[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7544-S7593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 888

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Oregon.
  The amendment (No. 888), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William D. 
Jackson, a congressional fellow on Senator Jeffords' staff, be granted 
privileges of the floor for the pendency of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Murkowski is here for the 
purpose of modifying his own amendment. We are going to go to Senator 
Brownback, who has two amendments to offer which have been cleared on 
both sides; then to Senator Allard, who has an amendment on which I 
understand it is possible to get a 30-minute time agreement equally 
divided.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Allard amendment, 
when it is offered, be limited to 30 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think 
there was a mistake in the remarks. There was going to be 15 minutes on 
each side, and the request was for 15 minutes equally divided. I wanted 
to clarify.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, why don't we 
withhold the request on the Allard amendment until I see what it is. 
But I don't know whether that is going to be enough time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am sorry. I apologize to my colleague from Vermont. 
I thought he knew the substance of the Allard amendment. So I will 
withhold on asking for a time agreement on the Allard amendment for the 
moment.
  Then Senator Hutchison is here to offer an amendment with regard to 
MFN and China. Then Senator Dodd and Senator McCain wish to offer an 
amendment related to the drug certification process for Mexico, which 
will be a rather spirited discussion, and it is my understanding that 
it is not possible to get a time agreement on that amendment at this 
time.
  So, Mr. President, seeing my colleague from Alaska on his feet, I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman.


                     Amendment No. 894, As Modified

(Purpose: To provide an additional condition on the availability of $14 
                million in debt relief for North Korea)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 894, and I send 
a modification of the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, and Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 894, 
     as modified.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 33, line 9, strike the period and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following: ``Provided further, That the 
     additional $14,000,000 made available to KEDO under this 
     heading may not be obligated or expended until the Secretary 
     of State certifies and reports to Congress that North Korea 
     has not violated the Military Armistice Agreement of 1953 
     during the preceding nine months.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is so modified.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues, Senator 
McCain and Senator Nickles, be named as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
amendment has been agreed to on both sides. It provides that the 
additional $14 million appropriated to relieve the KEDO debt not be 
available until the Secretary of State certificates that North Korea 
has not violated the military armistice agreement of 1953 during the 
preceding 9 months.
  Basically, the amendment puts North Korea on notice that additional 
funds will not be available if North Korea commits another violation 
like the incident this morning at the DMZ.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this 
amendment is not objected to by either side. I am unaware of any 
additional speakers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have previously been 
ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the order for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the Senator from Alaska.
  The amendment (No. 894), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Kansas has been here patiently on the 
floor for some time and ready to offer two amendments which have been 
cleared on both sides.
  Therefore, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the chairman very much.


                           Amendment No. 892

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 892.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment 
to S. 955.
  This amendment deals with the United States policy for the south 
Caucasus and Central Asia, an area of the world that was once 
crisscrossed by the ancient Silk Road, which includes the countries--I 
have a map here for Senators to be able to look at--of Armenia, 
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, 
and Uzbekistan. This amendment deals with these countries.
  These countries are very vital and important countries at a 
crossroads in their development. They are, as I mentioned, along the 
ancient Silk Road, if people can imagine and conjure up those images of 
that area of the world and the importance it has had in the past and 
the importance it now has and will continue to have for U.S. policy. We 
have vital political, social and economic interests there, and they 
need to be acted on before it is too late.
  They are independent for the first time in almost a century. They are 
located at the juncture of many of today's major world forces, and they 
are all rich in natural resources. And they are looking west for the 
first time. They are emerging after nearly a century of being plundered 
by a Communist regime. While actively taking out their resources, the 
Soviets put little back. These countries now find themselves free to 
govern themselves.
  Again, as I stated earlier, they are looking west. The very fact that 
they have had little experience with independence, and that their 
economies are essentially starting from scratch, leaves them in a 
precarious situation, which is all the more precarious because of their 
geographic location.
  Consider this: They are placed between the empire from which they 
recently declared independence and an extremist Islamic regime to the

[[Page S7545]]

south--both of which have a strong interest in exerting economic and 
political pressure upon them.
  All of the Silk Road countries are currently seeking U.S. investment 
and encouragement, and are looking to us to participate actively in 
working out regional political, economic and strategic cooperation.
  Mr. President, we should be actively responding to their appeals. We 
have now the opportunity to spread freedom and democratic ideals in a 
region historically dominated by Russia and Iran. The doors are open to 
promote institutions of democratic government and create the conditions 
for the growth of pluralistic societies and religious tolerance. These 
countries are a major force in containing the spread northward of anti-
Western Islamic extremism. So far, these nations remain largely open to 
us.
  I would also like to point out something else that is important about 
this region: that is the Caspian Sea overlapping the territory of the 
South Caucasus and Central Asia that is rich in natural resources as I 
mentioned earlier.
  I have another chart here I would like to show you to illustrate the 
energy resources which exist in the Caspian Sea area right here. If 
people would look at this chart, this is ``Worldwide Undiscovered 
Resource Potential of Oil and Gas''. You have the Middle East and 
Russia, the two leaders, and then the Caspian Sea area is potentially 
the third largest in the world, some say up to $4 trillion worth of oil 
and gas in this region, creating significant interest for economic ties 
and investments as well. The United States should do everything 
possible to promote the sovereignty and independence as well as 
encourage solid diplomatic and economic cooperation between these 
nations.
  In order to do that, we need to take a number of positive steps. No. 
1, we should be strong and active in helping resolve local conflicts. 
No. 2, we should be providing economic assistance to provide positive 
incentives for international private investment and increased trade. 
No. 3, we should be assisting in the development of the infrastructure 
necessary for communication, transportation, energy and trade on an 
East-West access. No. 4, we should be providing assistance to help 
fight the scourge of narcotics trafficking, weapons of mass 
destruction, organized crime and No. 5, perhaps the most important of 
all, we should be supplying all the assistance possible to strengthen 
democracy and tolerance and the development of civil society.
  These are the best ways to remain sure that these countries will grow 
in independence and move strongly toward open and free government. Our 
time to focus on this region is now, to keep them from spreading into 
an area or being infiltrated by the spread of the anti-Western 
fundamentalism that is in this region of the world. That is why I urge 
my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  I believe it has been worked out with both the majority and the 
minority staff to agree to this amendment. I ask that the amendment be 
agreed to.
  Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 892) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 884, as modified

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment 884 
and send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 884, as modified.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROMOTION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS.

       (a) Reports.--Not later than March 30, 1998, and each 
     subsequent year thereafter, the Secretary of State shall 
     submit to the International Relations Committee of the House 
     of Representatives and the Foreign Relations Committee of the 
     Senate an annual report on religious persecution on a 
     country-by-country basis. Reports shall include a list of 
     individuals who have been materially involved in the 
     commission of acts of persecution that are motivated by a 
     person's religion.
       (b) Prisoner Information Registry.--The Secretary of State 
     shall establish a Prisoner Information Registry which shall 
     provide information on all political prisoners, prisoners of 
     conscience, and prisoners of faith on a country-by-country 
     basis. Such information shall include the charges, judicial 
     processes, administrative actions, use of forced labor, 
     incidences of torture, length of imprisonment, physical and 
     health conditions, and other matters related to the 
     incarceration of such prisoners. The Secretary of State is 
     authorized to make funds available to nongovernmental 
     organizations presently engage in monitoring activities 
     regarding such prisoners to assist in the creation and 
     maintenance of the registry.
       (c) Sense of Congress Concerning Establishment of a 
     Commission on Security and Cooperation in Asia.--It is the 
     sense of the Congress that Congress, the President, and the 
     Secretary of State should work with the governments of the 
     People's Republic of China and other countries to establish a 
     Commission on Security and Cooperation in Asia which would be 
     modeled after the Commission on Security and Cooperation in 
     Europe.

     SEC.   . UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO 
                   MONITORING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND RELIGIOUS 
                   PERSECUTION.

       (a) In General.--The President shall devote additional 
     personnel and resources to gathering intelligence information 
     regarding human rights abuses and acts of religious 
     persecution.
       (b) Report.--Not later than March 30, 1998, the President 
     shall submit to the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report on the 
     number of personnel and resources that are being devoted to 
     gathering intelligence information regarding human rights 
     abuses and acts of religious persecution.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
this bill that would require the Clinton administration to improve the 
manner in which the State Department and our intelligence agencies 
monitor and publicize cases of religious persecution and human rights 
abuses.
  Persecution of people of faith has been on the rise around the world. 
Governments throughout the world have been denying people the 
fundamental right of freedom of religion, a fundamental right upon 
which this country was built.
  As a matter of policy, the United States should be doing all it can 
to bring religious persecution and other human rights violations to an 
end. One problem we face, however, is that we do not have an accurate 
accounting of the extent to which many governments persecute people of 
faith. We do not know the number of prisoners nor do we even have all 
the names of those prisoners. What we need is an accurate accounting of 
religious persecution. We need the administration to devote greater 
resources to monitoring religious persecution and to informing the 
Congress, as well as the American people, about such instances.
  We also need to encourage a formal dialog with countries throughout 
the world to bring religious persecution to an end. Specifically, my 
amendment would do the following: Require a religious persecution 
report modeled on the State Department human rights report; require the 
establishment of a prison information registry; require the President 
to devote greater intelligence resources to gathering information 
regarding human rights abuses and acts of religious persecution; and 
encourage the administration to work with other nations to establish a 
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Asia which would be modeled 
after the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
  Mr. President, the U.S. Government has a responsibility to provide 
the public a better understanding of the extent to which nations 
violate this basic right of their citizens. My amendment would move us 
in this direction. I ask that my amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 884), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S7546]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
California is in the Chamber. I understand she has an amendment that 
may not take a good deal of time, and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 897

  Mrs. BOXER. I will be very brief. The work has been done on this 
amendment. 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 California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Allard, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
     Torricelli, proposes an amendment numbered 897.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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, insert:


                         wildlife conservation

       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated by this Act, not more 
     than $2,900,000 may be made available for the Communal Areas 
     Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in 
     Zimbabwe: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by 
     this Act may be used to directly finance the trophy hunting 
     of elephants or other endangered species as defined in the 
     Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
     Flora and Fauna (CITES) or the Endangered Species Act: 
     Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this Act 
     that are provided under the CAMPFIRE program may not be used 
     for activities with the express intent to lobby or otherwise 
     influence international conventions or treaties, or United 
     States government decision makers: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated by this Act that are made available for 
     the CAMPFIRE program may be used only in Zimbabwe for the 
     purpose of maximizing benefits to rural people while 
     strengthening natural resources management institutions: 
     Provided further, That not later than March 1, 1998, the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development 
     shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees describing the steps taken to implement the 
     CAMPFIRE program, the impact of the program on the people and 
     wildlife of CAMPFIRE districts, alternatives to trophy 
     hunting as a means of generating income for CAMPFIRE 
     districts, and a description of how funds made available for 
     CAMPFIRE in fiscal year 1998 are to be used.
  Mrs. BOXER. The amendment that I have sent to the desk is a 
bipartisan amendment cosponsored by Senators Allard, Smith, Leahy, and 
Torricelli, and it concerns the CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe. I 
particularly want to pay tribute to my colleagues, Senators Allard and 
Smith, for being so strong on this subject. I thank my staff and the 
staffs of the chairman and ranking member for working on a good 
amendment that we can all agree on. I am particularly grateful to 
Senators Leahy and McConnell for their assistance and cooperation on 
this amendment.
  Briefly, our amendment would maintain the positive aspects of the 
CAMPFIRE Program while restricting U.S. taxpayer funds being used for 
activities which are inconsistent with the goals of sustainable 
development for people and management of natural resources.
  My amendment would assure that no taxpayer money is used to finance 
the trophy hunting of elephants and other endangered species or no 
taxpayer money could be used for any lobbying activities to weaken 
elephant protection standards. So we really basically do two things: 
Taxpayer dollars from America cannot be used to foster trophy hunting 
in Zimbabwe and taxpayer money cannot be used to lobby Senators or 
House Members or administration people to weaken elephant protection 
standards such as the ban on ivory.
  Mr. President, these magnificent animals should be protected, not 
exploited. Our amendment requires USAID to submit a report to Congress 
on alternatives to trophy hunting and the impact of the CAMPFIRE 
Program on people and wildlife of Zimbabwe. I think these are very 
important steps in addressing the criticism about the way the program 
works. Some of us would have liked to have gone further than this, but 
we think that this amendment, the way it is drawn, will receive 
unanimous support, and we think is an important step to be taken.
  The CAMPFIRE Program is beneficial to many rural impoverished people 
in Zimbabwe. It helps to provide the skills and tools necessary to 
enable local communities to make local decisions about how to manage 
their natural resources and generate revenue.
  However, there are certain aspects of the program which do not 
promote sustainable development for rural people or improve natural 
resource management. My amendment restricts United States taxpayer 
dollars from being spent on those needless activities and directs all 
funds to be used to maximize benefits to rural people while 
strengthening natural resources management institutions in Zimbabwe.
  I am aware that there have been many concerns raised about the trophy 
hunting aspects of the program. I do not support trophy hunting and I 
do not believe that one penny of taxpayer money should be used to 
finance trophy hunting. My amendment will ensure that no U.S. taxpayer 
dollars are directly spent on trophy hunting activities.
  However, I do recognize that trophy hunting will continue in 
Zimbabwe. I believe that we need to provide countries like Zimbabwe 
with viable alternatives to trophy hunting which continue to generate 
income and promote sustainable development without involving the 
consumptive use of wildlife. My amendment requires USAID to submit a 
report to Congress providing alternatives to trophy hunting, and the 
impact of the program on the people and wildlife of CAMPFIRE districts.
  People in Zimbabwe are living under very different conditions than we 
in the United States. We must recognize these differences in our 
approach to development while maintaining our high values and ideals. 
The CAMPFIRE Program in Zimbabwe will end in 1999, but USAID-funded 
development programs will continue for years to come. I am hopeful that 
the report which USAID will submit to Congress, will provide the United 
States with ideas for income diversification for future programs so 
that we can move away from the consumptive use of wildlife as a 
management regime.
  USAID has proposed several improvements to the CAMPFIRE Program in 
recent months. These improvements are the result of the concerns raised 
by many concerned citizens and organizations such as the Humane Society 
of the United States. I commend the Humane Society for their efforts to 
make the United States more responsible for the use of taxpayer 
dollars. I also applaud USAID for taking steps to address these 
concerns. I believe that this process has been beneficial for all of 
those involved--especially the people and wildlife of Zimbabwe.
  I want to thank Senators Leahy, Smith, Allard, and Torricelli for 
helping to make this a bipartisan effort toward improving development 
aid, maximizing benefits to local people, promoting a healthy elephant 
population, and ensuring that U.S. taxpayer money is used wisely.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to begin by congratulating 
Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy for their hard work in crafting 
this legislation and working to include language on the CAMPFIRE 
Program in the bill.
  Mr. President, as I have made very clear in the past, I am a strong 
supporter of fiscal responsibility on the part of the Federal 
Government. It is our responsibility to use taxpayer's dollars in the 
most effective, and efficient way possible. This responsibility at 
times mandates that we review and question just where our tax dollars 
are going.
  When USAID's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous 
Resources or CAMPFIRE Program was first brought to my attention, I had 
to ask myself, just why are United States taxpayer's dollars being 
spent to fund big game hunting of elephants in Zimbabwe? If a program 
could spend dollars to hunt elephants how else are they spending our 
money? Asking myself these questions was not enough, so I began a 
comprehensive review of the CAMPFIRE Program.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to announce, that as a result of 
congressional review a little more fiscal responsibility has been 
restored to the

[[Page S7547]]

U.S. Government. Our review of CAMPFIRE has produced three highly 
beneficial results.
  First of all, fiscal year 1998 will be the last year that the 
CAMPFIRE project will receive funding. This will end the cycle of 
appropriations that has already lead to $28 million being spent on this 
program. This amount, though small in respect to the overall budget, is 
a good start to tightening up Government spending, especially U.S. 
funding for international projects.
  Second, the appropriations language states that no U.S. tax dollars 
will go to directly fund the big game trophy hunting of Zimbabwe's 
elephants. I think we can agree that an endangered species such as the 
elephant should not be hunted with the tacit consent of the U.S. 
taxpayer through governmental funding.
  Finally, for the remaining time CAMPFIRE is funded, USAID must submit 
to Congress the steps they have taken to implement the CAMPFIRE 
Program. This will allow us to watch their use of our dollars. For far 
too long the U.S. has funded international programs with little or no 
oversight--this will serve as an example of how Congress should police 
international funding measures.
  Mr. President, I support the Foreign Operations Subcommittee's 
appropriations for fiscal year 1998 of the CAMPFIRE Program, with the 
understanding that this is the last year of the program, USAID submit 
information on how they implement the program, and no U.S. tax dollars 
will be spent to kill elephants. Now that we have ended the CAMPFIRE 
Program, it is my hope that we will not have to revisit this issue 
again in the future.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Boxer and 
Senator Smith of New Hampshire for their help in drafting this 
language.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that the Communal Areas Management 
Program for Indigenous Resources [CAMPFIRE] Program in Zimbabwe is 
currently meeting all of the conditions placed on it by the amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my further understanding that Zimbabwe has a very 
successful elephant conservation program has had led to a population 
increase of 43,000 elephants in 1987 to 67,000 elephants in 1996 and 
that much of this success is due to the CAMPFIRE Program.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my further understanding that the language in this 
amendment dealing with trophy hunting is only a prohibition on a direct 
USAID subsidy of hunting in the CAMPFIRE Program and should not be 
interpreted as a negative statement about the indispensable role 
hunting plays as a management tool for elephants and other foreign 
species.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Finally, it is my understanding that nothing in this 
amendment should be interpreted as having any effect on any other U.S. 
law or regulation regarding wildlife conservation and hunting.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mrs. BOXER. I rescind that request. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 897) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 891

    (Purpose: To decrease the amount of funds available to OPIC for 
administrative expenses to carry out the credit and insurance programs)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now under the informal order that we 
have here going from side to side, the Senator from Colorado is here.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 891.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, the Senator is going to 
describe what the amendment is, I assume.
  Mr. ALLARD. We shared a copy of that amendment. I think you have it. 
I will explain it in my remarks.
  Mr. LEAHY. I do not have any objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 4, line 22, strike ``$32,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$21,000,000''.

  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.
  Before I begin, I commend my friends, the subcommittee chairman, 
Mitch McConnell, and Senator Patrick Leahy and chairman Ted Stevens and 
Senator Robert Byrd, for a very good bill. I support the bill. I 
believe its overall funding levels are very appropriate, and I plan on 
supporting it.
  However, I have one concern. My amendment is very simple. It strikes 
the $32 million for administrative expenses for the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation and scales it back to its 1994 level of $21 
million.
  Now, why was the year 1994 selected? In 1994, with Public Law 103-
392, OPIC's congressional authorized lending authority was last raised. 
This increased the maximum contingent liability or lending authority 
cap for insurance from $9 billion to $13.5 billion and increased the 
contingent liability cap for financing from $2.5 billion to $9.5 
million. However, since 1994, there have been no increases in the 
authorized lending cap for OPIC. As a matter of fact, I have recently 
learned that while at the end of 1996 OPIC's liability exposure has 
increased, their total number of issuances has decreased.
  Now, in 1995, 1996 and 1997, OPIC's administrative expense 
appropriations have increased. In 1994, their administrative expense 
was $20.2 million; in 1995, their administrative expense was $25.8 
million; in 1996, their administrative cost was $21.8 million, and in 
1997 their administrative costs again increased to $32 million, while 
their cap was not increased one dime. In fact, there is a zero percent 
increase since 1994.
  Now, their administrative appropriation over the same period has 
increased $12 million--over the last 3 years--resulting in a 50-percent 
increase.
  Now, why should OPIC's administrative appropriation increase while 
their lending authority cap has stayed frozen? As I stated earlier, in 
reality their issuances have declined. While the $32 million in this 
bill is a freeze as of 1996--and I commend the committee for doing 
this, by the way--I believe it would be very appropriate to scale them 
back to the 1994 level.
  All this is occurring while the future of OPIC is very much 
uncertain. On September 30, 1997, OPIC's authorization ends. As of 
today, I do not believe the Senate has a reauthorization bill for OPIC. 
From my understanding, the House of Representatives is just beginning 
the process of reauthorization and, in the report for the companion 
foreign operations appropriations bill, it states they are reluctant in 
the absence of an authorization bill to fund OPIC. I believe this 
number is enough to administer their outstanding liabilities, but there 
is still great uncertainly as to what the future holds for OPIC. If 
reauthorization does occur, then we can come back to this issue at a 
later date.
  This amendment is not the place, nor do I plan to argue the specific 
pros and cons of OPIC, for that will come at a future date if we have a 
reauthorization bill. I plan to be involved in the debate at that time 
if that comes up. But this amendment is a matter of whether an agency, 
a Government entity, that depends on the full faith and credit of the 
United States, with Federal employees, should have their administrative 
expenses increased by 50 percent over the last 3 years while their 
authorized lending cap is not increased by one dime, zero percent.

[[Page S7548]]

  Make no mistake, OPIC is a Federal agency. It needs the United States 
to fund its operation. This Congress should always be concerned when an 
agency staff grows faster than its authority. I know of very few 
agencies that have no growth in authority which get a 50-percent 
increase in administrative expenses. It seems, if we are at all serious 
about reducing the size and scope of Government and take our oversight 
role seriously, then all agencies should play by the same rules, and we 
as a Congress should apply these rules evenly to all agencies. I ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment and keep the growth of OPIC at a 
minimum, especially when their authorized cap has been frozen since 
1994 and with their authorization expiring in September 1997.
  Mr. President, I reserve my right to address the Senate and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to reflect a little on what my 
friend and neighbor--literally my neighbor--from Colorado has talked 
about here in the last few minutes regarding OPIC. First, I rise to 
oppose my friend, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, regarding 
his amendment. I will explain why.
  Before I came to this body, I was a businessman, a small businessman. 
Over the last 15 years, my partners and I founded a number of 
companies. A number of those companies were international companies. I 
have dealt with OPIC directly. I understand a little bit about, I 
think, the real world, how jobs are created, how you must market in the 
international community, what kind of competition is out there against 
a little company like mine that has to go toe to toe with foreign 
competitors all over the globe.
  One of the things I learned very quickly was when you go toe to toe 
with international competitors, whether it is telecommunications--which 
I know a little something about--or any other industry, the support 
that comes with your competitor, from his government, his country, is 
rather significant. I think that is important in this debate. As my 
friend, Senator Allard, said, we will have an opportunity to truly 
debate this issue over the next few months. But I would like to make a 
couple of points that I think are very relevant to OPIC, what OPIC 
does, what it represents. Again, I come at this, not as a U.S. Senator; 
I come at this as someone who understands a little bit about how this 
works and who has been out in the real world in over 60 countries and 
done business in about 20 of them.
  First, I am concerned that an amendment like that of my friend, to 
slash administrative expenses, could lead to the very point that he is 
concerned with. It is a good point. If you slash administrative 
expenses for OPIC, the likelihood is the quality of the portfolio of 
OPIC, the quality of investments that OPIC has made and will continue 
to make, will suffer. I think it would cut directly to eliminating the 
ability to monitor those loan portfolios. I do not think that is in the 
best interests of the American taxpayer or anyone associated with OPIC. 
It endangers the creditworthiness of OPIC if you slash their 
administrative budget.
  Let me hit just a few very specific points as to what OPIC does. 
There is an awful lot of sound and fury and smoke and mirrors when it 
comes to OPIC. First, OPIC, in fact, does level the playing field in 
global competition. I spoke to that earlier. All of America's major 
trade competitors have OPIC-like agencies to help them. It covers the 
gaps in the markets all over this world.
  OPIC creates American jobs. I have a document here--I am sure Senator 
Allard has seen it--of the kind of jobs created in Colorado, his home 
State, and in my home State of Nebraska; the kind of revenues that flow 
into Colorado because of countries that buy from companies that have 
either OPIC insurance that they pay for, or OPIC loans that they pay 
for. This is a job creator. This is a growth creator. To give some of 
the specific numbers on this, since 1971 OPIC has supported $108 
billion worth of U.S. projects resulting in over 250,000 new American 
jobs and $53 billion in new American exports. OPIC is prohibited under 
law from supporting any project that would result in the loss of one 
single American job.
  Two, OPIC does not cost the taxpayers money. In fact, every year OPIC 
returns to the U.S. Treasury--last year $209 million. OPIC requires no 
appropriation of funds. Its operations are entirely funded by the 
market-rate fees it charges businesses. There is some myth about this. 
If you want an OPIC loan or guarantee or insurance, you pay for it. 
This isn't a free deal. OPIC is not corporate welfare. I am always 
amused, and I am a conservative Republican--let me tell you, I am for 
less Government and cutting Government and cutting taxes. But I am 
always amused when I ask my colleagues, what do you mean corporate 
welfare? What is corporate welfare?

  No American business receives any subsidy or free benefit from OPIC. 
All OPIC loans must be paid in full. OPIC charges full market rates 
and, where applicable, high-risk-based interest rates and insurance 
premiums for all of its services. Remember, OPIC returns money to the 
Treasury through the fees it charges firms that use its services.
  OPIC has a strong record. Let's not overlook this. It has 
extraordinarily low default rates, less than 1 percent since 1971. OPIC 
maintains a well-diversified portfolio by region, by sector, by 
industry, and maintains $2.7 billion in reserves. We have talked about 
the possibility of privatizing OPIC. Last year J.P. Morgan looked at 
it, made a study. It won't work that way. Let me tell you, when you are 
a small company, a small business like I had, to try to compete with 
the big guys from France and Germany and Britain--all over the globe--
to be able to have some base of your country behind you, and you pay 
for that, is significant.
  The last point I will make, OPIC supports small business. There is a 
lot of myth about that as well, that this is a big-business boondoggle. 
It is not. I am living proof of that. In 1996, OPIC supported record 
numbers of small business projects worth $1.8 billion in 17 countries. 
Many small American businesses are suppliers to the larger exporters 
that indirectly come through OPIC. More than half of all suppliers to 
OPIC-based projects are small businesses. This is a ripple effect. When 
we get projects and deals internationally, you have to sponsor those. 
You buy products to support those. And those come from States like that 
of my friend from Colorado and Nebraska and every State in the Union. 
So this is a ripple-effect operation.
  Mr. President, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think 
it is shortsighted and I think the wisest thing to do is to continue 
with our funding, with our authorization, and as I said earlier, we 
will have ample opportunity to address this issue in debate. But I 
don't think a hit-and-run way to approach this with an amendment is the 
correct way to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nebraska 
for his comments about OPIC. With all due respect to our colleague from 
Colorado, I, too, oppose the amendment. OPIC does not cost a single 
taxpayer dollar. OPIC is required by law to operate on a self-
sustaining basis. Since 1971, it has reimbursed the U.S. Government for 
every dollar it has received and has reported positive net income every 
year since its inception. As the Senator from Nebraska pointed out, 
last year it returned $209 million to the Treasury. OPIC creates 
American jobs and exports. All major U.S. economic competitors have 
similar export promotion agencies. Scuttling OPIC would put our 
companies at an even further disadvantage than they already are.
  Today, for example, at least 36 percent of Japan's exports enjoy 
Government subsidies compared with just 2 percent of American exports. 
In addition, Japan and France provide 77 percent of the total amount of 
export subsidies made available around the world.
  As Senator Hagel pointed out, that is what American businesses 
typically are up against in the international market. OPIC is not 
corporate welfare. OPIC charges market and risk-based interest rates 
and fees for all of its services, and all loans must be paid in full. 
All clients must pass industry standard and OPIC policy reviews. This 
is an agency that has functioned very

[[Page S7549]]

well in behalf of American interests and is actually returning money to 
the American Treasury. OPIC strongly supports small business, which is 
the heart of America's economic engine. The source of 6 out of every 10 
jobs in this country is directly attributable to small business.
  We have had this amendment every year and so far have been able to 
defeat it. I certainly hope we will be able to again, because OPIC is 
an important part of what makes American business competitive overseas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska in opposing this 
amendment. I, too, would note that OPIC does return money to the 
Treasury--the figure $209 million last year was used here. More 
important, it creates jobs in America.
  I represent, in population, the second smallest State in the Union. 
OPIC is used in my State. It creates jobs, it creates exports, it helps 
our balance of payments. When you go to the larger States, of course, 
the dollar amount is just that much greater.
  I do not know a business in my State that has turned to OPIC that has 
not received enormous help. I remember when the former Director of OPIC 
came to Vermont. She held a meeting there. We had lines going out the 
door; business people wanting to work with OPIC. It is one of those 
success stories.
  It is also an area where we have to have the kind of tools that all 
our competitors have. We are in worldwide markets. We can no longer 
just rely on New Hampshire selling to Vermont, Vermont selling to New 
Hampshire, as an example. I say that seeing my good friend from New 
Hampshire is the distinguished Presiding Officer. We export way beyond 
our States, way beyond the borders of our Nation. But, every other 
First World--and a lot that go beyond the First World--country does the 
same. If they are a major exporter, as we are, there are boards like 
OPIC that help them.
  Are there things that can be done better or different than OPIC? 
Possibly. But I ask the authorizing committee to look at that.
  There will be an authorizing bill on OPIC. I am perfectly willing to 
listen to the recommendations of my friends on both sides of the aisle.
  We felt, the Senator from Kentucky and myself--he as chairman and I 
as ranking member--in looking at these figures for OPIC that the 
amounts made sense. There certainly was unanimous concurrence of 
Republicans and Democrats on our subcommittee and in the full committee 
for the same reason.
  If an authorizing bill comes through and changes that, it can change 
it. This money doesn't have to be spent and an authorizing bill can 
make a difference. I suspect with such an authorizing bill, you are 
going to hear success story after success story from States all over 
the Nation helped by OPIC.
  So I hope my good friend from Colorado will withhold this amendment 
and let it be a matter to be discussed with the authorizing committee, 
but not on this appropriations bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to have an opportunity to 
make some summarizing comments and then, if there are not any other 
statements, I will make a closing statement.
  I would like to respond by saying it is true that there is some extra 
revenue that has come into OPIC, but the fact is that that is interest 
that they have earned, and OPIC itself, in saying how much more income 
it could generate, said if we could get away from having to buy 
Treasury bonds and invest in the stock market, we could generate more 
income.
  To me, that sends a signal that we would be better off in the private 
sector. A lot of these businessmen have an opportunity to go to the 
private sector, go to the stock market to fund these projects overseas. 
And I am a small businessman, too, by the way. I started my business 
from scratch, but I think as business people, sometimes it is all too 
easy to turn to the agencies for help. We need to encourage business 
people to turn to the market and to focus on what they can do to meet 
the needs of the market. After all, this is an agency. It is a 
Government-run agency that is picking winners and losers. I would feel 
much more comfortable having a competitive market system picking 
winners and losers.
  Many States, like the State of Colorado which I am from, have done a 
lot to promote foreign competition, but they have done it on their own. 
Most of the jobs and the new growth that has happened in Colorado has 
not been the result of OPIC. So I think we have to be careful and not 
give too much credit to this particular Federal agency.
  Let me end by just stating, again, a few historical facts. In 1971, 
OPIC's administrative budget was $3.2 million. In 1981, it was $7.5 
million. In 1988, it was $12 million. And in 1992, it was $16.4 
million.
  In 1996, their administrative appropriation was $28.1 million, and in 
1997, it was $32 million. Also, according to OPIC, in 1988, their 
FTE's, or full-time equivalent employment ceiling, was 125. In 1992, it 
was 155, and in 1996, it was 182. As these historical numbers from OPIC 
point out, this is not some sleeping agency, but one whose 
administrative costs and employment have increased substantially.
  If we take the 1996 number of employees and divide it into the 1996 
administrative costs, it comes to $154,000 per employee. Now, I realize 
that not all this goes to employees' salaries, but also to normal 
office supplies and other office expenses that go to support each one 
of those FTE positions.
  But here is the problem. I have yet to hear a compelling argument for 
continuing increase in the administrative budget when their liability 
cap is frozen. Also, as I and my staff have searched their records, I 
have yet to find a clear delineation of where their administration 
budget goes.
  All I do know is that in this $32 million, and I quote from the bill, 
``any project-specific transaction costs, including direct and indirect 
costs incurred in claims settlements, and other direct costs associated 
with service provided to specific investors or potential investors 
pursuant to section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, shall 
not,'' again, ``shall not be considered administrative expenses for the 
purpose of this heading.''
  I question what these expenses are and where they go. I cannot find 
them listed in their reports or from any correspondence. Oversight is a 
proper function of Congress, and we should pursue it vigorously.
  While I may have some problems with OPIC, Mr. President, I do want to 
commend them for being prompt and professional in their manner of 
dealing with my inquiries, and I take my hat off to them for this.
  Again, I reiterate, this amendment is not about OPIC and whether they 
should continue, because we will get to that later. But this is an 
argument of whether a U.S. Government agency should have a 50-percent 
increase in administrative expenses since 1994 when their 
congressionally mandated lending authority has been frozen during that 
same period. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask for 
limited growth in all agencies.
  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. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with the concurrence of the Senator 
from Colorado, I would like to lay the amendment aside in the hope that 
we can stack votes for later.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have no objection to that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily lay aside 
the Allard amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield the 
floor?
  The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S7550]]

                           Amendment No. 899

    (Purpose: To promote democracy-building activities in Pakistan.)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report:
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Johnson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 899.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 new section:

     SEC.  . DEMOCRACY-BUILDING ACTIVITY IN PAKISTAN.

       (a) OPIC.--Section 239(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2199(f)) is amended by inserting ``, or 
     Pakistan'' after ``China''.
       (b) Training Activity.--Section 638(b) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2398(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or any activity to promote the 
     development of democratic institutions'' after ``activity''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``, Pakistan,'' after ``Brazil''.
       (c) Trade and Development.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that the Director of the Trade and Development Agency should 
     use funds made available to carry out the provisions of 
     section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2421) to promote United States exports to Pakistan.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Warner, Senator Torricelli, Senator Santorum, and 
Senator Johnson.
  Put simply, this amendment will allow the resumption of the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, International Military and 
Education Training, IMET, Trade and Development Assistance, TDA, and 
democracy-building programs in Pakistan, such as the National Endowment 
for Democracy.
  This measure, I will say at the outset, is not anti-India and it is 
not pro-Pakistan, it is pro-American interests. This will not be a vote 
for or against India or Pakistan. India is, of course, a friend of 
longstanding and an ally to the United States and is the largest and 
oldest democracy in the region. It already receives the benefit of OPIC 
and IMET, and it has for some time over 35 years. Therefore, I am 
confident that we can restore these programs to Pakistan without 
upsetting any balance at all to the region.
  Trade between India and Pakistan is growing. OPIC assistance to 
Pakistan could actually help India because they are working with 
Pakistan in the energy sector. OPIC assistance would promote American 
investment in this sector.
  Mr. President, it is now clear that continuing the policy of 
restricting OPIC and IMET to Pakistan will do nothing to direct further 
U.S. nonproliferation efforts in South Asia. At the same time, these 
restrictions seriously hinder our ability to advance United States 
interests in trade and investment in Pakistan. Our influence in the 
Pakistani military leadership and our ability to strengthen democracy 
and economic institutions in Pakistan is also adversely affected by 
these restrictions.
  I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues in regard to 
Pakistan, and I share some of those concerns. The issue of 
nonproliferation in South Asia is, indeed, an extremely important 
issue, but U.S. interests in South Asia are important and increasing.
  The region contains one-fifth of the world's population and occupies 
a critical geostrategic position--surrounded by China, the surging 
economies of East Asia, the Indian Ocean, the huge oil and gas reserves 
in the Persian Gulf and the Caspian basin.
  Mr. President, I visited Pakistan and India earlier this year. I met 
in Pakistan with Prime Minister Sharif and other members of his 
government. I believe that Mr. Sharif has learned from past mistakes 
and is moving Pakistan in the right direction. He has a strong mandate 
in parliament and has already taken bold steps toward rooting out 
corruption, privatizing the economy and normalizing relations with 
India. These are positive steps, and the United States must send a 
strong signal of support and encouragement for Prime Minister Sharif's 
initiatives.
  I strongly believe that it has come to the point where our uneven 
policy toward Pakistan is hampering our interests in the region. 
Improved human rights, nonproliferation and greater trade and 
investment are being held hostage by this shortsighted policy.
  I am pleased that my amendment has the strong support of the 
administration in an effort to engage Pakistan on these important 
issues. Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen both feel strongly about 
the need for these changes.
  Mr. President, I have a letter dated the 16th of July from Secretary 
of Defense Cohen. He said:

       I am writing to express my strong support for your 
     legislation to restore IMET, OPIC, TDA and democracy-building 
     programs in Pakistan . . .
       We believe it essential to pursue these programs--not as a 
     reward to Pakistan--but as a means of furthering important 
     U.S. interests. Pakistan is now, and long has been, a 
     friendly, moderate Islamic democracy in a very difficult 
     region. We believe that by enabling it to participate in 
     IMET, OPIC, TDA and democracy-building programs we will 
     strengthen democracy in Pakistan as an institution, 
     strengthen Pakistan's troubled economy, and strengthen our 
     relationship with the Pakistani military--all of which serve 
     important U.S. interests in South Asia.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary 
Cohen be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                          Secretary of Defense

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1997.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Tom: I am writing to express my strong support for 
     your legislation to restore the International Military 
     Education and Training (IMET), Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation (OPIC), Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and 
     democracy-building programs in Pakistan. These programs are 
     currently precluded by sanctions that have been imposed on 
     Pakistan under the Symington Amendment.
       We believe it essential to pursue these programs--not as a 
     reward to Pakistan--but as a means of furthering important 
     U.S. interests. Pakistan is now, and long has been, a 
     friendly, moderate Islamic democracy in a very difficult 
     region. We believe that by enabling it to participate in 
     IMET, OPIC, TDA, and democracy-building programs we will 
     strengthen democracy in Pakistan as an institution, 
     strengthen Pakistan's troubled economy, and strengthen our 
     relationship with the Pakistani military--all of which serve 
     important U.S. interests in South Asia.
       DoD is particularly supportive of legislation that would 
     restore Pakistan's IMET program. We believe that the positive 
     impact of IMET on the Pakistani military will serve to 
     enhance our overall relationship with Pakistan and, by 
     extension, will facilitate our engagement with Pakistan in a 
     number of important areas including proliferation. Moreover, 
     given Pakistan's leading role in UN peacekeeping--Pakistan 
     currently leads the world as a contributor of troops to UN 
     peacekeeping operations--closer cooperation between our two 
     armed forces is increasingly necessary for operational 
     reasons. Senior Pakistani officers have told us that one of 
     the consequences of our suspension of the IMET program has 
     been that a generation of Pakistani officers has not had the 
     positive exposure to U.S. and western values that is made 
     possible through IMET. Without IMET to provide a 
     countervailing argument, these officers may find the often 
     anti-American message of Iran and Iraq more appealing.
       Opponents of your legislation will claim that Pakistan's 
     performance with regard to proliferation should not be 
     ``rewarded'' by making it eligible for these assistance 
     programs. We would respond that our denying any of these 
     programs will not cause the Pakistanis to forego strategic 
     programs which they believe are essential for their national 
     security. However, by making these assistance programs 
     available, we will not only serve U.S. interests directly but 
     will improve the climate of our overall relationship thus 
     encouraging Pakistan to be more receptive to our point of 
     view in other areas.
       I wholeheartedly support your efforts to enact this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                             Bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me read further from Secretary Cohen's letter. I want 
to get this last paragraph in. Secretary Cohen said:

       Opponents of your legislation will claim that Pakistan's 
     performance with regard to proliferation should not be 
     ``rewarded'' by making it eligible for these assistance 
     programs. We would respond that our denying any of these 
     programs will not cause the Pakistanis to forego strategic 
     programs which they believe are essential for their national 
     security. However, by making these assistance programs 
     available, we will not only serve U.S. interests directly but 
     will improve the climate of our overall relationship thus 
     encouraging Pakistan to be more receptive to our point of 
     view in other areas.

  Mr. President, I am also in receipt of a letter signed by Under 
Secretary

[[Page S7551]]

Thomas Pickering. Again, I will just read a couple parts of that:

       Dear Senator Harkin: The Secretary has asked me to convey 
     her strong support for your proposed amendment to restore 
     OPIC, IMET, TDA and democracy-building programs for Pakistan. 
     We firmly believe that allowing these programs to operate in 
     Pakistan is in the U.S. interest, and that once restored they 
     will be a key factor in strengthening our relationship with 
     an important and friendly country in a vital part of the 
     world.

  Mr. Pickering goes on:

       In the wake of the election of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, 
     Pakistan has adopted important political and constitutional 
     reforms, which promise to strengthen both the quality and 
     continuity of democratic rule. We want to bolster that effort 
     by implementing programs to train Pakistan's elected 
     representatives in democratic structures and legislative 
     procedures. Your amendment would give us the requisite 
     flexibility to proceed.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Pickering's 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Department of State, Under Secretary of State for 
           Political Affairs,
                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1997.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The Secretary has asked me to convey 
     her strong support for your proposed amendment to restore 
     OPIC, IMET, TDA and democracy building programs for Pakistan. 
     We firmly believe that allowing these programs to operate in 
     Pakistan is in the U.S. interest, and that once restored they 
     will be a key factor in strengthening our relationship with 
     an important and friendly country in a vital part of the 
     world.
       In the wake of the election of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, 
     Pakistan has adopted important political and constitutional 
     reforms, which promise to strengthen both the quality and 
     continuity of democratic rule. We want to bolster that effort 
     by implementing programs to train Pakistan's elected 
     representatives in democratic structures and legislative 
     procedures. Your amendment will give us the requisite 
     flexibility to proceed.
       At the same time, the Government of Pakistan is undertaking 
     an ambitious reform program to stabilize Pakistan's troubled 
     economy. The United States, as Pakistan's leading trading 
     partner and largest source of foreign investment, is in a 
     favorable position to influence and benefit from a stable 
     economic situation in Pakistan. Extending Trade and 
     Development Assistance and OPIC support to U.S. firms in 
     Pakistan will increase our engagement with the Pakistani 
     government on reform issues, while ensuring that our firms 
     are well positioned to compete for investment and trade 
     opportunities.
       Finally, we believe that restoring IMET programs will have 
     an appreciable impact on our relationship with the Pakistani 
     military. For seven years, the United States has lacked 
     contact with junior and mid-level Pakistani officers, from 
     whose ranks will emerge the next generation of Pakistani 
     military leaders. We would serve our interests well by giving 
     them exposure to U.S. practices, institutions, and values.
       We, like you, continue to have concerns regarding 
     Pakistan's record on non-proliferation issues. We consider 
     non-proliferation to be one of the most complex and troubling 
     issues in the South Asia region, and it will continue to be 
     one of our highest priorities to work with the Pakistani 
     government to restrain its nuclear and missile programs. That 
     said, we need to consider carefully how to pursue our non-
     proliferation objectives in conformity with the entire range 
     of U.S. interests in Pakistan. We believe that an initiative 
     such as yours--which will help to develop Pakistan's 
     democracy, increase bilateral trade and investment, and 
     enhance our access to and influence with Pakistan's emerging 
     military leadership--will advance our interests without 
     undermining our non-proliferation agenda.
       We appreciate and are pleased to support your effort.
                                              Thomas R. Pickering.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a number of prominent United States 
business leaders have asked the State Department to resume OPIC support 
for investment in Pakistan so that American business interests are 
promoted in that region. In no other country in South Asia is OPIC 
prohibited from providing support and assistance. I have examples, a 
number of letters of United States businesses urging the administration 
to resume OPIC's support of Pakistan.
  Mr. President, I have letters from several different companies that I 
have here that have written letters asking that OPIC be allowed to 
resume in Pakistan so that they can begin to invest in Pakistan--a 
letter from Occidental Oil and Gas; a letter from MCI Communications; a 
letter from Solar Turbines, a Caterpillar Company; a letter from Alpha-
Gamma Technologies, Inc., in Raleigh, NC; a letter from Boston 
Technology, Inc., in Wakefield, MA; a letter from Hawkins Oil & Gas, 
Inc., in Oklahoma; a letter from Tenaska International, Omaha, NE; and 
several other letters. I will not read them all. But Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that several of these letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Occidental Oil and Gas Corp.,

                                  Bakersfield, CA, April 10, 1996.
     Hon. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing at this time concerning an 
     important matter impacting on U.S. commercial relations with 
     the Republic of Pakistan. I understand that the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is still not permitted 
     to offer its programs in Pakistan. I urge you to review this 
     matter and to do what you can to expedite the implementation 
     of OPIC programs in Pakistan.
       Occidental Petroleum Corporation has had successful oil and 
     gas producing operations in Pakistan for twelve years. 
     Pakistan presents unique business opportunities and offers a 
     stable environment for American companies and for companies 
     from a host of other countries around the world. U.S. trade 
     and commercial ties with Pakistan serve to enhance the 
     overall relationship between our two countries. However, in 
     order for U.S. companies to compete more aggressively in 
     Pakistan, they must have access to OPIC programs.
       While I appreciate that there are other important and 
     serious issues impacting on our bilateral relationship, I 
     respectfully ask that you consider the vital commercial link 
     that exists between the U.S. and Pakistan and move quickly to 
     permit OPIC guarantees in Pakistan. The U.S. is the largest 
     foreign investor in Pakistan and its largest trading partner. 
     I am convinced that U.S. commercial interests in Pakistan 
     would increase even more if OPIC programs were available. 
     Furthermore, I am sure you will agree, that permitting OPIC 
     to operate in Pakistan would contribute in a meaningful way 
     to improving our overall bilateral relationship.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     James B. Taylor.
                                                                    ____



                               MCI Communications Corporation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbott: For many years, MCI has successfully 
     conducted business in Pakistan with Pakistan PTT, the 
     government-owned telephone company. Pakistan has proven to be 
     a reliable business partner. We understand that the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is finalizing an 
     agreement with the government of Pakistan to provide 
     political risk insurance covering foreign investments in 
     Pakistan. This agreement should provide the added security 
     necessary for MCI and other American companies interested in 
     increasing their investments in Pakistan. Any action taken to 
     expedite completion of this agreement would be helpful.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark Esherick,
     Senior Policy Advisor.
                                                                    ____



                                               Solar Turbines,

                                   Washington, DC, March 26, 1996.
     Hon. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbott: This letter is a request for you to look 
     favorably upon making the resources of the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation available to U.S. exporters when doing 
     business in the Country of Pakistan. Such action would be 
     consistent with the availability of Export-Import Bank 
     financing and insurance and the apparent desire on the part 
     of the U.S. Government to work closely with the Government of 
     Pakistan after the prime minister's visit of last year.
       Pakistan represents an important market to U.S. exporters 
     and the resources of OPIC will be of considerable value in 
     generating additional export revenue and jobs within the 
     United States. At the same time, the U.S. businesses will, by 
     working more closely with Pakistan, further the cause of 
     democracy and environmental awareness.
       Your leadership in this matter will be greatly appreciated. 
     Thank you for your consideration.
           Most sincerely,
     Peter Carroll.
                                                                    ____



                               Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc.,

                                      Raleigh, NC, March 18, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbot: Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc. is actively 
     pursuing a private power development project in Pakistan. 
     Along with two other U.S. based companies, we have plans to 
     make a significant investment in the power generation sector 
     in that country. However, we are placed at a significant 
     disadvantage against foreign competition due to non-
     availability of OPIC coverage.

[[Page S7552]]

       I believe that recent legislation passed by the U.S. 
     Congress makes OPIC coverage available in Pakistan. However, 
     implementation of this legislation seems to be taking some 
     time. Any assistance you can provide in expediting the 
     availability of OPIC coverage in Pakistan would greatly help 
     U.S. firms in their efforts to compete in the Pakistan 
     market.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Reese H. Howle,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                      Boston Technology, Inc.,

                                    Wakefield, MA, March 19, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Strobe Talbott: I am writing in response to a 
     phone message from a Mr. Monsori Ali, the Economic Minister 
     of Pakistan, at the Embassy in Washington. Boston Technology 
     is a telecommunications firm employing more than 500 people 
     in the Boston Area, with offices worldwide.
       We have already done some business in Pakistan with Paktel, 
     and are currently negotiating for additional business with 
     PTC, the Pakistan Telephone Company.
       It would be of great assistance if the Senate would approve 
     the Opic Insurance provision currently under consideration.
       Thank you for your interest in Boston Technology.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Todd Hasselbeck,
     Vice President International Sales.
                                                                    ____



                                      Hawkins Oil & Gas, Inc.,

                                        Tulsa, OK, March 14, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.

     Ref: OPIC Restoration for Pakistan.

       Dear Mr. Talbott: This letter is a request that the process 
     to restore OPIC insurance coverage for Pakistan be completed 
     at the earliest possible date. Our company has been working 
     since 1989 to construct and operate a 586 MW power plant--the 
     Uch Power Project--in Pakistan. We have been pleased by the 
     policy behind the Brown Amendment, and now are hopeful that 
     its expected benefits can be realized. U.S. companies own 
     over 50 percent of the Uch project equity, and most of the 
     $625 million plant budget is for purchase of U.S. sourced 
     goods and services.
       We are on the verge of financial closing of this project, 
     and hope to receive clearance for filing our application for 
     OPIC insurance thereafter.
       Please accept my thanks and appreciation in advance for 
     your assistance.
           Sincerely,
     John B. Hawkins.
                                                                    ____



                                        Tenaska International,

                                         Omaha, NE, April 8, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbott: On behalf of the Uch Power project 
     sponsors, I am writing to request your support for making 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) funding 
     available for Pakistani projects.
       As you know, Tenaska International and four other companies 
     are developing the Uch Power Limited independent energy 
     project in Pakistan. The other U.S. sponsors are GE Capital 
     Corp. and Hawkins Oil and Gas. Additionally, Midlands 
     Electricity of the UK and Hasan and Associates of Pakistan 
     are project sponsors.
       The $630 million project is nearing financial close, and 
     limited construction already has begun. Having access to OPIC 
     insurance is very desirable for the Uch project. Due to the 
     project's advanced stage of development, we hope that OPIC 
     insurance becomes available for Pakistan as soon as possible.
       Speaking for Tenaska, we are most interested in future 
     project development in Pakistan as well. Availability of OPIC 
     insurance will be of great benefit to us for future projects.
       We urgently request your support in making OPIC insurance 
     available for projects in Pakistan.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul G. Smith,
     CEO, Tenaska International.
                                                                    ____



                                        Union Texas Petroleum,

                                                   March 20, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbott: We are writing in support of initiatives 
     by the Administration and in Congress to further improve 
     relations between the United States and Pakistan, 
     particularly the reactivation of Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation (OPIC) programs. Union Texas is a United States 
     public company that has operated oil and gas concessions in 
     Pakistan since 1977. During 1995, our operations produced 
     approximately 37% of Pakistan's domestic oil production and 
     10% of its natural gas production. Over the years, we have 
     had a productive and mutually beneficial relationship with 
     the peoples and Government of Pakistan. We strongly believe 
     that the United States should work to further strengthen its 
     relations with Pakistan.
       During 1995, Union Texas and the Government of Pakistan 
     signed a new petroleum concession agreement and we began 
     discussions regarding downstream projects, including 
     electrical power generation and liquefied petroleum gas 
     opportunities. The availability of OPIC programs could be a 
     critical factor in our ability to commit to certain of these 
     projects in the future.
       We hope that the Administration will give its full support 
     to reactivating OPIC's ability to offer its programs in 
     Pakistan, thus encouraging U.S. investment and fostering a 
     positive and supportive environment for relations between our 
     two nations.
           Very truly yours,
     W. M. Krips.
                                                                    ____



                              Southern Electric International,

                                      Atlanta, GA, March 19, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbott: You may be aware that the Government of 
     Pakistan (GOP) is pursuing a comprehensive program of 
     privatizing some of its major state-owned companies. As part 
     of this program, the GOP is privatizing the Kot Addu Power 
     Station (KAPS) which is the largest (1600 MW) thermal 
     electric power generating station in Pakistan. Southern 
     Electric International is seriously pursuing this opportunity 
     in competition with three other major international 
     companies, two of which are non-U.S. This project will be bid 
     this month with financial closing expected in September.
       As a U.S. company, Southern Electric International's 
     commercial objectives in Pakistan are constrained by the 
     delays in the signing of the relevant protocol that will 
     allow OPIC to provide the needed insurance risk coverages. 
     The availability of OPIC insurance coverage for Pakistan 
     would enhance the competitiveness and investment options 
     available to Southern Electric and all U.S. companies 
     interested in investing in Pakistan. Therefore, I would 
     appreciate very much if your office would facilitate and 
     support an expeditious signing of the relevant protocol.
       Southern Electric is a wholly owned subsidiary of The 
     Southern Company, one of the largest electric utility holding 
     companies in the U.S., and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. 
     Southern Electric finances, builds, owns and operates 
     electricity generation, transmission and distribution assets 
     in the U.S. and around the world. Currently, Southern 
     Electric has international assets in Argentina, Bahamas, 
     Chile, Trinidad and the United Kingdom.
       Again, I appreciate your consideration and support with 
     respect to OPIC insurance for Pakistan. If you have any 
     questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free 
     to contact me.
           Regards,
     Thomas G. Boren.
                                                                    ____



                                                Hycarbex, Inc.

                                       Irving, TX, March 20, 1996.
     Mr. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbott: This letter is a request that the process 
     to restore OPIC insurance coverage for Pakistan be completed 
     at the earliest date. Our company has obtained a petroleum 
     concession in Pakistan and is soon mobilizing our resources 
     for the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources 
     in Pakistan. I am confident that an agreement between the 
     Governments of the United States and Pakistan regarding 
     OPIC's coverage will assist not only in our business but also 
     others who are interested in doing business in Pakistan.
       Please accept my thanks and appreciation in advance for 
     your assistance.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                     David L. Cox,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                                    AES Corp.,

                                    Arlington, VA, March 19, 1996.
     Hon. Strobe Talbott,
     Deputy Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Talbott: The AES Corporation is an American 
     company in the business of building, owning and operating 
     private electric power generating facilities in the United 
     States and abroad. We have seven plants in the U.S., three in 
     the U.K., three in Argentina, and four in China. More 
     recently, we have completed the financings for and begun 
     construction of two power plants in Pakistan. It is because 
     of this activity that we write to you.
       We have been working in Pakistan for two and one half 
     years, and have committed substantial amounts of time and--
     more recently--equity capital to this country. Our dealings 
     with the Government of Pakistan have been uniformly 
     characterized by both fairness and remarkable expedition. 
     We're pleased with our success there, and with the positive 
     impact on American jobs that this success will have, 
     indirectly and directly.
       What has been lacking in Pakistan is our ability to access 
     the insurance and financing programs of the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation (OPIC). As you know, until recently 
     OPIC was congressionally prohibited from offering its 
     services to U.S. companies operating in Pakistan.
       These restrictions have now been lifted, and we urge you to 
     act quickly to allow OPIC to offer insurance coverage there. 
     It will help our efforts and the efforts of many American 
     companies to do business in Pakistan.
           Sincerely,
                                          Robert F. Hemphill, Jr.,
                                         Executive Vice President.


[[Page S7553]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Government of Pakistan is pursuing 
dramatic economic reforms, including liberalization, privatization, and 
deregulation in order to transition its economy into a fully market-
oriented system. Once OPIC support is reinstated, the United States 
will be able to institute trade and development assistance programs as 
well. U.S. companies will be able to pursue business opportunities in a 
wide variety of sectors, such as power generation, telecommunications, 
highway construction, port development and operations, oil and gas, and 
banking and finance.
  I also point out, Mr. President, that the Government of Pakistan is 
in the process of privatizing its banking system. OPIC can be of great 
help and support in doing that.
  Further, the prohibition of IMET has meant an emerging generation of 
Pakistani military officers has not had access to training in the 
United States. Let me be clear that IMET does not mean the transfer or 
sale of any weapons. It only means valuable education assistance to 
other militaries which help foster valuable military-to-military 
contacts with the United States and the host country and allows the 
United States to impart its values to other militaries.
  Mr. President, according to the Department of Defense, the Chinese 
are currently the single largest provider of military training to 
Pakistani Forces. Cutting off Pakistan from IMET assistance over the 
last 7 years has therefore reduced our contacts among the military 
leadership in Pakistan and reduced their exposure to United States 
institutions and values. This 7-year vacuum has been filled by China--
not in our best interests. In addition to providing American-style 
military training, IMET can be used to provide training in human 
rights, military justice, and civilian-military relations.
  The chief of the Army staff, General Karamat, for Pakistan, who 
attended the United States Army Command and General Staff College in 
Fort Leavenworth, KS, has stated that he would rather send his officers 
to the United States to study rather than to China. I think we ought to 
take him up on that.
  The United States has an IMET Program with every country in South 
Asia except for Pakistan, including Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, 
India, even the Maldives. This policy does not make sense. IMET should 
be restored not as a favor to Pakistan but because it is clearly in the 
United States interests to do so.
  That is what this amendment is really all about, helping the Unites 
States. It is pro-American. Pakistan is not getting military training 
from the United States; it is getting it from China. Is that serving 
U.S. interests? I do not think so.
  This amendment is not for anyone else but the United States because 
it will be our interests that are best served by it. Mr. President, let 
me briefly outline the long history of friendship between Pakistan and 
the United States.
  I believe it is important that this appear in the Record.
  Since 1947--50 years ago--the founding of the nation of Pakistan, the 
people of Pakistan have been helping to serve United States interests 
in South Asia and around the world. When the first Prime Minister of 
Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan, chose to undertake his first overseas visit, 
it was to the United States instead of to the Soviet Union, despite 
efforts by Moscow to entice him there and despite their proximity to 
both the Soviet Union and China. Since the late 1940's, Pakistan has 
helped the United States on numerous occasions in promoting and 
protecting American interests.
  In a speech to this Congress, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan 
proclaimed--and I quote--

       No threat or persuasion, no material peril, or ideological 
     allurement could deflect Pakistan from its chosen path of 
     free democracy.

  Pakistan lived up to its commitments later on in June 1950, when it 
declared its unqualified support for the United States in our war in 
Korea and backed us in that war.
  In 1954, they joined the Central Treaty Organization.
  In 1955, they joined SEATO, the South East Asian Treaty Organization. 
These two American-backed alliances were aimed at the containment of 
communism and were very successful.
  In 1959, our two countries signed a mutual defense treaty which is 
still operational today.
  So this is a long history.
  Again, some will say, well, Pakistan has had military dictatorships 
and violations of human rights. That is true. I understand that. But I 
believe that the freedom advocates, the freedom fighters, those who 
struggle continually in Pakistan for democracy and freedom have been at 
it continually. They have been assassinated and tortured and put in 
jail, but they continue to struggle for democratic freedoms in that 
country.
  Those are the ones about whom I speak, not the military 
dictatorships, but the brave people in Pakistan that continue to 
struggle and fight and to maintain an adherence to democracy.
  Mr. President, from that time on, Pakistan has been on our side and 
by our side whether it is in Korea or whether it is in Somalia, whether 
it is in Haiti, or in Bosnia. Yes, Pakistan right now has troops in 
Bosnia. And they have faced dangers time and time again, but they have 
stuck by our side.
  I spoke, not the military dictators, not the repressive forces in 
Pakistan, but to those brave people of Pakistan who, through all of 
this, continue to struggle and to fight against corruption and to 
maintain an adherence to democracy.
  In 1960, Pakistan's commitment, its friendship to the United States 
was put to a very severe test. Again, in accordance with the Mutual 
Defense Treaty, Pakistan allowed us to set up some bases. One of them 
was a base from which we flew our U-2 flights over the Soviet Union. 
One of those flights, as we all sadly remember, was shot down by the 
Soviets. Francis Gary Powers was the pilot, and we all know how the 
Soviets paraded him as one of their trophies.
  Soviet leader Nikita Khruschchev turned his ire on Pakistan because 
he knew that was where the plane was based. He threatened to use 
nuclear arms and weapons against Pakistan. He boasted that the city of 
Peshawar would be wiped off the face of the Earth. The Foreign Minister 
of Pakistan, in his recently published account of the incident, 
describes the cool and confident reaction of the then-President of 
Pakistan, who dismissed the Soviet threat by saying, ``So what?''
  Again, put yourself in that context. Korean war, Mutual Defense 
Treaty, allowing us to base our U-2 spy planes there. They are 
bordering right on the Soviet Union, and yet they stood by us.
  Pakistan again came to the assistance of the United States by helping 
to facilitate the crucial opening of American relations with China. In 
1970, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger undertook a secret visit 
to China from Pakistan. Thus, again, Pakistan served as that vital 
bridge between the United States and China. Again, it was critical in 
the cold war to restrain the Soviet Union.
  From 1979 to 1989, the United States went to Pakistan and asked them 
to cooperate with us in and help us fight the Soviet invasion of 
Afghanistan through infiltration of military equipment and other 
devices. Once again, Pakistan said yes to the United States even though 
they faced great danger. Not only did the Soviet Union, again, threaten 
Pakistan with dire consequences, but launched a campaign of subversion 
and terror against Pakistan. The country experienced numerous 
violations of its ground and air space, terrorist bombings, and 
subversion.
  Since 1992, Pakistan has been at the forefront of peacekeeping 
operations. We went to them and asked them to supply troops for 
Somalia, and they said yes. And we went to them and asked them to 
supply troops for the Haiti operation, and they said yes. And, Pakistan 
made significant contributions to the multinational force during the 
Gulf War to help liberate Kuwait. Pakistani troops are currently in 
Bosnia.
  In 1995, we asked Pakistan to return a suspected terrorist, Ramzi 
Yousaf, for his alleged involvement in the World Trade Center bombing. 
And they did.
  And, recently, the CIA was able to return to the United States, Mir 
Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani who is charged with killing two CIA employees 
outside CIA headquarters.
  As a moderate democratic Islamic ally, Pakistan is our most tried and

[[Page S7554]]

trusted friend we have in the Islamic world. They have stood by our 
side against the Soviet Union's aggression. And they have stood by our 
side in the fight against terrorism.
  So I say to my colleagues, let us treat our friend and ally Pakistan 
as they deserve to be treated due to their longstanding support for the 
United States, but most importantly it is in our best interests to do 
so. Granting OPIC and IMET will help U.S. business interests and U.S. 
national security interests. It will help exports, foster military-to-
military contacts and give the United States better intelligence in the 
region. It is fair, it is right, and makes good sense for the United 
States to change its shortsighted policy and pursue long-term interests 
in the region.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very pleased that my distinguished 
friend and colleague approached me to form a partnership for the 
purpose of this amendment. In different ways and at different times 
both of us have worked closely with Pakistan. As a member of the 
Intelligence Committee for 8 years, and then as vice chairman, I worked 
very closely during the war in Afghanistan, and through the years have 
come to know many of the distinguished persons from that nation who 
have come to the United States either in an official capacity or indeed 
many, many who have a heritage in Pakistan who have come to reside and 
take up their responsibilities in America.
  And that is why I agreed to be the principal cosponsor with my 
distinguished colleague.
  Specifically, the amendment would allow the United States to provide 
OPIC financing for United States companies operating in Pakistan; would 
allow the resumption of the IMET program to train Pakistani military 
officers in the United States; and would allow assistance for 
activities to promote the development of democratic institutions.
  This limited economic and training assistance to Pakistan will ensure 
that the United States will remain constructively engaged with a nation 
that has a long history as a friend and ally of the United States.
  Almost from its creation as a nation in 1947, Pakistan has assisted 
the United States in containing Soviet expansion in this critical part 
of the world. In 1954, the United States and Pakistan signed a mutual 
defense assistance agreement which, over the following 10 years 
resulted in the United States providing Pakistan over $700 million in 
military grant aid. United States economic aid to Pakistan was even 
more generous--this Nation provided over $5 billion to Pakistan from 
1951-82.
  This close relationship was of great benefit to the United States 
following the December 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistani 
cooperation was critical to the success of United States operations 
related to Afghanistan.
  The amendment before the Senate today does not call for a full 
resumption of United States assistance to Pakistan. Most importantly, 
the existing prohibitions on providing military equipment would be 
retained. The programs we are talking about--particularly OPIC and 
IMET--are of great benefit to the United States, as well as Pakistan. 
OPIC financing will allow United States businesses to successfully 
compete for business opportunities in Pakistan; and IMET will allow the 
next generation of Pakistani military leaders to be exposed to our 
values.
  During today's debate on this amendment, we will likely hear 
discussion about Pakistan's nuclear activities. While I share the 
concerns of my colleagues with the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction in South Asia, this amendment does not undermine our 
nonproliferation goals. To the contrary, I believe that we may be 
better able to influence developments in Pakistan if we remain engaged 
with that nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I compliment Senator Harkin for his hard work on this amendment. We 
have talked with a number of our colleagues. We have talked with the 
administration. Former Ambassador Pickering, now a senior official at 
the Department of State, of course had written us. Those letters are 
now in the Record, to my understanding.
  I rank him among the most knowledgeable of our present-day persons in 
the Department of State, indeed throughout the administration, and 
value his judgment greatly. I have worked with him for some 15 to 18 
years now. And therefore, Mr. President, I strongly urge the adoption 
of this amendment.
  At this time I yield the floor in recognition of my colleagues.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just want to thank my colleague for his aid, his 
assistance, and strong support of this amendment, and for talking to 
colleagues here on the Senate floor about the importance to the U.S. 
interests of making sure we reinstate OPIC, IMET, TDA, the democracy 
initiative, and thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his 
strong support and his help in this effort.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague, and particularly for 
his reference to IMET. It is a program I have dealt with throughout my 
career both in the Department of Defense and here in the Senate. And it 
returns great dividends to the United States. I am delighted that this 
will be a part of it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the amendment offered 
by my colleagues, Messrs. Harkin and Warner, which would authorize the 
resumption of certain forms of economic assistance and military 
training activities with Pakistan.
  The amendment would allow the provision of assistance by the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation [OPIC], the resumption of military 
training activities, and certain other trade and democratic assistance 
to Pakistan. This aid had been terminated due to Pakistan's continued 
inability to keep its many promises and assurances to the United States 
concerning the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. The amendment 
would resume this specific assistance and do so unconditionally.
  I used the word, ``unconditionally.'' That means, the assistance 
could continue in the future to flow even if Pakistan acquired new 
uranium enrichment assistance from China or transferred its own 
technology to some other country.
  The aid could flow if Pakistan detonated a nuclear device or 
transferred nuclear weapons designs or components to some other 
country.
  The aid could flow if Pakistan once again attempts to violate United 
States nuclear export control laws by acquiring nuclear equipment or 
materials for its bomb program.
  The aid could flow if Pakistan starts the unsafeguarded production of 
plutonium, an activity that may soon commence with the completion of 
its production reactor at Khushab.
  The aid could flow, in short, with no expectation whatsoever that 
such aid would be accompanied by further progress in restraining 
Pakistan's bomb program. And in so flowing, the aid could help 
Pakistan--albeit in a restricted way--to alleviate the burdens of 
United States nuclear sanctions. In other words, America could be 
helping Pakistan to cope with United States nuclear sanctions, rather 
than signaling our fundamental national conviction in policy and in law 
that proliferation must have a price. Instead of making proliferators 
pay, we could be issuing special rewards for proliferation.
  The key here is obviously the word, ``could''. The President would be 
left, under this legislation, with the delegated responsibility of 
determining whether the continuation of U.S. assistance in the face of 
any of the activities above would truly serve the U.S. national 
interest. And I for one surely cannot imagine any circumstance where 
such a determination could be made.
  Yet I hope that this amendment will not send the entire world exactly 
the wrong message about America's commitment to nonproliferation.
  The amendment must not suggest that America has lost the political 
will to keep nonproliferation as a key national security policy in our 
dealings with other countries.
  It must not signal that our country is more concerned with promoting 
its opportunities for trade and investment

[[Page S7555]]

than it is about curtailing the global spread of nuclear weapons.
  It must not indicate that countries can make--and then systematically 
break--solemn promises to the United States concerning matters of 
profound importance to regional and international security, and do so 
without jeopardizing the flow of much-desired U.S. foreign assistance.
  Now all of us here today are familiar with the notion that America 
should engage Pakistan by providing increased United States assistance 
as a means of restraining its nuclear program. It would not be the 
first time that members of the Senate or the Executive had argued that 
additional military or economic aid would serve as a valuable 
instrument of nonproliferation. But I do not believe that the sponsors 
of this amendment today would sincerely make such an argument. We 
simply cannot turn a blind eye to history.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at the end of my 
remarks a list of statements concerning the alleged value of United 
States foreign assistance as a tool of nuclear restraint in Pakistan. I 
urge my colleagues to read a few of such assurances that United States 
officials provided to Congress throughout the decade of the 1980's, the 
very decade, lest we forget, that Pakistan crossed its most significant 
milestones on its march to the bomb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. I would like to remind my colleagues that most United 
States economic and military aid to Pakistan was cut off in October 
1990 by President George Bush, when he was no longer able to certify 
that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons or that the provision of 
further United States aid would reduce the risk that Pakistan would 
come to possess such weapons. That language, found in the Pressler 
amendment, sec. 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act, has been 
substantially relaxed in recent years, in part by the actions of 
Congress, and in part by actions taken unilaterally by the Executive. 
Let me review briefly just how far America has gone already to relax 
these sanctions.
  The Brown amendment, which was enacted in February 1996, amended the 
Pressler amendment to allow the provision of all types of economic 
assistance, notwithstanding Pakistan's continuing non-compliance with 
the Pressler criteria. In addition to allowing the transfer of over a 
third-of-a-billion dollars of embargoed military gear to Pakistan--
including spare parts and upgrades for Pakistan's probable nuclear-
weapons delivery vehicle, the F-16--the Brown amendment also 
unconditionally authorized the resumption of the following aid: 
international narcotics controls; military-to-military contacts, 
including IMET; humanitarian and civic assistance projects; 
peacekeeping and other multilateral operations; antiterrorism 
assistance; an exemption from storage costs for embargoed military 
equipment; and delivery of military items sent to the United States for 
repair before the 1990 sanctions.
  For its sponsors, the Brown amendment suffered from one rather 
serious problem, however. That amendment failed to recognize that 
Pakistan was still in violation of the Symington amendment, sec. 101 of 
the Arms Export Control Act, and the likelihood of presidential waiver 
of the latter was extremely remote, in light of Pakistan's continued 
violations of that law. In short, because the Brown amendment neither 
repealed nor amended the Symington amendment, the Symington amendment 
continues to outlaw the provision of aid under the Arms Export Control 
Act or the Foreign Assistance Act to Pakistan. That is why the present 
amendment is being offered--it is being offered to liberalize the 
sanctions under the Symington amendment.
  I note that the International Financial Institutions Act only 
requires U.S. executive officers at those institutions merely ``to 
consider'' the nonproliferation credentials of the potential recipient 
country, and hence this does not prohibit continued aid via such 
institutions. Pakistan has received hundreds of millions of dollars in 
assistance from such institutions since October 1990.
  The Export-Import Bank Act only requires the denial of credits in the 
event of violations of safeguards or a US nuclear cooperation 
agreement; nuclear detonations; or persons or countries that willfully 
aid and abet non-nuclear-weapon states to get the bomb.
  A host of other legislative amendments have authorized the provision 
of the following forms of assistance to Pakistan, notwithstanding 
existing nuclear sanctions, via nongovernmental organizations: 
agricultural, rural development, and nutrition; population and health; 
education and human resources development; energy; appropriate 
technology; use of cooperatives in development; integrating women into 
national economies; human rights; environment and natural resources; 
endangered species; and private and voluntary organizations.

  So America has not been heartless to the lot of Pakistan's vast 
majority, its poor people. We have over the years provided billions of 
dollars of assistance intended to improve the living conditions of the 
people of Pakistan.
  Our grievance today is not with the people of Pakistan but with their 
Government. It arises in particular from the awesome and growing 
credibility gap between the peaceful words of Pakistan's leaders about 
their country's nuclear program, and the certain fact that Pakistan is 
continuing to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
  Now some might argue that we should simply be grateful that Pakistan 
is not detonating nuclear weapons right now. We should rejoice that 
Pakistan is not transferring its bombs, bomb designs, or bomb 
components--right now anyway--to other countries. We should be happy 
that Pakistan has not yet imported a complete nuclear reprocessing 
plant or uranium enrichment plant from China, and be grateful that it 
is only technical assistance and components that Pakistan has received 
for its bomb program from China. By golly, we should celebrate the fact 
that Pakistan does not yet have an ICBM, or that it has not yet 
attacked Indian civilian or military positions with nuclear weapons 
hung under the wings of United States-supplied F-16 aircraft. Yes, we 
can surely be grateful for all the above restraint.
  But maybe, just maybe, all of this heroic nuclear restraint that 
Pakistan has exercised is due in good measure to the real and palpable 
costs that Pakistan would pay if it engaged in any of those flagrant 
activities--costs that include, but are no means limited to, the costs 
that are found in existing United States sanctions legislation.
  We must examine, however, not just at what Pakistan has not done, but 
also recall what Pakistan has done. Here is what Pakistan has done 
recently:
  Pakistan has acquired thousands of specially-designed ring magnets 
for its unsafeguarded uranium enrichment project, and reportedly 
acquired them just about the time the United States Congress was 
debating the Brown amendment in 1995. Pakistan's actions make a mockery 
not just of the Brown amendment, but also of America's nuclear 
nonproliferation policy as a whole.
  Pakistan is nearing completion of an unsafeguarded plutonium 
production capability with its production reactor at Khushab and, by 
some reports, a related nuclear reprocessing plant.
  Pakistan has in the eyes of most of the world, but evidently not yet 
those in our own State Department, acquired nuclear-capable M-11 
missiles from China, and recently test-fired its HATF missile.
  On March 20, 1997, the trade publication, Nucleonics Week, reported 
that ``Pakistan has completed its tests of its atomic bomb capability 
successfully through computer simulation.'' This claim was made by one 
who should know, Pakistan's former Army Chief of Staff, Mirza Aslam 
Beg, and comes as a particularly bitter reminder of the Senate's 
unfortunate decision last week to vote down a proposal by my 
colleagues, Messrs. Cochran and Durbin, to tighten up export controls 
over high-powered computers going to Pakistan and other risky 
countries.
  In June 1997, the CIA Director sent to Congress an unclassified 
report on global weapons proliferation in the last 6 months of 1996--
Report entitled: ``The Acquisition of Technology Related to Weapons of 
Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions: July-

[[Page S7556]]

December 1996''. Here is what the report had to say about Pakistan:

       Pakistan was very aggressive in seeking out equipment, 
     material, and technology for its nuclear weapons program, 
     with China as its principal supplier. Pakistan also sought a 
     wide variety of nuclear-related goods from many Western 
     nations, including the United States. China also was a major 
     supplier to Pakistan's ballistic missile program, providing 
     technology and assistance. Of note, Pakistan has made strong 
     efforts to acquire an indigenous capability in missile 
     production technologies.

  The report also said that,

       The Chinese provided a tremendous variety of assistance to 
     both Iran's and Pakistan's ballistic missile programs.

  Needless to say, these are some of the key findings from just one 
recent unclassified U.S. government report, perhaps the tip of the 
proverbial iceberg.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record at 
the end of my remarks copies of some of these relevant reports.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. How are we to interpret such activities? Should we just 
write them off as due to India's own irresponsible nuclear and missile 
programs? Is it due to the so-called inevitability of proliferation? 
No, indeed, we need to redouble our efforts to roll back both 
countries' programs. Above all, we should not be engaging in acts that 
can reasonably be interpreted as rewards for proliferation.
  I do not myself see this legislation as a reward for proliferation 
and do not believe that its sponsors, including its supporters in the 
Administration, so view it. But I worry more about how others will 
perceive it, particularly those in Pakistan and in the various 
ministries of other countries that may be working on clandestine 
projects to develop weapons of mass destruction. How far can Uncle Sam 
be pushed when it comes to avoiding sanctions against the bomb? If past 
is prologue, it appears that the unfortunate answer is, pretty far 
indeed.
  Through this legislation, America has now made a gesture--based more 
on hope than on experience--that the Government and people of Pakistan 
will interpret as they wish. I hope they will recognize that America is 
sincere about its global commitments to nuclear and missile 
nonproliferation. I hope they recognize that America remains determined 
to pursue vigorously these commitments not only in Pakistan, but also 
in India, and indeed, wherever such illicit programs may exist.
  I also hope--as the profound direct and indirect costs mount of 
maintaining these dangerous nuclear and missile programs--that the 
Government and people of Pakistan will come in due course to realize 
that there is a more rational course to follow and a new day will dawn. 
It is a course charted by the governments and people of South Africa, 
Brazil, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, Japan, and 
numerous other countries that individually reached their own decisions 
that their latent nuclear weapons options are just not worth the 
substantial national security and economic costs of exercising those 
options. Make no mistake about it: cost assessments have been and will 
continue to be crucial to national leaders around the world in making 
such decisions.
  We will not come any closer to witnessing the dawn of that new day, 
however, if we continue on our current course of incrementally 
weakening the costs we impose for proliferation where it occurs. I 
remain concerned that while today's step is quite modest and 
incremental, the overall tendency is one that is suggestive of a 
weakening of America's resolve to pursue vigorously its key 
nonproliferation goals. Last week we gave the Senate's blessing to the 
disposal of licensing requirements for computers that were used in 
making hydrogen bombs. Today we loosen sanctions on Pakistan despite 
its ongoing nuclear and missile programs. Where will this process lead 
tomorrow?
  That is the question that remains unanswered by today's legislation. 
It is a question that I surely hope is on the minds of each Member of 
Congress and the relevant offices in the Executive. Indeed, this is a 
question that should be on the minds of all Americans.

                               Exhibit 1

     U.S. Aid Policies and Pakistan's Bomb: What Were We Trying to 
                              Accomplish?

       Letters to Congress from Presidents Reagan & Bush, 1985-
     1989, required under sec. 620(e) of Foreign Assistance Act 
     (Pressler Amendment)--``The proposed United States assistance 
     program for Pakistan remains extremely important in reducing 
     the risk that Pakistan will develop and ultimately possess 
     such a device. I am convinced that our security relationship 
     and assistance program are the most effective means available 
     for us to dissuade Pakistan from acquiring nuclear explosive 
     devices. Our assistance program is designed to help Pakistan 
     address its substantial and legitimate security needs, 
     thereby both reducing incentives and creating disincentives 
     for Pakistani acquisition of nuclear explosives.''--President 
     George Bush, 10/5/89; President Ronald Reagan, 11/18/88; 12/
     17/87; 10/27/86; & 11/25/85.
       President George Bush, letter to Congress (addressed to J. 
     Danforth Quayle as President of the Senate), 12 April 1991, 
     urging abandonment of Pressler certification requirement: ``. 
     . . my intention is to send the strongest possible message to 
     Pakistan and other potential proliferators that 
     nonproliferation is among the highest priorities of my 
     Administration's foreign policy, irrespective of whether such 
     a policy is required by law.''
       Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Teresita Schaffer, 
     testimony before House subcommittee, 2 August 1989: ``None of 
     the F-16's Pakistan already owns or is about to purchase is 
     configured for nuclear delivery . . . a Pakistan with a 
     credible conventional deterrent will be less motivated to 
     purchase a nuclear weapons capability.''
       Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Arthur Hughes, 
     testimony before House subcommittee, 2 August 1989: 
     ``Finally, we believe that past and continued American 
     support for Pakistan's conventional defense reduces the 
     likelihood that Pakistan will feel compelled to cross the 
     nuclear threshold.''
       Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Peck, 
     testimony before House subcommittee, 17 February 1988: ``We 
     believe that the improvements in Pakistan's conventional 
     military forces made possible by U.S. assistance and the U.S. 
     security commitment our aid program symbolizes have had a 
     significant influence on Pakistan's decision to forego the 
     acquisition of nuclear weapons.''
       Special Ambassador at Large Richard Kennedy, testimony 
     before two House subcommittees, 22 October 1987: ``We have 
     made it clear that Pakistan must show restraint in its 
     nuclear program if it expects us to continue providing 
     security assistance.''
       Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy, testimony 
     before Senate subcommittee, 18 March 1987: ``Our assistance 
     relationship is designed to advance both our non-
     proliferation and our strategic objectives relating to 
     Afghanistan. Development of a close and reliable security 
     partnership with Pakistan gives Pakistan an alternative to 
     nuclear weapons to meet its legitimata security needs and 
     strengthens our influence on Pakistan's nuclear decision 
     making. Shifting to a policy of threats and public 
     ultimata would in our view decrease, not increase our 
     ability to continue to make a contribution to preventing a 
     nuclear arms race in South Asia. Undermining the 
     credibility of the security relationship with the U.S. 
     would itself create incentives for Pakistan to ignore our 
     concerns and push forward in the direction of nuclear 
     weapons acquisition.''
       Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Howard Schaffer, 
     testimony before House subcommittee, 6 February 1984: ``The 
     assistance program also contributes to U.S. nuclear non-
     proliferation goals. We believe strongly that a program of 
     support which enhances Pakistan's sense of security helps 
     remove the principal underlying incentive for the acquisition 
     of a nuclear weapons capability. The Government of Pakistan 
     understands our deep concern over this issue. We have made 
     clear that the relationship between our two countries, and 
     the program of military and economic assistance on which it 
     rests, are ultimately inconsistent with Pakistan's 
     development of a nuclear explosives device. President Zia has 
     stated publicly that Pakistan will not manufacture a nuclear 
     explosives device.''
       Special Ambassador at Large Richard Kennedy, testimony 
     before two House subcommittees, 1 November 1983: ``By helping 
     friendly nations to address legitimate security concerns, we 
     seek to reduce incentives for the acquisition of nuclear 
     weapons. The provision of security assistance and the sale of 
     military equipment can be major components of efforts along 
     these lines. Development of security ties to the U.S. can 
     strengthen a country's confidence in its ability to defend 
     itself without nuclear weapons. At the same time, the 
     existence of such a relationship enhances our credibility 
     when we seek to persuade that country to forego [sic] nuclear 
     arms . . . We believe that strengthening Pakistan's 
     conventional military capability serves a number of important 
     U.S. interests, including non-proliferation. At the same 
     time, we have made clear to the government of Pakistan that 
     efforts to acquire nuclear explosives would jeopardize our 
     security assistance program.''
       Statement by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Harry 
     Marshall, 12 September 1983, before International Nuclear Law 
     Association, San Francisco: ``U.S. assistance has permitted 
     Pakistan to strengthen its conventional defensive capability. 
     This serves to

[[Page S7557]]

     bolster its stability and thus reduce its motivation for 
     acquiring nuclear explosives.''
       President Ronald Reagan, report to Congress pursuant to 
     sec. 601 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (``601 
     Report''), for calendar year 1982--``Steps were taken to 
     strengthen the U.S. security relationship with Pakistan with 
     the objective of addressing that country's security needs and 
     thereby reducing any motivation for acquiring nuclear 
     explosives.''
       President Ronald Reagan, report to Congress pursuant to 
     sec. 601 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (``601 
     Report''), for calendar year 1981--``Military assistance by 
     the United States and the establishment of a new security 
     relationship with Pakistan should help to counteract its 
     possible motivations toward acquiring nuclear weapons . . . 
     Moreover, help from the United States in 
     strengthening Pakistan's conventional military 
     capabilities would offer the best available means for 
     counteracting possible motivations toward acquiring 
     nuclear weapons.''
       Assistant Secretary of State James Malone, address before 
     Atomic Industrial Forum, San Francisco, 1 December 1981: ``We 
     believe that this assistance--which is in the strategic 
     interest of the United States--will make a significant 
     contribution to the well-being and security of Pakistan and 
     that it will be recognized as such by that government. We 
     also believe that, for this reason, it offers the best 
     prospect of deterring the Pakistanis from proceeding with the 
     testing or acquisition of nuclear explosives.''
       Undersecretary of State James Buckley, testimony before 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12 November 1981: ``We 
     believe that a program of support which provides Pakistan 
     with a continuing relationship with a significant security 
     partner and enhances its sense of security may help remove 
     the principal underlying incentive for the acquisition of a 
     nuclear weapons capability. With such a relationship in place 
     we are hopeful that over time we will be able to persuade 
     Pakistan that the pursuit of a weapons capability is neither 
     necessary to its security nor in its broader interest as an 
     important member of the world community.''
       Testimony of Undersecretary of State, James Buckley, in 
     response to question from Sen. Glenn, Senate Foreign 
     Relations Committee, 12 November 1981, on effects of a 
     nuclear detonation on continuation of cash sales of F-16's: 
     ``[Sen. Glenn] . . . so if Pakistan detonates a nuclear 
     device before completion of the F-16 sale, will the 
     administration cut off future deliveries?
       ``[Buckley] Again, Senator, we have underscored the fact 
     that this would dramatically affect the relationship. The 
     cash sales are part of that relationship. I cannot see 
     drawing lines between the impact in the case of a direct cash 
     sale versus a guaranteed or U.S.-financed sale.''
       Undersecretary of State James Buckley, letter to NY Times, 
     25 July 1981: ``In place of the ineffective sanctions on 
     Pakistan's nuclear program imposed by the past 
     Administration, we hope to address through conventional means 
     the sources of insecurity that prompt a nation like Pakistan 
     to seek a nuclear capability in the first place.''

                               Exhibit 2

                 [From Nucleonics Week, April 24, 1997]

  PAEC Official Says China Will Make Key Parts, Finish Chashma by 1999

                            (By Mark Hibbs)

       Tokyo.--Pakistan's first imported PWR will be finished by 
     the end of 1998, and contain equipment which China imported 
     for its prototype PWR at Qinshan but which Chinese firms have 
     since learned to make, according to Parvez Butt, a member of 
     the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC).
       Butt described the 300-MW PWR at Chashma as 70% complete in 
     terms of both cost and equipment installed. Still to be 
     installed are reactor internals.
       For Qinshan-1, the reactor vessel and internals and steam 
     generator tubing were manufactured in Japan, Germany, France, 
     Sweden, and Britain. At that time, Western industry firms 
     involved in making the equipment claimed that China did not 
     have the metallurgical know-how needed to make all the 
     equipment needed to replicate the plant in Pakistan (NW, 6 
     Feb. '92, 2). South Korean officials said in 1995 that Korea 
     Heavy Industry & Construction Co. Ltd. (KHIC) had been 
     approached to make the vessel, since it is already 
     manufacturing vessels for China's larger indigenous PWRs at 
     Qinshan, but the idea was dropped when Seoul applied to join 
     the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NW, 28 Sept. '95, 1).
       Butt said that the pressure vessel for Chashma-1 was made 
     at a factory in northern China and has been undergoing 
     testing since October. Butt said the vessel would be ``ready 
     soon'' and would conform to international quality standards. 
     According to French industry sources, China sought to make 
     larger pressure vessels for the next French-supplied PWRs to 
     be build in Guangdong Province, but experts at Framatome 
     refused, citing quality concerns.
       The steam generators for Chashma-1 will be made by Shanghai 
     Boiler Works, and Shanghai Turbine Works will make the 
     turbine generator. The unit's two main circulation pumps will 
     also be provided by Chinese firms. Instrumentation and 
     control (I&C) equipment is of Chinese design, Butt said, and 
     will be manufactured by Chinese firms in Shanghai and 
     Beijing.
       Butt said China will also provide the first core and three 
     reloads, using Chinese uranium enriched and fabricated into 
     fuel in China. China has trained about 150 Pakistani 
     operating and maintenance personnel at Qinshan, Butt said. 
     Pakistan industry input to the Chashma project has been 
     limited to some auxiliary equipment such as decontamination 
     tanks in the liquid waste treatment system.
       According to Butt, Pakistan paid cash for all the Chinese 
     input to the Chashma project. Financing for a second Chinese 
     unit there, he said, has ``not yet been arranged.''
                                                                    ____


                 [From Nucleonics Week, March 27, 1997]

   New Pakistani Government Restores Full Funding for Chashma Project

                        (By Abdul Rauf Siddiqi)

       Karachi.--The new government of Nawaz Sharif has decided to 
     divert unutilized funds amounting to about 4-billion rupees 
     (U.S. $100-million) from the disbanded People's Works 
     Programme to the 300-MW Chashma Nuclear Power Project, 
     restoring the current year's budget to ensure the plant's on-
     time completion, government sources said.
       The People's Works Programme was disbanded by the caretaker 
     government headed by Miraj Khalid, which bridged the time 
     between the dissolution of Benazir Bhutto's government to the 
     formation of the current one. The caretaker government, 
     brought into office on complaints of corruption, 
     mismanagement, and misuse of funds in the Bhutto regime, 
     allowed only those program projects which were near to 
     completion to continue.
       The caretaker government also reduced the allocation for 
     Chashma by Rs 3-billion from the Rs 4.7-billion budgeted for 
     fiscal 1996-97.
       Chashma, being constructed at an estimated cost of Rs 31-
     billion by the China National Nuclear Corp., is said to be 
     progressing on schedule and is expected to be completed by 
     the target of October 1998. It is modeled on China's 
     indigenous-design PWR at Qinshan.
                                                                    ____


                 [From Nucleonics Week, March 20, 1997]

    Ex-Army Head Says Pakistan Bomb Passed Computer Simulation Tests

                        (By Abdul Rauf Siddiqi)

       Karachi.--Pakistan has completed its tests of its atomic 
     bomb capability successfully through computer simulation, 
     according to Pakistan's former Army Chief, retired general 
     Mirza Aslam Beg in an interview with the Urdu language 
     national daily Pakistan published in Lahore.
       Beg, who retired in 1990, is head of the Awami Qiyadat 
     Party (AQP) and of an international think tank, Foundation 
     for Research on International Environment, National Defence & 
     Security. He took over the reins of the armed forces after 
     his predecessor died in a 1988 plane crash. He was the first 
     army chief to confirm Pakistan's nuclear capability, and 
     disclosed that the government froze the nuclear program in 
     1989 under U.S. pressure.
       The former army chief's confirmation of Pakistan's nuclear 
     test via computer came an India is preparing to conduct a 
     final test of its intercontinental ballistic missile Prithvi 
     at Arrisa, Khalij Bengal. Beg said that Pakistan's next step 
     would be the technology to drop a bomb. He said he has no 
     knowledge of Pakistan's possessing the needed missile 
     technology, he said, ``we can use F-16 aircraft for the 
     purpose.''
                                                                    ____


            [From the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, July 3, 1997]

       Pakistan Confirms Test Firing Rocket but Gives no Details

       Islamabad.--A government spokesman in Islamabad confirmed 
     Thursday that Pakistan's Space and Upper Atmosphere Research 
     Council (Suparco) recently test fired a rocket.
       ``It was a routine test carried out by Suparco in rocket 
     motor technology and was aimed at peaceful uses of 
     technology,'' said the spokesman of the Foreign Ministry 
     commenting on press reports that the test involved Hatf-3 
     missile.
       The spokesman did not identify the rocket as Hatf-3 nor did 
     he confirm a report that it had a range of 800 kilometres. 
     ``I do not have the technical details,'' he said.
       Suparco is a civilian organization and its research had 
     ``no military component'', he added.
       Pakistan has been developing the Hatf missile to rival 
     India's medium-range Prithvi missile. China has been helping 
     Pakistan in the effort and has also supplied its M-11 
     missiles to the Moslem country.
       ``You are free and welcome to locate the factory,'' the 
     spokesman said rejecting as ``totally baseless'' a U.S. Time 
     magazine report last month that spy satellites of the 
     American Central Intelligence Agency had spotted the layout 
     of a new missile factory in the suburbs of Rawalpindi, 
     adjacent to Islamabad.
       In the past, American intelligence agencies reports about 
     the existence of secret nuclear facilities near Rawalpindi 
     have neither been admitted nor proved independently.
                                                                    ____


                  [From Nucleonics Week, July 3, 1997]

     U.S. Believes Khushab Still Cold, No Heavy Water Sold by China

                            (By Mark Hibbs)

       Bonn.--U.S. officials last week categorically denied a 
     report from Pakistan which claimed that an unsafeguarded 
     reactor near

[[Page S7558]]

     Khushab has started operating. One official monitoring 
     nuclear developments in Pakistan told Nucleonics Week instead 
     that ``all the data at hand indicates that the reactor is 
     still cold.''
       Two weeks ago, the Pakistani English-language newspaper 
     Dawn asserted that the reactor is finished and has started 
     up, but cannot produce electricity or reach full power 
     because of a shortage of heavy water (NW, 19 June, 15).
       Western officials conjectured that the Pakistani claim may 
     have been triggered by a construction milestone at the 
     reactor site or planted in response to recent reports that 
     India has deployed the Prithvi ballistic missile.
       In 1994, Western officials told Nucleonics Week that 
     Pakistan was building a plutonium production reactor, rated 
     at between 50 and 70 megawatts thermal, at a site near 
     Khushab. These sources later added that intelligence pointed 
     to construction of a fuel fabrication or reprocessing center 
     near the reactor (NW, 22 Feb. '96, 6). As late as this April, 
     however, a member of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission 
     denied flatly that the reactor existed.
       According to one U.S. official this week, however, the 
     Khushab reactor ``is definitely out there'' but not scheduled 
     to be finished ``until later this year or sometime in 1998.'' 
     Another official said that, under the most optimistic 
     schedule, completion of the reactor ``is several months 
     away.'' Sources indicated that the reactor had not yet 
     undergone cold testing, let alone become critical.
       The Pakistani report suggested that the reactor would be 
     used for electricity production as well as for isotope 
     production. Recent surveillance photographs of the site, 
     however, do not indicate that Pakistan is building power grid 
     infrastructure, such as turbine generator equipment, for 
     electricity generation. Moreover, Western officials said, it 
     is not believed the reactor's chief purpose is isotope or 
     silica production, as stated in the Pakistani account. 
     Pakistan has a technical cooperation program with the IAEA 
     for these activities, ``but none of this has got anything to 
     do with Khushab,'' one Vienna official said, and the IAEA 
     ``has not been informed'' by Pakistan that the reactor is 
     under construction or that Pakistan plans to incorporate the 
     unit into its existing technical cooperation program.
       Sources said that, because Pakistan is facing a massive 
     financial crisis, the U.S. and other creditor countries 
     supporting the International Monetary Fund are trying to 
     leverage Islamabad to keep the reactor from operating outside 
     of IAEA safeguards. Zia Mian, a research fellow at the Union 
     of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Mass., observed, ``If 
     Pakistan were to start operating the reactor now, it would be 
     taking a very major foreign policy step,'' demonstrating to 
     the world that its unsafeguarded program is going forward 
     regardless of U.S. opposition, and escalating military 
     nuclear activities to include significant plutonium 
     production.


                     indian report also unconfirmed

       U.S. officials last week confirmed the assertion by Dawn 
     that a critical factor which may indefinitely delay full-
     power operation of Khushab is shortage of heavy water. But 
     they did not confirm recurring Indian reports that China, 
     which the U.S. believes to have supported construction of 
     Khushab, also provided heavy water for it. According to 
     Western intelligence sources, a full inventory of heavy water 
     for the unit would be about 15-20 metric tons (MT), though it 
     could go critical with a smaller amount.
       Indian sources said that, in 1996, China sold Pakistan 40 
     MT for Khushab, U.S. officials said the Indian government had 
     told Washington this recently, but U.S. government agencies 
     ``could not confirm'' the Indian assertion. A U.S. official 
     said last week that, when New Delhi made the allegations to 
     Washington, the U.S. ``went back to the Chinese on this'' and 
     received assurances from Beijing that Chinese entities did to 
     sell heavy water to Pakistan for Khushab.
       U.S. officials said Indian allegations of Chinese heavy 
     water trading with Pakistan were first made during the 1970s, 
     and the most recent claims were initially taken seriously 
     because there is evidence of past Chinese heavy water sales 
     to both India and Pakistan.
       Last year, the Department of State, now negotiating a 
     resumption of nuclear commerce with China, asserted to the 
     U.S. Congress that as of May 1996, China was not assisting 
     any unsafeguarded foreign nuclear programs. Despite the 
     Indian claims, U.S. officials last week continued to back 
     China's nonproliferation credentials. ``That means nothing 
     has gone to Khushab,'' since mid-1996, ``and no heavy 
     water,'' one U.S. official involved said June 26.
       According to the Pakistani report, administrative 
     difficulties in Pakistan had prevented heavy water from being 
     allocated for the Khushab reactor. Sources told Nucleonics 
     Week that, in fact, most of Pakistan's scarce heavy water 
     resources have, over the last two years, been allocated for 
     the Kanupp PHWR, which generates electricity under IAEA 
     safeguards. That allocation, sources said, reflected a 
     general policy by Pakistan under former prime minister 
     Benazir Bhutto not to take any steps, such as producing high-
     enriched uranium (HEU) at the Kahuta centrifuge enrichment 
     plant, which would be seen by Washington as provocative and 
     escalating regional nuclear tension. One source said, 
     ``Keeping heavy water at Kanupp and away from Khushab should 
     be seen by Washington as going hand-in-hand with not 
     enriching uranium to HEU.''

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Harkin amendment which restores OPIC, IMET, Trade and Development 
Assistance [TDA], and democracy-building institutions in Pakistan.
  This amendment provides us with a unique opportunity to strengthen 
and solidify our relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan is a friendly 
country and vitally important to the United States. By restoring these 
programs, we can influence the course that Pakistan's economic and 
political reforms take and improve the continuity of its democratic 
government.
  Pakistan has made great strides in these areas, and Prime Minister 
Sharif's election signals a turning point in Pakistani politics. As he 
moves to improve the quality of his country's government, the United 
States should provide the support necessary. Prime Minister Sharif has 
sponsored changes in the Pakistani constitution to end the President's 
power to dismiss the elected government. In the economic sphere, his 
government has embarked on an ambitious reform program intended to 
stabilize the economy. These are positive developments, but we need to 
encourage Pakistan to go even further. Our own Secretary of State has 
met with the Pakistani Foreign Minister to discuss options for more 
extensive reforms.
  It is in the United States' best interests to train Pakistani 
officials in how to conduct legislative procedure and build lasting 
democratic institutions. It is also in our best economic interests to 
resume OPIC support for investment in Pakistan. Prominent U.S. business 
leaders have expressed their support for such an initiative, and I 
believe this option can benefit U.S. industry. The United States will 
be in a prime position to support economic reform in Pakistan, as well 
as compete for investment and trade opportunities there. We cannot, and 
should not, penalize U.S. companies looking to expand into this area of 
the world.
  Neither should we jeopardize our stated goal of promoting nuclear 
nonproliferation. We have worked to prevent the nuclear arms race in 
South Asia, and future cooperation with Pakistan is now at stake. 
Restoring IMET in Pakistan is perhaps the best means we have of 
ensuring that nonproliferation becomes a reality. The Pakistani 
military controls the country's nuclear programs, but an entire 
generation of military officers has been denied access to training in 
the United States. By prohibiting IMET, we have succeeded in reducing 
our contacts within the leadership and limiting their exposure to U.S. 
values and institutions. If we allow IMET to resume, we will strengthen 
our position on nonproliferation by encouraging a Pakistani military 
that is as pro-United States as possible. Improved relations with 
Pakistan can only help our future nonproliferation efforts.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this amendment, and 
I look forward to a close relationship with Pakistan in the future.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am not aware of any opposition to the amendment on 
our side.
  Mr. LEAHY. None here.
  We are ready to move forward, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 899) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is 
laid on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 890

  (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate that most-favored-nation 
               trade status for China should be revoked)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 890.


[[Page S7559]]


  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       ``It is the sense of the Senate that the nondiscriminatory 
     treatment extended to the People's Republic of China on May 
     29, 1997, pursuant to section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     should be withdrawn.''

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I offer amendment No. 890 to the 
foreign operations appropriations bill. This amendment which is a sense 
of the Senate, would disapprove the MFN status, most-favored-nation 
status, to the nation of China. I have opposed the renewal of MFN to 
China. On June 3 of this year I became an original cosponsor of Senate 
Joint Resolution 31, the legislation disapproving the extension of MFN.
  Unfortunately, because of the joint resolution of disapproval in the 
House, which failed to pass the House of Representatives on June 24, as 
in past years or at least recent years, the Senate has not considered 
and has not had the opportunity to weigh in on and to voice its concern 
about the conditions in China, and particularly to cast a vote on the 
MFN status for China.
  Today we will have that opportunity with this sense of the Senate. It 
has been almost 4 years, Mr. President, since the United States 
formally delinked the issues of trade and human rights with regard to 
China. Four years ago when we delinked, when we embarked upon our 
policy of constructive engagement, the logic was that greater trade, 
greater economic expansion within China itself, would result in 
political freedom, greater political freedom, less repression, more 
opportunity for the people of China.
  The fact is, by every measure, the record of the Chinese Government 
on human rights has worsened since the time that we embarked upon this 
policy delinking trade and human rights. Whether you look at the 
crackdown on people of faith within China, whether you look at the 
practice of forced abortions, forced sterilization of the mentally 
handicapped, the near extinction of the expression of any opinion that 
would be contrary to the established line of the Communist Government 
in Beijing, by any measure, conditions are worse, freedoms are less, 
oppression is greater than it was 4 years ago when we started this 
policy of constructive engagement.
  In fact, according to the 1996 country report issued by our own State 
Department, the U.S. State Department said that the Chinese Communist 
leaders have succeeded in silencing every known political dissident. 
Mr. President, that is every dissident, every free voice, every voice 
of dissent, every contrary opinion to the party line has now been 
extinguished in Communist China either through exile, through death, or 
through imprisonment.
  So, Mr. President, I feel very strongly that our current policy of 
continuing normal trade relations without regard to human rights 
conditions has been ineffective in stemming this very alarming trend in 
China by turning a blind eye to the atrocities or abdicating our 
responsibility as a great and a free nation.

  As we have continued to extend China's MFN status, insufficient 
progress has been made in opening the vast Chinese market to the 
American companies. The argument has been free trade, increased 
economic expansion. While our imports from China have increased 
dramatically during the last 4 years, the amount of goods we export to 
China has grown at a much, much smaller rate.
  Moreover, Mr. President, China utilizes a vast prison system manned 
with slave labor to produce many products which are exported to the 
West. It is unfair to ask American laborers, American workers, to 
compete with the slave labor of Communist China. I believe in free 
trade. This is not free trade that we have currently. Soldiers of the 
People's Liberation Army stand guard atop the towers of the slave labor 
camps, known as Laogai. The PLA controls, either directly or 
indirectly, a significant portion of the Chinese industry. In fact, 
according to our CIA, thousands of industries that we are trading with 
on a routine basis are controlled by the People's Liberation Army. That 
is not free trade. It is not fair trade. It is not right.
  Mr. President, it is believed that many of these industries are 
involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms 
smuggling, economic espionage, use of forced labor, piracy of 
intellectual property, and misinformation of sensitive military 
technology.
  Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues, perhaps many of my 
colleagues, feel that this amendment is something they would rather not 
vote on. This sense of the Senate is something they would rather not 
have to go on the record on. I think that we are dealing with foreign 
operations. Section 524 of this bill bars indirect assistance to many 
countries, including China. So it is relevant. It is germane. It is 
important that the U.S. Senate have an opportunity to voice our 
concerns. It is a sense of Senate. It is not binding. It is important 
we send that signal.
  We may not be able this year--we cannot, obviously, because of the 
House action--we may not be able to deny MFN status, but we can send a 
signal, and we should.
  To my colleagues I say there are people watching. The Chinese 
Government is watching what this Chamber does. The Chinese people are 
watching. We can send a message that we do not condone the practices, 
the oppressive totalitarian practices of this government. We can, at 
the same time, to the tens of thousands, yes, the tens of millions of 
Chinese who are facing that oppression today, we can say to them there 
are those in America who stand with them and who will support them in 
their fight for freedom.
  I know, Mr. President, that there are many bills that have been 
introduced to deal with China, and I hope that we will deal with that. 
I hope we will take those bills, whether Senator Brownback's, Senator 
Abraham's, or whoever may have introduced legislation to address the 
China question, and we will put that into some kind of omnibus bill in 
future weeks to send an even stronger message. Until then, this is our 
opportunity. This is our chance to, once again, give a voice to 
American foreign policy. This is our opportunity to say to the world 
and to say to the Chinese Government, America still stands for 
something, that we do not have a foreign policy void of value, that 
those values we espouse, which are embodied in our founding documents 
and in our very Constitution, live on, today, in the policy that we 
advocate toward China.
  I know there were many who breathed a sigh of relief in the U.S. 
Senate when MFN went down in the House of Representatives. There was a 
sense of ``we're off the hook.'' I say to all of those of my colleagues 
who have decried the conditions in China today, I say to all of my 
colleagues who in one form or another have said it is wrong what they 
are doing over there, to remember that while we may have been off the 
hook, there are tens of thousands of Chinese people in prison camps 
today who are still on the hook, this is our chance to give them the 
voice that their government has denied them.
  I ask my colleagues to look deep within their soul, to look at their 
conscience, and I ask them to vote in favor of this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution disapproving of most-favored-nation status for China.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say in response to the amendment 
of my colleague from Arkansas, I and a number of other Members of the 
Senate were in Hong Kong a couple of weeks ago. I raise Hong Kong--even 
though I know the sense-of-the-Senate amendment deals with China--I 
raise Hong Kong because I think Hong Kong is the best hope for China. 
Hong Kong is going to lead the way to a new China, and a new China is 
already developing, which is not to say that any of us are entirely 
happy about everything going on in the People's Republic of China, but 
a lot of good things are happening, particularly on the economic side. 
No one in Hong Kong, not even Martin Lee and all of the democratic 
reformers that many of us know, is in favor of terminating MFN for 
China. You cannot find anybody in Hong Kong who thinks terminating MFN 
for China is a way to promote a better, more democratic, more open 
China.

[[Page S7560]]

  So with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Arkansas, I 
think we have worked our way through this MFN debate. The President of 
the United States, as we all know, in 1992, when he ran, thought that 
MFN for China ought to be linked to human rights and democracy evolving 
in China, and as soon as the election was over, he took a closer look 
at it and he changed his mind. I must say I give him credit for 
changing his mind because I don't think this will bring about the kind 
of positive reform in terms of human rights and democracy in China that 
we would all hope.
  What is changing China--unquestionably what is changing China--is 
economic reform. So I hope we will not support the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas. I think it would be a step in the wrong 
direction. I know there are other colleagues who share my view.
  I see Senator Feinstein on her feet now. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, and 
I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity.
  I didn't come to the floor prepared to speak on this amendment. I 
came to speak on a another amendment. Having said that, I must say I am 
sorry this sense-of-the-Senate amendment has been raised. I think it 
would be a big mistake to pass this sense of the Senate that would 
essentially say to the People's Republic of China, ``we are going to 
isolate you from the rest of the world.'' Make no mistake about it, 
that is what this amendment says.
  Anyone that has had a look at China knows that, historically, China 
has never wanted to interrelate with the rest of the world. Those of us 
who were in Hong Kong for the handover heard many comments about the 
British occupation of Hong Kong as a kind of bounty from the opium wars 
where Britain forced on China the opium trade, and the whole British 
control of Hong Kong as a colony developed from that time.
  Having said that, the question is, really, is anything productive 
solved by forcing China into a position of isolationism, strengthening 
the hard-liners in China, providing a setback to the development of the 
rule of law and, most importantly, providing a setback to the economic 
democracy that is now developing all throughout the eastern seaports of 
the People's Republic of China? My answer to that is no. My answer to 
that is it signals to China that, effectively, Senate policy at the 
very least would be to try to contain China, isolate China, and not 
allow China to be a normal trading party with the United States of 
America. Internationally, that signals catastrophe.
  Now, what does it mean for the United States? For the United States, 
and as a Californian, in my State, with one-third of our economy now 
dependent on Asia--not necessarily on China, but Asia--it means a loss 
of jobs. For the rest of the United States, it means a loss of jobs. 
The Senator from Kentucky just alluded to what it would mean for Hong 
Kong. He alluded to the fact that we heard no democratic leader say MFN 
should be denied China. Exactly the opposite. We heard democratic 
leaders in Hong Kong saying to deny China MFN would negatively impact 
the people of Hong Kong.
  They estimate it would take economic growth and cut it by half, from 
5 percent to 2\1/2\ percent. They say that it would cost up to 86,000 
jobs in Hong Kong, and that even a partial cancellation, even a 6-month 
extension, would create a kind of uncertainty that would disturb the 
market in Hong Kong.
  I think it is misguided to think you can deny a nation as large as 
China, the largest nation in the world, normal trading relations--not 
special trading relations, nothing special about it, but normal trading 
relations--and do anything other than shoot ourselves in the foot, 
because a whole ripple effect would be felt throughout the United 
States. And the flip side in China would be the growing isolation, the 
hard-liners being able to say, ``I told you so.''
  Right now in China it is widely speculated that the next premier will 
be a man whose name is Zhu Rongji. He was at one time the mayor of 
Shanghai. I know him. He also is the author of the marketplace economy 
for China. He supported Shanghai as the first independent economic 
zone, which really was the first of these dynamic economic zones, and 
then, second, he has supervised an amazing transformation of the 
marketplace.
  Today, only 50 percent of the companies in China are wholly owned by 
the central government. It used to be 100 percent of the companies were 
owned by the central government; 25 percent of these are in private 
hands today. They are becoming more competitive, more efficient. Sure, 
it is difficult because the big employers of China are the centrally 
owned companies. So it takes time.
  In direct response to the distinguished Senator's concern about human 
rights--because I share these concerns very, very much--I have been 
trying for 6 years now, almost twice a year, to get the Chinese 
Government just to sit down with the Dalai Lama, just to try to come to 
terms with him with respect to cultural and economic preservation of 
Tibetans within Tibet. So far, I have not been successful. I don't 
expect to stop trying.
  But during the 6-year period, what I have noticed has been 
interesting within the rest of China. What I have noticed is a growth 
in the rule of law. What I have noticed is that the Chinese are now 
eager to modernize their commercial codes, their criminal codes. The 
next step needs to be an independent judiciary; by this, I mean 
independent from party control, a judiciary that is paid well, that is 
seen to be independent. Qiao Shi, head of the National People's 
Congress, proposed a limitation of administrative detention today in 
China--picking up an individual, and holding them in custody cannot be 
done for more than 30 days. That is a step forward.
  China has lived for 5,000 years under the rule of man; the rule of 
law is going to take some time. I commend the distinguished Senator for 
his commitment to this issue. If he had visited China in the late 
sixties or the early seventies, when Richard Nixon went to China and 
negotiated the Shanghai communique in 1972, it was a very much more 
constricted China. No one would have talked to the distinguished 
Senator. Everybody dressed alike. Everybody marched to the sound of the 
same drummer. The red books of the Cultural Revolution were still 
evident on the streets. The music still blared every morning. The 
controls were evident.
  It is a very different China today. None of that is true today. 
People will talk. They will say what they think. There is a freer 
lifestyle. There is an improved standard of living. I believe that if 
you have an economic democracy, a social democracy will follow one day, 
just as sure as the sun comes up every morning, because the more people 
see the economic marketplace, the freedom that trade gives them, the 
increased educational levels, the benefit it produces, they then enter 
into the dialog and they learn about other cultures.
  So I believe that from the days of the 1960's, of the Cultural 
Revolution and its aftermath, really lasting up to 1979, 1980, in the 
ensuing 17 years after 1980, there have been major changes within 
China. What we need to do is engage China, send working teams over on a 
regular basis, sit down with Chinese leaders, enable them to understand 
how our Government works and what our concerns are and what our 
national interests are and, I think, bring China into the mainstream of 
world leadership, not isolate it. Nothing sends a message of 
isolationism and containment for China more strongly than denying 
normal trading relations.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment should be defeated. It will 
not bring about a positive result for the ends that both the 
distinguished Senator and I would like to see.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to my 
distinguished colleagues from Kentucky and California. I feel 
compelled, as I listen to the arguments that have been raised over and 
over again, and particularly the phrase that ``it is a different China 
today.''
  Well, it is not my opinion that I am citing today. It is our own 
State Department's 1996 country report on the conditions in China. So I 
remind my colleagues on the floor right now that our State Department, 
in looking at China, said, yes, it is a different China;

[[Page S7561]]

the difference is that 8 years after the Tiananmen Square massacre, 
after those brave students stood in front of those tanks, there is not 
one remaining independent free voice in China today. That is our State 
Department. Every dissident has either been killed or imprisoned or 
exiled. There are none of those independent voices. That is the China 
that exists today. That is what our State Department has said.
  Now, the State Department had a new report they were going to issue. 
It was supposed to have been out months ago. It was delayed. It was 
supposed to have been out in June, and it has been further delayed 
until after the MFN votes were over. I wish the administration had 
ordered that latest State Department report to be issued so that the 
Members of the Senate could see what the latest evaluation of the 
conditions in China really are. The latest we have, in the 1996 country 
report, is that there are no free voices in China today.
  Now, they say we will isolate China. The same ones who say we are 
going to isolate China will say we can't deny MFN because they will 
send all of those goods to Europe, they will find markets for their 
products in Europe. Let me assure my colleagues, you will not isolate 
one-fifth of the world's population. And it is a self-contradictory 
argument to say we dare not isolate them or we will deny our American 
citizens these goods.
  Now, my dear colleague and distinguished friend from Kentucky said 
Mr. Clinton had changed his mind when he got elected. Indeed, he did. 
He commended him for his change of mind. Well, I criticize him for his 
change of mind. I think he was right when he was a candidate. He then 
said that it was intolerable that we, as a people of conviction and 
values, should stand by and close our eyes to what is going on in 
China. So I regret that he made that change, as he has made changes in 
many other policies.
  Well, then they say, ``It just takes time, just give them time,'' and 
if we will give them time, my colleagues say, we will see political 
freedom, an increase in their economic opportunities and, as sure as 
day follows night, political freedom will come. Mr. President, I have 
been waiting for 4 years. I have been waiting for 4 years for one 
scintilla of evidence to support that notion. If I could have found 
just the slightest indication that things were getting better in China, 
I would have voted for MFN to encourage those positive changes. But by 
every measure, it has gotten worse, and every objective observer, from 
Amnesty International, to Family Research Council, to our own State 
Department, has said it's worse.
  So how can we continue to say, well, business as usual, and if we 
keep on giving them time, it will get better, when, so far, every time 
they have thumbed their nose at what we have done. Then we hear that no 
one calls for it if you go to Hong Kong. I don't know about that, but I 
do know that if you were in mainland China today, you could not call 
for it because, if you dared, you would be imprisoned and you would 
risk your very life and the lives of your loved ones. There are no 
dissidents left.
  So to my colleagues I say, the vote on this amendment is very simple: 
to embrace the policy of profits and appeasement, or to embrace the 
policy of principle and principled challenge to those who would abuse 
and persecute and execute their own citizens.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the amendment 
introduced by the Senator from Arkansas regarding MFN status for China. 
This issue is of immense importance to Washington State and the Nation.
  As a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I must state for 
the record that I believe that this is not the appropriate forum for 
this amendment. The Senator from Arkansas has chosen to spring upon the 
Senate--with little notice--his amendment to fundamentally alter our 
relationship with the world's most populous nation.
  I am sure the Senator knows that the House of Representatives 
recently followed the process established by the Jackson-Vanik 
amendment to overturn the President's decision to renew most-favored 
nation status for the People's Republic of China. The House of 
Representatives in strong bipartisan fashion rejected the effort to 
overturn the President of the United States. I applaud the House for 
taking this action. The House vote in favor of MFN followed extensive 
hearings, much thoughtful debate, and considerable input from our 
constituents, the business community, and the Clinton administration.
  While this is not a new issue to many in the Senate, the Senator from 
Arkansas now asks the U.S. Senate go on record on this important 
strategic issue on the wrong bill without the benefits of adequate 
debate and thorough consideration. I don't believe this is the way to 
make good policy, and particularly on the United States-China 
relationship which is perhaps the most important, most difficult and 
most challenging relationship for United States policy makers to 
manage.
  I applaud Senator Hutchison's interest in the United States-China 
relationship. In fact, I share many of the concerns that he in his 
arguments has outlined. But I differ in his prescription for addressing 
the problems in the United States-China relationship. I don't believe 
ending MFN or normal trade ties with China will advance United States 
interests. Rather, I believe the approach prescribed by opponents of 
MFN would for all intensive purposes end our relationship with China. 
For my State, this would be disastrous.
  Chinese students--some of whom will become future government leaders 
in China--will likely discontinue their studies at universities in this 
country including at the Henry Jackson School of International Affairs 
at the University of Washington.
  As many as 400 Washington State families might lose the ability to 
adopt a young Chinese girl in the coming year as a result of this 
amendment.
  The Reverend Ned Graham and his East Gates Mininstries based in 
Sumner, WA, could see its mission in China curtailed or possibly ended 
altogether. East Gates Ministries has distributed nearly 2 million 
Bibles printed in Chinese dialects throughout China. Other Washington 
State faith-based ministries are active in China and could see their 
activities halted if the Senate agrees to this amendment.
  I recently traveled to Hong Kong and China to discuss candidly the 
issues like MFN, the World Trade Organization, Hong Kong's reversion to 
Chinese sovereignty, the trade imbalance between the United States and 
China, my personal concerns on human rights, and numerous other issues.
  In Hong Kong, I met with officials from the U.S. Consulate, the 
American Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong Government, and others. On 
the street and in official meetings, I sought to determine the mood of 
the people of the former British Colony prior to the reversion to 
Chinese sovereignty. Again and again, I was encouraged to convey to the 
Congress the importance of MFN to Hong Kong. Virtually every leader 
from Hong Kong has communicated to Congress the devastating impact that 
MFN revocation would have on the island recently named the freest 
economy in the world.
  In my view, it is important for all who want to influence change in 
China to recognize that Hong Kong's transition may be our best 
opportunity to further influence the mainland in such important areas 
as the rule of law, respect for individual rights, and the many 
democratic principles that we cherish in the United States.
  In Beijing, I met with China's Vice Premier, Chinese Trade Ministry 
officials, and Chinese leaders involved in financial services, 
transportation, agriculture, electronics, and aviation. I also spent a 
significant amount of time with U.S. Ambassador Jim Sasser, our former 
Senate colleague. Ambassador Sasser, who was a China critic as a member 
of this body, now adamantly supports the renewal of MFN status for 
China.
  In my meeting with Vice Premier Li Lanqing, I focused on the trade 
imbalance between the United States and China, my concerns and those of 
my constituents on human rights, and the importance of China abiding by 
its commitments to Hong Kong.
  I also discussed the Chinese counterparts many other issues important 
to us, including the growth of the Internet in China, the competitive 
advantage of Washington State's ports and transportation 
infrastructure, the

[[Page S7562]]

future energy needs of China, food security issues, including China's 
ability to feed its own people, problems associated with large, 
unproductive state-owned enterprises and growth patterns in coastal and 
rural parts of China.
  My point in discussing my trip to China tonight is quite simple: If 
the Senate adopts the Hutchinson amendment, it will have disastrous 
consequences on the United States-China relationship. I believe it will 
threaten our very ability to dialog with the Chinese on all of the 
issues I have just outlined.
  If the opponents of MFN truly believe the Senate must go on record on 
this issue, so be it. Let's do it in a responsible fashion with the 
proper consideration that an issue of this importance merits.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote against the Hutchinson 
amendment. I believe it is unwise and irresponsible for the Senate to 
address this issue in this fashion.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to a request by the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky, the chairman of the committee and manager of the 
bill, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 900

  (Purpose: To suspend temporarily the certification procedures under 
section 490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 in order to foster 
  greater multilateral cooperation in international counternarcotics 
                               programs.)

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

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kerrey, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Warner, and Mr. 
     Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 900.

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

       On page 102, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:


         temporary suspension of drug certification procedures

       Sec. 575. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The international drug trade poses a direct threat to 
     the United States and to international efforts to promote 
     democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of 
     law.
       (2) The United States has a vital national interest in 
     combating the financial and other resources of the 
     multinational drug cartels, which resources threaten the 
     integrity of political and financial institutions both in the 
     United States and abroad.
       (3) Approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs, 
     including 1,500,000 cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts, 
     and 9,800,000 marijuana users.
       (4) Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic 
     and socioeconomic group in the United States.
       (5) Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the United 
     States approximately $67,000,000,000 in 1996, including costs 
     for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration.
       (6) Worldwide drug trafficking generates revenues estimated 
     at $400,000,000,000 annually.
       (7) The United States has spent more than $25,000,000,000 
     for drug interdiction and source country counternarcotics 
     programs since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the 
     border, on the high seas, and in other countries, illegal 
     drugs from foreign sources are cheaper and more readily 
     available in the United States today than 20 years ago.
       (8) The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 
     Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 
     Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and 
     Psychotropic Substances form the legal framework for 
     international drug control cooperation.
       (9) The United Nations International Drug Control Program, 
     the International Narcotics Control Board, and the 
     Organization of American States can play important roles in 
     facilitating the development and implementation of more 
     effective multilateral programs to combat both domestic and 
     international drug trafficking and consumption.
       (10) The annual certification process required by section 
     490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), 
     which has been in effect since 1986, has failed to foster 
     bilateral or multilateral cooperation with United States 
     counternarcotics programs because its provisions are vague 
     and inconsistently applied and fail to acknowledge that 
     United States narcotics programs have not been fully 
     effective in combating consumption or trafficking in illegal 
     drugs, and related crimes, in the United States.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) existing United States domestic and international 
     counternarcotics program have not reduced the supply of 
     illegal drugs or significantly reduced domestic consumption 
     of such drugs;
       (2) the President should appoint a high level task force of 
     foreign policy experts, law enforcement officials, and drug 
     specialists to develop a comprehensive program for addressing 
     domestic and international drug trafficking and drug 
     consumption and related crimes, with particular attention to 
     fashioning a multilateral framework for improving 
     international cooperation in combating illegal drug 
     trafficking, and should designate the Director of the Office 
     of National Drug Policy to chair the task force;
       (3) the President should call upon the heads of state of 
     major illicit drug producing countries, major drug transit 
     countries, and major money laundering countries to establish 
     similar high level task forces to work in coordination with 
     the United States; and
       (4) not later than one year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the President should call for the convening of an 
     international summit of all interested governments to be 
     hosted by the Organization of American States or another 
     international organization mutually agreed to by the parties, 
     for the purpose of reviewing the findings and recommendations 
     of the task forces referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) and 
     adopting a counternarcotics plan of action for each country.
       (c) Suspension of Drug Certification Process.--(1) Section 
     490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), 
     relating to annual certification procedures for assistance 
     for certain drug-producing and drug-transit countries, shall 
     not apply in 1998 and 1999.
       (2) The President may waive the applicability of that 
     section in 2000 if the President determines that the waiver 
     would facilitate the enhancement of United States 
     international narcotics control programs.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 901 to Amendment No. 900

              (Purpose: To perfect the pending amendment)

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

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 901 to Amendment No. 900.

  Mr. DODD. 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:

       Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment 
     and add in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC.  . SUSPENSION OF DRUG CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

       Sec. 575. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The international drug trade poses a direct threat to 
     the United States and to international efforts to promote 
     democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of 
     law.
       (2) The United States has a vital national interest in 
     combating the financial and other resources of the 
     multinational drug cartels, which resources threaten the 
     integrity of political and financial institutions both in the 
     United States and abroad.
       (3) Approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs, 
     including 1,500,000 cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts, 
     and 9,800,000 marijuana users.
       (4) Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic 
     and socioeconomic group in the United States.
       (5) Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost the United 
     States approximately $67,000,000,000 in 1996, including costs 
     for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration.
       (6) Worldwide drug trafficking generates revenues estimated 
     at $400,000,000,000 annually.
       (7) The United States has spent more than $25,000,000,000 
     for drug interdiction and source country counternarcotics 
     programs since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the 
     border, on the high seas, and in other countries, illegal 
     drugs from foreign sources are cheaper and more readily 
     available in the United States today than 20 years ago.
       (8) The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 
     Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 
     Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and 
     Psychotropic Substances form the legal framework for 
     international drug control cooperation.
       (9) The United Nations International Drug Control Program, 
     the International Narcotics Control Board, and the 
     Organization of American States can play important roles in 
     facilitating the development and implementation of more 
     effective multilateral programs to combat both domestic and 
     international drug trafficking and consumption.

[[Page S7563]]

       (10) The annual certification process required by section 
     490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), 
     which has been in effect since 1986, has failed to foster 
     bilateral or multilateral cooperation with United States 
     counternarcotics programs because its provisions are vague 
     and inconsistently applied and fail to acknowledge that 
     United States narcotics programs have not been fully 
     effective in combating consumption or trafficking in illegal 
     drugs, and related crimes, in the United States.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) existing United States domestic and international 
     counternarcotics program have not reduced the supply of 
     illegal drugs or significantly reduced domestic consumption 
     of such drugs;
       (2) the President should appoint a high level task force of 
     foreign policy experts, law enforcement officials, and drug 
     specialists to develop a comprehensive program for addressing 
     domestic and international drug trafficking and drug 
     consumption and related crimes, with particular attention to 
     fashioning a multilateral framework for improving 
     international cooperation in combating illegal drug 
     trafficking, and should designate the Director of the Office 
     of National Drug Policy to chair the task force;
       (3) the President should call upon the heads of state of 
     major illicit drug producing countries, major drug transit 
     countries, and major money laundering countries to establish 
     similar high level task forces to work in coordination with 
     the United States; and
       (4) not later than one year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the President should call for the convening of an 
     international summit of all interested governments to be 
     hosted by the Organization of American States or another 
     international organization mutually agreed to by the parties, 
     for the purpose of reviewing the findings and recommendations 
     of the task forces referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) and 
     adopting a counternarcotics plan of action for each country.
       (c) Suspension of Drug Certification Process.--(1) Section 
     490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), 
     relating to annual certification procedures for assistance 
     for certain drug-producing and drug-transit countries, shall 
     not apply in 1998 and 1999.
       (2) The President may waive the applicability of that 
     section in 2000 if the President determines prior to Dec. 31, 
     1999 that the waiver would facilitate the enhancement of 
     United States international narcotics control programs.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offered the second-degree amendment and it 
doesn't substantially change the original amendment, but it is so that 
we can have an up-or-down vote on the substance of the amendment I 
offered on behalf of myself, my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, 
Senator Daschle, Senator Lugar, Senator Domenici, Senator Cochran, 
Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator Hutchison, Senator Hagel, Senator 
Warner, and Senator Inouye.
  Mr. President, we believe that the approach contained in this 
amendment will lead to a far more cooperative and effective effort to 
meet the international threat posed by the international drug 
trafficking that is occurring in our country and elsewhere around the 
globe.
  The pending amendment calls upon the President of the United States 
to establish a high-level interdisciplinary task force, under the 
direction of General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, to develop a comprehensive strategy for 
dealing with the supply and demand side of the drug problem.
  This amendment also urges the President of the United States to 
encourage other drug-producing, and transit countries to undertake 
similar efforts. Within a year's time, it calls for an international 
summit to be held, at which time the efforts of all of the parties 
would be merged into a multilateral battle plan to engage the illegal 
drug trade on every front.
  In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual 
respect that must be present if this effort is to produce the results 
all of us desire, our amendment would also temporarily suspend, for 2 
years, the annual drug certification procedure while efforts are 
ongoing to develop and implement a new strategy. It does not repeal the 
certification process, but suspends it for 2 years in order to try this 
new dynamic. Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, supports this amendment, as does the administration.
  As you know, the issue of how best to construct and implement an 
effective counternarcotics policy has been the subject of much debate 
in this Chamber and, I add, much disagreement over the years. Our 
intention in offering this amendment today is to try and see if there 
isn't some way to end what has become a stale annual event, an event 
that has not brought us one step closer to mounting a credible effort 
to eliminate or even contain the international drug Mafia.
  We all can agree that drugs are a huge problem and a growing problem. 
Illegal drugs aren't some theoretical abstraction that only concerns 
Members of Congress. Most American families know --many firsthand, 
unfortunately--the dangers inherent in the drug trade. They worry about 
their children, their schools, their streets, and their communities. 
They know only too well the impact that unfettered drug gangs can have 
on them, their families, and the towns in which they live.
  We can all agree here, Mr. President, that there is an important 
international component to the drug menace. Drug kingpins have no 
respect for international borders. They ply their trade clandestinely 
wherever the opportunities may arise. The international drug trade 
poses a direct threat, I argue, to the United States as a government 
here at home, and to international efforts to promote democracy, 
economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the 
globe; but most especially, I think, here in our own hemisphere.
  Mr. President, I have concerns about the international implications 
of the drug trade. Of even greater concern to me personally are the 
effects it is having here in the United States. Today, approximately 
12.8 million Americans use illegal drugs, including 1.5 million cocaine 
users, 600,000 heroin addicts, and 9.8 million people who have used 
marijuana.
  This menace isn't just confined to our inner cities or the poor. 
Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic 
group in this country. The human and economic costs are enormous and 
staggering. Drug-related illness, death, and crime cost our Government 
and the taxpayers of this Nation approximately $67 billion in 1996, 
including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and 
incarceration.
  The drug trade is an enormously lucrative business. Drug trafficking 
generates estimated revenues of $400 billion annually. Although often 
left unstated, it is United States' demands for these illegal drugs 
which has been a driving force making drug trafficking the incredibly 
lucrative enterprise it has become. The principal focus of the U.S. 
international counternarcotics efforts has been to endeavor to go to 
the source, to penetrate the narcotrafficking organizations that 
control the production and distribution of drugs, and to dismantle 
them. An important component of that international effort since 1986 
has also included as its centerpiece the so called ``annual 
certification process.''
  Mr. President, I commend those who authored the certification 
process. Their intent, as is the intent of us who offer this amendment, 
is the same; that is, to try and figure out a way to slow down this 
traffic that pours into our country. Mr. President, I respectfully 
suggest that, after 10 years, the certification process has not helped. 
Therefore, we are trying, through this amendment, a new process by 
which we might, hopefully, change the dynamic and reverse the present 
trends that continue upward. The United States has spent more than $25 
billion since 1981 for foreign interdictions and source country 
counternarcotics projects, and has been issuing an annual certification 
report card since 1986.
  Yet, despite these efforts, seizures at the borders, from the high 
seas, and other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and more readily 
available in the United States today than they were two decades ago. 
Drugs have continued to flood our neighborhoods and wreak havoc on our 
families and our communities. I believe, as do my cosponsors of this 
amendment, that it is time to be honest and to admit that our 
international drug strategy isn't working, and that means the entire 
certification process.
  Let's look at what some leading editorial pages have recently said 
about certification; what the Nation's editorial pages say about drug 
``certification.''
  The Washington Post:

       Congress put the United States into the business of grading 
     other nations on their

[[Page S7564]]

     performance in the war against drugs, and punishing those 
     found to fall short, back in 1986. ``Certification'' then 
     seemed an idea worth testing. It has now been tested. It's a 
     flop.

  The Miami Herald, I quote:

       Not surprisingly, both certified allies and decertified 
     pariah states have taken umbrage at this unilateral finger-
     pointing by the world's largest consumer of illegal narcotics 
     * * * With certification on hold, the administration should 
     have time to craft a better policy.

  San Francisco Chronicle:

       Often obscured in the complexities of international 
     relations is the utter hypocrisy of the certification 
     process, in which the United States--the world's leading 
     consumer of illegal drugs--passes judgment on countries that 
     do not live up to our lofty standards of narcotics control * 
     * * If the United States, with all its power and riches, 
     cannot control or even diminish the demand for drugs within 
     its own borders, it is absurd to demand that much poorer 
     nations save us from ourselves * * * Congress should rethink 
     the world certification process and deal with international 
     problems on a country-by-country basis as the need arises * * 
     *

  The Christian Science Monitor:

       The U.S. and Mexico have every reason to be close partners 
     and friends--able to offer warranted criticism. The yearly 
     drug certification process is a very awkward, lopsided way of 
     delivering it.

  Newsday:

       The real issue now is whether the rationale for 
     certification has become so specious that the process has 
     become irrelevant. At the very least, the entire drug-
     certification process needs to be reviewed.

  The Boston Globe:

       Certification is hypocritical and ineffective as a tool 
     against drugs. It should be abandoned * * * Certification is 
     largely blind to the contribution Americans themselves have 
     made to an international problem. Frustrations over how to 
     deal with that problem are not justification for pursuing 
     poor policies--and certification is doing more harm than 
     good.

  Last, the New York Times:

       The politicization of the debate is only one example of 
     what is wrong with the whole certification process. It began 
     in 1986 as a way to pressure supplier countries to fight 
     drugs. It has not been successful and should be abolished * * 
     * Latin Americans' resentment of the certification process 
     makes it counterproductive * * * The process does not capture 
     the ambiguities of cooperation * * * Certification is 
     ultimately dangerous because it contributes to the myth that 
     America's drug problem can best be fought overseas * * * 
     Instead of international certification, Washington should 
     examine how well its policies at home combat drugs.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these 
editorials be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, June 16, 1997]

                     Rethinking Drug Certification

       The United States' annual rating of other countries' 
     sincerity and success in fighting the drug war has become a 
     case of good intentions gone awry. The tit-for-tat sanctions 
     of this blunt policy tool oversimplify complex issues and 
     fail to weigh policy nuances or competing national interests.
       Legislation introduced last week by Sens. Christopher Dodd 
     (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Arizona), and slated for a vote 
     in the Senate later this week, would suspend the 
     certification process for two years to allow the development 
     of more workable alternatives. It ought to be approved.
       Last February's go-around over Mexico's certification 
     demonstrated just how problematic the process has become.
       Mexico, which was in the middle of an epic drug-related 
     scandal, was certified. But Colombia, which had lost many 
     more lives and scored significant victories fighting the drug 
     cartels, was decertified.
       It would have been absurd indeed for the U.S. to decertify 
     and impose economic sanctions on Mexico, with which we had 
     signed a free-trade agreement just three years before and 
     which was recovering--thanks to a multibillion-dollar U.S. 
     loan guarantee--from a deep economic crisis.
       President Clinton, quite properly, gave greater weight to 
     these economic realities and the totality of our relationship 
     with Mexico than to the certification law's demand for 
     sanctions. But not before relations between the two countries 
     reached the lowest point in recent memory. And the way 
     Mexican certification was rationalized fed popular cynicism 
     in this country about the seriousness of the certification 
     exercise.
       Sadly, the bottom line on the usefulness of the 
     certification strategy is that drugs today are far cheaper 
     and more easily available in the U.S. than when Congress 
     created the process 11 years ago.
       There shouldn't be any doubt that fighting drugs must 
     remain a top foreign and domestic policy priority and that an 
     annual review properly focuses national attention on it.
       But as the Dodd-McCain initiative suggests, the effort 
     should be a more comprehensive and flexible exercise that, 
     for instance, considers both foreign supply and domestic 
     demand. A new approach also should emphasize multilateral, 
     cooperative strategies as a strategy of first resort.
       When that doesn't work, economic sanctions, diplomatic 
     pressure, law-enforcement measures, economic aid and other 
     measures should all be at the disposal of the president to 
     ensure cooperation. The war on drugs is a long, arduous 
     campaign that is more likely to be won through ingenuity and 
     tenacity than annual grandstanding and empty threats.
                                                                    ____


                     [From Newsday, July 16, 1997]

           Find Better Ways to Stem the Flow of Illicit Drugs

       An eminently sensible bill in Congress would begin to do 
     away with the ineffective practice of certifying other 
     nations' efforts to control production and shipment of 
     illegal drugs and punishing those that don't meet U.S. 
     standards. A two-year moratorium on certification is included 
     in legislation, introduced by Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-
     Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), which calls for a 
     presidential commission to come up with a coordinated 
     strategy for drug control in consultation with other 
     countries.
       The drug-certification law was enacted in 1986 by a 
     Congress intent on showing it could do something about drugs, 
     but it has proved to have little impact. Worse, it has 
     backfired more than once in the conduct of U.S. foreign 
     policy. In practice, it has been applied with bald-faced 
     hypocrisy: How else to explain the decertification last year 
     of Colombia, which has done its best to cooperate, and the 
     recertification of Mexico, whose government is riddled with 
     narco-corruption? Simple: Mexico is economically and 
     politically important to Washington; Colombia is not.
       But there is a deeper hypocrisy in condemning other 
     nations' efforts to stem drug supplies when the United 
     States' own government has had so little success in 
     suppressing domestic demand for drugs. Until America can 
     address the demand problem more credibly than it has, it 
     would be wise for Washington to cooperate with other nations 
     affected by drug trafficking in devising new strategies, 
     rather than browbeating them with meaningless report cards.
                                                                    ____


          [From the Christian Science Monitor, June 16, 1997]

                          A Good Step on Drugs

       Since drug trafficking is an international problem, 
     international cooperation to combat it has always made sense. 
     But Washington's approach to such cooperation has for the 
     last decade included a tool for bludgeoning others into 
     antidrug partnership--the decertification process, by which 
     other nations face economic sanctions by the US if they are 
     deemed noncooperative. The result in the most important 
     arena, Latin America, has been recurrent friction rather than 
     tighter cooperation.
       This year's certification of Mexico and decertification of 
     Colombia made it more obvious than ever that this particular 
     antinarcotics tool should be junked. Politics and US economic 
     interests, rather than objective consideration of the 
     antidrug records of both countries, dictated the final 
     decision.
       A new bill sponsored by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D) of 
     Connecticut and Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona would suspend 
     the decertification process for the next two years. It also 
     urges the formation of a high-level task force under the 
     direction of the government's chief drug-control official, 
     Barry McCaffrey, to reassess policy responses to both the 
     supply and demand sides of the narcotics problem. The 
     president would encourage other countries to form similar 
     task forces, and in two years an international summit would 
     be held to forge a joint antidrug strategy.
       Some may argue that this sounds like a megastudy of a 
     problem that has already been studied to death. But the plan 
     has three elements that strongly recommend it:
       For at least two years, and maybe more, it gets rid of the 
     divisive, counterproductive decertification club.
       Inherent in it is a closer examination of the demand 
     problem within the US, and the possibility of productively 
     shifting resources to such needs as drug treatment. This aids 
     cooperation as well, since Latin Americans have long charged 
     that the US underplays its demand problem.
       It holds out the possibility of an international antidrug 
     partnership based on shared interests and ideas, rather than 
     one forced together by US threats.
       The Dodd-McCain bill should be promptly enacted.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 14, 1997]

                   Drugs: Interdicting the Flow . . .

       Congress put the United States into the business of grading 
     other nations on their performance in the war against drugs, 
     and punishing those found to fall short, back in 1986. 
     ``Certification'' then seemed an idea worth testing. It now 
     has been tested. It's a flop. By provoking local nationalism, 
     this sort of unilateral American intervention has, in Mexico, 
     Colombia and elsewhere, strained the anti-drug cooperation it 
     was meant to strengthen. It has centered the American fight 
     against drugs more on foreign supply than on consumption at 
     home--an emphasis that, for all the successful drug seizures, 
     has seen the international drug flow pick up over the years 
     and force prices on the American street steadily down.

[[Page S7565]]

       Now comes a move in Congress to look at certification with 
     a beady eye. Sens. Christopher Dodd and John McCain are 
     leading a bipartisan, ideologically neutral effort that draws 
     reasonable and necessary conclusions from the experience of 
     the past decade. They would suspend for two years the process 
     of unilateral American certification and enlist the drug-
     producing and transit countries to join the United States in 
     an international program to contend with both trafficking and 
     consumption. In a word that Americans will have to get used 
     to in dealing with these ``global'' issues, the United States 
     would ``multilateralize'' the war against drugs. Cooperation 
     would become the key.
       International problems exist for which one-sided 
     applications of American power--in this instance control of 
     international credit--are a remedy. Drugs is not one of them. 
     While other countries are the principal source of the supply, 
     the United States is the dominant source of the demand. It is 
     laughable to pretend that just one side of this equation can 
     and need be dealt with. Then, a concentration on foreign 
     supply ignores that Americans have done no better cleaning up 
     trafficking networks in this country than others, including 
     Latins, have done with the networks abroad. The certification 
     policy, imperiously penalizing foreigners not just for their 
     lapses but for the United States' own, ignores this evident 
     fact.
       Mexico provides a particular reason to review American drug 
     policy. Its corruption is unquestionably responsible for some 
     part of the flow of illegal drugs. But Mexico is also a 
     country now making an immense effort to undo the political 
     distortions that lie behind much of the corruption. By 
     looking for cooperative ways on drugs, the United States 
     tackles a hemispheric menace and encourages Mexican democracy 
     at the same time.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Miami Herald, July 7, 1997]

                        Now, That's a Resolution

       Sometimes, even if rarely, legislation makes such eminent 
     good sense that you wonder why it wasn't proposed sooner. On 
     point is a U.S. Senate resolution with a most reasonable 
     response to the scourge of illicit drugs. The resolution not 
     only suggests that the United States attack domestic demand 
     as well as supply, but that it work with other nations to 
     draft a cooperative ``battle plan'' to defeat the illegal-
     drugs trade on every front.
       This commendable proposal was introduced the other day by 
     Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz. The 
     only shame was that, coming in the midst of furious budget 
     wrangling and just before the Fourth of July holiday there 
     was no time for its discussion and passage.
       The resolution would suspend for two years the cumbersome 
     certification process that Congress foisted on the president 
     in the first place. By law the White House is required each 
     year to pass judgment on the drug-curbing efforts of nations 
     that serve as major narcotics producers or transit points. 
     Countries that do not pass muster are decertified, obliging 
     the United States to cut certain aid and oppose international 
     loans. Other, more-drastic sanctions also are authorized.
       Not surprisingly, both certified allies and decertified 
     pariah states have taken umbrage at this unilateral finger-
     pointing by the world's largest consumer of illegal 
     narcotics. What right has the pot to call the kettle black? 
     The whole certification sham even blew up on itself in March 
     after President Clinton decertified Colombia, which had 
     recently stepped up anti-narcotics efforts, while certifying 
     Mexico, through which are thought to come as much as 80 
     percent of the illegal drugs entering the United States. This 
     after Mexico's chief anti-drug official was arrested for 
     allegedly aiding the head of his country's biggest, most 
     ruthless drug cartel.
       With certification on hold, the administration should have 
     time to craft a better policy. The bipartisan resolution 
     encourages the president to foster international anti-drug 
     cooperation, culminating in a summit where strategies could 
     be mutually agreed upon. That global approach, it suggests, 
     would work in sync with a comprehensive domestic plan, 
     addressing both supply and demand problems, developed by Gen. 
     Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy, and other experts.
       ``We need to reach out to other governments who share our 
     concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the very fabric 
     of their societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we 
     are the only nation that cares about such matters,'' said 
     Sen. Dodd. ``Together, working collectively, we can defeat 
     the traffickers. But if we expend our energies playing the 
     blame game, we are certainly not going effectively to address 
     this threat.''
       Well said, Senator, and well proposed.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me just emphasize, if I can, that I 
don't necessarily agree with all of the conclusions in these 
editorials. Some have suggested repeal. There is a part of me that 
finds that appealing. But I am not sure what we are going to offer over 
the next 2 years is necessarily going to work either. I don't have any 
absolute certainty of guarantees that what we offer as an alternative 
will work. But I think all of us can agree that suspension for a couple 
of years, as General McCaffrey has suggested, to try the cover the 
dynamic here is worth the effort and worth a try.
  This doesn't mean you are less strong or less outraged or less 
concerned about what is happening to narcotics trafficking. Quite the 
contrary. I think those who support this recognize that we are trying 
to get a better handle on this to see if we can't have better answers 
because the current process is not working. We need a better idea. 
Hopefully people of good intention, good will, and putting their 
shoulders to the wheel in this country and elsewhere can come up with 
some better ideas over the next 2 years and really begin to make some 
headway in this effort.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I gladly yield to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Connecticut believe that in the 
past 5 years that we have been winning the war on drugs? Does it 
indicate to him that perhaps the price of drugs in the streets of 
Hartford, CT, and Phoenix, AZ, is lower than it was 5 years ago? Has 
the Senator from Connecticut seen any meaningful gain in the war on 
drugs as a result of this recertification policy?
  I have several other questions that I would like to ask.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in response to my colleague's questions, I 
would say, First, the price of drugs is lower today, the lowest they 
have been in two decades. We just came from a hearing chaired by our 
colleague from Georgia, which my colleague from Massachusetts, who is 
on the floor, attended. We heard at that hearing that the problem is 
getting worse--not better. In the countries that we have decertified, I 
say to my colleague from Arizona, over the last couple of years the 
problem gets worse--not better. We are getting less cooperation in many 
places. There is a sense of antagonism about how we approach this 
issue.
  So while I applaud the intentions of those who authored this 
process--and I understand the rationale for it back in 1986--from time 
to time I think we have to step back and ask ourselves blunt questions 
as to what we have tried to do, no matter how well intended. Is it 
working? If it is not, and if the problem is getting worse, then I 
would say to my colleague from Arizona, in response to his question, 
that maybe we ought to think anew. That is what this amendment does, 
without repealing the certification process but merely suspending it 
for a couple of years to see if we can't come up with a better idea.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Connecticut will yield for a further 
question, isn't there an enormous inconsistency, and, in fact, a lack 
of credibility in this decertification process when we are faced with a 
situation where the President of the United States in the one case of 
Colombia decertifies Colombia as not being cooperative in the war on 
drugs--which is a country, as we all know, with incredible chaos and an 
anarchy that exists in that country--and at the same time certificates 
Mexico largely on the grounds not that you could make the argument that 
Mexico has been cooperative in the case of drugs, but there are certain 
economic interests and other interests that we have in Mexico which 
almost compel the President of the United States to not decertify 
Mexico under the same criteria that basically the President used to 
decertify Colombia, thereby revealing a significant flaw in this entire 
process and revealing a lack of credibility as far as adherence to the 
criteria that was supposed to be set up under the conditions for 
certification or decertification?
  Mr. DODD. In response to my colleague's questions, I would agree with 
him. That is one of the problems with this. It is so uneven in its 
application, and as such one might argue that the effectiveness of it 
is thereby debilitating--that, if we are going to certify some, and 
waive others where the problem arguably is the same, although one might 
make a case that there are various efforts in certain countries, I 
think you end up with the kind of situation we are in today where the 
desire for cooperation and the efforts of cooperation have been 
severely curtailed as a result of it.
  So even if you are trying to send a message here, it gets lost in the 
process. I note in the case of Colombia--

[[Page S7566]]

which is certainly a major source country problem without any question 
whatsoever--but I pointed out, as I know my colleague from Arizona has 
from time to time, that this has paralyzed the country of Colombia. 
Many may recall that a number of years ago the entire supreme court of 
that country was assassinated. One attorney general after the other, 
the chief prosecutor, all of these people have been assassinated. 
Presidential candidates get assassinated. One might argue that they are 
paying an awful price in that nation.
  If we decertify, we lose any kind of cooperation in terms of what we 
ought to be trying to seek there. In the case of Mexico, as my 
colleague has pointed out--he certainly knows Mexico as well as any 
Member of this body--there are serious problems there and well 
documented. Yet, both of us are aware of the fact that there are 
serious economic implications. So we send a signal of waiving and apply 
a different standard, and that message is not just heard in both 
Colombia and Mexico, it resonates throughout this hemisphere. Again, my 
colleague from Arizona spends a great deal of time on hemispheric 
issues. He has heard what I have heard over and over again; this is not 
helping at all. There are other countries involved. We have laundering, 
transit countries, other countries producing, and, frankly, this effort 
of cooperation is just collapsing in our midst.
  So this has not worked.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question which 
his response led to, isn't it true that there was a question that the 
administration had asked itself in this process: What would be the 
effect in Mexico of a decertification of Mexico, a country that is 
uncertain if not fragile and in transition to democracy? There is 
always a certain latent anti-Americanism in Mexico. I will not waste 
the time of the Senate or my knowledgeable friend's time in depicting 
the causes for that. And one of the greatest challenges that we face, I 
ask my friend from Connecticut, is getting the cooperation of the 
Mexicans. And, yet, isn't it also true that General McCaffrey would 
testify that despite all of the problems that are there, despite the 
corruption, there has been an attempt on the part of the Mexicans to 
arrest their drug czar, General McCaffrey's counterpart in Mexico, and 
other actions that have been taken by the Mexicans because of their 
recognition of the threat that drugs pose to their very national 
existence; and, that, if we had decertified Mexico in the last 
decisionmaking process that the President took, there is the opinion in 
the view of many that would have harmed relations and the cooperation 
that we are receiving would have been lessened rather than increased 
thereby inhibiting our ability to win the war on drugs and a 
demotivated factor in helping getting them to cooperate with us?
  Mr. DODD. I say, in my response to the questions, the Senator is 
absolutely correct. He stated it very well. And that certainly was the 
evidence offered by General McCaffrey and others whose business it is 
on a daily basis to monitor these events--and he suggested to us that, 
if cooperation is what we are seeking, the vehicle we have been using 
is not having the desired effect despite again the good intentions of 
those who sought this process.
  I say to my colleague from Arizona, in response to his question, that 
the genesis of the certification process dates back to a time when I 
think there was bipartisan frustration over whether or not there was 
enough attention being paid at the executive branch level in terms of 
the drug-related issue. So a certification process was put in place.
  I think most would argue today that however true those feelings may 
have been over a decade ago that over the last number of years there 
has been a heightened degree of involvement on the part of the 
executive branch--witness, of course, General McCaffrey, whom we all 
respect--doing the best they can. It is their conclusion, as well as my 
colleague from Arizona, as he pointed out, that this is 
counterproductive.
  I might point out, that the elections that recently took place in 
Mexico were historic. I think my colleague and I would agree on this. 
It looks as close to a democratic and corruption-free election as 
probably has been held in Mexico. You have new members of the national 
legislature, and hopefully a new beginning in many ways here. It seems 
to me that our efforts here might do a lot to get that kind of 
cooperation out of new members of the Mexican Government--the 
legislative branch, along with President Zedillo, who, I think all of 
us would agree, has certainly been most cooperative in this effort.
  So I agree with my colleague.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, isn't 
it also true that we will hear objections to this amendment? And some 
of those objections will be based on the lack of cooperation that we 
have received from Mexico in fighting the war on drugs, something I 
believe the Senator from Connecticut and I would be the first to 
acknowledge--along with the fact that the resolution of the Senator 
from Connecticut a few days ago put the Senate on record in praising 
the Mexican Government, by a unanimous recorded vote here in the 
Senate, for their efforts of transition to a free and democratic form 
of government for the first time since the revolution.
  I ask the Senator from Connecticut if he would not believe at this 
time whether it would not be most inappropriate for the United States 
to be on record as condemning Mexico, at a time when we are seeing the 
progress that we have been urging for, in fact, all of our adult lives, 
the Senator from Connecticut and I.
  And I also want to ask, in addition, is the Senator from Connecticut 
aware of the White House letter dated July 16, signed by Samuel Berger, 
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs:

       I am writing to express the support of the administration 
     for the amendment that you and Senator Dodd are proposing. We 
     believe your amendment would allow the administration to 
     develop and implement a new multilateral strategy to stem the 
     flow of illegal narcotics. We believe the passage of this 
     amendment will lead to a more effective multilateral effort 
     in the war against drugs.

  And also, is the Senator from Connecticut, who I know shares my 
profound respect and appreciation for General McCaffrey and the job he 
is doing and the responsibilities, enormous responsibilities, we have 
placed on General McCaffrey and the universal respect and admiration in 
which he is held, aware of a letter he wrote also on July 16, in which 
he says:

       Wanted to confirm that the Administration supports the 
     Dodd-McCain legislation on international drug cooperation. 
     Believe your thinking supports U.S. drug policy by 
     recommending a mechanism that would allow us to make 
     fundamental improvements in the way we cooperate with major 
     drug producing and transit countries. At a minimum, your bill 
     promises to remove a major cause of foreign policy friction 
     especially with Latin American and Caribbean countries. 
     Timing for consideration of new ideas is fortunate because of 
     the upcoming Summit of the Americas and heightened interest 
     in multilateral counter-drug cooperation following the 
     President's travel to Mexico and Central America.
       ONDCP is prepared to lead an interagency task force to 
     develop a new strategy.

  By the way, I ask my friend, is it not true that we need a new 
strategy? That is the whole point here of this legislation. I do not 
know how anyone could argue that the present strategy has succeeded.

       Although we would want to explore a number of options, 
     elements of a new strategy might involve increased use of 
     multilateral mechanisms and international organizations such 
     as the OAS. We might also consider expansion of ad hoc 
     arrangements for in-depth bilateral counter-drug cooperation 
     with countries of particular interest such as Mexico. The 
     Department of State and ONDCP are already formulating plans 
     for a fall conference to develop new thinking along the lines 
     of your proposal.
       Respectfully, Barry R. McCaffrey.

  I ask the Senator from Connecticut, would it not be appropriate that 
we should view the opinions of the President's national security 
adviser and the drug czar very seriously when we take into 
consideration this legislation?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it would. I urge my colleague at the 
appropriate time to ask unanimous consent that these letters be a part 
of the Record. I thank General McCaffrey for his letter and Sandy 
Berger for his letter.
  Again, they state it very well. My colleague from Arizona has stated 
it well. We offer this suspension--and,

[[Page S7567]]

again, I want to emphasize ``suspension,'' Mr. President--for 2 years 
of the present law, not a repeal. There are some who would like to 
repeal it, and I might be counted among those, but I respect the fact 
that a suspension is the best way to go at this point.
  But our colleague from Arizona states it well. The present system is 
broken. It is not working. We need some new, fresh efforts here. And 
with the commitment of General McCaffrey here saying to us, look, my 
office is prepared to lead an interagency task force to develop a new 
strategy. His letter to us today, I think it says it all. What better 
way to get started, if you will, than to have a clean slate for a 
couple of years to allow General McCaffrey and his team to go forward 
and try to do that without repealing the law of certification but 
merely suspending it.
  You are going to get a lot more cooperation, it seems to me, with a 
suspension for 2 years and trying to bring these countries in than 
there will be if we gather as we do annually and go through this 
process, as our colleague from Arizona pointed out here, again on the 
certification. We are out here debating 11th-hour negotiations on 
waivers, all efforts to try to avoid a catastrophe, and once again find 
ourselves in a mess with certification practices and no advance 
strategy to deal with this issue. I am grateful to the Senator from 
Arizona, the administration and General McCaffrey for this effort.
  I think this is a good, bipartisan effort, Mr. President, to come up 
with a new dynamic, and I thank again my colleague for his support and 
leadership on this effort.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  I rise in strong opposition, and I hope it will be robust opposition, 
to the Dodd-McCain amendment, which would gut the narcotics 
certification process and replace it with absolutely nothing.
  Mr. President, I just heard the distinguished Senator say ``trust 
General McCaffrey.'' With all due respect to General McCaffrey, this is 
such a volatile and unpredictable area that it is impossible to know 
what to believe. It is understandable that General McCaffrey could 
stand before the world and say, ``I trust General Gutierrez Rebollo. He 
is an honest man.''
  Whoops. The next thing we know, he is on the take. My goodness, how 
can you gut a process and replace it with nothing except trust when we 
have already found that trust to be wanting.
  Now, let me say for a moment, I want to divide my remarks into three 
parts. The first is foreign assistance and who should get foreign 
assistance as a product of this amendment. The second is a 
certification process and what it has actually done in Colombia. The 
third is Mexico postsummit and what has not happened.
  This debate is really about whether we should give foreign aid and 
support development loans to other nations with no strings attached 
even if we know that the leaders and government of the country do 
nothing to assist in stopping the flow of drugs to the United States.
  I think we need to clear up a major misconception about the debate 
here today on the drug certification process. This is not a debate 
about whether drug certification is a process that hurts our relations 
with our allies in the hemisphere because we sit and pass judgment on 
other nations. This is a debate about foreign assistance and under what 
circumstances the United States should offer assistance to other 
nations. With the exception of humanitarian assistance, the United 
States provides foreign assistance not only because America has a great 
and good tradition of assisting other states, but because we want to 
encourage certain types of behavior--because we want cooperation on 
political, security, or economic policy.
  The distinguished manager of the bill, Senator McConnell, has said it 
very well today again and again. He said, ``Foreign aid is not an 
entitlement program. Just because you received it last year does not 
mean you should receive it this year. You have to earn it.''
  A nation that does not fully cooperate with our efforts to keep drugs 
from reaching our schools and our children has not earned the right to 
receive foreign assistance from the United States. We are not obligated 
to provide assistance. We provide this assistance because it is in our 
interest to do so, because it encourages behavior and policies which we 
support. Before we provide money, we have every right to expect that we 
will get cooperation from those nations to which we provide it. Indeed, 
we have a duty to our constituents not to send their tax dollars to a 
country if it is undermining our counternarcotics effort. That, in 
fact, is why we have the certification process as an instrument for 
cooperation--not because we want or enjoy the opportunity to sit in 
judgment on other nations. It is not a policy for faint hearts. I admit 
that. It is not about rating who we like or who we do not like. It is 
not about saying you are good and you are bad.

  The current certification process may not be perfect, but it 
accomplishes something very important. Once a year it focuses the 
attention of our executive branch and of other nations whose 
cooperation we need on what is perhaps the most crucial national 
security issue this country faces.
  If anyone had to ask me what is America's No. 1 national security 
threat, I would say drugs, drugs, drugs. There is no other. It is my 
firm belief that without the drug certification process, we would have 
no debate of this kind. So I am not sorry we have this process. I think 
it focuses our efforts, and, even when it bruises feelings of other 
nations, it ultimately produces more cooperation, not less.
  Now, let us for a moment look at Colombia, a country which we did 
decertify 2 years ago. The evidence is clear. When we decertified 
Colombia, the reaction was initially very harsh, and then, very 
quickly, Colombian cooperation began to improve.
  Colombian officials came to my office just a month or so ago, and 
here is what they told me: In the last year, Colombia has fumigated 
20,000 hectares of cocoa, the most ever; destroyed 800 drug 
laboratories; began working with the United States to develop a radar 
system to allow the government to secure control of all Colombian 
airspace, an air control system that allowed them to force down 
approximately 50 small drug-runner planes--force down 50 small drug-
runner planes--which would have otherwise evaded Colombian air traffic 
control.
  They have begun working with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop 
strategies for intercepting narcotics traffickers at sea; they have 
passed tough new laws on asset forfeiture for narco-traffickers, and 
they are implementing them; they have arrested and convicted at least 5 
politicians I know of, and incarcerated them for taking money into 
their campaign funds from narco-traffickers; they have passed tough new 
penalties increasing sentences by 4 and 10 times for drug-related 
offenses; and they have instituted aggressive new proceedings against 
the Cali and Medellin cartel leaders. The Medellin cartel leaders are 
all in prison. The cartel is no more. And the Cali cartel is in the 
process of disintegrating.
  Does anyone honestly believe that Colombia would have taken these 
steps in this fashion if it had not been for the U.S. drug 
certification process? I think not. And as a matter of fact, I am of 
the view that if this continues, Colombia should be recertified, and we 
should say thank you for working on this problem in the way in which 
you have.
  Before Colombia was decertified, the powers of the cocaine cartels 
grew. The number of hectares planted with coca grew. The corruption in 
the Colombian judicial and political systems grew. But when the United 
States said ``enough'' and decertified Colombia, all of a sudden the 
Colombian Government did an aboutface. I think that this example can 
affect other nations as well. Unfortunately, much of the trafficking 
and the transportation of drugs has moved to Mexico, and this is the 
next frontier of the battle.
  Now, let's compare the situation in Colombia today with that in 
Mexico today post-summit, post-Presidential visit to Mexico. Still, not 
a single extradition of a Mexican national on drug charges. I say on 
drug charges. On other charges perhaps. Despite all of the debate last 
year, despite the economic summit, not a single extradition

[[Page S7568]]

of a Mexican national wanted in this country for drug charges has been 
carried out by the Mexican Government.
  There are continued restrictions on the operations of United States 
drug enforcement agents in Mexico. Even when working in cooperation 
with their Mexican counterparts they still cannot protect themselves if 
they are working on the other side of the border. They still are not 
allowed to carry weapons. Coast Guard ships in pursuit of trafficking 
vessels on the sea still need to give Mexico 30 days' notice before 
putting into port to refuel. There are no air or maritime agreements to 
forge a joint approach for interdiction of narco-trafficking. There is 
still massive corruption at all levels of the government, law 
enforcement and the military, prosecutors killed, judges murdered, and, 
most recently, the plastic surgeon that did the surgery on Amado 
Carrillo-Fuentes has reportedly--I cannot verify it, but reportedly--
disappeared.
  Drug cartels are running rampant in Mexico. Corruption along the U.S. 
border--and I will speak for California--has never been worse, never 
been worse. The cartels are now controlling street gangs in Los 
Angeles, and this is where I stand up and say ``I have had enough.''
  My distinguished colleague and friend from Connecticut read from a 
number of editorials. You know, I judge stories by the by-line. There 
is a reporter whom I respect very much. His name is Marcus Stern. He 
writes for the San Diego Union Tribune. This is a headline on the 12th 
of this month, ``Drugs still flown over the border, say agents.'' Let 
me quote from part of this article:

       But a dozen military and civilian officials directly 
     involved with the counter-drug effort along the California-
     Mexico border said in interviews during recent weeks that the 
     skies in San Diego and Imperial counties are largely out of 
     control and are still being heavily used by drug traffickers.
       It's pretty much wide open * * * 

                           *   *   *   *   *

       But the antidrug officials interviewed in recent weeks said 
     military observation posts deployed along the border are 
     spotting a half-dozen planes a week flying into Imperial 
     County alone. The planes are flying low at dusk with their 
     lights out, the officials said.

  This is happening every day on the border. It is the wrong time to do 
gut the certification process. The administration has agreed to give us 
a report on September 1 on progress made by Mexico. That is pursuant to 
our Senate-passed resolution. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting it, to 
see what progress has been made. At this stage, I know of no real 
progress that has been made.
  The sponsors of this amendment argue that Mexico fails to cooperate 
because of the certification process. They argue that Mexican pride and 
nationalism make it difficult to appear to respond to American threats. 
That's nonsense. It is baloney.
  President Zedillo, whom we all believe is committed to fighting the 
drug traffickers, has said repeatedly that drug trafficking is the No. 
1 threat to Mexico's national security. Well, either it is or it isn't. 
If it's such a grave threat to Mexico's national security, they should 
cooperate with us in their own interests, not because we make demands. 
Extradite drug pushers, allow U.S. Coast Guard ships to refuel, allow 
DEA agents working the other side of the border to carry firearms to 
protect themselves. I believe we have every legitimate reason to make 
clear we will not accept anything less than full cooperation.
  The whole issue is an issue right now, precisely, I believe, because 
the administration was not honest in the certification process in 
dealing with Mexico. As much as I, too, would like to see a more 
flexible certification process, the situation with Mexico, for me, 
underscores exactly why we need a certification process.
  I come from a State that is perhaps the most impacted State in the 
Union with these drugs. Yes, cocaine prices have dropped on the streets 
of Los Angeles in the last 5 years. It is not because of a 
certification process. It is because we have not had the guts to do 
what we should have done and decertify Mexico. I believe that's the 
reason. To replace a policy which may come to some fruition this next 
year with nothing is wrong.
  I agree with the idea of a commission. I am happy to have 
commissions. I learned when I was mayor, if you didn't know what to do, 
appoint a committee. Better still, appoint a commission.
  But I know what to do. We have to stop those overflights. We have to 
see that the border is enforced. We have to press for cooperation. We 
have to have extradition for those for whom there is a bona fide 
American arrest subpoena or warrant who traffic in narcotics.
  So, I am not prepared to vote for an amendment that leaves us with no 
plan but simply takes Mexico off the hook: No evaluation this fall, no 
ability to read the September 1 report presented by the administration 
and make a decision as to whether there has or has not been any 
progress, then wait 2 or 3 years for this undefined, ephemeral 
``something.''
  Respectfully, I can't turn around and just depend on trust when 
another nation's leading anti-drug official turns out to be on the 
take. What's wrong with our intelligence? How can that happen? We don't 
question it even. How can that happen? It did. And that, I believe, 
typifies our drug policy with Mexico. Frankly, it has been one of spin. 
I, for one, am not going to buy the spin. I want to see the results on 
the street.
  When cocaine prices on the street corners of Los Angeles rise, I know 
something has happened. When I pick up this newspaper and, instead of 
seeing ``Drugs still flown over the border,'' I see ``Five Planes 
Downed, Pilot, Copilot Arrested, Two Tons of Cocaine Recovered,'' then 
I know we have something going on on the streets, as they say. So, that 
is what I am looking for. When I see Mexico say, ``Here are the cartel 
leaders, we are going to bring them to trial, we are going to bust the 
cartels,'' then I know we have something going.
  So, until then, to do away with the certification process, I think, 
is to say to the people of the United States, ``We are going to do 
nothing for the next 3 years.'' I, for one, am not going to be party to 
that policy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter signed by Senator Grassley, Senator Coverdell, Senator 
Torricelli, Senator John Kerry, and myself, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1997.

     Vote ``no'' on the Dodd-McCain amendment to end narcotic 
         certification.

       Dear Colleague: We write to urge you to join us in opposing 
     the Dodd-McCain amendment on narcotics certification. This 
     amendment would dramatically weaken the United States' 
     ability to gain cooperation from other nations in the war 
     against international narcotics trafficking.
       The Dodd-McCain amendment would effectively end the 
     narcotics certification process and replace it with . . . 
     nothing!
       The Dodd-McCain amendment would tell other nations that we 
     will provide them foreign assistance with no strings 
     attached, even if they do nothing to assist stopping the flow 
     of drugs to the United States.
       The Dodd-McCain amendment would instantaneously deprive the 
     United States of the leverage we have used successfully to 
     gain greater anti-narcotics cooperation from many nations, 
     including Colombia, following its decertification two years 
     ago.
       The Dodd-McCain amendment would send a signal to our 
     friends and partners--and to the drug lords--that the United 
     States is not serious about combating narcotics.
       The Dodd-McCain amendment calls for a task force on 
     international narcotics control and an international summit 
     to develop a multilateral strategy--which are laudable 
     goals--but it would unnecessarily gut one of the central 
     tools in our current narcotics control strategy, without 
     specifying what will replace it.
       The influx of illegal narcotics is perhaps the gravest 
     national security threat facing the United States today. In 
     order to effectively combat this threat, the United States 
     needs to work with our friends and partners in the Western 
     Hemisphere to interdict this massive flow of drugs and to 
     arrest and punish the drug lords.
       But when we do not receive the full cooperation of other 
     nations in these efforts, we must be able to act to let them 
     know that they must do more. That is why we have the drug 
     certification process. We urge you to oppose the Dodd-McCain 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Dianne Feinstein.
     Charles E. Grassley.
     John Kerry.
     Paul Coverdell.
     Robert G. Toricelli.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to make it clear I disagree with the Dodd-McCain

[[Page S7569]]

amendment. We have been focusing in this debate on the necessity and 
the impact of the certification process on foreign countries as if the 
only purpose of this was to put pressure on foreign countries. That 
probably is the primary purpose and maybe the only one we talk about. 
But, as well, I would like to suggest that we have a situation where 
this process keeps our own Government decisionmakers responsible. In 
other words, through this certification process, we are causing them to 
make an annual judgment of whether or not our process of interdiction 
in other parts of the world on drugs is actually working and effective. 
I think that is a very important purpose of our process, to make our 
own elected and appointed government public officials take care to look 
at the process, look at whether the policies are working, to assess 
those policies, maybe to suggest changes in those policies--maybe even 
in basic law--but, also, to make a judgment of whether or not they are 
effectively carrying out the laws the way intended.
  I find the assumptions upon which the Dodd-McCain amendment is based 
to be wrong. I believe what it represents is a moving away from a 
serious standard of dealing with the drug problem. I believe it gives 
other countries a bye on taking drugs seriously. I believe it lets the 
U.S. administration off the hook. So I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against this amendment. If anything, we should be discussing 
measures to strengthen the process. It is a process that has served us 
well.
  We have had a letter by the present drug czar quoted on the floor of 
the Senate as supporting this amendment. I would like to suggest to you 
that I have had an opportunity to visit with another drug czar--former 
drug czar now--Bill Bennett. He was a very good drug czar. He was a 
drug czar when policies were working. He speaks very strongly in 
support of the present certification process and, consequently, would 
urge our vote against the suggestions of Senator Dodd and Senator 
McCain.
  It is argued by the proponents that the certification process does 
not work. No evidence is offered for this view. It is simply asserted. 
But what does ``working'' look like? I would like to ask a question in 
a different context to make this very point. Just recently we passed 
legislation putting more teeth into the sanctions for countries that 
support international terrorism. Do we believe that passing such laws 
will end international terrorism forever? Or do we believe that we need 
to have measures in place to ensure appropriate means are available to 
us, means that will help us uphold U.S. interests and international 
standards of conduct? I do not think anyone here believes that our laws 
will necessarily end terrorism as we know it. That is not the intent. 
The intent is to set a standard that terrorism is wrong and that we are 
going to fight terrorism wherever we can.
  We have passed legislation to hold countries responsible for 
violating intellectual property rights. Do we expect this legislation 
to end all pirating of books or CD's? Or do we expect to have the means 
available to us to respond to all counterfeiting, to send a message 
about what the standard is that we believe that we need to uphold? I 
think everyone knows the answer.
  Why are we seeking to establish some sort of different standard for 
drugs? It seems to me in the case of terrorism we say terrorism is 
wrong, we pass laws against it, we fully expect to enforce them in 
every way we can in an effort to end terrorism. We may not actually end 
terrorism, but it is a standard. So the certification process is not 
about the ultimate end to drug production or trafficking. Our law will 
not end that any more than any of these other laws that I have 
mentioned will end the problems that they address. The intent is to 
establish needed standards, to set the terms of reference for what 
doing something meaningful looks like, and to take appropriate action 
when this does not happen.
  Some, however, seem to want to hold drug certification to an 
impossible standard of judgment. The argument made is that 
certification does not work. In fact, certification is doing exactly 
what Congress intended. It forces the U.S. administration at least once 
a year to take international drug policy seriously. It also requires 
them to account for their actions to the Congress. I can appreciate 
that the administration may not like having to make all these very 
tough decisions. But we must hold this President and future Presidents, 
as we have held past Presidents, accountable for this process.
  Certification also forces other countries to do the same thing. Now, 
what about those other countries? These are countries that are major 
drug producers or transiting countries for illegal drugs. A goodly 
percentage of those drugs are then smuggled into our country. These 
activities are illegal under international law and even under the laws 
of the countries from which the drugs come.
  In any case, these same countries have bilateral agreements with the 
United States committing them to take steps to stop drug trafficking 
and production. In addition, many of these countries receive U.S. 
assistance, that is money and support, to combat illegal drug 
trafficking.
  What does certification do then? It asks that these countries take 
serious steps to meet their obligations under international law, under 
local law, and under these bilateral agreements. It asks the 
administration to report to Congress on whether countries are doing 
this. It sets measures for determining what cooperation looks like. If, 
in the judgment of the administration, the country does not meet these 
standards, then it proposes limited sanctions. It also provides a means 
for Congress to exercise its foreign policymaking authorities to 
override the President if it does not accept his determination.
  It is hardly outrageous, Mr. President, that we expect other 
countries to abide by laws and by commitments, international and 
otherwise, made by those countries. It is hardly unfair to expect an 
assessment of these efforts. It is not unrealistic to expect that we 
will take appropriate responses if minimal standards are not met, and 
we are perfectly within our right to decide not to continue our 
support. That support, after all, is not an entitlement, and it is not 
beyond the pale that we ask for an accounting.
  Certification has been around for about 10 years. As with other 
cases, the longer the requirement has been on the books and the more 
Congress has insisted that it be taken seriously, the more used and 
useful the process has become. The process has gathered momentum. Last 
year, in fact, I asked the Congressional Research Service to review the 
merits of the certification process. That review, which is still 
available, makes clear how the certification process has matured and 
proved effective. In that review, a former senior State Department 
official and ambassador makes the point that the certification process 
works. Other countries take it seriously. He recommended keeping it.
  Not only has the standard been applied with more rigor, it has also 
encouraged greater cooperation from certified countries. All in all, 
more countries now take as a given that drug control must be an 
important element in their thinking. This was not always the case. It 
is why Congress required certification in the first place. The need has 
not changed. If anything, the need is greater today.
  I want to make one final point. Some have argued that we must not 
continue the certification process in regard to Mexico because it might 
damage the evolution of democracy there. While I agree that we must 
support democracy in Mexico, we must not end up supporting a 
narcodemocracy there. A recent New York Times piece by Tim Golden makes 
it clear just what the problems we and the Mexicans face from their 
drug traffickers because of their influence within the country of 
Mexico. Their strength and influence is all the more reason why we must 
not back away from certification.
  Although it can be a painful process, it forces both countries and 
their governments to examine their situations. Sometimes the role of a 
friend is to deliver bad news. Nor do we become the friend of democracy 
in Mexico by shying away from our duty to the American people. As long 
as Mexico remains a major producing and transiting country, as long as 
Mexican authorities cannot or will not take adequate steps to control 
corruption, we cannot afford to ignore what happens in Mexico.
  With these thoughts in mind, I ask you to vote against the Dodd-
McCain

[[Page S7570]]

amendment. But in addition, we were told again, referring to a letter 
from General McCaffrey, the President's drug czar, about his support 
for this amendment.
  I refer, in closing, to the March 1997 report from the U.S. 
Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs, the International Narcotics Control Strategy 
Report. This is an annual report, and on page 6, it speaks about the 
certification process. The last paragraph says: ``The process works.'' 
This is a document that has been approved by every Government agency 
that has something to do with the war on drugs. It says, after ``The 
process works'':

       The certification process has proved to be a remarkably 
     effective diplomatic instrument for keeping all governments 
     aware of the need to pull their weight in the international 
     antidrug effort.

  I ask unanimous consent that the rest of the paragraph be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       By now, most governments are aware that US law requires the 
     President to provide an annual assessment of counternarcotics 
     performance. And most know that the outcome of that 
     assessment depends heavily on their efforts throughout the 
     year. The drug certification process holds them publicly 
     responsible for their actions before their international 
     peers. Though many governments understandably resent the 
     process, most governments try to ensure that they receive 
     full certification the following year. They know that the 
     President of the United States would not make such a serious 
     determination without sound, objective evidence. The purpose 
     of the law is not to punish; it is to hold every country to a 
     minimum acceptable standard of cooperation, either by meeting 
     the goals and objectives of the 1988 UN Drug Convention or by 
     their own efforts. We believe that openness is one of the 
     best safeguards against corruption. Most governments also 
     recognize that we are not asking any country to do the 
     impossible. By regular and sustained collaboration throughout 
     the year we work with most of the governments concerned to 
     establish realistic goals for certification purposes. We know 
     that some governments face greater obstacles than others and 
     we take that into account.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in conclusion, when we are being read 
letters and saying how the administration supports this, remember that 
every agency within the Federal Government that had to review this 
process in March of this year said the process works. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to step back carefully 
and to analyze, as closely as possible, the realities that surround 
this question of certification. Two of the more capable and 
knowledgeable Senators with respect to international affairs--and I 
respect both of them enormously--are bringing this amendment to the 
floor. On most issues, we agree. This is one where I am convinced of 
the bona fides of their intent, but where I am equally as convinced 
that the effect of what they are doing, the effect of this amendment 
will be to take a serious step backward in whatever level of war on 
drugs you want to determine exists.
  I do not believe that that is anything but an inescapable conclusion 
based on a number of different realities: based on what countries are 
doing today because of the certification process, based on the choices 
available to the President within the certification process and, most 
important, based on what they are proposing, as opposed to the road 
that we have already traveled.
  What do I mean by that? Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona and 
the Senator from Connecticut are proposing that we just chuck the 
certification process for a 2-year period, a suspension they call it, 
while we gather a task force and ultimately, hopefully, a summit. Who 
will attend the summit is totally up for grabs. Who will appoint a task 
force is totally up for grabs. But I ask every Senator here who has 
traveled the journey of drug fighting over the last years to ask 
themselves if what they need is another task force when, in fact, 
everything that we are asking other nations to do is part of an 
international convention today.
  The certification process is not some American-dreamed up notion of 
taking an American standard and asking Mexico or some other country to 
live up to the American standard. We are asking countries to live up to 
the standard that they have signed, that they have agreed to live up to 
already, that they already got together on at a global summit under the 
United Nations and agreed would be the standard of their behavior. That 
is what this is all about.
  If the Senate wants to come here today and vote to say that they can 
better the Vienna Convention, the United Nations Convention Against 
Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, then I 
would like to know how.
  The countries that have already signed the international agreement 
are the very countries about whom today we are making a judgment about 
whether or not they are cooperating: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, 
Bahamas, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, Panama, Paraguay, Nigeria, 
Mexico, the Russian Federation, Syria --they are all signatories. They 
already came together. They already signed an agreement. They said they 
would behave by a different standard, and all we are doing in the 
certification process is saying we are going to make a judgment about 
whether or not the taxpayer dollars of U.S. citizens ought to go to a 
country that signed an international agreement, said it would do X, Y, 
and Z, but isn't doing it.
  What are we being offered instead? Instead, we are being offered the 
notion that we are going to chuck the process of certification so we 
can take a couple of years to meet again and come to agreement again on 
the very thing we agreed on, presumably, a number of years ago. What 
are the things we agreed on in this convention that we have already 
signed?
  Let me give you one example. Here is one called extradition. Each of 
the offenses to which this article applies shall be deemed to be 
included as an extraditable offense in any extradition treaty existing 
between the parties.
  We have an extradition treaty with Mexico. It is an agreement as part 
of the 1990 accord. We already ratified it. We signed it. They signed 
it. But they don't do it. So what is the response? The response is to 
come to the floor and say, ``Oh, gosh, these countries get really upset 
because we try to hold them to the standard they said they would live 
by, so we better pull back because they don't like the fact that we 
want to hold them to their word, and we're going to go talk about what 
we might do in order to, once again, get them to do what they already 
said they would do.''
  It is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. Of course, they 
don't like the certification process, because it works. This is not a 
stale annual event. It is anything but stale. It is working, and it is 
working, Mr. President, because we have taken it seriously.
  Senator Grassley just quoted the International Narcotics Control 
Strategy Report of the United States of America, this year, this March, 
1997. This is what our State Department said only a few months ago:

       The certification process has proved to be a remarkably 
     effective diplomatic instrument for keeping all 
     governments aware of the need to pull their weight in the 
     international antidrug effort. By now, most governments 
     are aware that U.S. law requires the President to provide 
     an annual assessment. . .

  And so on.
  ``Proved to be remarkably effective.'' This is Mexico driven, because 
we had a difficult time, frankly, because many of us thought that the 
administration made the wrong decision. They could have certified 
Mexico with a waiver, and that would have permitted Mexico to continue 
to get its aid because, as a matter of national security interests, 
most of us thought it should, but we also knew there were problems in 
cooperation.
  Mr. President, if my colleagues believe that the next step in the 
drug war is to come to the floor and take 2 years to go through some 
kind of task force effort to dream up some better way of holding these 
countries accountable, I would be amazed if there is any response from 
those other countries except continued delay, obfuscation. If they want 
our money and they are willing to do something to get our money, but we 
take away that whole requirement, what is going to leverage that 
cooperation? More talk? More good wishes? More signatures on a piece of 
paper that they have already signed?

[[Page S7571]]

  Let me share with my colleagues some of the things that they have 
already said they would agree to do.
  They would agree to promote cooperation among the parties so they may 
address more effectively the various aspects of illicit traffic in 
narcotic drugs.
  They will carry out their obligations under this convention in a 
manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and 
territorial integrity.
  Each party shall adopt measures as may be necessary to establish as 
criminal offenses the production, manufacture, and so forth.
  There are still nations struggling to do that.
  Each party is supposed to make the commission of the offense 
established in this treaty subject to imprisonment or other deprivation 
of liberty.
  They are supposed to ensure that their courts will have jurisdiction. 
They are supposed to ensure that they trade evidence. They are supposed 
to extradite. They are supposed to provide mutual assistance and the 
transfer of evidence and people. They are supposed to enter mutual 
legal assistance treaties.
  There are a whole bunch of things here that we already agreed we are 
going to do. And under the certification process, all we do is make a 
judgment as to whether or not they are doing it and as to whether or 
not we are going to give them continued American aid if they are not.
  Mr. President, let me just share with you, our colleagues have come 
to the floor and they have said, ``Gee-whiz, people are complaining. 
And this doesn't work.'' But they have not shown you how it does not 
work. There is no showing that this does not work.
  The fact that drugs still enter the United States is more a 
reflection of our unwillingness to commit adequate resources to drug 
treatment, to drug testing, to education, to alternatives for children, 
to police in the streets and all the things that would make more of a 
difference than it is to the certification process. But the fact is, 
that on the international front the certification process has worked.
  Let me be very specific about it.
  In the Bahamas, effective counternarcotics cooperation specifically 
intensified with the implementation of the certification process in 
1987. The Bahamian Government's willingness to accept more of our 
assets, U.S. Government assets, and to provide additional resources of 
its own in the fight increased the moment they knew they were subject 
to certification.
  In December of 1986, the Bahamas passed a new, tougher drug law. And 
more recently, in 1995 and 1996, the Bahamas passed money-laundering 
laws and implemented regulations based on U.S. Government certification 
related to demarches. The fact is, we had issued demarche after 
demarche to those countries, and they have responded to those because 
they knew there was a process in place that created accountability for 
the first time.
  Another example. Jamaica. The Jamaican Government was particularly 
slow to pass money-laundering legislation or to even ratify the very 
treaty that I just talked about. But as a result of the demarches that 
we issued, and using the leverage that existed in the certification 
process, Jamaica specifically reversed that situation in 1995 and 1996.
  Jamaica is now a party to the convention and has a new money-
laundering law. In 1995, the President gave Peru a national defense 
certification because their record was mixed. They had successful 
interdiction but they had no reduction in the coca crops. Since that 
time, the Government of Peru has implemented a strong coca reduction, 
an alternative development program which has resulted in an 18 percent 
reduction in the total of Peruvian coca cultivation. So that worked as 
a result of the decertification process.
  What about Colombia which we heard talk about? Colombia was 
decertified in 1996 and 1997. It received a national interest 
certification waiver in 1995. There is no question that the Colombians 
were very unhappy with the original decertification. Who would not be? 
But the fact of the matter is, that when they were faced with the 
ramifications of that decertification, the Colombian Government's law 
enforcement efforts have improved ever since then.
  Key Cali syndicate leaders have been arrested, and there is the 
aerial eradication of coca and opium and poppy which has improved. In 
addition to that, the longstanding constitutional prohibition against 
the extradition of Colombian nationals has now been reopened in the 
form of legislation presented by the Colombian Government to the 
Colombian Congress. Let me emphasize that. Colombia took away one of 
the principal ingredients of the international convention. The 
international convention required people to be able to extradite. 
Colombia wrote that in at the insistence, Mr. President, of the cartel. 
How do we know that? We know that because subsequent raids uncovered 
documents that showed the cartel's own drafting of the constitutional 
amendment to do away with extradition.
  So as a result of our decertification, we have been able now to move 
toward the process of changing the one thing that the cartel members 
fear the most, the possibility of being extradited to serve time in an 
American prison, not in one of their prisons of comfort and of personal 
convenience that they negotiate in Columbia. That is why they took it 
away. And now we are on the road to getting it back. Why? Because we 
had the certification process in place. That is why.
  I talked to General McCaffrey today. And I understand 
how administrations work and the marching orders are, but I will tell 
you, I sensed no great overpowering conviction that this is the right 
step to take, notwithstanding the letter that he has written.

  In addition to that, I believe that this process is being foisted on 
the Senate in a way that does not adequately permit for alternative 
possibilities. I am not suggesting the certification process is the 
only way to proceed. I am not suggesting that it is the best thing in 
the world. I am not suggesting that it cannot be refined.
  What I am saying, Mr. President, is that rather than just suspend it 
altogether with some high hope that you are going to come back and 
somehow do what we have already done, we ought to at least leave it in 
place until we offer some concrete alternative or put together a task 
force that works while it is in place so we can continue this process, 
and then if there is a legitimate substitute, open our minds to 
substituting it. But what we are being offered is a suspension with a 
hope that some future photo opportunity or some future meeting will 
produce what meetings heretofore have not been able to produce.
  I say to my colleagues, that even in Mexico--even in Mexico--the 
possibility that we might have decertified them actually produced last-
minute steps in an effort to try to say, gee, we really are 
cooperating. And so they dismissed some 1,250 Federal law enforcement 
officers, they removed the drug czar for narcocorruption in February, 
they passed the organized crime bill and the criminalization of money 
laundering and chemical diversions, and they reorganized Mexico's whole 
antidrug structure. How can you say it is not even working in Mexico 
when the fact is, that those steps were taken precisely because the 
decertification process is in place?
  I am not going to go through all of them now, but while my colleagues 
come here and talk about the discomfort that is created or talk about 
how uncomfortable it is for our relationship with these countries, you 
can look at every single other country, and you will see progress that 
is being made as a consequence of the existence of this bill. You can 
see it in Panama. You can see it in Bolivia. You can see it in 
Paraguay. And you can see it elsewhere, Mr. President.
  So the point is, the certification process is not a substitute for a 
comprehensive strategy to deal with drugs, but it is an effective tool 
which the State Department only a few months ago was lauding as an 
effective tool.
  And it seems to me that the hue and cry you hear from these 
countries, ``Gee, we don't like you holding us accountable,'' is in 
fact its best argument for the reality that this works. Is it a rough 
tool? Yes, I will admit, sure it is. It has its element of hardness in 
that sense. But Mr. President we have traveled this road for a long 
time--a long time.

[[Page S7572]]

  We have written a number of drug bills in our country. We have put 
additional cops on the streets. We are trying to augment our own drug 
strategy at home. But the fact is, that the domestic side is only one 
piece of any strategy to deal with drugs. You need effective law 
enforcement at home, you need effective education at home, and you need 
effective treatment at home.
  And we have been negligent with respect to a number of those. But 
that does not mean that you can turn around and throw away the other 
side of the coin, which is the interdiction and international 
cooperation which is also an important tool. And I respectfully suggest 
to my colleagues that the certification process deserves better than 
simply to be put into hanging suspension, with some promise of more 
talk that will only result in ratification ultimately of the very 
international agreement that it is based on.

  I emphasize to my colleagues, this is not some ``Yankee from the 
North'' standard. That is how they effectively play those politics. 
They very effectively do that. And then they complain to our diplomats 
when they go to Mexico, and they say, ``Oh, boy, you guys are stirring 
up the politics of our country because you're sort of imposing this 
standard on us.''
  Mr. President, it is not our standard. It is their standard. They 
signed the international treaty. And all we are doing is making a 
judgment of whether our tax dollars ought to be given to those 
countries that signed the agreement and then do nothing to live up to 
the standard. This is not our standard. It is the world's standard. 
They have signed on to it. They ought to live up to it. And we should 
not walk away from the one effective tool we have put in place that 
helps us hold on to that standard.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be brief. I know that the managers of the bill and 
everyone else wants to get votes and final passage on this issue. I 
think the issue has been pretty well ventilated.
  I will just make a couple comments. One is that a comment was made 
earlier about General McCaffrey. I think it is important to point out 
that no matter where we are on this issue --which side--that General 
McCaffrey deserves our respect and our admiration and appreciation. 
There was some allegation about his judgment of the Mexican general, 
and I think we all make mistakes from time to time. But the fact is 
that General McCaffrey has, in the view of all objective observers, 
done an outstanding job.
  The Senator from Massachusetts just made a reference to our tax 
dollars. The Senator from Massachusetts knows full well that no foreign 
aid goes to Mexico. The only money that goes to Mexico is strictly for 
the purposes of drug interdiction. That is the only money. In fact, the 
Mexicans pride themselves on not taking foreign aid from the United 
States of America. So I think it ought to be viewed in that context.
  But finally, Mr. President, when we vote on this I think the 
fundamental questions are as follows: Has the present policy succeeded 
in helping us win the war on drugs? Has the present process of 
certification or decertification raised the price of drugs in Phoenix, 
AZ, and Detroit, MI, and New London, CT, and Boston, MA? Has the 
present policy been instrumental in getting the kind of cooperation and 
assistance that we need from the Mexican Government and their 
officials? Has the present policy of certification, decertification, 
had any beneficial impact on stopping the drug trafficking which goes 
across our border in large quantities as we speak?
  Those are the questions that have to be asked. And if you believe 
that the present policy and certification has worked, and has proved a 
benefit and has been helpful or has been an ingredient in raising the 
price of drugs, winning the war on drugs, closing our border to the 
flow of drugs, increasing cooperation assistance on the part of the 
Mexicans, then I say vote against this pending amendment.
  But I say that the President's national security adviser, the drug 
czar, and many other experts throughout the country have said, look, 
let us try something different. Let us come up with some new ways which 
can address this terrible scourge that is destroying the youth of 
America. Let us try a new way.
  That is all this says. Let us try to be more effective. Let us try a 
way of suspending, simply suspending for 2 years, not abolishing, but 
suspending for 2 years the certification process in hopes that all of 
us together, the executive and legislative branch, working with the 
American people, can come up with a way of winning a war that it is sad 
to say, Mr. President, we are losing.
  If those who oppose this amendment think that what we are doing now 
works, fine. They are entitled to that opinion. But I do not believe 
that those we place in positions of responsibility in the executive 
branch of Government share that view, nor do most experts. The Senator 
from Connecticut read off the editorial comment from literally every 
major newspaper in America in favor of this amendment. And I do not 
blindly follow the advice and recommendations of all of the experts, 
nor the leaders of our administration and those we entrust to conduct 
of our national security policy and our drug policy. But I say, we 
ignore that advice and recommendation at some risk.
  So, Mr. President, I hope we can quickly dispense of further debate 
and vote on this.
  I thank the chairman and floor manager for his indulgence as we have 
discussed this very important issue. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we will be able to get a consent 
agreement to have a series of votes here shortly. I know Senator 
Coverdell is here and wants to speak to the Dodd-McCain amendment. We 
will offer a unanimous consent request for some votes on or around 6 
o'clock shortly.
  Mr. KERRY. I know the Senator from Georgia wants to speak. I will 
take 2 quick minutes, if I may.
  I answer the question the Senator from Arizona asked, which was the 
question about the effectiveness and price. The test of whether or not 
certification is effective is not just a reflection of what happens to 
the price of drugs or their availability. Everybody knows that 
interdiction is ultimately an impossible task. Drugs will come in. The 
question is, are you raising the cost of business sufficiently that the 
risks are great enough for those who engage in it that you have a 
legitimate effort to reduce it from scourge to nuisance? The truth is, 
Mr. President, there are a whole set of other questions you have to ask 
to really test that effectiveness.
  For instance, do they extradite people? Do they have a law of 
extradition? Do they have asset seizure and forfeiture laws? Have they 
implemented the laws of asset seizure and forfeiture? What kind of 
sentencing structure do they have? Do people actually serve time? Do 
they trade evidence with you? Do they create a mutual legal assistance 
treaty? There are a whole series of judgments here where, I suggest 
respectfully to my colleagues, the vast majority of the evidence is on 
the side of those who say this certification process is working because 
it has produced results in every one of those other areas of 
measurement.
  Now, the other point I make--I know that you have editorials. Sure 
you have editorials. I have read some of them. One comes from my own 
newspaper in Massachusetts. Most people that I have talked to about 
this process make the judgment that the reason they viscerally feel it 
is not a fair thing to do is they think we are implementing a standard 
that is just American, that we are sort of judging them and then, in a 
high-handed fashion, coming in and saying, ``Hey, you are not good 
enough for America.'' The point that I think needs to be reemphasized 
over and over that many are not aware of is, it is not an American 
standard, it is the internationally arrived at standard which they have 
agreed to live up to themselves. So we are really finding only one tool 
existed in the process.
  The last point I make is that this does not have to be as difficult 
as it was made this year with respect to Mexico. Most people, I think, 
came to the conclusion ultimately that, while they wanted to avoid a 
politically sticky situation, Mexico was not, in fact, capable of 
cooperating fully, and there were plenty of ways to praise the 
democratic process, plenty of ways to praise President Zedillo, plenty 
of ways

[[Page S7573]]

to bolster those who wanted to make it happen and provide a waiver that 
allowed them to be certified, but on the basis of national interest.
  Had that happened, there would have been no great fight in the U.S. 
Senate, and had that happened, we would not be here today putting to 
the test the one tool that has worked in helping us to hold the Vienna 
Treaty accountable.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I will not be supporting the Dodd-
McCain amendment, but I wanted to make several observations about the 
situation we are facing this evening.
  First, I want to commend Senator Dodd of Connecticut for his extended 
interest in this subject, for his cooperation and longstanding work on 
the matter. I am an admirer of his work. I believe, however, that this 
is not the way to close the circle on the long, extended debate on 
certification and that process.
  As chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I promised to 
hold hearings on the issue. As Senator Dodd knows, I have long said 
there are real questions about this process that need airing. I have to 
say I am somewhat disappointed by General McCaffrey and NSC Adviser 
Berger coming forward in this manner without a thorough discussion. I 
worked extensively, along with Senators Dodd, Kerry, McCain, Hutchison, 
and others, when this became so contentious before, and I think we 
ought to have had more notice with regard to their views on this than 
we have had.
  I want to point out that the certification process has had successes, 
as Senator Kerry has pointed out, and it has created issues and 
problems, as Senator Dodd has pointed out. There have been benefits and 
there have been problems. The idea of shutting the process down without 
a fix on where we are going to go bothers me. Senator Dodd and I have 
talked about an alliance. Well, maybe that would be an appropriate new 
place to go. But to just stop what we are doing without knowing where 
that new place is and in this manner, I don't think is appropriate.
  Mr. President, the certification process is not only about other 
governments. It has been a tool for the Congress to be at the table on 
these issues with our own executive branch. In fact, in the long debate 
over certification of Mexico, it did result in this letter from the 
President to myself and Senator Feinstein, and it makes an extensive 
outline.

  It says:

       I want to keep the Congress informed of the progress we are 
     making toward achieving the objectives set forth in my 1997 
     national drug control strategy and the U.S.-Mexico alliance 
     against drugs. Director McCaffrey will provide further 
     details on these issues to Members of both Houses in the near 
     future. My administration will also provide the Congress, by 
     September 1, [that is this September] 1997, a report covering 
     each of the issues contained in the Senate Resolution passed 
     in March as elaborated in your recent letter and discussions 
     with my administration.

  In other words, through the discussions about the process, the 
administration has told the Congress it is going to come with a full 
report and present it to the Congress in just a month and a half. It 
strikes me that we ought to see the report, hold the hearing, and then 
see what it points us toward--not just suddenly come forward and end 
the process before we have had the report. I have to say, Mr. 
President, if it were not for the process, I doubt we would have ever 
gotten this letter.
  The last point I make is, I just came from a hearing, a portion of 
which Senator Dodd was able to attend, but he had to return to the 
floor. The discussions by the various witnesses were exceedingly 
alarming. They described, on our border, armed conflict. They described 
drug cartels operating in military fashion--not a bunch of hooligans--
with the most sophisticated equipment, semiautomatic weapons, night 
goggles and sophisticated communication systems that allowed them to 
ambush our own agents. The testimony alluded to a growing number of 
occurrences, already 70 this year, of similar incidences--armed assault 
on U.S. Border Patrol, targeted agents, assassination threats.
  Senator McCain is correct, the status quo is not working. I believe 
the correct response is to hear from the administration as they 
promised, to hold our public hearings, to air the various ideas and 
concepts, and then come forward in an organized, methodical manner and 
hear where we go in the future. Senator Dodd and I agree completely 
that the status quo is unacceptable. We are just not quite on the same 
time line as to where we go from here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Dodd's 
amendment. The drug certification process is fatally flawed.
  Mexico was fully certified even though 7 percent of the cocaine and 
50 percent of the marijuana sold in the United States comes in through 
Mexico.
  Colombia wasn't certified, neither were other rogue states even 
though their contribution to the drug supply is not prominent. Under 
this process, our diplomatic friends get certified as ``fully 
cooperating,'' and rogue nations do not regardless of whether a country 
is a major contributor to the supply of drugs in the United States or 
not.
  I view the determination of which countries are cooperating as a law 
enforcement function, yet the State Department has prominent role in 
advising the President.
  This sense of the Senate amendment calls for the suspension of the 
drug certification procedures for two years. It calls for high-level 
task force to develop a comprehensive program for addressing domestic 
and international drug trafficking and fashioning a multilateral 
framework for improving international cooperation.
  It would put the Director of the National Drug Policy in charge of 
the task force.
  The amendment calls for the President to persuade other heads of 
state from drug producing countries and major drug transporting 
countries to establish similar task forces.
  Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment, the amendment 
calls for the President to convene an international summit.
  We need a better tool than the certification process.
  The new strategy has to focus on bringing the known traffickers to 
justice.
  Last year, I offered an amendment to withhold foreign aid to Mexico 
until Mexico either brought to trial themselves or extradited the ten 
most wanted drug lords living in Mexico.
  Two of the top ten are no longer heading up the big drug cartels.
  Juan Garcia Abrego was convicted in Houston and sentenced to 11 life 
sentences.
  Amador Carillo Fuentes, considered the wealthiest and most powerful 
drug baron died earlier this month. He was known as the ``lord of the 
skies'' because he owned a fleet of 727's which allowed him to 
transport drugs from Colombia to Mexico.
  His headquarters were in Juarez, a little more than an hour away from 
New Mexico.
  He died earlier this month, but this will not be the end of this 
cartel's influence and drug dealing.
  We have to do something more effective in this area.
  The new policy has to be primarily a law enforcement function.
  Enhanced extradition has to be an important part of the new policy.
  Comprehensive money laundering laws must be passed in all countries 
and officials must be trained to identify money laundering schemes and 
to enforce the laws.
  Young people need to be educated about the dangers of drugs.
  We can't solve this drug problem alone. We need international 
cooperation.
  This amendment provides a framework for a better, more aggressive 
policy.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dodd-McCain 
amendment.
  For the past 11 years, we have experimented with the policy of 
``certifying'' foreign countries as cooperating or failing to cooperate 
with our efforts against the international narcotics trafficking. That 
is a fair test for any policy. And it appears to me that the 
certification policy simply isn't working.
  Many countries we have decertified--Burma, for example, or 
Afghanistan--now produce significantly more narcotics than they did 
before. Cocaine, heroin, and marijuana are at least as easy to find on 
our streets today as they were in 1986. It is clear that, at best,

[[Page S7574]]

our decertification of these countries did nothing to stop them and 
their mafia organizations from producing narcotics.
  So certification has been an ineffective policy. And the Dodd-McCain 
amendment takes a sensible approach--it does not abolish certification, 
but suspends it while we try to work out a more effective approach. If 
there is nothing better out there, certification will go back into 
effect.
  Finally, in my view, annual debates over whether to certify various 
foreign countries has distracted us from the more fundamental problems 
we face here at home. That is, enforcing the laws. Putting drug dealers 
in jail. Rehabilitating drug users when possible. And stopping kids 
from trying drugs in the first place. If we can do those things, the 
actions of foreign countries will still be important, but they will be 
secondary issues.
  So I think Senator Dodd and Senator McCain have a good idea. We 
should take a second look at a policy that doesn't work very well. We 
should try and find a better one if we can. And we should get back to 
basics and solve our problems here at home.
  Mr. President, I have a full statement on the underlying bill and the 
importance of keeping up on our commitment to Israel and the Middle 
East. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at this 
time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Dodd-McCain 
amendment that will put this charade of certification aside and try 
something new in the war on drugs. I think, Madam President, all of us 
want the same result; we want to stop the illegal drugs from coming 
into our country. Today, 13 million Americans use illegal drugs; 1.5 
million use cocaine, 600,000 use heroin, and 10 million use marijuana.
  Madam President, it is coming in through Mexico. Twenty percent of 
the heroin, 70 percent of the marijuana in this country, and 50 to 70 
percent of the cocaine comes in through Mexico. This is under the 
process we have now--certification--which is insulting, which does not 
have any positive consequences and, I submit, really only has negative 
consequences.
  Madam President, how is the best way for us to attack the issue of 
illegal drugs coming in from Mexico? Is it to insult our neighbor? Is 
it to berate them? What does that give us? It gives us a hostile 
neighbor. Is that going to help? I hear people on this floor talking 
about Mexico as if it is 2,000 miles from our border. Madam President, 
Mexico is our border. We share family ties, we share a trade 
relationship, we share problems for both of our countries in illegal 
drug transit. It is bad for Mexico, it is bad for the United States. 
And I submit that we share friendship. We know Mexico is not doing 
enough; they know it. I have met with President Zedillo on this issue. 
I am convinced that he is trying to do everything he can. He is 
attacking this issue. Berating his country is not going to help the 
situation.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Dodd-McCain amendment. Let us 
try something new. Let us look for positive results in a partnership, 
not an adversarial relationship that cannot help us. It will not solve 
our problem and it could make worse problems on our border than we 
could ever foresee. Let's do something different; let's give it a 
chance. Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, [Mr. Gramm], is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, since 1986, we have had a policy called 
``certification,'' whereby we stand in judgment of our neighbors as to 
whether they are in fact making the best effort they can make in 
helping us keep drugs out of our country and helping themselves prevent 
drugs from corrupting their country.
  In the case of Mexico, we have declared through a Presidential 
certification, since 1986, for 11 years, that Mexico is making a full-
faith effort, and every year for 11 years we have suspected that it was 
not so. For the first 10 years of this process, I kept hoping things 
would get better, hoping for the best, voting to certify something that 
we suspected was not true but hoped that it would become true. This 
year, I decided that maybe we should try something different and deny 
certification. The President decided to move ahead with certification.
  The point I want to make is very simple: It can never be good public 
policy to put ourselves in a position where, in order to continue to 
work with our neighbors to try to keep drugs from coming into our 
country, we have to certify something that is not true. I think that, 
after 11 years, it has become clear that this process is not working. 
It puts us continually in a position of choosing whether to certify 
things that are not true. It seems to me that as a matter of national 
policy, just as well as a matter of personal policy, that can never be 
a good thing to do.
  I don't know whether certification was ever a good policy or not. But 
I think that after 11 years, we know it does not work. And I think 
setting the process aside for 2 years, giving us an opportunity to try 
to figure out what we are going to do in terms of a permanent policy, 
is the right thing to do.
  I agree with my colleague from Texas. If you want your neighbors to 
work with you, the worst thing you can do is slap them in the face.
  We are under a procedure now that does not work. I think it is time 
to change it. The proposal before us is simply to set it aside for 2 
years to figure out what we are going to do permanently. I think it is 
a reasonable proposal. I hope my colleagues agree.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request--
--
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for 2 minutes before he makes that 
request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, I have been listening for the last hour and a half, 
roughly, to all the argument against this amendment, except for my 2 
colleagues from Texas, to whom I am grateful for making their case. I 
want to make the case on behalf of Senator McCain and myself, and 
Senators Domenici, Cochran, Daschle, Kerrey, Warner, Inouye, Hutchison, 
and others who have supported this amendment, the cosponsors of the 
amendment. We have had 11 years. We didn't come up with this overnight. 
We have had 11 years. We have now 12.8 million people using illegal 
drugs in this country; 1.5 million cocaine addicts; 600,000 heroin 
addicts. What do we want to do, wait another year, another 2 years? Do 
you want that number to be 13 million drug addicts in the country? How 
about a million heroin addicts? When do we stop?
  The present system isn't working. We have decertified about 7 
countries over the last several years. If anything, we have had less 
cooperation--Afghanistan, Burma, Iran, Syria, Colombia--and what do we 
get back from it? If this is working so well, are these countries 
cooperating today? No, we are not getting cooperation. All we are 
getting is a deluge of drugs pouring into the country.
  So I don't disagree that maybe the certification may be the only 
answer. But how about for 24 months we try something else, after 11 
years, and if we get nothing but an increase in supply, lower costs, 
and the problem becomes worse and worse and worse, why don't we try 
something else? That is all Senator McCain and I are suggesting--for 24 
months, suspend the certification process. Listen to General McCaffrey; 
he supports what we are trying to do here. He doesn't have a silver 
bullet either. But maybe, just maybe, we might come up with a better 
idea and do so in a sense of cooperation with nations we are going to 
have to have cooperation from if we are going to succeed.
  So, Madam President, with all due respect, when I hear that this is 
coming sort of unannounced--and I listened today, as I was at those 
hearings as well, to those witnesses and I heard them as well. The 
situation is worse today than 6 months ago, a year ago, or two years 
ago, and it is getting worse. So how about trying something else, which 
is something we don't do terribly frequently around here; we stick with 
provisions and say you can't change them.

[[Page S7575]]

  We represent 5 percent of the world's population and we consume over 
50 percent of the illegal drugs in the world. Before we start lecturing 
everybody else, we ought to look in our own backyard and decide what we 
can do here at home as well.
  For those reasons, I urge our colleagues to give us a chance, with 
this modest proposal, to try something different. As General McCaffrey 
said in his letter, and Sandy Berger at the National Security Council, 
this deserves an opportunity to be tried. I urge my colleagues to do 
that.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Barry McCaffrey to Senator 
McCain and a letter from Samuel Berger to me be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of National 
           Drug Control Policy,
                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Wanted to confirm that the 
     Administration supports the Dodd-McCain legislation on 
     international drug cooperation. Believe your thinking 
     supports U.S. drug policy by recommending a mechanism that 
     would allow us to make fundamental improvements in the way we 
     cooperate with major drug producing and transit countries. At 
     a minimum, your bill promises to remove a major cause of 
     foreign policy friction, especially with Latin American and 
     Caribbean countries. Timing for consideration of new ideas is 
     fortunate because of the upcoming Summit of the Americas and 
     heightened interest in multilateral counter-drug cooperation 
     following the President's travel to Mexico, Central America 
     and the Caribbean.
       ONDCP is prepared to lead an interagency task force to 
     develop a new strategy. We must build on our National Drug 
     Control Strategy. We can accomplish the requirement to build 
     a more effective concept for multi-national cooperation in 
     the two years provided by your bill.
       Although we would want to explore a number of options, 
     elements of a new strategy might involve increased use of 
     multilateral mechanisms and international organizations such 
     as the OAS. We might also consider expansion of ad hoc 
     arrangements for in-depth bilateral counter-drug cooperation 
     with countries of particular interest such as Mexico. The 
     Department of State and ONDCP are already formulating plans 
     for a fall conference to develop new thinking along the lines 
     of your proposal.
       Thanks for your continued leadership on the drug issue.
           Respectfully,
                                               Barry R. McCaffrey,
     Director.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1997.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: I am writing to express the support of 
     the Administration for the amendment that you and Senator 
     McCain are proposing to S. 955, the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing and Related Operations Appropriations Bill 
     for FY '98.
       We believe your amendment would allow the Administration to 
     develop and implement a new multilateral strategy to stem the 
     flow of illegal narcotics. We believe the passage of this 
     amendment will lead to a more effective multilateral effort 
     in the war against drugs.
       I, therefore, urge the Senate to pass your and Senator 
     McCain's amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             Samuel R. Berger,

                                    Assistant to the President for
                                        National Security Affairs.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me say, before propounding this 
unanimous-consent request, we can see the light at the end of the 
tunnel. This unanimous-consent request has been cleared on both sides. 
We will have three votes beginning in about 10 minutes from now and 
that leaves very little left to do before final passage. So we are 
almost through.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I now be recognized for 
up to 8 minutes for an explanation of the amendment on Cambodia, which 
is at the desk, and further, following that debate, the Senate proceed 
to vote on or in relation to the McConnell amendment No. 886, the one I 
will describe shortly, to be immediately followed by a vote on or in 
relation to the McConnell amendment No. 887, also about Cambodia, which 
I anticipate will be voice-voted, to be immediately followed by a vote 
on or in relation to the Allard amendment No. 891, to be immediately 
followed by a vote on or in relation to the Dodd amendment No. 901. I 
further ask consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided 
prior to the remaining votes in the sequence. I finally ask unanimous 
consent that all votes in the sequence following the first vote be 
limited to 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, before the Senator from Kentucky 
continues, I also ask unanimous consent that Greg May, a fellow in 
Senator Feingold's office, be granted floor privileges for the 
remainder of the consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I join my friend from Kentucky and say 
that we do see light at the end of the tunnel. I urge Senators, if they 
really have something they feel is absolutely urgent for the good of 
the world and the Nation and their States and the Senate, and so forth, 
that they discuss it with the Senator from Kentucky and myself during 
these rollcall votes, so that we can wrap this bill up.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I might say that, other than the 
Hutchinson amendment, I am not aware of any other votes that we will 
need before going to final passage.
  When the subcommittee marked up this bill, the situation in Cambodia 
was grim. The Far Eastern Economic had labeled Phnom Penh, the Medellin 
on the Mekong. In a shocking series of stories, the Review described a 
nation's slide into corruption and the close collaboration between 
senior Cambodian officials and drug smugglers. Making matters worse, a 
senior officer said, ``Cambodia is now like Noriega in Panama. Nobody 
dares to speak out because they will be killed.''
  Journalists who have called attention to the corruption and smuggling 
have been fined, jailed, and assassinated. Days after running a story 
detailing the criminal kingdom built up by a close associate of Hun 
Sen, the newspaper's editor was gunned down midday in downtown Phnom 
Penh.
  However, this is not a situation which has just unraveled over the 
past month. This is a story which has unfolded over the past 2 years 
and unfortunately, U.S. Government officials and policy appear to have 
aided and abetted this sorry turn of events.
  As the committee report notes, the evidence of corruption and 
political violence is not new. Democracy has been under attack for the 
past 2 years.
  In testimony before the House International Relations Committee, the 
president of the International Republican Institute pointed out in 
1995, tiring of his attacks on their corruption, Government officials 
engineered the ouster from the party and Parliament of Sam Rainsy. The 
testimony then went on to say the following:

       Building on their success in removing one vocal critic, the 
     government has targeted up to six other parliamentary members 
     for expulsion . . . the number of newspapers is declining by 
     the month. Journalists are regularly harassed and beaten and 
     several have been killed . . . The government has been 
     largely successful in silencing all internal opposition and 
     criticism.

  Unfortunately, for the past 2 years as the problems mounted, the 
administration failed to use our assistance programs, strong ties, and 
close relationships to leverage reforms crucial to the country's 
survival.
  A few short months ago, in testimony before the subcommittee, AID's 
administration compared Mongolia and Cambodia, citing both as 
democratic success stories. At the same time, the lives of opposition 
candidates were being threatened, Hen Sen was actively thwarting all 
efforts to appoint independent judges or create a commission to 
establish the framework for the planned 1998 elections.
  When weeks of Mr. Atwood's testimony, 16 people were killed and 
another 120 wounded in a grenade attack on a public rally against 
corruption. Human rights organizations claimed this was a clear attempt 
to assassinate one of the Government's most vocal critics, Sam Rainsy.
  As the political violence escalated, the administration continued to 
endorse Cambodia as a responsible candidate to join ASEAN. Evidence 
that narcotics traffickers were subsidizing the leadership was 
dismissed. In May, in the face of overwhelming evidence that drug 
related corruption tainted

[[Page S7576]]

the most senior leaders in government, Secretary Albright testified 
before the subcommittee, that ``we are very careful in the way we do 
the certification'' and expressed confidence that Cambodia deserved to 
be recognized as fully cooperating in our international 
counternarcotics efforts.
  During his visit here this spring, Sam Rainsy, the critic who has 
been targeted by Hen Sen's henchmen, pleaded with the State Department 
to change course and move quickly to condition aid to his country--to 
take every step necessary to force Prince Ranariddh and Hen Sen back to 
the negotiation table--to make every effort to salvage what was left of 
his country's hope for democracy. He called attention to the 
increasingly public efforts both leaders were making to arm private 
militias--a sign, he warned of the civil conflict to come.
  While the administration continued to talk of Cambodia's success, the 
committee listened to the Cambodians and international observers who 
urged action to stop the slide toward war. In response to the 
deteriorating situation, we reported out a bill which required the 
Secretary to certify that four conditions had been met prior to the 
release of any additional assistance. Specifically, she had to 
determine that the Government had taken steps to: First, end political 
violence and intimidation of opposition parties and members; second, 
establish an independent election commission; third, protect the rights 
of voters, candidates and election observers and participants by 
establishing laws which guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly; and 
fourth, eliminate all official corruption and collaboration with 
narcotics smugglers.
  We had hoped that the Secretary would deliver a similar tough message 
during a planned June trip to Phnom Penh. Many of us held out the slim 
hope that she would be take on the important challenge of getting the 
two leaders to the table to work toward reconciliation and free and 
fair 1998 elections. I believe her planned visit represented the last 
window of opportunity to effect any change. Unfortunately, there were 
sufficient uncertainties about the outcome that prompted her advisors 
to recommend the visit be canceled--and with that, the window of 
opportunity slammed shut.

  The rest, as they say, is history.
  Since the coup, it is clear, the administration continues to be 
reluctant to challenge or confront Hun Sen. I think this is a serious 
mistake. It not only causes friends and allies to doubt our commitment 
to democracy, we risk further instability in a vital part of he world. 
If an interest in South East Asian stability does not persuade my 
colleagues of the merits of engagement, they might consider the need to 
see some good come out of the substantial bilateral and multilateral 
commitment we have supported which now exceeds $4 billion.
  To address the changes which have occurred since the bill was 
reported from committee, I would now like to offer two amendments which 
modifies the two Cambodia-related sections in the bill. They are 
virtually identical but affect two different spending accounts. In 
each, I have added a new condition which prohibits aid to Cambodia 
unless there is a certification that the Government has not been 
installed by the use of force or a coup.
  I understand that some of my colleagues believe there should be 
language linking aid to the restoration of a democratically elected 
government. In theory, I agree. However, given the fact that Hun Sen 
actually participated in the election, I believe the administration 
would continue on the wrong policy track and take advantage of such a 
provision and simply certify that an elected official was serving in 
office.
  Prince Ranariddh must be restored to office and his party must be 
given the opportunity to actively and freely engage in the political 
process. But that will not happen unless the Administration takes the 
first basic step and acknowledges that he has been the victim of a 
bold, ruthless military coup. These amendments compel the 
administration to make that decision.
  To address the changes which have occurred since the bill was 
reported, I have an amendment at the desk which adds a new condition 
banning aid until the Secretary certifies the government was not 
installed by force or coup.


                Amendments Nos. 886 and 887, As Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I now send modifications to 
amendments 886 and 887, which are already at the desk, and ask that 
Senators Kerrey of Nebraska and Hagel be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments will be so modified.
  The amendments (Nos. 886 and 887), as modified, are as follows:


                     amendment no. 886 as modified

       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; (5) 
     eliminated corruption and collaboration with narcotics 
     smugglers and; (6) been elected in a free and fair democratic 
     election: 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 
     Investigations, 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 as modified

       On page 96, line 20 strike all after the word ``Cambodia'' 
     through page 97, line 2, ending with the word ``smugglers.'' 
     and insert in lie 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; (5) eliminated corruption and 
     collaboration with narcotics smugglers and; (6) been elected 
     in a free and fair election.''

  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor along 
with Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy of amendments numbered 886 and 
887 to S. 955, the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 1998. These amendments will prohibit the Government of Cambodia 
from receiving financial assistance from the United States until the 
political violence is ended, the human rights of Cambodians are 
respected, and either the former coalition government is restored or 
free and fair democratic elections take place. These amendments will 
also ensure that the United States will oppose aid offered by 
multilateral financial institutions to Cambodia until those same 
conditions are met.
  The events of the past week in Cambodia have focused our attention 
again on a nation that has experienced tremendous suffering in the last 
30 years. Twenty years ago, the murderous reign of Pol Pot and his 
Khmer Rouge began in Cambodia. The genocidal Khmer Rouge regime 
imprisoned thousands of its citizens and executed an estimated one 
million people or 20 to 30 percent of the populace. I had hoped that 
such horrors had ended for Cambodia. Unfortunately, last week political 
intimidation and violence again erupted in the capital of Phnom Penh, 
ending the rule of law and bringing chaos and uncertainty to the 
nation.
  Recent press stories detailing the forced emigration and 
extrajudicial executions of opposition leaders highlight the gravity of 
the situation.
  It would be easy to turn our backs to a nation with such a dark past. 
But the poor and terrifying history of Cambodia should not influence 
our decision on whether to stay involved in Cambodia. The nation and 
the people of Cambodia are important to our national interests. The 
United States must stay engaged and continue to work for democracy and 
the rule of law in Cambodia. In 1991 a significant agreement was signed 
in Paris between the political factions in Cambodia which brought the 
promise of elected government and democratic institutions. Under the 
auspices of the United Nations and observer nations, elections were 
held in Cambodia in 1993. The clear desire of the Cambodian people

[[Page S7577]]

for democracy was shown by the participation of ninety percent of the 
population in those elections. In the four years since those elections, 
the people of Cambodia have worked to preserve their fragile democracy 
and the rule of law. Cambodia may have suffered a setback in its 
efforts to build strong democratic institutions. But it is not without 
hope.
  The United States should not abandon a people committed to the ideals 
of democracy and the rule of law. These amendments hold out the promise 
of renewed United States assistance to Cambodia once the political 
violence ends and an elected government takes power in Cambodia.
  Until these conditions are met, this legislation allows humanitarian 
assistance to be sent to Cambodia, but only if it is administered 
through non-governmental organizations and not the Government of 
Cambodia.
  It is my hope that the situation in Cambodia improves and our two 
nations can again work together to build a democratic Cambodia. If the 
coalition government is restored, these amendments permit the 
resumption of assistance to the Government of Cambodia. If elections 
are held in 1998 as planned, the United States may again provide 
assistance to a democratically elected government in Cambodia.
  While we can play a major role, the United States alone cannot help 
bring democracy and the rule of law in Cambodia. I fully expect the 
Administration to continue to work with the Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations [ASEAN], the United Nations, and donor nations to improve 
the situation in Cambodia. Other nations such as Thailand and Japan 
have played a major role in promoting democratic ideals in that nation. 
The United States needs to work with these nations to return a 
democratically-elected government to Cambodia and promote the 
institutional reforms that will bring peace and prosperity to a people 
who so desperately need it.


                     Amendment No. 886, As Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the McConnell amendment 
No. 886.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator yield a minute of his 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I yield such time as he may desire.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I strongly support what the Senator from 
Kentucky wants to accomplish with his amendment on Cambodia. There has 
been a violent coup, if the press reports are accurate, and we have no 
reason to believe they are not. Members of the opposition have been 
assassinated. Leaders in the opposition have been murdered. This is a 
violent coup.
  The amendment makes clear that assistance for nongovernmental 
organizations would be allowed to continue.
  I want to make sure we don't inadvertently prevent aid from resuming 
if the democratically elected government is restored. But I have no 
doubt, in that kind of situation, that the Senator from Kentucky would 
want to make clear--or, if that occurred, would want to join with some 
of us to make clear--that such aid would continue. But this has been a 
very violent coup. Opposition people are being silenced or killed. And 
I support the intent of the amendment by the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Vermont.
  Madam President, if I have any time, I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  The question now occurs on amendment No. 886, as modified, offered by 
the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell]. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     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
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Burns
       
  The amendment (No. 886), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 887, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate on amendment 887, as modified, offered by the 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate? I cannot 
even see the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope that Senators will listen to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope Senators will show respect to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this is an amendment previously 
discussed before the vote started. I am prepared to take a voice vote 
on it. It is noncontroversial and I think supported by my colleague.
  Mr. LEAHY. I join with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky in 
that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 887), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 891

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There now will be 2 minutes of debate on 
amendment No. 891 offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank you. In 1994, OPIC's lending 
authority for its insurance financing was last raised and has been 
frozen ever since. Since that time, the administration----
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I do not know whether other Senators can 
hear or not. I cannot. May we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate is not in 
order. The Senate will be in order. Senators will please cease their 
conversations or take their conversations to the Cloakrooms.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.
  In 1994, OPIC's lending authority for its insurance and financing was 
last raised and has been frozen since then. On the administrative cost 
side, we have seen a growth during that period, when their authority 
was limited, from $20 million to about $32 million. This amendment just 
takes the administrative cost back to the 1994 level. It is a

[[Page S7578]]

reduction of $11 million in administration. I ask for a yea vote.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this in many ways would cut off our nose 
to spite our face.
  I oppose this amendment but I see the Senator from Nebraska, who had 
spoken earlier, and I will yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.
  I again say what I said this afternoon regarding my good friend and 
real neighbor next to me. His amendment I think at best is 
shortsighted. I came to this body with the background of a small 
businessman, Madam President. I know a little something about OPIC. I 
have marketed companies, built companies, that have worked around the 
world. I understand the importance of what OPIC is. This is an 
organization that, in fact, sends money back to the Treasury each year. 
This is an organization that creates jobs. It has a tremendous ripple 
effect all across this country. And as we are able to export American 
technology and products abroad, the support for all of those products 
comes from American companies in each of our States. I respectfully 
request that my colleagues vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announced 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 ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Coats
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--64

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Burns
       
  The amendment (No. 891) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will be in 
order.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask the Presiding Officer, what is the parliamentary 
situation?


                           Amendment No. 901

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate equally divided on the Dodd amendment No. 901. The 
Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am going to yield 30 seconds to my 
colleague from Arizona.
  This amendment, offered by myself, Senator McCain and many others, 
suspends for 24 months the voting on the certification process. All the 
reports are collected, but this is an opportunity, as General McCaffrey 
says in his letter endorsing this amendment, this gives us time to try 
something different. After 11 years, the problem has gotten worse. We 
need to try a different dynamic. This will give us 24 months to try it. 
We urge the adoption of the amendment.
  I yield to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield 1 minute in opposition to the 
amendment to Senator Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe the Senator from Arizona was 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, the certification process is not 
perfect. The Foreign Relations Committee has committed to hearings on 
this. That is the appropriate venue to discuss it. We should not 
suspend the process without the new place to go or the new system being 
in order. We send the wrong message at the wrong time, and I urge my 
colleagues not to suspend and leave no system in place.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I would like to see if we can get a 
unanimous consent agreement, and if we can, we can tell the Members we 
will not have any further votes tonight. I have discussed this with the 
distinguished Democratic leader. I do have one other amendment I have 
to put in the stack. We may work something out on it, but in case we 
cannot, we need to have the vote in the morning.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the Bingaman amendment 
No. 896 at 9:30 a.m.--let me modify that. Let's put that at 10 o'clock 
on Thursday--to be followed immediately by a vote on the Hutchinson 
amendment, to be followed immediately by third reading of the bill and 
final passage, all occurring without action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I assume that we will have 2 minutes 
equally divided for debate on the amendment before voting?
  Mr. LOTT. I amend the UC to make it clear to have, what has become 
customary, 2 minutes for a final explanation of what is in the 
amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Will these be 10-minute votes after the first one?
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we intend to have 10-minute votes after 
the first vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, the Bingaman amendment would be a 
change in policy toward Cuba and we would have only 2 minutes to 
discuss that relative to its merits.
  Mr. LOTT. There will be debate on that issue further tonight. The 
question was, would there only be 2 minutes for debate on the Bingaman-
Graham amendment. I believe there would be further discussion on that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As long as Senators would like to discuss it.
  Mr. LOTT. Tonight.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Would it be possible to ask, given the interest of 
many on this and the impact this would have on American policy toward 
Cuba, that we might, in this instance, ask for 5 minutes on each side 
to make our positions clear to Members before they vote?
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I amend the UC to ask consent that we have 
10 minutes equally divided on both the Bingaman amendment and the 
Hutchinson amendment if that time is required, with the debate on those 
to begin shortly after we come in at 9:30, and then the vote to begin 
at 10 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

[[Page S7579]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand Senator Specter has a 
problem, and we will hear from him in a few minutes. He is apparently 
on his way.
  Mr. LOTT. I didn't hear any objection.
  I think it is unfortunate we are not going to be able to get a 
unanimous-consent agreement now. By not doing so, we may have a 
proliferation of amendments, and we may have to go on later tonight. We 
have really been working very well across the aisle to avoid this sort 
of problem, but I don't think we can resolve it right now.
  So, we can proceed with this vote and see if we can work out an 
understanding as to how we will proceed later on tonight or in the 
morning, and we can try the unanimous consent request again after the 
vote. We cannot assure Senators at this point that there will be no 
further votes tonight.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the leader will yield, in the interest of 
accommodating a lot of our Senators who have made plans, could we at 
least give them assurance that between now and 9:30 there will be no 
votes tonight?
  Mr. LOTT. If I could, I appreciate the Democratic leader's efforts. 
His effort has been about like mine--not too good yet.
  [Laughter.]
  Let's have the vote and work on this during the vote and try to get a 
UC after the vote.
  I believe we have the yeas and nays on this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 901

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The question is on 
agreeing to the Dodd amendment No. 901. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Warner

                                NAYS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Burns
     Glenn
       
  The amendment (No. 901) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreements

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 
on or in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 896 at 10 a.m. on 
Thursday, to be followed immediately by a vote on or in relation to the 
Hutchinson amendment No. 890, to be followed by third reading of the 
bill and final passage occur all without further debate or action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask there be 10 minutes equally divided for 
debate relative to the Bingaman and Hutchinson amendments prior to each 
vote with respect to the amendments that are pending.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, does the leader also intend 
to ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays that have been 
ordered on the underlying amendment, or ask to have it withdrawn?


                      Amendment No. 900, Withdrawn

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dodd 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 900) was withdrawn.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask that when the Senate receives the House 
companion bill, the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration and 
all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 955, as 
amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read for a third time 
and passed and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference 
with the House on the disagreeing votes and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I 
understand this agreement, it does not prevent us from going ahead and 
facilitating the passage of some agreed-to amendments this evening. 
There are two Senators here with amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. It does not in any way prevent that.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I don't expect to object, 
what is S. 955?
  Mr. LOTT. The foreign ops bill.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. There will be no further votes this evening. The next votes 
will occur at 10 a.m. on Thursday.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 902

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the European 
     Commission's handling of the Boeing McDonnell Douglas merger)

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have an unprinted amendment at the desk 
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 902.

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

       The Boeing Company and McDonnell Douglas have announced 
     their merger; and
       The Department of Defense has approved that merger as 
     consistent with the national security of the United States; 
     and
       The Federal Trade Commission has found that merger not to 
     violate the anti-trust laws of the United States; and
       The European Commission has consistently criticized and 
     threatened the merger before, during and after its 
     consideration of the facts; and
       The sole true reason for the European Commission's 
     criticism and imminent disapproval of the merger is to gain 
     an unfair competitive advantage for Airbus, a government 
     owned aircraft manufacturer;
       Now therefore, It is the Sense of the Senate that any such 
     disapproval on the part of the European Commission would 
     constitute an unwarranted and unprecedented interference in a 
     United States business transaction that would threaten 
     thousands of American aerospace jobs; and
       The Senate suggests that the President take such actions as 
     he deems appropriate to protect U.S. interests in connection 
     therewith.

  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent Senators Murray and Boxer be 
added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is a last-minute amendment and I 
greatly appreciate the indulgence of the managers, but it is of vital 
importance. It now is increasingly evident, overwhelmingly evident, 
that the European Commission is going to attempt to reject the Boeing-
McDonnell Douglas mergers in spite of the fact that the Department of 
Defense feels this is a significant step forward for our national 
defense, in spite of the fact the Federal Trade Commission has not 
determined there are any trade violations in connection therewith.
  That decision on the part of the European Commission seems to have 
been made in the absence of any evidence

[[Page S7580]]

and before any evidence was submitted to it and solely on behalf of 
creating a competitive advantage for Airbus. If it should hold, it will 
have a seriously adverse impact on employment in the United States, 
particularly with the Douglas portion of McDonnell Douglas, which could 
not survive unaided or unmerged.
  This resolution simply states those facts and states that any such 
disapproval would be an unwarranted and unprecedented interference in a 
business decision appropriately made in the United States and suggests 
to the President he take such actions as he deems necessary under the 
circumstances.
  I will make more extensive remarks on this issue sometime tomorrow, 
but I appreciate the support of my colleagues on a matter of great 
importance to employees in many States throughout the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 902) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay it on the table.


                           Amendment No. 898

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment numbered 898 to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 898.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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:

     SEC.  . RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE MADE TO THE PALESTINIAN 
                   AUTHORITY.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be obligated or expended with respect to 
     providing funds to the Palestinian Authority, unless the 
     President certifies to Congress that:
       (1) the Palestinian Authority is using its maximum efforts 
     to combat terrorism, and, in accordance with the Oslo 
     Accords, has ceased the use of violence, threat of violence, 
     or incitement to violence as a tool of the Palestinian 
     Authority's policy toward Israel;
       (2) after a full investigation by the Department of 
     Justice, the Executive branch of Government concludes that 
     Chairman Arafat had no prior knowledge of the World Trade 
     Center bombing; and
       (3) after a full inquiry by the Department of State, the 
     Executive branch of Government concludes that Chairman Arafat 
     did not authorize and did not fail to use his authority to 
     prevent the Tel Aviv cafe bombing of March 21, 1997.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides that none of the 
funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Palestinian 
Authority shall be paid over to the Palestinian Authority unless the 
President certifies to the Congress, first, that the Palestinian 
Authority is using its maximum efforts to combat terrorism in 
accordance with the Oslo accords, has ceased the violence or threat of 
violence or incitement of violence as a tool of the Palestinian 
Authority.
  Second, after full investigation by the Department of Justice, the 
executive branch of Government concludes that Chairman Arafat had no 
prior knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing.
  Third, after a full inquiry to the Department of State, the executive 
branch of Government concludes that Chairman Arafat did not authorize 
and did not fail to use his authority to prevent the Tel Aviv cafe 
bombing of March 21, 1997.
  Mr. President, this amendment would not impact upon the expenditures 
of U.S. funds for projects like water authorities or other projects 
which go to the people who are now directed to receive these funds, but 
to articulate with precision, would only involve the moneys which would 
be paid to the Palestinian Authority.
  It may well be that there is no intent to pay money now in the 
pipeline for the Palestinian Authority, but I must say, Mr. President, 
that after making substantial efforts to find out exactly what is going 
on in the administration, I have been unable to make that 
determination. But whether or not there is an intent by the 
administration not to pay money in the pipeline to the Palestinian 
Authority, it is my view that this amendment is necessary as a matter 
of policy.
  With respect to the issue of Chairman Arafat's knowledge of the Trade 
Center bombing, a report has been made by Deputy Education Minister 
Moshe Peled of Israel that Arafat had prior knowledge of the bombing of 
the Trade Center in New York City in 1993.
  I have asked the Department of Justice, Mr. President, to conduct an 
investigation to determine whether or not that is true.
  I ask unanimous consent the correspondence be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my statement as if read in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)


                               Exhibit 1

  Mr. SPECTER. The essence of the matter is that this issue has been 
raised by a responsible Israeli official, and if Arafat in fact had 
prior knowledge of the bombing of the Trade Center, he may well be an 
accessory before the fact, or a coconspirator, and if that is so, he 
would be extraditable to the United States under provisions of our 
terrorist legislation passed in 1984 and 1986.
  It is simply unsatisfactory and intolerable to have that issue 
outstanding and be providing funding for the Palestinian Authority.
  The issue has also been raised on the bombing of the Tel Aviv cafe on 
March 21, 1997, as to whether Chairman Arafat and the PLO made a 
maximum effort to stop that kind of terrorism. Immediately after the 
bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Arafat gave a green 
light to that bombing. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 
appeared before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee in our hearing this 
spring, she responded that Arafat had not given a green light, but 
neither had he given a red light. Under the provisions of the amendment 
introduced by Senator Shelby and myself, Arafat has an absolute 
obligation, along with the PLO, to make the maximum effort to fight 
terrorism.
  I have written to Secretary Albright on this subject, and I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of my letter be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)


                               Exhibit 2

  Mr. SPECTER. It is unsatisfactory, Mr. President, if Arafat did 
anything but put down a red light to stop the bombing of the Tel Aviv 
cafe which killed three Israelis and wounded dozens more, estimated to 
be approximately 40 other Israelis. There ought to be absolutely no 
doubt that if any funding is to come from the U.S. taxpayers to the 
Palestinian Authority, there be a certification by the President, based 
on evidence that Yasser Arafat was not a party to, did not know about, 
was not an accessory before the fact, or a coconspirator on the bombing 
of the Trade Center in 1993 and he, in fact, made the maximum effort 
which would require a red light on the bombing of the Tel Aviv 
restaurant.
  It is my understanding, Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable 
to both managers of the bill.

                               Exhibit 1

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 1997.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: This is in response to your letter to 
     the Attorney General dated April 1, 1997. Your letter 
     encloses a news article from The Jerusalem Post in which it 
     is reported that Yasser Arafat may have had prior knowledge 
     of the bombing of the World Trade Center building on February 
     26, 1993.
       Aside from the news report enclosed with your letter, the 
     Department of Justice is unaware of any information that 
     Yasser Arafat either had prior knowledge of the bombing of 
     the World Trade Center or was in any way involved in the 
     conspiracy to bomb the building. We have queried the Israeli 
     authorities about this information and they deny the accuracy 
     of the statements attributed in the article to the Deputy 
     Education Minister.
       I hope this information is helpful. If we can be of further 
     assistance with regard to this or any other matter, please do 
     not hesitate to contact this office.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Andrew Fois,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

[[Page S7581]]

     
                                                                    ____
                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General,
     Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Reno: By letter dated April 1, 1997, 
     (copy enclosed) I wrote to you concerning Israeli Deputy 
     Education Minister Moshe Peled's statement that Palestinian 
     Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat had prior knowledge of the 
     1993 plot to bomb New York City's World Trade Center.
       By letter dated April 29 (copy enclosed) Assistant Attorney 
     General Andrew Fois responded with a very generalized 
     statement about having ``queried the Israeli authorities.'' 
     No mention was made whether the Department of Justice talked 
     to Deputy Education Minister Moshe Peled or did any real 
     pursuit on the matter.
       Since I do not speak Hebrew, my assistant, David Brog, 
     Esquire, talked to Mr. Peled. Mr. Peled said that he was not 
     prepared to disclose any more information on Chairman 
     Arafat's connection in the World Trade Center bombing beyond 
     what he told the Jerusalem Post. Mr. Brog said that Mr. Peled 
     was not flexible on this point and that he (Mr. Brog) had the 
     impression that Mr. Peled had gotten into some trouble for 
     his previous disclosure.
       I am interested to know whether the Department of Justice 
     talked to Mr. Peled before Mr. Fois's letter to me of April 
     29. If so, what he said. If not, why wasn't Mr. Peled 
     questioned.
       I considered this an extremely serious matter. As you know, 
     Chairman Arafat could be extradited to the United States if 
     there is evidence to support Mr. Peled's charge.
       I formally request the Department of Justice to conduct a 
     real investigation on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                                                    ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 1997.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General,
     Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Reno: Just yesterday I saw a news 
     report that Israeli intelligence has evidence that 
     Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat had prior 
     knowledge of the 1993 plot to bomb New York City's World 
     Trade Center which killed six people.
       That news report quoted Deputy Education Minister Moshe 
     Peled stating:
       ``More than that, he [referring to Arafat] was part of the 
     discussions on the operation.''
     The news report further said that Arafat was privy to the 
     conspiracy and met with Sudanese and Islamic terrorist 
     leaders.
       With this letter, I am enclosing for you a photostatic copy 
     of the news report from the Jerusalem Post on March 26.
       I would very much appreciate it if you would conduct the 
     appropriate investigation to determine what evidence exists, 
     if any, of Arafat's complicity in this matter.
       It appears to me that, if true, Arafat would be 
     prosecutable under U.S. criminal laws. I would appreciate 
     your advice as to what indictments could be brought as to 
     Chairman Arafat.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                                                    ____


                               Exhibit 2


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1997.
     Hon. Madeleine Albright,
     Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Albright: According to the weekend press 
     reports, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated 
     that Palestinian Chairman Yassir Arafat has indirectly given 
     a green light to the terrorists resulting in the suicide bomb 
     which killed and wounded many Israelis last Friday.
       According to the news reports, Chairman Arafat and the 
     Palestinian authority released Ibrahim Maqadmeh. Prime 
     Minister Netanyahu further stated that Chairman Arafat and 
     the Palestinian authority have failed to detain known 
     terrorists and to confiscate weaponry.
       In my judgment, it is very important for the State 
     Department to make a factual determination as to whether 
     Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian authority did give a 
     green light indirectly to the terrorists and whether there 
     was a failure to detain known terrorists and to confiscate 
     weaponry.
       I would appreciate your advice, as promptly as possible, on 
     your Department's conclusion as to whether Chairman Arafat 
     and the Palestinian authority gave an indirect green light to 
     the terrorists.
       As you know, an amendment offered by Senator Shelby and 
     myself to the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 
     conditions the $500 million in U.S. aid to the Palestinian 
     authority on presidential certification that the Palestinian 
     authority is complying with all of its commitments under its 
     peace accords with Israel, including its commitment to 
     prevent acts of terrorism and undertake ``legal measures 
     against terrorists, including the arrest and prosecution of 
     individuals suspected of perpetrating acts of violence and 
     terror.''
       The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign 
     Operations, on which I sit, will soon be considering this 
     issue for fiscal year 1998 so I would appreciate your prompt 
     response.
       In addition, I would appreciate your advising me as to 
     whether there is any U.S. aid in the pipeline which has not 
     yet been turned over to the Palestinian authority. If so, I 
     request that such payments be withheld until the 
     determination as to whether the Palestinian authority is 
     complying with the Specter-Shelby amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 898) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have passed, have we, the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton]?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We agreed to the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Did that show the other distinguished Senator from 
Washington as a cosponsor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                                 Egypt

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the hour is late, and I know a number of 
our colleagues, Senator DeWine in particular, has been very gracious or 
anxious to discuss some important issues.
  I just rise for a few moments to discuss the role of Egypt in the 
Middle East process. I think we all understand the dream of peace in 
the Middle East is going to take courage, patience and commitment from 
all of the countries in the region. Unfortunately, Egypt, the second 
largest recipient of U.S. aid, has taken a number of actions of late 
which seem more likely to undermine the peace that grew out of Anwar 
Sadat's courageous decision to go to Israel.
  I rise, therefore, with several other colleagues, questioning several 
of these actions by Egypt, a long-time recipient of substantial amounts 
of U.S. foreign assistance. These actions, in my view, raise serious 
questions, especially when they seem to contradict U.S. efforts to 
secure a lasting peace in the Middle East. Specifically, I am troubled 
by Egypt hosting an Arab League summit in Cairo earlier this year in 
which Egypt supported the renewal of the Arab League boycott of Israel. 
This represents a clear violation of the Israeli-Egyptian peace 
treaty. U.S. policy has long sought to end the boycott. Yet, in this 
situation there is a recipient of U.S. aid that supports it. I am also 
troubled that Egypt has emerged as Libyan Leader Qadhafi's most 
important advocate internationally.

  Egyptian President Mubarak has publicly stated that Egypt does not 
produce chemical weapons, that Libya does not produce chemical weapons. 
He has advocated easing United States sanctions on Libya, and he has 
violated the U.N. ban on air travel by allowing Qadhafi to fly to the 
Arab summit in Cairo.
  What is particularly of distress to this Senator is President Mubarak 
was the only leader to decline President Clinton's invitation to attend 
an October Middle East summit in Washington to revise the peace process 
and to end ongoing violence.
  Most recently, Mr. President, and colleagues, we have seen some 
efforts by top Egyptian officials to take actions to reinvigorate the 
peace negotiations. I am very hopeful that those recent actions will be 
a signal that Egypt intends to play a more constructive role in the 
days ahead, in terms of producing a lasting peace. I have been 
especially pleased to see the strong, bipartisan support here in the 
Senate for the Middle East process, and for the good work begun in 
Oslo, and I am very hopeful that Egypt will see that there is strong 
concern right now in the United States Senate about a number of their 
actions of late and that the Congress will be monitoring those actions 
carefully.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 903

       (Purpose: To limit assistance for Haiti unless certain 
     conditions are satisfied)

[[Page S7582]]

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, 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 Ohio [Mr. DeWine] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 903.

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

       On page 10, line 4, strike ``Institute.'' and insert 
     ``Institute: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading for Haiti, up to $250,000 may be 
     made available to support a program to assist Haitian 
     children in orphanages.''.
       On page 18, line 2, before the period insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated under 
     this heading, not less than $500,000 shall be available only 
     for the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) of the Haitian 
     National Police''.
       On page 93, strike lines 7 through 24 and insert the 
     following:


                   limitation on assistance for haiti

       Sec.   . (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be provided to the 
     Government of Haiti unless the President reports to Congress 
     that the Government of Haiti--
       (1) is conducting thorough investigations of extrajudicial 
     and political killings;
       (2) is cooperating with United States authorities in the 
     investigations of political and extrajudicial killings;
       (3) has made demonstrable progress in privatizing major 
     governmental parastatals, including demonstrable progress 
     toward the material and legal transfer of ownership of such 
     parastatals; and
       (4) has taken action to remove from the Haitian National 
     Police, national palace and residential guard, ministerial 
     guard, and any other public security entity of Haiti those 
     individuals who are credibly alleged to have engaged in or 
     conspired to conceal gross violations of internationally 
     recognized human rights.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) does not 
     apply to the provision of humanitarian, electoral, counter 
     narcotics, or development assistance.
       (c) Waiver.--The President may waive the requirements of 
     this section on a semiannual basis if the President 
     determines and certifies to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress that such waiver is in the national interest of the 
     United States.
       (d) Parastatals Defined.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``parastatal'' means a government-owned enterprise.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my amendment is an attempt to strengthen 
our aid program to the troubled republic island of Haiti. It would help 
make sure that United States assistance is properly targeted, so it can 
be more readily effective in areas vital to United States interests.
  Mr. President, my amendment does three things. No. 1, it provides up 
to $250,000 for a program to assist Haitian children currently in 
orphanages. Today, Mr. President, Catholic Relief Services [CRS], and 
the Adventist Development and Relief Agency [ADRA] support thousands of 
Haitian children. They basically administer AID Food. There are 
thousands of children who are receiving one meal a day because of AID 
assistance that is administered through both CRS and the ADRA. It is 
vitally important that this assistance continue.
  Mr. President, my amendment does not deal directly with this food. 
What it does deal with is the bigger problem of the orphanages of 
Haiti. I have had the opportunity to visit at least 12 of these 
orphanages in Haiti over the last few months. There are at least 70 
such orphanages just in the Port-au-Prince area alone, containing 
thousands of children. It is something to see and something to behold 
to see the work that is being done. These orphanages would break a 
person's heart, and does, when you see the children who are there. This 
amendment sets aside a relatively small amount of money to look at this 
problem from the long range.
  Frankly, Mr. President, due to lack of resources the orphanages in 
Haiti cannot take in many of the needy children. This amendment would 
provide much-needed resources to help alleviate the demand on these 
orphanages, by helping take care of the children in other ways.
  Clearly, what these children need, in the final analysis, is not just 
temporary shelter, but permanent placement in safe, stable homes where 
they can count on food and clothing. The funds provided by this 
amendment would help make that permanent home a reality for more of 
Haiti's children. It would do this by bringing about some coordination 
among the orphanages and coordination with respect to our AID mission.
  Mr. President, the second part of our amendment would specify that no 
less than $500,000 be made available, and made available only for the 
Special Investigation Unit, the SIU, of the Haitian national police.
  Mr. President, in my visits to Haiti I have talked with members of 
the SIU, and I talked with the American contract officer who is down 
there assisting the SIU unit. One of the things that we have observed 
and that this country has promoted in emerging democracies is the 
belief that if a country is to emerge as a democracy, whether it be 
Haiti, whether it be Bosnia, wherever in the world, that the country 
has to turn its back on its past and has to stop tolerating political 
murders, political killings, political crimes, whether they occur from 
the left or from the right. The SIU unit has a very specific task. Its 
task is to target these political murderers, to bring them to justice, 
and to see that they are successfully tried. By doing that, and only by 
doing that, Mr. President, can we effectively see justice in these 
emerging democracies. And only by doing this can the people of the 
country understand that democracy not only means free elections, but 
democracy also means justice, and these days of political killings must 
be over.
  It is important, Mr. President, that support for the SIU 
investigations continue as investigators build compelling cases against 
those who have used brutal force to achieve, in the past, political 
goals.
  Mr. President, over 80 extrajudicial and political killing cases have 
been assigned to the SIU by the Government of Haiti. The Government has 
requested that close to two dozen of those cases be investigated on a 
``priority basis.'' However, sadly, not enough progress has been made 
on these high-profile political murder cases. In fact, to date, none of 
the cases have been successfully prosecuted.
  Mr. President, the SIU is being integrated slowly into the newly 
formed judicial police and is receiving more and more political 
support, and support from the Haitian people. The people of Haiti want 
to turn the corner on their long history of political violence. 
Continued assistance and targeted assistance to the SIU would 
strengthen Haiti and strengthen United States-Haiti relations as well.
  No. 3, and probably most important. This amendment would limit 
assistance to Haiti, unless four conditions are met:
  Funds are made available if the President reports to Congress that 
the Government of Haiti, No. 1, is conducting thorough investigations 
of extrajudicial and political killings; No. 2, is cooperating with the 
United States authorities on this matter; No. 3, has made progress in 
privatizing major Government-owned enterprises, including progress 
toward the material and legal transfer of ownership of these 
enterprises; finally, No. 4, that the government is taking action to 
remove from the Haitian national police, and from related agencies, 
individuals who are alleged, credibly alleged, to have engaged in or 
conspired to conceal gross human rights violations.
  Now, Mr. President, in essence, my amendment is designed to make 
clear that Congress does not intend United States assistance to Haiti 
to be viewed as unconditional. In fact, the first two conditions that I 
have just mentioned were already imposed by Congress in the form of an 
amendment sponsored by our distinguished colleague, former majority 
leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Bob Dole. By adding the new third 
and fourth conditions, this amendment strengthens the Dole amendment 
that currently governs our policy toward Haiti.
  Now, the limitations I propose will not apply to the provision of 
humanitarian, electoral, counternarcotics, or developmental assistance, 
and it does, as the Dole amendment does, contain a ``national 
interest'' presidential waiver.
  Mr. President, the amendment currently in force which limits 
assistance to Haiti, the Dole amendment, has been waived four times 
over the last two years by this administration.
  I believe the conclusion is clear. To make sure United States 
interests in Haiti are protected, that amendment

[[Page S7583]]

needs to be strengthened. That is the purpose of this amendment that I 
am offering today.
  Mr. President, Haiti is now in the midst of a political crisis. The 
resignation of Prime Minister Rosny Smarth on June 9 has laid bare a 
very serious problem of leadership. For a number of reasons, which 
include the political prominence of former President Aristide, the 
current President, President Preval--despite some truly heroic 
efforts--has not yet been able to effectively promote economic reform.
  Mr. President, if this crisis is not met successfully, it could pose 
a real threat to United States policy interests and to the overall 
investment the United States has made in Haiti since our deployment of 
troops beginning in September 1994. In my view, Mr. President, if 
President Preval is given the space to govern, there is no reason to 
believe he will not make the necessary reforms--as he did previously in 
promoting fiscal austerity over the last 16 months.
  Mr. President, we want to help President Preval find that space to 
govern. That is one major purpose of the amendment that I am proposing.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, we as a nation cannot afford to wash 
our hands of a country in which we have made such a sizable investment. 
The amendment I am proposing today would make our aid more effective 
and would help the forces in Haiti that are fighting the uphill battle 
for genuine reform.
  Mr. President, I request a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 903) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


       full funding for the international development association

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I voice my support for meeting 
U.S. commitments to the International Development Association [IDA] by 
fully funding replenishment to IDA-10 and IDA-11.
  The International Development Association was established in 1960 to 
lend to the poorest and least creditworthy developing countries on 
confessional terms. Only countries with a per capita income below $905 
with limited or no ability to borrow on market terms and a record of 
using IDA resources effectively are eligible. Currently, 79 counties 
meet IDA's loan criteria--55 percent of the world's population. Twenty 
countries have graduated from IDA. Very notably, three of these 
graduate countries--Botswana, Korea, and Turkey--are now IDA donors. 
This is a solid rate of success.
  IDA provides development assistance to poor countries through loans, 
rather than grants. Loans must be repaid in full. IDA funds come 
largely from contributions of 35 donor countries negotiated in general 
replenishment. Increasingly, repayments of past IDA loans are 
supplementing IDA income. As a result, the U.S. share of contributions 
to IDA has decreased by 20 percent since it was established in 1960.
  The administration's request of $1.035 billion for IDA is divided 
into two parts: $235 million to meet U.S. payments to IDA's 10th 
replenishment and $800 million for the first of two U.S. payments for 
IDA-11. The subcommittee recommends $950 million in funding for IDA for 
fiscal year 1998. This would fully fund the first U.S. payment for IDA-
11 but not fully meet payment owned for IDA-10. I support increasing 
the appropriation for IDA by $84.5 million to fund both replenishments 
in full.
  I appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done to address a 
major concern associated with IDA: Restrictions on U.S. procurement 
opportunities imposed by the Interim Trust Fund [ITF]. The ITF was 
created by donors who did not want to disrupt IDA's operations by 
leaving a 1-year gap in new funding when the U.S. budget situation 
precluded us from meeting commitments to both IDA-11 and IDA-10. At 
that time, controversy emerged over the terms of the ITF which limited 
decisionmaking and procurement to contributing countries only. As a 
result, U.S. officials and businesses were excluded from participating 
in projects financed by the $3.3 million fund. Last year, the Foreign 
Operations appropriations bill contained a provision that required the 
administration to work with other donors to modify procurement 
restrictions. The administration has negotiated an agreement with the 
ITF whereby $1 billion, or about one-third, of projects financed by the 
trust fund have not yet been completed. Full funding of IDA-10 and IDA-
11 will allow U.S. firms to bid on these contracts. The Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee's efforts on the matter of U.S. procurement are 
commendable.


                              Section 569

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Leahy, regarding the meaning and 
intent of a provision in this bill, section 569. This involves a matter 
of great importance to my colleague Mr. Leahy and myself--human rights. 
I commend my colleague for his leadership on this important issue.
  I share your concern that U.S. foreign assistance funds not be used 
by perpetrators of gross violations of human rights. I also share your 
interest in ensuring that perpetrators of such crimes are brought to 
justice. To this end, section 569 of this act prevents funds made 
available under this act from being provided to any unit of the 
security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has 
credible evidence to believe a member of such unit has committed gross 
violations of human rights. Would the Chairman agree that this 
provision only applies to units of the security forces of a foreign 
country that currently have members against whom we have credible 
evidence of gross violations of human rights.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So that if a unit was believed to have had, at some time 
in the past, a person against whom we have credible evidence of human 
rights abuses, but that no such person currently is a member of such a 
unit, that unit would be eligible to receive assistance under this act?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Vermont, and I 
look forward to working with him on this matter in the future.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee.
  It is my understanding that the foreign operations bill for fiscal 
year 1998, S. 955, includes an increase of $30 million to combat 
infectious diseases such as TB, malaria, dengue fever, and the ebola 
virus.
  It has been brought to my attention that the Gorgas Memorial 
Institute is developing an innovative regional TB control initiative 
designed to address major issues in reducing the global TB epidemic 
through training and new approaches to disease control. I believe the 
work done at the institute would fit well with the priorities outlined 
by the committee.
  Would the ranking member join me in urging the Agency for 
International Development to provide funding for this initiative?
  Mr. LEAHY. This initiative sounds like the kind of initiative the 
committee wanted to consider supporting in providing these funds and I 
would encourage AID to give full and fair consideration of the Gorgas 
Institute's proposal.


                            nagorno karabagh

  Ms. MIKULSKI Mr. President, I would like to engage the ranking member 
of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding 
humanitarian assistance to Nagorno Karabagh.
  The conflict in Nagorno Karabagh has cost over 15,000 lives and has 
created severe economic hardship and deprivation. In Nagorno Karabagh 
there are thousands of land mines directly threatening lives and 
stifling agricultural production. There is a severe shortage of 
medicines and vaccines. This shortage has made it difficult to treat 
and prevent intestinal and acute respiratory infectious diseases in 
children. The Azerbaijani and Turkish blockades have substantially 
worsened these problems.
  The U.S. Agency for International Development and the United Nations 
provide humanitarian aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan--but this aid does 
not get to the people of Nagorno Karabagh.

[[Page S7584]]

Nongovernmental organizations do provide a small amount of humanitarian 
assistance to the people of Nagorno Karabagh, but these programs 
receive no funding from USAID.
  I strongly believe that the United States should provide funds to 
nongovernmental organizations to provide aid to all areas of conflict 
in the Caucasus--including Nagorno Karabagh. Politically based 
discrimination against providing humanitarian assistance to particular 
categories of recipients is against our values--and is inconsistent 
with America's long-term foreign policy goals.
  Mr. President, few people have done more to provide aid to people in 
need than the Senator from Vermont. I would like to ask him if he will 
continue to work with me to remove any constraints in providing 
humanitarian aid to the people of Nagorno Karabagh?
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the Senator's position. I strongly support 
the principle of delivering humanitarian aid to those in need in the 
Caucasus and will work with her in the conference to try to ensure that 
these needs are met.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering S. 955, 
the foreign operations and export financing appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1998.
  The Senate bill provides $16.8 billion in budget authority and $5.1 
billion in new outlays to operate the programs of the Department of 
State, Export and Military Assistance, Bilateral and Multilateral 
Economic Assistance, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 1997.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $16.8 billion in budget 
authority and $13.1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998.
  The subcommittee is at its section 602(b) allocation for budget 
authority and outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this 
point.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

           S. 955, FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS, 1998, SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL          
                                   [Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Defense  Nondefense   Crime   Mandatory   Total 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:                                                                                           
  Budget authority............................................  .......     16,721   .......        44    16,765
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     13,083   .......        44    13,127
Senate 602(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority............................................  .......     16,721   .......        44    16,765
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     13,083   .......        44    13,127
President's request:                                                                                            
  Budget authority............................................  .......     16,844   .......        44    16,888
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     13,171   .......        44    13,215
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority............................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
  Outlays.....................................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO--                                                                              
Senate 602(b) allocation:                                                                                       
  Budget authority............................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
  Outlays.....................................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
President's request:                                                                                            
  Budget authority............................................  .......      (123)   .......  .........    (123)
  Outlays.....................................................  .......       (88)   .......  .........     (88)
House-passed bill:                                                                                              
  Budget authority............................................  .......     16,721   .......        44    16,765
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     13,083   .......        44    13,127
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping  
  conventions.                                                                                                  

                              section 571

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill has come to 
the Senate floor, and commend the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator 
from Vermont for all of their hard work in authoring this important 
legislation. S. 955 provides increased funding for international 
affairs functions of our Government, a priority that has been neglected 
in recent years. I agree with Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who 
has argued that we can no longer conduct foreign policy on the cheap.
  Section 571 of this bill is a briefly worded but very significant 
restriction on U.S. military assistance. Mr. President, Indonesia is an 
emerging power in South Asia that has a very considerable economic 
relationship with the United States. I have long believed that we 
should fully engage the developing world not only for our own economic 
interests, but also so that the citizens of these nations can enjoy 
economic prosperity. Such economic development is the best means of 
enhancing long-term peace and stability.
  Unfortunately, though, Indonesia has yet to join the community of 
nations in respecting basic human rights and permitting political 
freedom. Indonesia's continuing repression of East Timor has dampened 
hope that this nation's tremendous economic success will be matched by 
progress on human rights and democracy. In just the past month, 
international human rights activists have cited the disappearance and 
possible torture of a number of East Timorese civilians. This news 
comes as the State Department has sharply criticized Indonesia's human 
rights record in its annual report issued in January.
  These events are just the latest examples of the Indonesian 
Government's continuing denial of fundamental rights to the people of 
East Timor. This past May, Indonesia held an election which was widely 
discredited as undemocratic. This election, which returned the ruling 
party to power as has been done in every election since 1971, was 
marred by violence that killed 200 people. Clearly, Indonesia must end 
its behavior that has caused so much pain and suffering among its 
people.
  Mr. President, section 571 would simply prevent United States 
military equipment sold or transferred to Indonesia from being used in 
East Timor, the site of the most egregious human rights violations 
committed by this government. The United States should have no part of 
this oppression, particularly through the provision of military 
equipment. I commend the managers of this bill for including this 
important restriction, and am hopeful that it will be enacted into law.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased that the bill managers were able to accept my 
amendment to prohibit Army Corps consideration of permits that would 
result in the diversion of ground water from the Great Lakes Basin.
  As my Great Lakes colleagues know, the Army Corps recently stated its 
opinion that ground water is not covered by section 1109 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986. This section states that, ``No water 
shall be diverted from any portion of the Great Lakes within the United 
States, or from any tributary within the United State of any of the 
Great Lakes, for use outside the Great Lakes Basin unless such 
diversion is approved by the Governor of each of the Great Lakes States 
. . .'' and places contraints on funds for any Federal agency study of 
the feasibility of such a diversion. As I have indicated to the Army 
Corps, a careful review of the act's legislative history, the Great 
Lakes Charter, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Federal charter 
of the Great Lakes Commission and its predecessor, and subsequent 
congressional authorizations and appropriations referencing the waters 
of the Great Lakes Basin, shows that ground water recharging or 
discharging into the Great Lakes is clearly part of the Great Lakes 
Basin hydrologically speaking and is therefore not divertable without 
adherence to section 1109. In a nutshell, I disagree with the Corps' 
conclusion.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
Great Lakes region and the conferees to keep this provision intact. 
This 1-year prohibition will provide time for the appropriate parties 
to get together and determine how best to proceed, including possible 
legislative clarification, to permanently prevent covert diversions of 
a very precious resource, ground water in the Great Lakes Basin.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, as a member of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee, I want to commend both Chairman McConnell and Senator 
Leahy. Once again, the leadership of the subcommittee has produced a 
bill that I am sure will be widely and bipartisanly supported by the 
Senate.
  I also want to take this opportunity to commend Secretary of State 
Madeleine Albright. The Secretary appeared before the subcommittee to 
explain and justify the administration's increased request for this 
bill. But she went further than this, further than her Democratic and 
Republican predecessors at the State Department. Secretary Albright has 
taken the case for foreign aid and the work of this subcommittee 
directly to the American people. She has done a remarkable job 
conveying to our constituents the benefits to the American people of 
our role in the world and the importance of continued U.S. leadership 
abroad.

[[Page S7585]]

  The foreign operations, export financing, and related programs 
Appropriations bill provides monies to meet a great number of important 
policy initiatives. I want to use my time today to draw attention to 
just a few of the important initiatives.
  Importantly and with my full support, this bill fully funds the 
Administration's assistance request for our democratic ally Israel. I 
visited Israel late last year with a delegation of my constituents. It 
was my first trip to the Middle East. The trip was a wonderful 
experience that has benefited me personally and professionally as I 
approach my work at the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I met with 
Prime Minister Netanyahu, with the chief Palestinian negotiator, and 
with the Norweigian diplomats who negotiated the Oslo accords. I met 
with the Ambassador to Israel, toured important historic and cultural 
sites, and stood atop the Golan Heights. More than ever, I am convinced 
that the foreign assistance moneys provided by this legislation to 
Israel and in support of the peace process are warranted and of 
strategic importance to the United States.
  This bill is also a key tool in our efforts to increase U.S. exports 
and to generate new jobs all across the country. The provisions of this 
bill providing moneys for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, 
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade Development 
Agency are vitally important to my constituents. A recent 1997 study 
titled, ``Foreign Exports and the Washington State Economy,'' concluded 
that ``no state derives more economic benefit from the production of 
goods and services for the foreign markets that Washington State.'' 
Shortly after the turn of the century, one in three Washington State 
jobs will be reliant upon international trade. Jobs related to trade in 
my state also paid wages 46 percent higher than the State average. 
These trade promotion programs are priority issues for me and I am 
pleased that we've met the administration's request for these programs. 
In the case of the Ex-Im Bank, the subcommittee has exceeded the 
administration's request.
  Another key component of this bill is our assistance program to 
Russia and the newly independent states. This assistance is as 
important as any granted by the United States. It is a small price to 
pay to ensure that the trillions of dollars spent on the cold war does 
not go to waste. Certainly there are problems on the ground in Russia 
and the NIS countries; religious persecution, political and economic 
corruption, weapons proliferation and environmental pollution to name 
just a few. The United States must be diligent in tackling these 
problems as they arise in our continuing efforts to promote and support 
democracy.
  I am particularly interested in our efforts to increase and highlight 
the linkages between the Russian Far East and the west coast of the 
United States. Washington State is as involved in the Russian Far East 
as any State in the country. Chairman Stevens is also personally very 
knowledgeable about the importance of this region as Alaska also 
maintains many direct ties to the Russian Far East.
  The Committee bill also contains many important provisions to 
children. It contains funding for UNICEF and other child survival 
programs. Our bill provides moneys to educate young girls as well as 
provide microcredit loans to young families and women in the developing 
world. These funds make an enormous difference in the lives of millions 
of children and families in the world.
  I have touched on just a few of the the provisions within this 
important bill. Again, I want to thank the manager's for bringing this 
legislation to the Senate today. And I encourage my colleagues to 
support the foreign operations legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to commend the managers of the FY 
1998 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for their hard work in 
fashioning this measure, and for getting it to the floor in a timely 
manner. The bill appropriates some $13,244,208,000 for the programs in 
FY 1998, is within its 602(b) Allocations, and is below the amount 
requested by the Administration by about $116 million
  The committee in its report indicates that the time is arriving for a 
review of our priorities and programs in this area, a bottom up review 
and a new scrutiny over programs and the extent to which they serve 
U.S. interests abroad. I am pleased that the Committee has focused on 
the progress we are making in supporting the growth of democracy and 
free market economies in Eastern Europe, the former states of the 
Soviet Union, and Russia and the Ukraine. Certainly the payoff for 
helping stabilize and nurture the growth of solid democratic 
institutions is far preferable to the extreme expense of maintaining 
arms races, such as we had to do during the course of over four decades 
of cold war.
  I am pleased that the Committee has included a provision that I 
suggested to provide traditional incentives, through programs such as 
the EXIM Bank, OPIC, the Trade and Development Program and the Foreign 
Commercial Service, to American companies operating in the oil-rich new 
sovereign nation of Azerbaijan. The bill pays appropriately high 
attention to the Caucasus, including Georgia, and Armenia, as well as 
Azerbaijan, and I think it is appropriate. American companies need the 
unstinting support of our government so as to compete effectively in 
that region, in light of the fact that foreign nations provide heavy 
assistance to their firms in that region. We need to keep the playing 
field level so that our firms stand a fighting change of success in 
that region in the development of Caspian region oil.
  I am pleased that the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. McConnell has 
offered an amendment to restore the earmark for Egypt in the bill. I 
believe that there should be a time in the not too distant future when 
the earmarks for Egypt and Israel should be reduced and finally 
eliminated. They are in effect entitlements which have accounted for a 
large percentage of our national program, and I do not think they 
should be regarded as permanent. They must be subject to review just as 
the rest of our programs are. Having said that, however, I believe 
that, so long as the earmark for Israel remains in the bill, that for 
Egypt must as well.
  Egypt has been a pillar of strength and support for the United States 
across the board. It has served to pick up the flagging momentum of the 
peace process which resulted from the negative actions by the Israeli 
Prime Minister and his right wing constituency in initiating 
inflammatory new settler housing in disputed Arab territories throwing 
a cold bucket of water on the momentum of that process. The Egyptian 
government has acted with courage and constancy in bringing its good 
offices to bear as an intermediary between the Israeli government and 
the Palestinians as a time when the United States needed help in that 
role;. I did not agree with removing the earmark for Egypt, just at a 
time when I think Egyptian actions were serving as invaluable support 
for the United States in keeping the peace process moving against a 
difficult adverse current established by Israeli actions. So, encourage 
the President of Egypt, Mr. Mubarak, to continue his efforts to play 
the constructive role that he has been playing in the Middle East.
  I would also point out, Mr. President, that Egypt and the United 
States have a special security relationship, a relationship that proved 
invaluable to the United States during the Gulf War against Kuwaiti 
aggression, is the basis for extensive exercises and joint operations 
day in and day out, together in the Middle East. Our two nations work 
closely together to counter terrorism, and extremism, to protect the 
secure flow of oil from that region, and the safe use of the vital air 
and sea routes in the region. It should be clear that Egypt's important 
strategic, geographical position, commanding the waterways linking the 
Gulf, Europe and the United States, makes her an indispensable 
strategic partner of the United States. This is a relationship that 
requires nurturing and regular dialogue and support.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the foreign operations 
appropriations bill now before the Senate, which will provide the 
necessary funds for foreign assistance programs of the United States in 
the coming fiscal year. Foreign aid is an important component of U.S. 
foreign policy. In addition to being a tangible demonstration of 
American leadership, it is a key instrument in encouraging and 
supporting

[[Page S7586]]

American values of democracy, respect for human rights, and free trade.
  In recent years, foreign policy spending has suffered drastic 
cutbacks. According to a study of the Congressional Research Service, 
prepared earlier this year at my request, foreign policy spending for 
the current fiscal year is at its lowest level in 20 years.
  Moreover, the steepest reductions in our foreign policy budget have 
come in foreign assistance, which at $11.5 billion last year, in fiscal 
year 1998 dollars, is lower, in real terms, than any year of the last 
twenty, and some 36 percent below the historical average of that 
period.
  Mr. President, this year's foreign operations bill thankfully has 
started to reverse this precipitous decline. It provides $13.24 billion 
for foreign assistance and export financing programs. I commend the 
Appropriations Committee for its hard work and applaud the bipartisan 
effort its members have shown in enhancing the level of funding for our 
Nation's foreign assistance programs.
  This legislation provides enhanced funding for critical foreign 
assistance programs, a few of which I will mention briefly.
  The Appropriations Committee has recognized the importance of 
development assistance programs by providing $1.8 billion, $100 million 
over the President's request.
  While the $485 million appropriated for the seed program for newly 
democratizing countries in Eastern Europe is regretfully below the 
President's request, the Committee's recommendation of $800 million for 
the nations of the former Soviet Union will allow our Nation to 
continue its efforts to bring democracy, stability, and prosperity to 
those former Communist States.
  Mr. President, I am somewhat concerned about the considerable number 
of earmarks in this bill, and the number of ``subearmarks,'' that is, 
designation of funds for specific programs within specific countries in 
Eastern Europe and Eurasia.
  I am not opposed to earmarks in principle; Congressional priorities 
often differ with those of the executive branch, and the Congress has 
every right to protect those priorities by specific earmarks.
  But the proliferation of such provisions unduly limits the 
administration's flexibility in a region that is constantly in flux. So 
I hope the committee will consider reducing the number of earmarks in 
the conference with the House.
  Mr. President, unfortunately it has become popular of late to assert 
that foreign aid is merely the foreign policy equivalent of welfare--a 
supposed massive giveaway that yields few benefits to American 
interests.
  To the contrary, American contributions to these efforts are an 
important way in which we protect our interests abroad, a fact that the 
Appropriations Committee has recognized through its enhanced funding 
levels for foreign assistance programs.
  I wish to congratulate Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy once again 
for their work on this important piece of legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.


                  Child Survival and Disease Programs

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the child 
survival and disease program fund. I understand that the House 
Committee on Appropriations, as a part of its foreign operations, 
export financing, and related programs bill, has recommended that $650 
million be allocated to the fund's programs for fiscal year 1998. On 
the House side, the subcommittee Chairman Callahan has taken the lead, 
as my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tony Hall, has also in 
protecting these child survival programs. I commend him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  The Clinton administration, however, has not specifically designated 
any direct funding for the child survival programs. Mr. President, in 
order to preserve the benefits of these important programs for children 
worldwide, I believe that the Senate should accept, when we go to 
conference, the House language that was agreed to in committee for this 
fund. It is, I believe, Mr. President, a tragedy, that millions of 
children die each year through disease, malnutrition, and other 
consequences of poverty that are both preventable and treatable. The 
programs in the child survival fund, which are intended to reduce 
infant mortality and improve the health and nutrition of children, 
address the various problems of young people struggling to survive in 
developing countries.
  Mr. President, this fund places a priority on the needs of more than 
100 million children worldwide who are displaced and/or who have become 
orphans. The fund includes initiatives to curb the resurgence of 
communicable diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, in the 
underdeveloped world, eradicating polio, as well as preventing and 
controlling the spread of HIV and AIDS.
  Mr. President, aside from the addressing issues of health, the fund 
also supports basic education programs. Investment in education yields 
one of the highest social and economic rates of return because it gives 
children the necessary tools to become self-sufficient adults. Each 
additional year of primary and secondary education results in a 10-to-
20 percent wage increase, and a 25-percent net increase in income.
  Mr. President, the programs supported by the child survival fund are 
effective, and they are effective because they save three million lives 
each year through immunization, vitamin supplementation, oral 
rehydration therapy, and also through the treatment of childhood 
respiratory infections which are the second largest killer of children 
on Earth.
  Mr. President, eliminating the symptoms and the causes of this 
problem is not only the humane thing to do. It is also a necessary 
prerequisite for global stability and for global prosperity.
  In my view, Mr. President, Congress needs to maintain its support for 
these very valuable programs. It is my hope that the Senate Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee will, when we go to conference, accept the 
House language.
  The child survival and disease programs are effective, they are 
important, and they should, Mr. President, be continued.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee on the floor, and my colleague from the State 
of Kentucky. I wonder if he has any comment about this.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have listened closely to the comments 
of my good friend from Ohio, and I would like to thank him for them and 
commend him for his tireless efforts in supporting the children's 
causes, not only here in the United States but throughout the world.
  I would like to assure my good friend from Ohio that I will give 
every possible consideration to his request when we go to conference 
with the House on the bill.
  Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate that very much.
  Mr. President, if I could inquire of my colleague from Kentucky, I 
have a statement which I would like to give at some point this evening 
in regard to the vote we are going to have tomorrow. I can refrain from 
doing that if it works with the chairman's schedule, or I can do it 
now.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have a block of amendments that have been cleared on 
both sides that I would like to offer. Senator Bennett is also here.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor at this time, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                Amendments Numbered 904 to 919, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to submit all of the 
following to be considered en bloc. They have been approved by Senator 
Leahy.
  A Kyl amendment earmarking legal aid for Ukraine; a Kyl amendment 
adding ballistic missiles to Iran restrictions; a Baucus amendment 
relating to the P.R.C. environment programs; an Enzi amendment relating 
to climate change; a Hagel amendment authorizing OPIC; a Lautenberg-
Kennedy amendment on Libya; a Leahy amendment on war crimes; a Domenici 
Law Enforcement Center amendment; a Dodd amendment on IMET in Latin 
American; an amendment by Senator Torricelli on terrorism in Sri Lanka; 
a Durbin amendment on Peru IMET; a Leahy-Lugar-Sarbanes amendment on 
bank authorization; a D'Amato-Helms-Faircloth amendment on the NAB; a 
Leahy amendment on demining; a Faircloth amendment on the Congo; and a 
Lott, et al, amendment on NATO expansion.

[[Page S7587]]

  Mr. President, I send those amendments to the desk en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 904 through 919 en bloc.

  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 en bloc are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 904

    (Purpose: To allocate funds for legal restructuring in Ukraine 
 necessary to support a decentralized market-oriented economic system)

       On page 23, line 17, insert after ``Provided,'' the 
     following: ``That of the funds made available for Ukraine 
     under this subsection, not less than $25,000,000 shall be 
     available only for comprehensive legal restructuring 
     necessary to support a decentralized market-oriented economic 
     system, including the enactment of all necessary substantive 
     commercial law and procedures, the implementation of reforms 
     necessary to establish an independent judiciary and bar, the 
     education of judges, attorneys, and law students in the 
     comprehensive commercial law reforms, and public education 
     designed to promote understanding of commercial law necessary 
     to Ukraine's economic independence: Provided further,''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 905

  (Purpose: To prohibit assistance to Russia unless Russia terminates 
 activities relating to ballistic missile or nuclear programs in Iran)

       On page 25, line 24, insert after ``reactor'' the 
     following: ``or ballistic missiles''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 906

  (Purpose: To permit funds made available to the United States-Asia 
 Environmental Partnership to be used for activities for the People's 
                           Republic of China)

       On page 102, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:


                use of funds for the united states-asia

                       environmental partnership

       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law that 
     restricts assistance to foreign countries, funds appropriated 
     by this or any other Act making appropriations pursuant to 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that are made 
     available for the United States-Asia Environmental 
     Partnership may be made available for activities for the 
     People's Republic of China.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a short, simple amendment dealing 
with our China policy. It has the support of the State Department; 
business; and Chinese dissidents. I hope it will also get the support 
of Congress.
  The amendment, very simply, allows the Asian Environmental 
Partnership to operate in China. It does not add any spending to the 
bill, and does not change the basics of the program in any way. So I 
hope this will not be controversial.
  Let me begin with a review of what the Asian Environmental 
Partnership does. AEP is a small export promotion program created 
during the Bush Administration. It offers technical help with 
environmental policy, and brings foreign governments together with 
American producers of environmental services and technologies.
  In several Southeast Asia countries, AEP has helped us achieve 
environmental goals and to boost American exports to a region where we 
suffer large trade deficits. But the Asian Environmental Partnership 
does not now operate in China. That is because it receives some funds 
from the Agency for International Development, which is barred from 
operating in China.
  It is very clear, of course, that we do not need a foreign aid 
program for China. China has a lot of money and is quite capable of 
supporting itself.
  But it is just as clear that we need a sound approach to 
environmental problems in China. Whether you look at water pollution, 
urban air, rural lakes and streams, or hazardous waste, China is one of 
the world's most polluted countries. That causes a great deal of 
suffering for Chinese people. And as China grows, it makes more and 
more contribution to global climate change, ocean pollution, and other 
phenomena which affect China's neighbors and even us here in the United 
States.
  We in America can help ease these problems. We can provide some 
humanitarian relief from needless suffering caused by unsafe water, air 
and waste. We can help protect ourselves from future environmental 
threats.
  And we can gain some benefit for ourselves in the process. We are 
among the world's most competitive producers of environmental goods and 
services, and with some effort we can create a large foreign market for 
our companies.
  That brings me to the second reason we need this amendment. That is, 
we need an export promotion policy for China.
  Last year, we exported about $14 billion worth of goods and services 
to China, while importing about $51 billion. So we had a $37 billion 
deficit. This year's figures look no better.
  The main reason for this deficit is the massive set of tariffs, 
discriminatory inspection standards, quotas and other trade barriers 
erected by the Chinese government. But a second reason--one which we 
don't really like to admit to ourselves--is that we do very little 
export promotion to China.
  Germans, Japanese, Southeast Asians and other competitors push 
exports as hard as they can. We don't match their efforts anywhere in 
the world, and we do worst of all in China, where agencies like AEP 
can't operate. There is no doubt that costs us.
  This is basically common sense. It is good for everyone. For no 
additional money, this amendment will help us export and improve our 
trade balance. It will help us deal with some very difficult 
environmental problems. And it will, to some extent, supplement our 
human rights goals by making life in China a little better.
  That is why this amendment has gotten very broad support. The State 
Department supports it. American environmental and business groups 
support it. And Chinese dissidents, support it. Let me quote from a 
letter I received from the China Strategic Institute, founded by former 
political prisoner Wang Juntao:

       The China Strategic Institute is pleased to learn of your 
     efforts to bring the US-Asia Environmental Partnership to the 
     People's Republic of China. Not only can such a program 
     assist China in combating the severe environmental 
     degradation that plagues the Chinese population, but also . . 
     . the development of civil society. I strongly hope that this 
     amendment finds the support to become law.

  To sum up, with this amendment we can do something good for everyone. 
By passing it, we can promote American exports. We can do something 
good for the Chinese people. We can promote the interest of both 
countries in a healthy environment. And we won't spend any more money. 
So I hope the Senate will support it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                           amendment no. 907

  (Purpose: To ensure Congressional notification of the costs to the 
Federal Government of all federal programs associated with the proposed 
agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Framework 
                  Convention on Climate Change (FCCC)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the new 
     section as follows:

     SEC.   . REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REPORTING TO CONGRESS OF THE 
                   COSTS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATED WITH 
                   THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS 
                   EMISSIONS.

       (a) The President shall provide to the Congress a detailed 
     account of all federal agency obligations and expenditures 
     for climate change programs and activities, domestic and 
     international, for FY 1997, planned obligations for such 
     activities in FY 1998, and any plan for programs thereafter 
     in the context of negotiations to amend the Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) to be provided to the 
     appropriate congressional committees no later than October 
     15, 1997.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me commend the Senator from Wyoming 
for his efforts to fully disclose all the resources the Administration 
has allocated to the climate change issue. To my knowledge nobody has 
been able to determine how much or from what offices funds been spent 
on global climate change.
  It is imperative that we have a clear understanding of the resources 
being expended from all federal agencies and offices for the purposes 
of education, lobbying and research.


                           Amendment NO. 908

 (Purpose: To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with respect to 
 the authority of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to issue 
                    insurance and extend financing)

       On page 102, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC.   . AUTHORITY TO ISSUE INSURANCE AND EXTEND FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--Sectin 235(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)) is amended--

[[Page S7588]]

       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Insurance and financing.--(A) The maximum contingent 
     liability outstanding at any one time pursuant to insurance 
     issued under section 234(a), and the amount of financing 
     issued under section 234(b) and (c), shall not exceed in the 
     aggregate $29,000,000,000.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (3) by amending paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) by 
     striking ``1997'' and inserting ``1999''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 235(a) 
     of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)) as redesignated by subsection 
     (a), is further amended by striking ``(a) and (b)'' and 
     inserting ``(a), (b), and (c)''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 909

(Purpose: To withhold assistance to countries that are violating United 
                    Nations sanctions against Libya)

       On page 102, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:


 witholding assistance to countries violating united nations sanctions 
                             against Libya

       Sec. 575. (a) Withholding of Assistance.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), whenever the President determines 
     and certifies to Congress that the government of any country 
     is violating any sanction against Libya imposed pursuant to 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 731, 748, or 883, 
     then not less than 5 percent of the funds allocated for the 
     country under section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 out of appropriations in this Act shall be withheld from 
     obligation and expenditure for that country.
       (b)Exception.--The requirement to withhold funds under 
     subsection(a) shall not apply to funds appropriated in this 
     Act for allocation under section 653(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for development assistance or for 
     humanitarian assistance.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Kennedy is 
an original cosponsor of this amendment along with Senators Moynihan, 
D'Amato, and Torricelli.
  This amendment would withhold 5 percent of funds made available in 
this bill to any country that the President determines violates United 
Nations sanctions against Libya. The amendment exempts development 
assistance and humanitarian assistance.
  As my colleagues know, the United Nations imposed sanctions against 
Libya in 1992 in response to the Libyan Government's failure to 
extradite to the United States or Scotland two Libyan intelligence 
agents indicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. One hundred 
and eighty-nine Americans were killed in that terrorist bombing. The 
families of those innocent victims are still waiting for justice.
  Among other things, the U.N. sanctions prohibit international flights 
into and out of Libya. They also prohibit supply to Libya of aircraft 
and aircraft components.
  Nonetheless, some countries in the international community continue 
to help Libya's Khadaffi violate the sanctions.
  For example, five countries have allowed Libyan airlines to land on 
their soil in violation of the sanctions. These countries include 
Niger, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Ghana.
  The amendment we are offering today would force countries that help 
Libya violate U.N. sanctions to choose between 5 percent of their 
foreign assistance and their support of a terrorist state.
  The amendment is forward looking. It does not penalize any country 
for past actions. Let me repeat that. It does not penalize any country 
for past actions. Nor does it single out any country.
  Rather, it lays down a marker and sends a signal that in the future 
violating the international sanctions against Libya will have a 
financial cost.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm honored to be a sponsor of Senator 
Lautenberg's amendment to withhold 5 percent of United States 
assistance from any country which, in the future, violates the United 
Nations sanctions against Libya.
  It is nearly 9 years since December 1988, when Pan Am flight 103 was 
bombed out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, 
including 189 Americans. In 1991, after an extensive international 
investigation, two Libyans were indicted for that terrorist bombing, 
but they have never been brought to trial because the Government of 
Libya continues to defy the international community.
  United Nations sanctions against Libya were first adopted in 1992. 
These sanctions prohibit international flights to and from Libya, the 
supply to Libya of aircraft, aircraft parts, military equipment and 
certain oil equipment. They also freeze funds of the Libyan Government 
and reduce the size of Libyan diplomatic missions abroad.
  It is obvious that the current sanctions are too mild to bring about 
the surrender of the suspects by Libya. Senator Lautenberg and I, and 
many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have repeatedly 
called for stronger sanctions, including an international oil embargo 
against Libya, because additional sanctions are clearly necessary to 
achieve their goal and see that justice is done. Regrettably, many of 
our European allies buy Libyan oil, and have been unwilling to take 
this step.
  Even the current mild sanctions against Libya are not being enforced. 
According to the Department of State, numerous violations of the 
sanctions have occurred. But when the United States brings such cases 
to the attention of the sanctions committee at the United Nations, the 
committee refuses to investigate them.
  Recently, for example, the United States provided evidence to the 
Security Council sanctions committee, involving attempts by Libya to 
import aircraft parts, via Belgrade, in violation of the U.N. 
sanctions. The sanctions committee refused to investigate this 
violation.
  There have also been several instances in which other countries have 
permitted Libyan planes to land in their territory, despite the U.N. 
prohibition on such landings.
  If there are no consequences for violating the U.N. sanctions then 
the sanctions are useless. If the United Nations is unwilling to 
enforce its own sanctions, the United States is left with no other 
choice but to impose unilateral measures.
  In this unsatisfactory situation, the Lautenberg amendment is a 
modest but necessary step for the United States to take. Its provisions 
are not retroactive, but it puts other countries on notice for the 
future. If they violate the U.N. sanctions against Libya, their action 
will cost them part of the U.S. aid they receive.
  I urge the Senate to approve the amendment, and to take this 
reasonable step to see that justice is done for the victims of the Pan 
Am flight 103 terrorist atrocity.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original co-
sponsor of the Kennedy-D'Amato amendment, which would restrict aid to 
those countries which fail to comply with the United Nations sanctions 
against Libya. I rise today in strong support of its passage.
  Earlier this month the U.N. Security Council renewed international 
sanctions against Libya, as they have every 120 days since they were 
first imposed in 1992. Unfortunately, Mr. President, despite the fact 
that Libya refuses to comply with the will of the international 
community and extradite to the United States or Great Britain two 
Libyan nationals indicted as suspects in the murders of 270 people, the 
sanctions renewal was challenged by several African states.
  This challenge is just the latest episode in Libya's arrogant 
international campaign to avoid the justified opprobrium of the 
international community. Libya has gone so far as to intrude on the 
privacy of the victims of its criminality by writing directly to the 
American families of Pan Am 103 proposing their supposed ``compromise'' 
with international law directly to the families. Mr. President, I 
cannot overestimate how damaging it is to the interests of all 
democratic governments for Libya to be thrown a lifeline by the African 
members of the security council. Libya's U.N. Ambassador reportedly 
said after the Security Council vote, ``We can from now on behave as if 
these sanctions were not there.'' These sanctions are there, and they 
will remain.
  There are several episodes over the past two years that highlight the 
need for this amendment. Earlier this year, a Libyan-registered 
aircraft flew from Libya to Niger and returned to Nigeria despite U.N. 
sanctions. Last July, Muammar Qaddafi left Tripoli to attend an Arab 
summit meeting in Cairo. He arrived in Egypt by plane and left by 
plane, a clear violation of the ban on air travel. In December, the CIA 
revealed that Ukraine agreed to three

[[Page S7589]]

different arms deals with Libya. The first involved the sale of $500 
million worth of short-range ballistic missiles. A second deal called 
for Ukraine to provide maintenance services and spare parts valued at 
$10 million. The third agreement involved Iran's purchase of Ukrainian 
weapons with the intent of transferring them to Libya.
  Today we have made clear our determination to bring to justice those 
who destroyed 270 lives and brought suffering on countless other loved 
ones. I am pleased to join my colleagues in sponsoring legislation to 
deny United States assistance to any countries that violate 
international sanctions against Libya. We will make it clear to Libya 
that this pariah regime cannot escape the consequences of its lawless 
behavior.


                           amendment no. 910

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

     SEC.   . WAR CRIMES PROSECUTION.

       (a) Section 2401 of Title 18, United States Code (Public 
     Law 104-192; the War Crimes Act of 1996) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``commits a grave breach 
     of the Geneva Conventions'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``commits a war crime'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``the person committing such breach or the 
     victims of such breach'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     person committing such crime or the victim of such crime''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the 
     subsection ``or that the person committing such crime is 
     later found in the United States after such crime is 
     committed'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``the term `grave breach of the Geneva 
     Conventions' means conduct defined as'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the term `war crime' means conduct (1) defined 
     as''; and
       (B) by inserting the following before the period at the 
     end: ``; (2) prohibited by Articles 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the 
     Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and 
     Customs of War on Land, signed on October, 1907; (3) which 
     constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the 
     international conventions signed at Geneva on August 1949; or 
     (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and 
     contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or 
     Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-traps and Other 
     Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as 
     amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to 
     such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to 
     civilians'';
       (4) by adding a new subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d) Notification.--No prosecution of any crime prohibited 
     in this section shall be undertaken by the United States 
     except upon the written notification to the Congress by the 
     Attorney General or his designee that in his judgment a 
     prosecution by the United States is in the national interest 
     and necessary to secure substantial justice.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that my amendment to 
strengthen our ability to prosecute war criminals in the United States 
has been accepted by the Republican side.
  This amendment, which builds on the War Crimes Act of 1996, closes 
some gaps in our Nation's implementation of the Geneva and Hague 
Conventions.
  The War Crimes Act of 1996 only permits prosecution for war crimes in 
the United States if the person accused of committing the crime, or the 
victim of a war crime, is a national of the United States or a member 
of the U.S. Armed Forces. While noble in its intent, that act does not 
permit the United States to prosecute non-U.S. nationals who come 
within our jurisdiction. It leaves the United States open as a 
potential safe-haven for war criminals seeking to escape prosecution.
  Currently, we have no extradition treaties with 75 nations including 
Somalia, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iran. If a war criminal 
from any of these countries takes refuge in the United States, we 
cannot extradite him. The alternative--deportation--is a long and 
complex process which becomes even more difficult when the accused is 
to be deported to a specific country. Even if deportation is 
successful, a war criminal may be returned to a country in which the 
judicial system is nonfunctional--Cambodia, for example--thus escaping 
prosecution altogether.
  My amendment allows us to prosecute war criminals located in the 
United States, regardless of their nationality. The amendment in no way 
obligates the United States to prosecute war crimes, nor does it permit 
the extradition of non-U.S. nationals of the United States for 
prosecution if the victims of the crime are not United States 
nationals. Any case undertaken by our Government requires written 
notification to the Congress by the Attorney General, who must take 
into consideration U.S. national interests and the necessity of U.S. 
prosecution, to assure a just resolution in each case. The United 
States will not be drawn into international conflicts where we have no 
significant national interest.
  The amendment expands the scope and offers a more specific definition 
of what constitutes a war crime that the 1996 act. The 1996 act only 
refers to grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions which are 
defined as willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including 
biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious 
injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not 
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully or 
wantonly.''
  My proposed 1997 amendments also covers articles of the 1907 Hague 
Convention IV which clarify actions prohibited in war.
  The inclusion of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is vital 
in that it expressly allows the United States to prosecute war crimes 
perpetrated in noninternational conflicts, such as Bosnia and Rwanda. 
In January 1997, there were a reported 35 such internal conflicts, from 
Algeria to Kasmir.
  Finally, violations of the protocol on prohibitions or restrictions 
on the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices will constitute a 
war crime under this amendment, once the United States ratifies this 
important protocol.
  The International Committee of the Red Cross, the American Red Cross, 
the State Department, the Department of Defense, and President Clinton 
all support the expansion of United States prosecutorial authority as 
it is contained in this amendment. With its adoption, we will be 
following in the footsteps of Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and 
Australia--each of which passed similar laws in the 1950's. It is time 
for us to join them.


                           amendment no. 911

(Purpose: To Allocate Funds for a Western Hemisphere International Law 
                      Enforcement Academy (ILEA))

       On page 28 line 19 after the word ``country'' insert the 
     following:
       ``Provided further. That of this amount not to exceed $5 
     million shall be allocated to operate the Western Hemisphere 
     International Law Enforcement Academy under the auspices of 
     the Organization of American States with full oversight by 
     the Department of State.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment to the foreign operations 
appropriations bill asks that $5 million of the funding appropriated 
for international narcotics control be allocated out of existing funds 
for the establishment of an international law enforcement training 
academy [ILEA] for the Western Hemisphere.
  The State Department set up the International Law Enforcement Academy 
in Budapest, Hungary, in 1995 and has since trained 300 law enforcement 
officials.
  This amendment would establish a similar international law 
enforcement training academy but for the Western Hemisphere and for 
which the President requested in his 1998 budget.
  Mr. President, the allocated funds would be for operations of such an 
academy and a facility would need to be found. I understand that the 
State Department has been trying to find such a facility for the past 
year, but we have not reached an agreement among Latin American 
countries.
  My amendment would allow the academy to be established in 
consultation with the Organization of American States, representing our 
Central and Latin American neighbors.
  Mr. President, I do not have to explain the terrorist and narcotic 
threats in this hemisphere. The ILEA is a way for the United States to 
establish law enforcement networks that lead to a more effective 
approach to fighting international organized crime and drug 
trafficking.
  Such an academy would help us create closer working relationships and 
networks with foreign police that are needed to find fugitives and 
combat financial corruption.
  I urge Senators to vote in support of a Western Hemisphere 
international law enforcement academy.

[[Page S7590]]

                           amendment no. 912

(Purpose: To provide for the reform and annual review of United States 
sponsored training programs of Latin American military personnel at the 
    School of the Americas and elsewhere to ensure that training is 
  consistent with respect for human rights and civil control over the 
                               military)

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


     reform and review of united states sponsored training programs

       Sec.   . (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) United States training of members of Latin American 
     military and security forces that occurred primarily at the 
     Army School of the Americas between 1982 and 1991 has been 
     severely criticized for promoting practices that have 
     contributed to the violation of human rights and have 
     otherwise been inconsistent with the appropriate role of the 
     Armed Forces in a democratic society.
       (2) Numerous members of Latin American military and 
     security forces who have participated in United States 
     sponsored training programs, have subsequently been 
     identified as having masterminded, participated in, or sought 
     to cover up some of the most heinous human rights abuses in 
     the region.
       (3) United States interests in Latin America would be 
     better served if Latin American military personnel were 
     exposed to training programs designed to promote--
       (A) proper management of scarce national defense resources,
       (B) improvements in national systems of justice in 
     accordance with internationally recognized principles of 
     human rights, and
       (C) greater respect and understanding of the principle of 
     civilian control of the military.
       (4) In 1989, Congress mandated that the Department of 
     Defense institute new training programs (commonly referred to 
     as expanded IMET) with funds made available for international 
     military and education programs in order to promote the 
     interests described in paragraph (3). Congress also expanded 
     the definition of eligibility for such training to include 
     non-defense government personnel from countries in Latin 
     America.
       (5) Despite congressionally mandated emphasis on expanded 
     IMET training programs, only 4 of the more than 50 courses 
     offered annually at the United States Army School of the 
     Americas qualify as expanded IMET.
       (b) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, none of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     under the heading relating to international military 
     education and training may be made available for training 
     members of any Latin American military or security force 
     until--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense has advised the Secretary of 
     State in writing that 30 percent of IMET funds appropriated 
     for fiscal year 1998 for the cost of Latin American 
     participants in IMET programs will be disbursed only for the 
     purpose of supporting enrollment of such participants in 
     expanded IMET courses; and
       (2) the Secretary of State has identified sufficient 
     numbers of qualified, non-military personnel from countries 
     in Latin America to participate in IMET programs during 
     fiscal year 1998 in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense, and has instructed United States embassies in the 
     hemisphere to approve their participation in such programs so 
     that not less than 25 percent of the individuals from Latin 
     American countries attending United States supported IMET 
     programs are civilians.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this act, the Secretary of State shall report in 
     writing to the appropriate committees of Congress on the 
     progress made to improve military training of Latin American 
     participants in the areas of human rights and civilian 
     control of the military. The Secretary shall include in the 
     report plans for implementing additional expanded IMET 
     programs for Latin America during the next 3 fiscal years.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to rise to comment on the 
amendment that may be offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. His amendment would seek to close, once and for 
all, the U.S. Army School of the Americas, presently located at Fort 
Benning, GA.
  I am totally sympathetic with the intent of the Senator's amendment. 
Clearly the entire history of the School of the America's, and 
particularly the period from 1982-1991, is shameful. It has left a 
legacy that is an ugly blemish on our country's credibility as an 
advocate of full respect for human rights and the rule of law in a 
region where human rights violations have occurred with impunity.
  Like Senator Durbin, I believe that the United States has a special 
obligation to promote democracy throughout the world, and most 
especially in our own hemisphere.
  Given the recent history of military rule in many countries in the 
region, it is particularly important that the United States strongly 
support the concept of civilian control over national military 
institutions.
  It also means highlighting the importance of respecting the human 
rights of all the peoples of the hemisphere. And, in particular, the 
obligation of military and security forces throughout the region that 
they do so. Finally it means stressing the principle that national 
military and security forces are accountable for acts that fall short 
of acceptable international human rights standards and practices.
  I would say to my colleague from Illinois, that if closing down the 
School of the Americas would remedy all of the evils that have been 
perpetrated by a number of individuals trained there over the years, I 
would strongly support his effort.
  Unfortunately, even if we were to shut the doors at the School of the 
Americas tomorrow, that would not be the case. Moreover, the School of 
the Americas is not the only location where Latin American military 
personnel receive United States-supported training.
  Equally important is acknowledgment that countries throughout the 
region have legitimate national security interests that necessitate the 
existence of national armed forces in these countries.
  Shutting the School of the Americas doesn't obviate the need that 
regional militaries get the right kind of training for their personnel.
  I have had the opportunity to review excepts from the manuals that 
were utilized in the training of Latin American personnel throughout 
the 1980's and into the early 1990's. Clearly these manuals espoused 
practices that can only be described as coercion, torture, and 
assassination.
  I know that the Defense Department has looked into the background of 
these manuals, and has found, not once but twice, that mistakes were 
made--but that no one is really responsible.
  Frankly, it defies credibility to accept one of the central 
conclusions of the 1997 Defense Department inspector general's review 
of this.

  Among other things, the IG concluded that while,

       . . . five of the seven manuals contained language and 
     statements in violation of legal, regulatory, or policy 
     prohibitions, such as motivation by fear, payment of bounties 
     for enemy dead, false imprisonment, and the use of truth 
     serum . . . . Army personnel involved in the preparation and 
     presentation of the intelligence courses did not recognize 
     that the training materials contravened DOD policy and [there 
     was] no evidence that a deliberate and orchestrated attempt 
     was made to violate DOD or U.S. Army policies.

  So much for any sensitivity with respect to human rights that United 
States troops are supposed to be indoctrinated in.
  School of the Americas instructors tutored Latin American military 
personnel in how to use threats of force with prisoners, neutralize 
opponents, hold prisoners in clandestine jails, and infiltrate and spy 
on civilian organizations and opposition political parties for at least 
10 years. Despite the fact that such training explicitly violates U.S. 
policy.
  The IG does not deny that such training was a clear violation of U.S. 
policy, but attributes it to the equivalent of staff error. The IG 
found that--

       . . . from 1982 to 1991, many mistakes were made and 
     repeated (with respect to use of these manuals) by numerous 
     and continually changing personnel in several organizations 
     from Panama to Georgia to Washington, DC. Lack of attention 
     to the Department of Defense and U.S. Army policies and 
     procedures by those personnel and organizations perpetrated 
     the assumption that the materials in the Spanish language 
     intelligence manuals were proper and doctrinally correct.

  I don't know anything about the background of the current IG who came 
to this conclusion.
  But I think it is safe to say that if he/she had bothered to review 
the extensive Congress debate that occurred during much of this same 
time period over United States policy with respect to Latin America--he 
would have found the often stated concern about the substantial human 
rights abuses that were being perpetrated by members of these military 
forces, particularly those in Central America.
  Those of us who were here remember only too well that the Department 
of Defense was being queried on a weekly basis about all aspects of 
U.S. policy during that time period--including the training and other 
support the United States was providing to these military and security 
forces.
  Many of us in this body who participated in those rancorous debates 
could

[[Page S7591]]

take up hours here today reliving that period.
  But that isn't a good use of the Senate's time, nor does it do 
anything to address the underlying concerns with respect to the nature 
and content of United States-sponsored military training programs for 
the Latin American and Caribbean region.
  The amendment that I will offer at the appropriate time would go to 
the heart of this. It would not close the School of the Americas. 
Rather, it would mandate that at least 36 percent of IMET-supported 
course curriculum be for, so-called expanded IMET courses--namely those 
devoted to training Latin American Armed Forces in skills that will 
better prepare them to serve their democratic countries as we enter the 
21st century. It would also require that these courses be available to 
nonmilitary government officials with responsibilities for defense 
policies in their countries as well.

  As many of my colleagues are aware, in 1989 Senator Leahy first 
introduced the concept of this new, so-called expanded IMET. Simply 
put, to qualify as an expanded IMET course its purpose must be to 
educate Latin American military and civilian personnel in the proper 
management of their defense resources, in improving their systems of 
military justice in accordance with internationally recognized 
principles of human rights or in fostering greater respect for and 
understanding of the principle of civilian control of the military.
  Despite the fact that Senator Leahy first proposed the creation of 
expanded IMET more than 8 years ago, even today Latin American military 
students are afforded very few opportunities to avail themselves of 
such courses.
  Only 4 of the more than 50 courses offered in the 1997 School of the 
America's curriculum quality as expanded IMET courses.
  That is totally unacceptable and is additional evidence that the U.S. 
Army just doesn't get it when it comes to the importance that must be 
accorded to promoting respect for human rights throughout the 
hemisphere.
  For that reason this amendment would specifically mandate that 30 
percent of Latin American IMET funds be spent in support of preparing 
Latin American military and appropriate civilian and legislative 
defense personnel for their appropriate roles in democratic societies 
as we begin the next millennium.
  I would hope that all of my colleagues would support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 913

  (Purpose: To recommend that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam be 
  placed on the list of terrorist organizations by the Department of 
                                 State)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . LIBERATION TIGERS OF TAMIL EELAM.

       Sence of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Department of State should list the Liberation Tigers of 
     Tamil Eelam as a terrorist organization.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman 
McConnell and Senator Leahy for accepting this amendment expressing the 
Sense of the Senate that the State Department should list the 
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] as a terrorist organization. I 
believe that the LTTE meets the criteria approved during the 104th 
Congress to designate terrorist organizations, and I urge the State 
Department to carefully examine the evidence.
  Section 302 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
1996 defines a terrorist organization as one which is foreign, engages 
in terrorist activity, and threatens the security of the United States. 
There is no doubt that the LTTE is a foreign organization. Its main 
centers of activity are located in the United Kingdom and France, as 
well as Canada, Australia, and India.
  The State Department's Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996 
details LTTE abuses which are undoubtedly terrorist activities. The 
LTTE regularly commits extrajudicial killings, and is responsible for 
disappearances, arbitrary arrests, detentions and torture. An attack on 
the army base at Mullaitivu in July 1996, orchestrated by the LTTE, 
killed more than 1,500 government troops. In the aftermath, an equally 
important fact came to light. It is clear that the LTTE regularly 
recruits children into its military forces.
  In the northern part of the island, the LTTE has expelled almost 
46,000 Muslim inhabitants, almost the entire Muslim population, from 
their homes. These individuals have been threatened with death if they 
return. Lastly, the LTTE has been held responsible for the 
assassination of an Indian Prime Minister, a President of Sri Lanka, a 
Presidential candidate, and senior Sinhalese and Tamil political 
leaders.
  It is clear that these activities are of a terrorist nature, and I 
believe that they threaten the national security of the United States. 
Section 302 defines national security as that pertaining to ``national 
defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the United 
States''. In this sense, the promotion of democracy, free-market 
economies, and human rights throughout the world are fundamental to our 
interests. However, the LTTE does not follow the rules of democratic 
procedure. In fact, the LTTE espouses socialism and seeks to establish 
a socialist state in Sri Lanka. This stated ideology is far removed 
from the free-market policies that the United States promotes.
  With these facts in mind, I am hopeful that the State Department will 
move to list the LTTE as a terrorist organization. The safety and 
security of the United States, and our friends in Sri Lanka, depend 
upon it.


                           Amendment No. 914

   (Purpose: To limit international military education and training 
                          assistance for Peru)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:


limitation on international military education and training assistance 
                                for peru

       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be provided to the Government of 
     Peru for international military education and training under 
     chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
     unless the President certifies to Congress that the 
     Government of Peru is taking all necessary steps to ensure 
     that United States citizens held in prisons in Peru are 
     accorded timely, open, and fair legal proceedings in civilian 
     courts.

  Mr. Leahy. Mr. President, I support Senator Durbin's amendment to 
condition IMET for Peru on timely, open and fair legal proceedings in 
civilian courts for United States citizens being held in Peru.
  The Government of Peru deserves credit for the progress in human 
rights it has made in recent years. The number of extrajudicial 
killings and disappearances has decreased dramatically. However, 
freedom of the press, executive interference in the judiciary, the 
existence of faceless military courts for civilians, lengthy pre-trial 
detention and abysmal prison conditions continue to be serious 
problems. This amendment conditions IMET assistance on speedy 
resolution of the cases of American citizens who are in Peruvian 
prisons awaiting a fair trial.
  Jennifer Davis and Krista Barnes each have admitted their guilt on 
drug-trafficking charges and cooperated fully with the Peruvian police. 
They have been imprisoned for over 9 months, waiting to be tried and 
sentenced so they may be transferred to a U.S. prison under our 
prisoner exchange treaty. They are victims of Peru's excruciatingly 
slow legal process and life-threatening prison conditions.
  Lori Berenson was tried, convicted and sentenced almost 2 years ago 
under a legal system set up to combat terrorism in Peru that violates 
international standards of due process. In late 1996, the Peruvian 
military's highest court upheld her life sentence. Ms. Berenson plans 
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Peru. In the meantime, Ms. Berenson 
is struggling through another winter in prison in the freezing 
mountains of Peru.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that this amendment will encourage Peru 
not just to take action in the cases of these young women, but that it 
will spark a vigorous effort to improve the judicial process in Peru so 
that no one--no Peruvian or American or any other citizen--will have to 
endure lengthy pretrial detention, wretched prison conditions and a 
clogged legal docket that violate minimum international standards of 
due process and the treatment of prisoners.


                           amendment no. 915

       On page 43, line 3 after the word ``(IAEA).'' insert the 
     following new section:

[[Page S7592]]

     SEC.   . AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL 
                   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) The Secretary of the Treasury may, fulfill commitments 
     of the United States, (1) effect the United States 
     participation in the first general capital increase of the 
     European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, subscribe 
     to and make payment for 100,000 additional shares of the 
     capital stock of the Bank on behalf of the United States; and 
     (2) contribute on behalf of the United States to the eleventh 
     replenishment of the resources of the International 
     Development Association, to the sixth replenishment of the 
     resources of the Asian Development Fund, a special fund of 
     the Asian Development Bank. The following amounts are 
     authorized to be appropriated without fiscal year limitation 
     for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury: (1) 
     $285,772,500 for paid-in capital, and $984,327,500 for 
     callable capital of the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development; (2) $1,600,000,000 for the International 
     Development Association; (3) $400,000,000 for the Asian 
     Development Fund; and (4) $76,832,001 for paid-in capital, 
     and $4,511,156,729 for callable capital of the Inter-American 
     Development Bank in connection with the eighth general 
     increase in the resources of that Bank. Each such 
     subscription or contribution shall be subject to obtaining 
     the necessary appropriations.
       (b) Section 17 of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, as 
     amended (22 U.S.C. 286e-2 et seq.) is amended as follows:
       (1) Section 17(a) is amended by striking ``and February 24, 
     1983'' and inserting instead ``February 24, 1993, and January 
     27, 1997''; and by striking ``4,250,000,000'' and inserting 
     instead ``6,712,000,000''.
       (2) Section 17(b) is amended by striking ``4,250,000,000'' 
     and inserting instead ``6,712,000,000''.
       (3) Section 17(d) is amended by inserting ``or the Decision 
     of January 27, 1997,'' after ``February 24, 1983,''; and by 
     inserting ``or the New Arrangements to Borrow, as 
     applicable'' before the period at the end.
       (c) The authorizations under this section are subject to 
     the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reporting out an * * *
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 916

(Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to Congressional review of 
   new arrangements for borrowing by the International Monetary Fund)

       On page 42, line 4, insert after the period the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be made available 
     until the relevant Committees of Congress have reviewed the 
     new arrangements for borrowing by the International Monetary 
     Fund provided for under this heading and authorizing 
     legislation for such borrowing has been enacted.''.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment along 
with Senator Helms and Senator Faircloth.
  My amendment would provide that none of the funds appropriated for 
the new arrangements to borrow [NAB] by the International Monetary Fund 
could be made available until the relevant authorizing committees have 
reviewed these provisions and authorizing legislation has been enacted.
  The Clinton administration and the International Monetary Fund have 
asked Congress to give the IMF $3.5 billion of the taxpayer's money to 
support the new arrangements to borrow. The NAB is an arrangement where 
25 participating countries agree to lend funds to the IMF, in 
predetermined amounts, whenever the organization believes those funds 
are needed to forestall or cope with an impairment of the international 
monetary or to deal with an exceptional situation that poses a threat 
to the stability of that system.
  This appropriations bill supports this request by including $3.5 
billion for the NAB.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the authorizing committees have not had 
an opportunity to review these new arrangements to borrow. We need to 
have hearings and fully review these provisions, which have significant 
consequences for the American taxpayer.
  We simply can't give an international bureaucracy such as the IMF a 
blank check without a thorough review by the relevant congressional 
committees. My amendment would simply do this--give us the opportunity 
to fully examine this proposal.


                           Amendment No. 917

       On page 30, line 9, after the word ``Act'' insert ``or the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 918

(Purpose: To limit aid to the Government of Congo until a Presidential 
                             certification)

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be provided to the Government of the Congo 
     until such time as the President reports in writing to the 
     Congress that the Government of Congo is cooperating fully 
     with investigators from the United Nations or any other 
     international relief organizations in accounting for human 
     rights violations or atrocities committed in Congo or 
     adjacent countries.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 919

       On page 34, and the end of line 21 strike the period and 
     insert: ``Provided further, That $60,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available under this heading 
     shall be made available for the purpose of facilitating the 
     integration of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into 
     the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Provided further, 
     That, to carry out funding the previous proviso, all or part 
     of the $60,000,000 may be derived by transfer, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, from titles I, 
     II, III, and IV of this Act.''

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. It 
requires a modest amount of funds be dedicated to supporting NATO 
integration costs for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
  Earlier this month at Madrid, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
made a historic decision: to invite three former members of the Warsaw 
Pact to join NATO. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have made 
tremendous progress since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Their economies 
are free, their militaries are under civilian control, their disputes 
with their neighbors have been resolved.
  The invitation to join NATO is not a gift--it has been earned by the 
hard work and sacrifice in each of these three countries. Including 
them in NATO will change the course of history--no longer will they be 
at the mercy of stronger neighbors.
  I led a delegation to Europe just before the Madrid summit. We met 
with NATO officials in Brussels and we went to Budapest, Hungary for a 
firsthand assessment of that country's progress. We all left convinced 
that Hungary--like Poland and the Czech Republic--has earned the 
invitation to become members of the most successful alliance in 
history.
  In the coming months, the Senate will consider all the issues 
associated with NATO enlargement. One of the key issues will be the 
costs--the total cost of enlargement, the U.S. share of that cost, and 
how that overall cost will be shared with existing and prospective NATO 
members.
  I believe the costs of enlarging NATO will be manageable. I believe 
there will be greater costs if we do not enlarge NATO. But the concern 
over the cost is legitimate. Much of the concern is based on a fear 
that NATO enlargement will drain a defense budget already under siege--
already stretched too thin from humanitarian interventions that have 
little to do with U.S. national security.
  I believe we should look at ways to finance NATO enlargement from 
non-defense sources. My amendment today helps pave the way for that 
approach by earmarking foreign aid funds for Poland, Hungary, and the 
Czech Republic.
  There is a lot of money in this bill for programs that, in my view, 
are a lower priority than NATO enlargement. For example, the bill 
contains $950 million for the International Development Association to 
make concessional loans to countries like India and China. The bill 
contains $1.3 billion for development assistance, much of it going to 
countries where United States strategic interests are far less than in 
Central Europe.
  My amendment is designed to give maximum leverage to the managers in 
conference to ensure adequate funds are made available for the three 
countries invited to join NATO--funds to finance language training, 
communications modernization, and equipment interoperability.
  Much has been done by Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to 
prepare their military forces for admission into NATO, but much more 
needs to be done. Meeting these needs will be a major share of the cost 
of NATO enlargement.
  Chairman McConnell has long been a leader in supporting enlargement 
of NATO to include new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. His 
report points out the importance of keeping the NATO enlargement door 
open, and his bill takes a number of steps to provide reassurance to 
those not invited in the first wave of enlargement--especially for the 
Baltic States.
  Adoption of this amendment--with the other provisions in the bill on 
NATO related issues--will send a

[[Page S7593]]

strong signal of Senate support financing a key element of enlargement 
preparation for the Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I thank 
the managers for their cooperation and I thank Senators Lieberman, 
Smith of Oregon, Hollings, Shelby, Roth, Biden, DeWine, Coats, Hagel, 
and Frist for cosponsoring the amendment. I urge support for the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Numbered 904 through 919) en bloc were agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were 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 ask unanimous consent that when the 
House companion measure is passed by the Senate pursuant to the 
previous order that the passage of S. 955 be vitiated, and that S. 955 
be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe that completes the evening 
for Senator Leahy and myself. Senator DeWine is here, and would like to 
speak. And I believe Senator Bennett is here, and we may shortly take 
leave.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky that I enjoy working with him. But I know the Senate is in the 
able hands of the distinguished Senator from Utah. Now that I have 
somebody who actually looks a little bit like me on the floor, I, too, 
can leave.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________