Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)

[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.

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.

____________________