[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12931-S12942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. 
        Lieberman):
  S. 1752. A bill to reauthorize and amend the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


       the coastal barrier resources reauthorization act of 1999

 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce a bill 
to reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). Most people do 
not realize that coastal barriers are the first line of defense 
protecting the mainland from major storms and hurricanes, and this 
extremely vulnerable area is under increasing developmental pressure. 
From 1960 to 1990, the population of coastal areas increased from 80 to 
110 million and is projected to reach over 160 million by 2015. 
Continued development on and around coastal barriers place people, 
property and the environment at risk.
  To address this problem Congress passed CBRA in 1982. This extremely 
important legislation prohibits the Federal government from subsidizing 
flood insurance, and providing other financial assistance such as beach 
replenishment within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Nothing in 
CBRA prohibits development on coastal barriers, it just gets the 
Federal government out of the business of subsidizing risky 
development.
  The law proved to be so successful that we expanded the Coastal 
Barrier System in 1990 with the support of the National Taxpayers 
Union, the American Red Cross, Coast Alliance and Tax Payers for Common 
Sense, to name just a few. The 1990 Act doubled the size of the System 
to include coastal barriers in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
the Great Lakes and additional areas along the Atlantic and Gulf 
coasts. We also allowed the inclusion of areas that are already 
protected for conservation purposes such as parks and refuges. 
Currently the System is comprised of 3 million acres and 2,500 
shoreline miles.

  Development of these areas decreases their ability to absorb the 
force of storms and buffer the mainland. The devastating floods of 
Hurricane Floyd are a reminder of the susceptibility of coastal 
development to the power of nature. The Federal Emergency Management 
Agency reports that 10 major disaster declarations were issued for this 
hurricane, more than for any other single hurricane or natural 
disaster. In fact, 1999 sets a record for major disaster declarations--
a total of 14 in this year alone. As the number of disaster 
declarations has crept up steadily since the 1980's, so has the cost to 
taxpayers. Congress has approved on average $3.7 billion a year in 
supplemental disaster aid in the 1990's, compared to less than $1 
billion a year in the decade prior.
  Homeowners know the risk of building in these highly threatened 
areas. Despite this taxpayers are continually being asked to rebuild 
homes and businesses in flood-prone areas. The National Wildlife 
Federation came out with a study that found that over forty percent of 
the damage payments from the National Flood Insurance Program go to 
people who have had at least one previous claim. A New Jersey auto 
repair shop made 31 damage claims in 15 years.
  At a time when climatologists believe that Floyd and other major 
hurricanes signal the beginning of a period of turbulent hurricane 
activity after three decades of relative calm, safety factors of 
continuing to develop coastal barrier regions must also be considered. 
As roadway systems have not kept up with population growth, it will 
become increasingly difficult to evacuate coastal areas in the face of 
a major storm.
  Beyond the economic and safety issues, another compelling reason to 
support the Coastal Barrier Resources Act is that it contributes to the 
protection of our Nation's coastal resources. Coastal barriers protect 
and maintain the wetlands and estuaries essential to the survival of 
innumerable species of fish and wildlife. Large populations of 
waterfowl and other migratory birds depend on the habitat protected by 
coastal barriers for wintering areas. Undeveloped coastal barriers also 
provide unique recreational opportunities, and deserve protection for 
present and future public enjoyment.
  The legislation which I am introducing today would reauthorize the 
Act for eight years and make some necessary changes to improve 
implementation. A new provision would establish

[[Page S12932]]

a set of criteria for determining whether a coastal barrier is 
developed. Codifying the criteria will make it easier for homeowners, 
Congress and the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if an area 
qualifies as an undeveloped coastal barrier. The legislation would also 
require the Secretary of the Interior to complete a pilot project to 
determine the feasibility of creating digital versions of the coastal 
barrier system maps. Digital maps would improve the accuracy of the 
older coastal barrier maps, and make it easier for the Department of 
Interior and homeowners to determine where a structure is located. 
Eventually, we hope that the entire System can be accessed by the 
Internet.
  I believe that Congress should make every effort to conserve barrier 
islands and beaches. This legislation offers an opportunity to increase 
protection of coastal barriers, and at the same time, saves taxpayers 
money. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 1753. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide that an adopted alien who is less than 18 years of age may be 
considered a child under such Act if adopted with or after a sibling 
who is a child under such Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  keeping immigrant siblings together

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
corresponding to one introduced by Congressman Horn of California and 
passed the House of Representatives this week. The intent of this bill 
is to allow immigrant orphan siblings to stay together when being 
adopted by U.S. citizens.
  Under current law, a U.S. citizen may bring an immigrant child they 
have adopted to the United States if the child is under the age of 16. 
This bill would allow U.S. citizens to adopt immigrant children ages 
16-17 if the adoption would keep a group of siblings together.
  Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Horn's conclusion that family unity 
is a frequently cited goal of our immigration policy, and this proposal 
would promote that goal. Under current law, if children are adopted by 
U.S. citizens and the oldest sibling is 16 or 17, the oldest sibling 
cannot come to the United States with his or her brothers and sisters 
under current law. It seems clear to me that siblings of these young 
ages ought not to be separated.
  Further, foreign adoption authorities in some cases do not allow the 
separation of siblings. In such cases, if a U.S. citizen wanted to 
adopt a group of siblings and one of them is 16 or older, the citizen 
would lose the opportunity to adopt any of them under current law.
  As Mr. Horn's analysis of the consequences of this bill confirm, this 
bill is unlikely to cause a significant increase in immigration levels 
overall. During fiscal year 1996, a total a 351 immigrant orphans older 
than age 9 were adopted by U.S. citizens, out of 11,316 immigrant 
orphans adopted by U.S. citizens overall that year.
  I thank Congressman Horn for his leadership in this issue. I 
certainly hope that we can act of this measure before we adjourn.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1753

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROVIDING THAT AN ADOPTED ALIEN WHO IS LESS THAN 
                   18 YEARS OF AGE MAY BE CONSIDERED A CHILD UNDER 
                   THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT IF ADOPTED 
                   WITH OR AFTER A SIBLING WHO IS A CHILD UNDER 
                   SUCH ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E)--
       (A) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(E)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) subject to the same proviso as in clause (i), a 
     child who (I) is a natural sibling of a child described in 
     clause (i) or subparagraph (F)(i); (II) was adopted by the 
     adoptive parent or parents of the sibling described in such 
     clause or subparagraph; and (III) is otherwise described in 
     clause (i), except that the child was adopted while under the 
     age of eighteen years; or''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (F)--
       (A) by inserting ``(i) after ``(F)'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) subject to the same provisos as in clause (i), a 
     child who (I) is a natural sibling of a child described in 
     clause (i) or subparagraph (E)(i); (II) has been adopted 
     abroad, or is coming to the United States for adoption, by 
     the adoptive parent (or prospective adoptive parent) or 
     parents of the sibling described in such clause or 
     subparagraph; and (III) is otherwise described in clause (i), 
     except that the child is under the age of eighteen at the 
     time a petition is filed in his or her behalf to accord a 
     classification as an immediate relative under section 
     201(b).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Naturalization.--
       (1) Definition of child.--Section 101(c)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(c)) is amended 
     by striking ``sixteen years,'' and inserting ``sixteen years 
     (except to the extent that the child is described in 
     subparagraph (E)(ii) or (F)(ii) of subsection (b)(1)),''.
       (2) Certificate of citizenship.--Section 322(a)(4) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1433(a)(4)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``16 years'' and inserting ``16 years 
     (except to the extent that the child is described in clause 
     (ii) of subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 101(b)(1))''; and
       (B) by striking ``subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 
     101(b)(1).'' and inserting ``either of such subparagraphs.''.
                                 ______
                                 

               By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):

  S. 1754. A bill entitled ``Denying Safe Havens to International and 
War Criminals Act of 1999; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


   denying safe havens to international and war criminals act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senator Leahy of Vermont, a bill titled ``Denying Safe Havens to 
International and War Criminals Act of 1999.'' This is an important 
measure that I hope can move promptly through the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and through the Senate. The provisions contained in this bill 
are crucial in combating crime internationally. I believe that it will 
give law enforcement critical tools in more effectively pursuing 
fugitives and ware criminals.
  I thank my ranking member for his work on this matter. This bill 
incorporates in title III, his own bill dealing with war criminals and 
it is an important component of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the bill in the 
Record.
  [Data not available at time of printing.]
   Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today 
with Senator Hatch a bill to give United States law enforcement 
agencies important tools to help them combat international crime. The 
``Denying Safe Haven to International and War Criminals Act of 1999'' 
contains a number of provisions that I have long supported.
  Unfortunately, crime and terrorism directed at Americans and American 
interests abroad are part of our modern reality. Furthermore, organized 
criminal activity does not recognize national boundaries. With 
improvements in technology, criminals now can move about the world with 
ease. They can transfer funds with the push of a button, or use 
computers and credit card numbers to steal from American citizens and 
businesses from any spot on the globe. They can strike at Americans 
here and abroad. They can commit crimes abroad and flee quickly to 
another jurisdiction or country. The playing field keeps changing, and 
we need to change with it.
  This bill would help make needed modifications in our laws, not with 
sweeping changes but with thoughtful provisions carefully targeted at 
specific problems faced by law enforcement. We cannot stop 
international crime without international cooperation, and this bill 
gives additional tools to investigators and prosecutors to promote such 
cooperation, while narrowing the room for maneuver that international 
criminals and terrorists now enjoy.
  I initially introduced title I, section 4 of this bill, regarding 
fugitive disentitlement, on April 30, 1998, in the ``Money Laundering 
Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prisons Act of 1998,'' S. 2011, with 
Senators Daschle, Kohl, Feinstein and Cleland. Again, on July 14, 1998, 
I introduced with Senator Biden, on behalf of the Administration, the 
``International Crime Control Act of 1998,'' S. 2303, which contains 
most of the provisions set forth in this bill. Virtually all of the 
provisions in the bill were also included in

[[Page S12933]]

another major anti-crime bill, the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and 
Secure Borders Act of 1998,'' S. 2484, that I introduced on September 
16, 1998, along with Senators Daschle, Biden, Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, 
Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Bingaman, Reid, Murray, Dorgan, and 
Torricelli. In addition, Senator Hatch and I included title II, section 
1 of this bill regarding streamlined procedures for MLAT requests in 
our ``International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments of 1998'', S. 
2536, which passed the Senate last October 15, 1998.
  We have drawn from these more comprehensive bills a set of discrete 
improvements that enjoy bipartisan support so that important provisions 
may be enacted promptly. Each of these provisions has been a law 
enforcement priority.
  Title I sets forth important proposals for combating international 
crime and denying safe havens to international criminals. In 
particular, section 1 would provide for extradition under certain 
circumstances for offenses not covered in a treaty or absent a treaty. 
Treaties negotiated many years ago specified the crimes for which 
extradition would be allowed. Developments in criminal activity, 
however, have outpaced the ability of countries to renegotiate treaties 
to include newly developing criminal activity. Under the bill, 
extradition would nevertheless proceed as if the crime were covered by 
a treaty for ``serious offenses,'' which are defined to include crimes 
of violence, drug crimes, bribery of public officials, obstruction of 
justice, money laundering, fraud or theft involving over $100,000, 
counterfeiting over $100,000, a conspiracy to commit any of these 
crimes, and sex crimes involving children. The section sets forth 
detailed procedures and safeguards for proceeding with extradition 
under these circumstances.

  Section 2 contains technical and conforming amendments.
  Section 3 would give the Attorney General authority to transfer a 
person in custody in the United States to a foreign country to stand 
trial where the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, determines that such transfer would be consistent with the 
international obligations of the United States. The section also allows 
for the transfer of a person in state custody in the United States to a 
foreign country to stand trial after a similar determination by the 
Attorney General and the consent of the State authorities. Similarly, 
the Attorney General is authorized to request the temporary transfer of 
a person in custody in a foreign country to face prosecution in a 
federal or state proceeding.
  Section 4 is designed to stop drug kingpins, terrorists and other 
international fugitives from using our courts to fight to keep the 
proceeds of the very crimes for which they are wanted. Criminals should 
not be able to use our courts at the same time they are evading our 
laws.
  Section 5 would permit the transfer of prisoners to their home 
country to serve their sentences, on a case-by-case basis, where such 
transfer is provided by treaty. Under this section, the prisoner need 
not consent to the transfer.
  Section 6 would provide a statutory basis for holding and 
transferring prisoners who are sent from one foreign country to another 
through United States airports, preventing them from claiming asylum 
while they are temporarily in the United States.
  Title II of the bill is designed to promote global cooperation in the 
fight against international crime. Specifically, section 1 would permit 
United States courts involved in multi-district litigation to enforce 
mutual legal assistance treaties and other agreements to execute 
foreign requests for assistance in criminal matters in all districts 
involved in the litigation.
  Section 2 outlines procedures for the temporary transfer of 
incarcerated witnesses. Specifically, the bill would permit the United 
States, as a matter of reciprocity, to send persons in custody in the 
United States to a foreign country and to receive foreign prisoners to 
testify in judicial proceedings, with the consent of the prisoner and, 
where applicable, the State holding the prisoner. A transfer may not 
create a platform for an application for asylum or other legal 
proceeding in the United States. Decisions of the Attorney General 
respecting such transfers are to be made in conjunction with the 
Secretary of State.
  Title III of the bill is the ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' 
S. 1235, which I introduced on July 15, 1999, with Senator Kohl and is 
cosponsored by Senator Lieberman. This bill has also been introduced in 
the House with bipartisan support as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058. This 
title of the bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens 
who have engaged in acts of torture abroad. ``Torture'' is already 
defined in the Federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2340, in a law 
passed as part of the implementing legislation for the ``Convention 
Against Torture.'' Under this Convention, the United States has an 
affirmative duty to prosecute torturers within its boundaries 
regardless of their respective nationalities. 18 U.S.C. Sec.  2340A 
(1994).

  This legislation would also provide statutory authorization for OSI, 
which currently owes its existence to an Attorney General order, and 
would expand its jurisdiction to authorize investigations, 
prosecutions, and removal of any alien who participated in torture and 
genocide abroad--not just Nazis. The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war 
criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and 
expertise in these cases. OSI has worked, and it is time to update its 
mission. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of 
particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often 
necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and may best be 
accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather 
than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have 
more diverse missions.
  Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice 
remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from 
the OSI's current mission. Additional resources are authorized in the 
bill for OSI's expanded duties.
  These are important provisions that I have advocated for some time. 
They are helpful, solid law enforcement provisions. I thank my friend 
from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his help in making this bill a reality. 
Working together, we were able to craft a bipartisan bill that will 
accomplish what all of us want, to make America a safer and more secure 
place.
  I ask that the attached sectional analysis of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  The summary follows:

  Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act of 1999--
                      Section by Section Analysis


        title i--denying safe havens to international criminals

    Section 1. Extradition for Offenses Not Covered by a List Treaty

       This section allows the Attorney General to seek 
     extradition of a person for specified crimes not covered by a 
     treaty. Treaties negotiated many years ago specified the 
     crimes for which extradition would be allowed, and 
     developments in criminal activity have outpaced the ability 
     of countries to renegotiate treaties to include newly 
     developing criminal activity. Extradition would proceed as if 
     the crime were covered by treaty, and the section sets forth 
     detailed procedures and safeguards. Applicable crimes include 
     crimes of violence, drug crimes, obstruction of justice, 
     money laundering, fraud or theft involving over $100,000, 
     counterfeiting over $100,000, conspiracy to commit any of 
     these crimes, and sex crimes involving children.

             Section 2. Technical and Conforming Amendments

       This section amends related statutes to conform with 
     Section 1.

  Section 3. Temporary Transfer of Persons in Custody for Prosecution

       This section allows a temporary transfer of a person from 
     another country to the United States to stand trial where the 
     Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State 
     determines that such transfer would be consistent with the 
     international obligations of the United States. The section 
     also allows for the transfer of a person in custody in the 
     United States to a foreign country to stand trial after a 
     similar determination by the Attorney General.

 Section 4. Prohibiting Fugitives From Benefiting From Fugitive Status

       This section adds a new section 2466 (Fugitive 
     Disentitlement) to Title 28 to provide that a person cannot 
     stay outside the United States, avoiding extradition, and at 
     the same time participate as a party in a civil action over a 
     related civil forfeiture claim. The Supreme Court recently 
     decided that a previous judge-made rule to the same effect 
     required

[[Page S12934]]

     a statutory basis. This section provides that basis.

Section 5. Transfer of Foreign Person to Serve Sentences in Country of 
                                 Origin

       This section permits transfer, on a case-by-case basis, of 
     prisoners to their home country where such transfer is 
     provided by treaty. Under this section the prisoner need not 
     consent to the transfer.

  Section 6. Transit of Fugitives for Prosecution in Foreign Countries

       This section would provide a statutory basis for holding 
     and transferring prisoners who are sent from one foreign 
     country to another through United States airports, at the 
     discretion of the Attorney General. The temporary presence in 
     the United States would not be the basis for a claim for 
     asylum.


      title II--promoting global cooperation in the fight against 
                          international crime

    Section 1. Streamlined Procedures for Execution of MLAT Requests

       This section permits United States courts involved in 
     multi-district litigation to enforce mutual legal assistance 
     treaties and other agreements to execute foreign requests for 
     assistance in criminal matters in all districts involved in 
     the litigation or request.

        Section 2. Temporary Transfer of Incarcerated Witnesses

       This section permits the United States, as a matter of 
     reciprocity, to send persons in custody in the United States 
     to a foreign country and to receive foreign prisoners to 
     testify in judicial proceedings, with the consent of the 
     prisoner and, where applicable, the State holding the 
     prisoner. A transfer may not create a platform for an 
     application for asylum or other legal proceeding in the 
     United States. Decisions of the Attorney General respecting 
     such transfers are to be made in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of State.


               title III--anti-atrocity alien deportation

    Section 1. Inadmissibility and Removability of Aliens Who Have 
                    Committed Acts of Torture Abroad

       Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides 
     that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time 
     period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, and (ii) aliens 
     who engaged in genocide, are inadmissible to the United 
     States and deportable. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E)(i) and 
     Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The bill would amend these sections of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act by expanding the grounds 
     for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens who have 
     engaged in acts of torture abroad. The United Nations' 
     ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment'' entered into force with 
     respect to the United States on November 20, 1994. This 
     Convention, and the implementing legislation, the Torture 
     Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2340 et seq., 
     includes the definition of ``torture'' incorporated in the 
     bill and imposed an affirmative duty on the United States to 
     prosecute torturers within its jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Establishment of the Office of Special Investigations

       Attorney General Civiletti established OSI in 1979 within 
     the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, 
     consolidating within it all ``investigative and litigation 
     activities involving individuals, who prior to and during 
     World War II, under the supervision of or in association with 
     the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other 
     affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, 
     incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the 
     persecution of any person because of race, religion, national 
     origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851-
     79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that 
     Attorney General Order.
       This section would amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to 
     establish an Office of Special Investigations within the 
     Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, 
     remove, denaturalize, or prosecute any alien who has 
     participated in torture or genocide abroad. This would expand 
     OSI's current authorized mission. Additional funds are 
     authorized for these expanded duties to ensure that OSI 
     fulfills its continuing obligations regarding Nazi war 
     criminals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 1755. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate 
interstate commerce in the use of mobile telephones; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


               the mobile telecommunications sourcing act

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of 
myself and Senator Dorgan, the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act 
of 1999. This legislation is the product of more than a year's worth of 
negotiations between the Governors, cities, State tax and local tax 
authorities, and the wireless industry.
  The legislation represents an historic agreement between State and 
local governments and the wireless industry to bring sanity to the 
manner in which wireless telecommunications services are taxed.
  For as long as we have had wireless telecommunications in this 
country, we have had a taxation system that is incredibly complex for 
carriers and costly for consumers. Today, there are several different 
methodologies that determine whether a taxing jurisdiction may tax a 
wireless call.
  If a call originates at a cell site located in a jurisdiction, it may 
impose a tax. If a call originates at a switch in the jurisdiction, a 
tax may be imposed. And if the billing address is in the jurisdiction, 
a tax can be imposed.
  As a result, many different taxing authorities can tax the same 
wireless call. The farther you travel during a call, the greater the 
number of taxes that can be imposed upon it.
  This system is simply not sustainable as wireless calls represent an 
increasing portion of the total number of calls made throughout the 
United States. To reduce the cost of making wireless calls, Senator 
Dorgan and I are introducing this legislation.
  The legislation would create a nationwide, uniform system for the 
taxation of wireless calls. The only jurisdictions that would have the 
authority to tax mobile calls would be the taxing authorities of the 
customer's place of primary use, which would essentially be the 
customer's home or office.
  By creating this uniform system, Congress would be greatly 
simplifying the taxation and billing of wireless calls. The wireless 
industry would not have to keep track of countless tax laws for each 
wireless transaction. State and local taxing authorities would be 
relieved of burdensome audit and oversight responsibilities without 
losing the authority to tax wireless calls. And, most importantly, 
consumers would see reduced wireless rates and fewer billing headaches.
  The Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act is a win-win-win. It's a 
win for industry, a win for government, and a win for consumers. I 
thank Senator Dorgan for working with me in crafting this bill. And, 
most of all, I thank government and industry for coming together and 
reaching agreement on this important issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  [Data not available at time of printing.]
 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator 
Brownback and I are introducing legislation that is designed to address 
a highly complex issue with respect the taxation of mobile 
telecommunications service. Although the issue is complex, the solution 
has a simple goal: to create a reliable and uniform method of taxation 
on wireless telecommunications services that works best for consumers.
  Currently, the mobility of wireless telecommunications services makes 
the taxation by state and local jurisdictions a complicated and 
expensive task for carriers and consumers because questions arise as to 
whether the tax is levied in the location in which the call is placed 
or where the user resides. Because this situation is difficult to 
monitor, state and local jurisdictions the prospects of non-compliance 
and double taxation are also of concern. For example, a person driving 
between Baltimore, Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania can pass 
through 12 separate state and local taxing jurisdictions. In the two 
hours it would take someone to make that 100 mile drive, several phone 
calls could be made under a cloud of tax ambiguity that works for no 
one, not the consumer, not the carrier, and not the taxing 
jurisdictions. This scenario presents us with challenge to the 
traditional method of taxation in the face of the growing popularity of 
mobile communications systems. It is a case that needs to be changed.
  The Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act is, in itself, an 
achievement. This legislation was developed through 3 years of 
dedicated, good faith negotiations between the industry and state and 
local government organizations. Rather than allow an unworkable 
situation to continue unresolved and rather than ignite a polemical 
political debate over a special interest solution, the industry and 
several state and local government organizations sat down and worked 
out a solution that satisfies all the stake holders. I extend my 
congratulations and gratitude to the leaders and staff members of the 
organizations that participated in the development of this consensus 
legislation.

[[Page S12935]]

  Under this legislation, a consumer's primary place of residence would 
be designated as the taxing jurisdiction for the purposes of taxing 
roaming and other charges that are subject to state and local taxation. 
This legislation does not impose any new taxes nor does it change the 
authority of state and local governments to tax wireless services. It 
does, however, provide consumers with simplified billing, reduce the 
chances of double taxation, preserve the authority of state and local 
jurisdictions to tax wireless services, and reduce the costs of tax 
administration for carriers and governments. In the end, the consumer 
will benefit through this tax clarification legislation that is badly 
needed.
  As many of my colleagues in the Senate know, I have been involved in 
many battles over the years where state and local governments have 
attempted to preserve their taxation authority as Congress has sought 
to preempt that authority on behalf of some special interest. I am very 
pleased to be in a position today to sponsor legislation which 
addresses a legitimate need to clarify and simplify state and local 
taxation in a manner that works for consumers, industry, and state and 
local governments alike.
  I also want to express my gratitude to my colleague Senator Brownback 
for his work on this measure. I hope that our colleagues will take note 
that Senator Brownback and I stand together on this consensus, 
bipartisan legislation and join us to advance this bill 
expeditiously.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1756. A bill to enhance the ability of the National Laboratories 
to meet Department of Energy missions and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to be joined by 
Senator Murray in introducing the ``National Laboratories Partnership 
Improvement Act of 1999''. This bill will make it easier for our 
national labs to collaborate and build strong technical relationships 
with other technical organizations, particularly universities and 
companies right near the labs. That will yield two major benefits. It 
will improve the labs' ability to do their missions, and it will 
promote high tech economic growth around the labs, thus, helping the 
labs as it helps the labs' communities.
  Many of you know that making it easier to work with our national labs 
is a cause I've pursued for many years. And we've made solid progress. 
The labs are now involved in an array of technical collaborations, 
usually under cooperative research and development agreements or 
CRADAs, that would have been impossible a decade ago. In 1989, there 
were no CRADAs with the Department of Energy's national labs; in 1998, 
the number was over 800.
  So, we've come a long way. But there's still work to be done. It's 
still not as easy to collaborate with the national labs as it should 
be, nor are collaborations as common as they need to be to keep our 
labs on the cutting edge of science and technology. This legislation 
takes the next steps in that direction.
  There are three fundamental ideas running through this bill. The 
first is that scientific and technical collaboration with the national 
labs is good for our economy and essential to the future of the labs. 
The labs will be unable to succeed in their missions unless they can 
easily work with other technical institutions. Why? Because that's 
where the bulk of cutting edge technology is today. Consider the 
following. Real federal spending on R&D peaked in 1987, but from 1987 
to 1997, national R&D grew by 20%. The federal government was 
responsible for none of that growth, and now accounts for only about a 
quarter of national R&D spending. In the same period, industrial R&D 
grew by over 50% and accounted for around 95% of the growth in national 
R&D. As Nobel laureate Dr. Burt Richter stated during his testimony on 
DOE's reorganization, ``All of the science needed for stockpile 
stewardship in not in the weapons labs.'' That's why I was so concerned 
with the ability of the labs to collaborate during the reorganization 
debate.
  I emphasize how collaboration helps the labs because it's a point 
that's often missed in our discussions of tech transfer, CRADAs, and 
other such things. When legislation making it easier to work with the 
labs was passed in 1989, we were in the midst of a ``competitiveness 
crisis'' and looking for ways to use technology to improve our economic 
performance. After all, innovation is responsible for 50% or more of 
our long term economic growth. With these roots, people usually focus 
on how collaborating with the labs helps US industry by giving it 
access to a treasure trove of technology and expertise. For example, 
over a 100 new companies were started around DOE technology in the last 
four years. And, the fact that industry has been collaborating with the 
labs and recently paying for a greater share of those partnerships is 
good evidence that its getting something of value. The economic 
benefits from these collaborations are real and a primary reason I've 
pushed them for many years.
  But the benefits back to the labs are real too. A recent letter from 
Los Alamos to me stated, ``Working with industry has validated our 
ability to predict . . . changes in materials . . ., improved our 
ability to manufacture . . . replacement parts with greater precision 
and lower cost, and enhanced our ability to assure the safety and 
reliability of the stockpile without testing.''
  As an example, Sandia's collaboration with Goodyear Tire has helped 
Goodyear produce computer simulations of tires--an extremely complex 
problem--and helped Sandia improve its modeling and production of 
neutron generators, a critical component of nuclear weapons. Technical 
collaborations with our labs that have a clear mission focus by the lab 
and a clear business focus by the company are good for our economy and 
good for the labs' missions.
  The second fundamental idea flows from the first. If collaborations 
with the labs are beneficial, we should keep working to make them 
better, faster, and more flexible--much like the collaborations we see 
sprouting throughout the private sector. Hence, this bill includes 
provisions to:
  Establish a small business advocate at the labs charged with 
increasing small business participation in lab procurement and 
collaborative research;
  Establish a technology partnership ombudsman at the labs to ensure 
that the labs are known as good faith partners in their technical 
relationships;
  Authorize DOE to use a very flexible contracting authority called 
``other transactions,'' which was successfully pioneered by the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency to manage some of its collaborative 
projects in innovative ways; and
  Significantly streamline the CRADA approval process for government 
owned, contractor operated laboratories like Sandia, allowing the labs 
to handle more of the routine CRADAs themselves, and allowing more 
flexibility in the negotiation of intellectual property rights--all to 
make CRADA's more attractive to industry.
  The third fundamental idea that runs through this bill is that if 
collaboration is important to our economy and to the success of the 
labs, then the local technical institutions near the lab--the 
universities and companies that might work with the lab--matter a great 
deal. We know that the environment inside an institution, how it's 
managed, will help determine how innovative it is. Managing innovation 
is more art than science, and that's why people are always visiting 
places like 3M.
  Well, just as the internal environment affects how innovative an 
organization is, its external environment, the organizations near it 
that might collaborate with it, also help determine how innovative it 
is. When the technical institutions in a region form a high quality, 
dynamic network, they can meld into what's been called a ``technology 
cluster'' that dramatically boosts innovation and economic growth 
throughout the region. We see this most famously in places like Silicon 
Valley, or Route 128, or Austin, TX. In most of these places, there is 
a large research university that serves as the anchor innovator seeding 
the cluster.
  With that phenomena in mind, this bill seeks to harness the power of 
technology clusters for the benefit of the labs' missions and the labs' 
communities, with the labs as the anchor innovator. The bill authorizes 
the labs to

[[Page S12936]]

work with their local communities to foster commercially oriented 
technology clusters that will help them do their job. Projects under 
this ``Regional Technology Infrastructure Program'' would be cost 
shared partnerships between a lab and nearby organizations with the 
clear potential to help the lab achieve its mission, leverage 
commercial technology, and commercialize lab technology. This is not 
about outsourcing a lab's functions, but about promoting technical 
capabilities near the lab that are commercially viable and useful to 
the lab. Thus, the lab gets highly competent collaborators nearby and 
the region gets high tech economic growth.
  Let me give an example. Imagine a lab that does research in optics 
that has optics companies nearby. The lab and the companies discover 
they both need better training for their machinists and skilled 
workers. So they agree to set up and share the cost of an advanced 
training program for their workers at the local community college. This 
is good for the workers, good for the companies, good for the lab. 
Other types of projects this program might fund include:
  Local economic surveys and strategic planning efforts;
  Technology roadmaps for local industry;
  Personnel exchanges among local universities, firms, and the lab;
  Lab based small business incubators or research parks; and
  Joint research programs between a group of local firms and the lab.
  We have some real life examples of this kind of thinking in the 
research parks Sandia and Los Alamos are setting up to collaborate with 
industry and promote economic growth. And Argonne, Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Sandia have programs to 
link their technology with venture capital, to get it into the 
marketplace, which can only help advance the lab's mission. This bill 
will encourage the labs to systematically experiment with more projects 
like those.
  Now, some might think that the Internet will make proximity 
irrelevant to collaboration. But that's not the case, as simple 
observation of Silicon Valley shows; it's not been dissipating, it's 
been growing. Close collaboration will remain easier among close 
neighbors, because it partly depends on people who know each other and 
are rooted in a community--which is why one provision of this bill is a 
study on how to ease employee mobility between the labs and nearby 
technical organizations. The Internet complements and strengthens 
collaborations, but is not a complete substitute for having 
collaborators nearby. Thus, even as the Internet grows in influence, it 
will still make sense to harness the power of technology clusters to 
help our labs do their jobs and to promote high tech economic growth in 
their communities.
  Mr. President, for many years I've pushed for and supported efforts 
to make it easier for our national labs to work with industry, 
universities, and other institutions. I've done this because I think 
it's good for the science and security missions of our labs, good for 
our economy, and good for my home state of New Mexico. I think this 
bill is a comprehensive package that will yield more of those benefits, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a 
summary, and letters of support for this bill from the Technology 
Industries Association of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  [The text of the bill was not available for printing.]

       National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 1999


                                Summary

       The National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 
     1999 will build stronger technical relationships between the 
     Department of Energy's national laboratories and other 
     institutions, particularly those near the labs. These 
     relationships will help the labs achieve their missions by 
     leveraging the scientific and technical resources of the 
     private sector and universities and will also promote high 
     tech economic growth around the labs.


                         Background/Discussion

       More and more of our nation's innovation occurs outside the 
     federal sector. Since 1987, around 95% of the real growth in 
     our national R&D has come from the private sector, and none 
     from the federal government. Industry now funds almost 70% of 
     our national R&D.
       Scientific and technical collaborations between our 
     national labs and other technical institutions improve the 
     lab's access to the huge pool of science, technology, and 
     talent outside their gates. Technical collaboration with the 
     national labs is both good for the companies that do it and 
     essential for keeping the labs on the cutting edge of 
     research.
       This bill takes the next step in making it easier for our 
     national laboratories to work with other institutions. In 
     addition to improving the CRADA process, the bill also 
     focuses on improving the ``regional technology 
     infrastructure'' around the labs. This refers to things like 
     the companies, universities, labor force, and non-profit 
     organizations near a lab that are not formally part of it but 
     that nonetheless contribute to its technical success.
       Places like Silicon Valley show that when these technical 
     institutions form a high quality, dynamic network, they can 
     develop into a ``technology cluster'' that dramatically 
     improves innovation and economic growth throughout a region. 
     This bill will promote the development of technology clusters 
     around the national labs both to help the labs harness the 
     power of technology clusters to achieve their missions and to 
     stimulate high tech economic growth around the labs.


                     Section by Section Description

       Sec. 1-3--Titles, findings, and definitions.
       Sec. 4--Regional Technology Infrastructure Program--
     Authorizes the Department of Energy to promote the 
     development of technology clusters around the national labs 
     that will help them achieve their missions. The idea is to 
     foster commercially oriented, dynamic networks of local 
     institutions, broadly analogous to that in Silicon Valley, 
     that will improve innovation and economic growth around the 
     labs--thereby helping the labs as they help the labs' 
     communities. Projects under this program will be 
     competitively selected, cost shared partnerships between a 
     lab and nearby organizations. Projects with the clear 
     potential to help a lab achieve its mission, leverage 
     commercial innovation, and commercialize lab technology will 
     be selected. The program begins with $1M of funding at each 
     of the nine, large multiprogram labs. Examples of the kinds 
     of projects that might be funded are: local economic surveys 
     and strategic planning efforts; technology roadmaps for local 
     industry; personnel exchanges and specialized workforce 
     training programs among local universities, firms, and the 
     lab; lab based small business incubators or research parks; 
     and joint research programs between a group of local firms 
     and the lab.
       Sec. 5--Small Business Advocacy and Assistance--Establishes 
     a Small Business Advocate charged with increasing small 
     businesses' participation in procurements and collaborative 
     research at each of the nine, large multiprogram labs. 
     Authorizes the labs to give small businesses advice to make 
     them better suppliers and general technical assistance. For 
     example, a lab could point them to venture capitalists or 
     technical partners that would strengthen their ability to 
     work for the lab. Or, a small business could get technical 
     advice from a lab on how to fix a product design problem. 
     Complements Sec. 4, but is focused directly on small 
     businesses.
       Sec. 6--Technology Partnership Ombudsman--Establishes an 
     ombudsman at the nine, large multiprogram labs to quickly and 
     inexpensively resolve complaints or disputes with the labs 
     over technology partnerships, patents, and licensing.
       Sec. 7--Mobility of Technical Personnel--Requires DOE to 
     remove any disincentives to technical personnel moving among 
     the national labs. Creates a study to recommend how to ease 
     the movement of technical personnel between the labs and 
     nearby industry with the long term goal of promoting start-
     ups and stronger networks of technical collaboration near the 
     labs.
       Sec. 8--Other Transactions--Standard government contracts, 
     grants, or cooperative agreements can be ill-suited to 
     collaborative projects that have a variety of actors and 
     equities. This section gives DOE ``other transactions,'' an 
     exceptionally flexible contracting authority that allows a 
     ``clean sheet of paper'' negotiation with non-federal 
     organizations. Other transactions were successfully pioneered 
     by the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency to manage 
     many of its innovative relationships with industry; more 
     recently they've been adopted by the military services and 
     Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 9--Amendments to the Stevenson-Wydler Act--The current 
     law governing CRADAs can make them slower to negotiate and 
     less attractive to industry than they should be. This section 
     amends that law to make the negotiation process faster, more 
     flexible, and more attractive to industry. More specifically, 
     this section: shortens the time federal agencies have to 
     review, modify, and approve CRADAs with government owned, 
     contractor operated (GOCO) labs, making it the same as that 
     for government owned, government operated labs; allows more 
     negotiation over the allocation of intellectual property 
     rights developed under a CRADA; and allows federal agencies 
     to permit routine CRADAs to be

[[Page S12937]]

     simply handled by a GOCO lab by eliminating extra steps now 
     required for CRADA with them.
                                  ____

                                             Technology Industries


                                    Association of New Mexico,

                                Albuquerque, NM, October 13, 1999.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the board of directors 
     of the Technology Industries Association of New Mexico (TIA), 
     I am sending this letter to express our support of 
     legislation you are introducing, the National Laboratories 
     Partnership Improvement Act of 1999.
       Members of our organization are well aware of the benefits 
     that already have occurred via the ``technology transfer'' 
     process begun with the Stevenson-Wydler Act of 1980 and 
     continuing since with various improvements and changes to the 
     original measure. Although most of the member companies in 
     TIA do not engage in direct sales to or contracting with the 
     Federal government or military a number of these companies 
     have benefited due to the technology transfer process.
       At least one of our TIA members was created as a spin-off 
     of Sandia National Laboratories. Some of the larger 
     multinational companies with divisions in New Mexico have 
     benefited via CRADA arrangements. And some of our other 
     smaller member companies have been greatly aided through the 
     simple but effective mechanism of the technology assistance 
     program run by Sandia.
       After reviewing draft versions of your proposed 
     legislation, we particularly like two features:
       The provision that the national laboratories can link with 
     private companies, rather than the other way around. We think 
     this is important, because, as much as private companies can 
     and have been aided via access to the vast R&D capabilities 
     of the national labs, it is also important that the 
     government institutions learn from private companies those 
     skills necessary to succeed in the intensely competitive 
     international free-market economies.
       The section which promotes the development of technology 
     clusters in the local economies where national laboratories 
     are located. This strategic approach to economic development 
     is beginning to emerge in central New Mexico with the help of 
     your office and others. We think the development of 
     technology clusters provides a focus for issues and for 
     building vertical infrastructure that often has been lacking 
     in the previous well-meaning, but scattergun approach to 
     economic development.
       TIA thanks you for your effort and is hopeful the 
     legislation will be enacted.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John P. Jekowski,
     President.
                                  ____



                                          City of Albuquerque,

                                Albuquerque, NM, October 13, 1999.
     Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the citizens of 
     Albuquerque, I want to state my strong support of your 
     proposed legislation, ``The National Laboratories Partnership 
     Improvement Act of 1999.'' For the past 50 years the synergy 
     among our scientific, civic, and educational communities and 
     the Department of Energy's national laboratories has helped 
     to build and enhance our modern city. While we welcome these 
     working partnerships, we recognize that stronger technical 
     relationships between the labs, private businesses, and other 
     nearby institutions are needed to leverage additional 
     resources, both public and private, and promote high tech 
     economic growth at the local, regional, and national levels.
       Your leadership in the past and your thorough understanding 
     of the complex issues involving tech transfer has deeply 
     benefited Albuquerque's economic diversification, job growth, 
     and stability. This legislation provides an important and 
     timely framework for the future, and we look forward to 
     working with you and your staff in whatever way necessary to 
     implement it. To this end, we would hope that monies 
     generated by the legislation might come directly to the 
     community, and not go to existing or proposed lab tech 
     transfer programs. This will enable our business, 
     institutional and civic leadership to develop the 
     infrastructure required by this well-crafted, thoughtful, and 
     far-reaching proposal.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Jim Baca,
                                                            Mayor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 1758. A bill to authorize urgent support for Colombia and front 
line states to secure peace and the rule of law, to enhance the 
effectiveness of anti-drug efforts that are essential to impending the 
flow of deadly cocaine and heroin from Colombia to the United States, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the current situation in Colombia is a 
nightmare. Embroiled in a bloody, complex, three decade-long civil war, 
Colombia is spiraling toward collapse. Since the early 1990s, more than 
35,000 Colombians have lost their lives at the hands of two well-
financed, heavily-armed guerrilla insurgency groups, along with a 
competing band of ruthless paramilitary operatives, hell bent on 
crushing the group of leftist guerrillas. Sadly, many of those killed 
so far have been innocent civilians caught in the constant cross-fire.
  The American drug habit is at the core of the Colombian crisis, with 
drug users and pushers in this country subsidizing the anti-democratic 
leftists. Americans want drugs. The drug traffickers want money. To 
ensure their prosperity and to maintain a profitable industry, the 
traffickers essentially hire the guerrillas and, increasingly, the 
paramilitary groups to protect their livelihoods. Violence and 
instability reign. Democracy is crumbling.
  That's why, Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator 
Coverdell, we are introducing the Anti-Drug Alliance with Colombia and 
the Andean Region Act of 1999. This comprehensive bill is designed to 
promote peace and stability in Colombia and the Latin American region. 
Our colleague, Senator Grassley also joins us as a co-sponsor. We 
believe it is time that our government work in conjunction with the 
government and the people of Colombia to help lessen the growing crisis 
in the region.
  The problems in Colombia run deep. There are no easy ``overnight'' 
solutions. If we are to assist in creating and sustaining long-term 
stability in Colombia, we must commit the resources to achieving that 
end. It is in our national interest to support Colombia in its effort 
to thwart further destabilization. Without a strong Colombia, narco-
traffickers will flourish, an abundant and steady flow of illicit drugs 
will head for the United States, one of our largest export markets in 
the western hemisphere will continue to falter, and a democratic 
government will further erode.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, I met with Colombian President Pastrana 
during his visit to Washington. We discussed how our two countries can 
work together--in cooperation--to eliminate drugs from our hemisphere 
and to begin restoring democracy and the rule of law in Colombia.
  For more than three decades, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of 
Colombia, otherwise known as the FARC, and the National Liberation Army 
(ELN) have waged the longest-running guerrilla insurgency in Latin 
America. Both rebel groups have a combined strength of between 15,000 
and 20,000 full-time guerrillas. These armed terrorists control or 
influence up to 60% of rural Colombia. At present, the Colombian 
military does not appear to have the strength and resources to counter 
these menacing forces.
  Well over a decade ago, the biggest threat to stability from within 
our hemisphere was communism--Soviet and Cuban communists pushing their 
anti-democratic propaganda in Central America. We overcame that threat. 
Under the Reagan and Bush Administrations, Democracy prevailed. Today, 
in our hemisphere, the communists have been replaced by drug 
traffickers and the rebels they hire to protect their lucrative 
industry. These drug traffickers also are financing the roughly 5,000 
armed paramilitary combatants, whose self-appointed mission is to 
counter the strength of the leftist guerrillas. If we hope to have any 
impact at all in eliminating the drugs in our cities, in our schools, 
and in our homes, we need to attack drug trafficking head on--here and 
abroad. This is how we can help both the people of Colombia and the 
people of our own country.

  With the help of my colleagues, Senators Paul Coverdell, Bob Graham 
and Charles Grassley, last year we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act. This was a much-needed step toward attacking the drug 
problem at its core. This Act is a $2.7 billion, three-year investment 
to rebuild our drug fighting capability outside our borders. This law 
is about reclaiming the federal government's exclusive responsibility 
to prevent drugs from ever reaching our borders. This law is about 
building a hemisphere free from the violent and decaying influence of 
drug traffickers. This is a law about stopping drugs before they ever 
reach our kids in Ohio.
  This bill was necessary because the Clinton Administration, since 
coming

[[Page S12938]]

into office, has slashed funding levels for international counter-
narcotics efforts. By turning its back for the better part of this 
decade on the fight against drugs abroad, this Administration has 
contributed inadvertently to the growing strength of drug trafficking 
organizations, as well as the narco-terrorists in the region.
  If one principle has guided American foreign policy consistently 
since the dawn of our nation, it is this: The peace and stability of 
our own hemisphere must come first. That certainly has been the case 
throughout the last century. The Spanish-American War, the Cuban 
Missile Crisis, the democratization of Central America in the 1980s, 
and the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s--all of these 
key events were approached with the same premise: A strong, free, and 
prosperous hemisphere means a strong, free, and prosperous United 
States.
  Consistent with that principle, the United States must take an active 
role in seeking a peaceful, democratic Colombia. That is why Senator 
Coverdell, who just came back from Colombia, and I have developed a 
comprehensive assistance plan for Colombia. The Alliance Act of 1999 
would authorize $1.6 billion over three years to support: 1. 
Alternative crop and economic development; 2. Drug interdiction 
programs; 3. Human rights and rule of law programs; and 4. Military and 
police counter-narcotics operations. Our plan also contains provisions 
for counter-narcotics assistance and crop alternative development 
programs for other Latin American countries, including Brazil, Bolivia, 
Peru, Panama, Venezuela, and Ecuador.
  Our plan not only provides the means to eradicate and interdict 
illicit drugs, but it also provides the training and resources to 
strengthen both the civilian and military justice systems to preserve 
the rule of law and democracy in Colombia. A hemispheric commitment to 
the rule of law is essential. When I visited with Americans living in 
Colombia during a trip to the region last year, judicial reform was a 
central focus of our discussion on ways our nation can better assist 
Colombia. With our plan, our government would take a leadership role in 
promoting a strong judiciary and rule of law in Colombia by providing 
our own technical expertise.
  Our plan promotes the sanctity of human rights and provides 
humanitarian assistance to the hundreds of thousands of people who have 
been displaced due to the violence and instability.
  We not only focus on the economy of Colombia, but also on the 
stability of the region, as a whole. We provide support for the front-
line states and call on them and the international community to assist 
and support the Government of Colombia. This is a cooperative effort to 
help Colombia begin to help itself.
  Our plan would monitor the assistance to the Colombian security 
forces, so we can be sure that this assistance is used effectively for 
its intended purpose and does not fall into the hands of those who 
engage in gross violations of human rights and drug trafficking.
  We urge the Colombian government to take a tough stance against the 
often over-looked paramilitaries. They are a growing part of the 
problem in Colombia and should not be ignored.
  Our plan is comprehensive. Our plan is balanced. It demonstrates our 
commitment to assisting the Government of Colombia and our interest in 
working together to bring peace and security to the hemisphere.
  Mr. President, this is not an ``America Knows Best'' plan. We 
consulted with those who are on the front-lines in Colombia--those who 
know best what Colombia needs right now. We have talked with the 
Colombian government, including President Pastrana, to inquire about 
Colombia's specific needs. We also have consulted with U.S. government 
officials, who have confirmed our belief that a plan for Colombia must 
be balanced if we hope to address the complex and dangerous elements of 
the current situation.
  Frankly, Mr. President, it is my hope that the Administration will 
pro-actively work with Congress--and most importantly, Colombia--to 
turn the tide against those seeking to undermine democracy in the 
region. We must act now--too much is at risk to wait any longer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1758

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Alliance 
     with Colombia and the Andean Region (ALIANZA) Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Definitions.

              TITLE I--UNITED STATES POLICY AND PERSONNEL

Sec. 101. Statement of policy regarding support for democracy, peace, 
              the rule of law, and human rights in Colombia.
Sec. 102. Requirement for a comprehensive regional strategy to support 
              Colombia and the front line states.
Sec. 103. Availability of funds conditioned on submission of strategic 
              plan and application of congressional notification 
              procedures.
Sec. 104. Limitation on availability of funds.
Sec. 105. Sense of Congress on unimpeded access by Colombian law 
              enforcement officials to all areas of the national 
              territory of Colombia.
Sec. 106. Extradition of narcotics traffickers.
Sec. 107. Additional personnel requirements for the United States 
              mission in Colombia.
Sec. 108. Sense of Congress on a special coordinator on Colombia.
Sec. 109. Sense of Congress on the death of three United States 
              citizens in Colombia in March 1999.
Sec. 110. Sense of Congress on members of Colombian security forces and 
              members of Colombian irregular forces.

                     TITLE II--ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED

  Subtitle A--Democracy, Peace, the Rule of Law, and Human Rights in 
                                Colombia

Sec. 201. Support for democracy, peace, the rule of law, and human 
              rights in Colombia.
Sec. 202. United States emergency humanitarian assistance fund for 
              internally forced displaced population in Colombia.
Sec. 203. Investigation by Colombian Attorney General of drug 
              trafficking and human rights abuses by irregular forces 
              and security forces.
Sec. 204. Report on Colombian military justice.
Sec. 205. Denial of visas to and inadmissibility of aliens who have 
              been involved in drug trafficking and human rights 
              violations in Colombia.

  Subtitle B--Eradication of Drug Production and Interdiction of Drug 
                              Trafficking

Sec. 211. Targeting new illicit cultivation and mobilizing the 
              Colombian security forces against the narcotrafficking 
              threat.
Sec. 212. Reinvigoration of efforts to interdict illicit narcotics in 
              Colombia.
Sec. 213. Enhancement of Colombian police and navy law enforcement 
              activities nationwide.
Sec. 214. Targeting illicit assets of irregular forces.
Sec. 215. Enhancement of regional interdiction of illicit drugs.
Sec. 216. Revised authorities for provision of additional support for 
              counter-drug activities of Colombia and Peru.
Sec. 217. Sense of Congress on assistance to Brazil.
Sec. 218. Monitoring of assistance for Colombian security forces.
Sec. 219. Development of economic alternatives to the illicit drug 
              trade.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to prescribe proactive measures to confront the threat 
     to United States interests of continued instability in 
     Colombia;
       (2) to defend constitutional order, the rule of law, and 
     human rights, which will benefit all persons;
       (3) to support the democratically elected Government of the 
     Republic of Colombia to secure a firm and lasting end to the 
     armed conflict and lawlessness within its territory, which 
     now costs countless lives, threatens regional security, and 
     undermines effective anti-drug efforts;
       (4) to require the President to design and implement an 
     urgent, comprehensive, and adequately funded plan of support 
     for Colombia and its neighbors;
       (5) to authorize adequate funds to implement an urgent and 
     comprehensive plan of economic development and anti-drug 
     support for Colombia and the front line states;
       (6) to authorize indispensable material, technical, and 
     logistical support to enhance the effectiveness of anti-drug 
     efforts that are essential to impeding the flow of deadly 
     cocaine and heroin from Colombia to the United States; and

[[Page S12939]]

       (7) to bolster the capacity of the front line states to 
     confront the current destabilizing effects of the Colombia 
     conflict and to resist illicit narcotics trafficking 
     activities that may seek to elude enhanced law enforcement 
     efforts in Colombia.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The armed conflict and resulting lawlessness in 
     Colombia present a clear and present danger to the security 
     of the front line states, to law enforcement efforts intended 
     to impede the flow of cocaine and heroin, and, therefore, to 
     the well-being of the people of the United States.
       (2) Colombia is a democratic country fighting multiple 
     wars, against the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces 
     (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), paramilitary 
     organizations, and international narcotics trafficking 
     kingpins.
       (3) With 34 percent of world terrorist acts committed 
     there, Colombia is the world's third most dangerous country 
     in terms of political violence.
       (4) Colombia is the world's kidnapping capital of the world 
     with 2,609 kidnappings reported in 1998 and 513 reported in 
     the first three months of 1999.
       (5) In 1998 alone, 308,000 Colombians were internally 
     displaced in Colombia. During the last decade, 35,000 
     Colombians have been killed.
       (6) The FARC and the ELN are the two main guerrilla groups 
     that have waged the longest-running anti-government 
     insurgency in Latin America.
       (7) The FARC and the ELN engage in systematic extortion 
     through the abduction of United States citizens, have 
     murdered United States citizens, profit from the illegal drug 
     trade, and engage in systematic and indiscriminate crimes, 
     including kidnapping, torture, and murder, against Colombian 
     civilian and security forces.
       (8) The FARC and the ELN have targeted United States 
     Government personnel, private United States citizens, and 
     United States business interests.
       (9) In March 1999, the FARC murdered three kidnapped United 
     States human rights workers near the international border 
     between Colombia and Venezuela.
       (10) The Colombian rebels are estimated to have a combined 
     strength of 10,000 to 20,000 full-time guerrillas, and they 
     have initiated armed action in nearly 700 of the country's 
     1,073 municipalities and control or influence roughly 60 
     percent of rural Colombia.
       (11) The Government of Colombia has recovered 5,000 new AK-
     47s from guerrilla caches in 1 month, and the FARC has 
     plotted to use $3,000,000 in funds earned from drug 
     trafficking to buy 30,000 AK-47s.
       (12) Although the Colombian Army has 122,000 soldiers, 
     there are no more than 40,000 soldiers available for 
     offensive combat operations.
       (13) Colombia faces the threat of an estimated 5,000 armed 
     persons who comprise paramilitary organizations, who engage 
     in lawless acts and undermine the peace process.
       (14) Paramilitary organizations profit from the illegal 
     drug trade and engage in systematic and indiscriminate 
     crimes, including extortion, kidnapping, torture, and murder, 
     against Colombian civilians.
       (15) The conflict in Colombia is creating instability along 
     its borders with neighboring countries, Ecuador, Panama, 
     Peru, and Venezuela, several of which have deployed forces to 
     their border with Colombia.
       (16) Coca production has increased 28 percent in Colombia 
     since 1998, and already 75 percent of the world's cocaine and 
     75 percent of the heroin seized in the northeast United 
     States is of Colombian origin.
       (17) The first 900-soldier Counternarcotics Battalion has 
     been established within the Colombian Army with training and 
     logistical support of the United States military and the 
     Department of State international narcotics and law 
     enforcement program, and it will be ready for deployment in 
     areas of new illicit coca cultivation in southern Colombia by 
     November 1999.
       (18) In response to serious human rights abuse allegations 
     by the Colombian military, the Government of Colombia has 
     dismissed alleged abusers and undertaken military reforms, 
     and, while the Colombian military was implicated in 50 
     percent of human rights violations in 1995, by 1998, the 
     number of incidents attributed to the military plummeted to 
     4-6 percent.
       (19) The Government of Colombia has convicted 240 members 
     of the military and police accused of human rights 
     violations.
       (20) In 1998, two-way trade between the United States and 
     Colombia was more than $11,000,000,000, making the United 
     States Colombia's number one trading partner and Colombia the 
     fifth largest market for United States exports in the region.
       (21) Colombia is experiencing a historic economic 
     recession, with unemployment rising to approximately 20 
     percent in 1999 after 40 years of annual economic growth 
     averaging 5 percent per year.
       (22) The Colombian judicial system is inefficient and 
     ineffective in bringing to justice those who violate the rule 
     of law.
       (23) The FARC continue to press for an exchange of detained 
     rebels, which, if granted, will enable the FARC to increase 
     its manpower in the short term by as many as 4,000 
     combatants.
       (24) The Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that 
     the Colombian irregular forces are involved in drug 
     trafficking and that certain irregular forces leaders have 
     become major drug traffickers.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--Except as 
     provided in section 218, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Front line states.--The term ``front line states'' 
     means Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.
       (3) Illicit drug trafficking.--The term ``illicit drug 
     trafficking'' means illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs, 
     psychotropic substances, and other controlled substances (as 
     defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), as such activities are described by any 
     international narcotics control agreement to which the United 
     States is a signatory, or by the domestic law of the country 
     in whose territory or airspace the interdiction is occurring.
       (4) Irregular Forces.--The term ``irregular forces'' means 
     irregular armed groups engaged in illegal activities, 
     including the Colombia Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), the 
     National Liberation Army (ELN), and paramilitary 
     organizations.
              TITLE I--UNITED STATES POLICY AND PERSONNEL

     SEC. 101. STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING SUPPORT FOR 
                   DEMOCRACY, PEACE, THE RULE OF LAW, AND HUMAN 
                   RIGHTS IN COLOMBIA.

       It shall be the policy of the United States--
       (1) to support the democratically elected Government of the 
     Republic of Colombia in its efforts to secure a firm and 
     lasting end to the armed conflict and lawlessness within its 
     territory, which now costs countless lives, threatens 
     regional security, and undermines effective anti-drug 
     efforts;
       (2) to insist that the Government of Colombia complete 
     urgent reform measures intended to open its economy fully to 
     foreign investment and commerce, particularly in the 
     petroleum industry, as a path toward economic recovery and 
     self-sufficiency;
       (3) to promote the protection of human rights in Colombia 
     by conditioning assistance to security forces on respect for 
     all internationally recognized human rights;
       (4) to support Colombian authorities in strengthening 
     judicial systems and investigative capabilities to bring to 
     justice any person against whom there exists credible 
     evidence of gross violations of human rights;
       (5) to expose the lawlessness and gross human rights 
     violations committed by irregular forces in Colombia; and
       (6) to mobilize international support for the 
     democratically elected Government of the Republic of Colombia 
     so that that government can resist making unilateral 
     concessions that undermine the credibility of the peace 
     process.

     SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL STRATEGY 
                   TO SUPPORT COLOMBIA AND THE FRONT LINE STATES.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees and the Caucus on 
     International Narcotics Control of the Senate a report on the 
     current United States policy and strategy regarding United 
     States counternarcotics assistance for Colombia and the front 
     line states.
       (b) Report Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     shall address the following:
       (1) The primary and second priorities of the United States 
     in its relations with Colombia and the front line states that 
     are the source of most of the illicit narcotics entering the 
     United States.
       (2) The actions required of the United States to support 
     and promote such priorities.
       (3) A schedule for implementing actions in order to meet 
     such priorities.
       (4) The role of the United States in the efforts of the 
     Government of Colombia to deal with illegal drug production 
     in Colombia.
       (5) The role of the United States in the efforts of the 
     Government of Colombia to deal with the insurgency in 
     Colombia.
       (6) The role of the United States in the efforts of the 
     Government of Colombia to deal with irregular forces in 
     Colombia.
       (7) How the strategy with respect to Colombia relates to 
     the United States strategy for the front line states.
       (8) How the strategy with respect to Colombia relates to 
     the United States strategy for fulfilling global 
     counternarcotics goals.
       (9) A strategy and schedule for providing urgent material, 
     technical, and logistical support to Colombia and the front 
     line states in order to defend the rule of law and to more 
     effectively impede the cultivation, production, transit, and 
     sale of illicit narcotics.

     SEC. 103. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS CONDITIONED ON SUBMISSION OF 
                   STRATEGIC PLAN AND APPLICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL 
                   NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

       Funds made available to carry out this Act shall only be 
     made available--
       (1) upon submission to Congress by the President of the 
     plan required by section 102; and
       (2) in accordance with the procedures applicable to 
     reprogramming notifications

[[Page S12940]]

     under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2394-1).

     SEC. 104. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

       (a) Ineligibility of Units of Security Forces for 
     Assistance.--The same restrictions contained in section 568 
     of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(d) of division A of Public Law 105-277) and section 8130 
     of Public Law 105-262 that apply to the availability of funds 
     under those Acts shall apply to the availability of funds 
     under this Act.
       (b) Additional Restrictions..--In addition to the 
     application of the restrictions described in subsection (a), 
     those restrictions shall apply with respect to the 
     availability of funds for a unit of the security forces of 
     Colombia if the Secretary of State reports to Congress that 
     credible evidence exists that a member of that unit has 
     provided material support to irregular forces in Colombia or 
     to any criminal narcotics trafficking syndicate that operates 
     in Colombia. The Secretary of State may detail such evidence 
     in a classified annex to any such report, if necessary.

     SEC. 105. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON UNIMPEDED ACCESS BY COLOMBIAN 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO ALL AREAS OF THE 
                   NATIONAL TERRITORY OF COLOMBIA.

       It is the sense of Congress that the effectiveness of 
     United States anti-drug assistance to Colombia depends on the 
     ability of law enforcement officials of that country having 
     unimpeded access to all areas of the national territory of 
     Colombia for the purposes of carrying out the interdiction of 
     illegal narcotics and the eradication of illicit crops.

     SEC. 106. EXTRADITION OF NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Government of Colombia and the governments of the front 
     line states should take effective steps to prevent the 
     creation of a safe haven for narcotics traffickers by 
     ensuring that narcotics traffickers indicted in the United 
     States are promptly arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to 
     the maximum extent of the law and, upon the request of the 
     United States Government, extradited to the United States for 
     trial for their egregious offenses against the security and 
     well-being of the people of the United States.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter, 
     the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report setting forth--
       (1) a list of the persons whose extradition has been 
     requested from Colombia or the front line states, indicating 
     those persons who--
       (A) have been surrendered to the custody of United States 
     authorities;
       (B) have been detained by authorities of Colombia or a 
     front line state and who are being processed for extradition;
       (C) have been detained by the authorities of Colombia or a 
     front line state and who are not yet being processed for 
     extradition; or
       (D) are at large;
       (2) a determination whether or not authorities of Colombia 
     and the front line states are making good faith efforts to 
     ensure the prompt extradition of each of the persons sought 
     by United States authorities; and
       (3) an analysis of--
       (A) any legal obstacles in the laws of Colombia and of the 
     front line states to the prompt extradition of persons sought 
     by United States authorities; and
       (B) the steps taken by authorities of the United States and 
     the authorities of each such state to remove such obstacles.

     SEC. 107. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UNITED 
                   STATES MISSION IN COLOMBIA.

       (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report detailing 
     the additional personnel requirements of the United States 
     Mission in Colombia that are necessary to implement this Act.
       (b) Funding of Report Recommendations.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purpose, there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the relevant departments and agencies of the United States 
     for the period beginning October 1, 1999, and ending 
     September 30, 2002, such sums as may be necessary to pay the 
     salaries of such number of additional personnel as are 
     recommended in the report required by subsection (a).
       (B) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.
       (2) Additional personnel defined.--In paragraph (1), the 
     term ``additional personnel'' means the number of personnel 
     above the number of personnel employed in the United States 
     Mission in Colombia as of the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 108. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON A SPECIAL COORDINATOR ON 
                   COLOMBIA.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President should 
     designate a special coordinator on Colombia with sufficient 
     authority--
       (1) to coordinate interagency efforts to prepare and 
     implement a comprehensive regional strategy to support 
     Colombia and the front line states;
       (2) to advocate within the executive branch adequate 
     funding for and urgent delivery of assistance authorized by 
     this Act; and
       (3) to coordinate diplomatic efforts to maximize 
     international political and financial support for Colombia 
     and the front line states.

     SEC. 109. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE DEATH OF THREE UNITED 
                   STATES CITIZENS IN COLOMBIA IN MARCH 1999.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Government of Colombia 
     should resolve the case of the three United States citizens 
     killed in Colombia in March 1999 and bring to justice those 
     involved in this atrocity.

     SEC. 110. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MEMBERS OF COLOMBIAN SECURITY 
                   FORCES AND MEMBERS OF COLOMBIAN IRREGULAR 
                   FORCES.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) any links between members of Colombian irregular forces 
     and members of Colombian security forces are deeply troubling 
     and clearly counterproductive to the effort to combat drug 
     trafficking and the prevention of human rights violations; 
     and
       (2) the involvement of Colombian irregular forces in drug 
     trafficking and in systematic terror campaigns targeting the 
     noncombatant civilian population is deplorable and contrary 
     to United States interests and policy.
                     TITLE II--ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED
  Subtitle A--Democracy, Peace, the Rule of Law, and Human Rights in 
                                Colombia

     SEC. 201. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY, PEACE, THE RULE OF LAW, AND 
                   HUMAN RIGHTS IN COLOMBIA.

       (a) In General.--The President is authorized to support 
     programs and activities to advance democracy, peace, the rule 
     of law, and human rights in Colombia, including--
       (1) the deployment of international observers, upon the 
     request of the Government of Colombia, to monitor compliance 
     with any peace initiative of the Government of Colombia;
       (2) support for credible, internationally recognized 
     independent nongovernmental human rights organizations 
     working in Colombia;
       (3) support for the Human Rights Unit of the Attorney 
     General of Colombia;
       (4) to enhance the rule of law through training of judges, 
     prosecutors, and other judicial officials and through a 
     witness protection program;
       (5) to improve police investigative training and facilities 
     and related civilian police activities; and
       (6) to strengthen a credible military justice system, 
     including technical support by the United States Judge 
     Advocate General, and strengthen existing human rights 
     monitors within the ranks of the military.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the President $100,000,000 for the period beginning October 
     1, 1999, and ending September 30, 2002, to carry out 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 202. UNITED STATES EMERGENCY HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE 
                   FUND FOR INTERNALLY FORCED DISPLACED POPULATION 
                   IN COLOMBIA.

       (a) Sense of Congress.-- It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the United States Government should provide assistance 
     to forcibly displaced persons in Colombia; and
       (2) the Government of Colombia should support the return of 
     the forcibly displaced to their homes only when the safety of 
     civilians is fully assured and they return voluntarily.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report containing 
     an examination of the options available to address the needs 
     of the internally displaced population of Colombia.
       (c) Authorization To Provide Assistance.--The President is 
     authorized--
       (1) to provide assistance to the internally displaced 
     population of Colombia; and
       (2) to assist in the temporary resettlement of the 
     internally displaced Colombians.
       (d) Funding.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 201(b) shall be available to the President for 
     purposes of activities under subsection (c).

     SEC. 203. INVESTIGATION BY COLOMBIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DRUG 
                   TRAFFICKING AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES BY 
                   IRREGULAR FORCES AND SECURITY FORCES.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to support 
     efforts by the Attorney General of Colombia--
       (1) to investigate and prosecute members of Colombian 
     irregular forces involved in the production or trafficking in 
     illicit drugs;
       (2) to investigate and prosecute members of Colombian 
     security forces involved in the production or trafficking in 
     illicit drugs;
       (3) to investigate and prosecute members of Colombian 
     irregular forces involved in gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights; and
       (4) to investigate and prosecute members of Colombian 
     security forces involved in gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights.

[[Page S12941]]

       (b) Funding.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 201(b) shall be available to the President for 
     purposes of activities under subsection (a).

     SEC. 204. REPORT ON COLOMBIAN MILITARY JUSTICE.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit 
     to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     examining the efforts to strengthen and reform the military 
     justice system of Colombia and making recommendations for 
     directing assistance authorized by this Act for that purpose.
       (b) Report Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     shall contain the following:
       (1) A review of the laws, regulations, directives, 
     policies, and practices of the military justice system of 
     Colombia, including specific military reform measures being 
     considered and implemented.
       (2) An assessment of the extent to which the laws, 
     regulations, directives, policies, practices, and reforms 
     relating to the military justice system have been effective 
     in preventing and punishing human rights violations, 
     irregular forces, and narcotrafficking ties.
       (3) Recommendations for the measures necessary to 
     strengthen and improve the effectiveness and enhance the 
     credibility of the military justice system of Colombia.

     SEC. 205. DENIAL OF VISAS TO AND INADMISSIBILITY OF ALIENS 
                   WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN DRUG TRAFFICKING AND 
                   HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN COLOMBIA.

       (a) Grounds for Denial of Visas and Inadmissibility.--
     Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary of State 
     shall deny a visa to, and the Attorney General shall not 
     admit to the United States, any alien who the Secretary of 
     State has credible evidence is a person who--
       (1) is or was an illicit trafficker in any controlled 
     substance or has knowingly aided, abetted, conspired, or 
     colluded with others in the illicit trafficking in any 
     controlled substance in Colombia; or
       (2) ordered, carried out, or materially assisted in gross 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights in 
     Colombia.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) Grounds for exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply 
     in any case in which--
       (A) the Secretary of State finds, on a case by case basis, 
     that--
       (i) the entry into the United States of the person who 
     would otherwise be denied a visa or not admitted under this 
     section is necessary for medical reasons; or
       (ii) the alien has cooperated fully with the investigation 
     of human rights violations; or
       (B) the Attorney General of the United States determines, 
     on a case-by-case basis, that admission of the alien to the 
     United States is necessary for law enforcement purposes.
       (2) Congressional notification.--Whenever an alien 
     described in subsection (a) is issued a visa pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) or admitted to the United States pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the Secretary of State or the Attorney 
     General, as appropriate, shall notify in writing the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives of such action.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--
       (1) List of the united states chief of mission.--The United 
     States chief of mission to Colombia shall transmit to the 
     Secretary of State a list of those individuals who have been 
     credibly alleged to have carried out drug trafficking and 
     human rights violations described in paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of subsection (a).
       (2) Transmittal by secretary of state.--Not later than 
     three months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit the list prepared under 
     paragraph (1) to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Controlled substance.--The term ``controlled 
     substance'' has the meaning given the term in section 102(6) 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
       (2) Human rights.--The term ``human rights violations'' 
     means gross violations of internationally recognized human 
     rights within the meaning of sections 116 and 502B of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
  Subtitle B--Eradication of Drug Production and Interdiction of Drug 
                              Trafficking

     SEC. 211. TARGETING NEW ILLICIT CULTIVATION AND MOBILIZING 
                   THE COLOMBIAN SECURITY FORCES AGAINST THE 
                   NARCOTRAFFICKING THREAT.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to support 
     programs and activities by the Government of Colombia, 
     including its security forces, to target eradication and law 
     enforcement activities in areas of new cultivation of coca 
     and opium poppy, including--
       (1) material support and technical assistance to aid the 
     training, outfitting, deployment, and operations of not less 
     than three counterdrug battalions of the Army of Colombia;
       (2) to support the acquisition of up to 15 UH-60 
     helicopters or comparable transport helicopters, including 
     spare parts, maintenance services and training, or aircraft 
     upgrade kits for the Army of Colombia;
       (3) communications and intelligence training and equipment 
     for the Army and Navy of Colombia;
       (4) additional aircraft for the National Police of Colombia 
     to enhance its eradication efforts and to support its joint 
     operations with the military of Colombia; and
       (5) not less than $10,000,000 to support the urgent 
     development of an application of naturally occurring and 
     ecologically sound methods of eradicating illicit crops.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     $540,000,000 for the period beginning October 1, 1999, and 
     ending September 30, 2002, to carry out subsection (a).
       (c) Sense of Congress Relating to Eradication.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that the Government of Colombia should 
     commit itself immediately to the urgent development and 
     application of naturally occurring and ecologically sound 
     methods for eradicating illicit crops.

     SEC. 212. REINVIGORATION OF EFFORTS TO INTERDICT ILLICIT 
                   NARCOTICS IN COLOMBIA.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to support 
     programs and activities by the Government of Colombia, 
     including its security forces, to reinvigorate a nationwide 
     program to interdict shipments of illicit drugs in Colombia, 
     including--
       (1) the acquisition of additional airborne and ground-based 
     radar;
       (2) the acquisition of airborne intelligence and 
     surveillance aircraft for the Colombian Army;
       (3) the acquisition of additional aerial refueling aircraft 
     and fuel; and
       (4) the construction of remote airfields.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the President $200,000,000 for the period beginning October 
     1, 1999, and ending September 30, 2002, to carry out 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 213. ENHANCEMENT OF COLOMBIAN POLICE AND NAVY LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES NATIONWIDE.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to support 
     programs and activities by the Government of Colombia, 
     including its security forces, to support anti-drug law 
     enforcement activities by the National Police and Navy of 
     Colombia nationwide, including--
       (1) acquisition of transport aircraft, spare engines, and 
     other parts, additional UH-1H upgrade kits, forward-looking 
     infrared systems, and other equipment for the National Police 
     of Colombia;
       (2) training and operation of specialized vetted units of 
     the National Police of Colombia;
       (3) construction of additional bases for the National 
     Police of Colombia near its national territorial borders; and
       (4) acquisition of 16 patrol aircraft, 4 helicopters, 
     forward-looking infrared systems, and patrol boats to support 
     for the nationwide riverine and coastal patrol capabilities 
     of the Navy of Colombia.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the President $205,000,000 for the period beginning October 
     1, 1999, and ending September 30, 2002, to carry out 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 214. TARGETING ILLICIT ASSETS OF IRREGULAR FORCES.

       (a) Establishment of Task Force.--Not later than three 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy, Attorney General, 
     Secretary of State, and Director of Central Intelligence, 
     shall establish a task force to identify assets of irregular 
     forces that operate in Colombia for the purpose of imposing 
     restrictions on transactions by such forces using the 
     President's authority under the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701).
       (b) Report on Assets of Irregular Forces.--Not later than 
     12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a report 
     on measures taken in compliance with this section and 
     recommend measures to target the unlawfully obtained assets 
     of irregular forces that operate in Colombia.

     SEC. 215. ENHANCEMENT OF REGIONAL INTERDICTION OF ILLICIT 
                   DRUGS.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to support 
     programs and activities by the United States Government, the 
     Government of Colombia, and the governments of the front line 
     states to enhance interdiction of illicit drugs in that 
     region.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts otherwise available for such purposes, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the President $410,000,000 
     for the period beginning October 1, 1999, and ending 
     September 30, 2002, to carry out subsection (a), of which 
     amount--
       (1) up to $325,000,000 shall be available for material 
     support and other costs by United States Government agencies 
     to support regional interdiction efforts, of which--
       (A) not less than $60,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration;

[[Page S12942]]

       (B) not less than $40,000,000 shall be available for 
     regional intelligence activities; and
       (C) not less than $30,000,000 for the acquisition of 
     surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft for use by the 
     United States Southern Command primarily for detection and 
     monitoring in support of the interdiction of illicit drugs; 
     and
       (2) up to $85,000,000 shall be available for the 
     governments of the front line states to increase the 
     effectiveness of regional interdiction efforts.
       (c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subsection (b) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.
       (d) Limitation on Availability of Funds.--Funds made 
     available to carry out this section may be made available to 
     a front line state only after the President determines and 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that 
     such state is cooperating fully with regional and bilateral 
     aerial and maritime narcotics efforts or is taking 
     extraordinary and effective measures on its own to impede 
     suspicious aircraft or maritime vessels through its 
     territory. A determination and certification with respect to 
     a front line state under this subsection shall be effective 
     for not more than 12 months.

     SEC. 216. REVISED AUTHORITIES FOR PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL 
                   SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES OF COLOMBIA 
                   AND PERU.

       Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, including but 
     not limited to riverine counter-drug activities'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The operating costs of equipment of the government 
     that is used for counter-drug activities.''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``any of the fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2002'' and inserting ``the fiscal year 
     1999 and may not exceed $75,000,000 during the fiscal years 
     2000 through 2002''.

     SEC. 217. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSISTANCE TO BRAZIL.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President should--
       (1) review the nature of the cooperation between the United 
     States and Brazil in counternarcotics activities;
       (2) recognize the extraordinary threat that narcotics 
     trafficking poses to the national security of Brazil and to 
     the national security of the United States;
       (3) support the efforts of the Government of Brazil to 
     control drug trafficking in and through the Amazon River 
     basin;
       (4) share information with Brazil on narcotics interdiction 
     in accordance with section 1012 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (22 U.S.C. 2291-4) in 
     light of the enactment of legislation by the Congress of 
     Brazil that--
       (A) authorizes appropriate personnel to damage, render 
     inoperative, or destroy aircraft within Brazil territory that 
     are reasonably suspected to be engaged primarily in 
     trafficking in illicit narcotics; and
       (B) contains measures to protect against the loss of 
     innocent life during activities referred to in subparagraph 
     (A), including an effective measure to identify and warn 
     aircraft before the use of force; and
       (5) issue a determination outlining the matters referred to 
     in paragraphs (1) through (4) in order to prevent any 
     interruption in the provision by the United States of 
     critical operational, logistical, technical, administrative, 
     and intelligence assistance to Brazil.

     SEC. 218. MONITORING OF ASSISTANCE FOR COLOMBIAN SECURITY 
                   FORCES.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of Defense and the Department of State for 
     each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 an amount not to 
     exceed the amount equal to one percent of the total security 
     assistance for the Colombian armed forces for such fiscal 
     year for purposes of monitoring the use of United States 
     assistance by the Colombian armed forces, including 
     monitoring to ensure compliance with the provisions of this 
     Act and the provisions of section 568 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-195) and section 8130 of the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262; 112 
     Stat. 2335).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter, 
     the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall 
     jointly submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report on the monitoring activities undertaken using funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) during the 
     six-month period ending on the date of such report.
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means the following:
       (1) The Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate.
       (2) The Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and 
     International Relations and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 219. DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES TO THE ILLICIT 
                   DRUG TRADE.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress--
       (1) to recognize the importance of well-constructed 
     programs for the development of economic alternatives to the 
     illicit drug trade in order to encourage growers to cease 
     illicit crop cultivation; and
       (2) to stress the need to link enforcement efforts with 
     verification efforts in order to ensure that assistance under 
     such programs does not become a form of income supplement to 
     the growers of illicit crops.
       (b) Support for Development of Economic Alternatives.--The 
     President is authorized to support programs and activities by 
     the United States Government and regional governments to 
     enhance the development of economic alternatives to the 
     illicit drug trade.
       (c) Prohibition on Certain Use of Alternative Development 
     Assistance.--No funds available under this Act for the 
     development of economic alternatives to the illicit drug 
     trade may be used to reimburse persons for the eradication of 
     illicit drug crops.
       (d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (e) may only be made available to 
     Colombia or a front line state after--
       (1) such state has provided to the United States agency 
     responsible for the administration of this section a 
     comprehensive development strategy that conditions the 
     development of economic alternatives to the illicit drug 
     trade on verifiable illicit crop eradication programs; and
       (2) the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that such strategy is comprehensive 
     and applies sufficient resources toward achieving realistic 
     objectives to ensure the ultimate eradication of illicit 
     crops.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for such purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     $180,000,000 for the period beginning October 1, 1999, and 
     ending September 30, 2002, to carry out subsection (b), 
     including up to $50,000,000 for Colombia, up to $90,000,000 
     for Bolivia, and up to $40,000,000 for Peru.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.

                          ____________________