[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.

                          ____________________