[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9854-S9869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3527

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Dodd amendment, 
No. 3527.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Dodd amendment, and 
my opposition is this:
  First, the Dodd amendment would give foreign organizations--foreign 
organizations--extraordinary statutory privileges to expedite and to 
compel declassification of U.S. national security information. Yes, it 
would give foreign organizations--not us--extraordinary statutory 
privileges to expedite and compel declassification of U.S. national 
security information, something that we have not ever had.
  Creating such statutory rights, which the Dodd amendment, if it is 
adopted and becomes law, will do, also opens the door to foreign 
organizations to take intelligence, law enforcement, defense and 
foreign policy agencies to court to compel special declassification 
requests.
  Second, to complete the review of the numerous documents that fall 
under this amendment in just 4 months--4 months--agencies will be 
forced to reassign personnel, many of whom would otherwise be carrying 
out important mission functions, or risk being sued by foreign 
organizations for noncompliance. Imagine that, think about this, I ask 
my colleagues this afternoon.
  Third, this amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut is 
woefully inadequate in protecting intelligence sources and methods and, 
as a result, will chill current and future sources from providing the 
CIA with critical information--the very information that policymakers 
need to address human rights and other important foreign policy issues 
in many countries.
  Fourth, the Dodd amendment applies the same standards for withholding 
information that are being used to declassify records relating to the 
JFK assassination. The JFK records are over 40 years old. The documents 
covered by this amendment are much newer, some only a year old. Because 
the privacy, law enforcement and intelligence concerns are much greater 
in newer documents, there is no reason for the standards to be any 
different than those set out in President Clinton's Executive Order No. 
12958. Otherwise, we risk jeopardizing ongoing prosecutions, losing 
critical intelligence sources and methods, and releasing private 
information.
  Mr. President, while we have previously enacted declassification 
exceptions for other historical records, special statutory authority to 
expedite and compel declassification of records should be exclusively 
reserved for American citizens, not foreign entities.
  The intelligence community has informed the Intelligence Committee in 
the Senate that it expects that substantial litigation costs will 
result if the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut becomes 
law.
  Litigation costs can be approximately 100 times as much per case than 
processing information for declassification and usually results in 
little, if any, additional information being released. Just think about 
it, Mr. President. Think about how far this amendment will go.
  Finally, the Dodd amendment is an unfunded mandate. Agencies would be 
required to pay for this declassification requirement out of existing 
funds. I understand that there are only a limited number of personnel 
with the necessary expertise to review and to declassify our 
intelligence records. As a result, resources spent on reviewing 
documents for the foreign organizations under this amendment, if it 
were adopted, will no longer be available to process declassification 
requests for others--including many U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens with 
equally meritorious requests for information will have to stand aside 
while these foreign entities go to the front of the line.
  In the fiscal year 1998, Mr. President, Congress funded a special 
declassification program to review and to declassify many of these 
documents. Since this amendment changes the standards for withholding 
information, the intelligence community will have to re-review the 
documents that the taxpayers have already paid to review.
  Mr. President, at the proper time I would hope that we would table 
this amendment, especially until we have an opportunity to fully 
consider its impact on the intelligence community and the Departments 
of State, Defense and Justice, as well as the American people.
  I think this amendment has not been well thought out. I know it has 
not been debated at length yet.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, both the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, who has just spoken, and I have just come from a briefing 
by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the 
FBI, and a host of other officials involved in protecting American 
secrets and engaging in counterterrorism around the world.
  The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has said that the 
amendment that is pending before us is woefully inadequate to protect 
our national security and the information that we need to keep 
classified in the United States.
  I wholeheartedly associate myself with the remarks of the chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee and want to argue in the strongest way that 
this amendment be defeated. It should be defeated on a 98-2 vote, 
frankly, because it would be an astonishing precedent-setting action of 
giving to foreign countries--foreign powers--power over United States 
classified material, power that not even U.S. citizens possess.
  It would greatly jeopardize the sources and methods for gathering 
intelligence that we have to employ in different parts of the world in 
order to get the information necessary to protect the security of the 
United States, all in the name of human rights, which all of us are, 
frankly, extraordinarily committed to protect. As a member of the 
Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, who has just spoken, and I, and others, have 
gone to great lengths to ensure that the CIA and other 
American intelligence organizations are strictly adherent to standards 
for human rights and that we will help others track down human rights 
abuses wherever and however it is necessary. But to provide for the

[[Page S9855]]

wholesale declassification of American secret information for 
Guatemalan and Honduran organizations under this amendment, as I said, 
is not only unprecedented, but is astonishing in its lack of concern 
for American security.

  I do not suggest, by any means, that the sponsors of the amendment do 
not deeply care about the security of the United States. But the way 
this amendment is written, as I said, according to the Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency, is woefully inadequate in protecting 
intelligence sources and methods, and as a result will chill current 
and future sources from providing the CIA information, in fact, 
information that is essential for us to ensure the protection of human 
rights in the very countries for which this amendment is designed to 
get information.
  It ostensibly applies the same standards that are used for the 
declassification of documents relating to the JFK assassination. And 
that is the basis upon which it is argued, ``Oh, well, it must be OK.'' 
But there are a couple of key factors here, Mr. President.
  First of all, those are for Americans. This is declassification for 
American citizens. This is not declassification for foreign governments 
or foreign organizations. But of equal importance, the JFK 
assassination documents are--what?--40 years old. We are talking, in 
this amendment here, about information which is much more current. The 
privacy, law enforcement, and intelligence concerns are much greater in 
these newer documents.
  There is no reason, frankly, for the standards to be different than 
those set out in the President's Executive Order 12958. Otherwise, we 
risk jeopardizing ongoing prosecutions, we risk losing critical 
intelligence information, compromising sources and methods, and, 
frankly, releasing a lot of private information as well.
  As I said, it is astonishing to me that we would have an amendment 
that would literally give foreign organizations these extraordinary 
statutory privileges to expedite and compel declassification of U.S. 
national security information. And for the other reasons that the 
chairman pointed out--the unfunded mandate, the substantial costs 
associated with it, the substantial litigation costs--I am not sure if 
the chairman pointed that out, but the litigation costs alone could be 
well over 100 times greater than just the processing cost for the 
information itself.
  In fiscal year 1998, Congress funded a very special declassification 
program to review and declassify many of the documents. Since this 
amendment changes the standards for withholding information, the 
intelligence community will have to re-review the documents, and, as I 
said, the taxpayers have already paid for that review.
  We ought to table this amendment until we have an opportunity to 
fully consider its impact, the impact on the intelligence community, 
the Departments of State, Defense and Justice, as well as on the human 
rights that, frankly, would be potentially abused and the human rights 
concerns that we have as a result of not being able to have access to 
the same information or to the information that we need to protect 
human rights because of the implication with respect to the sources and 
methods that could well be degraded as a result of the passage of this 
amendment.
  So this is the kind of thing that ought to be considered very, very 
carefully, first of all, in the Select Committee on Intelligence. It 
has not been done. It ought to be very carefully vented through the 
administration. As I said, the DCI is very, very concerned about this 
particular amendment. It is premature at best and enormously 
antithetical to our intelligence collection efforts at worst. As a 
result, at the appropriate time I will urge my colleagues to support a 
motion to table this amendment.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the President.
  Mr. President, let me thank, again, the distinguished manager of the 
underlying bill. This has been a disjointed debate. We have had several 
intervening matters since I first offered the amendment a couple of 
hours ago, almost 3 hours ago. So I will just revisit the purpose of 
the amendment, what it does.
  Mr. President, I listened and had a chance to hear some brief 
comments by the Senator from Alabama, and now the Senator from Arizona 
on this issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added 
as a cosponsor, as well, to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what this amendment does is it involves two 
countries--Honduras and Guatemala. As most of my colleagues are aware, 
in these two countries we were deeply involved for about a decade. And 
actually conflict went on for some time longer than that where 
literally thousands of people lost their lives. We as a country were 
deeply involved in it. There were divisions here in the United States 
over that level of involvement, that type of involvement. We are not 
here today to revisit the conflict in Central America of the 
1980s. There have been pending requests in both of these two situations 
involving Honduras and Guatemala going back 3 or 4 years, requesting 
information and documentation involving some very significant and 
severe human rights violations.

  I identified one earlier involving an American citizen who was raped 
and brutally tortured in Guatemala. Her case has never been resolved. 
She would like to have it resolved. Sister Ortiz with the Carmelite 
Order of Nuns would very much like to get to the bottom of it. I think 
all of us can understand that if that happened to anyone we knew. As an 
American citizen, she would like to find out what happened. How do you 
do that when you are trying to declassify information?
  What this amendment does in both the case of Honduras and Guatemala, 
there is a request for declassification, which we provide for all the 
time, but in these particular cases, if the agency, whatever it may be, 
is unwilling for very important reasons to declassify everything, that 
there would be an opportunity for a panel--and we have done this 
before; this is not unprecedented--made up of people from the CIA, the 
Justice Department, the Department of Defense, the State Department and 
others, that would review the request and if, in fact, they felt that 
the request for certain information would violate existing law, 
methods, resources, procedures, personnel and so forth--then they would 
deny the request. If they think it is OK, despite the agency's 
objection--and that is not too big a surprise to us that the agency 
historically takes the position of being opposed to declassification of 
any documents; that is not new at all. That has been their reaction.
  As I showed my colleagues, we have blank page after blank page when 
asking for documentation. That is a request, and we have one entire 
blank page. You are trying to get to the bottom of a case involving an 
American citizen or other people where human rights violations occur. 
This should not be that controversial. I would not ask that just anyone 
be able to have access to documents or the declassification without 
going through a process here to determine whether or not any of that 
information could be harmful to our own country. But it seems to me 
when a citizen has been hurt, when others who make legitimate requests 
and don't get to the bottom of information, and we can help by 
providing information through a declassification process, in two very 
specific cases here, these two countries, this ought not to be too much 
to ask. It is not costly; it need not go on long.
  The notion somehow that a non-U.S. citizen may request this 
information, that somehow this is unprecedented, that is not 
unprecedented. Many people all over the world request information. It 
doesn't mean they automatically get it.
  With all due respect to my colleagues, I point out that Senator 
Kerrey of Nebraska, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is 
a cosponsor of this amendment. We have talked about a number of other 
cases. Michael DeVine, American citizen, murdered in Guatemala by the 
Guatemalan military. It was covered up for years. We are trying to get 
to the bottom of it.
  Is it wrong for American citizens not to be able to request 
declassification of material that might shed light on who brutalized 
them or murdered them? We

[[Page S9856]]

can go through a very legitimate process where we can examine whether 
or not that information ought to be declassified. If a determination is 
made that it can be, then we can release it to help get to the bottom 
of that. The administration has already, by Executive order, said it 
has no problem with this in terms of getting to a declassification, but 
we want to have an orderly process.
  This amendment, and I do not claim perfection, this amendment is an 
effort here to try to do it in an orderly way, to say that you can make 
your application; that if the respective agency has a problem with a 
request, there is a way of evaluating whether or not that information 
ought to be forthcoming, and not just a panel made up of anybody but 
people who come from the various agencies that I think people would be 
concerned about.
  I was hoping the amendment would just be agreed to here, that this, 
again, shouldn't rise to the level of a major concern. In the case of 
Sister Ortiz, I don't think it is outrageous to make this request. 
Ambassador Stroock, who was the Ambassador in Guatemala appointed by 
President Bush, supports this amendment. I am told now by our 
colleague, Craig Thomas, who spoke on behalf of this amendment, from 
Wyoming, that he believes, in fact the declassification would help put 
this matter to rest once and for all.
  My view is people can overreact on these matters here when it comes 
to this kind of information, but we have heard and know of other cases 
of American citizens overseas where their lives have been threatened. 
In the case of Sister Ortiz, a rape and torture. In the case of Michael 
DeVine, murdered. I don't think it is outrageous for this body to 
provide a procedure and a mechanism whereby people can find out, 
through an orderly and proper process of declassification, information 
that might lead to those who are responsible for it. I hope we would be 
able to support an amendment that would adopt a process that is orderly 
and one that will, I hope, assist these people.
  There may not be anything in this information. Some have suggested 
there is not a lot of information in some of these cases. If that is 
the case, there is less reason to be opposed to it. In two specific 
cases here, if there is some information, and it helped to get to the 
bottom of it, I think we could all have a sense of pride that we 
contributed to that.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski, 
Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator 
Leahy, Senator Jeffords, and myself in adopting this amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator 
Dodd that requires the declassification of information pertaining to 
human rights violations in Guatemala and Honduras. Americans citizens 
and their relatives, as well as many Guatemalan and Honduran citizens, 
were victims of gross human rights violations in these nations, and it 
is our government's duty to provide them with as much information as 
judiciously possible. Further, I believe the release of this 
information will help the democratic governments of Guatemala and 
Honduras pursue justice, acknowledge the truth, cement the rule of law, 
and help enable the healing of these societies rent by decades of civil 
war.
  When we deal with the declassification of intelligence information, 
the issues are never simple. The mission of our intelligence agencies 
is to collect information that will protect American lives and preserve 
our national security. But, in order to provide this vital information, 
our intelligence personnel must persuade clandestine sources to provide 
information covertly, and they must use specialized methods that help 
collect and protect those secrets. Revelation of sources and methods, 
even if done in pursuit of moral ends, will only increase the threat to 
American lives and security. Revelation of sources and methods would, 
ironically, diminish America's ability to get information on human 
rights abuses. This amendment has been crafted with an awareness of the 
need to inform Americans more broadly while at the same time protecting 
intelligence sources and methods. I appreciate Senator Dodd's 
understanding of these issues and his leadership on this amendment.
  American citizens and their relatives have been wrongfully 
imprisoned, injured, raped, and killed during the course of the civil 
wars in Guatemala and Honduras. Our government may not have all the 
information they seek about what occurred in these countries, but what 
relevant information we do have we should provide them. This amendment 
will help their pursuit of justice and hopefully provide answers to the 
many questions that surround these events.
  Fortunately, the violence and strife that plagued Guatemala and 
Honduras over the years has abated. These nations now have democratic 
governments that bring hope and promise to their citizens. But, each of 
these nations must face their past in order to build a just and 
prosperous society in the future. The Guatemala Clarification 
Commission and the National Human Rights Commissioner in Honduras are 
integral to this process. The information that will be provided to 
these groups under this amendment can only help bring healing and 
promote peace in our hemisphere.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in 1989, Sister Dianna Ortiz was 
brutally abducted and raped in Guatemala where she was working as a 
missionary.
  She was victimized by the Guatemalan government and by her own 
government. From the day of the attack, the United States government 
has compounded her suffering. She was accused of fabricating her story. 
She has been treated like a criminal instead of as a victim.
  I am horrified by the reports of Sister Dianna's abduction and 
torture--and by our government's cruel response to her suffering, which 
continues today.
  I would like to read to my colleagues from a column written by Paul 
Ferris in the National Catholic Reporter:

       Her kidnaping and confinement included multiple gang rapes; 
     repeated beatings; intimidation and interrogation; over 100 
     cigarette burns on her back; video taping her captivity as a 
     form of blackmail; and lowering her in a pit where injured 
     women, children and men writhed and moaned and the dead 
     decayed under swarms of rats. Finally, her abductors held her 
     hand and arms as she was physically coerced into stabbing a 
     woman with a machete.

  That is why I am a cosponsor of Senator Dodd's amendment to 
declassify government documents that shed light on human rights abuses. 
Federal agencies would be required to identify, organize and declassify 
all records regarding American activities in Guatemala and Honduras 
after 1944. This would enable Sister Dianna and other victims of 
torture to learn the truth about their cases.
  We need to learn the truth, even if it is painful. By hiding behind a 
wall of secrecy, we are eroding the American people's confidence and 
trust in their government. We undermine our foreign policy and 
intelligence agencies--and the important work they do--if we cover-up 
their past actions.
  Some argue that the release of this information would ``compromise 
intelligence sources and methods.'' I disagree. If our sources were 
people who attacked American citizens, we need to know it. If our 
methods included complicity in torture, we need to know that too.
  Sister Dianna Ortiz and other victims of torture are seeking to 
rebuild their lives. The least that we can do is to help them to learn 
the truth about the tragic events that have changed their lives.
  Mr. President: Our policies must reflect our values. If our efforts 
to promote democracy and human rights around the world are to be 
successful, we must be honest and open about the tragic mistakes we 
have made in the past.
  I commend Senator Dodd for his leadership in calling for an honest 
and just accounting of America's history in Central America. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting his amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Ferris column and an article from 
the National Catholic Reporter be printed in the Record at this time.

                     Sister Dianna is Inspirational

                            (By Paul Ferris)

       Members of the Baltimore archdiocese should know that 
     Ursuline Sister Dianna Ortiz, since her ordeal, (reported in 
     CR July 2) has devoted all her energy to the task of helping 
     other torture survivors and has

[[Page S9857]]

     worked tirelessly for the cause of human rights for the 
     people of Guatemala and other countries where torture exists. 
     Sister Dianna has become a model of faith and courage to 
     countless religious and laity whom she has inspired.
       Through the testimonies of Sister Dianna and members of 
     Coalition Missing, a group she co-founded comprised of 
     American citizens, Guatemalans living in the U.S. and their 
     families who suffered torture and murder in Guatemala, the 
     United States government felt compelled to investigate and 
     publicly disclose CIA and other intelligence agency abuses in 
     paying known human rights violators, referred to as ``dirty 
     assets,'' to spy for the U.S. As a result of the Intelligence 
     Oversight Board investigation, at least 100 dirty assets were 
     removed from the CIA's payroll and CIA station chiefs were 
     fired from their positions in Guatemala for not reporting the 
     extent of the crimes committed against the people of 
     Guatemala by these dirty assets. This Intelligence Oversight 
     Board (IOB) report recommended a number of reforms in the way 
     intelligence agencies operate in an effort to bring them into 
     line with American democratic values. The IOB also exposed 
     the ugly fact that, for at least nine years, torture was 
     being taught at the notorious School of the Americas in Fort 
     Benning, Ga.
       Though Sister Dianna's testimony has been continually 
     challenged by the Guatemalan government, and by U.S. State 
     Department and Justice Department officials, the Human Rights 
     Commission of the Organization of American States, after a 
     thorough seven-year investigation, found Sister Dianna to be 
     an ``entirely credible witness,'' and has demanded the 
     apprehension and punishment of her abductors and their co-
     conspirators, and restitution to Sister Dianna as much as 
     possible.
       Sister Dianna has been able to accomplish all of this while 
     at the same time trying to heal from her own physical and 
     emotional torment associated with the after-effects of 
     torture. Her kidnapping and confinement included: multiple 
     gang-rapes; repeated beatings; intimidation and 
     interrogation; over 100 cigarette burns on her back; video 
     taping her captivity as a form of blackmail; and lowering her 
     in a pit where injured women, children and men writhed and 
     moaned and the dead decayed under swarms of rats. Finally, 
     her abductors held her hands and arms as she was physically 
     coerced into stabbing a woman with a machete.
       Among a whole host of violated personal, civil and 
     religious rights cited by the Organization of American States 
     against the government of Guatemala in the case of Sister 
     Dianna, one that concerns every Catholic directly is the 
     denial of her right to missionary activity. The attack on 
     Sister Dianna, who was teaching Mayan children to read by 
     using the Bible as a text, is an attack on all Catholics and 
     Christians who, exercising their God-given and legal right to 
     religious freedom, seek to spread the Gospel of Jesus through 
     missionary activity in other lands.
                                  ____


              Dianna Ortiz Joins Vigil for Torture Victims

                           (By Arthur Jones)

       Washington.--The heat index was 106 degrees as the small 
     group set up its table in Lafayette Park across the street 
     from the White House preparing for a June 26 dawn-to-dusk 
     candlelight vigil.
       Among the people wearing the white ``Help Stop Torture'' T-
     shirts was Ursuline Sr. Dianna Ortiz who, during 
     Congressional testimony two days earlier, broke down as she 
     recounted how she had become pregnant as a result of being 
     brutalized and raped by Guatemalan security forces and had 
     had an abortion.
       The nearby White House was unoccupied--President Clinton 
     was in Beijing where, finally, he had decided to speak out on 
     China's human rights abuses.
       The gathering in Lafayette Park--sponsored by the Torture 
     Abolition and Survivors Support Committee that was 
     culminating three days of Washington meetings and testimony--
     had similar concerns. The Support Committee estimates the 
     United States is home to more than 400,000 torture survivors.
       Before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus June 24, 
     torture victims from the 1980s and '90s described what they 
     underwent in locations ranging from Turkey to Nigeria, from 
     Iraq to the Philippines, from Columbia to Pakistan, from 
     Tibet to Guatemala (see accompanying story).
       Ortiz told the caucus, ``For the last nine years I have 
     tried to stop running. I have tried to face the torturers 
     head on and demand answers, demand justice. Instead of 
     forgiving my torturers, I filed suit against the Guatemalan 
     government and called for an investigation.''
       She said the Guatemala investigation ``led nowhere,'' that 
     her five-week vigil in front of the White House seeking 
     declassification of documents that could reveal the 
     identities of her torturers had failed; the U.S. government 
     investigations produced nothing; that Department of Justice 
     investigators accused her of lying; and that Guatemalan and 
     U.S. government officials, ``in public and private, said 
     I was a lesbian who had sneaked out for a tryst, [that] 
     the 111 cigarette burns on my back were the result of 
     kinky sex.''
       Ortiz said that because she could no longer subject herself 
     to the ``retraumatization'' brought on by justice department 
     invesigators' questions and manner, the department had closed 
     her case.
       One of the people who saw the Department of Justice report, 
     said Ortiz, was Thomas Strouck, U.S. ambassador to Guatemala 
     at the time of her 1989 abduction, ``who before any member of 
     the U.S. Embassy had interviewed me, said `Her story is not 
     accurate,' and told the State Department that my motives were 
     questionable.''
       Strouck later discussed the report with a journalist, Ortiz 
     testified, ``who then called me. There are things in that 
     report I have kept secret, that I have been ashamed of--
     things I did not tell DOJ investigators but that my friends 
     revealed as they were being interrogated--and I have lived 
     under tacit blackmail.''
       ``Let me simply tell you,'' she told the panel, ``I got 
     pregnant as a result of the multiple gang rapes by my 
     torturers, and unable to carry within me what they had 
     engendered, what I could view only as a monster, the product 
     of the men who had raped me, I turned to someone for 
     assistance and destroyed that life.''
       Ortiz was unable to continue, the rest of her testimony was 
     read for her: ``If I had to make the decision again, I 
     believe I would again decide as I did eight years ago. I had 
     little choice. My survival was so precarious at that time 
     that to have to grow within me what the torturers had left me 
     would have killed me. I tell you this simply so that I can 
     proceed with the truth.''
       Ortiz has since filed a Freedom of Information Act request 
     for the Department of Justice report.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me make two quick points and perhaps 
close this debate.
  First of all, under U.S. law, families and victims of crime in the 
United States, Americans, have the ability to go through the State 
Department to get this kind of information. That provision was included 
in last year's intelligence bill.
  Secondly, I made the point earlier we are not as concerned about 
American citizens having the right to get information declassified as 
we are foreign organizations. What I pointed out was there are two 
foreign organizations that are specifically defined in the bill as 
being permitted, then, to have access to this information and to 
require the departmental procedure which would result in the 
declassification or at least the consideration of declassification of 
this information. That is what is unprecedented here. That is what 
would be so astonishing.
  Finally, the process here is not a simple, inexpensive process where 
the CIA can inject and stop it. It is an interagency group, and the CIA 
can be and, in fact, a majority of time where this has been used, my 
understanding is it has been overridden. There are private people on 
the panel as well as representatives from other government agencies. As 
a result, you are talking about an extraordinarily time-consuming and 
expensive operation for people who are really charged with other 
responsibilities.
  With respect to the American citizens, I think we have that covered. 
With respect to foreign powers and foreign groups, I don't think we 
want to give them rights in requiring declassification of materials 
that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is concerned does 
not adequately protect our national security needs.
  Again, I urge at the appropriate time that the motion to table be 
supported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has 
made a very, very strong and a very good statement in support of his 
amendment.
  The Senator from Connecticut is one of the most knowledgeable people, 
if not the most knowledgeable Senator, on Central and Latin American 
matters. He has traveled many times to the region, he speaks fluent 
Spanish, and he has been consistent in speaking up for the rights of 
American citizens and of the Central American people.
  I have often worried that because of our own complicity, either 
active or accidental, we have allowed the coverup of some very serious 
misdeeds in that part of the world.
  After the murder of the Jesuits, I was very critical of the 
investigation of those heinous crimes. I was asked to go down so the 
Salvadoran authorities could show me how they were conducting an 
investigation to get the perpetrators. And I went to see the chief 
investigator, the prosecutor.

  Now, Mr. President, a murder case is a relatively easy crime to 
prosecute. Any of us who has prosecuted murder cases knows that. You 
have a dead

[[Page S9858]]

body, you have certain physical evidence, and you put it together. It 
was so obvious that the evidence of the murders of the Jesuits had been 
destroyed, covered up, removed. Members of our own Government were well 
aware of this and didn't want to blow the whistle. I did in a press 
conference, and I quickly left the country, I might say, because of 
threats against me for doing it.
  What the Senator from Connecticut proposes by this amendment is to 
protect, among others, our own citizens. People like Sister Diana 
Ortiz, who have tried for years to find out what her own government 
knows about what was done to her, and possibly who was involved. There 
are other crimes that were covered up, including by U.S. officials. If 
mistakes were made or crimes committed in Central America we should 
know about them. It is, after all, it is information in the possession 
of our own Government.
  The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut protects information 
that should be kept secret in the interests of national security. But 
too often, information that should not be kept secret has been 
withheld, information which could shed light on atrocities and the fate 
of people who disappeared. That is wrong. I might ask this question of 
my friend from Connecticut. Would it be safe to say that his amendment 
protects our legitimate national security interests, while it seeks to 
obtain information about crimes that were committed that the American 
people have every right to know about?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me respond to the Senator from Vermont. 
I thank him for his support on this. In this amendment, we took Public 
Law 102-526, section VI, entitled ``Grounds for Postponement of Public 
Disclosure of Records.'' This is the so-called ``Kennedy 
assassination'' language. What I did is I took the exact language--all 
of the language, which provides the exemptions of where this 
information should not be provided, and I took the word 
``assassination'' and replaced it with the words ``human rights.'' Here 
is an example. Reading from the existing law:

       Disclosure of assassination records and of particular 
     information to the public may be postponed subject to the 
     limitations of the act.

  We write:

       Disclosure of human rights records. 1. Threat of military 
     defense intelligence, conduct, foreign relations, and so 
     forth. Intelligence agents, intelligence sources, and other 
     matters currently related to the military defense.

  All the way down this entire language, all we did is replace the 
words ``human rights'' for ``assassinations'' when it comes to Honduras 
and Guatemala. We added an additional provision that is not in the 
Kennedy assassination statute. In addition, the amendment provides that 
``a document may remain classified if its public disclosure would be 
expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source.'' So we 
even add to it here.
  I say to my colleague from Vermont that we virtually stick to 
existing law. We provide that if in fact there has been a rejection 
here by the Agency, then a panel made up of representatives of the 
Department of Justice, the State Department, Central Intelligence 
Agency, and Department of Defense can review, over a 30-day period, 
that request to determine whether or not the sustained declassification 
is warranted. If they conclude it is not, then it could be declassified 
so that we can get the information out. Other than that, we follow 
exactly the Kennedy assassination language, with the exception that we 
add a provision that is not in the law.
  It even goes further. I always thought it was not a matter of great 
debate here about whether or not human rights--something we cherish, 
something we talk about all the time. My Lord, we have provided 
sanctions on countries all over the world that deprive people of basic 
human rights. Are we saying, in the case of Honduras and Guatemala 
where there are huge human rights violations, that we are not going to 
make an effort to get to the bottom of this, where particularly 
American citizens' rights were deprived, where they were brutalized? I 
don't understand that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Well, Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut, 
that really is the point. In my years here, I have seen time and time 
again a resolution or amendment to condemn this or that country that 
violates human rights. They usually pass virtually unanimously. That is 
fine. We should stand up for human right wherever they occur. But we 
are now asking our own government for information about Americans whose 
human rights were violated, and we get pages and pages that are blacked 
out. That is unacceptable. We should at least be able to tell the 
families of Americans who disappeared or who were murdered or tortured 
as much as we can about these crimes.
  Frankly, we cannot credibly condemn other countries for their 
misdeeds, and not be willing to find out what happened to our own 
citizens because possibly, conceivably, somebody in our Government may 
have broken the law. If they did we should know about it, and if the 
truth comes out we can hold people accountable and deter others from 
covering up crimes in the future. So I strongly support the amendment 
of the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there are three amendments that have 
been cleared on both sides. I would like to take care of them before 
going on to Senator Hatch's comments, which are unrelated to the bill.
  Amendment No. 3491 is on Export-Import Bank. Amendment No. 3366 is on 
landmines.


             Amendments Nos. 3491, 3366, and 3535, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk, en 
bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 3491, 3366 and 3535, 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 are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3366

 (Purpose: To require a certification that the signing of the Landmine 
Convention is consistent with the combat requirements and safety of the 
                   armed forces of the United States)

       On page 82, line 16, after the end period insert: ``This 
     subsection shall not apply unless the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     and the unified combatant commanders certify in writing to 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives that the signing of the Convention is 
     consistent with the combat requirements and safety of the 
     armed forces of the United States.''.


                           Amendment No. 3491

                      (Purpose: To amend title I)

       On page 3, line 6, strike the following proviso: ``Provided 
     further, That the Export Import Bank shall not disburse 
     direct loans, loan gurantees, insurance, or tied aid grants 
     or credits for enterprises or programs in the New Independent 
     States which are majority owned or managed by state 
     entities:''.


                           Amendment No. 3535

                           office of security

       Sec.   . (a) Establishment of Office.--There shall be 
     established within the Office of the Administrator of the 
     Agency for International Development, an Office of Security. 
     Such Office of Security shall, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, have the responsibility for the 
     supervision, direction, and control of all security 
     activities relating to the programs and operations of that 
     Agency.
       (b) Transfer and Allocation of Appropriations and 
     Personnel.--There are transferred to the Office of Security 
     all security functions exercised by the Office of Inspector 
     General of the Agency for International Development exercised 
     before the date of enactment of this Act. The administrator 
     shall transfer from the Office of the Inspector General of 
     such Agency to the Office of Security established by 
     subsection (a), the personnel (including the Senior Executive 
     Service position designated for the Assistant Inspector 
     General for Security), assets, liabilities, grants, 
     contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of 
     appropriations, and other funds held, used, available to, or 
     to be made available in connection with such functions. 
     Unexpended balances of appropriations, and other funds made 
     available or to be made available in connection with such 
     functions, shall be transferred to and merged with funds 
     appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Operating 
     Expenses of the Agency for International Development''.
       (c) Transfer of Employees.--Any employee in the career 
     service who is transferred pursuant to this section shall be

[[Page S9859]]

     placed in a position in the Office of Security established by 
     subsection (a) which is comparable to the position the 
     employee held in the Office of the Inspector General of the 
     Agency for International Development.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3491, 3366, and 3535) were 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Only one amendment remains at the desk. It has been 
withdrawn. That is amendment No. 3519. That will not be offered. After 
Senator Hatch has spoken, I will be making a motion to table the Dodd 
amendment.
  So I say to all Senators that is the last vote prior to final 
passage. We should have two votes--a vote on the motion to table the 
Dodd amendment and then a vote on final passage--and we will be 
finished with this bill.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to yield to Senator Dodd to make his final 
remarks, and then I will make my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3527

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to conclude my remarks here. The 
Kennedy assassination language was a process for declassification. It 
wasn't necessarily through an application process that we are talking 
about this amendment. There is a distinction in that regard.
  Secondly, regardless of where a bona fide request comes from for 
declassification, if it is a bona fide request, whether it is made by a 
U.S. citizen or a non-U.S. citizen, there is nowhere I know of in there 
that says somebody is precluded from making the request because they 
are a non-U.S. citizen, as long as we protect the legitimate source. I 
point out that most of the other agencies effectively had no difficulty 
with this. The reason we are requesting this amendment is because we 
have had a problem with one or two agencies; where they have provided 
information, it is blank page after blank page, redacted page after 
redacted page.
  Again, I think on the issue of human rights, certainly we have seen 
in cases where we wanted to get to the bottom of information involving 
U.S. citizens, that it is hard enough with some of these countries to 
get the cooperation in the country themselves to get information. It is 
a rather ominous thought that a U.S. citizen, or others seeking to get 
information about why they were murdered or brutalized, that they would 
face the kind of false obstruction from their own country.
  So, in the case of Honduras and Guatemala, we felt, particularly 
where these cases involved--particularly the case of Sister Ortiz--an 
American nun who was raped and tortured in that country, that helping 
her provide some information to get to the bottom of her case here goes 
back to 1989--with all of the safeguards included specifically in this 
amendment is a modest request, indeed, for us to be able to meet.
  I hope when the appropriate motion is made and the yeas and nays are 
asked on this that my colleagues would support us in adopting this 
amendment.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Utah for his graciousness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch and Mr. Leahy are located in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask the Dodd amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3501

 (Purpose: To state the sense of Congress regarding ballistic missile 
                      development by North Korea)

  Mr. McCONNELL. There is one final amendment at the desk cleared on 
both sides. I call up amendment No. 3501 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] for Mr. McCain, 
     for himself, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3501.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. __. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) North Korea has been active in developing new 
     generations of medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic 
     missiles, including both the Nodong and Taepo Dong class 
     missiles.
       (2) North Korea is not an adherent to the Missile 
     Technology Control Regime, actively cooperates with Iran and 
     Pakistan in ballistic missile programs, and has declared its 
     intention to continue to export ballistic missile technology.
       (3) North Korea has shared technology involved in the Taepo 
     Dong I missile program with Iran, which is concurrently 
     developing the Shahab-3 intermediate-range ballistic missile.
       (4) North Korea is developing the Taepo Dong II 
     intermediate-range ballistic missile, which is expected to 
     have sufficient range to put at risk United States 
     territories, forces, and allies throughout the Asia-Pacific 
     area.
       (5) Multistage missiles like the Taepo Dong class missile 
     can ultimately be extended to intercontinental range.
       (6) The bipartisan Commission to Assess the Ballistic 
     Missile Threat to the United States emphasized the need for 
     the United States intelligence community and United States 
     policy makers to review the methodology by which they assess 
     foreign missile programs in order to guard against surprise 
     developments with respect to such programs.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) North Korea should be forcefully condemned for its 
     August 31, 1998, firing of a Taepo Dong I intermediate-range 
     ballistic missile over the sovereign territory of another 
     country, specifically Japan, an event that demonstrated an 
     advanced capability for employing multistage missiles, which 
     are by nature capable of extended range, including 
     intercontinental range;
       (2) the United States should reassess its cooperative space 
     launch programs with countries that continue to assist North 
     Korea and Iran in their ballistic missile and cruise missile 
     programs;
       (3) any financial or technical assistance provided to North 
     Korea should take into account the continuing conduct by that 
     county of activities which destabilize the region, including 
     the missile firing referred to in paragraph (1), continued 
     submarine incursions into South Korea territorial waters, and 
     violations of the demilitarized zone separating North Korea 
     and South Korea;
       (4) the recommendations of the Commission to Assess the 
     Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States should be 
     incorporated into the analytical processes of the United 
     States intelligence community as soon as possible; and
       (5) the United States should accelerate cooperative theater 
     missile defense programs with Japan.

  Mr. McCONNELL. This has been approved by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3501) 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. 3527

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Dodd amendment is the pending 
amendment. Let me just say to my colleagues, if the motion to table the 
Dodd amendment, which I will shortly make, is approved, then the next 
vote will be on final passage and we will be to the completion of this 
legislation.
  Senator Shelby has indicated if the motion to table is not approved, 
he will have further observations to make about the Dodd amendment.
  So Mr. President, at this time on behalf of the Senator from Alabama, 
Senator Shelby, and myself, I move to table the Dodd amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The question is on agreeing to 
the motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S9860]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), is 
absent because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bingaman
     Coverdell
     Domenici
     Glenn
     Helms
     Inouye
     Murkowski
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3527) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add my name and 
my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, as cosponsors of 
amendment No. 3530 offered to S. 2334 by Senator McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Global environment facility

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a statement relating to an amendment 
I had intended to offer concerning the Global Environment Facility, 
which I have decided not to offer in the interest of finishing action 
on this bill. There is strong, bipartisan support for the GEF and I 
hope we can find additional funds for it later in this session.
  Mr. President, this bill contains $47 million to pay a portion of our 
arrears to the Global Environment Facility. An amendment I had planned 
to offer would provide an additional $145 million, which would cover 
our outstanding arrears which currently total $192 million. 
Unfortunately, there is no money in the bill to pay our FY 1999 
contribution to the GEF.
  The Balanced Budget Act provides for an automatic adjustment of the 
discretionary budget caps to accommodate these additional arrears, so 
my amendment would not require an offset or any additional budget 
authority.
  Mr. President, if we are going to provide $47 million toward the 
arrears we owe the GEF, we should provide the whole amount. There is no 
reason not to do it. That was one of the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget agreement.
  It does not require additional budget authority. But it we miss this 
chance, we will make it virtually impossible to pay these arrears later 
on when we no longer have the benefit of the automatic adjustment under 
the Balanced Budget Act.
  The GEF is the world's largest environmental organization. It has 
enjoyed bipartisan support in the Congress for years. It funds projects 
to protect biodiversity, stop ocean pollution, prevent ozone depletion, 
and promote energy conservation.
  A few Members of the Congress have called the GEF a ``back-door'' 
funding mechanism for the Kyoto Protocol. What is the evidence of that? 
The GEF was established years before Kyoto was even conceived of. For 
years, the GEF has been pushing the developing countries to do more to 
prevent global warming. Kyoto has not changed that. If anything, it has 
made it even more relevant and timely.
  The Resolution on Kyoto sponsored by Senator Byrd and Senator Hagel 
earlier this year calls on the developing countries to do more to 
prevent global warming.
  That is one of the GEF's goals, and a reason why we should support 
it.
  The GEF is not only good for the environment, it is good for U.S. 
business. American contractors have won 30 percent of the GEF contracts 
awarded to donor countries. These contracts have primarily gone to 
American companies involved in environmental engineering, energy 
efficiency, and renewable energy. The U.S. is the world's leader in 
these areas, and our companies will reap the rewards as the GEF helps 
the developing countries confront their exploding populations, huge 
energy demands, and a legacy of ignoring the consequences of 
environmental pollution.
  The GEF has funded over 500 projects in 119 countries. Each dollar 
the U.S. contributes is matched by 5 dollars from other donors and 10 
dollars from the developing countries themselves, private companies, 
and other international institutions. But without strong U.S. 
participation there is far less incentive for other countries to 
contribute.
  Mr. President, I am reluctant to call this free money, since no money 
is free. But this is about as free as any money we are going to see. My 
amendment would not require one dime of additional budget authority for 
us to erase $192 million in past commitments to an organization that 
deserves our strong support.
  Mr. President, to expedite completion of this bill at this late hour, 
I have agreed to withhold offering my amendment. However, is is my 
fervent hope that we will revisit this issue, and that if additional 
budget authority becomes available later this session that we use some 
of it to make a contribution to the GEF for FY 1999, and that we make 
the cap adjustment provided for under the Balanced Budget Act to cover 
the $192 million in arrears that would be made available under my 
amendment. To do so would not affect any of the other funds in this 
bill, but it would fulfill our commitment to pay these arrears, and 
support the most important international organization devoted to 
protecting the environment.


                   Development Assistance for Africa

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of development 
assistance for Africa, which is included in the fiscal year 1999 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
  For fiscal year 1999, the total funding for development assistance 
has gone down once again. At the same time, there are still earmarks 
for many programs in all regions in this bill. Given that there will be 
necessary cuts throughout all of these accounts, Africa should not 
suffer any more than other accounts simply because it lacks the 
earmarks that have been given to other regions of the world.
  Development assistance for Africa used to be provided through a 
separate account called the Development Fund for Africa (DFA), which 
was created in the fiscal year 1988 appropriations bill to meet a broad 
range of objectives specifically aimed at Africa, including rural and 
sustainable development, private sector development, maternal and child 
health needs, and educational improvement, particularly in the primary 
grades. For a variety of reasons, the DFA has been dropped as a 
separate funding account. Nevertheless, the goals and programs embodied 
in the DFA continue to be important in terms of our Africa program.
  For many years, these goals were championed by our former colleagues 
and former Chairmen of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Senators 
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker and Paul Simon. As the current Ranking Member of 
that subcommittee, I share their commitment to these goals. I have seen 
how the 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa are increasingly becoming 
even

[[Page S9861]]

more relevant to United States interests, and our economic, political, 
humanitarian, and security concerns.
  Long-term development assistance to African nations--whether through 
bilateral or multilateral channels--directly complements U.S. foreign 
policy goals and national security interests.
  There are several examples of this complementary relationship.
  First, we have an interest in a safe and healthy environment. The 
rapid spread of the Ebola virus demonstrated some of the areas of 
vulnerability on the African continent. Now, unfortunately, the rates 
of HIV and AIDS infections in Africa are the highest in the world, and 
they are continuing to rise rapidly. As we have seen, viruses do not 
need visas.
  Second, we have an interest in expanding trade and investment ties 
with the African continent. U.S. exports to Africa expanded by 22.7 
percent in 1995--this is nearly twice the growth rate of total U.S. 
exports worldwide. Already U.S. exports to Africa equal 54 percent more 
than our exports to the former Soviet Union. We export more to South 
Africa alone than to all of Eastern Europe combined.
  Third, we have an interest in democracy. More than half of African 
nations now can be considered democratic or have made substantial 
progress toward democracy. Many of these nations also are moving toward 
free-market economies.
  Fourth, we have an interest in human resource development. Sub-
Saharan Africa has the fastest growing and poorest population in the 
world. A substantial percentage of Africa's population is under 18 
years of age. These children will soon grow to adulthood and I hope 
there will be opportunities for them to lead productive and dignified 
lives, in which their basic human needs are met. At the same time, 
Africa's infant and child mortality rates are 2 to 3 times higher than 
those in Latin America or Asia.
  Finally, we have an interest in security. It is unfortunate, but 
Africa also is home to terrorist activity and to drug and arms 
trafficking. As the recent bombings of our embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania, and the bombing of a crowded restaurant in South Africa have 
painfully demonstrated, Africa is not immune to the scourge of 
terrorism.
  Mr. President, a stable African continent serves American interests. 
The Development Fund for Africa was created to ensure a steady source 
of long-term development funds for Africa. Over the past decade, the 
DFA has contributed to substantial gains in health care, education, 
small business development, democracy, and stability. A sustained 
assistance program for Africa helps African nations to invest in 
development and not in crises. The types of challenges we face in 
Africa today are very complex and require long-term solutions. And this 
requires long-term investment.
  As a result of DFA assistance, African farmers are growing more food, 
more children are attending primary school, and more informal sector 
entrepreneurs have access to credit than was possible 10 years ago. And 
the United States has played a key role in helping several African 
countries experience dramatic drops in fertility through effective 
family planning and health care programs.
  In sum, Mr. President, our assistance program represents a sound 
investment in our relationship with the continent of Africa that 
signals our continued interest in remaining engaged with Africa. I hope 
that during consideration of this bill in the Senate, in the House, and 
in conference, as well as during the United States Agency for 
International Development budgeting process, that we can maintain a 
similar proportion of the total development assistance appropriations 
as that requested by the President in the congressional presentation 
documents for foreign assistance.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as the Senate considers appropriations for 
foreign operations, I would like to recognize the efforts of two 
organizations headquartered in my home state of Washington. World 
Vision Relief and Development (WVRD) and World Concern Development 
Organization (WCDO) have made great strides in bringing hope to a 
troubled world.
  On countless occasions, World Vision has achieved its objective of 
long-term transformation of human lives through effective 
implementation of emergency relief, rehabilitation and sustainable 
development programs throughout the world. World Vision, which is 
largely funded through the generosity of Americans, has operations in 
approximately 94 different countries. Of particular note is World 
Vision's efforts on behalf of the world's children. Through tireless 
efforts in public health and nutrition, the organization has allowed 
children to survive.
  In Sudan, World Vision has shown courageous long-term interest in the 
tragedy that continues to unfold there. Since operating in Sudan since 
the early 1980s, World Vision has provided 4 therapeutic feeding 
centers, brought medical supplies and services to the needy, and been 
committed to long-term agricultural development.
  WCDO based in Seattle works in the areas of relief, rehabilitation 
and development to help the recipients in developing countries achieve 
self-sufficiency, economic independence, physical health and spiritual 
peace through integrated community development. WCDO fosters crop 
improvement through new crops, cash crops and improved seed 
demonstration projects. It has also raised world literacy rates, 
developed communities, provided shelter for refugees, and given 
thousands the skills necessary to survive and grow. The world is a 
better place with WCDO in it.
  I know the Senate will join me in saluting the care World Vision and 
World Concern have shown for those in desperate need of compassion and 
a helping hand.
  (At the request of Mr. Leahy, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have agreed to strike section 578 
of the bill which contains a reporting requirement relating to arms 
sales. I have done so in response to a request by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
  However, both Senator Helms and Senator Biden have agreed that they 
will include a modified version of this reporting provision which has 
been negotiated and agreed upon by myself, Senator Helms, Senator 
Biden, and Senator McConnell in legislation that has been reported by 
the Foreign Relations Committee and which is expected to be acted on by 
the Senate later this month. If that legislation is not adopted by the 
Senate or the reporting provision is not included in whatever version 
of that legislation becomes law, Senator Helms, Senator Biden, and 
Senator McConnell have agreed to support its inclusion in the FY 1999 
Foreign Operations Conference Report, a Continuing Resolution, or 
whatever other legislative vehicle is appropriate. My purpose in 
striking section 578 is to give the Foreign Relations Committee an 
opportunity to include the modified reporting provision in its 
legislation, but to ensure that if that fails it is included in a 
legislative vehicle that becomes law.
  Mr. HELMS. The senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I concur.
  Mr. BIDEN. I concur.
  (At the request of Mr. McConnell, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering S. 
2334, the Foreign Operations and Export Financing Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1999.
  The Senate bill provides $12.6 billion in budget authority and $4.9 
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 1999.
  When outlays from prior year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $12.6 billion in budget 
authority and $12.6 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1999.
  The subcommittee is below its section 302(B) allocation for budget 
authority and outlays.
  Mr. President, I will ask that a table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  Mr. President, I would like to commend the committee for including 
full funding for the IMF in this bill. The committee and Senator 
McConnell's leadership on this issue as well as the sanctions task 
force is a great contribution to this Congress and the American people.

[[Page S9862]]

  Liquidity levels are at historically low levels at the IMF and if we 
choose not to fund our share of the increase, there will be no 
increases from the other 181 members of the IMF. According to IMF 
bylaws, no U.S. participation would guarantee no world participation in 
the increased funding.
  The language in this bill and passed by the Senate in the 1998 
supplemental also addresses the reforms needed by the IMF, especially 
addressing the issues of greater transparency and stronger promotion of 
free trade.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the bill.
  I ask that the table to which I referred be printed in the Record.
  The table follows:

           S. 2334, FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS, 1999 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                                   [Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Defense  Nondefense   Crime  Mandatory    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     12,554   ......        45     12,599
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     12,595   ......        45     12,640
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     12,600   ......        45     12,645
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     12,600   ......        45     12,645
1998 level:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     13,215   ......        44     13,259
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     12,829   ......        44     12,873
President's request:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     14,079   ......        45     14,124
  Outlays.....................................................  .......     13,002   ......        45     13,047
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......  ..........  ......        45   ........
  Outlays.....................................................  .......      7,695   ......        45   ........
 
               SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority............................................  .......        -46   ......  .........       -46
  Outlays.....................................................  .......         -5   ......  .........        -5
1998 level:
  Budget authority............................................  .......       -661   ......         1       -660
  Outlays.....................................................  .......       -234   ......         1       -233
President's request:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     -1,525   ......  .........    -1,525
  Outlays.....................................................  .......       -407   ......  .........      -407
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......     12,554   ......  .........    12,554
  Outlays.....................................................  .......      4,900   ......  .........     4,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

               U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Committee on 
Appropriations for including language in its report on S. 2334, the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for FY 1999, related to the 
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. In its discussion 
of funding for the International Fund for Agricultural Development 
(IFAD), the Committee notes its support for that organization's efforts 
to implement this important Convention. The United States was 
instrumental in negotiation of this treaty, and has signed it, but the 
Senate has yet to exercise its advice and consent responsibilities on 
it.
  Mr. President, desertification is a serious problem with which many 
of my colleagues may not be familiar. I fear the Convention may be 
overlooked because of this ignorance, but at great cost and with little 
reason.


                     The Problem of Desertification

  Desertification is the severe land degradation of arid and semi-arid 
regions, rendering such drylands unable to sustain crops or other 
vegetation. It is not the spread of existing deserts, but rather the 
destruction of fertile soils, largely through human activity. In the 
past, drylands recovered easily following long droughts and dry 
periods. Under modern conditions, however, they tend to lose their 
biological and economic productivity quickly unless they are 
sustainably managed. Today drylands on every continent are being 
degraded by over-cultivation, deforestation and poor irrigation 
practices. Excessive population pressure and unwise economic policies 
also exacerbate the problem.
  Over one-quarter of the Earth's land surface is endangered by 
desertification, threatening the livelihoods of one billion people. In 
Africa, 73 percent of drylands are moderately or severely desertified, 
and the proportion of drylands affected by desertification is 
comparable. In addition, 40 percent of the land surface of the United 
States, covering most of 17 western states, qualifies as affected 
dryland areas. The direct worldwide economic loss from desertification, 
mainly from decreased agricultural productivity, is estimated at $42 
billion per year, while the cost of actions needed to combat it is 
estimated at between $10-22 billion annually. The loss of annual income 
in areas immediately affected by desertification in the United States 
is an estimated $5 billion. It is clear that it is far more cost-
effective to prevent desertification than to deal with its devastating 
consequences.
  To most Americans, the Dust Bowl of the 1930's is the most familiar 
example of desertification and its consequences--massive hunger, 
poverty, and migration. Mr. President, desertification is far more than 
an environmental problem. It is connected to famine, malnutrition, 
starvation, epidemics, poverty, economic and social instability and 
mass migration. Desertification contributes to water scarcity. In many 
countries, inadequate water resources leads to increased political 
tension, often rendering desertification a security issue. Around the 
world, desertification and water shortages lead to reduced crop 
production, hunger and mass migration which can spark turmoil and armed 
conflict over scarce food resources. These upheavals can result in 
heavy costs to the U.S. taxpayer in the form of extended humanitarian 
assistance or large immigration programs.
  The Convention to Combat Desertification was called for at the U.N. 
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992, when the 
severity of the problem was recognized. At that time, several African 
nations argued that the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions did 
not address their major environmental concern--desertification.
  The United States has since been an active participant during the 
negotiation and drafting process. The Convention entered into force in 
1996 and has been ratified by more than 120 countries. The President 
submitted the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent in August 
of 1996, but no action has yet taken place. It is crucial that we 
consider this treaty as soon as possible, prior to the Conference of 
the Parties, due to take place in November.
  Mr. President, this treaty is unlike the other environmental 
conventions brought before the Senate in recent years. It advocates a 
unique method that I believe will have efficient, effective outcomes. 
Not only is this the first international treaty to address directly the 
issue of poverty and land degradation in rural areas, but it also calls 
for the participation of resource users in the development of 
solutions. This is one of the most important facets of the convention; 
by stressing the need for concerted, cooperative action at all levels, 
strategies to attack this problem becomes an amalgamation of expertise 
and experience. First-hand knowledge of the problem and an awareness of 
the particularities means that programs will be specifically designed 
to meet the needs of a certain area. This method will also empower the 
residents of countries--mostly developing countries--where 
desertification is a particular problem, helping people to help 
themselves.
  The Convention calls upon affected countries to establish national 
action plans to combat the problem at local and regional levels, and 
calls upon developed countries to channel existing bilateral and 
multilateral funds to support these programs. These national action 
plans mean that countries will be active participants that will accept 
responsibility without imposing some kind of universal solution on 
countries that may have different needs.
  Thus, the Convention aims to ensure that funding programs are better 
coordinated, that funding is based on the needs of affected countries, 
that donor countries can be sure their funds are well spent, and that 
recipients obtain the maximum benefit from the sums available. No new 
funding is required. Instead, the treaty establishes a Global Mechanism 
which can serve to mobilize and coordinate donor resources to combat 
the problem of desertification.
  The United States has a long history of managing its drylands. 
Desertification affected hundreds of thousands of Americans during the 
Dustbowl years of the 1930s, when impoverished farmers had to abandon 
their exhausted land. Today, desertification in the United States has 
been associated with Western grazing and water management practices. 
Aspects of the desertification process, such as soil erosion, present a 
serious threat to agricultural productivity. As a result of these 
decades of experience, we have created a variety of programs and 
institutions to combat drought. The United States is considered to have 
the premier technology and expertise in this area, and so our 
participation in the Convention to Combat

[[Page S9863]]

Desertification can really determine its success.
  It is of course important to consider the implications of the treaty 
for the United States. The Convention to Combat Desertification does 
not require any land-use restrictions, legislation or regulations for 
U.S. implementation. The President has asserted that if the U.S. was to 
ratify the treaty its obligations would be met by current law and on-
going programs. Most importantly, the Convention does not call for 
increased funding from the United States. This treaty operates on 
existing levels of aid.
  Mr. President, around the world desertification and water shortages 
lead to reduced crop production, hunger, and mass migration which can 
spark turmoil and armed conflict over scarce food resources. The 
Convention to Combat Desertification could lead to powerful preventive 
action that reduces dependence on U.S. foreign aid.
  Mr. President, there are many reasons why it is in the U.S. national 
interest to ratify the Convention to Combat Desertification.
  First, expectations are high among the CCD nations that private 
sector business and NGOs will play a key role in coordinating and 
implementing the provisions of the treaty. The U.S. agricultural 
industry, our excellent university system, and strong network of NGOs 
have much to offer their counterparts in developing countries in 
combating desertification. The treaty provides opportunities for U.S. 
agribusiness to build positive relationships with developing country 
governments and to improve the policy environment for bilateral trade 
in their emerging markets. By providing the necessary institutional 
mechanisms, the CCD will facilitate the transfer of technology and 
information from U.S. business firms to the world's huge and expanding 
drylands.
  It is clear that ratifying the CCD creates a number of opportunities 
for the U.S. private sector, including the export of American technical 
assistance and expertise in erosion control. Failure to ratify will 
place American agribusiness at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis 
similar businesses in the 128 countries that have already ratified the 
CCD.
  Second, being part of the CCD is critical to U.S. leadership in 
promoting democracy and sound stewardship of natural resources around 
the world. If the Senate ratifies the Convention prior to adjournment 
this year, the U.S. could play a major role in decisions affecting the 
treaty's implementation this November.
  Third, helping fight desertification abroad, and the poverty that 
goes with it, benefits American exports and the U.S. trade balance. 
Rising incomes in the agricultural sector of developing countries 
generate a higher demand for U.S. exports of seeds, fertilizer, agro-
chemicals, farm and irrigation equipment as well as other U.S. produced 
goods and services. By helping build markets in developing countries, 
we gain greater access to them in the long run.
  As desertification deepens poverty worldwide, it undercuts economic 
growth and triggers social instability in developing countries. This 
results in more frequent and costly U.S. food programs, increased 
immigration to the U.S. from land-degraded countries like Mexico, and 
reduced foreign markets for American businesses. The CCD has the 
potential to alleviate these problems, with no additional American 
foreign aid. It also stimulates business and leads to better trade 
environments.
  Mr. President, this Convention is important to the leaders of many 
African nations. In fact, it was presented as a priority of the African 
Diplomatic Corps prior to President Clinton's trip to Africa earlier 
this year.
  As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have 
had the opportunity to see first hand how valuable the provisions of 
this Convention will be to the people of Africa. It is a mechanism by 
which the people of Africa will be assisted in preserving and 
protecting their land, which is a vital element in Africa's fight to 
become self-sufficient. This convention is innovative because it 
requires participation from all segments of the population, from the 
farmers and herders who work the land, to local governments and 
environmental organizations, to those who affect environmental and 
agricultural policy at the national and regional levels. It works from 
the bottom-up, incorporating the knowledge of those directly involved 
for a more effective approach.
  The consideration of this Convention will also refocus the Senate's 
attention on the plight of the African people. It is the perfect 
opportunity for the Senate to go on record in support of programs that 
are both vital to the African continent and consistent with United 
States foreign, economic, and environmental policy. The Convention also 
furthers the Administration's stated policy to build a new partnership 
with Africa.
  Mr. President, there has been virtually no formal opposition to the 
Convention to Combat Desertification. The same arguments used against 
U.S. participation in the United Nations or in other international 
organizations or against other environmental treaties--views I do not 
share, but which nevertheless are argued here in this body--simply do 
not apply to the CCD. There are no possible constraints on U.S. 
sovereignty or policies, but just the sort of benefits that I have 
described.
  This should be a non-controversial issue, and it is in our best 
interest to deal with it as soon as possible. Swift ratification 
ensures U.S. leadership and potential profit. I hope that the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations, of which I am an active member, will 
act on this treaty in a timely manner.


                              peace corps

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for 37 years now, the Peace Corps has been 
promoting international peace and friendship through the service abroad 
of American volunteers. More than 150,000 Americans from every 
background have served in the Peace Corps in 132 countries. Right now, 
more than 6,500 peace Corps Volunteers are living and working alongside 
local people in 84 countries.
  The Peace Corps is a model of citizen service on international scale 
and a model of American leadership in the world. In their engagement 
abroad, American Peace Corps Volunteers share and represent the culture 
and values of the American people, while living and working alongside 
local people, and speaking the local language. In doing so, they earn 
respect and admiration for our country. This is a different type of 
American Leadership and an important complement to our formal U.S. 
foreign policy.
  From the day of its establishment, the Peace Corps has seen strong 
by-partisan support for its programs. I regret that this year the 
subcommittee has not been able to fund the Peace Corps at the 
administrations full request. However, I do understand the difficult 
budgetary constraints facing the subcommittee this year.
  Mr. LEAHY. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator 
from Connecticut. I too regret that we were limited in our ability to 
provide funding. Unfortunately, the funding allotted to the 150 account 
is inadequate to meet all our foreign policy needs. I believe the 
members of the subcommittee made best efforts to fund all worthy 
programs including the Peace Corps. There may be opportunities to 
review some of these levels in conference.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his remarks. 
Certainly, I would hope that additional funds could be found to 
supplement the FY 1999 Peace Corps budget if at all possible. As my 
colleagues know, the Peace Corps is a very personal matter for me as I 
served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Dominican Republic. This was a 
very worthwhile experience for me personally.
  I know that our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, also has very 
personal feelings with respect to the Peace Corps having served as a 
Peace Corps Director before being elected to the Senate.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, 
Peace Corps volunteers are some of our best ambassadors to the world. 
They represent the finest characteristics of the American people: a 
strong work ethic, generosity of spirit, a commitment to service, and 
an approach to problems that is both optimistic and pragmatic. The 
people-to-people nature of the Peace Corps, and its separation from the 
formal conduct of the foreign policy of the United States, has allowed 
Volunteers to establish a record

[[Page S9864]]

of service that is respected and recognized globally.
  Furthermore, the Peace Corps is helping to prepare America's 
workforce with overseas experience by training Volunteers to use skills 
that are increasingly important to America's participation in the 
international economy. Volunteers worldwide learn more than 180 
languages and dialects, and they receive extensive cross-cultural 
training that enables them to function effectively at a professional 
level in different cultural settings. Returned Volunteers often use 
these skills and experiences to enhance careers in virtually every 
sector of our society--Congress, the Executive branch, the Foreign 
Service, education, business, finance, industry, trade, health care, 
and social services.
  The Peace Corps has emerged as a model of citizen service and of 
practical assistance to people in 132 developing countries, as my 
colleague mentioned. I can certify that during my tenure as Director 
and since then, virtually every ambassador or other official I have met 
from countries with volunteers is an enthusiastic supporter of the 
Peace Corps. They view the Peace Corps as the most successful program 
of its kind. I think it is the right time to look to further expansion 
of the Peace Corps and I believe reaching a level of 10,000 volunteers 
is an appropriate goal. I appreciate the funding constraints the 
Senator from Vermont spoke of. I hope that more resources do become 
available and at that time would look forward to working with my 
colleagues from Connecticut, Vermont, and the Chairman to prepare the 
Peace Corps for extending its mission into the 21st Century.


                              section 907

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, there is perhaps no greater foreign 
policy priority in the post-cold-war world than assisting former 
Communist countries in making the difficult transition to democracy. 
The fall of the Soviet Union was not the final victory of the cold war. 
That will come only when all of these former adversaries embrace 
liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. Recognizing this, the 102nd 
Congress in 1992, passed the Freedom Support Act. This bill 
acknowledged that we can help countries make the transition to 
democracy both with the carrot of economic aid and the stick of 
withholding such assistance. It included a provision, Section 907, 
which mandated that with the exception of humanitarian aid, democracy-
building funds, and investment assistance, Azerbaijan will not receive 
any direct economic aid until it ceases the blockade of neighboring 
Armenia and the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
  However, since that historic moment in 1992, this provision of the 
Freedom Support Act has repeatedly come under fire for its scope and 
perceived effect on relations between the United States and Azerbaijan. 
Opponents of Section 907 have repeatedly sought the opportunity to 
weaken its restrictions, or eliminate them altogether, arguing that 
they are no longer valid and have unfairly constrained U.S. investment 
in the Caspian Sea region. In response, I would argue that Section 907 
is still necessary to safeguard the rights of the Armenian people.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Bill reaffirms our commitment to Section 907 of the 
Freedom Support Act. By doing so, this Congress reaffirms our 
commitment to the peaceful resolution of international conflicts and to 
the Armenian people themselves. The Azeri blockade of Armenia and 
Nagorno-Karabakh is a direct result of the dispute between the two 
countries over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the longest-running 
ethnic conflict in the former USSR. The human cost to date has been 
35,000 lives and 1.4 million refugees.
  The Azeri blockade has been particularly brutal for Armenia which 
relies on its ties to the outside world for survival. It is a land-
locked country where only 17 percent of the land is arable. Due to the 
blockade, 80 percent of the Armenian population now live in poverty. 
Humanitarian assistance cannot get to Armenia, which is still trying to 
rebuild from the devastating earthquake of a decade ago, and Nagorno-
Karabakh is dealing with a critical shortage of medical equipment. 
Industrial recovery has been stalled as 90 percent of Armenia's energy 
supply comes from abroad, and without its usual rail and transportation 
routes, Armenia is forced to rely on chartered cargo flights from 
Russia and Ukraine, or insecure land connections through Georgia, one 
of the most unstable countries in the former Soviet Union.
  Mr. President, the tragedy is that while life in Armenia is bleak, 
Azerbaijan has a bright future. It is estimated that Azerbaijan 
controls oil reserves of 40 billion barrels, and with it the potential 
to generate tremendous revenue. Section 907 will not cripple 
Azerbaijan. Indeed, since 1992, we have sent $130 million of 
humanitarian aid to ensure that this does not happen. Instead, this 
provision sends a powerful message to the Azeri government that in the 
post-Cold War era the United States will not tolerate the inhumane and 
belligerent treatment of innocent people in Armenia, in the former 
USSR, or anywhere the world over. We owe it to the Armenian people to 
continue this pressure on Azerbaijan to lift its blockade, and I am 
proud that this bill keeps Section 907 intact.


                           Amendment No. 3516

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment offered by Senator Kennedy regarding the tragedy of Pan Am 
Flight 103. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the bombing over 
Lockerbie, Scotland which killed 270 people. The memory of the 189 
American citizens on board that doomed flight has not faded with the 
passage of time, but those who want to see justice done have become 
increasingly frustrated with the amount of time it has taken to try and 
bring the perpetrators to justice.
  It now appears as if the indicated suspects, Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi 
and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, may finally be tried for their crime. The 
United States-United Kingdom proposal urges Colonel Qaddafi to transfer 
the suspects to the Netherlands to stand trial before a Scottish court, 
under Scottish law, and by a panel of Scottish judges. However, I 
believe that it is critical for the United States to retain its 
pressure on Colonel Qaddafi to comply with the will of the 
international community. Qaddafi must transfer these suspects to the 
Netherlands, but the United States must also continue to refuse to 
negotiate with Qaddafi on this issue. Should Qaddafi fail to transfer 
the suspects, it is critical that the United Nations prepare a strong 
response and impose a multilateral oil embargo against Libya. I 
wholeheartedly support the language of this amendment, and I am pleased 
to be a cosponsor.


                   restrictions on imet for indonesia

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to comment on one provision 
of the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that does not appear in 
this year's bill, for fiscal year 1999, and that is the provision that 
would impose certain restrictions for security assistance to Indonesia.
  As many of my colleagues may know, since 1992, the Congress has 
imposed restrictions on the provision of International Military 
Education and Training, known as IMET, to Indonesia, in response to the 
despicable treatment by the Indonesian military in East Timor the 
previous year, when more than 100 civilians were brutally massacred. In 
the Foreign Operations bill that year, for FY 1993, the Congress cut 
off all IMET assistance for Indonesia.
  A few years later, in the Foreign Operations Appropriation bill for 
fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized a limited form of IMET, known as 
``expanded IMET,'' meaning military training courses focused on the 
management of defense resources, improvement in domestic systems of 
military justice in accordance with internationally recognized human 
rights, and the principle of civilian control of the military. This was 
the result of a compromise between those of my colleagues who support 
close ties between the United States military and Indonesia, and those 
of us, myself included, who remained skeptical and opposed because of 
continuing human rights abuses in Indonesia.
  In 1997, Indonesia withdrew completely from the program because it 
recognized the continuing opposition from some of us in Congress to 
these relations. President Suharto wanted to avoid what he knew would 
be criticism over his military's treatment of East Timor, and he 
decided that IMET, ultimately, was not worth it to him.

[[Page S9865]]

  This year, the Appropriations Committee has decided to remove the 
limitations on IMET for Indonesia. I welcome the Committee's report 
language urging the Defense Security Assistance Agency to consult with 
Congress regarding its plans for IMET training in Indonesia, 
particularly given past human rights concerns. However, since such 
consultation is not mandated, I would hope the DSAA will follow this 
proscription, and consult early and fully with the relevant 
appropriations and authorizing committees of both Houses of Congress.
  Nevertheless, it is my strong view that 1998 is not the year to 
change our policy with respect to IMET in Indonesia.
  Congress wisely restricted IMET at a time when the Indonesian 
military was clearly involved in myriad abuses. This year, Indonesia 
has certainly undergone tremendous changes. We have seen the country 
suffer through a quickly downsliding economy. We have seen student 
demonstrations not thought possible in that country's restrictive 
political environment. And then, amazingly, we have seen the 
resignation of long-time authoritarian leader Suharto.
  The country's new leader, President B.J. Habibie, has certainly taken 
some steps that are encouraging. He has released some political 
prisoners, and allowed workers to form unions. He has pledged to hold 
parliamentary elections by May and presidential election by December 
1999. And, he has even broached the sensitive subject of East Timor, 
agreeing to hold talks on the region's status, and announcing a 
drawdown of some troops.
  But, in my view, these actions should still be considered mere 
preliminary steps. They are promising, but do not yet warrant a policy 
change with respect to our military training.
  Notably, Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo, and 
other reliable sources in Dili, the capital of East Timor, believe the 
situation in East Timor remains substantially unchanged. Asked if he 
saw any concrete results after the UN action, the bishop said firmly, 
``Not yet.'' In early August, Belo stated, ``There is still 
intimidation and terror.''
  In late July, there was a widely publicized announcement of 
Indonesian troop withdrawal from East Timor, with about 100 foreign 
journalists brought there for the occasion. The problem is that there 
is every indication that the drawdown may not actually have taken 
place. Bishop Belo stated on August 20 that the troops were actually 
shifted to the western side of the island and later brought back to 
East Timor in trucks. ``We must denounce this,'' Bishop Belo said at 
the time. Other sources note that the army in East Timor's rural areas 
does not seem to act in the same spirit of reform that the leadership 
in Jakarta is professing.
  With all the political changes taking place in Indonesia, generally, 
it remains critical that the country's government make strong efforts 
to demilitarize East Timor as quickly as possible, and establish a 
United Nations or other international presence to protect human rights. 
Until such measures are in place, any claims of progress can have 
little credibility. There is a strong need to monitor closely 
conditions on the ground.
  Given this unsure environment, and particularly the unclear role of 
the military in the transition process, I believe restrictions on IMET 
training continue to be appropriate.
  As a result, I am disappointed that this year's bill does not include 
the restrictions that were first included in the Foreign Operations 
bill for fiscal year 1996, and continued every year since then. I 
believe removing these restrictions represents a radical step that I 
fear will send the wrong signal to the Indonesian Government.
  It is, however, my understanding that the House version of this bill, 
which is still in committee, is likely to include these restrictions. 
If this is the case, it is my sincere hope that the Senate conferees 
will agree to accept the House version of these provisions.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in going through the fiscal year 1999 
foreign operations appropriations bill and accompanying report, I was 
pleased by the apparent reduction in earmarks and other wasteful and 
unnecessary spending compared with past years. The fact that part of 
the reason for this reduction is that programs traditionally funded in 
the foreign operations bill have been shifted to other appropriations 
bills only mildly diminishes my enthusiasm for the progress that has 
been made on this bill.
  Foreign aid programs, as all of us in Congress know, are enormously 
unpopular with the vast majority of the American populace. That only 
one percent of the federal budget is allocated for foreign assistance 
and generally supports U.S. foreign policy objectives does not detract 
from the extreme disfavor with which the public views the notion of 
their tax dollars going to foreign countries. It has always been to 
Congress' credit that it passes foreign aid legislation every year 
despite public opposition out of this recognition for the very 
important role aid programs play in facilitating economic growth and 
social stability in less developed nations.
  While the bill before us includes fewer earmarks for the benefit of 
parochial or other favored programs, there are still too many. Some of 
the examples of earmarks and other wasteful spending are annual 
occurrences. A particularly egregious case in point is the annual $3 
million allocation for the International Fertilizer Development Center. 
An annual provision in the foreign aid bill, it is highly questionable 
whether the millions of dollars funneled to this program are warranted 
by its actual value to less developed countries or to the American 
public. Some justification for this funding, as well as a sense of 
whether it could and should be competitively awarded, would go a long 
way toward alleviating my concern about its continued inclusion in this 
bill.
  The International Law Enforcement Academy for the Western Hemisphere 
in Roswell, New Mexico is the recipient in this bill of $5 million. 
This is a classic earmark, matching an activity established and 
geographically located for parochial reasons. That the bill mandates it 
receive $5 million simply compounds the injury to the integrity of the 
federal budget process represented by this project. Clearly, the 
concept of fiscal responsibility remains alien to members of this body.
  One area in which there has been no discernable improvement is 
earmarking for specific academic institutions, a practice that wastes 
millions of dollars every year, either in clearly questionable programs 
or by failing to mandate competitive bidding processes. The 
accompanying list includes these projects, but a few in particular 
warrant special mention. The International Integrated Pest Management 
Training and Research Center at the University of Vermont probably does 
fine work in the field of pest management--a serious endeavor given the 
scale of damage to crops regularly inflicted through pest 
infestations--but directing the Agency for International Development to 
provide it $1 million without the benefit of a competitive process is 
typically irresponsible.

  The foreign operations appropriations bill also includes earmarks for 
the University of Hawaii, University of Northern Iowa, George Mason 
University, Utah State University, Montana State University, 
Mississippi State University, and the aforementioned project at the 
University of Vermont. Of these seven university earmarks, five are 
located in the states of members of the Appropriations Committee and a 
sixth is in the state of the Senate majority leader. You don't have to 
be Hercule Poirot to be suspicious of this pattern. Israel being a 
desert country and Hawaii being the quintessential tropical climate, it 
makes perfect sense that they are corroborating on a project involving 
tropical plants and animals. I strongly encourage AID to look closely 
at the merits of this project before allocating scarce resources toward 
it.
  Additional funds are expected to flow to universities through the 
Collaborative Research Support Projects (CRSPs) for such worthwhile 
causes as cowpea, peanut, pond dynamics, and sorghum/millet development 
programs. That the peanut industry enjoys considerable political 
influence is not news; that the Appropriations Committee wants to 
allocate funds for research on pond scum, however, is, as Monty Python 
used to say, ``something really different.''
  Finally, S. 2334 continues the onerous practice of minimizing the 
value of foreign aid dollars through protectionist

[[Page S9866]]

provisions. While the ``Buy America'' section of the bill is not 
mandatory, an appropriations bill automatically carries with it a 
certain implicit authority. Declaring that, ``to the maximum extent 
possible, assistance provided under this Act should make full use of 
American resources . . .'' is clearly intended to convey a certain 
message to pertinent federal agencies. The mandatory reporting 
requirement imposed on these agencies included in this section of the 
bill can be expected to have precisely that effect.
  Mr. President, the waste and noncompetitive allocations represented 
in the foreign operations appropriations bill is minuscule relative to 
the billions literally wasted in the defense and transportation bills 
on highly questionable programs. Given the disdain with which the 
American public views foreign aid, however, the types of earmarks 
specified in the accompanying list represent a serious diversion of 
scarce resources otherwise needed for truly worthy programs. I regret 
that Congress feels compelled to continue to act without a sense of 
restraint, but I have been around long enough to understand that my 
protestations won't change the system. That I can at least illuminate 
the problem will have to suffice.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of objectionable programs be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 OBJECTIONABLE PROGRAMS IN THE FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS BILL 
                              FOR FY 1999

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                             [In millions]

Programs with funds earmarked:

  American Schools and Hospitals abroad...........................$15.0
    American University in Beirut
    Lebanese American University
    Hadassah Medical Organization
    Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute of Science in 
        Israel
    Johns Hopkins University's Bologna and Nanjing Centers
  U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute........................0.5
  Mitch McConnell Conservation Fund.................................1.2
  University Development Assistance Programs.......................12.5
    Mississippi State University
    Arab-American University of Jenin
    University of Vermont
    American University of Armenia ($10.0)
    Montana State University
  International Fertilizer Development Center.......................3.0
  Microenterprise Poverty Programs................................145.0
  Opportunities Industrialization Centers, International............0.4
  Carelift International............................................3.0
  International Fund for Agricultural Development...................2.5
  International Law Enforcement Academy--Western Hemisphere.........5.0
Programs for which the committee recommends funding:

  MasterCare International--encourages funding......................3.4
  Center for Health and Population Research--encourages funding for 
    establishment of an endowment to supplement Center's annual budg1.5
  Patrick J. Leahy War Victims Fund--Recommends funding............12.0
  Office of Women in Development--Encourages funding...............15.0
  University Development Assistance Programs--encourages AID and DOS to 
    expand involvement of the following universities in development 
    activities:
      University of Hawaii
      University of Northern Iowa
      George Mason University
      Utah State University
      Montana State University
  Tuberculosis treatment--support the binational surveillance and 
    treatment initiative underway along the Texas-Mexico border
  Private Voluntary Organizations--ensure that the level of funding to 
    PVO's is maintained
  Tropical Fish and Plant Competitiveness--requests AID to consider 
    joint application from Israel and state of Hawaii to enhance market 
    competitiveness
  Collaborative Research Support Projects--expects AID to make its best 
    efforts to at least maintain funding for the CRSPs
  American Bar Association--Sustain funding for ABA projects at FY 1998 
    levels
  Russian, Eurasian, and East European Research and Training Prgm.--
    sustain current level of funding
  Eurasian Medical Education Program--AID should consult with Committee 
    concerning FY 1999 funding to sustain and expand the program
  Farmer-to-Farmer--AID should support these exchanges directly, in 
    addition to the funding FTF receives from the Agriculture 
    Department
  Soils Management Collaborative Research Support Program--Recommends 
    AID fund SM-CRSP at a level that allows achievement of the goals 
    for all approved projects

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products--
     Assistance provided under this Act should make full use of 
     American resources, and heads of Federal agencies shall 
     advise any entity receiving funds under this Act of the above

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my thoughts on the 
bill currently pending before the Senate. In particular, I would like 
to comment on the inclusion of the $14.5 billion to replenish the 
International Monetary Fund's (IMF) capital base and the $3.5 billion 
for the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). I appreciate the responsible 
action taken by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee in 
including these provisions in this bill.
  The continuing international financial crisis poses too great of a 
threat to the economic prosperity of the American people for Congress 
to delay action on funding the IMF. The economic disruptions in Asia 
are impacting U.S. export markets and having an adverse effect on the 
U.S. economy as a whole. In my home state of Nebraska--where 45% of all 
exports go to East Asia and support 56,000 jobs in agriculture, food 
processing, transportation, and manufacturing--people have already felt 
the effects of the Asian crisis. The economic repercussions in the 
United States of a further spread of the Asian financial flu should not 
be underestimated. For this reason, swift Congressional action is 
necessary to restore confidence and hedge against future disruptions.
  Aside from the economic consequences, I am deeply concerned this 
crisis could affect our security interests. For anyone who doubts the 
national security ramifications, all you have to do is to turn on the 
television to see the effects of spreading instability. The political 
chaos in Russia that has resulted from their economic troubles 
threatens not only Russia's free market reforms but the historic 
democratic achievements of the Russian people. The political and 
economic collapse of Russia would favor elements intent on returning to 
the days of dictatorship and central economic planning. Cooperation 
with Russia would be replaced with conflict; our peace and security 
would be threatened.
  The Senate passed legislation earlier this year as a part of the FY98 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill that would have provided the 
full $18 billion requested by the President for the IMF. However, 
funding for the IMF became mired in non-related, political battles and 
was not acted upon by the House of Representatives. The failure to act 
at that time was irresponsible. The failure to act now would be 
disastrous.
  Mr. President, while there is no guarantee that timely Congressional 
action on IMF funding could have helped avoid the current difficulties 
in Russia and Asia, we should not wait for economic instability to 
spread and to further jeopardize the economic health and safety of our 
nation. We must act now to restore confidence and promote economic 
growth in the United States and in the global economic system.
  I yield the floor.


                      Global Environment Facility

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to direct my colleagues' 
attention to an issue that has not been given sufficient attention 
during debate on this bill--funding for the Global Environment Facility 
(GEF). The legislation before us provides $47.5 million for the GEF, 
far less than the Administration's request and $145 million short of 
the amount necessary to cover our arrears to the GEF.
  The GEF was created because the world's developed nations sought to 
involve the developing world in improving the global environment, but 
realized that they lacked the resources and technology to make 
significant

[[Page S9867]]

progress on their own. The GEF was designed to help these nations act 
in an environmentally responsible manner in areas where their actions 
would have a broad environmental impact. For we all know that if we are 
going to make significant progress in solving the world's most pressing 
environmental problems, there will have to be a collective effort by 
most of the world's nations.
  In 1994, developed nations pledged $2 billion to the GEF, payable 
over four years. The U.S. portion of that replenishment was $430 
million. To date, Congress has appropriated substantially less, and 
total arrears amount to $192.5 million. And now several donor countries 
are beginning to condition their own contributions on payment of our 
past due amounts. Without new funding, the GEF's ability to implement 
its programs will end in about six months.
  Mr. President, the GEF has emerged as the principal international 
funding mechanism for global environmental protection. The organization 
works in four areas--biodiversity, energy, ozone protection, and 
international waters. Over 500 projects in 119 countries have been 
funded under GEF's own unique approach. To obtain the most impact for 
its limited resources, the GEF generally does not fund entire projects. 
Instead it funds the difference between what it would cost a country to 
do a project in the traditional manner without environmental 
safeguards, and the cost of doing that same project in an 
environmentally responsible manner.
  Mr. President, we are all becoming increasingly aware that our 
biggest environmental problems will require global solutions. And these 
problems will require financial commitments from many nations. The GEF 
is the only institution of its kind, and is pivotal to the success of 
these efforts. While it is making strides in resolving some of these 
very serious problems, it is being hobbled by America's failure to pay 
up. Donors are looking to the U.S. to resume its leadership, and 
because of the special provisions of the balanced budget act allowing 
payment of U.S. arrearages to international institutions, we now have 
an opportunity to do so. I urge the managers of this legislation to 
make this issue a priority in conference with the other body and to 
seize the moment to make good on our debts.


                           Amendment No. 3506

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to share some of my reasons for 
voting in favor of the Specter-Biden amendment that restored the 
Comprehensive Test Ban ``prepcom'' funding. I strongly supported the 
Specter-Biden amendment to restore the $28 million for the U.S. share 
of an international network to monitor nuclear weapons testing.
  The international monitoring network will support the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty that bans all nuclear weapons explosive tests. This 
treaty will help our nation's nuclear non-proliferation goals by 
helping to stem the development of new nuclear weapons. The treaty, 
which awaits ratification in the U.S. Senate, has the support of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, former JCS Chairman General Colin Powell, and 
the vast majority of the American public.
  Not only would the nuclear testing monitoring network help the U.S. 
as we move toward a nuclear weapons ban, it would also prove useful to 
our national security even without a global testing ban. As I have 
stated repeatedly on the floor, I am a strong supporter of a nuclear 
weapons test ban or C-T-B-T. However, even my colleagues that have not 
decided to support the treaty should support the international 
monitoring system on its own merits. Why shouldn't we enhance our 
nation's and our allies ability to detect nuclear weapons tests? The 
network would establish monitoring stations in places like the former 
Soviet Union, China, South Asia and Africa, greatly enhancing our 
capability to detect nuclear tests.
  The CTBT's monitoring system is not fully operational. Nevertheless, 
even in its current and incomplete form, the system provided timely 
data on events at the respective nuclear test sites. Through the CTBT 
Prepcom, we will add monitoring stations in Pakistan, China, 
Kazakhstan, Diego Garcia, and elsewhere.
  We saw the benefits of international monitoring in the seismic event 
in the Kara Sea off of Russia. Six international monitoring stations 
detected this event on August 16, 1996 in the Kara Sea near the Russian 
test site. The data from these stations allowed our intelligence 
community to conclude that the event was not nuclear, not associated 
with Novaya Zemlya activities, but rather, was an earthquake 130 
kilometers southeast of the Novaya Zemlya test site.
  In another recent example, the seismic stations in the CTBT Prepcom 
almost immediately detected the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests, 
enabling the U.S. to identify the location and yield of the tests with 
high accuracy. This is clearly a success for the emerging CTBT 
detection system.
  Some may ask why the U.S. should fund an international system? Why 
can't we just go it alone. A key answer is money. The U.S. paying for 
only 25% of the cost is better than footing the bill for the whole 
system. For example, the Air Force originally planned on paying for the 
entire cost of monitoring stations in Kazakhstan and South Korea. 
Instead, we will only pay for 25% of the costs of these stations.
  In summary, I think there are many good reasons to support a nuclear 
weapons test ban. However, even if one has not yet decided to support 
the treaty, the funding of an international monitoring system is 
reasonable on its own and I am gratified to see that the majority of my 
Senate colleagues voted in favor of the Specter-Biden amendment.


               amendments nos. 3536 through 3538, en bloc

  Mr. LEAHY. There are several manager amendments at the desk, and I 
ask they be considered and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes amendments 
     Nos. 3536 through 3538, en bloc.

  The amendments (Nos. 3536, 3537, and 3538) are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3536

        (Purpose: To provide assistance for sub-Saharan Africa)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:
              TITLE __--ASSISTANCE FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

     SEC. __01. AFRICA FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE.

       In providing development assistance under the Africa Food 
     Security Initiative, or any comparable program, the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development--
       (1) shall emphasize programs and projects that improve the 
     food security of infants, young children, school-age 
     children, women, and food-insecure households, or that 
     improve the agricultural productivity, incomes, and marketing 
     of the rural poor in Africa;
       (2) shall solicit and take into consideration the views and 
     needs of intended beneficiaries and program participants 
     during the selection, planning, implementation, and 
     evaluation phases of projects; and
       (3) shall ensure that programs are designed and conducted 
     in cooperation with African and United States organizations 
     and institutions, such as private and voluntary 
     organizations, cooperatives, land-grant and other appropriate 
     universities, and local producer-owned cooperative marketing 
     and buying associations, that have expertise in addressing 
     the needs of the poor, small-scale farmers, entrepreneurs, 
     and rural workers, including women.

     SEC. __02. MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE.

       In providing microenterprise assistance for sub-Saharan 
     Africa, the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall, to the extent practicable, 
     use credit and microcredit assistance to improve the capacity 
     and efficiency of agriculture production in sub-Saharan 
     Africa of small-scale farmers and small rural entrepreneurs. 
     In providing assistance, the Administrator should take into 
     consideration the needs of women, and should use the applied 
     research and technical assistance capabilities of United 
     States land-grant universities.

     SEC. __03. SUPPORT FOR PRODUCER-OWNED COOPERATIVE MARKETING 
                   ASSOCIATIONS.

       The Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development is authorized to utilize relevant 
     foreign assistance programs and initiatives for sub-Saharan 
     Africa to support private producer-owned cooperative 
     marketing associations in sub-Saharan Africa, including rural 
     business associations that are owned and controlled by farmer 
     shareholders in order to strengthen the capacity of farmers 
     in sub-Saharan Africa to participate in national and 
     international private markets and to encourage the efforts of 
     farmers in sub-Saharan Africa to increase their productivity 
     and income through improved access to farm supplies, seasonal 
     credit, and technical expertise.

[[Page S9868]]

     SEC. __04. AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES OF 
                   THE OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION.

       (a) In General.--The Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall exercise its authority under law to 
     undertake an initiative to support private agricultural and 
     rural development in sub-Saharan Africa, including issuing 
     loans, guarantees, and insurance, to support rural 
     development in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly to support 
     intermediary organizations that--
       (1) directly serve the needs of small-scale farmers, small 
     rural entrepreneurs, and rural producer-owned cooperative 
     purchasing and marketing associations;
       (2) have a clear track record of support for sound business 
     management practices; and
       (3) have demonstrated experience with participatory 
     development methods.
       (b) Use of Certain Funds.--The Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation shall utilize existing equity funds, loan, and 
     insurance funds, to the extent feasible and in accordance 
     with existing contractual obligations, to support agriculture 
     and rural development in sub-Saharan Africa.

     SEC. __05. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Development of Plan.--The Administrator of the United 
     States Agency for International Development, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Agriculture and appropriate Department 
     of Agriculture agencies, especially the Cooperative State, 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), shall 
     develop a comprehensive plan to coordinate and build on the 
     research and extension activities of United States land-grant 
     universities, international agricultural research centers, 
     and national agricultural research and extension centers in 
     sub-Saharan Africa.
       (b) Additional Requirements.--The plan described in 
     subsection (a) shall be designed to ensure that--
       (1) research and extension activities respond to the needs 
     of small-scale farmers while developing the potential and 
     skills of researchers, extension agents, farmers, and 
     agribusiness persons in sub-Saharan Africa; and
       (2) sustainable agricultural methods of farming is 
     considered together with new technologies in increasing 
     agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa.


                           Amendment No. 3537

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding the development by 
 the International Telecommunication Union of world standards for the 
        next generation of wireless telecommunications services)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The International Telecommunication Union, an agency of 
     the United Nations, is currently developing recommendations 
     for world standards for the next generation of wireless 
     telecommunications services based on the concept of a 
     ``family'' of standards.
       (2) On June 30, 1998, the Department of State submitted 
     four proposed standards to the ITU for consideration in the 
     development of those recommendations.
       (3) Adoption of an open and inclusive set of multiple 
     standards, including all four submitted by the Department of 
     State, would enable existing systems to operate with the next 
     generation of wireless standards.
       (4) It is critical to the interests of the United States 
     that existing systems be given this ability.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the Federal 
     Communications Commission and appropriate executive branch 
     agencies take all appropriate actions to promote development, 
     by the ITU, of recommendations for digital wireless 
     telecommunications services based on a family of open and 
     inclusive multiple standards, including all four standards 
     submitted by the Department of State, so as to allow 
     operation of existing systems with the next generation of 
     wireless standards.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious 
problem facing U.S. telecommunications service and equipment suppliers. 
The International Telecommunications Union is currently considering the 
implementation of a family of world standards for the next generation 
of digital wireless communications. These ITU standards will have a 
significant impact on the ability of American telecommunications 
equipment and service suppliers to compete in the competitive world 
telecommunications market. European nations, working through the 
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), proposed a 
standard to the ITU based on Global System for Mobile Communication 
(GSM), the only digital standard permitted by law in Europe. The ETSI 
proposal is not compatible with American developed CDMA technology and 
if adopted by the ITU it could have the affect of shutting U.S. CDMA 
manufacturers out of the world market and rendering such investments 
obsolete. In light of the EU's decision to only submit a GSM standard 
to the ITU it is important that the United States take steps to ensure 
that American developed technology is not left behind.
  The sense of the Senate I offered today with Senator Lott, sends a 
strong message that the Federal Communications Commission and other 
appropriate executive branch agencies should take all appropriate 
actions to promote U.S. technology in this ITU proceeding. At the 
conclusion of the World Trade Organization Basic Telecommunications 
Agreement, the Administration assured Congress that the 
telecommunications markets of America's largest trading partners would 
be open to U.S. companies. However, the European Union is considering a 
technical standard for itself that could lock U.S. manufacturers out of 
the European market. A similar result in the ITU would be devastating. 
I am pleased today that the Senate has sent a clear statement to U.S. 
negotiators that the pending ITU standards must not reflect a narrow 
and harmful standard that locks American wireless technology out of 
world markets. Instead, U.S. negotiators should promote a family of 
standards that are compatible with U.S. technologies and safeguard 
American interests.
  The ITU is now on notice that whatever standards it may adopt next, 
such standards must be harmonized or compatible with each other.


                           amendment no. 3538

       On page 38, line 22, delete $69,000,000 and insert in lieu 
     thereof $75,000,000.
       On page 7, line 21, delete $1,890,000,000 and insert in 
     lieu thereof $1,904,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3536, 3537, and 3538) were 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana wants to 
modify an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 3526, As Modified

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there is a technical correction needed, 
which has been accepted on both sides. I therefore ask unanimous 
consent that lines 3 through 16 of the previously adopted amendment No. 
3526 appear on line 24 after the word ``activities.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, finally, let me thank Senator Leahy for 
his cooperation and friendship as we put this bill together. In 
addition to thanking my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, I also 
want to express my appreciation to Tim Rieser, Cara Thanassi, and J.P. 
Dowd of Senator Leahy's staff, and Steven Cortese and Jennifer 
Chartrand of the full committee, and Billy Piper, Shannon Bishop on my 
staff, and my long time foreign policy advisor, Robin Cleveland, as 
well as Senator Stevens. Thanks to all of these people for their 
participation in the development of this legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my good friend from Kentucky for all his help and 
for helping to protect the interests of Members on both sides of the 
aisle. He has been a pleasure to work with. As always, he was very ably 
assisted by Robin Cleveland, who has done a tremendous job, and 
Jennifer Chartrand and Billy Piper, who have also worked so hard on 
this. I have had Tim Rieser, Cara Thanassi, and J.P Dowd on my staff. 
Tim has been with me for many years, as has J.P. Dowd. This is Cara's 
first year working on the Foreign Operations bill and she has been a 
great help.


                           Amendment No. 3539

 (Purpose: To provide sound management of and support for U.S. Refugee 
                             resettlement)

  Mr. LEAHY. 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 Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Abraham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3539.
       On page 30, line 7, strike the final period and insert a 
     semicolon, and insert the following: ``Provided further, That 
     amounts appropriated under this heading for fiscal year 1999, 
     and amounts previously appropriated

[[Page S9869]]

     under such heading for fiscal year 1998, shall remain 
     available until expended.''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what does the language mean, so that I can 
understand it?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I would be happy to elaborate on the 
legislation. The amendment's purpose is as follows: Each year in our 
refugee resettlement programs, we have considerable costs associated 
with that. We appropriate moneys for those. In a typical year, we 
always have trouble at the end of the year with respect to remaining 
funds that need to be spent. If there is remaining money at the end of 
a year, it will be carried forward to use in the next fiscal year for 
those purposes.
  Mr. BYRD. For those purposes again?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Refugee resettlement purposes.
  Mr. BYRD. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3539) 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe that completes all of the 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the managers of the bill desire a rollcall?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Coverdell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is 
absent because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--3

     Byrd
     Faircloth
     Smith (NH)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bingaman
     Coverdell
     Domenici
     Glenn
     Helms
     Inouye
     Murkowski
  The bill (S. 2334), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. WARNER. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, is 
recognized.

                          ____________________