[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7835-S7852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 1234, which the clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
A bill (S. 1234) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the committee was provided an
allocation virtually identical to last year's bill of $12.6 billion.
Although it is $1.8 billion below the request, I think it effectively
manages our global responsibilities, and it does so within the budget
caps.
For the past few years, the bill has emphasized funding in two
areas--export promotion and growth in the New Independent States of the
former Soviet Union. This bill sustains that commitment--in fact,
expands support for export promotion by $20 million for a total of $785
million to the Export-Import Bank.
This year, we have added recovery and reconstruction in Southeast
Europe to our priority list.
While I expect the Europeans to bear the lion's share of
responsibility for reconstruction, we have concrete trade interests in
regional economic recovery and security interests in promoting
stability and democracy.
With funds straight lined, this becomes a zero sum game. We have to
reach consensus on tradeoffs and priorities.
There is no question that this will mean reductions in other
accounts--but it's time to recognize priorities. There are obvious and
easy cuts that the administration can make. Just as one example, the
administration has asked for another $70 million for Haiti after
spending billions in Haiti, with little to show for it. In fact, recent
press accounts report an increase in drug trafficking through Haiti,
and we have failed at every turn to restore a legitimate government.
This is just one example where I think the administration could cut
back in order to serve more urgent priorities.
There are others. The request from the administration is redundant in
the area of peacekeeping. They have asked for funds for a global peace
keeping initiative, a regional Africa peacekeeping account and the
Africa Crisis Response Initiative which trains peacekeepers.
[[Page S7836]]
I think we can and should shift priorities. We have just waged a war
in Europe, and we need to build the foundation for sustaining the peace
in the aftermath of that war.
The Balkans Initiative in this bill does three things to serve what I
see as our long term interests: It rids the region of Milosevic by
declaring Serbia a terrorist state; we increase funding for stability
and recovery; and we condition funds to Russia on total cooperation
with NATO in Kosovo.
Let me elaborate.
In section 525, the bill establishes Serbia's status as a terrorist
nation. With this terrorist designation, the administration cannot
provide bilateral or support multilateral aid, and Belgrade is stripped
of protections under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
This in turn, will allow Kosovars to take Milosevic to court for
damages rendered during his brutal war of ethnic annihilation.
The administration has complained that this designation is inflexible
and unreasonable, that Serbia is not the same as the other countries on
the terrorism list because they don't sponsor groups such as Hezbollah.
Frankly, I am hard pressed to understand the difference between thugs
blowing up a village with a car bomb or thugs shelling and burning a
village to the ground.
The intent and the impact are the same. In both instances, innocent
civilians are the targets and the victims.
The second important change in the bill affects funding. We have
increased and changed the funding mix to fulfill two goals. We have
tried to promote refugee confidence to return home, and relieve the
pressure on the front-line states.
The administration requested $393 million for Eastern and Central
Europe which included $55 million for Serbia and $175 million for
Bosnia.
I have taken out Serbia's funds, cut back on Bosnia and added $142
million for a total of $535 million.
Of the total the bill earmarks $150 million for Kosovo, $85 million
for Albania, $60 million for Romania, $55 million for Macedonia, $45
million for Bulgaria, and $35 million for Montenegro, leaving $105
million unallocated for other regional uses.
We have also earmarked funds within the Kosovo account to promote
internal stability and confidence including the provision of $20
million to train and equip a Kosovo security force. Again, the
administration had complained bitterly about this provision on the
grounds that it arms the KLA at a time when the agreement is seeking to
dismantle their capabilities.
There is nothing in the bill which calls for arming or supporting the
KLA. In fact, the administration has plans to train and equip a police
force and has estimated that this will cost $25 million. The bill is
not consistent with the planning underway. It simply earmarks funds for
a security force which I view as essential to any Kosovar having
confidence the past will not be repeated.
Members of the KLA may very well be included in a security force, but
that is not a decision for us to make. A Kosovo civilian government
should make all decisions regarding recruitment standards, organization
and supervision of internal security. Autonomy can not be preserved
without security--that is just what this $20 million will launch.
In addition, to strengthen democracy, we have provided $20 million to
support the development of local government institutions. This support
should help the Kosovars rebuild independent judicial, legislative, and
executive branches of self-government, as well as help at the local
municipal level.
The United States made a commitment at Rambouillet to support a three
year period of autonomy which would be followed by some kind of final
decision on political status. Specifically, the Secretary of State
pledged to support a referendum on independence if that is the course
Kosovars chose.
I think we all hope that a change of government in Belgrade might
produce conditions which would allow Kosovo to maintain some kind of
tie with a democratic federation. In the interim, however, Kosovo must
develop the capabilities and institutions to govern themselves, which I
believe these funds will support.
Finally, the bill conditions future Russian aid on total cooperation
with NATO on peacekeeping. The administration seemed caught by surprise
when Russian troops marched into and took up positions at the Pristina
airport. Frankly, I was surprised that they did not take up positions
along the Belgrade-Pristina road. This move was calculated and
inevitable--notwithstanding senior officials' attempts to explain it
was just a few rogue troops.
If stability is to be restored in Kosovo, the Russian's cannot be
allowed to maintain a client relationship with Serbia which may lead to
de facto partition of the country.
To prevent this outcome, we link Russian aid to the Secretary of
State certifying that the Russians have not established a separate zone
of operational control, and that their forces are completely integrated
under NATO command and control.
In the last few days, the Secretary of Defense seems to have worked
out an arrangement that may secure these objectives. We all certainly
hope so. But, just as the administration was surprised by the dash to
control the Pristina airport, they could be surprised by difficulties
in implementing the agreement. We must maintain some leverage to assure
there is full compliance with the current expectations.
And, lest anyone doubt the relevance of this leverage, I suggest a
review of the vote to condition aid to Russia on a withdrawal timetable
from the Baltics. This was a few years back. Every leader in the region
called me after the 89-11 Senate vote to congratulate the Senate for
securing immediate negotiations which produced the desired result.
In other words, what we did in the early nineties was to condition
Russian aid on withdrawal of troops from the Baltic countries. Shortly
after we had that vote in the Senate, the Russian troops were out of
the Baltic countries.
Beyond, the Balkans, this bill maintains United States interests in
the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union and sustains our
financial commitment to crucial allies ranging from Israel to
Indonesia.
I also want to mention the increase in this bill's funding levels for
the surveillance and treatment of infectious diseases. A recent process
report noted that children and vulnerable populations are dying at a
staggering rate of treatable and often preventable diseases. Thanks to
Senator Leahy's commitment, we are now in our third year of a multi-
year strategy to significantly increase the U.S. commitment to control
and prevent infectious diseases.
Finally, let me say that there is no question we could have spent
more on foreign operations program. Senators Leahy and I have both
expressed strong support for increasing foreign assistance initiatives.
However, working together, we have produced a bill which lives within
the budget caps. It is very similar to the bill we passed in the Senate
just 1 year ago with an overwhelming bipartisan majority vote of 90-
3. Senator Leahy and I certainly hope that will be the result again
this year.
Before passing the baton over to my friend and colleague from
Vermont, I thank him, at the beginning of what we think will be a
rather short debate, for his leadership and cooperation in producing a
bipartisan bill that went through the Appropriations Committee without
dissent and we think has widely accommodated the interests of Members
who take a particular interest in this bill every year.
We anticipate very few amendments. I will say in advance what I hope
to do is, sometime before noon, seek consent that all amendments be in
by a reasonable time today--probably by noon --within an hour from now.
What I hope we can do is ask for a consent agreement to have all
amendments filed before noon. There is every reason to believe this
bill should be handled very quickly, and we hope we will have maximum
cooperation from other Members of the Senate to do that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Kentucky for
his comments, and as always, when working on this piece of legislation
with
[[Page S7837]]
him, it has been a pleasure, notwithstanding the lack of allocations we
had.
I concur with the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky that we
should try to wrap this up at a time certain. I will join with him at
the appropriate time in a unanimous consent request that all amendments
be filed by noon today. The reason I mention that now is so that, on
this side of the aisle, people are alerted we will be making a request
of that nature. I think it can be done.
With the agreement entered into last night by the distinguished
majority leader and the distinguished Democratic leader, there is an
effort to move some of these bills forward so we can get on to the
question of the Patients' Bill of Rights when we come back after the
July 4 recess. I urge Senators who have amendments to come to the
Chamber and offer them.
This bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee with actually
no debate and no amendments. One of the reasons, unfortunately, for the
lack of any debate is the amount of funds in this bill is so far below
what is needed to adequately fund our foreign policy priorities that
there is little point in debating it.
Even if Members want to make changes in the bill, there is no way to
pay for it. Everything in it is already underfunded. The bill is $800
million below the 1999 level. It is $1.9 billion below the President's
request. No one can accuse the President of failing to try to protect
this country's global interests. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said
for the Congress. Devoting less than 1 percent of the Federal budget to
our foreign policy is not responsible.
What this means is we are unable to meet our commitments--our solemn
commitments--to the international financial institutions. We did not
provide any funds for the President's expanded threat reduction
initiative, to dismantle Russian nuclear weapons, to protect fissile
material, and pay for other nonproliferation and security programs. We
spent hundreds of billions of dollars--literally trillions of dollars--
to defend against the threat of the then-Soviet Union.
We are unwilling to spend a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent of
that same money now to dismantle some of those nuclear weapons and
protect the material from them--material that can fall into the hands
of people who do not have the kind of controls that were imposed at the
time we were spending hundreds of billions of dollars to protect
ourselves. It goes beyond penny-wise and pound-foolish; it goes into
irresponsibility, especially in a nuclear age. I, frankly, cannot
understand how we have gotten to this point.
We had to cut funding for many of the programs of special interest to
Senators, i.e., the Peace Corps. Is there any foreign policy program in
this country that we can point to with more pride than the Peace Corps?
Yet we cut that.
With additional funds, we could do a great deal more to promote
American exports in extremely competitive foreign markets. Other
countries that do not begin to have the ability to export as we do are
spending more money in trying to build up their foreign markets because
they know that will create jobs, good-paying jobs, in their country. We
step back and say we do not want to do this.
We can improve global health at a time when infectious diseases are
our greatest threat after nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
There is no major infectious disease that is more than one or two plane
rides away from our shores. And this isn't a case where we are showing
some great humanitarian gesture to try to stop infectious disease in
other continents; it protects us. Not only does it protect the people
there, but ebola plague, a resistant strain of tuberculosis, and any
other number of things can begin in one country and within hours be in
a major airport in our country and then in our population. When it gets
here, we will spend fortunes trying to get rid of it. We will not spend
pennies in trying to stop it in the first place.
We should be doing more to protect the Earth's natural resources.
They are under siege on every continent. Our health and our economy
depend on a clean environment. Yet we spend a pittance as we see the
environment continue to degrade, almost as though we think as Americans
we can look at the borders of our great country and assume that we
determine the environment for our people just within those borders.
The environment is determined by the rain forests of the world, by
the ``desertization'' of large parts of the world, by chemical and
other dumping in our oceans in other parts of the world. If we want to
protect us--a quarter of a billion Americans--we ought to be concerned
about what happens in other parts of the world.
Half the world is asking for help in building new democratic
societies, but we have little to offer. For decades, again, we spent
hundreds of billions of dollars--trillions of dollars--saying we were
going to stand up for democracy, we were going to stand up against
communism; we wanted democracy in the world.
Well, the Berlin Wall has come down. The Iron Curtain has rusted
through. These countries are saying: Thank God America is there; they
can help us form our democracy. And we say: When we thought you would
be Communists, we could spend billions and billions and billions of
dollars to contain you, but now that you want to be democratic, we
don't really have even a tiny fraction of that amount to help you
become democratic, to help you develop courts and a free press and a
civil system, and on and on.
We should double or triple our support for international
peacekeeping, especially in places such as Sierra Leone where NATO
cannot intervene but the atrocities are far worse. Daily we see it in
Kosovo. We almost have this thought that if we do not turn on CNN and
see atrocities, they are not occurring. I suggest that Senators read
the Intelligence Digest, read the free press, when they do report them
and think of these atrocities that we could help stop.
If we do not do anything in these areas, all the areas I have talked
about, because we save some pennies today by not doing anything in
these areas, we are saddling future generations of Americans with far
greater costs, and as we go into the next century, we saddle future
Americans with a more dangerous and unstable world, a world that is
increasingly polarized between the very rich and the extraordinarily
poor.
I have little doubt that the President would veto a foreign
operations bill at this level.
Having said all that, Senator McConnell and I did the best we could
with the allocation we received. We have tried to allocate the funds we
had in the most responsible way possible.
I thank the senior Senator from Kentucky for the bipartisan way he
worked with me to put this bill together. It has become a tradition of
the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont to work together
on these issues. I am grateful to him. I think what he has done serves
the Senate well. I think it serves the American people well.
Obviously, if I were in Senator McConnell's position, I might have
done some things differently, just as he would look at some of the
things I have asked to be put in this bill and are included and do them
differently. But on the whole, we have worked together to write a
balanced piece of legislation. In fact, the funds are so tight, the
balance is so delicate, I cannot imagine how I might accept any
amendments, Democrat or Republican, to cut or add funds in this bill.
This is a Rubik's cube, a small Rubik's cube but a Rubik's cube
nonetheless, we have tried to put together.
I think we Senators should thank the chairman and the ranking member
of the full committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and
the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who did their best to
give us a fair allocation within the limits they had to work with.
But if I might, before I yield the floor, mention a couple issues I
am especially concerned about. One is the Global Environment Facility.
It is one of the world's leading international environmental
organizations. It funds projects to protect biodiversity, to prevent
ocean pollution, to protect the ozone, and to prevent climate change.
Take a poll of the American people. Ask them how many are in favor of
just those items. A resounding majority of the American people would be
in
[[Page S7838]]
favor of protecting biodiversity, preventing ocean pollution,
protecting the ozone, preventing climate change. For this endeavor, the
administration requested $143 million for fiscal year 2000. That
includes $35 million we owe already in prior year arrears. This bill
contains just $25 million for arrears, and that is not acceptable.
Ask the American people if they have a justifiable concern about
terrorism, and they will say yes. Those of us, the chairman and myself,
who have access to the most current intelligence of our intelligence
agencies know that the fear of terrorism is justifiable. The President
requested $33 million for antiterrorism training programs. Under our
allocation, we could only provide him $20 million. The request also
included $10 million for a new antiterrorism program to help developing
countries strengthen their border control systems--again, because the
terrorism that may show up in those developing countries is a plane
ride away from our shores. Even though the President's antiterrorism
initiative is a good one, we cannot include any funds for it. Not that
we don't want to fund these programs; the money is not there to do it.
There are a lot of other programs I could mention that need
additional funds. Hopefully, before this session is over, we may get a
revised allocation that will allow us to go into some of these areas.
But right now I think we should act on the bill to move the process
forward.
Again, I salute the chairman and ranking member of the full
committee, the distinguished Senators from Alaska and West Virginia,
for pushing so hard to go forward. The fact that the distinguished
senior Senator from Kentucky and I have the working relationship we do,
I think, helped us move forward with this. We should go forward with
the process. Hopefully the other body will start moving on theirs. I
think we could complete action on this bill in a very few hours.
Senators who have amendments should not delay to offer them.
As I said earlier, to preserve the delicate balance of this bill, I
expect to be opposing amendments that do not have suitable offsets.
With that, I yield the floor. The Senator from Kentucky and I are now
the humble servants of the Senate, ready to start the sausage grinder
forward. Hopefully, we can end up with a product very quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my good friend from Vermont for his
cooperation in developing this bill on a bipartisan basis. I agree with
him that without the allocation that Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd
provided for us, we couldn't have even done this well. I do think that
even with this, some would argue inadequate allocation, we can meet our
responsibilities around the globe. I believe we have done that in this
bill.
Now the Senator from Kansas is here and has an important amendment to
be offered.
Let me just mention to all Members of the Senate, Senator Leahy and
I, at about 10:30, are going to propound a unanimous consent request
asking that all amendments to this bill be submitted by noon, which we
think will help the Senate dispose of this measure in a timely fashion.
Mr. President, seeing the Senator from Kansas here, who has an
amendment to offer, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 1118
(Purpose: To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to target
assistance to support the economic and political independence of the
countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia)
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Senator from
Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont, for allowing me to bring forward
this amendment. At this time, I rise to offer an amendment to the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, and I send the amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an
amendment numbered 1118.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Amendment No. 1119 To Amendment No. 1118
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the amendment to
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration, on behalf of myself
and Senator Abraham of Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and
Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 1119 to amendment
No. 1118.
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:
On Page 9, line 3, strike all after ``(c) Restriction
through line 12 States.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the underlying
second-degree amendment and to talk about the overall amendment itself
and the area of the world with which we are dealing.
This amendment is an issue that has been heard in front of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, both this Congress and last, and has passed
this time by a voice vote of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It passed
by a majority vote in the last Congress. It deals with an important
region of the world, and it deals with a difficult policy issue for the
Senate and for our Government to consider.
The underlying bill itself is called the Silk Roads Strategy Act. It
deals with eight countries, and it provides an overarching policy
towards these countries in the south Caucasus and central Asia.
Specifically the countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
I realize those are not common names of countries that people across
the United States perhaps banter around, but I think they do know and
recall with some knowledge the Silk Road, the old Silk Road made
legendary many years ago, discovered and traversed by Marco Polo and
many others who traveled throughout the region of central Asia.
It was really at that point in time the bridge; the Eurasian bridge
was developed and brought commerce from Asia to Europe and from Europe
to Asia. We are seeking to reinitiate this Silk Road, a new Silk Road
that would have an economic corridor along with a freedom corridor in
central Asia and the south Caucasus.
You can see this region of the world. I wish this map were a little
clearer. I hope Members can see where this region of the world is
caught. These are all countries in the former Soviet Union. They are in
the south of the former Soviet Union; they are recently independent
nations. They had some independence before, but these are just recently
coming out from underneath the rubble of the fall of the Soviet empire.
They are caught between world global forces that seek to have them
under their control. The Russians continue the desire to have an
unusual influence, would be the best way to put it. The Iranians sit
right here and seek to have a greater influence in the region. They
seek to dominate most of these nations that have a Muslim-based
population. They seek, the Iranians, to radicalize and put governments
in place that are militant fundamentalist governments. China then, off
to this side of the region--what we are seeking to do is to create an
area of democracy, an area of free enterprise, an area of independence
free from these world powers that seek to dominate them, in a group of
nations that seek to be united with the West, again, in a Eurasian
corridor of commerce and freedom. That is the new Silk Road Strategy
Act. That is what this bill is about.
Lest we forget and just look at it as a geographic area, as important
as this region is, I hope we will look at the people in this region. We
are talking about nearly 72 million people involved in these countries
of the Silk Road. You can look at them: the Armenian
[[Page S7839]]
population of 3.4 million; the Azeri population of 7.8 million; on
down, Uzbekistan being the biggest with over 23 million people yearning
to be free, yearning to be associated with the West, yearning not to go
back under Russian dominance or to be put under Iranian dominance or
Chinese dominance, but yearning to be free and associated with the
West. That is what this bill is about.
This is a sanctions lifting bill. It lifts a particular sanction,
sanction section 907 that has a set of provisions limiting any sort of
assistance, any sort of work of the United States with Azerbaijan,
which is also a key country for this corridor, and it doesn't lift the
sanctions. It merely provides a national interest waiver. So this
doesn't lift it. The President still has to say it is in the national
interest of the United States to waive this sanction, and then he has
the authority.
So it simply provides that authority to the administration, which is
in line with the Freedom Support Act, which we originally passed to
support these newly independent countries that came about from the
Soviet empire falling. This act authorizes assistance for all these
countries, specific economic assistance, development of infrastructure
assistance, border control assistance, as well as assistance in
strengthening democracy, tolerance in the development of civil society.
Authority in this bill to provide assistance for these countries of
the south Caucasus and central Asia is in addition to the authority to
provide such assistance under the Freedom Support Act, but it does not
provide any new resources. It simply allows us to offer these resources
and assistance to these countries bilaterally and multilaterally. We
can provide assistance programs to the entire region, working it in a
package and saying to these countries: You are better off if you will
work together and bond together to be able to stand before the forces
that are seeking to dominate you once again.
Mr. President, I think the window of opportunity for the United
States to effect positive change in this region will only be open for a
short period of time. I think that is the very critical part of this
bill and why we need to have this debate and pass this issue now.
The window is short. I want to show you some of the activity that is
taking place in this region. I mentioned the militant fundamentalists'
efforts taking place to seek domination of most of these countries that
have a Muslim-based population.
This is a chart of Iranian worldwide export of terrorism and
fundamentalism that we are putting up here. I want to highlight this
region that we are talking about. Of the eight countries we are talking
about, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
have Iranians operating in this region. Afghanistan is operating here,
seeking to put these countries under militant fundamentalist control.
They are doing this today.
As recently as 2 months ago, the President of Uzbekistan had an
assassination attempt that was put forward by militant fundamentalists
who seek to have him removed. He provides mostly a secular Muslim
government. They said we want him out and we want a militant
fundamentalist government in here, and we are going to do what we can,
including trying to assassinate him. They are trying to destabilize the
Fergana Valley in this area. My point is, look at this map. It looks
similar to the map I just put up here, the countries of the Silk Road.
The Iranians are funding this effort. They are going into the camps
here and funding the populations in this area. They are doing this
today. Members can check this. This is happening.
If we want to let these countries slip off and go into the militant
fundamentalist camps so we have more places to fight terrorism and more
countries we have to fight against that are willing to spawn hatred
against the West, let's fail this bill, and with all due respect to the
Senator from Kentucky, let's pass his amendment. We have a disagreement
about this particular amendment, section 907. I think it is critical
and important that we pass and eliminate this bilateral sanction that
we have against Azerbaijan, which is much of the gateway for the flow
of democracy and freedom throughout this region. Time is of the
essence.
In my view, the single best way to consolidate our goals in the
region is to promote regional cooperation and policies that will
strengthen the sovereignty of each nation. Each of these countries has
its own individual needs. However, many of the problems in the region
overlap and are shared, and a number of common solutions and approaches
can apply. That is why we have put together this overarching Silk Road
strategy. This region has generally taken a back seat to U.S. foreign
policy. We have generally deferred to Russia and to Iranian policy and
said we are going to let these drift along. The problem with the drift
is that people are going to feel the power vacuum. It is being fueled
by the Iranians and pushed by the Russians and other outside influences
that don't seek for them to have their freedom.
We have eight countries, as I noted earlier, most of which have
secular Muslim governments, that are fighting to stave off the Iranian-
style Islamic extremism, which are looking westward, and at great risk
to themselves, they have considerable economic ties with the West--and
I want to note as well, with Israel.
Many of these countries in this region have historic and ancient
Jewish populations existing there as well; living, surviving, thriving,
but if you put in these anti-Western militant fundamentalist, those
populations, Jewish populations are going to be run out and these
countries are not going to be having good relationships with Israel.
These countries are recovering from 70 years of Soviet domination.
They need our help in all spheres, including human rights. No one is
suggesting that these are Jeffersonian democracies yet. There is a lot
of pessimistic talk about the prospects for democracy in this region.
All of these countries have human rights violations.
At any given point in time, some of the human rights violations may
seem worse than others. Here is our choice. Do we engage and try to
make what difference we can? Or do we ignore and let the region drift
without us, becoming either violently anti-Western, anti-American, or
become, once again, an extension of Russia, China, or Iran? It is a
pretty clear, simple choice. They seek our support.
Now, on the point of human rights--because I think a lot of people
will say there are human rights violations in this region and we really
ought to watch out for that and we should not support these areas.
Again, I point out that this is a waiver authority to the President. He
still has to certify and it will have the same standards as other human
rights issues. Recently, we had the Israeli Minister for Trade and
Industry, Natan Sharansky, a well-known international figure on human
rights, here in Washington, together with the Foreign Minister of
Uzbekistan. Mr. Sharansky's reason for being here was to make one
point, which I thank him for making.
He said:
Look at the human rights situation and weigh this against
the importance of the threat that is facing us. It is very
important to engage and continue to encourage a positive
process and the way to do this is to strengthen the role we
are playing in the region.
He supported and endorsed this Silk Road Strategy Act in the region.
I want to look particularly at the second-degree amendment that my
colleague from Kentucky put forward. I have immense respect for the
chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. He did excellent work
on the overall bill, but we have a difference of opinion on section
907. I want to go specifically at this issue.
My overall amendment would provide a Silk Road Strategy Act for the
entire region, providing a waiver authority in section 907. The second-
degree amendment leaves the rest of the language but does not provide
the national interest waiver on section 907. That is a key part of this
bill, and that is why I oppose the second-degree amendment of my good
colleague from Kentucky and my colleague from Michigan, Senator
Abraham, as well. We have a dispute on this. I want to go right at that
issue of section 907.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Congress, in the fall of
1992, adopted the Freedom Support Act. This was designed to provide
financial and technical assistance to the newly independent states,
those of the former Soviet Union. I want to put that map
[[Page S7840]]
back up here, if we could, so people can have that in mind. It was to
aid them on a path toward democratic and market reforms. Because of the
then ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the enclave
Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian supporters were successful in including
language in section 907 singling out Azerbaijan--the only former Soviet
republic so treated--for sanctions. I will put up here a map of that
region so you can see specifically what this area looks like. This is
the Armenia and Azerbaijan area and the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which
was in dispute, and this was in 1992, mid-1993, and late 1993.
In 1992, at that point in time, we passed the Freedom Support Act and
Armenian supporters got narrow, bilateral sanctions against Azerbaijan
put in place, saying we think Azerbaijan is treating Armenia wrong,
blockading it. Therefore, we want section 907, which removes the United
States from providing any assistance to Azerbaijan. Bilateral
sanctions, some of which have been lifted--the chairman of the
committee has lifted portions of these, but not all have been lifted.
We provide waiver authority for the lifting of these bilateral
sanctions. That was 1992. The only former Soviet republic so treated
was Azerbaijan. The 907 sanction prohibited the ability of the U.S.
Government to provide direct bilateral assistance to Azerbaijan until
the President determined that demonstrable steps had been taken in
ceasing hostilities and lifting the embargo against Armenia. A cease-
fire has been in place for the past 7 years since that time period.
Peace negotiations under the auspices of the OSCE group are ongoing.
To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to continue these 907 sanctions.
Proponents of retaining 907 argue that the restrictions should remain
in place until the Azerbaijan embargo against Armenia is lifted. In
point of fact, however, it is Armenia's ongoing occupation of Nagorno-
Karabakh and the surrounding territory. Armenia currently occupies
about 20 percent of Azerbaijan in violation of international law. Both
the OSCE and the U.N. have condemned this occupation.
This is the region on the map they are occupying against the OSCE and
U.N. ruling. They both have said this is an international law
violation, that Armenia is occupying 20 percent of Azerbaijan. This
functionally prevents the opening of the borders between the two
countries.
In an attempt to end the stalemate, the OSCE advanced a proposal
calling for Armenia to withdraw from the occupied land in exchange for
the reciprocal opening of rail and pipeline facilities by Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan has accepted the proposal. Armenia has rejected it. This
would be pulling back from a 20 percent of lands, and then opening up
the rail and pipe corridors. Azerbaijan accepted it. Armenia has not.
The imposition of 907, I think, was a bad idea in 1993. It was
adopted over the strong objections of the Bush administration, and its
repeal is strongly supported by the Clinton administration.
For the United States to continue unilateral imposition of sanctions
against Azerbaijan--that is what we have--does not make sense from
either a geostrategic-political point of view or an economic point of
view.
This is much of the corridor for the Eurasian bridge that is going
through Azerbaijan.
The energy potential of the Caspian is one facet of Azerbaijan's
strategic significance to the West. The broader issue of the timing and
development of the Iranian transit corridor and the sovereignty of the
individual republics of the South Caucasus is also at stake.
This provision--I might note, as well, the Silk Road strategy--is
strongly supported by all the countries in the region outside of the
Armenians. I think it would be a great benefit to Armenia as well.
Continuing 907 is an impediment to the improved truce between the
United States and Azerbaijan and the entire region. It undermines the
ability of American companies to secure their substantial investments
in the region, and prevents the U.S. Government from being a truly
honest broker in the peace negotiations.
Repealing of section 907 would allow for commercial and technical
assistance to aid in the development of infrastructure, trade, pipeline
projects, and to further development of democracy so they don't fall
into the hands of the Iranians or the Russians.
Further, with the ongoing political turmoil in Moscow, removal of 907
would allow Azerbaijan to participate in a partnership for peace and
broader security programs, as well as market reform and democracy-
building initiatives necessary to promote political stability in this
potentially volatile region.
Some may suggest this is not the time to do this on 907. I don't know
of a better time other than 907 having not been put on in the first
place. It doesn't lift the sanction. It provides a waiver authority for
the President to do it.
Some may say, well, this is at a particularly susceptible time in the
peace process. I don't think that is accurate. The last real peace
initiative was in 1997, calling for Armenia's withdrawal from the
occupied territories in exchange for normalization of trade with
Azerbaijan. This was rejected by Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Unlike other provisions of the Freedom Assistant Act, I want to point
out that section 907 does not provide for a national interest waiver.
What we are doing here is making section 907 be in line with the rest
of the Freedom Assistance Act in providing a national interest waiver.
The final point I want to make before yielding the floor for a
discussion is, again, I point out my deep respect for my colleagues
from Kentucky and Michigan who are opposed to the overall national
interest waiver on section 907. We just have a differing point of view
on this.
But the issue is, we are talking about a region of the world--a
Eurasian corridor--that has had historical roots in the old Silk Road.
They know how to relate with one another, and they are in a tough
neighborhood. They have the Russians bearing down on them with undue
economic and other influence, and the President of Georgia has had
several assassination attempts where the assassin fled to Russia.
Georgia wants this bill very much. They have undue influence from the
Iranians, who are providing aid to many of these terrorist groups
operating in the region and fomenting discontent because they know they
are inherently weak at this time. The Chinese have a certain amount of
influence, but it is really between the Russians and the Iranians. And
they seek to be connected with us.
If you pull 907 out of this and its interest waiver, and you say, OK,
we are going to do everything but 907, as the amendment provides, you
block this part of the key corridor of providing economic trade,
developmental assistance, and, through much of the region, its commerce
and its activity will flow through Baku and Azerbaijan. This is a
critical part of it. That is why, with all due respect, I oppose the
second-degree amendment, ask my colleagues to vote against that and to
support the underlying amendment without amendment, and pass this
critical issue that we really need for U.S. foreign policy.
I thank my colleague.
I thank the President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Filing of Amendments
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides of
the aisle.
I ask unanimous consent that all first-degree amendments to be
offered to the pending appropriations bill must be filed at the desk by
1 p.m. today, and, of course, other than the managers' amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to commend my friend and
colleague from Kansas, first of all, for taking an interest in a part
of the world that very few Members of Congress probably can find on a
map. I share his view that this is an extraordinarily important part of
the world.
As the Senator from Kansas pointed out, all of these countries are
part of what used to be the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union very early
on, in the wake of the end of the cold war, said: This is our ``near
abroad,'' sort of their version of the Monroe Doctrine, their
[[Page S7841]]
territory, and we were not thereby expected by them to be in that area.
Nevertheless, the Russians don't make foreign policy for the United
States. And we are in the process of trying to develop our own strong
bilateral relations with each of those countries.
The Senator from Kansas has been in the forefront of advocating the
importance of the United States having its own bilateral relations with
each of those countries. I commend him for it because he has been very
farsighted in understanding the significance of this part of the world
to the United States.
I think all other aspects of the Silk Road proposal are good. Where
we differ, as the Senator from Kansas indicated, is on that portion of
the Silk Road called the ``repeal of section 907.''
Reasonable people can look at this and reach different conclusions.
What the Senator from Kansas would like to see--I am perfectly
confident in what I would like to see--is a settlement of this dispute
between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
For our colleagues who have not paid a whole lot of attention to this
part of the world, Nagorno-Karabakh is an almost entirely Armenian
enclave, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, within the territory
of Azerbaijan connected by an area called the Lachin corridor. It is
this area which is in dispute.
As the Senator from Kansas pointed out, Armenia won the conflict that
occurred with the breakup of the Soviet Union, and it occupies not only
Nagorno-Karabakh but the other territory adjacent thereto, which is
Azeri.
The sad aftermath of that war is large refugee camps, which I
visited, and the Senator from Kansas visited as well, of displaced
people stuck in these refugee camps now for some 6 years, with the
hopelessness and despair that develops in that atmosphere, reminiscent
of an entire generation of Palestinians who have grown up in these
camps in the Middle East. It breeds a fanaticism, a terrorism, that is
an enormous unsettling aspect of life in that part of the world.
Nothing could be better for that area than getting that dispute
settled. I am sure the Senator from Kansas and I agree on that.
The question is, How do you best get there? The Senator from Kansas
mentioned the Minsk Group. I am not very optimistic that the Minsk
Group is going to bring about a settlement. The Minsk Group, in
addition to including Azerbaijan and Armenia, includes Russia, France,
and the United States. I think the Senator from Kansas and I probably
agree that the Russians like things the way they are around there.
There are Russian troops in all of those republics still, with the
exception of Azerbaijan. Some are there by invitation, some are not by
invitation. I think the Russians enjoy keeping the Caucasus
destabilized, with all due respect to our occasional friends, the
Russians. The French, who most of the time are our allies, I think
frequently are difficult in these negotiating situations.
These are the players: The French, the Russians, the Americans, the
Armenians, and Azeris. Nothing has happened, and I am not optimistic
something will happen until the United States thinks this is important.
Think of the money, time, and effort we have spent in the Balkans
over the last 3 or 4 years. I happen to be in the minority in our party
who think we have a national interest in the Balkans. I wish we had the
interest in the Caucasus that we had in the Balkans, because we might
have settled the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We have not
had that, and nothing has happened.
The question before the Senate is, What kind of condition makes peace
more or less likely to occur? Reasonable people can look at the same
set of facts and reach a different conclusion.
The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, and I have offered this
second-degree amendment because we believe that section 907 --even
though it has been constantly stripped down--is important to give the
Azeris some incentive for ultimate settlement. It is the view of the
Senator from Kentucky that the lifting of 907 ought to be part of the
final settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. To give it away in
advance of final settlement makes final settlement less likely.
I completely respect the observations of the Senator from Kansas. As
I said, reasonable people can differ about this. I think removing the
last element of leverage in advance of the final settlement is not a
step in the right direction.
We will have at some point today--although no time agreement can be
entered at this point--a decision on this. I hope my colleagues will
consider whether or not lifting this sanction in advance of a final
settlement of the dispute is helpful in achieving a final settlement of
the dispute.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I lend my support to this amendment. I
realize the chairman and ranking member have a number of other issues
they want to discuss. I am not sure at what point we will reconvene on
this second-degree amendment.
I clearly associate myself with the Senator from Kentucky, both as a
cosponsor of the amendment as well as with his comments today. I share
his view that the appropriate role for the United States at this point
is not to decide this matter by taking this action--which I think would
be premature; I think there still remain serious issues in play that
would argue against changing the status of section 907 at this point.
My view is that we should move forward with the balance of this
amendment.
I, too, applaud the Senator from Kansas, who I think has done great
work in this area. I fully support his efforts as well as the
contribution he makes by raising the section 907 issue. Hopefully, it
puts all of our policymakers in the United States more in focus on the
issues.
If we are to include the Silk Road Act or a major portion of it in
this legislation, it should be included without inclusion of section
907. I am willing to speak on this at a later point if we extend the
debate.
I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky, and I look
forward to working with him, as well as the Senator from Kansas, in
hopefully resolving this.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I hope we can get a time agreement so
we know when we will actually vote on this particular issue.
Reasonable people may differ, and will differ, on what the U.S.
policy should be. Azerbaijan--section 907--is the only country from the
former Soviet Union that we have unilateral sanctions against.
We are not lifting those sanctions by this amendment. We are allowing
a national interest waiver to the President which is the same as the
rest of the Freedom Support Act. In that sense, we will put
Azerbaijan--which is at the gateway to much of the Eurasian platform as
far as connecting the countries together--on an equal footing with all
of the countries that came from the rubble of the former Soviet Union.
We seek peace in this region. It is important that we have a
settlement in this region. This particular set of unilateral sanctions
on Azerbaijan has been the United States policy since 1992. It has not
led to peace since 1992.
We are seeking to create an abundance of activity, on a multilateral
basis, of all the countries in the region, causing them to work
together, to lift each other up economically, democratically, and
regarding human rights, as an area, an entire region, that is
developing on those principles of a free democracy--free, independent
status, and human rights.
To pull this one out--it is a key corridor--the concept of the
countries working together falls apart. It will not happen. It will not
happen if we do that. That has been the U.S. policy since 1992. It has
not led to peace yet between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I don't think it
will now. If we get these countries to work together, to say, together
we can support each other, we can grow economically in other ways, I
think we create the atmosphere for peace to take place. Everybody has
an interest in peace occurring.
We are talking about a large set of resources in this area. They do
have the economic wherewithal to be able to grow and grow together. But
we have to have them all. You can't pull one of them out and say it
will not happen.
I think the proposal I put forward leads to peace and peaceful
opportunities in the region. That is why I support it. I am happy to
talk further
[[Page S7842]]
about this at a later date if we get a time agreement. With all due
respect, I disagree with my colleagues from Kentucky and Michigan. I
think we have the national interest waiver on section 907.
At the proper time, I will want a recorded vote on this so we can
have a determination by this body of U.S. policy here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Anne Alexander, a
fellow in the office of Senator Feingold, be granted the privilege of
the floor during consideration of S. 1233.
I further ask unanimous consent Natalia Feduschak, an American
Political Science Federation fellow in the office of Senator Frank
Lautenberg, be granted such floor privilege during debate and votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again I remind Senators we have a unanimous
consent agreement entered into by the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky to have all amendments in by 1 o'clock today. I urge him to do
that. I had hoped we could wrap this bill up at a relatively early
time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Kentucky,
what is his desire at this time on this particular amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Kansas, we are unable to get a
time agreement on this amendment at this time. It is my intention to
lay it aside and deal with some other matters. We will keep working on
it during the course of the day.
Mr. BROWNBACK. That is certainly acceptable to me. I suggest to the
Senator from Kentucky, the manager of the bill, I have a second
amendment dealing with the Sudan I am hopeful we can get worked out at
some point in time, rather than calling it up. But if we cannot, I will
seek recognition on that as well later on.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Kansas, I am familiar with his
other amendment. It is acceptable to me. If he will keep working on
that, I think we should be able to get it cleared in the course of the
day.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, while we are waiting for other Senators
to come up with amendments, I want to draw attention to an amendment I
intend to offer if it is not accepted overall. It is an amendment
entitled ``Humanitarian Assistance for the Sudanese Opposition
Groups.''
This is a very simple amendment that would allow us to give food aid
to the southern Sudanese resistance and also the northern Sudanese
resistance efforts, food aid only. This is not other forms of aid. It
is certainly not military aid. But it is food aid to the Sudanese
resistance movement.
The language says, and I will provide the amendment:
The President is authorized to provide humanitarian
assistance, including food, to the National Democratic
Alliance [That is an overall alliance of the groups in
opposition to the government in Khartoum] and the Sudanese
People's Liberation Movement, operating outside of the
Operation Lifeline Sudan structure.
That is the simple amendment we put forward.
I recently led a congressional delegation. Congressman Don Payne from
New Jersey, Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado, and I went to Sudan
and traveled to southern Sudan and met with the embattled groups that
have been fighting against the Khartoum government, which is a
government that was not freely elected. They stood for election in
1988. They were defeated, got about 18 percent of the vote, and then
took over the government in a coup in 1989 and have since then been
operating a terrorist regime in Sudan. It is terrorist internally in
Sudan and terrorist externally from Sudan.
They have killed, according to the IS Committee on Refugees,
internally in Sudan, in the last 10 years, 1.9 million people in a
genocide and ethnic cleansing the likes of which the world has not seen
in recent times. This is the worst humanitarian situation in the world.
That is according to the director of USAID, Mr. Atwood, who testified
on the issue, on the Sudan--the worst in the world--nearly 2 million
killed, over 4 million internally displaced. That is the internal
terrorism of this government.
This is a government--and this is incredible--that actually allows
slavery to exist. That is documented. The Baltimore Sun did a series of
articles documenting this. Christian Solidarity International has
bought back the freedom of over 6,000 slaves of northern people
empowered by the Government to go south, kill the men in the village,
take the women and children hostages, and make them slaves.
This is a picture taken by one of my staff members at Christmas this
past year when she was in Sudan. This little boy is probably 11 or 12
years old. He is holding his arm out in this picture. It actually has
on it his slave brand--branded slave.
What the Government in Khartoum does is, they allow people from the
north to go down as raiders into these communities, and part of what
they get paid for is the slaves they can take. This is a closer picture
of the little boy's arm showing the brand mark. They are taken and made
to be herders, they are taken into sexual concubinage. The slave trade
exists in the world today at the hands of the Government in Khartoum.
It is absolutely unfathomable that this continues to occur. That is on
top of the genocide and the ethnic cleansing that is taking place.
This is a picture of the civilian bombing that takes place within the
country all the time. I was in Yei. The hospital in Yei has been bombed
three times in the last year. They are taking old Soviet cargo planes,
Antonovs, and they roll bombs out the back. They are indiscriminate.
They are not militarily significant, but it kills a lot of people. It
terrifies the people on the ground.
This is a picture of the hospital that has been bombed.
This photograph is, again, a civilian target. It has a big red X on
the top of it, and that is part of the bombing that takes place.
This picture shows people who are watching for the bombers.
I put up a quick chart of the atrocities of the Government in the
north. Remember, this amendment we are going to offer simply allows
humanitarian aid to the resistance movement. It does not provide arms
of any nature, but it does provide food aid to the resistance movement
in Sudan.
This is what the Government in Khartoum has done. If people are going
back and forth saying we are taking sides if we provide humanitarian
aid to the resistance, I point out, the Government in Sudan is a
terrorist regime as determined by the United States State Department.
It is state-sponsored terrorism. They have housed Osama bin Laden since
1997. He stayed in Khartoum.
Most of the terrorist groups operating in the world have a base of
operation in Khartoum. The Government in Sudan is supporting terrorist
movements in three adjacent countries--Congo, Eritrea, and Uganda. They
are seeking to expand this militant fundamentalism.
I pointed this out earlier:
Dead, 1.9 million people. It is the worst humanitarian situation in
the world.
An internally displaced population of 4.3 million.
Last year, they let famine alone kill 100,000 people. Mr. President,
this is the most incredible thing. Food sat in the country, and the
Government in Khartoum would not let us fly relief planes into the area
where they needed it, and the people died. They died at the hands of
the Khartoum Government because they would not let our planes deliver
the food aid.
Enslavement takes place, civilian bombings, forced religious
conversions, terrorist threats throughout the region. This is the
Government in Khartoum. This is the Government of
[[Page S7843]]
Sudan. If Members are hesitant to support food aid to the resistance
movement, this is against whom they are fighting. This is arguably one
of the, if not the worst regimes in the world for the treatment of its
own people and attempts to export a militant fundamentalism and spread
it throughout Africa. They housed the terrorist who tried to kill
President Mubarak of Egypt. I mentioned the Government in Sudan housed
Osama bin Laden.
This is a simple amendment. Rather than calling it up at the present
time, I am making my colleagues aware, if it is not agreed to, I will
be calling this amendment up and asking for a vote on this amendment.
It is food aid to the opposition groups. It is not military aid. It is
against the Government that supports the institutions of slavery, and
it has the worst humanitarian situation in the world. Mr. President,
100,000 were killed last year. This is the least we can do.
I see other Members in the Chamber. I do not want to take additional
time for this. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Minnesota.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin
Goodman and Howard Kushlan, who are interns in my office this summer,
and John Bradshaw, who is a fellow, be granted the privilege of the
floor during the debate on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be laid aside. I say to my colleague from Kentucky, I
will speak on an amendment I am going to offer just to save us time so
we can move along today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 1123
(Purpose: To combat the crime of international trafficking and to
protect the rights of victims)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I will discuss one of the most
horrendous human rights violations of our time--the trafficking of
human beings, which is particularly prevalent among women and children,
for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced slavery.
Earlier this year, I introduced a bill, the International Trafficking
of Women and Children Victim Protection Act of 1999, which addresses
this issue. This legislation was cosponsored by Senators Feinstein,
Boxer, Snowe, Murray, Harkin, and Torricelli.
Today I am going to offer an amendment, which I will send to the desk
shortly, to the foreign ops bill, which is basically this piece of
legislation. If adopted, this amendment will put the Senate on record
as opposing trafficking for forced prostitution and domestic servitude
and acting to check it before the lives of more women and more girls
are shattered.
Trafficking in human beings is one of the fastest growing
international trafficking businesses. Women and girls seeking a better
life, a good marriage, a lucrative job abroad, unexpectedly find
themselves forced to work as prostitutes or in sweat shops. Seeking
this better life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs
in foreign countries at wages they could never imagine at home.
Every year, the trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects
hundreds of thousands of women throughout the world. That is hard to
believe. Every year the trafficking of women and girls for sex trade
affects hundreds of thousands of women or, for that matter, girls
throughout the world.
The U.S. Government estimates that 1 million to 2 million women and
girls are trafficked annually around the world. According to experts,
between 50 and 100,000 women are trafficked each year into the United
States alone. They come from Thailand, Russia, the Ukraine, and other
countries in Asia and in the former Soviet Union.
Although trafficking has been a problem in some Asian countries, it
was not until the breakup of the Soviet Union that a sex trade in that
region began to flourish. This appalling trade has grown by leaps and
bounds over the last decade. Trafficking is induced by poverty, lack of
economic opportunities for women, the horrendous low status of women in
many cultures, and the rapid growth of sophisticated and ruthless
international crime operations.
Trafficking rings exploit and abuse poor, vulnerable women in the
devastated economies of Russia, the Ukraine, and other countries in
Central Europe, where women are unable to find jobs to sustain
themselves and their families.
As many of you know, I am deeply concerned about what has taken place
in Russia today. I am deeply concerned about it because I believe what
happens in Russia, for better or for worse--and I hope it will be for
better--will crucially affect the quality, or lack of quality, of our
lives, our children's lives, and our grandchildren's lives. I suppose I
am also concerned because my father was a Jewish immigrant who fled
Russia.
In that country, we know that some 6.5 million women are unemployed,
and 2.5 million children are not in school but they are in the streets.
These women and children are vulnerable to international organized
crime that preys on the jobless, the destitute, the desperate, and the
naive.
Upon arrival in countries far from their homes, these women from
Russia and the Ukraine, and many other countries, are often stripped of
their passports, held against their will in slave-like conditions, and
sexually abused. It is just unbelievable that this is exactly what is
happening. Rape and intimidation and violence are commonly employed by
the traffickers to control their victims and to prevent them from
seeking help.
Through physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and
brothel owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual
exploitation that imposes a constant threat of fear and deportation, as
well as violent reprisals by the traffickers themselves to whom the
women must pay ever growing debts.
Many brothel owners actually prefer foreign women--women who are far
from help and home who do not speak the language--precisely because it
is so easy to control them. Most of these women never imagined the life
of hell they would encounter, having traveled abroad to find better
jobs or to see the world.
Many, in their naivete, believed that nothing bad could happen to
them in rich and comfortable countries such as Switzerland, Germany, or
the United States. Others who were less naive but desperate for money
and opportunity are no less hurt by the traffickers' brutal grip.
Last year, First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke powerfully of this human
tragedy. She said:
I have spoken to young girls in northern Thailand whose
parents were persuaded to sell them as prostitutes, and they
received a great deal of money by their standards. You could
often tell the homes of where the girls had been sold because
they might even have a satellite dish or an addition built on
their house. But I met girls who would come home after they
had been used up, after they had contracted HIV or AIDS. If
you've ever held the hand of a 13-year-old girl dying of
AIDS, you can understand how critical it is that we take
every step possible to prevent this happening to any other
girl anywhere in the world. I also, in the Ukraine, heard--
The Ukraine actually was where my father was born--
of women who told me with tears running down their faces
that young women in their communities were disappearing. They
answered ads that promised [them] a much better future in
another place and they were never heard from again.
We have had women from the Ukraine in our office, in face-to-face
meetings, talking about the awful problem of women and young girls
being exploited, leaving the Ukraine, coming to countries such as ours,
and then finding themselves in this kind of situation.
These events are occurring not just in far off lands but in the
United States as well. Earlier this spring, 6 men admitted, in a
Florida court, to forcing 17
[[Page S7844]]
women and girls, some as young as 14, into a prostitution slavery ring.
The victims were smuggled into the United States from Mexico with the
promise of steady work, but, instead, they were forced into
prostitution. The ring was discovered when two 15-year-old girls
escaped and went to the Mexican consulate in Miami.
According to recent reports by the Justice Department, teenage
Mexican girls were also held in slavery in the Carolinas and forced to
submit to prostitution. In addition, Russian and Latvian women were
forced to work in night clubs in Chicago. According to charges filed
against the traffickers, the traffickers picked up the women upon their
arrival at the airport, seized their documents and return tickets,
locked them in hotels, and beat them. This is in our country. The women
were told that if they refused to dance nude in various nightclubs, the
Russian mafia would kill their families.
Further, over 3 years, hundreds of women from the Czech Republic who
answered advertisements in Czech newspapers for modeling were ensnared
in an illegal prostitution ring.
Because the victims of international trafficking are frequently
unfamiliar with the laws, cultures, and languages of the countries to
which they have been trafficked, these victims often find it difficult
or impossible to report the crimes that have been committed against
them or to assist in the investigation and the prosecution of such
crimes. Further, victims do not have legal immigration status in the
countries into which they are trafficked, so the victims are often
punished more harshly than the traffickers themselves.
Trafficking in women and girls is a human rights problem. This is a
human rights amendment that requires a human rights response.
Trafficking is condemned by human rights treaties as a violation of
basic human rights and as a slavery-like practice. Women who are
trafficked are subject to other abuses--to rape, to beatings, to
physical confinement--which are squarely prohibited by human rights law
but are happening all around the world. The human abuses continue in
the workplace in the forms of physical and sexual abuse, debt bondage
and illegal confinement, and all are prohibited. But the practices go
on.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to be
free from slavery and involuntary servitude, arbitrary detention,
degrading or inhuman treatment, as well as the right to protection by
law against these abuses.
The United Nations General Assembly has passed three resolutions
during the last 3 years recognizing that international traffic in women
and girls is an issue of pressing international concern involving
numerous violations of fundamental human rights. The United Nations
General Assembly is calling upon all governments to criminalize
trafficking, to punish its offenders, while not penalizing its victims.
Fortunately, the global trade in women and children is receiving far
greater attention by governments and nongovernment organizations
following the U.N. World Conference on Women in Beijing. The
President's Interagency Council on Women is working hard to mobilize a
response to this problem. Churches and synagogues, and nongovernment
organizations are fighting the battle daily, but much, much, much more
must be done.
This amendment provides a human rights response to the problem. It
has a comprehensive and integrated approach focused on prevention,
protection, and assistance for the victims and prosecution of the
traffickers.
I am going to highlight a few of the provisions in the amendment.
One, it sets an international standard for governments to meet in
their efforts to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human
rights abuse. It calls on the State Department and Justice Department
to investigate and take action against international trafficking. In
addition, it creates an Interagency Task Force in the Office of the
Secretary of State to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and directs the
Secretary to submit an annual report to the Congress on international
trafficking.
The annual report would, among other things, identify states engaged
in trafficking, the effort of those states to combat trafficking, and
whether their government officials are complicit in the practice.
Corrupt government or law enforcement officials sometimes directly
participate and benefit in the trade of women and girls. Corruption
also prevents prosecution of the traffickers.
On a national level, as I look to this amendment, it ensures that our
immigration laws do not encourage rapid deportation of trafficked
women, a practice which effectively insulates traffickers from ever
being prosecuted for their crimes. Trafficking victims are eligible for
nonimmigrant status valid for 3 months. If the victim pursues criminal
or civil actions against a trafficker or if she pursues an asylum
claim, she is provided with an extension of time. Furthermore, it
provides that trafficked women should not be detained but instead
receive the needed services, the safe shelter, and the opportunity to
seek justice against her abuser.
Finally, this amendment provides much-needed resources to programs
assisting trafficking victims here at home and abroad. We must commit
ourselves to ending the trafficking of women and girls and to building
a world in which women and children are no longer subjected to
horrendous abuses.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I have worked on this bill for a long time with a lot of groups and
organizations. I believe this will have strong bipartisan support. I
have tried to respond to a variety of different concerns. I say to my
colleague from Vermont, as long as he doesn't think this is in the
spirit of buttering him up, I view him as a champion in human rights
work. I really believe this is consistent with his work. I think we
ought to have this kind of response. I thought, in order to save time,
I would speak on this amendment. I know there are other amendments that
are on the floor.
I wonder whether I might send this amendment to the desk so that we
will have it for consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 1123.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Illinois. I
have another amendment that I could introduce, but for now, I yield the
floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have several Senators on the floor
seeking recognition. The Senator from Minnesota, of course, had the
floor. We are going to take a look at his amendment, which would not be
in order for a vote right now. I listened to very much of what he had
to say.
I am wondering if we could have an agreement that the Senator from
New Jersey be recognized, the Senator from Oregon be recognized, and
the Senator from Illinois be recognized next in that order.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator from Vermont add the Senator from
California?
Mr. LEAHY. And then the Senator from California. I see the
distinguished chairman is now on the floor. I am wondering if this
might kind of expedite things. I do not think any of these Senators
wish to speak for any great length of time.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey be
recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Oregon be recognized for 5
minutes, the Senator from Illinois be recognized for 5 minutes, and the
Senator from California be recognized for 5 minutes --
Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder whether or not before colleagues speak, I
could just send this amendment, the second amendment, to the desk so it
is filed.
Mr. LEAHY. And then before this begins, that the Senator from
Minnesota be recognized to send an amendment to the desk for
appropriate filing purposes.
[[Page S7845]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1124
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is filed.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend, Senator
Leahy. I just walked onto the floor. Are the speakers here in relation
to the Brownback amendment and the second-degree by myself and Senator
Abraham?
Mrs. BOXER. We are.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous consent, the Chair
recognizes the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, yesterday the citizens of South
Florida watched in horror as live television cameras revealed an
extraordinary spectacle. The hopes of freedom and the great traditions
of America collided on the open seas with the harsh reality of the
Clinton administration's arrangements with Castro's government in
controlling immigration to the United States.
Six Cuban refugees who fought across the Florida straits came to
within yards of the coast of the United States of America. Only a few
feet from their destination, they leaped from the boat and attempted to
swim to the shores of our country. They did so for the reasons that all
of our ancestors and hundreds of thousands of other Cuban Americans
came to the United States--with the belief that they could find freedom
and security.
It was with horror, I am certain, on their part, but also by other
Americans who watched this spectacle unfold as Coast Guard boats
intercepted the swimmers. Men attempted to swim for their lives and
were never given lifejackets. Surrounded by Coast Guard boats that
generated large wakes, imperiling the lives of those who would swim to
shore, Coast Guard crewmen used pepper spray against some of the
swimmers. They were then taken into custody in handcuffs. Welcome to
America.
It is essential that the Coast Guard, the Department of the Treasury,
begin an immediate inquiry to revise these procedures to find out how
this incident could have happened. Handcuffing refugees, using pepper
spray, not helping those who were endangered on the high seas,
subjecting them to the wake of large boats, allowing them to stay in
the ocean for 15, 20 and, 30 minutes without assistance, no matter how
you feel about Castro's government or immigration, no matter how you
approach this issue, is not the role of the U.S. Coast Guard. It is not
the policy of the U.S. Government. This is not how we treat refugees or
people who are coming to our shores for freedom.
It reminds us that the problems of Castro's government are not yet
addressed. This crisis is not yet over. In the last 6 months, Amnesty
International has reported that the total number of political prisoners
in Cuba is now 350. In the last 6 months, there has been the arrest of
four human rights dissidents petitioning their own government to
recognize basic human rights. In just the last 6 months, the Cuban
government has now passed laws making it a felony, punishable by 20
years in jail, to cooperate with the U.S. Government or any of its
agencies. Things are not getting better in Castro's Cuba. They are
getting worse.
As people flee that island for freedom, they deserve more and the
people of the United States expect more than to have the agencies of
this government used to continue an oppression, not at the hands of
Castro but to threaten the lives of these refugees at the hands of our
own agencies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous consent, the Chair
recognizes the Senator from Oregon.
AMENDMENT NO. 1119
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I will be brief. I rise to oppose the McConnell
second-degree to the Silk Road amendment. I rise as a cosponsor of the
bill.
We are constantly called upon in this country to pick sides among
parties with ancient feuds. The area of the Silk Road, as defined in
this bill, is an area that has long been beset with communism, Islamic
fundamentalism, and other interests which, frankly, are inimical to
U.S. interests.
Section 907 picks a side. I think it is founded on the best of
motives but with the worst of results. At the end of the day, if we
want to be honest brokers in this fight, it does not help us to be
sanctioning one party at the table.
This isn't about oil; this isn't about some of the interests of the
oil companies that want to develop in the Caspian; this is about being
evenhanded; this is about getting beyond the status quo, which simply
is not working.
In my view, it is appropriate to give the President the discretion to
make a recommendation as to whether or not this sanction should
continue. If he determines that it is working, fine, leave it in place.
If not, I fear we will forever be caught up in picking sides on the
Senate floor in conflicts we cannot ultimately end. I believe the U.S.
posture in this very sensitive and important region of the world should
be fair to both sides.
There are atrocities, human rights violations, on both sides. I wish
there were just good guys and bad guys; unfortunately, there are plenty
of both on both sides. In the end, I ask us to take a more evenhanded
approach, support the Brownback bill and, ultimately, I believe, be
more effective in this very sensitive negotiation in trying to foster
peace, trying to foster development, trying to foster democracy in a
part of the world that has known little of any of that.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair recognizes
the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no objection, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senator from California, who has asked for 5 minutes,
go before me and that I then be recognized for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McConnell
amendment. I thank the Senator for offering his amendment because,
frankly, without it, a number of us will have problems supporting the
underlying amendment by Senator Brownback.
The Brownback amendment addresses a very important issue of
revitalizing trade in that area of the world, and the problem with it
is that it gives the President the authority to waive section 907 of
the Freedom Support Act. The McConnell amendment strikes that portion
from the Brownback amendment and, therefore, makes it a fine amendment.
But without the McConnell amendment, I am afraid we are doing some very
great harm and damage to human rights and to common decency.
Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act was enacted to place
restrictions on United States government-to-government assistance to
Azerbaijan until that country lifts its blockades of Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh.
I have very strong concerns about ending section 907, which is
essentially what we are doing, because we know the administration's
position on that. Doing that would reward the Azeri Government for
taking no steps in lifting their blockade.
The blockade they have put on has prevented the transportation of
basic human necessities, such as food and medicine, from reaching the
suffering people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't believe the
United States should stand by and allow the Armenian people to live
with a devastated economy, without a real commitment from Azerbaijan
that they are taking steps to end the blockade.
Let me be clear about section 907 and what it does not do. It is not
a sanction. In fact, the United States has normal trade relations with
Azerbaijan. Section 907 does not prevent humanitarian aid from reaching
Azerbaijan. It doesn't prevent the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Trade Development Agency
from functioning in Azerbaijan.
The only thing section 907 requires--and that is why I don't
understand why Senator Brownback wants to, in effect, repeal it--is
that the Azeri Government ``take demonstrable steps to cease all
blockades against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.'' That is not a high
hurdle to clear. If the Azeri Government cannot even take steps--small
[[Page S7846]]
steps--to end this blockade, I believe it has no right to the
assistance that will be provided in the underlying Brownback amendment.
I understand Mr. Brownback's amendment is well intentioned, and I
enjoy working with him on many issues that affect the world. But
because it would repeal section 907, I think if he were to accept
Senator McConnell's amendment, we would have a good underlying bill.
In closing, I wanted to read into the Record a brief comment made by
Senator Paul Sarbanes in his minority views that he put into the
Record. I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I know Senator
Sarbanes believes strongly in this.
This is what he said:
Under current law, all Azerbaijan must do in order for
section 907 to be lifted is to ``take demonstrable steps to
cease all blockades against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.''
This is an entirely reasonable expectation, especially given
the basic purpose of this bill, which is to promote trade and
economic cooperation between the countries of the region.
He points out:
For nearly a decade, the government of Azerbaijan has
prevented the transport of food, fuel, medicine, and other
vital commodities to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, causing
immense suffering.
So I ask the question of my friend, Senator Brownback--in a
rhetorical way, since he is not here--why would he want to do something
that would only increase the suffering? Under the McConnell amendment,
we cure this problem from his bill.
Senator Sarbanes says:
During winters, much of the Armenian population has had to
live without heat, electricity, or water. Schools and
hospitals have been unable to function, and most Armenian
industries have been forced to close down, crippling the
economy and producing widespread unemployment and poverty.
We all want to see progress in the world. We want to see trade and
jobs created. But we don't want to see more human suffering. I think if
we go along with the Brownback amendment, without the McConnell
amendment, we will be doing a disservice to the world.
I know I have a little time left. I have no further comment, and I
yield the rest of my time to Senator McConnell.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California.
I think she has it exactly right. The issue is whether, in the absence
of a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the United States
will have completely normal relations with Azerbaijan. I would like to
see normal relations between our country and Azerbaijan. I would also
like to see normal relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. If all the
leverage is removed in advance of an agreement, it seems to most of us
that it makes the agreement less likely.
So I commend the Senator from California. She is absolutely correct
on the merits. We hope the second-degree amendment will prevail.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for up
to 10 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with my colleagues' indulgence, I ask
unanimous consent that I may follow the Senator for no more than 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a request on this side of the
aisle for 10 minutes at that point, and then right after that would be
acceptable to the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I agree with
Senators McConnell and Boxer. Senator Brownback calls for normalizing
relations with Azerbaijan. Certainly that makes sense. We want to move
toward the day when we have those normal relations. But we cannot
overlook the fact that, for over 10 years, Azerbaijan has in fact
imposed the blockade on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, at great
suffering to the people of that region.
It has stopped the transport of food, fuel, medicine, and other vital
commodities to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Our foreign policy is basically premised on the belief that if we are
going to have normal relations with Azerbaijan, they have to have
normal relations with Armenia.
As Senator McConnell said, Senator Brownback has a vision for the
future that we may share someday, but first we must address the
concerns that Senator McConnell addresses in his amendment. I support
him. I think it is a very sensible approach. To waive section 907 in
the absence of any progress toward lifting the blockade would reward
the Government of Azerbaijan for failing to remove it.
Keep in mind that even though we have this section 907 restriction,
we provide humanitarian and democracy-building assistance to
Azerbaijan, and in fact the businesses of the United States do business
there involving a lot of international agencies. But before we really
normalize relations, let us demand a normalization of relations when it
comes to the treatment of the Armenian people.
I don't need to remind anyone in this Chamber of the long and sad
history of the Armenian people and the genocide which they endured.
They have asked us to stand by them until they can resolve this
peacefully. I think the United States is right to do so.
I object to the approach used by Senator Brownback and fully endorse
the efforts by Senator McConnell.
funding to send latin american students to the u.s. army school of the
americas
Mr. President, while the budget caps did not allow adequate funding
for this bill, I want to complement Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy
on the bill they have produced within the constraints they faced. I am
particularly pleased that the bill includes funding for microcredit
programs, with the expectation that the Agency for International
Development will spend more for microcredit programs than last year. I
am pleased that funding for the United Nations Population Fund is
included in the bill. I am delighted that Foreign Military Financing
funds for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been increased. These
additional funds will help the Baltic countries meet their Membership
Action Plans as they aspire to join NATO.
This bill contains International Military Education and Training
(IMET) funds that are used for Latin American students to attend the
U.S. Army School of the Americas. The school is the Army's Spanish-
language training facility for Latin American military personnel,
located at Fort Benning, GA. The school is a relic of the cold war with
a horrendous legacy of teaching torture and assassination. It deserves
to be closed for what it has taught in the past, what it stands for in
Latin American democracies today, and what its counter-insurgency
training at such a tainted institution may lead to in the future.
I had planned to offer an amendment to delete IMET funding for the
school. However, I felt that my colleagues here in the Senate had not
heard enough about the school, so I will not offer my amendment today.
I introduced a bill, S. 873, to close the school. Our colleagues in the
House have also introduced such a bill, H.R. 732, which now has 137
cosponsors.
Let me tell you why I think this school should be closed. I think you
need only to look at the yearbook of the School of the Americas. Let me
tell you what you will find. It is not surprising that among the
graduates of the School of the Americas is the top of the list of the
worst human rights abusers in Latin American current history. Listen as
I read some of the graduates from the School of the Americas at Fort
Benning, GA, an institution supported by U.S. taxpayers. These were
people trained at the expense of the United States to return to Central
America and lead. Listen to the people included:
19 Salvadoran soliders linked to the murder of 6 Jesuit priests,
their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador in 1989;
48 of 69 Salvadoran military members cited in the U.N. Truth
Commission's report on El Salvador for involvement in human rights
violations;
Former Panamanian dictator and convicted drug dealer Manuel Noriega
and nine other Latin American military dictators;
El Salvador death squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson;
Two of the three killers of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador;
Mexican General Juan Lopez Ortiz, whose troops committed the Ocosingo
massacre in Chiapas in 1994;
[[Page S7847]]
Guatemalan Colonel Julio Alpirez, linked to the murder of U.S.
citizen Michael Devine in 1990 and Efrain Bamaca (husband of Jennifer
Harbury) in 1992;
124 of 247--50 percent--of Colombian military officials accused of
human rights violations in the 1992 work ``State Terrorism in
Colombia'', compiled by a large coalition of European and Colombian
non-governmental organizations;
Two of the three officers prosecuted by Guatemala for masterminding
the killing of anthropologist Myrna Mack in 1992, as well as several
leaders of the notorious Guatemalan military intelligence unit D-2;
Argentinian dictator Leopoldo Galtieri, a leader of the so-called
``dirty war,'' during which some 30,000 civilians were killed or
``disappeared'';
Haitian Colonel Gambetta Hyppolite, who ordered his soldiers to fire
on a provincial electoral bureau in 1987;
Several Peruvian military officers linked to the July 1992 killings
of nine students and a professor from La Cantuta University;
Several Honduran officers linked to a clandestine military force
known as Battalion 316 responsible for disappearances in the 1980's;
10 of the 12 officers responsible for the murder of 900 civilians in
the El Salvadoran village of El Mozote; and
Three of the five officers involved in the 1980 rape and murder of
four United States churchwomen in El Salvador.
This school is not the victim of a few isolated incidents of
wrongdoing by its graduates. This list shows that human rights
violations are endemic among its graduates, with far in excess of 200
murderers and other human rights violators on its past rolls.
Yet last week, when the commandant of the school, Col. Glenn R.
Weidner, came to brief Senate staff on the school, he said ``it doesn't
take much to get on this list,'' that has been read in the Senate. I
would say to the colonel what it takes is murder, rape, and torture.
And the list is long and convincing.
I would also say to him that these 225 graduates have been confirmed
by the Congressional Research Service. I did not include in my bill the
other allegations of the School of the Americas graduates that could be
independently confirmed. Can the school claim innocence in the actions
of its graduates? Many do not think that is possible. For example, just
a few months ago the Guatemalan Truth Commission report faulted the
school's counterinsurgency training as having ``had a significant
impact on human rights violations during the armed conflict,'' a
conflict that killed 200,000 people.
How, in the name of democracy, can we keep this school open?
I am not proposing that we hold U.S. foreign military training
programs accountable for all of the actions of these graduates. We know
from experience that people can be brutal with or without training. But
why in God's name do we continue this?
Colonel Weidner also said that those wanting to close the school were
isolationists, opposed to engaging in Latin America. Nothing could be
further from my point of view. The question is how we engage.
Let me also say to those who suggest that these comments somehow are
a reflection of criticism of the military of the United States that
this school should close. The Army should support its closing. I think
the men and women in uniform who serve this country do a wonderful job.
But this school has not produced the kind of graduates for which we can
take credit and pride. I believe it is an insult to American Army
officers to have their own country's reputation sullied by an
institution that has been associated with horrible crimes and human
rights abuses committed by its graduates.
We should remove the albatross of their association from them and
from our country by closing the School of the Americas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending? I
believe there is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment pending by Senator
Wellstone.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Wellstone amendment be temporarily laid aside so we may dispose of some
managers' amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1127 Through 1145, En Bloc
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send the managers' amendments to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) proposes the
managers' amendments numbered 1127 through 1145, en bloc.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments en bloc are as follows:
amendment no. 1127
On page 11, line 12 strike everything after the word
``loans'' and through the word ``provision'' on line 22.
On page 18, line 21, after the colon insert the following:
``Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, of the funds appropriated under this
heading, $10,000,000 shall be made available for political,
economic, humanitarian, and associated support activities for
Iraqi opposition groups designated under the Iraqi Liberation
Act (Public Law 105-338); Provided further, That not less
than 15 days prior to the obligation of these funds, the
Secretary shall inform the Committees on Appropriations of
the purpose and amount of the proposed obligation of funds
under this provision:''.
____
amendment no. 1128
On page 7, line 13 strike the language beginning with ``but
shall be'' through line 16 ``Appropriations''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I fully support this amendment that is
included in the manager's package to strike language from S. 1234, the
foreign operations appropriations bill, which would have suspended the
availability of fiscal year 2000 funding for the Inter-American
Foundation until the General Accounting Office completes an
investigation of alleged civil and criminal wrongdoing by employees at
the Foundation. I want to thank the managers of the bill and the
chairman of the committee for their willingness to remove this
language.
I think it is important to explain for the record why this language
was included in the committee-reported bill and what led to the
amendment to strike.
Several months ago, the GAO contacted the Appropriations Committee
asking permission to investigate information provided to their fraud
hotline regarding allegations of contract and hiring regulatory abuses
at the Foundation. GAO forwarded a report on these issues to the
committee on May 20, 1999. During the course of that investigation,
additional anonymous allegations were made to GAO investigators by
employees of the Foundation, and the GAO requested permission from the
committee to brief the Board of the Foundation on those allegations.
However, the committee initially decided that the GAO should
investigate these additional allegations, and included language in the
bill to restrict the Foundation's funding until the investigation was
completed.
When apprised of the language included in the bill and the
committee's intention to direct GAO to investigate these additional
allegations, I raised the issue with Chairman Stevens and asked him to
reconsider this approach. After discussing the matter, we agreed that
additional information on the nature of the allegations should be
sought in order to determine the appropriate course of action.
Last week, members of my staff and the Appropriations Committee staff
met with representatives of the General Accounting Office to discuss
their findings regarding the administrative investigation which was
completed on May 20, as well as the additional allegations. Based on
the information received at that briefing and GAO's characterization of
the additional allegations as administrative in nature, we determined
that the more appropriate way to proceed would be to accede to the
GAO's request to brief the Board of the Foundation on these matters and
allow the Board members to determine what further action, if any,
should be taken.
Chairman Stevens and Chairman McConnell advised me that, by referring
the matter to the Board, the committee would view this investigation as
[[Page S7848]]
complete, and GAO would not be requested to conduct any further
investigations of these matters. This amendment, therefore, removes any
restrictions on IAF funding as well as any language that contemplates
further GAO involvement in this matter, aside from advising the Board
of their findings and the existence of additional allegations.
Mr. President, I fully support the decision to permit the General
Accounting Office to brief the Board of the Foundation about
allegations of misconduct at the Foundation. I believe that this is the
appropriate and normal course of action in this type of matter, and I
thank Senators Stevens and McConnell for agreeing to refer this matter
to the Foundation's Board.
As my colleagues know, allegations of this sort are generally
referred to an agency's inspector general for investigation and action,
if necessary. Since the Foundation does not have an inspector general
at this time, advising the Board or perhaps the Audit Committee of the
Board (which functions as the Foundation's Inspector General) is the
appropriate course of action, instead of pursuing a congressionally
directed GAO investigation.
In addition, I sponsored and the Senate earlier adopted an amendment
to S. 886, the foreign relations authorization bill, which requires the
inspector general of the Agency for International Development to
function in that capacity for the IAF, as well as the African
Development Foundation. Hopefully, this will provide IAF with the
oversight and investigatory authority to discover and deal with issues
of this sort in the future, if necessary.
When our staff members were briefed by the GAO, they were advised of
the specific nature of these so-called ``criminal'' allegations. The
GAO characterized the allegations as administrative in nature, stating
that, even if substantiated, these types of activities would very
rarely draw criminal penalties and would instead be dealt with by a
request for reimbursement or a reprimand, at most. In addition, it is
important to know that most, if not all, of these allegations have
already been reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and their
investigation found all of them to be unsubstantiated--a conclusion
which the FBI addressed in a letter to the Foundation's Board Chair
earlier this year.
Mr. President, I would never attempt to thwart any legitimate effort
to uncover and eliminate fraud, unethical activities, or any type of
misconduct in government or government-affiliated agencies. In this
instance, however, I an concerned that these allegations about an
individual at the Inter-American Foundation were designed to accomplish
one end--the removal of that individual from effective employment at
the Foundation because of his very successful efforts over the past
several yeas to bring accountability, order, and legitimacy to an
agency whose programs had been fraught with waste and abuse.
The individual involved discovered serious deficiencies and
improprieties regarding the Foundation's grant-making program and the
lack of oversight exercised by the Foundation program offers charged
with overseeing Foundation grant organizations and contractors
overseas. For example, this individual found that the Foundation had
made grants to organizations in Ecuador involved in the kidnapping of
U.S. citizens. This individual also took decisive action when it was
discovered that the Foundation provided financial support to an
organization in Argentina that engaged in acts of serious civil
disobedience, including the seizure of public buildings and the
blockage of roadways.
This individual also exposed fraudulent activities of overseas
contractors of the Foundation, including the extortion of funds from
Foundation grantee organizations. Finally, he established personnel
time and attendance policies at the Foundation to correct rampant
absenteeism and non-performance of duties.
This individual's successful efforts to make the Foundation's
employees and Board accountable for their actions and decisions
involving U.S. taxpayer dollars have caused some of these people to
engage in a vendetta to remove him from his position at the Foundation,
or at least minimize his effectiveness in that post.
Mr. President, regardless of the outcome of the Board's review of
these latest retaliatory allegations against this individual, I believe
there should be a thorough investigation of the Board and employees of
the Foundation to ensure that the above-mentioned activities are no
longer occurring. I also believe it would be prudent to determine
whether improper hiring or personnel practices, misuse of government
funds or equipment, theft or loss of government funds or property,
conflicts of interest, or other improprieties or mismanagement--
allegations similar to those falsely made against the individual
involved in this matter--exist anywhere in the organization. These are
matter that should be reviewed at the earliest opportunity by the AID
inspector general, who will soon be serving as the inspector general
for the Foundation.
Let me serve notice that I will continue to monitor activities at the
Foundation with respect to the handling of this matter, and I will do
everything in my power to ensure that the matter is resolved fairly and
in a manner consistent with the handling of similar allegations in any
other agency of government.
Again, I thank my colleagues for concluding the committee's
involvement in this issue and referring the matter to the Foundation
for appropriate administrative review.
amendment no. 1129
On page 7, line 22, after the colon, insert the following:
``Provided further, That funds made available to grantees may
be invested pending expenditure for project purposes when
authorized by the President of the Foundation: Provided
further, That interest earned shall be used only for the
purposes for which the grant was made: Provided further, That
this authority applies to interest earned both prior to and
following enactment of this provision: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the African Development
Foundation Act, in exceptional circumstances the board of
directors of the Foundation may waive the $250,000 limitation
contained in that section with respect to a project: Provided
further, That the Foundation shall provide a report of the
Committees on Appropriations before each time such waiver
authority is exercised:''.
____
amendment no. 1130
(Purpose: To provide up to $5,500,000 to establish an International
Health Care Center at Morehouse School of Medicine)
On page 8, line 6, after the word ``AIDS'' insert the
following: ``and including up to $5,500,000 which may be made
available to establish an International Health Center at
Morehouse School of Medicine''.
____
Amendment No. 1131
On page 22, line 5, before the word ``Ukraine'' insert the
words ``Government of''.
On page 22, line 6, after ``1999'', insert the following:
``, including taking effective measures to end corruption by
government officials''.
____
Amendment No. 1132
On page 22, line 15, before the period, insert the
following: ``Provided further, That of the funds made
available for Ukraine, $3,500,000 shall be made available for
the destruction of stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines in
Ukraine''.
____
Amendment No. 1133
On page 10, line 10, after the colon, insert the following:
``Provided further, That the proportion of funds
appropriated under this heading that are made available for
biodiversity activities should be at least the same as the
proportion of funds that were made available for such
activities from funds appropriated by the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1995 (P.L. 103-306) to carry out sections 103 through 106 and
chapter 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961:''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to
reaffirm that protecting biodiversity is a key goal of our foreign
policy. It is also to clarify language on page 23 of the Appropriations
Committee report--Report 106-81, which incorrectly refers to fiscal
year 1994. The year should have been 1995.
The United States, the birthplace of the global environmental
movement, has led the way in supporting efforts to protect the
incredible variety of plants and animals around the world. Yet because
of shrinking budgets and changing priorities in Congress and at AID,
our efforts to preserve the Earth's biodiversity have diminished. The
consequences of this are profound, for ourselves and even more so for
future generations. We cannot afford to neglect an area of
environmental protection that so directly affects the lives of
[[Page S7849]]
American families and American industries.
AID's biodiversity activities include efforts to save species and
ecosystems from extinction or degredation. Only 1.5 million of the
estimated 10-50 million species have even been named and classified.
Far fewer have been studied for their potential uses to humanity. Yet
the destruction of natural habitats is leading to 100 extinctions every
single day. AID also promotes genetic diversity. Genes that could have
been lost to environmental destruction now improve and protect crops
all over the world, and especially here in the United States.
In the United States, we reap the benefits of the world's biological
diversity every day. Atmospheric pollution is reduced by tropical
rainforests. Our cattle and crops are crossbred to improve their
genetic traits. The pharmaceutical benefits alone are amazing. Diseases
common in this country are cured with medicines that come from plants
from around the world. The worldwide market for drugs derived from
plants is $40 billion. Who knows what new species will be discovered,
leading to medicines that will benefit tomorrow's sick? No one does,
which is why we cannot let a newly discovered species containing a
possible cure for cancer, or AIDS, or even the common cold, go the way
of the dinosaurs.
AID has led the way worldwide in supporting biodiversity, by working
effectively with U.S. and foreign nongovernmental organizations, and
foreign governments. For example, the Philippines, with its coral reefs
and tropical forests, is one of the most biodiverse places in the
world. It is also one of the most threatened. But through
effective management, AID has helped place over 1.2 million acres of
forest land under community stewardship and away from harm. AID has
implemented similar projects elsewhere, working with governments to
protect their own valuable resources.
Despite successes such as these, our biodiversity efforts are
threatened. Since 1995, AID expenditures for biodiversity have
decreased by nearly $50 million, a nearly 50 percent reduction in just
four years. Much of this decline is due to the steady reduction in our
foreign aid budget. But even from this shrinking pie, biodiversity gets
a thinner and thinner slice every year. In 1995, biodiversity spending
was 5.1% of development assistance expenditures. By 1996 it was down to
4%. Then in 1998, expenditures were reduced to only 3.3%.
These disproportionate cuts have devastating consequences. The
Philippines project I just mentioned will completely run out of funding
next year. In Madagascar, a country that AID made one of its top
biodiversity priorities over a decade ago, AID cut its biodiversity
funding by $900,000. In some ways Madagascar was lucky, because AID had
originally planned to cut $1.5 million dollars. And this is a country
that AID says is ``Africa's most important biodiversity priority.''
Obviously, we have many other development assistance priorities--in
public health, in education, in family planning, in justice reform, to
name a few. But we need a more balanced approach. I have spoken out
more times than I can count in support of more funding for foreign aid.
Foreign aid not only helps promote American interests abroad, but also
provides direct benefits here at home. But even given the shrinking
funds we devote to foreign aid, we must ensure that funding to protect
biodiversity does not continue to suffer disproportionate cuts. We
should resume the proportion of development assistance funding for
biodiversity to the proportion it received in 1995. That is what my
amendment would do.
I also want to be very clear about what we mean by ``biodiversity.''
We mean ``activities designed to support the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity--biomasses, ecosystems,
species, or genetic diverity--by identifying needs, by designing,
implementing and monitoring conservation and management actions;
through research and training; or through institutional strengthening,
policy interventions and program development.'' This is consistent with
AID's definition of these activities.
Finally, we need to ensure that AID's Office of Environment and
Natural Resources receives strong support. This office performs a vital
function in the design, implementation and evaluation of conservation
activities. Yet funding for it has been cut steadily since 1995, from
$25.6 million to $6.9 million in 1999. That it totally unacceptable,
and it seriously undercuts AID's capacity to exert leadership in this
area.
Mr. President, I want to commend AID for its leadership in this area.
I also want to ensure that it continue's to exert that leadership. That
requires adequate resources, and I intend to work with AID to balance
the many competing development assistance programs to achieve that
goal.
amendment no. 1134
On page 32, line 12, delete everything beginning with
``For'' through ``expended'' on page 33, line 7, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
``For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of modifying direct or
indirect loans and loan guarantees, as the President may
determine, for which funds have been appropriated or
otherwise made available for programs within the
International Affairs Budget Function 150, including the cost
of selling, reducing, or canceling amounts owed to the United
States as a result of concessional loans made to eligible
countries, pursuant to parts IV and V of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (including necessary expenses for the
administration of activities carried out under these parts),
and of modifying concessional credit agreements with least
developed countries, as authorized under section 411 of the
Agriculture Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 as
amended; and concessional loans, guarantees and credit
agreements with any country in sub-Saharan Africa, as
authorized under section 572 of the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing and Related Programs Act, 1989 (Public Law
100-461); $43,000,000, to remain available until expended;
provided that any limitation of subsection (e) of Section 411
of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954 to the extent that limitation applies to sub-Saharan
African countries shall not apply to funds appropriated
hereunder or previously appropriated''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1135
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding which office in
the Department of State is appropriate for managing United States
interests in Ukraine)
On page 128, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following
new section:
sense of congress on management of united states interests in ukraine
Sec. 580. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) Ukraine is a major European nation as it has the second
largest territory and sixth largest population of all the
States of Europe.
(2) Ukraine has important geopolitical and economic roles
to play within Central and Eastern Europe.
(3) A strong, stable, and secure Ukraine serves the
interests of peace and stability in all of Europe, which are
important national security interests of the United States.
(4) Ukraine is a member State of the Council of Europe, the
Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the
Central European Initiative, and the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Conference, is a participant in the Partnership
for Peace program of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
and has entered into a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
with the European Union.
(5) The Government of Ukraine has clearly articulated its
country's aspirations to become fully integrated into
European and transatlantic institutions, and, in pursuit of
the attainment of that aspiration, the government of Ukraine
has requested associate membership in the European Union with
the intent of eventually becoming a full member of the
European Union.
(6) It is the policy of the United States to support the
aspiration of Ukraine to assume its rightful place among the
European and transatlantic community of democratic States and
in European and transatlantic institutions.
(7) In the United States Government, the responsibility for
management of United States interests in Ukraine would be
most effectively performed by the officials who perform the
responsibility for management of United States interests in
Europe, and a designation of those officials to do so would
strongly underscore and most effectively support attainment
of the United States objective to build a Europe whole and
free.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of State should designate the Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs to perform, through
the Bureau of European Affairs of the Department of State,
the responsibilities of the Department of State for the
management of United States interests in Ukraine.
____
amendment no. 1136
(Purpose: To reduce the amount appropriated for contribution to the
International Development Association)
On page 38, line 10, strike ``$785,000,000'' and insert
``$776,600,000''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, many people, including myself, were deeply
[[Page S7850]]
disappointed by the World Bank's June 24th decision to approve a
$160,000,000 loan to fund the controversial Western Poverty Reduction
Project.
We recognize the strong views about this issue and I have agreed to
accept this amendment, but with some reluctance.
The Western Poverty Reduction Project has drawn criticism from
Members of Congress, the Clinton administration, other governments and
international human rights and non-governmental organizations. A
$40,000,000 component of this project which would fund the resettlement
of some 58,000 poor Chinese farmers into an historically and culturally
distinct Tibetan and Mongolian area is the primary source of concern.
The $9 million cut in IDA funds which would result from the Helms
amendment is the United States contribution to this portion of the
project.
I share Senator Helms' concern that the project may put additional
pressure on Tibetans and other ethnic minorities in the region who are
already struggling to overcome economic and cultural marginalization
under Chinese rule.
There are also serious questions about the project's impact on the
environment. It is my understanding that the Bank did not follow its
own procedures in considering the environmental impact of this loan.
The United States Executive Director at the Bank voted against the
loan and I supported that vote.
While many of us are not happy with the June 24th decision, the fact
is we voted on this loan just as we have on countless other loans over
the years. We participated in the Board's democratic voting process, as
established by the Bank's charter and agreed to by its shareholders,
just as we always have. The United States was instrumental in
establishing the Bank's voting rules.
What made this vote different, however, is that we lost.
With some 18 percent of the voting power on the Board, the
overwhelming majority of the time the view of the United States
prevails on the World Bank's Board and at other international financial
institutions. We have become accustomed to getting our way.
However, in the rare instances when we do not, dismissing the
process, reneging on our financial obligations and walking away from
our responsibilities is not an appropriate response. This is what this
amendment does.
By cutting our contribution to IDA, which provides critical
assistance to the world's poorest countries, this amendment compromises
the democratic procedures at the Bank and damages United States
credibility. It also invites other shareholders to cut their
contributions to the Bank whenever they do not get their way. Taken to
its logical conclusion, the damage to the Bank's ability to carry out
its mission would be immense.
We have see how we can influence this project by simply staying
involved. United States intervention and persistent international
pressure has already changed the way the Bank will proceed with this
loan.
Under World Bank President James Wolfensohn's leadership, the Board
made the highly unusual and commendable decision to delay disbursement
of the $40,000,000 until the Bank's independent inspection panel
conducts a thorough review and determines whether the project meets the
Bank's environmental and resettlement standards.
In addition, the Chinese Government has pledged its support for the
review and stated that the press and government officials will have
access to the region. Concerns about whether the project area will be
open to experts unaffiliated with the Bank or the Chinese Government
still need to be addressed.
It is expected that the Western Poverty Reduction project will be
completed in 2005. By approving this amendment today and reducing our
contribution to IDA we forfeit our leverage to influence the project
and ensure that the Bank's environmental and resettlement standards are
met over the next six years.
Mr. President, the plight of the Tibetan people is a clear example of
what occurs when the principles of democracy are consistently and
blatantly violated. In an effort to support their struggle, this
amendment also compromises those same principles. It will weaken the
United States' ability to ensure that the rights of Tibetans and other
ethnic minorities are protected as the Bank moves forward with the
project.
amendment no. 1137
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO
ACQUISITION OF USAID FACILITIES.
(a) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Operating
Expenses of the Agency for International Development'' may be
made available for acquisition of office space exceeding
$5,000,000 of the United States Agency for International
Development only if the appropriate congressional committees
are notified at least 15 days in advance in accordance with
the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications
under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2394-1).
(b) As used in this section, the term ``acquisition'' shall
have the same meaning as in the Foreign Service Building Act
of 1926.
____
Amendment No. 1138
(Purpose: Regarding assistance for Haiti)
Beginning on page 92 delete Section 560 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
ASSISTANCE FOR HAITI
Sec. 560. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of
Congress that, in providing assistance to Haiti, the
President should place a priority on the following areas:
(1) aggressive action to support the institution of the
Haitian National Police, including support for efforts by the
leadership and the Inspector General to purge corrupt and
politicized elements from the Haitian National Police;
(2) steps to ensure that any elections undertaken in Haiti
with United States assistance are full, free, fair,
transparent, and democratic;
(3) a program designed to develop the indigenous human
rights monitoring capacity;
(4) steps to facilitate the continued privatization of
state-owned enterprises; and
(5) a sustained agricultural development program.
(b) Report.--Beginning six months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and six months thereafter, the
President shall submit a report to the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives
with regard to--
(1) the status of each of the governmental institutions
envisioned in the 1987 Haitian Constitution, including an
assessment of whether or not these institutions and officials
hold positions on the basis of a regular, constitutional
process;
(2) the status of the privatization (or placement under
long-term private management or concession) of the major
public entities, including a detailed assessment of whether
or not the Government of Haiti has completed all required
incorporating documents, the transfer of assets, and the
eviction of unauthorized occupants of the land or facility;
(3) the status of efforts to re-sign and implement the
lapsed bilateral Repatriation Agreement and an assessment of
whether or not the Government of Haiti has been cooperating
with the United States in halting illegal emigration from
Haiti;
(4) the status of the Government of Haiti's efforts to
conduct thorough investigations of extrajudicial and
political killings and--
(A) an assessment of whether or not substantial progress
has been made in bringing to justice the persons responsible
for these extrajudicial or political killings in Haiti, and
(B) an assessment of whether or not the Government of Haiti
is cooperating with United States authorities and with United
States-funded technical advisors to the Haitian National
Police in such investigations;
(5) an assessment of whether or not the Government of Haiti
has taken action to remove and maintain the separation from
the Haitian National Police, national palace and residential
guard, ministerial guard, and any other public security
entity or unit of Haiti those individuals who are credibly
alleged to have engaged in or conspired to conceal gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights;
(6) the status of steps being taken to secure the
ratification of the maritime counter-narcotics agreements
signed in October 1997;
(7) an assessment of the degree to which domestic capacity
to conduct free, fair, democratic, and administratively sound
elections has been developed in Haiti; and
(8) an assessment of whether or not Haiti's Minister of
Justice has demonstrated a commitment to the professionalism
of judicial personnel by consistently placing students
graduated by the Judicial School in appropriate judicial
positions and has made a commitment to share program costs
associated with the Judicial School, and is achieving
progress in making the judicial branch in Haiti independent
from the executive branch.
____
amendment no. 1139
On page 24, line 18, strike all after ``(h)'' through the
period on page 25, line 2, and insert the following:
Of the funds appropriated under this heading that are
allocated for assistance for the
[[Page S7851]]
Central Government of Russia, 50 percent shall be withheld
from obligation until the President determines and certifies
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations that The
Government of Russia has terminated implementation of
arrangements to provide Iran with technical expertise,
training, technology, or equipment necessary to develop a
nuclear reactor, related nuclear research facilities or
programs, or ballistic missile capability.
____
amendment no. 1140
On page 22, line 24, after the word ``Armenia'' and before
the period insert the following: ``: Provided, That of the
funds made available for Armenia, $15,000,000 shall be
available for earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction''.
____
amendment no. 1141
(Purpose: To earmark Foreign Military Financing funds for the
Philippines)
On page 37, line 11, before the period insert the
following: ``Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, $5,000,000 shall be
available only for the Philippines''.
____
amendment no. 1142
On page 12, line 6, insert a new section:
lebanon
Of the funds appropriated under the headings ``Development
Assistance'' and ``Economic Support Fund,'' not less than
$15,000,000 shall be made available for Lebanon to be used,
among other programs, for scholarships and direct support of
the American educational institutions in Lebanon.
____
amendment no. 1143
On page 13, line 5, after the word ``Appropriations''
insert the following words: '', the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on International
Relations of the House,''; and
On page 98, line 16, after the word ``Appropriations'',
insert the following words: '', the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on International
Relations of the House,''.
____
amendment no. 1144
(Purpose: To earmark funds for the independent states of the former
Soviet Union for the REAP International School Linkage Program)
On page 21, line 22, before the period insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $200,000 shall
be available only for the REAP International School Linkage
Program''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, REAP International operates a school
linkage program between North Dakota and the Russian Republic of
Buryatia. In the past, this program has resulted not only in the
establishment of close personal relationships, but also provided
community based assistance and sustainable development to this
important region of the Russian Far East. REAP International's school
linkage program between North Dakota and Buryatia is all the more
critical when one considers the setbacks that the U.S.-Russia
relationship has suffered in the wake of NATO's actions against Serbia.
In addition, the failure of the Russian economy has left many Russians
disillusioned, and there are those in the Russian leadership who would
take advantage of that disillusionment in order to reverse the free
market reforms already underway in Russia. We must not let that happen.
One way to prevent it is to help Russian youth to understand and reap
the benefits of a stable, free market economy through student exchange
programs.
Student exchange programs often promote long-lasting relationships
between institutions and communities. Does the Senator agree that these
programs also play an important role in strengthening ties between
countries?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. REAP International's school linkage program with
Buryatia, Russia focuses on economic development activities, vocational
and entrepreneurial training, and the enhancement of civic
institutions. These types of activities are important in stabilizing
communities in the Russian Far East. Is this type of stability not
vital if Russia is to move ahead with economic reforms?
Mr. McCONNELL. I concur in the Senator's assessment that stability is
a necessary prerequisite for the transition to a market economy,
something we all hope Russia is able to achieve.
Mr. DORGAN. And would the Senator also agree that the development of
the Russian Far East is vital to the overall future development of
Russia's market economy, and therefore it is critical that we support
efforts to foster sustainable development and stability in this
important region?
Mr. McCONNELL. I certainly agree with that.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Chairman for his comments and support.
amendment no. 1145
(Purpose: To restrict United States assistance for reconstruction
efforts in the Balkans to United States-produced articles and services)
On page 128, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following
new section:
restriction on United States assistance for certain reconstruction
efforts in the balkans region.
Sec. . (a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this
Act for United States assistance for reconstruction efforts
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or any contiguous
country may be used for the procurement of any article
produced outside the United States, the recipient country, or
least developed countries, or any service provided by a
foreign person.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--
(1) the provision of such assistance requires articles of a
type that are produced in and services that are available for
purchase in the United States, the recipient country, or
least developed countries, or if the cost of articles and
services produced in or available from the United States and
such other countries is significantly more expensive,
including the cost of transportation, than the cost from
other sources; or
(2) the President determines that the application of
subsection (a) will impair the ability of the United States
to maximize the use of United States articles and services in
such reconstruction efforts of other donor countries, or if
the President otherwise determines that subsection (a) will
impair United States foreign assistance objectives.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Article.--The term ``article'' means any agricultural
commodity, steel, communications equipment, farm machinery,
or petrochemical refinery equipment.
(2) Federal republic of yugoslavia.--The term ``Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia'' means the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and includes Kosovo.
(3) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means any
foreign national exclusive of any national of the recipient
country or least developed countries including any foreign
corporation, partnership, other legal entity, organization,
or association that is beneficially owned by foreign persons
controlled in fact by foreign persons.
(4) Produced.--The term ``produced'', with respect to an
item, includes any item mined, manufactured, made, assembled,
grown, or extracted.
(5) Service.--The term ``service'' means any engineering,
construction or telecommunications.
(6) Steel.--The term ``steel'' includes the following
categories of steel products: semifinished, plates, sheets
and strips, wire rods, wire and wire products, rail type
products, bars, structural shapes and units, pipes and tubes,
iron ore, and coke products.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I intend to support the Manager's
amendments package to the Fiscal Foreign Operations Appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2000, which includes a modified version of a bill I
introduced on June 10th, S.1212, the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment
Act of 1999. I am pleased to have Senators Rick Santorum and Robert
Byrd join me as original cosponsors of this amendment.
I also want to thank the Chairman of the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, and the Subcommittee's Ranking Member,
Senator Leahy, for their assistance and support of this amendment.
While this amendment's language is a compromise, and is not as strong
as S. 1212 which I introduced earlier this month, it is an important
first step in the right direction. I will continue to work with my
colleagues in the coming months to help promote American taxpayers,
workers and key industries as the U.S. begins to spend billions of
dollars to rebuild Kosovo and, as expected in the future, the rest of
Yugoslavia.
This amendment will help American workers and companies get the first
best shot at those Kosovo reconstruction opportunities that are being
paid for with U.S. foreign aid funds. As a result, a large portion of
the American taxpayer's dollars destined for the Kosovo reconstruction
effort will be invested in the purchase of American made goods and
services whenever possible.
This legislation will benefit both the people of Kosovo and American
workers. The people of Kosovo will have reconstructed homes, hospitals,
factories, bridges, powerplants and telecommunication systems. The
American people will benefit as a significant portion of their hard-
earned taxpayer dollars come back to the U.S. in the form
[[Page S7852]]
of new orders for American made goods and services. New jobs will be
created. With this legislation we can make the best out of a looming,
costly, and long term burden on our nation's budget.
This will be especially important for some of our key industries,
such as agriculture and steel, that are facing hard times here at home.
Other hard working Americans from industries like manufacturing,
engineering, construction, high tech and telecommunications will also
enjoy new opportunities to produce goods and services destined for
export overseas.
For example, our ranchers and farmers, many of whom are being
severely harmed by a combination of tough competition at home, cheap
imports and closed markets overseas will benefit. This bill will help
provide them with the opportunity to strengthen their share in Europe's
Southeastern markets.
Our steel workers, many of whom are also in a tough situation, will
benefit as U.S. made steel is used to reconstruct, homes, hospitals,
factories, bridges and other necessary infrastructure. American steel
would also be used as American made construction equipment and tractors
are delivered to the Balkans. American engineers, contractors and other
service providers will play a key role in rebuilding telecommunications
and other necessary infrastructure projects.
The American taxpayers have already borne the lion's share of waging
the war in Kosovo. Our pilots flew the vast majority of the combat
sorties. In addition, the Foreign Operations Supplemental
Appropriations bill that passed last month provided $819 million for
humanitarian and refugee aid for Kosovo and surrounding countries. It
has been estimated that peace keeping operations will cost an
additional $3 billion in the first year alone. This is just the
beginning. In the future, American taxpayers will be spending tens of
billions of dollars more as we participate in what apparently is an
open-ended peacekeeping effort.
Without this legislation those countries who largely sat on the
sidelines while we fought will be allowed to sweep in and clean up. The
American taxpayers' dollars should not be used to profit Western
European conglomerates. The American people deserve better. This Kosovo
Reconstruction Investment Amendment will help remedy this situation.
Yet another problem this bill would help alleviate is our exploding
trade deficit which is on track to an all time high of approximately
$250 billion by the end of this year. In March of this year alone, the
U.S. posted a record one month trade deficit of $19.7 billion.
Furthermore, many of the other industrialized countries that
regularly distribute foreign aid do not do so with no strings attached.
For many years now, countries like Japan have also required that the
foreign aid funds they distribute be used to buy products produced by
their domestic companies.
The degree to which the Japanese government uses ``tied aid'' to the
benefit of Japanese companies and boost their exports was underscored
by a recent quote that can be found in the June, 1999, issue of the
``Look Japan'' magazine. When referring to Japanese efforts to help
neighbor countries recover from the Asian economic crisis, Oshima
Kenzo, the Director of the Economic Cooperation Bureau at Japan's
Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
This enormous machine of Japanese aid has barely begun to
move. Aid to Asian countries in crisis is something that must
be done on an ``all-Japan'' basis . . . The purpose of aid to
Asia is primarily to provide relief to Asian countries, but
it has a secondary aspect of reenergizing the Japanese
economy too, so there are many domestic hopes riding on this
as well.
While my original Kosovo reconstruction language in S. 1212 included
tougher ``Buy America'' provisions, this amendment's compromise
language will allow U.S. foreign aid funds to be used to purchase goods
and services produced in ``least-developed countries.'' This is
something we can do while still serving the purpose of this amendment.
For example, U.S. steel workers will still have the first shot at
producing steel for the Kosovo reconstruction effort since countries
such as Japan, South Korea and Brazil, all of whom have been taking a
heavy toll on the U.S. steel industry here at home, most definitely are
not ``least developed countries.'' American telecommunications, heavy
equipment manufacturers and a wide variety of other U.S. industries
will also benefit.
If America's Airmen, Sailors, Marines and Soldiers are good enough to
wage a war, then America's hard working taxpayers, including steel and
manufacturing workers, engineers and contractors are good enough to
help rebuild shattered countries. If we are called on to put the
Balkans back together, we should do it with a fair share of goods and
services made in America.
I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. As I said, this is a list of managers' amendments that
has been cleared on both sides of the aisle:
McConnell-Leahy amendment to move the Iraqi provision;
McCain amendment to strike Inter-American Foundation language with a
statement;
Leahy-McConnell amendment on African Development Foundation
provision;
Stevens-Coverdell amendment on AIDS;
McConnell-Leahy on Ukaine corruption;
Leahy-McConnell amendment on Ukraine demining;
Leahy amendment on biodiversity;
Leahy amendment on debt restructuring;
Roth amendment on Ukraine;
Helms amendment on IDA-China;
Helms amendment on USAID construction notification;
Helms-DeWine amendment on Haiti;
Leahy-McConnell amendment on Russia-Iran;
McConnell amendment on Armenia;
Helms amendment on the Philippines;
Abraham amendment on Lebanon;
Thomas amendment on technical correctional reports;
Dorgan amendment on Russia exchanges; and
A Campbell amendment on Buy America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1127 through 1145), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator
Lautenberg be shown as a cosponsor of the Roth amendment on the
Ukraine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I understand the Senator from Illinois will be recognized.
Then the Senator from Minnesota is going to be recognized. I ask
unanimous consent I then be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________