[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7515-S7537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 955, making appropriations for 
foreign operations, export financing, related programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 955) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, related programs for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, 
the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, is detained down at the White 
House for the time being. I see his colleague, Senator Dorgan, standing 
in for him. We will, while Senator Dorgan is here, by mutual agreement, 
take care of several managers' amendments here at the outset of the 
discussion of this year's foreign operations bill.
  There are a list of eight managers' amendments, which I will refer to 
and then send to the desk en bloc.
  There is the McConnell-Leahy amendment requiring a report on the 
management of the Russia enterprise fund and prohibiting establishment 
of a private-public entity to manage the defense enterprise fund 
activities; a Leahy amendment establishing credit authority for AID; a 
Leahy amendment allowing funds to be transferred to the Export-Import 
Bank for NIS activities; a Leahy technical corrections amendment to 
section 571; a McConnell-Leahy amendment providing authorities to DSAA 
for the costs associated with the transfer of EDA to Central and East 
European countries and use of less expensive commercial transport and 
stockpiles in Thailand and Korea; a McConnell-Leahy amendment providing 
DSAA authority to obligate funds upon apportionment; a McConnell-Leahy 
amendment to provide a date for the report on Ukraine; and a Leahy 
amendment with a technical change on page 92.


                Amendments Nos. 876 through 883, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send eight amendments to the desk and 
ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], proposes 
     amendments numbered 876 through 883, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 876

       (Purpose: To improve the performance of enterprise funds)

       On page 27, line 15 insert the following new sections:
       (Q) None of the funds appropriated under this heading or in 
     prior appropriations legislation may be made available to 
     establish a joint public-private entity or organization 
     engaged in the management of activities or projects supported 
     by the Defense Enterprise Fund.
       (R) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of AID shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations on the rate of obligation and risk and 
     anticipated returns associated with commitments made by the 
     U.S. Russia Investment Fund. The report shall include a 
     recommendation on the continued relevance and advisability of 
     the initial planned life of project commitment.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 877

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:


                      Development Credit Authority

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct loans and loan 
     guarantees in support of the development objectives of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), up to $10,000,000, 
     which amount may be derived by transfer from funds 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 and funds appropriated by this Act 
     under the heading ``Assistance for Eastern Europe and the 
     Baltic States'', to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of this amount, up to $1,500,000 for 
     administrative expenses to carry out such programs may be 
     transferred to and merged with ``Operating Expenses of the 
     Agency for International Development'': Provided further, 
     That the provisions of section 107A(d) (relating to general 
     provisions applicable to development credit authority) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section 306 of 
     H.R. 1486 as reported by the House Committee on International 
     Relations on May 9, 1997, shall be applicable to direct loans 
     and loan guarantees provided under this paragraph: Provided 
     further, That direct loans or loan guarantees under this 
     paragraph may not be provided until the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget has certified to the 
     Committee on Appropriations that the Agency for International 
     Development has established a credit management system 
     capable of effectively managing the credit programs funded 
     under this heading, including that such system (1) can 
     provide accurate and timely provision of loan and loan 
     guarantee data, (2) contains information control systems for 
     loan and loan guarantee data, (3) is adequately staffed, and 
     (4) contains appropriate review and monitoring procedures.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 878

       On page 20, line 14, after the word ``paragraph'' insert 
     the following: ``Provided further, That up to $22,000,000 
     made available under this heading may be transferred to the 
     Export Import Bank of the United States, and up to $8,000,000 
     of the funds made available under this heading may be 
     transferred to the Micro and Small Enterprise Development 
     Program, to be used for the cost of direct loans and loan 
     guarantees for the furtherance of programs under this 
     heading: Provided further, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 879

       On page 97, lien 5, strike the words ``between the United 
     States and the Government of Indonesia''.
       On page 97, line 6, insert a comma after the word ``sale'' 
     and strike the word ``or''.
       On page 97, line 7, after the word ``transfer'' insert ``, 
     or licensing''.
       On page 97, line 7, after the word ``helicopter'' insert 
     ``for Indonesia entered into by the United States''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 880

       On page 102, line 9, after the word ``1998.'', insert the 
     following:


         excess defense articles for certain european countries

       Sec. 575. Section 105 of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat. 
     1427) is amended by striking ``1996 and 1997'' and inserting 
     ``1998 and 1999''.

     SEC. 576. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO STOCKPILING OF 
                   DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Value of Additions to Stockpiles.--Section 514(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2321h(b)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``and $60,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1998''.
       (b) Requirements Relating to the Republic of Korea and 
     Thailand.--Section 514(b)(2)(B) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2341h(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Of the following: ``Of the amount specified in 
     subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 1998, not more than 
     $40,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in the 
     Republic of Korea and not more than $20,000,000 may be made 
     available for stockpiles in Thailand.''.

     SEC. 577. DELIVERY OF DRAWDOWN BY COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION 
                   SERVICES.

       Section 506 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2318) is amended--

[[Page S7516]]

       (1) in subsection (b)(2), by striking the period and 
     inserting the following: ``, including providing the Congress 
     with a report detailing all defense articles, defense 
     services, and military education and training delivered to 
     the recipient country or international organization upon 
     delivery of such articles or upon completion of such services 
     or education and training. Such report shall also include 
     whether any savings were realized by utilizing commercial 
     transport services rather than acquiring those services from 
     United States Government transport assets'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) For the purposes of any provision of law that 
     authorizes the drawdown of defense-or other articles or 
     commodities, or defense or other services from an agency of 
     the United States Government, such drawdown may include the 
     supply of commercial transportation and related services that 
     are acquired by contract for the purposes of the drawdown in 
     question if the cost to acquire such commercial 
     transportation and related services is less than the cost to 
     the United States Government of providing such services from 
     existing agency assets.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 881

       On page 34, line 21, after the word ``Act'' insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this paragraph shall be obligated upon apportionment in 
     accordance with paragraph (5)(C) of title 31, United States 
     Code, section 1501(a)''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 882

       On page 24, line 9 insert after the word ``resolution'' the 
     following: ``Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     submit such determination and certification prior to March 
     31, 1998.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 883

   (Purpose: To require the withholding of assistance to any country 
granting sanctuary to any person indicted by the International Criminal 
                          Tribunal for Rwanda)

       On page 92, line 16, strike ``is authorized to'' and insert 
     ``shall''.
       On page 92, line 21, strike ``should'' and insert 
     ``shall''.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased the managers of the bill will 
accept my amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill. My 
amendment will apply the same standards for sanctions on countries that 
harbor Rwandan indicted war criminals as are applied to countries that 
provide sanctuary for individuals indicted by the Yugoslav war crimes 
tribunal.
  As the bill is currently written, with the exception of certain types 
of humanitarian assistance, no foreign aid can be given to any country 
that provides sanctuary to individuals indicted by the Yugoslav war 
crimes tribunal. But for those individuals indicted by the Rwandan war 
crimes tribunal, the bill contains only a discretionary authority to 
withhold aid.
  Mr. President, the United States was a cosponsor of the U.N. Security 
Council resolution which authorized the establishment of the Rwandan 
war crimes tribunal. Accountability for the 500,000 people killed in 
the 1994 genocide is an integral part of any effort for reconciliation 
and reconstruction in Rwanda, much like the Truth Commission in South 
Africa.
  Mr. President, my amendment is not without precedent. The foreign 
operations bill 2 years ago restricted foreign assistance to countries 
that harbored both Rwandan and Yugoslav indicted war criminals. I 
believe this was the right standard, and to do anything less sends the 
wrong message on war crimes. If we say we are against war crimes in 
Yugoslavia, we should also equally say we are against war crimes in 
Rwanda. I don't believe that there's one Senator who doesn't share this 
belief--but it is important that we say so.
  My amendment makes a strong statement of support for the Rwandan 
tribunal and for the cause of human rights in Africa.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that these have 
been approved by the Democrats.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, Senator Leahy 
is detained. On his behalf, I am here to say that the amendments have 
been approved, and he is either a sponsor or a cosponsor with Senator 
McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 876 through 883), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 
1998 foreign operations, export promotion, and related programs 
appropriations bill to the Senate for consideration today. I might say 
at the outset that we anticipate finishing this bill tonight. There are 
very few amendments of which I am aware and, hopefully, we can mirror 
the speed with which the Department of Defense appropriations bill and 
the energy and water appropriations bill were completed.
  Senator Leahy and I have worked closely together to produce a bill 
which effectively serves vital international U.S. political and 
economic priorities with the $13 billion allocated to our subcommittee.
  Let me point out right up front that while the bill stands at $13 
billion, we are funding $13.2 billion on programs; the difference is 
due to the Budget Committee's treatment of arrears at international 
financial institutions.
  For the first time in more than a decade, the foreign operations 
account actually experienced an increase. We can thank Senator Stevens 
for understanding how important it is to have international options 
short of sending in U.S. troops. I might just say, Mr. President, on 
that point, there are a number of our colleagues who are particularly 
enthusiastic about the defense option, and I am among them. On the 
other hand, being able to engage overseas without the use of troops is 
frequently, always, less dangerous and, many times, less expensive.
  For the better part of the last 3 years, Senator Leahy and I have 
warned that the United States would pay long-term consequences if we 
continued the pattern of shortsighted gains made by reducing foreign 
assistance.
  Finally, the administration listened. I want to commend Secretary 
Albright for making an increase in the 150 account her first and 
foremost priority. The nearly $1 billion increase arrested a 
devastating decade-long decline.
  I think it is important to put this increase in perspective. Measured 
against foreign aid's peak year of 1985, our resources have dropped 
nearly 60 percent. Since 1990, we have seen a 40-percent reduction. 
Keep in mind that those cuts have occurred in times when the United 
States established assistance programs to help strengthen and stabilize 
more than two dozen new, emerging democracies.
  As we welcome Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO, 
thereby expanding European stability and security arrangements, we 
should all remember it was the United States economic and security 
assistance that helped make this possible.
  Just taking a look, Mr. President, at the chart here behind me, my 
colleagues will notice that in 1985, in billions, the foreign 
operations account was $28.2 billion. A mere 12 years later, it was 
$12.2. And what we are seeing this year, after a decline of $28.2 to 
$12 billion, is an increase back up to $13.4 billion.
  I will argue, as I did a few moments ago, that given the new 
responsibilities to the new emerging democracies, that this increase 
this year in the 150 account is entirely appropriate.
  The aspirations, ingenuity, and determination of the citizens of 
these countries--particularly in Central Europe--combined with American 
grants, loans, exchanges, training, and equipment to build democratic 
institutions, strong free markets, and responsible military partners 
makes a lot of sense.
  Obviously, this effort should be continued. The combination of an 
increase in the foreign assistance allocation, along with progress made 
by emerging European democracies, have made this a key transition 
year--one in which we have an opportunity to initiate support for new 
priorities while ending or establishing clear performance benchmarks in 
countries where U.S. support is not fulfilling political or economic 
expectations.
  In this context, let me review some of the bill's highlights.
  In title I, we have increased export promotion support over the 
administration's request. We have fully funded the Trade and 
Development Agency and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and 
to compensate for dismal forecasting at the Eximbank, we

[[Page S7517]]

have increased the funding there as well.
  No one is more pleased than I am that there is a new team directing 
the Bank's important work. However, the new Chairman arrives in with 
the news that the Bank expects to have to carry over into 1998 nearly 
$400 million in planned or possible 1997 projects because of a 
shortfall in available funding. At a time when everyone recognizes that 
exports are key to American economic growth, we need to support Exim's 
vital mission. While the administration asked for $632 million, we have 
provided $700 million to support American business as they venture into 
tough emerging markets.
  Title II provides funding for all bilateral programs, including 
development assistance activities, programs in the new independent 
states and Central and Eastern Europe, disaster aid, the Peace Corps, 
international narcotics control, and a consolidated fund which covers 
nonproliferation, demining, antiterrorism, IAEA activities, and related 
programs.
  Within this title, there are a number of provisions which reflect the 
committee's new emphasis of building on success and objectively 
recognizing and reversing failures.
  Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East. I will not 
spend a great deal of time at this point on the issue of Egypt's record 
over the last 2 years. Let me simply say that funding for both Egypt 
and Israel has always been provided in the context of the Camp David 
accords and a national commitment to serving the interests of peace.
  Leading a renewal of the Arab economic boycott of Israel, rejecting 
President Clinton's plea to participate in the peace summit, and 
actively opposing the Hebron agreement between Israel and the 
Palestinians are a few reasons why Egypt no longer seems to share our 
commitment to regional stability and peace. To send a signal that 
improvements are expected if aid is to continue to flow, the committee 
did not earmark funds for Egypt.
  In contrast, King Hussein has taken enormous risks to advance peace, 
and the committee reflected its support for this effort by 
substantially increasing economic and security assistance to Jordan. 
Egypt and Jordan define the basic tenet of this bill: Aid is not an 
entitlement program. It must be earned, and it must be deserved.
  The NIS offers other examples of this approach. For several years the 
Senate has earmarked funds for Ukraine. Now I believe it is time to 
assess results. Although Ukraine has made remarkable progress in 
passing a constitution and introducing a new currency, I think it is 
time to register our concerns that corruption and the slow pace of 
reforms may defeat the relevance and impact of our assistance.

  As in the past, we have earmarked $225 million, making clear we still 
believe in Ukraine's strategic importance and support the 
constitutional and economic changes which have been achieved. However, 
to leverage improvements and accelerate the pace of reforms, 35 percent 
of the aid package is withheld until the Secretary of State 
certificates progress has been made combating corruption, and moving 
forward with key economic and political policy changes.
  Russia offers another example of where aid must better serve United 
States interests. For the past 2 years, the bill has included language 
linking the provision of aid to the termination of Russia's nuclear 
cooperation with Iran--a provision always watered down by the 
administration. With elections around the corner, the administration's 
argument last year was simple: If we cut off aid, they said, we 
undermine the election chances of the only people who are committed to 
ending this lethal program.
  Well, we all know the reformers won the election last year, and, 
unfortunately, the nuclear program is still around. Only now it is 
expanded, and the Russians are not only collaborating with Iran on a 
nuclear powerplant. They are working together on a missile technology 
program. This year a waiver allowing aid to continue--no matter what 
the Russians do with Iran--is simply out of the question.
  Consistent with our effort to take aid off autopilot, the bill also 
includes language addressing the crisis in Cambodia. In our opening 
hearing this year, the administrator of AID referred to Cambodia as a 
democratic success story, a view echoed by the Secretary of State in 
our closing hearing. Persistent allegations of close collaboration 
between Cambodia's leadership and major regional drug traffickers were 
dismissed in that hearing, as were alarming accounts of the two prime 
ministers arming themselves for a resumption of civil war.
  As we all know, a few short weeks ago the committee report called 
attention to this rapidly deteriorating situation and conditioned 
assistance of all further aid on progress in four key areas. The 
Secretary had to certify the government had taken steps to: First, end 
political violence and intimidation of opposition candidates; second, 
establish an independent election commission; third, protect voters and 
election participants by establishing laws and regulations guaranteeing 
freedom of speech and assembly; and, fourth, eliminate corruption and 
collaboration with narcotics dealers.
  Mr. President, however elusive that goal now seems, each of these 
steps remains important to the future of democracy in Cambodia. With 
the coup engineered by Hun Sen last week, I intend to further modify 
these conditions as we proceed forward with this bill today.
  Turning to title III, the committee has provided over $3.3 billion in 
security assistance, loans and grants and support for international 
peacekeeping. While this level reflects a slight reduction of the 
administration's request, we were able to provide an increase in aid to 
Jordan and an increase in support for Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia.
  Let me speak for a moment to the case of the Baltic countries. I know 
I am joined by many of my colleagues who believe the Baltic nations 
should be the next nations on the list of NATO entrants. Having never 
recognized their domination by the Soviet Union during the cold war, I 
think it is a serious mistake for the administration to now bow to 
Russian demands that the Baltic nations be excluded from NATO. In 
effect, the administration's policy relegates the Baltic States to the 
Russian sphere of influence, a perverse reversal of political fortune 
and a mistake of historic proportions.
  These nations are ready, willing, and able to make a meaningful 
military and political contribution to NATO's mission. The funding we 
have provided will strengthen and deepen the Baltic ties to NATO by 
facilitating the completion of a civilian military regional airspace 
control system, an important step toward membership. This funding 
reflects a strong view that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia deserve to 
be integrated into a stable European security structure and have earned 
our political commitment and continued support for NATO admission.
  Finally, let me turn to title IV in the bill, which provides funding 
for the international financial institutions. Although we have reduced 
the administration's request, we have been able to meet virtually all 
current-year obligations as well as make substantial progress on past 
obligations incurred by this administration.
  I want all of my colleagues to know that we have once again withheld 
funds for IDA until the Secretary of the Treasury certificates that the 
interim trust fund has removed all procurement restrictions imposed 
which exclude American contractors.
  I want the members of both the trust fund and IDA to be on notice 
that these restrictions must be gone before this legislation is enacted 
or I cannot support full funding for IDA in conference.
  The last section of the bill is devoted to general provisions. One in 
particular is worth noting because it is in keeping with the principles 
we have developed to end aid as an entitlement program.
  When the Dayton agreement was signed, each party pledged to support 
the International Tribunal's efforts to arrest and prosecute war 
criminals. Today, 66 indicted fugitives remain at large--with 
potentially many more under sealed indictment.
  These are not bandits in hiding living in fear of capture. These 
outlaws continue to work and wander the streets and, in some cases, 
such those of Radovan Karadic and Ratko Mladic, they continue to 
exercise real power.
  Section 573 ends assistance to regional authorities refusing to 
cooperate in the international effort to bring

[[Page S7518]]

these fugitives to justice. Peace in Bosnia cannot be sustained if the 
Tribunal fails to complete its task. Stability and economic growth 
depend on the repatriation of refugees consistent with the Dayton 
agreement--and those refugees will not return to communities which 
continue to be terrorized and intimidated by war criminals.
  Section 573 bans aid to countries which have not cooperated in the 
arrest of war criminals. Waiver authority is granted to the President 
for a period of 6 months, if he certifies that a country has turned 
over a majority of war criminals. However, at the end of the 6 months, 
aid can only continue if the President certifies that all war criminals 
have been arrested.
  The provision exempts democracy building, demining and humanitarian 
programs in an effort to afford the administration some carrots as it 
attempts to encourage compliance.
  But, this should not be seen as a door which will be opened wider 
creating more exemptions and weaker standards. Let us be clear on a 
single point: after more than $400 million in U.S. aid, we need to 
implement and enforce the moral reckoning which only the Tribunal can 
offer. Only justice can bridge the deep divides which continue to 
fracture the former Yugoslavia.
  Let me conclude by once again emphasizing that the increase in the 
150 account represents both an opportunity and an obligation to more 
effectively serve American international interests. We can only 
accomplish this purpose if we end aid as an entitlement program. I 
believe this bill sets us on the right course and I encourage my 
colleagues to support it.


                   Amendments Nos. 885, 886, and 887

  Mr. McCONNELL. As an indication of how quickly we should be able to 
move this bill, I see that my friend and colleague from Oregon is here 
ready to offer an amendment, and before I yield the floor for that 
purpose, I will offer an amendment to earmark aid to Egypt for myself 
and Senator Leahy, Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd.
  I am also going to send to the desk two amendments on Cambodia.
  So, Mr. President, I am sending to the desk three amendments at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Byrd, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 885.
       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 886.
       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 887.

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 885

               (Purpose: To provide assistance to Egypt)

       On page 17, line 14, strike the number ``$2,585,100,000'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof, ``$2,541,150,000''.
       On page 17, line 20, after the word ``later:'' insert: ``: 
     Provided further, That not less than $815,000,000 shall be 
     available only for Egypt, which sum shall be provided on a 
     grant basis, and of which sum cash transfer assistance may be 
     provided, with the understanding that Egypt will undertake 
     significant economic reforms which are additional to those 
     which were undertaken in previous fiscal years:''.
       On page 33, line 26, strike the number ``$3,265,000,000'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$3,308,950,000''.
       On page 34, line 3, after the word ``Israel'' insert: ``, 
     and not less than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for 
     grants only for Egypt.''.
                                                                    ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 886

                 (Purpose: To restrict aid to Cambodia)

       On page 11, line 14, strike all after the word ``Of'' 
     through page 12, line 13, ending with the number ``1997.'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be made available for activities 
     or programs in Cambodia until the Secretary of State 
     determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that the Government of Cambodia has: (1) not been established 
     in office by the use of force or a coup d'etat; (2) 
     discontinued all political violence and intimidation of 
     journalists and members of opposition parties; (3) 
     established an independent election commission; (4) protected 
     the rights of voters, candidates, and election observers and 
     participants by establishing laws and procedures guaranteeing 
     freedom of speech and assembly; and (5) eliminated corruption 
     and collaboration with narcotics smugglers: Provided, That 
     the previous proviso shall not apply to humanitarian programs 
     or other activities administered by nongovernmental 
     organizations: Provided further, That 30 days after enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall report 
     to the Committees on Appropriations on the results of the FBI 
     investigation into the bombing attack in Phnom Penh on March 
     30, 1997.''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 887

                 (Purpose: To restrict aid to Cambodia)

       On page 96, line 20, strike all after the word ``Cambodia'' 
     through page 97, line 2, ending with the word ``smugglers.'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``has: (1) not been 
     established in office by the use of force or a coup d'etat; 
     (2) discontinued all political violence and intimidation of 
     journalists and members of opposition parties; (3) 
     established an independent election commission; (4) protected 
     the rights of voters, candidates, and election observers and 
     participants by establishing laws and procedures guaranteeing 
     freedom of speech and assembly; and (5) eliminated corruption 
     and collaboration with narcotics smugglers.''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask that all three of those amendments be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 888

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for himself, Mr. 
     Nickles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Gorton, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 888.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section, and renumber the remaining sections accordingly:

     SEC.   . TO PROHIBIT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF 
                   RUSSIA SHOULD IT ENACT LAWS WHICH WOULD 
                   DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MINORITY RELIGIOUS FAITHS 
                   IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

       None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be made 
     available for the Government of Russian Federation unless the 
     President determines and certifies in writing to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate that the Government of the Russian 
     Federation has enacted no statute or promulgated no executive 
     order that would discriminate, or would have as its principal 
     effect discrimination, against religious minorities in the 
     Russian Federation in violation of accepted international 
     agreements on human rights and religious freedoms to which 
     the Russian Federation is a signatory, including the European 
     Convention and the 1989 Vienna Concluding Document of the 
     Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, on the Fourth of 
July, as Americans were celebrating their cherished freedoms upon which 
this country was founded, the Russian Federation passed a bill which, 
if signed into law, would restrict freedom of religion in that country 
in a lamentable way.
  This bill is ironically titled, ``On Freedom of Conscience and on 
Religious Associations.'' It first passed the lower house of the 
Russian Duma in late June.
  The bill would, among other things, limit the activities of foreign 
missionaries and grant unregistered religious groups significantly 
fewer rights than accredited Russian religious organizations such as 
the Russian Orthodox Church, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism.
  Mr. President, this bill awaiting signature now on President 
Yeltsin's desk would severely limit the very existence of what Russia 
terms ``new faiths.'' These ``new faiths'' include many Protestant 
faiths--Evangelicals, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, SDA's, Jehovah's 
Witnesses, Mormons, and even the Catholic Church. These faiths will be 
persecuted as religious minorities under this proposed law.
  Congress has already taken a number of steps to send signals to 
President

[[Page S7519]]

Yeltsin about this bill. Many Members of both Houses have signed 
letters to President Yeltsin and to President Clinton. From the Vatican 
to former President Jimmy Carter, the reaction to this law has been 
strong and unwavering.
  I rise today to send an even stronger signal. My amendment would 
withhold funds appropriated in the foreign operations bill to Russia 
unless the President of the United States determines and verifies in 
writing to the Congress that the Government of Russia has enacted no 
statute that would discriminate against religious minorities in the 
Russian Federation.
  Mr. President, I realize, as do all Senators, that Russia is a 
sovereign country. We cannot tell Russia what to do as a country. We 
can, however, elect not to send foreign aid to a country that would 
discriminate against religious beliefs in so fundamental a way.
  This will be the clearest and strongest message that can be sent to 
President Yeltsin. Should he decide to enact into law this 
discrimination, we then will send no American funds, none of our 
taxpayers' hard-earned moneys, to that country in the fiscal year of 
1998.
  In the modern world, for most religions, the kind of deprivation of 
status that the Russian bill would enact, should it become law, is a 
major encroachment upon religious freedom.
  Many international agreements have already been signed that require 
signatories to guarantee religious freedom. For example, sections of 
the Vienna Concluding Document of the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe commits participating States in the Helsinki 
process to grant religious freedom as part of their Constitution.
  Mr. President, the Russian Federation is a signatory to that Vienna 
document. Furthermore, the bill on President Yeltsin's desk would not 
only violate this and other international agreements; it would also 
violate Russia's own Constitution which guarantees religious freedoms 
we as Americans have come to hold as so dear and so fundamental. I know 
some might argue, Mr. President, that we should not take these kinds of 
actions; that we are trying to help Russia build democracy, and we are 
and want to do those things, but I would say to them that religious 
freedom is the cornerstone of democracy. Indeed, a democratic 
foundation without that cornerstone of religious freedom is a democracy 
that is built upon sand.
  I hope that all Senators will join me in sending a strong signal to 
President Yeltsin that American dollars will not find their way to 
support any country that treats religious freedom in such a manner.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment there is not.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just walked back in the Chamber. I am 
not quite sure----
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment there is not.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say that we will get a 
sufficient second for a vote on this amendment. I am told by the 
Democratic Cloakroom that it would be permissible to have a couple of 
votes around 12:30, and it is my plan to have a vote on the Smith 
amendment at about 12:30.
  I also understand under the previous agreement we are to vote on 
final passage on energy and water in juxtaposition to that vote.
  Mr. President, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on final passage will follow the 
first vote on this bill. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So, Mr. President, why don't I ask unanimous consent 
that we have a vote on the Smith amendment at 12:30.
  Mr. President, I withhold.
  Mr. President, we may have the ability to get the yeas and nays now. 
I ask for the yeas and nays on the Smith amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say again we are not going to 
set the time for the Smith amendment now until we have had further 
consultation with the Democratic Cloakroom, but in all likelihood there 
would be two votes at 12:30, one on the Smith amendment and the other 
on final passage of energy and water.


                 Amendment No. 889 to Amendment No. 888

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the pending business now is the second-
degree amendment of the Senator from Oregon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for himself and Mr. 
     Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 889 to amendment No. 
     888.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. 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:

       In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. .  TO PROHIBIT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF 
                   RUSSIA SHOULD IT ENACT LAWS WHICH WOULD 
                   DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MINORITY RELIGIOUS FAITHS 
                   IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

       None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be made 
     available for the Government of Russian Federation unless the 
     President determines and certifies in writing to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate that the Government of the Russian 
     Federation has enacted no statute or promulgated no executive 
     order that would discriminate, or would have as its principal 
     effect discrimination, against religious minorities in the 
     Russian Federation in violation of accepted international 
     agreements on human rights and religious freedoms to which 
     the Russian Federation is a signatory, including the European 
     Convention and the 1989 Vienna Concluding Document of the 
     Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
       This section shall become effective one day after the 
     enactment of this bill.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for 
the Smith amendment prohibiting foreign assistance to the Government of 
Russia, should it enact laws that would discriminate against religious 
minorities and religious faiths in the Russian federation. As you 
eloquently pointed out, on July 4, and ironically on July 4, as we 
celebrated our precious freedoms in the United States the Russian 
Federal Assembly gave final approval to a bill which would seriously 
undermine religious freedom in Russia.
  I was in Poland just 1 week ago, representing the Senate at an 
international conference, the Sixth Annual Session of the Parliamentary 
Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. At 
this conference, I had the opportunity to chair a bilateral meeting 
with the Speaker of the Russian Duma and we discussed this bill at 
length.
  In that bilateral meeting were a number of deputies from the Russian 
Duma. I found that their concept of rights and freedoms were strikingly 
in contrast to our concept of freedoms, as embodied in our Constitution 
and in our American tradition. Repeatedly, as we discussed the proposed 
law that the Russian Duma at that point had already voted on--the upper 
body had

[[Page S7520]]

not yet at that point voted on it--it was clear that they viewed 
religious freedom, and in fact all rights, as being that which could be 
granted by the Government as opposed to our concept, embodied in our 
Constitution and our founding documents, that those rights and those 
freedoms are unalienable and endowed by our Creator--given by God. 
Therefore, as viewing rights as being something given by the 
Government, they saw no problem in removing the unlimited, unfettered 
right to freedom of religion.
  I was alarmed at the attitude and the intransigence that we found, 
not only from the Speaker of the Duma but the deputies who were 
present, and their concept. They said, and I paraphrase but very close 
to what was said in this bilateral meeting, that we must protect naive 
Russians from cults--cults being a broad definition to include all of 
the so-called new faiths. Of course, Russia today is experiencing a 
tremendous renewal of religious faith. In, I think, a misguided effort 
to protect the Orthodox Russian Church, this law has been proposed. I 
said very frankly and very bluntly--and may I say Congressman Clement 
from Tennessee, Congressman Dingell from Michigan, and a number of 
other Members of the U.S. Congress were present during this bilateral 
meeting and echoed my sentiments--that this law proposed, passed by the 
Duma, now pending before President Yeltsin, is antithetical to and 
irreconcilable with a true concept of liberty and religious freedom.
  Among the provisions in this bill that are most alarming is the 
requirement that religious groups list all of their numbers, their 
names, their addresses, a requirement that a commission be 
established--a commission of state experts--to review the doctrines and 
practices of groups applying for registration. It is unimaginable in 
this country, in which we have so enshrined the concept of religious 
freedom. There is a requirement under this bill that a religious group 
be in existence for 50 years in order to receive ``all Russian'' 
status, creating a division between religious associations and groups 
which could create a multitier religious hierarchy of different 
denominations. And then in this bill is a requirement that would deny 
for a 15-year period legal status to new religious groups, which could 
include those groups that refused to register under the Communist 
regime. Without legal status, these religious groups could not rent 
public space for services, they would find it difficult to conduct any 
financial activity, invite foreigners to Russia, or set up a church 
school for children.
  There is no justifiable reason to divide religious organizations into 
two categories, one with full rights and privileges and the others with 
limited rights, limited privileges. This new Russian law discriminates 
against religious faiths by establishing a hierarchy of religious 
groups under the law and denying legal status to communities of 
believers.
  When similar legislation threatened religious freedom in Russia only 
4 years ago, Members of the House, Members of this body, the Senate, 
joined together in an urgent appeal to Boris Yeltsin to veto that 
legislation. Courageously, President Yeltsin stood firm. He refused to 
sign that bill into law.
  Now we have an opportunity, thanks to the amendment of Senator Smith 
of Oregon, to send a strong message to Russia that we will take 
concerted action to preserve this essential human right. This is 
potentially the greatest retreat on religious freedom and human rights 
since the fall of the Soviet Union, and it is an ominous sign about the 
future of that Republic. We must forcefully signal our grave concern by 
passing the Smith amendment. I hope my colleagues in the U.S. Senate 
will join with Senator Smith of Oregon in sending that signal to the 
Government of Russia, and add encouragement and solidarity with the 
people of the Russian Republic.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to rise and join my colleagues in 
supporting the Smith amendment to the fiscal year 1998 foreign 
operations bill that would cut assistance to the Government of the 
Russian Federation if it enacts the onerous bill passed by the Duma 
last month entitled ``On Freedom of Conscience and Religious 
Association.''
  Mr. President, this bill passed by the Duma is about restricting 
freedom of conscience and prohibiting the freedom of conscience. It is 
a major step backward for democracy and human rights in Russia. It 
takes Russia away from the West and the institutions that protect an 
individual's freedom of religion.
  The bill passed by the Duma--promoted by an unholy alliance of 
Communists and Populists whose responsibility to the country appears to 
focus on restricting its citizens' ability to practice any faith they 
choose.
  The measures in the bill are deeply objectionable. A few points are 
worth mentioning:
  Religious groups must register with the government by 1998. In a 
blatant act of discrimination, the bill assigns different religions to 
different categories that will afford them different sets of rights.
  For a religion to be deemed a religious organization, it will have to 
demonstrate that they have officially existed in Russia for at least 15 
years. This means that the religion would have had to register under 
Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev, at a time when the Soviet Union was 
officially atheistic and officially repressive to the pursuit of faith.
  Religious groups not deemed in the official, first category of 
``religious organizations'' would have greatly restricted rights. They 
would have no legal status. Members would have to be individually and 
officially registered. They groups could not rent public space for 
services, own property, conduct financial activity, invite foreigners 
to Russia, or set up church schools.
  To register as a ``religious organization,'' a religious group would 
have to (a) be sponsored by a Russian religious organization, (b) 
undergo a 15-year registration period, and (c) have ``authenticity'' 
determined by a commission of state experts, who would review a faith's 
doctrine for admissibility. This state bureaucracy could deny 
registration to faiths on a wide range of practices, such as advocating 
nonmedical forms of healing, monasticism, conscientious objection, and 
proselytizing to minors.
  Mr. President, the Duma bill on restricting religious rights is 
contrary to international conventions signed by Russia, including the 
Helsinki Treaty of 1989, which states:

       [Participating states] will take effective measures to 
     prevent and eliminate discrimination against individuals of 
     communities on grounds of religion or belief in the 
     recognitions, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and 
     fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, political, 
     economic, social and cultural life; and
       [participating states] will grant upon their request to 
     communities of believers, practicing or prepared to practice 
     their faith within the constitutional framework of the 
     States, recognition of the status provided for them in their 
     respective countries.

  But if the Russian Government wishes to ignore its treaty 
obligations--which, from our record of arms control agreements, we must 
recognize is not a unique development--it is still shocking that the 
Duma egregiously ignores the Russian Constitution, which states:

       The state guarantees the equality of rights and freedoms 
     regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, 
     property and official position, place of residence, attitude 
     to religion, convictions, membership in public associations, 
     as well as other circumstances. Banned are all forms of 
     limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, 
     language or religious grounds. (Art. 19)

  It is indeed of great concern to me, Mr. President, that the Duma 
sees fit to legislate restrictions on individual rights at a time when 
Russian society is greatly suffering. Michael Specter of the New York 
Times recently wrote about the alarming downward spiral in the health 
of the Russian population. In that article, Specter notes that per 
capita alcohol consumption is the highest in the world; that Russia has 
a wider gap in life expectancy between men and women than in any other 
country; that of the nations of Asia, America, and Europe, Russia's 
mortality rate is ahead of only Afghanistan and Cambodia; and that the 
death rate among working Russians today is higher than a century ago. 
And the indicators are getting worse: the mortality rate for Russian 
men between 40 and 49 years of age increased by over 50 percent between 
1990 and 1995. The reporter concluded: ``An astonishing drop in life 
expectancy for Russian men over the past decade, combined with one of 
the lowest birthrates on earth, has turned Russia into a demographic 
freak show.''

[[Page S7521]]

  Mr. President, we can expect yelping from the supporters of this bill 
in the Duma. Delighted to frustrate President Yeltsin's every move, 
they will claim that international opprobrium against this bill is 
infringing on Russia's sovereignty. This is not a question of Russia's 
sovereignty, Mr. President. The calls and letters President Yeltsin has 
received from political and religious leaders around the world declare 
our concerns about the freedom of individual conscience in Russia, 
concerns their elected body should share, not patronize.
  U.S. assistance is not an entitlement. It is a demonstration of our 
support for the emergence of democracy in a land cursed by communism 
for most of this decade. If Russia turns back to the night of 
authoritarianism, we should not squander our resources, Mr. President.
  In the past 2 weeks, we have seen the announcement of the historic 
enlargement of NATO. The Russian Government opposed this, somewhat 
disingenuously, I believe, because its concerns where not reflecting 
the concerns of the Russian people, who are much more concerned with 
poverty, disease, and rampant crime and their Duma's incessant 
political posturing, than they are of an alliance that has no historic 
record of aggression.
  Among those in the West, there were several groups of thinkers who 
supported this move. Perhaps they could be referred to as idealists and 
realists. The idealists hold a sense of optimism that believes that the 
enlargement of NATO is an expansion of democratic societies, which, 
history has shown, have a lesser tendency to go to war with each other. 
Certainly the history of NATO is clearly that of a defensive collective 
organization committed solely to its own defense.
  The realists focused on an unpredictable future and a geopolitical 
vacuum. This temporal and spatial approach, traditional geopolitics, 
warns that we do not know the ultimate evolution of the Russian state. 
It argues that there is little historical experience of democracy in 
Russia.
  The idealists focus on the internal aspects of NATO and the expansion 
of democracies. To idealists, the solution to Russia's concerns about 
NATO would occur when Russia is seen to have fully demonstrated its 
evolution to rule by democratic institutions. Because would NATO need 
to defend against such a Russia?
  I would like to think of myself as an idealist, Mr. President. And I 
support the enlargement of NATO because I welcome Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, and Poland to the family of democratic nations. Their 
membership in NATO will work to preserve their democratic 
accomplishments.
  But the developments in Russia--in particular this bill against 
religious freedom by the Duma--cloud my optimism. If Russia turns away 
from democracy in favor of an ill-considered exercise in demagogic 
politics, the realists, who fear a future authoritarian Russia and seek 
to prepare for it, will have their views confirmed.
  Mr. President, I have long supported Boris Yeltsin. In fact, when he 
first came to the United States in the late 1980's, I was among the few 
who said, to the Republican administration at the time: ``You're 
focusing on the wrong guy, Gorbachev. This is the man to watch, and 
this is the man to back.'' Since then, I have strongly approved every 
time President Yeltsin stood bravely for democracy in Russia. When he 
stood on that tank in defense of Russia's nascent democracy, my prayers 
were with him.
  I expect that President Yeltsin will veto this bill. That will make 
this legislation that we will pass today merely a demonstration that 
this body will stand for religious freedom in Russia. I will stand and 
applaud him when he vetoes this bill.
  But if this bill becomes law in Russia, Mr. President. Our support 
for democracy in Russia has been dealt perhaps a fatal blow. We should 
not waste our funds promoting democratic development on a government 
that turns away from democracy. And if President Yeltsin signs the the 
bill against religious rights, Mr. President, I will pray for Russia.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I cannot 
support Senator Smith's amendment to the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, S. 955, which we are debating here today.
  I believe that Senator Smith and others in this Chamber who vote in 
favor of this amendment have good intentions, but this amendment is not 
structured in a manner that I can support. This amendment would 
prohibit the United States from issuing foreign aid to the Government 
of Russia should it enact laws which would discriminate against 
minority religious faiths in the Russian federation. On the surface, 
this is a very well intentioned effort.
  I understand and completely support the fundamental importance and 
right of religious freedom, a constitutionally protected right in our 
Nation, as I also appreciate the importance of other freedoms that we 
hold dear in the United States such as the freedom of speech and 
freedom to assemble.
  However, Russia and many other nations have not organized their 
nations to provide the same degree of freedoms that our Nation 
provides. This is not an excuse for other countries; it is just simple 
fact. To tie our Nation's foreign aid decisions too closely to 
legislative outcomes in other countries--even absolutely egregious ones 
like the Russian law which recently passed the Duma restricting 
recognized faiths to those recognized by the former Soviet Union before 
1984, including Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism--
can have serious unintended consequences and disrupt national security 
objectives of our Nation. Through legislative actions such as this one 
which we are considering today, we can actually trigger the enactment 
of outrageous laws in other nations which could seriously damage the 
existing freedoms that citizens in other nations have.
  We should realize that many other nations--including Israel, Egypt, 
Turkey, and other recipients of United States aid--would lose that aid 
if held to the same standard that we are proposing for Russia. Perhaps 
this is something that we should discuss here. But my sense is that we 
don't want a single measuring stick--and that today, we are focusing on 
Russia in a rather knee-jerk fashion. Russia needs to hear our concerns 
about religious freedoms, and I feel that we should pursue this matter 
and communicate United States objections to this Russian law in the 
many different arenas available to us in our engagement with Russia. 
However, this vehicle--as it is constructed--is not appropriate and 
could send matters in a negative rather than positive direction.
  I think that the most important item left out of the drafting of this 
amendment is a national security waiver, which would permit the 
President to waive the provisions of this bill in cases where American 
national security were at stake. If this provision had been included, I 
may have viewed this amendment more positively.
  Again, I believe firmly in the innate human right to worship as each 
individual sees fit. However, in my opinion, not only is this 
particular foreign aid provision an inappropriate vehicle to send that 
message abroad but it also ties the hands of the President in the 
execution of foreign policy and fails to allow for waivers which may 
very well be in the national security interests of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished occupant of 
the Chair, the Senator from Oregon, for an excellent amendment. I was 
in the Senate when we started the Russian aid program. I would say to 
Senator Smith and Senator Hutchinson, who spoke so eloquently in behalf 
of this amendment, the whole Russian aid program was predicated on the 
notion that we were going to have a Russia based on the principles of 
democracy, free speech and freedom of religion--the fundamental 
underpinnings of our Western society, led by the United States many 
years ago when we were largely alone in establishing these principles; 
that the new Russia, at least in those very basic respects, was going 
to be not dissimilar to the United States on these fundamental 
freedoms. And, as an enthusiastic supporter of Russian assistance, both 
in the beginning and since, I can tell you that is not assistance 
without stipulation. It is not assistance no matter how you act.
  As I said in my opening statement, this foreign aid bill this year, 
if it

[[Page S7522]]

stands for anything, it stands for the notion that foreign assistance 
is not an entitlement. It is not something you get automatically this 
year because you got it last year. Foreign assistance is designed to 
promote American interests abroad. Foreign assistance is the only way 
that the Government directly impacts overseas, other than sending in 
the troops, which is expensive and dangerous. But, with the less than 1 
percent of our budget that we devote to this activity, we must use it 
in a way that promotes American values as well as American interests.
  So, the distinguished Senator from Oregon and Senator Hutchinson, who 
has spoken in his behalf in support of this amendment, have it exactly 
right. You have it exactly right. This is the sort of action that ought 
to jeopardize the Russian aid program. We ought not to be giving 
assistance to a country that, as a result of direct government 
initiative in what purports to be a democracy, is seeking to grant 
religious favoritism to certain kinds of religions at the expense of 
the others.
  So, I commend the Senator from Oregon, Senator Smith, for this 
outstanding amendment. I intend to support it. Again, I might say, we 
are hopeful that a vote on this amendment will occur around 12:30. That 
is not something I can announce yet, but we are hopeful it will occur 
around 12:30.
  I would say to my colleague from Oregon, does he wish additional time 
to discuss the amendment?
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the status of the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are several amendments pending to S. 
955.


                           Amendment No. 893

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the eligibility 
         for NATO membership of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mr. 
     Durbin, and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     893.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ESTONIA, LATVIA, AND 
                   LITHUANIA.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Estonia, Latvia, and 
     Lithuania--
       (1) are to be commended for their progress toward political 
     and economic reform and meeting the guidelines for 
     prospective NATO members;
       (2) would make an outstanding contribution to furthering 
     the goals of NATO and enhancing stability, freedom, and peace 
     in Europe should they become NATO members; and
       (3) upon complete satisfaction of all relevant criteria 
     should be invited to become full NATO members at the earliest 
     possible date.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last week the United States joined with 
our European allies to invite three nations to join the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization [NATO]. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic are 
deserving of this invitation. I congratulate them on their achievements 
and look forward to a strong and lasting relationship with the people 
of these nations.
  Today I offer an amendment with my colleague, Senator Durbin, and the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator McConnell, to 
ensure that NATO expansion does not stop here. The Madrid summit was 
only the first step in our efforts to see to it that the nations of 
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are brought firmly into 
democracy's camp. Further expansion of NATO is essential if democratic 
and economic reforms are to continue and if communism is to be 
eliminated entirely from the European Continent.
  My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Estonia, Latvia, 
and Lithuania should be invited to join NATO at the earliest possible 
date. These three tiny nations, perched between the Baltic Sea and the 
northwestern border of Russia, have made remarkable strides since they 
gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Estonia, Latvia, and 
Lithuania have all made significant progress toward the NATO 
requirements of irreversible democracy, free market economies, and 
civilian-controlled militaries. They have even participated in NATO's 
Partnership for Peace initiative by supplying troops to NATO 
peacekeeping efforts. The Baltic nations have requested and deserve 
consideration for full NATO membership.
  From a history wrought with foreign interventions that tore them from 
their rightful place in the European mainstream and subjected them to 
the heavy hand of communism, the Baltics have emerged from the economic 
and political darkness to embrace democracy and the free market with 
unsurpassed vigor. If these nations are ever to continue on the road to 
democracy and economic reform, they must feel secure from the 
possibility of future foreign domination. The United States and NATO 
have an important role to play in providing that necessary security.
  Having traveled to Estonia twice in the past 5 years, I have a very 
personal interest in its entry into NATO. The people of Estonia, much 
like their Baltic neighbors, have been under foreign rule throughout 
history. They were ruled by Germans in the 13th century, Swedes in the 
16th and 17th centuries, Tsarist Russia in the 19th century, and the 
Soviet Union after World War II. With the end of Soviet domination, 
Estonians and their neighbors in Latvia and Lithuania are looking to 
the West for confirmation of their right to independence.
  Unfortunately, the subject of NATO expansion to Estonia, Latvia, and 
Lithuania has become highly controversial. Many in the United States 
national security community believe the Baltics, lying so close to 
Russia and within the area Yeltsin considers to be Russia's sphere of 
influence, should not be considered for NATO membership. Out of fear of 
isolating Russia, the United States and our European allies may forsake 
the three tiny nations that did so much to promote the collapse of the 
Soviet Union and the eradication of communism throughout Eastern 
Europe. Now is the time for the United States take decisive action to 
rectify the past and protect the Baltics from any future foreign 
irredentism.
  Future NATO membership for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is 
essential to their safety and prosperity. Security concerns will take 
precedence over continued democratic and economic reforms if the 
Baltics continue to exist, unprotected, in the shadow of an 
increasingly nationalistic Russia.
  We must be vigilant, Mr. President, in our efforts to extend NATO's 
reach to all democratic nations in Europe who cannot protect 
themselves. If we leave these nations exposed to the risk of foreign 
invasion and influence, the gains we made in expanding democracy and 
freedom across the globe will be vulnerable to erosion.
  The United States must continue to set an example for the world as a 
promoter and protector of democratic freedom. As victors in the cold 
war, we have never had a greater opportunity than this to show 
democracy's enemies that we have the courage and the will to stand firm 
against them. We should embrace this historic opportunity and bring 
every nation deserving of NATO membership into democracy's fold, even 
those nations closest to the heart of Russia.
  The people of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been out in the 
cold long enough. They should be commended for the great strides they 
have made already toward the requirements for NATO membership and would 
make an outstanding contribution to stability, freedom, and peace in 
Europe as NATO members. It is time the West welcome them into NATO with 
open arms.

[[Page S7523]]

  I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Durbin for cosponsoring this 
important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
inclusion of the Baltics in NATO.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, this amendment was proposed by myself 
and by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Durbin], as an 
add-on a week or so ago to the defense authorization bill and was 
accepted by the Senate unanimously at that point.
  The Senator from Illinois and I, and I believe, with the happy assent 
of the manager of the bill, Senator McConnell, are presenting it, once 
again, in the glorious aftermath of last week's meeting of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization in Madrid.
  At that meeting, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary were 
admitted to NATO. Several other nations who are applicants to NATO were 
not admitted but were put at least on the road toward meeting the 
qualifications for entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. Slovenia and Romania were put more or less at the front 
of that parade. But in Madrid, there were also represented the three 
small Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, small nations 
that have been independent for only a relatively short period during 
their long history.
  Unlike the other applicants for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, these three nations were, in fact, occupied by and 
incorporated into the Soviet Union from 1940, with a pause for German 
occupation, until just a very few years ago when they, once again, 
obtained their independence. None of those countries has any goal 
greater than being recognized as a part of the West, as being free 
countries, both politically and economically. No set of nations has 
been more oppressed by their neighbors than these three nations. None, 
I think, has a greater dedication to freedom, to liberty, to democracy, 
and to free markets.
  This amendment simply states that we hope that these countries will 
be carefully considered for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at 
such time as they have met all of its qualifications. The North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization, of course, was formed originally simply 
for the defense of the West, a task which was overwhelmingly 
successful. But as we note the response in the three countries about to 
be admitted, we find that the goals are psychic every bit as much as 
they relate to any kind of military defense. It ratifies the choices 
that these three new applicants made to be democracies, to be a part of 
the West, to care to attempt to catch up, to join what we consider to 
be the free and democratic world.
  Exactly those same feelings are found in the other applicant 
countries, exactly those feelings are found in the Baltics.
  This amendment is a modest way to encourage those three small nations 
to continue to move in the right direction by stating to them that when 
they are fully qualified, they will become members of NATO. On behalf 
of my cosponsors and myself, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from 
Washington, Senator Gorton, for this amendment. As the Senator knows 
from previous discussions, I share his view that if we were 
establishing the parade, the next countries at the front of the parade 
clearly ought to be the Baltic countries. As a matter of fact, as my 
friend from Washington knows, we included in the bill $20 million in 
grants and loans to the three Baltic countries, just as we provided 
financial assistance last year to Poland, Hungary and the Czech 
Republic in order to help them upgrade their militaries in order to 
seek to achieve a level of acceptance for admission to NATO.
  So I think the amendment of the Senator from Washington, of which I 
am a cosponsor, is an excellent addition to this debate, and I 
completely share his views. The countries are most worthy for admission 
to NATO. We have recognized their independence throughout the cold war. 
They are doing an awful lot of things correctly. These countries are 
making enormous progress, and some have argued that they have done 
every bit as well as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, if not 
even better.
  So I commend my friend from Washington for his amendment. I think it 
is an excellent amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his kind remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, does the Senator from Washington hope 
to get a recorded vote on this?
  Mr. GORTON. No, a voice vote will be sufficient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further discussion or debate on 
the amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by 
the Senator from Washington.
  The amendment (No. 893) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to permit 
Lesley Carson, a fellow working with the minority side of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee, to have floor privileges during the pendency 
of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 885

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the managers' amendments we will 
be voting on--actually approving on a voice vote at some point during 
the debate--relates to our friends in Egypt. I want to make a few 
observations about the current relationship between the United States 
and Egypt.
  Since the Camp David accords were signed in 1979, United States 
foreign assistance to Egypt has topped $42 billion. While some progress 
has been made in the last 16 years, I think it is important to point 
out the obvious, which is Egypt's role has changed and changed 
significantly.
  Let me review the record so there is a better sense of why the bill 
reported from the committee did not include the longstanding earmark 
for Egypt.
  First and foremost, Senator Leahy and I tried this year to get our 
aid program off autopilot. Our domestic agencies and programs have been 
put through the budget ringer to determine where we could reduce 
spending. Foreign aid obviously should not be exempted from this 
critical appraisal. As we conducted this review, we established very 
simple tests for evaluating performance. Does the program serve U.S. 
interests in stability, democracy, and market economies? Are U.S. 
resources well invested and well spent?
  The basic principle which has guided the provision of support in the 
Middle East has been a shared commitment to the Camp David accords and 
the promotion of peace. Unfortunately, Egypt's record over the last 2 
years indicates a shift away from that commitment.
  Let me begin by referring to a letter sent by 25 Senators to 
President Mubarak last July following an Arab summit convened in Cairo.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter and the communique issued at 
the summit be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me just quote from the letter. The 
Senators said in that letter:

       We are concerned that the communique issued at the end of 
     the summit compromises prospects to advance negotiations with 
     the new, democratically elected government of Israel. We 
     believe that limiting or conditioning options for peace 
     discussions with the newly elected government of Israel 
     before its policies have been officially formulated damages 
     prospects for peace. Threats from countries of the Arab 
     League to ``reconsider steps taken in the context of the 
     peace process, in relation to Israel'' do little to enhance 
     successful negotiations. . .


[[Page S7524]]


  The letter went on:.

       We are especially troubled that a leader of your stature 
     created a forum, including Libya and Sudan, which question 
     Israel's right to exist.

  Inviting Libya and Sudan to Cairo to condemn Israel is not the kind 
of initiative which serves peace or, for that matter, should be 
rewarded with another $3 billion.
  The July Cairo summit was followed in late September 1996 by an 
escalation in tension between Israelis and Palestinians over the so-
called tunnel crisis. When violence erupted in the streets, President 
Clinton called upon Prime Minister Netanyahu, Chairman Arafat, King 
Hussein, and President Mubarak to come to Washington to negotiate a 
solution. Every leader came except Mubarak. Every leader had as much to 
gain and certainly a great deal to lose if the discussions failed. 
Every leader knew there were costs associated with a high-profile 
summit which might not relieve tensions.
  Only President Mubarak decided it was not worth his time or effort to 
continue a crucial dialogue with the simple objective of salvaging the 
peace process. After refusing to participate in this summit, President 
Mubarak decided to convene another Arab round-table. In March of this 
year, he called together the Arab League in Cairo where the foreign 
ministers passed a resolution which is worth taking a look at. The text 
read:

       The Council recommends as follows: (1) stopping all 
     normalization steps which have been taken with Israel in the 
     framework of the current peace process, and halting all 
     dealings with it, including closing offices and missions. . 
     .and (2) Suspending Arab participation in the multilateral 
     talks and continuing to maintain the primary Arab boycott and 
     reactivating it against Israel.

  Mr. President, this is not a resolution of peace. We should see this 
just for what it was as described by the Arab League's Secretary 
General, ``binding'' and an open declaration of hostility.
  This summit was followed by a crisis in negotiations over the 
redeployment of Israeli troops in Hebron. There is no question that the 
Egyptian leadership consistently and actively worked against a 
resolution of each contentious issue. From hot pursuit to the use of 
the Shuhada Road, the message from Cairo was provocative and 
counterproductive.
  Finally, and of most alarm, is Egypt's relationship with Libya. I 
mentioned the invitation to the Cairo summit. That is just the tip of 
the iceberg. President Mubarak ended a recent visit to Tripoli 
announcing the goal of establishing $1 billion in annual trade and a 
free trade zone, a goal made all the more interesting when contrasted 
with the current level of $82 million in annual trade with Israel. $1 
billion in trade with Libya, $82 million in trade with Israel.
  Let us remember that Libya is the target of tough U.N. sanctions 
which imposed an air, arms, and diplomatic embargo in 1992 when Qadhafi 
failed to extradite two terrorists linked to the Pan Am bombing which 
killed 270 people. The sanctions were extended when Libya failed to 
cooperate in the investigation into the bombing of a French airliner 
which killed 171 passengers.
  Sanctions against Libya are not the peculiar position of the United 
States; they are a matter of international consensus--international 
consensus--that is, with the exception of Egypt.
  In May, President Mubarak denounced the embargo because, in his 
words, it has ``gone on for too long.'' He also challenged 
international charges that Libya has a chemical weapons capability. Not 
so, says Mubarak.
  As recently as January, when I joined Senator Stevens and a number of 
other Members on a trip to the Middle East, we heard the Defense 
Minister describe Libya as a country undergoing economic reforms and 
political liberalization and a key security ally. This was the Egyptian 
Defense Minister discussing Libya.
  This Egypt-Libya relationship is probably why families of Pan Am 103 
victims have called my office to express their support for removing 
Egypt's $3 billion earmark.
  Mr. President, I have chronicled the collapse of Egypt's role in the 
peace process not to incite but to invite change. We have had a 
successful partnership with Egypt which has certainly endured 
difficulties and setbacks, but they have been on the whole temporary 
and intermittent.
  For 18 months we have seen a significant shift in the wrong direction 
in Egyptian policies. We have moved from a road of periodic bumps into 
a long, deep policy ditch, which we must find our way out of.
  Eliminating the earmark was intended to send the signal that our 
support will not continue no matter what choices Egypt makes. We will 
not sustain an ally, and advocate of Libya. It makes no sense to offer 
assistance to opponents of the peace process.
  I am convinced the message has been heard. Coincidental with the 
Senate action, we have seen senior Egyptian officials resume 
constructive and active efforts to advance the peace process. I am 
satisfied, as I am sure the Israeli leadership is, that Cairo has 
resumed the crucial role we know it has, and can play to stabilize the 
region and secure a durable peace.
  Because I believe good faith is being restored, and the goals of the 
Camp David agreement are once again being served, I will be supporting 
an amendment, which in fact I have already offered, which will earmark 
the requested level of funds for Egypt.
  But let me just repeat, Mr. President, our assistance to the 
countries abroad is not an entitlement. This is not something you get 
every year based upon having gotten it last year. American assistance 
is geared to behavior. It is my hope that the Egyptians are back on 
track and willing to resume being a constructive partner in the Middle 
East peace process. Clearly, Mr. President, that is the key to 
continued U.S. assistance to Egypt.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1996.
     His Excellency, Mohammad Hosni Mubarak,
     President of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
       Dear President Mubarak: We are writing to express our deep 
     dismay about the communique issued at the Cairo summit.
       It had been our hope that heads of state and 
     representatives of Arab countries attending the June 21, 1996 
     Cairo summit would refrain from statements directed against 
     the new Israeli government that might create an atmosphere in 
     the region unfavorable to a continuation of the peace 
     process.
       We are concerned that the communique issued at the end of 
     the summit compromises prospects to advance negotiations with 
     the new, democratically elected government of Israel. We 
     believe that limiting or conditioning options for peace 
     discussions with the newly elected government of Israel 
     before its policies have ever been officially formulated 
     damages the prospects for peace. Threats from countries of 
     the Arab League to ``reconsider steps taken in the context of 
     the peace process, in relation to Israel'' do little to 
     enhance successful negotiations, and instead may undermine 
     efforts to reach a comprehensive peace in the region.
       We are especially troubled that a leader of your stature 
     created a forum for Arab League countries, including Libya 
     and the Sudan, which question Israel's right to exist. In 
     light of the past leadership role the Egyptian government has 
     played, we had hoped that Egypt would reach out to the new, 
     democratically elected government in a way that would advance 
     the peace process.
       Peace in the Middle East Peace can only be expanded if the 
     Arab countries remain engaged with Israel in the pursuit. We 
     urge the government of Egypt and other members of the Arab 
     League to work toward that goal.
           Sincerely,
         Mitch McConnell, Barbara A. Mikulski, James Inhofe, Carol 
           Moseley-Braun, Frank R. Lautenberg, Alfonse M. D'Amato, 
           Daniel K. Inouye, Bob Smith, Don Nickles, Joseph I. 
           Lieberman, Paul Wellstone, John D. Rockefeller, Charles 
           E. Grassley, Tom Harkin, Connie Mack, Dirk Kempthorne, 
           Larry Pressler, Phil Gramm, Orrin G. Hatch, Rod Grams, 
           Christopher S. Bond, Arlen Specter, Jon Kyl, Thad 
           Cochran, Olympia J. Snowe.
                                                                    ____


              Partial Text of Final Arab Summit Statement

       Cairo, June 23.--Following is a partial text of the final 
     statement issued by the Arab summit which ended in Cairo on 
     Sunday.
       In response to the kind invitation of his excellency 
     President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, President of the Arab 
     Republic of Egypt, their majesties, excellencies, highnesses, 
     presidents and emirs of Arab states convened a summit 
     conference in Cairo in the period Safar 5 to 7, 1417, which 
     coincided with June 21 to 23, 1996.
       With pan-Arab responsibility as their starting point, the 
     Arab leaders affirmed that achieving comprehensive and just 
     peace in the Middle East requires that Israel withdrew from 
     all occupied Palestinian land, including Arab Jerusalem, and 
     enable the Palestinian people to exercise their right to 
     self-determination and set up an independent Palestinian 
     state with Arab Jerusalem as its

[[Page S7525]]

     capital, considering that the Palestinian question is the 
     essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab leaders also 
     demanded complete Israeli withdrawal from the Syrian Golan to 
     the line of June 4, 1967, and complete and unconditional 
     Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon and the western Bekaa 
     to the internationally recognized borders, in implementation 
     of Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 425, and the 
     principle of land for peace. On this basis they call for the 
     resumption of negotiations on all the tracks.
       ``The commitment of the Arab states to pursue the peace 
     process to achieve just and comprehensive peace is a goal and 
     strategic choice to the achieved under the umbrella of 
     international legitimacy and it requires a reciprocal 
     commitment, confirmed by Israel seriously and without 
     ambiguity, and action to complete the course of peace, 
     restoring rights and occupied land and guaranteeing balanced 
     and equal security for all the states in the region, in 
     accordance with the principles agreed at the Madrid 
     conference, especially the principle of land for peace and 
     the assurances submitted to the parties. The Arab leaders 
     assert that any violation on Israel's part of these 
     principles and the fundamentals on which the peace process 
     started, or backtracking on commitments, undertakings and 
     agreements which have been reached in the framework of this 
     process, or procrastination in implementing them would lead 
     to a setback in the peace process, with all the dangers and 
     repercussions that this implies, taking the region back to 
     the cycle of tension, which would force all the Arab states 
     to reconsider the steps that have been taken towards Israel 
     in the framework of the peace process, full responsibility 
     for which Israel alone would bear.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       In order to make the peace process succeed on the Syrian, 
     Lebanese and Palestinian tracks, the Arab leaders call on the 
     sponsors of the peace process, the European Union, Japan, the 
     non-aligned states, other interested states, the United 
     Nations and international organisations and institutions to 
     work to ensure that Israel does not violate the fundamentals 
     of the peace process, fulfills the undertakings to which it 
     has given a commitment, whether related to the agreements on 
     the transitional stage or to the final status negotiations * 
     * * and to continue to provide the necessary political and 
     economic support to the Palestinian people and their National 
     Authority. In this context the Arab leaders said the Israeli 
     blockade imposed on the Palestinian people must be ended.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Arab leaders affirm their support for Lebanon as it 
     faces constant Israeli attacks on its territory, peace and 
     sovereignty and asked the international community to ensure 
     an immediate and unconditional cessation of these attacks.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Arab leaders affirm that Israel must join the Nuclear 
     non-proliferation Treaty and submit all its nuclear 
     installations to the system of international inspection.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Arab leaders express their solidarity with the sisterly 
     state of Bahrain and their complete support for the measures 
     it has taken to strengthen security and stability. They 
     expressed their strong condemnation of interference in the 
     internal affairs of the state of Bahrain, affirmed that they 
     stand with it against any threatening attempts from any party 
     whatsoever and call on Iran to respect the sovereignty of 
     the state of Bahrain, in the framework of mutual respect 
     and good neighbourly relations, by preventing any acts of 
     sabotage which target the state of Bahrain, in the 
     interests of security and stability in the region.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Arab leaders expressed their hope that the traditional 
     Arab-Turkish relations and joint interests will continue, and 
     in this context they expressed their concern at the Turkish-
     Israeli military agreement and call on Turkey to reconsider 
     this agreement to avoid anything that would affect the 
     security of Arab states.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Arab leaders reaffirm their commitment to the need to 
     preserve the unity of Iraq and their opposition to any 
     policies or measures which affect its territorial integrity 
     and threaten its borders and national unity. They demand that 
     the Iraqi government commit itself not to adopt any 
     aggressive policies designed to provoke its Arab neighbors 
     and to finish implementing all the relevant Security Council 
     resolutions * * *
       All this is the right way to bring an end to the sanctions 
     imposed on Iraq and create the right atmosphere for it to 
     regain its role in the Arab regional system.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Arab leaders believe that the Arab League's proposal to 
     hold an impartial and just trial of the two (Lockberbie) 
     suspects by Scottish judges under Scottish law in The Hague, 
     with the necessary guarantees for them * * * represents an 
     appropriate practical solution leading to an end to the 
     crisis. They call on the three Western states to take a 
     positive attitude towards this proposal * * *

                           *   *   *   *   *

       At the same time as the Arab leaders condemn attempts to 
     pin the charge of terrorism on legitimate national 
     resistance, they condemn all forms of acts of terrorism, 
     sabotage and anarchy of which a number of states are victim.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       It was agreed that:
       His Excellency President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak, President 
     of the Arab Republic of Egypt, as chairman of the present 
     summit, will carry out the necessary contacts and 
     consultations with the Arab leaders and the Secretary General 
     of the League of Arab States to follow up and agree on 
     holding the next summit.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Abraham be added as a cosponsor to the Egypt amendment which I was just 
discussing, which is No. 885.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me begin today by thanking the 
managers of this bill, Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Leahy, for 
their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor so quickly. They 
have had a very tough job managing the foreign assistance programs that 
are undertaken by our country. In this bill what they have produced 
merits the support of every Member of the Senate.
  Mr. President, at the committee meeting, several Members, including 
myself and Senator Byrd, were not comfortable with the deletion of the 
earmark for assistance to Egypt. We certainly do understand Senator 
McConnell's position. We were together in Cairo at the meetings that he 
mentioned. But after consulting with the subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
McConnell, we decided the best way to proceed was to come to the floor 
and have a discussion.
  I want to now call up the amendment No. 885 that is before the 
Senate, at the desk, as I understand it. I ask unanimous consent it be 
in order to consider that at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to call up amendment 
No. 885 for consideration. That is now the pending question.
  Mr. STEVENS. I want to thank those who have cosponsored this 
amendment, in particular Senator McConnell. It is a managers' amendment 
and will restore the balance in the allocation of funds for our 
partners in the Middle East process.
  Egypt has had problems. We all know that. And yet it stands out as 
one of our Nation's most important global allies. It really is the 
bedrock of our engagement with the Arab world. Simply put, Mr. 
President, there would have been no Middle East peace process without 
commitment of Egypt and the personal leadership that was displayed by 
President Sadat, and then by President Mubarak.
  I say this not just as an advocate of the peace process but as a 
Senator who has traveled many times to the Middle East. I have 
witnessed Egypt's evolving role. During the gulf war, Senator Inouye 
and I made two trips to that region, one at the request of the 
President of the United States, to assess what was happening with 
regard to our military plans, and to meet with our key allies. We 
found, then, in President Mubarak, a friend and a leader who aligned 
his great nation with the alliance, and when he did, he brought the 
rest of the Arab world along. In the years since the gulf war, Egypt 
has remained at the center of our Nation's efforts to maintain calm in 
the gulf area and to advance the peace process.
  As Senator McConnell said, earlier this year, we had a delegation 
that went to Israel, Jordan, Gaza, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Mr. 
President, at each stop I became more aware of and convinced of trying 
to do everything we can to assure the continuation of our 20-year 
partnership with Egypt in the peace process.
  Now, the things that Senator McConnell mentioned did happen. But late 
this spring President Mubarak came to Washington and met with our 
President and congressional leaders. In those talks he again showed his 
personal enthusiasm and dedication to the peace process. It was very 
evident, as was his determination to keep Egypt engaged in that 
process.
  Based upon the continuum of the track record of Egypt's support for 
the peace process, and my personal experience working with Egypt on so 
many vital national security interests, and we do have others, Mr. 
President, beyond the peace process itself, I believe

[[Page S7526]]

it is imperative that we show the equity in the identification of funds 
for foreign assistance once again this year. Maintaining a strong and 
economically developing Egypt is an essential piece of this Nation's 
total Middle East strategy.
  I believe President Clinton summarized the current state of relations 
of Egypt very well during President Mubarak's visit early this year. 
President Clinton said:

       Since the Camp David Accords in 1979, Egypt has been a 
     powerful force for peace in the Middle East. That has 
     continued to be true through the last 3\1/2\ years--a time of 
     extraordinary progress towards peace and repeated challenges. 
     Now, as Israel and the Palestinians embark on the difficult 
     task of permanent status negotiations, as we look to revive 
     negotiations between Israel and Syria, and then bring Lebanon 
     into the process to complete the circle of peace, we know 
     that Egypt's leadership will be vital to finish the job.

  That is President Clinton's statement earlier this year about Egypt.
  After 20 years of commitment and investment in this effort, this is 
just not the time to put at risk all that we have achieved. I welcome 
the support of the other cosponsors of this amendment and I am sure 
there are other Members who share our concern that our ties to Egypt 
remain strong and we continue to foster and support this alliance.
  This is not to say that Egypt should not listen to the words that 
Senator McConnell has delivered here this morning and to the statements 
he made in the committee. I believe we are all grateful to Senator 
McConnell for his willingness to work with us in this matter. If there 
is to be any change in our status with regard to Egypt in this process, 
I believe it must be done on a bipartisan basis with the President 
involved. At this time I am hopeful that will never have to happen but, 
as a matter of fact, the modification of this bill before the Senate, I 
think, that shows our willingness to go back to the process that has 
been followed in the past, I hope, will make a significant contribution 
to the Middle East peace process and will help us advance the interests 
of the United States there and in other regions with Egypt's support 
and collaboration.
  I do, however, believe there are reasons for us to make sure everyone 
understands, as Senator McConnell said, that the provisions of support 
from this bill are not an entitlement. These are funds that are dealt 
with on an annual basis by our Government, the Senate and the House, 
the full Congress, as part of that process. It is my judgment that it 
has been a bipartisan process that has included both the executive and 
congressional leaders and leadership in the past and I think it should 
continue that way again this year.
  I do hope that our friends in Egypt--and I don't have to hope, Mr. 
President, I know they have heard Senator McConnell's statement, and I 
know they are aware that there have been questions raised, but based 
upon this continuum that has taken place, the friendship and 
cooperation and the important contributions that Egypt has made to the 
attainment of our goals in the Middle East, I have offered this 
amendment with my friends. It is a managers' amendment. I do ask that 
the Senate consider this amendment now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Kentucky?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 885) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me again thank Senator McConnell and 
Senator Leahy and their very capable staff for all the work they have 
done, and to once again urge the Senate cooperate with these managers 
of this bill the way it has with those who managed the defense bill and 
energy and water bill.
  We are working and striving hard to get the bills to conference 
before we go to August recess. I would like all of them to go to 
conference, if possible, before August.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I just say to my friend and colleague before he 
leaves, we are optimistic we can finish this bill today. We are 
speeding in that direction.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am here to assist.


                           Amendment No. 889

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the amendment 
of Senator Smith of Oregon, which would try to protect religious 
liberty in Russia. I want to compliment my colleague from Oregon for 
this amendment. In my opinion, it is probably one of the most important 
amendments we will debate, certainly on this bill--maybe this Congress.
  Unfortunately, and I guess most of my colleagues are aware of this 
fact, the Russian Duma overwhelmingly voted to place restrictions on 
religious freedom in Russia, freedoms that were both won after the 
collapse of communism and guaranteed by the 1993 Russian Constitution. 
The overwhelming vote by the Duma is a tremendous step backward for 
Russia and for its people.
  The legislation approved by the Duma would place severe restrictions 
on religions not recognized by the government in 1982, a time when the 
Soviet Government was in power, a time characterized by religious 
persecution and official atheism. In 1982, as I understand it, the only 
four religions recognized by the Russian Government were the Russian 
Orthodox church, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism.
  As I understand this legislation, it would deny religions that 
entered Russia after 1982 the right to rent or own property, the right 
to employ religious workers, the right to produce religious literature, 
maintain a bank account, or conduct charitable and educational 
activities. According to an article that appeared in the June 24 
edition of the Washington Post, it would sharply restrict the 
activities of foreign missionaries in Russia.
  I hope my colleagues are aware of this. I was not aware of it until 
my colleague from Oregon mentioned it to me. I cannot believe that the 
Duma would pass something by such an overwhelming vote that would deny 
religious opportunities to the Russian people. Maybe one of the most 
important of all liberties is the right to worship as one would choose. 
It is guaranteed by the 1993 Russian Constitution. Yet they would pass 
legislation basically grandfathering four established religions, but 
outlawing other religions, such as the Mormon church, the Roman 
Catholic Church, and untold other numbers of minority religions in 
Russia.
  The Reverend Gleb Yakunin, an orthodox priest, said in a news report 
carried by the June 24 edition of the London Times, that the bill was 
``openly discriminatory'' and ``The bill is effectively aimed at 
reinstating Soviet religious policy.''
  I believe the reverend's statement is true. I believe putting 
restrictions on the religions that have recently entered Russia will 
have the same effect of not allowing many people to practice their 
religions. If religions are unable to carry out charitable activities, 
how can members of various churches practice their religion?
  Christian missionaries who are following the admonition of Christ 
would not be allowed to do so in Russia. Many remember when Billy 
Graham went to Russia several years ago. He had an overwhelming 
reception. Would foreign missionaries not be allowed? Would people that 
gather be allowed to reproduce materials? I think the reproduction of 
materials would be banned under the bill that was passed by the Duma. 
Hopefully, Mr. Yeltsin will not sign this bill. I think it is extremely 
important he not sign this bill.
  According to Lawrence Uzzell, Moscow representative of the Keston 
Institute, which studies religious life in Russia and Eastern Europe, 
of the 102 Catholic priests and 112 nuns serving in Russia, all but a 
handful are foreigners. In fact, Mr. Uzzell reports that a Catholic 
priest in Belgorod was recently told he could not celebrate mass there 
because his parish is a foreign religious organization.
  I think this report confirms what I suspected, that this bill passed 
by the Duma would not only put restrictions on these religions, but 
have the effect of denying the opportunity to many to practice their 
religion.
  So I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for his amendment. Again, 
it may be one of the most important amendments.

[[Page S7527]]

  What is the effect? It says no money under this bill, the foreign 
operations bill, will go to Russia if President Yeltsin signs this bill 
into law or if it becomes law, or if he issues an executive order that 
will ban religious freedom as guaranteed under the Russian 
Constitution.
  I think it is a very appropriate amendment. Some people will argue 
this is too heavy of a hammer. I think we need to get their attention. 
What they are doing by outlawing many religions, basically most 
Christian religions and organizations, banning those, outlawing those 
from Russia, I think, would be a terrible, terrible thing to happen to 
the Russian people. They should not be forced into any religion. We 
should certainly encourage religious choice and opportunity for all the 
Russian people.
  Some will say, what is the effect of this amendment? This amendment 
says no economic assistance will be going to Russia if the President 
signs this bill or if he issues an executive order which will ban 
religious freedom in Russia. How much economic assistance does Russia 
receive? I think last year it was $90-some million, and the President 
requested $195 million in this bill. It is not earmarked, so we don't 
have the specific amount. Would this tie the President's hands? This 
would give real leverage to the administration to tell Russia, this 
should not become law.
  We need to respect individual religious liberty in Russia and not 
allow--and certainly not encourage--religious liberty to be trampled. I 
believe we should use what economic forces we have to ensure this 
doesn't happen. We don't have to give this economic assistance to 
Russia. We haven't done it for years. We just started a couple of years 
ago. Many of the programs that we are funding in the foreign ops bill 
are worthy programs, where we encourage democracy, encourage free 
enterprise. That is very positive. But we don't have to do it.
  Maybe we should tell them if they are going to pass this kind of 
bill, we are not going to do it. If they are going to pass a bill in 
Russia to deny Baptists the opportunity to distribute materials or to 
have employees in Russia, then maybe we should not be giving them 
economic assistance. Maybe we need to use a heavy hammer to get their 
attention that this is very serious.
  One of the most important freedoms we have, protected by our first 
amendment, is religious freedom. It is also protected in the Russian 
Constitution. We should encourage the Russian Government to protect 
religious freedom, not take it away. So, yes, this is an amendment that 
has a heavy hammer. It says we are not going to give economic 
assistance.
  I noticed a memo from the administration in opposition to this 
amendment, which says our assistance money is used to reduce the number 
of nuclear weapons and improve security over nuclear materials in 
Russia. We are not touching that. That is covered by the DOD bill. I 
encouraged the Senator from Oregon to consider putting it on that bill 
because I wanted to get their attention early. President Yeltsin hasn't 
signed this bill--our friend, President Clinton's friend, George Bush's 
friend. He hasn't signed the bill yet. We want to get his attention 
before it is too late. This is the proper bill. So it doesn't have 
anything to do with Nunn-Lugar money, or national defense. It does have 
some money in there for economic assistance.
  As I mentioned, the President's request is about $190 million. We 
probably won't fully fund it. But we don't have to fund it at all if 
they are going to pass a bill denying religious freedom and opportunity 
for the Russian people.
  So I compliment my colleague from Oregon for an outstanding 
amendment. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote, maybe 100 to 0, in 
spite of what the memo says. Let us have a 100 to 0 vote to show that 
we believe very strongly that religious freedom is very important and 
we are willing to put it on the line that we will fight to help protect 
religious freedom throughout the world and certainly in Russia.
  So, Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Oregon. I hope all 
my colleagues will support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 894

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

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 894.

  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:

       At the appropriate place in Title II, insert the following 
     ``Provided further, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading to the Korean Peninsula Economic Development 
     Organation (KEDO) may only be obligated if the Secretary of 
     State certifies and reports to the Congress that during the 
     fiscal year the military armistice agreement of 1953 has not 
     been violated by North Korea.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. At 10:40 a.m. Tuesday morning along the 
demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, North Korean soldiers 
exchanged heavy gunfire with South Korean troops. This is accurately 
described as the most serious clash on the Korean Peninsula since a 
North Korean submarine full of special forces went aground off South 
Korea's coast last September.
  According to news reports, 14 North Korean soldiers crossed the 
military demarcation line and traveled 70 meters into the DMZ. South 
Korean border guards used a loudspeaker to order the North Koreans 
back. When the North Koreans failed to respond, South Korean soldiers 
fired some 200 warning shots in the air.
  The North Koreans responded by firing their rifles at the South 
Korean soldiers, who then directed fire at the North Koreans using 
rifles and machine guns. North Korean soldiers returned fire. And 
although reports are in dispute, it appears there was at least one 
mortar round fired by the North Koreans.
  The firefight lasted for over 1 hour before the North Koreans stopped 
firing and withdrew.
  Mr. President. Why do I come to the floor and talk about an artillery 
exchange thousands of miles away? There are several good reasons why 
Americans should pay attention to what is going on on the Korean 
Peninsula.
  First, I don't need to remind my colleagues that I am talking about 
the DMZ where 37,000 American troops stand guard across from a 1.1 
million man North Korean army.
  Second, according to a GAO report that I requested last year, the 
United States has sent over 115 million taxpayer dollars in combined 
food aid and to support the Korean Economic Development Organization 
[KEDO], which is tasked with sending heavy fuel oil to North Korea and 
carrying out other activities under the agreed framework signed in 
October 1994.
  Just yesterday, the administration announced that the United States 
will donate an additional $27 million worth of surplus grain to North 
Korea.
  And today, in the foreign operations appropriations bill, there is an 
additional $44 million appropriated for KEDO, subject to certain 
conditions that Senator McCain and I added to last year's appropriation 
bill.
  Now $200 million may be a small price to pay to achieve peace on the 
Korean Peninsula, and I am not arguing about the money per se. But if 
there was ever a case of a recipient biting the hand that feeds it--it 
is North Korea.
  Incident after incident--from the submarine incursion to this latest 
round of gunfire--is dismissed as ``not intentional'' or not 
``serious'' enough to derail U.S. assistance under the agreed 
framework. After the North Korean submarine landed on South Korean 
shores, our administration asked for ``both sides to show restraint.'' 
I was outraged that we asked our South

[[Page S7528]]

Korean allies to ``show restraint'' when it was their country that had 
been invaded by commandos.
  I understand that right now the administration is preparing a 
response to this latest violation of the Military Armistice Agreement. 
And true to form, the administration is asking once again that this 
issue not be ``blown out of proportion''. Not blown out of proportion?
  I think we should be outraged at North Korea's continued belligerent 
actions that are clearly designed to intimidate. The South Koreans did 
nothing wrong today, unless you think defending one's borders and 
shooting in self-defense is wrong. I hope the administration's 
statement recognizes that reality and does not even implicitly agree 
with the North Korean foreign ministry propaganda claiming that their 
soldiers were acting in self-defense.
  That is why in offering this amendment, Mr. President, I would 
condition further funding--this is the important part of the 
amendment--on a certification from the President that North Korea has 
not violated the Military Armistice Agreement of 1953.
  Although I have very strong reservations about the agreed framework, 
which I have expressed on this floor from time to time, and 
particularly because North Korea does not have to submit to inspections 
that were required 5 years ago, for several more years--and this is in 
association with the construction of the light water reactors that 
Japan, the United States, and South Korea are assisting in--I have 
supported continued funding for KEDO, subject to specific conditions 
that are spelled out in the bill. But I now believe that these 
conditions should be expanded to ensure that North Korea belligerency 
comes to an end.
  If the North Koreans want economic assistance from the United States, 
they are going to have to learn that their troops and munitions ought 
to stay on their side of the border. Their people, unfortunately, don't 
have enough to eat. Many of them are starving. We continue to help them 
with food assistance and humanitarian assistance. Yet, they continue to 
use their military to provoke those who would help them.
  I think it is time for the administration to stop appeasing this 
tyrannical and barbaric government that has brutalized the people of 
North Korea for more than 45 years. We, in effect, are supporting a 
government that would probably fall by its own weight. I am not 
suggesting that it is not a very dangerous situation with the 1.1 
million men in arms. I am not suggesting that the regime isn't 
dangerous, in the sense of being very unpredictable. But they have to 
get the message that they can't bite the hand that feeds them. We 
continue to assist North Korea even while that Government continues a 
very aggressive posture.
  If the administration cannot certify North Korean compliance with 
this amendment, I think financial assistance must come to an end. If 
the President can make the necessary certification that the North 
Koreans have not violated the Military Armistice Agreement of 1953, I 
certainly would not stand in the way of meeting our commitments to 
KEDO. But I think the North Koreans should certainly get the message 
that they simply cannot continue to operate under the theory that 
anything goes with regard to its commitment to KEDO.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Arizona, if I could just 
propound a unanimous-consent request, then I will yield the floor.
  It is my understanding it has been cleared on the other side of the 
aisle for there to be a vote on the Smith amendment at 2 o'clock. It is 
my understanding, based upon a previous agreement, that would also 
trigger a vote on final passage on the energy and water appropriations 
bill.
  Therefore, if I am correct about that, I ask unanimous consent that a 
vote on the Smith amendment occur at 2 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I remind my colleagues there will be two votes, back 
to back, at 2 o'clock, one on the Smith amendment and one on final 
passage of energy and water.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my intention to ask for the yeas 
and nays on my amendment that is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my intention to ask for the yeas and nays on my 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am working and my staff is working with 
the Senator from Alaska right now so that I can cosponsor this 
important amendment regarding Korea. We have some details we would like 
to iron out as to the language of the amendment that I am confident we 
can agree on.
  Mr. President, we all know that there has been another North Korean-
initiated altercation in the demilitarized zone that separates it from 
the South.
  According to preliminary reports, a small number of North Korean 
soldiers entered South Korea and refused an order from the South to 
withdraw. When the North Korean soldiers ignored the verbal warning, 
the South Korean soldiers fired warning shots, to which the North 
responded with a mortar and artillery barrage.
  My reason for bringing this up is to ensure this latest event 
involving North Korea is placed squarely in its proper context. On 
Monday, the Clinton administration announced that it is doubling the 
amount of food assistance it intends to supply to Pyongyang to 
alleviate some of the suffering from the famine resulting primarily 
from 50 years of totalitarian rule and exacerbated by intense flooding. 
I am not here to argue against providing food to starving people; I am 
here to reiterate the futility of expecting humanitarian gestures to 
the most belligerent regime in the world to beneficially affect its 
behavior.
  Nobody knows what is going on inside the minds of North Korea's 
leaders, especially the presumed head of government, Kim Jong Il. So 
thoroughly closed off to the outside world as the North Korean 
Government has been since its post-World War II inception, that details 
on its inner workings have been more elusive than for the Soviet Union 
during its most closed and totalitarian period. One incontrovertible 
fact remains, however: North Korea has an extraordinarily consistent 
pattern of alternating minor and manipulative gestures of goodwill with 
acts of terror and provocation toward its South Korean neighbor unseen 
anywhere else in the world.
  To illustrate this pattern of provocation and terror, I ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the Record this list of such individual acts 
spanning the period 1958 to March of this year.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                          The Library of Congress,
                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 1997.
     To:
     From: Rinn S. Shinn, Analyst in Asian Affairs, Foreign 
       Affairs and National Defense Division.
     Subject: History of North Korean Terrorist Activities.
       The following chronology is in response to your request for 
     historical information on terrorist activities carried out by 
     the North Korean government in the past decades. For the 
     purpose of this chronology, we have agreed that the scope of 
     ``terrorist activities'' should be expanded to cover broadly 
     defined other provocative acts and beyond ``the last 20 
     years'' you indicated in your request.
       I should add that the chronology is selective. From 1954 to 
     1992, North Korea infiltrated a total of 3,693 armed agents 
     into South Korea. According to data compiled by a South 
     Korean government agency, 2,345 infiltrators were captured; 
     1,130 killed; and 218 surrendered. The peak years of North 
     Korean infiltration were 1967 and 1968, accounting for a 
     total of 743 agents (167 captured; 553 shot to death; and 23 
     surrendered). Incidence of infiltration has decreased sharply 
     since 1987 but has not stopped completely (Vantage Point, 
     November 1995, p. 17). If you need further assistance or have 
     questions, please call me.


          Chronology of Major Provocative Acts by North Korea

       Date, activities.

[[Page S7529]]

       02/1958--North Korean agents hijacked to Pyongyang a South 
     Korean airliner flying from Pusan to Seoul; 2 American pilots 
     and 24 passengers were released in early March but 8 other 
     passengers remained in the North.
       01/1968--a 31-number commando team, disguised as South 
     Korean soldiers and civilians, reached within 500 yards of 
     President Park Chung Hee's office/residence complex (The Blue 
     House) before they were intercepted by South Korean police; 
     29 commandos were killed and one committed suicide; one who 
     was captured revealed that their mission was to kill 
     President Park and other senior government officials.
       01/1968--Two days after the commando attempt on President 
     Park, North Korea seized the U.S. intelligence ship Pueblo 
     with a crew of 83 officers and men off Wonsan in 
     international waters outside the 12-mile limit claimed by 
     North Korea; the crew was finally released in 12/1968, but 
     not the ship.
       10/1968--130 sea-borne commandos infiltrated the Ulchin and 
     Samchok areas on the eastern coast of South Korea; 110 were 
     killed, 7 were captured, and 13 fled.
       04/1969--North Korea shot down an unarmed U.S. EC-121 
     reconnaissance plane over international waters, resulting in 
     the loss of 31 lives.
       06/1969--North Korea agents infiltrated Huksan Island off 
     the west coast; 15 were shot to death.
       12/1969--North Korea hijacked a South Korean airliner with 
     50 persons aboard to Pyongyang; in February 1970, it released 
     all but 11 of the crew and passengers but detained 7 
     passengers, 1 pilot, and 2 stewardesses and seized the 
     aircraft. The 11 are reportedly still detained in North 
     Korea, along with some 450 other South Koreans abducted by 
     North Korea in the past decades.
       03/1970--From 1970 to 1995, North Korea provided sanctuary 
     to 9 members of a Japanese radical leftwing ``Red Army'' 
     group who had hijacked a Japanese Boeing 707 airliner to 
     Pyongyang.
       04/1970--Three North Korean infiltrators were shot to death 
     at Kumchon, Kyonggido, south of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) 
     separating the two Koreas.
       06/1970--A powerful bomb exploded, demolishing the main 
     gate to National Cemetery (South Korea's equivalent of 
     Arlington Cemetery), before President Park's scheduled visit 
     to the place. The incident was linked to North Korean 
     elements.
       01/1971--A North Korean attempt to hijack a South Korean 
     Airline F-20 passenger plane flying from Seoul to Sokcho on 
     the east coast was foiled.
       08/1974--President Park Chung Hee's wife was killed during 
     another attempt on his life. A member of a pro-North Korean 
     group in Japan who entered Seoul as a tourist fired several 
     shots at Park at a major public function; Park escaped 
     unhurt, but the First Lady was hit by stray bullets and died 
     several hours later.
       09/1975--Two North Korean infiltrators were intercepted at 
     Kochang, Cholla Pukdo; one was shot to death.
       06/1976--Three North Korean infiltrators were shot to death 
     in the eastern sector south of the DMZ.
       08/1976--A group of North Korean soldiers, wielding axes 
     and metal pikes, attacked a U.S.-South Korean tree-trimming 
     team in a neutral area inside the DMZ at Panmunjom, killing 2 
     U.S. army officers and wounding 4 American enlisted men and 5 
     South Korean soldiers. In a message to UN Commander General 
     Richard G. Stillwell, North Korea's Kim Il Sung described the 
     incident as ``regrettable'' without admitting North Korean 
     responsibility for what the U.S. government condemned as a 
     ``vicious and unprovoked murder'' of the officers.
       07/1977--A North Korean attempt to abduct a South Korean 
     couple (Yoon Jong-hee and wife) failed in Paris.
       02/1978--Actress Choi Eun-hee and her film-director husband 
     Shin Sang-ok were kidnapped in Hong Kong and taken to 
     Pyongyang. The couple escaped in 1986 while on a filming 
     assignment in Vienna.
       06/1979--A South Korean student Ko Sang-moon was abducted 
     by North Koreans in the Netherlands.
       07/1979--A North Korean attempt to abduct Han Yong-gil, an 
     employee of the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency 
     (KOTRA), failed in France.
       03/1980--Three North Koreans tried to infiltrate the South 
     across the estuary of Han River; all were killed.
       11/1980--Three North Korean infiltrators were shot to death 
     at Whenggando, Cholla Namdo, South Korea.
       12/1980--Three North Korean agents were shot to death off 
     the coast of Kyongsang Namdo, South Korea.
       03/1981--Of three North Korean infiltrators at Kumhwa, 
     Kangwondo, one was shot to death.
       06/1981--A North Korean spy boat was sunk off the coast of 
     Sosan, Chungchong Namdo; 9 agents were shot to death and one 
     was captured alive.
       07/1981--One North Korean agent was shot to death in the 
     upper stream of Imjin River, while trying to cross the river.
       05/1982--Two North Korean infiltrators were spotted on the 
     east coast; one was shot to death.
       08/1982--Police in Canada uncovered a North Korean plot to 
     assassinate President Chun Doo Hwan during a visit to that 
     country.
       10/1983--The explosion of a powerful bomb, several minutes 
     before President Chun was due to arrive to lay a wreath at 
     the Martyr's Mausoleum in Rangoon, Burma (Myanmar), killed 17 
     senior South Korean officials and injured 13 who were 
     accompanying President Chun, then on the first leg of a six-
     nation Asian tour. Among the killed were; presidential chief-
     of-staff and another senior presidential assistant; deputy 
     prime minister/minister of economic planning; three cabinet 
     members including foreign minister; 3 deputy ministers; and 
     South Korean ambassador to Burma. The bomb was intended for 
     President Chun. Based on initial findings, Seoul accused 
     Pyongyang of masterminding the mass assassination, an 
     accusation North Korean leader Kim Il Sung dismissed as a 
     ``preposterous slander.'' President Chun termed the mass 
     assassination as ``a grave provocation not unlike a 
     declaration of war,'' and warned the North that ``should such 
     a provocation recur, there would be a corresponding 
     retailiation in kind.'' Two suspects arrested and tried in 
     the Rangoon Divisional Court turned out to be a North Korean 
     army major and captain. On November 4, Burma broke off 
     diplomatic relations with North Korea. In 02/84, the Burmese 
     Supreme Court sustained the death penalty handed down by the 
     lower court.
       09/1984--A North Korean agent killed 3 residents of Taegu, 
     South Korea, and committed suicide.
       10/1984--A North Korean spy ship was chased off the coast 
     of Pusan, South Korea, but eluded capture.
       01/1998--A North Korean attempt to abduct a South Korean 
     citizen (Yoon Taek-shik) failed in Hong Kong.
       08/1997--Lee Chae-hwan, a South Korean student enrolled in 
     an American school, was abducted by North Koreans while on a 
     visit to a European country.
       11/1987--A bomb planted by two North Korean terrorists on a 
     Korean Airline Boeing 707 exploded in midair over the Andaman 
     Sea off the coast of Burma. 115 passengers were aboard the 
     flight from Baghdad to Seoul. One of the terrorists, who was 
     taken into custody in Bahrain, confessed to the crime, was 
     tried, and convicted in a Seoul court.
       03/1990--Another North Korean tunnel dug under the DMZ was 
     discovered; this was the fourth one uncovered since the mid-
     1970s.
       05/1992--Three North Koreans, wearing South Korean 
     uniforms, were shot to death at Cholwon, Kangwondo, south of 
     the DMZ.
       10/1992--A North Korean 400-member spy ring in South Korea, 
     directed by Lee Son-sil (a Political Bureau candidate member 
     of the Central Committee of Pyongyang's ruling Korean Workers 
     (Communist) Party), was uncovered by South Korea's Agency for 
     National Security Planning. The Agency announced that the 
     agents had infiltrated through South Korea's coastlines.
       03/1993--North Korea announced its intention to withdraw 
     from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty rather than yield 
     to the International Atomic Energy Agency's demands for a 
     ``special inspection'' of two suspected nuclear waste storage 
     sites at Yongbyon, North Korea.
       12/1993--Vice Marshal Choe Kwang, Chief of the General 
     Staff of the North Korean military (and defense minister, 
     1995-96), declared at a major state function that the 
     military ``has the heavy and honorable task of reunifying the 
     fatherland with guns [emphasis added] in the nineties without 
     fail,'' thereby revealing not so subtly North Korea's 
     alternative to its oft-proclaimed policy of ``peaceful 
     reunification.''
       03/1994--For the first time in more than two decades, North 
     Korea issue a threat of war in an inter-Korean meeting in 
     Panmunjom. In response to Seoul's chief delegate mentioning 
     the possibility of UN sanctions against the North for its 
     refusal to accept full international nuclear inspections, 
     Pyongyang's chief delegate reportedly shot back: ``Seoul is 
     not far away from here. If a war breaks out, Seoul will turn 
     into a sea of fire.'' The ``sea of fire'' threat rattled 
     South Koreans, already concerned about Pyongyang's perceived 
     attempt to cultivate a `madman' image as ``a new 
     psychological negotiating tactic'' designed ``to blackmail 
     the US into granting concessions, including diplomatic 
     recognition, the lifting of trade sanctions and the supply of 
     aid for its tottering economy.''
       06/1994--A North Korean attempt to abduct a South Korean 
     professor, Lee Jin-sang, from an Ethiopian university in 
     Addis Ababa was foiled.
       08/1994--North Korea's foreign ministry declared: ``We will 
     never allow the [special] inspection of the military sites at 
     the expense of our sovereignty in order to receive light-
     water reactors. Another conflict cannot be avoided, if they 
     [South Korean and Japanese authorities] continue trying to 
     complicate matters, citing the `special inspection' that we 
     have never allowed and cannot allow in the future either.'' 
     (The North Korean-U.S. ``agreed framework'' of October 1994 
     to the contrary, North Korea continues to maintain that the 
     special inspection is out of question--a portent of what 
     might be called ``a special inspection crisis'' several years 
     down the road or around 2003).
       05/1995--North Korean patrol boat fired on a South Korean 
     fishing vessel, killing three South Korean fishermen; North 
     Korea released 5 other fishermen in December 1995 through 
     Panmunjom.
       06/1995--North Korean soldiers threatened the captain of a 
     South Korean vessel with harm in a North Korean port unless 
     he hoisted the North Korean flag while the vessel was there 
     to deliver a South Korean humanitarian rice shipment to the 
     North.
       07/1995--A team of three North Korean agents abducted a 
     South Korean missionary,

[[Page S7530]]

     the Reverend An Sung-un, in southern Manchuria and 
     transported him to North Korea. Reverend An currently remains 
     in the North.
       08/1995--North Korea seized a South Korean rice delivery 
     vessel and arrested its crew in a North Korean port after a 
     South Korean crewman took photographs from the ship. The ship 
     was released in 12 days after the South Korean government 
     sent a message to the North, expressing ``regret'' over the 
     photographing incident.
       10/1995--Two armed North Koreans were intercepted at the 
     Imjin River just south of the DMZ; one was shot to death and 
     the other escaped (This incident happened at a time when 
     South Korea was sending humanitarian rice aid to North 
     Korea).
       10/1995--Two North Korean agents were intercepted at Puyo, 
     about 100 miles south of Seoul; one was shot to death and the 
     other was taken alive. The captured agent disclosed that he 
     had infiltrated into South Korea two months earlier, with a 
     mission to contact anti-government dissidents and politicians 
     and the organization of underground cells.
       04/1996--A total of four hundred North Korean troops 
     crossed the military demarcation line of the DMZ at Panmunjom 
     and elsewhere in violation of the Korean armistice agreement, 
     after Pyongyang's unilateral announcement that it no longer 
     would abide by the terms of the armistice.
       05/1996--Seven North Korean soldiers crossed the military 
     demarcation line into the southern half of the DMZ, facing 
     South Korean defensive positions just south of the DMZ, but 
     withdrew when South Korean troops fired warning shots.
       05/1996--Five North Korean naval patrol craft crossed into 
     South Korean territorial waters off the east coast in an area 
     designated as South Korean waters under the armistice accord 
     but withdrew after four hours of a standoff with South Korean 
     naval vessels. A similar three-hour incursion by three North 
     Korean craft in the same area occurred on June 14, 1996.
       07/1996--A North Korean spy was captured in Seoul after 
     posing as a Filipino professor for 12 years. Chung Su Il 
     (alias: Mohammed Kansu), 62, told police that ``scores, 
     perhaps hundreds'' of North Korean spies were operating in 
     the South.
       09/1996--A disabled North Korean submarine was spotted 
     bobbing off the shore near the city of Kangnung. Twenty six 
     North Korean military personnel landed on the east coast from 
     the submarine that was found to be on an espionage/
     reconnaissance mission. Eleven of the infiltrators were shot 
     to death by North Koreans; 13 others refused to surrender and 
     were killed; one was captured and one escaped. During the 
     South Korean hunt for the infiltrators, North Koreans killed 
     11 South Korean military personnel and civilians and wounded 
     five others.
       10/1996--Choi Duk Keun, a South Korean diplomat, was 
     murdered in Vladivostok, Russia, following a North Korean 
     threat to ``retaliate'' for the submarine incident. 
     Circumstantial evidence initially pointed to North Korean 
     complicity in the murder, and later autopsy results showed 
     that poison found in Choi's body was the same type of poison 
     carried by North Korean infiltrators from the grounded 
     submarine in September.
       02/1997--In Seoul, South Korea, Lee Han-yong was 
     assassinated by two hit men believed to be North Korean 
     agents. Nephew of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's former 
     wife, Song Hye-rim, Lee had defected to the South in 1982. 
     The shooting took place three days after Hwang Jan-yop, a 
     high ranking North Korean party official, walked into the 
     South Korean consulate in Beijing to defect to the South--a 
     possible warning to Hwang and other would-be defectors to the 
     South. After being in coma, Lee died a week later in a Seoul 
     hospital.
       03/1997--Japan's daily newspaper Sankei Shimbun, based on 
     an interview with a former South Korean agent An Myong-chin 
     (who defected to South Korea in September 1993), reported 
     that in 1977, Megumi Yokota, a 13-year-old Japanese school 
     girl was abducted in Niigata City to North Korea for use as a 
     teaching aide at a North Korean school for spy training. 
     Japanese authorities disclosed that An's description of the 
     girl matched the profile of a girl reported missing in 
     Niigata, Japan.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is a list worthy of Stalin, the butcher 
of millions of his own people and the Soviet leader who installed Kim 
Jong-Il's father, Kim Il Sung, in power following the end of the Second 
World War. This list includes numerous instances of North Korean agents 
infiltrating the South to conduct assassinations, with the most recent 
occurring last February; causes of agents kidnapping ordinary Japanese 
citizens off of the beaches of their own country as well as South 
Koreans, who are smuggled to North Korea for imprisonment and 
interrogation; armed soldiers crossing the border between the two 
countries to provoke fire fights, such as apparently occurred this 
morning; special forces infiltrating the South through tunnels dug 
beneath the DMZ; and the naval incursions, most recently the September 
1996 submarine that was grounded off the South Korean coast with the 
ensuing loss of considerable life due to the will of the North Korean 
commandoes who debarked from the sub not to be taken alive.
  I highly recommend my colleagues take a few minutes to review this 
list. It is the ultimate commentary on the nature of the North Korean 
regime. It is a window into the soul of that country's rulers. It is a 
warning against misjudging the North's periodic gestures of goodwill 
that are inevitably, at most, tactical responses to their own self-
induced social calamities or continued efforts at undermining the 
relationship between South Korea and the United States.
  Mr. President, I now want to discuss the bill very briefly itself.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate on 
the subject of the fiscal year 1988 foreign operations appropriations 
bill. As has been noted numerous times by Members of this body, the end 
of the cold war had the unwelcome effect of creating a vacuum into 
which all manner of ethnic, religious, and territorial conflict has 
been permitted to emerge. In addition, the continuous problems of 
combating famine, disease, and other problems afflicting many nations 
of the world ensures that the global responsibilities of the executive 
and legislative branches of the Government remain substantial, 
particularly relative to the resources available with which to address 
them.
  It is for these reasons that we owe it to the American public and to 
those less fortunate than ourselves around the world that we act as 
responsibly as possible when allocating these scarce resources. That is 
why I continue to oppose the practices of adding to the bill funds for 
programs of questionable merit and of earmarking for specific 
institutions without regard for broader U.S. national security 
interests.
  As an elected representative from a State with considerable 
agricultural interests, I am fully aware of the importance of properly 
administered agricultural programs. Do we honestly expect, however, the 
American public to adopt a less confrontational posture vis-a-vis their 
elected representatives when we continue to earmark funds for the 
International Fertilizer Development Center in Alabama. Not only does 
the bill before us earmark $3 million for the center, this amount 
represents a 50-percent increase over fiscal year 1996. Is the chemical 
makeup or molecular structure of fertilizer changing so much that we 
need to actually increase appropriations for the Fertilizer Development 
Center?
  As usual, although admittedly to a lesser extent than in years past, 
the bill recommends or directs funding for specific universities, 
including the University of Hawaii for the training of health and human 
service professionals; the University of Northern Iowa for teacher 
education in Slovakia; and George Mason University, also for health 
care. Montana State University continues to fare well in foreign 
operations appropriations bills. In the past, it has received funding 
for pest control. This year, it is supposed to receive funds for crop 
eradication, specifically opium poppy, coca, and marijuana. Laudable 
goals, but why the earmark? I do not question the value of some of 
these programs; I do question whether they require or deserve funding 
from the U.S. Treasury or cannot be competed among contending 
institutions and organizations.
  Other recommendations and earmarks of questionable merit included in 
this bill are $15 million for the Office of Women in Development, which 
is hardly necessary with simple instructions to our own Agency for 
International Development; $500,000 for the U.S. Telecommunications 
Training Institute for communications and broadcast training; and $15 
million over 5 years for the International Foundation for Education and 
Self-Help, which trains teachers and bankers. I was also interested to 
see in the report accompanying this bill a recommendation to AID that 
it work with Science and Technology International to further 
development of the advanced airborne hyperspectral imaging system, 
which is intended to facilitate the monitoring of environmental 
degradation and disaster mitigation and aid in the protection of 
wetlands and management of littoral regions. Does any of this overlap 
with the $60 million the bill earmarked for the Global Environment 
Facility.

[[Page S7531]]

  Once again, I applaud the goal, but question whether we should be 
specifying programs, directly or indirectly, without the benefit of a 
competitive process or adequate knowledge of whether similar 
capabilities are already or imminently available in the private sector. 
I further note that this is the second bill this week to include 
funding for this program: The Defense appropriations bill included $2 
million for the advanced airborne hyperspectral imaging system.
  I have already referred to funding for agricultural programs in the 
bill that warrants skepticism. With funding also directed toward the 
Farmer-to-Farmer Program and the Soils Management Collaborative 
Research Support Program, I wonder whether it isn't time to take a 
closer look at the proliferation of programs to determine whether they 
are all necessary or overlap in function.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to briefly address the Buy-
America provisions of the bill. The American public understandably 
abhors active participation by its Government in encouraging U.S. 
companies to relocate to foreign countries where labor and materials 
are cheaper. Section 538 of the bill addresses this concern. Paragraph 
(b) of this provision may go too far, however, with the ultimate impact 
of impeding economic growth where it is seriously needed while 
degrading the benefits that accrue to the American economy through free 
trade. Specifically, the paragraph in question prohibits the use of 
funds for the purpose of,

     . . . establishing or developing in a foreign country any 
     export processing zone or designated area in which the tax, 
     tariff, labor, environment, and safety law of that country do 
     not apply, in part or in whole, to activities carried out 
     with that zone or area, unless the President determines and 
     certifies that such assistance is not likely to cause a loss 
     of jobs within the United States.

  The Presidential certification process established by this provision 
will create, I suspect, the same problems as do other certifications 
processes. As countries evolve over decades and centuries and economies 
reflect that evolution through industrialization and service-oriented 
dominance, and as free trade policies account for substantial 
proportions of economic growth, inevitably jobs are lost in certain 
areas. It has never been any different. We have also seen the benefits 
to the very people we purport to help of free market economic zones in 
countries with otherwise centrally controlled economies. It is such 
zones that facilitate the greatest economic growth and that are more 
prone to exhibit liberal social and political transformations 
consistent with our own national values. To adopt a provision designed 
to impede such progress is not in our national interest.
  There is room for improvement in this bill that I hope will occur 
when the Appropriations Committees of the respective Houses of Congress 
meet in conference. It is discouraging to see the practice of 
earmarking continue. At least, though, the long-term trend has been in 
the right direction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of programs in the 
bill that I find objectionable be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Objectionable Programs in the Foreign Operations Appropriation Bill for 
             1998: Title II--Bilateral Economic Assistance


                     programs with funds earmarked

                                                            In millions
American Schools and Hospitals: American University in Beirut, Lebanese 
  American University, Hadassah Medical Organization, Feinberg Graduate 
  School in Israel, and Johns Hopkins University (Bologna, Italy, 
  China)..........................................................$15.0
U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute..........................0.5
University Development Assistance Programs: University of Hawaii, 
  University of Northern Iowa, and George Mason University..........2.0
International Fertilizer Development Center.........................3.0
International Foundation for Education and Self-Help: Human resource 
  development in sub-Saharan Africa................................15.0


          programs for which the committee recommends funding

       Advanced Airborne Hyperspectral Imaging System: Monitors 
     Wetlands and Littoral Zones.
       Farmer-to-Farmer: Overseas Cooperative Assistance Program, 
     specifically in former Soviet Union.
       Pushchino Project: Promotes economic development in South 
     Central Russia.
       Mongolia: Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, PA, 
     to provide technical advice on infrastructure development.
       Biological Control of Illicit Drug Crops: Research at 
     Montana State University in the development of plant 
     pathogens.
       Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis: Supports joint funding for 
     this technology.


                           commerce and trade

       Sec.  513. Restricts funds for testing in connection with 
     the growth or production in a foreign country of an 
     agricultural commodity which would compete with commodities 
     grown in the United States.
       Sec.  514. Restricts funds for foreign production or 
     extraction of any commodity or mineral for export if its 
     surplus on the world market will cause substantial injury to 
     United States producers of the same, or similar commodity.
       Sec.  538. Restricts funds that would provide any financial 
     incentive to a business in the United States considering 
     relocating outside of the United States if it is likely to 
     reduce the number of employees in the United States.

  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend, Senator Murkowski, from Alaska for 
proposing an amendment that has to do with the very serious situation 
in Korea, and frankly the part of America's foreign policy that I think 
is deserving of significant criticism. I think history will show that 
this entire issue of North Korea has been mishandled by this 
administration.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent on behalf of 
the leader.
  Before I make that unanimous consent request, I would like to thank 
the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Alaska in reference to 
the amendment concerning our policy with North Korea. Senator McCain 
has pointed out the situation that now exists with another flare-up of 
hostilities on the DMZ between South Korea and North Korea.
  Some time ago--about 4 months--I was privileged to take part in a 
delegation with Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens, Senator Domenici, 
Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran, and myself were the first American 
congressional delegation allowed into North Korea.
  We went to North Korea with a specific purpose. We know that country 
is hard hit by a famine, and that the situation is very real. We wanted 
to encourage the North Koreans, in cooperation with Ambassador 
Richardson, the State Department and the administration, to participate 
in the four-party peace talks.
  Since I have had the privilege of being the former chairman of the 
House Agriculture Committee and serve on the Agriculture Committee here 
in this body, I wanted to encourage the North Koreans to explore every 
opportunity for normal trading relations--that is, to explore the 
possibility of commercial trade and third-party agreements that would 
alleviate their situation.
  I think we made some progress. I think we tried to make our point 
that these kind of negotiations, these kind of contacts, would 
certainly open up new doors of cooperation only to find out, however, 
that now just at the time the administration is announcing a doubling 
of the humanitarian food assistance to North Korea we see another 
repeat of these hostilities.
  I remember well in meeting with the South Korean Government officials 
when South Korea sent a ship full of grain and other food shipments to 
the North. The North simply confiscated the ship, took down the South 
Korean flag, raised the North Korean flag, took all of the personnel 
involved, and had them incarcerated for about 10 days, and then finally 
let those folks go back to South Korea. That to me is not a very 
willing partner in an effort to relieve any kind of famine.
  Quite frankly, when we were in North Korea they were conducting a 
military exercise at the time that we were there, and wasting, as far 
as I am concerned and any other observer, valuable dollars that could 
have been provided to their own people who are suffering. This is a 
repressive regime--a theocracy, if you will--that is punishing their 
senior citizens and their very young--putting them through a famine at 
the same time that they are asking us for this kind of assistance.
  Question: Will these funds go to the purpose that it should go to, or 
will they go to simply reinforce a very repressive military?

[[Page S7532]]

  These are questions that should be answered. And I think with the 
latest flare-up on the DMZ Senator Murkowski and Senator McCain have 
made an excellent amendment, and I hope we would consider it and I hope 
it will be improved.


                  Unanimous-Consent Agreement--s. 1004

  In behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 
1004, be considered read a third time, that the vote on passage occur 
as under the original consent, and additionally the bill not be 
engrossed, that it remain at the desk pending the receipt of the House 
companion measure; I further ask unanimous consent that when the House 
companion measure is passed pursuant to the previous order, the passage 
of S. 1004 be vitiated and that S. 1004 be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew 
Goldenberg, Danette Lince, Joshua Spellman, and Katherine Ruth be given 
floor privileges today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment pending, and I had 
asked for the yeas and nays some time ago. There was a question, and I 
would like to again ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment on North 
Korea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, because of a meeting with the President and 
the Vice President, I was unable to be here for the opening of this 
bill, and I did want to make note of a couple items.
  First, I do commend my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, who 
has put together a bill which I believe both parties, both Republicans 
and Democrats, can and should support. I should note that last year the 
foreign operations bill passed the Senate by a vote of 93 to 7, which 
is pretty darned good for such a piece of legislation. This year's bill 
I think will pass by an even higher margin.
  I thank the chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, and the 
senior Democrat on the committee, Senator Byrd, for providing us with 
an allocation that has made it possible to fund many of the 
administration's foreign policy priorities, in fact, most of the 
priorities of Members of the Senate, and that is extremely important as 
we go into conference with the other body.
  For the past 3 years, Senator McConnell and I and Senator Lugar and 
others have argued that U.S. leadership costs money. Senator McConnell 
has fought efforts in the House to cut funding for programs that are 
vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security. I think all of us 
owe him a debt of gratitude for that. I take the attitude, which is the 
attitude of all Vermonters ahead of me, that in foreign policy matters 
especially we should try to develop bipartisanship. The distinguished 
senior Senator from West Virginia and the distinguished senior Senator 
from Alaska did that in developing the allocation in this bill. While I 
am the only Member of my party ever to be elected from the State of 
Vermont, I look back to distinguished predecessors as Senators from 
Vermont who always tried to develop that bipartisanship in foreign 
policy. This bill appropriates additional funds for development 
assistance in microenterprise, health and education, agriculture, and 
many other activities supported strongly on both sides of the aisle--a 
special fund for combating infectious diseases. I thank the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for that.
  This is an area that I was particularly concerned about. We have seen 
an alarming increase in TB and other diseases that were once thought to 
be under control, new viruses like Ebola. These pose a threat to 
America. You might ask what American interest is there in that in a 
foreign aid bill. It is very simple. These funds will help monitor and 
combat these diseases. A microbe does not stop at a border and get a 
visa before it moves on to the next country. Microbes and viruses, 
diseases, some of the most horrendous diseases known in our lifetime, 
traveled freely across borders.
  In an era where a Member of Congress does much traveling, we see how 
people can be, for example, in Kenya and be back in Washington in a 
matter of long hours, but it is possible to travel that way, sometimes 
perhaps arriving even a few minutes later than they might have liked, 
but being able to arrive.
  I should note for the Record that this reflects sort of a private 
joke between the distinguished Presiding Officer, my good friend, and 
myself. But the point is people do travel and, unlike the old days when 
you looked at a different continent one would never visit, now we go 
back and forth, and diseases do, too.
  My wife, who works as a registered nurse, sees far, far more patients 
with TB today than she had seen a decade ago. We see far more diseases 
that we thought had disappeared popping up again. What we want to do is 
have money in here to help us monitor countries where these diseases 
are coming up, help the world organizations most involved in this to 
isolate and quarantine and help eradicate diseases before they travel 
into our country or other countries.
  I also appreciate what has been done to fund IDA. Even though it is 
$950 million, it is close to and goes a long way toward meeting our 
past commitments. The same goes for UNICEF, a favorite organization of 
mine, and other U.N. agencies. We were able to provide $60 million for 
the global environment facility. The GEF plays a central role in 
protecting international waters and biodiversity, replacing ozone 
depletion. It is a step in the right direction. I would like to see a 
United States contribution to the African Development Fund. I would 
like to see more funds for voluntary peacekeeping, disaster relief 
programs.
  There were some hard choices. I point out to people that most 
programs that did not receive full funding, and they are relatively 
few, were distributed fairly evenly across the various accounts here.
  I have other areas of concern, and I will speak to those when the 
time comes.
  I say only this in closing, Mr. President. We have a tremendous 
opportunity to influence economic and political events around the 
world, but diplomacy costs money. It is money to support programs that 
will in a very real way determine what kind of world our children's 
grandchildren live in. We are the most powerful nation in the world, 
the greatest democracy history has ever known, and we have a 
responsibility to the rest of the world because of that. We do not live 
in isolation, and this bill helps us say that.
  Mr. President, I do not see others seeking the floor, so I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the legislation now 
pending before the Senate on three topics that are much different in 
nature, but I think reflect the diversity of the subject matter of this 
important legislation.


                      NATO Enlargement Assistance

  At the outset, let me join with my colleague, Senator Gorton of 
Washington, who has offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment in his name 
and mine, asking that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia be invited to 
become full NATO members at the earliest possible date. I have 
addressed this issue before on the State Department authorization, and 
it was adopted by the Senate in similar form.
  The amendment states the sense of the Senate that Lithuania, Latvia, 
and Estonia are to be commended for their progress toward political and 
economic reform and meeting the guidelines for prospective NATO 
members; that these three countries would make an outstanding 
contribution to furthering the goals of NATO and enhancing stability, 
freedom, and peace in Europe should they become NATO members; and they 
should be invited to become full NATO

[[Page S7533]]

members at the earliest possible date. The recent NATO summit in Madrid 
resulted in the member nations inviting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic to join NATO. This was a dramatic breakthrough. I think it 
signaled the end of the cold war and a new era in the world, with those 
who had been our adversaries for literally decades now to become our 
allies. We are seeking, with this amendment, Senator Gorton and myself, 
to increase that number of new NATO members by at least three, by 
including the Baltic nations.
  I can tell you from recent visits to Lithuania that they feel this is 
the single most important foreign policy challenge which they face. 
They want to make it clear that they look to the West; they share our 
values. They are interested in this type of NATO arrangement, which is 
not offensive in strategy but, rather, seeks peaceful resolutions, and 
they are hopeful that this will create a new era of opportunity for 
them.
  This amendment is consistent with current laws and programs, and I 
believe that it is one the administration can embrace. It is clearly 
not only in our best interests in the United States, but certainly in 
the best interests of the Baltic States, which are still in a very 
precarious position.
  I thank my colleague Senator Gorton for offering this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution on our mutual behalf, and I am also grateful to the 
managers of the bill for having adopted it.


                     International Family Planning

  Mr. President, I might go on to say there is another aspect of this 
bill which is critically important for the future, not only of the 
United States, but of the world. I rise in support of the funding in 
this legislation for international family planning. I can't think of a 
single issue more threatening to the future and stability of our world 
than the present trends of population increase. The world's population 
increases by about a quarter of a million people every single day, and 
95 percent of the world's population growth is in less developed 
countries. In 1950, the world's population was 2.5 billion; today it is 
5.8 billion. In 1950, the average life expectancy worldwide was 46 
years; today, it is 65 years.
  By the year 2040, if current trends continue, the world's population 
will double. The danger of overpopulation, the problems that come with 
it--poverty, hunger and disease--will not go away if we simply ignore 
them. We can and we must address these problems by providing family 
planning assistance to the poorest people in the world.
  And family planning works. Mr. President, 30 years ago the average 
couple in the world had six children. Today, the average couple in the 
world has four. International family planning is about giving people 
around the world, especially in the world's poorest countries, the 
ability to decide the size of their own families. International family 
planning is about eradicating poverty, hunger and disease. It is not 
about abortion. It is about preventing abortion. It is estimated that 
unwanted pregnancies lead to 50 million abortions every year--abortions 
that might have been prevented by family planning.
  International family planning literally saves the lives of children 
and their mothers by increasing the time between births and helping 
women to avoid high-risk pregnancies. It is estimated that preventing 
closely spaced births and pregnancies to very young mothers can save 
the lives of 3 million babies a year. That would be a 25 percent 
reduction in worldwide child mortality.
  International family planning makes it possible for poor nations to 
provide better nutrition, health care and education.
  About 6 years ago, I joined my House colleague, the late Congressman 
Mike Synar of Oklahoma, on a trip to Bangladesh. It was an amazing 
educational experience. One of the poorest countries in the world, 
Bangladesh seems to be living under a dark cloud. If there is a natural 
disaster to occur, it is usually occurring in Bangladesh. And these 
poor people who eke out a living are often victimized by these 
disasters.
  Congressman Synar and I went into the back country where the roads 
end and we had to get out of the 4-wheel-drive and start hiking to a 
little village where we literally met with 50 women and their children 
who were part of a project known as the Grameen Bank, a fascinating 
experiment in credit for poor people which has now caught on worldwide.
  After this meeting, one of the women came up to me and, through an 
interpreter, spoke to me. She was holding a small baby in her arms, and 
she said to me that she wanted to tell me something. I asked what it 
was, through the interpreter. She wanted to tell me that, because of 
family planning and also because of the UNICEF and United Nations 
effort to save the lives of small children in developing countries, she 
and her husband had decided to have no more than three children. It was 
a dramatic admission on her part to a pale-skinned stranger from a 
country she had literally never heard of.
  Those of us who think the money that is invested in this legislation 
doesn't do any good should take the time to visit those parts of the 
world where it literally means life or death. For her, it meant the 
baby in her arms would survive. In these countries, with their poor 
health conditions, many times unsanitary water would result in children 
with dysentery and other intestinal problems who literally died for 
lack of hydration. The rehydration therapy, as simple and cheap as it 
is, saves these lives and gives these mothers the hope that they don't 
need to have six children to have three survivors. And that, many 
times, is the driving force behind large families in poor countries.
  So I hope those who are supporting this legislation, as I am, 
understand that its investment and commitment to international family 
planning and also the children's program is money well spent, not just 
for the humanitarian purposes which I have outlined but for very 
selfish reasons, for the future of the United States. If we start to 
stabilize world population, we can also help to stabilize political 
situations and hope as well that we will bring that kind of quality of 
life around the world that we enjoy in most parts of the United States 
today.


                         School of the Americas

  Mr. President, the final issue which I will address in this moment on 
the floor is in relation to an amendment which I am prepared to offer 
today but will not. It is an amendment which has been considered time 
and again in the House but has not been considered in the Senate. I had 
thought that it was time to call up this amendment, but after 
discussions with my colleagues we have decided to wait until next 
year's appropriations bill to address it.
  What I am speaking to is a project known as the School of the 
Americas. The School of the Americas was established over 50 years ago 
to provide military education and training to military personnel of 
Central America, South America, and the Caribbean countries. Given the 
breakup of the Soviet Union, the training provided at this school is no 
longer appropriate to the long-term goals of the United States or Latin 
America. This school at Fort Benning, GA, has been a training ground 
for thousands of individuals who have been brought in from the 
militaries of Central and South America and the Caribbean and trained 
to become more proficient in their military ways.
  We acknowledge the Army has tried to make changes at the School of 
the Americas by updating curricula and improving the selection process 
for students and the quality of teachers. Despite these efforts, it is 
my belief that the School of the Americas should be closed. It is an 
element in this bill which I do not support. It serves no strategic 
purpose.
  In the post-cold-war era, we need to strengthen civilian institutions 
in Latin America, not the militaries. And the school cannot overcome 
its horrendous history and its past links to numerous military 
personnel who have committed human rights atrocities. These admissions 
are an embarrassment to the United States and to our reputation as a 
leader in promoting human rights throughout the world.
  The training manuals at this school as late as 1991 contained 
instruction in torture and extortion. Imagine, U.S. taxpayers' dollars 
spent at this facility in Georgia, at a U.S. military base, to train 
foreign military leaders in torture and extortion. It is 
incomprehensible.
  No one has been held accountable for the fact that the U.S. Army was 
teaching training techniques which clearly

[[Page S7534]]

violated U.S. Army policy. The School of the Americas has trained 
leaders in tactics to violate human rights and has done so knowingly 
and deliberately. It is well documented that this school's graduates 
have planned and participated in severe cases of human rights abuses 
during the history of this institution.
  Listen to this roster of graduates from the School of the Americas, 
funded by taxpayers' dollars: Panamanian dictator and drug dealer 
Manuel Noriega; 19 Salvadoran soldiers linked to the 1989 murder of 6 
Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter; El Salvador death 
squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson; Argentinian dictator Leopoldo 
Galtieri; 3 of the 5 officers involved in the 1980 rape and murder of 4 
United States churchwomen in El Salvador; and 10 of the 12 officers 
responsible for the murder of 900 civilians in the El Salvadoran 
village, El Mozote.
  Victims of these abuses often are the most vulnerable of the country, 
the poor and Roman Catholic religious who spoke out in defense of peace 
and social justice. Given that the training manuals used at the school 
advocated torture, blackmail and other forms of coercion, the 
atrocities committed by these graduates are predictable results. The 
United States needs, in this post-cold war era, to find a better way to 
moderate the abuses of Latin American militaries. Clearly, the School 
of the Americas is not the answer.
  I think it is clear that this school needs to be closed. If an 
alternative needs to be opened, let us restructure it consistent with 
our own human rights values. I will not be offering the amendment today 
which would close this institution, but I want to make it clear to my 
colleagues in the Senate and those who are listening to this debate, 
that we will continue to monitor the School of the Americas, that we 
will continue to make certain that they know we are watching what they 
do and the graduates they send to lead the militaries of foreign 
nations. And we will insist, at every step of the way, that this School 
of the Americas pursue policies that are consistent with the best 
interests and policies of the United States.
  Mr. President, at this point, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 895

(Purpose: To restore to United States citizens and residents the right 
                           of travel to Cuba)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 895.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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:

     SEC. . TRAVEL TO CUBA.

       (a) Prohibition.--The President shall not restrict travel 
     to Cuba by United States citizens or other persons subject to 
     the jurisdiction of the United States, except in the case in 
     which the United States is at war, where armed hostilities 
     are in progress in or around Cuba, or where there is imminent 
     danger to the public health or the physical safety of the 
     United States travelers to Cuba.
       (b) Supersedes Existing Law.--This section supersedes any 
     other provision of law.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term 
     ``United States'' includes the several States of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any 
     other territory or possession of the United States.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have just sent to the 
desk is a very simple amendment that would provide that the President 
shall not restrict travel to Cuba by United States citizens and other 
people who are lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States, except in circumstances where we are at war or where there are 
armed hostilities in or around Cuba, or where there is imminent danger 
to public health or physical safety of United States travelers in Cuba.
  My own view is that our policy today, toward Cuba, is a holdover from 
the cold war. It is an anachronism. It is out of step with the 
sentiments of the American people. And it is certainly out of step with 
the best interests of our own country.
  We have gotten into a situation where the only attention that is 
given to our relations with Cuba is that every 6 months the President 
comes forward and once again waives certain extraterritorial provisions 
that were part of the Helms-Burton Act that was passed last year; and 
at the same time that it waives those provisions, it assures Members of 
Congress and the Cuban-American community that it plans to maintain a 
posture of tough sanctions against Cuba. So any efforts that might be 
undertaken to promote a constructive and humanitarian engagement with 
Cuba, or at least some level of humanitarian assistance to those in 
need in Cuba, all of that has been put aside and lost, unfortunately, 
in our discussion of Cuban-American relations.
  When the Helms-Burton Act passed the Congress, Walter Russell Mead 
wrote an article in the New Yorker that I think sums things up pretty 
well. He said:

       Fidel Castro has survived the enmity of nine American 
     Presidents. In concert with his enemies in South Florida, he 
     retains a hypnotic ability to induce stupidity in Yankee 
     policymakers. That seems unlikely to change until the U.S. 
     Government gets around to taking control of its Cuba policy 
     away from a small, self-interested lobby group.

  Mr. President, I share Mr. Mead's views on this anachronistic stance 
that we continue to take toward Cuba.
  In my opinion, the one reason that Castro has remained entrenched and 
has survived nine American Presidents is that he continues to be able 
to point to the United States as a menacing foreign presence and to 
call upon the Cuban people to withstand the hardships that they have to 
withstand because of bad intentions and actions by America, as he would 
have it.
  If people, including so many of my distinguished colleagues across 
the aisle and on the Democratic side, believe in the value of Radio 
Marti and TV Marti, our broadcasting operations in Florida, which are 
intended to inform Cubans about the way of life in the United States 
and our freedoms and our liberties, then certainly increasing contact 
by allowing travel by Americans to Cuba would do even more. I think it 
is important that the administration and others realize that the Helms-
Burton Act and this 6-month clock on issuing a waiver on the worst 
provisions of that act not be allowed to serve as the be all and the 
end all of our Cuban policy.
  On June 19 of this year, I joined Senator Dodd and a great many other 
Senators in writing to the President urging that direct flights to Cuba 
for the purpose of humanitarian assistance be permitted. The subject of 
that letter is not the subject of my amendment today. I cite that as 
one example of an effort to improve constructive relations between 
ourselves and Cuba and to assist in humanitarian needs that are real.
  I do believe that one of the least justifiable aspects of our policy 
toward Cuba today is the restrictions that we place on travel by U.S. 
citizens and U.S. residents to that country. The right to travel is a 
constitutional right. It is one that the courts have recognized. It is 
one that we, as a country, have recognized and that we only interfere 
with where there is a national security reason or some overriding 
national interest that requires that we interfere with that free right 
of travel.
  I attended a conference, Asia Pacific Forum, 2 weeks ago at the 
Kennedy School in Boston. There were some Chinese leaders there and 
some Korean leaders and some Japanese leaders, and I was struck by the 
story that I heard from one of the Chinese leaders, the head of the 
Chinese delegation. He had been one of those singled out for abuse 
during the cultural revolution when that occurred in China a couple of 
decades ago.
  He was taken from his hometown, from Beijing, at that time where he 
was a prominent leader in the university, and he was sent to a very 
remote part of China and forced to work there. He worked in a factory 
for 10 years during the cultural revolution in a very

[[Page S7535]]

lowly position. At the end of the cultural revolution, he was allowed 
to take a more responsible position and, once again, begin to 
demonstrate and use his talents, but he stayed in that factory for an 
additional 5 years after the 10 years that was required during the 
cultural revolution.
  I asked, ``Why did you stay in that part of China? Why didn't you 
come back to Beijing?"
  He said, ``I didn't have a permit. I wasn't permitted to travel.'' 
You couldn't just travel. You weren't permitted, at that time at least, 
to travel in China without a permit.
  Mr. President, that refusal to allow people to travel is 
characteristic of Communist, authoritarian regimes. It is not 
characteristic of the United States. It should not be our policy to 
keep American citizens and American residents from traveling, except 
where national security requires it. Clearly, there is no national 
security justification for us continuing to prevent travel to Cuba by 
Americans today.
  Let me also just point out this restriction against travel is an 
invitation to abuse. We have a lot of people in business in this 
country, in Canada, in Mexico and in various nearby countries who make 
it their business to facilitate travel to Cuba by United States 
citizens.
  We made a little search of the Web. You are supposed to search the 
Web whenever you want to find out anything these days. So we got on the 
Internet. Here is a provision, Intra Kensington Travel. It says: ``Cuba 
travel for U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens holding valid passports are 
welcomed as visitors to Cuba for purposes of tourism. Many U.S. 
citizens visit Cuba each year for this purpose.''
  This is what the advertisement on the Web said: ``When you arrive in 
Cuba, ensure that your passport is not stamped. Instead, have the Cuban 
immigration officials stamp a separate sheet of paper and be sure to 
bring this with you, so your passport won't be stamped. To avoid 
difficulty with U.S. Immigration and Customs authorities, do not return 
to the United States with any evidence that you have ever visited Cuba. 
This would include cigars, rum, souvenir T-shirts, postcards, tourist 
information and other items.''
  Mr. President, this restriction is not enforceable. It is being 
abused. It is an embarrassment to a great nation like ours that we have 
this restriction in our law. I believe strongly that we should 
eliminate it. The amendment I sent to the desk would do that.
  Let me also say, though, for purposes of reality in the Senate, that 
we have had a vote on this amendment before, essentially this same 
amendment. Former Senator Simon from Illinois offered this same 
amendment in the last Congress. I supported his efforts. I am sad to 
report that we only received 25 votes for the effort to eliminate these 
restrictions.
  So this year, Mr. President, I would like to offer a different 
amendment and see if we can't get more support. Let me, at this point, 
Mr. President, withdraw my amendment and send another amendment to the 
desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to withdraw his 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 895) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 896

(Purpose: To provide for Cuban-American family humanitarian support and 
                         compassionate travel)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 896.

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

     SEC.   . PROTECTION OF HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,
       (1) no person subject to U.S. law as it pertains to 
     expenditures of money in Cuba shall be prohibited from 
     sending to his or her parent, sibling, spouse, or child 
     currently residing in Cuba small amounts of money (not to 
     exceed $200 per month) to be used for the purchase of basic 
     necessities, including food, clothing, household supplies, 
     rent, medicines, and medical care;
       (2) each person subject to U.S. law as it pertains to 
     expenditures of money in Cuba in relation to travel to Cuba 
     shall be free to travel without limitation for periods not to 
     exceed 30 days per any one trip to attend to a medical 
     emergency involving, or to attend the funeral of, such 
     person's parent, sibling, spouse, or child; and
       (3) the United States government shall not be prohibited 
     from participating in humanitarian relief efforts of 
     multilateral organizations of which the United States is a 
     member, where such humanitarian relief efforts are made in 
     the aftermath of a natural disaster on the island of Cuba.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me describe the second of these 
amendments. It says, and I will just read it. It is very short. It 
says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary,
       (1) no person subject to U.S. law as it pertains to 
     expenditures of money in Cuba shall be prohibited from 
     sending to his or her parent, sibling, spouse or child 
     currently residing in Cuba small amounts of money (not to 
     exceed $200 per month) to be used for the purchase of basic 
     necessities, including food, clothing, household supplies, 
     rent, medicines and medical care;

  That is the first part.
  The second part:

       (2) each person subject to U.S. law as pertains to 
     expenditures of money in Cuba in relation to travel to Cuba 
     shall be free to travel without limitation for periods not to 
     exceed 30 days per any one trip to attend to a medical 
     emergency involving, or to attend the funeral of, such 
     person's parent, sibling, spouse or child . . .

  Mr. President, the third part of this amendment says that:

       (3) the United States Government shall not be prohibited 
     from participating in humanitarian relief efforts of 
     multilateral organizations of which the United States is a 
     member, where such humanitarian relief efforts are made in 
     the aftermath of a natural disaster on the island of Cuba.

  So this amendment that is now pending before the Senate would do 
these three things: It would allow a modest amount of funds to be sent 
by a U.S. citizen or resident to their family, for purposes of basic 
necessities--food, clothing, supplies, rent, medicines, and medical 
care--not to exceed $200 per month.
  Second, it would provide this opportunity to return to Cuba for up to 
30 days, again, by someone who has a relative, a parent or a sibling or 
a spouse or a child still in Cuba. And third, it would allow the United 
States Government to participate in humanitarian relief efforts if 
there is a natural disaster on the island of Cuba, and participate in 
those relief efforts through multilateral organizations, not 
unilaterally, but through multilateral organizations.
  None of these provisions threaten the national security of the United 
States. These are extremely modest ways that we can enhance the person-
to-person contact and humanitarian assistance which can begin to take 
United States-Cuban relations in a positive direction.
  None of these provisions violate the spirit of the economic embargo 
that we have had in place these 35 years, although I must acknowledge 
that I think that economic embargo at this stage in our history is a 
mistake. None of what I am proposing here interferes with that economic 
embargo. None of these provisions help Castro to galvanize his public 
against the United States. They may very well help erode the support 
that he has been able to maintain during this last 35 years because of 
the failed policy that we have pursued during that entire period.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe it is a 
worthwhile amendment and one that would move us in a positive 
direction.
  Mr. President, we are coming on the end of this entire century and 
millennium, and sooner or later we need to become realistic about the 
fact that this other nation, Cuba, is 90 miles from our border, and we 
need to try to develop a more constructive relationship.
  This provision would help Cuban-American citizens in particular, but 
would begin to move us toward a constructive relationship. I urge its 
support, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there a vote scheduled at 2?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator wish to speak on this amendment?

[[Page S7536]]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Not on this amendment. I have a separate amendment I 
want to propose that the managers have agreed to. It is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to speak for a couple of minutes--I know 
the Senator is seeking recognition--on the Smith of Oregon amendment 
before the vote at 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 889

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I support the Smith amendment, and I 
remind the Senate that at the time of the great upheaval in the Soviet 
Union, when the tanks rolled into Red Square, there was a group of 
people that was prodemocracy from throughout the world which carried 
Bibles into that square and literally handed them out to the drivers of 
the tanks which were coming into Red Square, supposedly to dislodge the 
new government.
  While I was chairman of the Presidential prayer group one year, I 
asked our former great symphony director, Rostropovich, to come and 
tell about his experience there. He told us of these people coming into 
the square and handing out those Bibles.
  What is happening now in Russia is a direct reversal of the open-door 
policy for those people who believe that freedom of religion is an 
international freedom. I do believe that the Senate should go on record 
in support of the Smith amendment today. That is why I urge its 
adoption at this time.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 892

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the targeting of 
 assistance to support the economic and political independence of the 
           countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 892.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 892.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPPORT FOR COUNTRIES 
                   OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The ancient Silk Road, once the economic lifeline of 
     Central Asia and the South Caucasus, traversed much of the 
     territory now within the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
     Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and 
     Uzbekistan.
       (2) Economic interdependence spurred mutual cooperation 
     among the peoples along the Silk Road and restoration of the 
     historic relationships and economic ties between those 
     peoples is an important element of ensuring their sovereignty 
     as well as the success of democratic and market reforms.
       (3) The development of strong political and economic ties 
     between countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia and 
     the West will foster stability in the region.
       (4) The development of open market economies and open 
     democratic systems in the countries of the South Caucasus and 
     Central Asia will provide positive incentives of 
     international private investment, increased trade, and other 
     forms of commercial interactions with the rest of the world.
       (5) The Caspian Sea Basin, overlapping the territory of the 
     countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, contains 
     proven oil and gas reserves that may exceed 
     $4,000,000,000,000 in value.
       (6) The region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia will 
     produce oil and gas in sufficient quantities to reduce the 
     dependence of the United States on energy from the volatile 
     Persian Gulf region.
       (7) United States foreign policy and international 
     assistance should be narrowly targeted to support the 
     economic and political independence of the countries of the 
     South Caucasus and Central Asia.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the policy of the United States in the countries of the 
     South Caucasus and Central Asia should be--
       (1) to promote sovereignty and independence with democratic 
     government;
       (2) to assist actively in the resolution of regional 
     conflicts;
       (3) to promote friendly relations and economic cooperation; 
     and
       (4) to help promote market-oriented principles and 
     practices;
       (5) to assist in the development of infrastructure 
     necessary for communications, transportation, and energy and 
     trade on an East-West axis in order to build strong 
     international relations and commerce between those countries 
     and the stable, democratic, and market-oriented countries of 
     the Euro-Atlantic Community; and
       (6) to support United States business interests and 
     investments in the region.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``countries of 
     the South Caucasus and Central Asia'' means Armenia, 
     Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, 
     Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this will just take a minute or two, 
because the managers have agreed to this particular amendment.
  I know Senator Smith has a very important amendment that we are going 
to be voting on, which I support. I think he is in an absolute right 
position to be stating in this amendment what our aid should be based 
on.
  I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention in a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution another strategic important region of the world that 
is also being impacted by where it sits locationwise.
  And these are countries that are transversed by the Old Silk Road.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 889

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair states that under the previous order 
the vote now occurs on amendment No. 889 offered by the Senator from 
Oregon. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from 
Kansas is only asking for a few minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas 
be given 5 minutes, and then the votes commence then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if 
we are going to do that, the distinguished Senator from Virginia wanted 
an equal amount of time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 889. 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 Montana [Mr. Burns] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Bingaman
     Byrd
     Kerrey
     Lugar

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Burns
       
       
  The amendment (No. 889) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay it on the table.

[[Page S7537]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Smith underlying amendment now the pending 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on final passage of the energy 
and water appropriations bill, under a unanimous consent.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I had hoped to speak briefly before this 
last vote to explain my reasons for voting against the amendment. This 
is a politically sensitive vote, and I did not have the opportunity to 
explain in advance.
  I am sympathetic to the concerns of Senator Smith with regard to 
religious minorities in Russia or anywhere else. The effect of the law 
recently passed by the Russian Duma is to discriminate against any 
religious group not recognized by the Soviet Government in 1982, which 
has the effect of recognizing the rights only of Orthodox Christianity, 
Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. This represents an onerous act of 
discrimination against religious minorities within the Russian 
Federation.
  I note that if the same standard included in the Smith amendment was 
applied to all other nations, we would be forced to terminate our 
foreign aid to other key United States allies, including Israel, Egypt, 
and Turkey. These nations, along with others, could not pass the test 
included in the Smith amendment. This amendment, therefore, 
discriminates against one nation, even while it claims that 
discrimination is its concern. Just as Russia should apply one standard 
in the case of all religions, so should the United States apply one 
standard in the distribution of foreign aid with all other nations.
  Finally, I would note that there are other diplomatic methods that 
can be used to deal with this problem. When the United States was 
concerned about Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union, we were able 
to greatly increase such emigration by using quiet diplomacy. As soon 
as the Congress enacted laws publicly attacking the Soviets on this 
matter, emigration was sharply reduced. The Smith amendment could well 
have the same effect, and would only make matters worse for religious 
minorities in Russia, as Nationalist elements in the Duma may react in 
anger to this action.
  I am not a strong advocate of foreign aid. I don't carry a brief for 
Russia, and as far as believing that religion should not be 
discriminated against, I don't think anyone in this Chamber would feel 
more strongly than I. But let me read to Members what the annual State 
Department report on human rights states in its report concerning 
Israel.

       Section 5. Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Religion, 
     Disability, Language, or Social Status.
       Under the complex mixture of laws and regulations that 
     apply to the territories, Palestinians are disadvantaged 
     under Israeli law and practices compared with the treatment 
     received by Israeli settlers. This includes discrimination in 
     residency, land and water use, and access to health and 
     social services.

  Reading from the same United States State Department report, 
concerning religious minorities in Israel:

       In civic areas where religion is a determining criterion, 
     such as the religious courts and centers of education, non-
     Jewish institutions routinely receive less state support than 
     their Jewish counterparts. The status of a number of 
     Christian organizations with representation in Israel has 
     heretofore been defined by a collection of ad hoc 
     arrangements with various government agencies. Several of 
     these organizations are negotiating with the Government in an 
     attempt to formalize their status.
       Attempts to establish meaningful negotiations are ongoing.

  Another paragraph, under the subject of--this is very fine print, and 
I have some difficulty reading it--``National/Racial/Ethnic 
Minorities.'' The State Department report says:

       The government--

  Meaning the Israeli government--

     does not provide Israeli Arabs, who constitute 18 percent of 
     the population, with the same quality of education, housing, 
     employment, and social services as Jews. Government efforts 
     to close the gaps between Israel's Jewish and Arab citizens 
     have resulted in an estimated 180 percent increase in 
     resources devoted to Arab communities between 1992 and 1996. 
     Nevertheless, significant differences remain.

  Now, Mr. President, I felt that Senators ought to know my reason, and 
I certainly want my constituents to know my reason, for voting against 
this amendment. I wanted to call to the attention of the Senate the 
problem here in rushing to vote on matters that we don't clearly 
understand when we come to the well to vote. And I have that problem as 
much as anybody. But it seems to me there is some inconsistency here in 
handing out foreign aid--the American taxpayers' money.
  If foreign aid is going to be used as an enforcer of human rights, 
then we ought to be consistent. That is all I am saying. If we are 
going to be consistent, my colleagues, remember that you may be asked 
one day to cut off aid to Israel, or to cut off aid to Turkey. Senators 
know that I have fought battles on this floor here in support of 
Turkey, and so I am not saying this with any animus whatsoever toward 
the recipient countries; that is not it. I am just calling attention to 
the fact that we voted, in this amendment, to apply an ``enforcer,'' if 
I may use that term, concerning human rights, and it is not an enforcer 
tool that we apply consistently across the board against our friends. I 
don't know how we can defend votes like this to the American people.
  I feel as strongly as anyone about religion. I am not of the 
religious right and I am not of the religious left. I don't claim even 
to be a good man. My Scripture tells me that no man is good--but this 
is another matter. And I hope that Senators know that we don't even 
have a waiver provision in this amendment. I should think that there 
ought to be a waiver--a national security waiver. The President should 
have an opportunity to waive this provision under certain conditions. 
That is not in this amendment. What I am saying, I certainly don't say 
critically of the author of the amendment. My sentiments, I am sure, 
are much like his in the overall. But I think we make the mistake when 
we vote without really understanding what we are voting on in a matter 
of this kind. This is a very politically sensitive matter. It is pretty 
difficult to explain your vote against this kind of an amendment --
pretty difficult.
  Finally, I note that there are other diplomatic methods that can be 
used to deal with this problem. When the United States was concerned 
about Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union, we were able to greatly 
increase such immigration by using quiet diplomacy. As soon as the 
Congress enacted laws publicly attacking the Soviets on that matter, 
immigration was sharply reduced.
  The Smith amendment could well have the same effect, and would only 
make matters worse for religious minorities in Russia, as nationalist 
elements in the Duma may react in anger to this action.
  Mr. President, that is the explanation of my vote.
  I yield the floor.


            Vitiation of Yeas and Nays on Amendment No. 888

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 888, as now amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Helms, D'Amato, Hatch, and Bennett be added as cosponsors to the Smith 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________