to us and ask us for it.
Obtaining indictments is a dangerous business when you are dealing
with drug lords and drug kingpins. In fact, last year, 140 Border
Patrol agents were assaulted while apprehending illegal alien drug
smugglers. So you ask, why don't we do more on the border by way of
patrols? Why don't we put more people there? I will tell you pretty
soon that we have done pretty well at putting in more. But 140 of these
agents were assaulted while apprehending illegal alien drug smugglers.
All of this money has been spent in efforts needed to culminate in
bringing these drug dealers to trial.
All of this is necessary if we are ever going to stop the drug trade.
Only after Senator D'Amato held hearings on this issue in the Banking
Committee in March did Mexico finally extradite its first national--
actually he had dual citizenship--to the United States. Since then,
drugs have continued to invade our border, causing crime and despair.
The ``unextraditables,'' as the drug lords call themselves, live
comfortably. This is unacceptable. The situation at the border is
getting worse. Drug seizures used to be measured in ounces and pounds.
Now they are measured in tons.
Several years ago, the smugglers cut the ranchers' fences and caused
mischief at night. For anyone who has seen our border, it is a couple
of strands of barbed wire that border between Mexico and America. In
many places, it is two single strands of barbed wire. There is Mexico
on one side and America on the other. Here is a rancher from Mexico on
this side and a rancher on this side.
Now, instead of just cutting fences and doing mischief at night,
heavily armed Mexican drug gangs terrorize the ranchers in broad
daylight. Some of the ranchers have sold their ranches, according to
information we have, to the gangs or to their front men.
Several years ago, an El Paso customs inspector was killed by a drug
smuggler who was running the border. More recently, a 12-year-old girl
was injured when a drug smuggler was trying to run through the border
crossing at one of the crossings in El Paso, TX. These smugglers now
have 18-wheelers and 727 jet airplanes. They own them, travel around in
them, in defiance of everyone.
Just yesterday, in the Washington Post, Ricardo Cordero Ontiveros,
who quit the Mexican attorney general's office, charged that corruption
and inaction at the border had prevented key drug-related arrests. He
cited two examples: an intentionally unacted upon case. Even though
there was a reliable tip, no action was taken, and they could have
captured Ismael Higuera Guerreo, when he was in the community of Los
Cabos in Mexico. It was clear that he could have been arrested. He went
unattended. He is the right-hand man of the Tijuana drug cartel run by
Benjamin and Ramon Arellano Felix.
On another occasion, Mexican officials had been advised that a jet
carrying 20 tons of cocaine was going to land on an airstrip known to
be used by the drug dealers. The Mexicans knew about it ahead of time.
In addition, the plane was unable to lift off again after landing. But
believe it or not, even after landing and being unable to take off, the
cocaine was never intercepted.
Caro Quintero, who heads up the cartel at Guadalajara and is one of
the top ten most wanted, openly admitted on a Mexican radio program
that Mexican authorities ``don't find me because they don't want to. I
go to banks, I drive along the highways, I pass through military and
Federal police check points, and it doesn't matter that they know me.
Everybody knows me, and nothing happens,'' says this kingmaker.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment concerning Mexico, which I,
unfortunately, believe should be added to this bill. I say
``unfortunately'' because it is not often that I come to the floor of
the U.S. Senate to criticize our neighbor from the south. Mexico has,
in recent years, made tremendous progress on a number of issues
concerning its relationship with the United States. I believe we are
still quite appropriately called their best friends.
Northern Mexico is becoming, however, a land of laundered drug money,
riddled with corruption and violence. I have been a longtime friend,
and I don't cavalierly say these things. It bothers me greatly. It is a
country with a young and vibrant population and has the potential for a
real future. But drug-driven cartels are threatening the very
sovereignty of Mexico.
For many Mexican residents, the map of northern Mexico is determined
by the frequently changing territories controlled by drug-trafficking
organizations. There is one area where I believe there has not been
enough progress, and that involves Mexico's failure to capture,
prosecute, or extradite to the United States known major drug
traffickers under indictment in the United States.
This amendment--I read off the sponsors--would at least send a signal
that this concerns us greatly, not that we are trying to tell Mexico
what to do, but essentially that we are worried. We hope the leaders of
Mexico are worried. We see what has happened to other countries, and it
is going to happen to Mexico.
All this amendment does is prohibit the release of a small amount of
money which was going to be appropriated under this bill. It says it
will not be released until they either turn over to the U.S. for us to
prosecute, or until Mexico apprehends and prosecutes the 10 most-wanted
of the already U.S.-indicted drug kingpins living in Mexico. This drug
trade is $100 billion a year as a business operation in Mexico.
The State Department estimates that Mexico supplies 20 to 30 percent
of
[[Page S8790]]
the heroin, 80 percent of the marijuana, and 70 percent of the cocaine
coming into the United States. One drug dealer reportedly makes $200
million a week from sales to the United States to our children across
this land. In my State of New Mexico, use of drugs by teenagers is
skyrocketing because the two interstates transverse our State, and they
are used as a communication link to take the cocaine and other serious
drugs from their border habitats across this land.
These cartels are like multinational companies with sophisticated
operations that rival any of the Fortune 500. They have advanced
networks of drug distribution channels. One drug baron is called ``The
Lord of the Skies'' because he has a fleet of 747's at his disposal. He
is headquartered in Juarez, not far from my state.
Mr. D'AMATO. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. D'AMATO. Does the Senator really believe that the number of
outstanding requests, 99 criminals, have been identified and indicted?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
Mr. D'AMATO. Some of these go back 3 and 4 years with these
extraditions?
Mr. DOMENICI. They are longstanding.
Mr. D'AMATO. Is it not true that there has only been one Mexican-
national who has been extradited to this country out of all of those
requested?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. That happened after the hearings were
held.
Mr. D'AMATO. That person was a child molester. It was right to send
him here. But none of the others who have been indicted for murder or
drug dealing--have any of them at all been extradited?
Mr. DOMENICI. To our knowledge, statements that I made here would
indicate that they have not--except for Juan Garcia Abrega who had duel
citizenship. I know of the Senator's genuine interest. I praise him for
actually starting this. The Senator from New York started this in a
hearing that had to do with the certification of Mexico a ``fully
cooperating'' with the drug effort. They were certified by our U.S.
Department of State. We did not succeed in not getting them
decertified. That was not the case. I am not here trying to do that.
But I think it is quite appropriate that the Senator from New York is
on the floor as this amendment is offered, because he has had great
concern about this issue.
I want to suggest to him and to those who are listening that as a
border State of New Mexico next door to Texas we are becoming the
victims of this drug wave from Mexico in ways you cannot believe. I
told you that our border is the barbed wire fence. There is evidence
that, in the State of Texas, the kingpins or their followers with their
money are buying the ranches on the border so they will have a habitat,
a place of refuge, in America on an American ranch on the American side
of the border. It is already tough to get rid of them and apprehend
them and to arrest them. What if they own the place?
I have asked that a serious investigation of that take place. I for
one recognize property rights. But it would not take much for me to be
in favor of a statute that would take that land away from them. If we
can find any relationship to drug money, we ought to confiscate those
ranches under our forfeiture statutes. Those ranchers may have been
paid. I do not know. It seems like some have been scared to death. But
I believe they have been paid.
Mr. D'AMATO. With drug money?
Mr. DOMENICI. With drug money. What else? They are there with that
money all night long.
Mr. D'AMATO. In some cases they have paid many times the value.
Mr. DOMENICI. We understand that there are, at least anecdotally, a
couple of stories around that they were paid much more than the value
of the land. I do not see why they would not. That land is cheap. These
ranchers are in big trouble. As you know, we have had a drought. The
price of grain is very high. The cattle are at the lowest price in many
decades. So they are hurting financially. You put these drug smugglers
and their threats on top of that financial burden to make these
ranchers really hurt and you do not have much life on that border.
In addition, in a city like Albuquerque, which is on the main
highway, an interstate to go east out of El Paso, TX, and Juarez, we
are just literally feeling the pressure in many of our neighborhoods
where gangs now all have drugs; where cocaine is everywhere. That is
just the spillover in transit across America to probably get it up to
New York where they can sell a lot more of it.
Mr. D'AMATO. Seventy percent of the cocaine in the streets of America
come right through the passageway from Mexico that the Senator has
described.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in 1993, GAO reported that Mexico had
become the primary transit country for steering Colombian cocaine into
the United States.
These cartels are like multinational companies, with tremendously
sophisticated operations that rival those of any of the Fortune 500.
They have advanced networks of drug distribution channels.
One drug baron is called the Lord of the Skies because he has a fleet
of 747's at his disposal. He is headquartered in Juarez, not far from
my State.
Some estimate that the Mexican cartels budget close to a half a
billion dollars per year to pay bribes to corrupt officials, including
officials in the United States.
The wealth, combined with the violence inherent in the drug trade,
has proven deadly in Mexico and I fear that if these drug lords are not
brought to justice, the violence may spill over into the United States.
In Juarez, one young drug smuggler was found shot in the head 23
times--the victim of a violent attack carried out on the orders of one
of the drug lords.
A recent Los Angeles Times story reported how wealthy Mexican drug
smugglers have intimidated ranchers and infiltrated police and
sheriff's departments, drug task forces and even the court system on
both sides of the west Texas/Mexico border.
These last reports are particularly troubling to me, because my home
state lies just to the west of Texas and because citizens in New Mexico
are beginning to see many of the same problems faced by their Texas
neighbors.
Without an effective drug control and interdiction strategy involving
help from the Mexican government, the 175 miles of shared Mexico/New
Mexico border can, and does serve as a huge segment of the pipeline
through which illegal drugs flow into the United States.
According to the DEA, in the past 2 years, law enforcement officials
seized over 60,000 pounds of marijuana, 3,000 pounds of cocaine and 51
pounds of heroin at the major points of entry from Mexico into New
Mexico.
These numbers pale in comparison to the quantities of drugs which
actually make it into the United States: law enforcement officials
estimate that we stop only around 10 percent of the drugs that
smugglers bring to our borders.
One drug baron offered the police chief of Tijuana $100,000 per month
to ``turn a blind eye'' to drug trafficking in that city. When the
chief refused and instead got tough with these drug dealers, he was
brutally murdered on a highway in Tijuana.
In 1993, Catholic Cardinal Juan Jesus Posadas-Campos was gunned down
at the Guadalajara airport. Many believe that his murder was an
accident, related to a feud between violent drug groups. The Cardinal
however was an outspoken critic of the cartels, and some believe that
his murder may not have been an accident.
Congress has continuously funneled resources to the Southwest Border
in an attempt to control drug smuggling, but without Mexico's
cooperation, the United States cannot possibly control the flow of
drugs into the country.
Patrolling the border costs taxpayers a lot of money. Funding for the
Border Patrol has increased by $183 million or 42 percent in the last
three years. Congress has increased Border Patrol staffing to add at
least 700 new agents each year for the past 3 years and we now have
5,253 border patrol agents in the field; 328 of those agents are on
board in New Mexico.
Despite this stepped-up law enforcement presence at the border, the
amount of drugs entering this country
[[Page S8791]]
from Mexico continues to grow. As we all know, more drugs lead to more
crime.
A group which I helped establish, called New Mexico First, recently
published a report on crime in New Mexico. The report notes that the
``common and recurring characteristic--of those committing crime in New
Mexico--is substance abuse.''
When President Zedillo was elected in 1994, he stated that drug
trafficking was the single greatest threat to his nation's security.
These statistics demonstrate that Mexican drug trafficking also is a
threat to our security.
Mr. President, my amendment will restrict a small amount of United
States aid to Mexico until the President certifies that Mexico has
either extradited or prosecuted themselves, the DEA's 10 most wanted
Mexican drug kingpins.
The amount of aid to Mexico is not the issue here. What is at issue
is whether Mexico will cooperate more completely with our attempts to
capture and imprison these drug barons.
I wish my colleagues would invite them to the border to better
understand the situation. The drug cartels are well equipped. They have
out planned, out manned, and outgunned the U.S. Border Patrol, Customs
Service and DEA.
The Clinton administration claims that one of its new drug policies
is to attack drugs at their source.
While this is not a new idea, I would suggest that the best way to
attack the source of drugs in the United States is to go after the
major suppliers in the country which sends us the vast majority of our
illegal narcotics.
There is no greater threat to our borders and our population than the
threat that drugs will continue to flow unimpeded into our country from
Mexico. This amendment goes right to the top of these drug cartels and
calls upon Mexico to get tough.
I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly
those from border states, will join with me in support of this
amendment.
I want to say, so that anybody listening who might think that we are
not doing our part, that the U.S. Government has indicted these
criminals. That is not easy. That is costly. We put our best people on
it. They take risks, and they get hurt.
We have dramatically increased our Border Patrol. This year, we will
increase it still more. But until some of them know they are going to
jail and their property confiscated, it is a losing battle. We cannot
put up a fence between our two countries. It has never been there. It
will never work. But we surely can together cooperate in a new kind of
fence--a fence of cooperation in terms of getting rid of the criminals.
This will not do much. Mexico can say, who cares about that little
million dollars? I did not put $50 million in or $20 million of the aid
going to them. I just said, let us give ourselves a little bit to hang
this on and let it be a signal, a message, to our friends. Let us try
to put some of these people in jail.
My last admonition, before the Mexican officials react and say we
should not be doing this, I hope they understand that Americans are
very worried about the increase in drug use in this country. They are
looking around. They are going to be easily convinced that we should do
everything we can on these borders in apprehension and trial of these
kinds of people and we want Mexico to know that you cannot let yourself
be corrupted by it because it is going to destroy your country. We are
really not here as gringoes from the north trying to tell you what to
do. We are really trying to be helpful, and I hope it is taken in that
context.
In any event, I hope we start seeing some trials or returns to
America for trial of some of these already known criminals who have
been indicted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the debate on
this very important amendment.
In fact, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to
the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me first say that I think it is
obvious over the years that the senior Senator from New Mexico has
demonstrated repeatedly that he is one of the most discerning,
knowledgeable, and thoughtful of all of our Members on both sides, and
as the record indicates--not the rhetoric of Senator Domenici; the
record--there has been no greater friend to the people of Mexico, no
greater friend. As a matter of fact, I attempted to get his support on
some legislation that I have proposed that would take tough action for
the inaction of the Mexican authorities in a number of cases, and the
Senator felt it went too far, it was too harsh, that, indeed, these are
our allies, these are our friends, these are our neighbors, the Mexican
people in particular.
There is no one who has greater empathy for the plight of those
Mexicans who are attempting to earn a living, and he has been
supportive in terms of making moneys and resources available to help
the Mexican economy. So I think it means that there is a point at which
even the strongest of friends, the greatest of supporters must say to
their friends and to their allies, ``You are not doing enough,'' and
that is what Senator Domenici's amendment says.
It does not act in a manner in which it could in terms of being much
more punitive, but it sends a signal--and it is an important signal,
and it is about time that we say it to our friends, because we are
talking about friends--of one country recognizing the sovereignty of
another country and recognizing our responsibility as good neighbors
and being there. This Congress of the United States was there, the
President was there, Republicans and Democrats were there in Mexico's
time of need. I myself had great reservations, but my colleague said,
no, it is important that we give to the Mexican Government and more
importantly to the people an opportunity to be able to pay their debts,
to meet their obligation, to work their way out. There they were. There
was Senator Domenici, a supportive friend and ally.
But there comes a point in time when you have to say, how is it that
you can protect drug smugglers, criminals, people involved in killings,
in murders, in the distribution of billions of dollars worth of cocaine
and crack that is creating havoc in the streets of America? How can you
as an ally protect these people?
Mr. President, we have 99 warrants outstanding and 110 people
identified over a period of 4 years, since 1992, and only one Mexican
national has been extradited. There are some who we could go into
detail about who prance around, who live openly without fear of
apprehension because the police and the Mexican Government in control
of the various provinces, indeed, are part and parcel of the cartel--
only one attempt to extradite, only one attempt. And when they do go
through some of the process, it is rigged. No successful extradition of
a Mexican national except one, when they heard of a hearing of the
Banking Committee in March of this year. We say wonderful for that one.
That was a child abuser.
Talking about abuse of children, what is creating more havoc with our
young people than the menace of drugs entrapping people?
The State Department by its own report says--this is not Senator
Domenici or Senator D'Amato. This is the U.S. Department of State,
Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, March 1996. Senator
Domenici referred to part of that--page 140:
No country in the world possesses a more immediate
narcotics threat to the United States than Mexico.
I am not going to read the rest, because then it goes into detail and
talks about the tons and tons of drugs and we cannot get one of these
Mexican traffickers extradited. We have indicted them--killers,
murderers.
Let me give you the testimony of a border agent just this March,
testimony of a brave person, because there are some people who did not
want him to testify before our committee. Senator Feinstein and I had a
hearing on proposals that would, yes, impact on Mexico because we do
not think our friend and ally is doing nearly enough. It is really
giving aid and comfort to killers, to terrorists, to people who are
[[Page S8792]]
terrorizing our communities, to the drug lords.
This is the testimony of T.V. Bonner. He is the National President of
the Border Patrol Council, those people who are out there, the agents
out there. Let me just read to you this little part of his testimony
because this is real. This is what is going on. T.V. Bonner says:
On January 19, 1996, Border Patrol Agent Jefferson Barr was
shot and killed while intercepting a group of drug smugglers
in Eagle Pass, Texas. One of his assailants was wounded in
the exchange of gunfire. The individual fled to Mexico where
he was captured.
They captured him.
The FBI interviewed the suspect in a hospital in Mexico,
and the United States subsequently charged him with murder
and sought his extradition. The Government of Mexico has
refused to extradite the accused. Even though the United
States has an extradition treaty with Mexico . . ., not a
single Mexican national has been extradited to date, despite
numerous requests.
That is not totally accurate because when Senator Feinstein and I had
a hearing before the Banking Committee, the same day or the day before,
they announced: ``We are going to extradite someone,'' an unnamed
person. They would not even tell us who it was. We said, ``Who is it?''
``We don't know, but we are going to extradite someone.''
Now, what does it take to get the Mexican Government--and this is the
Mexican Government. This individual who shot and killed a U.S. border
agent was arrested and yet we have not been able to get him extradited.
How outrageous.
I think this amendment of the Senator is so thoughtful. I believe we
have to go further. But at some point in time we have to say we are not
going to continue to do business as usual. We have an obligation to
provide for domestic tranquility. Our country is failing miserably,
Republicans and Democrats, for years.
Oh, during every campaign we get more border agents, more this, more
that: Show business. After the campaign--I saw it happen in the last
administration and the administration before that--after the election
is over everything is forgotten, the agents do not get the support,
they do not get the equipment, and it just dwindles down.
It has happened with this administration. We went from 100-plus
people in the White House working on international drugs and domestic
drugs down to nothing. Election time comes, they see on the scope that
this is an important issue, that drug use is up, so they bring in a
respected leader, General McCaffrey, terrific and respected, and I do
not want to demean him and his efforts, but we should not be part-time
warriors, fighting for domestic tranquility in our communities, to keep
our streets safe.
We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for allowing the plight of
Americans, to be held captive in so many communities where they are
afraid to go out, to take a walk in the park, to go to church in the
morning, to use mass transportation in off-peak hours because they may
become a victim. And so much of it, 70 percent of it the FBI Director
estimates, is powered by illegal drugs: 50 percent of the violent
crime. And here our ally is giving aid and comfort to drug dealers and
killers.
We could go into example after example. Because I think it is so
poignant, although Senator Domenici referred to it I am going to take
the liberty of referring to it again, that is the article that appeared
yesterday--yesterday. How prophetic.
This amendment, by the way, was prepared long before this article,
long before this article. How prophetic that it appeared in the
Washington Post yesterday. Let me just read part of it. Listen to these
words:
It's a joke for the people of Mexico and for the people of
the United States who think Mexico is fighting drugs.
Do you know who makes that statement? The former agent in charge,
Ricardo Cordero Ontiveros. He was the former head of the National
Institute for Drug Combat branch in the border city of Tijuana.
Do you know what he said, the former head, because, you see, he would
not succumb to the payments that they offered him, he refused to turn
his head another way? This article goes on to report that at one point
he was told by his superiors: Why don't you keep quiet. Do you know how
many people want this job? Somebody is willing to pay as much as $3
million for this job that you have--$3 million. Then he was told you
could make $100,000 a month. Just keep quiet.
Let me go on. He says:
The only thing they are fighting for is to make them
disappear from the newspapers.
Brandishing official memos and tape recordings that . . .
proved his points, Cordero said that [the attorney general]
cut him off when he tried to present evidence.
He says:
Lozano told me that people would pay $3 million to have my
job. . .. He was so angry I thought he would hit me.
Here is what the attorney general's office says.
Mr. Cordero Ontiveros is obliged to prove the seriousness
of his allegations, not just to go to the news media. . ..
What do you think somebody does when the attorney general tells him
to keep quiet, when the record demonstrates clearly we cannot get
proven killers and murderers extradited when they actually have them in
custody of the Mexican Government? Our own border agents are wondering
about our commitment to this war when they see our U.S. agents being
shot and killed and a total failure of our Government to be able to get
our friends and our allies to cooperate and have the murderers and have
the drug dealers turned over.
I compliment Senator Domenici for his thoughtful amendment. I think
it should serve as a harbinger of things we are prepared to do with our
friend and ally, unless they begin to treat us as friends; unless they
begin to respect us and our rights and the rights of our citizens and
our youngsters who are being victimized every day as a result of their
failure to even enforce basic, fundamental law.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Domenici's
amendment. This amendment would restrict all International Military
Education and Training [IMET] funds to Mexico until the Mexican
Government extradites the leading drug trafficking figures hiding
there.
It is clear that there is a flood crossing our borders that threatens
the very health and lives of all Americans--a flood of drugs, crime,
and money laundering. The source of that flood is Mexico.
At a joint Finance Committee and Senate International Narcotics
hearing Senator Grassley held earlier this week, I brought the
deteriorating situation in Mexico to the attention of Secretary of the
Treasury Robert Rubin. At that hearing I raised the issue of Mexican
cooperation in apprehending and extraditing drug traffickers wanted in
the United States. I also questioned whether Mexico is really making
any effort to enforce its own laws on official government corruption or
if it is just spinning its wheels in endless prosecutions that never
result in convictions. I am expecting answers to the questions and more
in the coming week as we hold another hearing on this issue.
The dramatic increase in drug trafficking from Mexico is one of the
unfortunate by-products of NAFTA trade liberalization and our success
in getting tough on drug smuggling in the Caribbean. Reacting to the
pressure of U.S. efforts such as ``Operation Gateway'' in Puerto Rico,
drug smugglers have found even greater access to the U.S. in Mexico.
The Mexican Attorney General has estimated that traffickers accumulate
$30 billion in revenues each year. Mexican traffickers or their front
companies have also purchased numerous ranches or Maquiladora plants in
Mexico and the United States to ferry drugs across the Rio Grande.
The impact is undeniable. Only ten years ago, almost no cocaine came
across the border from Mexico. Today, nearly 70 percent of all cocaine
coming into the United States passes through Mexico. Mexico also
supplies between 20-30 percent of the heroin consumed in the U.S. and
up to 80 percent of the imported marijuana. In fact, the Drug
Enforcement Administration [DEA] estimates that Mexico earns over $7
billion a year from the drug trade, making illegal drugs Mexico's third
largest export to the United States.
The United States response to this escalating crisis has been
inadequate. While the President talks tough on drugs and crime--backing
it up in the
[[Page S8793]]
case of Colombia--when it comes to Mexico he has bent over backwards to
accommodate failure. Based on mutual declarations of cooperation at the
Summit of Americas and the limited success of Mexican and United States
efforts to seize large drug shipments, President Clinton certified to
Congress on March 1, 1996 that Mexico was ``fully cooperating'' with
U.S. counter-narcotics efforts. This allowed $38.5 million in bilateral
aid to continue to go to the Mexican government in addition to the $20
billion of U.S. taxpayer funds provided in the tesobono bail-out last
year.
Our good intentions and assistance have produced few results.
Mexico's efforts to eliminate corruption among government officials and
capture the worst drug offenders have produced thunder but no rain. To
date, there have been no convictions in the hundreds of ongoing
prosecutions for corruption among officials in the Mexican Attorney
General's office. There has been little more success within the
Ministry of Finance or federal police. Laws which have been on the
books for years to end government corruption have been ignored while
hundreds of cases have been thrown out of court over minor
technicalities.
Even more glaring is the lack of a bilateral extradition treaty
between the United States and Mexico. As of April 15, 1996, there were
99 outstanding formal extradition requests by the United States to
Mexico involving 110 different individuals. Mexico has acted on only
one of these requests--that of Juan Garcia Abrego who is being held
without bond in Texas in advance of his September trial. He faces a
life sentence. I have asked Secretary Rubin to provide detailed
information on the current status of all the United States requests,
especially for members of the drug cartels that have been indicted in
the United States and are fugitives in hiding in Mexico--Denjamin
Arellano-Felix and his brothers Francisco, Ramon and Javier; Amado
Carillo Fuentes; and, Miguel Caro Quintero.
Enough is enough. It is time to get tough with Mexico just as we did
in the Caribbean. The United States must send a strong message to
Mexico that there are limits to our patience. We must continue to
strengthen our partnership to stop the drug trade. But we cannot
continue to flail in endless investigations and prosecutions nor can we
continue to allow criminals to avoid extradition to the United States
to face judgment. We must ratchet up the pressure on the government of
Mexico to clean up this tide of drugs, crime, and official corruption
or risk our neighbor becoming another Colombia.
This amendment by Senator Domenici provides that message. It provides
a targeted and flexible response to the building problems in Mexico. It
also serves notice that the Mexican Government must improve the
enforcement of its laws and agreements. We must make clear that our
relationship cannot continue to be one where the United States gives
and gives while Mexico takes and takes. This was not acceptable with
Colombia and it should not be with Mexico either.
Mr. President. If Congress and the President are really serious about
keeping Mexico from ``becoming Colombia'' and reducing international
crime and drug trafficking, we must take action now. I urge my
colleagues to support Senator Domenici's amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Domenici and
D'Amato in introducing the pending amendment. The United States has a
stake in Mexico--as our neighbor, as a key trading partner, and as the
recipient of a $20 billion loan underwritten by American taxpayers.
Mexico's problems often become, in a very real way, our problems. No
problem affecting our two nations is more critical than drug
trafficking because it directly effects the lives of millions of
Americans.
At the same time, we must not forget that for many, many years, the
U.S. State Department turned a blind eye to widespread drug corruption
in Mexico. In its latest International Narcotics Control Strategy
Report, the U.S. State Department admits that in 1995 ``endemic
corruption continued to undermine both policy initiatives and law
enforcement operations'' in Mexico. The report adds that ``official
Mexican Government corruption remains deeply entrenched and resistant
and comprises the major impediment to a successful counter-narcotics
program.''
So, Mr. President, it is no surprise that Mexico is the gateway to
the United States for smuggling in massive amounts of cocaine and
heroin. Mexico is also a major producer of methamphetamine, one of the
most dangerous drugs available. Many corrupt officials in the Mexican
Government have long had an open door policy for the Mexican cartel
kingpins, providing protection for a price. Mexican President Ernesto
Zedillo has made some positive gestures to combat drugs and drug
corruption, including appointing an Attorney General from the
opposition PAN party and supporting money laundering legislation.
Nor is it a surprise that violent crime in the United States is
increasingly linked to drugs. The Justice Department estimates that
over one-third of violent crimes are committed by people in illegal
drugs.
Regrettably, over the past 5 years, cocaine and heroin seizures in
Mexico, as well as arrests of Mexican drug traffickers, have dropped by
50 percent. Seventy percent of cocaine enters the United States through
Mexico, all too often with the assistance of corrupt Mexican police
officers. Drug kingpins spend an estimated $500 million annually to buy
politicians and law enforcement officials. There are too many credible
allegations that these officials assist kingpins' efforts to expand
their power and conceal ill gotten gains. While Zedillo administration
officials may not be accomplices, they are supposedly responsible for
the investigation and prosecution of these drug traffickers and corrupt
officials.
Yet each year, in exchange for empty promises and well publicized
anti-drug speeches, the U.S. administration certifies that the Mexican
Government has ``cooperated fully'' in the war on drugs and continues
to provide military equipment, technical assistance, and precious
foreign aid.
Mexico is indeed our neighbor and a sort of business partner. The
State Department is obviously nervous about offending Mexican
Government officials by pushing them to take strong measures to fight
drugs and corruption. Foggy Bottom must get over its nervousness. The
United States has no greater national interest than to protect the
safety and security of American people, especially the most innocent--
our children and grandchildren.
It won't help either the Mexican or American people for the U.S.
Government to make the tragic mistake of providing unrestricted
assistance to a corrupt, morally bankrupt 67-year-old regime. This
amendment will send the message that we demand cooperation with the
Mexican Government--but real, effective cooperation, not more empty
promises.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the distinguished
chairman of the Banking Committee in offering an amendment which I
think is of great importance.
As my colleagues know, the problem of drugs coming into our country
from Mexico has reached epidemic proportions.
Seventy percent of all illegal drugs entering the United States,
including three-quarters of all the cocaine and 80 percent of all
foreign-grown marijuana, are smuggled through Mexico. Ninety percent of
the precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine are
smuggled into the United States from Mexico.
We need cooperation from Mexico in many aspects of counternarcotics:
from border control, to cracking down on money laundering, to combating
corruption.
There has been some progress in these areas, but not nearly enough,
and much more is needed. Perhaps the most basic area in which we need
cooperation is in cracking down on the drug lords who run the smuggling
rings. Mexican drug lords are getting rich poisoning our kids, and the
Mexican Government must help us do something about it.
That means extraditions. Although the United States has had an
extradition treaty with Mexico since 1978, Mexico has never extradited
a Mexican national to the United States for drug charges.
Juan Garcia Abrego was not extradited--he was deported as an American
[[Page S8794]]
citizen. And extradition orders have been signed for one Mexican
national, Jesus Emilio Rivera Pinon, but he remains in a Mexican jail.
Ninety-nine outstanding formal extradition requests have not been acted
upon.
This amendment is designed to create additional incentive for Mexico
to move forward with the extradition of our most wanted drug lords. If
Mexico does not arrest them, they should at least arrest and prosecute
these drug lords themselves.
If Mexico fails to take these steps, the United States will withhold
funding for the International Military Education and Training Program
with Mexico. This is a reasonable, and not overreaching, point of
leverage to encourage the Mexicans to do what they should be doing
anyway.
If Mexico will comply with these extradition requests, it will be an
important step toward addressing the problem of Mexican drug
trafficking.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you,
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. If we are
finished, do we then proceed to a vote? What is the situation, I ask
the manager of the bill?
Mr. McCONNELL. My plan is to lay aside the Domenici amendment and go
to the Brown amendment. It is the plan to stack several votes. That we
would take them up, again this is just a guess, an estimate, around 6
o'clock. It would be my plan. I understand no one wants to speak in
opposition to the Domenici amendment. Has the Senator gotten the yeas
and nays?
Mr. DOMENICI. No.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just summarize very quickly so no
one will think these indictments that the American Government has put
all these resources in are just indictments of people who are out there
dealing in a few ounces of cocaine. I want to give just four names,
with a brief biography, that are under indictment, that it is
incredible to this Senator that Mexico does not know about and could
not, if willing, to either apprehend and try in Mexico or extradite
them to the United States.
Here is one:
Tijuana cartel, Arellano-Felix organization: Benjamin Arellano-Felix
and his brothers Francisco, Ramon and Javier head Mexico's most violent
drug family. They are responsible for the murder of Catholic Cardinal
Juan Jesus Posadas in Guadalajara in 1993. Some believe that the
Mexican Cardinal was killed by accident during a violent confrontation
between rival drug dealers, but others believe he may have been killed
because of his vocal opposition to the drug trade.
Let me move on to the Jaurez cartel:
Amado Carillo Fuentes is now considered the wealthiest and most
powerful drug baron in Mexico. He has a strong relationship with Miguel
Rodriguez Orejuela, the leader of the Colombian Cali cartel. Carillo is
known as the ``Lord of the Skies'' because he owns a fleet of 727's
which allows him to transport drugs from Colombia to Mexico. His drug
operations are estimated to bring in $200 million a week.
I ask unanimous consent that a more complete biography of these
cartel leaders be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Leaders of the Major Mexican Drug Cartels Indicted in the United States
tijuana cartel (arellano-felix organization)
Benjamin Arellano-Felix and his brothers Francisco, Ramon
and Javier head Mexico's most violent drug family. They are
responsible for the murder of Catholic Cardinal Juan Jesus
Posadas in Guadalajara in 1993. Some believe that the Mexican
Cardinal was killed by accident during a violent
confrontation between rival drug dealers, but others believe
he may have been killed because of his vocal opposition to
the drug trade. The Arellanos also are responsible for the
murder of Frederico Benitez Lopez, the Tijuana police chief
who vowed to clean up the city and refused to accept a
$100,000 per month bribe from the brothers. The cartel
controls the 1,000 miles of border between Tijuana and
Juarez. The DEA estimates that the cartel generates around
$15 million every two weeks and has a $160-400 million net
worth. The Arellanos, once known for publicly flaunting their
protection from local Mexican police and federales, now are
fugitives in hiding in Mexico. Benjamin and Francisco have
been indicted in San Diego for drug trafficking.
juarez cartel (carillo fuentes organization)
Amado Carillo Fuentes is now considered the wealthiest and
most powerful drug baron in Mexico. He has a strong
relationship with Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela, the leader of
the Colombian Cali cartel. Carillo is known as the ``Lord of
the Skies'' because he owns a fleet of 727's which allows him
to transport drugs from Colombia to Mexico. His drug
operations are estimated to bring in $200 million a week.
Murders in Juarez have increased since he took control of the
organization, and in 1995 the leader of a juvenile gang
Carillo used to smuggle drugs across the border was found
shot 23 times in the head. Carillo is the nephew of Ernesto
Fonseca Carillo, who was imprisoned in Mexico in 1985 for the
torture and murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena.
Carillo has been indicted in Miami for heroin and marijuana
trafficking, and in Dallas for cocaine distribution.
sonora cartel (caro quintero organization)
Miguel Caro Quintero now heads the group made up of
remnants of the old Guadalajara Cartel, best known for their
involvement in the brutal 1985 torture and killing of DEA
Special Agent Enrique Camarena. The Sonora Cartel was among
the first Mexican organizations to transport drugs for the
Colombian kingpins. The group's main trafficking routes run
through Arizona border area known as ``cocaine alley'' with
movements also coordinated through the Juarez Cartel in the
territory controlled by that organization. Caro Quintero
openly admitted on a Mexican radio program that Mexican
authorities ``don't find me because they don't want to . . .
I go to banks. I drive along highways, I pass through
military and federal judicial police checkpoints and it
doesn't matter that they know me--everybody knows me.''
Miguel's brother Rafael is serving time in a Mexican maximum
security prison for his involvement in the Camarena murder,
but reportedly runs the cartel from jail. Miguel has been
indicted in Denver and Tucson on drug trafficking charges.
gulf cartel (Garcia Abrego Organization)
Juan Garcia Abrego was the first major Mexican cartel
leader expelled to the United States for trial. In January
1996, Mexico claimed that his dual U.S./Mexican citizenship
allowed them to deport him to the U.S. to face his
indictment. Mexico's government had offered a $1 million
reward for his capture, and the FBI offered an additional $2
million. Members of Garcia Abrego's group remain in Mexico
and continue to smuggle narcotics. The Gulf Cartel was the
first to begin accepting payment from Colombian drug lords in
cocaine rather than cash and they at one time were
responsible for half of the cocaine entering the United
States from Mexico. The Gulf Cartel also shipped bulk amounts
of cash across the U.S. border and during a four-year period
(1989-93) the U.S. seized $53 million in cash belonging to
the organization. Two American Express bankers in
Brownsville, Texas were indicted for laundering $30 million
for Garcia. Garcia Abrego is currently held without bond in a
west Texas prison awaiting trial in September. If convicted,
he faces life imprisonment. Seventy members of his
organization have been prosecuted in the U.S.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, drugs are the engine of violence.
According to the DEA, 50 percent of all violent crime happens because
people are on drugs. One-third of all homicides in the United States
have a relationship to narcotics. The relationship to this amendment,
70 percent of the cocaine comes across from Mexico; 50 percent of the
marijuana, and much of the other substances that we fear so much. In
fact, substantial amounts of Mexican-grown heroin is sold here.
In summary, we go through a great effort to indict Mexican drug
kingpins and the indictments are not worth the paper they are written
on because 99 outstanding extradition requests, 110 individuals are
under indictment from us, and the Mexican Government will do nothing
about it so far.
Mexico is the safe haven for drug smugglers. Indicted drug lords live
an open life in a notorious style, in many cases, in many parts of
Mexico. When the DEA Administrator was in Mexico in April, one of the
top three most wanted barons called in to a talk show and stated, as I
have said before: ``They don't find me because they don't want to. I go
to banks, I drive highways, I pass through Federal judicial policy
check points, and it doesn't matter.''
[[Page S8795]]
Mr. President, I hope this discussion today, and the vote, which I
think will be overwhelming, will indicate to Mexico we are gravely
concerned about our country and at the same time we are gravely
concerned about theirs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Domenici
amendment be temporarily laid aside. As I indicated earlier, it is my
intention to take it up for a rollcall vote along with some other
amendments that have been laid aside, probably around 6 o'clock.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, due to a failure to communicate, I did not
convey to the floor manager of the bill my very strong opposition to
the Dorgan amendment. The time was yielded back.
I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized for 5 minutes prior
to the vote on the Dorgan amendment, which I feel is fatally flawed and
will have very serious consequences. I would like to have the
opportunity to have appropriate time to address that amendment.
I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky
will yield for a question.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I am happy to respond to a question of my friend
from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Is it not true that my amendment which would restore
the funding level for the international narcotics funding was seconded
under regular order?
Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding. It is my recollection that the
Senator from Georgia came over last night and first offered the
amendment that would restore the drug funding level to the request of
the Clinton administration.
Mr. COVERDELL. That is correct. We have now, it is my understanding,
disposed of 24 amendments?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. COVERDELL. There is an amendment which I have pending, but we
have been unable to get the other side to agree to a time for debate,
which is holding up this amendment which restores their President's,
our President's, funding for international narcotics.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Georgia, we had hoped that his
amendment would be first voted on this morning since he was first to
the floor last night to offer a very responsible amendment, which I
happen to support.
Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the response of the Senator from Kentucky
and for, of course, his work on this bill and assistance on this
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following consideration
of this amendment, my amendment No. 5018 be the regular order and that
there be a time agreement of 1 hour equally divided.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object,
obviously, I do not object, but I do not see anyone on the Democratic
side in the Chamber. In fairness to them, I feel they should be given
an opportunity to respond.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Leahy, I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Amendment No. 5019
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I think maybe it is appropriate, when we
speak about those countries that are responsible in large measure--and
it is not countries, it is governments, corrupt governments, corrupt
officials who give aid and comfort to drug dealers, traffickers,
growers, money launderers, the whole cartel--probably no case cries out
for this country taking action more than the nation of Burma on behalf
of the people of Burma and on behalf of the citizens of my State and
the citizens of this country.
When we look at the record as it relates to drugs, in 1994, Burma was
responsible for 94 percent of the opium produced worldwide. It is
estimated that 60 percent of the heroin that comes into the United
States originated in Burma.
When we look at the record of not only the question of narcotics and
the dismal record in terms of counternarcotics efforts, there is only
one thing that is even worse, and that is its record with respect to
human rights. It kills those who are in opposition; it slaughters them.
It imprisons those who speak out against them.
Their record on human rights and counternarcotics and its refusal to
let the democratically elected National League for Democracy assume
office should be immoral, and, more important, it is immoral, but it
should be unacceptable to our Nation.
We need to send a strong message. Somehow we have become so imbued
with economics and what company is going to benefit and make more money
that we have lost the moral fiber to stand up for our citizens. I
believe this. And I do not believe it is just the case as it relates to
the legislation we discussed sponsored by Senator Domenici with respect
to Mexico. I don't think it is just Burma, but certainly this is a case
that cries out.
In 1988, the SLORC--SLORC--that stands for the State Law and Order
Restoration Council. What a name; what a name. Talk about a fascist
name. The State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC, has one of
the most dismal records in human rights. They were responsible for
killing more than 3,000 prodemocracy demonstrators--3,000--and
thousands more have been jailed, thousands more driven from their
homes, thousands more hiding. That is this SLORC group. Their record in
counternarcotics is one of total complicity with the drug lords and the
generals--total complicity. That is where they earn a lot of their
money.
But now we are supposed to be doing business with them, helping them,
helping their economy, helping their people. We are supposed to totally
ignore the fact that they don't help their people, that they enslave
their people, that they kill their people, that they deny them free and
fair elections and say, ``If we can allow projects to go there, it will
foster democracy.''
That was not fostering democracy when we took on the Soviet Union for
their failure to address the human rights and human needs and
considerations of its people. We did not say ``Let's give them most-
favored-nation status.'' We did not say, ``Oh, no, you can continue to
discriminate against Jews and Catholics and Pentecostalists'' when the
Soviet Union was engaged in that barbaric treatment of their citizens.
We said if a country doesn't respect its citizens, how do we ever
expect it to respect the rights of others, the rights of our citizens.
How quickly we forget. Incredible.
This country has lost the moral fiber that we don't even have the
ability to stand up to those countries who are sheltering known
terrorists and killers who are responsible for killing U.S. citizens.
Why? The same reason: economics, greed, avarice.
``So and so is developing a big project there. It's an American
corporation. If they don't do it, somebody else is going to do it.''
How often we hear that.
Then, when we are able to unite the people of this country, we have
to worry about our allies. We passed a bill, the Iranian-Libyan
sanctions bill, that said, ``Listen, if you're going to help support
their petroleum fields and they are going to continue to export
terrorism''--and they have two people who we have indicted, two Libyan
agents responsible for blowing a plane out of the air, Pan Am 103, we
indicted them with specificity, Libyan agents, hiding in Libya. We
cannot get them to turn them over here.
Yet, since 1988, when that tragedy took place, we didn't even have
the courage to stop the importation of Libyan oil. We said, ``We can't
buy Libyan oil, can't buy it,'' and we went around and pounded our
chest. Well, we didn't do through the front door what we allowed the
oil man to deliver on the side or the back, because while we said U.S.
companies can't do it, domestic companies, their foreign subsidiaries
did.
[[Page S8796]]
They did that with both the Iranians and Libyans.
What a mockery. What a sham. How do you expect our allies to pay
attention to us when we say, ``We want you to join with us''?
It all comes down to the same thing, and maybe it takes a little
longer to get to the point, and the point is, it is nothing more than
greed, money and avarice, and, consequently, we have really allowed
those states, whether they are smuggling drugs in here, whether they
are bringing terrorists with bombs in here, whether they are killing
our citizens in planes or in bases, to feel that they can operate with
impunity, and we are not even going to take economic sanctions against
them.
Our allies: ``You will not allow our companies who do business with
the Libyans to do business here?'' Let me tell you, if we do not have
the moral fiber to stand up and protect the rights of our citizens, it
is no wonder why the people are angry and frustrated with all of us--
with some of us even more--because they think it is all politics and we
are not serious. In many cases, I think they are absolutely right. I
really do. I think they are right.
Business is important. Providing economic growth and opportunity is
important. But freedom and liberty is more important. The human dignity
of each and every individual and their rights to live without being
terrorized, both in this country and abroad, are more important.
We should not be providing succor and comfort to those who deprive
millions and millions of people an opportunity to live free, an
opportunity to be able to have their vote count and not just have some
group, thugs by the name of SLORC, come in and take over whenever they
want.
We have a right to say to those countries who are involved in
exporting terrorism, whether it be by way of bomb or whether it be by
way of drugs, that we are not going to countenance doing business with
you as usual, and we are certainly not going to give you aid and
comfort, and we are certainly not going to permit you to have access to
the international money markets where U.S. citizens are participating
in the international banks and say you can do business as if you are a
good and decent citizen, when you are not.
I support the moves that we are taking and that this bill calls for
in dealing with the SLORC in Burma. I just think it is symptomatic of
the kinds of things that we have to do if we are really going to stand
up and say that this Nation does make a difference, it does respect the
rights of citizens, its citizens and others, to live in dignity and in
freedom.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I just want to commend the Senator from New York for
his observations about Burma. What is going on here, of course, is they
had a Democratic election in 1990, internationally supervised. The side
that won got 82 percent of the vote. And the State Law and Order
Council locked up most of the leadership and put the leader herself
under house arrest for 5 years.
That is what is going on here. We fiddle around--not just this
administration, but the previous one--and have done nothing. As the
Senator has pointed out, they have done absolutely nothing.
So the underlying bill calls for sanctions against Burma, something
long overdue. I want to commend the Senator from New York for his
leadership on this issue for his support.
We have had a sort of disjointed debate here on the Burma issue, Mr.
President, over the course of the afternoon. At some point I am going
to ask unanimous consent that all of that debate be consolidated in the
Congressional Record because it will be hard for the readers to follow.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received today
from the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, Office of
the Prime Minister, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter 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 Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: We understand that Senator Cohen
has introduced an amendment to your bill--Section 569 of the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, ``Limitation on Funds
for Burma.'' We have to reiterate our total support for your
version of the bill because it is the most and only effective
way of persuading the ruling military junta in Burma to enter
into a dialogue with the pro-democracy leaders.
If the U.S. Senate fails to vote for economic sanctions on
the junta as outlined in your bill, it will send a wrong
signal to Burma. The military junta will see it as a sign of
weakness on the part of the United States and encourage it to
step up the ongoing suppression of the democracy movement.
The National Coalition Government therefore opposes Senator
Cohen's legislation. The Senate cannot afford to send a wrong
signal. The imposition of economic sanctions is needed
because currently investments are only enriching the military
junta and its associates and are discouraging them to
negotiate with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has called for the imposition of
economic sanctions because it is the best option available at
this moment. She understands Burma situation clearly and
would not initiate a move that would harm the people. Daw Suu
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 Suu Kyi's call for sanctions and that is why we
have expressed our total support for your bill.
I look forward to welcoming U.S. businesses helping rebuild
our country once a democratically elected 1990 Parliament is
seated in Rangoon. The Burmese people will remember who their
friends are.
The National Coalition Government also opposes any funding
to the military junta in connection with narcotics control. I
cannot find myself to condone any funding to a regime that
plays an active role in providing a secure and luxurious life
to the heroin kingpin Khun Sa.
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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, essentially what it says is:
If the U.S. Senate fails to vote for economic sanctions on
the junta as outlined in your bill--
Referring to the underlying bill . . .
it will send a wrong signal to Burma. . . . [It will] step up
the ongoing suppression of the democracy movement.
The National Coalition Government therefore opposes Senator
Cohen's [amendment].
Which we will be voting on later, which is supported by the Clinton
administration.
. . . currently investments are only enriching the military
junta and its associates and are discouraging them to
negotiate with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has called for the imposition of
economic sanctions because it is the best option available at
this moment. She understands the Burma situation clearly and
would not initiate a move that would harm the people. . . .
The National Coalition Government fully supports Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi's call for sanctions and that is why we have
expressed our total support for your bill.
Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado is on the
floor. He has an amendment to offer as well. We would like to take that
up. Have we laid the Domenici amendment aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Domenici amendment is laid aside.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, before I offer my amendment, I simply want
to express my strong appreciation to the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky for his raising the question of the loss of rights in Myanmar.
The fact is, that the level of political suppression that has gone on
there is one that Americans cannot ignore. If we are to be true to our
beliefs, and true to our commitment to freedom and human rights that is
held so dearly by both parties, we cannot stand idly by.
I believe some Members have expressed concern that perhaps there
could be a different way to phrase the concerns that the Senator from
Kentucky has expressed. And I hope that we will have a debate on that,
that positive suggestions will come forward. Certainly we ought to use
tactics that are most likely to be successful.
So some change in those words may be in order. But I hope that debate
over the words does not lose sight of the intent and the very
significance of the Senator from Kentucky's action. The
[[Page S8797]]
fact is, we cannot stand idly by and ignore what has happened in that
country and not stand up and speak out and take efforts that can be
effective.
I believe that this subject will get a lot of debate. I suspect the
conference committee may well come up with ways to amend the language
that we have here. But I want the Senator from Kentucky to know that
free people around the world appreciate his efforts, and appreciate him
caring enough to move forward to have this Congress consider sanctions.
I, for one, will be looking forward to the process that may well
perfect the language that the Senator has. But I hope it does not
dilute the spirit of what he is offering because I think that is the
essence of the way Americans think about foreign policy.
Amendment No. 5058
(Purpose: To amend the NATO Participation Act of 1994 to
expedite the transition to full membership in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization of emerging democracies in
Central and Eastern Europe.)
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill. I
send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] for himself, Mr.
Simon, Mr. Roth, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Helms, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Specter, Mr. Santorum, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Gorton,
Mr. Abraham, Mr. Stevens, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an
amendment numbered 5058.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is the third in a series of efforts
the Congress has made to address the issue of NATO expansion. Today the
hearts of tens of millions of Americans are with us. No, not physically
here in this Chamber, but they listen and they understand what we
debate when we talk about NATO expansion.
Millions of Americans find their heritage hailing from central
Europe. Over the last century--I should say most particularly the last
half-century--they have had to swallow hard as this Nation watched
Czechoslovakia dismembered by the Munich agreements, which Chamberlain
agreed with, and saw a country that could have been the bulwark against
Hitler and Naziism dissolved and abandoned by its allies.
Millions of American hearts sank as they saw Poland invaded by the
Nazis and, moreover, an agreement between the Soviets and the Nazis to
divide and dismember that country. Moreover, their hearts sank as they
watched the free countries around the world back away from promises and
pledges of support. And we learned the painful lesson in World War II
that one country's freedom is not independent of another country's and
that aggression cannot be ignored.
These are countries that now share our commitment to Democratic
values. And many of them, as new converts, are passionate believers.
But the trail of history does not end with World War II. It follows
into the tragic period of after World War II where some of these
countries were abandoned, without an effort to save them from Soviet
domination. The level of suffering that they have endured has truly
been extraordinary in humankind.
Now the question comes, with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end
of the cold war, as to whether or not we will recognize that other
countries have a claim to control their foreign policy, that is,
whether other countries can cast their sphere of influence over central
Europe and dictate to them their foreign policy. That is what this
series of amendments over 3 years with regard to NATO expansion has
dealt with, the hesitancy of the administration to allow democratic
countries in central Europe who wish to join NATO to be allowed to join
NATO.
These are countries that have democratized their country, that have
given civilian control over the military, and have expressed an
interest and a desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with America and
other countries in NATO, to make the world safe for democracy. The
hesitancy that has come out of the administration has been as to
whether or not they should allow the government in Russia to cast its
sphere of influence over the policy of those countries, whether or not
we would defer to Russia in terms of deciding whether they should be
allowed to join NATO or not.
It was out of concern over this policy, that I believe to be
mistaken, in which we offered the first NATO Participation Act in 1994.
That measure recognized their plea for NATO membership and authorized
an assistance program to aid in their preparing to become Members of
NATO.
The administration failed to act decisively concerning this issue,
and in the following year we followed up with the NATO Participation
Act of 1995 which develops specific criteria which those countries
could be judged as to whether or not they were prepared to join NATO
and receive aid to help them further move toward it.
Mr. President, another year passed without the administration acting.
And thus, the purpose of the third NATO Participation Act.
The measure that is before the Senate does the following things, Mr.
President. First of all, it authorizes funds for transitional
assistance for countries in central Europe wishing to join NATO. Mr.
President, this is not a huge amount of money in terms of dollars in
the foreign assistance bill but it is an enormous issue in terms of the
signal we send to free people around the world. It specifically names
three countries that are eligible for transitional assistance in moving
into NATO. Now, that is not NATO membership, but it is transitional
assistance to NATO.
Second, it establishes clear standards for other Central European
countries to meet to be eligible for transitional assistance. The
purpose here was to take the thoughts of the administration and others
and put them forward in clear rules so the countries who want to join
free people pledging to defend freedom in the North Atlantic region
know what they are working toward.
Third, Mr. President, it sets a clear policy statement for NATO
expansion.
Next, it establishes standards for an authorization, for a regional
airspace initiative.
Mr. President, this is a measure that is bipartisan. It is strongly
supported by the administration. I might make clear that they strongly
support the authorization for the regional airspace initiative. I do
not mean to imply they strongly support this amendment. The portion
that deals with the regional airspace initiative, which I believe can
have a significant value in helping countries develop a common language
through equipment and procedures, in helping to deal with air traffic
control problems, can be of help. I should emphasize while this is not
mandatory in terms of participation, it is supported by the
administration.
Mr. President, this is a bipartisan bill. We are fortunate to have
Senator Simon join as a cosponsor of this bill, as well as Senator
Lieberman and Senator Mikulski. In the past, NATO expansion has
received strong support from both sides of the aisle. I must say, Mr.
President, I believe this measure is strongly supported by both
Democrats and Republicans throughout our country, by a large measure.
In addition, the House has voted on a version that is nearly
identical to this provision, and given its strong and clear support by
a vote of 353 to 62, the House voted for the similar NATO expansion
provision.
I might add, we have a stronger position in the White House for this
measure than we have ever had. The administration has sent out a letter
indicating they do not oppose this measure.
Mr. President, let me not mislead Members. I believe--it is at least
my belief--the White House has some concerns about various provisions
of it. They are not opposing it. It is the strongest, most supportive
effort we have had in these last 3 years. I believe the key to making
this work is indeed to get all parties--the administration, Congress,
Democrats, and Republicans--to work together for a common purpose.
Mr. President, there are some differences between this measure and
the measure that passed the House of Representatives. Let me just name
two of
[[Page S8798]]
them that may be the more significant, although I am not sure there are
significant differences. In the findings, paragraph 15, in the wording
involving the caucuses, ours is not as strong a language in terms of
indicating a NATO involvement in the caucus as the House language. I do
not mean to indicate we lack interest in the caucuses, or concern. We
do, and we express that. There is a difference between our language and
the House language with regard to caucus States.
Second, we add in this bill specific criteria for the transition into
NATO. We thought in the interest of being clear and precise and moving
ahead, that was helpful. Those are the key differences with the House
bill. On the whole, they are not major. I do not anticipate any problem
in working out the differences in conference.
I should indicate, Mr. President, there are at least three concerns I
am aware of, and I know Members obviously are much more able to
articulate their concerns and offer alternatives than I. Senator Simon
is interested in offering a modification of the measure that deals with
the history of deployment of nuclear weapons in some NATO countries. I
view--while we have not seen final language that Senator Simon offers--
I view that as an accurate statement of the past policy, and can well
be a plus.
Senator Biden has concerns about making it clear that Slovenia is
immediately eligible for the transitional assistance in the measure
that is before the Senate. We have not placed them in the three
countries that are designated as immediately eligible for assistance,
but I think Senator Biden has identified a country that does meet the
standards, as I understand them. I do not consider that to be a major
problem.
In addition, my understanding is that a very thoughtful Member of the
Senate, Senator Nunn, has concerns, particularly with paragraph 4 in
the findings, and my hope is we will be able to consider his concerns
and work something out with regard to that.
Mr. President, I do not want to take an extended amount of time with
regard to this except to say this: What we do with this amendment is
very important. The symbolism is far more important than the modest
amount of money that is authorized in this bill. The message it sends
is that the countries of Central Europe are not going to have their
fate decided by the influence of another country; that their fate will
not be decided by someone saying that they have a sphere of influence
that controls that part of the world; that we recognize their ability
to commit themselves to free and democratic principles, and to seek
alliances that will help secure their land. That is enormously
important, and it is a commitment that we should not back down on.
Second, Mr. President, I hope every Member has some sense in their
heart and in their mind and in their very being how these countries
hunger to be free and independent and how much they look to the United
States with admiration, and, yes, with love and with commitment. They
see America as a country that has held up the torch of freedom and
liberty, and they want to join us. They want to join us in the burden
of holding that torch of freedom high. They want to join us in making
sure the world is safe for democracy.
If we turn our backs on them, we turn our backs on the very ideals
that made this country strong and free and independent. Can we turn our
backs on Central Europe's freedom? Of course, it has happened before.
But who among us would come forward saying that turning our backs on
their freedom worked prior to World War II or worked after World War
II? My guess is every Member would have to admit that those were
follies of policies, that the world lost millions of lives because we
failed to recognize how much their yearning for freedom was tied to
ours.
Mr. President, this amendment is offered in the hope we will not
repeat the mistake of the past, that we will respect their admiration
and their desire to stand with us, and that we will continue the clear
signal that we care about their freedom and their future.
I welcome the debate on this issue. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Georgia wants
to speak on this issue, but my preference would be, and I consulted
with Senator Leahy on this as well, to dispose of some agreed-to
amendments. I have also consulted with the Democratic leader, who would
like to have a couple of votes shortly because he must be absent from
the Senate around 6:30.
It would be my plan, I say to my friend from Georgia, just for his
information, to have votes on the Hatfield-Dorgan amendment and the
Domenici amendment beginning at 5:50, and then we would go back to the
pending amendment of Senator Brown, on which I know the Senator from
Georgia wishes to speak.
I ask unanimous consent the Brown amendment be temporarily laid
aside.
Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, I do not mind laying aside
the amendment and going ahead with the votes, but I would like to make
a brief statement of 2 or 3 minutes, outlining my concern here on this
amendment before we vote.
Beyond that, if that is accommodated, I do not object.
Mr. McCONNELL. I was going to suggest the Senator from Georgia go
right ahead.
Mr. COHEN. I want to inquire in terms of when we intend to proceed to
vote on my amendment. Is it following the resolution of the Brown
amendment, at some time later this evening?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. COHEN. At what point?
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from Maine, I want to just make a
few more remarks about his amendment, and I am not aware of any
speakers, other than I assume he would like to close on his own
amendment, but we will need to do that after we dispose of these.
Mr. COHEN. I understand that. We will dispose of the other two
amendments. There was no indication how long the Brown amendment may
take this evening. I am just trying to find out whether or not we----
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Brown amendment is controversial, then we will
move on with Burma. We will lay Brown aside and dispose of Burma and go
back to Brown for whatever discussion may be forthcoming.
Mr. COHEN. All right.
Amendments Nos. 5059 Through 5065, En Bloc
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send seven amendments to the desk, en
bloc, 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 5059 through 5065.
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. 5059
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding expansion of
eligibility for Holocaust survivor compensation by the Government of
Germany)
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
sense of congress regarding expansion of eligibility for holocaust
survivor compensation by the government of germany
Sec. . (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) After nearly half a century, tens of thousands of
Holocaust survivors continue to be denied justice and
compensation by the Government of Germany.
(2) These people who suffered grievously at the hands of
the Nazis are now victims of unreasonable and arbitrary rules
which keep them outside the framework of the various
compensation programs.
(3) Compensation for these victims has been non-existent
or, at best, woefully inadequate.
(4) The time has come to right this terrible wrong.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress calls upon the
Government of Germany to negotiate in good faith with the
Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany to
broaden the categories of those eligible for compensation so
that the injustice of uncompensated Holocaust survivors may
be corrected before it is too late.
amendment no. 5060
(Purpose: To allocate funds for commercial law reform in the
independent states of the former Soviet Union)
On page 117, line 14, before the period insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading $25,000,000 shall be
available for the legal restructuring necessary to support a
decentralized market-oriented economic system, including
enactment of necessary substantive
[[Page S8799]]
commercial law, implementation of reforms necessary to
establish an independent judiciary and bar, legal education
for judges, attorneys, and law students, and education of the
public designed to promote understanding of a law-based
economy''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 5061
(Purpose: Urging continued and increased United States support for the
efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia to bring to justice the perpetrators of gross violations of
international law in the former Yugoslavia)
Findings. The United Nations, recognizing the need for
justice in the former Yugoslavia, established the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the
``International Criminal Tribunal'');
United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 of May 25,
1993, requires states to cooperate fully with the
International Criminal Tribunal;
The parties to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in
Bosnia and Herzegovina and associated Annexes (in this
resolution referred to as the ``Peace Agreement'') negotiated
in Dayton, Ohio and signed in Paris, France, on December 14,
1995, accepted, in Article IX, the obligation ``to cooperate
in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other
violations of international humanitarian law'';
The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, agreed to as
Annex 4 of the Peace Agreement, provides, in Article IX, that
``No person who is serving a sentence imposed by the
International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and no
person who is under indictment by the Tribunal and who has
failed to comply with an order to appear before the Tribunal,
may stand as a candidate or hold any appointive, elective, or
other public office in Bosnia and Herzegovina'';
The International Criminal Tribunal has issued 57
indictments against individuals from all parties to the
conflicts in the former Yugoslavia;
The International Criminal Tribunal continues to
investigate gross violations of international law in the
former Yugoslavia with a view to further indictments against
the perpetrators;
On July 25, 1995, the International Criminal Tribunal
issued an indictment for Radovan Karadzic, president of the
Bosnian Serb administration of Pale, and Ratko Mladic,
commander of the Bosnian Serb administration and charged them
with genocide and crimes against humanity, violations of the
law or customs of war, and grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, arising from atrocities perpetrated
against the civilian population. Throughout Bosnia-
Herzegovina, for the sniping campaign against civilians in
Sarajevo, and for the taking of United Nations
peacekeepers as hostages and for their use as human
shields;
On November 16, 1995, Karadzic and Mladic were indicated a
second time by the International Criminal Tribunal, charged
with genocide for the killing of up to 6,000 Muslims and
Srebrenica, Bosnia, in July 1995;
The United Nations Security Council, in adopting Resolution
1022 on November 22, 1995, decided that economic sanctions on
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
and the so-called Republika Srpska would be reimposed if, at
any time, the High Representative or the IFOR commander
informs the Security Council that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia or the Bosnian Serb authorities are failing
significantly to meet their obligations under the Peace
Agreement;
The so-called Republika Srpska and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) have failed to arrest and
turn over for prosecution indicted war criminals, including
Karadzic and Mladic;
Efforts to politically isolate Karadzic and Mladic have
failed thus far and would in any case be insufficient to
comply with the Peace Agreement and bring peace with justice
to Bosnia and Herzegovina;
The International Criminal Tribunal issued International
warrants for the arrest of Karadzic and Mladic on July 11,
1996.
In the so-called Republika Srpska freedom of the press and
freedom of assembly are severely limited and violence against
ethnic and religious minorities and opposition figures is on
the rise;
It will be difficult for national elections in Bosnia and
Herzegovina to take place meaningfully so long as key war
criminals, including Karadzic and Mladic, remain at large
and able to influence political and military developments;
On June 6, 1996, the President of the International
Criminal Tribunal, declaring that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia's failure to extradite indicted war criminals is a
blatant violation of the Peace Agreement and of United
Nations Security Council Resolutions, called on the High
Representative to reimpose economic sanctions on the so-
called Republika Srpska and on the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Servia and Montenegro); and
The apprehension and prosecution of indicted war criminals
is essential for peace and reconciliation to be achieved and
democracy to be established throughout Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
(a) It is the sense of the Senate finds that the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
merits continued and increased United States support for its
efforts to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators
of gross violations of international law in the former
Yugoslavia.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that the President of the
United States should support the request of the President of
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
for the High Representative to reimpose full economic
sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Servia and
Montenegro) and the so-called Republika Srpska, in accordance
with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1022 (1995),
until the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Servia and
Montenegro) and Bosnian Serb authorities have complied with
their obligations under the Peace Agreement and United
Nations Security Council Resolutions to cooperate fully with
the International Criminal Tribunal.
(c) It is further the sense of the Senate that the NATO-led
Implementation Force (IFOR), in carrying out its mandate,
should make it an urgent priority to detain and bring to
justice persons indicted by the International Criminal
Tribunal.
(d) It is further the sense of the Senate that states in
the former Yugoslavia should not be admitted to international
organizations and fora until and unless they have complied
with their obligations under the Peace Agreement and United
Nations Security Council Resolutions to cooperate fully with
the International Criminal Tribunal.
Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy
of this resolution to the President of the United States.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise on a matter of some urgency.
Several colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, and I, have
introduced an amendment which we hope will advance the twin causes of
peace and justice in the former Yugoslavia. I thank my co-sponsors,
Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, Senator Specter, Senator Feinstein,
Senator Moynihan, Senator Hatch, Senator Levin and Senator D'Amato, for
joining in what is, and must be, a bi-partisan effort to bring indicted
war criminals to justice. It should now be apparent that we cannot
divorce peace from justice in this traumatized region. To fail to
address fundamental issues of justice in the former Yugoslavia, and
Bosnia in particular, will mean the certain failure of the current
international efforts to secure a lasting peace in the region.
I will explain why the problem is one requiring urgent attention in a
moment. Let me first summarize the problem and the solutions required.
The problem is that progress in the rebuilding of Bosnia has been
slow at best. This slowness is, in part, due to the slowness in
overcoming the antagonisms engendered throughout a tragic war and the
effect of the creation of ethnic areas. Nevertheless, the majority of
Bosnian peoples of all ethnic affiliations, desperately seek peace and
accommodation. Bosnia had been a relatively unified, multiethnic state,
with extraordinarily high percentages of interethnic marriages, prior
to the manipulative actions of power hungry nationalist leaders during
the late 1980's. It can again become a multiethnic state, if those
seeking to build civil institutions and a civil society are allowed to
do so by those initially responsible for these antagonisms and
divisions.
The problem, then, is simply stated: those attempting to build a
civil society with functioning democratic institutions, are being
prevented from accomplishing their mission. The prerequisites for such
a development include fundamental protections of human and minority
group rights, and the rule of law.
But how can these conditions be achieved while war criminals are
roaming freely in and out of the Bosnian Federation? Gross violations
of law, such as the support and direction of snipings and massacres of
innocents, have made Karadzic and Mladic war criminals. The underlying
philosophies which guided those actions continue to drive these men
today. Institution-building, a task that many Bosnians are working
diligently towards, is imperiled by the very xenophobic, ultra-
nationalist criminals that contributed to the dismantlement of Bosnia
in the first place.
Mr. President, I applaud the recent efforts of Ambassador Holbrooke
to reduce the deleterious effects of war criminals that are allowed to
freely impact on Bosnian politics. This is a substantial accomplishment
that will do much to help us reach our ultimate goal. However, the
signed statement in which Radovan Karadzic has agreed to remove himself
from the political life of the country, is not the final end we must
seek. Let's not forget the reasons
[[Page S8800]]
we call for the apprehension of these war criminals. Support and
direction of indiscriminate snipings of men, women and children during
the long, agonizing, siege of Sarajevo, as well as, the unspeakable and
calculated acts of genocide at Srebenica, in which men were
exterminated and buried in mass graves, underline the reasons for the
necessity of this resolution. Recent discoveries of the mass graves in
Srebenica, with the grueling sight of twisted bodies, a sight not scene
in Europe since the liberation of Dachau and Auschwitz, will ensure
that antagonisms will remain alive so long as justice is hindered by
timidity. No peace can survive in this torn land as long as justice is
not achieved. The freedom of these criminals is an insult, a wound to
those hundreds of thousands of people who lost relatives or who were
forcibly removed from their homes during the war. That the future peace
of the region should depend on the word of war criminals with a track
record for breaking promises, seems an absurdity; surely fellow
Bosnians will view the situation that way when elections arrive in
September.
Now, let me be clear, Mr. President, that the Bosnian people bear the
brunt of the responsibility for putting their house in order. Yet, they
need help in this process. We have provided that help, both with a
military component, the NATO-led Implementation Force, or IFOR, and the
civilian reconstruction effort, led by the High Representative, Carl
Bildt. Let us remember that the peace agreement forged at Dayton, that
led to this peace mission, was done for two reasons: One, because it is
an important U.S. interest that we control the conflagration that
could, and still can, spread to our allies in Europe; and Two, because
the costs of our intervention are reasonable, given the benefits, and
the intervention is politically and militarily feasible.
But, as I said, the intent of our mission in Bosnia, the intent
shared by many peace-seeking Bosnians, is being contravened by war
criminals who are continuing to poison the politics of the region. Our
purpose in Bosnia remains a national interest that can and should be
pursued. However, we are failing to implement the peace plan hammered
out at Dayton. We are failing to execute a plan that provides for
feasible solutions. By so doing, we are guaranteeing a failure for
institution-building in Bosnia. By allowing the virtual free reign of
war criminals, we are not adhering to agreements we made which were
designed to achieve success. This leaves Bosnians at the mercy of
criminals and undermines confidence in the law. The results, to date,
are obvious: refugees are unable to return to their homes, freedom of
movement is severely limited due to a continuing solidification of
ethnic camps within the country, and the conditions for free and fair
elections are non-existent. Mr. Cotti, the OSCE Chairman, confirmed
recently that conditions for a free and fair vote do not exist.
Mr. President, here then is my first reason for pressing the urgency
of this issue. With elections scheduled for September 14, we have
little time to reverse this situation. The first task to reversing this
situation must be the apprehension of war criminals, most notably the
former President of the Bosnian Serb Republic, Radovan Karadzic, and
the Bosnian Serb General, Ratko Mladic. The tools for effecting their
apprehension are available to us at minimal cost. We are not asking for
house-to-house searches by IFOR troops to apprehend these war
criminals. All that we are demanding is that IFOR has as one of its
primary missions, the apprehension of indicted war criminals in the
conduct of its many routine patrols. Despite administration claims to
the contrary, troops on the ground continue to confirm that
apprehending war criminals is not a priority actively sought by
military members on the ground. Apprehension of these war criminals is
not only a prerequisite for success of peacekeeping in the country, it
is a requirement of the signatories of the peace accord.
Apprehension of the war criminals is, then, our first task because
none of the other conditions required for peace in Bosnia, that I have
discussed, can be addressed while the criminals remain influential.
Despite their two indictments for genocide and crimes against humanity,
by the International Criminal Tribunal, as well as, the issuance of
international arrest warrants by the Tribunal, Karadzic and Mladic have
continued to control or influence the organs of government, the media,
as well as, party politics and party competition. They do not need to
hold formal positions of power to exercise this influence. In this
situation, moderates seeking peace continue to place their lives at
risk. Certainly, the politics of a free people, with freely organized
and competing parties, is impossible under these circumstances.
Mr. President, we have the capabilities for shaping the peace in
Bosnia. The need to shape conditions for the upcoming elections is an
urgent one. This urgency has been proclaimed by a recent letter of
President Clinton written by Human Rights Watch. This excellent letter
states quite eloquently the necessity for immediate apprehension of the
war criminals. More importantly, this letter has 72 signatories. The
groups that have signed on to this letter are diverse, including,
Amnesty International, B'nai B'rith, and Doctors of the World.
My second reason for pressing the urgency of pursuing war criminals
lies in the threat to U.S. and NATO credibility as our threats are made
and then ignored. These recent occurrences are very reminiscent of the
failure of previous peace efforts that spoke loudly but carried a
little stick. The costs of failed prestige, however, are significantly
higher. Now, it is the resolve of the U.S. and NATO that is on the
line. It is essential both to NATO's long term future, as well as, the
success of the Bosnian mission, that the NATO-led IFOR not become a
paper tiger as did its predecessor, UNPROFOR. U.S. leadership and
credibility are also directly impacted by the actions and reactions in
Bosnia. The United States threatened to reimpose sanctions on Belgrade
unless Karadzic and Mladic were removed from power by the end of June.
Another deadline has come and gone, and we are again failing to follow
through on our threats. What might have emerged from the recent G-7
summit as a powerful statement with respect to apprehending war
criminals in Bosnia, instead became a replay of U.S. credibility being
snubbed by thugs in Bosnia. We hope that another snubbing is not soon
to follow Ambassador Holbrooke's efforts, although I am not hopeful.
The final reason that I am pressing this issue as one requiring
urgent attention is that apprehension of the war criminals is the
strategic action required, at this time, which can determine whether
peace in Bosnia will be fleeting or long-lived. Mr. President, I fear
that if we do not act now on the issue of apprehension, our forces will
have been sent to Bosnia for naught. Elections, with the current mix of
ethnic-based politics, will only solidify opposing camps bent on ethnic
exclusion. Further conflict over ethnic enclaves will certainly ensue.
Tragically, any uncertainties on this issue will almost certainly
embolden the ultra-nationalists to set up their terror campaigns
against dissenting, moderate voices. The greatest irony of all could be
that we intervened for peace only to ensure that ethnic based divisions
became not only more solid, but also legitimated by the very elections
that we insisted upon.
A Washington Post editorial stated the problem well. Referring to the
recent disregard of IFOR and the High Representative by Karadzic, the
Post has this to say:
Recall that peace was not meant simply to consolidate and
extend ``ethnic cleansing,'' a process that carries with it
the confirmation of massive injustice and the prospect of
further war. It was meant to open a path back to a multi-
ethnic federal Bosnia. The Karadzic taunt is taking Bosnia
exactly the wrong way. It is making the would-be peacemakers
in and out of NATO, not least Clinton, bit players in a
Karadzic-led charade.
Mr. President, we can assist in the creation of conditions for free
and fair elections. Eliminating the taunts from the ``Karadzics'' and
the ``Mladics'' of Bosnia is the first step. And, no new initiatives
need be diplomatically crafted. We must insist upon enforcement of our
agreements made at Dayton. Security Council Resolution 1031 charged
IFOR with ensuring compliance with the Dayton agreement, which includes
a requirement that all parties cooperate with the Tribunal. Article 29
of the Tribunals' statute sets forth the various forms of cooperation
that are due, including ``the identification and location of persons,''
``the arrest or detention of persons,'' and ``the
[[Page S8801]]
surrender of the transfer of the accused to the International
Tribunal.''
That said, the resolution that my colleagues and I have put forward
is designed to see that our international agreements are enforced. It
calls for four actions, each of which has already been agreed upon in
other international fora. First, it calls for the increased and
continued U.S. support for the efforts of the International Criminal
Tribunal to investigate and bring to justice war criminals. Second, it
calls for support by the United States for economic sanctions on the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the so-called Republika Srpska
unless those regimes comply with their obligations to apprehend the war
criminals. Third, it calls on the signatories to Dayton and those
guided by the relevant U.N. resolutions, to exercise their authority to
bring the war criminals to justice. Finally, it calls for the
prohibition of the offending parties, specifically the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia and the so-called Republika Srpska, from admission to
international organizations and fora, until these parties comply with
their obligations under the Dayton Peace accord.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator
Lieberman for his initiative in once again calling to the Senate's
attention to the problem of the continued freedom of indicted war
criminals in the former Yugoslavia, by offering this amendment to the
Foreign Operations bill expressing support for the efforts of the
International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague. Although I have some
questions and concerns about how certain portions of this amendment
would be implemented, especially with respect to the NATO-led
Implementation Force's (IFOR) detention of indicted war criminals, I
support the part of this amendment which calls for reimposition of
economic sanctions on the so-called Republika Srpska and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia unless and until certain war criminals are
delivered to the War Crimes Tribunal. For too long, we in the West have
allowed these indicted war criminals and their allies to thumb their
noses at those who would bring them before the bar of justice. That
must not continue.
All of the signatories to the Dayton accord agreed to meet certain
obligations, one of which was to ensure full and effective
implementation of the agreement ``to cooperate in the investigation and
prosecution of war crimes and other violations of international
humanitarian law.'' That obligation must be borne squarely by the
Federal Government of Yugoslavia. So far, even in the face of recent
intense pressure from U.S. Envoy Richard Holbrooke, Milosevic has
refused to budge on this question, and to apply sufficient pressure on
his Bosnian Serb allies to allow these war criminals to be arrested and
brought to the tribunal to face charges.
On two separate occasions since July of last year, the International
Criminal Tribunal issued indictments for Radovan Karadzic, former
President of the Bosnian Serb administration of Pale, and Ratko Mladic,
military commander of the Bosnian Serb administration, charging them
with genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as numerous other
charges outlined in the amendment. Each time, the so-called ``Republika
Srpska'' and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have failed to arrest
and turn them over for prosecution.
Most recently, just 2 weeks ago, the War Crimes Tribunal re-issued
international arrest warrants for Karadzic and Mladic, charging them
with genocide and other crimes against humanity. This time, the
warrants authorized their arrest if they cross any international
border, and are again based on substantial credible evidence of their
involvement in initiating and/or overseeing some of the worst
atrocities of the war.
In my view, it is virtually impossible for free and fair national
elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina to take place in September as long
as key war criminals, including Karadzic and Mladic, remain at large
and able to influence political and military developments. Although I
acknowledge and commend the effort by Mr. Holbrooke earlier this month
which resulted in the agreement to remove Karadzic from office--which
hopefully will at least remove him from involvement in the political
process once and for all--the fact that Mladic was not subject to this
agreement, and that both Mladic and Karadzic remain free and able to
influence events there remains a serious problem. As Mr. Holbrooke
himself observed, the agreement he was able to reach fell far short of
what he was seeking, and far short of the steps necessary to fully
comply with the Peace Agreement which the U.S. is seeking.
This amendment acknowledges that the Dayton signatories on the Serb
side have ignored their key responsibilities, by refusing to bring
indicted war criminals to justice, and calls for several steps to force
that action. I believe the most prudent course of action is to
reinstitute economic sanctions in response to the failure of the
signatories of the Peace Agreement to detain these individuals, and
convey them to the Hague. That is the most substantial leverage we now
have in the West over these people, and it is time to use it.
After careful consideration, almost a year ago I supported the
participation of U.S. peacekeepers in the NATO peacekeeping mission in
Bosnia. I did so because I believed then and I believe now that the
Dayton Agreement was the best, and probably the last, chance for peace
in the region. Although not yet fully implemented, it has proven to be
successful in stopping a brutal civil war and given the parties a
chance to recover, rebuild their cities and rebuild their nations.
But even though we have played a key role in developing and carrying
out this agreement, let us not forget one critical thing: this is their
agreement, not ours. It was developed by the parties, not imposed by
outsiders. They have asked other nations, including the U.S., to help
secure the future of that agreement. And by signing the agreement, they
assured us, NATO, and the UN Security Council that they will respect
its terms. The Serbs have failed to fulfill their commitments on war
criminals, and that failure requires a tough response.
Bringing indicted war criminals to justice is a centerpiece of the
peace process. Continued failure to bring Mladic and Karadzic before
the International Criminal Tribunal will seriously hinder the ability
of the parties to conduct free and fair elections in September, by
allowing these war criminals to remain as the focal point for
nationalist fervor and attention, and by allowing them to influence
events there. We must increase the pressure on those who would seek to
undermine the peaceful future of the former Yugoslavia. This amendment
should help, however modestly, to do that.
I join Senator Lieberman in his call to support the request of the
President of the International Criminal Tribunal to reimpose full
economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and on the so-
called Republika Srpska, in accordance with United Nations Security
Council Resolutions. These sanctions should remain in place until
Bosnian Serb authorities have fully complied with their obligations
under the Dayton accord to cooperate fully with the International
Criminal Tribunal. For those who take seriously the rule of law, the
obligations of justice, and the judgments of history, there is no other
responsible alternative but to finally bring these indicted war
criminals to justice.
amendment no. 5062
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on the delivery by the
People's Republic of China of cruise missiles to Iran)
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
sense of senate on delivery by china of cruise missiles to iran
Sec. 580. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) On February 22, 1996, the Director of Central
Intelligence informed the Senate that the Government of the
People's Republic of China had delivered cruise missiles to
Iran.
(2) On June 19, 1996, the Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security Affairs informed Congress
that the Department of State had evidence of Chinese-produced
cruise missiles in Iran.
(3) On at least three occasions in 1996, including July 15,
1996, the Commander of the United States Fifth Fleet has
pointed to the threat posed by Chinese-produced cruise
missiles to the 15,000 United States sailors and marines
stationed in the Persian Gulf region.
(4) Section 1605 of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation
Act of 1992 (title XVI of Public Law 102-484; 50 U.S.C. 1701
note) both requires and authorizes the President to impose
sanctions against any foreign government that delivers cruise
missiles to Iran.
[[Page S8802]]
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should
immediately halt the delivery of cruise missiles and other
advanced conventional weapons to Iran; to
(2) the President should enforce all appropriate United
States laws with respect to the delivery by that government
of cruise missiles to Iran.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last November, Vice Admiral Scott Redd,
Commander of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf,
revealed that Iran had begun developing an integrated ship, submarine,
missile, and mine capability in the Persian Gulf. The missile component
was to be a new type of Chinese-made cruise missile--known as the C-802
missile. It is an anti-ship cruise missile. It is about 20 feet long,
has a range of 75 miles and carries a 350 pound warhead. This is a low
flying, turbojet-powered, cruise missile. This is a highly advanced
conventional weapon in every sense. It can evade radar and will make
any missile offensive launched by the Iranian Navy difficult to track.
At that time, it was reported that these missiles would be deployed on
patrol boats, also provided by China. In addition, news reports
indicated that Iran was seeking a land-based version of the C-802 from
China.
In January, Admiral Redd reported that Iran had test fired a C-802
missile. The Admiral noted that this new weapon, in the hands of the
Iranians represented a ``new threat dimension'' to the many tankers and
ships that use the Persian Gulf as a commercial shipping lane, and of
course, to the 15,000 Americans--sailors, marines, and airmen--in the
Persian Gulf.
Last February 22nd Dr. John Deutch, the Director of Central
Intelligence, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the
intelligence community ``continues to get accurate and timely
information'' on ``cruise missiles to iran.'' And, on June 19
Undersecretary of State Lynn Davis--the State Department's senior non-
proliferation official--told the House International Relations
Committee that the federal government has ``evidence" that Chinese
cruise missiles are in Iran.
So, Mr. President, there is no doubt that Chinese cruise missiles are
in Iran. Further, I do not expect anyone would disagree with Admiral
Redd's assessment that these advanced weapons represent an immediate
and real threat to our interests and most important, to our fellow
Americans in the Gulf.
Mr. President, in 1992 Congress passed the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-
proliferation Act of 1992. It is commonly known as the Gore-McCain
act--for the honorable former Senator from Tennessee, now Vice
President of the United States; and the distinguished senior senator
from Arizona. Their legislation calls for very severe sanctions against
companies and countries that knowingly transfer advanced conventional
weapons to Iran. ``Knowingly'' is not at issue here; nor is there a
question of whether a cruise missile is an advanced conventional
weapon.
The Sense of the Senate amendment I have offered along with my
distinguished colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, is very simple.
It merely calls on the Chinese authorities to cease deliveries of
cruise missiles to Iran. Second, it calls on the President to enforce
the law. Nothing more.
Frankly, action from the Administration is long overdue. After
Admiral Redd reported the test firing last January, I and three of my
colleagues--the distinguished Chair of the Banking Committee, Senator
D'Amato; the distinguished Senator from Florida, Senator Mack; and the
distinguished Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Specter--
sent a letter to the President, urging that the Gore-McCain law be
enforced. Simply put, we urged the President to impose sanctions, or
waive them if he deemed that necessary. That letter was dated January
31, 1996--nearly 6 months ago. The President has not taken any action
in response to this letter. I will ask unanimous consent later that a
copy of this letter to President Clinton appear in the record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
Our letter apparently was not the first call for action. According to
a story that appeared in the Washington Times on February 10, 1996, the
Pentagon recommended to Undersecretary of State Davis that the Clinton
Administration declare China in violation of Federal law for exporting
advanced cruise missiles to Iran. When was that recommendation made?
Last September--10 months ago.
I have been quite outspoken about Chinese weapons proliferation
activities this past year. Sadly, there has been too much to talk
about. I referred earlier to the testimony by Director Deutch last
February. In his testimony, Director Deutch noted that the People's
Republic of China also had transferred nuclear technology and M-11
missiles to Pakistan--both sanctionable offenses under Federal law. The
M-11 transfer, in particular, is quite disturbing because the Clinton
administration obtained a written agreement from China in September
1994, which stated that China would cease transferring ballistic
missiles and related technology to Pakistan. Finally, this week, it was
reported that China may have transferred ballistic missile guidance
systems to Syria, which if true would be sanctionable under Federal law
as well.
This is quite a track record of proliferation, Mr. President. It is a
track record that is fostering instability in South Asia and the Middle
East. It is a track record that has put the lives of our troops in the
region in even greater danger. Congress has provided the tools for the
Executive Branch to punish weapons proliferators. Our Nation's non-
proliferation policy is based on a simple premise: proliferation
carries a heavy price. Yet, even with this track record, the
administration has yet to take any action, or impose any price against
a nation that is providing cruise missiles to a terrorist nation.
Mr. President, recently Congress sent to President Clinton the Iran
oil sanctions act. I know my good friend from New York, Senator
D'Amato, has worked very hard on this legislation. He is to be
commended for his efforts. I hope the President will sign it.
Clearly, if we are going to get tough on those who buy Iranian oil,
we should get even tougher on those who sell advanced cruise missiles
to the Iranians. We owe that to our friends and allies who utilize the
Persian Gulf to further their commercial interests. Most important, we
owe that to Admiral Redd and all of our fine men and women serving our
country in the Persian Gulf. That's why we should pass this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter I mentioned earlier be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, January 31, 1996.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: It has come to our attention that Iran
recently test-fired a new, low-flying cruise missile. This
missile was identified as a C-802 anti-ship missile, which is
produced by the People's Republic of China (PRC). If that is
the case, we believe sanctions may have to be imposed against
the appropriate parties in the PRC pursuant to federal law.
This warrants your immediate attention.
As you may know, today's New York Times reported that the
Iranian Navy test fired a C-802 cruise missile from the
northern Arabian Sea on January 6, 1996. Vice Admiral Scott
Redd, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Fifth Fleet,
stated that the C-802 adds a ``new dimension'' to Iran's
military capabilities against free shipping in the Persian
Gulf. This mobile missile can evade radar and will make any
missile offensive launched by the Iranian Navy difficult to
track.
Mr. President, Title XVI of the Fiscal Year 1993 Department
of Defense Authorization Bill contains the Iran-Iraq Non-
Proliferation Act. This act provides for sanctions against
any persons and countries respectively, that transfer certain
advanced conventional weapons to Iran. The act also defines
advanced conventional weapons to include ``long-range
precision-guided munitions'' and ``cruise missiles.''
Clearly, Admiral Redd's acknowledgement of the C-802 test-
firing would appear to be an official recognition of an
illegal transfer to Iran of advanced conventional weapons by
Chinese defense industrial trading companies. Please inform
us as soon as possible of your intention either to enforce
the sanctions pursuant to federal law, or to seek a waiver.
Thank you for your attention to this vital national
security matter.
Sincerely,
Larry Pressler.
Arlen Specter.
Alfonse D'Amato.
Connie Mack.
[[Page S8803]]
AMENDMENT NO. 5063
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on delivery by China of
ballistic missile technology to Syria)
On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SENSE OF SENATE ON DELIVERY BY CHINA OF BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY TO
SYRIA
Sec. 580. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) Credible information exists indicating that defense
industrial trading companies of the People's Republic of
China may have transferred ballistic missile technology to
Syria.
(2) On October 4, 1994, the Government of the People's
Republic of China entered into a written agreement with the
United States pledging not to export missiles or related
technology that would violate the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR).
(3) Section 73(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2797(f)) states that, when determining whether a foreign
person may be subject to United States sanctions for
transferring technology listed on the MTCR Annex, it should
be a rebuttable presumption that such technology is designed
for use in a missile listed on the MTCR Annex if the
President determines that the final destination of the
technology is a country the government of which the Secretary
of State has determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1)(A)
of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App.
2405(j)(1)(A)), has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism.
(4) The Secretary of State has determined under the terms
of section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of
1979 that Syria has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism.
(5) In 1994 Congress explicitly enacted section 73(f) of
the Arms Export Control Act in order to target the transfer
of ballistic missile technology to terrorist nations.
(6) The presence of ballistic missiles in Syria would pose
a threat to United States armed forces and to regional peace
and stability in the Middle East.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) it is in the national security interests of the United
States and the State of Israel to prevent the spread of
ballistic missiles and related technology to Syria;
(2) the Government of the People's Republic of China should
continue to honor its agreement with the United States not to
export missiles or related technology that would violate the
Missile Technology Control Regime; and
(3) the President should exercise all legal authority
available to the President to prevent the spread of ballistic
missiles and related technology to Syria.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered along with
my friend and colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, is very simple.
I offer it in response to recent reports that China has shipped
ballistic missile technology to Syria. This was first reported in the
July 23rd edition of the Washington Times. I'm sure all my colleagues
agree that this is a very serious allegation. It is the latest dark
chapter in what certainly is a troublesome year for nonproliferation
advocates.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Times
story just mentioned be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. PRESSLER. Specifically, our intelligence sources noted that last
month a defense industrial trading company--the China Precision
Machinery Import-Export Corp.--delivered military cargo to the
Scientific Studies and Research Center in Syria.
China Precision Machinery is to missile production what McDonald's is
to burger production. In fact, the United States had imposed sanctions
twice against China Precision Machinery--in 1991 and 1993. In 1993, the
firm shipped M-11 ballistic missile technology to Pakistan--a violation
of the so-called Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR. The MTCR
sanctions were lifted 1 year later after China promised the United
States it would not export M-11's or related technology. If the Syrian
missile deal proves to be true, it would represent a clear violation of
both the MTCR and the 1994 agreement.
The Syrian firm that was reported to have received the cargo is the
heart of Syria's efforts to produce ballistic missiles, and other
advanced conventional arms. The firm is reported to be building a
version of the Scud C ballistic missile. If Syria has received M-11
related technology, that would represent a significant technological
upgrade in Syria's ballistic missile capability. No doubt, it would
destabilize a region struggling to achieve peace.
Our weapons proliferation laws are based on a simple premise --
proliferation carries a price. Traditionally, sanctions under the MTCR
are imposed only after a clear determination has been made that a
specific violation has taken place. However, in 1994 Congress passed
legislation I sponsored that would lower the standard of proof when a
suspected transfer goes to a nation that supports international
terrorism. Clearly, any MTCR violation is very troublesome--to the
United States and the other 30 nations that are co-signers of the
agreement. However, our law is clear--when missiles or missile
technology are being sent to a terrorist country, far more swift action
is necessary. In that case, the President need not wait for conclusive
evidence--he can impose sanctions and compel the sanctioned country to
come forward to prove it has not violated the MTCR.
The reason for this lower standard is obvious--we need to be far more
aggressive to ensure ballistic missiles and related technology do not
fall into the hands of terrorist elements.
Let me make clear that the amendment I have offered today does not
make any firm conclusions about the reported transfer from China to
Syria. It simply makes three key points: First, it is in our Nation's
national security interest to prevent the spread of ballistic missiles
and related technology to Syria; second, it calls on China to honor its
1994 agreement not to export missiles or related technology that would
violate the MTCR; and third, it calls on the President to exercise all
legal authority to prevent the spread of ballistic missiles and related
technology to Syria. That's all my amendment calls for, Mr. President.
I'm sure all of my colleagues would agree with each of those points.
I'm sure my colleagues will agree that the MTCR agreement and the laws
we pass to enforce it mean nothing unless enforced vigorously.
I'm sure my colleagues also would agree that any effort by Syria to
expand its ballistic missile capability represents a direct and clear
threat to our friend and ally, Israel. Just as important, it could
threaten current efforts to achieve a lasting, secure peace in the
region. The people of Israel know all too well what it feels like to be
on the receiving end of a ballistic missile attack. The people of
Israel looked to us to stand by them during the Gulf War to withstand
the Scud assaults on their country. We did stand by them.
The Gulf War is now a memory, but the threat and reality of a
ballistic missile attack remains. We should still stand by Israel. The
best way we can do so is to enforce the MTCR agreement--to ensure that
those who engage in missile proliferation will pay a heavy price.
That's what my amendment calls for.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Times, Feb. 10, 1996]
CIA Suspects Chinese Firm of Syria Missile Aid
(By Bill Gertz)
The Chinese manufacturer of M-11 missiles sent a shipment
of military cargo to Syria last month that the CIA believes
may have contained missile-related components, agency sources
said.
The CIA detected the delivery to Syria early in June from
the China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp., described
as ``China's premier missile sales firm.''
The suspect military delivery raises questions about
China's pledge to the United States in 1994 not to export
missiles or missile components that would violate the Missile
Technology Control Regime.
It also follows China's recent export of nuclear-weapons
technology to Pakistan in violation of U.S. anti-
proliferation laws, which was disclosed by The Washington
Times in February.
The Syrian company that received the Chinese cargo was
identified as the Scientific Studies and Research Center,
which conducts work on Syria's ballistic missiles, weapons of
mass destruction and advanced conventional arms programs, the
CIA said in a classified report circulated to senior U.S.
officials.
The Syrian center is in charge of programs to build Scud C
ballistic missiles and a program to upgrade anti-ship
missiles.
U.S. intelligence agencies said the Syrian center has
received help from the China Precision Machinery Import-
Export Corp. in recent years for both missile programs.
``The involvement of CPMIEC and the Syrian end user
suggests the shipments [last month] are missile-related,''
one source said.
The exact nature of the equipment was not identified, but
it was described as ``special and dangerous,'' the source
said.
CIA and State Department spokesmen declined to comment.
[[Page S8804]]
Chinese officials promised the State Department in 1994 not
to export M-11s or their technology in exchange for a U.S.
agreement to lift sanctions against Chinese Precision
Machinery and the Pakistani Defense Ministry, which were
involved in M-11-related transfers.
The missile-control agreement bars transfers of missiles
and technology for systems that travel farther than 186 miles
and carry warheads heavier than 1,100 pounds. Transfers of
both the Chinese M-11 and Syria's Scud C are banned under the
accord.
Syria has purchased Scud C missiles in the past from North
Korea and is working on developing production capabilities
for them, according to U.S. officials.
The delivery of Chinese missiles or components to Syria, if
confirmed, would trigger sanctions against China because
Syria is classified by the State Department as a state
sponsor of international terrorism.
William C. Triplett, a China specialist and former
Republican counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, said the administration does not need hard
evidence to impose sanctions because the sales involved
Syria.
A 1994 amendment to the Arms Export Control Act, sponsored
by Sen. Larry Pressler, South Dakota Republican, says the
president may presume a transfer violates the 31-nation
missile-control agreement if it goes to a nation that
supports terrorism.
``If it goes to a terrorist country, we consider that a
much more significant event than if it goes some other
place,'' Mr. Triplett said.
China Precision Machinery already is under intense scrutiny
within the U.S. government over the earlier M-11 sales to
Pakistan.
U.S. intelligence agencies concluded earlier this year that
Chinese M-11s are operational in Pakistan, but the State
Department is challenging the intelligence conclusion to
avoid having to impose sanctions on China.
U.S.-China relations have been strained over Beijing's
proliferation activities, as well as disputes concerning
human rights and widespread copyright infringement.
In May, the Clinton administration decided not to impose
sanctions on China for violating U.S. anti-proliferation laws
with sales of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan because
Chinese officials claimed they did not know the sale took
place.
China Precision Machinery has been slapped with U.S.
economic sanctions twice in the past. The Bush administration
in 1991 sanctioned the company, which is part of the official
Chinese government defense-industrial complex, for selling
missile technology to Pakistan. Sanctions also were imposed
in 1993, again for the transfer of M-11 technology.
Kenneth Timmerman, director of the consulting firm Middle
East Data Project, said the Syrian center that received the
June shipments from China is a major agency involved in
weapons research, procurement and production.
Mr. Timmerman said that North Korea and China have helped
to build two missile-production centers in Syria and that
Syrian missile technicians have been trained in China.
Israel's government said in 1993 that Chinese technicians
were working in Syria to develop production facilities for
missile-guidance systems, according to Mr. Timmerman.
Amendment No. 5064
(Purpose: To treat adult children of former internees of Vietnamese
reeducation camps as refugees for purposes of the Orderly Departure
Program)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Refugee status for adult children of former vietnamese reeducation camp
internees resettled under the orderly departure program
Sec. . (a) Eligibility for Orderly Departure Program.--For
purposes of eligibility for the Orderly Departure Program for
Nations of Vietnam, an alien described in subsection (b)
shall be considered to be a refugee of special humanitarian
concern to the United States within the meaning of section
207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157)
and shall be admitted to the United States for resettlement
if the alien would be admissible as an immigrant under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (except as provided in
section 207(c)(3) of that Act).
(b) Aliens Covered.--An alien described in this subsection
is an alien who--
(1) is the son or daughter of a national of Vietnam who--
(A) was formerly interned in a reeducation camp in Vietnam
by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; and
(B) has been accepted for resettlement as a refugee under
the Orderly Departure Program on or after April 1, 1995;
(2) is 21 years of age or older; and
(3) was unmarried as of the date of acceptance of the
alien's parent for resettlement under the Orderly Departure
Program.
(c) Supersedes Existing Law.--This section supersedes any
other provision of law.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering reinstates the
eligibility for resettlement in the United States of the adult married
children of Vietnamese reeducation camp detainees.
Last April the State Department declared that the unmarried adult
children of reeducation camp detainees would no longer be considered
for derivative refugee status under the Orderly Department Program
[ODP]. In short, it said these people, roughly 3,000 people, would be
permitted to come to the United States only under worldwide refugee
standards and that any special obligation we may have had to them had
effectively been fulfilled. The amendment I am offering corrects this
by once again making them eligible under the ODP. It has been evaluated
by the Congressional Budget Office, and I am informed that it will have
no significant budgetary impact.
The amendment has the support of the Catholic Conference and Refugees
International. I ask unanimous consent that letters from these
organizations supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
International Rescue Committee,
New York, NY, July 25, 1996.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to express the
International Rescue Committee's deep appreciation for your
amendment to H.R. 3540 which reinstates refugee status to
adult children of former reeducation camp prisoners in the
Orderly Departure Program.
Since 1989, about 150,000 former prisoners and their
families have successfully resettled in the United States
through the ODP. However, in April 1995, the Department of
State announced that adult unmarried children of former
prisoners would no longer be permitted to accompany their
parents to the U.S. Since then, approximately 3,000 unmarried
adult children of former prisoners have been stripped from
existing cases and denied resettlement. Their parents, former
reeduction camp prisoners, waited years for their casework to
be processed and relied on the promise of refuge for their
entire family. Now these former prisoners are being asked to
leave their children behind to an uncertain fate.
Your amendment represents a just and practical approach to
this group of refugees. These refugees need their adult
children to help them resettle successfully; they are older
and some are not in good health. Their children would help
make their resettlement economically, as well as emotionally,
viable.
The IRC fully supports your efforts to overturn this
arbitrary and unfair policy.
Sincerely,
Robert P. DeVecchi,
President.
____
Migration and Refugee Services,
Office of the Executive Director,
Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the United States
Catholic Conference, I would like to express our deep
appreciation for your ongoing support for the Indochinese
refugee program. We support your Amendment to H.R. 3540 which
reinstates derivative refugee status to the unmarried adult
children of former reeducation camp prisoners. Alleviating
the suffering of those imprisoned for aiding the purposes of
the United States in Vietnam has made the former re-education
camp prisoner program the core of the Indochinese refugee
program.
Since completion of negotiations with the Vietnamese
government in 1989, about 150,000 former prisoners and their
families have successfully resettled in the United States.
However, in April 1995, the Department of State announced
that adult unmarried children of former prisoners would no
longer be permitted to accompany their parents to
resettlement. This arbitrary change in policy affects
approximately 3,000 adult children, many of whom remained
unmarried in order to qualify to accompany their parents.
This inhumane decision to force apart long suffering families
should not be allowed to taint the final stages of this
dignified program.
Your Amendment, which restores the original policy, is not
only just but also represents practical resettlement policy,
as the aging former prisoners would have a much better
possibility of establishing an economically viable family
unit if their unmarried adult children were permitted to
accompany them.
Thank you again for your commitment to this special group
of refugees.
Sincerely,
John Swenson,
Executive Director.
____
Refugees International,
Washington, DC, July 10, 1996.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your Amendment to H.R.
3540, to reinstate refugee status to adult children of former
internees. Granting refugee status to family members,
especially unmarried adult children, who are vulnerable to
persecution, has
[[Page S8805]]
been, and continues to be, of utmost importance. Refugee
status is the only way to include these children into the
Orderly Departure Program. Since its establishment in 1975,
the program has allowed 150,000 prisoners and their families
to resettle here successfully. When the Department of State
changed the eligibility criteria of this program, it
jeopardized the possibility of U.S. resettlement for
thousands of former prisoners and their families. By
reinstating the established U.S. policy allowing for the
resettlement of former prisoners with their married, adult
children, the successful resettlement of these former
prisoners might become a reality.
Approximately 3,000 unmarried adult children of former
prisoners have been stripped from existing cases and denied
resettlement since April 1995. Many of these children have
remained unmarried to qualify for resettlement together with
their parents and siblings. These children would suffer from
the persecution they would undoubtedly face in Vietnam;
meanwhile, their parents would once again be victimized.
After waiting years for their casework to be processed and
relying on the promise of refuge for the entire family, these
former prisoners are now being asked to leave their children
behind to an uncertain fate. Furthermore, these former
prisoners need their adult children to help them resettle
successfully; they are older and some are not in good health.
Their children would help make their resettlement
economically, as well as emotionally, viable.
By pressing to reinstate the former U.S. policy allowing
reeducation camp internees to resettle with their adult,
unmarried children, you have taken a step forward to help a
truly vulnerable group.
Thank you for your continued interest in the plight of
these and all Indochinese refugees.
Sincerely,
Lionel A. Rosenblatt,
President.
Mr. McCAIN. Under current policy, since the change, Vietnamese
nationals who are able to establish that they were imprisoned for the 3
years in Vietnam as a result of their connection with the Republic of
Vietnam or the United States war effort in Vietnam are admitted to the
United States as refugees. Permitted to accompany them are their
spouses and unmarried sons and daughters under the age of 21.
However, in many cases, these former prisoners have only adult
children and have suffered so terribly from their imprisonment or are
of sufficient age that they require their assistance. From the
inception of ODP until last April, this situation was accommodated, as
was the imperative to keep families together, by allowing adult
unmarried children--over the age of 21--to immigrate with them to the
United States.
The State Department has cited several reasons for removing their
eligibility. Among those listed in a letter to me were: First, the
assertion that the sons and daughters of former prisoners no longer
face persecution as a result of their parents' association with the
former South Vietnamese government. Second, the persistent problem of
fraud associated with claims. Third, and the need to complete
resettlement of the current case load in order to bring the program to
a close and into conformity with worldwide refugee procedures.
I would like to make my case for this amendment in part by addressing
these points one at a time.
On the first point, the assertion that ``there is no evidence that .
. . the adult children of former detainees are subject to official
persecution based on their parents' association with the former South
Vietnamese government,'' I should point out that the new State
Department report on human rights, which covers the time period in
which this decision was made, does cite a limited degree of
discrimination encountered by these families.
On the second point, the problem with fraud, I believe fraud has
always been a problem in administering U.S. immigration policy or any
other Government program. The fact is that the world is still brimming
with people who want to make a better life for themselves in the United
States, and many times they will say and do whatever it takes to
achieve their dream. It is the task of our immigration policy to
identify fraud and disqualify intended immigrants appropriately. The
existence of fraud, however, is no reason to exclude an entire class of
prospective immigrants who merit consideration. This seems to me very
unfair to those with legitimate claims. If the existence of fraud is a
reason to shut down a class of eligibility, I am not sure any
immigration program on the books could pass muster.
On the third point, the need to bring the ODP program to a close, I
would appeal to principle. ODP was designed to fulfill a special
obligation we have to those who identified themselves with our cause
during the war in Vietnam. It should remain open until we have
fulfilled our commitment to the fullest extent. It should not be
brought to a close prematurely by changing eligibility requirements.
The former re-education camp detainee sub-program of ODP is 90 percent
complete. It is not fair to those who are left--those who have waited
the longest--to be told that they can either drop out of the program or
leave their adult children behind.
If the original policy is not restored, these children will have to
wait at a minimum 6 years before immigrating to the United States to
care for their parents.
I was assured by the State Department last year that in response to
my concern and the concerns of others, that ``INS and ODP (would)
remain alert to individual cases in which there are significant
humanitarian reasons for allowing an aged-out son or daughter to
accompany the principal applicant.'' Although this assurance was made
with some qualifiers, I accepted it. I am informed now, however, that
exceptions have not, in fact, been made.
It is very important to many former detainees that their adult
children be permitted to emigrate with them, often because of their
advanced age or deteriorating health. Additionally, many of their
children have made life decisions, such as refraining from marriage,
based on the requirements of a program which has now changed its
eligibility standards.
I would like to close by commending the committee for addressing this
issue in their report. Indeed, as stated in the committee report on the
bill: ``It was not the original intent of the program [ODP] to see the
former prisoners separated from their family in such a manner.''
The United States has a special obligation to those Vietnamese who
have been persecuted for their association with the United States and
the cause of freedom for which we fought. They certainly deserve, at
the very least, the benefit of a consistent, compassionate admission
policy for themselves and their families.
amendment no. 5065
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following,
Sec. . 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall provide a
report in a classified or unclassified form to the Committee
on Appropriations including the following information:
(a) a best estimate on fuel used by the military forces of
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK);
(b) the deployment position and military training and
activities of the DPRK forces and best estimate of the
associated costs of these activities;
(c) steps taken to reduce the DPRK level of forces; and
(d) cooperation, training, or exchanges of information,
technology or personnel between the DPRK and any other nation
supporting the development or deployment of a ballistic
missile capability.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr President, one amendment is by Senator Inouye, with
a colloquy between Mr. Pressler and myself; an amendment by Senator Kyl
regarding legal reform in Ukraine; an amendment by Senator Lieberman
regarding war crimes tribunal; an amendment by Senator Pressler
regarding PRC and Iran missile transfer; a Pressler amendment with
reference to Syria; a McCain amendment regarding ODP; an amendment by
myself relating to Korea.
For all Members of the Senate, I say that with the disposition of the
amendments that we are currently aware of, we are almost completed.
Other than the amendments which have been laid down, I am not aware of
any other amendments upon which we will have to have votes. So we are
getting close to the end of the line here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments,
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 5059 through 5065), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator
Bond
[[Page S8806]]
is on the way to use his 5 minutes just prior to the Hatfield-Dorgan
vote.
I yield to Senator Nunn.
Amendment No. 5058
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just take a moment at this juncture,
because I know the Brown amendment will be laid aside. My friend from
Colorado has indicated he will be willing to work with me and Senator
Biden on troubling language in this amendment. I think it is essential
to work out the troubling language.
There are several paragraphs that are indeed troubling here. I say
that with this background: On June 27, I proposed an amendment on the
floor and worked with Senator McCain and, as I recall, Senator Cohen
and others in offering the amendment posing a substantial and very
important series of questions to the administration, to the President,
to answer regarding NATO enlargement.
Now, Mr. President, I recall once coming in on the floor when I was a
much younger Senator and watching the esteemed Senator from Minnesota,
Senator Humphrey, propose a series of questions to the floor manager of
the bill, and without ever pausing, and I think without realizing it,
having said that he had to have the answer to these questions before he
voted on the measure that was pending, he proceeded to answer his own
questions and to come out on one side of the issue in a very decisive
way. He answered his own questions, and nobody else intervened, and he
solved his own problem.
Mr. President, I don't think we ought to do that regarding the
questions that have been posed in a serious way. These questions were
posed to the administration on June 27 by a unanimous vote in the
Senate. A number of paragraphs in the Brown amendment would answer
those questions only 2 weeks later, without any kind of analytical
report, or any kind of thought process even, by the administration.
I don't believe we were posing these questions to ourselves. I think
we were posing them to the administration and asking them seriously to
answer them. So I hope that we can not have some of the findings that
are in the Brown amendment, and particularly the paragraph in that
amendment which states in paragraph 4 on section 4, page 8:
The process of enlarging NATO to include emerging
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should not stop
with the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic
as full members of the NATO Alliance.
These countries are all doing well and should be considered as NATO
members under the due process that has been set forth. But for the
Senate of the United States to decide and imply that that already has
been decided, which is what this amendment does, it seems to me is
answering the question, the serious question, with no analytical
process at all and without consulting the administration or our
partners in NATO.
So, Mr. President, I have a long history of being involved in NATO. I
have written at least three reports on NATO, and I really think it may
be time to remind the Senate of the United States about that history. I
am prepared to do so. I normally do not like to take the time of the
Senate. But on an amendment of this magnitude, where we are making
findings, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Senate to vote on
this without having a very keen reminder of the history of NATO and
what the alliance is all about. That may take several hours, maybe even
several days.
I am hoping that we will be able to eliminate the provisions in the
Brown amendment that answer the serious questions without any
intervening report from the administration, and all in a 2-week period
after the Senate has gone on record, I believe unanimously, in favor of
posing these serious questions in a serious way.
I will be glad to work with my friend from Colorado. I know the
Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, has some questions himself that
we will be glad to work on. I see the Senator from Missouri on the
floor. I wanted to let my colleague know that this is a serious
amendment about a serious subject matter. I have serious reservations
about the way the amendment is now drafted. I will be glad to work with
my friend from Colorado on the amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is on the
floor to claim his 5 minutes prior to the vote on the Hatfield-Dorgan
amendment.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that, at 5:55, the Senate proceed
to back-to-back rollcall votes, first a 15-minute rollcall vote on the
Hatfield-Dorgan amendment, and that the second amendment be a 10-minute
rollcall vote on the Domenici amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Amendment No. 5045
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and the managers of the bill. I rise in
opposition to the Dorgan-Hatfield amendment. I have great respect for
both of the sponsors of this amendment. I can sympathize with their
objectives. I think they are operating from the noblest of motives.
Once again, I believe that this amendment causes far more problems than
it solves. The current Arms Export Control Act requires the executive
branch to assure that any sales are in the interest of the foreign
policy of the United States. When the executive branch decides to go
forth with a sale, the Congress is notified and reviews the sale.
Modifications to sales or a withdrawal of the sale request has occurred
because of these congressional reviews. Pakistan is one such example.
Now, the restrictive nature of the amendment on which we are going to
be voting in a few minutes would arbitrarily cut out all but a few
select countries in the world. Many other countries would argue that
perhaps even the United States could not meet these standards. There is
yet to be a clear definition of a political prisoner or what
constitutes aggression under international law or discrimination on the
basis of race, religion on gender. Very few countries have a history of
elective democracy such as ours. We are not against the intent of this
amendment, but I think it puts overly restrictive limitations on the
administration and on our military and economic sectors.
There are over 40,000 export licenses for munitions issued per year
which we may very well have to review on a case-by-case basis above and
beyond what the executive branch already does.
Some of our NATO allies would be called into question. For example,
Turkey, as well as our long-term friends like Israel who might be
challenged on the basis of the treatment of Palestinian terrorists, or
political prisoners. Spain can be attacked on the basis of its
treatment of Basques, or perhaps even England for its quagmire with the
IRA. Saudi Arabia and Egypt could be adversely affected by this
amendment.
Where we have not had contact in countries like Cuba, communism
continues to flourish in spite of our ever increasingly restrictive
sanctions. They are not working there. This amendment would not prevent
the procurement of weapons. It would allow the procurement of weapons
from possibly rogue states and arbitrarily lock us out of a major
conduit of foreign policy.
Mr. President, this is a very serious amendment. Its effect would be
to immobilize the administration from normal conduct of its foreign
policy, trade policy, and military policy as it would create lists of
countries for congressional approval every year and then await for
approval each year. Each year this body would be tied up in the process
of giving a country-by-country approval needlessly antagonizing
countries who support our policies. And it will most likely not affect
the trade policies of our competitors, including allies. There will be
no reduction in arms sales--only in U.S. businesses, jobs and, most
importantly, U.S. influence.
The influence extends beyond business and military interests. It
extends to our ability to work diplomatically and subtly across all
policy issues. The world has changed, continues to change. The
Communist monolith is crumbling. But the fact is that the countries
with whom we have had a defense relationship are in general gravitating
towards more democratic political systems and market-oriented
economies.
There is no empirical evidence that by unilaterally denying ourselves
access to other countries' military and
[[Page S8807]]
political infrastructures that we have had or will have any positive
impact on democratizing them or improving their human rights records.
The legislation is counterproductive. It would make the world less
stable. We would have less influence over proliferation and lose our
ability to provide a positive political effect on a military policy of
friendly countries.
I urge my colleagues to recognize that while this amendment has been
offered with all good intentions and with the highest of purposes, it
is a significantly flawed piece of legislation that would have very
much an unanticipated and very harmful impact.
I hope we will vote it down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Missouri to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from North Dakota. On this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Faircloth
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnston
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--35
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatfield
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 5047
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Under the previous order, the
question now occurs on the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico
[Mr. Domenici]. 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced, yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
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
NAYS--3
Bradley
Dodd
McCain
NOT VOTING--1
Exon
The amendment (No. 5047) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. PRYOR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record
reflect that Congressman Bonior was instrumental in formulating the
proposal that is reflected in the amendment on the Chernobyl disaster
sponsored by Senators Abraham and Levin, and I also ask unanimous
consent that the following Senators be listed as cosponsors of Senator
Bumpers' amendment on Mongolia: Senators Hatfield, Gorton, Simon,
Johnston, Burns, Reid, and Roth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5058
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate now resumes consideration of the
amendment by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], No. 5058.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Slade
Gorton be added as a cosponsor of the Brown amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have been working in the interim to try
to accommodate Members' concerns. I spelled out concerns by Senator
Simon, Senator Nunn, and Senator Biden.
Modification To Amendment No. 5058
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we have reached agreement with Senator
Simon that I believe is a clear statement of current NATO policy with
regard to thermal nuclear weapons and their deployment. I hereby ask
unanimous consent that the Simon-Brown amendment be incorporated in the
Brown amendment, or more precisely, Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to modify my amendment with the Simon language.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator has the right to modify his own amendment. The amendment is so
modified.
The modification is as follows:
Add on page 7 at the beginning of line 13:
(21) Some NATO members, such as Spain and Norway, do not
allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory
although they are accorded the full collective security
guarantees provided by article V of the Washington Treaty.
There is no a priori requirement for the stationing of
nuclear weapons on the territory of new NATO members,
particularly in the current security climate, however NATO
retains the right to alter its security posture at any time
as circumstances warrant.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we also have had concerns expressed about
Croatia. It is my understanding we have cleared on both sides sense-of-
the-Senate language that relates to Croatia and their potential future
discussions with NATO countries. I ask that I be allowed to modify my
amendment to include that sense-of-the-Senate language regarding
Croatia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, the Senator has the right to modify his
own amendment. The amendment is so modified.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the last
request to modify, I ask that Senator Gorton be added as a cosponsor of
my Croatian amendment No. 5043 agreed to earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, with regard to the NATO amendment, my
understanding is that we are working with Senator Nunn. He has concerns
he would like to share. We are also working with Senator Biden to work
through his concerns. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we can see the light at the end of the
tunnel. There is a vote left to be held on the Cohen amendment and on
the Coverdell amendment. We are hoping that the Brown amendment will be
worked out.
I ask unanimous consent that a vote on the Cohen amendment occur at
7:20
[[Page S8808]]
and that the time between now and 7:20--that is 20 minutes on a side--
be equally divided, and the time controlled by Senator Cohen and
myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky tell us
what we might expect for the remainder of the evening?
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I thought I had just done that. Let me make it
clear. We are going to vote on the Cohen amendment at 7:20. Remaining
to be disposed of are the Coverdell amendment--your side has indicated
they are willing to reach a time agreement on that--there is a Brown
amendment, just discussed by Senator Brown, to which Senator Nunn
objects at the moment. Discussions are going on between the two of
them. We hope to get that resolved. It is possible we can go to final
passage after that. There are a few other amendments, but we are
getting very close to finishing up here.
Mr. COHEN. Can we add, with respect to the Cohen amendment, there be
no second-degree amendments?
Mr. McCONNELL. I modify my unanimous consent agreement that no
second-degree amendment is in order. I say to my friend I will make a
motion to table at the appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Amendment No. 5019
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senate faces a moment of profound
moral choice. We are dealing here with the proposal of the Senator from
Kentucky, joined by others, to place the United States emphatically on
the side of the freely elected democratic regime of Burma, which was
elected with 82 percent of the vote and then instantly overwhelmed by a
military coup.
The restoration of a military regime, which had earlier, in 1962,
crushed the nascent democratic society of Burma. Before that Burma had
succeeded through a succession of elections beginning with one for a
constituent assembly prior to independence, and then three free
elections thereafter. As I say, this all ended in 1962 and was followed
by 25 years of atrocious government and oppression under General Ne
Win. The country never submitted to this. The resistance was always
widespread, emphatic, admirable to a degree that Americans can only
imagine, given our long and stable history. Now, the issue has become
an international issue. Our Senate was the first to raise this issue in
1988, and we have persisted in the matter. The proposition is to
isolate the military regime, to deny it the recognition of the free
world and to make clear that such denial has consequences in the
economic development of that potentially rich and prosperous and happy
society.
I speak with some knowledge of Burma, not enough, but enough to know
how important this is to the whole movement toward democracy in Asia.
We have just seen Russia conduct two democratic presidential
elections, the first in their history. We have just seen Mongolia
conduct a free election and choose a democratic government. The Senator
from Virginia and former Secretary of State Baker were both in Mongolia
as election monitors. There are many such nations in the early stages
of a democratic transition. We must associate with them and stand by
them. And when democracy is threatened we must make our objections
known. Just this June, the European Parliament has risen up and stated
that the time has come for the whole of the European Union to boycott
this regime. Most American firms have already done so. Most American
observers have urged us to act.
The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial of May 30 this year, put it
this way:
Throughout the world, foolishness and greed are sometimes
draped with a veil of respectable sounding phrases like
``constructive engagement,'' based on the promise that by
doing business in a country like Burma you expect to change
it. The problem is that once companies and governments climb
into the boat with dictators, they are very reluctant to rock
it, lest their deals go overboard.
The request for this embargo, the proposition, has been endorsed by
Secretary of Commerce Kantor who stated last month with regard to
Serbia, South Africa, Libya, and Iran, ``There are times when economic
restrictions done in an appropriate fashion can be very helpful. With
regard to Burma, I'm in favor of taking effective action with regard to
the actions of this regime.''
Witnesses from South Africa, who benefited to a degree no one could
imagine from American leadership in just this mode, Nelson Mandela and
Bishop Tutu, have told us to have faith in our own experience. Burma
will yield if the democracies stay together and the United States
leads.
Most emphatically and importantly, the elected Prime Minister, an
extraordinary person, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Aung San Suu
Kyi, asks us to do this. She has sent videotaped to the European
Parliament last week with a statement supporting sanctions. She said,
``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.''
That is the record of the past three decades. A country that could be
prospering today is all but prostrate because of the military regimes
that have succeeded, one after the other. She went on to say, ``We
think this is the time for concerted international efforts with regard
to the democratic process in Burma.''
That, I respectfully suggest, is what is at issue in the vote we are
soon to have. I hope chairman McConnell will prevail. I hope democracy
will prevail. I cannot doubt it will if we but keep to a firm line of
principle and conviction. I thank the Senator for his time, and I yield
the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished
senior Senator from New York for his inspirational remarks. He has been
a very knowledgeable observer of the Burmese scene for many years. I
thank him for his leadership on this most important issue.
I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me first say that I want to commend
the manager of this bill, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, for
his leadership and his courage in saying clearly that the United States
does stand up for those who are oppressed, that we have the courage to
look at facts as they are, as discomforting as they may be, and
sometimes painful for people to recognize.
We have become a world so interested in commercial advantage that we
look aside. We make believe things are not happening. Sometimes it is
not pleasant to acknowledge that there is evil, that there are people
that we know, governments that we do business with that are involved in
perpetuating evil. The killing of innocent human beings, killing
them, imprisoning people, terrorizing them, depriving them of their
most basic fundamental freedoms that are important. And if we just
continue business as usual with them, as if all is well, because we may
be commercially advantaged, then I suggest to you that we are betraying
the greatness and the heritage of this country. We betray the
principles on which so many have laid down their lives for our freedom
and the freedom of others. That principle, when we have adhered to it,
has always inured to the benefit of mankind and, more particularly, the
benefit of our citizens here, not just the people who we have stood up
for abroad.
Our history is replete with the times in which we have stood nobly
and fought for freedom, and the times we have stepped aside and looked
and allowed a petty dictator to terrorize his people on the altar of
political expedience. We have contributed to many of the nations who
fall under totalitarian domination, because we did business as if
nothing was wrong with petty dictators. We condoned, in essence, their
actions.
This is an opportunity for us to do what is right and to stand for
people who are oppressed. No one has brought this to the table in a
more eloquent
[[Page S8809]]
way than the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, who has
pointed out very clearly that those people who are fighting for
freedom, who are there and being oppressed, say, ``Don't believe this
nonsense that if you cut off doing business, you are going to be
hurting the average citizen, because you are not because the government
that is in control now, the junta, the dictatorship, will use those
funds for their own purposes, and no real economic benefit will come to
the people.''
So I hope that we will continue to maintain the beacon of freedom and
that we will support the chairman's mark.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have but a few comments. I find it
important to make them in support of the Cohen amendment. Mr.
President, this debate, in my opinion, is not about being soft on a
bunch of thugs.
At the core of this debate is the effectiveness of mandatory
unilateral sanctions as a tool of foreign policy to encourage change in
Burma. It is about the best policy to pursue that will bring about the
changes that we all want to see in the nation of Burma.
As we address this situation, it is important that the United States
engage other nations. A multilateral effort to evaluate the situation
in Burma and develop ways we can work both independently and
collectively will encourage the improvement in human rights and will
move Burma toward a free and democratic society.
Mr. President, I support the Cohen amendment and all that it
addresses. We all can encourage humanitarian relief, drug interdiction
efforts, and the promotion of 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 the goals
we seek in Burma.
I congratulate Senator Cohen for his effort in offering this
amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, are there other speakers?
Mr. COHEN. I believe there is one other.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cohen
amendment. I think we would all like to truly believe that, in an area
of the world remote to the United States, this country can unilaterally
impose a sanction which is going to have an effect. But it is not
supported by anyone else in the area. I know of no other country in the
area that will support this sanction.
Additionally, the administration--the State Department and the White
House--is in support of the Cohen-Feinstein amendment. In essence, what
this amendment does is, as Senator Craig just stated, seek to develop a
multilateral alliance of the ASEAN countries, and others, to be able to
deal with the problems that the SLORC regime presents to the people of
Burma, or Myanmar, as some people might say. I think it is a well
thought out amendment. It is an important amendment.
There is one U.S. economic venture in that country, and let us speak
about it and speak about it candidly. It is a joint venture between
Unocal and the French to build a pipeline. They will build schools,
they will build hospitals, they will put to the community an
opportunity for economic upward mobility. Let us say the unilateral
sanction passes, and let us say Unocal cannot go ahead, do you know who
will take Unocal's share in this? Mitsui, a Japanese company, or South
Korea. They will do it without building hospitals, and they will do it
without the schools. I wonder what is gained by it.
I hear many people say, ``Shut down an economy and that will change a
regime.'' I really believe that when you have an economy and you
participate in it, and you bring Western values to a country, and you
help with schools and you immunize kids, all of which is happening, it
can be particularly effective.
Now, I very much respect Aung San Suu Kyi. I wish her well, and I
think the SLORC regime would be well advised to work with her to
improve the standard of living. And, at the same time, I believe it is
extraordinarily important that the administration, and whatever
administration, and the State Department, and whatever State
Department, begin to develop the kind of multilateral alliance with the
ASEAN countries that can be effective in meeting the human rights needs
in this region.
So I believe that the Cohen-Feinstein amendment, which provides that
there be no bilateral assistance, other than humanitarian and
counternarcotics until the Government of Burma is fully cooperative
with the United States on counternarcotic efforts, and the program is
fully consistent with the United States human rights concerns in Burma.
It promotes multilateral assistance by asking the Secretary of the
Treasury to 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 and for Burma.
I think it makes a great deal of sense. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the
Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee amendment.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments. I have been
asked to advise my colleagues that the administration supports the
Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record from
the Assistant Secretary of the Department of State so advising my
colleagues that the administration supports the Cohen amendment.
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, 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 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 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 U.N. General Assembly and the International
Labor Organization to condemn human and worker rights
violations in Burma. At the U.N. Human Rights Commission this
month, we led the effort against attempts to water down the
Burma resolution. We have urged the U.N. 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. NICKLES. The definition of ``new investment'' in Burma in Section
569 of the amendment includes the entry into certain types of
contracts. Does it also cover performance of contracts, or commitments
entered into or made prior to the date of sanctions?
Mr. COHEN. It is not the intention of this legislation to compel U.S.
persons to breach or repudiate pre-sanctions contracts or commitments.
Mr. BREAVY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment I
have cosponsored with my distinguished colleagues Senator Cohen,
Senator Johnston, Senator, McCain, Senator Feinstein, and Senator
Chafee. I believe this amendment makes sense because it strikes a
balance between unilateral sanctions against Burma and unfettered
United States investment in that country.
Mr. President, the supporters of this amendment share the same
objective as the supporters of unilateral sanctions. We all want to see
an end to the
[[Page S8810]]
brutal, oppressive Burmese dictatorship and a return to a democratic
government. No one will argue that the current regime in Burma is
anything less than brutal, illegitimate and deplorable in almost every
respect and recent events suggest that the government is escalating its
oppression of the democratic opposition, even in the face of
international condemnation. We all want to see the quick demise of this
regime but we differ with opponents of this amendment on the way to
bring this change about. In an effort to promote democratic change in
Burma, this amendment prohibits new U.S. investment if the government
rearrests or otherwise harms Aung San Suu Kyi, the most eloquent voice
for democracy in that country.
Although the United States accounts for only ten percent of all
foreign investment in Burma, allowing U.S. businesses to operate there
will enable us to continue raising our concerns over human rights. I
believe a U.S. voice in this process is critical if we are ever going
to see real change in Burma. This amendment by the distinguished
Senator from Maine also requires the President to work with our ASEAN
allies and other trading partners to develop a comprehensive strategy
to bring democratic change to Burma and improve human rights.
Mr. President, if our goal is to affect change in a foreign country,
I don't believe unilateral sanctions are necessarily the right
approach. We have seen what happens when the U.S. imposes unilateral
sanctions. Our European and Asian allies are hesitant to follow suit
and in this case, a U.S. withdrawal would just mean that foreign
companies would fill the void when we leave. Abandoning our commercial
interests in Burma will do nothing to advance human rights and
democracy in that country which is the objective we all share. The U.S.
already exerts pressure on the military regime in Burma by prohibiting
U.S. economic aid, withholding GSP trade preferences, and decertifying
Burma as a narcotics cooperating country, which requires us by law to
vote against assistance to Burma by international financial
institutions. This amendment takes the additional step of prohibiting
new investment in Burma if the government commits large scale
oppression against the democratic opposition. Our goal is to prevent
repression of the democratically elected government and to promote a
dialogue between their voices of democracy and the military regime.
This amendment has the support of Democrats and Republicans as well
as the Administration. It is a reasonable compromise on a very
difficult issue. I thank my colleagues who have worked on this
amendment and I urge it adoption.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cohen
amendment on United States policy toward Burma. The current language
within the foreign operations appropriations bill mandates immediate
unilateral sanctions against Burma. The purpose of these sanctions is
to punish Burma's ruling junta, the State Law and Order Restoration
Council or SLORC, for failing to accede to the desire of the Burmese
people for democracy and freedom and for its many past violations of
basic human and civil rights.
I agree with the goals of Senator McConnell and Senator Moynihan. Not
one person in this distinguished chamber will disagree that the United
States has a clear national interest in seeing a democratically elected
government in charge of a free society in Burma. The question is
whether the immediate imposition of unilateral investment sanctions is
the best policy to achieve that goal. I do not believe that they are.
First, Burma is not a throw-away issue. The wrong U.S. policy could
substantially damage our relations with our close friends and our
regional influence. The United States has a clear national security
interest in balancing the rising influence of China in Asia. Our full
engagement in southeast Asia is an integral part of that balance.
Unfortunately, the administration has long been unable to articulate
and clearly demonstrate the reliability of our long-term commitment to
the region. In the face of this uncertainty, ASEAN is taking steps to
ensure Burma and Vietnam become members to counterbalance Chinese
influence. The U.S. willingness to work with them on Burma is seen as a
key test case of the U.S. commitment.
Second, our allies do not support sanctions now and said as much to
Presidential envoys Ambassador Brown and Mr. Roth. Bringing Burma into
ASEAN and the ARF force the SLORC to accept and live up to the values
and responsibilities that membership entails in much the same way as
NATO membership will require of the countries of central Europe. This
approach establishes a forum for pressuring the SLORC to negotiate with
Aung San Suu Kyi and other democracy movement leaders. Unfortunately,
U.S. moral suasion on behalf of sanctions will have little impact
unless the situation in Burma deteriorates dramatically. Expecting
others to follow our lead even if it goes against their own cold
calculation of national interests only ensures that we are falling on
our own sword.
I want to make it clear that the SLORC and Burma are not the 1990's
equivalent of apartheid in South Africa. South Africa relied on access
to the outside world. Isolating them cut off the very roots of their
export-oriented economy. For most of the past 30 years, Burma isolated
itself from the world. Only now is Burma establishing ties with the
outside world. Isolating them now would be about as effective as
prunning a tree. In particular, United States investment in Burma--save
for oil interests--is minimal and even its loss would have little
impact because others will take our place. With South Africa, sub-
saharan Africa was also united in support of sanctions. There is no
similar regional mandate for action with Burma.
When sanctions were imposed against South Africa they were
accompanied by extensive contact and assistance to the black community
in South Africa and the NGOs working with them. The current language on
Burma has none of that and would cut off our access and ability to
support the democracy movement.
There are no potential incentives for the SLORC to work with Suu Kyi
as none of the sanctions will be lifted until a fully democratically-
elected government comes to power. But, as we saw in South Africa and
before that in Poland, the movement to democracy is often a slow,
tentative process and include transitional governments. If events
unfold in a similar fashion in Burma, the current language has no means
for easing or eliminating sanctions to cultivate the growth of
democracy.
The current language would also give SLORC the wrong signal that it
can do whatever it wants because we have already used up all our
bullets.
our policy and the current amendment
Instead of the current draconian sanctions proposed in the
legislation before us, we should adopt an approach that effectively
secures our national interests. The Cohen amendment does just that.
One, it establishes a framework for United States policy towards
Burma that stimulates intimate cooperation with our allies in the
region, especially ASEAN, that is clearly in the national interest.
Two, it draws a clear line in the sand that should the situation in
Burma deteriorate the United States and our allies would impose
multilateral sanctions on Burma or the United States would go it alone
if necessary. SLORC will be on notice and have to be on their best
behavior.
Three, it provides incentives for SLORC and Suu Kyi and the other
democratic leaders and ethnic minorities to start talking and move
towards democracy and freedom. It would permit assistance to the
democracy movement, support efforts to curb the flow of heroin, and
ensure that Americans can visit, talk with, and influence the people in
Burma as they have everywhere from the Albania to South Africa.
Four, it allows the President to remove sanctions and other
restrictions should there be progress towards the establishment of a
full democratic government or if we are merely punishing U.S.
investors.
Finally, it requires the administration to work closely with the
Congress developing a multilateral strategy to bring democracy to Burma
and in implementing the sanctions.
Mr. President. This is a solid strategy and bipartisan view of what
the
[[Page S8811]]
United States' policy towards Burma should be. It is a far better one
than that currently envisioned in the legislation before us. I strongly
urge my fellow colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes fifteen seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say that if my colleagues are
looking for some ideological touchpoint on this issue, they will not
find any. It is going to be an odd collection of players on both sides
of the aisle.
As my senior colleague from Kentucky just indicated, the Clinton
administration supports the Cohen amendment, and I oppose the Cohen
amendment, along with Senator Moynihan, from whom you have heard,
Senator Leahy who spoke earlier on the issue, and then Senator Helms
and Senator Faircloth also will be opposing the Cohen amendment.
So if you are looking for some ideological guidelines, you will not
find any on this issue. So this would be a good vote upon which to just
sort of set aside party label or ideological leaning and look at the
facts and think about what America stands for.
The facts are these: In 1990, in Burma they had a Western-style,
internationally supervised election. Eighty percent of the vote went to
the National League for Democracy, a party organized around a dynamic
leader that is becoming increasingly well-known in the world, Aung San
Suu Kyi. As soon as the election was completed and it was clear who had
won, the ruling military junta, supported by a 400,000-person army,
used entirely internally to control the people of Burma, locked up most
of the leadership and put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. She was
essentially incommunicado until July 1995, 2 days before a bill that I
crafted and introduced was introduced here in the Senate last July.
They claim she was released. Well, it is some kind of release. She is
allowed to address, from home, friends and supporters who come around
sometimes on a weekly basis. But they do that at some risk. She does
not feel comfortable communicating with the outside world. Yet, she
smuggled out a tape a week ago for use at the European Union in their
Parliament debate in which they call upon their members to institute
unilateral sanctions.
So, clearly she does not feel comfortable to just sort of pick up the
phone and call some reporter and say, ``This is how I feel.'' But she
has been getting her views out. She and the legitimate Government of
Burma, much of it now in this country, support the provisions in the
underlying bill and oppose the Cohen amendment. I have already put that
letter, received today, in the Record.
I do not want to be too hard on the Clinton administration because,
obviously, this is not a very partisan issue. We have people all over
the lot on this question. But they are basically not interested in
doing anything about this problem. But that does not distinguish them
from the Bush administration, which had no interest either.
So there has been bipartisan neglect to address this problem. Neither
administration has distinguished itself by ignoring a problem which I
guarantee you, if there were a bunch of Burmese American citizens, we
would have been bouncing off the walls 6 years ago over this. But there
are not any Burmese American citizens. We have a lot of Jewish
Americans who are interested in Israel, a lot of Armenia Americans who
are interested in Armenia, and a lot of Ukraine Americans who
are interested in Ukraine. Boy, when we hear from them, we get real
interested. But you take some isolated country that did not have the
immigration pattern to this country and somehow we act like it does not
exist.
But with the Burmese regime, the State Law and Order Restoration
Council, SLORC--you can hardly say it without laughing, but it is not
funny--runs a terrorist regime in Burma. Some people may say, ``Well,
it is none of our affair.'' Sixty percent of the heroin in our country
comes from Burma--60 percent of it. Heroin from Burma is tainting the
lives of thousands of Americans. This regime cooperates with the people
who send it here. So it does have a direct effect on Americans living
here in this country as well as offending every standard that we have
come to believe in and to promote around the world.
It is safe to say that the Burmese Government can be in a rather
unique category with North Korea, Libya, Iran, and Iraq. It is just a
small, little family here of truly outrageous regimes, and all the rest
of them we have a great interest in and we have sanctions against or we
are working to try to diminish the influence of in one way or another.
But this country we seem to have no interest in.
The amendment of the Senator from Maine actually makes the situation
worse, in my opinion. It will allow aid to this pariah regime to
increase. In other words, in the opinion of the Senator from Kentucky,
it is worse than current law because last year we voted to cut off a
narcotics program in that country because we did not have any
confidence in dealing with this outlaw regime. This would make those
dealings possible again should the administration decide to engage in
it.
The second condition in the Cohen amendment which seems to me to be
troublesome is it makes Aung San Suu Kyi's personal security the issue
rather than the restoration of democracy. In other words, if you see
that Aung San Suu Kyi is in trouble or there is large-scale trouble or
violence, then you can take certain actions if you want to, but you do
not have to because all of it can be waived.
In short, with all due respect to my good friend from Maine, it seems
to me that this amendment basically gives the administration total
flexibility to do whatever they want to do, which every administration
would love to have. I can understand why they support this amendment.
But looking at the track record of this administration and the previous
one, given the discretion to do nothing, nothing is what you get.
Nothing is what we can anticipate from this administration, and that is
what we got from the last one.
Let me say this is not a radical step. Some people think that we
should never have unilateral economic sanctions against anybody, but a
lot of those people make exceptions for Cuba, for example. ``Well, that
is different,'' or they make an exception for a renegade regime like
Libya.
The truth of the matter is we have occasionally used unilateral
sanctions, and they have not always failed. I mean, it is very common
to say they always fail. They do not always fail. In fact, we have a
conspicuous success story in South Africa, a place where America led.
When we passed the South Africa sanctions bill in 1986, which my good
friend from Maine supported, and when we overrode President Reagan's
veto, which both of us voted to override, we were not sure it was going
to work. All of these arguments about unilateral sanctions were made
then. Everybody said, ``Well, nobody else will follow.'' In fact,
everybody followed. America led and everybody else followed, and South
Africa has been a great success story.
I think those followers are right around the corner. The European
Union and the European Parliament took this issue up in July of this
year--this month. Why did they get interested? Aung San Suu Kyi's best
friend, a man named Nichols, a European who had been a consulate
official in Rangoon for a number of different European countries, as
the distinguished senior Senator from New York pointed out a minute
ago, was arrested earlier this year. His crime was possessing a fax
machine, and they killed him. He is dead; murdered.
So the Europeans all of a sudden have gotten interested in this
because one of their own has been treated by the Burmese military like
it has been treating the Burmese people for years. Carlsberg and
Heineken, two European companies, are pulling out. American companies
and one oil company decided not to go forward, and all of the retailers
who were either in there or on the way in are coming out--Eddie Bauer,
Liz Claiborne, Pepsico are coming out. If America leads, others will
follow.
Finally, let me say that this is what Aung San Suu Kyi would like,
and she won the election. She is familiar with all the arguments that
are made by those who do not want unilateral sanctions, that only the
people of Burma will be hurt. She is familiar with those arguments. She
does not buy it. She does not agree to it. This is what she has to say.
She said:
[[Page S8812]]
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 said in May this year, quoted in Asia Week:
Burma is not developing in any way. Some people are getting
very rich. That is not economic development.
On Australia Radio in May of this year, she was quoted as saying, a
direct quote:
Investment made now is very much against the interests of
the people of Burma.
So, Mr. President, that sums up the argument. If America does not
lead, no one will. If given total discretion, all indications are that
this administration will have no more interest than the last one. The
duly elected Government of Burma is in jail or under surveillance, and
we do nothing. This is the opportunity, this is the time for America to
be consistent with its principles.
So, Mr. President, I hope that the Cohen amendment will not be
approved. I have great respect for my friend from Maine. But I think on
this particular issue he is wrong, and I hope his amendment will not be
approved.
Mr. President, last week, when she learned the European Parliament
and European Union were debating a response to the death of their
Honorary Consul, Leo Nichols, Aung San Suu Kyi was able to smuggle out
a videotape appealing for sanctions against the military regime in
Rangoon. This is the most recent of many courageous calls by the
elected leader of Burma for the international community to directly and
immediately support the restoration of democracy and respect for the
rule of law in her country. She has repeatedly summoned us to take
concrete steps to implement the results of the 1990 elections in which
the Burmese people spoke with a strong, resolute voice, and the NLD
carried the day.
Less we forget, the NLD did not squeak by with a 43 percent mandate
as did our sitting President--the leader of the free world. The NLD
claimed 392 seats in the parliament winning 82 percent of the vote. Now
that's a mandate.
Unfortunately, a shining moment for democracy has been blackened by a
ruthless dictatorship. To this day, the generals who make up the State
Law and Order Restoration Council [SLORC] maintain a chokehold on
Burma's life.
Burma is a battleground between democracy and dictatorship, between
those who believe in open markets and those who openly market their
self-enriching schemes, between the many who embrace freedom and the
few who breed fear, and between Suu Kyi's supporters and SLORC's
sycophants.
There are few modern examples where our choice is so stark, where the
battle lines are so sharply drawn.
Shortly after her appeal to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Suu
Kyi called the elected members of the 1990 Parliament to meet in
Rangoon. True to her commitment to be inclusive of all Burmese, she
even invited SLORC supporters who had been elected.
SLORC's response was swift and devastating. In a matter of 48 hours
they rounded up over 200 members of the NLD. If the member was absent
when troops arrived for the arrest, a family member was detained
instead. While each and every arrest was outrageous, I want to call
attention to one which ended tragically.
As many people know, Suu Kyi's father died when she was quite young.
In stepped Leo Nichols. He assumed an important role in her life
offering friendship and support. He was often referred to as her
godfather. The closeness of their relationship was reflected in the
fact that following her release last July, Suu Kyi had breakfast every
Friday morning with her ``Uncle Leo''.
Sixty-five years old, Leo Nichols was picked up in the April sweep
and charged with the illegal use of a fax machine. Even the State
Department acknowledged that his relationship with Suu Kyi was the
motive behind his arrest. For his crime he was sentenced to 3 years
prison. Suffering from a heart condition, he was denied medication and
kept in solitary confinement at Insein Prison until June 20, when he
was transferred to Rangoon General Hospital. An hour later he died,
according to SLORC of a cerebral hemorrhage. He was immediately buried,
with family and friends warned not to attend the funeral.
Given his transfer, death, and hasty burial, accounts of his torture
have been difficult to confirm. There has been claims that he was badly
bruised and beaten--true or not, there is no question his detention
contributed to his death, reconfirming the brutal nature of this
regime.
Leo Nichols is not SLORC's only victim. There is no question that
arbitrary killings, detentions, torture, rape, and forced labor and
relocations are tools routinely abused to secure SLORC's position,
power and wealth. The U.N. Special Rapporteur for Burma has
investigated and documented the abuses in several reports which I urge
my colleagues to read.
Nonetheless, some may argue that Burma is too far away from the
United States to warrant any interest, time, or attention. But, there
are compelling reasons for every community and politician to be
concerned about developments in Burma beginning with our drug epidemic.
The 1996 International Narcotics Control Report makes the following
points:
Burma is the world's largest producer of opium and heroin;
Opium production has doubled since SLORC seized power;
Burma is the source of over 60 percent of the heroin seized on our
streets; and
SLORC is making less and less effort to crack down on trafficking, in
fact there has been an 80 percent drop in seizures and the junta is
actually offering safe haven to Khun Sa, the regions most notorious
narco-warlord.
Now this is a regime with over 400,000 armed soldiers, evidence that
if SLORC wanted to crack down on trafficking, they clearly have the
means to do so.
The Golden Triangle's deadly exports initially caught my eye, but it
is the administration's policy--or lack thereof--which fixed my gaze.
This is one of the few occasions where the White House has been
consistent; unfortunately, they have been consistently wrong.
As Suu Kyi has repeatedly emphasized since her release, Burma today
is not one step closer to democracy. Indeed, I think the situation has
seriously, dangerously, and unnecessarily deteriorated.
In November 1994, after a long, disheartening silence, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State Tom Hubbard, traveled to Rangoon to issue
an ultimatum. The administration called international attention to
their new, tough line. SLORC was expected to make concrete progress in
human rights, narcotics, and democracy. If they were appropriately
responsive, they could expect improved ties. If not, in Hubbard's
words, ``the U.S. bilateral relationship with Burma could be further
down-graded.''
As most of us learn early in life, you don't taunt a bully. SLORC
moved swiftly to call our bluff. Major attacks were launched against
ethnic groups, generating tens of thousands of refugees. Democracy
activists were rounded up, tortured, and killed. Negotiations over Red
Cross access to prisoners ground to a halt, prompting the organization
to close its office in Rangoon. And, the administration remained
strangely silent.
As the situation worsened, there was another burst of interest, and
Madeleine Albright was dispatched to repeat the message. This time it
was underscored with a personal meeting and statement of support for
dialog with Suu Kyi. Those of us who follow Burma were hopeful that our
U.N. Ambassador with a reputation for toughness would press forward
with a clear strategy.
Sadly, again, SLORC rose--or should I say sunk--to the occasion. As
the noose tightened around Suu Kyi and the NLD, the administration
remained silent.
In the wake of the April sweep against the NLD, there was stepped up
grass roots interest in sanctioning Burma. To preempt these calls, once
again the administration dispatched officials to size up the situation.
This time, instead of visiting Rangoon, they traveled the region.
A stinging column carried in the Nation, characterized the American
approach as ``outspoken and critical but its repeated messages or
threats often carry no weight because of a lack of back up action. It
is a typical case of words not being matched with deeds.''
[[Page S8813]]
The column quoted a senior Thai official who suggested the trip was
``a conspiracy to thwart attempts by the U.S. Congress to pass an
economic sanctions bill which is gaining growing support.'' The
official went on to note ``The American government is good at making
empty threats and last week's trip is just another example.''
In briefings following up the trip, the State Department made clear
that the Special Envoys were not dispatched with a specific message--
they had no orders to press any agenda for action--and as the Nation so
clearly stated: ``The two failed to spell out, in concrete terms,
possible U.S. retaliatory measures.''
After hollow policy pronouncements and weak-willed waffling from the
administration, SLORC is convinced it will pay no price for repression.
We are left with few real options with the potential for success.
The business community understandably prefers the status quo. They
suggest that our ASEAN partners will not support a strategy of
escalating isolation. A tougher line will only result in a loss of
market share to our French, Italian, or other competitors.
But, let me point out, just as the call for sanctions has grown
stronger in the United States, it has resonated through corporate halls
and the corridors of power in Europe.
The European Parliament has called upon its members to take action to
suspend trade and investment in Burma. The European Union has taken up
legislation suspending visas and all high level contacts with the
Burmese.
Heineken and Carlsberg have pulled out in response to public
pressure. And, in an important development, the Danish Government has
sold off all its holdings in TOTAL, the French oil company with the
largest investment in Burma. In announcing its decision, a spokesman
for the fund said it was made in anticipation of ``a possible
international boycott of TOTAL due to its engagement in Burma and
because of a televised report showing the intolerable living conditions
in that country.''
In this context, U.S. sanctions are hardly a radical step. In fact, I
think it would be an unprecedented embarrassment to all this Nation
represents to fall behind the European effort in supporting Burma's
freedom.
In addition to suggesting that sanctions will only hurt U.S.
business, opponents of my legislation argue economic progress will
yield political results. This is Vietnam, they say. Burma is like
China.
Well, I am a vocal advocate of MFN for China. I have supported
normalizing relations with Vietnam. In both instances, we have
effectively used an economic wedge to pry open access to totally closed
societies. Trade is an important tool in these two cases because it is
our only tool.
Burma is quite different. In Burma, millions of people turned out to
vote for the NLD. The fact that they were robbed of the reward of free
and fair elections defines both America's opportunity and obligation.
The appropriate analogy with Burma is not China or Vietnam, it is
South Africa where our application of sanctions clearly worked, just
ask Nelson Mandela. That is the course I recommend the United States
pursue.
In 1996, the advocates for democracy in Burma are facing the same
challenges as the 1986 opponents of apartheid. I heard exactly the same
arguments then, as I do now. Let me draw some parallels for you.
When Senators Roth, Dodd, and I introduced the first sanctions bill a
decade ago, both the Reagan administration and the business community
argued the political value of our sizable capital investment.
U.S. investment was a meaningful catalyst for change. Major American
corporations called attention to their hiring policies, scholarship
programs, and contributions to hospitals, schools, and community
development projects.
In sum, I was told that withdrawing U.S. investment would hurt, not
help, the common man. Not so, says Bishop Tutu. In an April letter to
the Bay Area Burma Roundtable he said, ``The victory over apartheid in
South Africa bears eloquent testimony to the effectiveness of economic
sanctions.''
There are other, relevant parallels.
South Africa was the African fault line in our cold war struggle for
power. With Soviet proxy forces engaged in neighboring conflicts in
Angola and Mozambique, South Africa assumed an important position in
our regional security strategy.
The Chinese colonization of Burma should sound similar alarms. If
there is a single issue which should cause our ASEAN partners deep
concern, it is the expanding military and political ties between
Rangoon and Beijing. Like South Africa, Burma may not represent an
immediate security problem, but the long term regional trends demand
our attention.
In South Africa, there was a grassroots, well-organized, vocal
African-American constituency supporting sanctions.
In Burma, the constituency should be every American community
concerned by our drug epidemic.
In South Africa, good corporate citizens developed a corporate
conscience and pulled out.
In Burma, Amoco, Columbia Sportswear, Macys, Eddie Bauer, Liz
Claiborne, Levi Strauss, and now Pepsi have answered the call to
divest.
In South Africa, sanctions affected substantial, longstanding foreign
investment.
In Burma, less is at stake and sanctions are largely preemptive.
But, American investment--however little--is still propping up a few
generals. We are not improving the quality of life for most Burmese.
U.S. capital is simply subsidizing global shopping sprees for a handful
of SLORC officials and their families.
Just as SLORC has increased pressure on Burma's democracy movement,
we must increase pressure on SLORC. I believe the time has come to ban
U.S. investment and aid and oppose any international lending to this
pariah regime. We should cut off the source of SLORC's power.
Several weeks ago, Suu Kyi noted:
There is a danger that those who believe economic reforms
will bring political progress to Burma are unaware of the
difficulties in the way of democratization. Economics and
politics cannot be separated, and economic reforms alone
cannot bring democratization to Burma.
She has emphatically opposed any foreign investment, calling instead
for the international community to take firm steps to implement the
1990 elections. And, while she has stressed the NLD's commitment to
solving political problems through dialogue, she recently warned the
world that she was not prepared to stand idly by as SLORC attacked her
supporters.
Shortly after these remarks, SLORC surrounded her compound with razor
wire, effectively cutting off the thousands of loyal and peaceful
citizens who make a weekly pilgrimage to hear her speak.
Suu Kyi is prepared to accept her rearrest. Although she is under
constant surveillance and severely limited in her movements, she has
not chosen to join her husband and children in exile. Aung San Suu Kyi
has sacrificed over and over again to secure Burma's freedom.
Let us hope it will not take the sacrifice of her life to impel this
administration to assume the mantle of leadership, fitting for the only
remaining superpower, and chart a course for the ship we captain called
liberty.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 45 seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. I will reserve the 45 seconds.
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes and 53 seconds.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thomas
be added as a cosponsor to the Cohen amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as my friend from Kentucky has indicated,
we have to set aside ideology on this particular vote, that and labels.
He would have you believe that those who support the Cohen-Feinstein-
Chafee amendment are for repression, for dictators, for brutality, for
house arrests, against sanctions, against morality, against protecting
Aung San Suu Kyi, against democracy.
My friends, it is not nearly so simple. And perhaps I have overstated
the
[[Page S8814]]
statements of my friend from Kentucky, but when we have allegations
made that this is a profound moral choice, that this measure that I
offer would, in fact, negate the impact of sanctions upon this
particular regime, that it would lend support to the military junta--
and we have heard statements made by our colleague from New York that
adoption of the Cohen amendment would, in fact, aid and comfort the
enemies of democracy--I must speak out with some vigor on such
suggestions, or even implication.
We heard talk about the European Parliament boycotting Burma. Well,
the European Union said no. As a matter of fact, there is a report in
papers as of yesterday: ``A Danish proposal for sanctions against Burma
was toned down last week to one condemning the Government of SLORC.''
So they toned it down from sanctions to simply condemning, and we
condemn them.
It was said that Mickey Kantor favors the subcommittee's approach,
our Trade Representative favors it. I do not understand that. We have a
letter introduced on behalf of the administration that the White House
supports the approach that I and Senators Feinstein and Chafee and
others have taken.
No one has fought harder, if we talk about ideals, than our colleague
from Arizona, Senator McCain. He spent more than 6 years in prison
keeping that flame of idealism alive, representing this country in a
way that few of us can even begin to contemplate, and yet he is
supporting the approach that I am suggesting.
Those of us who are urging the support of this amendment are, in
fact, calling for sanctions. We are calling upon our administration to
impose sanctions, to not issue visas--except those required by treaty--
to any government official from Burma. We are insisting that we cast a
vote of ``no'' on any international lending organization loans to
Burma. We are saying that if they make any attempt to imprison or
harass Aung San Suu Kyi, sanctions go into effect immediately, that no
further business can enter that particular country.
We are for sanctions. We are for, however, limited exemptions in the
field of human rights, certainly for humanitarian assistance. Does
anyone here want to cut off an attempt to feed starving people?
On counternarcotics: We have heard by just the last vote, an
overwhelming vote, of our concern about narcotics coming into this
country. Over two-thirds of all the heroin production in the world is
coming out of Burma, are we saying let us walk away? Do we not want to
engage in any way, even if it is certified by the administration that
the SLORC is cooperating to try to reduce the flow of narcotics coming
into our country? Is that what we want to go on record in favor of? Do
we want to deny funding for the National Endowment for Democracy,
organizations that people like Senator McCain are actively involved in,
that actively promote change by the Burmese junta?
My amendment tries to carve out a narrow exemption to give some
flexibility to this administration or the next administration, not
simply to look to the past and punish this junta for past deeds, but
rather to see if there is any way we can use whatever leverage we have,
and it is very small, to encourage this junta to come into the 21st
century of pro-democratic activity.
It has been suggested that we have commercial interests in mind. I do
not represent any oil companies. I do not have any business interests
in mind. What I am asking is, what is the most effective way to produce
change? Do sanctions work? Yes and no. They worked in South Africa
because the world supported it. The frontline countries in Africa
supported it. The frontline countries in Asia do not support this
action by the subcommittee. Iran is another exception where sanctions
can and do work. It is a terrorist-sponsoring nation, destabilizing its
region, and so there is world condemnation of Iran.
And China, let me just mention China. Mr. President, I was looking
through my desk here while the debate was going on, and I came across
some interesting remarks made by my former colleague from Maine,
Senator Mitchell, some years ago in 1991-92, when debating China. He
said something at that time that I think may bear some relevance here
today. He said:
The year-long renewal of most-favored-nation trade status
for China has brought the world precisely nothing in the way
of reform in the Chinese regime.
It has not encouraged the Chinese regime to respect the
human rights of any Chinese citizen.
It has not emboldened the Chinese Government to broaden its
experiments with a market economy beyond one province.
That was said back in 1991, and then again in 1992. He may have been
right at that time as far as his perception, but things have changed in
China. They are now, in fact, making changes in Shanghai. They are now
providing a legal system based upon ours, they are giving an accused
individual a right to an attorney before he can be arrested and
apprehended. They are making vast changes. It comes about more slowly
there, not nearly as fast as we would like, but change has occurred.
Yes, we are standing up to our ideals on the issue of democracy in
Asia, but when you talk to the Chinese they say, you talk about ideals.
For 200 years you enslaved people. You put people in chains. You
treated them like subhumans. You robbed them of their families and
their dignity and their lives, and it was not until about 30 years ago
you finally decided to change. Give us an opportunity to bring about
change in this region. Do not lecture us that you achieved your ideals
all in one period of time.
So it took time for us to change over here. What we are saying with
our amendment is that we can make more change in Burma from within than
from without, and we can bring Burma out from the dark ages of
repression into the sunlight of the 21st century and prodemocratic
activity. We can do this not by trying to turn away, and trying to
isolate them--because we cannot do it effectively--but by having some
limited contact from within.
Mr. President, I suggest that the passage of my amendment will
accomplish the goals that we all want to change the military
dictatorship's activity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friend
from Maine, his amendment makes everything permissible or able to be
waived. There is no indication that this administration is interested,
and, frankly, nor was the last one, in tightening the screws on Burma.
If we want to do something about a pariah regime in Burma, tonight is
the time. This is the vote. I hope all my colleagues will oppose the
Cohen amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of boycott
resolutions, a list of letters supporting sanctions, and a group of
editorials, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Boycott Resolutions
American Baptist Convention.
State of Massachusetts.
San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, CA.
Santa Monica, CA.
Ann Arbor, MI.
Chicago, IL.
Madison, WI.
Seattle, WA.
Letters Supporting Sanctions
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma
AFL-CIO
UAW
Bishop Tutu
Betty Williams, Huntsville, TX, Nobel Laureate, 1976
Asia American Civic Alliance of Florida
Kachinland Projects for Human Rights and Democracy of
Illinois
Democratic Burmese Student Organization
United Front for Democracy and Human Rights
____
[From The Boston Globe, June 19, 1996]
Weld's Opportunity
Awaiting Gov. William F. Weld's signature is a bill that
would prohibit the commonwealth from purchasing goods or
services from companies that do business with the
illegitimate military dictatorship ruling Burma. Weld should
sign this bill, not because it might work to his advantage in
the U.S. Senate contest with John F. Kerry, but because this
is legislation that embodies a principle of democratic
solidarity rooted deep in the American tradition.
The people of Burma voted overwhelmingly in 1990 for the
party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi. Although
her National League for Democracy won more than 80 percent of
the seats in Parliament, the State Law and Order Restoration
Council, or SLORC, thwarted the will of
[[Page S8815]]
the voters by seizing power and conducting a reign of terror.
The junta profits from a narcotics trade that exports more
than 60 percent of the heroin sold on the streets of American
cities. And because the uniformed thugs of SLORC have
accumulated tremendous debt, they are dependent upon foreign
aid and investment and are desperately trying to counter a
grass-roots campaign for American sanctions.
The timing of Weld's opportunity could not be more
fortuitous. State Rep. Byron Rushing's Selective
Contracting'' bill, modeled on legislation that helped end
apartheid in South Africa, reaches the governor at a time
when thousands of Burmese democrats have been risking their
lives each weekend to attend gatherings at Suu Kyi's house in
Rangoon, and when the Clinton administration has dispatched
envoys to Asian and European capitals to make the case for
multilateral sanctions.
If the envoys fail in their mission, a Senate bill proposed
by Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and co-sponsored
by Democrats Patrick Moynihan of New York and Patrick Leahy
of Vermont, will ask the United States to take the lead, as
it once did for the people of Poland.
Weld has a chance to help protect Suu Kyi and her followers
and to encourage Washington to do the right thing.
____
[From the New York Times, June 15, 1996]
Burmese Repression
The Burmese military junta has outdone itself in
advertising its own crude ineptitude. Frustrated by the
popularity and prestige of their democratic opponent, Daw
Aung San Suu Kyi, the generals have now erected huge red
billboards denouncing the 1991 Nobel Peace laureate as a
foreign stooge. But every Burmese knows that Mrs. Aung San
Suu Kyi endured years of house arrest rather than leave the
country her father helped free from foreign rule. The real
threat to the Burmese people is the junta, formally known as
the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or Slorc.
The billboard blitz follows the recent detention of some
250 members of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for
Democracy, the undoubted winner of 1990 elections the Slorc
then nullified. When, despite the crackdown, she attracted
larger and larger crowds for speeches from her house, the
junta responded with a decree banning virtually all political
activities. So unwarranted were these measures that even
diffident Thailand and Japan have condemned Burmese human
rights abuses. Japan is the largest outside aid donor to the
country the Slorc has renamed Myanmar.
Washington has commendably taken the lead in generating
support for more effective collective measures to help the
beleaguered Burmese democrats. The Clinton Administration has
sent two senior diplomats, William Brown and Stanley Roth, to
sound out Myanmar's neighbors on taking stronger political
and economic measures against the Slorc. The mission itself
may help deter still harsher repression. Its findings may
also determine the feasibility of a ban on new American
investment, as proposed by Senator Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky, which the Administration is still weighing.
When the Slorc lifted Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest
last year, there was hope that the generals might loosen
their stranglehold on Myanmar. Unhappily, that has not proved
to be the case. Until the Burmese junta frees its political
prisoners and enters into genuine negotiations with Mrs. Aung
San Suu Kyi and her supporters, it merits the strongest
international condemnation.
____
[From the Washington Post, July 20, 1996]
Burma Beyond the Pale
On June 22, James ``Leo'' Nichols, 65, died in the 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 of 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 Auug 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 word
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.
____
[From the Washington Post, May 28, 1996]
The Bullies of Burma
The thuggish military men who rule Burma have now rounded
up more than 200 democracy activists who were planning to
meet last weekend. Again they show their regime, which goes
by the appropriately unappetizing acronym SLORC (State Law
and Order Restoration Council), to be worthy only of
international contempt.
To the extent that Americans are at all familiar with
Burma's plight, it is thanks to the courage of Aung San Suu
Kyi, leader of the nation's democracy movement. Her National
League for Democracy won an overwhelming victory in
parliamentary elections in 1990, but SLORC refused to give up
power, putting her under house arrest and jailing many of her
colleagues. Although Aung San Suu Kyi was nominally freed
last July, after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the regime
has refused even to begin talks on a transition to democratic
rule.
It was to celebrate, as it were, the sixth anniversary of
those betrayed elections that Aung San Suu Kyi called a
meeting. In fear of the democrats' popularity, SLORC rounded
up many of her supporters, including should-be members of
parliament. This is far from SLORC's only abuse. Even before
the latest events, hundreds of political prisoners remained
in jail, according to Human Rights Watch/Asia. The regime
promotes forced labor, press-ganging citizens to act as
porters in areas of armed conflict and to build roads,
according to the U.S. State Department. It has built a
massive army, equipped mostly by China. And Burma is the
world's chief source of heroin.
The United States already has barred official aid or
government loans to Burma and has influenced the World Bank
and other multilateral organizations to follow suit. Now Sen.
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wants to bar private investment
as well, a step supported by many of Burma's democrats. U.S.
firms are the third-largest investors, Sen. McConnell said,
led by Unocal Corp., which is helping develop Burma's natural
gas fields. The structure of the dictatorship ensures that
much of the benefit of foreign investment goes into the
generals' pockets.
The most active proponents of trade, investment and
engagement with Burma have been its neighbors in Southeast
Asia. A nation of 42 million with high literacy rates and
abundant natural resources, Burma cannot be ignored. But
after SLORC's latest abuses, the burden is on those advocates
of ``engagement'' to show what they have achieved and explain
why sanctions should not be tightened. As much as South
Africa under apartheid, Burma deserves to be a pariah until
SLORC has given way.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is all time used up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the Cohen amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to lay on
the table amendment No. 5019, offered by the Senator from Maine [Mr.
Cohen]. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced, yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Abraham
Bennett
Biden
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Coverdell
D'Amato
[[Page S8816]]
DeWine
Faircloth
Feingold
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Pell
Pressler
Robb
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Wellstone
NAYS--54
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Grams
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnston
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Exon
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5019) was rejected.
Mr. COHEN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the
amendment No. 5019 offered by the Senator from Maine.
The amendment (No. 5019) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Amendments Nos. 5079 through 5082, En Bloc
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have more amendments agreed to which
I will send to the desk at this point, a Helms amendment on
deobligation of funds, a Bingaman amendment on Burundi, two amendments
by Senator Abraham, one on ASHA and one on geological surveys.
Mr. President, I send those amendments to the desk and ask that they
be considered, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes
amendments numbered 5079 through 5082, en bloc.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 5079 through 5082) are as follows:
amendment no. 5079
(Purpose: To require the deobligation of certain unexpended economic
assistance funds)
On page 198; between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
deobligation of certain unexpended economic assistance funds
Sec. 580. Chapter 3 of part III of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 668. DEOBLIGATION OF CERTAIN UNEXPENDED ECONOMIC
ASSISTANCE FUNDS.
``(a) Requirement to Deobligate.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b) of
this section and in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 617(a)
of this Act, at the beginning of each fiscal year the
President shall deobligate and return to the Treasury any
funds described in paragraph (2) that, as of the end of the
preceding fiscal year, have been obligated for a project or
activity for a period of more than 4 years but have not been
expended.
``(2) Funds.--Paragraph (1) applies to funds made available
for--
``(A) assistance under chapter 1 of part I of this Act
(relating to development assistance), chapter 10 of part I of
this Act (relating to the Development Fund for Africa), or
chapter 4 of part II of this Act (relating to the economic
support fund);
``(B) assistance under the Support for East European
Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989; and
``(C) economic assistance for the independent states of the
former Soviet Union under chapter 11 of part I of this Act or
under any other provision of law authorizing economic
assistance for such independent states.
``(b) Exceptions.--The President, on a case-by-case basis,
may waive the requirement of subsection (a)(1) if the
President determines and reports to the Congress that it is
in the national interest to do so.
``(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--As used in
this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees'
means the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.''.
____
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering an $11
billion foreign aid appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. To hear
the almost hysterical hue and cry about the so called devastating cuts
in foreign aid--which is simply not so--some Americans may be misled to
believe that the Agency for International Development [AID] will go
broke if it does not receive its $7.5 billion portion of this expensive
foreign aid pie.
That, as I say, is simply not true--it is not even in the ballpark of
accuracy. You see, Mr. President, much of this foreign aid money--all
of it taken from the pockets of the hardworking American people--will
be sitting for the next several years in what is known in Washington as
a pipeline. This pipeline, which today contains more than $6.7 billion,
will allow AID to continue its spending orgy for years to come--even if
Congress cut every penny from AID's budget this year. Simply put, this
pipeline is the best-kept secret among the bureaucrats at the Agency
for International Development--the foreign aid giveaway mechanism.
The pending amendment, which I am offering on behalf of myself and
the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, proposes to reduce the
amount of money in the AID pipeline by requiring that all money
remaining for more than 4 fiscal years in the pipeline be returned to
the U.S. Treasury. In its study of Agency for International
Development's pipeline, the General Accounting Office has recommended
that un-used foreign aid be returned after 2 years. If enacted, this
amendment would cut nearly $1 billion from foreign aid.
Mr. President, you see that $3.2 billion provided by Congress to AID
in fiscal year 1995 remains unspent; more than $1.6 billion from fiscal
year 1994 has yet to be spent. This hidden reservoir of funds dates
back even to foreign aid approved by Congress in 1985--more than a
decade ago--which has been reposing all the while in the pipeline.
Why does all this money remain in the pipeline? Well, according to a
1991 General Accounting Office study, half of this money is unspent due
to unrealistic or deliberately overstated project assessments by AID
employees. But there is another reason for the existence of this
pipeline. AID simply has received too much money over the years and,
rather than admit that it cannot spend the money wisely, AID
bureaucrats simply have stashed the money away in its secret
bureaucratic pipeline until someone figures out a creative way to give
it away.
Larry Byrne, AID's assistant administrator for management, in a 1995
internal E-mail spoke volumes about how the AID does business.
According to Mr. Byrne, AID is ``62 percent through this fiscal year
and we have 38 percent of the dollar volume of procurement actions
completed; we need to do $1.9 billion in the next 5 months. So let's
get moving.'' This AID administrator, Mr. Byrne, warned that this money
in the AID pipeline, ``imperils our ability to argue we need more
money.''
Lest anyone believe that this huge pipeline is merely an isolated
problem, perhaps some details regarding AID's pipeline in various
countries will be of interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
this chart be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
AID'S HIDDEN SLUSH FUND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Pipeline through 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egypt..................................... $1.93 billion
Russia.................................... 566 million
Phillipines............................... 330 million
Ukraine................................... 217 million
South Africa.............................. 205 million
India..................................... 102 million
[[Page S8817]]
Mozambique................................ 72 million
Peru...................................... 71 million
Bolivia................................... 63 million
Bangladesh................................ 59 million
-----------------------------
Total AID pipeline.................. 6.76 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AID Fiscal Year 1996 Statistical Annex.
Mr. HELMS. So, Mr. President, this pipeline affects almost all of the
101 countries to which AID hands out the American taxpayers' money. For
example, the pending bill provides more than $800 million in economic
aid to Egypt, despite the fact that more than $1.9 billion in
previously-appropriated foreign aid, lingers to this day in Egypt's
pipeline. This bill allows more money for Russia--yet this nation has
already received, but not yet spent, $566 million in United States
foreign aid. India has $102 million in un-used foreign aid. At the
current rate of spending all new foreign aid obligations to India could
cease and it could still receive United States foreign aid
uninterrupted for at least 3 more years.
The list goes on and on. The Philippines has $330 million in unspent
United States foreign aid; Peru has $71 million. All told, a whopping
$6.7 billion in U.S. tax dollars--some more than a decade old--remains
unspent. The pending amendment proposes that $1 billion in surplus
foreign aid will be returned to the Treasury, thereby reducing the
amount Americans are forced to pay for the spiraling Federal debt.
I will conclude by providing what I consider one of the most
egregious abuses of AID pipeline. In 1991--5 years ago--President Bush
ordered all foreign aid to Pakistan be ceased because of that nation's
development of a nuclear bomb. Apparently, the bureaucrats at the
Agency for International Development did not get the message because,
as recently as 1995, AID spent more than $27 million for projects in
Pakistan. This year, AID plans to provide more than another $5 million.
So, despite the President's decision to cut all foreign aid to Pakistan
in 1991, AID's pipeline continues to gush with surplus giveaway money
that the American taxpayers have been forced to provide.
Mr. President, the American taxpayers have been forced to provide
more than $250 billion in development and economic aid since AID was
created, as a temporary agency in 1961. And AID certainly appears to be
doling out cash to any number of nations around the world by making
certain that this pipeline of foreign aid will continue to flow well
into the next century.
Mr. President, I submit that it's high time that we do something for
Americans. This amendment offers a fine opportunity: It will return to
the U.S. Treasury $1 billion in unspent--and unneeded--foreign aid.
amendment no. 5080
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate in opposition to the
military overthrow of the government of Burundi and to encourage the
swift and prompt end to the current crisis, and for other purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert:
The Senate finds that:
The political situation in the African nation of Burundi
has deteriorated and there are reports of a military coup
against the elected government of Burundi, and;
The continuing ethnic conflict in Burundi has caused untold
suffering among the people of Burundi and has resulted in the
deaths of over 150,000 people in the past two years, and;
The attempt to overthrow the government of Burundi makes
the possibility of an increase in the tension and the
continued slaughter of innocent civilians more likely, and;
The United States and the International Community have an
interest in ending the crisis in Burundi before it reaches
the level of violence that occurred in Rwanda in 1994 when
over 800,000 people died in the war between the Hutu and the
Tutsi tribes,
Now, therefore it is the sense of the Senate that:
The United States Senate condemns any violent action
intended to overthrow the government of Burundi, and;
Calls on all parties to the conflict in Burundi to exercise
restraint in an effort to restore peace, and
Urges the Administration to continue diplomatic efforts at
the highest level to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis
in Burundi.
____
amendment no. 5081
(Purpose: To provide for $15,000,000 earmarked for the American Schools
and Hospitals Abroad Program from the Development Assistant Account)
On page 107, line 25, before the period insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, not less than $15,000,000
shall be available only for the American Schools and
Hospitals Abroad program under section 214 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961''.
____
amendment no. 5082
(Purpose: To provide for $5,000,000 earmarked for a land and resource
management institute to identify nuclear contamination at Chernobyl)
On page 107, line 25, before the period insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, $5,000,000 shall be
available only for a land and resource management institute
to identify nuclear contamination at Chernobyl.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments,
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 5079 through 5082) were agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay those motions on the table.
The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.
Amendment No. 5026, As Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to modify amendment No. 5026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
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
previously authorized: Provided further,''.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we
complete the debate on Senator Brown's NATO amendment, that we lay that
aside, and proceed to the debate on the Coverdell amendment, with 40
minutes equally divided, at which point we proceed to two rollcall
votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I certainly do not want to hold up the
Senate. I would be happy to work out anything that is fair to the
parties. I have a statement on an amendment that the managers accepted.
I would be happy to do it tomorrow or after--I need about 10 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. If I could just indicate to the Senate, there is a
good chance that the two votes I just mentioned are the last two
rollcall votes before final passage. So we are getting very close to
the end.
Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that
the Senator from Colorado will be speaking to this. The Senator from
Delaware and the Senator from Colorado and I have worked out the
problems that we had with the Brown amendment. I understood the
unanimous consent to include that as a rollcall vote. It is not my
desire to have a rollcall required. The Senator from Colorado is
planning on modifying his amendment, so I believe it would be wise to
withhold any request for a unanimous consent for a rollcall vote until
such time as the amendment is modified.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I know the leader has a lot
of things to do. Everyone has places to go. I have been around here all
day. As I indicated, if I could have some time tomorrow to do this, I
will do it, or some time at a reasonable hour of the night. But I am
not going to agree to final passage until I make a statement on
something I think is extremely important.
Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object on two
[[Page S8818]]
points. The first, like the Senator from Nevada, I rise in part to
thank the managers of the bill for accepting earlier in the day an
amendment I offered with several colleagues to draw attention to the
continuing freedom of indicted war criminals in Bosnia, and to urge we
continue to make their apprehension and movement to the Hague a
priority for all signatories.
I appreciate if at some point, either before final passage or as the
Senator from Nevada has indicated, on a date certain tomorrow, to be
able to speak at greater length on that matter.
Reserving the right to object, if I may ask the Senator from
Kentucky, through the Chair, along with several colleagues I filed an
amendment to reallocate funds for the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization. These two colleagues I believe were
considering a second-degree amendment, and I wanted to state to the
Senator from Kentucky with respect to that, I intend and hope to raise
that matter before final passage.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let my say I am aware that is not quite
tied up yet. My understanding was those discussions were underway.
With regard to the Senator from Nevada, there will be an opportunity
for him to speak tonight, but I would like to move ahead on the votes.
There will be plenty of opportunity to speak tonight.
Mr. REID. Further reserving the right to object, I am willing to come
in early some time tomorrow for morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request of the
Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator from Kentucky add to his
request that before we start the Coverdell and the other matters, that
the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, would have 2 minutes to
speak on an amendment that has already been accepted.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Bingaman be allowed to proceed for 2 minutes on an amendment we just
passed, prior to the time running on the Brown NATO amendment and the
Coverdell amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, again, am I going to be allowed to speak,
then, before final passage?
Mr. McCONNELL. We do not have a time set for final passage. It should
be no problem.
Mr. REID. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5080
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to just speak very briefly
about the amendment that was earlier agreed to here in the Senate. It
is an amendment cosponsored by Senator Kassebaum, Senator Simon, and
Senator Feingold. The purpose of it was to express the sense of the
Senate in opposition to the military overthrow of the Government of
Burundi, to encourage the swift and prompt end of the current crisis,
and for other purposes.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the current situation in
Burundi and the growing evidence that the international community may
soon face a disaster similar to that which occurred in Rwanda in 1994
and to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution condemning the reported
coup that is occurring today in Burundi.
Just this past Saturday, 300 people, the majority of whom were women
and children, were slaughtered as part of the continuing violence
between the Hutu and Tutsi in Burundi. Survivor accounts revealed that
many of those killed had their hands and feet tied before being shot in
the back of the head. The rest were hacked to death with machetes.
Mr. President, those 300 join the estimated 150,000 who have been
murdered over the 2\1/2\ years in this small African nation. Those
150,000 join the estimated 500,000 to 800,000 who died in the horrible
killing between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda in less than 2 months in 1994.
Together, almost the equivalent of the population of my home State of
New Mexico have died in this troubled part of the world.
Mr. President, I am concerned about the apathy we see regarding the
current situation. I am also concerned about the lack of a concerted
international effort to prevent another situation like that which
occurred in Rwanda in this region.
On Tuesday, the headline in the Washington Post read, Killings Elicit
Shock, but No U.N. Action. The article noted that this weekend's
massacre of 300 women and children elicited expressions of horror from
the members of the Security Council but that none of the member
nations, including the United States, gave any sign that the United
Nations might take action to halt the killing. Yesterday it was
reported that the President of Burundi had taken refuge in the U.S.
Ambassador's residence. This take place amid reports of the massive
deportation of Hutu refugees from northern Burundi. Just this morning,
Reuters is reporting that the army has seized power, outlawed political
parties and closed the airport and land borders.
To even a casual viewer it seems clear that Burundi is now on a fast
slide down the precipice that its neighbor, Rwanda, slid down in 1994.
As Pope John Paul said yesterday, ``Burundi continues to sink into an
abyss of violence whose victims are drawn from among the weakest in
society--children, women and the old. I cannot but state my horror.''
Mr. President, in 1994, after the plane carrying the Presidents of
Rwanda and Burundi was shot down, the world stood silent while Rwanda
exploded in almost unspeakable violence.
While I commend the administration for the diplomatic initiatives it
has undertaken prior to this week's events, in particular the
appointment of former Congressman Howard Wolpe to the position of
special negotiator for Burundi and Rwanda, those efforts have not been
enough. The administration's attention must now be refocused on this
crisis. And while there have been those in Congress like my friends and
colleagues, Senators Kassebaum, Feingold, and Simon, who have spoken
about Burundi and Rwanda, it is now crucial that others begin to stand,
and speak, with them as well.
Mr. President, some of the steps we should be supporting include:
Denouncing any extra constitutional seizure of power and making clear
that the United States condemns any attempt to take power by illegal
means and will not recognize or support any illegal government.
Clearly communicating to the President of Zaire that his support of
Hutu rebels who are using Zaire as a springboard into Burundi where
they commit unspeakable atrocities will not be tolerated by the United
States.
Immediately increasing our diplomatic efforts and conducting those at
a sufficiently high level to make clear that the United States is
willing to be engaged in any serious effort at halting the current
crisis.
Focusing our diplomatic efforts on moving the Organization of African
Unity and the international community to begin assembling the regional
rapid reaction force that the former President of Tanzania has
negotiated with the Government of Burundi.
If the OAU is unable to organize such a force we should be prepared
to support other efforts by the U.N. to develop an appropriate response
to this crisis.
While I do not believe we should send U.S. ground forces to Burundi,
I do believe that the United States should be ready to provide support
to a rapid reaction force in the form of logistical, organizational and
communications resources.
Strongly urging President Clinton to speak out once again against the
violence in Burundi and make clear to the world that the United States
has an interest in preventing another genocide.
Mr. President, we need not undertake another Somalia type mission to
make a difference in Burundi. It does not require ground troops nor
will it require large expenditures. What America can and should
provide, however, is leadership and a strong, unwavering voice against
the current situation.
The Pope spoke yesterday about the evil that is the ethnic hatred in
Burundi and Rwanda. Today, the U.N. Under Secretary General for
peacekeeping missions, Kofi Annan, said:
We have to move very quickly before everything blows up in
our faces. As it is, history will judge us rather severely
for Rwanda. I don't think we can repeat that experience in
Burundi. What we need and what we are seeking now is the
political will to act.
Mr. President, I agree and I think passage of this resolution will
put the
[[Page S8819]]
Senate on record as supporting peace in this troubled region.
This resolution puts the Senate on record urging action by our
Government at the highest possible diplomatic levels to bring
international attention to this problem, and try to bring peace to the
situation there before the situation in Burundi deteriorates into the
very kind of tragedy we saw in Rwanda in that same region this last
year.
Finally, I thank my colleagues for all agreeing to the resolution
that we earlier sent to the desk and had approved. I do think it is
important that the Senate speak on this important issue as part of this
foreign operations bill. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from
Vermont and the Senator from Kentucky in allowing me to speak at this
time. I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 5018
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order there are now 40
minutes of debate equally divided on the Coverdell amendment.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, haggling over this amendment now for
quite some period of time, I will put this in perspective. This is an
amendment about an epidemic, a drug epidemic that is occurring in the
United States.
In the last 36 months, Mr. President, 2 million children in our
country have tragically been embroiled in this drug epidemic. That is 2
million sisters or brothers, next-door neighbors, because the drug war
was shut down. This is but one of many attempts to reenergize our
battle at home and abroad to deal with this drug epidemic.
In 1992, $462 million was invested in international narcotics law
enforcement. In fiscal year 1996, it dropped to $135 million. I think
the President of the United States has recognized this is a serious
problem, both for our country and for his administration. So in the
1997 budget, he requested that $213 million be invested in the
international narcotics war. In other words, a turnaround. This bill,
both House and Senate, undercut that.
The effort of this amendment is very simple. It is to simply meet the
President's request to get it up to $213 million. Mr. President, how do
we do that? Well, first, in this budget for international operations,
it appropriates $31 million more than the President requested--more. So
we take $25 million of that surplus and move it back to help fill
President Clinton's request for international narcotics law
enforcement.
No. 2, in development assistance, we take a 2 percent across-the-
board reduction, $28 million, and move it over to international
narcotics, bringing the appropriation for international narcotics and
law enforcement up to the President's request--not a dime more--up to
the President's request.
Mr. President, the drug war today, for the first time in history, is
being waged against kids. The last drug epidemic involved people 17 to
21 years of age; this epidemic begins at 8 years old, 8 to 13. They are
the target. For us not to meet the President's request for
international narcotics in law enforcement does not meet the test of
logic, given what is happening to us in our own country. Millions of
American families are at risk. Does this solve all of it? No. Is this
an important piece of it? Yes. I find it somewhat incredulous that we
are arguing over meeting the President's request--not exceeding it, but
meeting it.
With that, Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think it has been very clearly noted
that the essence of this amendment is: If you care about kids and the
problems that they are having with drugs, the best place to fight that
effort is before drugs ever get into this country--keeping the drugs
out.
I strongly support the amendment to restore funding to the
International Narcotics Control budget. In the last several years,
beginning in 1993, that budget has been severely cut. Virtually without
discussion the INL budget lost almost 30 percent of its funding in
1993. Funding in the last several years has been below the levels in
the Bush administration. These cuts were in keeping with the
downgrading of drug efforts by the Clinton administration. At the time,
the administration did virtually nothing to support its own
international counter-narcotics programs in Congress. Although Congress
restored some of that funding last year, we still need to close the gap
to ensure our international programs are adequately supported. This
year I also note a surprising invisibility on the part of the
administration to promote funding for its own programs.
As the task force report on National Drug Strategy notes, our overall
drug effort needs to be sustained and it needs to be consistent. The
administration, however, has done little to sustain its own programs.
And there has not been much consistency. We must try to change this.
I am also aware that some members here feel that international
programs do not do much to address the problem. To them I would say
that responding to the drug problem in this country is a team effort.
No single program is the magic solution to success. The problem is
multi-dimensional. Our solutions must also be broad and multi-
disciplinary. We cannot expect the small amounts of money, compared to
the total, that we spend on international efforts to be the sole star
of the show. INL programs are a part of the team and we must ensure
that it is not the weakest member.
I hope that you will join me in voting for this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from
Kansas on the floor. I ask how much time she may wish.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, 5 or 6 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from
Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia. I certainly would agree
with him, and I think we all share a concern about the scope of the
drug problem in this country. One cannot help but be disturbed by the
growing use of life-destructive drugs.
As someone who cares deeply about the youth of this country, I
certainly stand second to none in my concern about the destructive
impact of drugs on children. I had worked long in community efforts in
this area before I even came to the U.S. Senate. I know something about
the different types of initiatives that have been undertaken. I also
fully agree with the Senator from Georgia that this President has not
offered the kind of moral leadership on this issue that we both need
and expect. He has not spoken out forcefully against drugs. He has
devoted little time to this issue, and until the appointment of General
McCaffrey, he has not supported energetically those in his
administration working on this problem.
Yet, despite my serious concern about the drug problem in our
country, as well as my dismay about the administration's weak response,
I must reluctantly oppose the amendment.
Mr. President, as has been pointed out, this amendment would increase
U.S. spending for antinarcotics by some $53 million over the Senate
funding level, a level which is already $45 million over last year's
spending. If this amendment is approved, the Senate would nearly double
what was spent last year on this program.
In a bill where every account has been straight-lined or decreased,
there is absolutely no reason to support a dramatic increase for this
program. Let me say why. We all want to help slow the flow of drugs
into the United States. I have always been a believer, however, that
where there is a demand, there will be a supply. There is a world of
money to be made in drugs, and until we can address that in each and
every one of our communities, we are not going to be able to
effectively stop the supply into this country.
The international antinarcotics program has simply not been an
effective use of scarce Federal dollars. To date, we have invested
hundreds of millions of dollars in this effort. Yet, worldwide
production of illicit drugs has increased dramatically. Over the past
decade, just 10 years, opium and marijuana production has roughly
doubled, and coca production has tripled. For example, since 1990, the
United States has spent over $500 million on
[[Page S8820]]
antinarcotics programs in Colombia alone. Yet, drug production in
Colombia remains high, and the administration could not even certify
Colombia as cooperating on antinarcotics programs.
Mr. President, the reality is that world production and supply of
narcotics vastly exceeds world demand. Even under the best case
scenario, global supply reductions are unlikely to have even a minimal
effect on our domestic drug problem.
I fully appreciate the sentiments of my colleague from Georgia, and I
agree with him. We all understand the destructive power of drugs, and
we all want to end the flow of narcotics into the United States. But
throwing more and more money at failed solutions simply does not make
sense. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coverdell amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been working very diligently with a
number of Senators and the Democratic leader to reach some unanimous
consent agreements that are very important for the body. If the Members
will give me a few minutes, we can go through a number of these. The
time will not count against anyone's time.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time not
be taken out of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________