[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11430-11433]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Resumed


                           Amendment No. 3492

    (Purpose: To provide an additional condition on assistance for 
                               Colombia)

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

       The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3492.

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

       On page 144, strike line 22 and insert the following: 
     aiding and abetting these groups; and
       (D) the United States Government publicly supports the 
     military and political efforts of the Government of Colombia, 
     consistent with human rights, that are necessary to resolve 
     effectively the conflicts with the armed insurgents that 
     threaten the territorial integrity, economic prosperity, and 
     rule of law in Colombia.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little about this 
amendment tonight, in general terms, and talk a little more precisely 
about it in the morning. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that there 
be time tomorrow for me to have approximately 30 minutes sometime 
during the day to speak on the amendment, unless some others would want 
more time on the other side.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the 30 minutes for the Senator 
from Alabama come after the consideration of the Wellstone amendment, 
which we have already locked in?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. That would be satisfactory to me, and such other 
accommodations we can make to make it better for the managers.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Alabama amend that to request that 
this side have an equal amount of time on his amendment tomorrow, which 
we may or may not use?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am troubled by our efforts, which I 
support, to help the nation of Colombia.
  I serve on the Narcotics Committee. I serve on the Armed Services 
Committee. Over quite a number of months, we have had testimony and 
hearings involving this issue. I have become quite concerned about the 
stability of the nation of Colombia. I believe it is a democracy, and 
it is one of the oldest in the Western Hemisphere. It is worthy of our 
support.
  I believe Colombia is in a critical point in its history with over 50 
percent of its territory--or at least over 40 or perhaps 50 percent of 
its territory--under the hands of insurgent forces. This great nation 
is in trouble.
  I hope we can devise a way to effectively assist them in their 
efforts to preserve democracy and freedom, economic growth and 
prosperity, and safety and freedom for their people.
  That is the intent of my amendment. It goes to an issue that I think 
is important.
  This is the problem we are dealing with. The President, his State 
Department, and his representatives have testified and said repeatedly 
that our goal here is to reduce drugs in America and to save lives in 
America.
  Our goal is to fight drug dealers in Colombia. Our goal is to help 
defoliate and destroy coca production in Colombia. The administration 
has steadfastly avoided and refused to say that this Nation, the United 
States of America, stands with the democratically-elected Government of 
Panama against two major Marxist organizations that seek to overthrow 
the Government of Colombia, and have actually occupied large portions 
of that nation.
  It is baffling to me why this is so. I do not understand what it is. 
Maybe it is an effort to appease the hard left in this country. Maybe 
it is an effort to appease certain liberal Members of this Senate who 
just can't see giving money to fight a left-wing guerrilla group 
anywhere in the world. Indeed, I can't recall an instance in which this 
administration has ever given any money to support democratically-
elected governments, or other kinds of governments, for that matter, 
against left-wing Marxist guerrillas.
  These guerrilla groups have been involved in Colombia for many years. 
They have destabilized the country. They have undermined economic 
progress. They have provided cover and protection for drug dealers. 
They have in fact damaged Colombia substantially.
  I believe it is time for us to encourage Colombia to stand up to 
these organizations, to retake this country, and to preserve democracy 
in the country. It is a serious matter, in my view.
  Colombia has been an ally. We have encouraged them to enter into 
peace negotiations, and President Pastrana has tried his best to 
negotiate with these guerrilla groups. In fact, Colombia has given a 
piece of their territory, I am informed, the size of Senator Leahy's 
State of Vermont to the guerrillas as a cease-fire zone, a safe zone in 
which they can operate without fear, and that the duly constituted 
Government of Colombia would not enter there and do something about it 
while they attempt to establish peace. But this concession, this 
appeasement to the guerrilla groups, has not appeased them. It has not 
caused them to be less violent or aggressive. But in fact it appears it 
has encouraged them in some ways.
  I believe Colombia is at the point where they can achieve stability. 
I believe they can drive home, through a combination of diplomacy and 
military efforts to these insurgent forces, that war is not going to 
pay off, that war is a dead-end street for everyone, that they are 
willing to accept divergent views in their democracy, that they are 
willing to hear from the underlying concerns of the guerrilla groups. 
In fact, President Pastrana has said that over and over again. But 
fundamentally they have to send a message that they are willing to pay 
the price, that they are going to produce an army capable of putting 
these guerrillas on the

[[Page 11431]]

defensive, and that they will take back their territory and unify their 
country.
  There are also right-wing para-military groups in the country, a 
right-wing militia, that is involved in terrorist-type acts and 
violations of human rights. They also need to be defeated and disbanded 
before Colombia can be unified. There can be no higher goal than that, 
from my perspective, for our country at this critical point in time.
  What are our goals? Why won't the President discuss them plainly? Our 
goal in Colombia is to produce regional stability. The collapse of 
Colombia can undermine nearby nations, whether Bolivia or Peru or other 
countries that border it. It can have a tremendous adverse effect on 
their stability.
  Instability in Columbia, should it occur, would knock down and damage 
one of our strongest trading partners. Colombia has 40 million people. 
Those people trade with the United States to a heavy degree. It would 
be a tragedy if they were to sink into chaos and could not maintain a 
viable economy. We have a self-interest in that, but we have a real 
human interest in trying to make sure we utilize our abilities, our 
resources, to help that nation to right itself and take back its 
territory.
  As I had occasion to say to President Pastrana recently: I want to 
see that we help. I want to help you strengthen your country. But I 
would like you to think about a great American. I would like you to 
think about Abraham Lincoln, who was faced with division of his 
country. Nearly 50 percent of his country had fallen under the hands of 
the Southern States. He had to make a big, tough decision. That 
decision was whether he was going to accede to that, was he going to 
allow the United States to be divided. He decided no, and he rallied 
the American people.
  In the course of it, as I told Senator Biden, at one point when we 
discussed it, he had the occasion to have my grandfather killed at 
Antietam, who fought for the South at that time. But that was a tough 
war. It was a tough decision. But in the long run, this country is 
better because we are unified today.
  I do not believe we can achieve any lasting ability to reduce drugs 
being imported into this country from Colombia if Colombia cannot 
control its territory. How is it possible we can expect we will make 
any progress at all if Colombia cannot control nearly 50 percent of its 
territory? It boggles the mind.
  I have been a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. Prosecuting drug cases 
was a big part of my work starting in the mid-1970s, through the 1980s 
and through the early 1990s. At one point, I chaired the committee in 
the Department of Justice on narcotics. I had briefings from everybody. 
During the time I was working on this issue, we believed and worked 
extraordinarily hard to achieve the end of drugs in America by stopping 
drug production in South America. Colombia, for well over 20 years, has 
been the primary source of cocaine for this country. They remain so. In 
fact, cocaine production in Colombia has exploded. It has more than 
doubled in the last 3 years. It is a dramatic increase. That is a 
concern of ours.
  I believe we can, I believe Colombia can, make some progress in 
reducing that supply. My best judgment tells me that after years of 
experience and observation, this Nation is not going to solve its drug 
problem by getting other countries in South America to reduce their 
production. In fact, an ounce of cocaine sells in the United States for 
maybe $150. The cost of the coca leaf utilized to make that $150 
product is about 30 cents. Farmers in South America are making a lot of 
money producing coca at 30 cents for those leaves. They could pay them 
$2, $3, $4, 10 times what they are paying now for coca leaf, and these 
farmers would yield to the temptation and produce coca.
  I do not believe this market of illegal cocaine is going to be 
eliminated from our country by efforts to shut off production in South 
America. The reason countries need to shut off the production of 
cocaine--and Bolivia and Peru have made progress in that regard--is to 
preserve the integrity of their own country. They do not want to allow 
illegal Mafia-type drug cartels to gain wealth and power to destabilize 
their countries in democracy and turn it into chaos and violence as has 
so often occurred. They have a sincere interest in achieving that goal, 
but that interest has to be understood to be primarily their own 
interest.
  This administration refuses to talk about the real situation in 
Colombia. It refuses to be honest with the American people. Their 
foreign policy request was $1.6 billion. That has been approved in the 
House. This bill wisely reduces that, I believe, to a little less than 
$1 billion. They are requesting this much money to make a government 
that our Nation, the President, and the Secretary of State will not 
assert to be a country we support in their efforts against these 
guerrilla groups. I believe that is wrong. I think we need to be more 
clear eyed, more honest about our foreign policy. I believe that would 
be the healthy approach. It will help the American people to understand 
exactly what their money is being spent for. It will help them to 
understand what our goals are in the region. It will help them to 
understand whether or not we are achieving those goals.
  If we do so correctly, we could utilize this money to inspire 
President Pastrana and the people of Colombia to rise up, take back 
their country, to preserve their democracy, take back their territory 
from those who don't believe in democratic elections, who kidnap, kill, 
protect drug dealers, who rob and steal. That is what is going on.
  We can do something about it. We have an opportunity to utilize the 
wealth of this country to encourage that kind of end result. If we do 
so, it would be a magnificent thing for the country. To say we will 
spend $1 or $2 billion in Colombia, give it to a country we don't even 
support in their efforts to take back their territory, is typical of 
the kind of disingenuousness that has characterized this 
administration's foreign policy. It is not healthy. It should not be 
done.
  Therefore, I have offered a simple amendment that will say one thing: 
Mr. President, you can spend this money, but you have to publicly state 
and assert and certify to this Congress that you support the duly 
elected Government of Colombia in their efforts against the Marxist, 
drug dealing insurgents who are bent on destroying the nation.
  This is more important than many know. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky for allowing me to have this time, and more than 
that, for his leadership on a foreign operations bill that protects the 
interests of the United States. It is frugal, as frugal can be in this 
day and age. He has done his best to contain excessive spending and has 
improved and reduced this spending bill. I appreciate his leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Alabama. We look forward to 
dealing with his amendment tomorrow.
  In that regard, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, has an 
amendment related to cooperation with Cuba on drug interdiction that he 
would like to have considered after the Sessions amendment is disposed 
of tomorrow. That has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Specter amendment be 
taken up after the disposition of the Sessions amendment on tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
Sessions amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment for 
consideration at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3493

              (Purpose: To make available funds for India)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 11432]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3493.

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

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

     SEC. __. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR INDIA.

       Funds appropriated by this Act (other than funds 
     appropriated under the heading ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'') may be made available for assistance for India 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law: Provided, That, 
     for the purpose of this section, the term ``assistance'' 
     includes any direct loan, credit, insurance, or guarantee of 
     the Export-Import Bank of the United States or its agents: 
     Provided further, That, during fiscal year 2001, section 
     102(b)(2)(E) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2799aa-1(b)(2)(E)) may not apply to India.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to spend some time discussing 
what this amendment is about. I think at the outset, the best way to 
capture it is to compare it to what is taking place in the news today. 
This is an amendment about lifting economic sanctions on India. The 
administration has the authority--we provided it last year and the year 
before--for them to lift the economic sanctions this country has 
against India. Those sanctions were automatically put in place after 
India tested nuclear weapons. We have been providing them the authority 
and flexibility to be able to deal with India broadly. The 
administration was provided that waiver authority last year and it has 
chosen not to use it. So currently this country, the United States of 
America, has economic sanctions against India, another democracy in the 
world.
  In today's newspaper, the administration is stating they will lift 
economic sanctions against North Korea. This is the country that has 
the most weapons proliferation taking place anywhere in the world, 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is a country on the 
terrorist list. It is on the big 7 terrorist list of state sponsors of 
terrorism. This is the country that has a number of different 
violations, a country where we have been at war.
  There have been some different things taking place in North Korea. I 
am not saying I am opposed to the administration doing this. I am just 
saying it is quite odd, and very striking, that at the time the 
administration is proposing to lift economic sanctions, they continue 
to insist on economic sanctions against India, the second most populous 
nation in the world, soon to be the most populous nation in the world; 
a nation we trade with, a nation that is a democracy, a nation that has 
a free press, a nation that I think, in the future, stands to be a very 
strong strategic critical ally of the United States. That is India. 
They will be a partner of ours, working to hold stability in south 
Asia. Not that they don't have problems, not that we don't have issues 
associated with that, but this is a democracy with a free press, with 
capital markets, that has a number of similar aspirations to those of 
the United States. At the same time we are lifting economic sanctions 
against North Korea, this administration is going to leave them on 
India.
  My amendment is simple. It would suspend economic sanctions against 
India--suspend them. While we provided the administration with the 
waiver authority so they could do it, they have chosen not to. By this 
amendment, we, the Congress, would be lifting these economic sanctions 
against India.
  I want to say as well what this amendment does not do. My amendment 
does not suspend any military or dual-use technology assistance to 
India. The President has national security waiver authority for 
military-related sanctions, but we are not dealing with military-
related sanctions. He has authority to waive the prohibition on sales 
of defense articles, but we are not doing that here. We are not dealing 
with defense services, foreign military financing, or dual-use 
technologies.
  If the administration really wants to get to the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty with India and say we want to force you to sign the CTBT, 
wouldn't it be better to use the military set of sanctions rather than 
economic sanctions that the administration is currently using? Plus, if 
you think about this for a moment, is it likely we are going to force 
India, by economic sanctions, to sign CTBT? They are a democracy. How 
will their people react if their leaders are seen as capitulating to 
U.S. economic pressure to sign something their leaders are saying they 
needed to do? Is that a way we are actually going to be able to force 
India to do this? I think not.
  Plus, this is a much bigger country with much broader issues than 
simply the U.S. issue of CTBT. We have a broad array of issues with 
India. We need to grow this relationship rapidly. To hold the entire 
relationship hostage to one issue is bad foreign policy on our part. It 
is hurting us. I think it will hurt India and hurt our ability to shape 
things in that part of the world.
  I was hopeful that during the President's recent trip to India, he 
would use that chance to remove the economic sanctions on India. He was 
there for a number of days and had the opportunity to do that. It would 
help set up the atmosphere for a more aggressive, broad-based 
relationship with India. This was a way to leapfrog this relationship 
forward. This trip did improve relations with India, but he could have 
done so much more that he failed to do. A number of us were terribly 
disappointed that he did not make more use of the broad waiver 
authority he now has. He used it very sparingly. This was waiver 
authority that I fought last year to give him.
  There should be no more economic sanctions on India, period. The 
United States should not do that. Yet the Clinton-Gore administration 
continues to hold up international financial institution loans which 
are destined for infrastructure projects which would help sustain the 
economic activities in rural areas where the bulk of India's poor 
population lives. More than a third of India's population lives in 
poverty today. U.S. opposition to development loans to India impedes 
the growth of vital infrastructure, employment, and living standards in 
the poorest parts of India. That is not the way to improve U.S.-India 
relations. These loans are being held up by the administration until 
India signs the CTBT.
  The President of the United States has more appropriate carrots, as I 
mentioned at the outset, particularly in the noneconomic area, and 
particularly those associated with military functions, which could be 
used rather than these sanctions which hit the poorest people in India. 
Nuclear proliferation is a vitally important issue, but it should not 
be the only issue on which we deal with a country such as India, the 
largest democracy in the world.
  This is all the more outrageous in view of the news I mentioned about 
lifting the economic sanctions on North Korea, a country which is run 
by one of the world's most notorious dictators, a country on the state 
sponsorship of terrorism list, as I mentioned, a country developing 
nuclear weapons and which is a direct threat to the United States and 
our east Asian allies.
  Think about this for a moment. We are considering right now putting 
up a missile defense system, putting it in Alaska, and part of the 
reason is because of what we are fearing from North Korea. Yet we are 
going to lift economic sanctions there, but we are not going to do it 
against India? The contrast here is outrageous.
  There are even recent newspapers reports out that I want to submit 
for the Record about the development of nuclear material. This was in a 
newspaper in Japan, about North Korea's secret underground facility 
producing uranium for use in its weapons programs. These are weapons 
programs. They are the largest proliferator around the world.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 11433]]



             [From the Tokyo Sankei Shimbun, June 9, 2000]

   Sankei Shimbun: DPRK Secret Underground Facility Producing Uranium

                         (By Katsuhior Kuroda)

       Seoul, 8 June.--North Korea has reportedly utilized natural 
     uranium produced in the country as raw material for its 
     nuclear weapons development program. Meanwhile, Sankei 
     Shimbun has obtained a detailed report on North Korea's 
     secret underground plant for refining natural uranium and its 
     material production procedures. The secret underground plant 
     is widely called ``Mt. Chonma Power Plant,'' located at Mt. 
     Chonma in North Phyongan Province. North Korea has operated 
     the plant in secret since the end of 1989 for uranium 
     production for the nuclear weapons program, the report said.


   ex-military official who fled to china unveils existence of plant

       The report was drawn up based on statements made by North 
     Korean military official Yi Chun-song [name as 
     transliterated], 66, during interrogation by Chinese 
     authorities. Yi is former vice director of the operation 
     bureau of North Korean Ministry of People's Armed Forces who 
     served as commander in chief at a missile station. He fled 
     from North Korea to China last year and was held in Chinese 
     authorities' custody.
       The report said that the ``Mt. Chonma facility'' has a 
     uranium refining capacity of 1.3 grams a day. By simple 
     calculation, the production during the past 10 years of 
     operation would amount to approximately 5 kg. Concerning 
     North Korea's uranium production plants, there are some 
     unconfirmed information including plants in Pakchon and 
     Pyonsan, but this is the first time that an accurate location 
     and details of the inside of the facility were unveiled.
       According to the report, the ``Mt. Chonma facility'' is 
     built in a large tunnel under the 1,116-meter mountain. 
     Soldiers of the 2d Division of the Engineering Bureau of the 
     Ministry of People's Armed Forces started constructing the 
     facility in 1984 and completed the work in 1986. The uranium-
     producing operations started in 1989.
       Approximately 400 people, including 35 engineers and 100 
     managers, are working at the plant. The rest are physical 
     laborers who were all political prisoners sentenced to life 
     in prison. The uranium minerals are brought into the facility 
     from mines in Songchon, South Phyongan Province, and Sohung, 
     North Hwanghae Province, by the transportation unit of the 
     Ministry of People's Armed Forces.
       The report said that the arched entrance of the tunnel is 7 
     meters wide and 6 meters high. A pathway of about 2.5 km is 
     connected to the entrance, and there is a corner at the end 
     of the pathway. Making a 90-degree right turn and going along 
     the path about 1 km, you will find a 6-km-long main tunnel 
     with a width of 15 meters and height of 6 meters. The inside 
     surface of the tunnels is covered by aluminum plates, and 
     there are 3-meter-wide drains and ventilation openings there.
       The underground plant is comprised of 10 areas--two 
     concentration grounds measuring 3,000 square meters each, a 
     drying room of 400 square meters, four 400 square-meter-wide 
     dissolution rooms for uranium extraction and refining, a room 
     for packing uranium into containers, storage for the finished 
     products, and a room where the workers change into anti-
     radiation suit or take breaks.
       The report said there is a waste disposal facility in the 
     plant in addition to the areas mentioned above. The packed 
     uranium products are carried out of the facility through a 
     passage at the end of the tunnel and transported to an 
     underground storage area in Anju by helicopter. The report 
     added that although forests in the Kumchangri area, 30 km 
     southeast of Chonma, were polluted by water discharged from 
     the Chonma facility, the United States could not detect the 
     Chonma plant despite the technical team's inspections in 
     Kumchangri.
       According to Yi's career record attached to the report, Yi 
     graduated from P'yongyang University of Technology, and 
     studied at Frunze (now Bishkek) military university of the 
     former USSR from 1958 to 1962. A South Korean source said 
     that Yi attempted to defect to a third country after fleeing 
     to China, but it is highly likely that he was sent back to 
     North Korea by Chinese authorities.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. The U.S. has real, legitimate political and economic 
security interests with India. We need to engage India on all levels as 
soon as possible. In fact, seizing the opportunity we have to build 
greater ties should be one of our main foreign policy goals. That is 
one that is not taking place. We are, after all, the two most populous 
democratic nations in the world. Our relationship should be based on 
shared values and institutions, economic collaboration including 
enhanced trade and investment, and the goal of regional stability 
across Asia.
  I ask the President and other Members to take into consideration how 
we treat India versus China as well. In China, we are on a very 
aggressive relationship economically. We will be considering later in 
this body normalizing permanent trade relations with China. We are 
saying we need to be engaged with them on a number of different issues. 
With India we then say no, we are going to put economic sanctions 
against you, whereas with China we are trying to open up. And China is 
the one that has missiles pointed this way, that threatens Taiwan, that 
has weapons proliferation. Religious persecution itself takes place on 
that continent. I myself have visited with Buddhists who have fled out 
of Tibet into Katmandu, a number of them walking over the Himalayas in 
the wintertime to get to freedom. Yet look at how we treat China. We 
are going to do everything favorable for China, but for India we are 
going to put on economic sanctions. The contrast is stark.
  Again, as a major foreign policy objective, we should be looking to 
India over the next several years to build up this strategic 
relationship in some respects as an offset to China and what China is 
doing in South Asia and what China is aspiring to around the world.
  I do not think anybody is sanguine about where China is heading 
today. We are going to need partners, and India is a key one for us to 
look at. It is tough for us to convince them of that if we are going to 
leave economic sanctions on them. One of the ways to reduce our 
dependency on China economically is to lift economic sanctions on India 
and try to build up that relationship even more.
  These are the key reasons that I put forward this amendment. The 
differences are so stark as to how we treat China and North Korea 
versus India. Ask yourself why. I fail to see the reasons for this 
policy of seeking to reward China, a country that has openly and 
continually challenged United States interests and values, while at the 
same time ignoring and punishing India.
  As the example of North Korea which I mentioned earlier, the inequity 
of this situation is striking. Why reward a country that is 
aggressively working against everything for which we stand and, at the 
same time, punish and blackmail a country with which we share basic 
values and interests?
  We should be engaging India as the strategic partner it can become. 
To do so, we should not be maintaining economic sanctions which serve 
only to impede the development of this relationship. Maintaining 
economic sanctions on India which affect the poorest parts of the 
country is not the way to go about this.
  The Prime Minister of India, I understand, will be in Washington this 
fall. I believe it is incumbent upon us to lift these sanctions, and if 
the administration will not do it, which they have shown to date they 
will not, then we should.


                      Amendment No. 3493 Withdrawn

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand there is a rule XVI 
problem with the amendment I have put forward. While I would dearly 
want to have a vote on the amendment on this bill, I understand it will 
be a problem.
  Therefore, reluctantly and regrettably, because I do think this body 
should take up this issue, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for his 
remarks, to which I listened carefully. He made a number of very 
important points.

                          ____________________