[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 111 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8833-S8863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S8833]]

      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 5018

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 10 minutes and 38 
seconds, and the Senator from Vermont has 15 minutes and 29 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I assume the time will not start until we 
have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware told me he wants 
2 minutes, and I yield that to him.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am not going to speak to the merits of 
the legislation. I see my friend from Iowa is in the Chamber. I was 
going to remain silent on this, but because of the constant partisan 
references to the President not caring about it, I just want the Record 
to show one thing. This administration since it came into office has 
asked for $801 million for this very purpose, and my good friend from 
Iowa knows the Republican Congress gave him $540 million.
  Now, I find it fascinating the Senator from Iowa stands up and 
berates the administration for its lack of interest, and the Senator 
from Kansas stands up and says there is no reason we should give this 
much money because it is better used other places. There is some merit 
to her argument, but the irony, I just want the Record to show, is that 
fiscal year 1994 is the only year the President asked for less than the 
Congress gave him. He asked for 148; he got 170. In 1995, he asked for 
227; the Congress gave him 105. In 1996, he asked for 213; the Congress 
gave him 115. And in 1997, he asked for 213, and the Congress up to now 
has given him, the proposal is 160, and now our friend from Georgia is 
getting in line with the President of the United States and getting 
their act together in asking what the President asked for.
  So, I cannot let it go. I am trying not to respond to everything that 
occurs here. But the fact is, $801 million asked by the President for 
this function; $540 million thus far granted by the Congress. If this 
succeeds, and I will support them to raise it up to the President's 
level of $213 million, from $160 million, that $540 million will move 
up in the commensurate amount. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware in support of full funding for the 
international drug program. I would remind him, however, that the cuts 
to the international program began in 1993 when the Democratic-
controlled Congress cut the INL program by 30 percent. The President's 
requests in 1993 and 1994 were also well below the Bush-era budgets. 
Even if we vote for the $213 million today, our international narcotics 
budget will still be over $200 million below the 1992 level. I also 
remind the Senator that he has been one of the most outspoken critics 
of this administration drug programs. He has noted the failings. I hope 
he and others here will join in voting to put this program back on 
track.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think one thing should unite all of us, 
and I think it does. What unites the Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Coverdell, myself, and everybody else in here is that we are opposed to 
international drug trafficking.
  Back when I was a prosecutor we did not have the problem we have now, 
but I used to throw people in jail for drug trafficking. None of us 
needs to stand up and say that we declare our opposition to drug 
traffic.
  What bothers me about the Coverdell amendment is that it cuts funds 
in the bill for international environmental, humanitarian, and 
development programs. It is going to cut UNICEF by at least $5 million, 
probably $10 million, potentially as much as $17 million.
  I even heard about an organization called Olympic Aid Atlanta, an 
initiative out of Atlanta, GA, to generate money to help children 
affected by conflict in 14 countries through UNICEF. They are going to 
get cut, in all likelihood, because we transfer the funds to counter 
narcotics.
  This amendment is virtually identical to one offered a couple of 
years ago. That was defeated 57 to 38 in a bipartisan vote. Anybody who 
doubts what we do, we have spent over $1 billion, that is $1,000 
million, on the international narcotics program in the past 6 years. 
That is only one set of many, many sources on funding to combat drugs 
overseas. The House version of this year's State, Justice, Commerce 
appropriation bill has $75 million more for the narcotics programs than 
the President requested.
  We should ask whether we have actually accomplished much since 1987. 
We did have the predictions we would stop drugs at the source. The 
amount of coca under cultivation has actually increased. It was 175,000 
hectares in 1987; it is 214,000 in 1995. The amount of cocaine produced 
has gone up. We spent $1 billion--actually a lot more than $1 billion, 
but the flow of cocaine continues unabated. We destroy one coca field, 
another gets planted. We arrest

[[Page S8834]]

one drug trafficker, another takes his place. We find one corrupt 
official in one of these countries, three more come in. And the market 
drives it. We all know that.
  We are not going to give up. But let us be realistic. Until we stop 
the demand in this country, this is going to continue. This bill 
increases--the bill that we have before us, without the amendment by 
the distinguished Senator from Georgia--increases funding for 
counternarcotics 39 percent above current levels, the largest increase 
of any program in this bill. This would increase it another 33 percent. 
That is a 85 percent increase in 1 year.
  Look what we are doing. At the same time our AID budget is going 
down--AID had to fire 200 employees last week, people with 10, 20 years 
experience dedicated to this country--the amount of money we know keeps 
going up. Look how the money has gone up, up, up, up, up--but narcotics 
do not go down. That is why, yes, work at what we might do, but we are 
not going to make any change in this by cutting $25 million from the 
U.N. Environment Program and UNICEF and the World Food Program, the 
Convention on Endangered Species, to name a few. Some of these programs 
were cut 50 percent last year.

  But, when we end up cutting $5 million to $17 million out of UNICEF 
to pay for this, or money out of AID's development programs that are 
already cut 22 percent last year, to cut them another $28 million--I do 
not agree with this.
  The President has requested a lot. But the President requested $12.8 
billion for foreign assistance. Our allocation was $12.2 billion. We 
are already $600 million below what the President requested. If we had 
another half-billion dollars we could afford this. Unless we want to 
cut UNICEF, unless we want to cut our contribution to KEDO by half, and 
our other international development programs, then we cannot afford it. 
That is the argument we made 2 years ago and we cut it down.
  I look at this bill. The first time in 22 years we are already 
cutting UNICEF. How much more do we want to cut it?
  This bill underfunds our contributions to the Korea Economic 
Development Organization by half. I know the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, along with Senators Nunn, Hatfield, 
Thomas, Daschle, Lugar, Simon, and myself, are going to try to provide 
authority for more. But assuming that authority passes, if the 
Coverdell amendment is agreed to the money is not there. If we do not 
pay our share of KEDO, then the Secretary of Defense says the risk of 
the North Koreans breaking the nuclear freeze would rise significantly.
  As I said, I fought drug traffic for over 8 years as a prosecutor. I 
voted for billions of dollars to fight drugs both here and overseas. I 
know of no Member of this body on either side who does not abhor the 
drug traffic in this country, what it is doing to our children and to 
so many others. But we provide a sharp increase for counternarcotics 
programs in this bill, and if we cut out KEDO, and put North Korea back 
onto their nuclear program, is that increasing our security? I think, 
keep the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending on narcotics, 
but do not cut these other things that also affect our security. We 
increase amounts for drugs by cutting UNICEF or cutting international 
health programs, programs to clean up toxic waste? Let us remember, 
also where some of this money goes. Some of these funds, unfortunately, 
go to the Colombian Army or Bolivian police or Peruvian police. They 
are not going to fight drugs.
  We are already giving them a 39 percent increase. Let us accept the 
fact we want to stop drugs. Let us accept the fact we will do 
everything possible. But let us not create other problems by cutting 
UNICEF and KEDO and everything else.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield up to 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment, offered by Senator 
Coverdell and other Senators including myself, would fully fund the 
President's International Narcotics Control Account request of $213 
million for drug interdiction and eradication efforts. Funds would come 
from the International Organizations and Program accounts, which are 
$31 million over the President's request, and from Development 
Assistance.
  Mr. President, Mr. Matthew Robinson, writing in Investors Business 
Daily, has brought out certain points which I think are very important. 
He says:

       The Drug Enforcement Agency has lost 227 agents from 
     September '92 to September '95.
       Clinton issued an executive order reducing military 
     interdiction efforts, including the elimination of 1,000 
     antidrug positions.
       He shortened mandatory minimum sentences for drug 
     traffickers.
       He tried to slash the staff of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy by 80% to 25 from 146. Congress has restored 
     funding for some of those slots.
       In his '95 budget, he proposed cutting funds for the U.S. 
     Customs Service, the DEA, the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
     the U.S. Coast Guard. The result would have meant 621 fewer 
     agents. Congress again restored some of this funding.
       The drug effort has suffered on another level, critics say. 
     The first is in the actual fight against street drugs. 
     Interdiction efforts have suffered under Clinton, drug 
     warriors say.
       The military's budget for drug enforcement grew from $4.9 
     million in '82 to more than $1 billion in '92. It was cut 
     back under Clinton to $700 million in '95.

  Mr. President, this amendment should be agreed to. We need to do more 
in controlling this drug situation, and I urge the Senate to adopt this 
amendment. I think it will be very helpful.
  I thank the able Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, given the poor record of the Clinton 
administration on drug enforcement it ought to be enough to simply note 
that this amendment is needed to bring funding up to the level 
requested by President Clinton. In an Investors Business Daily article 
recently, they began by saying:

       In the war on drugs, a bipartisan chorus of critics charges 
     that President Clinton has been AWOL--absent without 
     leadership.

  They quote Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, 
who says:

       I have never, never, never seen a President who cares less 
     about this issue.

  Representative Maxine Waters a Democrat from California says, ``There 
is no war on drugs.''
  The article goes on to note that President Clinton cut the Drug 
Enforcement Agency by 227 agents; that he issued an Executive order 
reducing military interdiction efforts, including the elimination of 
1,000 antidrug positions; that he shortened mandatory minimum sentences 
for drug traffickers; that he tried to slash the staff of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy by 80 percent, to only 25 people down from 
146; and that in his 1995 budget he proposed cutting funds for the 
Customs Service, the DEA, Federal Bureau of Investigation, INS, and 
Coast Guard, all of which would result in fewer agents for drug 
interdiction.
  The point here is if the administration has requested the additional 
amount of money, surely the Congress ought to support it, given the 
fact that the administration has not exactly been a stalwart supporter 
of the drug interdiction efforts.
  Certainly no one cares more about kids than the Senator from Kansas 
does. There is simply a difference of opinion of how to proceed here. 
She makes the point this is significantly more funding than last year, 
and that's right and that's the point.
  Under President Bush, the funding was going up. Under President 
Clinton, the funding has gone down precipitously. We need to begin to 
restore that funding so that we will have an adequate effort in regard 
to this interdiction effort. That is why we should support the 
amendment of the Senator from Georgia. The funding in this effort needs 
to be increased. As Senator Grassley said, this is something we have to 
do for the kids.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I share the concern of my friend, the 
Senator from Georgia, about the urgency of improving the effectiveness 
of our anti-narcotics efforts. The threat of international drug 
trafficking is

[[Page S8835]]

very real and our efforts to combat it must become more effective. I 
agree with many of the Senator from Georgia's criticisms of the current 
program and believe that significant improvements must be made in the 
results of our anti-drug program.
  The bill before us provides a 40 percent increase in funding for 
these programs, reflecting the committee's concern that there must be a 
strong response to the escalation of narcotics trafficking. This is a 
significant increase that will allow considerable expansion of U.S. 
efforts abroad.
  Yet, the amendment before us would shift an additional $53 million to 
the counter-drug account. These funds would come from a $25 million cut 
in the International Operations and Programs account and a $28 million 
cut in development assistance. Unlike the international narcotics 
control programs, both the international organizations and programs 
account and development assistance have sustained significant 
reductions in the past years. In particular, the international 
organizations account was sharply reduced for fiscal year 1996, forced 
cuts in our contributions to organizations such as the United Nations 
Development Program, the World Food Program, the United Nations 
Environmental Program and many other worthwhile international 
organizations.
  Development assistance has also been reduced in the past years. This 
includes funds for Africa, for sustainable development programs to 
increase world food production, to reduce environmental devastation. 
This account also funds child survival and disease programs, 
international debt restructuring and micro enterprise programs--all 
very worthwhile programs. The problems that these programs seek to 
solve are equally deserving of our attention, and in many instances, 
eventually would pose grave problems for the United States if they are 
ignored.
  Mr. President, it is indeed a difficult task to balance the competing 
priorities of this legislation, all of them very valid in their own 
right. However, I urge my colleagues to resist this temptation to alter 
the careful balance that has been struck by the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. How much time is 
remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 6 minutes 10 
seconds. The Senator from Georgia has 5 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reiterate, none of us are in favor of 
drug trafficking. I suspect none of us are in favor of the millions, 
many millions, of dollars we spend on foreign interdiction that goes 
into the pockets of corrupt officials either.
  But I will say, with the huge increase in counternarcotics money that 
is in here already, let's not even go beyond that and do it by cutting 
UNICEF and cutting Korean economic development and other things that 
are also in our best interest.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the Senator from Delaware 1 minute.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I heard again, this time from our friend 
from Arizona, about the President's flagging effort on drugs and Bush 
up, Clinton down. Let's get the record straight.
  There was over $300 million more requested by the President for this 
very function than the Congress is willing to give him. The Republican 
Congress in the Senate last year cut the FBI by $112 million, cut the 
drug task force by $19 million, cut the number of prosecutors by $19 
million. Let's stop this.
  I think it makes sense to do what the Senator from Georgia wants to 
do. Let's do it and stop this partisan malarkey. The facts do not 
sustain the assertions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's face it, since this administration 
has taken over, there has not been a war on drugs, not a real effort on 
drugs. They cut the drug czar's office. They have cut interdiction. 
They have cut facilities in the transit zones. They have not put the 
moneys where the moneys should go. They are not effectively spending 
them, and I have accused the President of being AWOL on drugs, or 
absent without leadership on drugs.
  I don't think many Democrats or Republicans disagree with that 
statement. The fact is they have been AWOL on drugs, and there is a 
cavalier attitude down at the White House: ``So what. Don't all young 
people use drugs?''

  My gosh, all young people don't use drugs, and there are a lot of 
people who have repented and are now fighting the battle side by side 
with us. I commend them for having done it. I recommend the people in 
the White House do the same thing.
  I have been appalled by what has been happening. Our borders are a 
sieve. Now we have these drug lords coming in and buying up ranches at 
exorbitant prices. Ranchers are glad to get out of there because they 
feel intimidated. They feel they are being mocked. They feel that they 
are being overrun. They feel that they are going to be murdered. So why 
not sell out at exorbitant prices and get through it?
  Let's be honest about it, Federal law enforcement has been under 
severe strain, just as the technical sophistication of drug trafficking 
syndicates is reaching new heights. A report prepared by the Judiciary 
Committee finds that the administration supply reduction policy is in 
utter disarray, with a 53-percent drop in our ability to interdict and 
push back drug shipments in the transit zone. The report also finds 
increases in the purity of drugs and the number of drug-related 
emergency room admissions of hardcore users.
  If you look at it, it is a disgrace. I think what the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia is trying to do is right. He is trying to put 
money back in, put money where our mouths happen to be and start 
helping to bolster this administration to do what it should do to begin 
with.
  I don't have faith in the administration doing what is right in the 
drug war, and I don't think others do. By gosh, I think we ought to 
support the amendment of the Senator from Georgia. I hope people will.
  I ask unanimous consent that the introduction of a report we did in 
the Judiciary Committee, entitled ``Losing Ground Against Drugs,'' be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Losing Ground Against Drugs (Excerpt)


                              introduction

       Through the 1980s and into the early 1990s, the United 
     States experienced dramatic and unprecedented reductions in 
     casual drug use.
       The number of Americans using illicit drugs plunged from 
     24.7 million in 1979 to 11.4 million in 1992. The so-called 
     ``casual'' use of cocaine fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 
     1992, while montly cocaine use fell 55 percent between 1988 
     and 1992 alone--from 2.9 million to 1.3 million users.
       On the surface, little appears to have changed since 1992. 
     For the nation as a whole, drug use remains relatively flat. 
     The vast majority of Americans still do not use illegal 
     drugs.
       Unfortunately, this appearance is dangerously misleading. 
     Drug use has in fact experienced a dramatic resurgence among 
     our youth, a disturbing trend that could quickly return the 
     United States to the epidemic of drug use that characterized 
     the decade of the 1970s.
       Recent surveys, described in detail in this report, provide 
     overwhelming evidence of a sharp and growing increase in drug 
     use among young people:
       The number of 12-17 year-olds using marijuana increased 
     from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994. The category 
     of ``recent marijuana use'' increased a staggering 200 
     percent among 14-15 year-olds over the same period.
       Since 1992, there has been a 52 percent jump in the number 
     of high-school seniors using drugs on a monthly basis, even 
     as worrisome declines are noted in peer disapproval of drug 
     use.
       One in three high school seniors now smokes marijuana.
       Young people are actually more likely to be aware of the 
     health dangers of cigarettes than of the dangers of 
     marijuana.
       Nor have recent increases been confined to marijuana. At 
     least three surveys note increased use of inhalants and other 
     drugs such as cocaine and LSD.

[[Page S8836]]

       Drug use by young people is alarming by any standard, but 
     especially so since teen drug use is at the root of hard-core 
     drug use by adults. According to surveys by the Center on 
     Addiction and Substance Abuse, 12-17 year-olds who use 
     marijuana are ``85 times more likely to graduate to cocaine 
     than those who abstain from marijuana.'' Fully 60 percent of 
     adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use 
     cocaine. Conversely, those who reach age 21 without ever 
     having used drugs almost never try them later in life.
       Described any other way, perhaps 820,000 of the new crop of 
     youthful marijuana smokers will eventually try cocaine. Of 
     these 820,000 who try cocaine, some 58,000 may end up as 
     regular users and addicts.
       The implications for public policy are clear. If such 
     increases are allowed to continue for just two more years, 
     America will be at risk of returning to the epidemic drug use 
     of the 1970s. Should that happen, our ability to control 
     health care costs, reform welfare, improve the academic 
     performance of our school-age children, and defuse the 
     projected ``crime bomb'' of youthful super-predator 
     criminals, will all be seriously compromised.
       With these thoughts in mind, I am pleased to present 
     ``Losing Ground Against Drugs: A Report on Increasing Illicit 
     Drug Use and National Drug Policy'' prepared at my direction 
     by the majority staff of the United States Senate Committee 
     on the Judiciary. This report examines trends in drug use and 
     the Clinton Administration's sometimes uneven response to 
     them, including the Administration's controversial policy of 
     targeting chronic, hardcore drug users. The report also 
     reviews the state of trends in use and availability. And, 
     finally, it evaluates the performance over the past three 
     years of our nation's criminal justice and interdiction 
     systems.
       The report finds federal law enforcement under severe 
     strain just as the technical sophistication of drug 
     trafficking syndicates is reaching new heights. It finds that 
     the Administration's supply reduction policy is in utter 
     disarray, with a 53 percent drop in our ability to interdict 
     and push back drug shipments in the transit zone. The report 
     also finds increases in the purity of drugs and the number of 
     drug-related emergency room admissions of hard-core users.
       Federal drug policy is at a crossroads. Ineffectual 
     leadership and failed federal policies have combined with 
     ambiguous cultural messages to generate changing attitudes 
     among our young people and sharp increases in youthful drug 
     use.
       The American people recognize these problems and are 
     increasingly concerned: A Gallup poll released December 12, 
     1995 shows that 94 percent of Americans view illegal drug use 
     as either a ``crisis'' or a ``very serious problem.'' Their 
     concern, which I share, underscores the danger of 
     compromising our struggle against the drug trade. I look 
     forward to addressing the issues raised in this report in 
     future hearings of the United States Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield myself first 1 minute.
  Mr. President, I heard his ad hominem attack on the Clinton 
administration. I have always found the best prosecutions are those 
that don't become prosecutions but rise above partisanship.
  I point out that the Clinton administration has appointed General 
McCaffrey as drug czar. For the first time, certainly since I have been 
here, I have seen somebody who really can be a drug czar.
  Maybe people have different attitudes. I know the Speaker of the 
House, who is about my age, implies that all people during the time he 
was growing up in his age category used drugs, himself included. Mr. 
President, I never did. I believe perhaps because at that age I was out 
prosecuting people using drugs. I have never had any desire to. I have 
never used them.
  Let's stop these ad hominem things. If Senators want to say whether 
they prefer using them or not, fine, but this administration has 
fought, as other administrations have fought, Republican and Democrat, 
to stop drug usage.
  But let us also acknowledge something, and this is the fact that 
everybody, Republican and Democrat, has to stand up and admit: simply 
throwing the money at the drug problem does not make it go away. 
Whether it is the Speaker of the House saying everybody of that age 
used drugs or not, that does not make it go away. It is going to take a 
lot more than simply throwing money at this drug problem to make it go 
away.
  I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know this is asking a lot, but let's just 
examine the logic of what is being said here. My friend from Utah 
stands up and says, ``Restore what we need to restore. Make the 
President do what he should do.''
  What are we doing? The Senator from Georgia is restoring the request 
of the President. What are these guys talking about? The President is 
the one who asked for the money the Senator from Georgia says he should 
get. Now my friend from Utah says, ``Now what we must do is restore 
this war on drugs.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. So has the logic in this place.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I will be happy to 
yield the time back and go to a vote, so some people can go home and go 
to bed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will use some of my time. Mr. President, how much 
time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 3 minutes; the 
Senator from Vermont has 2 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, there is an incongruity here between 
myself and the Senator from Vermont. I just heard the Senator from 
Vermont say, ``You don't throw money at the drug program,'' and then 
the Senator from Delaware. So, you are suggesting the President is 
throwing money away?
  This is the President's request, and to the Senator from Delaware, 
when it is fulfilled, it is still only up to half what it was in 1992. 
It is moving in the right direction. It is not a dollar more.
  Now the Senator from Vermont has also suggested that, by moving this 
money to this international narcotics fund, it is cutting international 
organizations and programs. That is simply not so. The money we took 
from international organizations and programs is from the surplus that 
was over the President's request. So all I have done is taken that 
additional money over and above the President's request and moved it 
over to fulfill the President's request, which seems eminently logical 
to me given the condition of the drug epidemic in the United States, 
given the fact that this is a Presidential request, and given the fact 
that we are simply removing money from a surplus that the President did 
not request.
  I have to say, given the condition of children in our country, I 
think the President is right on this one. I am perplexed that the other 
side of the aisle would be trying to thwart the President's own 
objectives here.
  Mr. President, I do yield back whatever time is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his remaining time. 
The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will take the same amount of time as the 
Senator from Georgia just did.
  There is no surplus. UNICEF has already been cut $10 million and will 
be cut more under this. The Korean Economic Development Organization, 
KEDO, is not funded. We are going to try to have the authorization for 
it, but it will not be funded. Our own Secretary of Defense tells us, 
if it is not, we face very, very serious problems in North Korea.
  The fact of the matter is, there is no surplus. This money has to 
come from somewhere. It will come from further cuts in UNICEF. It will 
come from the inability to fund KEDO. It will come from a number of 
those other areas.
  Mr. President, I understand that in an election year nobody wants to 
somehow seem to be weak on drugs. I understand that even if we, no 
matter how much we demonstrate so much of this money has, in all 
administrations, gone into the pockets of corrupt individuals, no 
matter how much we want to say we have other security interests, too, 
like avoiding nuclear capabilities in North Korea, that somehow having 
already raised substantially the amount of money in this budget for 
narcotics way above anything else, we may even raise it more. Let us 
just go vote. I yield back my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
10 minutes equally divided on the Brown amendment prior to the vote.


                Amendment No. 5058, As Further Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Brown be allowed to modify his amendment to reflect the compromise 
reached by the Senators from Georgia and Delaware.

[[Page S8837]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I send the modification to the desk.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
       On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
         TITLE ____--NATO ENLARGEMENT FACILITATION ACT OF 1996

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``NATO Enlargement 
     Facilitation Act of 1996''.

     SEC. ____02. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) has played an essential role in guaranteeing the 
     security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States and 
     its partners in the Alliance.
       (2) The NATO Alliance is, and has been since its inception, 
     purely defensive in character, and it poses no threat to any 
     nation. The enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include as 
     full and equal members emerging democracies in Central and 
     Eastern Europe will serve to reinforce stability and security 
     in Europe by fostering their integration into the structures 
     which have created and sustained peace in Europe since 1945. 
     Their admission into NATO will not threaten any nation. 
     America's security, freedom, and prosperity remain linked to 
     the security of the countries of Europe.
       (3) The sustained commitment of the member countries of 
     NATO to a mutual defense has made possible the democratic 
     transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. Members of the 
     Alliance can and should play a critical role in addressing 
     the security challenges of the post-Cold War era and in 
     creating the stable environment needed for those emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to successfully 
     complete political and economic transformation.
       (4) The United States continues to regard the political 
     independence and territorial integrity of all emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as vital to 
     European peace and security.
       (5) The active involvement by the countries of Central and 
     Eastern Europe has made the Partnership for Peace program an 
     important forum to foster cooperation between NATO and those 
     countries seeking NATO membership.
       (6) NATO has enlarged its membership on 3 different 
     occasions since 1949.
       (7) Congress supports the admission of qualified new 
     members to NATO and the European Union at an early date and 
     has sought to facilitate the admission of qualified new 
     members into NATO.
       (8) As new members of NATO assume the responsibilities of 
     Alliance membership, the costs of maintaining stability in 
     Europe should be shared more widely. Facilitation of the 
     enlargement process will require current members of NATO, and 
     the United States in particular, to demonstrate the political 
     will needed to build on successful ongoing programs such as 
     the Warsaw Initiative and the Partnership for Peace by making 
     available the resources necessary to supplement efforts 
     prospective new members are themselves undertaking.
       (9) New members will be full members of the Alliance, 
     enjoying all rights and assuming all the obligations under 
     the Washington Treaty.
       (10) Cooperative regional peacekeeping initiatives 
     involving emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe 
     that have expressed interest in joining NATO, such as the 
     Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion, the Polish-Lithuanian Joint 
     Peacekeeping Force, and the Polish-Ukrainian Peacekeeping 
     Force, can make an important contribution to European peace 
     and security and international peacekeeping efforts, can 
     assist those countries preparing to assume the 
     responsibilities of possible NATO membership, and accordingly 
     should receive appropriate support from the United States.
       (11) NATO remains the only multilateral security 
     organization capable of conducting effective military 
     operations and preserving security and stability of the Euro-
     Atlantic region.
       (12) NATO is an important diplomatic forum and has played a 
     positive role in defusing tensions between members of the 
     Alliance and, as a result, no military action has occurred 
     between two Alliance member states since the inception of 
     NATO in 1949.
       (13) The admission to NATO of emerging democracies in 
     Central and Eastern Europe which are found to be in a 
     position to further the principles of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty would contribute to international peace and enhance 
     the security of the region. Countries which have become 
     democracies and established market economies, which practice 
     good neighborly relations, and which have established 
     effective democratic civilian control over their defense 
     establishments and attained a degree of interoperability with 
     NATO, should be evaluated for their potential to further the 
     principles of the North Atlantic Treaty.
       (14) A number of Central and Eastern European countries 
     have expressed interest in NATO membership, and have taken 
     concrete steps to demonstrate this commitment, including 
     their participation in Partnership for Peace activities.
       (15) The Caucasus region remains important geographically 
     and politically to the future security of Central Europe. As 
     NATO proceeds with the process of enlargement, the United 
     States and NATO should continue to examine means to 
     strengthen the sovereignty and enhance the security of U.N. 
     recognized countries in that region.
       (16) In recognition that not all countries which have 
     requested membership in NATO will necessarily qualify at the 
     same pace, the accession date for each new member will vary.
       (17) The provision of additional NATO transition assistance 
     should include those emerging democracies most ready for 
     closer ties with NATO and should be designed to assist other 
     countries meeting specified criteria of eligibility to move 
     forward toward eventual NATO membership.
       (18) The Congress of the United States finds in particular 
     that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia have 
     made significant progress toward achieving the stated 
     criteria and should be eligible for the additional assistance 
     described in this bill.
       (19) The evaluation of future membership in NATO for 
     emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should be 
     based on the progress of those nations in meeting criteria 
     for NATO membership, which require enhancement of NATO's 
     security and the approval of all NATO members.
       (20) The process of NATO enlargement entails the agreement 
     of the governments of all NATO members in accordance with 
     Article 10 of the Washington Treaty.
       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 
     prior 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.

     SEC. ____03. UNITED STATES POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to join with the NATO allies of the United States to 
     adapt the role of the NATO Alliance in the post-Cold War 
     world;
       (2) to actively assist the emerging democracies in Central 
     and Eastern Europe in their transition so that such countries 
     may eventually qualify for NATO membership; and
       (3) to work to define a constructive and cooperative 
     political and security relationship between an enlarged NATO 
     and the Russian Federation.

     SEC. ____04. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FURTHER 
                   ENLARGEMENT OF NATO.

       It is the sense of the Congress that in order to promote 
     economic stability and security in Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine--
       (1) the United States should continue and expand its 
     support for the full and active participation of these 
     countries in activities appropriate for qualifying for NATO 
     membership;
       (2) the United States Government should use all diplomatic 
     means available to press the European Union to admit as soon 
     as possible any country which qualifies for membership;
       (3) the United States Government and the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization should continue and expand their support 
     for military exercises and peacekeeping initiatives between 
     and among these nations, nations of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization, and Russia; and
       (4) the process of enlarging NATO to include emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should not be 
     limited to consideration of admitting Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, and Slovenia as full members to the NATO 
     Alliance.

     SEC. ____05. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ESTONIA, LATVIA, 
                   AND LITHUANIA.

       In view of the forcible incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania into the Soviet Union in 1940 under the Molotov-
     Ribbentrop Pact and the refusal of the United States and 
     other countries to recognize that incorporation for over 50 
     years, it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have valid historical 
     security concerns that must be taken into account by the 
     United States; and
       (2) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should not be 
     disadvantaged in seeking to join NATO by virtue of their 
     forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union.

     SEC. ____06. DESIGNATION OF COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR NATO 
                   ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The following countries are designated as 
     eligible to receive assistance under the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 
     and shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to 
     section 203(d) of such Act: Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
     Republic, and Slovenia.
       (b) Designation of Other Countries.--The President shall 
     designate other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern 
     Europe as eligible to receive assistance under the program 
     established under section 203(a) of such Act if such 
     countries--
       (1) have expressed a clear desire to join NATO;
       (2) have begun an individualized dialogue with NATO in 
     preparation for accession;
       (3) are strategically significant to an effective NATO 
     defense; and

[[Page S8838]]

       (4) meet the other criteria outlined in section 203(d) of 
     the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 
     103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Subsection (a) does not preclude 
     the designation by the President of Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, 
     Ukraine, or any other emerging democracy in Central and 
     Eastern Europe pursuant to section 203(d) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994 as eligible to receive assistance 
     under the program established under section 203(a) of such 
     Act.

     SEC. ____07. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATO 
                   ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994.
       (b) Availability.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (a)--
       (1) not less than $20,000,000 shall be available for the 
     subsidy cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the Credit 
     Reform Act of 1990, of direct loans pursuant to the authority 
     of section 203(c)(4) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 
     (relating to the ``Foreign Military Financing Program'');
       (2) not less than $30,000,000 shall be available for 
     assistance on a grant basis pursuant to the authority of 
     section 203(c)(4) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 
     (relating to the ``Foreign Military Financing Program''); and
       (3) not more than $10,000,000 shall be available for 
     assistance pursuant to the authority of section 203(c)(3) of 
     the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (relating to international 
     military education and training).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under this section are authorized to be 
     appropriated in addition to such amounts as otherwise may be 
     available for such purposes.

     SEC. ____08. REGIONAL AIRSPACE INITIATIVE AND PARTNERSHIP FOR 
                   PEACE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Funds described in subsection (b) are 
     authorized to be made available to support the implementation 
     of the Regional Airspace Initiative and the Partnership for 
     Peace Information Management System, including--
       (1) the procurement of items in support of these programs; 
     and
       (2) the transfer of such items to countries participating 
     in these programs, which may include Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine, and Albania.
       (b) Funds Described.--Funds described in this subsection 
     are funds that are available--
       (1) during any fiscal year under the NATO Participation Act 
     of 1994 with respect to countries eligible for assistance 
     under that Act; or
       (2) during fiscal year 1997 under any Act to carry out the 
     Warsaw Initiative.

     SEC. ____09. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.

       (a) Priority Delivery.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the provision and delivery of excess defense articles 
     under the authority of section 203(c) (1) and (2) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994 and section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be given priority to the maximum 
     extent feasible over the provision and delivery of such 
     excess defense articles to all other countries except those 
     countries referred to in section 541 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-306; 108 Stat. 
     1640).
       (b) Cooperative Regional Peacekeeping Initiatives.--The 
     Congress encourages the President to provide excess defense 
     articles and other appropriate assistance to cooperative 
     regional peacekeeping initiatives involving emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that have expressed 
     an interest in joining NATO in order to enhance their ability 
     to contribute to European peace and security and 
     international peacekeeping efforts.

     SEC. ____10. MODERNIZATION OF DEFENSE CAPABILITY.

       The Congress endorses efforts by the United States to 
     modernize the defense capability of Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, Slovenia, and any other countries designated 
     by the President pursuant to section 203(d) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994, by exploring with such countries 
     options for the sale or lease to such countries of weapons 
     systems compatible with those used by NATO members, including 
     air defense systems, advanced fighter aircraft, and 
     telecommunications infrastructure.

     SEC. ____11. TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 203(f) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(f) Termination of Eligibility.--(1) The eligibility of a 
     country designated under subsection (d) for the program 
     established in subsection (a) shall terminate 30 days after 
     the President makes a certification under paragraph (2) 
     unless, within the 30-day period, the Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution disapproving the termination of eligibility.
       ``(2) Whenever the President determines that the government 
     of a country designated under subsection (d)--
       ``(A) no longer meets the criteria set forth in subsection 
     (d)(2)(A);
       ``(B) is hostile to the NATO Alliance; or
       ``(C) poses a national security threat to the United 
     States,
     then the President shall so certify to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       ``(3) Nothing in this title affects the eligibility of 
     countries to participate under other provisions of law in 
     programs described in this Act.''.

     SEC. ____12. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT.

       (a) Conforming Amendment.--The NATO Participation Act of 
     1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is 
     amended in sections 203(a), 203(d)(1), and 203(d)(2) by 
     striking ``countries emerging from communist domination'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``emerging democracies in 
     Central and Eastern Europe''.
       (b) Definitions.--The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-446; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 206. DEFINITIONS.

       ``The term `emerging democracies in Central and Eastern 
     Europe' includes, but is not limited to, Albania, Bulgaria, 
     the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.''.

     SEC. ____13. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) Emerging democracies in central and eastern europe.--
     The term ``emerging democracies in Central and Eastern 
     Europe'' includes, but is not limited to, Albania, Bulgaria, 
     the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.
       (2) NATO.--The term ``NATO'' means the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me thank the Senator from Kentucky for his kindness. 
We have worked out the concerns of the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware and the Senator from Georgia as well as worked out the issue 
raised by the Senator from Illinois. This measure is an important and 
historic measure because it fulfills our commitment for a community of 
freedom, a commitment for embracing freedom in central Europe. This is 
one more step forward towards ensuring the security of northern Europe 
and a continuation, I think, of our effort to ensure that the blessings 
of democracy and freedom are not lost in central Europe. Madam 
President, I think the concerns of other Members have been worked out.
  I might mention I think Senator Mikulski does have a concern she 
wants to articulate. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to support the modifications 
to the amendment by the Senator from Colorado, the NATO Enlargement 
Facilitation Act of 1996. Mr. President, my principal modification is 
straightforward: it adds the Republic of Slovenia to the current list 
of three countries that Congress finds as having made significant 
progress toward achieving the stated NATO membership criteria and are 
therefore eligible for additional assistance described in the bill.
  Mr. President, Slovenia should join Poland, the Czech Republic, and 
Hungary on this list for the following reasons:
  First, Slovenia's progress in meeting the NATO membership criteria 
has been second to none, and probably the very best in Central Europe.
  Second, Slovenia would provide the essential land-bridge linking 
current NATO member Italy and likely future NATO member Hungary.
  Third, Slovenia is the only country in the area that has recently 
proven its military tenacity and, hence, its ability to contribute to 
the security of NATO, having successfully defeated the invasion attempt 
of the Yugoslav National Army in 1991.
  Mr. President, in offering this amendment I want to underscore that I 
have not yet made up my mind about how I will vote on the NATO 
candidacy of any individual country. The answers to the questions posed 
by the senior Senator from Georgia in this amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 will help form my opinion on 
NATO enlargement in general. How well applicant countries fulfill 
Alliance membership criteria will, of course, be a determining factor 
in my ultimate vote on individual candidacies.

[[Page S8839]]

  I do believe, however, that the amendment to the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill currently offered by the Senator from Colorado is a 
prudent one, in that it seeks in a modest way to assist a small group 
of countries who have made the greatest progress toward meeting the 
NATO membership criteria. My amendment simply recognizes the fact that 
Slovenia indisputably belongs in that small group.
  Mr. President, Slovenia is a small country of 2 million citizens in 
the far northwestern corner of the former Yugoslavia. Without fanfare 
and without the publicity that has accompanied change elsewhere behind 
the former Iron Curtain, Slovenia has rapidly created a solid democracy 
and a prosperous market economy. Its Western European-style coalition 
government is a model of stability. Economically, Slovenia now can 
boast of a per capita GNP approaching ten-thousand U.S. dollars, by far 
the highest of any country wishing to join NATO.
  Moreover, Slovenia has put its nose to the grindstone, strenuously 
attempting to fulfill the membership criteria that the Alliance has 
announced. What has been the result?
  Mr. President, no less an authority than U.S. Secretary of Defense 
William Perry flatly stated last year that of all the countries of 
Central and Eastern Europe ``Slovenia has made perhaps the greatest 
progress in the transition to democracy, the transition to a market 
economy, and the smooth turnover of the military to civilian control.'' 
That, I would submit, is no small praise.
  Slovenia's geographical location also argues strongly for its 
inclusion in the likely first group of new NATO members. Wedged between 
the northern Adriatic Sea and the Alps, it connects Italy, a charter 
member of NATO, with Hungary, which appears in the bill's list of 
preferred applicants and, solely on the basis of its accomplishment, 
would likely be in the first group admitted to the Alliance. Without 
Slovenia in the Alliance, however, Hungary would not be contiguous with 
NATO territory, a situation which could harm its chances for admission 
in the first group.

  It must be added that this spring Italy and Slovenia settled a long-
standing dispute over property rights, thereby clearing the way for 
Slovenia to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union and 
further cementing its ties to Western Europe.
  Finally, Mr. President, little Slovenia--alone among NATO 
applicants--has proven that it can defend itself and be a net 
contributor to the security of the Western Alliance. After declaring 
its independence from the crumbling Yugoslavia in the spring of 1991, 
Slovenia had to face an invasion by the Serbian-led Yugoslav National 
Army or J.N.A. For ten days Slovenia stunned the world by routing the 
better armed and numerically superior invaders, until they withdrew, 
tacitly acknowledging Slovene independence.
  So, Mr. President, by any standard Slovenia deserves to be included 
with Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in the list of countries 
that are eligible for targeted United States transition assistance.
  I would close with two brief observations. First, including Slovenia 
in this group would not only constitute recognition of its remarkable 
political, economic, and military record over the past 5 years; it 
would also serve to destroy the unfortunate stereotype emerging from 
the dreadful Balkan warfare that all South Slavs are incorrigibly 
violent people who cannot cooperate to improve their situation.
  Finally, adding Slovenia to the bill's preferred list would lend more 
credibility to Congress's response to the NATO enlargement process. It 
would demonstrate that we are clearly focused on strengthening NATO and 
not, as some assert, only responding to interest-group politics. There 
are, to be sure, Slovene-Americans who undoubtedly have a special 
desire for Slovenia to join NATO, but they have not been especially 
active on Capitol Hill. There are undoubtedly Delawareans of Slovene 
descent, but to the best of my knowledge I have never been approached 
by any of them in regard to this issue.
   Mr. President, because of its outstanding criteria-based 
accomplishments, its geostrategically important location, and its 
proven military record, Slovenia deserves to join Poland, the Czech 
Republic, and Hungary as eligible for additional transition assistance 
for NATO membership. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Brown 
Amendment as modified.
  I thank the chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise very briefly to thank the Senator from 
Colorado, the distinguished occupant of the chair, for the 
extraordinary leadership he has shown in conceiving this proposal and 
shepherding it now to the point where it can be adopted by the Senate. 
It has been my honor to work with him on this as a cosponsor.
  History is a term that is used probably too often around the Capitol, 
but to my way of thinking, this is a historic enactment that we are 
about to make because, in enacting this amendment, we are essentially 
saying more strongly than we ever have that the Congress of the United 
States is prepared to welcome into NATO, but more broadly into the 
community of democracies of market economies, those nations that 
suffered under the yoke of Communist tyranny for so long during the 
cold war and are now free and working their way toward being eligible 
for membership in NATO.
  This measure, in concrete terms, not only expresses that policy, but 
puts some money behind that policy in offering to those nations that 
are most ready to enter NATO some wherewithal to help make that happen. 
To my way of thinking, what we are doing here tonight is, in some 
measure, ratifying and hoping to make permanent the victory that 
freedom won in the cold war.
  For all that time in the cold war, we spoke often of those people who 
were suffering in the ``captive nations.'' The people of those nations, 
including, may I say, the people of Russia, fought and dreamed and 
worked and finally achieved their freedom. Now these countries of 
central and Eastern Europe who want to get into NATO are really saying 
to us they want to cast their lot for the future, not just with the 
West but with what the West means, which is freedom, the values of 
democracy.
  They are also accepting an obligation therein, which is the great 
task that NATO has achieved. NATO has not just been a defensive 
alliance; it has been an institution in which the countries of Europe 
could work to reconcile their own conflicts, work to avoid the old 
balance-of-power relationships that too often led to war.
  As we reach out and embrace these new countries that have attained 
their freedom and want to enter NATO, I do not think we are doing 
anything here that should or would threaten Russia. What we are doing 
is creating stability among the nations of Europe, Western, Central, 
and Eastern, and guaranteeing as best we can for those millions of 
people who live within those countries the basic human and economic 
rights with which we in our own formative documents have said each 
person is endowed with by our Creator.
  So it is a great step forward, and I thank all our colleagues who 
have helped to make it happen. I thank the Chair particularly, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Colorado for 
his leadership on this. The reality is this is a step forward for 
stability in central Europe. Two other provisions in here I think are 
significant. That is, we open the door to the possibility at some 
future time for Armenia and some of the other Newly Independent States 
there. The second thing; in Russia and in Belarus and in a few of the 
countries, there is a fear of nuclear weapons being established at 
their doorstep. The resolution points out that Spain and Norway, who 
are current members of NATO, do not have nuclear weapons and still are 
members of NATO.
  My hope is that stations of nuclear weapons which have no military 
significance can be avoided. I think it will diminish fears, in Russia 
particularly.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

[[Page S8840]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in 
supporting and cosponsoring this amendment to enlarge NATO. I support 
NATO enlargement because I do believe it will make Europe more stable 
and secure. It will mean that the new democracies of central and 
Eastern Europe will share the burden of European security. It could 
mean that future generations of Americans might not be sent to Europe 
to fight for Europe.
  Mr. President, a word about Poland. As an American of Polish 
heritage, I know that the Polish people did not choose to live behind 
the Iron Curtain. In 1939, when Poland was invaded by the Nazis, the 
West was silent and talked about peace, but it was appeasement. After 
the end of the war, they were forced by the Yalta agreement, by Potsdam 
and the very West itself, to put them behind the Iron Curtain.
  During World War II, my great grandmother, who came to this country 
from Poland, had three pictures on her mantelpiece when I would go to 
her home. One of Pope Pius the XII, our spiritual leader, the other of 
my Uncle Joe who was on the police force, and President Roosevelt, 
because she believed that President Roosevelt was good for America and 
the world.
  After Yalta and Potsdam, my great grandmother turned Roosevelt's 
picture down on the mantel. She would not take him down because she was 
a Democrat, but she was pretty mad at Roosevelt, as were so many other 
people.
  I cannot forget the history of this region. But my support for this 
amendment is not based on the past. It is based on the future, a future 
which these newly free and democratic countries will take their 
rightful place as members of Western Europe. That is where they want to 
be, with Western Europe. NATO did play an important role in securing 
the freedom of the world and ending the cold war. This has been an 
alliance that helped us win the cold war, a deterrent between the 
superpowers. It helped prevent confrontations between member states.
  I know if NATO is to survive, it must adopt to the needs of the end 
of the cold war. NATO has evolved since 1949 and this is the next 
important step in NATO enlargement. How many times have we talked 
burden sharing in Europe? These countries are ready to do it. Thousands 
of troops from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, 
Ukraine, and others are there to help secure peace. They are not asking 
for a handout. They are asking for a chance to be part of NATO. This 
amendment puts Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO where 
it runs them up where they belong.
  Some people believe we will offend Russia by expanding NATO. Maybe we 
will. And my response to that is, so what? So what if we offend Russia? 
We must delink the future of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic 
from what Russia thinks.
  I was offended when Russia invaded Hungary in 1956. I was offended 
when they forced Poland behind the Iron Curtain and made them an 
involuntary Communist nation. I was offended by what the Russians did 
around the world for over 50 years. So, now, I want to support this 
amendment to enlarge NATO, to secure Europe in a better way, and I 
hope, after we take this vote tonight, that I can go back to my great 
grandmother's home and put not only Roosevelt's picture back up, but 
Hank Brown and so many other people here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] is an important step for the 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe who seek to ensure their 
security and sovereignty as full members of the NATO Alliance.
  As an original cosponsor of this legislation when it was introduced 
in June--the last foreign policy initiative authored by Senator Dole 
before he left the Senate--I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator 
Brown's amendment.
  This legislation serves to correct the terrible injustice perpetrated 
at Yalta half a century ago, when for reasons of political expediency 
artificial divisions were imposed on Europe, subjecting countries with 
democratic traditions similar to those in Western Europe to decades of 
communist domination. In the years since the Iron Curtain was lifted 
from the European continent, many countries in Central and Eastern 
Europe have made dramatic progress in resurrecting their democratic 
histories and instituting reform measures that solidify their 
commitment to the democratic ideals espoused by members of the NATO 
Alliance.
  I firmly believe that enlarging NATO to include those countries which 
are capable of contributing to the Alliance is in the interests of the 
United States. Our country knows too well the danger of allowing a 
security vacuum to persist in this region and should work actively to 
encourage closer ties between the countries in Central and Eastern 
Europe and the West. Since they regained their freedom, many countries 
in this region have worked diligently to implement the democratic and 
free market reform measures which were essential to reversing years of 
ill founded communist policies. The Brown amendment establishes a 
program that will assist these countries as they prepare for the rights 
and responsibilities of full NATO membership.
  The Brown amendment recognizes that Poland, the Czech Republic, and 
Hungary and Slovenia have made the most progress in implementing 
important reform measures such as establishing a free market economy, 
instituting civilian control over the military, and introducing the 
rule of law. These three countries are designated as eligible to 
receive the NATO transition assistance already appropriated in this 
bill. Let us show our friends in Central and Eastern Europe that we 
will never again abandon them to the forces of dictatorship and tyranny 
and that we will work side by side in partnership to create a lasting 
free and democratic Europe.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Brown amendment.


             the nato enlargement facilitation act of 1996

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have long supported NATO, and the 
extension of membership in this transatlantic institution to the new 
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. And today I wish to express 
my support for the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996--extremely 
important legislation which I also cosponsor.
  This bill is designed specifically to support and foster the careful, 
gradual extension of NATO membership to the nations of Central and 
Eastern Europe. Once passed, this bill will direct tangible assistance 
to the efforts of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to join the 
Alliance. These nations are the best prepared in their region for the 
responsibilities and burdens of NATO membership.
  Let me also emphasize that it is the intent of the authors of this 
bill to ensure that the entry of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic into the Alliance is part of an inclusive and on-going process 
of NATO enlargement.
  NATO enlargement does not have to, and should not be allowed to, 
create any new divisions in Europe. Hence, our bill explicitly states 
that the United States should continue and expand upon its support for 
full and active participation of all Central and Eastern European 
countries in activities appropriate for qualifying for NATO membership.
  This legislation clearly outlines a vision of NATO enlargement, an 
on-going process that will reach out to all the nations of Central and 
Eastern Europe as they become capable of making a net contribution to 
the Alliance's overall interests, capabilities, and security.
  Extending the Alliance's membership to Poland, the Czech Republic and 
Hungary, will help transform Central and Eastern Europe into a 
cornerstone of enduring peace and stability in post-cold war Europe. 
NATO enlargement is in America's interests for many reasons. Principal 
among these include the following:
  First, it is absolutely necessary to consolidate and secure an 
enduring and stable peace in Europe. This is a continent where America 
has vital interests and it is a continent that, historically speaking, 
has been besieged by violent and brutal wars. NATO enlargement will 
project security into a region that has long suffered as a security 
vacuum in European affairs. History has repeatedly shown us that the 
strategic vulnerability of Central and Eastern Europe has produced 
catastrophic consequences--consequences that drew the United States 
twice this century into world war.

[[Page S8841]]

  The most effective way to address this security vacuum in Central and 
Eastern Europe is by integrating these nations into NATO and the other 
institutions that constitute the transatlantic community of nations.
  Second, NATO enlargement will help facilitate this integration, both 
politically and economically. NATO enlargement is a key step to 
extending to the entire continent of Europe the zone of peace, 
democracy, and prosperity that now includes North America and Western 
Europe. Passage of our NATO enlargement legislation will demonstrate 
America's commitment to consolidating an enlarged Europe. This will 
give more incentive to all the nations of the region to continue their 
political and economic reforms by demonstrating that these reforms do 
result in tangible geo-political gains.
  By projecting and reinforcing stability in Central and Eastern 
Europe, NATO enlargement will consolidate the context necessary for 
this region's nations to focus on internal political and economic 
reform. Mr. President, security is not an alternative to reform, but it 
is essential for reform to occur.
  Third, two great powers, Germany and Russia, are now undergoing very 
complex and sensitive transformations. Their futures will be 
significantly shaped by the future of Central and Eastern Europe. 
Extending NATO membership to nations of this region will reinforce the 
positive evolutions of these two great powers.
  In the case of Germany, NATO enlargement will further lock German 
interests into a transatlantic security structure and thereby further 
consolidate the extremely positive role Bonn now plays in European 
affairs.
  The extension of NATO membership to Central and East European nations 
will also be of great benefit to Russia. By enhancing and reinforcing 
stability and peace in Central and Eastern Europe, NATO enlargement 
will make unrealistic the calls by Russia's extremists for the 
revitalization of the former Soviet Union or the Westward expansion of 
Russian hegemony. Greater stability along Russia frontiers will also 
enable Moscow to direct more of its energy toward the internal 
challenges of political and economic reform.
  This point is too often forgotten in this debate. There has been too 
strong a tendency in US policy to overreact to outdated Russian 
sensitivities. This overreaction comes at the expense of strategic 
realities and objectives central to the interests of the Alliance, as 
well as to the United States.
  Let me add, Mr. President, that Russian opposition to NATO 
enlargement is withering and appears to be in the process of being 
replaced by a more enlightened understanding of the motivations behind 
NATO enlargement. I would like my colleagues to note an interview in 
today's Financial Times with General Alexander Lebed, who declared that 
Russia does not oppose NATO enlargement. Lebed was recently appointed 
by Russian President Yeltsin as Secretary of Russia's National Security 
Council. Lebed also finished third in the first round of the Russian 
presidential elections. Thus, his statement reflects positively on both 
the attitudes of the Russian public and official Russian policy toward 
NATO enlargement.
  Mr. President, I would also like to note that this NATO enlargement 
legislation reflects the attitudes of many of our parliamentary 
counterparts in Europe. The North Atlantic Assembly, a gathering of 
legislators from the sixteen nations of NATO, adopted at the end of 
1994, my resolution calling for the extension of membership in the 
Alliance to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.
  Mr. President, America's defense and security must be structured to 
shape a strategic landscape that enhances economic, political, and 
military stability all across Europe. Careful and gradual extension of 
NATO membership to nations of Central and Eastern Europe is a critical 
step toward this end. This is in our national interest. It is action 
long overdue, and it is the intent of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation 
Act of 1996.
  For these reasons, I call upon my colleagues in the Senate, as well 
as President Clinton and his Administration, to embrace this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the conclusion of these two votes, the only remaining amendments in 
order to H.R. 3540 be a managers' amendment and an amendment to be 
offered by Senator Simpson, relative to refugees, on which there be 30 
minutes to be equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree 
amendments in order or amendments to the language proposed to be 
stricken; and an amendment by Senator Lieberman with a second-degree 
amendment in order by Senator Murkowski, and possibly one by Senator 
McConnell; following the conclusion of the debate with respect to the 
amendments listed above, the amendments be laid aside, the votes to 
occur at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, with 2 minutes for debate prior to each 
stacked vote on or in relation to the Simpson amendment, to be followed 
by votes with respect to the other amendments, to be followed 
immediately by third reading and final passage of H.R. 3540.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, do I understand the floor 
leader, then, that we will have two more votes this evening, the 
debate, and then stack the votes until 9:30 in the morning, and then 
final passage?
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is right.
  Mr. FORD. Two votes tonight?
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. In light of this agreement, there will be no further 
rollcall votes this evening after two back-to-back votes to shortly 
begin, with the first votes tomorrow to begin at 9:30 a.m.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5018

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
5018 offered by the Senator from Georgia Mr. [Coverdell].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and 
the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cohen
     Exon
     Hatfield
  The amendment (No. 5018) was agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S8842]]

  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5058

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 5058 offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown]. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and 
the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--16

     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Dorgan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Nunn
     Pell
     Thomas
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cohen
     Exon
     Hatfield
  The amendment (No. 5058), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


Amendments Nos. 5084 through 5087, En Bloc, and Amendment No. 5082, As 
                                Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there are five amendments that have 
been cleared on both sides; an amendment by Senator Cochran on IFAD, a 
McConnell-Leahy-Lautenberg amendment on MEDEVAC, a Leahy narcotics 
amendment, a Pell amendment on the environment, and a modification to 
amendment No. 5082. I send those to the desk and ask unanimous consent 
that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 5084 through 5087, en bloc, and amendment 
     No. 5082, as modified.

  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. 5084 through 5087), en bloc, and Amendment (No. 
5082), as modified are as follows:

                           amendment no. 5084

       On page 107, line 11, strike ``up to $30,000,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following: ``$17,500,000''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have proposed this amendment because I 
have concluded this is the only way to ensure that the administration 
responds to the will of Congress regarding the International Fund for 
Agricultural Development [IFAD].
  Last year, the Congress authorized U.S. participation in the fourth 
replenishment of IFAD resources. Since that time, Senators and 
Representatives have written to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency 
for International Development encouraging him to exercise the authority 
we provided and make a generous contribution to the fourth 
replenishment. The Administrator of USAID has not complied with these 
requests.
  While other countries have agreed to the fourth replenishment, the 
United States has delayed, and this delay is threatening IFAD's 
managerial reforms and undermining U.S. leadership in the organization.
  It is my objective to secure effective U.S. participation in the 
fourth replenishment. The United States has been the lead sponsor of 
IFAD, a tightly managed organization that focuses on rural poverty in 
developing nations by making loans directly to poor farmers. These 
small retail loans help combat poverty, especially among women and 
children, create internal stability, and help build markets for U.S. 
exports.
  Despite wide support and the earlier stated intention of the 
administration to participate in the fourth replenishment, it has not 
yet announced its pledge. As the Nation that led in the creation and 
funding of IFAD, part of the U.S. responsibility is to announce our 
level of financial support which, in turn, helps determine the pledge 
amounts of other developed nations. In this way, our contribution is 
leveraged and brings additional resources from other developed 
countries, funds that are spent, not on overhead or administration, but 
on local projects where this money has substantial impact.
  The funding in my amendment does not add to the total cost of the 
bill. It is a mandated transfer of bilateral assistance funds, either 
provided in this bill or unspent from appropriations made in prior 
years. The amounts to be transferred are to come from the funds the 
Congress provides for USAID, an agency well-suited for this task. 
Indeed, USAID has spoken eloquently in support on IFAD and has helped 
build it into a model of effective assistance. Unfortunately, however, 
USAID has not spent one nickel on IFAD for fiscal year 1996.
  Congress cannot allow indecisiveness to undo the achievements of two 
decades of U.S. participation in IFAD. Senators and Representatives--on 
both sides of the aisle--clearly support IFAD and have called on USAID 
to continue funding this respected agency. Our only recourse now is to 
mandate participation in the fourth replenishment.
  I urge Senators to support the amendment.


                           amendment no. 5085

     SEC.  . SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Bank for Economic 
     Cooperation and Development in the Middle East and North 
     Africa Act''.

     SEC.  . ACCEPTANCE OF MEMBERSHIP.

       The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for 
     the United States in the Bank for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development in the Middle East and North Africa (in this 
     title referred to as the ``Bank'') provided for by the 
     agreement establishing the Bank (in this title referred to as 
     the ``Agreement''), signed on May 31, 1996.

     SEC.  . GOVERNOR AND ALTERNATE GOVERNOR.

       (a) Appointment.--At the inaugural meeting of the Board of 
     Governors of the Bank, the Governor and the alternate for the 
     Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, appointed pursuant to section 3 of the Bretton 
     Woods Agreements Act, shall serve ex-officio as a Governor 
     and the alternate for the Governor, respectively, of the 
     Bank. The President, by and with the advice and consent of 
     the Senate, shall appoint a Governor of the Bank and an 
     alternate for the Governor.
       (b) Compensation.--Any person who serves as a Governor of 
     the Bank or as an alternate for the Governor may not receive 
     any salary or other compensation from the United States by 
     reason of such service.

     SEC.  . APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE BRETTON 
                   WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT.

       Section 4 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act shall apply 
     to the Bank in the same manner in which such section applies 
     to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
     and the International Monetary Fund.

     SEC.  . FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS AS DEPOSITORIES.

       Any Federal Reserve Bank which is requested to do so by the 
     Bank may act as its depository, or as its fiscal agent, and 
     the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall 
     exercise general supervision over the carrying out of these 
     functions.

     SEC.  . SUBSCRIPTION OF STOCK.

       (a) Subscription Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury may 
     subscribe on behalf of the United States to not more than 
     7,011,270 shares of the capital stock of the Bank.
       (2) Effectiveness of subscription commitment.--Any 
     commitment to make such subscription shall be effective only 
     to such extent or in such amounts as are provided for in 
     advance by appropriations Acts.
       (b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--For 
     payment by the Secretary of the Treasury of the subscription 
     of

[[Page S8843]]

     the United States for shares described in subsection (a), 
     there are authorized to be appropriated $1,050,007,800 
     without fiscal year limitation.
       (c) Limitations on Obligation of Appropriated Amounts for 
     Shares of Capital Stock.--
       (1) Paid-in capital stock.--
       (A) In general.--Not more than $105,000,000 of the amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) may be obligated for 
     subscription to shares of paid-in capital stock.
       (B) Fiscal year 1997.--Not more than $52,500,000 of the 
     amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) for fiscal 
     year 1997 may be obligated for subscription to shares of 
     paid-in capital stock.
       (2) Callable capital stock.--Not more than $787,505,852 of 
     the amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) may be 
     obligated for subscription to shares of callable capital 
     stock.
       (d) Disposition of Net Income Distributions by the Bank.--
     Any payment made to the United States by the Bank as a 
     distribution of net income shall be covered into the Treasury 
     as a miscellaneous receipt.

     SEC.   . JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF CIVIL ACTIONS BY OR 
                   AGAINST THE BANK.

       (a) Jurisdiction.--The United States district courts shall 
     have original and exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action 
     brought in the United States by or against the Bank.
       (b) Venue.--For purposes of section 1391(b) of title 28, 
     United States Code, the Bank shall be deemed to be a resident 
     of the judicial district in which the principal office of the 
     Bank in the United States, or its agent appointed for the 
     purpose of accepting service or notice of service, is 
     located.

     SEC.   . EFFECTIVENESS OF AGREEMENT.

       The Agreement shall have full force and effect in the 
     United States, its territories and possessions, and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, upon acceptance of membership by 
     the United States in the Bank and the entry into force of the 
     Agreement.

     SEC.   . EXEMPTION FROM SECURITIES LAWS FOR CERTAIN 
                   SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE BANK; REPORTS 
                   REQUIRED.

       (a) Exemption From Securities Laws; Reports to Securities 
     and Exchange Commission.--Any securities issued by the Bank 
     (including any guaranty by the Bank, whether or not limited 
     in scope) in connection with borrowing of funds, or the 
     guarantee of securities as to both principal and interest, 
     shall be deemed to be exempted securities within the meaning 
     of section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 
     3(a)(12) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Bank 
     shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission such 
     annual and other reports with regard to such securities as 
     the Commission shall determine to be appropriate in view of 
     the special character of the Bank and its operations and 
     necessary in the public interest or for the protection of 
     investors.
       (b) Authority of Securities and Exchange Commission To 
     Suspend Exemption; Reports to the Congress.--The Securities 
     and Exchange Commission, acting in consultation with such 
     agency or officer as the President shall designate, may 
     suspend the provisions of subsection (a) at any time as to 
     any or all securities issued or guaranteed by the Bank during 
     the period of such suspension. The Commission shall include 
     in its annual reports to the Congress such information as it 
     shall deem advisable with regard to the operations and effect 
     of this section.

     SEC.   . TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Annual Report Required on Participation of the United 
     States in the Bank.--Section 1701(c)(2) of the International 
     Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2)) is amended 
     by inserting ``Bank for Economic Cooperation and Development 
     in the Middle East and North Africa,'' after ``Inter-American 
     Development Bank''.
       (b) Exemption From Limitations and Restrictions on Power of 
     National Banking Associations To Deal in and Underwrite 
     Investment Securities of the Bank.--The 7th sentence of 
     paragraph 7 of section 5136 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (12 U.S.C. 24) is amended by inserting ``Bank 
     for Economic Cooperation and Development in the Middle East 
     and North Africa'', after ``the Inter-American Development 
     Bank''.
       (c) Benefits for United States Citizen-Representatives to 
     the Bank.--Section 51 of Public Law 91-599 (22 U.S.C. 276c-2) 
     is amended by inserting ``the Bank for Economic Cooperation 
     and Development in the Middle East and North Africa,'' after 
     ``the Inter-American Development Bank,''.
       Amend the title so as to read as follows: ``A Bill to 
     authorize United States contributions to the International 
     Development Association and to a capital increase of the 
     African Development Bank, to authorize the participation of 
     the United States in the Bank for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development in the Middle East and North Africa, and for 
     other purposes.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5086

       On page 114, line 24 insert the following before the period 
     at the end thereof: ``: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading by prior appropriations Acts, 
     $36,000,000 of unobligated and unearmarked funds shall be 
     transferred to and consolidated with funds appropriated by 
     this Act under the heading ``International Organizations and 
     Programs''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5087

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the United States 
Government should encourage other governments to draft and participate 
   in regional treaties aimed at avoiding any adverse impacts on the 
 physical environment or environmental interests of other nations or a 
 global commons area, through the preparation of Environmental Impact 
                    Assessments, where appropriate)

       On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Environmental Impact Assessments as a national 
     instrument are undertaken for proposed activities that are 
     likely to have a significant adverse impact on the 
     environment and are subject to a decision of a competent 
     national authority;
       (2) in 1978 the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 49, 
     calling on the United States Government to seek the agreement 
     of other governments to a proposed global treaty requiring 
     the preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments for any 
     major project, action, or continuing activity that may be 
     reasonably expected to have a significant adverse effect on 
     the physical environment or environmental interests of 
     another nation or a global commons area;
       (3) subsequent to the adoption of Senate Resolution 49 in 
     1978, the United Nations Environment Programme Governing 
     Council adopted Goals and Principles on Environmental Impact 
     Assessment calling on governments to undertake comprehensive 
     Environmental Impact Assessments in cases in which the 
     extent, nature, or location of a proposed activity is such 
     that the activity is likely to significantly affect the 
     environment; and
       (4) on October 7, 1992, the Senate gave its advice and 
     consent to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the 
     Antarctic Treaty, which obligates parties to the Antarctic 
     Treaty to require Environmental Impact Assessment procedures 
     for proposed activities in Antarctica.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the United States Government should encourage the 
     governments of other nations to engage in analysis of 
     activities that may cause adverse impacts on the environment 
     of other nations or a global commons area; and
       (2) such addition analysis can recommend alternatives that 
     will permit such activities to be carried out in 
     environmentally sound ways to avoid or minimize any adverse 
     environmental effects, through requirements for Environmental 
     Impact Assessments where appropriate.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate adopted my 
amendment on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary 
context. I want to thank the bill's managers, in particular, for their 
assistance in making Senate action possible. I also want to thank 
Senator Murkowski for his willingness to work with me on this issue.
  Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the U.S. Government should encourage other nations to carry 
out environmental impact assessments for activities that will have 
transboundary impacts. In other words, if countries are going to carry 
out activities with significant cross-border environmental impacts, the 
country undertaking the activity should, at a bare minimum, be aware of 
the consequences of its activities.
  The amendment is an extension of my long interest in the protection 
of the global commons. In 1977, I introduced a resolution which called 
on the U.S. Government to seek the agreement of other governments to a 
proposed global treaty requiring the preparation of an international 
environmental assessment for any major project, action, or continuing 
activity which may be reasonably expected to have a significant adverse 
effect on the physical environment or environmental interest of another 
nation or a global commons area. That resolution was adopted by the 
Senate in 1978. While my 1978 resolution initially called for a global 
treaty applying to activities worldwide, regional approaches may also 
be called for in some instances. We have seen such an approach used in 
the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary 
Context. The Convention was signed by the United States and members of 
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
  Mr. President, this amendment simply underscores the point that 
environmental impact assessments should be carried out when activities 
in one country are likely to affect adversely the environment of 
another country or the global commons.
  What the United States and its allies have achieved, both in domestic 
law and in treaties, must now be duplicated

[[Page S8844]]

by other states, so that the use of environmental impact assessment 
truly becomes a standard precautionary measure.
  Mr. President, this amendment acknowledges the efforts that have 
already been made and encourages the U.S. Government to continue 
efforts to promote environmental impact assessments as a tool in 
environmental protection. I thank my colleagues for their support of 
this amendment.


                    Amendment No. 5082, as modified

       On page 120, line 21, 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. 5084 through 5087), en bloc, and amendment (No. 
5082), as modified, were agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the votes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay those motions on the table.
  The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Simpson is on the floor and 
ready to proceed.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the manager, indeed, for his patience and 
courtesy.


                           Amendment No. 5088

    (Purpose: To strike the provision which extends reduced refugee 
                     standards for certain groups)

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5088.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 196, strike lines 14 through 26.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment will strike a very ill-
defined section of this bill on page 196, which would give no one any 
indication as to what it is because it leaves us simply in the section 
numbers and subsection numbers.
  The amendment would strike that provision in this bill, one whose 
title is Section 576, ``Extension Of Certain Adjudication Provisions.'' 
It does not accurately capture its full importance in any way.
  My colleagues may be unaware of this provision's significance. And 
the committee report provides precious little guidance. The report says 
only that this provision ``amends current law to extend for another 
year the authority to adjust the status of certain aliens.''
  This provision, Mr. President, has far more serious consequences than 
its title indicates. It is the continuation of what was known 
originally as the Lautenberg amendment, a very well-founded amendment 
in 1989. I commended my friend then, and I have always enjoyed working 
with Senator Lautenberg. It is now a provision which has distorted, in 
these times in 1996, has distorted our refugee system and permitted the 
entry of frauds and criminals into the United States.
  This provision is an abuse in its present form, an abuse of the 
refugee act.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in sweeping away this cold war 
provision, this relic, in restoring credibility to U.S. refugee 
admissions. Let me review it with you very briefly. Under the Refugee 
Act of 1980--I know this amendment will probably get trashed by a vote 
of 80-20, but it will be in the Record--we know that we cannot continue 
to make presumptive status of ``refugeeness'' when we should be doing 
it on a case-by-case basis. That is what the law provided, the 1980 
law.
  You have a situation today where if you are presumed to be a refugee, 
you are taking a precious number from someone who is a real refugee, 
someone fleeing persecution based upon race, religion, or national 
origin. Under the Refugee Act of 1980 and under the U.N. Convention and 
Protocol, a ``refugee'' is someone with a well-founded fear of 
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 
particular social group or political opinion. This is the international 
definition, and the U.S. adopted it in 1980 under the able leadership 
of Senator Ted Kennedy. Determination of whether an individual is a 
refugee is to be made on a case-by-case basis. It is the law.
  Under the so-called Lautenberg amendment, with the best of intentions 
and the sincerest of motives, persons in the former Soviet Union 
qualify as a refugee just by being a member of a particular group. For 
Jews and Evangelical Christians in the former Soviet Union, and others, 
Ukrainian, Orthodox, a refugee applicant need only ``assert'' the fear 
of persecution and ``assert" a credible basis for concern about the 
``possibility'' of such persecution.
  Mr. President, 50,000 Americans receive refugee status under this 
standard each year, and the total number of refugees as set by the 
United States is 92,000. In other words, admission to the United States 
as a refugee, and all of the protection and the financial assistance 
which accompanies such a status, is made on the basis of two assertions 
that do not in themselves involve any test of credibility at all. Every 
other refugee applicant is required to establish his or her identity 
for eligibility to establish that. Those who benefit from this special 
treatment need only to assert their eligibility.
  About 80 percent of these special refugee admissions go to Jewish 
applicants, with the balance to Evangelicals. Not surprisingly, there 
has been a wave of dubious conversions reported in the latter group, 
Evangelicals especially, among Pentecostals. There are church members 
who say they did not know this person was a Pentecostal, but they were 
near enough to the church and they learned what to say at the 
interview. In fact, a leader of a Pentecostal group in Russia told the 
INS that many who claim to be so are not Pentecostals at all.
  According to this church leader, most of the applicants simply have 
family members who are Pentecostal, and these applicants use their 
familiarity with the religion to pass themselves off as category 
members.
  According to interim cables which I will have printed in the Record 
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, less than--I hope you 
hear this in this debate--less than one-half of 1 percent of those who 
apply under the Lautenberg standards would meet the worldwide 
definition of refugee. Nevertheless, 91 percent of these applicants 
were approved under the reduced guidelines.
  In the most recent human rights reports from the State Department to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations, the U.S. State Department found in 
Russia ``the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the 
Government respects this right in practice.'' The report continues that 
``although Jews and Muslims continue to encounter prejudice,'' and 
indeed they do, ``they have not been inhibited by the Government in the 
free practice of their religion.''

  Does anyone here doubt that there is no prejudice in the former 
Soviet Union? Of course not. There is tremendous prejudice in the 
former Soviet Union, please hear that. It is also a fact that there is 
prejudice in this country. I do not dispute that fact either, and no 
one else can, but simple prejudice does not make a person here or in 
the former Soviet Union a refugee. Refugees are persons fleeing 
official political persecution. They are not fleeing discrimination.
  Now my colleagues should know that the categories under the 
Lautenberg amendment, which receive a special lower adjudication 
standard, was established in 1989 when there was a clear history of 
religious persecution by the Communist Soviet State apparatus. This is 
no longer the case. The Soviet Union is gone. Russia is an ally. This 
foreign aid bill we are debating tonight provides $640 million in aid 
to this country. How can we possibly decide that up to 50,000 of the 
precious numbers of 90,000-plus are refugees? This program does great 
violence to the Refugee Act of 1980.
  The inspector general of the State Department just completed a 
thorough audit of the refugee admissions program. I want to share some 
of the findings in the January 1996 report.

[[Page S8845]]

  INS officers told State Department investigators that the so-called 
Lautenberg designations have changed the U.S. refugee admissions 
program into a ``side-door immigration program.'' You see, if you bring 
a refugee to this country, the United States of America pays the bill, 
pays the transportation, pays for the support system after they come 
here. But if you immigrate, you pay it. Hear that--if you bring a 
sponsored immigrant to the United States, you pay; you, personally, pay 
for their transportation; you, personally, say they will not become a 
public charge, and people obviously would prefer to come in under 
refugee status.
  Evidence is mounting, mounting, and this has been echoed by Moscow-
based groups working with the former Soviet refugees, that this is a 
``side-door immigration program.'' Undoubtedly, most of these people, 
the evidence is mounting, showing that most of these people are not 
refugees. The State Department reports that there more than 42,000 
people--at least it will be in the Record; if nobody is paying 
attention, it will not make that much difference--there are more than 
42,000 people who have received refugee status but who have not yet 
left the former Soviet Union. More than half of those individuals have 
remained for more than a year.
  How can you be a real refugee and not get out? The inspector general 
reports that many of these folks are holding refugee status as an 
insurance policy against future upheaval in the former Soviet Union, or 
simply waiting for an opportunity to leave.
  I want to acknowledge that many fine immigrants enter under the 
Lautenberg provisions. Many are well-educated and become productive 
members of the Nation and citizens, but these are not refugees, and 
individuals who are not refugees should not receive special refugee 
benefits. We should stop pretending these individuals are fleeing any 
type of State-sponsored persecution. They may be fleeing prejudice. 
That does not qualify you as a refugee.

  Unfortunately, the program has also become rife with fraud, a direct 
result of the lowered standards. Let me read an internal INS cable from 
Moscow:

       Category fraud is relatively easy to perpetuate as the 
     Washington Processing Center requires no written 
     documentation to corroborate a category claim. Applicants who 
     claim they are Jewish by nationality arrive at their 
     interview with a passport showing Russian nationality and a 
     birth certificate showing both parents are Russian. The claim 
     is then made that one maternal grandmother was Jewish. Such 
     an assertion, while not very credible, is unverifiable. Blank 
     and fraudulent documents are readily accessible. Only blatant 
     cases of fraud can be denied outright, otherwise parole must 
     be offered.

  The INS claim points out that not only are refugee claims of dubious 
quality--that is, few of the applicants have actually experienced 
persecution--but applicants do not even satisfy the category selected 
for special treatment. In other words, the applicants are not even 
Jewish or Evangelical Christians or Pentecostals or Orthodox Ukraine.
  The program has become an international disgrace. A State Department 
report mentions a satirical play performed in Moscow based on an 
applicant deceiving the INS adjudicators.
  An INS cable from 1993 says, ``Many reliable sources have told us of 
a cottage industry which has sprung up which gives refugee applicants 
classes on how to successfully pass their INS interview.''
  This amendment has the most pernicious effect--and I know there is 
not a person in this Chamber that would want this to happen, but it 
does--this amendment denies real refugees the opportunity for a safe 
haven in our country. This provision has established a multiyear 
commitment on behalf of the special categories--in other words, the 
pipeline is clogged--and has guaranteed that more than half of our 
fiscal year 1996 refugee numbers are going to people who are not really 
fleeing persecution. Our flexibility to respond to other refugee crises 
--in Liberia, in Burundi, in Bosnia--is sorely and cruelly limited by 
this commitment. ``Cruelly'' is a word I intended to use. So the INS 
officials go on to say, ``The irony is that there are plenty of cases 
from the former Soviet Union which could qualify [as a refugee] under 
worldwide standards, however these cases stand little chance of being 
scheduled [for an interview] as they do not fit into one of the 
Lautenberg categories.''

  I believe that we should keep an INS refugee team in Moscow. I will 
vote for that every time. Please hear that. I am not advocating that we 
cut back on admission of real refugees, but these adjudicators should 
be considering the claims of all residents on a case-by-case basis. 
That is the law.
  These lowered standards and fraud also have another effect. This 
Lautenberg provision has created an attractive avenue for Russian 
organized crime figures to secure entry into the United States.
  Let me read from the FBI's white paper on Russian organized crime. 
The FBI discusses the Lautenberg process and says:

       Many of these immigrants claimed that their reason for 
     leaving the Soviet Union was predominantly to escape 
     religious persecution. Not all of these crimes can be 
     considered to be accurate. The ranks of these emigres 
     included intellectuals, professionals, and others from the 
     middle and lower classes of Soviet society, who only claimed 
     religious persecution, but had not actually experienced it. 
     It has been estimated by American law enforcement authorities 
     that roughly 2,000 of these immigrants were criminals who 
     continued their criminal occupations in the United States.

  So the FBI has identified the Lautenberg program as a point of entry 
for some members of the ``Russian Mafia'' into this country. But we do 
not need to stop there. Try the Senate. The Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations of the Senate Government Affairs Committee has just 
completed a 6-month inquiry into Russian organized crime in the United 
States. At their hearing on May 15, the subcommittee heard testimony 
from a member of the Russian Mafia, who testified anonymously, behind 
the screen, for his own protection. He is in the clink now.
  During meetings with Investigations Subcommittee staff members, that 
individual, a member of a Russian crime ring in the United States, said 
the Lautenberg refugee program was used all the time by Russian Mafia 
members to enter our Nation. If we don't pay attention to our own 
Senate investigations, Mr. President, just who are we going to listen 
to?
  The time has come to let this program end. We must not continue to 
let domestic, selfish interests corrupt our refugee program, to the 
detriment of real refugees. We will never have more refugees maybe than 
we will this year. We don't have the numbers to produce, and we presume 
then that we will give them to a country we are giving $640 million to 
tonight, and jeopardize the safety of our own citizens.
  Let me share the recommendations of the State Department inspector 
general's report:

       We recommend . . . that Congress allow the Lautenberg 
     amendment to expire in 1996.

  It cannot be stated any more clearly than that, Mr. President. The 
independent auditor of the Department of State believes this must be 
done in order to bring our refugee programs out of the cold war and 
into today's reality. I agree with her. I hope my colleagues will agree 
also. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the Senator from Wyoming has 
expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is there a time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a time agreement. The time of the 
Senator from Wyoming has expired, and the Senator from New Jersey has 
15 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, one of the things that happens around here when people 
decide, like the distinguished occupant of the chair or the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming, to retire is that we are going to 
miss some of the aspects of the relationships that exist. Nothing is 
more awakening or stimulating than a good, solid disagreement and 
discussion with my friend from Wyoming.
  He just happens to be wrong. The fact of the matter is that in this 
blanket criticism, he ignores several facts. Mr. President, I think it 
is important to understand my supporting a 1-year extension of the law 
which facilitates the granting of refugee status for certain 
historically persecuted groups in the former Soviet Union and 
Indochina.

[[Page S8846]]

 The law expires at the end of fiscal year 1996 and is extended for 1 
year in this bill. It has been renewed several times. As a matter of 
fact, the last time was in 1994, and that vote was decided by an 85-15 
outcome. So we are looking at the same situation, very frankly.
  Existing law formally recognizes that historic experiences of certain 
persecuted religious minorities in the former Soviet Union and 
Indochina and a pattern of arbitrary denials of refugee status to 
members of these minorities entitles them to a relaxed standard of 
proof in determinations about whether they are refugees.
  The law lowers the evidentiary standard required to qualify for 
refugee status for Jews and Evangelical Christians from the former 
Soviet Union, certain Ukrainians, and certain categories of 
Indochinese. Once a refugee applicant proves that he or she is a member 
of one of those groups, he or she has to demonstrate a ``credible basis 
for concern'' about the possibility of persecution. Refugee applicants 
normally must prove a ``well-founded'' fear of persecution.
  Why is the extension necessary? my friend from Wyoming challenges. 
Because the popularity, as we see it now, of ultranationalists and the 
resurgence of the Communists in the former Soviet Union has created a 
climate of tension, fear, and even violence against Jews, despite the 
fact that anti-Semitism is no longer formally state-sponsored.
  In this climate, the law has provided a useful escape valve for 
historically persecuted individuals in the former Soviet Union where 
the situation for Jews remains tenuous. Allowing the law to lapse under 
these conditions would be a mistake.
  How pervasive is anti-Semitism? According to Sergei Sirotkin, former 
Deputy Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights under the President 
of the Russian Federation, ``Xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Russia are 
not just a reality but a growing and spreading reality.''
  In testimony before the House Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International 
Relations, Sirotkin claimed that approximately 150 periodicals that 
propagate ideas of fascism, extreme nationalism, xenophobia, and anti-
Semitism exist and that between 1992 and 1995 the number of these 
publications tripled.
  In his testimony, Sirotkin cited a newspaper with national 
circulation called the Day which wrote: ``The Jews are not a nation but 
a sect of degenerates.'' Even worse was the response from Moscow's 
Deputy Public Prosecutor who, according to Sirotkin, said the statement 
did not contain anything insulting to Jews.
  It's not only publications that espouse anti-Semitism. Political 
leaders in Russia contribute to the climate of fear as well.
  Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party candidate for President, left 
little to the imagination about his view of Jews when he wrote in his 
book ``Beyond the Horizon'': ``The Jewish diaspora holds the 
controlling interest in the entire economic life of Western 
civilization.''
  Jews find no comfort in the sentiment espoused by Liberal Democratic 
Party of Russia leader, Zhirinovsky, who has said ``for anti-Semitism 
to disappear, all Jews must move to Israel.''
  Nor do they have faith that Alexander Lebed, President Yeltsin's new 
National Security Adviser, will play a constructive role in working to 
stem the tide of anti-Semitism in Russia.
  As my colleagues are well aware, Mr. Lebed recently stated that 
Russia has only three established, traditional religions--Orthodox 
Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, obviously excluding the religion of 
the country's large Jewish population. He denigrated the Mormon Church 
in the worst and the ugliest terms.
  Mr. President, the fears of Russian Jews are evident in the stories 
refugees tell me and others after they arrive in this country.
  They say the government is unwilling and unable to protect Jews from 
humiliation and persecution. They say they are in danger of being 
exposed to violence or persecution simply because they are Jews.
  One Russian refugee who testified before the House International 
Relations Committee said:

       Even now, in Russia, Jews must have ``nationality--JEW'' 
     written on their passports, job applications, birth 
     certificates, and school documents.

  This refugee went on to say:

       But worst of all is that the Government in Russia is 
     absolutely incapable of protecting Jews from the never-ending 
     persecution and violence. They do not possess the mechanism 
     for enforcing the laws which they already have, the laws 
     which formally protect human rights. The laws are not 
     functioning.

  Unfortunately, Mr. President, anti-Semitism is pervasive outside of 
Russia as well.
  According to Paul Goble, a well-respected expert on Soviet 
minorities:

       The threat of anti-Semitism in the post-Soviet States is 
     greater today than it has been at any time in the last 
     decade. The inability of governments to enforce their own 
     laws or follow up on their own promises, the worsening 
     economic situation throughout the region that is leading to a 
     search for scapegoats, and an increasing number of 
     politicians and officials who see anti-Semitism as a useful 
     tool to advance their causes all contribute to this threat.

  Leaders in some of these States recognize that a problem exists, In 
fact, during a radio interview last year, Lithuania's President 
acknowledged that popular ant-Semitism still exists in Lithuania.
  Unfortunately, however, sometimes it is the leaders who are part of 
the problem. Belarus' President Lukashenko recently said, ``Not all of 
Hitler's actions were bad; one can learn from him methods of governing 
a country * * *''
  That is a pretty friendly environment to exist in. If that does not 
frighten the pants off somebody, then nothing will.
  If these statements are not persuasive, listen to the words of a 
refugee from Uzbekistan. Her pseudonym is Raisa Kagan, and she also 
testified before the Congress in February:

       For more than two years, me and my family were subjected to 
     anti-Semitic harassment and persecution which escalated into 
     violence that put our lives at risk.

  Ms. Kagan tells a harrowing tale of persecution beginning with verbal 
attacks:

     They called me ``dirty Jew'' and said such things as, ``It 
     was a good time when Hitler burned Jews and hung them on the 
     trees.''

  After being threatened on many occasions, Ms. Kagan reports:

       She repeatedly requested protection for myself and my 
     family from these attacks, but no official investigation was 
     made and no steps were taken to safeguard my family.

  In the months that followed, two members of her family were attacked 
and beaten by Uzbeks; her barn, garage, and house were set on fire by 
arsonists; and she was eventually fired from her job as a department 
head of a company for which she had worked for 20 years, with the 
explanation that ``only Uzbek nationals may head a department.''
  Her conclusion is poignant:

       Thousands of Jewish families in Uzbekistan can report the 
     same shameless, severe and terrible violations of their civil 
     rights. If you are unfortunate enough to be Jew you often 
     feel that your dignity is trampled with cynicism. To be 
     Jewish in Uzbekistan today means to be unprotected, 
     rightless, and robbed. But the most terrible is to be 
     humiliated until you feel like a nonentity.

  Clearly, Mr. President, now is not the time to allow the law to 
expire. The conditions which led to the change in the law in 1989 have 
intensified, anti-Semitism is pervasive, and the protections the law 
provides to historically persecuted individuals in the former Soviet 
Union are needed more than ever before.
  Additionally, Mr. President, the law is important to implement a new 
program of Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees. In April 
1996, the administration announced a program of Resettlement 
Opportunities for Vietnam Refugees [ROVR] to provide INS status 
adjudications for qualified Vietnamese boat people returning from the 
camps of Southeast Asia to Vietnam.
  The program will provide resettlement for those Vietnamese with close 
ties to the United States or who have suffered significant persecution 
under the Communist regime. The program is also intended to minimize 
violence in the camps as the Vietnamese refugee program comes to an end 
and to help to bring this long and successful humanitarian program to 
an appropriate and honorable conclusion.

[[Page S8847]]

  INS adjudication standards for ROVR are based on the criteria found 
in this law and will play a critical role in the implementation of the 
program.
  Mr. President, to respond to a couple of the assertions made by my 
friend from Wyoming, first of all, he uses the inspector general's 
reference as a determination of whether or not the policy is right. 
That is not the inspector general's area. The program has to be 
determined or reviewed by them.
  Mr. President, we heard all of the criticisms about the weaknesses of 
the system for permitting those who were not supposed to be coming to 
enter the country. Then, Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming has 
long been involved with immigration programs, and he ought to insist 
that INS do its job and make sure that those criminals do not get in 
here. There is no presumption here that permits criminals to come in 
under this refugee status. It is very clearly demarcated in the law. It 
says that those who may be excluded are on the basis of criminal and 
related grounds, and describes what they are--as refugees under the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act. It is very clear. They are not 
supposed to permit them.
  If INS is doing a bad job then they ought to do a better job, and the 
same thing is true of the quality of the citizens who come here. Yes. 
We are going to make mistakes and some are going to sneak through the 
apparatus, and there will be some of those who are engaged in illicit 
activities. We do not want them here. But I know scientists and 
physicians and even attorneys who have come to this country who make 
it. I say even attorneys because it is quite a transition from Russia--
I am not talking about my attorney friends--from the language there to 
our language here. They make important contributions to establish 
themselves. I have been with cab drivers. I have seen them buy their 
cabs, get to work, and make a contribution.
  So we can point out those furors that have been made, and they have 
been made. We ought to tighten up the process, and not thereby 
denigrate the whole class of refugees who are coming here.
  Negotiations with the Vietnamese on the program have been slow and 
many details remain unclear. Many believe that persons, otherwise well 
qualified, will not have been able to apply under the program by the 
time the law is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 1996.
  It is important that the program deadline and the law be extended so 
that all persons eligible to apply under the program's criteria will be 
given equal access to this initiative and can be adjudicated uniformly.
  Mr. President, this 1 year extension has the support of the 
administration.
  In a hearing in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Secretary Christopher said the following in response to 
my question about the administration's position on the provision: 
``Senator we think that the law has served an important purpose, 
particularly permitting immigration from Russia and the other nations 
of the former Soviet Union, to ensure that they have an opportunity to 
leave.
  There has been some sense that perhaps that law had served its 
purpose or run its course, but we are supporting another year's 
extension of that law to ensure that it completes its purpose. So we 
are supportive of that and we admire you for what you did in leading 
the way in earlier years to a much needed provision.''
  Mr. President, in addition to making sure that people are treated 
humanely and democratically in societies with which we have close 
connections, it is a confirmation of the belief that in the United 
States we uphold the status of the individuals to practice their 
religions, and to be able to conduct themselves as they see fit without 
fear of harassment or persecution.
  Once again, I think that we are going to vote on this, I understand, 
tomorrow.
  The 1 year extension also has the support of the U.S. Catholic 
Conference, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the American Jewish 
Committee, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, 
the Union of Councils, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, and the 
Council of Jewish Federations.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations in 
support of an extension be included in the Record at the end of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will close.
  Mr. President, I want to be clear that this extension will not 
increase the annual refugee ceiling for admissions to the United 
States. Those numbers are determined through a consultation process 
between the administration and the Congress.
  My friend from Wyoming said that we absorb refugees, and he describes 
them as legitimate refugees. If someone has to worry about their kids 
being picked on and beaten up in the streets and not be allowed to 
conduct their education as they see fit, to me that constitutes someone 
who ought to have a chance to conduct their lives in another place.
  I think that when all is said and done that we will see that this 
bill has served the United States very well, that we have gotten 
productive citizens--citizens who make a contribution. And if we have 
some errors in the way we conduct the programs, then let us fix the 
errors in our own house, and I hope that my colleagues will support the 
continuation of this law for the next year.
  Mr. President, I want to be clear that this extension will not 
increase the annual refugee ceiling for admissions to the United 
States. Those numbers are determined through a consultation process 
between the administration and the Congress. The provision simply 
facilitates refugee designation.
  Mr. President, this law was originally approved by the Senate by a 
vote of 97 to 0 in 1989 and became law as part of the fiscal year 1990 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Acts. It was extended in the fiscal 
year 1991 and fiscal year 1992 Foreign Operations Appropriations Acts, 
and the fiscal year 1994-1995 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I 
urge my colleagues to support this extension.

                               Exhibit 1

                                         U.S. Catholic Conference,


                               Migration and Refugee Services,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express the deep 
     appreciation of the U.S. Catholic Conference for the 
     initiative which you took many years ago to author a 
     provision of refugee law which recognizes that the historic 
     experiences of certain persecuted religious minorities in the 
     former Soviet Union and other groups in Indochina, and a 
     pattern of arbitrary denials of refugee status to members of 
     these groups, entitles them to a relaxed standard of proof in 
     determinations about their refugee status. We strongly 
     support the extension of this provision for one additional 
     year.
       While it is a fact that the former Soviet Union has 
     collapsed and the persecution of Jews and other religious 
     minorities is no longer official policy, the situation in 
     Russia continues to present major problems for these 
     minorities and, given the fact that democratic society is 
     still only tenuously established in the countries of the 
     former Soviet Union, it would be much too early to draw back 
     from this important program. Indeed, recent developments 
     which appear to make the departure of such persons from 
     Russia more difficult is a sign of the importance of giving 
     priority attention to this group for the time being.
       This provision is also of importance in the implementation 
     of a new program of Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese 
     Refugees (ROVR). This program will provide INS status 
     adjudication for persons returning to Vietnam from the camps 
     of Southeast Asia, who have close ties with the United States 
     or who can otherwise demonstrate persecution by the 
     Vietnamese government. This program will offer both a final 
     opportunity for some of those boat people in groups long 
     given priority in the U.S. Refugee Program (USRP) and help to 
     minimize violence during this final phase of the Indochinese 
     refugee program, which has been so successful over the years, 
     and help to bring it to an honorable end.
       The INS adjudication standards for this final effort are 
     based on the criteria in this provision of law and, thus, 
     will be critical in an appropriate implementation of ROVR. 
     Negotiations with the Vietnamese on ROVR have been very slow 
     and many details remain unclear. For example, no agreement 
     has yet been reached on how to process those boat people who 
     return to Vietnam without having seen a caseworker in the 
     first asylum country before departing in order to fill out 
     their ROVR applications. Several thousand persons already 
     have been returned without having had an opportunity to apply 
     for ROVR and undoubtedly there will be more. Thus, it seems 
     certain that many persons, otherwise well qualified, will not 
     have been able to apply for ROVR by the time of the

[[Page S8848]]

     expiration of this provision of law at the end of FY 1996, 
     and it will be extremely important that the ROVR deadline and 
     this provision of law be extended so that all persons 
     eligible to apply under the ROVR criteria are given equal 
     access to this initiative and can be adjudicated uniformly.
       We understand that the FY 1997 Foreign Operations 
     appropriations bill in the House of Representatives did not 
     contain an extension of this provision of refugee law, but 
     that the report language in that bill did contain a reference 
     to the possibility that such an extension might be contained 
     in the Senate bill and instructed House conferees to recede 
     to the Senate on this issue if that were the case. We urge 
     that such a one-year extension be included in the Senate 
     Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
       Thank you again for your assistance in bringing this 
     important program to a peaceful and fitting end.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Swenson,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                              The Hebrew Immigrant


                                                  Aid Society,

                                      New York, NY, June 14, 1996.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: Thank you very much for your 
     efforts to include a one-year extension of the Lautenberg 
     Amendment in the FY1997 Foreign Operations Bill. HIAS fully 
     supports extending the Amendment because of the threats 
     currently faced by Jewry in the former Soviet Union (FSU).
       As you know, the Lautenberg Amendment requires that the INS 
     take into account the history of persecution of certain 
     minorities, including Jews in the FSU and Vietnamese 
     political refugees, when adjudicating refugee applications 
     from such groups.
       On February 27, 1996, the House Subcommittee on 
     International Operations and Human Rights held a hearing on 
     the persecution of Jews worldwide. This hearing illustrated 
     that those conditions in the FSU which necessitated the 
     passage of the Lautenberg Amendment in 1989 have intensified 
     in recent months.
       The testimony of former Parliament member Alla Gerber and 
     expert on Soviet nationalities Paul Goble described anti-
     Semitism in the FSU as being ``privatized'' after the 
     dissolution of the USSR. Recent emigres from the FSU 
     testified that they fled the land of their birth because the 
     authorities there were unwilling and unable to protect them 
     from rising anti-Semitism. Indeed, many politicians, 
     including leading Russian Presidential candidates Zyugonov 
     and Zhirinovsky, and Belarus President Lukashenko, exploit 
     such popular sentiment by blaming ``the Jew'' for all that 
     ails their respective nations. The attached news accounts of 
     recent events in the FSU re-enforce the concerns raised at 
     the hearing.
       The hearing made it clear that now is not the time to allow 
     the Lautenberg Amendment to expire.
       Once again, HIAS greatly appreciates your efforts to 
     include a one-year extension of the Lautenberg Amendment on 
     the FY 1997 Foreign Operations Authorization bill.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Martin A. Wemick,
     Executive Vice-President.
                                                                    ____

         The American Jewish Committee, Office of Government and 
           International Affairs,
                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 1996.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Lautenberg Amendment has 
     provided refugee status for hundreds of thousands of Jews, 
     Pentecostals, Catholics, and others fleeing persecution in 
     the former Soviet Union and Indochina. The provision will 
     expire on September 30, 1996. The American Jewish Committee 
     urges you to support the reauthorizing language included in 
     the FY 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
       The Lautenberg Amendment offers fair and crucial protection 
     to the numerous groups facing continuing persecution in these 
     countries. The law provides that the INS consider the 
     historical context of persecution when reviewing refugee 
     applications. No special privileges or increased admissions 
     ceilings are created.
       The fall of the Soviet Union has neither ended Russian 
     anti-Semitism nor diminished the need for the Lautenberg 
     Amendment. Troubling statements by prominent Russian 
     politicians, the closing of Jewish Agency offices in Russia, 
     and the recent disturbing remarks by General Alexander Lebed 
     on the status of religious minorities continued to 
     demonstrate the precarious place of Jews in the former Soviet 
     Union. Another indication of this uncertainty was the Russian 
     government's refusal to issue a visa to David A. Harris, 
     Executive Director of AJC, to attend a conference cosponsored 
     by AJC in St. Petersburg earlier this month on the future of 
     Jews in the former Soviet Union.
       The threat of violence and persecution remains a present 
     danger for the Jews of the former Soviet Union. Currently, 
     100,000 Jewish men, women, and children are seeking asylum 
     under the Lautenberg Amendment. It is imperative that these 
     individuals remain able to receive refugee status in the 
     United States.
       On behalf of the officers and members of the American 
     Jewish Committee, we hope that you will act to keep the doors 
     of refuge open in America for those fleeing persecution in 
     the former Soviet Union and Indochina. We urge your support 
     for the reauthorization of the Lautenberg Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jason F. Isaacson,
     Director.
                                                                    ____

                                         National Jewish Community


                                   Relations Advisory Council,

                                      New York, NY, June 18, 1996.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the National Jewish 
     Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC), I am writing 
     to thank you for your continuing efforts to extend the 
     Lautenberg Amendment for an additional year by including it 
     in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 1997. 
     The NJCRAC is the American Jewish community's network of 13 
     national and 117 local public affairs organizations. Our 
     member agencies work with government representatives, the 
     media, and a wide array of religious, ethnic and civic 
     organizations to address a broad range of public policy 
     concerns.
       Over the years, we have devoted significant energy to work 
     on behalf of refugees from the former Soviet Union. We are 
     well aware of how critical the Lautenberg Amendment has been 
     in that rescue effort. Moreover, the Lautenberg law has not 
     only enabled thousands of applicants from the former Soviet 
     Union to obtain refugee status but has also played a key role 
     in allowing refugees from Indochina to come to the United 
     States to begin new lives free of persecution and fear.
       As you know, the situation for Jews in the former Soviet 
     Union is tenuous. The popularity of Vladimir Zhirinovsky and 
     other ultra-nationalists, along with the Communist 
     resurgence, has created a climate of tension, fear and, at 
     times even violence against Jews, despite the fact that there 
     is no longer an official government sponsored anti-Semitic 
     campaign. These modern circumstances, combined with the 
     historic persecution of Jews and other religious minorities 
     in the FSU, constitute for many a ``credible basis for 
     concern'' which qualifies them for refugee status under the 
     Lautenberg law. It is critically important that we retain 
     this law and, with it, the ability to move people out of 
     potentially dangerous circumstances.
       Further, the continuation of the Lautenberg law remains 
     crucial for Vietnamese applicants, who are to be adjudicated 
     under the Administration's Resettlement Opportunities for 
     Vietnam Refugees (ROVR) program. It seems highly unlikely 
     that all refugees who are eligible to apply for consideration 
     under ROVR will be able to register in time to be adjudicated 
     under Lautenberg standards if the law expires at the end of 
     this fiscal year. An additional year's extension will be 
     critical to carrying out the intended purpose of the ROVR 
     program and sustaining our commitment to refugees in Vietnam.
       The Administration is supporting a one year extension of 
     the Lautenberg law. The Congress approved such an extension 
     within the State Department Authorization bill that was 
     vetoed. It is our hope that the Congress will again pass an 
     extension by including in it the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill. As you know, the House Foreign 
     Operations Committee has included in its report language 
     indicating that they would accede to the Senate if the 
     Lautenberg provision were to be included in the Senate 
     Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
       Thousands of refugees, Jews and non-Jews, owe their freedom 
     to you for your leadership on this issue and the law that 
     bears your name. We have been pleased to work with you and 
     your staff to support your efforts each time the amendment 
     has come before the Senate and the House for renewal or 
     extension. We want you to know that you have our support and 
     assistance this time as well.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael N. Newmark,
     Chair, NJCRAC.
                                                                    ____



                                            Union of Councils,

                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Union of Councils for Soviet 
     Jews (UCSJ) has long valued the leadership you have provided 
     in the struggle to protect refugees in the former Soviet 
     Union (FSU), and to promote human rights world-wide. We write 
     today to enthusiastically endorse a one year extension of the 
     Lautenberg Amendment; the central piece of United States 
     legislation dedicated to saving Jews and other refugees from 
     the FSU and Indochina.
       The UCSJ, comprised of Soviet Jewry action councils in 
     thirty American cities, 100,000 members, and human rights 
     bureaus in five cities in the FSU, has for more than twenty-
     five years been the largest independent grass-roots human 
     rights and Soviet Jewry organization in the world. The UCSJ 
     is a leading authority on antisemitism and the general threat 
     to Jews on the ground inside the FSU.
       Since the Lautenberg Amendment was introduced in the 
     Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 1990, the UCSJ has 
     strongly supported the law as a bold statement of the United 
     States' foreign policy commitment to

[[Page S8849]]

     human rights and democracy, and its humanitarian mission to 
     provide safe-haven to endangered refugees. The Lautenberg 
     Amendment declares that persecution of minorities is 
     unacceptable as part of the transition towards democracy in 
     the region. Additionally, the amendment has assisted tens of 
     thousands of refugees from historically persecuted 
     communities to find safety in the United States.
       Today, conditions for Jews in the FSU are extremely 
     precarious. A significant majority of members of the Russian 
     Duma are from strongly antisemitic parties. The leading 
     contender in the upcoming presidential election, Gennady 
     Zyuganov, represents a coalition of nationalist, patriotic 
     and communist parties. This coalition has a serious chance of 
     winning the presidency, and poses a grave threat to the 
     Jewish community.
       Based on the UCSJ's monitoring of conditions in the FSU, we 
     see antisemitism throughout the region, and an inability or 
     unwillingness on the part of the authorities to protect Jews. 
     The Jewish community faces a vibrant antisemitic publishing 
     industry, vilification in street demonstrations, and 
     vandalism of private and communal property. As Paul Gobel of 
     Radio Liberty stated at a recent hearing before a House 
     International Affairs subcommittee, ``The threat of 
     antisemitism in the post-Soviet states is greater today than 
     it has been at any time in the last decade.''
       The Union of Councils for Soviet Jews firmly believes that 
     it would not only be a human rights catastrophe if the 
     Lautenberg Amendment was allowed to expire this year, but a 
     serious foreign policy blunder. At a time when Russia is in 
     danger of returning to communist or fascist rule, the United 
     States should not signal that it believes that all is well 
     for historically persecuted minorities.
       The United States Congress has long been an ally of human 
     rights and democracy activists and persecuted minority groups 
     in the former Soviet Union. This noble tradition would be 
     honored by an extension of the Lautenberg Amendment through 
     the end of fiscal year 1997.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Pamela B. Cohen,
                                               National President.
                                                Micah H. Naftalin,
     National Director.
                                                                    ____



                                        National Conference on

                                                 Soviet Jewry,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 1996.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the National 
     Conference on Soviet Jewry, thank you for your successful 
     effort to include a one-year extension of the Lautenberg 
     Amendment in the FY1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations 
     Bill. Given the volatile and dangerous environment 
     confronting the Jewish minority in the former Soviet Union, 
     the NCSJ continues to support the extension of the Amendment.
       The rise of popular ant-Semitism throughout the former 
     Soviet Union is a serious threat to the future well-being of 
     Jews in these countries. Government authorities are unable 
     and/or unwilling to adequately address this threat which 
     causes many Jews to continue to suffer.
       The NCSJ, in conjunction with other members of the 
     organized American Jewish community, stands ready to assist 
     you to ensure passage of this vital legislation.
       Once again, our sincere thanks for everything you have done 
     on behalf of the Jews of the former Soviet Union.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark B. Levin,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                Council of Jewish Federations,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 1996.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the Council of Jewish 
     Federations and the 200 local Jewish Federations within our 
     national system, I am writing to thank you for your ongoing 
     efforts to extend the Lautenberg Amendment for an additional 
     year by including it in the Foreign Operations Appropriations 
     bill for FY97. This critical law has assisted thousands of 
     refugee applicants from the Former Soviet Union and Indochina 
     to obtain refugee status and come to the U.S. to start a new 
     life free of persecution, fear and constant harassment.
       As you know, the situation for Jews in the FSU is tenuous 
     at best. The popularity of Zhirinovsky and other ultra 
     nationalists as well as the resurgence of the Communists 
     creates a climate of tension, fear and often violence against 
     Jews even if there is no longer an official government 
     sponsored anti-Semitic campaign. These modern circumstances, 
     combined with the historic persecution of Jews and other 
     religious minorities in the FSU, constitute for many a 
     ``credible basis for concern'' which qualifies them for 
     refugee status under the Lautenberg law. The importance of 
     retaining this law and the ability to move people out of a 
     dangerous environment can not be overstated.
       In addition, the continuation of the Lautenberg law remains 
     crucial for Vietnamese who are to be adjudicated under the 
     Administration's Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnam 
     Refugees (ROVR) program. It seems highly unlikely that all 
     refugees who are eligible to apply for consideration under 
     ROVR will be able to register in time to be adjudicated under 
     Lautenberg standards if the law expires at the end of this 
     fiscal year. An additional year's extension will be critical 
     to carrying out the intended purpose of the ROVR program and 
     keeping our commitment to refugees in Vietnam.
       The Administration is supporting a one year extension of 
     the Lautenberg law. The Congress already passed such an 
     extension in the State Department Authorization bill that was 
     vetoed. It is our hope that the Congress will again pass an 
     extension by including it in the Foreign Operations 
     Appropriations bill. As you know, the House Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations Committee has included in its 
     report language that they would accede to the Senate if the 
     Lautenberg provision were to be included in the Senate 
     Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
       Thousands of refugee, Jews and non-Jews, owe their freedom 
     to you for your leadership on this issue and the law that 
     bears your name. We have been pleased to work with you and 
     your staff to support your efforts each time it has been 
     before the Senate and the House. You have our support and 
     assistance again now.
       Thank you for all you have done.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Maynard Wishner,
                                                   President, CJF.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5078

     (Purpose: To reallocate funds for the Korean Peninsula Energy 
                       Development Organization)

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I call up amendment number 5078 at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN) for himself, 
     Mr. Leahy, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Simon, Mr. Nunn, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Roth, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, 
     and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 5078.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 126, after line 7, insert the following: 
     ``(Including Transfers of Funds)''.
       On page 127, beginning on line 14, strike ``Provided 
     further,'' and all that follows through the colon on page 
     128, line 6, and insert the following: ``Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any prohibitions in this or any other 
     Act on direct or indirect assistance to North Korea, not more 
     than $25,000,000 may be made available to the Korean 
     Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) only for 
     heavy fuel oil costs and other expenses associated with the 
     Agreed Framework, of which $13,000,000 shall be from funds 
     appropriated under this heading and $12,000,000 may be 
     transferred from funds appropriated by this Act under the 
     headings `International Organization and Programs', `Foreign 
     Military Financing Program', and `Economic Support Fund':''.
       On page 138, line 12, strike ``the Korean'' and all that 
     follows through ``or'' on line 13.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Lieberman underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 5089 to Amendment No. 5078

       (Purpose: To provide conditions for funding North Korea's 
           implementation of the nuclear framework agreement)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment, and 
send it 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 Alaska (Mr. MURKOWSKI) for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     5089 to amendment numbered 5078.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, line 9, of the matter proposed to be inserted, 
     strike ``Fund'' and all that follows to the end period and 
     insert the following: ``Fund: Provided further, That such 
     funds may be obligated to KEDO only if, prior to

[[Page S8850]]

     such obligation of funds, the President certifies and so 
     reports to Congress that (1)(A) the United States is taking 
     steps to assure that progress is made on the implementation 
     of the January 1, 1992, Joint Declaration on the 
     Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the 
     implementation of the North-South dialogue and (B) North 
     Korea is complying with the other provisions of the Agreed 
     Framework between North Korea and the United States and with 
     the Confidential Minute; (2) North Korea is cooperating fully 
     in the canning and safe storage of all spent fuel from its 
     graphite-moderated nuclear reactors and that such canning and 
     safe storage is scheduled to be completed by the end of 
     fiscal year 1997; and (3) North Korea has not significantly 
     diverted assistance provided by the United States for 
     purposes for which such assistance was not intended: Provided 
     further, That the President may waive the certification 
     requirements of the preceding proviso if the President deems 
     it necessary in the vital national security interests of the 
     United States: Provided further, That no funds may be 
     obligated for KEDO until 30 calendar days after the 
     submission to Congress of the waiver permitted under the 
     preceding proviso: Provided further, That before obligating 
     any funds for KEDO, the President shall report to Congress on 
     (1) the cooperation of North Korea in the process of 
     returning to the United States the remains of United States 
     military personnel who are listed as missing in action as a 
     result of the Korean conflict (including conducting joint 
     field activities with the United States); (2) violations of 
     the military armistice agreement of 1953; (3) the actions 
     which the United States is taking and plans to take to assure 
     that North Korea is consistently taking steps to implement 
     the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean 
     Peninsula and engage in North-South dialogue; and
       (4) all instances of non-compliance with the Agreed 
     Framework between North Korea and the United States and the 
     Confidential Minute, including diversion of heavy fuel 
     oil:''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I intend to support the second-degree amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, speaking about the underlying amendment and the 
second-degree amendment, this deals with the underlying bill, the 
foreign operations appropriations bill, which proposed a relatively 
small contribution that the United States has agreed to make which is 
part of a very large agreement that holds great promise of stabilizing 
relations between North Korea and South Korea, North Korea and its 
other neighbors in Asia, The so-called agreed framework which was 
agreed to in October of 1994 has had extraordinary effect on what was 
beginning to be--sometimes our memories are short--a very threatening 
situation in which we had conclusive evidence that the North Koreans 
were building reactors that were capable of being used to build atomic 
weapons which, together with their massive ground forces, would 
threaten security in that region of the world.

  Mr. President, let us remember as we begin this discussion that in 
1993 the Defense Department issued the Bottom-Up Review, which set a 
standard for the American military that we had to be strong enough to 
deal with two major regional conflicts in the world at the same time. 
One potential MRC was clearly in the gulf region, the Middle East, and 
the other, in most people's contemplation, was on the Korean peninsula.
  When we think about the fact that we sent a half million of our 
soldiers to the gulf region to deal with that conflict--and carry out 
so brilliantly Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm--and that the 
potential for conflict on the Korean peninsula is in most people's 
minds of an equivalent size, we are talking about a very serious 
exposure for the United States in terms of our military personnel and 
also in costs to our Treasury.
  After rising international concern about the potential diversion of 
North Korea's nuclear power to develop atomic weapons, a series of 
negotiations ensued which ended in the so-called agreed framework in 
October of 1994. The North Koreans took on certain obligations in 
return for which the United States and neighbors in that region, 
particularly South Korea and Japan, took on other obligations, which 
thus far all parties have proceeded in what would have to be called 
good faith to the great benefit of that region and the world, resulting 
in a de-escalation of tension and the potential for armed conflict 
there.
  This agreement required, for instance, North Korea to freeze 
operation of its 5-megawatt reactor and halt construction at its 50-
megawatt and 200-megawatt reactors. If the agreement were not in place, 
within a few short years these facilities would have been able to 
produce enough plutonium for the North Koreans to build dozens of 
weapons each year. The agreed framework also required North Korea to 
cease operations at its reprocessing facility and laboratory which 
reprocesses plutonium out of spent nuclear fuel, and to seal that 
facility.
  I am pleased to say, Mr. President, that the International Atomic 
Energy Agency has confirmed that North Korea has taken all these steps 
to freeze their program. The IAEA is now working with North Korea to 
settle on specific measures needed to continue to monitor that freeze. 
The fact is that IAEA inspectors are maintaining a continuous 
presence--this is not just somebody's word and our best hopes, it is 
the continuing presence of international inspectors at the Yongbyon 
nuclear facility in North Korea. The framework was deliberately 
structured so the North Koreans would take the first steps, and we were 
able to verify compliance every step of the way.
  Mr. President, over time, all of the facilities that are frozen will 
be dismantled. In addition, 8,000 spent fuel rods that now sit in a 
cooling pond at the Yongbyon nuclear facility will eventually be 
shipped out of North Korea. These rods alone contain enough plutonium 
to make five to six bombs. This is truly a remarkable agreement.
  No one says that North Korea has become a Jeffersonian democracy. Far 
from it. It is a country which faces all sorts of instability, 
particularly the terrible condition of its economy, the inability 
actually to feed all its people. But in the midst of all that 
instability which could have caused literally conflagration on the 
Korean peninsula, this agreement has been concluded.
  What is their return for this? The return for this is that we have 
agreed to provide a certain amount of money every year for the North 
Koreans to purchase heavy fuel oil to help to operate other power 
plants within their country, and we have agreed to assist them in 
building light water reactors which are much more nuclear-proliferation 
resistant, much less likely to be used to develop nuclear weapons than 
the other reactors that the North Koreans have.

  The cost of the light water reactors will amount to more than $4 
billion. The Republic of Korea, that is, South Korea, and Japan have 
accepted the lion's share of the financial burden for those light water 
reactors. The United States direct funding to the Korean Peninsula 
Energy Development Organization, known as KEDO, which was set up under 
the agreed framework to provide heavy fuel oil for the North Koreans 
and for other projects, is really a matter of us just assuming a fair 
share of our burden. We pledged to commit $25 million, which is less 
than half the total amount required for the heavy fuel oil purchases 
annually and which represents a very modest commitment when one 
considers the $4 billion cost for light water reactors that will be 
assumed primarily by the Republic of Korea and Japan.
  Nonetheless, the foreign ops bill that is before us now cuts that 
amount of money down to $13 million, threatening the stability of the 
overall agreed framework, and leading to concern in Japan and South 
Korea about the steadfastness of the United States in fulfilling its 
obligations under this agreement--leading to some concern in those 
countries about whether they would fulfill their much larger 
responsibilities under these agreements, and holding the potential to 
again destabilize the Korean peninsula with great risk to those who 
live there and those of us who have a security interest there.
  Mr. President, I want to simply quote here from a letter Secretary 
Perry wrote to Senator Robert C. Byrd on this question dated July 15, 
1995. The Secretary says that without the full amount of U.S. support, 
$25 million--a lot of money as you look at it separately but a very 
small amount of money when you think of the amount of money we would 
have to spend if the

[[Page S8851]]

Koreas become destabilized and a conflict ensued. Secretary Perry said:

       Without U.S. support for KEDO, the organization will face a 
     significant funding shortfall for HFO. Should KEDO be unable 
     to fulfill its obligation to deliver oil, the risk of the 
     North breaking the nuclear freeze would rise significantly. 
     Such a scenario greatly increases the risk of a direct 
     confrontation with North Korea, with costs measured in lives 
     and billions of dollars.

  Mr. President, my underlying amendment would restore the amount of 
money in the bill from the $13 million up to $25 million, which is the 
amount the United States pledged to give annually to fund these 
purchases of heavy fuel oil and other expenses. It also makes clear--
and Senator Levin, had he been here was going to ask this question--
that the $25 million can be used not just for the heavy fuel oil and 
administrative expenses, but other expenses pursuant to the agreed 
framework between the parties in this matter.
  The second-degree amendment which was worked on this evening by the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] and the Senator from 
Arizona [Mr. McCain] and myself, sets some standards for the 
distribution of that $25 million. I will yield to the Senator from 
Alaska in a minute to describe that. It basically requires a 
certification procedure by the President and grants the President a 
waiver if he feels it is in the national security interest to do so 
before the $25 million is expended to KEDO.
  I am pleased we have made such progress on this. I am honored that I 
have a distinguished group of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle 
for this amendment.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lieberman amendment 
of which I am an original cosponsor.
  I believe it is useful to recall that in June 1994 North Korea 
decided to defuel its five megawatt research reactor, precipitating a 
crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Spent fuel contains essential fissile 
material for a nuclear arsenal and North Korea could have extracted 
enough plutonium to build five or six nuclear weapons.
  As a result of the negotiation of the October 1994 Framework 
Agreement, North Korea agreed, among other things, to freeze and 
eventually dismantle its graphite moderated nuclear reactors and 
related facilities and to safely store and ultimately ship out of its 
territory the spent fuel from its five megawatt nuclear research 
reactor. The United States agreed to lead an international consortium 
to oversee the finance and construction of two 100-megawatt light water 
reactors and to provide 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually 
until completion of the first light water reactor.
  I am advised that North Korea has maintained the freeze on its 
nuclear facilities, that the IAEA has maintained a continuous presence 
in North Korea to verify and monitor the freeze, the canning of the 
more than 8,000 spent fuel rods is proceeding at a steady pace and 
North Korea has concluded a number of agreements with KEDO to 
facilitate the furnishing of the light water reactors, including a 
Protocol on Privileges and Immunities for KEDO personnel.
  Mr. President, I believe it is in our national security interest to 
freeze and eventually dismantle North Korea's graphite-moderated 
reactors and related facilities. The United States has approximately 
37,000 troops in and is committed by treaty to defend the Republic of 
Korea. As Secretary Perry has noted

       Should KEDO be unable to fulfill its obligation to deliver 
     oil, the risk of the North breaking the nuclear freeze would 
     rise significantly. Such a scenario greatly increases the 
     risk of direct confrontation with North Korea, with costs 
     measured in lives and billions of dollars.

  Under the arrangements worked out with our allies, South Korea and 
Japan have agreed to bear the financial burden for the provision of the 
light water nuclear reactors for North Korea. The cost will be more 
than $4 billion and by some estimates will approach $6 billion. The 
United States has agreed to fund less than one-half of the cost of 
providing heavy fuel oil annually to make up for the loss of 
electricity.
  I am also advised that a number of countries have pledged monetary 
contributions and the European Union is on the verge of making a multi-
year financial contribution commitment but that this commitment could 
be endangered if the United States didn't provide the $25 million this 
year.
  Insummary, Mr. President, I believe that a $25 million contribution 
to KEDO for fiscal year 1997 is in our national security interest and I 
encouraged my colleagues to support the Lieberman amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Lieberman amendment to 
provide full funding for the Korean Peninsula Energy Organization, or 
KEDO. This amendment would provide the funding requested by the 
Administration needed to meet our obligations under an important 
agreement this country has with North Korea.
  This agreement, known as the ``Agreed Framework'' has effectively 
frozen the North Korean nuclear weapon program. That is why we have 
such a strong stake in meeting our obligations under this agreement. If 
we want to continue to freeze and eventually dismantle the North Korean 
nuclear weapons program, we must uphold our end of the agreement. That 
means paying our small portion of the cost of the agreement.
   Mr. President, the underlying bill would reduce the funds for 
implementing the Agreed Framework with North Korea from $25 million to 
$13 million. This level of funding--half the amount requested--would 
not permit the United States to meet its obligation under the Agreed 
Framework. If that were to happen, North Korea could renege on its 
commitments under that agreement and resume its nuclear weapons 
program.
  This is a remarkable fact, Mr. President. For want of $12 million, we 
are apparently willing to risk North Korea's return to a nuclear 
weapons program that we all agree would be exceedingly dangerous for 
our security and for the security of the Asia-Pacific region, including 
South Korea and Japan.
  In almost every debate on defense and security issues, we hear the 
list of so-called ``rogue'' nations, always including North Korea, that 
post a threat because of their work on ballistic missiless, on weapons 
of mass destruction, or as sponsors of terrorism. Why would we 
willingly undo a success story--the Agreed Framework that has frozen 
the Korean nuclear weapons program--and risk the grave dangers of North 
Korean nuclear weapons?
  Indeed, it was the very threat of the North Korean nuclear weapons 
program that required us to negotiate the Agreed Framework. And had 
that negotiation not worked, the alternative appeared to be the 
likelihood of a military confrontation with North Korea, meaning war on 
the Korean Peninsula that would involve massive casualties to our 
forces stationed there and to the Korean population.
  The agreement that is now in place is a great benefit to our 
security. Here is how the Diretor of Central Intelligence, John Deutch, 
described the results of the agreement in March of this year:

       Under the terms of the 21 October 1994 Agreed Framework 
     with the United States, North Korea agreed to freeze its 
     plutonium production capability. Currently, P'yongyang has 
     halted operation of the 5MW [Megawatt] reactor, ceased 
     construction of two larger reactors, frozen activity at the 
     plutonium recovery plant, and agreed to dismantle these 
     facilities.

  When I asked our senior military leaders if they believe the Agreed 
Framework is in our security interests, they have all answered with a 
resounding yes. Here is the discussion I had with General 
Shalikashvili, the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff in February 
1995:

       Senator Levin. In your personal view, do you believe that 
     this agreement is in our national security interest and that 
     if implemented it would be a positive outcome for us?
       General Shalikashvili. I very much believe so, particularly 
     when I consider the alternatives that we were faced with back 
     in the June timeframe or so when we were marching toward a 
     potential confrontation.

  In March of this year, I had the following exchange with General Gary 
Luck, then our commander in chief of U.S. Forces in Korea, and with 
Admiral Joseph Prueher, our commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific 
Command concerning the Agreed Framework:

       Senator Levin. [Has] the nuclear weapons program of North 
     Korea, in your judgment,

[[Page S8852]]

     remained frozen since that agreement was reached?
       General Luck. Yes sir.
       Admiral Prueher. Yes sir.
       Senator Levin. And in your judgment, does that make a 
     significant contribution to the security of that peninsula 
     and to our security? [In other words], the fact that their 
     nuclear program is frozen, is that important?
       General Luck. Oh, yes sir. Yes sir.
       Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir, it is important.
       Senator Levin. Now, if we had not reached that agreement 
     and frozen the North Korean nuclear program, is it true that 
     North Korea today would have enough plutonium to make several 
     nuclear weapons, and could have several nuclear warheads 
     already and more warheads in the pipeline?
       General Luck. [Sir, I am not an expert in that area, but 
     certainly] that was the prediction before we entered into 
     this agreement.
       Senator Levin. As far as you know, is that an accurate 
     statement?
       General Luck. As far as I know, it is, sir.
       Admiral Prueher. And likewise, as far as I know.

  Mr. President, Those are the typical comments of our senior military 
commanders on the importance of the Agreed Framework, and the fact that 
North Korea is complying with its terms.
  The civilian leadership in the Defense Department also agrees with 
this assessment. I refer to an exchange between myself and Defense 
Secretary Bill Perry from March 5 of this year, and I ask that an 
excerpt of the transcript from a hearing of the Armed Services 
Committee be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the bill's restrictions on funding 
for KEDO, and I urge my colleagues to support the Lieberman amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

     Levin--Perry on North Korea Nuclear Agreed Framework (Excerpt)

       Senator Levin. First I want to ask you about Korea. Last 
     year you described the situation in North Korea with the so-
     called agreed framework that froze North Korea's nuclear 
     weapons program, and explained that by freezing the program 
     that we prevented North Korea from producing plutonium for 
     weapons and from producing the weapons themselves. Has North 
     Korea kept its nuclear weapons program frozen?
       Secretary Perry. Yes.
       Senator Levin. And if we had not entered into that agreed 
     framework, where would North Korea's nuclear program be 
     today, and where could it be, say, in 3 years?
       Secretary Perry. Had we not entered that program, we 
     believe that they would have, first of all, taken the 
     material from their reactor, the spent fuel from their 
     reactor, and reprocess it to get enough plutonium to make 
     perhaps four or five or six bombs, and quite possibly they 
     would have those bombs now; and that, secondly, they were 
     constructing other reactors which, when they were completed, 
     would give them the ability to get reactor fuel capable of 
     making perhaps 10 to 12 bombs a year. All of those programs 
     have been stopped. There is no such fuel being processed or 
     generated today.
       Senator Levin. And I take it that that clearly is in our 
     security interest in a very major way?
       Secretary Perry. This was, to me, a fundamental issue. We 
     were prepared to take very substantial actions that actually 
     raised the risk of conflict in order to stop that program. We 
     are able to do it through diplomacy, and we did not have to 
     take those other actions, and this has been a matter of great 
     significance.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me yield to the Senator from Wyoming who has a 
unanimous consent request.


                           Amendment No. 5088

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment when it is processed tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it will be in order to order 
the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be sufficient second. 
The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5078

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, first let me acknowledge the statement 
by my friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, relative to his 
willingness to cosponsor my second-degree amendment and for the 
statement in support of the Lieberman amendment which specifically 
restores the administration's request for $25 million to support the 
Korea Peninsula Economic Development Organization. The significance of 
this is that, if the job is going to be done and done right, it is 
going to take a commitment. To suggest it is going to be done with half 
the amount of money is simply unrealistic. We might as well address 
reality. The administration is prepared to suggest, with the $25 
million, it will be able to implement the agreed framework with North 
Korea.
  I also want to recognize Senator McCain, who joins with me, as well 
as Senator Lieberman, in the second degree to the Lieberman amendment.
  Mr. President, I believe I have asked for the yeas and nays. I will 
be very brief in my remarks, assuming I am correct, that we have 
requested the yeas and nays?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested only on 
the Lieberman amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It would be my intention to ask for a voice vote on my 
second-degree amendment to the underlying amendment, to the Lieberman 
amendment. Perhaps it would be in order to do that now. Then I can 
proceed with my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5089) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee proposed a 
cut of funding to $13 million. I do not think we are involved, here, in 
a bean-counting debate. The question is, what does it take to do the 
job?
  If we go back to the initiation of the framework agreement, I think 
many of us were under the assumption that this would be an obligation 
pretty much underwritten by South Korea and Japan. That has not been 
the case. We have been involved and we continue to be involved. But my 
concern, in real terms, is that what we are talking about is a major 
foreign policy initiative, and that is how we deal with North Korea.
  I said on previous occasions I do not think the agreed framework was 
the best way we could have negotiated it, but I am not going to judge 
the administration necessarily in hindsight. My objection to the 
agreement was that, in negotiating, we agreed basically not to inspect 
the two sites, the two storage sites, until after the first nuclear 
plant was about to be fueled. I think that was a mistake, but I am not 
going to go on at great length.
  I am concerned the North Koreans live up to their commitments before 
the money starts flowing. The Murkowski-Lieberman-McCain amendments 
would condition the $25 million on the following. The first is 
Presidential certification that progress is really being made on the 
North-South relations. This is a condition of the agreed framework, but 
one that is obeyed in the breach, if you will. There have been 
significant exceptions to that. North Korea has flouted, in some 
instances, the armistice agreement and taken several actions in the 
past few months to increase tensions on the DMZ, by violating borders. 
The question is how does this decrease tensions? It clearly does not.
  Cooperating fully on safe storage of all spent fuel--this is a 
requirement. Again, it is a condition of the agreed framework. Thus 
far, I think the cooperation has been relatively reassuring on that 
one.
  No significant diversion of financial or other assistance--Senator 
McConnell's provision deals with the important matter of the diversion 
of fuel oil. But I think it must go further. We have spent $8.2 million 
in food aid, even though there are conflicting reports about what North 
Korea does with the money. In fact, in the last 2 years we have spent 
over $50 million for North Korea in food value and other assistance.
  So what we are talking about is full compliance with all the 
provisions of the agreed framework and the confidential part, which 
includes the timetable for compliance. This should be a no-brainer. If 
there are violations, the money should simply stop. They should 
understand that.
  If, as the administration assures me, North Korea is fully 
cooperating with

[[Page S8853]]

the agreed framework and is moving towards advancement on other issues, 
these should be very, very easy certifications. It should not be any 
problem at all. Further, before any money is spent, the administration 
will report on whether North Korea is cooperating fully on activities 
to account for the MIA's, those missing in action, including the joint 
field activities.

  A lot of Americans forget, because the emphasis has been on Vietnam 
where currently we have unidentified less than 2,300 MIA's, but that is 
not the case in North Korea. Mr. President, 8,177 service personnel are 
unaccounted for in the Korean conflict and at least 5,433 were lost 
north of the 38th Parallel. These are the forgotten men of the Korean 
war.
  I am pleased that the first joint operation started on July 10. 
Another operation is scheduled for September. That is good news. It is 
a start. But it is absolutely crucial to my support for the KEDO 
funding. It is an issue I have spoken out on time and time again, and 
it is an issue I am glad to see the administration and negotiators have 
finally brought into the discussion process. When KEDO started, when 
the first negotiations were taking place, there was no mention, no 
condition of our support and assistance and their cooperation on the 
MIA's. It is through the efforts of Senator McCain and a number of 
other Members of this body and Members of the House, to insert this 
mandate, that I think has brought an awakening to the administration.
  The highest calling of Government is full accounting for those who 
have given so much. We can never properly repay that. We simply have to 
demand it. We know where those battle sites were. We know where those 
prison camps were, in the north. We know there are 5,433 that are 
unaccounted for and this is an opportunity to give that accounting to 
their relatives and loved ones.
  Further, this would require a report on all instances of 
noncompliance with the agreed framework, including diversion of fuel 
oil. It is fair to say we have seen evidence of that in the past. So I 
think what we have here, thanks to my good friend and colleague, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and others, is a message to the 
administration that is responsible, is forthright, that meets their 
monetary requirement, but, if you will, puts behind the agreement the 
faith and credit of the Congress in an accountability that is 
oftentimes difficult to find in a Government process such as we have 
before us.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment 
with my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, to impose additional 
conditions on U.S. funding for the implementation of the North Korean 
Nuclear Framework Agreement of 1994.
  The bill before the Senate requires the President to certify that 
North Korea is using heavy fuel oil provided by the U.S. and other 
countries under the Framework Agreement only for purposes permitted 
under that agreement. I support that restriction.
  The amendment offered by Senator Murkowski and myself would add 
additional Presidential certification requirements to the existing 
language. These additional certifications are:
  Progress is being made to establish a meaningful dialogue between 
North and South Korea;
  North Korea is cooperating fully with the canning and safe storage of 
spent fuel from its nuclear reactors at Yongbyon;
  North Korea is in compliance with all other provisions of the nuclear 
framework agreement, including maintaining a complete freeze on its 
nuclear program; and
  None of the assistance provided to North Korea by the U.S. has been 
diverted to other than the intended purposes.
  In addition, our amendment requires the President to provide a report 
to Congress on three important matters related to peace and stability 
on the Korean Peninsula. These are: Cooperation of North Korea with 
efforts to return the remains of those missing in action since the 
Korean conflict; violations of the military armistice agreement; and 
the Administration's plan for encouraging North-South dialogue.
  The bill before the Senate provides $13 million to the Korean 
Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO, which is the 
organization charged with implementing the nuclear framework agreement 
of 1994 between the U.S. and North Korea. My colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, is proposing an amendment to increase 
that amount to $25-million. The amendment offered by Senator Murkowski 
and myself would ensure that this $25 million is not misused by the 
Communist regime in North Korea.
  I continue to have serious reservations about the Nuclear Framework 
Agreement with North Korea. Under this deal, the North Koreans get free 
oil, the benefits of trade and diplomatic relations, two new nuclear 
reactors, and untold additional benefits, including tacit forgiveness 
of their blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 
Most of these benefits accrue before North Korea incurs any real damage 
to its existing nuclear program. In short, the most charitable 
appraisal I can give this agreement is that it represents a tendered 
bribe to North Korea in exchange for a limit on its nuclear weapons 
program.
  I continue to believe that the only part of the Framework Agreement 
that serves our national security interest is ensuring that the spent 
nuclear fuel rods in the cooling pond at Yongbyon are safely stored and 
safeguarded. We must ensure that North Korea cannot quickly and easily 
begin reprocessing this fuel, and we must also ensure against further 
degradation of their condition in the storage pond. The Department of 
Energy has taken the lead in this effort, and estimates that all the 
spent fuel will be safely canned and stored in North Korea by March of 
next year.
  In support of this effort, the U.S. has already contributed about $25 
million. Maintaining the nuclear fuel rods in safe storage will require 
about $2.5 to $5 million per year until it is removed from North Korea. 
In my view, these funds are well spent to take this dangerous material 
out of North Korean hands.
  The U.S. has also contributed $5 million for heavy fuel oil for North 
Korea and another $22 million to the operations of KEDO. This bill, 
with the Lieberman amendment, would give another $25 million to KEDO 
for heavy fuel oil and administrative costs of implementing the 
agreement. These expenditures can be expected to continue at least at 
the level of $20-30 million per year for the next seven to ten years, 
while the provisions of the agreement are carried out. That is a cost 
to the U.S. taxpayer of somewhere between $200 and $300 million.
  We in Congress have a responsibility to ensure that the U.S. taxpayer 
knows where his money is going. That is why Senator Murkowski and I are 
proposing an amendment to restrict the use of the $25 million provided 
in this bill. Our amendment would ensure that the taxpayers' dollars 
will not be spent to prop up the failing economy and Communist regime 
in North Korea.
  As I have often said, I believe the Framework Agreement will fail in 
time. I believe North Korea will renege on this agreement, just as they 
reneged on their freely accepted obligations under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, and as they did 9 times during the 2 years of 
negotiations leading up to this deal. North Korea is currently in 
compliance with the framework agreement, and therefore, I do not 
believe the United States should kill the deal by failing to provide a 
minimal level of funding to implement its more positive aspects.
  Mr. President, I will not oppose the Lieberman amendment to restore 
funding for KEDO to the requested level. However, I believe the 
American taxpayers should be assured that these millions will not be 
misused by North Korea. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join Senator 
Murkowski and me in ensuring these funds are expended only if certain 
reasonable conditions are met. I urge the adoption of the Murkowski-
McCain amendment.


                           amendment no. 5028

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I voted against the Helms amendment 
because it would prohibit the United States government from making 
certain payments to the United Nations if the United Nations ``borrows 
funds from any international financial institution.'' It may be 
necessary for the United Nations to borrow such funds to keep operating 
for a wide variety of contingencies.

[[Page S8854]]

  The amendment also prohibits the U.S. Government from making certain 
payments to the United Nations if the United Nations attempts to 
``impose any taxation or fee on any United States persons.'' I would 
certainly support an amendment which only prohibited an attempt by the 
United Nations to impose a tax or fee on any United States persons 
because that would violate fundamental U.S. sovereignty.
  Since this amendment goes beyond the tax or fee issue and prohibits 
borrowing, I opposed the amendment.


                           amendment no. 5059

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the managers of the 
bill, Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy for accepting the Inouye-
D'Amato amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that the German 
Government expand the criteria by which Holocaust survivors may qualify 
for compensation.
  Time is of the essence. Most of the survivors are in their mid-to-
late seventies. Each day of delay causes the survivors of one of the 
most gruesome atrocities mankind has ever witnessed to move a day 
closer to never recovering the compensation, albeit symbolic, they 
certainly deserve.
  The German Government and the United States Conference on Jewish 
Material Claims Against Germany are about to engage in the yearly 
process of negotiating new categories by which survivors of the 
Holocaust are entitled to receive compensation.
  I recognize that there is absolutely no amount of financial 
remuneration that can adequately compensate these survivors for the 
unimaginable suffering they experienced. However, in many cases, 
pensions of approximately $300 to $500 a month will make a significant 
difference in the lifestyle these survivors will experience in their 
golden years.
  I would like to take a moment to share with my colleagues the type of 
hardship my constituent Mr. Armin Nagel experienced while interned at 
the Vapniarka camp in Romania.
  Mr. Nagel was interned during World War II in Transnistria, in the 
Vapniarka concentration camp and in the Grosulovo ghetto just inside 
the Romanian border.
  Vapniarka was a camp used primarily for Jews. In mid-September of 
1942 over 1,000 Jews, of which about 400 were from the Tirgu Jiu camp, 
were transferred to Vapniarka by train through Tiraspol. They joined 
the 630 Jews from Bessarabia and Bucovina and about 50 to 60 Ukrainian 
inmates already interned there. In mid-October of 1943, 700 Jewish 
survivors were transferred from Vapniarka to the Grosulovo Ghetto and 
the Vapniarka camp was closed. While in Vapniarka, the inmates were 
severely beaten by their guards and by fellow Ukrainian inmates.
  Based on survivors' testimonies, Raul Hilberg, in his book ``The 
Destruction of the European Jews,'' describes the food that the inmates 
received as follows:

       Vapniarka was the site of a unique Romanian nutritional 
     policy. The inmates were regularly fed 400 grams of a kind of 
     chick pea (tathyrus savitus) which Soviet agriculturists had 
     been giving to hogs, cooked in water and salt and mixed with 
     200 grams of barley to which was added a 20-percent filler of 
     straw. No other diet was allowed. The result of this diet 
     manifested itself in muscular cramps, uncertain gait, 
     arterial spasms in the legs, paralysis and incapacitation.

  This is just one example of the type of terrible treatment the 
prisoners experienced at Vapniarka.
  Mr. Nagel has been denied a pension by the German authorities because 
Vapniarka has been categorized as a labor camp. Today, Mr. Nagel is 76 
years old and survives on a moderate income supplemented by Social 
Security. This enables him to meet his basic necessities of food, 
shelter and clothing. A pension of $300 to $500 a month will make the 
difference between making ends meet and being able to live a decent 
lifestyle during his golden years.
  Through this resolution the Senate encourages the German Government 
to negotiate expediently and in good faith with the United States 
Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany.


             clarification of the ban on aid to azerbaijan

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, in 1992, war in the Caucasus led Congress 
to approve a ban on direct U.S. aid to the Government of Azerbaijan 
under what is known as ``section 907.'' Although section 907 was not 
intended to deny humanitarian aid to the war-ravaged population of 
Azerbaijan, it has done just that.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the effort today to clarify section 
907, making humanitarian aid to nearly 1 million in Azerbaijan easier 
to deliver.
  This effort represents a true humanitarian action, while at the same 
time aiding the stabilization of the Caucasus, one of the hotspots of 
the former Soviet Union.
  Section 907 currently prevent non-governmental organizations [NGOs] 
receiving U.S. funding from dealing with the Government of Azerbaijan 
in carrying out humanitarian missions in the country.
  In formerly Soviet Azerbaijan, the Government controls a large 
portion of the economy, so this restriction makes it very difficult for 
aid organizations to efficiently deliver much-needed help to the 
900,000 refugees from the war with Armenia.
  Some examples of the problems section 907 has created for the 
International Rescue Committee [IRC], Rescue International [RI] and 
CARE, independent relief agencies, are as follows:
  International Rescue Committee [IRC] initially stored medical 
supplies in Azerbaijan under tarps on the street, because section 907 
precluded renting Azerbaijan Government-owned warehouse space. When the 
Government allowed IRC to use the space rent free, IRC still had to 
store the supplies under tarps inside the warehouse because IRC was not 
permitted to pay to repair a leaking roof, since that would have been 
contact with the Government of Azerbaijan.
  Relief International [RI] was unable to cooperate with a 1994 UNICEF 
child immunization program in Azerbaijan, despite major need for such a 
program, because UNICEF was working with Azerbaijan's Ministry of 
Health on the project.
  This year, CARE withdrew a proposal to USAID to rehabilitate 
buildings and railroad cars as shelters for displaced Azerbaijanis, 
because the structures were government owned.
  RI has been unable to do equal-value exchanges of pharmaceuticals 
with other non-American, nongovernmental organizations [NGOs] in 
Azerbaijan, a common practice in areas with scarce medical resources, 
because these other NGO's cooperate with the government.
  Two thousand IRC-built latrines to prevent water-borne diseases among 
the refugee population cost twice what they should have, because a 
middleman had to be retained for purchasing supplies so as not to 
conduct business with the Government.
  The extreme gravity of the humanitarian situation in the country was 
best illustrated in a recent cable to the State Department from the 
current United States Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Richard Kauzlarich. In 
the cable, the ambassador cited the horrifying preliminary results of a 
medical survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, UNICEF and 
the World Health Organization in Azerbaijan earlier this year:

  Seventy percent of displaced children in Azerbaijan between the ages 
of 12 and 23 months suffer from anemia. This can cause irreversible 
problems in their mental development. Anemia is also widespread in the 
adult population.
  Thirty percent of displaced children in Azerbaijan between the ages 
of 6 and 11 months suffer stunted growth caused by malnutrition; 11 
percent of the elderly also suffer malnutrition.
  Twenty-four percent of Azerbaijani displaced children suffer from 
diarrhea.
  Seventeen percent of the displaced population suffer from iodine 
deficiency disorders (goiter).
  The message in the ambassador's cable is clear--The United States 
must act now to clarify section 907 and try to stem the growing 
humanitarian crisis in Azerbaijan.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ambassador's cable and a 
1994 report by USAID on the effects of the section 907 ban on 
Azerbaijan be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. COHEN. Finally, Mr. President, action to clarify section 907 is 
in the U.S. national security interest. On a

[[Page S8855]]

strategic level, section 907 may force Azerbaijan back under the 
Russian yoke. A number of other ex-Soviet republics have been coerced 
into compromised relationships with Moscow, because they have been 
unable to build strong national institutions.
  Azerbaijan has so far resisted Russian and Iranian pressure and is 
striving to maintain its sovereignty by developing its large oil 
reserves.
  The suffering and privation aggravated by section 907, however, make 
the Azerbaijan's quest for sovereignty more difficult.
  Mr. President, I know that the Azeri-Armenian conflict evokes deep 
passion in many of my colleagues, but the easing of the suffering of 
displaced civilians, children and refugees is not a political 
statement, it is a moral imperative.
  The war in the Caucasus is now winding to a close on terms favorable 
to Armenia and the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. While a 
peace treaty has not yet been signed, both sides in the war have shown 
a desire to negotiate and turn their embattled countries to the task of 
rebuilding and recovery. Clarifying section 907 is essential to speed 
that process.
  Mr. President, this issue presents us with a simple question: Does 
the United States want to act now to speed the process of recovery, 
rebuilding, and democratization, or do we want to stand by and allow 
want and isolation to doom Azerbaijan and the Caucasus as a whole to a 
future of instability, authoritarianism, conflict and subjugation to 
reactionaries in Moscow?
  I commend Senator Byrd for his initiative in seeking to clarify the 
section 907 ban.

                               Exhibit 1

   Subject: A Generation Lost: Alarming News About The Health of IDP 
                                Children

       First, summary: The 900,000 refugees and internally 
     displaced persons [IDPS] remain the world's forgotten 
     tradegy. The tragedy must end now. According to the 
     preliminary results of a CDC/UN health survey on the IDPS--
     they have health problems that are significantly worse than 
     CDC anticipated. That the IDPS suffer from poor nutrition, 
     lack of access to health care and chronic diarrhea among 
     children was predictable. However, much more shocking were 
     the CDC's findings of stunted growth in children, a high 
     incidence of goiter and widespread anemia. Some of this could 
     result in mental retardation for the worst affected children 
     in the camps. This is not 1992. The authors of FSA 907 did 
     not intend that the U.S. Government not respond to such 
     suffering of little kids. On humanitarian grounds, the United 
     States must act--even if it means some contact with the 
     government public health service--to meet this long-ignored 
     crisis. End summary.
       Second, Ibrahim Parvanta of the Centers for Disease Control 
     [CDC] met with the Ambassador on April 19 to discuss the 
     preliminary results of CDC's aid-funded medical survey of 
     IDPS in Azerbaijan. From March 27 through April 19, the World 
     Health Organization [WHO], the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention [CDC] and UNICEF, in collaboration with Relief 
     International [RI] and Medicines Sans Frontieres/Holland 
     [MSF/H] conducted a nation-wide health and nutrition survey 
     in Azerbaijan. The survey covered 55 districts with an 
     estimated population of 620,000 IDPS and the non-IDP 
     population of the country for comparison purposes. Because of 
     section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, CDC's part of the 
     survey could only focus on the IDP population, using PVO 
     support. WHO/UNICEF focused on the general population with 
     government of Azerbiajan support. Parvanta highlighted the 
     following preliminary findings of the survey.


                            food insecurity

       Forty-nine percent of all IDP families and 29 percent of 
     resident families surveyed, skipped meals during the week 
     before the survey.
       Members of 46 percent of IDP households and of 31 percent 
     of resident households had not eaten meat during the 
     preceding 2 weeks.


                       stunted growth in children

       Children in Azerbaijan suffer fromn chronic health and 
     nutrition problems that lead to stunted growth. The long term 
     functional implications on physical work capacity, 
     intellectual development and overall health may be 
     significant. Recurrent clinical and sub-clinical infections, 
     as well as nutritional deficiencies (particularly 
     micronutrients) may be responsible for this condition. 
     Parvanta stressed that stunted growth was higher among IDP 
     children aged 6-11 months (30.7%) than the same age group in 
     resident population (21.3%).


                       health care: out of reach

       Poor access to health care is currently a serious problem, 
     particularly for IDPS in Azerbaijan. Most often, ill people 
     who want treatment cannot afford it. (Despite a public health 
     system which supposedly provides free medical care, Azeris 
     must pay to obtain medical treatment.) Thirty-seven percent 
     of people surveyed said that they did not seek medical 
     treatment the last time someone in their family was sick. The 
     main reason, specified in 68 percent of cases, was an 
     inability to pay.
       Twenty-four percent of IDP children and 16 percent of the 
     resident children (ages 0 to 59 months) were reported to 
     suffer from diarrhea.
       Seventeen percent of the surveyed population were 
     discovered to have iodine deficiency disorders (goiter). The 
     prevalence of goiter varies considerably by region.
       Seventy percent of IDP children 12 to 23 months old were 
     reported to suffer from anemia. Parvanta said that this 
     figure is far higher than they expected to find here. If iron 
     deficiency is the main cause of anemia in Azerbaijan, then 
     many children risk significant and potentially irreversible 
     consequences to their mental development. Anemia is also a 
     wide-spread problem for adults.
       Third, Parvanta cautioned that CDC would have to further 
     analyze the data before reaching final conclusions. The 
     Ambassador asked whether the survey work had uncovered 
     evidence of the WHO-reported malaria among IDPS. He said that 
     they had not although this was yet not mosquito season. 
     Noting that he has previously worked in Armenia, Parvanta 
     added that living conditions are considerably worse for the 
     IDPS in Azerbaijan than refugees in Armenia.


                                COMMENT

       Fourth, we commend CDC for this evaluation of the state of 
     health and nutrition of IDPs in Azerbaijan. The CDC's 
     unexpected findings that young IDP children suffer from 
     stunted growth, anemia and goiter are alarming. As previously 
     reported, there are reports from WHO and others that malaria 
     is a growing problem in southern Azerbaijan at the southern 
     camps near Sabirabad and Imishli where 46,000 IDPs live in 
     wretched conditions. We believe that the IDPs--especially 
     children--are more susceptible to malaria due to their high 
     levels of anemia and general poor health.
       Fifth, we will not prejudge CDC's final conclusions. 
     Nonetheless, we believe that malnutrition and miserable 
     living conditions in camps, rail cars and decrepit public 
     buildings have severely damaged an entire generation of IDP 
     children. We need to rethink the possibility of targeting 
     medical assistance to these IDP children. It will involve 
     some contact with the government but the assistance would be 
     provided through PVOs. The humanitarian need is there. The 
     administration should go to the Congress and describe the 
     suffering of Azerbaijan's IDPs and the importance of the 
     United States doing something about this on humanitarian 
     grounds. The authors of FSA 907 did not intend to prevent 
     refugee children from receiving medical care and food 
     supplements necessary to lead normal lives. There is a crying 
     need for more help from western donors--including the United 
     States--to provide basic health care for Azerbaijan's IDPs, 
     the neediest people in the region.
                                                                    ____


  The Impact of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act on Delivery of 
        Humanitarian Assistance to Azerbaijan--October 21, 1994


                           PURPOSE OF REPORT

       The purpose of this report is to respond to language of the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee report on the Fiscal Year 
     1995 foreign operations appropriations bill (Report No. 103-
     287, page 77) stating that:
       ``Within 60 days of enactment of this bill into law, the 
     President shall report to the Congress of [sic] the impact of 
     section 907 of the Freedom Support Act (Public Law, 102-511) 
     on efforts by private voluntary organizations to provide 
     humanitarian, refugee, and disaster assistance.''
       This report provides background on humanitarian relief 
     needs in Azerbaijan, a description of United States 
     Government-funded PVO humanitarian assistance operations in 
     Azerbaijan, and an assessment of the impact of Section 907 on 
     these activities.


                               BACKGROUND

       As a result of the conflict over the status of the Nagorno-
     Karabakh region, Azerbaijan has one of the world's worst 
     refugee/internally displaced person (IDP) situations. The 
     current estimated numbers in these two categories are:

Refugees (mostly from Armenia)..................................250,000
Internally Displaced Persons (IDP)..............................658,000
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Total.......................................................908,000
       Of the IDPs, 10% are currently living in organized camps, 
     and the rest are either living with host families, in public 
     buildings, government-provided shelters (sanatoria), hostels, 
     unused railway wagons, or crude earth pits.
       Some key facts regarding the condition of Azerbaijan's IDPs 
     and refugees: hepatitis cases increased by 144% since January 
     1993; water-borne diseases among children are up 18% and 
     salmonellosis is up 70% in the first eight months of 1994 
     compared to all of 1993; the leading cause of infant 
     mortality and main reason for hospitalization is acute 
     respiratory infections; drugs previously supplied by the 
     former Soviet central system have decreased from 75% of 
     the country's needs to 5%.
       A substantial portion of Azerbaijan's territory, including 
     most of the best agricultural land, is occupied by Nagorno-
     Karabakh Armenian forces, and there has been substantial 
     damage to the infrastructure.

[[Page S8856]]

       Budgetary insolvency has severely strained the ability of 
     the social welfare system to continue to support over one 
     million beneficiaries. Some 200 schools country-wide are 
     occupied by refugees and IDPs (58,500 children are unable to 
     attend school on a regular basis).
       Of the total IDP/refugee population, those most in need--
     i.e. those who have few or no alternative sources of income--
     are estimated to number 430,000. Some of the families hosting 
     the displaced, pensioners, orphans, handicapped and disabled 
     people bring the total vulnerable population in need of 
     assistance to 450,000.


       united states government-funded pvo programs in azerbaijan

       USG-funded humanitarian assistance programs in Azerbaijan 
     are being implemented by several US PVOs. USAID-funded PVO 
     activities are managed by Save the Children Federation (SCF) 
     under an umbrella grant. SCF-managed programs are principally 
     in the areas of food, health care, and shelter for refugees 
     and IDPs. USDA is implementing several food assistance 
     programs for refugees and IDPs through US PVOs under the Food 
     for Progress program. USAID provides funds and food 
     commodities for international organizations delivering relief 
     in Azerbaijan. These resources are delivered to beneficiaries 
     through PVOs.


                         impact of section 907

       The principal impact of Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support 
     Act on delivery of humanitarian assistance by private 
     voluntary organizations (PVOs) to those in need in Azerbaijan 
     has been to complicate or preclude activities involving 
     unavoidable contact or interaction with government-controlled 
     enterprises, institutions, and facilities. In many cases 
     where relief activities can be conducted in compliance 
     with Section 907, the restrictions of that legislation 
     have increased costs of operations and thereby reduced the 
     scope and impact of the activities.
       As the state domination of the entire economy inherited 
     from the Soviet era has barely changed in Azerbaijan, Section 
     907 has had a substantial impact on delivery of humanitarian 
     assistance. Following are examples of the impact of Section 
     907 to date.


                            medical services

       Section 907 has blocked or complicated delivery of medical 
     assistance to those in need by USG-funded PVOs. As 
     Azerbaijan's public health system is entirely state-
     controlled, it is very difficult to implement some medical 
     assistance projects without providing assistance through 
     government instrumentalities.
       To ensure that it was not violating Section 907, one PVO 
     developed a limited, parallel health care program for the 
     displaced alongside the government program, which is wasteful 
     and contrary to good public health practice. This same PVO 
     has also refrained from utilizing locally available medical 
     personnel in its programs because they are all government 
     employees, an obstacle that has severely limited the PVO's 
     ability to reach those in need. Finally, many public health 
     activities such as child immunization are by their very 
     nature best conducted via the state health system, but 
     because of Section 907 PVOs have felt they are unable to 
     assist in these basic preventative programs.


              use of state-owned infrastructure/facilities

       As virtually all facilities and transportation equipment in 
     Azerbaijan are state-owned, compliance with Section 907 has 
     made use of basic infrastructure (warehouses, truck fleets, 
     and other transportation and storage equipment) difficult.
       One USG-funded PVO operating in Azerbaijan has, in an 
     attempt to reduce contact with the state sector, invested 
     great time and effort in trying to secure privately-owned 
     warehouse space for storage of relief commodities. In the end 
     there was no alternative to the state-owned facility. Once 
     use of the state-owned facility was chosen, the issue of rent 
     payment continued to complicate relations with the facility 
     management, as the PVO believed Section 907 precluded 
     compensation of any state-owned facilities for services.
       Another issue has arisen in connection with one of the 
     warehouses being used by this PVO--repairs to state-owned 
     facilities. One of the warehouses in question has developed a 
     leaky roof. Believing that Section 907 precluded use of PVO 
     funds to make essential warehouse repairs to protect relief 
     commodities in the warehouse, the PVO has covered the 
     supplies with tarpaulins but fears that some damage to the 
     commodities will result when seasonal rains arrive. In this 
     case, the PVO's efforts to comply strictly with Section 907 
     resulted in wasted time, energy, and probably damaged relief 
     commodities.


           Relief-related rehabilitation of public buildings

       The rehabilitation of public buildings being used as 
     shelter by displaced persons in Azerbaijan was a priority 
     need identified by one implementing USG-funded PVO. However, 
     as the PVO believed that Section 907 precluded repairs (in 
     this case winterization and sanitation upgrades) to state-
     owned buildings, the project was not implemented. As a large 
     number of displaced persons and refugees are necessarily 
     accommodated in public buildings not designed as residential 
     structures, this aspect of Section 907 has had a major impact 
     on delivery of assistance to those in need in Azerbaijan.


                Local procurement of goods and services

       In some cases PVOs have interpreted Section 907 in a manner 
     that precluded local procurement of essential goods and 
     services, or made such procurement more difficult and more 
     costly. For example, one POV project involved improving 
     access to safe water supplies by drilling wells. However, the 
     only available company that could preform the work was state-
     owned, so the project was not implemented.
       Because of the way they have interpreted Section 907, USG-
     funded PVOs trying to procure goods locally have made 
     prolonged efforts to find privately owned vendors or 
     suppliers. In many cases the privately owned suppliers are 
     merely intermediaries who pass on state-produced goods at a 
     higher price. In addition, exclusion of state-owned sources 
     has made competitive bidding impractical, and probably 
     resulted in higher costs.


                      aid to turkey and azerbaijan

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to engage the subcommittee 
leadership in a colloquy regarding our policy toward Turkey and the 
Caucasus in this bill. The importance of this strategic region for U.S. 
policy can hardly be overstated, and the bill as passed by the House 
has a number of very troublesome provisions.
  Senator McConnell, as I understand it, the House bill as it passed 
has several provisions that have the probability of damaging our 
relations with Turkey, our ally, and Azerbaijan, our friend to the east 
of Turkey in the Caucasus. The Turkey provision would link our aid to 
forced admissions by the Turkish government on historic events, 
admissions that are strongly repugnant to and rejected by Turkey. This 
is really a bilateral matter between Turkey and Armenia which should be 
worked out between those two states. As a result of that House 
provision, the ambassador from Turkey has asked us to retract our 
provision of economic aid. That is a sorry state of affairs. They would 
rather not have the aid if it is tied up in conditions that are onerous 
to the Turkish government and people. I do not blame the Turkish 
government for its reaction to this provision. I understand that the 
Committee has struck that House provision and I congratulate Senator 
McConnell and Senator Leahy for that. That is the responsible thing to 
do.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. On the matter of Azerbaijan, I understand that the House 
included a provision which would imply separate legal status to 
Nagorno-Karabagh, a region of Azerbaijan. The international community, 
through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has 
already recognized the current borders of Azerbaijan as constituting 
its territorial integrity. Thus, a separate legal status for Nagorno-
Karabagh is opposed by the international community and is against the 
policy of the United States. I understand, again, that the subcommittee 
struck the provision.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Further, humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan has been 
interrupted because of a policy adopted in 1992 to cut off U.S. aid to 
that nation as a result of its conflict with Armenia. In 1992, a war 
between Armenia and Azerbaijan led Congress to ban direct U.S. aid to 
Azerbaijan. This was included as Section 907 of the 1992 law called the 
Freedom Support Act, which was intended to provide economic and other 
aid to former Soviet republics to assist their transition to free and 
independent states with solid ties to the West and open markets for 
American business. As currently interpreted, Section 907 prevents U.S.-
funded non-governmental organizations from dealing with Azerbaijan's 
government in carrying out humanitarian missions. In formerly-Soviet 
Azerbaijan, the government still controls a large portion of the 
economy, making it difficult, under Section 907, for aid organizations 
to deliver much-needed help to Azerbaijan's population, nearly a 
million of whom are displaced persons and refugees.
  The findings of a recently released report on the refugee health 
crisis in Azerbaijan, by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, UNICEF 
and the World Health Organization cites serious difficulties in 
delivering vital medical supplies and other aid because Section 907's 
ban on direct U.S. aid has been broadly interpreted and used to 
restrict the delivery of such aid. This was never the intent of Section 
907. Am I correct in this statement?
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is entirely correct, the section was never 
intended to restrict the delivery of humanitarian aid.

[[Page S8857]]

  Mr. BYRD. The House has included a provision which would set up an 
artificial ratio of humanitarian aid relative to Azerbaijan and its 
region of Nagorno-Karabagh. Such ratios have no precedent in the 
delivery of humanitarian aid and are clearly unworkable. I understand 
the subcommittee has struck that provision.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is, again, correct. Such an artificial mechanism 
in directing humanitarian aid has never been used and I do not know how 
it could be administered.
  Mr. BYRD. It is in our interest to ensure that humanitarian aid get 
through to all needy people who are suffering as a result of the war. 
The chairman, in the action of the full committee, included language 
suggested by the ranking member and myself which clarified our intent 
that humanitarian aid be effectively delivered using the facilities of 
the government of Azerbaijan. If the facilities of that government are 
not used, much of the aid would not be able to be delivered, as I 
understand it. Further, I have a letter from the Department of State 
indicating the Administration agrees entirely with this policy and 
stating the intent of the Administration to revise its State Department 
guidelines in regard to that region in order to ensure there is no 
further ambiguity as to the delivery of food, medicines and the like 
into Azerbaijan with the assistance of government personnel and 
facilities there such as warehouses, clinics and other logistical 
support.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes I understand the guidelines will be issued 
promptly after the passage of this bill.
  Mr. BYRD. There is still some concern on the part of the 
organizations that deliver the aid that a statutory provision 
recognizing this policy might be needed to ensure the aid can in fact 
be delivered as we intend. I have prepared such an amendment and it is 
co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Reid, Johnston, Jeffords, Inouye, 
Cohen, Lugar, and Murkowski. The language would directly reflect the 
report language already agreed to. However, I am willing to withhold 
that amendment if the chairman can assure me that he will defend the 
Senate position in conference and continue to resist the onerous House 
provisions I have referred to regarding Turkey and Azerbaijan. Lastly, 
I would ask that the language regarding the delivery of humanitarian 
aid that we included in the Senate committee report be included in the 
Statement of Managers of the Conference Report.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I appreciate the Senator's position. I fully intend to 
resist the House provisions he referred to and we are in complete 
agreement on what should be the nature of sound U.S. policy toward this 
region. I will support the Senate position in conference, and I am sure 
that I will have the support of the ranking member and all of our 
conferees on this matter. I thank the Senator for his interest in this 
important matter and in the fate of that region and U.S. interests 
there, which are vital.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
the letter which I referred to dated July 11, 1996 to me from Ms. 
Barbara Larkin, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative 
Affairs be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 1996.
       Dear Senator Byrd: This letter is in response to your 
     request for our views on language on assistance to Azerbaijan 
     included in the report accompanying the FY 97 Senate Foreign 
     Operations bill. You are aware of our long-standing position 
     regarding aid to Azerbaijan.
       As written, this language, as well as similar report 
     language accompanying the House bill, is useful in clarifying 
     congressional intent on interpretation of Section 907 of the 
     FREEDOM Support Act insofar as the delivery of humanitarian 
     assistance is concerned, and is consistent with our views in 
     this regard. We understand this language to express the 
     congressional view that Section 907 should not be interpreted 
     to preclude nongovernmental and international organizations 
     from using and repairing Government of Azerbaijan facilities 
     or services to deliver humanitarian assistance to needy 
     civilians, and that humanitarian supplies may be transferred 
     to Government personnel for the purpose of distribution. 
     Further, we understand that the Committee intends that needy 
     civilians be permitted to receive assistance in growing their 
     own food for sustenance, and are not precluded from selling 
     the excess in the private sector. We understand that the 
     Committee expects, as do we, private voluntary and 
     international organizations to maintain effective monitoring 
     procedures to assure appropriate supervision over supplies 
     and recipients.
       Consistent with current law and the FY 97 Appropriations 
     process, we intend to revise the State Department and USAID 
     guidelines regarding the provision of assistance to 
     Azerbaijan to reflect this mutual understanding of Section 
     907's scope.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                               Barbara Larkin,

                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.


                           aid to azerbaijan

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of 
Senator Byrd's comments regarding aid to Azerbaijan in his colloquy 
with Senator McConnell. I understand that Senator Byrd had intended to 
offer an amendment, which I cosponsored, to the foreign operations 
appropriations bill on this issue.
  Mr. President, Azerbaijan is the only one of the fifteen former 
Soviet Republics to be denied assistance in the Freedom Support Act. 
Humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan has been denied as a result of its 
conflict with Armenia. Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, as 
currently interpreted, prevents U.S.-funded nongovernmental 
organizations from dealing with Azerbaijan's government in carrying out 
humanitarian missions. Section 907 states, ``U.S. Assistance * * * may 
not be provided to the Government of Azerbaijan until the President 
determines, and so reports to Congress, that the Government of 
Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and 
other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.''
  The need for humanitarian aid in Azerbaijan is great, and Section 907 
makes it difficult for aid organizations to deliver the much-needed 
assistance to the people of Azerbaijan, nearly a million of whom are 
displaced persons and refugees. The U.S. Center for Disease Control, 
UNICEF and the World Health Organization have all cited serious 
difficulties in delivering vital medical supplies and other aid to 
Azerbaijan because of Section 907's ban on direct U.S. aid. However, 
this was never the real intent of Section 907. Report language which 
clarified the intent that humanitarian aid be delivered using the 
facilities of the government of Azerbaijan has been added to this bill. 
I understand that Senator Byrd agreed to withhold his amendment, which 
I co-sponsored, with the understanding that the chairman will defend 
the Senate position in conference and continue to resist the House 
provisions.
  It is important to recognize the economic and strategic potential of 
Azerbaijan. The country, known as ``the Kuwait of the Caspian'' has 
proven oil reserves of three billion barrels. Experts has put the 
ultimate potential of the country as high as forty billion barrels of 
oil. Gas reserves of the country are 184 billion cubic meters on the 
discovered fields. In 1994, a consortium of Western oil companies 
signed an eight billion dollar production sharing agreement with the 
government of Azerbaijan. They have a thirty year contract to work on 
the Guneshli-Chirag-Azeri offshore fields. U.S. companies have a good 
opportunity now to establish a commercial relationships with 
Azerbaijan.
  The strategic potential of Azerbaijan is also very important, and 
should be brought to the attention of policymakers. Russia, the United 
States, the European Union, Turkey and Iran all have a great interest 
in the geo-political and economic state of affairs in Caspian Sea Rim 
Region. Whether the pipeline from Baku to Novorossiisk will be able to 
be used, presents a stability question, since it passes through war-
torn Chechnya. In addition, while U.S. oil company's have forty percent 
of the shares in one project and growing financial participation in 
other projects in the Caspian Rim, they have accepted Russia's leading 
role. Finally, Azerbaijan how has a secular muslim government, however, 
there is a Islamic fundamentalist influence that Azerbaijan has so far 
resisted, that is cause for concern. But Azerbaijan will not be able to 
develop, and reach its full potential if it is not able to receive the 
humanitarian assistance that it now needs from U.S. nongovernmental 
humanitarian organizations.

[[Page S8858]]

                           amendment no. 5047

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Dominici offered an amendment this 
evening to condition International Military Education and Training 
[IMET] assistance to Mexico on Mexican authorities apprehending and 
beginning prosecution of, or extraditing to the United States, drug 
traffickers.
  I fully agree with the sentiment of the amendment. Stemming the flow 
of drugs into the United States is absolutely vital to the quality of 
life and future of our Nation. I believe that we should encourage 
Mexican authorities to do everything in their power to take action 
against drug traffickers. However, I also believe that denying them 
IMET assistance is not the proper way of going about it.
  There are certainly other more beneficial ways to improve the level 
of cooperation between our two nations. We should not be in the 
business of threatening and coercing our friends.
  The continuation of IMET assistance is important in its own right, 
unconnected to the level of cooperation we receive on the issue of drug 
trafficking. Exposing foreign militaries to U.S. military procedure and 
ethics promotes our values. It helps create among these militaries a 
respect for the democratic rule of law and civilian leadership. Over 
time, this assistance will foster a far more productive United States-
Mexico relationship in the areas addressed by the amendment than will 
threatening sanctions


                                 Turkey

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I had intended today to offer a series 
of amendments regarding economic assistance to Turkey. These amendments 
would have been similar to the provisions included in the version of 
H.R. 3540 that was approved by the House of Representatives on May 22. 
Specifically, these provisions would cap economic support funds [ESF] 
at $25 million, and would lower that amount to $22 million if the 
Government of Turkey failed to acknowledge the tragic Armenian genocide 
that occurred from 1915 to 1923. The House also approved a provision 
that would restrict the President's authority to waive aid restrictions 
against those countries found violating the Humanitarian Aid Corridor 
Act.
  I support all these provisions. I know a number of my colleagues in 
the Senate support them as well. However, the bill before us on the 
floor does not contain any restrictions on economic aid to Turkey. I 
would note that the bill would make the Humanitarian Corridor Act 
permanent, and I commend the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, for doing so.
  As my colleagues well know, what we have before us today is a replay 
of last year's appropriations process. Last year, the House capped 
economic aid to Turkey at $21 million, and the Senate bill did not 
restrict economic assistance. The final bill capped economic aid to 
Turkey at $33.5 million. I believe that was a fair compromise.
  Mr. President, the reasons why Congress felt compelled to cap aid to 
one of our allies are several. I will not go into detail on these 
reasons because the record, most recently updated in the rigorous House 
debate on these issues, is quite substantive. There are four key 
concerns: Repeated human rights violations, its refusal to comply with 
the Humanitarian Corridor Act and allow aid shipments to Armenia, its 
continued military occupation of Cyprus, and its abuse of the Kurdish 
minority. On the last point, I am concerned particularly with the use 
of American military equipment against the Kurds.
  It's common practice for Congress to use foreign aid as leverage to 
achieve foreign policy and human rights goals. I have long advocated 
tougher restrictions on aid to Turkey to achieve a peaceful, free and 
united Cyprus. I have called on the President to suspend military sales 
to Turkey until it improves its human rights record. And I was a 
cosponsor of the Humanitarian Corridor Act.
  I believe we sent a very strong signal to Turkey last year when we 
agreed to cap economic assistance and passed the Humanitarian Corridor 
Act. To retreat from that strong stand would send the wrong signal and 
remove a vital piece of leverage we need to make progress on the key 
issues I have raised.
  As I said, I had intended to offer amendments to restrict economic 
assistance to Turkey. However, I believe that, if past is prologue, the 
best course of action to pursue is to work with the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator 
Leahy, and their counterparts in the House.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee on the floor. I would just urge that he take my concerns, 
the concerns of my colleagues and clearly, the concerns of the strong 
majority of our counterparts in the House into consideration as he 
moves to conference on this legislation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from South Dakota. I appreciate his 
willingness to work with me to achieve an appropriate solution to the 
controversies surrounding economic assistance to Turkey. This is a very 
controversial issue. I know he has been an outspoken advocate of a 
free, united Cyprus for many years now. He can be assured that I will 
take his views into consideration as we go to conference on this bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my friend from Kentucky.


                      Development Fund For Africa

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the foreign 
operations appropriations bill for fiscal 1997, I would like to share 
with my colleagues once again my thoughts on the importance of our 
foreign assistance program in Africa.
  I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Simon-Kassebaum 
amendment which restores the designation of the Development Fund for 
Africa.
  Mr. President, as the ranking Democrat of the Africa Subcommittee, I 
have become increasingly aware of how the 48 countries of sub-Saharan 
Africa represent important security concerns for the United States. As 
we head toward the 21st century--an era that will no doubt be marked by 
transnational concerns--Africa is becoming even more relevant to United 
States interests, our economic, political, humanitarian, and security 
concerns.
  Long-term development assistance to African nations--whether through 
bi-lateral or multilateral channels--directly complements U.S. foreign 
policy goals and national security interests.
  There are several examples of this complementarity.
  First, we have an interest in a safe and healthy environment. The 
rapid spread of the Ebola virus demonstrated some of the 
vulnerabilities on the continent. Now, unfortunately, the rates of HIV 
and AIDS infections in Africa are the highest in the world, and they 
are continuing to rise rapidly. As we have seen, viruses do not need 
visas.
  Second, we have an interest in expanding trade and investment ties 
with the African continent. U.S. exports to Africa expanded by 22.7 
percent in 1995--this is nearly twice the growth rate of total U.S. 
exports worldwide. Already U.S. exports to Africa equal 54 percent more 
than our exports to the former Soviet Union. We export more to South 
Africa alone than to all of Eastern Europe combined.
  Third, we have an interest in democracy. Well over half of African 
nations now can be considered democratic or have made substantial 
progress toward democracy. Many of these nations also are moving toward 
free-market economies.
  Fourth, we have an interest in human resource development. Sub-
Saharan Africa has the fastest growing and poorest population in the 
world. A substantial percentage of Africa's population is under 18 
years of age. These children will soon grow to adulthood and I would 
hope there will be opportunities for them to engage in productive 
activities.
  At the same time, Africa's infant and child mortality rates are 2 to 
3 times higher than those in Latin America or Asia.
  Finally, we have an interest in security. It is unfortunate, but 
Africa also is home to terrorist activity and to drug and arms 
trafficking.
  Mr. President, a stable African continent serves American interests.
  The Development Fund for Africa (DFA) was established nearly 10 years 
ago specifically to ensure a steady source of long-term development 
funds for Africa.
  In the past 8 years, the DFA has contributed to substantial gains in 
health

[[Page S8859]]

care, education, small business development, democracy, and stability.
  The DFA is about investing in development and not in crises. The 
types of challenges we face in Africa today are very complex and 
require long-term solutions. And this requires long-term investment.
  By restoring the DFA account, we give the administration the 
opportunity to capitalize on that investment.
  I will make a budgetary argument as well. My colleagues know that 
since my election to the Senate, I have been a consistent deficit hawk. 
So, I always look for areas where we can cut wasteful Government 
spending.
  Mr. President, the Development Fund for Africa is not one of these 
areas. On the contrary, it is one of the most effective programs in our 
foreign assistance package. In fact, the Agency for International 
Development has based many of its reform initiatives on lessons learned 
through DFA programs.
  As a result of DFA assistance, African farmers are growing more food, 
more children are attending primary school, and more informal sector 
entrepreneurs have access to credit than was possible 10 years ago.
  And the United States has played a key role in helping several 
African countries experience dramatic drops in fertility through 
effective family planning and health care programs.
  In sum, Mr. President, restoring DFA through the Simon-Kassebaum 
amendment represents a sound investment in our relationship with the 
continent of Africa. It does not call for any new money. It does not 
take funds away from any other region. But it does signal our continued 
interest in remaining engaged with Africa.
  I would also note that passage of this amendment would be a fitting 
tribute for the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Illinois. 
These two Senators, who long ago recognized the importance of remaining 
engaged with Africa, were instrumental in getting the DFA established 
in the first place. And both have demonstrated leadership on this issue 
throughout the years.
  In honor of their hard work on this and other issues of concern to 
Africa, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.


                      Military Sales to Indonesia

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the foreign 
operations appropriations bill, I would like to once again raise the 
issue of the human rights situation in Indonesia.
  As my colleagues may remember, in 1994, the Senate adopted an 
amendment which I cosponsored with Senator Leahy to the fiscal year 
1995 foreign operations legislation. A similar amendment was adopted by 
the Foreign Relations Committee in the 1995 authorization bill. These 
provisions restricted the sale of light arms to Indonesia in light of 
concerns related to East Timor.
  Last year, however, the State Department sent a letter to Senator 
Leahy and myself outlining the Administration's policy toward arms 
transfers to Indonesia. The letter said--and I quote--``our current 
arms sales policy . . . prohibits the sale or licensing for export of 
small or light arms and crowd control items until the Secretary has 
determined that there has been significant progress on human rights in 
Indonesia, including in East Timor.'' In light of the Administration's 
willingness to continue voluntarily this prohibition on the sale of 
such items, we withheld offering statutory language on last year's 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, we are now debating our foreign assistance program for 
a new fiscal year, and the situation in the East Timor continues to 
worsen. As every member of this body knows, Indonesia has sustained a 
brutal military occupation of East Timor since 1975. Every human rights 
organization in the world has criticized Indonesia's human rights 
record, particularly in East Timor. The State Department has 
consistently reported human rights violations by Indonesia's military, 
including in its most recent report.
  Since the Indonesians invaded East Timor 20 years ago, more than 
200,000 East Timorese--about a third of the population--have died. But 
the Indonesian strategy of trying to control East Timor through a 
combination of infrastructural development and tight internal security 
has failed to win acceptance of Indonesian rule. Many Timorese are 
still marginalized and oppressed in their own homeland. Last year the 
United Nations Special Rapporteur reported that he saw ``an atmosphere 
of fear and suspicion'' in East Timor and that people were afraid to 
talk to him about the human rights abuses they and their families had 
suffered.
  Mr. President, East Timor made international headlines in 1991 when 
the military massacred, by conservative estimates, at least 100 East 
Timorese who were attending a funeral. The National Human Rights 
Commission in Jakarta now says it has evidence that the massacre was 
``not a spontaneous reaction to a riotous mob, but rather a planned 
military operation designed to deal with a public expression of 
political dissent.''
  And the tension in East Timor continues to intensify, influenced in 
part by the ongoing power struggles in Jakarta, the increased 
resentment of the presence of Indonesian military officers and 
vigilante groups, and the immigrant settlers brought in by Indonesia to 
consolidate their occupation of the island.
  In sum, I want to make it clear that Indonesia did virtually nothing 
in 1995 to improve its human rights record. A change in United States 
policy regarding the sale of military equipment is therefore 
unwarranted.
  The State Department and independent human rights organizations all 
report continued abuse of basic human rights in the East Timor 
including arbitrary arrests and detentions, curbs on freedom of 
expression and association, and the use of torture and summary killings 
of civilians.
  Early last year, several riots and demonstrations in East Timor were 
broken up violently by the Indonesian military. On January 12, 1995, 
outside of Dili, the capital, six East Timorese civilians were shot and 
killed by Indonesian troops. In September, riots broke out in Maliana 
and in Dili that were motivated by intense religious and ethnic 
tensions.
  The situation has deteriorated sharply in recent months. Just last 
month--on June 10, 1996--graffiti drawn on a picture of the Virgin Mary 
in the town of Baucau provoked riots during which Indonesian security 
forces opened fire and at least 150 people were arrested.
  This incident reflects what Human Rights Watch/Asia describes as ``an 
emerging pattern of provocative acts of religious desecrations or 
insult, followed by mass protests, followed by a crackdown by security 
forces.'' In fact, the Baucau riots represent the third such incident 
in East Timor in less than one year.
  Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that--despite the fact that the 
Government of Indonesia allowed for a visit to East Timor of the U.N. 
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jose Ayala Lasso, in December 1995, 
and despite the fact that the Government opened an office of the 
National Commission on Human Rights in Dili . . . despite some of these 
positive developments--the Government of Indonesia continues to engage 
in extrajudicial executions and killings and the systematic use of 
torture.
  And the Indonesians have engaged in these activities despite the 
country's great economic success of the past few years. Mr. President, 
I would like to dispel any myths among my colleagues that Indonesia's 
progress on the economic front has led to any progress in its human 
rights record.
  So, we have seen no progress in human rights in Indonesia. I had 
intended to propose an amendment which codifies the U.S. position on 
human rights and arms sales to Indonesia. In the past, I have advocated 
a much more comprehensive arms ban, which I wish we could pass. But a 
ban on small arms and crowd control weapons emphasizes a very important 
policy goal--that the United States is stepping away from 
responsibility for human rights abuses in Indonesia, and particularly 
in East Timor. As I have said before in this body, it is especially 
important that we establish this linkage between arms sales and human 
rights.
  In the meantime, however, the administration has once again provided 
us with written assurances that the existing ban on light arms sales to 
Indonesia will remain in effect. With that understanding, I will 
refrain, again, from efforts to codify this provision.
  Mr. President, the administration's policy sends a clear message to 
the

[[Page S8860]]

leaders of Indonesia that the United States will not be associated with 
nor will it tolerate their campaign of repression against the people of 
East Timor.
  We do not want to support human rights abuses in East Timor. We do 
not want weapons manufactured in the United States involved in 
massacres of peaceful protestors or in interrogations of activists that 
oppose the Indonesian armed forces. We do not want U.S. arms used to 
kill and torture the people of East Timor.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the administration is continuing 
this policy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                   Washington, DC., July 25, 1996.
     Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sen. Feingold: The Administration shares your concern 
     about reports of human rights abuses in Indonesia. We 
     continue to raise our concerns in meetings with Indonesian 
     officials, and Secretary Christopher made a point of meeting 
     with human rights activists during his visit to Jakarta this 
     week.
       We understand you may be considering an amendment to the 
     Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would further 
     restrict the types of defense items that can be sold or 
     licensed for export to Indonesia. While we support your 
     objective, we believe this amendment is unnecessary. The 
     Administration's policy already prohibits the sale of small 
     arms, crowd control equipment, and armored personnel 
     carriers, which we all agree should not be sold or 
     transferred to Indonesia until there is significant 
     improvement in the human rights situation there. This policy 
     has been effective, and the Administration will continue to 
     abide by the policy.
       We hope this information is responsive to your concerns. 
     Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                               Barbara Larkin,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.


              RUSSIAN FAR EAST AND AMERICAN-RUSSIAN CENTER

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of language in 
the Senate report for the foreign operations appropriations bill 
underlining the importance of the work of the United States West Coast-
Russian Far East Ad Hoc Working Group, and of the American-Russian 
Center in Anchorage, AK.
  Mr. President, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission's United States West 
Coast-Russian Far East Ad Hoc Working Group, under the leadership of 
Jan Kalicki, the Counselor to the Department of Commerce, is doing an 
outstanding job of developing a bilateral framework that will lead to 
increased trade and investment between the Russian Far East and west 
coast States. The first meeting of the working group was held in 
Seattle, WA, in June 1995. In an example of the importance of Alaska's 
relationship with the Russian Far East, the second meeting of the 
working group was held in Anchorage, AK, in March 1996. It was a very 
productive and successful event. I encourage all Senators from west 
coast States to become involved in the work of the group and to 
encourage businesses in their states to do so as well. The next meeting 
of the working group will take place in Khabarovsk, in the Russian Far 
East, from September 22 to 24, 1996.
  I have seen first-hand the growth in business activity between the 
States of the west coast and the Russian Far East. The economic reform 
efforts taking place in the Russian Far East, in such cities as 
Vladivostok and Khabarovsk are significant. For example, Vladivostok, 
once a closed city, now has a stock exchange. Economic reform will also 
progress as development of the oil and natural gas fields on the 
continental shelf north and northeast of Sakhalin Island. The oil 
development is being led by two major international oil consortiums 
with U.S. partners. They have already announced that they will start 
designing projects on Sakhalin Island worth $30 billion. Alaskans and 
citizens of other west coast States will be involved in that 
development. There are also gold, diamond, timber, and fisheries 
industries in the region. The Russian Far East's resources could 
provide the engine for growth, through its export revenues, for the 
economic restructuring of all of Russia.
  I have promoted ties between Alaska and the Russian Far East. In 1989 
I helped make possible, and traveled on the groundbreaking first flight 
from Nome to Providenya. From that initial step, relations between 
Alaska and the Russian Far East have gone very far, very fast. The 
working group is doing an outstanding job of setting priorities and 
coordinating joint efforts to move forward on projects and programs 
that will benefit both Russians and west coast States by building and 
increasing business ties between the two regions. The projects of the 
working group will bring about greater private sector development in 
the Russian Far East. The group has already proven to be an essential 
and integral part of the economic reform effort currently underway in 
Russia.
  In addition to my support for the working group, I would also like to 
take this opportunity to express my support for the American-Russian 
Center in Anchorage, AK. The Senate has wisely funded it in the foreign 
operations appropriations bill at the amount of $2,500,000 for its 
operation and training programs. The center has played an important 
role in the growth of business and exchanges between Alaska and the 
Russian Far East. The purpose of the center is to provide business 
training and technical assistance to the Russian Far East. It has 
training facilities in Yakutsk, Khabarovsk, Magadan, and Sakhalin 
Island. They have provided these communities with communications 
facilities, small business training, advanced interships with American 
business, and technical assistance since 1993.
  Continued funding of the American-Russian Center is ultimately cost-
saving to the American taxpayer. The center is seeking to become self-
sufficient by 1998. At present, local Russian industries and 
governments are supporting 70 percent of the cost for training Russian 
personnel in the United States, and they have pledged 100 percent 
support by 1997. The operation of these centers by the American-Russian 
Center will play an important role in the future of market development 
and democracy building in the Russian Far East.


                              MICRO CREDIT

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, micro enterprise loans help people become 
self-sufficient and lift themselves out of poverty. Micro credit 
programs extend small loans to the poor for self-employment projects 
that generate income. These programs generally offer various services 
and resources as well as credit for self-employment. Micro credit has 
shown its ability to fight poverty and its importance to poor people 
around the world. Approximately 8 million needy people who live in 
developing countries are helped by Micro credit programs.
  Micro credit programs have also been useful in developed countries, 
where many thousands of people receive targeted loan funds and 
specialized counseling that help them with preparing for self-
employment. According to a recent Catholic Relief Service evaluation, 
``97% of the members from two established banks in Thailand found their 
income had increased by between $40 and $200 per year.''
  As Results, a non-governmental organization concerned with issues of 
world poverty, points out in a recent draft of its Micro credit Summit 
Deceleration: ``Increasingly, Micro credit it being linked 
programmatically to savings plans that either require or strongly 
encourage savings by borrowers. Practitioners have found that the 
ability to save funds * * * is an important self-help tool for very 
poor people, allowing them to build assets essential to long-term 
financial security and self-sufficiency.''
  This is an important testament to how an individual, ultimately 
responsible for his own well being, can prosper with a little push, 
where none existed before.
  We can observe the benefits of Micro credit in many countries, where 
individuals, with help, have become self-sufficient enough to make 
great economic strides. Micro enterprise lending is a worthwhile 
venture that I am glad to support. I also want to commend the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for expressing its support of micro 
enterprise funding, specifically its intent

[[Page S8861]]

that at a majority of all micro enterprise resources be focused on the 
poorest people. Perhaps the primary conduit for micro enterprise 
lending by this Government is AID's program with nongovernmental 
organizations. AID should continue its efforts in this regard, and 
should maintain an aggressive approach to the micro enterprise issue.


               A.I.D. Funding of Microenterprise Program

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the consideration of the foreign 
operations appropriations bill, I want to address the issue of 
microenterprise finance as a tool for sustainable development in 
developing countries.
  I realize that Third World development efforts have received much 
criticism in this body, but here is an emerging theory and technique 
for offering financial services to the poor that is similar to those 
found in any financial system.
  I understand that the microenterprise program is based on the concept 
that giving poor people access to financial services can allow them to 
participate in the private sector, rely on their entrepreneurial 
spirit, and be given a chance to rise out of poverty.
  The microenterprise program has gained increasing recognition as a 
creative and successful way to provide foreign aid to developing 
countries.
  Traditionally, most Western aid programs emphasize increasing credit 
to the poor at subsidized interest rates. But Mr. President, creating 
and maintaining such distortions in Third World economies does not 
benefit the poor; in fact, most of such subsidized credit serves those 
already established in the private and public sectors. Instead, if you 
can reach the poorest of the poor and enable them to become self-
employed or create micro-business, then at least they face the 
possibility of emerging from poverty.
  In addition, poor people and especially women, face barriers to 
credit that are often based on a set of constraints including a lack of 
collateral and being perceived as a bad credit risk.
  There are many examples where these misperceptions have been proven 
wrong.
  The Grameen Bank, for example, has become an international success 
story when talking about microenterprise finance. It is an organization 
for the poor and has accessed 2 million poor in the past 15 years. It 
has 1,050 offices and serves 35,000 villages, 94 percent being women. 
The customers, who are also part owners, obtain small loans for self-
employment from which they generate income to repay the loans and 
support their families. Grameen extends credit without collateral but 
only has a 2 percent default rate, equivalent to that of any Western 
bank.
  To qualify for a loan, a client must join a 5-member group and a 40-
member center and attend weekly meetings. The client must assume 
responsibility for the loan of the group's members because it is the 
group and not the bank that evaluates loan proposals. If all five in 
the group repay their loan promptly, they are guaranteed credit for the 
rest of their lives.
  But the bank also follows borrowers to save money and never forgives 
a loan, although they may restructure. Grameen helps their clients 
attain their entrepreneurial potentials and encourages a culture of 
self-help and self-reliance.
  The Grameen model is now being followed by many established 
nongovernmental organizations. In fact, many are developing new and 
innovative approaches that are showing enormous ingenuity and success.
  I strongly support this more creative and productive approach to 
providing foreign aid to developing countries, and am appreciative of 
the efforts of the committee chairman and ranking member, Senators 
McConnell and Leahy, for the report language of the foreign operations 
appropriation bill that A.I.D. maintain last year's level of funding 
microenterprise programs.
  Microenterprise loans average less than $140, but the impact this 
small amount of money has on the loan recipients is enormous. At least 
half of the microenterprise resources are identified to make loans of 
less than $300 to those in the poorest half of the poverty line. This 
guarantees that microenterprise funds are directed toward those who 
need it the most. The funds go to individuals, not to governments.
  Microenterprise loans give people a way to transform their lives. 
These funds provide a way to become self-sufficient, and allows people 
to begin to meet their own needs in the areas of health, educating 
their children, and improving their living environment. Most important, 
the microenterprise program gives people hope for the future.
  Microenterprise foreign aid money is recycled. As money is paid back 
it is used for new loans to others. Eventually the microenterprise 
programs get linked into the formal financial system, and the effect is 
expanded even more. The microenterprise program will help millions of 
families.
  My colleagues in this Chamber have given strong and sustained support 
to the microenterprise program. I commend them for recognizing this 
project's utility and worth. This program effectively promotes economic 
health in poor countries, and should receive the highest possible 
commitment from A.I.D.


                                Zimbabwe

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this committee was prepared to deal 
with a current trade dispute and nationalization of foreign assets in 
Zimbabwe, but has withdrawn action relying upon the good faith 
representations of Ambassador Midzi of the Republic of Zimbabwe that 
the problems involving United States companies have been mediated 
successfully. We congratulate the leadership of the Republic of 
Zimbabwe for its constructive actions and hope there will be no further 
need for this committee to review this matter nor contemplate action to 
remedy complaints by United States citizens.


                         the export-import bank

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks about the 
foreign operations legislation for fiscal year 1997. Let me begin by 
complementing both Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy for bringing 
this bill to the floor today. As a member of the subcommittee, I 
appreciate the lengths to which both of these Senators have gone to 
accommodate me and the citizens of Washington State.
  This is important legislation; issues including the Middle East peace 
process, the growth of democracy in the former Soviet Union, efforts to 
combat disease and starvation around the globe, international family 
planning and job-creating export assistance financing are all part of 
this bill. Few pieces of legislation address so many issues of 
importance to this country--economic issues, national security issues 
and others associated with our role as the world's lone superpower. 
Importantly, this is all accomplished for an investment that represents 
less than 1 percent of the Federal budget.
  I am particularly pleased that the Appropriations Committee fully 
funded our assistance program to Russia to foster the growth of 
democracy and build important new markets for United States goods and 
services. My home State of Washington is actively involved in Russia, 
particularly the Russian Far East. Educational, cultural, health and 
athletic exchanges, numerous sister city relationships, the West Coast 
Working group of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, and of course, 
international trade and commerce with Russia have all captivated the 
citizens of Washington State. Washington State has demonstrated a 
commitment to developing and expanding ties with the Russian Far East 
by locating a state office in Vladivostock.
  I have already mentioned that this bill addresses many national 
interests of concern to the United States. Any of which could be 
explored in greater detail today here on the floor of the Senate. I 
want to take a few moments to focus on the provisions of this bill that 
promote exports from the United States--the job creators of this 
legislation--and specifically, the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States.
  This legislation provides nearly $770 million to the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States for fiscal year 1997. Ex-Im is the great 
equalizer for U.S. firms seeking to export abroad in a competitive 
global marketplace. A marketplace where our international competitors 
are spending vastly greater sums of money in support of their 
exporters. For example, in 1994, Japan provided export financing to 
nearly 40 percent of all that nation's trade deals. In the same time 
period, Canada financed almost 20 percent of its exports.

[[Page S8862]]

U.S. export financing through the Ex-Im bank equaled 3.3 percent--a 
figure significantly below virtually all of our trade partners.

  It is estimated that the fiscal year 1997 appropriation will support 
between $15 and $18 billion in exports. Think about it, the Export-
Import Bank will leverage its $770 million appropriation to generate 
$15-$18 billion in economic activity--job creating economic activity--
right here in the United States in the next year. For several pennies, 
the American taxpayer, through Ex-Im, will support nearly 500,000 
American jobs. And export-related jobs have shown to pay approximately 
13-percent more than nonexport jobs. The Ex-Im Bank is sustaining and 
creating family wage jobs all across this country.
  In my own State of Washington, the Ex-Im Bank is having a significant 
impact on trade promotion and job creation. Many identify the Boeing 
Co. with the Export-Import Bank. While the relationship between the 
bank and the aerospace industry is often overstated, it is important to 
note that approximately 2,000 small businesses in Washington State do 
contracting work for the Boeing Co. So when Ex-Im helps the United 
States commercial aircraft industry develop new markets for aircraft in 
Poland and Lithuania, Ex-Im supports jobs at small businesses across my 
State.
  There are numerous examples of the Export-Import Bank aiding 
Washington State businesses seeking to export abroad. With Ex-Im 
assistance, Pacific Propeller, a propeller manufacturer and overhauler, 
located in Kent, WA secured $7.5 million of important work in 
Indonesia. Connelly Skis exported its recreational equipment including 
the new ``Big Easy'' water ski to Belgium, Columbia, South Africa, and 
Jamaica. And the Lamb Weston Corp. shipped Washington State french 
fries to Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, and Aruba. This was all done with 
assistance from Ex-Im--all of these export deals may not have occurred 
without Ex-Im assistance. Clearly, the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States is a major contributor to my State's efforts to compete and 
succeed in international trade. Few recognize the benefits of this 
small appropriation to the Export-Import Bank, many work and prosper 
due to this agencies important work.
  Ex-Im is the lender of last resort; meaning the bank finances only 
deals that will not go through without assistance. The bank supports 
U.S. exporters when foreign governments offer subsidized financing to 
competitors, when private financing is unavailable or when small 
businesses are unable to locate commercial banks willing to provide 
financing. Importantly, the Ex-Im bank is a vital tool for small 
businesses seeking to export. Support for small businesses represented 
almost 80 percent of all Export-Import Bank transactions during fiscal 
year 1995.

  I do have several reservations about the language in the bill which 
addresses an outstanding controversy regarding the Bank's provision of 
so-called retention bonuses. The bill restricts funding for the salary 
and expenses of the chairman and president of the Bank until Mr. 
Kamarck is confirmed by the regular process of the Senate. A full 
Senate hearing is, after all, the best forum to question Mr. Kamarck's 
actions and his nomination to lead the Bank. I urge the Senate to 
proceed immediately with a hearing for Mr. Kamarck.
  Additionally, this legislation cuts administrative expenses for the 
Export-Import Bank by nearly $7 million. This punitive action is 
another expression of congressional frustration over the retention 
bonus issue. My concern is that in our zeal to protest previous Bank 
actions, we will actually be harming the Bank's ability to help 
America's exporters. I hope my colleagues in the Congress and the 
administration will come together to address outstanding Bank issues 
prior to this bill becoming law.
  This legislation also provides important funding for the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation [OPIC] and the Trade and Development 
Agency [TDA]. Both of these entities are also important components in 
the U.S. Government's trade promotion arsenal.
  Mr. President, in my mind, the trade and export promotion provisions 
of this legislation represent a partnership with states across the 
country. In Washington State, by virtue of our location and history, we 
enjoy important cultural and economic ties with virtually every corner 
of the world. Despite an activist statewide commitment to international 
trade, Washington State needs the backing of the Federal Government to 
counter the resources of the Japanese and German Governments and those 
of our other international trade partners. For a minuscule investment, 
agencies like the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency all provide needed 
support--financial and consultative--to U.S. exporters.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished 
ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Senator Leahy in a colloquy regarding the use of Agency for 
International Development funds designated for Assistance for Eastern 
Europe and the Baltics.
  This legislation provides funds for Assistance for Eastern Europe and 
the Baltics. One of the more successful programs we have established in 
the region are the joint research programs we have with Poland, the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia. In addition to funding high-
quality, competitively awarded joint research grants, these programs 
strengthen ties between our countries, and expose foreign researchers 
to the American research system. This program also enables American 
researchers to form partnerships with Eastern European researchers. 
Projects are chosen to mutually benefit both the United States and the 
collaborating partner. The benefits of these research programs don't 
flow one way, but flow in both directions.
  Finally, unlike most United States collaborative research programs, 
or assistance programs in general, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, 
and Slovakia, match dollar for dollar the United States contribution to 
the joint research funds for their countries. This shows the importance 
they attach to this collaboration. In fact, I have just received a 
joint letter from the Ambassadors of these four countries stressing 
their governments' support and financial commitment to the programs. I 
have also received letters from American researchers stating the 
benefits of this program. I want to stress that every dollar of funding 
supports research projects--there are no overhead costs associated with 
these joint research funds.
  I believe that these cooperative research and development programs 
exemplify the type of programs we should support with these countries 
and are in line with the goals of our assistance programs in Eastern 
Europe and the Baltics.
  I would ask the distinguished ranking member if he agrees with my 
assessment of these collaborative research programs and that guidance 
provided to the Agency for International Development should encourage 
AID to make a contribution to these four programs in fiscal year 1997 
at the level these programs received in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Maryland 
that I will urge the conferees to include in the statement of manager's 
language to provide sufficient guidance to the Administrator of AID to 
allow funding for these important agreements.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
this important clarification.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering H.R. 3540, 
the Foreign Operations and Export Financing appropriations bill for 
Fiscal Year 1997.
  The final bill provides $12.2 billion in budget authority and $5.2 
billion in new outlays to operate the programs of the Department of 
State, export and military assistance, bilateral and multilateral 
economic assistance, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1997.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $12.3 billion in budget 
authority and $13.4 billion in outlays for Fiscal Year 1997.
  Although the subcommittee is over its section 602(B) allocation for 
outlays, with enactment of section 579, the bill will be $76 million in 
budget authority and $7 million in outlays under the subcommittee's 
602(B) allocation.
  I commend the committee for supporting full funding for the North

[[Page S8863]]

American Development Bank in the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  FOREIGN OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL 
               [Fiscal year 1997, in millions of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Budget              
                                                   authority    Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed....................................          72       8,253
  H.R. 3540, as reported to the Senate..........      12,174       5,123
  Scorekeeping adjustment.......................  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary.........      12,246      13,376
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed....................................  ..........  ..........
  H.R. 3540, as reported to the Senate..........          44          44
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget Resolution assumptions................  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------
      Subtotal mandatory........................          44          44
                                                 =======================
        Adjusted Bill Total.....................      12,290      13,420
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary.........................  ..........  ..........
  Nondefense discretionary......................      12,250      13,311
  Violent crime reduction trust fund............  ..........  ..........
  Mandatory.....................................          44          44
                                                 -----------------------
      Total allocation..........................      12,294      13,355
                                                 =======================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary.........................  ..........  ..........
  Nondefense discretionary......................          -4          65
  Violent crime reduction trust fund............  ..........  ..........
  Mandatory.....................................  ..........  ..........
                                                 -----------------------
      Total allocation..........................          -4          65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                    

  Mr. McCAIN. The foreign operations appropriations bill is generally a 
bill that does not have a problem with earmarks designed to benefit the 
States of individual members. This is the case again this year. Having 
said this, I do have some concerns about the bill and report in this 
regard and would like to briefly outline them.
  There is a specific appropriation for $2.5 million in the bill for 
the American-Russian Center to provide business training and technical 
assistance to the Russian Far East. I have no reason to doubt the 
utility of this program. It may offer valuable assistance to the NIS, 
and I have long been a supporter of such assistance. However, if, as I 
am informed, AID would have spent roughly the same amount of funds on 
this program without the earmark, it is not clear to me why it required 
an earmark. Why cannot AID simply fund the program out of a larger 
account, as it apparently has in the past?
  I accept AID's support of the program and I do not object to the 
provision. But as with any appropriations bill, a specific request for 
funding, which AID did not make in this case, is very helpful in 
evaluating the need for it when it appears in the bill as an earmark. 
The cause of a useful program is only helpful by AID listing such 
things as priorities.
  There are assurances in the report that Russian industries and 
governments support 70 percent of the center's costs and that they have 
pledged 100 percent support by 1997. For purely budgetary reasons--$2.5 
million in any bill is not insignificant--I hope they will follow 
through on their pledges. I will be following the program carefully to 
see that this is the case.
  Unlike the bill, the committee report contains several comments on 
the advisability of funding particular programs that cause me some 
concern and would appear to have specific members' interest at heart.
  First, the report ``directs'' AID to make at least $2 million 
available for the core grant of the International Fertilizer 
Development Center based in Alabama.
  Second, it ``strongly encourages'' support for programs conducted by 
the University of Hawaii in Pacific regional development. It ``strongly 
supports'' the university's efforts to develop a United States-Russian 
partnership to educate young voters. and it ``encourages'' AID to 
collaborate with the university in health and human services training.
  Third, it ``supports'' $750,000 for Florida International 
University's Latin American Journalism Program.
  Fourth, it ``urges'' AID to support the research activity on pests of 
Montana State University.
  Fifth, it ``encourages'' AID to support the education program of the 
University of Northern Iowa in Slovakia.
  Last, it ``urges'' the International Fund for Ireland to support the 
work of Montana State University, Virginia Commonwealth, and Portland 
State.
  Again, all of these matters are listed in the report, not the bill, 
and I would remind the agencies concerned that they are under no legal 
obligation to spend the funds as directed.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding the rollcall 
vote will be tomorrow on the Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's understanding is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Outside of the windup, which I understand I have been 
entrusted with, I have no further comments.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, briefly, let me thank my friend and 
colleague from Alaska for his excellent statement and, of course, for 
the spirit of partnership with which we have gone forward on this.
  If I read this right, the foreign operations bill that is before us 
would appropriate over $12,217,000,000. This amendment concerns $25 
million of that--a speck. For anybody individually, $25 million is a 
lot of money. As part of this bill, it is a very, very small 
percentage.
  I can tell you personally, I don't believe that there is any part of 
this bill that is a better investment, in terms of preserving 
international security, saving American soldiers from having to go into 
battle--which would truly cost us a lot of money--than this $25 
million. I know that the administration right up to the President feels 
that very, very strongly.
  I believe that we have achieved two very significant accomplishments 
with the addition of the Murkowski-McCain second-degree amendment. This 
is all about keeping promises. The Agreed Framework of October 1994 was 
a very significant agreement between the United States, South Korea, 
Japan, and North Korea, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea.
  We are saying, by overriding the committee's recommendation to cut 
the funding down to $13 million, that we promise $25 million a year to 
fund this agreement. The Congress says we are going to keep that 
agreement. We are going to fund up to the $25 million. But we expect 
the North Koreans to keep their end of the bargain as well. We are 
counting on the administration to effectively monitor the agreement and 
report to Congress if there is any indication that the North Koreans 
are not keeping their end of the bargain.
  So far, I say, so good. I think the second-degree amendment greatly 
improves my underlying amendment. I am grateful, again, to my two 
colleagues, Senators Murkowski and McCain, for the way in which we have 
gone at this.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________