[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
IS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? YOU BE THE JUDGE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is
like the weather--everybody talks about the weather but nobody does
anything about it. And congress talks a good game about bringing
Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control, but there are too
many Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who
unfailingly find all sorts of excuses for voting to defeat proposals
for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget.
As of Wednesday, July 13, at the close of business, the Federal debt
stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,624,337,130,856.67. This debt,
mind you, was run up by the Congress of the United States; the big-
spending bureaucrats in the executive branch of the U.S. Government
cannot spend a dime that has not first been authorized and appropriated
by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution is quite specific about
that, as every schoolboy is supposed to know.
And disregard the nonsense from politicians to the effect that the
Federal debt was run up by one President or another, depending on party
affiliation. Sometimes they say Ronald Reagan ran it up; sometimes they
say George Bush. I even heard that Jimmy Carter helped run it up. All
three suggestions are wrong. They are false because the Congress of the
United States is the villain.
Most people cannot conceive of a billion of anything, let alone a
trillion. It may provide a bit of perspective to bear in mind that a
billion seconds ago, Mr. President, the Cuban Missile Crisis was going
on. A billion minutes ago, not many years had elapsed since Christ was
crucified.
That sort of puts it in perspective, does it not, that Congress has
run up a Federal debt of 4,624 of those billions--of dollars. In other
words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stands at 4 trillion, 624
billion, 337 million, 130 thousand, 856 dollars and 67 cents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to yield
10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, with the
floor then reverting to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont.
Mr. President, I had come to the floor at 10 o'clock in hopes that I
might be able to offer an amendment which I have pending on the foreign
operations bill, which has been accepted by the managers, and in the
absence of formally starting on the bill or absence of one of the
managers. I thank my colleague from Vermont for the time to speak on
the amendment, perhaps there will be a procedural posture to be
accepted before the 10 minutes have expired.
This amendment, Mr. President, would condition appropriations from
the United States to the PLO on their strict compliance with their
commitments in the Israel PLO peace accords.
We have found that since the historic events of September 13 of last
year when President Clinton brought together the Prime Minister of
Israel Yitzhak Rabin, and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, the progress has
proceeded and the agreement entered into. But there have been many
violations of the agreement by acts of terrorism by the PLO.
Speaking very candidly, Mr. President, it was a difficult moment for
me personally to be at the White House last September 13, to see Yasser
Arafat and the PLO honored in the Nation's capital in light of what
they have done in the past. The record is plain that the murder of the
U.S. Charge, the second in command in the Sudan in 1974, directly
implicated Yasser Arafat as well as the PLO; the murder of Mr.
Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro involved the PLO and Arafat, as have
many, many other acts of treachery and terrorism. So it was a difficult
moment to see Arafat honored at the White House.
But when the State of Israel, which had been the principle victim of
PLO terrorism, agreed to that arrangement it seemed to me that the
United States ought to be supportive, and I compliment President
Clinton for what he has done in that historic setting. But since the
accords have been entered into there have been repeated acts of PLO
terrorism. They have been documented, and a good bit of the
documentation has come from the Zionist Organization of America and the
initiative of Mr. Morton Klein and Mrs. Sandy Stein.
It is vital that if the United States is to advance the substantial
funding which we have appropriated, that there be compliance. This
amendment which has been cosponsored by Senator Shelby, Senator
D'Amato, Senator Craig, and Senator Graham, would remove the authority
of the President to advance the funds on certification of national
security. That is, the President would not have the power to excuse
what the PLO has done and allow the funds to be advanced without full
compliance.
The second provision would recite the expectation of the Congress
that the PLO will remove all of the provisions in its national covenant
which state its intention to eliminate Israel.
In an original form, we had thought and drafted and proposed that the
charter of the PLO be amended in advance of any moneys being given by
the United States to the PLO. On reconsideration, we have noted that
after this amendment was announced, there have been statements from the
PLO that they do intend to amend their charter. So that in order to
avoid a controversy and to proceed at this time with a clear-cut
statement of congressional intent, this amendment just goes so far as
to say that it is our expectation that the covenants of the PLO charter
will be amended.
If that is not done, let there be no mistake that we will be back on
the next foreign aid bill with the mandatory requirement that the PLO
covenant be amended if any funds are to be advanced.
There are a number of provisions of the PLO covenant which bear on
this question.
For example, article 15 of the Palestinian National Covenant from
1968 recites:
The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a
national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion
from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist
presence from Palestine.
Obviously, that is a direct variance with the Israeli-Arab peace
accord and that ought to be stricken.
Article 19 provides, in part:
The partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment
of Israel is fundamentally null and void.
That, obviously, must be stricken.
Article 20 contains the provision:
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate Document, and what has
been based upon them are considered null and void. The claim
of a historical or spiritual tie between Jews and Palestine
does not tally with the historical realities nor the
constituents of statehood in their true sense.
And that ought to be stricken.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this
Palestinian National Covenant be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks, along with an article from the New York Times
on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[See exhibit 1.]
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there has been established in both the
Senate and the House of Representatives monitoring groups. In the
Senate, we have a group of some 15 Senators, virtually equally divided
among Democrats and Republicans. It is our intent to keep a very close
eye on what occurs with respect to PLO compliance with their
commitments. If the terrorism is not absolutely ended, then there is no
reason whatsoever for the United States to be advancing funds to the
PLO. That is a very, very reasonable request.
Exhibit 1
The Palestinian National Covenant, 1968
This Covenant will be called ``The Palestinian National
Covenant'' (Al-Mihaq Al-Watani Al-Filastini).
article 1
Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people
and an integral part of the great Arab homeland, and the
people of Palestine is a part of the Arab Nation.
article 2
Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of
the British Mandate is an integral regional unit.
article 3
The Palestinian Arab people possesses the legal right to
its homeland, and when the liberation of its homeland is
completed it will exercise self-determination solely
according to its own will and choice.
article 4
The Palestinian personality is an innate, persistent
characteristic that does not disappear, and it is transferred
from fathers to sons. The Zionist occupation, and the
dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people as result of the
disasters which came over it, do not deprive it of its
Palestinian personality and affiliation and do not nullify
them.
article 5
The Palestinians are the Arab citizens who were living
permanently in Palestine until 1947, whether they were
expelled from there or remained. Whoever is born to a
Palestinian Arab father after this date, within Palestine or
outside it, is a Palestinian.
article 6
Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the
beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered
Palestinians.
article 7
The Palestinian affiliation and the material, spiritual and
historical tie with Palestine are permanent realities. The
upbringing of the Palestinian individual in an Arab and
revolutionary fashion, the undertaking of all means of
forging consciousness and training the Palestinian, in order
to acquaint him profoundly with his homeland, spiritually and
materially, and preparing him for the conflict and the armed
struggle, as well as for the sacrifice of his property and
his life to restore his homeland, until the liberation--all
this is a national duty.
article 8
The phase in which the people of Palestine is living is
that of the national (Watani) struggle for the liberation of
Palestine. Therefore, the contradictions among the
Palestinian national forces are of a secondary order which
must be suspended in the interest of the fundamental
contradiction between Zionism and colonialism on the one side
and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis,
the Palestinian masses, whether in the homeland or in places
of exile (Mahajir), organizations and individuals, comprise
one national front which acts to restore Palestine and
liberate it through armed struggle.
article 9
Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine and is
therefore a strategy and not tactics. The Palestinian Arab
people affirms its absolute resolution and abiding
determination to pursue the armed struggle and to march
forward toward the armed popular revolution, to liberate its
homeland and return to it, [to maintain] its right to a
natural life in it, and to exercise its right of self-
determination in it and sovereignty over it.
article 10
Fedayeen action forms the nucleus of the popular
Palestinian war of liberation. This demands its promotion,
extension and protection, and the mobilization of all the
mass and scientific capacities of the Palestinians, their
organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian
revolution, and cohesion in the national (Watani) struggle
among the various groups of the people of Palestine, and
between them and the Arab masses, to guarantee the
continuation of the revolution, its advancement and victory.
article 11
The Palestinians will have three mottoes: National
(Wataniyya) unity, national (Qawmiyya) mobilization and
liberation.
article 12
The Palestinian Arab people believes in Arab unity. In
order to fulfill its role in realizing this, it must
preserve, in this phase of its national (Watani) struggle,
its Palestinian personality and the constituents thereof
increase consciousness of its existence and resist any plan
that tends to disintegrate or weaken it.
article 13
Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two
complementary aims. Each one paves the way for realization of
the other. Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine,
and the liberation leads to Arab unity. Working for both goes
hand in hand.
article 14
The destiny of the Arab nation, indeed the very Arab
existence, depends upon the destiny of the Palestine issue.
The endeavor and effort of the Arab nation to liberate
Palestine follows from this connection. The people of
Palestine assumes its vanguard role in realizing this sacred
national (Qawmi) aim.
article 15
The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a
national (Qawmi) duty to repulse the Zionist, imperialist
invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the
Zionist presence from Palestine. Its full responsibilities
fall upon the Arab nation, peoples and governments, with the
Palestinian Arab people at their head.
For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its
military, human, material and spiritual capabilities to
participate actively with the people of Palestine. They must,
especially in the present stage of armed Palestinian
revolution, grant and offer the people of Palestine all
possible help and every material and human support, and
afford it every sure means and opportunity enabling it to
continue to assume its vanguard role in pursuing its armed
revolution until the liberation of its homeland.
article 16
The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual viewpoint,
will prepare an atmosphere of tranquility and peace for the
Holy Land, in the shade of which all the holy places will be
safeguarded, and freedom of worship and visitation to all
will be guaranteed, without distinction or discrimination of
race, color, language or religion. For this reason, the
people of Palestine looks to the support of all the spiritual
forces in the world.
article 17
The liberation of Palestine, from a human viewpoint, will
restore to the Palestinian man this dignity, glory and
freedom. For this, the Palestinian Arab people looks to the
support of those in the world who believes in the dignity and
freedom of man.
article 18
The liberation of Palestine, from an international
viewpoint, is a defensive act necessitated by the
requirements of self-defense. For this reason, the people of
Palestine, desiring to befriend all peoples, looks to the
support of the states which love freedom, justice and peace
in restoring the legal situation to Palestine, establishing
security and peace in its territory, and enabling its people
to exercise national (Wataniyya) sovereignty and national
(Qawmiyya) freedom.
article 19
The partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment
of Israel is fundamentally null and void, whatever time has
elapsed, because it was contrary to the wish of the people of
Palestine and its natural right to its homeland, and
contradicts the principles embodied in the Charter of the
United Nations, the first of which is the right of self-
determination.
article 20
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate Document, and what has
been based upon them are considered null and void. The claim
of a historical or spiritual tie between Jews and Palestine
does not tally with historical realities nor with
the constituents of statehood in their true sense)
Judaism, in its character as a religion of revelation, is
not a nationality with an independent existence. Likewise,
the Jews are not one people with an independent
personality. They are rather citizens of the states to
which they belong.
article 21
The Palestinian Arab people, in expressing itself through
the armed Palestinian revolution, rejects every solution that
is a substitute for a complete liberation of Palestine, and
rejects all plans that aim at the settlement of the Palestine
issue or its internationalization.
article 22
Zionism is a political movement organically related to
world imperialism and hostile to all movements of liberation
and progress in the world. It is a racist and fanatical
movement in its formation; aggressive, expansionist and
colonialist in its aims; and Fascist and Nazi in its means.
Israel is the tool of the Zionist movement and a human and
geographical base for world imperialism. It is a
concentration and jumping-off point for imperialism in the
heart of the Arab homeland, to strike at the hopes of the
Arab nation for liberation, unity and progress.
Israel is a constant threat to peace in the Middle East and
the entire world. Since the liberation of Palestine will
liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring
about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East, the
people of Palestine looks to the support of all liberal men
of the world and all the forces of good progress and peace;
and implores all of them, regardless of their different
leanings and orientations, to offer all help and support to
the people of Palestine in its just and legal struggle to
liberate its homeland.
article 23
The demands of security and peace and the requirements of
truth and justice oblige all states that preserve friendly
relations among peoples and maintain the loyalty of citizens
to their homelands to consider Zionism an illegitimate
movement and to prohibit its existence and activity.
article 24
The Palestinian Arab people believes in the principles of
justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human
dignity and the right of peoples to exercise them.
article 25
To realize the aims of this Covenant and its principles the
Palestine Liberation Organization will undertake its full
role in liberating Palestine.
article 26
The Palestine Liberation Organization, which represents the
forces of the Palestinian revolution, is responsible for the
movement of the Palestinian Arab people in its struggle to
restore its homeland, liberate it, return to it and exercise
the right of self-determination in it. This responsibility
extends to all military, political and financial matters, and
all else that the Palestine issue requires in the Arab and
international spheres.
ARTICLE 27
The Palestine Liberation Organization will cooperate with
all Arab states, each according to its capacities, and will
maintain neutrality in their mutual relations in the light
of, and on the basis of, the requirements of the battle of
liberation, and will not interfere in the internal affairs of
any Arab state.
ARTICLE 28
The Palestinian Arab people insists upon the originality
and independence of its national (Wataniyya) revolution and
rejects every manner of interference, guardianship and
subordination.
ARTICLE 29
The Palestinian Arab people possesses the prior and
original right in liberating and restoring its homeland and
will define its position with reference to all states and
powers on the basis of their positions with reference to the
issue [of Palestine] and the extent of their support for [the
Palestinian Arab people] in its revolution to realize its
aims.
ARTICLE 30
The fighters and bearers of arms in the battle of
liberation are the nucleus of the Popular Army, which will be
the protecting arm of the Palestinian Arab people.
ARTICLE 31
This organization shall have a flag, oath and anthem, all
of which will be determined in accordance with a special
system.
ARTICLE 32
To this Covenant is attached a law known as the Fundamental
Law of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in which is
determined the manner of the organization's formation, its
committees, institutions, the special functions of every one
of them and all the requisite duties associated with them in
accordance with the Covenant.
ARTICLE 33
This Covenant cannot be amended except by a two-thirds
majority of all the members of the National Council of the
Palestine Liberation Organization in a special session called
for this purpose.
____
[From The New York Times, July 8, 1994]
Arafat Promising To Repeal Call for Israel's Destruction
(By Marlise Simons)
Paris, July 7.--Yasir Arafat pledged today to convene the
Palestinian parliament-in-exile to eliminate sections of the
Palestinian charter that call for the destruction of Israel.
Mr. Arafat said in a communique issued here that the
meeting would be held ``in the very near future'' in Gaza,
lending weight to the predictions that Gaza will be his base.
He told reporters that the meeting of the Palestine
National Council, as the parliament is known, would take
place ``in a matter of months.''
His pledge addressed a fundamental point that many Israelis
have been doubting, namely that the Palestine Liberation
Organization intends to repeal its call for the destruction
of Israel, as promised last September in a letter from Mr.
Arafat, the chairman of the P.L.O., to Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin if Israel.
Mr. Arafat's failure to carry out that promise until now
has become a weapon of the Israeli rightist opposition. It
has argued that the P.L.O. has no intention of changing its
constitution and that the Israeli Government is foolish at
best and treasonous at worst to make accords with an
organization that will not make good on such a basic
commitment.
new meetings on monday
Mr. Arafat and Mr. Rabin, who met in Paris, also agreed to
begin a new and critical phase of the Middle East peace
effort, with the first meetings starting in Cairo on Monday.
Joint working groups are to discuss unfinished business
related to the transfer of power to Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip and Jericho, a town in the West Bank, and how to go
about expanding Palestinian administration in towns in other
parts of the West Bank.
The two sides also said they would organize a conference
with Egypt and Jordan on the future of Palestinian refugees.
The P.L.O. has demanded the right to return for some 800,000
people, while Israel has said that up to 250,000 would be
affected by an agreement on people displaced since the 1967
war.
Israeli and Palestinian leaders met twice during their 24-
hour visit to Paris, to which they came to receive a Unesco
peace price. After their first meeting on Wednesday morning,
they reconvened again just before midnight and broke up at
almost 2 a.m. today.
An Achievement
``This is a new commitment to negotiate and a plan how to
do it,'' said a senior Israeli official. ``We all see this as
an achievement. The mood was very cooperative and
businesslike.''
Mr. Arafat, before leaving for Tunis this afternoon,
described the talks as ``very positive.''
Among the difficult points, a Palestinian delegate said,
was his delegation's demand to include in the communique a
reference to the organization of the first Palestinian
elections. Israel refused, he said.
The delegate said that on elections, the two sides had in
fact reversed positions: at first, Israel pressed for early
elections, but now, the Palestinians were more eager to see
the endorsement of Mr. Arafat and the P.L.O. as the
legitimate authority. According to an Israeli official, the
Government is not pressing for early elections because these
will raise difficult questions about power and jurisdiction.
While the September peace accord establishes the right of the
Palestinian residents of Jerusalem to vote, the P.L.O. also
wants such residents to be eligible for office.
not acceptable to israel
But in Israel's eyes, this is unacceptable. Enabling such
residents to run for Palestinian office, so the Israeli
argument goes, would mean inserting Jerusalem into the
process of self-rule and recognizing part of Jerusalem as
occupied territory.
Today's communique also said talks would be held on the
release of more Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.
Palestinian officials here said that the freeing of more than
6,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails was indispensable.
The Israeli delegation said it would seriously consider the
request to release imprisoned women.
Mr. Arafat also asked for the release of Sheik Ahmed
Yassin, the founder of the militant Islamic movement Hamas.
Today, Mr. Rabin said for the first time that he would
consider the request to free Mr. Yassin, 58 years old, if he
would leave the region for 10 years and tell others to
refrain from terror and violence. The Hamas leader is serving
a life sentence for ordering the murder of four alleged
Palestinian informants.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just 2 seconds over 3 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 2245
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my remaining time, I support the
amendment by Senator Dole which would establish a congressional
commission for the purpose of assessing the humanitarian, political,
and diplomatic conditions in Haiti and reporting to the Congress on the
appropriate policy options available to the United States with respect
to Haiti, which report should be filed within 45 days of enactment.
Many Senators, including this Senator, have expressed concern on the
floor about the potential of an invasion of Haiti by the United States.
There has been a sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed saying that we
do not believe there ought to be an invasion of Haiti.
There is no doubt that a military invasion would not be a very
complicated matter and it is a war which could be won perhaps in a
matter of hours. But what would happen after the military victory is
very, very problematical and very uncertain.
The amendment by the distinguished Republican leader would establish
the congressional commission to investigate the policy options. It is
my view that the Organization of American States ought to have a large
role in assessing what should be done in Haiti, and that if military
action is to be undertaken, it ought to be joint action by the
Organization of American States.
The saber rattling which the President has engaged in in Haiti, as
well as in Bosnia, has undermined very materially the credibility of
the United States, and it is at a very important time when we face a
real crisis in North Korea where there are vital U.S. interests at
stake.
With the sense of the Senate having been expressed against an
invasion of Haiti, the establishment of this commission would again put
the President squarely on notice--no invasion of Haiti. And the 45-day
time limit would permit a report back with an assessment of policy
options by the Congress.
If President Clinton wants to have the military option, then he ought
to come to the Congress and ask for our authorization just as it was
done on the authorization for the use of force in Iraq. The
Constitution of the United States gives to only the Congress the
authority to declare war. And while the President does have
prerogatives under his power as Commander in Chief to act in an
emergency and in the context of the Haiti situation, if he wants to
exercise the option or have the option for military force, he ought to
come to the Congress, there ought to be a full-fledged debate, and that
authorization ought to be given only by the Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is
recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, unlike the Senator from Pennsylvania, I
take an entirely different view on the Dole amendment establishing a
commission on Haiti policy.
Incidentally, I should note on the amendment of the Senator from
Pennsylvania regarding the PLO, I am perfectly willing to accept that.
Once the Republican floor manager is on the floor, I will, if I am not
too close to the time of the next vote, propound a unanimous consent
agreement that we be able to set aside the pending amendment
temporarily so that we can adopt the amendment of the Senator from
Pennsylvania. And I will do that as soon as the Republican floor
manager or his designee is on the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for
accepting the amendment. It is my understanding that it has been
cleared with Senator McConnell.
I ask, at the time it be accepted, that my formal floor statement,
Senator Shelby's formal floor statement, and the remarks I just made
appear in context in the Congressional Record continuously with the
events which Senator Leahy has described.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You are asking that that be included in the
Record now?
Mr. SPECTER. I ask it be included at the point in the Record where
Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me talk about the Dole amendment on
Haiti.
This is an amendment, as we know, to establish a congressional
commission on Haiti policy.
This assumes that the relevant committees, key Members of the House
and Senate in both parties, are not now discussing Haiti policy. The
fact is that we are. The various chairmen of the appropriate
committees, the ranking members as well as other key and knowledgeable
Members of Congress--again, from both parties--have had lengthy
discussion of Haiti policy. There is absolutely no need for a
commission at this time. In fact, it would do direct harm to U.S.
national interests.
All one has to do is look at the calendar. This calls for a
commission, once having been set up, to report back in 45 days. It
would not go into place until after this bill is passed and signed into
law. That means passed by this body, gone through conference, then
passed by both bodies, and then signed into law. As a practical matter,
we are talking about a report back to Congress sometime after the
Congress has recessed for the fall elections.
It is no wonder that one of the biggest supporters, according to the
news today, is General Cedras of Haiti. He supports this amendment.
Frankly, I support President Clinton on this matter.
I understand the concerns being expressed. But we have on the one
side General Cedras, who thinks this is a great idea, and we have
President Clinton and the administration, who think it is a bad idea. I
side with President Clinton and the administration. It is a bad idea.
No mistake should be made. The distinguished Republican leader is
right in saying the Haiti situation is critical, just as so many other
Senators on this side, including the distinguished Democratic leader,
Senator Mitchell, are right in saying the Haiti situation is critical.
Mr. SPECTER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. LEAHY. Without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished chairman.
The question which I have turns on the authority of the Congress
contrasted with the authority of the President. We have had extensive
debate on the Senate floor about the military option. The Senator from
New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] offered an amendment several weeks ago to
limit the use of funds to foreclose the military option. That amendment
had certain exceptions where the President could act in case of an
emergency.
I have a question for my colleague from Vermont. We have debated
these issues formally and informally during the 14 years that I have
been in the Senate. We used to debate other issues when we were
district attorneys in the good old days, or in the bad old days. It
seems to me when there is a real national issue on what we ought to do
in Haiti and the President has reserved the military option and there
is no emergency, as we have had an opportunity to debate it, that we
really ought to confront the issue head on in the Congress and ought to
come to a conclusion as to whether Congress authorizes the use of
military force in Haiti? And, if so, under what circumstances?
The question I have for my colleague, Senator Leahy, is why should we
not do that instead of leaving the matter up in the air?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would respond to this. That is not,
though, the Dole-Warner amendment. This establishes a commission that
will report back sometime after the Congress has gone out of session
for the year. We could then have a debate on it, maybe in February or
March of next year. I cannot conceive, during the years of the Bush
administration or Reagan administration, any of the cosponsors of this
amendment standing for one second--for one second--for such an
amendment if it was going to tie up, literally into months and months
and months, the hands of the Republican President. That is the issue.
Should there be consultation? Should there be discussion of our Haiti
policy? I have no problem with that at all. But to put in an amendment
that basically says we are going to have a debate on this thing
sometime in January or February, and then decide what will happen--I
cannot imagine any President standing for that. We have had a number of
instances where Presidents have taken actions and had the debate after.
In what was probably one of the better debates--on the Persian Gulf--we
debated a specific resolution then and there on it. That is a different
thing than this. We did not debate a resolution which says we will
determine the answer to this question several months from now.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not want to be discourteous to my
colleagues but I know the Senator from Pennsylvania had a statement to
make earlier. The Senator from Kansas had a statement to make on this.
I would like to complete my statement.
I will be glad to yield for another question, of course I will, but
then I am going to have to make my statement and then I will be glad to
yield to all the questions they would like.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just one quick question to my friend
from Vermont. If this amendment were not crafted this way but crafted
in a way similar to the Persian Gulf--because really that is the
analogy here, where you have a long lead time. It is not an emergency,
but a long lead time where there is, in essence, a national debate
going on about whether or not we should use force in Haiti. If the
amendment were crafted in a different manner and it was simply related
to the question of Presidential consultation and ultimately approval
from the Congress, would my friend from Vermont support that?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 92 of us voted for one a couple of weeks
ago. Actually, I believe it was on this same bill. And we voted----
Mr. McCONNELL. Then I assume my friend would be unhappy if the
President were to invade Haiti when we were out of town?
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator from Kentucky wants to see the Senate
debate a freestanding resolution saying whether the Congress would
support Presidential discretion in the use of force in Haiti or would
absolutely deny any ability, under any circumstances, of the President
to utilize force in Haiti--if he wants a freestanding resolution on
that, I am perfectly willing to have that and vote on it. Or even some
of the varying degrees of that, which is basically what we did on the
Persian Gulf. I have no problem with a debate of that nature.
But we have debated this issue already on this bill 2 weeks ago. The
final resolution was to vote down the Gregg amendment, the amendment of
the Senator from New Hampshire; 92 Senators voted in favor of a Haiti
resolution. We now have a resolution and the fact of the matter is we
have a resolution that is supported by General Cedras, according to
this morning's press; opposed by President Clinton--again, according to
today's press. Frankly, while that is not dispositive of the issue, it
certainly should weigh on the minds of Senators why it is that General
Cedras, a man who is holding this country under a military
dictatorship, supports this resolution and why the Commander in Chief
of the United States opposes it. It is a fairly simple issue to me.
Incidentally, I might mention to my friend from Pennsylvania, when he
talks of our days as district attorneys, that is the last time either
one of us had a job we truly enjoyed. But we are good friends, and of
course I yield to another question.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. I
agree with much of what he has said as to the resolution by the
Republican leader. I do not know that it would come up after the
Congress is out of session, but I think its purpose is really to avoid
an invasion while Congress is out of session. I appreciate what the
distinguished Senator from Vermont has had to say, that he would
welcome debate on a freestanding resolution for the use of force in
Haiti.
Mr. LEAHY. With a realistic time, like a day or two or something like
this--but something realistic--and have one drafted in such a way we
knew the exact parameters. I think that is an appropriate thing for
Congress to do. I would have no problem with that. But we could debate
Haiti forever on this appropriations bill and the end result can be we
have no appropriations bill on issues that are entirely different.
I think this issue on Haiti is a significant enough one. If we are
going to debate it, let us debate just that without us thinking is this
an amendment that should work or should not work on this bill? Is it
going to end up making it impossible to pass this bill or not pass this
bill? All of which are issues that should not be on the question of
Haiti.
Mr. SPECTER. As usual, when the distinguished Senator from Vermont
and I discuss a matter, we usually come to a meeting of the minds. I
think we are very close on this one. I would not want to hold up this
bill on the issue of a Haiti resolution.
It would be my hope that the President would come to the Congress and
ask for authorization to use force in Haiti, just as the Congress
authorized the use of force in Iraq, so that there would be a heads-up
debate facing the issue squarely, with the Congress of the United
States deciding whether there would be force used in Haiti, which is
really the war power which is reserved solely to the Congress on our
authority to declare war.
Then we would have a determination as to whether the Congress
authorized the use of force and authorized a war and under what
conditions. I hope that if the President wants to maintain that
military option, he will come to the Congress and ask for that
authority. In the absence of his doing so--and I think this is a less
desirable alternative--for someone in the Congress to structure that
kind of a resolution and bring it to a head, but perhaps that is what
we should do if the President will not take the initiative and ask the
Congress for that authorization.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to note that naturally there have
been a number of times since both the Senator from Pennsylvania and I
have been serving in the Senate where Presidents have not done that.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of some of the briefings,
including the briefing by the administration of the Republican Policy
Committee members in the House involving the CIA, DI, and others, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Briefings and Hearings on Haiti
28 June 1994, Hearing on US Policy Towards Haiti; Gray,
Shattuck, McKinley testify before SFRC SC on Western
Hemisphere Affairs.
15 June 1994, Hearing on Haitian Asylum-seekers; Ambassador
Brunson McKinley testifies before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration, and Refugees
on legislation on Haiti introduced by Meek and Dellums.
8 June 1994, Hearing on Haiti; William Gray III; before
HFAC.
8 June 1994, Hearing on Haiti, CBI Parity, Cuba, Latin
America Summit; Senator Bob Graham: Briefer: Alexander
Watson.
1 June 1994, Briefing on Haiti Refugee Processing; HFAC
Staff with RP and INS.
25 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Intelligence Community
Briefing (closed) HPSIC Members and Staff. Briefers: CIA/NIO
Lattrel, INR, others.
24 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Pre-trip Intelligence
Community Briefing, Rep. Dixon and HPSCI staff. Briefers:
CIA, InR, DIA, DEA, NSA, JCS/J-2.
12 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Refugee Policy. House
Judiciary Subcmte on Immigration; RP & INS.
3 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti Refugee Issues: RFAC Staff
with RP, ARA, and INS.
3 May 1994, Briefing on Haiti. Senator Dodd and other SFRC
Members. Briefers: Acting Secretary Talbott and NSC Sandy
Berger.
8 March 1994, Hearing on Haiti. SFRC Subcommittee on
Western Hemisphere. Witness: Ambassador Pezzullo.
9 November 1993, Briefing on Haiti: Hafac Western
Hemisphere Members Briefing; (Amb. Pezzullo).
3 November 1993, Briefing on Haiti (closed); HPSCI Members
& Staff. Briefers: State/CIA/DIA/DOD.
27 October 1993, Briefing on Haiti-Intelligence; House
Republican Policy Committee Members. Briefers: CIA, DI.
20 October 1993, Briefing: on Recent Events in Haiti: House
Intelligence Committee; State witness TBD (Pezzullo or
Watson).
22 July 1993, Recent Developments in Haiti; HFAC W.
Hemisphere Subcommittee
18 June 1993, Haiti; Cong. Toricelli and Hfac staff.
Briefer: Amb. Pezzullo.
26 May 1993, Assistance for Haiti; Sen. Leahy. Briefers:
ARA Pezzullo & Watson.
18 May 1993, Haiti: SACFO Minority Staff. Briefers: ARA-
Pezzullo, AID.
13 May 1993, Haiti; SACFO Minority Staff. Briefers: ARA-
Pezzullo, AID.
13 May 1993, Haiti; HAC Foreign OPS Subcommittee and
Associate Staff. ATA/Pezzullo, AID, and DOD.
3 May 1993, Situation in Haiti/Request for Contingency
Fund; SACFO Majority and Minority Staff. Briefers: ARA-
Pezzullo, AID--Williams.
10 March 1993, Haiti; for HAC Foreign OPS Minority Staff w/
Majority Staff.
9 March 1993, Haiti; for HAC Foreign OPS Minority and
Majority Staff. Briefer: ARA/??.
26 January 1993, Haiti; HAC Foreign Ops Subcommittee Staff.
ARA/Gelbard.
12 January 1993, Update on Haiti; Senate Judiciary
Committee Staff Briefers: ARA/RP/INS.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when you have time to consult, I much
prefer that. In fact, there was a consultation of key Members of the
Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, last night. It was very
extensive. I think it lasted a couple of hours and involved General
Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary
of Defense, William Perry, the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,
our U.N. Ambassador, Madeleine Albright, and the President's National
Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, as well as others.
It was very, very extensive with a very candid, free exchange. I wish
we could print in the Record the transcript, but much of it was
classified. We did it in a secure room. I thought it was very open. I
thought the answers of Secretary Perry and Secretary Christopher and
Ambassador Albright and National Security Adviser Tony Lake were very
honest, very forthright, very clear, and extraordinarily candid. It was
one of the most candid briefings and consultations I have had in my 20
years here.
There have been other times when we have not had this. I think of
when we sent the marines to Beirut. Here was the policy: From the time
they were given the orders to go, to the time they were sent en route,
to the time they arrived, to the time they were put in place, the
reasons given by the administration and the White House for their being
there changed every single time. Almost daily the policy of why they
were there changed.
They were then put in a building which all our intelligence people
said was a clear target of terrorists. And on White House orders, they
were still put there. The White House, the President, the National
Security Adviser--everybody else--ignored clear, clear warnings that
there was going to be a terrorist attack on them this is in a country
where car bombings were endemic. They ignored clear, clear reports of
when that car bombing could take place and who might do it.
The marine sentries on duty under White House orders were not even
allowed to have live ammunition in the chambers of their guns. Now this
is under an administration where the President would always demonstrate
he was the toughest President ever, President Reagan. Under White House
orders, they were not even allowed to have live ammunition for the
sentries.
They were not allowed to put up the normal type of tank traps that
might stop a car bomber from coming through and, of course, what
happened is a car bomber came through and 250 brave marines died
needlessly. They died because of incompetence at the White House. They
died because we had a policy that was designed more for show than for
substance.
They were put there because nobody even knew why they were there, but
we all knew they died. And then to make it even worse, when the bodies
were brought back, it had to be after dark so it would not show on the
national news.
And what was the response of the President of the United States? We
invaded Grenada. Wow. And Grenada was such a success that if you were
in the Pentagon during the invasion, if your elevator door opened, a
hand reached in and slapped a medal on you. It was darn near that bad.
We invaded Grenada. We ignored it for several days. The Cubans were
trying to surrender: ``We want to surrender.'' ``Sorry, you can't
surrender, we have to have a successful invasion here.''
Other Americans died killed by Americans. We talked about how we are
stopping the Soviet Union and communism in Grenada. We gave the Soviet
Union enormous, enormous tactical intelligence on the United States.
They found out that our ships could not talk to each other, ships could
not talk to the Army. We had an Army commander who goes down and uses a
pay phone in Grenada to call back to the Pentagon to ask them if they
would tell the Navy to maybe shell a little bit closer to the Cubans
and less on the Americans.
We had others who died needlessly. We could not even send information
down from here to tell where they were supposed to be. Fortunately,
there were a couple tourist shops open so our intelligence people could
go in and buy a map. And this was our big victory, trying to overshadow
the death of 250 brave marines who died needlessly--who died
needlessly.
So maybe consultation and policy should be done. But maybe we ought
to talk about substance and not symbolism. The symbolism was great. We
defeated Grenada. Whoopee. Wow. The National Guard from most of our
States could have done that. We did not need the might of the greatest
power on Earth to do it. We have to ask ourselves what was the reason
for it.
I digressed.
We have a situation in Haiti that is critical. We still come down to
the point: This amendment meets the strong support of General Cedras.
It is strongly opposed by the Clinton administration. Frankly, I think
the choice is clear. All of us are distressed by the situation in
Haiti. Look what the cruel and corrupt leaders are doing there--driving
their own people to misery. This is a terrible, terrible thing going on
there. Poor, poor people, the poorest of the poor in our hemisphere,
and an oligarchy lives in great splendor, to go off and in an hour they
can travel and go into stores where they and their families will spend
more money than a whole village will make in a year. So they can buy
their jewelry and their fancy cars and liquor and everything else while
their poor country dies of economic deprivation.
We want to try to help. It is in our hemisphere. The entire
international community agonizes over how to help. The members of the
United Nations have joined together to apply stiff economic sanctions
against the outlaw regime in Haiti, and I believe the American people
strongly support these sanctions.
There is not consensus on the next steps. I do not think there is any
enthusiasm in this country--certainly there is not in my own State of
Vermont--for a military invasion of Haiti, but neither are many people
comfortable about having the United States Government sit on its hands
and watch the stream of refugees trying desperately to escape from
Haiti and find refuge in the United States and see that stream grow
steadily larger.
They do not want to stand by while innocent people are tortured,
mutilated, and killed. Look at the pictures on our morning television
today of the mass grave just discovered and you can understand why the
United Nations was kicked out yesterday, why human rights observers
were kicked out, so they will not find such things as mass graves where
people have just been massacred, and with all signs pointing to the
fact that it is the military and the police all under the command of
the same people.
We do not want to let thousands of children starve. We do not want to
see democracy thwarted by a group of corrupt, power-hungry thugs, which
is what General Cedras and his people are.
Now, are there simple solutions to this crisis? Of course not. And I
agree with the sponsors of the amendment, with Senator Dole and Senator
Warner and others that there are no simple solutions. But because there
are no simple solutions, it is all the more reason not to preemptively
tie the hands of the President in fashioning a responsible policy on
Haiti in consultation with our allies.
The administration is consulting with our allies. It is consulting
with the leadership, Republican and Democrat, in the Congress.
Public discussion of the proper role for the U.S. Government is not
only valuable, but I feel that it is essential. Debate along lines we
are having here is part of that discussion. It may not belong on this
bill, but it does belong in this Chamber. And it is a legitimate area
of debate for all of us, whether we agree with the administration's
policy or disagree. It is a legitimate area of debate for the Senate.
After all, we are supposed to be the conscience of the Nation, an issue
and designation that all too many of us tend to forget. So that is why
I, along with 92 of my fellow Senators, voted in favor of a resolution
just 2 weeks ago calling on the President to consult with Congress
before undertaking military action in Haiti.
Public debate is essential, but more study of the nature of this
would be counterproductive. To have a study that would come back after
the Congress is out, that we might vote on in January or February or
March of next year, makes no sense, but it is why General Cedras wants
us to pass this amendment and why President Clinton does not want us
to. Again, it is a case where I will side with and support the
President of the United States. I disagree with General Cedras. I
disagree with this resolution.
The facts of this crisis are not hidden or complicated. American
correspondents are providing a steady flow of reporting and analysis of
the changing situation in Haiti. All you have to do is turn on your
radio, turn on your television or read your newspapers. And I hear no
one suggesting that the reason there is disagreement over Haiti policy
is that we lack facts. Quite to the contrary. We are dealing with a
tiny, little country in our hemisphere, and we can get all of the
necessary facts. We do not need a study commission to get more facts. I
suspect that most of us are not even fully keeping up with all the
facts that are pouring in, to say nothing about adding more to it.
But if we establish that study commission, it sends the wrong message
to the murderers in Port-au-Prince. We are going to be saying to them,
if we establish this commission, ``Relax. Don't worry about the
sanctions. The U.S. Government is not going to act any time soon. We
are going to study the situation for the next several months. You can
keep on your stealing and your killing for a while longer because we
have just put the brakes on everything.''
Mr. President, is that the way to conduct foreign policy? Is it the
way to conduct foreign policy, saying no matter what we say, we took
the keys out of the car for the next several months; we turned the
ships around; we have grounded the airplanes; we have told the Marines
and others, ``Don't worry; we are not going to do anything''?
What kind of diplomatic pressure do you bring on a country if they
know, no matter what happens, you are not going to move, you are not
going to do anything, you are going to talk, there is this
congressional limitation which says nothing happens until the Congress
gets around to it in January or February or March of next year.
Now, there is dispute in the country about what our policy should be,
but I suspect there would be no dispute in the country among the people
if asked: Do you think it really is the best way to set our foreign
policy, to say we will set up a hiatus until the Congress gets around
to work on this issue next spring sometime?
I do not think many people in the United States are that confident in
the Congress that we might do it. And it also says to the international
community, after we have been up there--Ambassador Albright has done a
tremendous job in New York dealing with the international community, as
has Secretary Christopher and everybody else. But this is the same
international community we have gone to to seek their support. Now we
say, ``Relax, folks. We do not really support the U.N. Security
Council's July 12 resolution calling for a `rapid and definite'
solution to the crisis,'' a resolution that we helped put through. We
are saying, just a few days later, we do not agree with it. In fact, we
are saying to them, ``Why don't you just go home; it is hot in New York
City at the United Nations. Go home, forget about Haiti for a while. We
will check back with you in a couple of months.'' It will keep the
undertaker business going in Haiti, but we are gone.
Our allies would have one more reason to question U.S. leadership in
world affairs. The Haitian oppressors would go on oppressing. The flood
of refugees would go on growing.
Mr. President, this is the wrong resolution and the wrong place at
the wrong time, and I am going to vote against it. I hope my fellow
Senators would, too.
I know that one of the people who has as much experience in this part
of the world as any Member of the Senate is the Senator from Florida.
Senator Graham has gone down there. He has visited these areas. He has
done it at personal danger. I know Senator Graham is in the Chamber. If
he wishes to speak on this resolution, I would be happy to yield to him
at this point.
I should also note for my colleagues we are going to have a vote at
11:30 on another matter.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was going to say I am prepared----
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving my right to the floor, I would like to yield for
a question.
Mr. McCONNELL. For a question. I am prepared to change the subject
and discuss another amendment and lay it down, if that would be
helpful.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this morning the distinguished
Senator from Pennsylvania had been on the floor discussing an amendment
which I believe he sent to the desk.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a couple of amendments that have
been cleared, while we are checking with Senator Specter.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily laid aside and the Senator from Kentucky be
recognized to introduce a couple of amendments that have been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
laid aside. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
amendment No. 2252.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2252) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2261
(Purpose: Relating to U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
operations)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by
Senator Pressler, which I understand has been cleared on both sides,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr.
Pressler, proposes an amendment numbered 2261.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
payments-in-kind as voluntary contributions to united nations
peacekeeping activities
Sec. . It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) United States voluntary contributions to peacekeeping
operations conducted by the United Nations may consist of
contributions of excess defense articles or may be in the
form of payments made directly to United States companies
providing goods and services in support of United Nations
peacekeeping activities; and
(2) such contributions should be made in consultation with
the Secretaries of State and Defense.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have altered this amendment to reflect
the concerns of my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. This
amendment is a sense of the Congress amendment, which allows U.S.
voluntary contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations to be made in
forms other than direct cash payment to the U.N. bureaucracy.
My amendment would allow U.S. contributions to consist of excess
Department of Defense articles or of direct payments to U.S. companies
providing goods and services. Furthermore, the amendment calls for
consultation between the Secretaries of State and Defense before any
transfers or contributions are made.
During the Senate floor debate on the foreign operations
appropriations bill, I have offered two other amendments which promote
U.S. contributions of goods and services to U.N. operations. As the No.
1 contributor to the United Nations, the United States should be
afforded the opportunity to promote U.S. business through a payment-in-
kind process. For years, some European member States have utilized a
payment-in-kind system to full U.N. obligations. It is time the United
States was credited for the equipment and services we have been
providing over the above our current assessments.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It offers the United
States fair opportunities in the U.N. contribution process. We owe it
to U.S. taxpayers to get the most out of the dollars we contribute to
the United Nations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
So the amendment (No. 2261) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 2262
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr.
Hatfield, proposes an amendment numbered 2262.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 11, line 19, after ``1961'' and before the period
(.) add the following new proviso: ``Provided further, that
of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than
an amount equal to the amount made available for the Office
of Population of the Agency for International Development in
fiscal year 1994 shall be made available to that office''.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to maintain core
funding for the Agency for International Development's excellent
population program.
As AID seeks to reengineer itself, I am concerned that the population
program not lose its effectiveness through well-intended but short-
sighted experiments on its central funding. This amendment ensures that
the amount of money going to the Office of Population in fiscal year
1995 will be at least the same amount the Office received for this
fiscal year. My understanding is that figure is between $280 and $300
million.
Behind the great success of AID's population program is the
efficiency of its current funding system, where field missions buy into
the wealth of expertise, services, and commodities purchased in bulk
through the central Office of Population. This economy of scale is what
this amendment seeks to maintain.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Oregon.
The amendment (No. 2262) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to table was agreed to.
nuclear reactor training simulators
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise with the distinguished ranking
member of the subcommittee, Mr. McConnell, to express concern over the
continued operation of the nuclear reactors in the former Soviet Union
which do not meet international safety standards. These Soviet-built
reactors are very dangerous; however, they are critical to the economic
well-being of the countries they service. There appears to be no
alternative but to improve the safety of these operational reactors if
a future accident with very serious international consequences is to be
avoided. Is it the understanding of the distinguished ranking member
that there is little likelihood that these reactors will be shut down
in the near term?
Mr. McCONNELL. I would respond to the Senator that the power these
reactors supply cannot be economically replaced in the near term and
the loss of the electrical energy which is generated by each of these
units would cause significant damage to the economies of these
countries.
Mr. WARNER. I understand that the construction costs to bring these
reactors to the standards accepted in the United States is
prohibitively expensive. Is that similar to the understanding of the
distinguished ranking member?
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct. The amount required to improve
the physical plant of these reactors is so large that improvements of
this type, although very desirable, are very unlikely.
Mr. WARNER. I am informed that the International Atomic Energy Agency
has initiated several programs to review, analyze, and diagnose the
significant problems at these reactors and that these studies reveal
that the root causes of many operational safety related events involve
inadequacies in operator actions, procedures, and the design interface
with the control boards. I am also informed that a cost-effective way
to address these shortfalls is the procurement of analytical
engineering simulators for use by the nuclear regulatory agencies of
the former Soviet Union countries and by the crews of the reactors. For
a relatively small sum, simulators for the most dangerous of the
reactors could be procured, with corresponding improvements in the
operational safety of these reactors in the near term. Would the
distinguished Senator consider including language in the ``Statement of
Managers'' which would encourage the Department of State to consider
this course of action?
Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to respond that I will press for such
language in the conference between the two bodies, and I thank the
Senator for raising this issue.
amendment no. 2253
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct we are now back on the Helms
amendment which is going to be voted on at 11:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. We are on the Helms
amendment, and will vote on it at 11:30.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again I state my strong opposition to this
amendment. I believe it makes it impossible for us to even take part in
the Cairo Conference on Population. But it also makes it impossible for
us even to work with any country that wants to do away with abortion,
make abortion safer, or find other methods of population control.
I know the Senator from Washington State is here. I would like to
yield.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] is
recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms amendment, and in
strong support of the upcoming International Conference on Population
and Development. I believe the effect of the Helms amendment would be
to undermine U.S. leadership at the upcoming Cairo Conference and at
any events that will follow from that important event.
In just a few months, over 100 nations of the world will gather in
Cairo for the International Conference on Population and Development,
the most significant meeting in a decade to address issues related to
population.
The purpose of the Cairo Conference is to assess the current state of
global population, determine its impact on human development, and
produce an action plan for the next decade and century to deal with
this most serious issue.
The program of action--commonly known as the Cairo document--will
represent the international consensus on population policy.
Today the world's population has swelled to over 5 billion people,
with 93 million more added each year. Without strong leadership in
support of voluntary family planning programs, experts predict that in
just 35 years the world's population is likely to double to 10 billion.
We know that many economic, environmental, and health problems facing
our world can be directly related to overpopulation. Global warming,
stagnating economies in developing countries, teen pregnancy, and high
maternal death rates all relate to overpopulation.
If we are to effectively address this problem, the success of the
Cairo Conference is crucial. The goal of the conference is to vastly
increase access to family planning and help establish improved
reproductive health care.
Further, the conference will emphasize the vital need to improve the
status of women worldwide, and most importantly, work to ensure that
population programs are responsive and accountable to the people who
use them--especially women.
Let us remember some of the history of this issue, and why adoption
of the Helms amendment by the Senate today would be unwise.
The last major world meeting on population took place in 1984 in
Mexico City. Until the 1980's, the United States had been at the
forefront of efforts to increase access to voluntary family planning
worldwide and address the problem of overpopulation.
At the 1984 Mexico City Conference, however, the United States sent
chilling signals to countries around the world that our Nation had
reversed course--that we were no longer concerned about promoting
access to safe and effective family planning, and that the United
States considered the entire question of global population growth to be
a ``neutral phenomenon'' that would somehow take care of itself.
The United States maintained that harmful position throughout the
remainder of the 1980's--refusing to recognize the correlation between
unchecked population growth, poverty, hunger, or environmental
degradation.
Fortunately, those days of putting our heads in the sand are over.
President Clinton, together with the international community, is
embracing a comprehensive approach to international population issues,
which involves addressing a wide range of concerns.
President Clinton recognizes that there is no magic bullet to address
the population issue, he knows that to be successful, population
programs must not only focus on reducing birthrates but must also
address human rights, women's health and status, and cultural
differences.
Thus, to the Cairo Conference the United States is brining new
approaches, emphasizing programs that enhance the ability of
individuals and couples to freely and responsibly decide the number and
spacing of their children. The overwhelming majority of states
participating in the Cairo Conference have endorsed this approach.
In addition, the United States' long-term approach to population
includes:
Promoting access to the full range of quality reproductive health
care, including women-centered women-managed services;
Stressing the need for governments and public and private
organizations to commit themselves to quality of care in family
planning services;
Supporting the empowerment of woman;
Ensuring access to primary health care, with an emphasis on child
survival;
Preserving the endangered natural environmental of our globe; and
finally,
Ensuring that our population policy supports the world's priority for
sustainable development.
So where does the Helms amendment fit into this important debate?
Because the document that is to be adopted at the Cairo Conference
will speak to the next two decades, proposing recommendations for many
years to come, I believe that if implemented, the Helms amendment will
interfere with and obstruct U.S. activities after the Cairo Conference.
Essentially, the amendment seeks to chill any of the important and
ongoing dialog that our Nation will be involved in regarding population
issues.3
It is important to know that the Helms amendment misrepresents the
U.S. position on abortion and the U.S. role at the Cairo Conference and
at other population forums.
President Clinton has articulated his view on abortion numerous times
and it is a view endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Americans:
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. That is the position the
United States will represent in Cairo and any related events in the
years to come.
And for the record, let us be clear about current law on abortion
funding internationally: Under existing law, U.S. funds may not be used
either to fund abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate
any person to have an abortion. Exceptions are permitted only in cases
of rape, incest, or if the life of the woman is in danger, and then
only in settings and institutions where such activities are legal and
safe.
In addition, the notion that the United States will use the Cairo
forum and other meetings like it to lobby other nations on abortion is
just plan nonsense; the draft document for Cairo clearly acknowledges
the sovereign right of each nation to implement its own policies.
And nowhere in the Cairo document is there any call for the
legalization of abortion.
In any case, it is important to note that current U.S. law prohibits
the use of Federal funds Governmentwide for lobbying purposes, so that
the type of activity described in the Helms amendment is already
prohibited by law.
So because this amendment will have no real effect on current law, it
is really about the symbols and messages we send to the international
community on the issue of population.
To me, the Helms amendment is deeply cynical. By attempting to cloud
U.S. participation at the Cairo conference and the activities that will
follow, the Helms amendment preys on the world's poorest women, who I
believe have it tough enough already. Let's not add to their burden
today by playing politics with one of the most daunting and complex
issues of our time. The fact is that family planning saves lives and
helps reduce abortion worldwide.
Experts estimate that the lives of 5.6 million children and 500,000
women could be saved each year if all the women who wanted to limit
their families had access to family planning. If the intention of the
Helms amendment is to prevent abortion--a goal which I strongly
support--then I encourage the Senator from North Carolina to address
that problem head on by seeking additional funds for our bilateral
family planning program. Providing women with the means to prevent
unwanted pregnancies will do more than anything else to reduce
abortion.
In closing, I hope we can go on record today as sending our
delegation to Cairo with the full support of this Senate, so that the
U.S. team can continue efforts to develop and implement a plan to give
families around the globe access to the reproductive health care
services they need.
I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the Helms amendment.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] is
recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Helms'
amendment. I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment, as
well. I have heard people say that if you support this amendment, we
cannot participate in the Cairo Conference. That is not true. I read
the amendment, and that is certainly not this Senator's interpretation.
What Senator Helms is trying to do is prohibit the State Department
and this administration from lobbying other countries to change their
laws concerning abortion.
Madam President, there are 95 countries throughout the world that
have various restrictions on abortion. Some are very strict against
abortion; some are not quite so strict; and that is probably to be
expected. We have had significant debate in this country about how
restrictive we should be. We have had restrictions in this country
dealing with abortion. This administration is now going international,
using the influence and prestige of the United States, trying to change
all other countries' laws concerning abortion, to make them identical
with the philosophy of this administration.
I might mention that the philosophy of this administration is not the
law of the land. They have not been successful in changing the laws of
this country. We have laws that prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for
abortions. We have laws in this country that this administration has
tried to change, but they have been unsuccessful to date. They may be
successful later on. This administration would like to have abortion as
a fringe benefit under its health care policy. They may be successful,
but they have not been successful yet. They would like to have a change
in policy where taxpayers subsidize abortion under the Medicaid
Program. They have not been successful yet. Yet, they want to change
all other countries' laws.
Let me just read from an action cable that came on March 16 of this
year from the State Department. This is part of the statement:
Posts are requested to approach host governments to outline
[our Government] negotiating priorities for the final
preparatory meeting for the [U.N.-sponsored] International
Conference on Population Development * * *. The priority
issues for the United States include assuring * * * access to
safe abortion * * *. The United States believes that access
to safe, legal, and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right
of all women.
Well, a lot of countries have laws prohibiting abortion. When I think
about it, most people would say abortion is legal in this country, but
that has never passed in the Congress. We have never passed a law
legalizing abortion. That was done through the Roe versus Wade
decision, not by a majority in Congress. Yet, this administration says
we want to make sure abortion is safe and legal. In other words, in
countries that have laws outlawing abortion, they think those are wrong
and should be changed. So they are sending out delegates to approach
host governments throughout the world saying: Change your laws.
A lot of countries are very offended by this cultural imperialism
where the United States is going to try to dictate or direct what their
policies should be concerning abortion. I am not talking about one or
two countries, but a total population of about 2 billion people. About
37 percent of the world's population have restrictions against
abortion, and this administration wants to eliminate that.
A lot of those countries are predominantly Catholic, and some are
predominantly Moslem. A lot of those countries are our allies. If we
put this kind of pressure on those countries, a lot of them are going
to resent it. I really wonder why our State Department is doing it. I
cannot help but think that we have serious problems. This State
Department cannot decide what they want to do on Haiti, or Bosnia, or
North Korea, where we have a vacillating policy, but they know what
they want to do on abortion: Implement their philosophy, which they
have not been successful in passing through the U.S. Congress yet--and
I hope they will not be successful--throughout the world, and tell 95
countries that their laws should be replaced with the Clinton policy, a
policy not even supported in Congress.
I will just mention that I asked a question of our former colleague,
Senator Wirth, who is now the State Department counselor, at a hearing
on March 8, before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
I said: ``We are spending a significant amount of money on population
control. Does that include abortion?''
He answered: ``We believe that women have the right to a full range
of women's reproductive right services, and that would include
abortion, if necessary.''
I informed Counselor Wirth that that was against the law. We have a
law that says we are not going to use these funds for abortion. Yet, he
said we want everybody to have a full range of services.
I said: ``Well, does the Clinton administration want to repeal the
present law that prohibits U.S. funds from being used to pay for
abortions?''
Senator Wirth said: ``That is right. We have asked for a complete
rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, and in our submission to
Congress, we did not include the language which we think is much too
constraining.''
In other words, they want to change the law we have been operating
under, and the Foreign Assistance Act says we do not want taxpayers'
money being used to subsidize abortion. We do not do it in the United
States, except when necessary under certain circumstances--to protect
the life of the mother, and in cases of rape and incest. And we want to
make sure we do not do it internationally.
Senator Wirth and this administration want to change that. They think
the taxpayers should be involved in funding abortions and the access to
abortion, and should override the laws that these 95 countries have
prohibiting abortion. They want to overturn those laws.
I think that is really wrong. I do not agree with the policy in the
United States, but I think it is doubly offensive that we should try to
impose this administration's philosophy on everybody else in the world.
What about all the Latin American countries? I have a comment that was
made by the Argentine President, Carlos Menem, on the so-called rewrite
of the antiabortion policy. Abortion is illegal in at least 15 of the
16 countries that attended the Latin American summit.
He said:
We renew our commitment to defend human life, in any of its
expressions, from the moment of conception until death.
President Fidel Castro of Cuba was the only Latin American leader to
differ. He said:
The decision to abort should be made by the pregnant woman.
That was Castro's opinion. But 15 out of the 16 Latin American
leaders said they are prolife, their countries are prolife, and they do
not want to adopt this policy and do not want Uncle Sam coming in and
telling them to change their policies. They are predominantly Catholic.
Why in the world should we try to mandate a policy that has not even
passed Congress on these Latin American countries?
What about Egypt, a predominantly Moslem country, 85 percent Moslem?
They have laws restricting abortion. Why should we tell them they have
to change their laws? I will tell you, that will help ignite a lot of
the more radical members of the Moslem community against some of our
friends and allies. I do not think we want to do that. I do not think
we want to undermine some of the leaders in Egypt that have been
working with the United States and who signed a peace agreement with
Israel. That happens to be the largest Moslem country in the region.
Why should we do something that would undermine that leadership? I
think it would be a serious mistake.
Why should we tell these 95 countries that the United States knows
best and that they should adopt the proabortion policies this
administration is advocating? That is a serious mistake.
The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is on target. We
need to send this administration a signal and say: You can attend the
Cairo conference; that is fine. You can participate in it. We can talk
about world population. But we should not use that conference or the
United Nations or other multinational organizations to promote United
States or Clinton administration proabortion policies.
Let us allow those countries that do have restrictions on abortion to
continue those. Let us not interfere in their domestic policies and
priorities.
I think it is a serious mistake if we do not pass this amendment, and
I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator from California yield
for a unanimous-consent request.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, there have been a number of people who
wanted to speak on this and a related subject.
I understand this has been cleared with the ranking member of the
committee or has been cleared with the Republican leader.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled to take place at
11:30 a.m. take place at noon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the honorable chairman.
Madam President, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this
debate. Many times constituents say, ``Has it really made any
difference now that there are more women in the U.S. Senate?''
This is one of those times that I feel it clearly makes a difference
because we can join with the men in the U.S. Senate who share our view
that women are not second-class citizens, that pregnancy-related
services are matters of health, and, especially in this particular
case, to speak out against Senator Helms' amendment which is such a
slap in the face of women all over the world, many of whom are
struggling for their rights.
Madam President, I think it is very interesting that in this
amendment Senator Helms says that nothing in his amendment should stop
the United States ``from engaging in activities in opposition to
policies of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.''
I agree with that. I think the United States should be a sane voice
for sane policies, and it is not a sane policy to force people to get
sterilized, men or women, and it is not a sane policy to have coercive
abortions.
I am pro-choice. That means it is up to the woman, in consultation
with her doctor, and her God, whether she is here or anywhere else in
the world.
Madam President, I feel very strongly about this amendment. Senator
Helms' amendment says that U.S. agencies should be able to express our
views and strongly lobby against forced abortion and forced
sterilization, a position which I share. But that same amendment says
that we cannot exert any other influence on policies of other
countries. That seems to me to be a very radical notion.
We have fought long and hard here, those of us who are pro-choice, to
make sure that in our current policy there is an exception for the use
of Federal funds when a woman's life is at stake or when a woman is
raped or when there is incest. Madam President, that was not an easy
fight. As a matter of fact, when I was in the House of Representatives,
it was my amendment that ensured a rape and incest exemption, because
nothing could be crueler than forcing a woman to have a child that is
the product of a rape or the product of incest.
So I want to know, Madam President, why the Senator from North
Carolina and his supporters would say in the same resolution that we
can lobby hard to stop countries from involuntary sterilization and
coerced abortion and yet not lobby equally as hard if they have laws
that force women to carry a baby to term that is a product of rape or
incest.
And that is exactly what this amendment does. It is radical, and I
would join with you, Madam President, in opposition to this amendment.
It is a terrible signal to women all over this world; a terrible signal
that their life is not worth anything.
I say it is very fine that you are here to speak on it and that I am
here to speak on it. I certainly hope other women in the Senate will
have an opportunity to speak. I know some of them are caught up in the
Judiciary Committee hearings this morning. I hope that every woman in
the Senate will speak on it because I think it is an affront to us as
women that the Senator from North Carolina would have this amendment
before us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, yesterday when the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Helms] was speaking about his amendment on the
floor, I know it was of particular concern, that it would not be
withholding money for attendance at the Cairo Conference. I wanted to
clarify Mr. Helms' intentions regarding U.S. participation in the
International Conference on Population and Development and subsequent
meetings.
After the Senate's discussion of this, I worked with others in trying
to propose some language in an attempt to resolve the question. I
regret to say we have not been able to work out substitute language
that would be agreeable to everyone. But I believe it was important to
try to work this out.
The language proposed by Senator Helms is statutory language.
However, it seemed to me that changing to a sense-of-the-Congress
language would be a better way to provide some guidance to our
delegation to the Cairo Conference about the concerns raised by Senator
Helms, and which I share to a certain extent. During our participation
in this international conference I think we need to be mindful and
sensitive to the diversity of cultures around the world.
I offered to the Senator from North Carolina a sense-of-the-Congress
amendment that unfortunately has been rejected. This sense-of-the-
Congress resolution would provide guidance to our representatives
participating in the 1994 International Conference on Population and
Development.
I personally believe that guidance could be a useful expression of
our consensus as a Congress. My sense-of-the-Congress language
addressed the issues which the Senator from North Carolina has
identified as most problematic, specifically: that U.S. participation
in and support for international family planning activities must not be
withheld or reduced in countries where abortion is severely restricted
or prohibited; and, second, that the United States should respect the
diversity of international cultural and religious traditions and not
actively attempt to change the abortion laws of countries where
abortion is severely restricted or prohibited.
I, Madam President, believe abortion should be legal, but I do think
we have to be sensitive to the cultures, religions, and customs of
other countries.
In addition, the resolution which I proposed specifically stated that
the United States should be a full and active participant in the Cairo
Conference and subsequent activities arising from the conferences that
will occur in the future. It is important, I believe, for us to not
lose sight of the fact that the 1994 International Conference on
Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, is not just about family
planning. It is not about abortion. It is about population and the
rapid increase of population rates in many areas of the world. It is
about child survival, migration, sustainable development, and economic
growth. Each of these issues is of great importance to the United
States and the world. These issues need to be understood and addressed,
and we need to be full and active participants in these discussions.
I believe it is useful for Congress to send some guidance which
reflects our concerns, to support the delegation that will be attending
the Cairo Conference.
I thought it was important for us to do so not in statutory language
as a sense-of-the-Congress, and I regret that we have not been able to
get agreement on this.
I will vote against the language of the Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to
speak against the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
This amendment would severely hamper our ability to participate fully
in the upcoming International Conference on Population and Development
to be held in Cairo. It would also hamper our ability to participate
fully in future conferences on population issues.
What this amendment would do is effectively prohibit representatives
of the United States from discussing the laws and policies of any
foreign country with respect to abortion.
While our representatives in Cairo will not be attempting to change
the legal status of abortion in any country, they will be strategizing
on ways to reduce injuries and deaths which result from unsafe
abortions. It seems to me that the U.S. representatives will not be
able, under this amendment, even to attempt to find a solution to this
problem of deaths from abortions, deaths from abortions that take place
in countries where abortions are forbidden. And if they cannot discuss
the abortion laws and policies of other countries, obviously they
cannot get into the problem of the deaths that arise in those countries
from unsafe abortions.
Madam President, we have all lived through the agonizing debate and
discussion on the gag rule and the Mexico City policy, policies which
prohibited the mere mention of abortion in family planning clinics.
Fortunately, we are rid of those misguided policies which unfortunately
held sway for several years here. The amendment before us this morning
would start us right down that same path of limiting the subjects that
we may or we may not discuss.
At the last international conference on population, we came away with
the onerous Mexico City policy which took us many years to do away
with. I am pleased that we have an opportunity in Cairo for a fresh
start. I look forward to the United States taking a lead role in
reducing the incidents of unsafe abortions, as well as addressing the
critical issue of population explosion throughout our world. These
issues simply cannot be addressed without addressing the issue of
abortion. Let us not tie the hands of our representatives by
restricting what they can or cannot discuss.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Helms amendment.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield the
floor?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, just a couple of comments.
A couple of our colleagues said, ``Well, this will hamper our ability
to participate''--some people even said we could not go to the Cairo
Conference, and that is clearly not in the amendment--``and it hampers
our ability in Cairo.''
I think that is well and good, if our purpose in Cairo is trying to
get 95 countries to change their laws to make abortion legal or to make
it easier or more accessible or more prevalent.
I mean, we have 1\1/2\ million abortions every year in this country;
maybe some people want more. We have some restrictions in this country.
But I think we would kind of resent it if we had other countries coming
in and saying, ``United States, we really do not like your policy and
therefore you ought to change it.''
I think it is very legitimate in the foreign operations bill to say,
``Wait a minute. We do not want to use U.S. funds to lobby other
countries to change their law, because we do not think they are
proabortion enough, or they do not give enough access to abortion, or
they do not make abortion legal.''
So my point is, if that is the purpose of the conference, we should
not be participating in that part of the conference.
If we want to talk about global population, if we want to talk about
some of the challenges we face there and other things, fine. But if we
are going to use it as a method to lobby or trying to convince or use
the power and prestige of United States to get other countries to
change their laws, we are going to be really offending a lot of
countries that are predominantly Moslem or predominantly Catholic, and
I think that is a serious mistake.
Mr. President, I have to address one other thing, and that is the
comment made by a couple of our colleagues in the debate both yesterday
and today. They said, ``Well, if we don't do this, we will not be able
to convince countries to have safe abortions, and prevent some of the
deaths from some of these unsafe abortions.''
I just ask my colleagues to remember there are two lives at stake.
How safe is an abortion to unborn children? Well, they are fatal. They
should remember there are two lives at stake. So, in this interest to
have safe abortions, they are talking about increasing the number of
abortions that are fatal to unborn children and I think we need to keep
that in mind.
And we also need to keep in mind that we do not want U.S. taxpayers'
dollars used in the destruction of human life. That happens to be the
present law. It is not this administration's policy. It is not this
administration's wish. It happens to be the present law. We will not
use U.S. funds for abortion. That is the law. They have not changed it
yet. They want to change it. They testified they want to change it, but
they have not been successful.
They want to repeal the Hyde amendment. They have not been
successful.
So they are advocating policies that they have not been successful in
changing in the United States. And they have not been successful in
changing the law that says, ``Hey, we are not going to use U.S.
taxpayers' funds in the foreign ops bill for abortion.'' Yet it is
quite obvious from Mr. Wirth's statement, and also from this State
Department action cable that went out to all countries urging our
people to contact the host government so we can convince them that this
administration policy on abortion is correct. It is not correct. It has
not passed the Congress. I think it would be a serious mistake, not
only would it be a serious mistake but it would be fatal to countless
lives throughout the world if this administration is successful.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the debate on this amendment is basically
this: Can the United States go to the population conference in Cairo or
not?
Now, we are a major, not the major, but we are a major provider of
foreign aid. We have a lot of other countries that provide more foreign
aid than we do, certainly as a percentage of their gross domestic
product. Some countries actually, in the areas where population has
caused the greatest problems, like sub-Saharan Africa, there are
countries that provide actually more dollars than we do. In fact, we
are rather shameful in the treatment of some of the developing
countries in claiming we help and they look at what we do in other
aspects of our budget.
But, be that as it may, we know and our allies know and everybody who
tries to help these developing countries know that one of the greatest
problems they face is unchecked population.
Now I will yield to nobody in my abhorrence of abortion as a method
of population control or as a method of birth control.
I hope that some of the money that we are providing to the former
Soviet Union, especially Russia, would be used to provide safe,
effective methods of birth control. That is a country that has very
effectively and I think outrageously used abortion as a method of birth
control. I should not use the word ``effective,'' because I do not
consider that as an effective method of birth control, but they do it.
You have women who have had six, seven and eight abortions. Now that
is wrong. It is flat out wrong. And I do not think anybody would
suggest that we not work with Russia, especially as we send foreign aid
over there, to help them find a better method of birth control, whether
it is birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, whatever else, things
that are very expensive, not in easy availability in Russia. We could
help them with that. Sex education itself, methods of preventing
conception in the first place, can be done there. But it can be done in
a lot of other countries.
Now, does anybody doubt that in Cairo the discussion is going to be
had on all of these things? There is going to be a discussion of the
status of women in these developing countries, and I think the United
States has been the leader in bringing out that there should be a
heightened status of women. In many of these countries they are treated
as mere chattel. They have no rights. They certainly have no rights
over their own reproductive abilities. That has to change.
There has to be a realization that with proper birth control and
health and nutrition, that live births can go up in countries and
children can live past their infancy. Perhaps we can, and I hope would,
lessen the incidence of abortion worldwide as we bring to countries the
ability to adopt birth control practices that actually make sense; in
many instances birth control practices where the countries that provide
foreign aid could pay the costs.
What in the United States might seem like a very small cost to carry
out birth control practices, in other countries could be a very
significant part of their income. Assuming the types of birth control
that we would take for granted in this country, assuming they are even
available, the costs could be too great. These are areas we could help.
Certainly we ought to be talking to these countries. Nobody expects the
United States to come over and pound the table, as has almost been
suggested here, and say, ``You have to start having abortions. You have
to start adopting this method of birth control. You have to do this,
that or the other thing.'' That is not going to happen.
But when, as the chair of the Foreign Operations Committee, I try to
figure out how we are going to get money to the poorest of the poor in
these countries; when I am asked how can we find a way to get
alternative agriculture in so people can raise food to feed their
families, how do we get in medical help and nutritional help so a poor,
pregnant woman can go through her pregnancy and deliver a healthy baby;
no matter how we try to answer these questions we have one dark cloud
hanging over us. And that is in most of these countries the population
is expanding so rapidly that it is expanding beyond the ability to even
help the country. It outstrips the agricultural abilities of the
country. It outstrips the housing ability. It outstrips the educational
and medical abilities of these countries. They ought to at least have
available to them the ability to control their own population size.
I said here yesterday that by the middle of the next century, only a
little over 50 years away, at this rate the world's population will
double. Think of that. Human beings have been on the face of the Earth
for tens of thousands of years. It has taken us to this point to reach
one level of population and we can double it in 50 years.
I am not suggesting a Malthusian paradigm here, by any means. But
what I am saying is the countries where help is needed the most are the
countries where the least efforts and abilities exist to control
populations. Methods of birth control that most American families
consider as a relatively minor part of their monthly bills are in many
of these countries something that would wipe out virtually all
disposable income that family might have.
Let us see if we can be realistic about this. The United States has
clear prohibitions in our AID money against money going to use abortion
as a method of birth control. We have been very straightforward and
strong in our statements condemning China and other countries that have
done that. We have made it very clear--many of us have and I have
personally--to countries like Russia that their use of abortion as a
method of birth control is abhorrent. It is abhorrent to me as a
person. It also should be abhorrent to the women of that country to
think that this is really what is available to them as a method of
birth control. I suspect most women in these countries would want to
have other methods of birth control available. This is not something
where we are going to march out and say, ``Abortion is your magic
answer.'' Not by any means.
Each one of us will have to wrestle with our own conscience how we
feel about abortion. Each of these countries, and the people within
them, will wrestle with their own consciences how they feel about it.
But allow the United States to at least join with other countries
trying to figure out how to control population, how to raise the status
of women, and how to make it possible to have healthy children that
might live beyond their infancy. That is the issue.
The other suggestion made that we are going to be in there offending
all these countries that come in, telling them what is going on--it is
such arrogant disdain for these countries to even suggest it. This is a
condescending statement of the first order. Madam President, do you
think--does anybody think?--that these countries are sending a group of
poorly educated, subservient people who will sit there saying, ``Oh,
yes, the United States wants to do this. We will do this. We will do
this.'' Baloney. These are concerned men and women coming from each of
these countries, well educated, who are looking for what is in the best
interests of their countries. They are not coming in there to be
suddenly mesmerized by some evil Svengali from the United States who is
going to tell them what they have to do.
Everybody who comes there knows they are going to talk about birth
control. They know they are going to talk about education. They know
they are going to talk about health and nutrition. They know the
subject of abortion, of course, will come up. They know the United
States will follow the law on what it can and cannot talk about.
But they also know that they have a terrible population problem in a
lot of these countries, a problem that is far outstripping their
resources and their ability to feed their people; a problem that is
making it impossible, many, many times, in many of these countries for
the average child to live past a couple of years old. In fact, in a
number of these countries the birth of the child is not even recorded
until they are a year or 2 or 3 or 4 years old, because the deaths are
so common.
Madam President, I cannot justify coming to the U.S. Senate and
asking my colleagues in the Senate to vote for more foreign aid to
countries where it is said we will kind of ignore the whole question of
control of population, but we will send a little bit more money, a
little bit more money. There is so much we can do in these countries if
the question of population is at least addressed; not addressed by us
telling them what they must do, but making choices available to them
and letting them decide.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am very proud what
we have developed, through our agricultural research in this country,
insect resistant crops, crops that can grow in areas with little water
or sunlight beyond anything that we are used to. All these things can
help countries feed themselves. But you can only plant so many crops.
You can only raise so many crops. And the population outstrips that.
There is no genius in our Agriculture Extension Service or anywhere
else in the USDA who can make a magic crop that, notwithstanding
population expansion, notwithstanding whatever damage to the
environment or soil is done by that, that this crop will somehow make
it all better.
So, let our people go to Cairo and if----
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEAHY. I will yield for a question in a moment. Let me complete
this thought.
If there are those who have differing views, let them also go to
Cairo and express their views. I know a number of people who have been
invited. There are still invitations open for those who want to go. I
have declined an invitation to go because of my responsibility as
chairman of this and being in another country during the same time. But
if somebody disagrees with any administration official, go to Cairo and
let them state their disagreements. Let them be heard.
I yield, Madam President, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask my friend and colleague --I
listened to a lot of his statement--was the chairman's comment if we
adopt this amendment we could not attend the Cairo Conference?
Mr. LEAHY. In this effect, yes: That we end up spending a lot of
money for a useless exercise because, as my friend from Oklahoma knows,
the Cairo Conference is set up to set an ongoing procedure of meetings
and discussions. Basically, we could get there, I am sure, and say,
``But we are here under a gag rule for not only discussions at this,
but certainly it would preclude us or make it a useless expenditure of
money to go on for any of these discussions and meetings that might
follow on from Cairo.''
It would be questionable how we could justify expenditures of anybody
going there, in effect, because they would be so blocked out of not
only discussions in Cairo but, obviously, the discussions that would
follow the meetings that would be set up from the Cairo Conference.
That is my position.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, if I could just ask the chairman one
additional question. Is it not correct that the Cairo Conference is in
September and is covered under the 1994 appropriations bill? The bill
we are working on right now that would have a prohibition--the Helms
amendment would prohibit using U.S. funds to lobby other countries to
change their laws--actually goes into effect October 1 and, therefore,
would not affect the Cairo Conference that is scheduled in September?
Mr. LEAHY. That is not so at all. We are talking about legislation.
This is not an appropriation. In fact, that is one of the problems we
have with legislation on an appropriations bill. This legislation does
not say it takes effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year. The
way this legislation is written it would take effect upon the signing
of the bill. Can you imagine----
Mr. NICKLES. Will the chairman----
Mr. LEAHY. If I could finish. Even if it could be argued that somehow
it takes effect in the beginning of the next fiscal year, you have
exactly the situation I just mentioned. What would be the sense of
going to Cairo, talking about setting up the ongoing meetings, when you
have this steel wall that goes in place at the very latest October 1,
but in all likelihood would take place upon the signing of legislation?
Mr. NICKLES. If the chairman will yield for one final comment. I
appreciate his indulgence. This language does say ``none of the funds
appropriated by this act,'' and this is an appropriations bill for
1995, which does not become effective until October 1 at the earliest.
So I do not think it would prohibit the actual attendance.
I appreciate the chairman's remarks about it might have a stifling
impact as far as the future but, basically, I think it--at least my
editorial comment would be--I think it should have a stifling impact if
our purpose in attending Cairo is to lobby other countries to change
their laws. I think that is inappropriate, and I appreciate the
chairman yielding.
Mr. LEAHY. We are dealing with legislation on an appropriations bill.
We are not dealing with withholding specific funds in the 1995 bill.
Whichever way, whichever interpretation is correct--the Senator from
Oklahoma or the Senator from Vermont--the point is still the same: It
has the obvious not only stifling effect for Cairo, but it really makes
the attendance an exercise in futility, and that, I understand, is the
intent of some of the backers of this resolution.
Just as I have led delegations in my capacity as chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, in my capacity as chairman of the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee or my capacity as chairman of the Technology
and the Law Subcommittee, I led trips to various countries where I
purposely invited Senators, both Republicans and Democrats--some of
whom agree with me on some of the issues we are going to discuss but
some of whom totally disagree with me--because I know that we are going
to be meeting with heads of States, I know we are going to be meeting
with foreign ministers, and others, and I want them to hear the kind of
discussions that we have in a democratic Nation where people disagree
with each other.
I led such a trip to parts of the former Soviet Union last year. We
had--at least if our voting records on some of the issues that have
come forward are any indicia--we had a number of Senators who have gone
in numerous directions, certainly not all agreeing with me by any
means. But we had the opportunity to sit down and have key figures in
the countries we visited hear that kind of discussion.
Why not do the same thing in Cairo? If there are Senators who
disagree with U.S. policy, well, they have a couple shots at this. One,
of course, is on the floor as this amendment does. They might change
our policy if their amendment is adopted. I hope it does not because I
think what it does is say that the United States, the wealthiest Nation
on Earth, the Nation with the largest economy on Earth, cannot talk
about population with other countries, even though it is the population
explosion in many of these countries that is the thing that drives most
of their requests of us for foreign aid. I think that would be a
ridiculous situation in which to put the United States.
But certainly if there are Senators who have a differing view, let
them go to Cairo, let them express those views in the debates, let them
tell the other countries, ``Look, here is my idea of what is allowed
birth control;'' or maybe I feel no birth control is allowed. Let them
say so. But that is not the policy of this country and this country is
very specific. The policy is laid down.
Madam President, I encourage Senators to look at some of the
requests, look at some of the things we face in the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee. Since I have been chairman of this subcommittee, we have
cut foreign aid by several billions of dollars. We have had some things
that should have been cut out, because it is our desire to bring down
the deficit, something we are finally doing now for the first time in
years and years. The deficit is coming down, and this is doing its
part. But when I look at our inability to make any real differences in
countries we do try to help because we do not address the question of
population, Madam President, that is not very sensible and that is not
very realistic.
Madam President, how much time is there before the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Kentucky be allowed to continue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be added as cosponsors to the Helms amendment:
Senators Pressler, Nickles, Smith, and Coats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I strongly support the effort by Senator
Helms to prevent the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence changes
in the abortion laws of foreign countries, or to support any resolution
by a multilateral organization which seeks to change such laws.
For a number of years, the United States has prohibited Government
money from going to organizations which administer or promote abortion
as a method of family planning. Last year, this position changed when
President Clinton reversed the so-called Mexico City policy. He also
released U.S. funds to support the United Nations Fund for Population
Assistance [UNFPA] which has been involved in China's population
control program of forced abortions and sterilization.
The Clinton administration has made population control a focal point
of its foreign policy. In September, the United States will participate
in the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo.
Over the last several months, as we approach this date, there have been
international meetings to define the policy statement to be adopted at
the Conference.
Since last year, I have been troubled by news accounts and statements
by administration officials which show a disturbing pattern. In its
efforts to promote policies to stabilize world population, the
administration is advocating a position which encourages greater use of
abortion abroad.
Although President Clinton said, when meeting with the Pope at the
Vatican in early June, that he does not believe abortion should be a
method of family planning, statements, and actions by administration
officials indicate a policy of just the opposite.
Timothy Wirth, Counselor to the President, has become the point man
on international population programs. In a speech in 1993, he revealed
the ultimate objective of the administration at the Cairo meeting.
``The U.S. Government believes the Cairo conference would be remiss if
it did not develop recommendations and guidance with regard to
abortion. Our position is to support reproductive choice, including
access to safe abortion.''
Earlier this year he stated ``* * * A determined cooperative effort
must be launched to make * * * reproductive health services universally
available.''
Administration Spokesperson Dee Dee Myers said that the Clinton
administration regards abortion as ``part of the overall approach to
population control.''
Likewise, Victor Marrero in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly in
1993 said ``Family planning programs should be viewed as part of a
broader reproductive health program which also addresses closely
related programs such as * * * safe abortion * * *.''
Brian Atwood, Director of the Agency for International Development,
said in regard to the population control policy: ``* * * This
administration will continue to stand for the principle of reproductive
choice, including access to safe, voluntary abortion.''
This policy, as articulated by administration officials, directly
contravenes the consensus statement reached at the 1984 Mexico City
meeting. That is that ``abortion in no way should be promoted as a
method of family planning.''
It also contradicts statements included in the U.N. Convention for
the Rights of the Child supported by the Clinton administration. ``The
child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special
safeguards, and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as
well as after birth.''
What is most troubling about this stance is the administration's
determined effort to export their abortion ideology to other nations.
A March cable from the State Department to our overseas diplomatic
posts directed Government officials to advance U.S. population policy
interests through ``senior level diplomatic interventions.'' These
interests include, according to the cable, ``a comprehensive strategy *
* * to ensure universal access to family planning and related
reproductive health services, including access to safe abortion.''
In addition it reads that ``the United States believes it is
important to improve both the quantity and quality of family planning
and reproductive health services. We would like the Cairo document to
emphasize the goal of universal access to such services.''
Let there be no mistake in understanding, when such terms as ``access
to safe abortion, reproductive health, and reproductive choice'' are
used they are but thinly veiled attempts to disguise a policy meant to
promote abortion as a method of family planning.
``However cleverly the Cairo document may be crafted, in fact it
continues to advocate abortion as a way of controlling population
growth * * *'' wrote Washington Archbishop James Cardinal Hickey and
six United States archbishops in a letter to the President on May 28.
The pursuit of such a policy abroad directly undermines the laws of
approximately 100 countries which have abortion restrictions in place.
According to a 1990 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the
research arm of planned parenthood, ``some 53 countries * * *
containing 25 percent of the world's population, fall into the most
restrictive category,'' where abortions are prohibited except when the
woman's life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.
In another category, 42 countries, comprising 12 percent of the
world's populations, have statutes authorizing abortion on broader
medical grounds * * * but not for social indications alone or on
request.
In most Muslim countries and in Latin America and Africa, few legal
abortions are performed under the health exception. These laws cover
approximately 37 percent of the world's population, over 2 billion
people.
The emphasis which our Government places on abortion as a fundamental
human right of all women will mean that in the future these countries'
foreign aid could well be jeopardized if they refuse to succumb to U.S.
pressure or adhere to the Cairo document. Placing such a demand on
other nations is unconscionable. And yet it is clear that that is where
we are headed.
In declaring further in the State Department cable that ``The United
States believes that access to safe, legal, and voluntary abortion is a
fundamental right of all women ***.'' We are telling nations that
abortion is a human rights requirement.
The next obvious step is to penalize, perhaps by restricting foreign
aid, these nations for failing to comply with our policy. Already a
number of countries have expressed concern about where such language
will lead. Humberto Belli, Nicaraguan Minister of Education, has said
he feared that not only the United States but international agencies
such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund would make
adoption of policies that are in harmony with the Cairo document a
condition for getting aid.
President Carlos Menem of Argentina has also objected to the
language. In a letter he wrote to the Pope he said:
Population and development objectives should be a matter of
competency and of sovereignty of each country, according to
the orientation and basis of its national policies, guided by
respect for human dignity and the free and responsible choice
of individuals *** population policies should be conceived in
consonance with the ethical and cultural values of each
particular society *** in no circumstance should abortion be
promoted or considered as a method of family planning.
Mr. President, the Helms amendment is reasonable restraint on our
Government. I hope this body joins in support of this approach. We need
to send a clear signal that in no way should the United States
participate in a policy which seeks to change the laws of other
nations--laws founded upon deep cultural and religious beliefs.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to further discuss some
points that were brought up in yesterday's debate on this amendment
introduced by my fine friend from North Carolina. As I said yesterday,
even though this amendment does not specifically mention the 1994 Cairo
Conference--and I know that was not the Senator's intent--it is written
broadly enough to prohibit the United States from participating in the
coming Global Population Conference in Cairo.
But, more importantly this amendment would go even further and
prohibit the United States from participating in any future resolution
or multilateral activity which even remotely touches upon the subject
of abortion. It would prohibit participation in any future
international conferences, programs, research activities or reports
that pertain to women's health, migration, refugees, and so on. For
example, two future international conferences would be affected: the
World Social Summit that will be held later this year and the Women's
Conference in Beijing, that will be held in 1995. This amendment would
certainly have a chilling effect on all of the State Department's
activities pertaining to international population.
The United States has played a significant role at all of the
preparatory conferences leading up to the Cairo Conference and is
expected to be, and should be, a leader at the conference and in future
international population conferences.
Over the past decade, the United States has more recently had its
hands tied in terms of acting on the challenge of increasing population
growth, and its impact on the environment, the global economy, and
international standards of living. I am gratified to see this
administration's renewed interest in these issues.
This is an important point to make. Even if the funds in this bill
are not appropriated until October 1--the beginning of the fiscal year,
the policies contained in this amendment would set a dangerous
precedent. The State Department would once again have its hands tied
because any of its deliberations and activities leading to the
Conference, during the conference and after the Conference would be
affected. Any follow-up activities that are agreed to by all 110-member
nations at the Conference could not be implemented by the State
Department.
As I stated yesterday, I plan to be a part of the U.S. delegation
when the United States travels to Cairo this September. And, I strongly
believe the United States should be leading the international community
in a unified effort to meet the severe challenges involved with the
issues of global population, economic opportunity, and sustainable
development.
This administration has articulated its view on abortion numerous
times: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. The United States will
continue to articulate this position at the Cairo Conference.
The administration is not going over to Cairo to vigorously and
continuously lobby other countries to change or alter their laws or
policies concerning the circumstances under which abortion is
permitted, regulated, or prohibited in these countries.
President Clinton reiterated this position in a recent speech on June
29 by stating:
We do not support abortion as a method of family planning.
We respect the diversity of national laws, except we do
oppose coercion wherever it exists.
In other countries, where abortion does exist, we believe
safety is an important issue. We also believe that providing
women with means to prevent unwanted pregnancy will do more
than anything else to reduce abortion.
Most importantly, the U.S. position on population that will be
articulated at the Cairo Conference is not about abortion policy. It is
about ensuring access to high-quality family planning and related
reproductive health services, increasing child survival programs,
addressing migration and environmental degradation, strengthening
families, and addressing the needs of adolescents.
It would be a real shame if the United States could not resume its
leadership in global efforts to achieve responsible and sustainable
population levels.
I earnestly feel that this amendment would prohibit the United States
from playing a key role in this International Conference and in
subsequent international population activities and conferences. It is
not consistent with our leadership responsibilities regarding this
critical global problem. I urge the defeat of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 2253.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
DeConcini
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Ford
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Johnston
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Smith
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NAYS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone
Wofford
So the amendment (No. 2253) was rejected.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2245
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now before the Senate is
amendment No. 2245, offered by the Republican leader, Mr. Dole.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not know if they are ready to go to a
vote on that. Yesterday, I discussed on the floor, as has Senator
McConnell and others, our concern about crime in the former Soviet
Union. I mentioned discussions I had with Director Freeh prior to his
trip over to Russia and other countries.
It was the intention of Senator McConnell, Senator D'Amato, and
myself, to have an amendment that would earmark specific funds to be
used as part of our aid package to Russia, in helping to fight crime
there, something that would be done on my part because of the
tremendous respect I have for Director Freeh and the way he has run the
FBI, and the enormous need for help, and because I am convinced that
Director Freeh and the FBI could help considerably in Russia, the
former Soviet Union, to get ahold of the major crime problem they have.
So, Mr. President, I ask my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, if he
could let us know, should we be prepared to go forward on the Dole
amendment, or should we set that aside and go to this?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Vermont that
the Senator from New York is here with an amendment on crime in Russia,
and I have one as well. Our plan had been to offer and discuss them in
tandem and vote on both. So we are ready to go on those issues.
Mr. LEAHY. I also see the Senator from Florida, who was here earlier
to speak on the pending amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. We would also be willing to have a short time
agreement on this, and we can get a couple of votes out of the way. If
our colleague from Florida could indulge us, that would be a good way
to move this bill forward.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am shortly going to propound a unanimous-
consent agreement. So that people understand what it is going to be, I
am going to ask for a relatively short amount of time to deal with two
amendments on crime that will require the setting aside of the pending
amendment, but it would then be our intention that once those crime
amendments are disposed of, we would then go back to the Dole-Warner
Haiti amendment and will stay on that until it is disposed of.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment, the Dole-Warner amendment, be temporarily set aside, that it
then be in order for the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from New
York, and myself, to bring forward amendments on which there will be a
time agreement of 40 minutes to be equally divided between the Senator
from Kentucky and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2263
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself and Senator D'Amato, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and
Mr. D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 2263.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of section entitled ``Assistance to the New
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' add a new
subsection:
Not less than $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated under
this heading shall be made available to the International
Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP)
to undertake a police development and training program to
assist in institutional reforms and improve the professional
capabilities of Russian police agencies: Provided further,
That funds made available shall be used to support the
following activities:
(1) develop and professionalize the criminal justice
agencies;
(2) improve criminal investigative and forensic
capabilities;
(3) establish-institutional training capabilities based on
democratic principles of policing, and respect for human
rights and the rule of law;
(4) improve accountability of law enforcement agencies by
introducing systems and procedures for investing allegations
of abuse or malfeasance;
Amendment No. 2264
(Purpose: To provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation with
$15,000,000 to be earmarked for international law enforcement
cooperation with the New Independent States of Eastern Europe)
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Leahy, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr.
McConnell, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered
2264.
Mr. D'AMATO. 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. . Of the funds appropriated for the New Independent
States of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, not to
exceed $15,000,000, shall be made available to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for transnational and international
law enforcement cooperation with the New Independent States
of the former Soviet Union and the emerging democracies of
Eastern Europe to combat organized crime.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, presently, one of the greatest threats
facing democracy in Russia, and indeed in Europe, is the rapid
expansion of organized crime. The situation is so bad that organized
crime literally threatens to undermine the very democracy that the
United States and the West seek to protect through their assistance
programs and, more so, by connection, our own security.
Let me read to you, if I might, a letter I received from the Director
of the FBI, Louis Freeh, dated June 23, 1994. We had discussed this,
and I think that the Director's trip to Russia amplifies his concern,
in a very vivid way, that the problems of organized crime in Russia are
so great that democracy is threatened. There are those who say: We are
better off in the old ways. We at least had stability and did not have
to worry about our safety. We were not being robbed and mugged or have
financial institutions which are being threatened, which is the case
today.
So it is with that in mind that he sent the letter to me in which he
said:
Dear Senator D'Amato: Thank your for advising me of your
efforts to earmark funding for law enforcement assistance and
training for the Newly Independent States and emerging
democracies in Eastern Europe.
It is critical that the FBI and other criminal justice
agencies begin a long-term commitment to international law
enforcement. Major problems which demand our immediate
attention involve the possible theft of nuclear weapons or
nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union, the emergence
and spread of organized crime and drug trafficking groups
from Russia and Eurasia and the growth of similar Neo-Nazi
hate groups in the United States and Germany.
As you know, I am leading a Federal law enforcement
delegation traveling to Europe on June 24th. Meetings with
senior law enforcement officials of 11 European and Eurasian
nations have been scheduled through July 6th. These important
discussions will forge the framework for what I believe will
be unprecedented levels of international law enforcement
cooperation.
During my visit to Russia, I will open the FBI's new Legal
Attache post in Moscow. This trip also provides a unique
opportunity for me to see first-hand where additional FBI
presence is needed in the Newly Independent States and
Eastern Europe.
I am greatly encouraged by the support that these efforts
to enhance international law enforcement have garnered and I
look forward to keeping you and other Members of Congress
abreast of our progress in these crucial areas.
Sincerely yours,
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
Mr. President, let me say that it does not make much sense to invest
billions of dollars in helping to stabilize the Eastern bloc and Russia
in particular and have these efforts undermined by this kind of
organized crime which is involved in everything from terrorism to drug
trafficking to forgery, to contract killings, and indeed there are
connections with these Russian gangs from Russia right here into this
country.
Indeed, in New York, the organized Russian gangs in Brighton Beach
have become very much involved in violence on a large scale. The local
FBI and law enforcement officers indicate to us they are into all kinds
of criminal activity, intimidation, blackmail, gasoline tax scams,
insurance frauds, drug trafficking, forgery, and, as I mentioned
before, even contract killings. They have their ties to and roots in
Russia.
That is why we offer this amendment in a bipartisan manner to say
that we can utilize the capacities of the FBI and their training
abilities to help our Russian brethren, for otherwise the very
stability of any kind of government and particularly one which is
trying to nurture democracy, will be and is being undermined.
Bankers today are threatened if they are successful. They or their
families are kidnapped, or worse, killed. Entrepreneurs in every area
are regularly having to pay extortion money to organized crime in what
used to be the Soviet Union, and they face the prospect of death to
themselves or to their families if they fail to cooperate.
The fact is that the Russians do not have the kind of management in
this area to deal with this. They have gone from an autocratic society
to one now in which the instrumentalities of control, in many cases,
have been totally lost and that vacuum has been filled by organized
crime.
Let me conclude by saying about these funds, because some of our
colleagues were concerned how these funds would be used. We have agreed
with the appropriators, specifically the Commerce, State, Justice
Subcommittee, as to the appropriate language. With these funds, the FBI
will be able to initiate international cooperation on a level
heretofore not seen in international law enforcement. The FBI will be
able to provide training in organized crime and related investigative
matters, forensic and other advanced investigative technological
support, and continue the goodwill efforts begun with Director Freeh's
visits to the region, because the countries of Eastern Europe are
facing the Russian crime gangs first before they come here. This type
of cooperation is vitally necessary and unprecedented in the history of
law enforcement.
Mr. President, this earmark is a good one and it is appropriate.
I thank both the managers, the chairman and the ranking member, of
the bill, Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell, for their strong support
and for their contribution to bringing us to this point.
Again, it makes little sense to be investing billions of dollars and
not allocating some scarce resources to see to it that we can take on
the organized crime efforts which are undermining the opportunity for
democracy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
New York for his involvement and leadership in this most important
issue, as well as my friend and colleague Chairman Leahy.
Many of our colleagues may have seen an article in the Atlantic
Monthly of June of this year entitled ``The Wild East'' by Seymour
Hersh, and on the cover of the Atlantic Monthly it says, ``Organized
crime has strangled business in Russia and is now reaching for the
nation's nuclear stockpile.''
We are talking about a very, very serious problem here, as Senator
D'Amato has pointed out.
This is an extremely depressing article about the state of law and
order in Russia. As the Senator from New York has pointed out, it has
even reached into the United States. Russian organized crime here. Of
course, it is obviously more rampant in Russia and the countries
surrounding that area.
Each of us has spoken with the Director of the FBI. I did yesterday
morning. He just got back from a trip to that part of the world. We are
working with the Russians to try to help them. Obviously, it is an
enormous problem. But the United States through the FBI is reaching out
to try to help.
Both the amendments that we are discussing which we will vote on back
to back at the end of this time agreement deal with the question of
crime in Russia.
Mr. President, as we deal with the issue of how to encourage private
investment in Russia and effectively administer United States aid to
Russia, we need to take a clear-eyed look at the growing problem of
crime that I have just outlined earlier.
Of course, nearly every country has some sort of crime problem.
Certainly we do. It is the No. 1 issue in the United States. All the
polls indicate that. We are trying to grapple with that problem here at
home.
But there are many who are concerned that the crime problem in Russia
has evolved to the point where it literally threatens to disrupt
consistent private economic engagement with Russia, as well as the
provision of foreign assistance that we are discussing in this bill.
Last summer, when Chairman Leahy and I visited Moscow, issues of
crime and law enforcement were already weighing heavily on the minds of
people there. Businessmen told us stories of Mafia shakedowns, and told
how they all traveled with heavily armed bodyguards.
I remember talking to one American businessman in Kiev who said he
got a phone call, and he has gotten a number of them over the months,
but this particular phone call he had remembered. He ignored the
requests for $5,000. He just called him often and said, ``I want
$5,000.'' He essentially ignored the request that had gone on for a
couple weeks. This final time he got a phone call the guy said: ``I
want $5,000. If you don't give it to me, I'm going to kill your
secretary.'' He said, ``It got my attention.'' That is how rampant this
problem is.
The diplomatic community swapped horror stories of being stopped by
local policemen. So it is a problem of the police as well. They are not
paid very well there. They are obviously very subject to bribery and
other activities.
Among the things that happened in our diplomatic community over
there, Americans are stopped by local policemen and threatened with on-
the-spot drunk driving blood tests, administered with a dirty needle,
unless they are willing to pay the fine up front. That is the police.
It is a year later, and we are starting to hear more than just those
individual horror stories.
FBI Director Freeh recently testified that the United States is
threatened by a major international criminal community, operating out
of Russia, which the Senator from New York was talking about, that is
engaged in drug trafficking, money laundering and even smuggling
nuclear weaponry. Let me repeat, Mr. President. We are talking about
even smuggling nuclear weaponry. I mean, it could be argued this is the
most serious crime problem in the world that potentially affects all of
us.
CIA Director Woolsey testified that there may be as many as 5,700
organized crime groups operating in Russia--5,700 organized crime
groups operating in Russia. Of those, Director Woolsey's words, ``200
are large, sophisticated organizations engaged in criminal activity
throughout the former Soviet Union and 29 other countries.''
So this is not a mom and pop criminal operation, Mr. President. We
are talking about sophisticated organized crime operating on an
international basis.
And the problem is far broader than organized crime controlling
illicit activities like drug trafficking and money laundering. The
pervasive reach of these organized crime rings extends into otherwise
legitimate business activities as well, corrupting the entire economic
infrastructure.
I referred earlier to the article in the Atlantic Monthly. Seymour
Hersh painted a brutal portrait of how crime has affected every single
aspect of Russian life. Much of the information he detailed was
corroborated in a report by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs
and the DOE Threat Assessment conducted last November.
According to Seymour Hersh, roughly 40 percent of private businesses
and 60 percent of state-owned enterprises are corrupted by organized
crime. Half of all the Russian banks and up to 80 percent of the
hotels, shops, warehouses, and service industries in Moscow are run by
the Russian Mafia.
Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Half of all the Russian banks and
up to 80 percent of the hotels, shops, warehouses, and service
industries in Moscow are run by the Russian Mafia, according to Seymour
Hersh. Just as troubling is the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the
private enterprises are victims of extortion--70 to 80 percent of the
emerging private enterprises are victims of extortion.
No wonder he picked the title for the article, ``The Wild East.'' We
had ``The Wild West'' here for awhile. This is a serious problem.
Criminal activity has also seeped in to the Russian police and
military forces, adding another layer of harassment and danger for
business.
In 1993, about 3,000 army officers were disciplined for
``questionable business practices''--the army now--and 46 generals
faced court-martial for corruption.
Sy Hersh goes on to point out:
Russian armories are physically deteriorating and are
guarded by soldiers whose indifference makes them vulnerable
to criminal elements.
Why should this matter? Well, Hersh says:
There is powerful evidence that organized crime in the
former Soviet Union has been systematically seeking access to
the nuclear stockpiles, with their potential for huge
profits.
Now, bear in mind we are talking about organized crime trying to get
ahold of nuclear stockpiles. Is there any, Mr. President, potentially
scarier development in the world than that? I would argue not.
There is strong evidence that the Russian Government is
unable to account for all of its bombs and all of its
weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.
Rising crime in the Soviet Union presents a direct threat to our
security--our security, here. It also makes it virtually impossible for
the private sector over there to invest and to grow.
As President Yeltsin noted in his State of the Union Address, crime
and corruption must be tackled, and tackled soon. Failure to provide
meaningful and immediate relief will generate both an antimarket and
antidemocracy backlash over there.
As we debate this bill, Judge Freeh has just returned from the
region, as we have discussed, after opening a new FBI legal attache
office in Moscow. Prior to his departure, Senator D'Amato and I sent a
letter advising him we intended to earmark funds to support his
important efforts to lay the groundwork for further law enforcement
cooperation.
Chairman Leahy has also been heavily involved in this and help shape
our views.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter that Senator D'Amato and I
sent to Judge Freeh, and his response, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 20, 1994.
Hon. Louis Freeh,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC.
Dear Louis: We understand that you are leaving for Russia
at the end of this week for further discussions about joint
efforts to combat crime in the former Soviet Union. We
appreciate the fact that the Russians are eager to address
this problem of compelling mutual concern. We thought it
would be helpful if you knew of our intention to introduce
two amendments during consideration of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill when it comes to the Senate floor.
First, we intend to earmark $15 million for an
International Crime Investigative Training Assistance Program
(ICITAP). Recently released statistics illustrate why
Russians consider crime one of the greatest problems they
face; 5,600 criminal gangs have been identified and over
25,000 crimes were committed involving firearms. We believe
an ICITAP program could make an important contribution both
developing and professionalizing the criminal justice
agencies. In particular, we would like to see the Bureau
assist in training which would improve investigative and
forensic capabilities as well as strengthening institutional
accountability within agencies to prevent corruption.
Second, we intend to direct that $15 million in funds be
provided to the Bureau to open Legal Attache offices in
Eastern Europe and the republics of the New Independent
States. Reports of the significant increase in transnational
threats such as terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and
smuggling of nuclear material and weapons suggests a vital
role for the Bureau in the region to protect U.S. security
and interests.
We would appreciate any thoughts you may have on these
amendments and look forward to working with you in the coming
months to assure the Bureau has the resources necessary to
address these urgent priorities.
Sincerely,
Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senator, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations.
Alfonse D'Amato,
U.S. Senator.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: Thank you for advising me of your
efforts to earmark funding for law enforcement assistance and
training for the Newly Independent States and emerging
democracies in Eastern Europe.
It is critical that the FBI and other criminal justice
agencies begin a long-term commitment to international law
enforcement. Major problems which demand our immediate
attention involve the possible theft of nuclear weapons or
nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union, the emergence
and spread of organized crime and drug trafficking groups
from Russia and Eurasia and the growth of similar Neo-Nazi
hate groups in the United States and Germany.
As you know, I am leading a Federal law enforcement
delegation traveling to Europe on June 24th. Meetings with
senior law enforcement officials of 11 European and Eurasian
nations have been scheduled through July 6th. These important
discussions will forge the framework for what I believe will
be unprecedented levels of international law enforcement
cooperation.
During my visit to Russia, I will open the FBI's new Legal
Attache post in Moscow. This trip also provides an unique
opportunity for me to see first-hand where additional FBI
presence is needed in the Newly Independent States and
Eastern Europe.
I am greatly encouraged by the support that these efforts
to enhance international law enforcement have garnered and I
look forward to keeping you and other Members of Congress
abreast of our progress in these crucial areas.
Sincerely yours,
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
Mr. McCONNELL. As I indicated earlier, I spoke with Judge Freeh about
his trip and asked him how serious the problem was. His response was
somewhat surprising. He said:
The problem is huge--in fact greater than we anticipated.
Democracy is on the edge. The ultra-nationalists are
exploiting the perception that democracy is failing because
the government cannot protect the basic safety of its
citizens.
The Russian Government cannot protect the basic safety of its
citizens.
He went on to elaborate on the scope of the problem--there are no
organized crime or racketeering laws, so even if you catch a crook--
this is Judge Freeh talking about the Russian circumstance--even if you
catch a crook, there is not a lot that can be done with him. Police
officers are paid a few hundred dollars a month, which, as I indicated
earlier, obviously makes them vulnerable to bribes and corruption. And
the problem does not stop at the Russian border. At least 300 of the
more than 5,000 criminal groups operating in Russia have established
transnational ties; in other words, they are operating outside of
Russia. Judge Freeh said every country he visited--from Poland to
Ukraine to the Baltic Nations--every one is overwhelmed by the same
problems--and a great deal of criminal activity can be traced right
back to Russia.
Officials in every country he visited pleaded with him to open legal
attache offices, establish joint law enforcement strategies, and
provide access to our FBI Academy over here.
Mr. President, they understand the full dimensions of the problem
they are up against and they are eager to have our help.
I believe Judge Freeh deserves our support in this effort--that it is
in our direct national interest to assure the effective training of
Russian law enforcement officers and to establish a professional
criminal justice system from judges to juries. Unless we earmark the
funds, he, the director of the FBI, will not have the resources
necessary to combat crime and secure our interests.
For that reason, Senator D'Amato and I have offered two amendments,
which we are discussing, that I view as mutually reinforcing in
tackling present issues of crime and corruption.
The first amendment, which Senator D'Amato has joined in
cosponsoring, will earmark $15 million for the International Criminal
Investigative Training Assistance Program [ICITAP]. To date, nominal
ICITAP resources have been dedicated to training programs in Russia to
improve investigative, forensic and other basic professional police
skills.
The second amendment, which the Senator from New York offered and
will be voted on shortly, will transfer $15 million to the FBI to carry
out joint law enforcement training and activities. Originally, Senator
D'Amato and I planned the funds to be dedicated to opening legal
attache offices throughout the NIS and Eastern Europe. However,
bureaucratic interagency infighting, combined with the urgency of the
problems abroad, suggest we should be more flexible. It could take
months and months of negotiations between State and the FBI before
legal attache offices could be established abroad. As we work toward
establishing permanent offices, it is a good idea for the FBI to be
given the opportunity to move forward with the training and exchange
programs to fill the enormous law enforcement gap.
Mr. President, the crime problem has a direct and devastating impact
on the willingness of American companies to invest in the Russian
economy--which, in turn, prevents job creation and economic growth,
both of which are essential to the future of Russia.
Moreover, this is not just an isolated Russian problem. Judge Freeh
concluded our conversation by saying the Russian problem is our
problem--there is strong evidence that Russian groups have established
ties with the Cali cartel and is exporting cocaine into the United
States.
I think we all believe Judge Freeh is on the right track. The
question to me is whether the administration will support his efforts
to solve the problems. These earmarks are a stopgap effort to assure
some initiative is taken with the hope that a strategy will emerge and
be implemented.
So, Mr. President, we offer these amendments, even though we expect
they will be approved overwhelmingly, to bring the Senate, in effect,
up to date on a most, most serious problem.
I particularly want to thank the chairman for his involvement and
leadership in this issue, as well. This is an extremely, extremely
serious problem.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. As I understand it,
the first amendment that will be voted on is the one submitted by Mr.
D'Amato, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Domenici, and myself, that would transfer
$15 million to the FBI?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first amendment to be voted on is
amendment No. 2264 by Senator D'Amato--the Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
I have spoken already on the problem of crime in Russia. I have
followed this with a great deal of interest, both in my trips there and
in discussions I have had with Director Freeh and others. I am
concerned at the degree of crime. I am concerned, of course, that AID
money goes to the wrong places. I am also concerned, if you have an air
of criminal activity as a part of the lifestyle, it makes it impossible
to go forward in the way we should with efforts to improve democracy.
As a former prosecutor, I well realize the need for a judicial system
that works. AID is working in this area. They have had training for
judges, prosecutors and lawyers. They work on creating an independent
judicial system, drafting new laws and procedures, working to
reintroduce a trial by jury system, and drafting a new civil code.
There are a lot of things that have to be done and there are a lot of
things that are being done.
I discussed this with Director Freeh. I believe the FBI can bring its
expertise, and that is why I support this amendment.
I told yesterday of the situation, as reported in our press, of a car
driving up in front of an office and people stepping out of that car
and firing automatic weapons into the ground-floor office until a
secretary opens a drawer, pulls out a grenade, pulls the pin, and rolls
it under the car.
Crime is becoming a bit too much of a way of life when you file
grenades in your filing drawer. I do not know whether you do it under B
for ``boom'' or G for ``grenade'' or what.
I know in our office we have file drawers with pens and papers and
stamps, and this, that, and the other thing. Even in my days as a
prosecutor, we never had a filing drawer with grenades.
If it comes to the point that, to get a job, they ask how fast do you
take dictation and what kind of an arm do you have for throwing a
grenade--this is kind of bad.
A lot can be done. A lot will be done. I am concerned about the rise
of criminal activity. I think Russia was right to move forward as they
have in privatization but, obviously, like everybody else, I am
concerned about how fast crime has risen in this country. Those of us
who have served in law enforcement, as well as those who have not, have
to understand how the tentacles of crime destroy a judicial system,
destroy a commercial code, destroy a free enterprise system, and
destroy the trust people have in their government. Organized crime is
moving into all areas, from law enforcement to the private enterprise
system. There is probably nothing that can work more against democracy
in Russia, more against the security of the people, more against the
kind of economic basis they need than the spread of crime.
I will support this amendment. I am about to yield the remainder of
my time so we can go to the vote. During the vote, I urge cosponsors of
the second amendment, which is related, and which I also support, to
see if it is possible to do that on a voice vote. If not, I hope we
could have the rollcall as quickly as possible, just to make things
easier.
Before I yield the remainder of my time, I yield whatever time the
Senator from Kentucky wishes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend, the Senator from Vermont, my
thought was we would have rollcalls back to back, one 15 minutes and
one 10, and then move on. I think we need the yeas on both of the
amendments.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have one amendment now before us. I ask
unanimous consent it be in order to order the yeas and nays en bloc on
that amendment and on the second amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays en bloc on both
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that, upon the completion of the
rollcall vote on the first amendment, we go immediately to a rollcall
vote on the second amendment, and the second rollcall vote be a 10-
minute rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment, No. 2264.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]
YEAS--100
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
So the amendment (No. 2264) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now is
on agreeing to amendment No. 2263 offered by the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. McConnell]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The Chair will advise that this is a 10-minute rollcall vote.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]
YEAS--100
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
So the amendment (No. 2263) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2245
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now before the Senate is
amendment No. 2245 offered by the Republican leader, Mr. Dole.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not have much more to say on this
amendment. It is a question of whether we want the facts or not. If you
do not want the facts, vote against it. Or you can take 45 days to get
the facts with a bipartisan factfinding commission.
I do not think it would do anything but help all of us who are very
concerned about Haiti and very concerned about our policy there. There
are no easy answers. I have listened to the distinguished Senator from
Florida, Senator Graham, on the floor, and on ``Crossfire,'' and other
programs. Certainly, he understands the problem there very well.
I want to clear up just one issue. I do not care what General Cedras
or the other thugs running Haiti think about this or any other
proposal. I do not check with Cedras or Aristide, or any other Haitians
on my view of American national interests. I have never met with
Aristide, and he has never asked to meet with me. I do not check with
him or anybody else. That is what the Haiti policy is all about--our
national interests.
Those who support invasion and nation building in Haiti have an
obligation to say what interests are at stake. Is it because we are so
close to Haiti? That is certainly not the reason. Are any Americans
being threatened? None. There are a lot of rumors and stories, and
maybe some distortions.
I agree completely with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
Senator Nunn, who said this morning:
If the mission is to alleviate the refugee problem, then I
think we first ought to try adjusting the sanction policy * *
* but if the mission is to restore democracy, that's a
different mission. It is not primarily a military mission. It
is a nation-building mission. And we need to think through
that one very carefully.
We just went through a nation-building exercise in Somalia. Many of
us supported President Clinton when he decided to withdraw, and he had
wide support because we had deviated from the original course, from
humanitarian aid to nation building. But that was done by the United
Nations. Here, it seems to me, we are going to set it out as our own
course.
We invaded Haiti once this century to reverse a military coup. After
100 American casualties and 19 years, America left Haiti. And Haiti
returned to violence and anarchy. In my view, we ought to spend some
time learning lessons from that intervention before beginning a new
one.
Before we get engaged in nation-building in Haiti, we ought to listen
to Haiti's democratic parliamentarians. We ought to look at Aristide's
leadership in power and in exile. And we ought to look at why
reconciliation has not worked in Haiti. That is exactly what a
commission would do. If you oppose this commission, you are saying no
to the facts and yes to writing a blank check for military invasion and
nation building in Haiti.
The administration opposes the amendment, and I do not know why.
Maybe they are afraid of an objective assessment. Maybe they do not
want to know the facts and they like it the way it is. There is a lot
of rhetoric, and every night on television Mr. Gray, or somebody else,
says that an invasion is not imminent--whatever imminent means. Maybe
they have decided what they want to do, and maybe they want to wait
until Congress is in recess, or some other time, before taking final
action. Maybe it is a setup to make invasion the only option after
creating a refugee crisis. Certainly, this was created by the
administration's policy. They have had a number of policies in Haiti.
Quoting from the New York Times of 1 week ago--and I do not quote
from them frequently--it reads:
After months of vacillating from one policy to another,
America faces the troubling prospect that Mr. Clinton is
drifting into using troops in Haiti because he wants to
compensate for policy embarrassments and does not have a
better idea.
That is exactly what the New York Times said, and they are not
exactly a Republican mouthpiece in this country. That is their
conclusion. This article has been put in the Record so I will not ask
that it be printed again.
There is always a possibility that this commission might lead to some
better ideas. It might lead to a resolution, as a commission appointed
by President Reagan did in 1984, dealing with some of the Central
American problems. It made a number of recommendations; it was
bipartisan, and many things that they recommended were later adopted by
Congress.
I do not know why a 45-day delay would bother the administration--
unless they want to invade between now and then. Forty-five days is not
very long. We are going to be here, and Congress will be back, if there
is a recess. Nothing in this amendment ties the President's hands--it
does not even mention the President.
In fact, we do not even need the resolution. If the majority leader
would agree, I would certainly agree that we could name some of our
colleagues today. Start today. We will not wait until this bill goes
through conference and all that. Start today with the factfinding
commission if time is a problem. We can do that on our own. We have
that right. Some Members have gone to Haiti. Our colleague from
Florida, Senator Graham, has been to Haiti. Others of my colleagues--I
think one of my House colleagues is going to be in Haiti this week,
Congressman Richardson from New Mexico. A number of them have gone
there. Certainly, we have that right if we want to exercise it. I
assume that people go there to get the facts. This would be a
bipartisan effort, with no politics in it. It seems to me that the
President would welcome it.
I think it is probably time to vote on this simple idea to get the
facts and an objective assessment. As I said, let us not shoot first
and ask questions later. But I am afraid the gun is already loaded and
pointed in that direction. We have a lot of warships down there, and
they are not all there to rescue Americans, none of whom, as far as I
know, are under any personal threat of any kind.
Mr. President, this amendment is offered in the same spirit that I
suggested it probably 2 or 3 months ago. It is not offered in any way
to frustrate the President's plan or in any way to frustrate what other
ideas other Members may have. They may be better than this one. It
seems to me that if we are really concerned, and if we want the facts,
what is wrong with having a factfinding commission for 45 days, who
would report back to the U.S. Senate and the Congress? Then we might be
able to find some way to do what most people want, which is to try to
restore democracy to Haiti--though it was a pretty fragile democracy
even when they had it.
For all the reasons stated today and yesterday, I hope that this
amendment will be accepted. And if not accepted, I hope it will be
adopted with an overwhelming vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is clear what the purpose of this
resolution to establish a joint congressional committee to study the
issue in Haiti is, and the purpose is to restrict the President's range
of options for an indefinite period of time, especially his option to
use force.
The Senator from Kansas, the distinguished minority leader, has
stated that he did not consult with General Cedras before drafting this
proposal. However, it is not without significance that General Cedras,
upon becoming aware of this proposal, has adopted it.
It is clear that this degree of gridlock in the United States foreign
policy as it relates to Haiti would serve the primary purpose of
emboldening the thugs who have stolen the sovereignty of the people of
Haiti.
Mr. President, I want to discuss some of the consequences should this
Senate, in a fit of ill wisdom, adopt this proposal. But before I do
that, I would like to turn to the proposal itself and just a few areas
in which it is factually erroneous.
The premise of this amendment is that Congress has been
insufficiently consulted on Haiti, that there is some mystery, some
attempt to disguise and keep from Congress the facts of what is
occurring in Haiti.
Mr. President, up until just a few days ago when commercial aviation
service was cut off to Haiti--and even today, as the Senator indicated,
the delegation will go to Haiti through the Dominican Republic this
weekend--Haiti was a country in which Americans could visit, travel,
talk to people, and gather information and form their own opinions.
This is not a country which is thousands of miles away and, until
recently, difficult to gain access to.
This is also a country on which this administration, since January of
last year, has had almost 30 briefings or presentations before
appropriate congressional committees on Haiti.
So people who wanted to get information about Haiti had the
opportunity to do so. We do not have to defer to this Commission and
place our policy in limbo for 45 days after the enactment of this bill,
which could be well into September or October, in order to learn about
what is happening in Haiti.
So the basic premise, a premise of ignorance--and even more than
ignorance, a premise that there has been some conscious effort to deny
to the American people and to its representatives in Congress
information as to what is occurring in Haiti--is fundamentally
erroneous.
Second, reading the proposition itself, on page 2, lines 1 through 4,
it states under the category of ``Congressional Findings'':
Haiti's elected President who is in exile and the de facto
ruling junta in Haiti have reached an impasse in their
negotiations for the reinstitution of civilian government.
That is blatantly false. First, there was a good-faith effort to
negotiate a restoration of democracy in Haiti, an effort which was
frustrated in October of last year by the military regime which reneged
on its commitments. The most dramatic example of that occurred in Port
au Prince Harbor when the United States and the Canadians, pursuant to
a provision in the Governors Island accords, the agreement which
structured the return of democracy in Haiti, under that agreement, the
United States and Canada had committed troops to come to Haiti not as
warriors, but as workers and educators, to work as Seabees and Corps of
Engineers personnel to help in the rebuilding of the country, and at
the same time to educate elements of the Haitian military as to how
they could perform those functions for the benefit of the people of
Haiti.
The Haitian military regime had committed to the international
community that ship would be allowed to dock and that those men and
women would be protected while they were carrying out their
international responsibilities.
What in fact occurred, as we all know, is first the Haitian
Government arranged for a ship to be tied up at the only dock in the
harbor of Port au Prince, which was large enough to accommodate the
Harlan County, our ship, which contained those United States and
Canadian troops; and, second, then brought to the dock a group of
hoodlums who demonstrated against the United States and Canadian troops
being disembarked. As a result of that gross breach of their
commitment, the military of Haiti caused the United States and the
Canadian troops to withdraw.
It was not an ``impasse in negotiations'' which caused the process
leading toward the restoration of democracy to break down. It was an
arrogant, purposeful abrogation of obligations by the Haitian military
which caused the negotiations to break down.
In paragraph 3, it states:
The extensive economic sanctions imposed by the United
Nations and United States against the de facto rules are
causing grave harm to innocent Haitians.
That is erroneous, Mr. President. The sanctions are not a means of
inflicting pain on the mass of the citizens of Haiti. The sanctions are
a means of attempting to bring pressure towards the end of a voluntary
transfer of power from those who seized it illegally at the point of a
gun, ousted a democratically elected President, and have taken over the
sovereignty of the state.
What is causing the grave harm to Haitians is 30 years of despotic
rule, and what is causing it today is that that long, dark period of
the history of Haiti has reached a new low as to the level of human
rights abuses, the level of violence directed against the people, a
record of almost 100 political murders per month since the 1st of
February, and a government which has driven the economy of the poorest
country in the Western Hemisphere even further into disarray, resulting
in more than 50 percent of the people of Haiti being unemployed.
Those are the factors that have caused grave harm to innocent
Haitians. Sanctions were intended to be a means of giving relief to the
masses of the Haitian citizens by causing this illegitimate government
to give way to the democratically elected President.
In paragraph 5, Mr. President, it is stated:
An armed invasion of Haiti by forces of the United States,
the United Nations, and the Organization of American States
would endanger the lives of troops sent to Haiti, as well as
thousands of Haitians, especially civilians.
I agree with the thrust of that paragraph. But what it fails to say
is what of the dangers to democracy in this hemisphere and to the
citizens of Haiti by a continuation of our current policies or by the
policy which so many on the other side of the aisle are advocating,
which is essentially a policy of surrender? Let us recognize the
illegitimate regime. Let us stop a policy which commenced with
President George Bush, and that is to commit our Nation and the
international community to a restoration of President Aristide. Let us
forget that commitment. Let us lift the embargo. And let us let this
reign of terror continue unabated.
Those, Mr. President, are the factual inaccuracies contained within
this resolution.
Mr. President, a great American theologian, Harvey Cox, once observed
that not to decide is to decide. There are consequences from
indecision.
I consider this resolution to be a statement of indecision. We are
traumatized by all of the unpleasant choices that are before us. We are
traumatized by what we see daily of the events from Haiti. We are
traumatized by the thousands of people who are fleeing Haiti.
Thus, our answer is let us not decide. Let us set up an ambiguous
commission with an indeterminant reporting date, with a very vague
charter. And let us let that substitute for making tough choices.
But there are going to be tough choices, even if we were to adopt
this resolution, Mr. President.
What are some of the consequences of adopting this resolution? One of
the consequences is that any prospect of achieving the result of a
voluntary transfer of power by the current military regime to
democratically elected President Aristide will be smashed. The only
hope for a voluntary transfer of power, as bleak as I believe that hope
to be, is if the United States and the international community present
a clear, sustained, consolidated position demanding that there be such
a transfer back to the legitimate government in Haiti.
Every time we send a signal that there is fracture and division and
discord in this country, we make it even less likely that there will be
a diplomatic resolution of this issue. We make it more likely that we
will be faced with either abject surrender or the use of military
force.
The second likely consequence of the adoption of this resolution, Mr.
President, is to unleash a reign of terror in that country that even
pales that which is occurring today.
We have seen this week that the illegitimate regime told to the 100
United Nations and Organization of American States observers: ``Out. 48
hours. Pack your bags and leave.''
I personally think that the international community made a very
serious error in accepting that order to leave. The policy of the
international community had been not to recognize orders of this
illegitimate regime. The policy of the international community had been
to provide a presence inside Haiti to give some degree of protection to
the people of Haiti. At least these acts of violence would have a
capacity to be reported from a credible source and the world community
informed as to what is happening in Haiti. As a result of the
international community's acceptance of this demand to leave, we have
lost that capability.
Now, if we were to pass this resolution and send a signal that there
is division within this country and that we are going to be
incapacitated to act for an indeterminate period, I believe that we
would have blood on our hands, as we would be a coconspirator in a plot
to butcher the people of Haiti.
Third, Mr. President, I believe a consequence of this action would be
to undercut our leadership in the international community. We have had
many debates on this floor in recent months on the issue of Bosnia. One
of the recurring themes in those debates has been that Bosnia should be
the special responsibility for leadership of the European community.
Bosnia is a European state. Europeans are going to be particularly
affected by the consequences of what occurs in Bosnia. Europeans have
been the ones who have been willing to step forward and place some of
their troops on the ground in Bosnia.
I believe that that is an appropriate assignment, a primary,
regional, continental responsibility.
In that same light, Mr. President, I believe that the United States
has a special role in the Western Hemisphere. Throughout our history,
we have taken an interest and a leadership position in terms of shaping
policies for the Western Hemisphere. Many of those past actions are now
legitimately subject to criticism. Maybe they were overreaching and
overbearing and created the concept of the ugly American in Latin
America.
But today, Mr. President, we hope that we are embarked on a new
course and that the fundamental premise of our policy in the Western
Hemisphere is to support the development of functioning democratic
governments which respect the rights of their people and provide a
basis in which there is some hope for a prosperous future for their and
future generations of our fellow occupants of this New World.
If we were to adopt this resolution, Mr. President, in the face of
our commitment to the United Nations and the Organization of American
States, I think that we would be essentially abdicating, certainly
raising serious questions about, the credibility of U.S. leadership and
influence in this region of the world.
Mr. President, I believe there are serious adverse consequences to
adopting this resolution. This is not a free vote.
Mr. President, in conclusion, let me raise what I consider to be the
most serious implication of this debate and this issue which is before
us, and that is as another example of the shattering of the concept of
bipartisanship in foreign policy.
We have been joined by my good friend from Arizona. I know we
disagree on this issue, but I respect Senator McCain, and we have spent
more time together than maybe he would have preferred. But I know that
he is deeply committed to the belief that, when the United States
speaks to the world, it should speak with a single voice.
Yes, we are going to have debates like this in arriving at what that
voice will be, but, once the issue is joined, that we are all
Americans.
I believe that there is the basis of this position in some previous
statements that have been made by Senator Dole. You will recall in the
fall of 1989, there was an attempt to overthrow then General Noriega
from his despotic position in Panama. The effort at that overthrow
failed and there was considerable criticism directed at President Bush
for the failure of the United States to support those who were involved
in the coup.
According to an article that appeared in the Congressional Quarterly
in December of 1989:
Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole spoke for many
Republicans--
And I am now quoting from the article--
Who lamented the administration's hesitancy to get directly
involved in the anti-Noriega insurgency, but who blamed a
decade and a half of congressional effort to restrict the use
of military or paramilitary force overseas.
And now quoting Senator Dole:
A good part of what went wrong * * * did not happen last
weekend. It started happening many years ago when Congress
first decided to start telling the President how he ought to
manage a crisis.
I think there is some wisdom in that statement; that we have to put
aside whether we are Republicans or Democrats and recognize that we are
Americans with a responsibility for this Nation's position of
leadership and the special role that the United States has played
throughout its over 200-year history as the prime example of a
Government of, by, and for the people.
I think we ought to have a debate about American national interests.
Is there a sufficient United States national interest in Haiti for us
to be involved at all? Should we have our role in the economic
sanctions and as a political isolation, which are our current policies?
Should we be prepared to go beyond those current policies? What is our
interest in Haiti?
I would like to briefly suggest, Mr. President--and I hope this would
become the basis of further debate as we form our opinions on Haiti and
as we use this as a basis of forming opinions as to what our interests
are in this post-cold-war era--that the United States has a number of
critical interests at stake in Haiti. Let me suggest a few of those
interests.
Just a few years ago, you could have counted on the fingers of your
hand, with several fingers left over, the number of democracies in the
Western Hemisphere. This was a very unstable and violent place.
We can all recall the pictures from countries like Chile and
Argentina, where depravation of basic human rights and flagrant
homicides were a regular part of government action to intimidate its
people.
Today, Mr. President, every country in the Western Hemisphere is
democratic except for Cuba and Haiti. I believe that it is very much in
the interest of the United States of America to maintain this movement
towards democratic governments in the Western Hemisphere. It is those
democratic governments with which we can have peaceful, productive,
relationships, political, cultural, and economic. It is that stability
within this region which will limit the instances in which we will have
to have a debate such as we are engaged in today.
The reality is that because so many democracies in the Western
Hemisphere are both new and fragile, that they are also vulnerable. All
over this hemisphere there are the sons and the grandsons of former
military dictators who are waiting in the barracks, waiting for a
signal that it is permissible to institute an old-style military coup.
And their eyes have turned to Haiti as an example of whether the
international community is in fact prepared to be faithful to its
commitments to support democratic governments.
I suggest if we fail this test that what we have already seen in
countries such as Venezuela, which has had two military coup attempts
since the deposing of President Aristide from Haiti, in Guatemala,
which almost had another, that we would see those as just the beginning
of a chain reaction of assaults against fragile democracies within this
hemisphere.
You talk about the danger that is involved in dealing with this
current crisis in Haiti, and the danger that may befall some civilians
within Haiti. I suggest the greater danger is to allow the signal that
it is acceptable in 1994 to continue to have a military regime which
acquired power not through the legitimacy of the ballot box but through
the force of the machinegun.
Second, we do have an interest in human rights. We just passed the
Fourth of July where many of us participated in patriotic observances.
The Declaration of Independence was widely read around the smallest
villages to the biggest cities of our country. That statement of basic
beliefs in the rights of mankind was not written by Thomas Jefferson to
only refer to the relatively small number of colonialists who lived
along the Atlantic seaboard. It is a statement of universal principles.
It is a statement which has guided U.S. foreign policy throughout our
Nation's history. In my opinion it has guided our foreign policy when
we were acting to our greatest national benefit.
We have within our own neighborhood--not thousands of miles away in
Somalia but in our neighborhood--an example of horrendous human rights
abuses. Every principle that Thomas Jefferson asked this Nation to
stand for is being violated on a daily basis in Haiti. I believe that
ought to be of concern to us.
I believe that a sense of compassion is an appropriate quality in a
great Nation's foreign policy. When bad things happen in Haiti we are
not going to be immune from the consequences of those evil deeds. We
see it most dramatically in the thousands of Haitians who are leaving
that country. Some 50,000 have left the country since the coup in
September of 1991. The numbers have accelerated in recent weeks as the
conditions inside the country have collapsed.
We are going to pay a heavy price for those refugees. We are going to
pay a heavy price, whether we decide to provide safe havens or admit
them into the United States.
Haiti has also become a significant transshipment point for drugs.
Drugs that used to flow through other places in the Caribbean are now
coming through Haiti into the United States, showing up on the streets
of Milwaukee as well as Miami.
We are paying a price for what has happened in Haiti. We are not
immune to the adverse consequences.
I believe we do have interests in this country which warrant the firm
resolve that our President is now proclaiming. I believe we have
interests that warrant us not adopting a resolution that will clearly
be seen as a signal of a lack of that resolve; of a withdrawal of any
hand of hope and friendship to the mass of people of Haiti.
I hope we will use this debate as a serious effort to begin to
restore the principle of bipartisanship in foreign policy. There are
serious issues here, issues that affect the future of our Nation and
the world; issues which affect the lives of individuals who have been
caught in the hell that today is Haiti.
I hope the Senate, in its wisdom, will defeat this resolution. I hope
by maintaining a constancy of position, that we might be able to
achieve our goal of restoration of democracy in Haiti without the
resort to force. I hope, should we find that desire is not possible of
achievement, that we would abstain from the temptation to accept
surrender and abdication to this group of international criminals who
have taken over the sovereignty of Haiti; that we in the international
community would be prepared to stand for the values of human dignity
and respect and the democratic process as the surest means of
protecting those human values.
That is what I believe is at stake in this issue. We would take a
serious step away from those important commitments by adopting this
resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. I will yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Florida and I attended a briefing
yesterday given by the Secretaries of State and Defense, our
distinguished Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, and
Tony Lake, the National Security Adviser; a briefing that took place
for almost 2 hours.
The distinguished Senator from Arizona was present. I know the
distinguished Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Vermont,
who are here on the floor today, were also present.
But as I left, having listened very carefully to a free and open
dialog between some 20-odd Senators and these key administration
officials, I asked myself, was there a clear expression of the
justification for the United States to invade Haiti?
Candidly, Senator, I did not find it in that briefing.
The matter is classified so we cannot go into specifics. But I did
not leave with a clear understanding. I would like to ask the Senator
if he left with a clear understanding of the justifications that the
administration would allege for any decision to invade Haiti?
There was a discussion about preserving democracy in this hemisphere.
If we look at the U.N. Charter, there is no clear mandate for the
nations of the world, and particularly the nations that are part of the
Security Council, to send forth their forces in support of the cause of
democracy. I could show where there are 60-odd places on the globe
today where conflict is taking place, human rights being violated,
casualties, human suffering of enormous proportion--60 today, compared
with a mere 30 such places 6 years ago--demonstrating how all over the
globe the world is becoming a more unstable place.
But I ask the Senator, what was the clear justification that the
Senator from Florida may have received that the Senator from Virginia
did not receive, as to the basis for the United States intervening
militarily in that nation?
Mr. GRAHAM. Senator, I must not have been even as vaguely articulate
as I tried to be in my earlier statement. Because in part I was
attempting to restate what the President has said publicly, and what we
have heard in other forums as to the basis of the United States
interest. This is not an issue which is a question that you can convert
to numerical certitude.
It is an issue that finally comes to one of values and judgment. Is
it in the United States vital interest that the principle of democracy
in the Western Hemisphere be preserved? You can debate that issue.
I might point out to my friend from Virginia that on June 5, 1991,
during the administration of President George Bush, the United States
supported and voted for a resolution called the Santiago accord, which
was adopted by the Organization of American States which stated in its
preamble that the charter of the Organization of American States
establishes that representative democracy is an indispensable condition
for the stability, peace, and development of the region. And under the
provisions of the charter, one of the basic purposes of the OAS is to
promote and consolidate representative democracy.
Mr. President, I believe that the United States, in many forums, has
taken a position that democracy in this hemisphere is a matter of vital
national interest. I also state that the eloquent words of your fellow
Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, I believe, established that one of the
principles--the way in which the United States acts in a world, a
principle we have acted upon on many occasions--is to protect those
inalienable rights which he declared to be universal.
I also believe that protecting the United States from the adverse
consequences of the deterioration in Haiti, whether it be drugs or
refugees, is in the interest of the people of the United States of
America.
Mr. WARNER. If you wish to quote Thomas Jefferson----
Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Mr. President. I ask for the regular
order.
Mr. WARNER. If I can have 1 minute, I will sit down, Mr. President.
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator has not yielded the floor. Otherwise, I ask
for the regular order. Some of us have been waiting to talk for some
period of time.
Mr. WARNER. I apologize to my colleague. If the Senator will yield
for one question. He quotes Thomas Jefferson. I would like to quote
Senator Nunn, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, appearing on
national network this morning. I quote him:
When I think about whether to invade Haiti, I think we have
to carefully think about what our mission is going to be. If
the mission is to alleviate the refugee problem, then I think
we first ought to try adjusting the sanction policy. If the
mission is to protect American lives right now, they're not
under threat.
And the Senator and I know from the intelligence briefing this is a
correct fact.
If they come under threat, we have to be prepared to move
rapidly. But if the mission is to restore democracy, that's a
different mission. It's not primarily a military mission.
It's a nation-building mission, and we need to think through
that one very carefully.
And, I say to the Senator from Florida, that is the purpose of the
commission recommended by the distinguished Senator from Kansas ,[Mr.
Dole].
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. Could I answer the question, if there was a question? It
is not my position that the Haitian issue is resolved when the
military, illegitimate regime is deposed and the democratically elected
President restored. That is a necessary prerequisite for what must
follow, not the last chapter. Some of those things that need to follow
after that were laid out in the Governors Island accord. We need to
have an international presence in Haiti in order to create a passive
environment in which democracy and its institutions can begin to
function again.
I might say that it is going to make it more difficult to create that
international peacekeeping course if we adopt a resolution such as
this.
Second, it is going to be necessary to have a very effective
political reform, starting with the separation of the police from the
military, and economic reform, starting with creating the stimulus for
the private sector to commence activities again in Haiti, if the
benefits of democracy are going to be realized.
So I agree that the military use, which is a use that nobody wants to
have, is not an attractive option. It just happens to be, in my
judgment, the only option we are going to have other than surrender,
and it is not a substitute for those steps economically and politically
that will have to follow. It is a necessary prerequisite to those
steps.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. Especially while the Senator from Virginia is also on the
floor. The Senator from Virginia asked a question whether the meeting
yesterday was justification for an invasion.
Was it not clearly stated at that meeting, in answer to a specific
question that was clearly stated by the Secretary of State on behalf of
the administration, that they oppose the amendment now pending before
us?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the question is directed to me----
Mr. LEAHY. It is directed to Senator Graham because he had the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM. I was not present when that question was asked, but I
know from subsequent inquiry that, in fact, the administration opposes
this proposal for basically the reasons which I attempted to
articulate.
Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the Senator from Florida had an opportunity to
hear part of the discussion this morning when I laid out that by the
normal time it would take to get through this bill, conference and so
on, that this study would actually come back, in all likelihood, after
we have recessed for the November elections, and if that is the case,
would the Senator agree with me that we really would not even be
debating this issue probably until some time in February or March of
next year?
Mr. GRAHAM. I agree with the Senator, and I will state again what our
distinguished colleague, the minority leader, stated in reference to
the Panama crisis, that a contributing cause to that crisis was ``when
Congress first decided to start telling the President how he ought to
manage a crisis.''
I believe the best chance of our getting through this crisis without
having to use force is if we speak with a single, firm voice to the
military leadership in Haiti and they, in fact, believe that we are
serious about the necessity of their removal.
Mr. LEAHY. And moving to my final question--I ask this as manager of
the bill--while every Senator will make up his or her mind based on
what he or she feels, and not what anybody else tells them to do, is it
not a fact that the military ruler of Haiti, General Cedras, has stated
his support of this amendment while the President of the United States
has stated his opposition to it?
Mr. GRAHAM. On national television last night on NBC, General Cedras
endorsed the principle of this resolution, which comes as no surprise.
It is very consistent with his own self-interest.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, to pick up on that, President Aristide has
come out in opposition to any U.S. invasion. So if we are bound by the
views of foreign leaders, then I suggest that we then would not invade
Haiti since the elected President Aristide has come out against it.
Before the Senator from Florida leaves the floor, I would like to,
again, voice my respect for his knowledge, his articulate and
impassioned arguments for his side. I have found it a very educational
experience debating him on many occasions in the past few weeks. I do
believe that we share the same goal, and that is the restoration of
freedom and democracy, not only in Haiti but throughout our hemisphere.
I want to repeat my respect for his ample and articulate expression of
his point of view.
But I would also like to pick up with a little different view of
something that the Senator from Florida was just discussing, and that
is bipartisanship. I regret to tell the Senator from Florida and my
colleagues that one of the reasons why I am in strong support of the
Dole amendment appointing the commission is because there has been
virtually no bipartisanship in addressing this issue.
I just asked the Republican leader if he has been consulted in any
way, asked his views of the Haiti situation, asked his recommendations
as to what should be done in Haiti, and his answer was no.
Speaking for myself, which probably is not too important, nor have I,
nor has any Republican Senator, that I know of, been consulted in any
way.
I point out to my colleague from Florida, and my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, that did not characterize the previous
administration's response to crises.
Now, we all have a problem with the fact that the War Powers Act,
which is a law that this body passed and overcame the veto of the
President of the United States, has been routinely disregarded. I think
it will be disregarded again in the case of an invasion of Haiti. But
on this issue, and Bosnia and Korea, there has been no bipartisan
consultation, and it is time that the White House woke up and started,
if not consulting with the Senator from Arizona, which I do not expect,
certainly they could consult with the Senator from Kentucky, the
Senator from Kansas, and other leadership of the Republican Party. I
suggest they do that soon, and if they had done that, they might not be
facing what in all candor, Mr. President, is a very difficult vote not
for those of us on this side of the aisle, but for those on the other
side of the aisle.
So I urge my colleagues to tell their leadership in the executive
branch, let us sit down together and discuss these issues.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Was not the Republican leader invited to the consultation
that the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], and others,
were discussing that was held yesterday?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be more than pleased to answer that question
because I was there, I tell my friend from Vermont. Frankly----
Mr. LEAHY. We sat beside each other.
Mr. McCAIN. I am astounded he would ask. There was no consultation.
It was a briefing, in fact. As the Senator from Vermont knows and I do,
too, it was a briefing which could easily be seen on any of the major
networks or read in any newspaper or magazine in America. I learned
zero, zero, in additional information that was conveyed there. And
there was no request by any of the individuals there for any advice or
input or counsel from the Members who were in attendance. I think my
friend from Virginia will agree with that.
So, yes, questions were asked. Questions were asked. No advice or
counsel was requested nor, frankly, did the environment lend itself to
that.
I say to my friend from Vermont, he knows as well as I do, the way to
consult with people on this issue is to call them down to the White
House, sit around a table or, as the Senator from Vermont told me he
did in a previous administration, go up to private quarters, sit there,
and have a free exchange of ideas and views. That is the way that we
can consult in a bipartisan fashion.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator knows, first off, that I feel this is an issue
that should have significant consultation, to be sure, as I have said
both on the floor and privately. And I wish the administration would
make a stronger effort at consultation with Members of both sides.
But does the Senator also not agree with a suggestion made by me in
response to a speech by the Senator from Pennsylvania this morning that
maybe a better way to do this would be to have, not as an amendment to
this appropriations bill, a freestanding resolution under a specific
period of time, a couple days or whatever it would take, where we
debate whether the Congress would grant the President authority to
invade or not to invade, somewhat similar to what we did prior to the
Persian Gulf war?
Would the Senator agree with me that a better procedure--I am not
asking him to back off from his support of this resolution--but a
better procedure would be that both bodies might debate something
similar to what we did in the Persian Gulf war and debate whether we in
the Congress, with our duties and responsibilities of warmaking, debate
whether yea or nay, the President can do it if within his judgment as
Commander in Chief he thinks he should or, no matter what his judgment
is, the Congress would not allow him to do it?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Vermont,
first of all, let me say that in my dealings with the Senator from
Vermont, he has always been bipartisan on these issues. We may have
disagreed on numerous occasions, but there has been consultation and
discussion. I was speaking, obviously, of the executive branch.
But the problem with the proposal of the Senator from Vermont is that
that would have to be triggered by a request from the White House for
authorization. Otherwise, I think we would be acting in an
unconstitutional manner.
I voted against the amendment that was offered by my colleague from
New Hampshire that prevented the President of the United States from
going into Haiti militarily not because I want the President to go in
militarily--and there are other Members in the Chamber in agreement
with me--but because it violated constitutional principle.
So if we somehow got to debate here--let me just finish my answer to
my friend from Vermont. If we debated whether we should authorize the
President to invade Haiti or not without the executive branch
requesting that, then I think we would be turning the process on its
head.
Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry, I say to my friend from Arizona; I did not
state my question as well as I should. I am presupposing such a request
from the administration.
Mr. McCAIN. From the White House.
Mr. LEAHY. In other words, I am saying--and I realize this is not the
situation before us--would not the best situation be that we do it
similar to the Persian Gulf: There be a request; we have a debate in
both bodies within a compressed period of time, something realistic, a
couple days or so, and then vote either for it or against it?
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Vermont that would be an ideal
situation. My understanding is that the administration says it is not
contemplating an invasion at this time, so therefore it would put the
administration, obviously, in a very awkward situation.
I agree with the Senator from Vermont; the best of all worlds would
be if the executive branch came--after I answer the Senator from
Vermont, I would like to respond to the Senator from Connecticut--if
the executive branch came and said we want authorization to use
whatever force is necessary in Haiti to protect American lives, restore
democracy, stop the flow of refugees. I think that would be the best of
all worlds, I say to my friend from Vermont.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky. Then I will yield
to my friend from Connecticut. He was waiting first.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
The Senator from Vermont expresses a view that I mentioned to him
privately a few moments ago. If we had been in fact consulted, as the
Senator from Arizona asserts--and he is correct; we have not been
consulted--the advice I would have given, I gather from listening to
him, the chairman of the subcommittee would have given, and I am rather
confident the advice the Senator from Arizona would have given is come
up here and ask us for the authority. Come up here and ask us for the
authority.
My guess is that the authority would be granted. I might even vote
for it. And then the administration would have that option, just as
President Bush had that option, which they might or might not choose to
use. It would be there. But that way we would have a sense of
leadership from the administration, which I gather is exactly what the
Senator from Arizona is saying.
I am going to vote for the Dole amendment. I think it is a good
amendment. But had I been consulted, I would have said to the
President: Send up a resolution; let us have a good Persian Gulf-type
debate; make your best case that you would like to have the military
option; and my guess is Congress will give it to you.
I thank my friend.
Mr. McCAIN. I will briefly respond to the Senator from Kentucky and,
before yielding to the Senator from Connecticut, make two quick points.
There is a lesson from this debate that I hope the executive branch
receives. That is, let us sit down and consult together. Some may not
believe it, but most of us are not comfortable in leveling criticism at
the administration on the conduct of foreign policy because we still
believe in the old adage of partisanship being left at the water's
edge. But we also have the overriding national interest which causes us
to speak up.
My second point is, especially given the presence on the floor of the
Senator from Connecticut, as well as the Senator from Rhode Island,
that we need to sit down in a bipartisan group and work out this issue
of the War Powers Act. We have violated the War Powers Act. We are
telling the American people we pass laws that we are supposed to abide
by and we do not; and we pass laws that they are supposed to abide by
and when they do not, they are punished.
And so I would urge, especially with a lot of the collective
knowledge we have in this body, that we try again to modify the War
Powers Act so that it is a workable document rather than a law which is
passed and fundamentally ignored, which I think erodes people's
confidence in Congress.
I would like to yield, without losing the floor, to my friend from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Arizona. I did not want to
disrupt his thought. I knew he wanted to point out the issue of
consultation. And again, I do not know if anyone objects here, but I
think for purposes of the Record, it is noteworthy to point out since
January 1993, on the subject of Haiti, we have had 27 hearings and
briefings in the Congress.
I held two of them. One was an all-day hearing on Haiti just a few
weeks ago; in fact, twice in just the last several months.
I point out to my colleagues again--and I know people are busy--other
than the ranking minority member, Senator Coverdell of Georgia, no one
showed up; nor did I have any requests other than from the Senator from
Florida to testify before the hearing. The hearing is not a
consultation per se. But clearly the administration was there
testifying at great length about it. That is an opportunity granted, a
public forum, but, nonetheless, an opportunity to ask questions, to
raise issues about various policies.
Twenty-seven hearings and briefings are not insignificant. I point
out again, knowing there are busy schedules, when you have an all-day
hearing inviting people from all different points of view to come and
you get one colleague to show up, it certainly does not bode well when
you get the issue about consultation and concern about the matter. So I
really make that point because it is, I think, worthwhile to note.
I apologize to my colleague.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut that
he makes a very valid point. This issue has been ventilated through
congressional hearings and by the Senator from Connecticut, who has a
very important position on the Foreign Relations Committee. It has been
certainly well ventilated in the media.
But hearings and briefings, I know that my friend from Connecticut
knows, are different from bipartisan consultation where people sit down
and solicit the views of one another and try to have a consensus. We
never achieve consensus in a hearing. We achieve consensus by sitting
down with the same goal in mind that opponents as well as proponents of
this amendment share and trying to work out something that we can go
and stand in front of the American people with and say we agree on this
course of action. We have been able to do it in the past. I hope we can
do it in the future.
Mr. President, by the way, the Senator from Connecticut is as well
versed on this hemisphere's issues as any Member of this body. I think
he has played an important and vital role in informing the American
people through his chairmanship of the subcommittee with jurisdiction
on this issue.
Mr. President, I want to mention several reasons why I believe it is
important to pass the Dole amendment.
Fundamentally, the overriding reason is that I believe we are
lurching towards an invasion of Haiti. We are lurching towards that
debacle without the full consultation and approval of the American
people, without proper consultation with Congress and, in my view,
without proper examination of what is at stake and what the
consequences of an invasion of Haiti are.
Mr. President, I do not say those words lightly. I think that the
Senator from Florida--and I know the Senator from Connecticut and
others--can make a compelling argument of the terrible tragedies that
are unfolding on a daily basis, hourly basis in Haiti; the human rights
abuses, the refugee problem, et cetera.
But several questions must be asked, and among them are:
Have we a consistent policy towards Haiti?
Is it really a solution to continue to support Aristide, who,
although democratically elected, has certainly conducted himself in
office in a way which would give one grave and serious concerns about
his return to power?
What should our policy be?
And, finally, as the Senator from Florida said, is it in the United
States' vital national security interests?
I would like to address those briefly.
As far as the consistency in policy is concerned, we have reversed
several policies regarding the situation in Haiti. They have changed
very dramatically. They have served, in my view, to confuse our allies
and to encourage our adversaries. As we all know, the first policy was
that of candidate Clinton who said: ``I am appalled by the decision of
the Bush administration to pick up fleeing Haitians on the high seas
and forcibly return them to Haiti.''
The second policy was after President Clinton became President and he
basically, after becoming aware of the hundreds of boats that were
being built all over Haiti to bring refugees from Haiti to Florida on
Inauguration Day, basically announced a policy identical to the Bush
policy.
The third policy, and frankly the most disturbing one to me, Mr.
President, is policy by hunger strike. After a hunger strike by an
individual and pressures from the Congressional Black Caucus, the new
policy proposed to process refugees on ships off the coast and in third
countries. The new policy took effect on June 16, 1994, and then began
a new flood of refugees, exactly what we sought to avoid.
Between June 16, when the policy changed, and July 7, roughly 14,000
Haitians were picked up at sea. That is a massive number, and, of
course, one that would not be sustainable. We just could not at that
level of refugees continue to find sufficient safe havens in order to
accommodate them.
The fourth policy came this last Tuesday. This was a policy once
again designed to stem the flow of refugees. And the policy was that
refugees would be taken to out-of-country processing centers. If they
were found to have a legitimate claim of persecution, they would be
allowed to stay in the refugee camp. If not, they would be returned to
Haiti.
This was backed up by statements from the administration such as the
special envoy on this issue, Mr. William Gray, who said: ``Those who
take to the boats will not have resettlement possibilities in the
United States.''
One day later, apparently under pressure from the Congressional Black
Caucus and others, a tougher policy designed to stem the flow was
overturned for what could only be viewed as political reasons. Refugees
would not have to prove a fear of persecution to stay in the third
country refugee camps.
Mr. President, hopefully, a bipartisan commission could come up with
a consistent policy as regards Haiti. You cannot conduct foreign policy
lurching from one press conference to another. You cannot conduct
foreign policy by making off-the-cuff remarks on one day intimating
that military action in Haiti is imminent and on the next day saying it
is not an option that is seriously considered. You cannot do it, Mr.
President, without ending in the kind of debacle that we have today.
These policy flip-flops are painting us in a corner for which the only
exit is an invasion of Haiti.
Mr. President, I want to talk just a minute about Mr. Aristide
because this policy has been consistent in one respect, and that is its
insistence on the return of Aristide to power.
The State Department in a 1991 human rights report said that, under
Aristide, ``The government proved to be unwilling or unable to restrain
popular justice through mob violence.''
In January 1991, according to Msgr. William Murphy, of the Catholic
Church:
A group of thugs, supporters of newly-elected President Aristide,
went on a rampage. They destroyed the old Cathedral, gutted the
archbishop's house, and then went on to the nunciature, home of the
Pope's representative, where they completely destroyed the building,
attacked the nuncio and his press secretary, broke both legs of the
press secretary, and roughed up and stripped the nuncio, which was
saved only by the intervention of a neighbor.
Did President Aristide do or say anything to oppose this action, and
is there any evidence that his supporters carried it out?
In August 1991, the democratically elected Parliament of Haiti met to
question President Aristide's Prime Minister Preval to consider voting
no confidence in him.
According to a report by Donald Shultz and Gabriel Marcella of the
Strategic Institute of the U.S. Army War College:
During these sessions, pro-Aristide demonstrators filled
the public galleries. Some openly threatened to lynch the
opposition. On August 6, the deputy was assaulted and beaten.
The following day the crowd stoned a home of another. On
August 13, a mob of some 2,000 people surrounded the
Parliament screaming threats of ``Pere Lebrun,'' which means
necklacing, if the legislators voted to censor the Prime
Minister. Two deputies were attacked. One of them was badly
hurt. A mob torched the headquarters of the Autonomous
Federation of Haitian Workers, and then went on to loot the
offices of the Confederation of the Democratic Unity, burning
barricades which were set up in various parts of the city.
Public transportation was halted. Businesses came to a
standstill. Parliament adjourned without issuing a vote on
Preval.
The report goes on to say:
The government eventually moved to halt the government
violence and restore order, but the message had been
understood.
To oppose Aristide was to court mob retaliation. In the weeks that
followed, political party members attempting to hold meetings were
threatened with necklacing, effectively bringing party operations to a
near halt. Mr. President, if this account is true, how does it square
with the statement that restoring President Aristide is to restore
democracy?
On July 26, 1991, a Captain Neptune, commander of the antigang unit
of the police, arrested 5 Haitian youths in a supermarket parking lot
in Port-au-Prince. According to reports, Neptune summoned an assistant
second lieutenant, Richard Salomon, deputy chief of the antigang unit,
who was the duty officer that evening. Salomon arrested the youths and,
with three of his men, took them to the antigang office at Port-au-
Prince headquarters, where they were severely beaten and shot at point-
blank range with several weapons. They were executed in a sugar
plantation near police headquarters. Despite pressure from Cedras for
an investigation, Aristide publicly praised Salomon on September 11 and
blocked the investigation. This terrible abuse of human rights is
mentioned in the State Department's 1991 human rights report.
Is this report true? Did President Aristide publicly cover up the
torture and murder of 5 Haitian youths? The same report claims that the
Aristide government made no effort to investigate the death of an
American citizen, Richard Andre Emmanuel, who was killed by mob
violence in late February. Is this true? And has the Aristide
government made any effort to identify the killers of this American
citizen? Did President Aristide urge the use of necklacing in an
address to students on Saturday, August 3, 1991? Did President
Aristide, in an address to his followers on September 27, 1991, urge
his followers, ``If you want to shoot, go ahead''?
In this speech, did he urge his followers who were brandishing tires
and machetes that they use necklacing as a weapon against their
enemies? Did a pro-Aristide mob in Les Cayes necklace the Reverend
Sylvio Claude, the head of Haiti's Christian Democratic Party, 2 days
after this speech?
As you know, the Reverend Claude had been a prisoner under Duvalier
and was one of the country's foremost defenders of human rights.
What evidence does the United States have in its possession that
President Aristide ordered the September 1991 murder of Roger LaFontant
in his prison cell? Are there transcripts of interviews of two of the
participants in this murder, including the results of a lie detector
test of one, which provide direct testimony that Aristide personally
ordered this murder?
These are not idle questions, Mr. President. The American people may
risk American lives to restore President Aristide to office. I suggest
that a bipartisan commission should and would investigate these
allegations, which are of the most serious nature, and perhaps force a
change of administration policy, which I strongly favor, and that we do
not insist on the return of Aristide to power. Instead, we call for a
free and fair election.
I have a couple more quotes from the U.S. Department of State's
Country Reports on Human Rights.
``President Aristide failed to condemn categorically all
reports of popular justice through mob violence.'' ``The
Haitian Government repeatedly attempted to interfere with the
judicial process or usurp it through mob justice.'' ``On
August 13, Parliament, as well as the officers of the number
of Aristide Government critics, were attacked by mobs, who
many observers believed were inspired by those close to the
administration.'' ``The most serious 1991 violation of
freedom of travel occurred shortly after Aristide took office
when hundreds of former officials of previous governments
were subjected to a constitutionally questionable ban on
foreign travel.'' ``After his election victory, President
Aristide and his supporters often excluded or intimidated
their political opponents, or those perceived as such.''
I believe that a bipartisan commission would look very carefully into
those charges.
Mr. President, we need to ask ourselves two more questions: What is
the effect of the present policy? The effect of the present policy in
Haiti is to ratchet down conditions on poor, hungry, starving Haitians,
who are faced basically with two choices--starving to death, or getting
on boats and going to sea in hopes of finding someplace where they can
find food and a place to live decently. It is these sanctions which
inconvenience the Haitian leadership and prevent them from flying to
Miami and shopping that are causing the death and starvation of
innocent women and children in Haiti.
Mr. President, it is hard to justify that in exchange for the return
of Mr. Aristide to power. So let us remember what the effect of this
policy is: One, the sanctions are causing the starvation and death of
innocent Haitians. The rich people in Haiti are not starving. In fact,
the ability of essential supplies to come in to feed many of these
people has been dramatically impaired.
The second effect of this policy is to drive us to a situation where
one of several things happens. First, an American citizen is attacked
somewhere in Haiti. Therefore, the United States, with its Marines, is
ready to invade in order to ``protect the lives of American citizens.''
Second, that because conditions are so bad, and the refugee problem so
large, that we must find it incumbent--since we have no other place to
cut the continued flow of refugees --to go overthrow the government and
put President Aristide back in power.
Mr. President, the question must be asked not whether we can
overthrow the Haitian Government. We can do that in 6 hours or less.
The U.S. marines could overthrow that Government in a New York minute.
But once we are in power, how does the United States then run that
country? How does the United States of America restore democratic
institutions where there have never been democratic institutions? How
does the United States of America react when the first mob forms and
begins throwing rocks at the U.S. Marines? How does the United States
react the first time a bomb goes off in a cafe or a hotel where
American troops are quartered? I think our previous experiences in
Beirut and Somalia indicate what the answer to that is.
Advocates of the administration policy will say: Oh, well, bring in a
multinational group, and they will take over within a short period of
time, and they will be able to run the country. That presupposes that
there will be democratic institutions that can be run. That presupposes
that all the animosity generated by an invasion by a foreign country
will have dissipated. That presupposes that all of those Haitians that
are presently in the Haitian military, who will simply have taken off
their uniforms and melted into the local population, will no longer
resist an American occupation. We have also learned, sadly, in Somalia
and in other countries, that there is really only one military unit,
one military organization that is capable of exercising the kind of
discipline and military capability to keep things under control and
even then not without casualties.
So, Mr. President, if we invade Haiti, we should not only think of
the initial effect, which I predict would be a rallying around the
President on the part of the American people, it would be a long,
drawn-out experience, not unlike that which we underwent between 1915
and 1934. I have heard it said on this floor that it is not the same as
it was between 1915 and 1934. Mr. President, it is not the same, but
there is an enormous chilling number of similarities between Port-au-
Prince today and Port-au-Prince in 1915. There were no democratic
institutions. There was violence in the streets. There was a condition
of anarchy which made Woodrow Wilson feel as some in the administration
feel today, that the way to take care of all of these problems was to
have the United States invade. Frankly, I think that that would be a
very serious mistake today, as it was then.
Finally, Mr. President, and I know there are others who are waiting
to speak, we have to ask ourselves again, is it in the United States'
vital national security interests?
I certainly understand the arguments of the Senator from Florida
concerning refugees. I certainly understand the arguments other
Senators are making here that we want to have democratic governments in
countries in our hemisphere.
With all due respect, I would say to my friend from Connecticut there
was a very different view about restoration of democracy in Nicaragua
and restoration and maintenance of democracy in El Salvador by those
who are interested in having an invasion of Haiti in order to restore
democracy there.
There were those of us, and I was heavily involved in this debate for
many years, who thought that support with arms and ammunition and
supplies for the freedom fighters in Nicaragua was an appropriate
method as opposed to invasion.
I never supported the United States invasion of Nicaragua. There were
those of us who felt that aiding El Salvador, in assisting them against
an insurgency which was at least to some degree orchestrated and
assisted from Cuba, did not require a United States invasion.
Now we find ourselves in a curious situation where there is a country
that does not have democratic institutions, where there are human
rights abuses, and people are calling for an invasion. It is a curious
reversal of priorities in my view, Mr. President.
So are the United States' vital national interests at stake here?
They could be, I guess, if things got bad enough, if there were enough
people starving to death, if there were enough people being killed, if
American citizens were being killed because of the desperate straits of
the Haitian people, possibly. But if we adopt different policies and if
we do not invade that country, I think our chances of achieving our
goals are greatly enhanced.
I was in a debate with a Member on the other side of the aisle some
time ago, and I said we must respect the lessons of history in Haiti.
He said, well, that was history. That was a long time ago.
Mr. President, our only guide to the future is things that happened
in the past. We must examine our future plans in light of our
experiences, as well as our knowledge of the present. Otherwise, we
have no way of knowing what future actions to take.
Finally, again, I would like to reiterate my strong recommendation
that domestic politics not drive foreign policy and national security
policy ever again. No matter who goes on a hunger strike, no matter who
feels one way or another, our policy should be driven only by what the
U.S. national security interests are.
Let us address this issue in a bipartisan fashion. I know that I
speak for every Member on this side that we want to consult, we want to
advise and consent, which is the role of this body and the Members of
this body, and hopefully we can stop this sharp division which is
afflicting our country, as well as this body, over our Nation's policy
toward Haiti.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pell). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me just take a couple minutes, if I can
here, to focus on the matter before us, and that is the wisdom of a
commission.
We have had ample opportunity, and will I presume over the coming
weeks and months, to debate policies in Haiti. Let me just say to my
colleagues that I, for one, have not been an advocate for the use of
military force in Haiti and have said publicly from the very beginning
what my hopes would be. In fact, I felt very strongly that a well-
designed sanctions effort ought to be able to produce the desired
results. If it cannot work successfully in Haiti, we ought to scrap
sanctions as a policy everywhere in the world. If it cannot work in
this country under these circumstances, given the dependency of this
little nation on Europe, the United States, and Canada, then sanctions
as a foreign policy instrument ought to be forever relegated to the
junk heap.
But I believe sanctions can work. I do not think that the military
invasion of Haiti is warranted. That may change. I would not remove the
military option as a potential policy option. I would not take it off
the table. I never did during the 1980's in Central America. I never
believed you ought to ever say what you would never do.
But in the particular case of Haiti, it seems to me we ought to be at
least rallying around the sanctions policy, particularly when the
military option is not one with which any of us agree. I have not heard
anyone say they are for using the military option at this time.
If that is the case, then what can we do to try to change the
situation in Haiti? We can rally international support, which this
President has done. He has succeeded in garnering United States support
for a resolution at the United Nations condemning the actions of the
present holders of power in Haiti for throwing out the freely elected
government. Similar support has also been forthcoming from the OAS.
Why is it, in this institution, we find it so difficult to rally
around at least some points on which we agree? The imposition of
sanctions ought not to create this kind of debate.
The future use of military force is obviously left for future debate.
I was informed at 2 o'clock in the morning by then Secretary of State
James Baker when the Bush administration sent troops into Panama. At
the time of the call they had already landed. That is all the notice I
got in the previous administration. Is that the kind of consultation to
which my colleague refers? I went to the national media and supported
President Bush's decision. I supported the use of force in Panama in
that instance.
And I supported President Reagan's decision to use force in Grenada.
There were no commissions formed in either instance. We all knew what
was happening in Panama. This did not happen overnight. There was great
concern about Noriega, about the safety of American citizens, about the
security of the Panama Canal, and about the security of U.S. military
forces there.
But I did not hear anybody in the body get up and offer to set up a
commission on Panama. We all knew the deterioration in Grenada, the
likely problems there. I did not hear anybody calling for a commission
in either case.
Can anyone tell me as to any crisis where this body went around and
formed a commission ahead of time? The only one I know of is the so
called Kissinger Commission, and that was set up pursuant to an
executive order by President Reagan. It was a Presidentially
established commission to look at Central America and included not just
Members of Congress, but representation from organized labor, the
academic community, and recognized experts in the field.
So the notion of the commission as envisioned by this amendment is
unprecedented. My colleague on the other side got up last week and
properly pointed out that the amendment being offered by the Senator
from New Hampshire to require prior congressional approval before any
military action could be taken in Haiti was unprecedented and
dangerous.
I would not suggest that this particular amendment offered by the
Senator from Kansas, the minority leader, falls into that category. It
is not a dangerous amendment. But it is not an amendment that we ought
to be adopting because it will come back to haunt us. I guarantee you,
at some point in the future, on some other crisis, someone on this side
will get up and offer a commission for some future President. We need
to think here.
My colleague just talked about history. We create history every day
in this body. If you are going to suggest that we pay attention to
history as we formulate our policies for the future, then you also have
to be conscious of what you do as you write history.
If this amendment is adopted today, we are writing history for future
Presidents and future Congresses, and it is an unwise step.
If you disagree with President Clinton on Haiti, fine. We will debate
it and discuss it. But do not go around creating the precedent of
establishing congressional commissions every time we do not like a
foreign policy decision by the President.
Why not a commission on North Korea? Why not one on Bosnia? Why not
one on Somalia? Why not one on Rwanda? Why not go to all 60 crises
around the world and form congressional commissions? How ridiculous is
that? How ridiculous is that, and at what cost to the American
taxpayers?
Putting aside the issue of Haiti for the moment, and the merits or
demerits of sanctions and future military action, the notion of
establishing a congressional commission is a foolish idea and it ought
to be, just on its merits, rejected summarily. We should move on and
debate and discuss the issue of Haiti and other foreign policy issues
as this forum provides us the opportunity to do so, and has
historically.
So I hope that on a bipartisan basis, thinking about history,
thinking about the future, thinking about future Presidents, that we
will reject this amendment. Whether it is on Haiti, North Korea,
Bosnia, or about any other place in the world, for an ad hoc
congressional commission to all of a sudden become the forum of
resolving the particular crisis of the moment is not a sound idea.
When it comes to the issue of Haiti itself, we ought to be able to
develop a consensus around what policy makes sense. President Bush set
the precedent in the Persian Gulf. He set the precedent of building an
international response to the crisis in Iraq and Kuwait.
I think he did an incredibly fine job of not just acting
unilaterally, which he would have been justified in doing, in my view,
but he built an international response within the world community.
That took a lot of courage, a lot of hard work. It was tremendously
painstaking to go through that process. His efforts set a new framework
by which we would respond or try to respond to future crises.
In the case of Haiti, President Clinton has done much the same by
going to the United Nations, by going to the OAS, by building the
necessary international consensus.
I would think at least on the issue of sanctions, we all should be
singing from the same hymn book. We should at least be trying to make
that work. If my colleagues are so concerned about the use of military
force in Haiti, then the one way I know to avoid that possibility is by
strengthening the sanctions implementation, not by calling the very
policy into question. We all know the problems with it--the Dominican
Republican, the Haiti elite who seek to circumvent it. All the efforts
made to thwart the effects of the embargo.
But you cannot, on the one hand, denounce the sanctions and say that
it is a terrible thing that is going on in Haiti and also exclude the
use of any kind of military force unilaterally or multilaterally down
the road to deal with the problem.
What are the options at that point? Do we merely sit in the bleachers
and watch one crisis after another unfold around the world and because
of the cold war we do nothing; we absolutely do nothing? Is that the
role of a great leader in the world? Do we lack the imagination and
creativity to try and come up with some answers to these problems? That
is the challenge of this body, to debate and discuss how you move
forward.
I know of no significant debate over the conditions that exist in
Haiti today. They are deplorable. I know of no one who argues of the
importance of a deteriorating situation in a country that is 95 miles
from our shore. We ought to be able to rally at least on those points.
I, for one, as I said earlier, am not enthusiastic at all about a
military option here, for all the reasons that have been cited by
people who are much more knowledgeable than I about the complications
associated with military intervention.
But, again, I do not know of anyone who would disagree with me that
we ought to absolutely eliminate that option from our potential options
in terms of responding to this situation.
So, Mr. President, I will not spend a great deal of time on this.
I merely point out, by the way, that I do not know of anyone here who
thinks that General Cedras and his bullies down there deserve any
comfort and support from this institution. And yet, anyone who has
read--and I will put it in the Record, Mr. President--the comments of
General Cedras in response to the Dole amendment, his response was that
he strongly supports it.
Now, my lord, that ought to be enough to cause concern here. Can you
imagine?
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DODD. I will in a second. Let me finish these thoughts and I will
be glad to yield.
But those remarks ought to concern every single Member of this body,
whatever else.
To provide some sort of cocoon of protection for the next 45 or 50
days here, that is just what this guy wants. That is what that crowd
wants. If we are all in agreement that these fellows ought to go, that
there ought to be a new chance in Haiti, then, on a practical level,
having an amendment like this adopted would, in my view, even make it
that much more difficult to achieve the desired results.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator, if I could just
finish this.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator agreed to yield to me.
Mr. DODD. I will yield to both.
I come back, again, Mr. President, to the point of--putting aside the
issue of Haiti--establishing congressional commissions on each foreign
policy issue before us would be taking an unprecedented step, in my
view. It would be a grave mistake. Second, on the issue of Haiti, at
least as to where we are today, this body ought to be speaking far more
closely with one voice. I do not expect unanimity. I know that is
impossible. But we ought to at least say that this is a deplorable,
dreadful situation. Sanctions at least are an option which could avoid
the use of military force and they may just produce the desired
results.
On those notes, we ought to be able to strike some agreement.
With that, I am happy to yield to my colleague from Vermont, without
losing my right to the floor.
I am still holding the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to propound a unanimous-consent
request, if I might.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I understand this has
been cleared on both sides--that the vote on or in relation to the
pending amendment occur at 4 p.m. today, and that no second-degree
amendment be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been here well over an hour waiting
to speak. I do not object to when we set the vote. I would only ask
that those of us outside the Foreign Relations Committee have the
opportunity to speak when this colloquy is finished, with the list of
questions apparently of the Senator from Connecticut, that others of us
be allowed to speak. And if there is time for that, I will not object.
Mr. LEAHY. I just made the request.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. If we are going to have a fixed time certain, there are
still people who want to speak. I am in the same situation as the
Senator from North Dakota. I would like to get a unanimous consent that
at least embraces those that are here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the specific request?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished manager of the bill
whether or not his request would embrace the Senator from North Dakota
and the Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. LEAHY. How much time do they want? I will make it that way.
Mr. DORGAN. Ten minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Ten minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote 1 hour
from now--that we vote at 4:05 p.m. this afternoon--on or in relation
to this amendment, with no second-degree amendment being in order; that
the Senator from North Dakota be recognized during that hour for 10
minutes; the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], be recognized
during that hour for 10 minutes; and the Senator from Rhode Island,
[Mr. Pell], be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object to the UC, Mr. President, I
would like to be included in that, such that I could have no more than
5 minutes to entertain brief questions and a colloquy with the Senator
from Connecticut.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, and that the Senator from Virginia be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. For the purpose of the colloquy with the Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. LEAHY. For whatever purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Virginia, if he
has a question.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy for the
purpose of a question with the chairman of the subcommittee of the
Foreign Relations Committee which embraces this hemisphere.
The question essentially arose out of a briefing we had yesterday. I
have made reference to it before. I failed to indicate that the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was also present at that time. It
relates to the U.N. Charter.
Time and time again, there was an assertion that the situation in
Haiti threatens democracy, threatens stability in this hemisphere. But,
as I examine the charter, the chief purpose of the United Nations was
to maintain international peace and security, to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches
of the peace; in other words, to confront aggression.
Restoring democracy, in my judgment, was not one of the principles
established in the U.N. Charter.
Now, if the United States invades Haiti and American lives there
presently are not threatened--and there were no facts given to us in
the Intelligence Committee or indeed in yesterday's briefing which, in
the judgment of the Senator from Virginia, imply imminent danger to any
Americans--and if other vital national interests are not at stake,
there is a real question about the international legal justification
for military intervention.
I do not see the instability in region resulting from the problems in
Haiti. Truly, I am compassionate regarding the Senator from Florida and
the problems of his State, as occasioned by the refugees, and such
other nations and parts of the United States that have received an
influx of the refugees. I am truly disturbed about the human rights
violations. I am disturbed about many, many things, but it is not
tantamount to the need for a U.S. invasion force to restore democracy.
The nation right next door, the Dominican Republic, conducted a
democratic election for president in May of this year, May 16 to be
exact. Now to my question: Did the disturbances and violations that
were then occurring in Haiti in any way affect that election so as to
destabilize it, prevent it from happening?
I say to the Senator from Connecticut, it did not happen. And,
indeed, the normal orderly process of elections and governments in
other nations in the hemisphere seem to be going forward.
Mr. President, I ask that of the distinguished chairman.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may reclaim the time, with regard to
the elections in the Dominican Republic, the jury is still out. There
continues to be great controversy over the conduct of that election.
There may need to be additional elections in some areas of the country.
As to whether the situation had a destabilizing effect on the Dominican
elections, I do not think so, although the subject of Haiti was an
issue during the campaign.
But by engaging even in a response to the question, I am not agreeing
with the premise of the question of the Senator from Virginia, and that
is that there is absolutely no justification on the grounds of
potential instability or restoring democracy as a legitimate rationale
for U.S. involvement.
Our colleague from Arizona recently raised the issue of the great
concern expressed in this body during the 1980's about the $5 billion
that was spent in El Salvador, along the deployment of a significant
number of military advisers; and in Honduras where we had significant
military presence as a result of our policy in opposition to the
Government of Nicaragua. One might argue that these situations
constituted a kind of intervention. It did not amount to a battalion
marching into the country, but nonetheless it was not benign. The
arguments made at that time for justifying the expenditure of funds and
for deploying military advisers was primarily to help restore democracy
in those countries and to protect them from having democracy denied
them.
So I think we have to be careful about deciding here that these
narrow concerns, only a canal or an oilfield, somehow, are the grounds
under which we can exercise the option of the use of military force.
Let me quickly point out, and I want to emphasize--and I do not think
we ought to go into the details of the briefing yesterday, but this
Senator certainly left that briefing without any impression that this
administration is on the brink of a military invasion in Haiti. In
fact, they very much want the sanctions to work. They are not
enthusiastic about sending military personnel into Haiti. I know honest
people can attend the same meeting and leave with different
impressions.
I have been in close contact with the administration. I have
expressed to them my views as I have here on the floor. I do not think
we need to use force to resolve this problem. At some point we may need
to, but we do not today. So I think the more legitimate question is how
do we make these sanctions work. How can we rally together here to
express with one voice to the military leaders in Haiti that they
should leave, and allow the legitimate government to return? We could
provide invaluable assistance in that effort, instead of acting here as
though we are divided over the issue of Haiti, which I do not think we
are. I think we all would like democracy to come back. We would like to
see the legitimate government restored in that country. We would like
to see human rights abuses eliminated.
Why can we not speak about what we agree upon and send the message to
Gen. Raoul Cedras and his cohorts in Haiti that this body, this United
States Senate, is united in its determination to stand up for a freely
elected government and a people living in a country that is being
deprived of that basic freedom? That would be a great asset. Instead,
we are debating something that is not even remotely close to occurring.
That is not a great service in the conduct of foreign policy.
So, with all due respect, coming to the question of military force
and justifications for it, I think, as other Presidents have done, you
can find rationales. My colleague from Virginia and I have seen that in
the past--Grenada, Panama, the Dominican Republic--in the use of
advisers, whether it is Vietnam, Honduras, or El Salvador, Panama, we
have found justifications when it has been necessary to do so. But at
this point, how about trying to figure out a way that this body can
play a constructive and supportive role and bring about the desired
changes we all seek in Haiti? That would be a far more constructive
debate, in my view.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for his response to my question. As I
listened to him clarify his remarks, the Senator is in support of the
goals sought by the distinguished Republican leader in his amendment.
Call it something other than a commission, it is consultation here in
the Congress to answer the very question the Senator raises.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reclaiming my time if I can, I would just
merely say to my colleague from Virginia, this is an unprecedented
action, to form a commission. We did not form commissions on other
crises. This is a subterfuge. This is designed to divert and to draw
attention in a different direction here. We do not need a commission.
We have had 27 hearings in the last year and a half in this Congress. I
have held two of them. One of them all day long.
I say to my good friend from Virginia, I had only one or two Members
on the Republican side show up during those hearings where there was
extensive debate and discussion of all views. Where was the great
interest in Haiti on those days?
All of a sudden there is a great interest in commissions and meetings
and consultations. But the fact of the matter is when we do our work
here and we bring together the experts, the knowledgeable people
representing a wide array of ideas and perceptions and views, no one
shows. All of a sudden it gets to be a minicrisis here and everybody
has a great interest.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might, I am going to be very brief on
this. We debated this yesterday. We debated it for hours this morning.
Let us not lose sight of what we are talking about. This is not a
debate on whether we invade or do not invade. This is basically a way
of giving an opening until next spring to Raoul Cedras. What this
amendment does--let us not make any mistake about it--because of the
congressional schedule, the amount of time it will take to pass this
bill, go through conference, get the conference passed, get it signed
into law, this commission would not report back until we have adjourned
for the year and we would debate on it in February or March of next
year. And that is why Raoul Cedras likes this amendment. That is why
General Cedras is in support of this amendment. It is why President
Clinton opposes this amendment. Because it gives a blank check to the
rulers of Haiti; it removes all pressure from them until sometime next
spring. They know it. Senators know it. The American people know it.
That is why this amendment ought to be rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to use my 10 minutes under
the unanimous-consent request.
I oppose the amendment offered by the Republican leader, Senator
Dole, for the reasons I think were well articulated by my friends from
Connecticut and Vermont and by others. However, I would like to talk
about the sanctions against Haiti for a moment, and about an amendment
of mine on that subject.
Although I have sat here awhile and listened to this debate, I may be
one of the few Senators who does not claim to know what we should do in
Haiti. But I understand what we should not do in Haiti. We should not,
in Haiti, add to the burdens of those who are hungry and those who are
sick.
I support the international economic embargo. I understand the reason
for the embargo. We are trying to bring pressure on a government that
came to power by force and replaced someone who was elected at the
ballot box.
I respect that embargo and support it. But I also understand a little
about Haiti and conditions in which the Haitian people live.
I should say I do not claim to be an expert on Haiti. Many people
here have traveled many times to Haiti. I have been to Haiti, but I am
not a frequent visitor. The last time I saw Haiti was through an
airplane window looking back as we took off.
You could tell Haiti from the Dominican Republic. The Dominican
Republic half of that island was green, and Haiti was brown, because in
Haiti these desperately poor people have cut down most of the
vegetation for fuel. In places that used to be rain forests there are
now deserts.
This is a country where there is the most gripping, wrenching, awful,
desperate poverty I have ever seen in my life. These are people who are
hurting badly.
And while I support this embargo, I understand the committee will
accept an amendment I am offering that says:
It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of State,
the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Administrator of the
Agency for International Development should expedite approval
of valid applications for emergency medical evacuation
flights out of Haiti and for humanitarian aid flights to
Haiti, where such aid consists of food, medicine, or medical
supplies, or spare parts or equipment for the transportation
or distribution of humanitarian aid by nongovernmental or
private voluntary organizations.
What does this amendment say? It says we want it to be within the
power of our officials to expedite flights in and out of Haiti that are
emergency flights, that evacuate people out or that bring desperately
needed food and medicine in.
Why do I offer this amendment?
Let me quote from a newspaper piece.
You do not believe everything you read in the newspaper. I fully
understand that. Let me at least give a description.
The headline reads, ``Haiti's Tiny Victims. As Embargo Tightens,
Hospital in Slum is Crowded with Malnourished Babies.''
I have leaned over the cribs in this hospital. It is St. Catherine's
Hospital. It is in Cite Soleil where people live in open garbage dumps
and sewer pits. I have had a dying child lifted up to put her arms
around my neck. She did not want me to leave. I was the only thing she
had, and I was only going to be there 5 minutes.
The fact is, people in Haiti are suffering desperately for lack of
food and lack of medicine.
The children in the pediatric ward of St. Catherine's
Hospital lay in tiny cribs, many with intravenous needles
providing vital nourishment sticking in their legs because
the veins in their arms had collapsed. Those who could,
cried. Most lay silent and listless.
That is exactly what it is in that hospital. This hospital is not
bad. I toured hospitals in Haiti that did not have doors. There are not
enough hospitals, and in the hospitals, there is not enough medicine
and not enough anesthetic.
My point is, yes, let us tighten the embargo against Cedras and the
people who took power by force in Haiti. But let us make sure in every
instance that humanitarian flights carrying medicine and food for Haiti
get in and get out, and that we have people in our Government who will
approve that with and through the United Nations.
Two organizations that fly supply missions to Haiti have flown one
flight each since early May. They used to fly several times a week.
Twenty medical teams who have been planning the work in Haiti have had
to cancel their plans because they knew flights had been shut down.
This is a country where 51 percent of the children are malnourished; 51
percent of their children are malnourished.
Let me talk about how aid gets in by air--if it does.
Under Resolution 917, the members of the Security Council have 48
hours in which to object to a proposed waiver for a humanitarian flight
to Haiti, a flight that would evacuate somebody who is desperately ill
or get some desperately needed medicine in.
However, the private aid organizations tell me that the waiver
process is taking more than 2 weeks. Why does it take so long? Let me
give an example.
Say a private aid group wants to fly a humanitarian mission to Haiti
with desperately needed medicine. The Agency of International
Development gets the application. They forward it to the Treasury
Department and the State Department. At Treasury, the Office of Foreign
Assets Control looks over the application. Then at State, the Office of
Sanctions Policy checks it out.
If the application is OK'd at this level, then it goes to the
International Organizations Bureau at State, which forwards it to our
U.N. mission in New York, which gives the application to the U.N.
Secretariat, which distributes the application to the 15 Security
Council members and tells them the 48-hour clock has begun to run. All
of this while some people are probably dying because they do not have
medicine; all of this while kids are malnourished or starving because
they do not have food.
I hope, Mr. President, that this sense-of-the-Senate amendment--even
as we retain the embargo, which is good policy--will send a signal to
the poor people of Haiti, the people today who are hungry, who are
suffering, who are sick, that we will not stand in the way of
humanitarian flights, and that we will do everything we can to expedite
the movement of food and the movement of medicine to the suffering
people of Haiti.
This is a desperate situation. These are our neighbors. This is a
country nearly as close to Washington, DC, as the capital city of my
home State, Bismarck, ND, is. You get on a plane and fly to Haiti,
which is part of our neighborhood, and you will find some of the worst
poverty in the entire world. We need to care about that.
As I said when I started, I do not know what the answer is. When I
was in Haiti, I thought what would I do if I had the opportunity to do
anything there to fix it. The challenges Haiti has are so numerous and
intractable and complex and deeply rooted that one barely knows where
to begin.
It is a difficult, difficult thing, but I know what we should not do.
We should not, with this embargo, in any way prevent the flights of
humanitarian aid to people who are suffering and who need international
aid. So I ask that we, with the chairman and the ranking member's
blessing, include this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We can all agree
on this message, notwithstanding our disagreements on other aspects of
our Haiti policy. The Senate should say to a kid that is lying in a
crib in that hospital today that we care about you, and if you need
medicine, we are going to try to help people, help organizations, help
governments get you that medicine. If you are hungry we are going to
try to help people get you that food.
That ought to be a truly bipartisan message that we can send today by
approving this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Post article I read
from, as well as two letters from private relief groups that support
this amendment, be inserted into the Record following the conclusion of
my remarks.
Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the Senator from Kentucky,
and I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 30, 1994]
Haiti's Tiny Victims
(By Douglas Farah)
Port-Au-Prince, Haiti.--The children in the pediatric ward
of St. Catherine's Hospital lay in tiny cribs, many with
intravenous needles providing vital nourishment sticking in
their legs because the veins in their arms had collapsed.
Those who could, cried. Most lay silent and listless.
One of the silent ones was 3-month-old Johanne Dessosiers,
who weighed less than seven pounds and breathed with
difficulty. Her mother sat nearby, looking lost. A needle
delivering dextrose for rehydration was taped to Johanne's
left ankle, and her oversized head had only a few tufts of
discolored hair, indicating severe malnutrition.
``Most do not even come here because they are malnourished;
they come for other problems, because almost all of them are
malnourished,'' said Magid Cobdy, director of the hospital in
the heart of Cite Soleil, the capital's biggest slum. ``Then
they stay until they are healthy enough to leave.''
Those who have made it to St. Catherine's are the fortunate
few. This is the only hospital in the sweltering slum, where
about 200,000 people live crammed into three square miles. In
Cite Soleil, life always has been bad. Children play in the
open sewers that cut through the rough streets lined with
crowded tin shacks.
``But things have gotten worse in the past 18 months,''
Cobdy said, ``Many parents have no money to fee their
children at all, so they leave them here even after they are
treated. The embargo has made things dramatically worse. I
would say that 90 percent of the children here [in the
hospital] are malnourished.''
In an effort to force Haiti's military regime to relinquish
power and allow the return of ousted president Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, the United Nations, led by the United States, has
placed Haiti under an almost complete commercial embargo. The
international community says the military is responsible for
the embargo and can prompt its lifting by stepping aside.
But, while inconveniencing the rich, the embargo has thrown
hundreds of thousands of people out of work and caused the
price of food and medicine to soar. As more and more people
have lost jobs and basic food prices have doubled since
December, people's small reserves of cash or livestock have
disappeared, leaving no safety net at all. The decline in
economic well-being has led to a sharp drop in sanitary
conditions, with garbage piling up and the area's few clean
water sources becoming fouled.
Food and medicine are exempt from the embargo. But getting
the necessary U.N. waivers is time-consuming, and the lack of
fuel has forced prices up anyway.
``They say you can bring in medicines, but the truth is
there is no transport,'' said a businesswoman who imports
pharmaceuticals. ``Practically, we are not able to bring in
anything. These are sanctions without thinking about the
logistics.''
The main problem, according to health care professionals,
is that many medicines must be kept within certain
temperature ranges and have to be flown into the county. All
commercial flights to the United States have been cut off,
and charters require special U.N. approval.
Private organizations are scrambling to find carriers and
are trying to put together loads large enough to make
chartering economically feasible.
Cobdy said even dextrose and basic medicines are no longer
available on the open market and must be imported. He said
the hospital had two containers of medicine sitting in Miami,
waiting for clearance through the embargo.
A U.S. official acknowledged medicine shipments are
``episodic, a day-to-day operation'' but said the United
States felt it was ``critical'' to keep health programs
going. The official, as others have, called sanctions a
``blunt instrument'' and said that ``in and of themselves,
they do not represent a policy.''
``We recognize this falls fairly indiscriminately on
people,'' the official said. ``We want sanctions that achieve
their goal without hurting people who are not responsible,
but sanctions really do not work so neatly as to do that.''
Evidence of just how blunt an instrument the embargo is can
be seen in the rising malnutrition.
In Port-au-Prince, according to a monitoring report
released in April by the U.S. Agency for International
Development, 57 percent of the children 5 and under were
malnourished, up from 42 percent in 1992. About 28 percent
are considered severely malnourished, against 20 percent two
years ago.
Across the country, 51 percent of Haiti's children were
malnourished, according to the April report, and about 17
percent severely so.
Karine Chassagne, a spokeswoman for the Centers for
Development and Health, the private foundation that runs St.
Catherine's, said the hospital has had to turn away a growing
number of cases because its 42-bed pediatric ward is
constantly full. The patients are referred to other hospitals
that have virtually no medicine either. Children who are left
at St. Catherine's are turned over to the state welfare
agency after their treatment.
``Some of them refuse to go, even if it means dying,''
Chassagne said. ``That is how bad the other facilities are
now.''
In addition to malnutrition, diarrhea and other common
ailments, Cobdy said, about 11 percent of the children are
HIV positive and will likely develop AIDS. Because AIDS
breaks down the body's immune system, its symptoms are often
those of the diseases it brings on.
AIDS prevention programs have all but disappeared as the
economic crisis has worsened, health care professionals said,
losing most of the ground gained in the 1980s through
education and the distribution of condoms.
In the pediatrics ward, the mother of Merystil Leickensia,
a wispy 5-month-old who weighs about eight pounds, gently
stroked her daughter's gaunt arms.
The treatment for severe malnutrition takes 20 days, and
the hospital charges only a total of $3. ``I have 10 other
children,'' said the mother, Lesnier.
``She has a bad heart, but now they told me she was sick
from other things. I don't know what to do. She has to stay
here but what am I supposed to do now?''
A nurse standing nearby said:
``We don't know what to tell them. It is a very difficult
moment.''
____
World Hunger Year,
New York, NY, July 7, 1994.
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Byron: I want to commend you for your efforts to
ensure that the people of Haiti receive needed humanitarian
assistance and to speed the delivery of that support.
As you know, World Hunger Year has been concerned about
hunger and poverty in Haiti for several years. Past issues of
our quarterly, Why magazine, have addressed the challenges
facing that nation and the need for international assistance.
Since the 1991 military coup ousting President Aristide,
the situation is Haiti has dramatically worsened. Nearly a
million Haitians each day rely on private voluntary
organizations to provide them with food for survival.
Millions of others are affected by the critical shortage of
medicine, anesthetics, and other necessities for basic health
care. This crisis has caused tens of thousands of Haitians to
flee their country, resulting in the drowning of thousands at
sea.
We at World Hunger Year understand that the political and
diplomatic situation in Haiti is a difficult one, but we
strongly believe that the international community should not
sit idly by while millions of innocent Haitian men, women,
and children are caught in the crossfire. We support your
efforts to speed the delivery of humanitarian assistance to
this desperate people, and we thank you for your continuing
commitment to the poor and hungry who share our planet.
Peace,
Bill Ayres,
Executive Director.
____
Catholic Relief Services,
Baltimore, MD, July 13, 1994.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: Thank you very much for your concern
regarding assistance to Private Voluntary Organizations
(PVOs) to enable us to continue our humanitarian assistance
programs in Haiti. CRS is in agreement with the draft
amendment to H.R. 4426, stating that approval of applications
for medical evacuation and aid flights should be expedited.
The immediate initiation of regular chartered flights into
Port-au-Prince is essential to the continued functioning of
our programs in Haiti and to our current efforts to increase
outreach and beneficiary levels to in response to
increasingly difficult conditions in Haiti. Office supplies
and equipment, including computers, spare parts, vehicles,
etc. are urgently required.
Moreover, the safety of our staff members living and
working in Haiti is fundamental. In this regard, we have been
working with International SOS Assistance, the Agency for
International Development and the Department of State to
assure that waivers are obtained for medical evacuation
flights within one hour of the request. We are deeply
concerned that the procedures currently laid out recently
required six hours for approval. This is unacceptable, and we
would like to see this situation resolved without delay.
Thank you again for your interest and support of
humanitarian programs.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Wrist,
(For Kenneth Hackett, Executive Director).
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 2245
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to be
added as a cosponsor to the Dole-Warner-Helms-McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also wish to compliment Senators Dole,
McConnell, and McCain for their speeches in favor of this resolution. I
had the pleasure of witnessing and listening to Senator McCain who
spoke at length about this administration's policy, and really, I must
say, a failure of policy in regard to Haiti.
I also would like to echo his desire to have a bipartisan foreign
policy. But I am very concerned about the direction that this
administration is taking toward Haiti and what they might do in the
upcoming weeks or months. They are certainly laying the groundwork, if
not the greater probability, for an invasion. I think the risk to the
lives of American men and women to reinstate Mr. Aristide would be a
serious, serious mistake, one that probably will have some fatal
consequences. I do not think it is worth the life of one U.S. military
person to reinstate Mr. Aristide.
Senator McCain talked about his questionable past as a leader. I have
attended some of the briefings that talked about some of his
involvement in encouraging necklacing. I just cannot imagine that we
would risk the lives of U.S. men and women to reinstate somebody with
such a questionable record in the past.
I also am critical of the administration's policy concerning Haiti.
They have made a lot of changes. It was mentioned before that candidate
Bill Clinton had a policy of: Well, we are going to reverse the Bush
policy. But even before candidate Clinton was sworn into office, he
changed that and he was right to change his policy. His policy as a
candidate was irresponsible because it would encourage countless
refugees coming to the United States. So he changed his policy even
before he was sworn in as President of the United States, and he was
right in doing so.
Then he made a major change, actually announced it on May 8 and it
became effective on June 16. I think Senator McCain referred to it as
the ``hunger strike policy'' because of the hunger strike and also the
pressure put on by the congressional Black Caucus to change policy.
I noticed today's New York Times talks about: ``With Persuasion and
Muscle, Black Caucus Reshapes Haiti Policy.'' I will read the first
paragraph:
In March, the 39 Members of the congressional Black Caucus
in the House introduced a bill to tighten the economic
embargo against Haiti, sever its commercial air links to the
United States, halt the summary repatriation of Haitian
refugees picked up at sea and block financial assets held in
America by Haitian nationals.
The measure has not yet come up for a vote in Congress. But
now it hardly matters. Virtually all of its provisions have
been adopted as President Clinton's policy toward Haiti.
``It was a blueprint for what was done in the coming
months,'' said a congressional staffer who closely follows
Haiti. ``This is what they rallied around and pushed for. And
they got almost everything.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
With Persuasion and Muscle, Black Caucus Reshapes Haiti Policy
(By Steven A. Holmes)
WASHINGTON, July 13--In March, the 39 members of the
Congressional Black Caucus in the House introduced a bill to
tighten the economic embargo against Haiti, sever its
commercial air links to the United States, halt the summary
repatriation of Haitian refugees picked up at sea and block
financial assets held in America by Haitian nationals.
The measure has not yet come up for a vote in Congress. But
now it hardly matters. Virtually all its provisions have been
adopted as President Clinton's policy toward Haiti.
``It was a blueprint for what was done in the coming
months,'' said a Congressional staffer who closely follows
Haiti. ``This is what they rallied around and pushed for. And
they got almost everything.''
growth of black caucus
The Administration's adoption of the group's ideas is
indicative of the political influence of the black caucus,
whose numbers in Congress rose to 40 from 26 after the 1992
election. But in pushing the Administration to take more
robust action on behalf of the ousted Haitian President, the
Rev. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the caucus, in the eyes of some
in Congress and the State Department, is leading the United
States inexorably toward military intervention--an issue that
has divided the caucus itself.
From the dismissal in May of Lawrence A. Pezzullo as the
Administration's special adviser on Haiti and his replacement
by William H. Gray 3d, a former member of the caucus, to the
warmer embrace of Father Aristide and the new-found
reluctance of his detractors in the Administration to make
their private doubts public, the caucus has played a key role
in steering Haiti policy in the Administration.
Members of the caucus tend to describe its contribution to
the Administration's Haiti policy in modest terms and to
stress that others have also played a role.
a role in policy change
``We've made legislative suggestions in a number of areas
and have had limited success in a number of areas,'' said
Representative Donald M. Payne, a New Jersey Democrat and the
highest-ranking black lawmaker on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. ``I think we certainly have played a role in the
changing of the policy.''
But others say the influence of the caucus is more
profound.
``The basic components of the black caucus approach-the
military is the problem, Aristide is the solution; we
shouldn't move away from him even two inches; we should do
nothing that smacks of any kind of alternative to Aristide,
like work with a prime minister--all that has been adopted,''
said a State Department official who requested anonymity.
One lawmaker who follows Haiti grumbled that Administration
officials consult more with key members of the black caucus
about the crisis than they do with the chairmen and ranking
members of House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over
foreign policy or Caribbean affairs.
But the solicitation of the views of the caucus and the
appointment of Mr. Gray have failed to silence criticism of
the Administration's policy by some caucus members. Last week
representative Kweisi Mfume, Democrat of Maryland, the caucus
chairman, termed the Administration's efforts ``a policy of
anarchy, one that changes by the moments.''
Representative Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat,
suggested that the black caucus having gotten much of what it
wanted, is simply keeping the heat on. ``It has been a spiral
of influence,'' he said. ``The President has listened and the
voices have been raised. the President has responded and the
voices have been raised further.''
hunger strike by robinson
To be sure, the group cannot take credit alone for having
altered Administration policy. It was a 27-day hunger strike
by Randall Robinson, the director of the TransAfrica lobbying
organization, that galvanized the public and the black caucus
to place more pressure on Mr. Clinton to change his Haiti
policy. Florida lawmakers and groups advocating the rights of
refugees also played a role.
Still the caucus's interest in the issue kept it alive when
many of the caucus members' colleagues in Congress and some
in the Administration might have let it die. Its accusations
of racism in the treatment Haitian refugees got the attention
of a Democratic President.
The caucus's 40 votes--39 in the House and one in the
Senate--are an unspoken part of the calculation. While there
has been no explicit quid pro quo, some in Congress and the
Administration are counting on the caucus to provide critical
support for domestic initiatives like health care, welfare
reform and the crime bill.
But while the caucus has helped push Mr. Clinton into a
more confrontational stance against the military rulers who
overthrew Father Aristide, the black lawmakers have yet to
agree among themselves on the most critical question when it
comes to Haiti: Whether military force should be used to
restore democracy.
Some, such as Representatives Major Owens of New York and
Maxine Waters of California, have advocated armed
intervention to restore Father Aristide. Others, like
representative Ron Dellums of California, the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, have voiced strong reservations on
the use of military force.
``We have not been, generally speaking, a group that
supported gun-barrel diplomacy.'' said Mr. Payne. ``But we
are seeing a changing world. I don't think any of the members
of the caucus initially supported military intervention and
there are still some who oppose it. But I do think the
majority of the members are slowly moving toward the point
where it might be the only solution at the present time.''
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is a vacillating policy, one, I
might mention, set up and announced on May 8, almost identical to that
which was pushed by the Black Caucus, and I guess Mr. Robertson, that
has had a disastrous result. It has tightened up the economic leverage,
it has tightened up the leverage on Haitians, it increased the poverty,
the misery, the problems in Haiti, and it has greatly increased the
number of refugees coming to the United States.
I will read a couple things:
The upsurge in the number of intercepted Haitians coincided
with a more generous assessment of whether they were genuine
political refugees eligible for resettlement in the United
States. For example, of the 1,705 Haitians interviewed
offshore at Kingston, Jamaica, some 515, about one-third,
were judged to be fleeing a ``well-founded fear of
persecution,'' the necessary legal standard for refugee or
asylum status. This compares to a rate of about 5 percent
judged to be political refugees at interview centers inside
Haiti.
The simple message to Haitians: If you want to improve your
chances of being judged a political refugee rather than an
economic migrant, get in a boat.
Mr. President, the net result was an upsurge of Haitians, thousands
of Haitians, fleeing in boats. The policy of this administration, this
change of policy, has cost in all likelihood hundreds of lives--we do
not know how many lives--hundreds of lives, where individuals would
take their families and risk everything getting in an old, rickety
boat, thinking they might have an increased chance of coming to the
United States because of this change in administration policy.
They have modified this policy recently, and I think they have
improved it, to discourage emigration. They said we are going to have
``safe havens'' in other areas, so we are not going to have emigration
automatically to the United States. They said we are going to have
greater repatriation back to Haiti. So that has discouraged some
refugees. That is some improvement.
But this administration's policy of tightening the sanctions has
basically encouraged an exodus from Haiti, greatly increased the pain
and suffering of poor people, and I doubt it has really put that much
pressure on the people they are trying to get the attention of, the
military junta that is now running Haiti. I do not exonerate them from
wrong or evil, but I think the administration, through its efforts, has
been largely unsuccessful, and has greatly increased the pain and
suffering amongst a lot of innocent individuals.
The resolution that we have sponsored by Senator Dole and Senator
Warner, Senator McCain, and others, I think is very positive. It does
say let us look at having a bipartisan commission. There is a wealth of
information in this body and in Congress and elsewhere, people I think
would be willing to work together in a bipartisan manner to try to find
some positive solutions.
I do not think that Mr. Aristide is one of those solutions, and I do
not think he should be the linchpin or the focal point or the
foundation of United States efforts in Haiti. I think if we restore Mr.
Aristide with the military intervention, sure, it could be done. But we
are going to be making a long-term commitment of U.S. troops, risking
lives, probably costing lives, to reinstate somebody who, as I
mentioned earlier, has more than questionable credentials and
background in human and civil rights. Anyone who would encourage
necklacing, which is probably one of the most inhumane methods of
killing and torture known--I question whether our Government should be
backing such an individual.
I happen to have a little difference of opinion with our colleague
from North Dakota. I do not think we should be tightening the
sanctions. My guess is we should be loosening them. I do not think this
policy has done anything but increase the number of refugees fleeing to
the United States.
And I also really question whether or not the U.S. military should be
in the business of nation building, and I think if we have a military
invasion to reinstate Mr. Aristide, we are going to be in the nation
building business for a long time, maybe 15 years, 10 years. Who knows?
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. McCONNELL. We just had an experience with nation building within
the last 2 years, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. We lost 18
servicemen who were out of the 101st from Fort Campbell, KY, as the
mission in Somalia slid from feeding people into nation building.
So I want to commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his observation.
We do not have to go back to 1915 and study the last time we were in
Haiti to remember an experience that we have had where we used our
military in nation building. We have had it within the last 2 years
with an important lesson. We got out of there.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for raising that point.
Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague, because I think he is exactly
right. I do not believe we should forget the lessons in Somalia. And if
one thinks, well, that could not happen in Haiti, it is closer to home,
I would just totally disagree. If we go in and try to restore Mr.
Aristide with bayonets, there are a lot of people who will not be
eliminated in the first day or so who will be hiding in the hills, who
will be not only against Mr. Aristide but now they will be against the
United States. And so we will have some enemies.
Can we occupy Haiti successfully? Sure. But at what expense? And what
happens when we leave? My guess is probably quite comparable to when we
left Somalia: You are going to see a return to chaos. And I am afraid
that is what you are going to see in Haiti. In other words, we restore
Mr. Aristide and he is going to either eliminate all of his opposition,
probably murder or jail them, or whatever, and they are going to try to
eliminate him. And so there is going to be significant opposition,
probably for a long, long time, and we would be involved with United
States military, which is not their role. They have not been trained
for nation building; they have been trained to win wars. They were not
trained as domestic police officers.
I think this resolution is a step in the right direction. I
compliment the sponsors of it. I hope we will be successful in passing
it later this afternoon.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill, the Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we can debate whether we should be involved
in nation building or not. I feel as a general rule we should not. We
can debate whether we should invade Haiti or not. As I have stated
before, there is no great desire in my State, nor do I suspect
throughout the country, to invade Haiti. I am certainly not someone who
is standing here suggesting we invade Haiti.
But that is not the issue. That is not the issue with this amendment.
This amendment, whether intended or not, will have the effect of giving
a blank check to the military dictatorship in Haiti until sometime next
spring. What this amendment says, in effect--let us not make any
mistake about it--is that neither the President of the United States
nor the United States acting as part of the United Nations body or
anything else can make any threat with any teeth in it until sometime
next spring because basically it says that a congressional commission,
study commission--boy, and that is going to thrill the American people,
to know there will be another congressional study commission--that this
congressional study commission will go out and report back sometime
after we have recessed for the year so that we can debate next January
or February or March about what we might do.
That makes no sense at all. What it says is that while the Congress
of the United States is gone for at least several months, the President
cannot say or do anything with any force regarding Haiti.
Now, I am not encouraging us to invade. I am not encouraging the
United States to get into the exercise of nation building. But I do
think that the President of the United States, as our chief foreign
policy spokesperson, ought to have the ability to reflect the full
power of our great and powerful Nation.
This will do just the opposite. We cannot have a situation where we
pretend that the Congress does not know what is going on. Anybody can
pick up the newspaper and read it. Anybody can turn on television and
watch it. It is very easy to tell what is going on down there in Haiti.
They are talking about not having consultation. Well, we had
consultation yesterday. There has been a whole list already put in the
Record of the types of consultations we have had. It is said that the
distinguished Republican leader was not consulted yesterday, but he was
invited to the meeting, as were a number of the rest of us. Some went,
some did not. But it was a very extensive discussion and consultation.
The fact is, this says that the Congress, sometime after we have
recessed for the year, can go out and study the matter. Whoop-de-do.
That is going to start the ruling dictatorship in Haiti quaking in
their boots. That is going to make them mend their ways. They will
certainly stop the killing knowing that during our election campaigns,
during the recess, during Christmastime, a group of Members of Congress
will study this issue.
Come on. Let us be serious. If we want to have a debate on whether we
should or should not invade, let us do that. And we have had some
debate on that issue. It was defeated in the Senate. If we want to have
another one, let us have a freestanding resolution and do just that.
But let us not pretend on an appropriations bill that an amendment
designed to put this subject off and to tie the hands of the President
until sometime next spring is good foreign policy. It is not. But it is
why General Cedras supports this amendment and why President Clinton
opposes it, and I daresay any President, Republican or Democrat, would
oppose it. But any dictator in the position General Cedras is in would
be all for it.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the parliamentary procedure, the Senator
from Massachusetts is guaranteed 10 minutes, and the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee 5 minutes, so as long as everyone
understands that.
Mr. McCONNELL. That would leave 10 minutes remaining. I ask unanimous
consent that the Senator from Georgia have at least 5 minutes of those
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, just 3 days ago the military leaders of
Haiti issued a direct challenge to the international community by
expelling the United Nations and the Organization of American States
human rights observers. France has announced that it will end all
commercial flights to Haiti and other countries are likely to take
additional steps to increase pressure on the regime in response to the
coup leaders' actions.
If we adopt this amendment before us, the message we send to the coup
leaders will be that instead of taking action, the United States is
going to study, review, and analyze the situation. This amendment says
that 45 days after this bill is enacted into law, the United States
will issue a report and recommend policy options. I do not believe this
is the correct course of action for the United States, which has taken
a leadership role on resolving a crisis only a few hundred miles from
our border.
As the commission reviews the situation and issues its report, the
coup leaders will continue to murder, rape, and terrorize its
opponents. Haiti's rogue leaders will come to the conclusion that the
United States is not serious about its commitment to the restoration of
democracy in Haiti, as will other military leaders and potential
dictators in the hemisphere. Clearly the coup leaders in Haiti support
the concept of forming a bipartisan commission as General Cedras made
clear several months ago, since it buys them time, and diminishes the
pressure exerted by the international community.
This amendment is not about whether you agree with the current policy
against Haiti; it is about limiting the power of the President.
Congress has ample opportunity to express its opinion on United States
policy toward Haiti and there is no lack of information on the
situation in Haiti. Administration officials have appeared at 26
hearings, briefings, and consultations on Haiti since January 1993 and
Members and cleared staff have access to intelligence information on a
daily basis.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish that this was really a serious
debate as the time that has been consumed in the last hours might
indicate. But this Senator at least cannot help but feel that there is
a brazen, political element to this particular amendment that defies
any of the assertions put forward to try to justify it and certainly
that defies any of the so-called merits that have been asserted on its
behalf.
We have heard talk about the Kissinger Commission as a precedent. But
the Kissinger Commission was not imposed by a minority of the U.S.
Senate that opposes almost anything a President does. It was set up by
the President of the United States himself, Ronald Reagan, in an effort
to try to enhance an already troubled policy in Central America, Latin
America. So the President sought the Kissinger Commission as a means of
enhancing his policy. It was not something congressionally mandated.
Second, the Kissinger Commission involved people from outside the
U.S. Congress. This amendment is such a patent charade it defies the
imagination. There is not a Member who is on this amendment who cannot
accomplish through their committee or their current responsibilities
what this amendment seeks to do. Every single member of this so-called
commission which the minority leader seeks to establish is already a
Member of Congress, already has responsibilities of oversight, and
already should have done every single thing that this amendment calls
on them to do.
It is almost insulting that days into our policy in Haiti, years into
it with respect to refugees, because it was after all President Bush
who began the policy with respect to the refugees, that they now call
upon on the Congress to assess the humanitarian, political, and
diplomatic conditions in Haiti. I mean, that is almost an admission of
dereliction of duty, that now they are coming to us and saying, ``Oh,
by the way, there is a problem in Haiti, and we ought to take 45 days
to figure out what it is.''
You can laugh at that, if that is what this is about. But that is not
what this is about. This is about the scorched Earth policy similar to
that on health care, where we try to deny the President any victory,
deny the President any rights to exercise his responsibility, deny him
certainly what Presidents Reagan and Bush were granted by every Member
of the majority here.
This Senator learned about the invasion about 1 o'clock or midnight,
I think it was, when we got a telephone call telling us the airplanes
were in the air and the troops were being dropped. This Senator woke up
in the morning to find pictures on national television of our Navy
Seals landing in Somalia. There was not one 45-day commission. There
was not one consultation about it. It just happened.
Do you know, Democrats did not run to the floor, and, say ``Stop the
policy, let us have 45 days to figure out whether it makes sense.'' We
supported the President of the United States in both instances; most of
us. And we suggested that, yes, the President has the right to conduct
that foreign policy, though we might disagree with it ultimately. In
these cases we thought it was appropriate.
Why did we go into Somalia? We went into Somalia to feed people and
to try to create some order out of chaos. I did not hear a lot of
Republicans down on the floor questioning the vital national interest.
There was no hue and cry about defining national security. What a brave
President to put our troops in there in the interest of feeding human
beings who are dying.
They are dying in Haiti.
Here is the minority leader. He wants to come to the floor and figure
out what is happening in Haiti. He wants to determine what is happening
in Haiti and suggests that Haitians may be put at risk if somehow the
American military has not become involved.
Haitians are at risk today in Haiti. They are taking the rickety
boats, they are being eaten by sharks, and they are drowning because
they are at risk today because a couple of thugs have taken over the
government. What has happened to our friends on the other side of the
aisle who used to rail against dictators and totalitarianism?
Totalitarianism is what exists in Haiti today, brutal, repressive,
oppressive totalitarianism. Twelve young Haitians turned up in shallow
graves yesterday. And they want 45 days to figure out what is happening
in Haiti.
This resolution is an admission of dereliction of responsibility to
know what is happening in Haiti. What is the policy of those who say we
are on the wrong track? They say lift the embargo; in effect,
capitulate, grant a victory to the thugs who took over the government;
tell them there is no price to pay, the international community is
impotent, the United States of America is impotent, and everybody is
impotent in the face of those thugs who want to take over a government.
And, by the way, if at the same time you want to involve yourself in
drug schemes with thugs in Colombia and sell the drugs in America, go
right ahead because the United States is not going to do anything about
it.
Is that the policy? I mean, think, maybe we ought to negotiate. Well,
folks, we did negotiate. Cedras went to New York. There was a great
discussion. They signed an agreement: Come on in, we are going to get
out, here is the agreement. President Aristide, in fact, has bent over
in a number of different ways to include people who are totally
inamicable to his political view. But he built a coalition. He turned
over power to a Prime Minister who was acceptable to parties, and they
still reneged. They still went back on their word. And now we have the
very thug that was in charge of this operation applauding the
Republicans for this particular amendment. They should be ashamed.
General Cedras says this is a good amendment. General Cedras says by
all means pass this. If ever there was a message to Members of the
Senate, ``Don't vote for this,'' it ought to be the support of General
Cedras for this effort.
Mr. President, the Members of the Senate voted 65 to 34 a few days
ago to respect Presidential power. I was at that briefing yesterday.
There is no imminent military effort. It has been made very clear that
there are a number of different interests at stake here, but they have
not ripened to a point where that should be considered. We do not have
Americans in jeopardy today. We do not face a situation where there is
chaos in the streets. We do not have the same numbers of refugees
pouring out of the country. I read nothing in that, except that the
military option is still very much on the table, and well it ought to
be very much on the table.
What President of the United States in his right mind, in an effort
to try to leverage the United States in the diplomatic arena, is going
to take away one of the most important tools we have? I have never
heard one Republican come to the floor and suggest that in Grenada,
Panama, Somalia, or elsewhere, we ought to have a commission made up of
only Congressmen who have the power to do what the commission is asking
them to do, and they have not done it anyway.
We have had 27 different briefings and consultations between the
House and Senate. We have had eight different hearings in the Senate
alone. So what is this? What is going on here? Is this an effort to tie
the Senate up in a debate so that we are sending a message to the
country that there is somehow great uncertainty about this President's
foreign policy? Is that the message? Is the message that somehow we
have to question, at every step, what this President is doing and
weaken him in the effort of simply questioning and therefore create a
self-fulfilling prophecy? Whatever happened to bipartisan foreign
policy where we worked together to advance the interests of the United
States of America rather than the interests of one party in returning
to the White House?
I have no illusions, because I know that the American people are not
watching every nuance of a debate like this, and they are not even
going to read some of the central stories about it. It is not engaged
in the American public yet. But that is what this Senator believes is
going on. It is sad for this country. We agree that these thugs ought
to go. We agree that democracy ought to be advanced. And we owe it to
this President to have the opportunity to see if this policy could work
and to speak in one voice about that.
The administration made it very clear in the briefing yesterday that
they intend to return, they intend to consult, they intend to talk to
the leadership and follow the rules.
So I respectfully hope that colleagues will summon the same sense of
responsibility that they exercise in protecting the constitutional
rights of the President, 65-34, and indicate again their willingness to
stand up for the Constitution and for the prerogatives, and not to wind
up in a situation where day-after-day and week-after-week we display
such a split message that we in fact enhance the ability of these thugs
to continue to do what they are doing today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment, and
lest there be any confusion about the reason for it, it is because I
believe that it, in essence, is an expression of concern against
invasion. We remove all the explanations about why something is done or
is not done. This resolution expresses a desire to go slow on the
utilization of military intervention.
I do take some exception with the analogy utilized by the Senator
from Massachusetts. I am rather surprised that he would match Somalia
with Haiti. The match is not a good one. It is true that we sent
military forces to Somalia for the purpose of a humane distribution of
food to nearly one-half million people who were destined to starve. No
one took exception with that mission. But this administration decided
to change that mission and make it one of military intervention in the
outcome of a domestic crisis, which I might add, goes on yet today. And
when that mission changed to one of being an interloper in a domestic
dispute, to change who would lead the country, the United States and
United Nations fell into disrepair and ultimately had to leave.
This resolution argues that we should not do that again in Haiti. We
have a severe--everybody admits--domestic crisis there. There is no
moral standing for the leadership. But it is a domestic crisis, and we
do not want to set the doctrine that the United States, through the use
of its military, will intervene in every domestic crisis in this
hemisphere or around the world to resolve it.
Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that in the last
few years, there have been 10--I repeat, 10--overthrows of democratic
governments by dictators or the military in such countries as Ecuador,
Honduras, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina. Are we saying, as we come to
the new century, that if there is a domestic turmoil, the doctrine of
the United States will be to send in the marines and settle it; that we
will flex our muscle and come into a domestic crisis and pick who will
sit in power?
I do not believe that ought to be the doctrine of this country as we
come on the new century. Yes, we should exert international pressure
and work for international cooperation; and, yes, we should try to be a
good neighbor, but not a policeman and not a military hammer to settle
every domestic crisis in our hemisphere. This resolution moves toward
that expression. I might say again to the Senator from Massachusetts,
this amendment--forgetting General Cedras--speaks to the will of the
American people today who are telling this President, this
administration, and this Congress that this is not where American blood
should spill. And they are right.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senators that there are
7 minutes left in the debate.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
telecommunications in egypt
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would seek to address a question to the
ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. As the Senator
knows, priority is given in this bill, as has been the case for several
years, to our relations with Egypt. One of the projects that we have
supported with our financial assistance to Egypt has been the
development of telecommunications in that country. Telecommunications
are an essential element of the modern economic infrastructure of a
nation and are of course vital to the economic growth of any country.
The question that I would address to my colleague is whether he agrees
with me on the importance of telecommunications in fostering the growth
of the economy, and especially the private sector, in Egypt? I would
also ask if he would concur with me in concluding that this type of
infrastructure, and the economic growth that it promotes, will enhance
political stability as well?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would agree with the Senator, that
the development of modern telecommunications plays a fundamental role
in the economic and political development of Egypt. In fact, I have
raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Administrator of
AID and our Mission Director in Cairo. I have been somewhat frustrated
by their approach to American commercial interests.
Mr. GRAMM. Then the Senator also agrees with me that, in the process
of procurement in connection with this assistance to Egypt, AID should
follow procedures that do not disadvantage United States producers of
telecommunications equipment and services, that we would expect AID to
give United States producers, world leaders in this industry, full and
fair opportunities in the procurement connected with this United
States-funded project?
Mr. McCONNELL. Absolutely. I would say to my colleague that it is
misguided and inappropriate for the procurement process for a U.S. AID
project to disadvantage in any unfair manner any U.S. producer from
providing goods or services for this project.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator.
amendment no. 2245
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, what is the present business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2245.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I move to table the Dole amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion of the
Senator from Rhode Island to lay on the table amendment No. 2245. On
this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is
absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mack
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--42
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Wallop
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2245) was agreed
to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if we could have order, please?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have now had 2 or 3 days of debate on
this bill regarding Haiti. Obviously, between now and 6 o'clock, if
there is anything else submitted on Haiti we will be able to vote on
it. I would hope we will not have more. I hope we would feel there has
been strong enough statement on this issue.
I appreciate those Senators who voted with the position that I had
taken as manager of the bill; with the position of the distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in moving to table this.
Mr. President, I would note that I did not question the concern of
Senators, of all Senators, on Haitian policy. It is a difficult
question. I would suggest that it is not a question that can be settled
on amendments to this appropriations bill. It is something that is
going to be difficult enough for the President and his Cabinet to
grapple with. I urge the President and his Cabinet to continue real
consultation with both Republicans and Democrats alike, the leadership
of the House and the Senate, on this issue. I urge the President to
seek a consensus among us.
That consensus does not mean that the President is necessarily going
to take a position that is a popular one. Quite often, in such major
foreign policy issues, the decision cannot be made by public opinion
polls or by what might be popular at the moment. But usually, if these
decisions are to work, they require bipartisan cooperation and
bipartisan support. I suspect that that is available.
I hope, though, we would not have amendments to this bill that are
designed more, as happens on occasion, to raise polarizing opinions
than the consensus necessary. But in this case, the Senate did
absolutely the right thing. Had this amendment been agreed to, it would
have given a time of isolation for General Cedras which would extended
well into next spring, a time isolating him from the pressures of the
United States, of the United Nations, and others. It would have given a
green light at least well into the spring for any actions to be taken
by the dictatorship in Haiti.
So I am glad that we did not give them that green light. I am glad
the President now has the ability to continue at least to seek the
support of our allies, but also, if he is to make threats or to take
steps necessary to carry out U.S. policy, that they will be credible
threats, it will be credible policy.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Kentucky, Senator McConnell.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I am not aware of
any more amendments on Haiti.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments
and the committee amendments be laid aside in order to offer a series
of amendments for my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I
understand this is so as to comply with the standing unanimous-consent
agreement.
Mr. McCONNELL. That is right.
Mr. BUMPERS. Further reserving the right to object, what is the
procedure?
Mr. McCONNELL. If I can respond to the Senator from Arkansas, under
the unanimous-consent agreement, amendments have to be in before 6
o'clock. I am simply complying with the UC agreement.
Mr. BUMPERS. Would the Senator be willing to offer one for me while
he is doing it?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to.
Mr. BUMPERS. If he prefers, I will ask the distinguished floor
manager on this side.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator making the request has the floor.
Is there any objection to the request?
Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Am I correct that if we submit amendments to the manager
of the bill, that the manager of the bill will offer them and they will
be considered to be in compliance with the 6 p.m. deadline?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. GRAHAM. I have no further objection.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it
be in order for me to offer the following amendments to the desk en
bloc; that they be considered as having been offered under the terms of
the consent agreement; and that they be laid aside for further
consideration at a later time.
The amendments are as follows:
Six McConnell amendments, one relevant, one on the Middle East, one
on AID, congressional presentation, documents reform, NIS; a Helms-
Murkowski amendment; a Dole-Murkowski amendment; a Murkowski Japan
Commission amendment; a Nickles amendment; a Pressler U.N. amendment; a
Helms-Roth U.N. amendment; a McCain Cambodia amendment; a McCain IESC
amendment; a McCain NATO amendment; a Helms Colombia amendment; a Helms
Israel amendment; a Cohen Germany amendment; and two Domenici relevant
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
standing unanimous consent agreement, it be in order for me, under that
unanimous consent agreement, to send to the desk amendments on behalf
of Senator Wellstone regarding Indonesia; Senator Lautenberg regarding
an extradition matter; myself regarding Indonesia; Senator Bumpers
regarding the People's Republic of China; Mr. Graham regarding Colombia
and Bolivia; Mr. Graham regarding Peru; and Mr. Dorgan regarding Haiti.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. If I am correct in the parliamentary situation, I ask the
pending amendment be laid aside in order that my amendment be
considered at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2265 to the Committee Amendment on Page 2
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is agreed to on both sides.
It is to eliminate an earmark in the bill which directs funds to
certain organizations which promote democratic institution building in
China.
I believe we all agree on the need to support such democracy
programming to further our Nation's interests and the democratic
aspirations for the people of China.
I believe, however, that funding selections for democracy building,
as with all Federal grants, should be subject to merit-based
competition.
The amendment will delete the earmark and clarify that the funds
should be allocated based solely on competition.
I would like to note that one of the organizations which is
identified to receive the earmark is an organization on which I serve
as chairman of the board of directors. I am honored the committee
thinks highly enough of the organization to select it for this program.
It is not an earmark, but we request the funds should be subject to
competition. Yet, I want to be clear that I oppose congressional
earmarks. Funds should be competitively allocated for democracy
building in China, just as they should be in any other area of Federal
grantmaking.
I believe the amendment will accomplish this goal. I want to thank
the managers of the bill for accepting this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 2265.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the pending committee amendment add the
following:
``Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under
Title II, not less than $600,000 shall be available to
support democracy programs in the People's Republic of China:
Provide further that the Agency for International Development
shall make these funds available for the activities described
in the previous proviso on a grant basis to U.S. non
government organizations, on a competitive selection basis,
notwithstanding any other provision of law.''
Provided further that the following section of the bill is
null and void. ``Provided further that of the funds
appropriated under this heading, not less than $600,000,
shall be available to support parliamentary training and
democracy programs in the People's Republic of China:
Provided further That the Agency of International Development
shall make funds available for the activities described in
the previous proviso on a grant basis to the International
Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute,
notwithstanding any other provision of law.''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am certainly ready to accept the
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the McCain
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
So the amendment (No. 2265) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2266
(Purpose: To require a report on NATO eligibility criteria)
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. McConnell].
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am about to call up an amendment that
is at the desk under the UC agreement. I am trying to ascertain what
its number is. I will report to the Chair momentarily.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator wants to describe
what it is while they locate the number?
Mr. McCONNELL. I call up amendment No. 2266, which is already at the
desk under the UC agreement. I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 2266.
Mr. McCONNELL. Assuming the amendment might have been about to be
read, let me ask unanimous consent the reading 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. .
(a) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the President
shall submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations
defining specific military, economic and political standards
required to gain admission to NATO; Provided further, that
such report is not limited to the principles enunciated in
the Partnership for Peace; Provided further, such report
shall include an assessment of measures which would be
necessary to guarantee the armed services of Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
are capable of military interoperability with NATO and
fulfilling other member responsibilities.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 120 days
after enactment of this Act, excess defense articles made
available under sections 516 and section 519 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 shall be provided to carry out the
measures identified in subsection (a) with regard to military
interoperability.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any debate on the amendment?
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, for nearly half a century, NATO has
advanced U.S. interests in peace and in security in Europe. With the
end of the cold war, it seemed appropriate to reassess NATO's future
role in the region.
Because of its success, because its role has been so central to
Europe's stability, many of us felt it would be prudent to expand its
influence east and draw in former members of the Warsaw Pact. A number
of Senators have had a great interest in NATO expansion: Senator Brown,
Senator Simon, and others, and there may be other amendments on this
subject yet on this bill.
Unfortunately, the administration has opted to take a wait and see
approach which they called the Partnership for Peace.
Now, Mr. President, from my perspective, the administration missed a
historic opportunity to turn adversaries into permanent allies to
advance our global interests in peace. Instead of defining our
interests, we deferred to Russian sensitivities. The administration
claimed they did not want to draw any new lines. My view, Mr.
President, is that they did not want to make any tough choices.
At the time of the NATO summit, the administration offered a number
of nations eager to join NATO the assurance that participating in the
Partnership was a first step in that direction.
So 21 nations, including Russia, endorsed the principles in the
Partnership calling for expanded regional cooperation. Then they waited
and wondered what the whole arrangement really meant.
I questioned Secretary Christopher and Deputy Secretary Talbott about
the Partnership, asking them what could these nations expect from
participation in the PFP. They assured me each nation would work out
terms of participation which reflected their own capabilities. I kept
hearing that the goal was to strengthen cooperation. To what end, I
asked. And I must say to date it is still rather murky.
Now, Mr. President, several nations have now advanced detailed plans
outlining their interests in integrating specific defense capabilities
as a steppingstone toward NATO admission. Those plans are still under
consideration and no doubt will be carefully considered right through
the end of this century.
My frustration and the frustration of the Polish leadership, the
Lithuanians, the Hungarians, and others stems from a sense of futility
over this Partnership for Peace exercise. This is really a peculiar
shell game which has been difficult to argue against and even more
difficult to defeat.
The administration maintains that many of these nations interested in
becoming members of NATO do not meet the appropriate standards for
admission which, of course, raises the obvious question: What are the
standards? What are the standards to get into NATO, Mr. President?
In a hearing before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Secretary
Christopher told me he meant the standards in the NATO Charter. So I
picked up the charter, and pointed out that the only standard appears
to be a commitment to support the alliance and its goals of regional
peace and security. So there are not any clearly defined standards for
admission into NATO, and in effect admission into NATO is if members of
NATO want to allow you in. There are no standards.
The next argument is whatever the standards, the partnership is the
appropriate stepping stone, the PFP. Yet, here again no common
requirements for participation are spelled out in the PFP either. Each
country endorses principles and then negotiates integrated agreements
for joint military activities.
Mr. President, this is bound to produce distrust, competition, and
disappointment. Believing an annual joint exercise will trigger
admission, a participant may eventually learn that their neighbor
integrated air defenses, and conducted joint air exercises, giving them
an advantage.
My amendment is an effort to define just what a nation must do to be
eligible for admission into NATO. It is quite simple. To define just
what a nation might do to be eligible for admission to NATO, the
amendment essentially has three parts.
First, it asks for the administration to report on the military,
political, and economic standards and obligations which must be
fulfilled to secure admission into NATO. In other words, we are asking
the administration to really think through that which has never been
thought through, certainly not in the post-cold-war period. What are
the standards for admission to NATO?
Second, it asks the administration to assess what measures must be
taken to meet those standards by seven specific nations: Poland,
Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.
So we have said in No. 1, what are the standards. In No. 2, these are
the countries.
Finally, the amendment would make available excess defense articles
from our NATO inventories to improve the capabilities of those nations
in order to meet the standards which this amendment calls upon the
administration to set. We are not writing the standards. We are simply
asking the administration to write the standards. I think that is a
reasonable approach. For 6 months these nations have been told they do
not qualify for NATO admission. Yet no one can define with any
precision what test they have failed to meet.
Let us go over that again. Imagine desiring to enter an organization
like NATO. It is sort of like getting into a club, I guess. What do I
have to do to get in? And you are told by the members of the club, ``We
cannot reveal to you the requirements for membership.'' It is an
incredibly frustrating experience for the nations of Eastern Europe
that have had so much frustration over the last 50 years under the
domination of the old Soviet regime.
So we are saying here we are calling on the administration, not
writing it for them, not telling them what the standards ought to be,
but to come up with some standards so that those who seek to get in
will know what they have to do to get in.
The frustration that I am referring to was evident again last week
during the President's trip to Europe. As reported in the New York
Times, the President's major address in Poland was characterized as
``more an exhortation than a plan of action.'' His vagueness on when
Poland would be welcomed into NATO provoked the Foreign Minister of
Poland to comment, ``Our expectations were not completely fulfilled. I
would have liked our dialog on NATO to have gone much further than it
did.''
Imagine the foreign minister saying that publicly, presumably while
the President was just there or had just left.
This disappointment was echoed by the chairman of the parliament's
foreign affairs committee, the Polish foreign affairs committee, who
said President Clinton's speech ``Did little to satisfy our security
expectations. To us this represents a lack of momentum.'' This is the
Polish chairman of the foreign affairs committee.
Clearly, when you look at this, you would have to agree. It seems
past time to move beyond exhortation and develop a clear plan of
action.
There has been a lot of discussion here today on other amendments,
and yesterday on other amendments about the Congress is trying to tell
the President what to do. We are not writing the standards for him
under this amendment. We are asking him to come up with clear
standards.
It seems to me, Mr. President, this will be a good exercise for all
of NATO to try to discover for the first time, other than opposition to
communism, what the criteria for admission to the most effective treaty
alliance in the world ought to be.
I do not want to see NATO's strength compromised nor its capabilities
degraded. That is why I would like to hear what the administration has
to say about the standards it expects should be upheld to safeguard
NATO's effectiveness and its future.
Without a sense that they can and will be offered a real opportunity
to participate in the most important treaty which has shaped European
history, many may seek alternatives. I think we need to think that
through. In the absence of a real opportunity to get into NATO, what
alternatives might be sought by those countries, bearing in mind the
last 50 years and there fear of renewed Russian national ambitions?
This holding pattern may encourage Central and Eastern Europeans to
form an alliance with a nuclear nation such as Ukraine or resurrect old
ties.
My view is that this is a dangerous and unnecessary risk, and there
is a sensible alternative. There really is a sensible alternative.
Spell out the expectations, and offer these new and struggling
democracies the guidance, and the means to fulfill the goals. Tell them
what the standards are, and help them meet those standards so that they
can be admitted into NATO.
We can work toward a common purpose, or we can abandon these nations
to regional and ethnic and religious rivalries protected only by the
uncertainties of the Partnership for Peace.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment as an affirmation of
NATO's important role, both now and in the future.
Mr. President, this is an issue unlike a lot of foreign policy issues
we deal with with an American constituency. I have, for example,
earlier this year on similar amendments received letters from the
Polish-American Congress, also from the Slovakian Ambassador, and the
Polish Foreign Minister, and many of us have gotten similar letters--I
am certain I am not the only one who has--expressing in slightly
different ways the very same frustration.
I ask unanimous consent that those letters appear in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Polish-American Congress,
Annandale, VA, February 28, 1994.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: In view of your greatly valued
support for our concerns over the security of Poland and
other nations of East Central Europe, I felt you may be
interested in seeing my recent memorandum on the subject to
the National Security Council.
As you know, there have been a number of important
developments since President Clinton visited Brussels,
Prague, and Moscow. They further strengthen the case for your
Amendment and the Senate Resolution that Poland, Hungary and
the Czech and Slovak republics be accepted without delay as
members of NATO.
Time is not on our side, and the extension of the Alliance
may be much more risky when the worst (and unfortunately the
most likely) scenario becomes a reality.
With deep appreciation for your understanding of this
problem, I remain.
Yours sincerely,
Jan Nowak,
National Director.
____
Polish-American Congress,
Annandale, VA, February 25, 1994.
Hon. Richard Schifter,
Special Assistant to President and Counselor, National
Security Council, Old Executive Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Schifter: Thank you very much for offering me the
opportunity to share with you our concerns. Let me summarize
briefly my main talking points.
The Partnership for Peace (PFP) does not fully satisfy the
security needs of East Central Europe, but it is perceived by
us as a first step in that direction.
We welcome the continuation of the Administration's
dialogue with our ethnic communities initiated in Milwaukee
by Vice President Gore and Deputy Director Berger, and we are
looking forward to our meeting in the White House on March 2.
It is greatly appreciated that the Administration listens to
our views and takes them into consideration. I particularly
have in mind inclusion in the drafting of the PFP framework
document of international rules of conduct, as proposed by us
in Milwaukee. It is our understanding that these rules would
exclude from future membership in NATO any state guilty of
using coercion or intimidation in dealing with other
countries. Making respect for sovereignty and territorial
integrity a condition of PFP partnership provides a certain
protection against great power expansionism.
We also welcome public assurances by the President, Vice
President, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
United States Ambassador to the United Nations that any
threat to East European countries subscribing to the PFP
would be considered a threat to the United States. While such
pronouncements do not provide guarantees of security in any
formal sense, they will remain on the record.
There are still four remaining sources of our concern:
(1) The imperialistic rhetoric emanating from policymakers
in Moscow has not, so far, met with any unequivocal rejection
or opposition from the United States.
(2) United States attention and support remain focused on
Russia, to the exclusion of other CIS states.
(3) Developments in Russia are likely to make the future
extension of NATO to the east more difficult and risky than
today.
(4) The high cost of PFP membership may prove incompatible
with the policy of economic austerity and balanced budgets
required by international financial institutions.
Enclosed please find a few relevant quotations from
statements by Russian policymakers in the past few weeks.
There is a visible escalation in the claims to domination
over other countries of the former Soviet bloc. It appears
that the lack of any response from the United States and its
allies may be creating a dangerous perception in Moscow that
the West will not attempt to oppose the reintegration of the
Soviet Union under the banner of Russian nationalism.
Any attempt to achieve this goal by force, blackmail or
economic pressure will create a threat to the former Warsaw
Pact countries. It is therefore in the interest of the peace
and security of Europe and the United States that warning
signals should be given to Moscow at this early stage, when
Russian foreign policy is still in its formative stage.
The failure of economic reforms in Russia and even partial
return to the old economic system would unleash
hyperinflation. The further deterioration of economic
conditions will favor extremist and authoritarian elements on
both wings of the political spectrum. Under such
circumstances, the extension of NATO would pose greater risk
of confrontation with Russia in the future. Time may not be
on our side. This is why, in our opinion, the United States
should not postpone the issue until the worst scenario
becomes a reality.
We take the position that East Central Europe should be
integrated as soon as possible in the Atlantic and European
community. The old lines of division were created in the Cold
War. They should not be allowed to separate the Western
democracies from countries which are struggling to
consolidate their independence, democratic systems and a free
market economy. Petrification of the old lines dividing the
continent is detrimental to the enlargement of democracy and
should be ended as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Jan Nowak,
National Director.
____
Quotations
Andrei Kozyrev, at his press conference in Beijing:
Talk about neo-imperialism diverts attention from the real
problems associated with the specific role of Russia in
maintaining stability in the Confederation of Independent
State, which is in the vital interest of the vast region of
Central Asia.--Siegodnia, No. 19, 2/1/94.
Andrei Kozyrev, at the meeting with heads of the North
Caucasus region:
Voices are raised in the West about Russian imperial
ambitions. They are teaching us the rules of good behavior.
We do not need any lessons about the rules of the UN or the
CSCE. What we need is practical assistance in the
implementation of those rules in the Caucasus and the entire
post-Soviet area.--Siegodnia, No. 22, 2/4/94.
Viktor Komplektov, Minister for Special Assignments, at the
round table discussion on Russian foreign policy:
We repeat continuously that foreign policy should have some
priority list. Reactivation of the Soviet Union is now put
forward as the first priority. Does this reflect the frame of
mind of our people? In my view it does. Russia is now being
called an empire, not in the socialist but in the old Russian
sense of the word. * * * We should conduct an active policy
to the near abroad in accord with this old tradition.--
Niezawisimaje Gazietta, No. 20, Feb. 1994.
Pavel Grachev, Minister of Defense, in an interview with
Interfax, February 2, 1994:
We cannot support PFP if it becomes a vehicle for the
gradual extension of NATO to the countries of the former
Warsaw Pact and Baltic states without consultation and the
consent of Russia.
____
Embassy of the
Slovak Republic,
February 2, 1994.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I wish to express our sincere
gratitude and admiration for your initiative and efforts to
speed up the process of admitting the new democracies of the
Central Europe to NATO.
Your amendment No. 1279 to the State Department
Authorization Bill expressing the sense of the Senate
regarding the participation of new democratic nations of
Central Europe in The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a
great contribution to the vital discussion about NATO's
future.
We support the idea that it is in the interests of the
Western Countries to enlarge the space of stability and
security in Europe and to offer the new democracies, which
have demonstrated both the capability and willingness to join
NATO, an unambiguous chance to become part of this most
reliable security structure in Europe in the nearest future.
Central European countries on their unpaved roads of
transition have to face a number of difficulties and
challenges including the lack of security guarantees.
I am convinced that the NATO security umbrella would enable
the Central European countries to concentrate on a quick
economic and political transformation. The existing security
vacuum and possible destabilizing effects generated by a
negative development in the close proximity may have negative
influence on the process of the advanced stabilization in
Central Europe.
The Slovak Republic like other countries of the Visegrad
Group have passed a vital political decision to strive for
its integration into European and Transatlantic political,
economic and security structures. Therefore it also has
launched numerous diplomatic activities aiming to demonstrate
its desire and preparedness for incorporation into NATO
without needless delay.
Slovakia by sharing the same democratic principles and
values like NATO countries is ready to be an active
participant in projects and missions within the framework of
the ``Partnership for Peace''. At the same time we will
continue our diplomatic efforts for convincing Russia that
our participation in NATO is not posing a threat to its
security.
I would be glad to inform you on our approach and
activities connected with Slovakia's goal to reach a full
NATO membership. In this connection enclosed find the
Memorandum of the Government of the Slovak Republic on
joining Partnership for Peace by the Slovak Republic.
I wish to thank you once again for the attention you pay to
the problems and concerns of new democracies of Central and
Eastern Europe.
Sincerely
Peter Burian,
Charge d'Affaires a.i.
____
Republic of Poland,
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Warsaw, February 2, 1994.
Senator Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I would like to thank you for your
interest in and support for the Amendment No. 1280,
concerning the extension of NATO membership. In my opinion,
the Amendment is an important step in the right direction:
the issue of NATO membership is of great significance to
Poland and we are grateful for your opinions.
The Amendment will, I believe, influence the process of
admitting new democratic nations of Central and Eastern
Europe to NATO and will serve the important objective of
deepening the trust between our countries and the United
States.
Yours sincerely,
Andrzej Olechowski.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, clearly, not only what these countries
in Eastern Europe are saying, but the Americans who came from those
countries who live in many of our States can give us some criteria that
can be met. It is so murky now. And vague promises that someplace
sometime down the road admission into NATO might be possible is not
enough.
I commend the President for moving in that direction with the
Partnership for Peace. But it is obviously that the PFP has not
satisfied the concerns that those countries have, and that the American
constituents of all of us who came from those countries have, that we
are unwilling to provide clear guidance as to how a country could
aspire to be a member of NATO.
We are not writing the guidelines for the President under this
amendment. We are saying simply, Mr. President, it is high time maybe,
after 50 years and after communism died, if NATO continues to have
admission--and we all believe, I think, that it does--and if we believe
there might be some circumstances under which it ought to expand--and I
think we all believe those circumstances are there--what are the
criteria? What are the criteria?
So this amendment calls upon the administration to come to grips with
the issues of establishing the criteria for admission into NATO, and
once those criteria are determined it suggests that there are seven
countries that are clearly first line candidates for admission, and
that we ought to through foreign assistance and military cooperation to
provide them help in meeting the guidelines.
And to our friends, the Russians, I say there is nothing to be
threatened about here--nothing to be threatened about. But you can
understand--we can all understand--the nervousness of those countries
that were under the Soviet boot for all of these years, particularly
when they hear utterances from people like Zhirinovsky, and when they
hear these expressions from Russian leaders, you can imagine their
concern.
So I hope this is something the Senate might adopt. I do not think it
is in any way threatening to the administration. We are not
substituting our judgment for their judgment. We are simply suggesting
to them that they decide what NATO is all about. What is the mission in
the post-cold-war period?
Madam President, I want to, at this point, ask for the yeas and nays
on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be
added as a cosponsor to the McConnell amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I might observe for the body that this
simply gives the administration an ability to lay out in a report the
kind of cooperation they feel is appropriate and needed. It is not, at
least in my view, binding on the administration in terms of forcing
them to do something they wish not to do. It simply makes it clear that
the Senate has an interest in doing the appropriate things in
cooperation with these countries.
I strongly support the McConnell amendment. I think it is a plus to
this bill. I support it because I think it has implications beyond
simply the requested report. I support it because I think it is
terribly important that this Nation do all it can to make sure that the
dark wall of domination not fall over these countries again.
This amendment does not commit us, but it certainly sends a message
that we have an interest in the freedom of these nations; that we care
about their opportunity to determine their own destiny; that we believe
the family of mankind should be concerned about their independence and
their opportunities to control their own world and their own future.
This is a small step, but it is an important step. It sends a signal
that this Nation still cares about freedom and democracy, and that the
slowness that has developed in Europe with regard to extending the
umbrella of NATO is one that we are concerned about. This, I think,
sends a message that we intend to move forward in that process and, as
such, I commend the Senator from Kentucky. I think he is one that still
holds that torch of liberty aloft for others in the world to see and
appreciate. I think his effort here is particularly important.
I might observe that his measure includes some countries other than
the ones we spelled out in the Brown-Simon amendment, which at the
appropriate time we will offer. But with regard to the Slovak Republic,
let me mention that I, this day, talked to the Ambassador of Slovakia,
and he indicated in strong terms that Slovakia is interested in
entering NATO and cooperating with NATO in working toward peace and
freedom within the NATO framework. So the fact that Slovakia is not
included in my amendment in no way indicates a reluctance or failure or
unwillingness of the Slovak Government to enter NATO. I must say that I
am delighted that Slovakia is included in the McConnell amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Colorado.
He and the Senator from Illinois have been very involved in these NATO
issues. We have had discussions at various times about different
approaches to it. I am glad that he and Senator Simon are going to
offer their amendment as well, which I intend to support.
There are some nuances or slight differences between these approaches
on these NATO amendments, but I think the message is clear. If I may
speak for myself--and I think I am also speaking in similar language to
Senator Brown--the message is clear that there has to be some criteria
for admission to NATO, or just tell them no. If it is never going to
happen, the best thing the President could do would be to look them in
the eye and say: NATO is never going to expand, and it is never going
to develop a post-cold-war mission, and we do not know, quite frankly,
what is going to happen to NATO.
It seems to me that if NATO is going to be a vibrant, living
organization, it must change like all organizations do with changed
conditions. We have an enormous number of recently freed Eastern
Europeans, who are looking to us for some clear guidelines to getting
into an organization that they view is central to the defeat of the old
Soviet Union.
So I commend the Senator from Colorado for his excellent work in this
area. This is an area in which I expect all of us to continue to work
in the coming months, until we get a better result from the
administration than we have gotten to date.
Mr. BROWN. If the Senator will yield, I cannot help but reflect--and
I know every Senator has strong feelings in this area--I cannot help
but reflect on how terribly important this issue is that the Senator
has brought to the floor. Every Senator, I believe, has read of the
tragedy of 1939, of the failure of the free world to respond when
Poland sought to maintain its freedom and independence. I cannot
imagine anyone that does not pray, when they reflect upon the failure
of the free world to come to the defense of Poland.
Everyone knows that the failure to maintain Polish freedom added to
the challenge and burden of maintaining American freedom as the years
of World War II advanced. Everybody knows if we had stood up at that
time, that the loss of life in World War II would have been a small
fraction of what it eventually turned out to be.
I suspect that every Senator is well aware of the tragedy that
occurred when our Government--the Government of the United States--
urged the freedom fighters in Poland, the resistance leaders, to
surrender to Soviet authorities, and what I believe is a true
conviction that they would be negotiated with and be involved in
developing the leadership and control of Poland after the war. I think
every Senator is aware of the fact that the Soviet authorities then
turned around, rather than negotiate with those leaders, arrested them,
imprisoned them, tried them and executed them.
Everyone's heart breaks who thought the second time we failed to
guarantee or failed to cooperate or failed to aid in securing the peace
and independence and freedom of the Polish people.
I know of no one who looks at the Yalta agreements, that saw Poland
fall behind the Iron Curtain, who does not regret--and I do not mean to
suggest that everyone agrees that the compromises that were made there
were bad; obviously there are differing opinions on that--but I know of
no one who would not, if they had their preference, have insisted that
Poland be guaranteed its freedom and independence.
I cannot help but reflect on the fact that we are now at a crossroads
where history could repeat itself, where the question of whether Poland
remains free and independent and able to determine their own destiny is
very much on their table. And the question is whether or not we make a
clear statement that we believe Poland ought to be free and Poland
ought to be the master of their own destiny, or whether we send a
message that the freedom and independence of Poland and other countries
in Central Europe is in play.
My own belief is that if we are ambiguous at this time in history, if
we fail to step forward, if we fail to make our convictions clear, if
we fail to stand up for the freedom of the Polish people, the Czech
people, and the Hungarian people, that we send an invitation that it is
all right for other countries to reassert control over Central Europe,
that it is all right for others to seek to dominate them once again.
That is not a message that it is in our interest to send, nor is it a
message in the interest of the people of those countries to send, nor
do I believe it is in the interest of any free people around the world.
So I once again commend the Senator. I think by acting here today, we
send a very strong message, one that has enormous potential in years
ahead.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Colorado.
It seems to me that reasonable people would conclude that the Soviet
Union, the Russians, should not be offended by this. After all, they
are supposed to be our allies now. They are professing not to have
nationalist ambitions anymore.
That certainly has not been the policy of the Yeltsin government.
So what is the problem here? I mean, who are we worried about
offending--an ally? I do not think the Russians should view NATO
anymore as an enemy. We are supposedly all developing a friendship
here.
But what we are talking about here with this amendment and what
Senator Brown and others have talked about on amendments that they have
offered on other bills is reassuring countries in Eastern Europe, who
have had a recent--they have actually had this experience before, but
they certainly had it in the last 50 years--a horrible experience with
occupation.
Now, our assumption is the Russians have changed, but just in case
that may not be true, just in case that may not continue--who is to say
what could happen if the Russian election in 1996 produced a new
President who appealed to the Russian people to forget their internal
problems and reassert their nationalism? It will not be the first time
a politician in a country anywhere in the world running for election
seeks to divert attention away from domestic problems by focusing on
international affairs.
What if someone gets elected President of Russia who says, ``My
principal goal is to reassert the Soviet empire''?
It seems to me it would be exceedingly difficult to carry out that
campaign message if NATO by that time had, in a friendly and
nonthreatening way, simply moved out to include some very, very obvious
candidates for admission to this collective security umbrella.
So what we are saying in this amendment, Madam President, is define
the criteria. Maybe that was not necessary in the forties. It was
pretty clear what the motivation was in pulling NATO together in the
forties. It was to stop communism.
But at this point, maybe they do need some criteria for NATO, and we
are asking the administration to draft some criteria so that these
aspiring Eastern European countries will have a sense of what standards
they have to meet in order to get in. And beyond that, once we draft
the criteria, let us help them meet that criteria with the transfer of
military equipment or whatever we may have in excess capacity to help
bring them up to whatever standards we may conclude that NATO would
require its members to meet.
We do not know what the standards are today. They are not written
down. There is not a word about what the standards are.
That is what this amendment is about. I hope the Senate will approve
it. I think it makes a lot of sense. It will really hold out some
genuine hope, Madam President, to the aspiring members of NATO that
there are specific criteria written down that they could meet, and
actually meet with our assistance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I ask the distinguished manager on
this side of the bill, is it his intent to proceed now to a rollcall
vote on his amendment? I hope that he will.
Mr. McCONNELL. We have the yeas and nays. I do not know whether there
are other speakers. I do not see the manager.
Mr. HELMS. May I ask the manager of the bill, would it be appropriate
for me to ask unanimous consent to be recognized to call up amendment
No. 2254 after this amendment has been disposed of?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I certainly will not have any objection.
I was thinking. We have been sort of trying to see about possibly
going back and forth. I wonder if we could just hold on just for a
minute and let me just check. Sooner or later, we are going to get rid
of them anyway. I know we are going to be here very, very late tonight
voting on them. So I am perfectly willing to. Let me check on that.
Mr. McCONNELL. I am not sure who has the floor. Does the Senator from
North Carolina have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has the floor.
Mr. HELMS. I have the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator was addressing a question, and I was striving
to answer.
Mr. HELMS. Would it be in order for me to ask unanimous consent that
I be recognized to call up this amendment unless a Senator designated
by the distinguished manager of the bill on the other side has an
amendment to offer? Would that be all right?
Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from North Carolina allow me just to
add one amendment to the list?
Mr. HELMS. Absolutely.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 2293
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning World Bank
loans to countries acting to enforce the Arab boycott of Israel)
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, consistent with the unanimous consent
agreement under which we are operating, I send to the desk an amendment
by Senator Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] for Mr. Brown,
proposes an amendment numbered 2293.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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, add the following new
section:
``Sec. . Loans to Nations that enforce the Arab boycott
of Israel.
``The President should use the voice and vote of the United
States in all multilateral banks of which the United States
is a member to ensure that no loans are given to nations
which support or encourage the primary, secondary or tertiary
boycott of Israel.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers]
has an amendment at the desk, and as soon as we ascertain the number, I
am going to ask unanimous consent that it be withdrawn and one that
apparently corrects an error in it replace it.
Amendment no. 2289
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 2289, on behalf of Mr. Bumpers and others, be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the amendment (No. 2289) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2294
(Purpose: To delete funding for parliamentary training and democracy in
the People's Republic of China)
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment I now send to the desk be substituted in its place under the
earlier unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
The clerk will report the last amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Bumpers,
proposes an amendment numbered 2294.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam 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 end of the pending committee amendment add the
follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated under this Act shall be available to
support parliamentary training and democracy programs in the
People's Republic of China.''
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment by the Senator from Kentucky be temporarily laid aside so
that the Senator from North Carolina may be recognized to offer an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 2295
(Purpose: To clarify the intent of Section 577 of H.R. 4426 regarding
the U.N. War Crimes Tribunals)
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk which has
been agreed to by all concerned. I ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 2295.
The amendment is as follows:
In Section 577, strike ``other bodies'' and insert in lieu
thereof, ``commissions''.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would clarify a provision adopted earlier in these proceedings. I feel
obliged to do so in light of the fact that this provision could be
misinterpreted.
Chairman Leahy offered an amendment creating section 577 in the
bill--amendment No. 2110--that appropriated up to $25 million in goods
and commodities to be offered to the United Nations in its efforts to
investigate war crimes.
I only wish to clarify what I understand was the intent of the
committee that these funds should be directed to investigate charges
regarding genocide or other violations of international humanitarian
law. My proposed technical changes clarify that the funds being made
available will only be used for tribunals and commissions whose sole
responsibility is the investigation of crimes of genocide or other
violations of international humanitarian law.
I understand this amendment has been agreed to by the managers of the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If there is no objection, the amendment is agreed to.
So the amendment (No. 2295) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, for the interest of those who may be
watching back in their offices, we are going to have at least one
rollcall vote, I would guess, around a quarter of 6. If there is any
other amendment requiring a rollcall vote, if any Senator could bring
that matter forward, possibly before then, we may be able to stack some
votes.
I say around a quarter to 6, and that is assuming there are not other
Senators who wish to speak on the McConnell amendment.
But I urge Senators who have amendments that they want considered to
come forward.
I could think of very few places I would rather be than on the Senate
floor. A few come to mind--at my home with my family, accomplishing
some things in my office, back in Vermont with friends. But, other than
that, of course, I would much rather be here. And I expect the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I are going to be here until
the wee hours of the night.
I just urge those who may not find this the place that they love the
most, that they may want to come forward and move their amendments with
the idea that we may get out before midnight this evening.
But we will continue. We have a number of amendments at the desk. By
6 o'clock tonight, we will have a finite number of amendments at the
desk. It would be my intention to start disposing of those.
But I do not want any Senator to come over at 11 o'clock tonight and
suddenly say I really want to speak on this amendment, when they
probably have a good opportunity to do that right now.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 2266, As Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a modification of my amendment
to the desk.
Mr. LEAHY. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2266), as modified, reads as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
Sec. .
(a) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the President
shall submit a report to the Committee on Appropriations, the
Committee on Foreign Relations and Armed Services defining
specific military, economic and political standards required
to gain admission to NATO; Provided further, that such report
is not limited to the principles enunciated in the
Partnership for Peace; Provided further, such report shall
include an assessment of measures which would be necessary to
guarantee the armed services of Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Slovkia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are capable
of military interoperability with NATO and fulfilling other
member responsibilities.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 120 days
after enactment of this Act, excess defense articles made
available under sections 516 and section 519 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 shall be provided to carry out the
measures identified in subsection (a) with regard to military
interoperability.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
amendment no. 2296
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment
on behalf of Senator Levin be offered appropriately under the overall
unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Levin,
proposes an amendment numbered 2296.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On Page 22, after line 12, add the following new sections:
( ) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the
New Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall not
be used to support activities or projects that will
significantly harm biological diversity or environmental
quality.
( ) Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the
New Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be
subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to
Environment and Natural Resources) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will just note that there are about 14
minutes left if anybody is wanting to offer an amendment under the
unanimous consent agreement entered into a couple weeks ago. They have
just about 14 minutes left to do so. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, may I ask my friend when he desires to
ask for the rollcall vote to begin?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky is one that reflects substantially on the jurisdiction of
another committee, in this case the Committee on Armed Services. We are
checking with the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to see if
they are going to have a position on it. That is why we have not gone
to a rollcall vote yet.
Madam President, I am going to reserve the remainder of whatever time
I have, and I will yield the floor and at the appropriate time I will
call up amendment No. 2254 relating to the remarks that I have just
made. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that amendments 2282, 2294,
2272, 2281, and 2275 be considered second-degree amendments to the
committee amendments which they propose to amend.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment Nos. 2297 and 2298
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that an amendment by Senator
Dole and an amendment by Senator Specter and Senator Shelby may be
offered under the unanimous consent agreement under which we are
operating.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes
amendments en bloc numbered 2297 and 2298.
Amendment No. 2297
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2297 for Mr. Dole.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 10, line 10 after the word ``law'' and before the
period (.) add the following new proviso:
``Provided further, that of the funds appropriated under
this heading, not less than $15,100,000 shall be made
available for the Cooperative Association of States for
Scholarships Program and not less than $3,000,000 shall be
made available for the East Central European Scholarship
Program''
____
amendment no. 2298
(Purpose: To enhance congressional review of efforts to facilitate
peace in the Middle East and for other purposes)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2298 for Mr. Specter, for
himself, and Mr. Shelby.
The amendment is as follows:
(a) On page 102, line 1, strike all that follows after
``Gaza'' through the end of line 3 and insert a period after
``Gaza''.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec.. . (a) Additional Congressional Expectation.--Section
583(b)(5) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) amending its National Covenant to eliminate all
references calling for the destruction of Israel.
enhance congressional review of the obligation of funds to the plo
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak
briefly on an amendment offered by me and Senators Shelby, D'Amato,
Craig, and Gramm and which is being accepted by the distinguished
managers of the bill.
Several weeks ago, joined by Senator Shelby as cochair and 12, now 13
other Senators--a broad bipartisan group--I announced the formation of
a new Senate caucus intended to monitor compliance by the PLO with the
Mideast peace accords and to provide watchful oversight of State
Department monitoring of PLO compliance.
The other Senators who have thus far joined this caucus are Senators
Brown, Bryan, D'Amato, Durenberger, Inouye, Lautenberg, Lieberman,
Mack, McConnell, Pressler, Reid, Simon, and Helms.
The amendment which is being accepted today--and I would like to
thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Leahy, and ranking member,
Senator McConnell, for their cooperation in reaching agreement on the
important principles advanced by this legislative action--will give
Congress the statutory tools to ensure that United States taxpayer
funds not be released for the benefit of the PLO unless the PLO
complies with its freely undertaken obligations to renounce and control
terrorism and to live in peace with Israel.
Under existing law, the PLO is classified as a terrorist organization
prohibited from receiving, directly or indirectly, United States
taxpayer funds unless the President suspends this prohibition by
certifying that the PLO is honoring its commitments to renounce
terrorism and live in peace with Israel.
As the months have passed since the historic handshake on the White
House lawn, however, there has been both a pattern of PLO violations of
the accords--continued terrorism, undenounced and
unredressed by Chairman Arafat and no change to the Palestinian
National Covenant to eliminate calls for the destruction of Israel--and
a distinct lack of State Department vigilance in monitoring the PLO
noncompliance.
Regarding PLO violations, the Zionist Organization of America has
issued a series of weekly reports, as well as summary studies, which
charge the PLO with scores of terrorist acts, none of which have led to
discipline by the PLO. Without accepting ZOA data, or any other data,
as beyond critical review, clearly there is a pattern of PLO violation
that cannot be ignored.
Regarding the State Department reports on PLO compliance, for
example, Senators Lieberman and Mack have pointed out that these
reports have read ``like a defense of the PLO's lapses.''
In response to this situation specifically, the amendment being
accepted today does the following:
First, it strikes the ``national interest'' proviso from section 565
of the 1995 Foreign Operations appropriations bill concerning
``Limitation on Assistance for the PLO for the West Bank and Gaza.''
This leaves the President with only certification of PLO compliance
with the peace accords, under the Peace Facilitation Act, as the means
to obligate appropriated funds. This is as it should be. Would it be an
urgent national interest of the United States for the President to
provide United States funds to a PLO which the President was not able
to certify as in compliance with the peace accords, a PLO still engaged
in terrorism and pledged formally to the destruction of Israel?
Clearly, it would not.
Second, the amendment amends the Peace Facilitation Act so as to
express, with the force of law, an expectation by the Congress that the
PLO will honor its pledges and actually amend its National Covenant,
eliminating calls for the destruction of Israel.
Let me remind my colleagues of just some of what makes up the PLO's
Covenant. The document makes no reference to any principle of peaceful
coexistence but instead speaks repeatedly of the ``liberation'' of the
entire territory of the former British Mandate. It affirms ``armed
struggle'' as the strategy for this ``liberation'' and speaks of a
``national duty to repulse the Zionist, imperialist invasion from the
Great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.''
Adding to the law governing the release of taxpayer dollars to the
PLO a clear statement of a congressional expectation that this
genocidal tract will be changed sends a powerful message. I wish to
make the point for the record, however, that if the PLO has still
failed to act to change its charter, I will seriously consider asking
the Senate to make such action by the PLO an explicit condition on
Presidential authority to obligate funds appropriated for the benefit
of the PLO.
As we are all aware of the PLO's record of treachery and butchery--of
Americans as well as Israelis and others--this amendment will help
ensure that United States funds are not spent for the benefit of the
PLO without real compliance with the terms of the peace accords.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, Senator Specter and I offered the
pending amendment before the recess to ensure that taxpayer dollars
would not be used to subsidize terrorists. I am pleased that we could
work out an agreement for the committee to accept a modified version of
this amendment. On June 15, I joined Senator Specter as the cochair of
the bipartisan Peace Accord Monitoring Group. The group is committed to
monitoring PLO compliance with last September's Peace Accords, and as
part of this commitment, to making sure that the PLO complies fully
with the accords before one dime of taxpayer money is sent to the West
Bank or the Gaza Strip.
Madam President, since the signing of the peace accords, the record
of PLO compliance has been less than stellar. The PLO has neither
foresworn terrorism nor submitted changes to its charter's call for the
destruction of Israel. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to
gloss over or simply ignore these and other violations of the accords.
Madam President, I believe that the American taxpayer is already
perplexed enough that his or her money is being sent to a group
directly responsible for the murders of U.S. citizens. We do not need
the State Department further adding to this confusion and disbelief by
failing to ensure that the PLO reforms itself in return for these
dollars. If the executive branch will not see that our taxes are well
spent in this situation, then it is incumbent upon the Congress to
guarantee compliance with the peace accords before the United States
sends its support to an unreformed terrorist organization.
This amendment would allow the President to obligate funds
appropriated for the West Bank and Gaza only if he can certify PLO
compliance with the accords. He could not waive compliance requirements
by invoking the vague language of the ``national interest'' as would be
allowed by the appropriations bill before us. In addition, the
amendment would add a congressional expectation to the Peace
Facilitation Act that as a condition for continued assistance the PLO
amend its charter to delete its call for the destruction of Israel.
Madam President, these safeguards are necessary to protect the
taxpayer from unwittingly subsidizing terrorists. I personally am
skeptical that the PLO will actually reform itself by renouncing
terrorism and agreeing to peacefully coexist with Israel.
Having been heartened by the ceremonies on the White House lawn this
past September, I sincerely hope that this peace agreement will form
the basis of a lasting peace in the Middle East. However, a lack of
vigilance and a blank, unconditional check to the same organization
that was connected to the attack on the Achille Lauro will not ensure
or guarantee peace. Rather, turning a blind eye to a lack of compliance
with the peace accords will in fact aid in the undermining of the peace
process and make it even more likely that the PLO will not reform
itself.
Madam President, the American taxpayer is already skeptical of
foreign aid in general, let alone giving money to terrorists. This
amendment is a step to making sure that any aid to the PLO is tied to
full compliance with the accords. I thank the chairman and ranking
member for accepting this amendment to protect the taxpayer and
appreciate their cooperation in this matter.
Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator
Spector's amendment that would condition American aid to the PLO upon a
commitment by them to adhere to the Middle East Peace Agreement and to
remove from its national covenant any reference to the destruction of
Israel. I would like to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for
offering this amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
I feel that the PLO has a long way to go before it convinces this
Senator that it is truly committed to peace with Israel. One need look
no farther than today's New York Times, to see that Yasir Arafat
himself tried to smuggle into Gaza, four known arch terrorists. One of
these murderers, has been identified by Israel as being the mastermind
of the Ma'alot school massacre in 1974, in which 22 Israeli school
children were murdered.
Madam President, if Yasir Arafat in fact did smuggle a man who
murdered 22 schoolchildren into Gaza, then I have even less confidence
in his commitment to peace then before.
Let me just finish by saying that I feel that this is a worthwhile
amendment and it will hopefully go some way towards ensuring greater
compliance by the PLO with the recently signed peace agreements.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the New York Times article
concerning this situation be included in the Record following the text
of my remarks.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, July 14, 1994]
Isreal Bars Palestinian Officials From Gaza
(By Joel Greenberg)
Gaza, July 13.--Israel barred new officials of the
Palestinian National Authority from entering Gaza and Jericho
today in a dispute over the arrival here of four P.L.O. men,
two of whom allegedly planned a 1974 attack on a school in
which 22 Israeli students were killed.
The dispute strained the self-rule accord between Israel
and the Palestine Liberation Organization and highlighted a
lingering lack of trust. It also touched a raw nerve in
Israel, where the raid on the high school, in the northern
town of Maalot, is remembered as one of the most horrific
terrorist assaults.
Though three of the four men had left Gaza for Egypt by the
end of the day, Israel said no new officials of the
Palestinian authority would be allowed into the self-rule
zones until the fourth man was sent back to Egypt.
``As long as all of the four who entered illegally are not
outside the area, no officials of the Palestinian National
Authority will be allowed to come in,'' said Obed Ben-Ami, a
spokesman for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Mr. Ben-Ami said the four, who had joined Yasir Arafat's
entourage when he returned to Gaza on Tuesday from Egypt, had
not been given permission to enter. Israel controls the
border crossing, and under its agreement with the P.L.O., it
mus approve the entry of Palestinian officials.
Mr. Ben-Ami said two of the men had planned the Maalot
raid, in which three Palestinian gunmen took scores of
students hos-tage. When Israeli soldiers stormed the school,
the gunmen opened fire killing 22 students and wounding
dozens more. The gunmen also died in the assault.
The alleged mastermind of the attack, who arrived today,
was Mamdouh Nofal, now a leader of the Palestinian Democratic
Federation, a P.L.O. group that strongly supports the accord
with Israel. With him were Mustafa Liftawi, the former head
of the P.L.O.'s Western Sector group, which had planned
dozens of attacks on Israel; Jihad Amarin, a member of the
same group, and Nihad Jayusi. Mr. Amarin was reportedly still
in Gaza tonight.
Two rightist opposition parties submitted a no-confidence
motion in Parliament, saying the Government should have
arrested the men.
Dr. Ahmad Tibi, an adviser to Mr. Arafat who mediated the
men's departure, said the Israeli objections had little
basis.
``The person responsible on behalf of the Palestinian
people for everything that was done in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict is Yasir Arafat, and this man shook
hands with Yitzhak Rabin,'' Dr. Tibi said in a radio
interview. ``With that we turned over a new leaf. The goal is
to overcome and forget the past. The people who carried out
these acts now support the peace process.''
But Mr. Ben-Ami said the men posed a security risk. ``Mr.
Arafat committed himself to carry out the accord,'' he said.
``It's not certain that other people who want to reach the
area are indeed coming in order to implement the agreement.''
At the Allenby Bridge crossing into the West Bank, Israel
barred a group of 18 Democratic Federation members from
entering Jericho from Jordan. The party leader, Yasir Abed
Rabbo, who holds the information and culture portfolio in the
Palestinian authority, was also prevented from crossing from
Egypt into Gaza.
amendment no. 2282, as modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my
amendment at the desk, No. 2282, and I send the modification to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
The modification is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the Committee amendment, insert
the following:
SEC. . RESTRICTION ON U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICES U.S. OFFICIAL
MEETINGS IN JERUSALEM.
(1) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act
may be obligated or expended to create in any part of
Jerusalem a new office of any department or agency of the
United States government for the purpose of conducting
official United States government business with the
Palestinian Authority over Gaza and Jericho or any successor
Palestinian governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO
Declaration of Principles; and
(2) None of the funds appropriated by this or any other Act
may be obligated or expended for any officer of employee of
the United States government to meet in any part of Jerusalem
with any official of the Palestinian Authority over Gaza and
Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing entity
provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles for
the purpose of conducting official United States government
business with such Palestinian Authority.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be considered a second-degree amendment to the
committee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 2266.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2266, as Modified
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending
McConnell amendment for a number of reasons.
This amendment is far more than simply an amendment that would
require the President to report the pros and cons and whether something
is feasible.
This amendment would require a report to accomplish certain specific
goals within 60 days.
Goal No. 1, the President is told by this amendment that he must
report to us as to the specific military, economic, and political
standards that are required to gain admission to NATO on the part of
all the partners that have signed the Partnership for Peace agreement.
That language runs right smack against the NATO Charter which says
that NATO will define criteria for membership. Not that the United
States unilaterally will define the criteria for membership to NATO,
but that the 16 NATO nations as equal NATO members will define who gets
into NATO and who does not and what the criteria are.
But what this amendment does is usurps that NATO authority which
belongs to all the NATO members and says that the President of the
United States shall submit a report to the three committees defining
specific military, economic, and political standards required to gain
admission to NATO.
So the first reason that I believe this amendment should be defeated
is because it takes unto ourselves a responsibility which belongs to us
and our NATO partners now, and I think in doing so is going to create
real mischief inside of NATO between ourselves and our partners.
So problem one is that internally to NATO it creates a problem
because what belongs to NATO now, which is the determination of the
criteria of membership to NATO, which belongs to all of the NATO
nations, is suddenly by this amendment told to be the responsibility
just to the President of the United States to determine what the
criteria are for membership to NATO.
But it also creates a problem, I believe, between NATO and our new
partners in Eastern Europe because it singles out certain countries for
which the criteria will be specified, and leaves out more countries
that have signed up as partners for peace in terms of what criteria
will be available for them to become members of NATO.
I happen to be one who has believed over the past few months that the
Partnership for Peace has moved this process forward. I also believe,
and I think I may share this actually with my friend from Kentucky,
that we should try to push the process of becoming partners and
establishing criteria faster. In fact, I have said so publicly, that we
should try to get that criteria established so that countries that have
signed the Partnership agreement will know what that criteria is.
I have also stated that I believe that when those countries do become
members of NATO, that it would be useful to have a special relationship
established between NATO and Russia.
But in any event, this goes way beyond that. This amendment does not
just require the President to establish criteria for all partners. It
singles out certain partners and says that just for those partners the
President must establish criteria, thereby drawing new lines in Europe.
We are drawing the lines under this amendment. It is not the criteria
which will determine which states will be able to join and which states
will not. But this amendment singles out certain states for which
specific criteria must be designed, and leaving out a whole host of
other states, including some good allies of ours, like Sweden and
Finland that are left out of this list, by the way.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I pose a brief observation and question to
my friend from Michigan.
I read this, and I have not heard the explanation of the Senator from
Kentucky of what perhaps the answer to this.
But the part of this resolution that involves me is section (b), and
perhaps there are changes in language where it could be worked on.
I think I understand where the Senator is coming from and I
understand that we want to begin to have interoperability, or work
toward interoperability, with Poland, Hungary, the Czechs, and others.
I think with the Senator from Michigan we are not ready to narrow down
that list yet but NATO will have to make that decision.
But this paragraph (b) says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 120 days after
enactment of this act, excess defense articles made available
under section 516 and section 519 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 shall be provided to carry out the measures
identified in subsection (a) with regard to military
interoperability.
Section (a) says: ``Provided such report shall include an assessment
of measures which would be necessary to guarantee'' that armed services
to these seven countries ``are capable of military interoperability
with NATO and fulfilling other member responsibility.''
When you use the word ``guarantee'' and basically mandate the turning
over of defense articles, without regard to cost, without regard to
transportation, without regard to any kind of preliminary assessment of
need, it seems to me we are mandating for these countries that are in
the Partnership for Peace what we never achieved for NATO. We do not
have complete interoperability, unfortunately, in many aspects, of
military equipment with our own allies.
We have been basically prepared to defend Western Europe in
partnership for the last 40 years. As a matter of fact, as recently as
the Grenada operation, we did not have interoperability within the Navy
and Army within our own military services.
We are talking here, in a floor amendment that cannot be amended, as
I understand the procedure, we are talking about turning over excess
defense articles that guarantee that interoperability and do it in 120
days.
I would say to my friend from Michigan, the way I read this
amendment, it is mission impossible, if the words are to be taken as
they are written. If they are not to be taken as they are written, then
what we need really is an amendment here so that we basically get the
information that the Senator from Kentucky seeks without imposing
basically conditions that are impossible; meaning making the amendment
really, I think, something that really cannot be supported on the floor
in good conscience.
So I hope the Senator from Kentucky will agree to work on his
amendment and take out some of the language, like ``guaranteed'' and
recognize that interoperability is a process that takes years and
years, and not single out certain countries in the Partnership for
Peace to the exclusion of all the others.
I happen to think these are the ones that are more likely to move
toward the front of the list, but I do not think we, on the floor of
the Senate, should be making that decision tonight when NATO is going
to make that decision.
So I guess my questions to the Senator from Michigan is whether he
agrees with these observations, particularly with regard to paragraph
(b) on excess defense articles. And I guess my question to the Senator
from Kentucky is, is he willing to work on this amendment so that we
can get him this information without basically these exact words.
I pose the first question to the Senator from Michigan. I know he has
the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I respond by saying, I think the
observations the Senator from Georgia has made as to (b) and (a) are
right on point.
It is not just (b), which the Senator has focused on, which does
purport to mandate a transfer to comply with the guarantee in (a), but
also the singling out provisions of (a) which the Senator from Georgia
has pointed to as also being a problem.
And I would like to see both those problems addressed in any
modification of this amendment.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I think
this amendment could basically be modified in a way that would produce
the information required here, but the way the amendment here now
basically includes certain countries, it makes the Senate of the United
States, at 6:30 at night, after seeing the amendment for just a few
minutes, vote and make a decision about who is going to be out by
implication and then, as the Senator has already heard, it requires the
turning over of the equipment to guarantee a result which is usually,
at best, a 10- or 15-year process, even among our own military
services.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator asking me a question?
Mr. NUNN. I guess the question is, Would the Senator be willing to
modify his amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me respond to the observations by
both the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Michigan.
It seems to me this is a little like deja vu all over again. We have
been visiting the issue on the floor of the Senate most of this year
and I am sure, as members of the Armed Services Committee, you have
been contemplating the future of NATO for some time now, particularly
in the wake of the end of the cold war the difficulty maybe of
determining what the mission may be for the future.
I have had a number of exchanges with members of the State Department
about the absence of criteria. There are none, as the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows. Not only are there no
criteria, there is no interest in developing any that I am aware of.
And I think an awful lot of other people, both in this country whose
ancestors came from Eastern Europe and ambassadors of those countries,
from whom I and others hear from on a weekly basis, cannot understand
why there cannot be some established criteria so that any country that
could reasonably aspire to be a member of NATO might be able to
ascertain what the criteria might be.
So the fundamental goal of this amendment was to ask the President to
get serious about addressing that question,
Nothing, I would say to my friend from Michigan, prohibits him from
consulting with his allies in the process of doing that. That is not
prohibited by implication.
With regard to the excess defense articles transfer, the Senator from
Georgia is the expert, but it is my understanding that those are
transferred anyway. I mean, are not excess defense articles
transferred? That happens. I do not know what the cost of that is to
us, but they are usually given away, no matter what.
And our feeling here is that even though it says ``shall,'' it does
not really say when. Even though it says ``shall,'' it does not really
specify exactly what time at which those articles would be transferred.
My final observation is with regard to the listing of the seven
countries.
It would be perfectly all right with me to include every country in
Eastern Europe. The reason I specified the seven is because those are
the seven that most people seem to feel might likely be the first
candidates for admission. But if we would like to widen the array of
possibilities even further, I am sure that would be reassuring to other
Eastern European countries who might aspire someday to be part of the
NATO umbrella.
So those are just some random observations to the comments of the
Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. If I could quickly respond, I think it would be helpful,
for instance, to urge the President to propose criteria to NATO for
admission of all partners, and then which partners can meet the
criteria, would meet the criteria. I think it would be useful to urge
the President to try to recommend those criteria within a fixed period
of time.
But that is very different from this, which is a requirement that the
President set specific criteria for certain countries.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, the President does not want
to do that. I wish he did. I have asked the question numerous times.
They do not want to establish criteria for admission to NATO. They want
to have some Catch-22 situation where nobody can ever ascertain the
answer to the question. I do not understand it.
Mr. LEVIN. Again, the resolution of my friend from Kentucky goes way
beyond that. You are talking about specific criteria for specific
countries you listed, not criteria we are urging the President to
propose to NATO for all countries. That is very different. NATO
establishes the criteria, not us.
I think my friend from Georgia wanted to intervene.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator from Michigan would be prepared to
support my amendment if I broadened it and did not specify which
country, that is a change this Senator would be willing to make.
Mr. LEVIN. There are a number of changes I would like to suggest.
We ought to change the excess equipment and whose responsibility is
it to guarantee interoperability. Is that the responsibility of the
United States of America or is that the responsibility of other
nations?
I would suggest a number of changes here would make this amendment
acceptable, at least to me. One of them would be that it is the
Senate's desire, sense of the Senate, however we phrase it, that the
President, within a reasonable amount of time, determine what criteria
for membership to NATO he will recommend to NATO for all partners. That
would be one of the changes that I would recommend, so that whatever
partner met those criteria would in fact be eligible for admission to
NATO as a recommendation of the President to NATO, not a unilateral
determination by this President as to who is going to be allowed to
come into NATO and who is not.
And the other part is the part that the Senator from Georgia spent
some time relative to, and that has to do with the equipment and whose
responsibility it is to assure interoperability.
We cannot guarantee interoperability, so changes in the language
relative to section (b) I think would also make this amendment much
more acceptable, at least to me.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say I am not interested in making it into a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Of course, the Senator from Michigan
can feel free to vote against this and urge others to do so, as I
gather he is prepared to do. With regard to some of the other
suggestions, I am perfectly willing to discuss them with him. But I am
not interested in turning it into pap. The Senator from Michigan can
feel free to oppose. That is what we do frequently around here. But
with regard to some of the other suggestions, I am certainly open to
expanding the membership opportunities to a greater number of
frustrated Eastern European countries. That would be a perfectly all
right with me. So that is one we can work on right there.
And with regard to the interoperability problem, that is something we
can discuss, too. So I would be happy to move on to other amendments,
and maybe we could have some discussion of this and see if it is not
possible to reach some kind of accommodation.
Mr. President, maybe we can move on and deal with some other
amendments, and let me talk to the Senator from Michigan and see if
there is some chance of a meeting of the minds here, although we tried
this before on a similar issue on a previous bill.
Mr. LEVIN. I thought we succeeded, as a matter of fact.
Mr. McCONNELL. Sort of.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have some very real problems with the
amendment pending. Rather than to prolong the debate, they are the same
problems the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Georgia have
raised.
I think we are talking about doing in 3 or 4 months by legislative
fiat, something that is going to require some very extensive work at
the diplomatic level, certainly at the military level, in trying to
carry this out. I do not think we 100 Members of the U.S. Senate can,
by some kind of legislative fiat, do what is probably going to take
hundreds and hundreds of extremely experienced men and women in the
United States and in these other countries to try to work out. And even
then, they will not be able to do all the things within the
interoperability and other issues raised here.
I discussed here earlier our own invasion in Grenada, where our ships
could not talk to each other, the Navy could not talk to the Army, the
Army could not talk to the Air Force, our intelligence people in
Washington could not talk to intelligence people on the ground in
Grenada, and so on. You just cannot do these things overnight.
But it would be helpful, and I certainly would have no objection, if
the proponents of the legislation and the opponents wanted to set it
aside without losing any of the rights the Senator from Kentucky would
have, set it aside temporarily and go on to something else. I am stuck
here all night with this thing anyway, so I am happy to do whatever
might move the thing along. We probably have at least another 6 or 7
hours of work this evening, to say nothing about what might happen
tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. We can argue about interoperability. But the issue
here is criteria for admission to NATO, whether NATO will now, or ever,
be extended to include the countries of Eastern Europe, which have
recently been occupied--for 50 years--by the former Soviet Union. So I
am perfectly happy to discuss with the Senator from Michigan some of
the details of this. But let us not get too hung up on the fine points.
The principle is, are there going to be criteria for admission to NATO?
My fear is the administration prefers no criteria at all.
Are there going to be criteria for admission to NATO and are we going
to help countries meet those reasonable criteria and thereby expand the
NATO umbrella into Eastern Europe? That is the fundamental question.
So I will be happy to have some discussions with my friend from
Michigan, as we have previously, on this issue, and see if we cannot
reach some meeting of the minds.
Otherwise, what I suggest to the Senator from Michigan is simply vote
against the amendment. That is the way we decide things around here. We
do not need to hold up the Senate. Let us just have a vote and then
move on to the next amendment because I, like my friend and colleague
from Vermont, am going to be here until the end of the evening anyway.
With that, Mr. Chairman, why do we not urge someone else to process
an amendment, and I will huddle with my friend from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is another more substantive issue
though, of course. And that is, this is an amendment I certainly saw
just within the past couple of hours. It asks, on an Appropriations
Committee bill, appropriations for foreign operations to undertake
something and to make a conclusion about something that could require a
great deal of debate and thought by both the Armed Services Committee
and the Foreign Relations Committee. This is a matter of very great
significance.
To handle it simply as an amendment--technically, as the Senator from
Kentucky knows, an amendment that is not even within the Senate Rules
because it is legislation on appropriations; that is probably not the
first time that has happened, but it is legislation on appropriations
of a major nature. For us to go forward with it when it is something
that should be a matter, not only within the Congress but within our
own administration, for some significant debate--I do not think the
Senate has before it enough information to be prepared to take a step
of this nature, nor could I imagine us ever being able to complete--by
complete I mean sign into law--a foreign aid bill that had this with
it. Those are my views and the views of only one Senator.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I do not believe this is the only
amendment on the NATO issue we are going to have on this bill. In order
to facilitate this one, might I suggest we go ahead and have a vote at
7? It gives 15 minutes for the Senator from Michigan and myself to see
if we can work this out. If not, maybe he will have the votes and the
amendment will be defeated.
But rather than hold the Senate up, why do we not go ahead and
dispose of this amendment? The chairman and I have been urging people
to offer amendments. I have offered mine and I would like to get it
disposed of.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think there are a number of Senators
interested in looking at the language of this, because this goes way
beyond the question of whether or not criteria are going to be
established for admission to NATO. I happen to favor the establishment
of criteria for admission to NATO. I favor that.
This amendment says the President will tell us what those criteria
will be for NATO, not that NATO will establish the criteria. This
amendment says the President of one out of 16 nations belonging to NATO
will take unto ourselves that determination. That is going to fracture
NATO and weaken NATO instead of strengthening it. This amendment also,
then, talks about an assessment of what is necessary to guarantee
interoperability--to guarantee interoperability--something which we
have been unable to achieve with our NATO allies, as the Senator from
Georgia points out, much less with the newcomers which we hope will
join NATO.
And then paragraph (b) talks about implementing that guarantee in
subsection (a) through the transfer of American property to these new
nations. So there are a lot of problems with section (a). It draws new
lines. We pick out the countries that we say specific criteria should
be adopted for.
I favor criteria. But I also favor any country that can meet those
criteria being admitted into NATO. I do not favor us picking and
choosing the countries on the floor of the Senate. I favor the criteria
being established by NATO--not by us unilaterally--and then every
Partner for Peace, many more than the number that have been identified
in this amendment, any Partner for Peace that can meet those criteria
ought to be allowed into NATO and we should not draw the line here and
say one country is in because here are the specific criteria; another
country does not get specific criteria.
There are some pretty good allies and friends of ours who are left
out of this amendment. I think it is a divisive amendment. It will
weaken NATO, and it will hurt our chances to strengthen and broaden
NATO. I think it is going to take some time to modify it. I am
perfectly happy to sit down with my friend from Kentucky to try to do
so, but I caution there are a lot of other Senators that I think have
some feelings on this who might want to participate in those
discussions relative to the language that would go into the final
amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at the risk of being redundant, several
of the things the Senator from Michigan has suggested I am open to
discussing. But I would like to move forward. We are all interested in
finishing the bill. I will be happy to discuss it with him, or we can
just go to a vote, if he is ready to vote.
I do not know if anybody else is here to speak on this. If they are
not here to speak, maybe one way to resolve it is simply go to a vote.
The Senator may well prevail, and then we will be through with this
amendment and move on to others.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Vermont withhold his
request?
Mr. LEAHY. I withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there are several problems with this
amendment. First, it puts the United States in the position of
guaranteeing that certain Central European countries' forces are
interoperable with NATO. It mandates that the President report on what
would be necessary to guarantee interoperability, and it then instructs
him to provide excess defense articles necessary to make those forces
interoperable. I do not see how we can ask the President to provide
those guarantees. That is not the sole responsibility of the United
States.
Second, the amendment singles out certain countries, which I believe
draws dangerous new lines in Europe. It sets a dangerous precedent by
specifically naming some countries and not others.
Third, I am concerned by the breadth of this amendment. Namely,
paragraph (b) would require the President to provide Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the Baltic countries whatever excess
defense articles are necessary to make their forces interoperable with
NATO.
At this point, we do not know what is required to make those
countries' forces interoperable. Accordingly, we are setting ourselves
up to provide potentially limitless excess defense articles. This is
far too open-ended.
What would happen if the President wanted to provide excess defense
articles to other friends and allies other than those named in this
amendment? If this amendment is adopted, I am concerned that the
President's hands will be tied. He will have to provide excess defense
articles to those Eastern European nations--perhaps to the detriment of
our other friends and allies.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the only thing we can do to get
this decided is to move to table, which I am about to do. I think the
Senator from Kentucky has nothing further.
Mr. McCONNELL. No, Mr. President, I think it is a good idea.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to table and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 2266, as modified.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], and
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] are necessarily absent.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is
absent on official business.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Conrad
Danforth
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Leahy
Levin
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--44
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeConcini
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Faircloth
Feingold
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Kempthorne
Kohl
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Boren
Riegle
Wallop
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2266), as
modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senators have been asking what is going
to be the order. I know the Senator from North Carolina had asked prior
to this vote if he might be recognized for an amendment, unless there
was a Democrat Senator seeking recognition. That is the normal practice
of going from side to side, the last amendment being for the Republican
side, the next for the Democratic side.
If there is not a Democrat seeking recognition to propose an
amendment, we then would go to the Senator from North Carolina. But it
would be my hope to start shortening the time on amendments to keep the
votes going so we might have made good progress by midnight or 1
o'clock or so.
Amendment No. 2294
(Purpose: To delete funding for parliamentary training and democracy in
the People's Republic of China)
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. I have an amendment that I would like to offer at this
point. If I understand the procedure set out by the distinguished floor
manager, the time is now ripe to offer an amendment on the Democratic
side. Is that correct?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes. Madam President, I answer my friend from Arkansas
this way. There is no unanimous consent. But it has been the usual
agreement of comity going from side to side. The Senator from North
Carolina is not on the floor right now, but I can represent that he had
said earlier that if there was no Democrat seeking recognition, he
asked to be recognized next.
There is now one seeking recognition. So it is in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
It is in order for the Senator to do that at this time. That is now
the pending question.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment numbered 2294.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask that the amendment be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr.
Dorgan, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 2294.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the pending committee amendment add the
following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated under this Act shall be available to
support parliamentary training and democracy programs in the
People's Republic of China.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President----
Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. Would the Senator
be kind enough to advise the Senate as to whether or not a rollcall
vote is required, and how much time might be consumed on debate?
Mr. BUMPERS. I say to the Senator from Virginia, my guess is that a
rollcall vote will be required. I would defer to the Senator from
Kentucky on that.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to the Chair, there certainly will be a
rollcall vote required. We could have a relatively short time for
debate.
Mr. WARNER. Did the Senator give a time limit?
Mr. McCONNELL. As far as I am concerned, 15 minutes on this side is
enough.
Mr. BUMPERS. So 30 minutes equally divided is agreeable to me.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I will
yield the manager's time on this side to the Senator from Arkansas
under his control.
Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator from Vermont yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator so request that there be 30
minutes for each side, to be equally divided?
Mr. BUMPERS. No. The request was for 30 minutes equally divided, 15
minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator from Arkansas will yield, considering
those of us who want to see our visiting daughters and granddaughters,
I wonder if it is possible to have votes stacked so that we can have a
window?
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask my cosponsors, Senator Brown and Senator
Dorgan, if they have any objection to stacking this vote. Does the
Senator from Colorado have any objection to that?
Mr. BROWN. I have no objection.
Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.
Mr. BUMPERS. I want the Senator from Louisiana to have the
opportunity to visit his granddaughter. That is much more important
than anything we will do here tonight.
Mr. LEAHY. Perhaps we can leave it this way, and I ask unanimous
consent that what I am saying not come out of the time of either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what I will do is this: . During this
debate, and prior to the time of the vote, I will try to make sure
there is another vote coming up that is also going to have a time
agreement, so we can put the two together. But I would not agree to
start stacking until that time. I tell my friend from Louisiana that I
know the situation he is in. I have been there many times myself. I
would like to get two or three votes so we do not end up with a 2-hour
quorum call.
Mr. BUMPERS. Do I understand the Senator to say he is, at the present
time, objecting to stacking the votes?
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is, but I suspect that by the time we are
going to get done, we are going to be able to do that.
Mr. BUMPERS. As I understand the situation, Madam President, there
are 30 minutes equally divided, 15 minutes on a side, and the vote is
not yet ordered to be stacked with other votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me read to you the language of the bill I object to:
Provided further that of the funds appropriated under this
heading ``Agency for International Development'' not less
than $600,000 shall be available to support parliamentary
training and democracy programs in the People's Republic of
China.
That is almost an oxymoron, to talk about democracy and the People's
Republic of China. And the thing that makes it even more offensive,
besides being an oxymoron, is the fact that $600,000 would not be
enough to transport the people to China and pay their hotel bill, to
teach the Chinese parliamentary procedure and give them democracy
programs, even if they wanted them.
Madam President, we are spending $13 billion in the very bill we are
debating at this moment, trying to win friends around the world with
money. We are parcelling out $13 billion to countries all over the
globe, hoping that when push comes to shove, they will remember who
their friends were, and they will be on our side in any controversy
that might arise in their region of the world.
Why, out of this $13 billion, would we set aside $600,000 to teach
China, one of the last two or three autocratic, tyrannical, Communist
governments--why would we spend $600,000 which, admittedly, is just a
pittance, on such a country which could not possibly amount to a hill
of beans.
Madam President, China has a $10 billion to $15 billion trade deficit
against this Nation, and we debate constantly here about prison labor
and human rights violations and the autocracy that exists in China,
which is still a hard-line Communist nation.
Not only are we spending $13 billion in this bill, this afternoon in
Appropriations we appropriated $35 million to the National Endowment
for Democracy. And the National Endowment for Democracy is supposed to
do exactly what this $600,000 is designed to do--teach people why
democracy is superior to other systems.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona
very thoughtfully offered an amendment to this, to strike a provision
which was in the original bill that said this money would go to two of
the four core grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy, namely,
the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican
Institute. Madam President, would you like to know who that is? That is
the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. They are two of the
biggest grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy. And until the
Senator from Kentucky struck that from the bill, it provided that this
$600,000 would go to them.
I am very pleased that he struck that, in case this amendment fails.
But his amendment also said this will be granted to some
nongovernmental group to go to China to teach China democracy and
parliamentary training.
Madam President, China has 1.2 billion people. You tell me what you
think $600,000 is going to do to promote democracy in China. It is not
a lot of money, Madam President. It is more than most people in this
body pay in income taxes each year. And even though it is a small
amount, we ought not to be wasting it on something like that.
The Agency for International Development has serious challenges.
There are other earmarks in this bill, and I compliment the Senator
from Vermont and the Senator from Kentucky on some of the other
earmarks in here. They are for health items, and they are for things
people really need. I am offering this amendment, and I hate to take up
the Senate's time for a mere $600,000, but it is such a sheer utter
waste, I could not resist it.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado. I would like to
announce that Senator Bryan of Nevada and Senator Feingold of
Wisconsin, as well as the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from
North Dakota, have cosponsored this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I will not take all 5 minutes, but I want
to commend the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for bringing this
matter forth and having the courage to speak out.
This is a pretty straightforward proposition. We have the leaders of
our parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and other
big interest groups who found out a way to tap the Government till. By
getting together, they figured out that they can divide the money from
the U.S. Treasury.
Is it the best way of spending the taxpayers' money; that is, giving
it to big special-interest groups when they agree? I do not think so.
We have had talks about this in the past. One of the problems with this
is that this money gets awarded in other areas without competitive
bidding.
Frankly, some of the money ends up being used by both parties to
support people who no longer have a job in Government, and my
impression at least is that some of the people are committed and
dedicated and do a wonderful job on these projects and some of them
could not get a job anywhere else.
The simple fact is if we are going to be careful in using the
taxpayers' money, it ought to go through a regular procedure with AID
or whatever other program you want to do. But what this is is a
procedure of having finally agreed on the maximum amount we are going
to give to the political parties--something I think everybody in this
Chamber ought to be a little hesitant about--having finally agreed on
that maximum limit, then someone is figuring out a new way to get
around the limit. That is what this is. This is the way to get around
the limit. This is the way to say, yes, we agreed on the limit as to
how much we were going to hand out to political parties. By the way, we
figured out a nice project. Indeed, this is. It has a wonderful
purpose, and we are going to slip in a little provision in the process
to give more money to them.
Madam President, this is not right. This is a way around reasonable
limits. This is a way around reasonable controls. This is a way around
a proper approach to spending the money.
The last thing in the world either the Democratic Party or the
Republican Party needs is a bunch of party insiders deciding and
dividing the public treasury without reasonable scrutiny, without fair
controls, and without insisting on proper accounting for the money.
After having fought this through about the limit that they should
receive, this is a way around those limits. I think it is wrong. I
think it is a mistake. And frankly, I think the members of the
Democratic Party and Republican Party who take advantage of their
position to divide up the public treasury in this manner ought to be
ashamed of themselves.
I have said that to the Republican Party leadership. I know others
have said that to the Democratic Party leadership. But to take
advantage of your power because you control the party, to take money
out of the treasury is just plain wrong, and there ought to be a limit
to it.
I commend the Senator from Arkansas for having the courage to stand
up and try to insist that at least some limit stands on how much they
take away from the taxpayers of this country.
I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, it will be deducted equally from both sides.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, if no one wants to speak further on this,
I wonder if all time could be yielded back. I know Senator Brown has
been waiting to offer an amendment that he and I are cosponsoring along
with many other Members.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, in answer to my friend from Illinois,
I think the time is going to be used. There are a couple of speakers in
opposition to the Bumpers amendment. Senator Simon and Senator Brown
will be next in line.
Mr. BROWN. If the Senator will yield, would it be all right if
Senator Simon spoke with regard to the upcoming amendment until someone
else arrives to speak on the pending amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, under the agreement, the time
reserved prior to the vote on the Bumpers amendment is to discuss the
Bumpers amendment, and we will be doing that shortly.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I did not understand what the Senator
from Kentucky just said.
Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding under the agreement the 30
minutes referred to is for discussion of the Bumpers amendment. The
Senator from Arkansas has been discussing it. The Senator from Colorado
has been discussing it. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from
Kentucky are about to discuss it.
So the answer to my friend from Illinois is that we will be
discussing the Bumpers amendment during the time allotted for that
shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I note the presence of the Senator from
Vermont here. If he wishes to speak on this, I certainly will yield. If
he does not, I ask unanimous consent that this be temporarily set
aside, with everyone keeping their time, so that I could speak on the
Brown amendment for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. BUMPERS. I object.
I say I want the Senator from Illinois to have time to speak on this
amendment that is pending at this time. I have one other speaker who
wishes to be heard.
I would like to yield such time to the Senator from North Dakota as
he may wish to use within the limits of the remaining time I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 6 minutes and 12
seconds remaining, which is yielded to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me retract that, Madam President. I yield 4 minutes
to the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, thank you very much.
I thank the Senator from Arkansas. The Senator does a service to this
Senate by offering this amendment, which would strike $600,000 of
funding for parliamentary training in mainland China.
Simply, this is a waste of money. It is only $600,000, but it is
still $600,000. As the fellow said as he spit in the ocean, every
little bit helps. And $600,000 is a lot of money to some folks, and we
ought not waste it.
The issue here, as Senator Bumpers has said, is giving $600,000 to
the two political parties, in effect, and saying go to China and teach
them parliamentary training and democracy programs. They need to learn
about parliamentary training and democracy programs.
With due respect, the issue is not learning in China. The issue is
yearning. They yearn for freedom and they yearn for democracy.
Have we forgotten that those students in Tiananmen Square built a
papier-mache Statue of Liberty and then were slaughtered? Have we
forgotten that shortly after that Bush administration officials were
over there drinking wine with Chinese leaders?
China knows about democracy. That is what Tianamen Square was all
about. They fully know about democracy. We do not have to spend
$600,000 flying people from the Democratic and Republican parties over
there to give seminars. What a waste of money.
My Lord, we have so many needs and so many problems in this country,
and we are going to spend $600,000 on this program? This funding ought
not to have been in this bill in the first place.
When the Senator from Arkansas offered this amendment this year, I
told him at the time it was too timid. He and I would have liked to
repeal the whole National Endowment for Democracy program. What a waste
of millions of dollars.
But this $600,000 is in this bill, and in my judgment, it is a waste
of money. Let us dump it. Let us adopt this amendment and demonstrate
that we understand the difference between what is needed and what is
not, what works and what is waste.
What would Harry and Louise think of this, for God's sake, sitting on
the couch, talking about what Government is doing?
``Harry, did you hear what they are going to do next? They are going
to send people to China to teach democracy.'' And Harry would say,
``Gee. Don't they know about democracy? They were over there fighting
and dying for it.''
China's knowledge of and desire for democracy is clear and obvious.
To spend $600,000 to try to spur China's desire for democracy is not
only ridiculous, it is insulting.
Let us do the right thing. Let us pass this amendment. Just start 1
inch down the road, and hopefully down the road a way we will repeal
the National Endowment for Democracy for good and stop wasting the
taxpayers' money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont 30
seconds. I yield him a minute. He cannot speak for only 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I think the Senator from Arkansas is
right and the Senator from North Dakota is right. I will vote for his
amendment. In fact, I will join in doing away with the National
Endowment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, never has so little money generated
such elaborate rhetoric.
Let me just say that this vote is about democracy in China. It is
whether you support giving reformers in China a chance or not. It is a
vote to provide aid to organizations which are working with legislators
working with democratic activists in China, and there are democratic
activists in China.
No funds; I repeat, no funds. This debate reminds me of the big
shootout we had over the National Endowment for Democracy recently. But
I want to say, this is not about the NED. I know there are heated
passions here that tend to come to the fore when we talk about the NED.
The NED has always prevailed in the Senate, but this is not about
that. I kind of wish it were, because I know what the outcome of the
votes would be if it were about NED. The Senator from Arkansas would
probably be defeated.
But there are not any funds directed to either the International
Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, or any other
organization, frankly. The provision in the bill specifically says that
the funds should be available on a competitive basis. Just on a
competitive basis.
Among the organizations that might qualify for this would be the Ford
Foundation, or the AFL-CIO, or maybe even the University of Arkansas.
So I do not think, to be perfectly frank with you, this deserves an
extensive debate. But it seems to me that if you would concede there
are some democratic reformers active in China--and I know there are--
and that this might be a way to provide some organizations a chance to
help them move forward, this should not be all that controversial.
But, the Senate can work its will on it. It seems to me this is
largely about a democracy in China.
The 10 most wanted Tiananmen Square dissidents who escaped to the
U.S. strongly support this particular provision of the bill. Let me
repeat, for those of you who think this may be a rerun of MFN, the 10
most wanted Tiananmen Square dissidents who escaped to the U.S.
strongly support this provision.
So let us not make this into, what we used to say in law school, a
Federal case. It is an important provision to those dissidents who had
the courage to stand up to the government in Tiananmen Square.
Beyond that, Madam President, I rest my case. I thought the Senator
from Arizona was going to speak to this amendment, but he is not here
yet.
That basically concludes my observations. I hope the Bumpers
amendment will be defeated. But I am sure China will move forward with
or without it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall
vote on this amendment, which would take place at the expiration of the
time under the unanimous-consent agreement, occur immediately following
the next rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being none, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] and the
distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back such time
as I have. I just want to make one closing point.
As they say, $600,000 is not much money. But it is too much to waste.
If we were really serious about trying to help China democratize, $600
million would be a more appropriate figure. You might accomplish
something with that.
But you will not accomplish anything with $600 million, $60 million,
$6 million, $600,000 trying to teach democracy to the same people who
slaughtered young innocent students in Tiananmen Square because they
wanted democracy.
To follow up on what the Senator from North Dakota said on Harry and
Louise, there has to be a better way. Why squander $600,000?
Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me say, probably in conclusion,
this is not about providing money for the National Endowment for
Democracy. This is about earmarking some funds for organizations who
are interested in promoting democracy in China to compete for.
The 10 most wanted Tiananmen Square dissidents who managed to escape
support this provision. This is not about MFN. This is not about the
NED. This is a symbol for the 10 most wanted Tiananmen Square
dissidents who managed to escape the country.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes and 9 seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. I am going to reserve the remainder of my time,
because I understand there might be at least one other speaker on this
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this
amendment be set aside and the time reserved, and that I be able to
speak for 3 minutes on the Brown amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I
definitely will not object, but has the Brown amendment been offered?
Mr. McCONNELL. It is at the desk.
Mr. LEAHY. I would only urge, while Senator Simon is speaking, that
somebody could probably call the Senator from Colorado and they could
bring up his amendment. If we could do that next, it would probably
make some sense.
I do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Illinois calling up the
Brown amendment?
Mr. SIMON. I am not calling up the Brown amendment. I am just asking
unanimous consent to speak on the Brown amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I think we all understand each other.
The clock is not running on the Bumpers amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Madam President.
Amendment No. 2248
Mr. SIMON. My colleague from Colorado has offered an amendment that
is cosponsored by a great many on both sides and I hope can be accepted
and I think should be noncontroversial that says the President may--and
I underline ``may''--transfer excess defense articles under section 516
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or under the Arms Export Control
Act to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Later, other nations
could be added if other nations establish solid democracy.
These three have led the way. And I am pleased to say that other
nations in that area are moving in this direction. When others want to
add other nations, I will probably support that when those nations
appear to qualify.
But it does seem to me that we ought to recognize that, to the extent
that we can encourage security cover for these nations, it is
desirable.
For those who feel, and particularly some of my friends in the State
Department feel, that this is an anti-Russian thing, not at all. The
reality is, when the time comes when democracy is well-established in
Russia, then Russia can become part of this whole alliance. In fact,
the real military threat to Russia long term is not from Poland, not
from Hungary, not the Czech Republic, but it comes from China.
And so I think this amendment by my colleague from Colorado makes
sense. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I hope it can be accepted
without controversy by the Senate.
Madam President, if no one desires to speak, I question the presence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who
yields time?
Amendment No. 2294
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I ask the Senator from Kentucky if
he will yield me some time?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 10 minutes 57
seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona
however much time within that limit he may desire.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will ask another question of the
Senator from Kentucky, who is the ranking member, in the absence of the
other manager of the bill. I ask, first of all, did the committee
propose this to be part of the bill? The funding?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yes, I say to my friend from Arizona,
it did. The subcommittee did. It was subsequently approved by the full
committee.
We have been sort of kicking this around here on the floor. I do not
want to represent the arguments of the other side, but I think
underlying those arguments is the notion that there are no reformers in
China. I know there clearly are. This rather small amount of money
would be available on a competitive bid basis for organizations like
the Ford Foundation or the AFL/CIO, or for that matter the University
of Arkansas, to help with the development of democratic institutions
within the country.
The final observation I will make, that I did make earlier on the
floor, is that the 10 most wanted Tiananmen dissidents who managed to
get out of the country and are here in the United States strongly
support this funding. So I am a little mystified, I would say to my
friend from Arizona, how this has become a matter of such controversy.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the reason why I asked my colleague is
because I think there is a little more to this than that. Here is
$600,000 of a $14 billion piece of legislation that seems to have
aroused all this. What we are really talking about is the National
Endowment for Democracy, which the distinguished Senator from Kentucky
knows, coincidentally, the cosponsors of this amendment have tried to
kill several times. They got beat badly in the House the other night.
They know they will get beat badly here. So we have to go through this
exercise.
Is it apparent to my friend from Kentucky that the Senator from
Arkansas and the Senator from Colorado know better what is best for
China? They are not, obviously, experts on China. They know better than
General Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser; Larry Eagleburger,
former Secretary of State; Jim Lilley, former Ambassador to China; Doug
Paal, NSC's Director of Asian Affairs, and the agency's 10 most wanted.
So they know much better than these individuals; is that not a correct
assumption to make, if you support this amendment, I ask my friend from
Kentucky?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will say the National Endowment for Democracy is not
specified in here as a recipient of this money, but the debate did
sound remarkably similar to the one we have had here on several
occasions on which the Senator from Arizona and I had participated. I
asked the staff here earlier if they could give me the outcome. Maybe
the Senator has the outcome. The last time we had the NED battle here
it was rather lopsided. The Senator from Arizona is certainly correct,
it sounds quite similar.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Kentucky. Again, I am astounded at
the knowledge of China and the situation there. Frankly, I am
incredibly impressed by the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from
Arkansas, especially. Frankly, their in-depth knowledge of China had
somehow escaped me over the years. But it is clear to me they know more
than Larry Eagleburger, General Scowcroft, Doug Paal, and the Chinese
dissidents who fled to this country who believe they know what is best
for their country. So I certainly hope my colleagues will take into
consideration the different balance of views here.
What this is, as my friend from Kentucky knows, is some way to get
at, again, the National Endowment for Democracy, a debate we have had
many times in the past and we will probably have in the future. All
this malarkey about people who are involved in the National Endowment
for Democracy, I have to say to my friend from Kentucky, I resent it,
from the Senator from Colorado especially, who also knows better.
The fact is, in the view of almost every unbiased expert, the
National Endowment for Democracy has done some very important and
credible things, which is why the last time the National Endowment for
Democracy was attacked, literally every editorial page in America,
conservative and liberal, took on the opponents by name. I have never
seen such support from columnists, from David Broder to George Will, et
cetera, et cetera.
I do not want to waste the time of this body. We can decide. This
body can decide very quickly. Shall we take the word of Gen. Brent
Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser to the President; Larry
Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Jim Lilley, former Ambassador
to China; Doug Paal?
Let me tell you, Madam President, what Chai Ling--I am sure that is a
mispronunciation of his name--a 1989 Tiananmen student commander twice
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, said: ``Unless China starts
constitutional reforms, setting up its own checks and balances
mechanism within its system, it is unrealistic to expect outside
pressure to change the situation. After escaping from China and living
in the U.S. and studying at Princeton University, I am more convinced
than ever that China's future is through constitutional reform.''
That is what this amount of money is for.
I am sure Mr. Chai Ling, having been gone since 1989, is not as up to
date as the Senator from Colorado nor the Senator from Arkansas.
They are much more aware. In fact, they may even travel there in the
meantime. Or Liu Binyan, who said:
All people--
Obviously with the exception of the Senator from Arkansas and the
Senator from Colorado--
All people concerned about China's future and
democratization have reached consensus that China's
transformation must be peaceful and gradual. During the
process of peaceful transformation, the most important thing
is to implement the constitution and gradually amend it.
Whether China avoids great turmoil depends on successfully
implementing gradual political reform.
And another dissident says the same thing.
It is clear here. And finally, Madam President, here we are--I feel
like I am in a ludicrous position. I opposed an amendment prohibiting
the President going into Haiti. I opposed an amendment tying the
President's hands on Bosnia. I opposed amendments time after time that
have prospectively prohibited the President from taking certain action.
And here I am, again, opposing an amendment that says that the
President cannot do something.
It is a priority for AID, and I thought that those who opposed just
recently the Dole Haiti amendment might not want to tie the President's
hands in this instance.
Madam President, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I thank you for
your support. It is not that big a deal. If this body wants to kill
this $600,000 because they feel that all these people are wrong, then
so be it. But I do not think it deserves, frankly, a great deal more
debate.
I yield to my friend from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to thank my friend from
Arizona for his very persuasive observation. The last time we had this
debate--the position the Senator from Arizona and I are advocating--on
another matter, the outcome was 74-23.
Even though this amendment does not specify any recipient agency--it
could be the Ford Foundation or the AFL-CIO--I certainly share the
Senator's view: Why are we here trying to knock out a relatively modest
amount of money to try to help this vast country move in the direction
we all hope it will go?
I thank the Senator from Arizona for his fine remarks.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, there is one more point I would like to
make, and it needs to be on the record again.
When I found out that this money was earmarked for the National
Endowment for Democracy, I came down here with an amendment, which the
distinguished managers of the bill were kind enough to accept, which
removed that.
This money, if it is appropriated, will go on a competitive basis
conducted by the Agency for International Development.
So I say to my friend from Kentucky, our attacks on the National
Endowment for Democracy may be misguided because they may not get the
money, depending on what AID decides.
I reserve the remainder of the time of the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise simply----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired----
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I think the case against the amendment has been
adequately stated by the Senator from Arizona and, hopefully, by
myself. I will be glad to give the Senator from Colorado my last 2
minutes. Then we can move on to his next amendment.
Mr. BROWN. I will not take 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I simply want the Record to indicate the
way the Senator from Arizona has summarized the issue, and the impact
of his amendment, I believe, is accurate. I believe the McCain
amendment significantly improved the measure that was in the bill.
I think the Senator is to be praised for that. I certainly think that
his efforts made a significant improvement in the measure and one that
I think, whether this particular amendment is adopted or not, will have
been a help. I yield back any remaining time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). All time has expired. The
Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, absent the unanimous-consent agreement
that we entered into earlier, there would be a rollcall vote now. I see
the Senator from Colorado on the floor. He also has an amendment which
I believe he is going to bring up. There may be someone to speak on
this side. I would like to know if perhaps we can get a time agreement
on that, and then if there is going to be a rollcall vote on that, then
we would know when the time would be, because we would have two
rollcall votes together, and that is probably about as late as I would
want to go before we had some more rollcall votes because I find as we
have the rollcall votes, a lot of the Senators who cannot seem to be
reached by phone to work out these time agreements are suddenly on the
floor.
Mr. BROWN. If the chairman will yield, I know the distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, has an
interest in the Brown-Simon amendment. I know he will want to be heard
on it. I offer to the chairman that I will be happy to agree to
whatever time limit the Senator from Rhode Island would wish to place
on the amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Let us do this. Why do we not set 1 hour evenly divided,
if that would be OK with the Senator from Colorado, and if we do not
need the time, we can always yield it back.
Mr. BROWN. For my purposes, I would be happy to agree with that. I
believe it is possible to conclude it more promptly than that.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Are we now on the
Brown amendment? I ask unanimous consent that when the Brown amendment
is brought up--and I understand from the Senator from Colorado he is
about to do that momentarily--that when it is brought up, that there
would be 1 hour evenly divided in the usual fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object. I ask the Senator from
Vermont, following that would he anticipate two rollcall votes?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is correct, we
would. I would also note that I am doing this only because it would
take longer to go on the hot line to find out who wants to speak. I
hope on this side we will be yielding back a considerable amount of
that time. But then there would be a vote--let me state it this way.
I ask unanimous consent that we now go to the Brown amendment; that
there be 1 hour evenly divided in the usual fashion; at the end of that
hour, there be a vote on, or in relation to, the Brown amendment, with
no second-degree amendment to it in order; and that upon the completion
of that vote, whatever it is--rollcall or otherwise--that we then
immediately vote on the Bumpers amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I feel the need to have a short quorum call. I want to
discuss it.
Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I have no objection to the request.
Mr. LEAHY. I renew my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent
request of the Senator from Vermont?
Mr. COHEN. Reserving the right to object, is it clear that an hour
must be consumed?
Mr. LEAHY. No. Time could be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2248
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Brown amendment.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I believe we have called up for
consideration amendment 2248, and I ask unanimous consent that the
following Members be added as cosponsors: Senators Roth, Mikulski,
Dole, Warner, Domenici, Lieberman, Helms, Pressler, Feingold, Nickles,
McCain, and Simon as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator
Craig be added as a cosponsor, and Senator Cohen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this amendment is quite straightforward.
It merely adds the authority for the President to extend to the
countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary an ability to
participate with our Defense Department as many other countries do. Let
me be specific. Currently, we have the ability to transfer excess
defense articles to other countries around the world. Those include, in
addition to our NATO allies, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Oman, Bahrain, and
Senegal. This amendment would add Hungary, Poland, and the Czech
Republic to the existing list of countries. These three countries are
anxious to participate with us. They are anxious to become part of
NATO. They have democratized their nations. They are anxious to work
with our military and they are anxious to stand among the countries
that not only believe in democracy and freedom but are willing to
defend it, and they seek an opportunity to have closer ties with the
West.
Members will ask whether or not the President should be authorized to
put these three countries in the same category as Senegal or Oman. It
is my belief that they more than qualify and should be included. It
would also put the three countries in a list of countries that are
authorized to receive leases and loans of major defense equipment. It
would put them among nations with whom the United States maintains
cooperative military airlift agreements. Let me emphasize, Madam
President, this amendment does not require the President to take any of
these actions. It leaves the final decision with the President.
Why should the Senate support the NATO Participation Act of 1994? If
I may, I would like to share with the body a letter that I received
from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. His letter reads as
follows.
Thank you for bringing to my attention the Brown-Simon
``NATO Participation Act of 1994'' and your plan to offer it
as an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations
bill.
In my view, continuing security in Europe hinges upon a
stable NATO alliance open to early membership by countries
like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Ambiguous
western security arrangements for the heart of Europe will
not serve the cause of peace there. Rather they will generate
uncertainty and instability.
The ``NATO Participation Act'' sends a strong indication of
the United States' support for Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic. By extending to these fledgling democracies some of
the most important security benefits that U.S. law extends to
existing NATO members, the Act will speed their transition
into NATO.
Madam President, that is exactly the purpose of my amendment.
Dr. Kissinger concludes:
I strongly support the Brown-Simon amendment and urge your
colleagues of both parties to join in passing it at its
earliest opportunity.
Madam President, this is not a partisan amendment. It is offered to
the body with the leadership of Senator Simon, who has long been
concerned about not only the plight of Poland but the plight of those
in Central Europe, along with three other Democratic Senators who have
been leaders in this particular area.
I am particularly interested in the plight of Central Europe, Madam
President, for this reason. The year before I was born, the world saw
Poland disappear as it was engulfed by Germany and the Soviet Union.
Many important historians looking back on those events cite the
perception created by democracies of the world that they would not
stand with Poland as the impetus behind the Nazi invasion. Because our
support was ambiguous, because those of good faith who believe in
democracy did not stand together, each country fell separately to the
totalitarian aggressors.
Imagine the millions of lives that could have been saved if
democracies had stood up at the time Poland was threatened. Other
Members will recall the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Then, the
leadership of the West, hoping against hope, abandoned Czechoslovakia,
believing this offering would satiate Hitler's appetite. It did not.
Tragically, after swallowing up a portion of Czechoslovakia, the Nazi
hunger remained. While the West stood silent, the Nazi hordes finished
off the remainder of this once prosperous nation and proceeded on their
path.
Other Members will recall the valiant struggle of the Polish
underground during World War II against the Nazi invaders. As the end
neared, the Soviet Army asked these partisans to surrender and
negotiate for control of the country, for the bringing of democracy and
stabilization to Poland. The Polish underground leaders were reluctant
to do so and only agreed to surrender to the Soviet authorities after
the United States urged and assured them that they would be well
treated and that they, indeed, would be a respected part of the
leadership they sought to bring to their country.
The tragedy of history is that those valiant leaders of the Polish
underground were arrested, were imprisoned and eventually executed. The
defenders of freedom and the defenders of the fight against the Nazis
in Poland were executed. And what did the United States do? Tragically,
little.
I do not want, for this generation, for it to be said that we did not
do what we could to make sure these same events do not happen again.
Madam President, how can we look at the Czech Republic and not feel
twangs of the heart. How can we not wonder if there was something the
United States could have done at the time that would have stopped their
misery and circumvented the cold war? How can we even think about
Poland and wonder if we could not have done a better job to stand with
the Polish people? How can we even think about preserving freedom in
this world and not know that it is important for men and women who
sincerely believe in freedom and democracy to stand together?
Now, the facts are these, at least as this Member sees it. There are
radical elements within Russia today that would like to reassert their
control over Central Europe. Thankfully, thankfully, we believe the
leadership of the country does not share that enthusiasm.
Madam President, I believe that if we make our intentions with regard
to Central Europe unclear, if we are unwilling to make it clear that
they are part of the family of free nations, if we are unwilling to
show that they have a right not only to protect freedom but to be part
of the defense network that stands up for it, then I believe we send a
signal that reasserting domination over the Central European powers is
all right; that once again free men and women will stand idly by while
their freedom and independence is crushed.
Madam President, that would be a tragedy. This amendment will begin
to make our intentions clear; namely, that we intend to take the issue
off the table; that reasserting control over Poland, Hungary, or the
Czech Republic will no longer be considered viable by anyone in Russia;
that Russia will feel an obligation to respect the freedom and
independence of these countries just as we feel an obligation to
respect their freedom and independence.
I offer this resolution only because the governments of those
countries have expressed their interest in becoming part of NATO, not
because we are pushing them to join. We should not do anything to
jeopardize the hard won and cherished freedom that these countries now
enjoy. By moving quickly, by holding out the hand of friendship and
participation, we can short circuit those who would reassert domination
over central Europe.
Madam President, I ought to mention that, in addition to these three
Republics, the Slovakians have indicated an interest in joining NATO
and, as a matter of fact, would like to be included in this amendment.
They are not included in this amendment, and my sense is that it is not
appropriate to change the amendment at this time. But I must say my own
feeling is that Slovakia should be considered as a candidate for NATO
membership. I personally favor their inclusion, and I hope that at some
time in the future, we can consider them and make our feelings known to
the Senate.
But my hope is also that we do not miss this opportunity to send a
clear signal that we want Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary to
enjoy the freedom and the independence that they sacrificed so much for
and long for so greatly.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield such time as he may need to the
Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague.
Less than 2 weeks ago, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Defense
Department authorization bill that addressed the issue of participation
in allied defense cooperation. As I said at the time, we should
encourage the President to use existing authorities to provide excess
defense articles and other benefits to our friends particularly our
friends participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace.
I am concerned, however, by any attempt to draw unnecessary lines in
a newly undivided Europe as the proposed amendment would do. The
administration has worked very hard to be inclusive in developing
NATO's Partnership for Peace. For example, Russia joined the
Partnership with no special conditions--on the same terms as other
countries. If we begin to differentiate now, we undermine the concept
of a while and free Europe. We fought the cold war for a half century
with hopes that one day, we could bring down the Iron Curtain that
bifurcated Europe. Why on earth would we want to redraw lines that we
struggled so hard to erase?
The amendment before us specifically mentions Poland, Hungary, and
the Czech Republic as countries that should be eligible to receive
excess defense articles. I want to emphasize that those countries are
already eligible for excess defense articles, and the President has, in
fact, already offered Poland and Hungary excess equipment. Both
countries, however, have declined the offer due to financial
difficulties. I reiterate: the President has already tried to do what
this amendment asks, but was turned down by the relevant countries.
This amendment would also amend existing law to specifically mention
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as eligible to receive other
benefits such as communications support, leases and loans of defense
equipment, and cooperative military airlift agreements. Again, under
existing law, the President already has the authority to grant these
benefits to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, as well as to other
countries that he determines are appropriate.
Madam President, I wish to stress that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic are all members of NATO's Partnership for Peace, and are
extremely deserving of military cooperation and benefits. Indeed, they
have been offered the type of assistance that this amendment would
authorize. Accordingly, I believe this amendment is unnecessary and
would serve only to draw new lines between our friends in Central and
Eastern Europe, and would make a division rather than unification.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 26 minutes 24
seconds. The Senator from Colorado has 19 minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee has accurately advised the body that these
countries are now able to receive some excess defense articles. I think
it is fair to describe them as nonlethal items that can be shared with
these countries.
The amendment before us provides authorization. Let me emphasize that
it is authorization; it is not a requirement. It is merely
discretionary for the administration and provides authorization that
extends not only to subsection (b) but also includes subsections (c)
and (d).
It merely adds options for the President that he does not now enjoy.
It extends to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary the ability to
participate in these programs, should the President decide.
I think it is fair to describe the additional areas as ones that go
beyond nonlethal equipment, ones that involve a broader range of
military hardware capabilities. Let me emphasize how important this
change is. It is important because these countries want to communicate
with us, they want to develop joint procedures, they want to work with
our personnel, and they want to learn from our personnel. The ability
to work together in these areas expands their ability to become
effective allies.
Madam President, let me emphasize again what is important here. The
NATO Participation Act goes far beyond simply the hardware which we
might share, the joint exercises that we might perform, or the good
will that might come from closer cooperation. What comes here, frankly,
is a signal, a signal that we care about these countries, a signal that
we want to be close to these countries, a signal that we understand
that it is important that they remain free, a signal that we are not
only interested in their freedom, but willing to work with them toward
that future.
Madam President, let me also emphasize how important it is right now.
Right now, these countries are deciding what their future will be. If
we turn our back on them, if we ignore them, if they gain the
impression we do not care about their security, they will be forced to
make other security arrangements.
What a tragedy it would be if, when finally they have achieved their
peace and freedom and independence, that we would treat them with
disdain. Whether we realize it or not, our willingness or unwillingness
to work with them is viewed as a strong sign of what their future will
be. Will it be to the West or will it be to the East? Surely, it is in
our country's interest to make sure that they receive a strong signal
of our interest, our friendship, and our willingness to work with them.
The Senate earlier tonight had gone on record in opposition to the
McConnell amendment.
The NATO Participation Act is a bit milder than the McConnell
amendment. It has a number of cosponsors that did not support the
McConnell amendment. While it is not as strong--at least in some ways--
as the McConnell amendment, it does send a positive signal. I think it
would be a tragedy if what comes out of our deliberations tonight is a
negative signal to those who seek our help and comradeship in
preserving their freedom.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the analysis that I asked be
prepared by the Congressional Research Service on this particular
subject be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Research Service,
The Library of Congress,
Washington, DC. June 28, 1994.
SUBJECT: Current Statutory Authority for Certain Defense-
Related Activities Involving Poland, Hungary, and the
Czech Republic
TO: Hon. Hank Brown
FROM: American Law Division
This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of
whether the President currently has statutory authority to
undertake the defense-related activities that would be
authorized in a proposed amendment to S. 2182, 103d Cong., 2d
Sess. (1994), the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization
bill for FY 1995. The amendment, according to the text that
you have provided to us, would authorize the transfer of
excess defense articles to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign
Assistance Act, and would specifically extend the authorities
of various other defense-related statutes to cover leases and
loans of defense articles to and various cooperative defense
activities with these countries. The amendment would add
Section 1017 to the proposed bill. Given the brevity of our
deadline, we are providing only a preliminary discussion of
the provisions that may be implicated by the proposed
amendment. Except for indicating AECA eligibility dates for
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, we do not discuss
Executive Branch implementation of the provisions discussed
below.
Section 1017(b) would authorize the President to transfer
excess defense articles under the foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (FAA)\1\ or the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) to
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a general matter, Sec. 620(f) of the FAA prohibits the
furnishing of assistance to any Communist country unless the
President makes certain findings. Until October 1992, the
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Hungarian People's
Republic, and the Polish People's Republic were specifically
listed as Communist countries for purposes of the
prohibition. These countries were removed from Sec. 620(f)
list in Sec. 901 of the FREEDOM Support Act, Pub. L. No.
102-511, 106 Stat. 3355. At present, there do not appear
to be any other general FAA provisions specifically
prohibiting FAA assistance to the Czech Republic, Hungary,
or Poland.
Section 517 of the FAA\2\ specifically authorizes the
President to transfer excess defense articles, without cost
to the recipient countries, for modernization of the defense
capabilities of countries of NATO's southern flank. The term
``excess defense article'' is defined in Sec. 644(g) of the
FAA as ``the quantity of defense articles (other than
construction equipment, including tractors, scrapers,
loaders, graders, bulldozers, dump trucks, generators, and
compressors) owned by the United States government, and not
procured in anticipation of military assistance or sales
requirements, or pursuant to a military assistance or sales
order, which is in excess or the Approved Force Acquisition
Objective and Approved Force Retention Stock of all
Department of Defense Components at the time such articles
are dropped from inventory by the supplying agency for
delivery to countries or international organizations under
this Act.''
Eligible recipients under Sec. 516 are (1) NATO member
countries on the southern flank of NATO that are eligible for
United States security assistance and which are integrated
into NATO's military structure; (2) major non-NATO allies on
the southern and southeastern flank of NATO which are
eligible for United States security assistance; and (3) those
countries which, as of October 1, 1990, contributed armed
forces to deter Iraqi aggression in the Arabian Gulf, and
which either received Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
assistance in FY 1990 or are in the Near East region and
received FMF assistance in FY 1991 on FY 1992. A member of
NATO on the southern flank of NATO is defined to mean Greece,
Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey (Sec. 516(e)). While
category (2) is not defined in the statute,\3\ it would not
appear that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic fall
within any of the three categories of authorized recipients
for purposes of this section.\4\
Section 518 authorizes the President to transfer nonlethal
excess defense articles and small arms to friendly countries
for resource conversation and management purposes.
Section 519 authorizes the President to transfer to
countries for whom an FMF program is justified for the fiscal
year in which the transfer is authorized, such nonlethal
excess-defense articles as the President determines necessary
to help modernize the defense capabilities of such countries,
in accordance with the provisions of the section. Transfers
are authorized only if (1) the equipment is drawn from
existing stocks of the DOD, (2) no DOD funds available for
procurement of defense equipment are expended in connection
with the transfer, (3) the President determines that the
transfer will not have an adverse impact on the military
readiness of the United States and (4) the President
determines that transferring articles under Sec. 519 is
preferable to selling them, after taking into account the
potential proceeds from, and the likelihood of, such sales,
and the comparative foreign policy benefits that may accrue
to the United States as the result of either a transfer or
sale.\5\ Transfers may be made under this section
notwithstanding any other provision of law, except title V of
the National Security Act of 1947. Further, the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act for FY 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-
87, provides at Sec. 555, that Sec. 519 may be used in FY
1994 to provide nonlethal excess defense articles to
countries for which United States foreign assistance has been
requested and for which receipt of such articles was
separately justified for the fiscal year, without regard to
the restrictions in Sec. 519(a).
The President also has special authority under the FAA to
transfer defense articles in emergency situations or
notwithstanding other provisions of law. Section 506
authorizes the President to direct the drawdown of defense
articles from Department of Defense stocks in the event of an
unforseen emergency requiring immediate military assistance
to a foreign country or international organization and the
emergency requirement cannot be met under the authority of
the AECA or any other law except Sec. 506. Section 614(a)
authorizes the President to authorize the furnishing of FAA
assistance without regard to any other provision of the FAA,
the AECA, any law relating to receipts and credits accruing
to the United States, and any Act authorizing or
appropriating funds for use under the FAA if he determines
and notifies Congress that to do so is important to the
security interest of the United States. Section 614(b)
authorizes the President to make sales, extend credit, and
issue guarantees under the AECA if the President determines
and notifies the Congress that doing so is vital to the
national security interests of the United States. The amount
of assistance that may annually be provided under these
special authorities is limited by statute.
The Arms Export Control Act authorizes, inter alia,
government-to-government sales of defense articles and
services to eligible countries.\6\ Poland, Hungary, and the
Czech Republic have been rendered eligible for
AECA transactions as provided under Sec. 3 of the Act.\7\
Section 21 authorizes the President to sell defense
articles and defense services from DOD stocks to any
eligible country or international organization if the
country or organization agrees to pay in United States
dollars--(A) in the case of a defense article not intended
to be replaced at the time the agreement is entered into,
not less than the actual value of the article or (B) in
the case of a defense article intended to be replaced at
the time the agreement is entered into, the estimated cost
of replacement of the article. While Sec. 21 does not use
the term ``excess defense article,'' its reference to
defense articles that are not intended to be replaced
would appear to indicate that excess defense articles may
be sold under this provision. A preference for sales of
excess defense articles would also appear to be indicated
in Sec. 21(i), which provides that sales of defense
articles that ``could have significant adverse effect on
the combat readiness of the Armed Forces of the United
States shall be kept to an absolute minimum.'' The statute
was recently amended, however, to require the President to
``first consider'' the technological impact of sales of
excess defense articles from stocks before entering into
such sales.\8\ The Act also authorizes the President to
enter into contracts for the procurement of defense
articles for cash sales to any foreign country or
international organization (Sec. 22) and to finance the
procurement of defense articles by friendly countries and
international organizations (Sec. 23). Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) programs may be established under the
authority of Sec. 23 of the AECA for countries determined
to be eligible for AECA programs. As indicated earlier, a
country for which an FMF program is in effect for a
particular fiscal year may be the recipient of excess non-
lethal defense articles provided under Sec. 519 of the
FAA.
Section 1017(c) would eliminate the legislative review
requirement set forth in Sec. 63 of the AECA for leases of
defense articles under Sec. 6l of the AECA and loans of
defense articles under the military assistance provisions of
the FAA (Part II, Chapter 2) above certain amounts, where
such leases or loans are made to the Czech Republic, Hungary
or Poland. Under current law, legislative review does not
apply with respect to loans or leases to NATO, any member
country of NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand. Neither
Poland, Hungary, nor the Czech Republic are specifically
exempted from this requirement; nor is there a general
provision allowing for their exemption from Sec. 63.
Section 1017(d) would amend Sec. 65 of the AECA to
specifically allow the Secretary of Defense to loan to
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic supplies and
equipment for the purposes of carrying out a program of
cooperative research, development, testing or evaluation.
Under current law, such loans may be made to a country that
is a NATO ally or to a country that is a major non-NATO ally.
Pursuant to Sec. 65(d), these countries include a member
country of NATO (other than the United States) or a foreign
country other than a member nation of NATO designated as a
``major non-NATO ally'' under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2350a(i)(3).
Section 2350a authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter
into memoranda of understanding (or other formal agreements)
with one of more major allies of the United States for the
purpose of conducting cooperative research and development
projects on defense equipment and munitions. A major ally of
the United States is defined in Sec. 2350a(i)(2) as a member
nation of NATO (other than the United States) or a ``major
non-NATO ally.'' The term ``major non-NATO ally'' is defined
in Sec. 2350a(i)(3) as ``a country, other than a member
nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that is
designated as a major non-NATO ally for purposes of this
section by the Secretary of Defense with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State.'' Were Poland, Hungary, or the Czech
Republic to be designated ``a major non-NATO ally'' under
this provision of Title 10, the country or countries so
designated would apparently be eligible to receive the
materials, supplies or equipment referred to in Sec. 65. The
proposed amendment, however, would seemingly allow the loan
of Sec. 65 items to the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland
without the need for a special country determination under
Title 10.
Section 1017(e) would amend 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2350c(e)(1)(B)
to specifically allow the Secretary of Defense to enter into
a cooperative military airlift agreement with the government
of the Czech Republic, Hungary for Poland for the
transportation of the personnel and cargo of the military
forces of that country on aircraft operated by or for the
military forces of the United States in return for the
reciprocal transportation of the personnel and cargo of craft
operated by or for the military forces of the other country.
Section 2350c allows the Secretary to enter into such
agreements with the government of ``any allied country.''
Under current law (22 U.S.C. Sec. 2350c(e)), the term
``allied country'' is defined as: (A) a country that is a
member of NATO; (B) Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the
Republic of Korea; and (C) any other country designated as an
allied country for the purposes of this section by the
Secretary of Defense with the concurrences of the Secretary
of State. Again, were the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland
to be designated an ``allied country'' under
Sec. 2350c(e)(1)(C), the Secretary of Defense could seemingly
enter in to a cooperative military airlift agreement with the
country or countries so designated. The proposed amendment
would presumably allow the Secretary to enter into such an
agreement with Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic without
first making a special country determination under
Sec. 2350c(e)(1)(C).
Section 1017(f) would amend 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2350f(d)(1)(B)
to specifically allow the Secretary of Defense to enter into
a bilateral arrangement with Poland, Hungary or the Czech
Republic or to enter into a multilateral arrangement with
these countries under which, in return for being provided
communications support and related supplies and services, the
United States would agree to provide to those countries, an
equivalent value of communications support and related
supplies and services. Section 2350f(a) allows the Secretary
to enter into such agreements with the government of ``any
allied country.'' Under current law (22 U.S.C.
Sec. 2350f(d)), the term ``allied country'' is defined as:
(A) a country that is a member of NATO; (B) Australia, New
Zealand, Japan, and the Republic of Korea; and (C) any
other country designated as an allied country for the
purposes of this section by the Secretary of Defense with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State. As with the two
preceding provisions, were Poland, Hungary, or the Czech
Republic to be designated an ``allied country'' under
Sec. 2350f(d)(C), the Secretary of Defense could
presumably enter into Sec. 2350f agreements with the
country or countries so designated. The proposed amendment
would seemingly allow the Secretary to enter into such
agreements with Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic,
either bilaterally or multilaterally, without first making
a special country determination under Sec. 2350f(d)(C).
We hope that this information is helpful to you and that
you will call on us if you have any additional questions.
Jeanne J. Grimmett,
Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.
footnotes
\1\Section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act provided the
authority for the FAA grant military assistance program
(MAP). Grant assistance formerly provided under the MAP is
now apparently provided under the Foreign Military Financing
(FMF) program established under the Arms Export Control Act.
See, e.g., Congressional Presentations for Security
Assistance Programs for FY 1991 and FY 1992, prepared by the
Department of State and the Defense Security Assistance
Agency of the Department of Defense.
\2\Sections 516 and 519 of the FAA were recently amended to
require the President to consider the effect of a transfer of
an excess defense article on the national technological and
industrial base. Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, Sec. 731.
\3\This category was added in the DOD Appropriations Act,
1988, Pub. L. No. 100-202, Sec. 8143, 101 Stat. 1329-89.
\4\See infra note 7 regarding dates of these countries' AECA
eligibility.
\5\Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been made eligible to
receive nonlethal excess defense articles under Sec. 519
without regard to the restrictions in Sec. 519(a). FREEDOM
Support Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-511, Sec. 906(a).
\6\Sections 21 and 61 of the Arms Export Control Act were
recently amended to require the President to consider the
effect of a sale or lease of an excess defense article on the
national technological and industrial base. Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No.
103-236, Sec. 731.
\7\Poland and Hungary were determined to be eligible on
December 6, 1991; the Czech Republic and Slovakia on December
27, 1993.
\8\Pub. L. No. 103-236, Sec. 731, adding Sec. 21(k).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Colorado finished?
Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. BROWN. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from
Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Colorado
for his amendment and for his work in this area. He is absolutely
correct when he says what this is about is sending a signal. If the
Senate was unwilling, on a vote of 53 to 44, to go quite as far as the
Senator from Kentucky was willing to go, maybe it will be willing to go
as far as the Senator from Colorado is now advocating.
I think the Senator from Colorado is offering an excellent amendment.
I think he shares my view that the people of Eastern Europe are waiting
around to see if there is ever going to be a time that we will make a
meaningful gesture. With all due respect to the President, I do not
believe anybody believes the Partnership for Peace is a meaningful
gesture. I suppose the Senator is talking to the same people I am, and
I do not find anybody who is convinced--the ambassadors of those
countries or the Americans whose ancestors came from those countries
and care about their fate--that the Partnership for Peace is anything
other than words.
So what we have been groping for here in amendments to previous bills
and in amendments to this bill, is something tangible, something
meaningful, that sends--as the Senator from Colorado put it--a very
clear signal that there is a future, at least for some of those
countries, sometime soon, in a new and expanded NATO. So I hope the
Brown amendment will be approved.
It seems to me that, as he indicated, if you thought the McConnell
amendment was a little too strong--and the Senate by a very narrow vote
reached that conclusion--then maybe this is the amendment that they are
willing to pass that will send that signal we all feel is so important
for the people in Eastern Europe.
I thank the Senator from Colorado for his fine contribution.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I have no wish to unnecessarily prolong
the debate. At this point, if the other side would like us to yield
back time and move to a vote, I would be happy to comply.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, again, we have a matter that--on my time,
of course--we have a matter that was raised on the defense
authorization bill and was opposed at that time. It is really not
something that should be on this bill.
With little debate before a committee that has not considered this
matter, we will decide to start dumping lethal weapons in Eastern
Europe. We have no way of knowing where these weapons will end up.
There is a procedure being followed as to how they might go. I know we
send weapons all over the world, but every so often this comes back to
haunt us. We are deciding legislation on an appropriations bill to make
a major policy decision. It would normally be done on the defense
authorization bill or elsewhere. But we want to do it here.
That is a decision the Senate is going to have to make. I am willing
to yield back the remainder of my time. The only reason I have not, I
tell the Senator, is we are checking to see if there are other Senators
who may need to speak.
So I am going to suggest, in a moment, the absence of a quorum, and
ask that the time run equally. With that, Madam President, I do suggest
the absence of a quorum and ask that the time run equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Brown amendment No. 2248.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that that
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2293
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning World Bank
loans to countries acting to enforce the Arab boycott of Israel)
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment
numbered 2293.
Mr. BROWN. Madam 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, add the following new section:
``SEC. . LOANS TO NATIONS THAT ENFORCE THE ARAB BOYCOTT OF
ISRAEL.
``The President should use the voice and vote of the United
States in all multilateral banks of which the United States
is a member to ensure that no loans are given to nations
which support or encourage the primary, secondary or tertiary
boycott of Israel.''
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 2293.
I will simply go through it. It is quite succinct.
It says:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section: Loans to nations that enforce the Arab boycott of
Israel. The President should use the voice and vote of the
United States in all multilateral banks of which the United
States is a member to ensure that no loans are given to
nations which support or encourage the primary, secondary, or
tertiary boycott of Israel.
Some may ask why in the world is this appropriate on this measure.
Let me try and respond to that.
Shockingly, even though we are many years down the road after the
Egypt-Israel accord, even though we have made enormous progress in
terms of bringing peace in the Middle East, even though there is every
reason to hope that the Palestinians may develop a peaceful
cohabitation with Israel, tragically and shockingly, a number of
countries in the Middle East continue to engage in the very intensive
effort to boycott Israel. Specifically, Middle Eastern countries
continue to urge American businesses not to do business with Israel.
Shockingly, many of them even threaten to cut off business with
American companies if those companies continue to do business with
Israel.
This is simply not acceptable. The purpose of this amendment is to
make our feelings clear that this kind of activity not only is not
acceptable but is one that should be addressed through the very
influential arm of those multilateral banks which have so much
influence in the Middle East.
I believe by using our vote and using our voice of influence we can
have a significant and a substantial impact on those countries that
continue to insist on this kind of extortion against American
businesses.
Madam President, there are many others who have expressed their views
on this in other measures that have come before the Senate. But I
believe that this measure expresses the feelings of all American
citizens and their sense of outrage that American businesses should be
subjected to this kind of influence, pressure, and extortion. My hope
is that the Chamber will include this as a sense of this body's
feelings on this practice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand this amendment will be
accepted.
I ask unanimous consent, while the principals are on the floor now,
that we agree on this amendment, but as to the amendment on which the
yeas and nays have been ordered that we begin the rollcall vote on that
at 9 o'clock. So whatever remaining time remains each side would have
to yield back an appropriate amount so that we have that vote at 9
o'clock and that Bumpers vote would follow immediately.
Mr. McCONNELL. Ten minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. And the Bumpers vote be a 10-minute vote. I make that
request, Madam President, that the Brown amendment on which the yeas
and nays have been ordered, the rollcall vote on that begin at 9 p.m.,
and that immediately following that we go to the rollcall vote on the
Bumpers amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered, and
that the Bumpers amendment vote be a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to this unanimous consent
agreement?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2293
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am willing to accept the amendment of
the Senator from Colorado, the current amendment.
If that is accepted we can probably clear up a few other amendments
between now and the hour of 9 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the pending
amendment?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Colorado.
The amendment (No. 2293) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator from Colorado has time
remaining on his amendment as we do on this side. I wonder now since we
will have a vote at 9 p.m. if we might yield back all that time except
for 5 minutes evenly divided and then in that 10 minutes between now
and 8:55 p.m. the Senator from Kentucky and I can probably dispose of a
pile of amendments. I would make that request. I wonder if the Senator
from Colorado would have any objection?
Madam President, between 8:55 p.m. and 9 p.m. we will see what we can
process.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2257, 2258, 2269, 2273, 2274, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2283,
2286, 2287, 2288, 2292, 2296, and 2298, En Bloc
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order now for me to call up en bloc the following amendments, that they
be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table en bloc. These amendments are: 2257, 2258, 2269,
2273, 2274, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2283, 2286, 2287, 2288, 2292, 2296, and
2298.
I note that this has been cleared with the concurrence of the ranking
member, the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senator from Vermont is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Vermont?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we
need to withdraw one of the amendments that the Senator from Vermont
read. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment 2273.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2273 offered by the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. Dole], is withdrawn from the request by the Senator from
Vermont.
The amendment (No. 2273) was withdrawn.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I amend my unanimous consent request
accordingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request of the Senator from Vermont?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to as follows:
Amendment No. 2257
(Purpose: To limit the provision of assistance to Nicaragua)
Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 2257.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, section 557 of the bill prohibits foreign
aid to the Government of Nicaragua, unless certain conditions are met.
I thank the managers for their cooperation and I welcome Senator
McConnell as a principal cosponsor.
The provision is identical to a provision in last year's bill, with
one exception--language is missing that would require a full and
independent investigation into the terrorist network involved in the
Santa Rosa arms cache. Senators will remember that the Santa Rosa arms
cache exploded on May 23, 1993. That huge arms cache made clear that a
Nicaraguan terrorist network was involved with kidnapping, gun-running
and other illicit activities.
I am confident that omitting this language was an oversight.
Normally, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that substantial
progress would be made on a year long investigation. But that's not the
case. During the past year the Nicaraguan Government has done next to
nothing. So, my amendment corrects this oversight by simply inserting
into section 557 the identical language from last year's foreign aid
bill regarding an investigation.
The Congress considers Nicaraguan Government attempts to satisfy the
conditions in last year's bill to be a total failure. In fact, the
Nicaraguan Government didn't even make an effort. If Mrs. Chamorro
would have satisfied even one condition I am sure the managers of the
bill would have dropped that particular condition from the section. But
that didn't happen.
What the Nicaraguan Government purports to be an investigation into
the activities of terrorists in Nicaragua, is merely a dog-and-pony
show to fool the gringos. The Sandinista-controlled National Police is
conducting the investigation, so Mrs. Chamorro has put the fox in
charge of the henhouse.
The situation is so blatant that even the State Department admitted
to my office recently that no progress had been made on the
investigation. That's why this amendment is needed. [I add
parenthetically, Mr. President, that the State Department also told us
that no progress had been made on any of the other conditions.]
It will be impossible, in my judgment, for Nicaragua to satisfy all
the conditions in last year's bill before the end of the fiscal year.
The managers of the bill understand that fact and that's why they
included all of last year's conditions in this year's bill. I can't
imagine that the State Department will approve sending more bilateral
foreign aid to Nicaragua until those conditions are satisfied. To
remind the Senate, those conditions are regarding: (1) terrorism; (2)
property rights; (3) human rights; (4) civilian control of the
military; (5) civilian control of the police; and (6) judicial reform.
As I stated earlier, Mr. President, there hasn't been an
investigation into the numerous terrorist arms caches found in
Nicaragua. Naturally, since there has been no investigation, there have
been no prosecutions. It is a fact that Sandinista military authorities
knew of the existence of these arms caches--and the United States
Congress wants all those at the highest levels of the Nicaraguan
Government who knew of their existence to be punished.
Properties stolen from U.S. citizens are not being returned. When I
checked recently, the Nicaraguan Government had made significant and
tangible progress resolving only 22 property claims of United States
citizens. This is a miserable effort considering the fact that more
than 650 Americans, owning more than 1,500 properties, have outstanding
claims. I am informed that the Nicaraguan Government may resolve
several of the high profile cases soon. But, Congress has a right to
expect much more from the Chamorro Government, in light of the fact
that American taxpayers have handed over more than $1 billion to her
government in a few short years.
Regarding the condition pertaining to the recommendations of the
Tripartite Commission, last year I reported that 300 demobilized and
disarmed former resistance members were murdered by the Sandinistas. At
the time, only two people were in jail as a result of the Commission's
recommendations. The only change from my report last year is that more
demobilized and disarmed former Resistance members have been murdered,
and nothing is being done about it. Those same two people are still the
only people reportedly in jail.
There is no civilian control over the military. General Ortega is
still head of the Sandinista Popular Army. They say he'll retire next
year, but I've got to see it happen before I can believe it. I am
confident that Mrs. Chamorro will replace Ortega with another
Sandinista thug. Furthermore, nothing has been done to put the
Sandinista National Police under civilian control.
Finally, significant and tangible reform of the Nicaraguan judicial
system means that corruption and bribery must end. The only way of
accomplishing this is for Mrs. Chamorro to appoint non-Sandinista
judges so that the Sandinistas will no longer hold the majority. But
she has done the exact opposite. She has appointed virtually all
Sandinista judges or judges who always vote with the Sandinistas.
Mr. President, the Nicaraguan Government has broken every single one
of those promises it has made to the United States government, not to
mention promises it made to the long-suffering people of Nicaragua. The
days of broken promises are over.
There should be no more foreign aid to the Government of Nicaragua
until after it complies with each condition. I am persuaded that
withholding aid until after real progress is made is the only way to
restore freedom and democracy to the Nicaraguan people.
amendment no. 2258
(Purpose: To limit the authority to reduce U.S. government debt to
certain countries)
Mr. HELMS offered amendment No. 2258.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment is to Section 561 called
``Authority to Reduce Debt''. More specifically, Section 561 provides
authority to cancel various debts owed by foreign governments to the
United States. I welcome the able Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) as
a principal cosponsor of this amendment.
The bottom line, in my judgment, is that the entire Section 561
should be stripped from the bill. Otherwise Congress might as well
propose that money be handed out willy-nilly to foreign countries. (Of
course, that money being given away so freely belongs to the U.S.
taxpayers.) The bottom line is that canceling these debts owed by these
countries is just more foreign aid with the American taxpayers again
left holding the bag.
Now, Mr. President, Section 561 identifies four conditions that would
make a country ineligible to have its debt canceled: (1) excess
military spending, (2) support for terrorism, (3) noncooperation in
narcotics control matters, and (4) human rights abuses. My amendment
simply adds a fifth condition. No nation can be eligible to have its
debt to the U.S. government canceled if it confiscates, without just
compensation, property owned by a U.S. citizen.
The United States government has already forgiven billions of dollars
in debt owed by numerous countries that have stolen property of U.S.
citizens. The word ``stolen,'' Mr. President, is justified because
these governments are refusing to compensate American property owners.
My office has received appeals from American citizens with legitimate
claims that their property has been confiscated by and in many
countries, including Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica,
Nicaragua, and Uruguay. Every one of these countries have had their
debts to the U.S. government forgiven during the past 5 years.
In fact, from 1990 to 1993, our government canceled $1.399 billion
owed to the United States by these six countries. Nicaragua alone had
$284.3 million in debts owed to the U.S. forgiven, while that
government flatly refused--and still refuses--to resolve hundreds of
property claims of U.S. citizens. This makes no sense, Mr. President,
and if Congress has any concern for American citizens who have been
ripped off by foreign governments, this amendment will be approved
overwhelmingly.
I have done my best to help these Americans. So has the excellent
staff from the minority on the Foreign Relations Committee. Bud Nance
and I have written letters to administration officials pleading for
help. We have requested assistance, both in writing and in face-to-face
meetings, from foreign officials. My office has produced several
detailed reports on the subject. We modified U.S. foreign aid law--
known as the Hickenlooper and Gonzalez amendments--to enable U.S.
citizens to gain compensation for confiscated property. We are
assisting U.S. citizens with their property claims every day.
Nevertheless, these foreign countries are thumbing their noses at
these American citizens whose properties have been confiscated. The
Clinton administration continues to jump to the defense of these
foreign governments. Secretary Bentsen told me on June 24--and
Secretary Christopher told me on June 30--that the administration would
waive the recently modified Gonzalez amendment in order to support
multilateral bank loans to Nicaragua, despite the fact that Nicaragua
refuses to resolve the vast majority of hundreds of outstanding
property claims. This is an outrageous treatment of American citizens
by the officials of their government.
Sure enough, a few days later, the United States voted to give
Nicaragua $173 million in new loans from the International Monetary
Fund [IMF]. And, guess what, Mr. President? In September, the
Nicaraguan Government intends to ask the Paris Club--that's the
official entity established by the major industrial countries to
coordinate debt policy--to cancel $500 million it owes to various
multilateral banks.
There can and will be no progress on these cases unless and until
real pressure is brought to bear on the offending government--and
financial pressure is one of the strongest means available. The U.S.
Government shouldn't hand out foreign aid to these countries, and if an
offending country owes the U.S. government money, all confiscated
property cases should be resolved before any debt is canceled.
Mr. President, for years now, I have received letters from hundreds
of American citizens who have had their homes and/or businesses
confiscated in various countries around the world.
Last year a letter came from Louis Valentine of Vermont describing
how he was treated--which is typical of the way Americans have been
treated.
In 1972, the Honduran Government forced Mr. Valentine to hand over
two prime commercial lots in exchange for allowing his wife to travel
to the United States for emergency medical treatment. Mr. Valentine has
spent the last 13 years working to receive compensation for property
confiscated by the Honduran Government. He won his case in court--
several times--but the Honduran Government refused to provide
compensation. And bear in mind, Mr. President, that another 50
Americans have filed property claims with the U.S. Embassy in Honduras.
And in 1991, the United States Government forgave $333 million owed by
Honduras.
I am aware that the manager of the bill, Senator Leahy, pressed the
former President of Honduras to resolve Mr. Valentine's case. But,
nothing was done. I know that Vice President Gore asked the new
Honduran president, President Reina, to resolve this case quickly. But
Mr. Valentine waited and waited.
My office facilitated meetings between Mr. Valentine and Honduran
government officials in Honduras in February. We featured the Valentine
case prominently in a recent committee report on expropriations. But,
nothing happened. Friendly persuasion was not getting the job done.
On June 13, we received another letter from Mr. Valentine. Let me
read some pertinent remarks:
In spite of the fact that President Reina has issued strict
and special orders to the Ministry of Economy to pay our
company * * * not one cent has been disbursed as yet.
In the interim, I had a mild heart attack in Honduras--due,
the cardiologist says, to the thirteen years of stress and
strain in connection with this case * * * my wife and I are
returning to Honduras on the 14th to continue the struggle.
Any additional pressure you can generate at your end will be
greatly appreciated.
Mr. President, yesterday, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, Bill Pryce,
called to tell me that the Honduran Government finally--after more than
13 years--compensated Mr. Valentine.
Well, Mr. President, I appreciate President Reina resolving this one
case. But Mr. Valentine was not the only American waiting to be
compensated. The Honduran government should compensate for property
taken from all American citizens before they are eligible to have the
$95 million that they currently owe to the U.S. government forgiven.
And that's precisely what this amendment requires.
Mr. President, Secretary Christopher stated at his confirmation
hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee that he intended to have
an American Desk at the State Department. I've reminded the Secretary
of his statement on numerous occasions. Well, with all due respect, Mr.
President, if there is in fact an American Desk down at Foggy Bottom,
it must be hidden in a dark corner in the basement. More needs to be
done. Foreign countries should understand there will be a price to pay
if they confiscate, without just compensation, property owned by U.S.
citizens.
Congress must make the State Department put American interests first.
I imagine that some Senators might ask, ``Which countries will be
affected by this amendment * * *. Will it hurt a country we like?''
Well, we shouldn't fret about which countries will be affected. The
over-riding principle is that Congress should give top priority to
protecting the rights of American citizens abroad.
This amendment will make it perfectly clear to all those countries
asking the U.S. taxpayers to forgive their debt, that all American
property claims must be settled beforehand. Such countries should have
three choices: First, to give the property back; second, to provide
fair compensation for the property; or third, to be refused debt
forgiveness. It's that simple, and it's fair to American citizens.
amendment no. 2269
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2269.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 53, line 11, strike the word ``Provided'' and
insert the following:
Provided, That only those activities, programs, projects,
type of material assistance, countries, or other operations
referred to under this paragraph which have been justified
through Congressional Presentation documents and/or budget
justification documents presented in the same format and in
the same level of detail as provided in fiscal year 1993
shall be considered to be justified under the language of
this paragraph: Provided further
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the last several months, in
hearings of our subcommittee and in meetings with administration
officials, I have expressed my concern about the inadequacy of the
administration's budget justifications for its foreign assistance
program. The chairman of the subcommittee has likewise expressed such
concern.
During a hearing at which the AID Administrator testified, I pointed
out that there are domestic regulatory agencies with $40-million
budgets which provide more justification material than AID provided for
the $1.2-billion Russia/NIS and Eastern European programs. Indeed, we
got more information on some individual projects in Uganda than we did
for all of Russia.
I finally found it necessary to object to any more money flowing to
Russia and the NIS until the administration agreed to rework and
supplement their justification material, also known as congressional
presentation documents, for Russia and the NIS and submit them to us
before the beginning of the new fiscal year.
Expressed in its simplest form the appropriations procedure I am
addressing today is as follows:
First, we receive budget requests from the administration for various
broad appropriations categories;
Second, the administration provides us with detailed documentation--
the budget justification material--telling us exactly how they plan to
spend the money;
Third, Congress appropriates the requested money assuming it will be
spent in the manner and for the specific purpose requested, or in some
cases through the law or in accompanying reports, Congress tells the
administration to spend the funds provided in some other fashion.
Fourth, throughout the year, the administration sometimes finds, for
good fiscal or policy reasons, that its spending decisions need to
change. Perhaps they want to spend funds justified for one purpose or
project for something which they have not requested funds or to spend
more for that purpose or project. The administration is allowed to make
such changes, by law, by notifying the committee through what is
commonly called the reprogramming process.
Fifth, the committee reviews these changes, and while it almost
always accedes to the administration's requests, it can say ``no'' or
perhaps suggest modifications.
The amendment I have offered addresses these last two parts of the
process which the administration is now trying to short-circuit by not
sending us notifications for certain changes they wish to make in AID's
Development Assistance Program. Specifically, they seek to eliminate
projects as the base for notification for the Development Assistance
Program, contrary to what they have done for at least the last 18
years. This change would eliminate congressional approval or input to
most of the changes, heretofore made by this and previous
administrations.
I do not believe Congress should give such wide latitude to the
administration. While this stated goal--reduction of time-consuming
paperwork--is laudatory, I do not believe it should come at the expense
of Congress' constitutional power over Federal spending.
This issue is not new. A reading of the history of the appropriations
process, since the creation of the Appropriations Committee in 1867,
records many attempts by the executive branch to usurp or restrict
congressional spending power. During times of national emergency,
Congress has temporarily given the executive more latitude over
spending decisions. This was true during the Civil War, World War I,
World War II, and during many of the Vietnam war years. Now is not such
a time.
I am not trying to argue that the attempt by the Department of State
and AID to usurp congressional spending authority is comparable to some
of these earlier, more significant battles between the legislative and
executive branches, but it is in the same family.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Amendment no. 2274
(Purpose: To amend the Japan-United States Friendship Act to broaden
investment authority and to strengthen criteria for membership on the
Japan-United States Friendship Commission)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2274 for Mr. Murkowski and Mr.
Rockefeller.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . UNITED STATES PANEL OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON UNITED
STATES-JAPAN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL
COOPERATION.
Section 4 of the Japan-United States Friendship Act (22
U.S.C. 2903) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(d) The membership of the United States Panel of the
Joint Committee on United States-Japan Cultural and
Educational cooperation shall be drawn for among individuals
who are deeply familiar with Japan and United States-Japan
relations, as demonstrated in their professional careers, and
who have performed distinguished service in--
``(1) law, business, or finances;
``(2) education, training, or research at post-secondary
levels;
``(3) the media or publishing;
``(4) foundation or philanthropic activity;
``(5) the American arts, culture, or the humanities; or
``(6) other aspects of American public life.''
SEC. . BROADENING INVESTMENT AUTHORITY.
Section 7 of the Japan-United States Friendship Act (22
U.S.C. 2906) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, at the
direction of the Chairman of the Commission,'' after
```Secretary')''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``in interest
bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations
guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United
States'' and inserting ``in instruments or public debt with
maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund''; and (2) in
subsection (c), by inserting ``, at the direction of the
Chairman of the Commission,'' after ``sold''.
amendment no. 2276
(Purpose: To reaffirm the applicability of section 401 of Public Law
103-236, relating to the establishment of an independent office of
Inspector General within the United Nations)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2257 for Mr. Pressler.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
united nations office of inspector general
Sec. . The Senate hereby reaffirms that section 401 of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) remains in effect, including
all its terms and conditions relating to the establishment of
an independent office of Inspector General within the United
Nations.
reaffirm the creation of an office of the inspector general: put an end
to u.n. waste, fraud, and abuse
Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I offer this amendment today to
reaffirm section 401 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act--now
Public Law 103-236. The language in section 401 makes portions of U.S.
assessed contributions to the regular U.N. budget contingent upon the
United Nations creation of an independent Office of the Inspector
General [OIG]. I offer this amendment today to reaffirm section 401,
because the U.N. General Assembly is considering currently the adoption
of a resolution which would create an inspector general subject to the
authority of the U.N. Secretary-General. The OIG--under the current
General Assembly draft--would not be independent. This is an
unequivocal violation of the language in section 401--language which is
now public law.
On January 26, 1994, this body voted overwhelmingly to adopt my
amendment which called for the creation of an independent Inspector
General office at the U.N. In fact, my colleagues voted 93 to 6 to
adopt the amendment which has become section 401 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act. Our support for this measure must be
unwavering. We must send a clear and unequivocal message to our U.S.
Representative, Madeleine Albright, and the U.N. General Assembly that
the United States will not stand idly by while the United Nations slaps
us in the face.
While some of my colleagues may question the relevance of this
amendment to an appropriations bill, I must say that the importance and
immediacy of this issue transcends questions of germaneness. What is
happening at this very minute is that the U.N. General Assembly is
trying to undo what has been done already. If the United Nations wishes
to create an OIG which does not meet the stipulations set forth in
section 401 of the Foreign Relations Act--that's fine. But the U.N.
General Assembly must realize that if they act in such a fashion, 10
percent of U.S. assessments to the regular U.N. budget will be
withheld. And if the United Nations continue to disregard section 401,
20 percent of the U.S. contributions will be withheld in fiscal year
1995 as well as 50 percent of the funds appropriated for supplemental
assessed peacekeeping contributions. If that's what the United Nations
wants--that is what the United Nations will get.
It seems that the United Nations has chosen to bite the hand of the
largest hand that feeds it--the United States. Think about this: In
1990, the U.S. peacekeeping contribution was $97 million. In 1994-95,
the U.S. contribution is $3 billion. I am amazed that the world body
would consider adopting a resolution establishing an OIG which did not
meet the mandates in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I am
amazed that the United Nations so flagrantly disregards the necessity
of U.S. financial support. I am offering this amendment to reaffirm the
language in section 401, because I want everyone to know what is going
on at the United Nations. I ask my colleagues to join me again in
supporting the creation of an independent U.N. Office of the Inspector
General. If United Nations budgetary and management reform is to be
meaningful, the terms of any U.N. resolution authorizing an independent
OIG must be clear, unequivocal, and must reflect the congressional
intent of section 401 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
Last week, I sent a letter to Ambassador Albright urging her to press
the General Assembly to adopt a resolution which would adhere to the
congressional language in section 401. Today, along with my colleagues
Senator Dole, and Senator Helms, and others we are sending another
urgent letter to Ambassador Albright. We want everyone to understand
the extreme importance of this issue. I urge my colleagues to support
reaffirming the language in section 401--language 93 of my colleagues
supported during the Roll Call vote in January.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter to Madeleine Albright and the
text of section 401 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
U.S. Representative to the United Nations, U.S. Mission to
the United Nations, New York, NY.
Dear Ambassador Albright: We understand that the United
Nations General Assembly will be considering the resolution
creating the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the U.N. in
the next forty-eight hours. We further understand that the
terms of the draft resolution do not currently meet the
criteria for an independent office of an inspector general as
defined by Section 401 of United States Public Law 103-236,
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994
and 1995.
We write to urge you to press the General Assembly to adopt
a resolution which meets the stringent standards as outline
in Section 401.
Section 401 was adopted by the Senate on January 26, 1994,
during deliberations on the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, by an overwhelming 93 to 6 vote. As you must be well
aware, the Section dictates that the United States withhold
assessed contributions to the regular U.N. budget in the
event the OIG is not established. Additionally, if the U.N.
General Assembly fails to create an office that adheres to
the type required in the section, the United States will be
forced to withhold 10 percent of the U.N. contributions
assessed this fiscal year. If the office is still not
established according to the guidelines, by fiscal year 1995,
the U.S. will have to withhold 20 percent of assessed
contributions, as well as one half of the funds appropriated
under Section 102(d) of Public Law 103-236 for supplemental
assessed peacekeeping contributions.
According to Section 401, the United Nations is to have
established an independent office ``to conduct and supervise
objective audits, inspections, and investigations relating to
the programs and operations at the United Nations'' that will
have ``access to all records documents, and other available
materials relating to (those) programs and operations''. We
are including a copy of Section 401.
Lasting U.N. management and budgetary reform hinges on the
creation of the OIG. Consequently, the terms establishing the
office must demonstrate unequivocally the independence of the
OIG and define clearly its specific oversight
responsibilities. We urge you to work diligently to ensure
the independence of the OIG since the value of the OIG rests
largely on its independence from the dictates of the U.N.
bureaucracy. At this crucial moment, it is imperative that
U.S. pressure to reform U.N. mismanagement be unwavering.
Now is a critical time for you, as our U.S. Representative
to the U.N., to demonstrate to the General Assembly the U.S.
commitment to end U.N. malfeasance. Your influence in the
drafting and adoption of a U.N. resolution advocating the
establishment of an independent OIG is crucial.
The stakes are high, the opportunity fleeting. Without
significant and immediate action to improve the efficiency of
U.N. operations, Congressional willingness to fund U.N.
activities will diminish further. We urge you to take
immediate action.
Sincerely,
Jesse Helms,
Robert Dole,
Larry Pressler.
SEC. 401. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
(a) Withholding of Portion of Certain Assessed
Contributions.--Until a certification is made under
subsection (b), the following amounts shall be withheld from
obligation and expenditure (in following amounts shall be
withheld from obligation and expenditure (in addition to any
amounts required to be withheld by any other provision of
this Act):
(1) FY 1994 assessed contributions for un regular budget.--
Of the funds appropriated for ``Contributions to
International Organizations'' for fiscal year 1994, 10
percent of the amount for United States assessed
contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations
shall be withheld.
(2) FY 1995 assessed contributions for un regular budget.--
Of the funds appropriated for ``Contributions to
International Organizations'' for fiscal year 1995, 20
percent of the amount for United States assessed
contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations
shall be withheld.
(3) Supplemental assessed peacekeeping contributions.--Of
the funds appropriated for ``Contributions for International
Peacekeeping Activities'' for a fiscal year pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under section 102(d), 50
percent shall be withheld.
(b) Certification.--The certification referred to in
subsection (a) is a certification by the President to the
Congress that--
(1) the United Nations has established an independent
office of Inspector General to conduct and supervise
objective audits, inspections, and investigations relating to
the program and operations of the United Nations;
(2) the Secretary General of the United Nations has
appointed an Inspector General, with the approval of the
General Assembly, and that appointment was made principally
on the basis of the appointee's integrity and demonstrated
ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law,
management analysis, public administration, or
investigations;
(3) the Inspector General is authorized to--
(A) make investigations and reports relating to the
administration of the programs and operations of the United
Nations;
(B) have access to all records, documents, and other
available materials relating to those programs and
operations; and
(C) have directed and prompt access to any official of the
United Nations;
(4) the United Nations has procedures in place designated
to protect the identity of, and to prevent reprisals against,
any staff member making a complaint or disclosing information
to, or cooperating in any investigation or inspection by, the
Inspector General;
(5) the United Nations has procedures in place designed to
ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Inspector
General; and
(6) the United Nations has procedures in place to ensure
that all annual and other relevant reports submitted by the
Inspector General are made available to the General Assembly
without modification.
(c) Specialized Agencies.--United States representatives to
the United Nations should promote complete Inspector General
access to all records and officials of the specialized
agencies of the United Nations, and should strive to achieve
such access by fiscal year 1996.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this part, the term
``Inspector General'' means the head of an independent office
(or other independent entity) established by the United
Nations to conduct and supervise objective audits,
inspections, and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the United Nations.
Amendment No. 2277
(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate concerning Japan and Germany
becoming permanent members of the United Nations Security Council)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2277 for Mr. Helms and Mr. Roth.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Sense of the Congress concerning German and
Japanese permanent membership in the United Nations Security
Council.
In the past five years, the United Nations has engaged in
more peacekeeping operations than in the preceding forty;
The Security Council is the U.N. body chiefly responsible
for matters of peace and security;
Any country accorded permanent membership in an expanded
Security Council must be capable of fulfilling all of the
responsibilities equated with such status, including
participation in any U.N. military operations;
According permanent membership to nations not capable of
carrying out these responsibilities will allow those
countries to play a central role in shaping U.N. peacekeeping
and peacemaking operations which could endanger the lives
of American and other troops, but in which their own
forces could play no part;
Japan and Germany, as the world's second and third largest
economies, respectively, have attained levels of global reach
and influence equal to or surpassing current permanent
members of the Security Council;
Germany and Japan have announced their desire to gain
permanent membership in the Security Council;
Japan currently maintains that its constitution prohibits
the country from carrying out all the peacekeeping and
peacemaking responsibilities that permanent membership
entails;
Japan's ruling coalition government appears unwilling to
address these issues, even in the face of a potential crisis
on the Korean peninsula which may well require multilateral
military action;
The German High Court, sitting in Karlsruhe, Germany,
ruled, on July 12, 1994, that the German constitution
contains no prohibition against the overseas deployment of
Germany's armed forces in multilateral peacekeeping
operations.
Now, therefore, be it the sense of the Senate that:
(1) Since Germany has addressed the problem of its
participation in multilateral military activities, the U.S.
should support that nation's prompt elevation to permanent
Security Council membership;
(2) Japan be encouraged to discuss thoroughly and openly
its own problems in participating in such activities, and
take whatever steps are necessary to enable it to fully
engage in any form of U.N. peacekeeping or peacemaking
operation; and
(3) The United States should actively support Japan's
effort to gain permanent membership only after Japan take
such steps * * *.
* * * * *
Mr. ROTH. Madam President, when the Senate considered the State
Department authorization bill, I attached an amendment to that bill
expressing the sense of the Senate regarding an issue which I believe
holds considerable importance for this country. Both Germany and Japan
had voiced their desire to become permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council and the Clinton administration had indicated its
support for council expansion in general and for Japan and Germany
permanent membership in particular.
I had no objection to such an expansion, and stated my support, in
principle, for Tokyo and Bonn gaining permanent membership. Japan and
Germany's economies now are the world's second and third largest. They
enjoy global reach and influence extending far beyond that of many
current permanent Council members. Their elevation to permanent
membership would, consequently, appear perfectly logical.
However, I was disturbed because, while both nations were seeking
permanent Security Council seats, both interested their respective
constitutions as preventing their militaries' from participating fully
in U.N. peacekeeping or peacemaking activities. It seemed to me that,
if Japan and Germany were to be accorded elevated status in the United
Nations, then they should be able to fulfill all of the
responsibilities consonant with that status. In particular, I felt that
they could not be granted permanent Security Council seats while they
simultaneously were unable to participate in any military undertakings
approved by that body.
I ask my colleagues to consider the reaction of the American people
if they were ever to witness Japanese and German diplomats, casting
votes in favor of military operations which could endanger the lives of
United States soldiers while they simultaneously had no legal authority
to send their own Armed Forces to engage fully in those operations.
Consequently, the Senate accepted my proposal that the United States
Government, in principle, support Japanese and German permanent
Security Council membership; but that, in practice, it do nothing to
further this initiative until those countries had addressed the
constitutional problems which prevented their participation in
multilateral military activities.
The day before yesterday, I came to the floor to report major
progress on this issue. On that day, the German High Court, sitting in
Karlsruhe, ruled that the German Constitution, or ``basic law,''
contains no prohibition against German participation in multilateral
military activities outside NATO territory.
Let us not fool ourselves. This ruling will not prompt a rush to
German military activity around the globe, be it under the United
Nations or NATO flag. The real significance of this ruling is that
Germany, as a prospective permanent member of the U.N. Security
Council, has placed itself in the same position as the current
permanent members of that body. Germany is no longer seeking special
status. It no longer wishes to join the club without fulfilling all its
obligations as a member of that club.
This approach, in my opinion, demonstrates the maturity of German
democracy. Its participants recognize that with enhanced status comes
enhanced responsibility. Germany has boldly stepped forward to shoulder
those responsibilities. In light of this ruling by the German High
Court and the positive manner in which it was received by the
government of Chancellor Kohl, I see no reason why the United States
Government should not immediately throw its weight behind an
enthusiastic diplomatic campaign to award Germany a permanent seat on
an expanded Security Council. And I believe strongly that our support
for German membership not in any way be made contingent on Japan's
efforts to attain the same status.
I ardently believe that Japan should gain permanent membership as
soon as possible, but only after it addresses its own perceived
constitutional prohibitions against fully participating in United
Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. Indeed, I believe it
critical that Japan take up this question as quickly as possible.
The world's most serious near-term security problem confronts us
right now on the Korean peninsula. While we all hope a negotiated
solution is achieved, precious little time is left before North Korea
may begin extracting more weapons grade plutonium from its spent
nuclear fuel. As I said on this floor yesterday, should negotiations
between the United States and North Korea break down, the next step we
will take will be to move the issue to the U.N. Security Council.
Unfortunately, Japan has not only steadfastly avoided serious public
discussion of the problems posed by North Korea, but its leaders
languish in esoteric legal debate over what Japan can and cannot do
should the United Nations call for economic sanctions to be imposed on
the North, a blockade instituted, or most important, should the
Security Council resolve that military action be permissible.
Yet under currently accepted interpretations of the Constitution, if
war did erupt, consider the following:
Unless Japan were directly attacked by the North, Japan's 700 fighter
planes, its state-of-the-art antisubmarine technology, its
minesweepers, and its personnel would sit idly by as Americans,
Koreans, and perhaps U.N. forces lost their lives.
In addition, the United States would need to use its own military
equipment and personnel based in Japan. Under current treaty agreement
with Tokyo, however, the United States must seek prior consultation
with Japan for use of American forces in time of conflict. Whether
Japan would be prepared to consent without wavering has yet to be
resolved.
As shocking as it may sound, Japan would not even be able to use its
own self defense planes and ships to evacuate the 8,000 Japanese
nationals living in South Korea.
The possibility of war on the Korean peninsula is terrible even to
contemplate. But common sense dictates that all countries be prepared
now, before a crisis erupts. Japan faces some of the very same tough
choices as Germany regarding the use of its forces in U.N. actions. But
Japan should not forget that the American drafters of its Constitution
held that it in no way undermined that nation's ability to participate
in regional security arrangements or U.N. activities.
It took the Diet a full year to enact its U.N. peacekeeping
operations legislation after the gulf war to permit Tokyo to play only
modest roles in U.N. peacekeeping operations. We do not have the luxury
of that kind of time in dealing with North Korea.
I urge the Government of Japan to demonstrate the resolve exhibited
by our colleagues in Bonn. If it does so, the United States will then
be in a position to support Japan's permanent membership in the
Security Council.
amendment no. 2278
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2278 for Mr. McCain.
The amendment is as follows:
At an appropriate place in the bill insert the following
new section:
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) Peace in Cambodia promotes stability in Southeast Asia.
(2) The newly democratic nation of Cambodia is engaged in a
continuing military struggle against the Khmer Rouge.
(3) Peace talks between the government of Cambodia and the
Khmer Rouge have repeatedly broken down.
(4) The Cambodian Parliament took action on July 6, 1994 to
outlaw the Khmer Rouge.
(5) Ceding any position in the freely elected government of
Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge is not in the interest of the
Cambodian people and is incompatible with a constructive
U.S.-Cambodia relationship.
(6) Cambodian officials have requested military assistance
from a number of nations, including the United States.
(7) The U.S. administration, in consultation with its
allies, is in the process of determining the appropriate type
and level of U.S. military assistance to Cambodia.
(8) Congress is concerned that absent proper training,
professionalism and adequate salaries, providing Cambodian
forces with arms and ammunition will not be beneficial.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that--
(1) In concert with interested democratic nations, the U.S.
should provide non-combat military training assistance to the
newly democratic government of Cambodia.
(2) Military Assistance should include efforts to establish
an orderly and equitable promotion process, establish an
effective command structure, establish a viable and effective
system of military justice, establish effective logistics,
establish modern communications networks, establish
dependable accounting procedures, promote human rights and
respect for the rule of law and promote respect for civilian
leadership of the military.
(3) The President should make every effort to fully utilize
requested 1994 and 1995 levels of IMET for Cambodia to expand
the program beyond its current scope.
(4) The President should consider qualified Cambodians for
admission to U.S. military academies.
(5) The President should dispatch as soon as possible a
military attache to the U.S. Embassy in Cambodia.
(6) Lethal assistance should not be provided to Cambodia
until such time as the President can certify the
professionalization of the Cambodian Armed Forces.
(7) No military assistance should be provided the Cambodian
Armed Forces if the Government includes members of the Khmer
Rouge or if the Constitution promulgated on September 24,
1993 fails.
(8) No military assistance should be provided in concert
with the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea.
(9) The President should convey to Thailand United States
concern over the continued support for the Khmer Rouge by
elements of the Thai military and to urge the Thai Government
to intensify its efforts to terminate that support, in
accordance with the Paris Peace Accords.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment that I am offering today
encourages the President to provide non-lethal military assistance to
Cambodia as it seeks to defeat on the battlefield a force which has
refused to compete at the ballot box--the Khmer Rouge.
It specifies non-combat military training assistance to help Cambodia
do the following: establish an orderly and equitable promotion process,
establish an effective command structure, establish a viable and
effective system of military justice, establish effective logistics,
establish modern communications networks, establish dependable
accounting procedures, promote human rights and respect for the rule of
law and promote respect for civilian leadership of the military.
The amendment further calls on the President to fully utilize
requested 1994 and 1995 levels of IMET for Cambodia and to expand the
current program beyond its current scope of language training. It calls
on him to admit qualified Cambodians to United States military
academies and urges him to dispatch as soon as possible a military
attache to the United States Embassy in Cambodia.
There are issues that are deserving of greater attention than our
policy toward Cambodia. Yet there are few causes more compelling than
that of assisting the newly democratic government of Cambodia as it
attempts to put a heart-rendering history of brutality and civil war
behind it.
The success of Cambodia's democratic experiment and its success in
defending democracy against armed opposition also have geopolitical
significance. A breakdown of the governing institutions in Cambodia and
a return to a wider civil war may once again inflame tensions between
Vietnam and China, a development that in the last decade led to a
Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. Vietnam has the potential to become
an engine of economic growth in east Asia. War in Cambodia is in no
one's best interest.
Recent reports already indicate that the struggle against the Khmer
Rouge has begun to turn against the Cambodian government forces. It has
lost control of key Khmer Rouge strongholds held by government forces
only months ago. It is now in control of less territory than when it
began its offensive reports of corruption and ineptitude cast doubt on
the possibility of a favorable turn in the war.
In its time of crisis, the government of Cambodia has approached
those it considers its best friends, including the United States, for
assistance. We should support their efforts with the best that our
Nation has to offer.
It is premature to speak about supplying the Cambodians with weapons
and ammunition. But the Cambodian armed forces could certainly benefit
from access to United States military doctrine and expertise. Through
International Military Education and Training [IMET], access to our
military academies, the appointment of a military attache to the
embassy in Phnom Phenh, and other selected in-country assistance, we
can provide the assistance Cambodia needs.
But let me be clear. Although the United States and our allies may be
able to assist with know-how, the real work must be done by the
Cambodians themselves. Administration officials and some of my
colleagues have expressed reservations about becoming involved once
again in a conflict in Southeast Asia. Their reservations are well-
founded. We must stay engaged in Cambodia. It is a priority. But it is
not a national security interest high enough to warrant risks to U.S.
servicemen and women.
The recent battles for Pailin and Anlong Veng illustrated disturbing
weaknesses in Cambodia's armed forces. According to press reports,
despite their superior numbers, government forces retreated in the face
of the KR attack and in their flight nearly lost control of the
nation's second largest city. The most disturbing aspect of this
incident was that, far from being a tactical retreat, it was apparently
led by commanding officers deserting their posts.
It is no surprise that Cambodian officers were the first to flee.
There are far too many of them to be adequately trained. At last count,
the officer corps comprised roughly 60 percent of the 160,000 man
Cambodian military. King Sihanouk himself has referred to Cambodia's
command structure as an inverse pyramid. Reports are that in lieu of
regular pay, some troops have received promotions. Others have
apparently paid for extra stripes. Reform of this system is essential
to an orderly command structure and I believe the United States may be
able to offer some assistance in this regard.
Until the issue of corruption is settled, lethal assistance is not an
option. We simply cannot supply arms that may end up in the hands of
the Khmer Rouge, on the black market or in the hands of soldiers
engaged in illegal activity. As long as there is an economic incentive
and no judicial disincentive for corruption, such end uses are not
unlikely.
An effective first step would be a survey of the Cambodian military
education system. One way to effectively combat corruption is to better
understand how soldiers are trained. Once we understand this, we may be
able to provide advice on how to build better institutions, from the
ground up if necessary.
Selected officers can be brought to the United States to train under
IMET. To date IMET assistance for Cambodia has been used for a very
limited amount of English language training. Although proficiency in
English is a necessary prerequisite for further training, the focus of
IMET ought to be on helping Cambodia reform its military into an
effective fighting force. There are other sources for funding language
training.
Cambodia has attempted in the past to acquire the assistance it needs
through North Korea. I have been critical of this choice of allies in
the past, and I would reiterate my words of caution to the government
of Cambodia. There are more appropriate allies for a new democracy.
Western nations will find it impossible to provide assistance in
concert with the outlaw regime of North Korea.
At the same time, those of us in the West, the United States, France,
Australia and others must give careful consideration to Cambodian pleas
for assistance. The trips to Pyongyang by senior military officials
last spring were attempts to address the real needs of the Cambodian
armed forces. If we cannot move expeditiously to provide the necessary
assistance, we can expect them to go to the powers that can. Not only
must we make clear that North Korea is an unacceptable ally, we must
provide them with an alternative.
In addition to drawing attention to the needs of the Cambodian
military, the amendment that I am offering calls on the President to
raise with the Government of Thailand support within the Thai military
for the Khmer Rouge. All of our assistance will be for nothing, if
outside support for the Khmer Rouge does not cease, including the
illegal trading in gems and timber that flourishes along the border.
I am pleased to see that the Appropriations committee has followed up
on the concerns expressed in the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization
Act by making military training assistance to Thailand subject to
formal congressional oversight. I am also pleased that the committee ha
required from the Secretary of State a report on Thai military support
for the KR. This will give the members of the Senate ample opportunity
to see how well Thailand has lived up to the pledges it freely
undertook as a party to the Paris Peace Accords.
Finally, I want to make one more plea on behalf of the Cambodian
people. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation enabling the
President to grant Most Favored Nation status to Cambodia. MFN for
Cambodia is non-controversial and non-partisan. The administration has
proposed attaching it to the GATT implementing legislation. In my view
this would not be inappropriate and I urge the Finance Committee when
it begins the mark-up process of the implementing legislation next week
to include MFN for Cambodia.
The Cambodian people need our assistance. I hope we can help them as
they seek to develop a free market democracy and a responsible,
effective armed forces. I would like to thank the managers of the bill
for enabling the Senate to address these issues.
amendment no. 2283
(Purpose: To encourage Germany to assume full and active participation
in international peacekeeping activities, and for other purposes)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2283 for Mr. Cohen.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
SEC. ____. POLICY REGARDING GERMAN PARTICIPATION IN
INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) for more than four decades following the Second World
War, Germany was a divided nation;
(2) notwithstanding the creation of the Federal Republic of
Germany on September 7, 1949, and the German Democratic
Republic on October 7, 1949, the Four Allied Powers retained
rights and responsibilities for Germany as a whole;
(3) the Federal Republic of Germany acceded to the United
Nations Charter without reservation, ``accept[ing] the
obligations contained in the Charter . . . and solemnly
undertak[ing] to carry them out'', and was admitted as a
member of the United Nations on September 26, 1973;
(4) the Federal Republic of Germany's admission to the
United Nations did not alter Germany's division nor infringe
upon the rights and responsibilities of the Four Allied
Powers for Germany as a whole;
(5) these circumstances created impediments to the Federal
Republic of Germany fulfilling all obligations undertaken
upon its accession to the United Nations Charter;
(6) Germany was unified within the Federal Republic of
Germany on October 3, 1990;
(7) with the entry into force of the Final Settlement With
Respect to Germany on March 4, 1991, the unified Germany
assumed its place in the community of nations as a fully
sovereign national state;
(8) German unification and attainment of full sovereignty
and the Federal Republic's history of more than four decades
of democracy have removed impediments that have prevented its
full participation in international efforts to maintain or
restore international peace and security;
(9) international peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace-
enforcing operations are becoming increasingly important for
the maintenance and restoration of international peace and
security;
(10) United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
has called for the ``full participation of Germany in
peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace-enforcing measures'';
(11) the North Atlantic Council, meeting in ministerial
session on June 4, 1992, and December 17, 1992, stated the
preparedness of the North Atlantic Alliance to ``support, on
a case-by-case basis in accordance with our own procedures,
peacekeeping activities under the responsibility of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe'' and
``peacekeeping operations under the authority of the United
Nations Security Council'';
(12) the Federal Republic of Germany participated in these
North Atlantic Council meetings and fully associated itself
with the resulting communiques;
(13) the Western European Union (WEU) Ministerial Council,
in the Petersberg Declaration adopted June 19, 1992, declared
that ``As the WEU develops its operational capabilities in
accordance with the Maastricht Declaration, we are prepared
to support, on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with
our own procedures, the effective implementation of conflict-
prevention and crisis-management measures, including
peacekeeping activities of the CSCE or the United Nations
Security Council'';
(14) the Federal Republic of Germany presided over this
Western European Union Ministerial Council meeting and fully
associated itself with the Petersberg Declaration;
(15) the Federal Republic of Germany, by virtue of its
political, economic, and military status and potential, will
play an important role in determining the success or failure
of future international efforts to maintain or restore
international peace and security;
(16) the Federal Constitution Court of Germany has ruled
that the Basic Law of Germany permits the Armed Forces of
Germany to participate in international military operations,
including combat operations, conducted under a system of
collective security, including the United Nations, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Western European Union;
(17) Germany is currently engaged in a debate on the proper
role for the German military in the international community;
(18) one important element in the German debate is the
attitude of the international community toward full German
participation in international peacekeeping, peacemaking, and
peace-enforcing operations;
(19) it is, therefore, appropriate for the United States,
as a member of the international community and as a permanent
member of the United Nations Security Council, to express its
position on the question of such German participation; and
(20) distinctions between peacekeeping, peacemaking, and
peace-enforcing measures are becoming blurred, making
absolute separation of such measures difficult, if not
impossible.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) an appropriate response under current circumstances to
Germany's past would be for Germany to participate fully in
international efforts to maintain or restore international
peace and security; and
(2) the President should strongly encourage Germany, in
light of its increasing political and economic influence, its
successful integration into international institutions, and
its commitment to peace and democratic ideals, to assume full
and active participation in international peacekeeping,
peacemaking, and peace-enforcing operations.
Mr. COHEN. Earlier this week, Madam President, the German
constitutional court issued a historic ruling putting to rest once and
for all the assertion that Germany's Basic Law prevents it from
engaging in any military operations beyond defense of NATO territory.
The court, affirming what the vast majority of German constitutional
scholars had long maintained, ruled that German armed forces can
participate in international military operations, including combat
operations, conducted under NATO, the United Nations, or the Western
European Union, so long as a majority of the Bundestag approve.
The court's decision removes the perception of a legal impediment to
German participation in such operations and makes clear that political
will is the primary factor determining whether Germany will fulfill its
international responsibilities.
When the Federal Republic joined the United Nations 20 years ago, it
did so without reservation. The Federal Republic's deed of accession to
the U.N. states that it ``accepts the obligations contained in the
Charter of the U.N. and solemnly undertakes to carry them out.'' Yet,
while it has contributed to U.N. peacekeeping efforts financially and
occasionally with military personnel for humanitarian functions, the
Federal Republic declared itself unable to fully participate
notwithstanding its obligations and its economic and military
resources.
Similarly, while the Federal Republic has been a faithfull ally
within NATO for nearly four decades, it has hesitated now that NATO is
extending its operations eastward in accord with its new mission to
support international peacekeeping.
The same is true with regard to the Western European Union, which
last year also declared its intent to support international
peacekeeping operations--ironically at a meeting at which Germany
presided.
This hesitation was understandable so long as Germany was dided
nation, lacking full sovereignty and, in the first decades after the
war, still coming to grips with the Nazi era. But Germany's situation
and status have changed, removing these impediments to the Federal
Republic's full and active participation in international military
operations.
To their credit, Chancellor Kohl, Defense Minister Ruehe, and other
prominent political figures in Germany have worked to enable the
Federal Republic to meet these responsibilities. They have gradually
enhanced Germany's level of involvement in selected military missions.
This has included deployment of German destroyers to the Adriatic to
help monitor the U.N. embargo on the former Yugoslavia, deployment of a
small German contingent to Somalia, and German military personnel
helping to operate NATO AWACS planes during the Gulf War and to monitor
the Bosnian no-fly zone.
While these efforts by the German government are to be commended, it
is disturbing that some Germans, particularly in the political
opposition, have argued that even if the constitutional question were
settled--as it now has been--Germany will for reasons of history not be
able to participate fully in international military operations.
Some have even argued that German troops cannot be sent anywhere that
was overrun or occupied by German forces during the Second World War--
an area that extends from the Atlantic to the Caucasus, from the
Maghreb to the Barents Sea--an area, moreover, which includes many of
the regions now undergoing or expected to undergo communal, ethnic, and
religious conflict. Such an effort to circumscribe Germany's
international role would essentially nullify the constitutional ruling
issued this week.
Madam President, Germany cannot hide from history, but neither can it
hide behind history.
We cannot accept the argument that the events of history forever bind
nations and their leaders. One of the principal reasons war has
returned to the Balkans is that leaders there insist upon dredging up
old grievances to justify digging fresh graves.
Germany--whose citizens have forthrightly grappled with the
aggression and atrocities of the Nazi era, built a solidly democratic
state, and securely anchored Germany in international institutions--
should not now invoke the past to avoid the responsibility to build a
better future.
Claims by some in Germany that the world community does not want
Germany to fulfill its obligations in the security sphere
mischaracterize international opinions in an effort to manipulate the
German domestic debate, and we have an obligation to set the record
straight. It is especially important that we do so now, since the
constitutional court's ruling will prompt many Germans to re-examine
the political factors affecting potential German military operations.
The amendment I am offering would express the sense of the Senate
that an appropriate response to Germany's past would be for it to
participate fully in international efforts to restore or maintain
international peace and security. And it calls on the President to
strongly encourage Germany to assume full and active participation in
peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace-enforcing operations--that is, in
the full spectrum of international military operations from blue-helmet
missions to future Desert Storm-type operations.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a press release issued by the Federal Constitutional Court
regarding its decision.
There being no objection, the press release was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
Press Release Issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, No. 29/94
In the proceedings on the dispute over the deployment of
German forces the Federal Constitutional Court (Second Panel)
has ruled that the Federal Republic of Germany is at liberty
to assign German armed forces in operations mounted by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] and Western
European Union [WEU] to implement resolutions of the Security
Council of the United Nations [UN]. The same applies to the
assignment of German contingents to peace-keeping forces of
the UN. However, the Basic Law requires the Federal
Government to obtain--in principle the prior--explicit
approval of the German Bundestag. The ruling was sought by
the SDP and FDP groups in the Bundestag.
According to Article 24 (2) of the Basic Law, the
Federation may become a party to a system of collective
security and in so doing consent to limitations upon its
sovereign powers. The Federal Constitutional Court also sees
in this power conferred by the Basic Law the constitutional
foundation for an assumption of responsibilities that are
typically associated with membership of such a system of
collective security. Hence German servicemen may be deployed
within the scope of UN peacekeeping missions even if the
latter are authorized to use force. The objections submitted
by the applicants on constitutional grounds to the
participation of German forces in the UNOSOM II mission in
Somalia, in the NATO/WEU naval operation in the Adriatic to
monitor a UN embargo on the Federative Republic of
Yugoslavia, and in the AWACS monitoring of the ban on flights
in the airspace over Bosnia-Herzegovina, likewise imposed by
the United Nations, are therefore rejected. German servicemen
may also be integrated into NATO formations which are
deployed within the framework of UN operations. This,
according to the Court, is covered by parliament's approval
of Germany's accession to NATO and the UN Charter.
The Court also finds, however, after thoroughly analysing
the provisions of the Basic Law relating to the status of the
armed forces in the constitutional system, that the Federal
Government is required to obtain the Bundestag's explicit
approval for each deployment of German armed forces. Such
approval must in principle be obtained prior to their
deployment. The Bundestag must decide on the deployment of
armed forces with a simple majority. Once parliament has
given its approval, the decision on the modalities of
deployment, especially the question of the size of the force
and the duration of their deployment and on necessary
coordination within and with the governing bodies of
international organizations, falls within the government's
sphere of competence. The nature and extent of parliament's
involvement is for parliament itself to decide within the
scope of these constitutional constraints.
A violation of Article 59 (2) of the Basic Law could not be
found because the Panel's votes were equally divided. The
applicants had argued that the deployment of NATO forces
under the auspices of the United Nations constituted a
substantive change in the NATO Treaty and that any such
change required the approval of parliament under Article 59
(2) of the Basic Law. Four members of the Panel, whose
opinion carries the decision, take the view that the members
of NATO, by taking the contentious measures, had clearly not
done so with the intention of already extending the NATO
Treaty to include further tasks. In the opinion of the other
four members of the Panel, the Federal Government was
involved in a progressive extension of the NATO Treaty in a
manner which threatened to undermine the participatory rights
of the Bundestag. They held that this constituted a direct
threat to those rights.
With this decision the Federal Constitutional Court has
recognized the long-disputed admissibility of the deployment
of German forces under a United Nations mandate but at the
same time made their deployment in each individual case
subject to the approval of the German Bundestag.
Justices Bockenforde and Kruis explained in a dissenting
opinion that the application of the FDP parliamentary group
ought to have been declared inadmissible and rejected.
amendment no. 2286
(Purpose: To allocate funds for support of human rights and other
nongovernmental organizations in Indonesia)
Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2286 for Mr. Wellstone.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
support for human rights and other nongovernmental organizations in
Indonesia
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated by this Act, $250,000
shall be made available to support nongovernmental human
rights organizations in Indonesia, and $250,000 shall be made
available to support nongovernmental environmental
organizations to assess or otherwise address acute
environmental problems, particularly those affecting
indigenous people, in Indonesia.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the amendment I am offering today is
designed to provide modest but critical assistance to non-governmental
human rights and environmental organizations in Indonesia. I am
particularly interested in ensuring that adequate funds be made
available to organizations which monitor, and act to improve,
humanitarian and environmental conditions in East Timor. I ask that
Senators Simon, Pell, and Harkin be added as original cosponsors of the
amendment.
Late last month, the Senate voted to remove a provision from this
bill which would have prohibited the use of U.S. military equipment
provided to the Government of Indonesia from being used by Indonesian
security forces in East Timor. Believe it or not, despite the
Indonesian Government's abysmal human rights record, including
persistent abuses by its security forces against innocent civilians,
the Senate voted to remove this provision from the bill. This
amendment, along with the one being offered by Senator Leahy which I
have cosponsored, will send a strong message to the Indonesian
Government that they cannot continue to allow their security forces to
abuse their people. The Leahy amendment, developed with the help of
Senator Feingold and others, codifies current United States policy
prohibiting the sale or licensure for export of small arms and crowd
control items, until the administration certifies to Congress that the
Indonesians are: First, reducing their troop presence in East Timor;
second, complying with human rights conditions; and, third,
participating constructively in efforts at the United Nations to
peacefully resolve the status of East Timor. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
As I have said, my amendment is designed to send a strong signal of
United States support for non-governmental organizations working to
address the persistent problems of human rights abuses and
environmental degradation in Indonesia, including East Timor. It
provides $250,000 to non-governmental human rights organizations, and
$250,000 to non-governmental environmental organizations, to support
their important work.
I do not need to rehearse here the long and sad litany of human
rights abuses in recent years by Indonesian security forces in East
Timor. But I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my
statement a number of documents on human rights conditions there,
including reports from today's newswires about the brutal beating of
student protesters in Dili yesterday, and statements by Asia Watch on
the incident and on human rights conditions in East Timor generally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. The students involved in yesterday's incident were
reportedly beaten mercilessly with clubs by security forces for
exercising their right to peaceful political protest; one of the worst
such violent incidents in almost 3 years. Ironically, this incident
took place at the same time that the United Nation's Special Rapporteur
on Torture and Arbitrary Killings is in East Timor to look into the
follow-up investigation regarding those still missing after the 1991
massacre, and other killings, when one might have expected the security
forces to be on their best behavior. This modest amount of assistance,
coupled with continuing political support from the United States and
others, should be very helpful to the coalition of human rights, legal
aid, and other organizations in Jakarta and elsewhere who are working
to monitor and improve human rights conditions there. It is a concrete
sign to them and others fighting for human rights that they are not
alone, and that the United States will not stand idly by while
Indonesian security forces continue to abuse the East Timorese people.
The amendment provides $250,000 for assessment of acute and urgent
environmental problems in Indonesia. The Indonesian Archipelago is one
of the most biologically diverse and valuable regions on earth. It
contains nearly 10 percent of the world's rain forests and almost 40
percent of the regional rain forests. And it is second only to Brazil
in the rate of decline of such forests due to logging, agriculture,
mining, and other commercial uses. Pristine rain forests unique in all
the world and populated by indigenous peoples--such as the 350,000
square kilometer region known as Irian Jaya--are being ravaged by
mining and logging interests. This funding is designed to complement
existing efforts by non-governmental organizations to assess and
address environmental degradation there.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I am grateful to the
manager of the bill, Senator Leahy, for agreeing to accept it. I urge
its adoption.
Exhibit 1
[From Human Rights Watch]
Indonesian Troops Clash With East Timor Students
(By Jeremy Wagstaff)
Jakarta, July 14 (Reuter).--Indonesian security forces
attacked student protesters in Dili on Thursday, beating
demonstrators with clubs in the worst such incident in the
troubled territory in nearly three years, residents said.
Speaking by telephone from Dili, residents said about 20
students were badly injured when security forces stopped a
protest march less than 50 metres (yards) from its starting
point at the local university.
``They wanted to leave to campus but we did not allow them,
because we want them to stay there to avoid anything
unnecessary,'' a police spokesman said by telephone from
Dili. He denied there had been any beatings or arrests.
Indonesia, which has ruled East Timor since its 1975
invasion, still faces widespread criticism after troops
gunned down demonstrators at a cemetery in November 1991. Up
to 200 protesters were killed.
Security forces were still surrounding the campus on
Thursday where up to 300 students were holed up, shouting
anti-police slogans, residents said.
More than 70 protesters were being held at a nearby
military barracks after fleeing the military assault, they
said.
``It has been very tense in the last two weeks and it has
just got worse today. The situation is critical,'' one
resident said by telephone from Dili.
Local members of the International Committee of the Red
Cross had taken more than 20 injured to nearby hospitals,
according to residents. One eyewitness saw five students
injured, mostly from beatings.
A spokesman at the local hospital said only one person, a
bystander at the clash, had been brought to the hospital.
Indonesia has faced a dwindling guerrilla band and
simmering resentment against its sometimes brutal rule in the
mainly Catholic territory. Churchgoers last month attacked
two Indonesian soldiers after they abused the sacrament.
A protest march on the local parliament resulting from the
incident ended peacefully on Monday, and the military have
vowed to discipline the two soldiers involved.
Local church leaders have said that despite efforts by the
local military, security forces continued to abuse the
population of 750,000 in the former Portuguese colony.
The situation had worsened in recent weeks, residents said.
Four protesters were jailed after staging a small
demonstration in front of visiting journalists in April.
Two soldiers were court-martialed for murder this year
after they shot dead local civilians in separate incidents.
Thursday's attempted protest march appeared to have been
prompted by a fight on Wednesday between students on the
university campus, when some East Timorese attacked three
other students for taunting two Catholic nuns. Residents said
the three had been badly injured and taken to the hospital.
Residents said streets around the campus had been blocked
off by truckloads of military and local mobile brigades.
A U.N. special rapporteur on torture and arbitrary
killings, Baore Waly Ndiaye, visited East Timor this week to
monitor Indonesian investigations into the 1991 massacre and
other killings. He said he had yet to complete his report.
____
Human Rights Watch/Asia,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
Human Rights in East Timor
Human rights Watch/Asia on Thursday called on the
Indonesian government to allow unhindered access to East
Timor by Indonesian nongovernmental human rights
organizations and the international press to investigate
today's violent dispersal of a protest march in Dili, East
Timor, in which several people were injured and dozens
arrested. The protest took place after an incident on the
campus of the University of East Timor when, according to
press reports, a group of students attacked three other
students who had made insulting remarks to two Catholic nuns.
Hundreds of students massed on the campus, planning to march
to the office of the provincial parliament building, but they
were intercepted by security forces who attacked the students
with clubs.
``From the facts thus far available, it seems as though the
response of the police and military, including the beating
and arrest of so many students, was wholly disproportionate
to the nature of the security problem they faced,'' said
Sidney Jones, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia.
``Whatever the origins of the clash on campus, the students
had a right to assemble peacefully and march to the
parliament building, and it looks as though the military not
only violated that right but did so with excessive use of
force.''
HRW/Asia said only a thorough investigation by respected
human rights organizations such as the Indonesian Legal Aid
Institute Foundation (YLBHI) and the Institute for Public and
Social Advocacy (ELSAM) would enable the facts surrounding
the incident to come to light. These NGOs would also be able
to access the response of the security forces and the local
government.
The incident took place a day after a discussion on East
Timor at a meeting of the United Nations Special Committee on
Decolonization. At that meeting, Human Rights Watch/Asia
delivered a brief statement on the human rights situation in
East Timor, the text of which follows:
The lengths to which the Indonesian government went to try
and prevent the Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET)
from taking place in Manila from May 31 to June 2 reflect its
efforts to control freedom of expression not only inside
Indonesia but beyond its own borders.
access to east timor by human rights organizations
Despite the claims of Indonesian Foreign Minister in early
May that he was inviting Amnesty International and Asia Watch
(now Human Rights Watch/Asia) to visit East Timor, no human
rights organizations have been given access since Asia Watch
and the International Commission of Jurists were allowed to
attend selected sessions of the Xanana Gusmao trial in March
1993. Human Rights Watch/Asia was explicitly refused
permission to visit East Timor in June 1994.
France Libertes, a human rights foundation headed by Mme.
Danielle Mitterand, has also been refused access. One of the
people invited to the Manila conference but subsequently
denied a visa by the Philippines government (at Indonesia's
request), Mme. Mitterand had asked the Indonesian government
through private channels in September 1993 whether she and
the Paris-based International League for Human Rights could
visit East Timor; she was told that it was ``not the right
time'' and to wait another six months. After six months,
Frances Libertes made another request, this time not
mentioning Mme. Mitterand's name. The request was turned
down.
It is not only international human rights organizations
that have difficulty getting to East Timor; some Indonesian
human rights organizations do as well. In early May, a
seminar on the topic of sustainable development and the
environment was due to take place at the University of East
Timor, co-sponsored by a number of Indonesian NGOs including
members of a coalition called the Joint Committee for the
Defense of the East Timorese (Komite Bersama Pembelaan
Masyarakat Timor Timur.) The coalition includes some of
Indonesia's most respected NGOs: the Legal Aid Institute
(Yayaysan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia); the Indonesian
Council of Churches (Parpem Persekutuan Gereja-Gereja
Indonesia or PGI); the Institute for Social Advocacy and
Study (Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat or ELSAM); and
the Catholic organization, LPPS Caritas Katolik. A week
before the seminar was to take place, the military commander
for the region that includes East Timor called the university
rector and told him the conference would have to be
postponed. When it eventually did take place, the Indonesian
NGOs were not permitted to attend, nor was Florentino
Sarnmento of ETADEP, an East Timorese environmental NGO.
conclusion
In short, Mr. Chairman, East Timor remains a troubled place
where human rights abuses continue. Greater openness--defined
as freedom for East Timorese to gather in private houses
without permits and to freely express their own opinions,
unhampered access by foreign journalists, less control over
foreign visitors, and access by international human rights
organizations--would almost certainly help prevent such
abuses and ensure some form of redress for the victims. But
if the last few months are any indication, the trend is not
toward openness but the reverse. The closure on June 21 of
three important news weeklies in Jakarta has implications for
East Timor, because it suggests a desire to control
information that the politically powerful find offensive.
Restricting information prevents problems from being aired
and solutions from being found on all fronts, not just human
rights. For East Timor as well as Indonesia, that may prove
very damaging.
____
Human Rights Watch/Asia,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1994
Statement of Human Rights Watch/Asia to the Decolonization Committee of
the United Nations
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address
this committee. As you know, Human Rights Watch/Asia,
formerly Asia Watch, takes no position on the political
status of East Timor, but it believes that full information
on the human rights situation there must inform the
committee's deliberations and discussions on the issue of
decolonization.
East Timor is neither a Rwanda nor a Bosnia. It is not a
place where massive carnage is taking place nor does it have
concentration camps with emaciated prisoners. It is a place,
however, where arbitrary detention and torture are routine,
and where basic freedoms of expression, association and
assembly are non-existent. Disappearances and politically-
motivated killings have become relatively rare, but when
cases are reported, controls on information and access to the
territory are such that it is virtually impossible, even for
Indonesian non-governmental organizations, to conduct
investigations that would meet international standards for
impartiality and thoroughness. The Indonesian Human Rights
Commission, which for all its many flaws, has at least been a
useful sounding board for complaints from the Indonesian
public, had not, as of June 1994, visited East Timor or
looked into any of the many reported cases of human rights
violations there.
The Indonesian government has taken some steps for which it
deserves credit. We welcome, for example, the visit to East
Timor just concluded of Mr. Bacre Waly N'Daiye, a
distinguished Senegalese lawyer who is currently Special
Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions for the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights. At the same time,
however, we note that East Timorese sources tell us
repeatedly of the extensive security preparations taken by
the Indonesian military in advance of high-profile visits of
foreigners to East Timor. These preparations often involve
the rounding up of potential ``trouble-makers''--as we
understand happened before Mr. N'Daiye's visit; warnings to
residents in areas the group is likely to visit; and booking
by officials of most of the rooms in either of the two hotels
in Dili where the visitor is likely to stay.
On June 30, the Indonesian government, through the
intercession of the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) also allowed the family of resistance leader Xanana
Gusmao to visit him in Cipinang Prison, Jakarta. It was the
first time in almost twenty years that Gusmao was able to see
his wife. Emilia, and their two children, all residents of
Melbourne, Australia. The humanitarian gesture was
welcome--but it came after Gusmao had been in prolonged
solitary confinement in Cipinang, without access to
visitors or newspapers, allegedly for smuggling out
letters to supporters. The United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, in Article 37, state
that prisoners should be allowed ``under necessary
supervision'' to communicate with family and friends and
to be kept informed regularly of news.
In this connection, we regret the decision of the
Indonesian government to move six East Timorese sentenced in
connection with events in October and November 1991 from Dili
to Semarang, Central Java, where they will have no access
whatsoever to friends and family. The transfer of prisoners,
including Gregorio da Cunha Saldanha, Francisco Miranda
Branco and Jacinto dos Neves Raimundo Alves, all sentenced in
connection with the peaceful demonstration on November 12,
1991 on which Indonesian troops opened fire, took place on
June 9, 1994.
Finally, we welcome the decision of the Indonesian
government to allow seven East Timorese students who had
sought asylum at embassies in Jakarta to leave for Lisbon
last December under ICRC auspices.
These positive steps notwithstanding, the human rights
situation in East Timor continues to be grim.
disappearances
As we noted above, new cases of disappearances are rare.
But there are hundreds of outstanding, unresolved cases. No
progress has been made on accounting for those who remain
missing in the aftermath of the November 1991 Dili massacre,
for example, or, indeed, for more recent incidents.
In May 1994, relatives of Gaspar Luis Xavier Carlos in Dili
revealed to a visitor that Gaspar remained missing after his
arrest by military intelligence (Satuan Gerakan Intelejen or
SGI) on September 3, 1992, just prior to the summit meeting
in Jakarta of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Aged 30 at the
time of his disappearance, Gaspar was an employee in Dili of
a national bank, Bank Bumi Daya. His family was told by the
military that he was arrested in connections with security
measures being taken in connection with the Jakarta summit.
Gaspar, other sources said, had been planning to go to
Jakarta with a few others to present information to NAM
delegates about the situation in East Timor, but security
officers became aware of their plans. In addition to Gaspar,
a man named Malacu is reported to have been arrested and
severely tortured; his fate is not known. Gaspar was taken to
the SGI office in Colmera, Dili and from there a few days
later to the Comarca prison in Balide, Dili. Shortly
thereafter, he was taken out of the prison at night and has
not been seen since. The family has made repeated inquiries
to the military in Dili without success, and recently sought
help from Indonesia's National Commission on Human Rights.
Gaspar's wife and two children remain in Dili. His employers,
Bank Bumi Daya, fired him after his arrest, and the family
has no regular source of income.
In its report to the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances reported that of twenty disappearance cases
from Indonesia and East Timor submitted by the Working Group
to the Indonesian government for clarification, the
government reported that five had returned home. ``In the
remaining 15 cases, the names of the persons contained in
the Government's reply did not correspond to the names of
the missing persons contained in the lists of the Working
Group.''\1\
\1\Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, E/CN, 4/1994/26,
December 22, 1993, p. 66.
It should be noted that in its resolution 1993/97 in March
1993, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged the Government
of Indonesia to invite the Special Rapporteur on the Question
of Torture, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary
or Arbitrary Executions, the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances. The Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions
has just left East Timor, but no invitation has been extended
to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or the Working
Group on Disappearances.
extrajudicial executions
Several cases of summary executions have been reported to
HRW/Asia since our last presentation to this committee,
although because of lack of access, we have not been able to
independently confirm the incidents. Even it the facts as
stated could be verified, it is possible in the two cases
described below that there were circumstances, not known to
HRW/Asia, that could affect the characterization of these
killings as extrajudicial executions. But it is important to
recognize that East Timorese in Lautem reported these
incidents as such to Indonesian human rights monitors in
Jakarta, suggesting, at the very least, that a full
investigation should be undertaken, with prosecution of those
responsible should the executions be confirmed.
In the first case, in the hamlet of Assalaino, Lautem
district, a farmer and father of four named Tito Teles, aged
thirty-three, was reportedly killed by members of army
battalion 611 on November 1, 1993 as he was leaving his home
to go hunting. He had reportedly obtained a permit from
security forces in the region to hunt in an area known as the
``free zone'', as he had on two other occasions. People in
the village heard him calling his dog as he was moving toward
the zone, but special forces hidden along the path from the
village opened fire. When the dog returned alone to Tito's
house, villagers questioned the security forces who claimed
they had no knowledge of Tito's whereabouts. Only after
Tito's body was discovered on November 2 did they acknowledge
the shooting.
In the second case, a fifteen-year-old elementary school
student named Ilario Rodrigues, son of Teofilo and Benefito
Rodrigues of the hamlet of Foema-a, Souro village, Lautem,
was shot and killed on July 30, 1993 by men described by
villagers as army commandos as he was going into a nearby
garden to cut down coconuts to sell. He was a student of
State Elementary School No. 6 in Souro. His body was
immediately buried by those who shot him; it was exhumed the
next day by his neighbors. It is not clear why he was killed.
accountability
The Indonesian commander in East Timor, Colonel Johny
Lumintang, had disciplined some Indonesian soldiers
responsible for abuses; two soldiers were court-martialled
for murder earlier this year, according to a July 5 Reuters
dispatch, and two others have been detained after
committing sacrilege in a Catholic church in Remexio by
spitting out the sacrament during communion. The incident
occurred on June 28, 1994. (Eleven villagers, it should be
noted, were then detained for then attacking the
soldiers.)
It would be a welcome development if soldiers were
routinely held accountable for abuses in East Timor, and it
will be important for the human rights community, both
Indonesian and international, to monitor the prosecutions and
punishments in the above cases. But until the climate of fear
substantially changes in East Timor and people feel both free
to register complaints against members of the armed forces
and confident in the legal system in place there, many
soldiers will continue to act with impunity.
controls on freedom of expression
A single incident demonstrates the extent of restrictions
freedom of expression in East Timor. From April 12 to 15,
1994, twenty-six foreign journalists were taken on an
official visit to East Timor at the invitation of the
Indonesian government. (Over seventeen years after
Indonesia's annexation of East Timor, access to the territory
remains restricted, and journalists must apply for special
travel permits.) The day before they left, on April 14 at
about 7:00 a.m., a small group of East Timorese held a pro-
independence demonstration in front of the Mahkota Hotel in
Dili where the journalists were staying.
The demonstration became the focus of most of their
subsequent articles, to the Indonesian government's great
indignation. On April 17, a military spokesman in Dili, Major
L. Simbolon, accused the journalists of ``defecting'' from
the official agenda and conducting an ``investigation''
rather than looking at ``existing reality.''
But it was the demonstrators who in fact represented East
Timor's ``existing reality.'' Following the demonstration,
they were briefly arrested for questioning, then released.
After the foreign reporters were safely out of East Timor,
however, the real arrests took place. On May 1, Nuno Corvelo
was picked up. On May 2, it was Rui Fernandes's turn. And on
May 8, nine more young people were arrested: Pedro de Fatima;
Rosalino dos Santos, twenty-two; Octavianus; Miguel de Deus,
aged twenty; Marcus; Pantaleao Amaral; aged eighteen; Lucas
dos Tilman; Anibal; and Ishak Soares, twenty-two. All are
Dili residents.
A week after their arrest, their families had not been
informed of their whereabouts and were too frightened to ask.
At least six were, in fact, taken to the regional police
command (Polwil) in Dili; the Indonesian government never
acknowledged holding more than six.
The trials of three of the eleven began on June 16. At
issue was not only the demonstration, but the fact that the
young men had taken part in an ``illegal meeting'' on April
13 at Pedro de Fatima's home in Kuluhun, Dili, to discuss the
display of pro-independence banners that the journalists
would be able to see. According to international standards on
human rights, the meeting was a peaceful exercise of freedom
of assembly, just as the demonstration itself was a
legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.
But the Dili court saw it differently. On June 24,
Pentaleao Amaral, Ishak Soares and Miguel de Deus were
sentenced to twenty months in prison after being found guilty
of violating Article 154 of the criminal Code, spreading
hatred toward the Government of Indonesia. On July 7,
Rosalino dos Santos was given the same sentence for creating
public disorder and inciting separatist sentiments. The
defendants were not represented by legal counsel.
indonesia
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, the Senate tabled a
committee amendment by a vote of 59 to 35 which would have placed what
I believe were unenforceable and mischievous conditions on the sale of
military equipment (later revised to lethal military equipment) to
Indonesia under the Foreign Military Sales Program. I believed then,
and believe today, that the statutory language proposed would have had
serious, unintended consequences on our important bilateral
relationship with Indonesia. In my judgment, this restriction would
have resulted in Indonesia seeking other suppliers for the military
equipment they need, and would have lessened what influence we have
with modernizing voices in Indonesia, ultimately undercutting our
efforts to promote American values and principles, including regard and
respect for human rights, in Indonesia. Further, in my view it would
inevitably have spilled over into the commercial arena with unfortunate
consequences for the reason that the United States Munitions List
covers literally thousands of items, including spare parts,
communications equipment, advanced computer technology, satellites and
other items.
I again point out to my colleagues that this administration has
undertaken a thorough review of our policy toward Indonesia during the
past year. As a result, a comprehensive strategy has been developed to
promote our Nation's vital security, political, human rights and
economic interests with this key nation in Southeast Asia, the fourth
largest country in the world which has worked cooperatively with the
United States in promoting peaceful solutions to potentially dangerous
problems in the Spratly Islands, in Cambodia and other UN peacekeeping
operations, and in promoting nonproliferation.
This comprehensive policy was succinctly and eloquently stated in a
letter written by the Secretary of State to Chairman Leahy on June 29,
1994, which I inserted in the Record during debate on this issue 2
weeks ago. It is worth quoting this summary again:
The United States has important economic, commercial,
security, human rights and political interest in Indonesia.
Our challenge is to develop a policy that advances all our
interests, that obtains positive results and reduces, to the
extent possible, unintended negative effects.
Will this comprehensive policy of engagement on many fronts work to
help us achieve our many objectives? I believe it will. To be sure
there are some parts of it I would disagree with, and there are other
parts with which others will disagree. Overall, however, I believe the
administration has tried to strike a balance which will keep us engaged
with pro-western voices within the Indonesian military and in
Indonesia.
It is my view that a stable, friendly Indonesia is in our Nation's
best interest. One only has to look back 30 years to understand and
appreciate the dangers to our Nation's interest of a return to
instability and the politics of konfrontasi. Maintaining a friendly,
stable Indonesia is even more important today, in the post cold war and
post-Philippines era. We are facing many challenges in the Asian
region. Indonesia has played and continues to play a key balancing role
which is in our fundamental interest.
It is also my view that a stable, friendly Indonesia offers the best
hope for achieving a better life for all the people of Indonesia.
Stability and engagement with the west have in part set the stage for
economic reform, which in turn has brought about important changes in
Indonesia. The incidence of poverty for example has been reduced from
60 percent in 1970 to about 14 percent today, and the distribution of
wealth in general is equivalent to that in the United States. Other
strides have been made which have resulted in a better life for the
men, women and children of Indonesia: education is now mandatory
through nine grades, for females as well as males; since 1950 the
literacy rate among adults has increased dramatically from below 20
percent to about 74 percent today; the incidence of maternal mortality
and infant mortality have been greatly reduced; access to health care
has improved dramatically for all income groups and throughout the
nation; the average life span has been increased for men and for women.
Widely recognized and lauded family planning programs have addressed
the very serious population issues Indonesia faces, and Indonesia has
become self-sufficient in the production of rice. All of these
achievements and others have improved in dramatic and tangible ways the
lives of Indonesians from all economic strata and in all geographic
locations. In East Timor for example just 10 percent of the population
was literate in 1975, when the Portuguese pulled out. There were only
50 schools and no colleges at that time. Today, East Timor has nearly
600 elementary schools, 90 middle schools and 3 colleges. In 1975 East
Timor had only two hospitals and 14 health clinics; today there are 10
hospitals and 197 village health clinics. Interestingly, the number of
Catholic churches has quadrupled since the Portuguese pulled out.
Since 1967, a foundation for social stability has been constructed
and continues to be strengthened. To be sure, Indonesia continues to
face many difficult challenges. Poverty has been greatly reduced, but
14 percent of the population--some 27 million people--still live in
poverty. Many of these people live in remote areas and have few skills;
it will not be easy to reverse their situation and solutions will be
long term. Indonesia also continues to face the inherent difficulty of
uniting over 200 different ethnic groups speaking some 300 languages
and dialects in a nation of islands spread across over 3,000 miles of
water. I understand the concerns in Indonesia about the potentially
devastating impact of a return to instability, given the troubled
history Indonesia had following independence in 1949, but I also
believe the foundation which has been built over the past 25 years is
stronger than many in Indonesia realize and that more openness will
strengthen this foundation, not challenge it.
As with all nations, including our own, for every step forward there
have been occasional steps backward. The United States has and should
continue to press for and encourage forward movement and should speak
out when steps are taken backward. The comprehensive policy put forth
by this Administration recognizes this. As Secretary Christopher put it
in his June 29, 1994 letter to Chairman Leahy:
This Administration is steadfastly pursuing the objective,
shared with Congress, of promoting an improved human rights
environment in East Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia. We are
trying to pursue our agenda aggressively, working with
Indonesians both inside and outside the Government, using our
assistance, information, and exchange programs to achieve
results. At the same time, we have raised our human rights
concerns at the highest levels in meetings with Indonesian
officials. As a direct expression of our concerns, our
current policy is to deny license requests for sales of small
and light arms and lethal crowd control items to Indonesia.
In accordance with U.S. law, we make these decisions on a
case-by-case basis, applying this general guidance.
The State Department in conjunction with USAID has also tried to move
aggressively to give support through our development assistance
programs to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Indonesia, to
support voices of pluralism and those who support change. My own view
is that increased engagement in this manner will help promote the long
term changes we all support and seek and in the end will lead to a more
open, free and democratic system.
The challenge we face is articulating and steadfastly implementing a
comprehensive policy which will encourage change, and result in more
openness and respect for human rights, while maintaining a close and
cooperative relationship with a stable and friendly Indonesia.
We cannot achieve this by poking Indonesia in the eye, engaging in
highly public debates in which Indonesia feels humiliated and subject
to disrespect. We will achieve this through firm, steady and quiet
diplomacy in which Indonesia is treated with the respect and dignity
which is her due as an independent nation.
As I understand it, this amendment codifies part of our comprehensive
policy toward Indonesia which was articulated in Secretary
Christopher's letter of June 29, 1994. It will come as no surprise to
my colleagues to learn that my preference is to have no statutory
language. I do not think this is necessary, and I believe it could make
it more difficult for the Administration to adjust to changed
circumstances in the future. Nonetheless, since the Administration has
apparently agreed to this language I will not take issue with it. I
would point out however that this is only part of our policy and that
my acquiescence is based on my belief that the Administration will
continue to pursue a multifaceted policy which recognizes that our
relationship with Indonesia is complex and based on many interests:
security, economic, commercial and political.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of
Secretary Christopher's letter be printed in full at the end of my
remarks.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of State,
Washington, DC, June 29, 1994.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As you work on the FY 1995 Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill, we would like to provide you
with a clear statement of the Administration's policy towards
Indonesia and reiterate our objections to language which
would place restrictions on arms sales or transfers to that
country.
This Administration is steadfastly pursuing the objective,
shared with Congress, of promoting an improved human rights
environment in East Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia. We are
trying to pursue our agenda aggressively, working with
Indonesians both inside and outside the Government, using our
assistance, information, and exchange programs to achieve
results. At the same time, we have raised our human rights
concerns at the highest levels in meetings with Indonesian
officials. As a direct expression of our concerns, our
current policy is to deny license requests for sales of small
and light arms and lethal crowd control items to Indonesia.
In accordance with U.S. law, we make these decisions on a
case-by-case basis, applying this general guidance.
East Timor remains a high priority for our human rights
efforts in Indonesia. In 1993-94, there was considerably
greater access to East Timor on the part of international
groups such as the International Commission of Jurists, Human
Rights Watch, foreign and domestic journalists,
parliamentarians, and diplomats. We understand that the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is expanding
its on-the-ground presence in East Timor and has, with the
cooperation of government authorities, worked out
satisfactory access arrangements for visits to detainees. The
expanded USAID program includes projects designed to
strengthen indigenous NGOs active in agriculture, health,
vocational training, and microenterprise. On the security
front, the Indonesian Government has reduced its troop levels
in East Timor by two battalions. In East Timor, as well as
elsewhere in Indonesia, we have seen evidence of improved
military accountability and self-restraint under new military
leadership.
We clearly recognize that more needs to be done. We
continue to push for a full accounting for those missing from
the 1991 shootings in East Timor and for reductions or
commutations of sentences given to civilian demonstrators. We
have also urged further reductions in troop levels and
efforts at reconciliation which take into account East
Timor's unique culture and history. But we do not see new
restrictions on sales of defense equipment warranted by any
deterioration in conditions; indeed we believe efforts to
support military reform and promote military professionalism,
discipline and accountability should be encouraged.
IMET restoration would be an important tool to this end. We
therefore welcome the fact that the Senate Appropriations
Committee language for the Foreign Operations Bill for FY
1995 would remove the existing legislative prohibition
regarding IMET for Indonesia.
The United States has important economic, commercial,
security, human rights, and political interests in Indonesia.
Our challenge is to develop a policy that advances all our
interests, that obtains positive results and reduces, to the
extent possible, unintended negative effects. In this regard,
the provision restricting military sales or transfers to
Indonesia in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill is
unnecessary and inconsistent with our policy objectives in
Indonesia.
Please be assured that we will continue to work
aggressively to promote better human rights observance
throughout Indonesia. We are committed to doing so in what we
believe is a comprehensive, effective, and results-oriented
manner, and will continue to keep in close contact with you
and other Members interested in these matters.
Sincerely,
Warren Christopher.
amendment no. 2287
(Purpose: Regarding the extradition to the United States of Mohammad
Ismail Abequa)
Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2287 for Mr. Lautenberg.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following
new section:
regarding the extradition to the united states of mohammad ismail
abequa
Sec. --. (a) The Senate finds that--
(1) Mohammad Ismail Abequa is a naturalized United States
citizen who is alleged to have strangled his estranged wife,
Nihal Abequa, in Morris County, New Jersey on July 3, 1994;
(2) Mohammad Ismail Abequa fled to Amman, Jordan on July 5,
1994, with the couple's two children Sami and Lisa, aged 3
and 6 years old, respectively;
(3) New Jersey officials have confirmed that Mohammad
Ismail Abequa arrived in Amman on July 6, 1994, via an
international flight from London and that he had the two
children in his custody upon arrival in Jordan;
(4) Mohammad Ismail Abequa reportedly has a record of wife
beating and child abuse while living in New Jersey, and the
children could be in danger;
(5) the children have a close relative, Nihal's sister,
who, reportedly, will care for and nurture them in New
Jersey; and
(6) the personal involvement of King Hussein of Jordan in
finding the children quickly could prevent their serious
injury by Abequa.
(b) The Senate hereby expresses its concern both that
Mohammad Ismail Abequa be brought to justice and that the
safety of the two children held by Abequa be ensured.
(c) It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) The Government of Jordan should use its resources to
apprehend and extradite Mohammad Ismail Abequa to the United
States where he will be afforded the due process of the laws
of the State of New Jersey; and
(2) the appropriate officials of the Department of Justice
and the Department of State should work aggressively toward
that goal.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
Mr. Lautenberg. This Sense of the Senate amendment calls on King
Hussein of Jordan to use the resources of the government of Jordan to
apprehend and extradite Mohammad Ismail Abequa to the United States
where he will be afforded the due process of the laws of the State of
New Jersey.
It also calls on the appropriate officials at the Justice Department
and State Department to work aggressively toward that goal.
Madam President, Mohammad Ismail Abequa is a naturalized U.S.
Citizen who is believed to have murdered his estranged wife, Nihal
Abequa, in Morris County, New Jersey on July 3, 1994. Mohammad Ismail
Abequa fled to Amman, Jordan on July 5, 1994 with the couple's two
children Sami and Lisa, aged 3 and 6 years old.
New Jersey officials have confirmed that Mohammad Ismail Abequa
arrived in Amman on July 6th via an international flight from London
and that he had the two children in his custody upon arrival in Jordan.
I am concerned both with bringing Mohammad Ismail Abequa to justice,
and with the safety of the two children being held by Abequa.
Mohammad Ismail Abequa reportedly has a record of wife beating and
child abuse while living in New Jersey, and the children could be in
danger. The children have a close relative, Nihal's sister, who,
reportedly, will care for and nurture them in New Jersey.
The direct involvement of the Government of Jordan in finding the
children quickly could prevent their serious injury by Abequa. King
Hussein has a critical role to play in ensuring that a man who is
believed to have savagely murdered his wife will be brought to justice.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article
that appeared in the Star Ledger be printed in the Record. I also ask
unanimous consent that copies of a letter I, along with Representative
Robert Torricelli, sent to King Hussein and the Attorney General Reno
be printed in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
His Majesty Hussein I,
King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Amman.
Your Majesty: We request your personal involvement in the
apprehension and extradition to the United States of Mohammad
Ismail Abequa, a naturalized U.S. citizen who fled to Amman,
Jordan on July 5, 1994. Mohammad Abequa is believed to have
strangled his estranged wife, Nihal, in Morris County, New
Jersey on July 3d. Following the murder of his wife, Abequa
kidnapped the couple's two children Sami and Lisa, aged 3 and
6 years old.
New Jersey officials have confirmed that Abequa arrived in
Amman on July 6th via an international flight from London. He
had the two children in his custody upon arrival in Jordan.
Our immediate concern is the safety of the two children
being held by Abequa. He has record of wife beating and child
abuse while living in New Jersey, and they could be in
danger. Your personal involvement in finding the children
quickly could prevent their serious injury by Abequa. The
children have a close relative, Nihal's sister, who, we
understand, will care for and nurture them in New Jersey.
We urge you to use the resources of the government of
Jordan to apprehend and extradite Abequa to the United
States. He is a U.S. citizen and a fugitive of U.S. justice.
The people of New Jersey are horrified by Nihal's brutal
murder, and with your assistance, will afford Abequa the due
process of the laws of the State of New Jersey.
We make this direct appeal to you with the hope of
preventing further harm to innocent children and bringing to
justice a man who has been accused of savagely murdering his
wife. While our request is extraordinary, Your Majesty, we
are sure you appreciate the need for expeditious action.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Torricelli.
Frank R. Lautenberg.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 14, 1994.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Janet: We are forwarding to you a copy of a letter we
sent to King Hussein of Jordan regarding the extradition to
the United States of Mohammad Ismail Abequa, a naturalized
U.S. citizen who fled to Amman, Jordan on July 5, 1994.
Mr. Abequa is believed to have murdered his wife, Nihal
Abequa, in Morris County New Jersey on July 3, 1994. He fled
to Jordan with their two children.
We understand that the Justice Department must request
extradition of Abequa through the State Department before
Jordanian officials will feel compelled to take official
action to seek and apprehend Abequa. We would ask that you
make such a request expeditiously. We appreciate your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Torricelli.
Frank R. Lautenberg.
mideast manhunt
(By Brian T. Murray, Kevin Coughlin and Joe Territo)
The murder of a New Jersey woman landed in the court of
international diplomacy yesterday when authorities confirmed
that the prime suspect--her husband--flew to his homeland of
Jordan with their two children last week just hours before
detectives launched a nationwide manhunt.
``I believe (Jordan's) King Hussein will cooperate in the
case. I've met him many times and know him fairly well. He's
very responsible. He will see enormous ramifications if he
does not cooperate here,'' said Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-
9th. Dist.), a member of the House Foreign Relations
Committee, who noted that there is no extradition treaty with
Jordan.
The congressman was in touch with Morris County Prosecutor
Michael Murphy, whose office is trying to bring 45-year-old
Mohammad Ismail Abequa to justice in the July 3 strangulation
of his 40-year-old wife, Nihal (Nina). Because her body was
stuffed under a bed in a plastic bag, the crime went
undetected until after noon July 6, giving Abequa time to
flee the country, said Murphy.
``Our office is in the process of working with the State
Department and Interpol to secure his return to the United
States,'' said Murphy, who described the getaway as
``extremely well-planned,'' But he added he was ``cautiously
optimistic'' that Jordan will help in returning Abequa and
his children.
With his children in tow and using his Jordanian passport
to get them aboard, Abequa took a flight out of Nashville at
8 p.m. July 5 and landed in Gatwick Airport in Great Britain,
where he boarded another plan to Amsterdam. There he bought
three tickets to Amman, Jordan, where he is believed to have
arrived on the day police found his wife's body in her
Parsippany-Troy Hills apartment.
Although Jordan and the United States do not have an
extradition treaty, Torricelli said Jordan has been
responsive on ``constituent problems'' in the past and would
not risk harming Jordanian-U.S. relations by harboring a
fugitive like Abequa. Additionally, the queen of Jordan, Noor
al Hussein, is American-born and was educated at Princeton
University.
Police in Jordan are willing to cooperate and search for
suspects in heinous crimes committed in other countries,
according to Ayman Aamiry, second secretary of the Jordanian
Embassy in Washington, DC. ``We don't want a criminal on our
hands,'' he said.
If the suspect is captured and cannot be extradited, he
could be tried in a Jordanian court, according to Aamiry.
However, Murphy said he would not want to explore that
option until all efforts to return Abequa have been
exhausted.
A trial in Jordan would require U.S. officials to issue a
formal summons, Aamiry explained. Arguments could be made in
person or via sworn affidavits, he added, noting that the
procedure is common in civil matters.
Aamiry also said U.S. law enforcement authorities could
have Interpol, the international police agency, ask Jordanian
authorities to arrest Abequa. The U.S. Embassy in Amman could
press the issue with Jordan as well, he said.
Abequa and his wife had been separated since December 1992
and she sued for divorce in April, accusing him of beating
her and the children, 6-year-old Lisa and 3-year-old Sami.
Abequa also threatened to abscond with the children, claiming
he did not want them raised in the United States, an
obsession which Murphy identified as one of the motives for
the killing.
Nina Abequa was so scared of her abusive husband that she
thought of sneaking off to Arizona with her children last
winter. She even wanted to bring her mother and sister,
fearing they might be subject to reprisals if they remained
behind, according to Rena Moosa, an executive recruiter who
tried to find her an insurance job in Arizona.
* * * covered by blankets. The air conditioning also was
left on, he said, which further prevented immediate detection
of the body.
``There were some signs of resistance . . . There were hand
marks around her neck, probably caused by her trying to
remove his hands from her neck,'' he said, referring to self-
inflicted scratches.
The fact that Abequa had a Jordanian passport made his
flight easier. While even young children who are U.S.
citizens generally are required to have passports to leave
the nation, that is not always the case when their parent
holds a foreign passport.
Gary Sheaffer, spokesman for the U.S. State Department's
bureau of consular affairs, noted that in some Middle Eastern
nations, children under 12 are allowed to enter the country
as long as they are with a parent who has a passport. He also
pointed out that normally it is not very * * * bring her
mother and sister, fearing they might be subject to
reprisals if they remained behind, according to Rena
Moosa, an executive recruiter who tried to find her an
insurance job in Arizona.
``She said she wanted to go somewhere where he didn't know
where she was,'' said the recruiter, whose own experiences
with marital problems forged a long-distance friendship with
Abequa over the last three years.
They last spoke by phone two or three days before Abequa's
death. At that time Abequa's Fourth of July holiday weekend
plans only included visiting with her family. Moosa said
there was no mention of a visit from her husband, which other
friends said happened the afternoon of July 3, the day the
woman disappeared.
Moosa said before that fateful weekend, Nina Abequa's fears
had subsided. She had not heard from her husband in months
and no longer felt threatened by him, despite knowing that
the naturalized U.S. citizen had returned from Jordan to
Tennessee, where he occasionally lived. Nina Abequa expected
to start later this month in a better-paying job Moosa found
for her with an insurance firm in Hartford.
``She loved those kids. They were her whole life.
Everything revolved around them,'' said Moosa, who said she
has nightmares that Mohammad Abequa reiterated threats to
take the children to Jordan while Nina was in her death
throes. ``That would have made her berserk.''
A gentle woman with a ``sweet little lilting voice,'' Nina
Abequa made an unfortunate joke in one of her last calls to
Moosa.
```I hope I'm not the next Nicole Simpson,''' Moosa quoted
Nina Abequa as saying with a slight laugh. ``I said, `Nina,
don't even say something like that!'''
The children were last seen by a friend of Abequa's in
Nashville last week, when the murder suspect stopped to sell
his car there for $700 before making his flight out of the
country.
``The kids were fine,'' said Morris County Prosecutor's
Detective Gary Denamen, who interviewed the unidentified
friend. ``They were under the impression from their father
that they were going on a vacation or some kind of trip.''
``They were unaware that their mother was dead,'' Murphy
added.
It was late on July 3 that Abequa made his arrangements to
fly out of Nashville toward Jordan. Police believe he got to
Tennessee via a domestic flight out of Newark either July 3
or July 4, and it was Nashville detectives who discovered
Saturday that Abequa and the children had left the country.
``The way the body was concealed gave him time to leave
this country,'' Murphy said, noting Nina Abequa was not found
until 12:20 p.m. July 6, after her sister telephoned police
reporting that she had been missing for days.
The body was found by a police officer, and detectives
later found bloody materials in a dumpster near her
apartment, indicating Abequa had cleaned up the crime scene.
Murphy said the woman was bleeding from the mouth and nose
but that she had been partially concealed in a plastic bag
and * * * consular affairs, noted that in some Middle Eastern
nations, children under 12 are allowed to enter the country
as long as they are with a parent who has a passport. He also
pointed out that normally it is not very difficult for U.S.
citizens to get immigration documents once they arrive in the
Middle East.
Sheaffer said he believes Abequa ``probably wouldn't have
any trouble talking his way through'' to get permission to
bring the children into the country with him.
Getting Abequa returned to the U.S. may be difficult. But
getting the children back could pose an additional problem,
according to authorities, who noted that Abequa has an
extensive family in the homeland he frequently visited since
immigrating in 1985 and becoming a U.S. citizen in 1990.
Murphy said the family of the murdered woman is concerned
about the children and whether they will have to go through
Jordanian courts to secure their return.
``Her sister is anxious to have the children returned to
her so that she can raise them,'' Murphy added.
``We're going to have to work delicately in the
international forum with Jordan . . . We're going to do
everything we can to get him back and hopefully the
children,'' he added.
If Abequa is captured and tried by Jordanian authorities,
his ties to that country could give him the upper hand in a
murder trial, according to Christopher Taylor, an assistant
professor of religion and Middle Eastern studies at Drew
University in Madison.
``A lot of these things generally turn out to be which
family has more clout,'' said Taylor. Nihal Abequa has no
known family in Jordan.
Taylor explained that sometimes in Middle Eastern courts,
the influence of a defendant's family can have as much
influence as evidence in court. He said the wealthy or
families with higher status have more influence on court
proceedings than poorer, blue-collar families.
One way Abequa could attempt to get around murder charges
in a Middle Eastern courtroom would be to claim there were
``extenuating circumstances,'' such as that his wife was an
adulteress, which could excuse murder under Islamic law,
Taylor said.
Taylor added that diplomacy also could come into play. He
pointed out that since the Persian Gulf War, Jordan has been
trying to repair its damaged relations with the U.S., and
that could help American efforts to gain custody of Abequa.
amendment no. 2288
Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2288.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Indonesia
Sec. . The United States should continue to refrain from
selling or licensing for export to the Government of
Indonesia defense articles such as small or light arms and
crowd control items until the Secretary of State determines
and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that there
has been significant progress made on human rights in East
Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia, including in such areas as:
(1) complying with the recommendations in the United
Nations Special Rapporteur's January 1992 report and the
March 1993 recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights
Commission;
(2) significantly reducing Indonesia's troop presence in
East Timor; and
(3) participating constructively in the United Nations
Secretary General's efforts to resolve the status of East
Timor.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, I wish to support the amendment offered by
Senator Leahy on Indonesia and ask to be added as a cosponsor.
His amendment is a welcome statement on the foreign aid bill,
reiterating our policy of refusing to sell weapons to the Indonesian
military that could be used to violate human rights.
Just today, we have learned new reasons for the wisdom of this policy
and the reason for our need to watch closely and to be deeply concerned
about the human rights situation in Indonesia.
Today at least 20 people were injured by the Indonesian military in
East Timor as security forces used riot-sticks to break up a student
demonstration. The demonstration followed several recent incidents in
which Indonesian soldiers were accused of insulting two Catholic nuns
and abusing the sacrament while ostensibly taking communion in a
Catholic church.
On Tuesday the United States officially denounced Indonesia's arrest
of 42 students on a hunger strike in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta.
The students were protesting last month's ban of three Indonesian news
magazines. The United States Embassy stated ``their detention while on
the Legal Aid Foundation's private grounds makes the actions of the
Indonesian authorities even more objectionable.''
These arrests follow a pattern on recent government-sponsored
violence against Indonesian labor and human rights activists.
In May 1993, a 25-year-old labor activist was raped and killed in
East Java. Evidence linked her murder to the military. Last March the
body of another labor organizer was found floating in a river. Again
evidence linked his murder to the military.
Violence continues to be the main means by which the government
control dissent. The most visible examples was in East Timor on
November 21, 1991, when troops opened fire on a peaceful demonstrating
protesting Indonesian occupation of East Timor. At least 100 and
possibly as many as 250 killed. The number is imprecise because may
disappeared during that massacre and remain unaccounted for.
In the Aceh region of Indonesia, an estimated 2,000 civilians have
been killed by the military between 1989 to 1993 during its counter-
insurgency campaign.
As Amnesty International notes in its 1994 annual report, President
Suharto maintains a centralized and authoritarian government that
exercises ``strict and comprehensive controls on all aspects of social
development and severe restrictions on civil and political rights.''
This policy of strict control, I do not believe, can be long
maintained in Indonesia. With its rapid economic growth, spreading
middle-class, there are increasing demands within Indonesian society
for change.
We must demonstrate clearly that the United States supports the
forces for democratic change in Indonesia and will not allow our
economic, aid, or military interests with the Indonesian Government
inhibit our support for such change.
This amendment demonstrates that our priority in Indonesia remains
promoting human rights and building democracy.
indonesian cooperative marketing project
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I rise to bring to the attention of
the managers of this bill a very important proposal, endorsed as a high
priority by the U.S. Agency for International Development's [USAID]
mission as well as the American Ambassador to Indonesia, to provide
funding in the amount of $5 million over the 1995 to 1998 period under
the Public Law 480 title II program to develop a coffee and fishing
marketing cooperative system on East Timor, in Aceh and in the eastern
Indonesian islands.
While I understand that funding for the Public Law 480 program is
provided in the Agriculture and related Agencies appropriations bill, I
believe it is important to raise this issue during consideration of
this bill which funds USAID. Under the Food for Peace Act, USAID has
the responsibility for sorting out the priorities for those few
projects which will receive support under title II. Without the strong
support of USAID, this project may well be passed over since there are
many other worthy projects competing for a limited amount of resources.
The importance which our Jakarta USAID Mission accords this project
was seen in the allocation of approximately $2 million in Development
Assistance [DA] funds earlier this year to begin necessary planning and
start up funds for it. Moreover, the Assistant Secretary of State for
Legislative Affairs, Wendy Sherman, stated in a letter to me dated
February 23, 1994, that our Jakarta USAID Mission and the United States
Embassy in Jakarta both believe this project ``can potentially have a
significant impact in East Timor and elsewhere. As you are aware, as
part of our efforts to promote an improvement in the human rights
situation in East Timor, we are working hard to expand USAID and USIS
programs there; this project would be an excellent vehicle.''
This project is designed to help raise the income of coffee and other
farmers as well as fishermen on East Timor in particular. Roughly two-
thirds of the population of East Timor is engaged in farming; half of
these farmers are engaged in coffee production. Although the quality of
the coffee grown on Timor is excellent, particularly the TimTim
arabicas which account for about 70 percent of Timor's coffee
production, coffee prices received by these farmers have been
characterized as extremely low, well below half the FOB levels similar
grades and qualities receive in Sulawesi, Java, Flores, and Sumatra.
Because of this history of low prices, production of coffee has
decreased substantially and in too many cases, farmers are beginning to
sell land, which will have a serious, adverse long-term impact on the
economic prospect for this depressed area.
To be sure, part of the low prices farmers on Timor have received was
attributable to the collapse of the international coffee marketing
agreement.
But an even larger part is attributable to a lack of competition in
marketing mechanisms.
This project is designed to bring competition to the now virtual
marketing monopoly by developing and supporting a cooperative for the
procurement and marketing of coffee, as well as supporting value added
processing of the coffee crop aimed at penetrating the niche gourmet
and organic markets. The latter seems particularly promising since for
many years coffee production on East Timor has been largely pesticide-
free.
Highly successful projects in developing cooperatives have been
undertaken with USAID's support on Java and elsewhere, and have created
about 14,000 jobs. It is very likely that similar successes could take
place on East Timor with USAID's support.
It is urgent that the momentum begun with the initial funds provided
by USAID be continued in fiscal year 1995 and beyond. Much effort has
been made to gain approval and support for this project among farmers
on East Timor and from the Government of Indonesia. Without a
continuing commitment from the United States, however, this support
could erode and we would lose the opportunity to make a significant and
permanent improvement in the lives of many who live in East Timor.
I am told this project will only be funded if it receives a high
priority from USAID and from the State Department because the demands
are so great for this program. Already, 3 months before the fiscal year
1995 begins and allocations are made, USAID has some 60 applications
for title II assistance on hand; undoubtedly, more will be filed
between now and October. I urge those officials to review this
proposal, and I hope they will look at it in the context of income
levels and needs on East Timor which are in fact greater than those
Indonesia-wide. I also hope that some consideration will be given to
the need to strengthen NGOs in East Timor, which this project would do.
If they concur with my assessment I hope they will communicate their
support for it immediately to the team which is in the process of
making the fiscal year 1995 Public Law 480 decisions.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Louisiana makes a good case for this
project. Reviewing the information he has provided to me and to my
staff, I believe this project has merit and I urge USAID to accord it
serious consideration during the allocation decisions now being made
under the Public Law 480, title II program.
There are many pressing cases competing with this proposal, from Asia
and from other regions around the world, far more than there are
resources under the title II program to fund. In fact, I am told that
approximately 60 applications totaling about $400 million are pending
for the approximately $300 million which is available under this
program, which was reauthorized in title XV of the 1990 Farm bill.
During the daunting task the administration will have as it sorts
through these proposals, many of which are compelling and equally
worthy, I hope the administration will give some weight to the
particular policy considerations involved in this proposal. A goal all
of us have shared with respect to our policy vis-a-vis East Timor has
been to improve the lives of the people. This project offers real
potential in this respect.
Mr. McCONNELL. I too have reviewed the information the Senator from
Louisiana has provided to me and to my staff on this project, and am
pleased to join my colleague from Vermont in urging the U.S. Agency for
International Development to accord it a high priority. USAID will play
a key role in deciding which of the many proposals for title II funds
are approved, so it is equally appropriate that this colloquy occur on
this bill.
This project offers a positive approach to our policies affecting
East Timor and one which would help in a concrete and immediate way a
substantial part of the population. In addition to raising income,
critically important in this very poor area, this proposal would also
give skills needed by the people of East Timor to improve their
economic situation. As the Senator from Vermont points out, these
skills are transferable to other areas and hold out the promise of
improving people's lives in other areas, too. This may be the most
important and enduring part of the project and one which will reap
benefits for many years. Therefore, I urge USAID to give some
consideration to this feature of the proposal and hope it can be
funded.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate very much the comments of my colleagues
and hope this proposal will be given the support and priority it
deserves this year.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, two weeks ago, late in the night, the
Senate voted on a provision regarding Indonesia. The provision was, to
my mind, very simple and straightforward. It simply said that any
agreement to sell arms on the United States munitions list to Indonesia
must include an agreement that our weapons would not be used in East
Timor. It sent the signal which I think the Senate shares unanimously:
Our weapons should not be used for the abuse of human rights.
Indonesia has sustained a brutal military occupation of East Timor
since 1975. Every human rights organization in the world has criticized
Indonesia's human rights record, particularly in East Timor.
The State Department has consistently reported human rights
violations by Indonesia's military. In this year's report, the State
Department acknowledges that ``largely cosmetic changes in the force
structure resulted in minimal reductions in troop presence'' in East
Timor. It also said:
Extrajudicial arrests and detention, torture of those in
custody, and excessively violent techniques for dealing with
suspected criminals or perceived troublemakers continued in
many areas of Indonesia. Legal safeguards against arbitrary
arrest and detention are frequently ignored. The armed forces
continued to be responsible for the most serious human rights
abuses.
We do not want to support human rights abuses in East Timor. We do
not want U.S. weapons involved in massacres of peaceful protestors or
interrogations of activists with views differing from the Indonesian
armed forces. We do not want U.S. arms used to kill and torture the
people of East Timor.
The Senate, though, did not send that message 2 weeks ago. However, I
do not think the Senate intended on sending the opposite message. That
would be, quite bluntly, unconscionable. The amendment offered today
corrects any misconception which may have been perceived, and assures
the Indonesians that they do not have a carte blanche to use our
weapons indiscriminately for human rights abuses in East Timor.
The amendment offered today clarifies the sentiment in the Senate by
codifying the U.S. position on human rights and arms sales to
Indonesia. I have advocated a much more comprehensive arms ban, but by
targetting small arms and crowd control weapons, the U.S. is taking a
step toward separating itself from responsibility from human rights
abuses in Indonesia and particularly East Timor. It is especially
important that we have established a linkage between arms sales and
human rights.
The Indonesian occupation of East Timor has been a longstanding issue
of international concern. Since 1975 thousands of Indonesian troops
have occupied the island, restricting freedom of expression and
association, and brutally punishing those who do not agree with the
regime of occupation.
Just 5 days after the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in December
1975, the United Nations General Assembly called immediately for
Indonesia to withdraw its armed forces and recognize the right of self-
determination for the people of East Timor.
Since then the United Nations has adopted eight resolutions affirming
human rights in East Timor--two calling on Jakarta to withdraw
``without delay''--and the United States Congress has passed five
resolutions condemning Indonesian actions in East Timor.
In 1994, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the U.N.
Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities passed resolutions about the continuing human rights abuses
in East Timor and urging the Indonesian Government to allow access to
East Timor by humanitarian and human rights organizations. The March
resolution was the first time the U.S. supported such a resolution in
the U.N.
However, despite all these resolutions, the Government of Indonesia
has blatantly disregarded the will of the international community.
Instead, it has occupied East Timor with a brutal hand, resettling
hundreds of thousands of East Timorese in camps in the late 1970's. The
International Red Cross accuses the government of deliberately starving
more than 100,000 East Timorese during the same period. According to
both Amnesty International and the Indonesian-appointed Governor in
East Timor, the conflict has taken 200,000 East Timorese lives--one
third of the original population in East Timor--since 1975.
Throughout the 1980's the Indonesian military controlled East
Timorese villages and the movements of East Timorese residents. There
were several waves of killings and disappearances.
In the past 3 years, human rights groups have reported that the
repression in East Timor has continued unabated. Torture of detainees
remains a common practice. Human rights groups are barred from doing
their work. Even Senators Boren and Pell were refused visas to East
Timor in 1991.
Human rights monitors list numerous cases of those hospitalized for
such injuries by the armed forces as broken hands, pulled out
fingernails, and gunshot wounds.
The most public of the atrocities in East Timor was, of course, the
Dili massacre on November 12, 1991. In front of reporters' cameras--on
videotape we all saw repeated on the evening news--the Indonesian
military opened fire on a peaceful demonstration for self-
determination, killing at least 100 East Timorese, and maybe as many as
250. At least 66 people are still unaccounted for.
The Indonesians have been unrepentant and irresponsible in
administering justice in the massacre.
Moreover, the comments by Indonesian military brass indicate their
lack of remorse:
General Syafei, military commander in East Timor, said, ``If
something similar to the November 12 event were to happen under my
leadership, the number of victims would probably be higher.''
Geneal Herman Mantiri, regional commander, said, ``We don't regret
anything. What happened was quite proper . . . they were opposing us .
. . even yelling things against the government . . . that is why we
took firm action.''
General Try Sutrisno said, ``Such people must be shot and we will
shoot them.'' Sutrisno is now vice president of Indonesia.
The Governor of East Timor, Abilio Jose Osario Soares, said, ``As far
as I'm concerned, I think far more should have died.''
It is inconceivable, Mr. President, that I or any other citizen would
be shot at for yelling things against the government. Yet peaceful
demonstrators in East Timor were killed by the Government of Indonesia,
and several of those who survived, are now sitting in prison for
witnessing the crimes.
In response to this massacre--and the travesty of justice which
followed--the Congress cut off imet to Indonesia.
At the present time, the UN Special Rapporteur is travelling to East
Timor to learn more about the Dili massacre and its aftermath.
Witnesses to Dili and other human rights activists are being rounded
up, probably so they will not be able to testify to what they have seen
and know.
The repression in East Timor is non-stop. Just 4 days ago, a few
Indonesian soldiers--who are Muslim--walked into a catholic church in
East Timor, and insulted the parishers by pretending to take communion,
by eating the wafers, spitting them out, and then stomping on a
communion glass.
This is an insult no one in this chamber can condone. But it gets
even worse, Mr. President. When demonstrators protested the soldiers'
defamation of their religion, the military opened fire, killing three
and wounding dozens. Since, the military has cordoned off students and
put barricades throughout Dili to stifle any further protest.
Three people were killed by the Indonesian military simply for trying
to protect the sanctity of their religious rituals. Just yesterday, Mr.
President.
This is how the Indonesian military operates in East Timor. I do not
want the U.S. associated with any of these violations. Yet, in
supporting the Indonesian military--by selling arms, by conducting
joint military exercises, by training the military officers, by not
prohibiting our weapons from being used in East Timor--we are
tolerating, if not condoning, such terror. In reporting the story, one
reporter even mentioned the Senate vote 2 weeks ago.
Last year the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted an amendment
to condition the sale of major weapons to Indonesia on improvements in
the human rights situation. After numerous resolutions and diplomatic
discussions, it was time to take substantive action to advocate human
rights in East Timor. Though the bill never came to the Senate floor,
it caused ripples throughout Washington and Jakarta.
One result was that at the UN meetings in September, following
committee action, the Indonesians finally responded to the talks with
the Portuguese, and outlined a plan of action for East Timor.
Another result was a policy review within the administration. It
concluded that Indonesia is of great geostrategic and economic
importance that Indonesia is of great geostrategic and economic
importance to the US, but that its human rights record requires a tough
stance. The administration adopted a policy of not selling light arms
and crowd control weapons to Indonesia, which, according to assistant
Secretary Winston Lord, was linked to human rights in East Timor. That
is the position embodied in today's amendment.
In light of this principled and substantive pressure, there has been
some progress in East Timor. But in 1 year, it has of course been
limited. And I want to stress limited, Mr. President. However, the
small steps are more than we have ever gotten since 1975, and I think
the facts bear out a strong argument for linkage. With so much further
to go, now is hardly the time to abandon such a policy.
Those who continue to dare to disagree in Indonesia are still
suppressed, harassed, and as yesterday's events show, even subjected to
murder. Just for example:
The very week we struck language which would have prohibited the use
of U.S. weapons in East Timor, the Indonesians shut down three
influential journals by revoking their publication licenses. Two of the
journals--Tempo and De-tik--had published unflattering articles of
senior officials and close friends of President Suharto.
The next day, there were demonstrations against the action. About 50
people were kicked and beaten, about the same number were reportedly
arrested. The Indonesians would not confirm that, but a Reuters
journalist was there.
The fact that journals have to be licensed by the government at all
flies in the face of Article 28 of Indonesia's own constitution
guaranteeing freedom of speech. All these restrictions have created an
atmosphere of fear throughout every level of Indonesian society.
I have also heard that there have been improvements in the
accountability and the restraint of the military, but I have heard no
evidence to that effect.
When I questioned Assistant Secretary Winston Lord about the
reduction in military presence in East Timor this spring, he could not
confirm that there had been any troop withdrawals from East Timor. In
fact, I have even been informed by authoritative sources with first
hand experiences that uniformed soldiers in East Timor are merely being
replaced by plainclothes soldiers. Is this restraint?
This is yet another kind of repression which is very dangerous and
creates a permeating atmosphere of fear and terror.
Another illustration: As I mentioned earlier, as the military forces
prepares for the visit of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on summary,
arbitrary, and extrajudicial executions, witnesses to Dili are being
rounded up so they will be unable to talk to the Special Rapporteur.
They are questioned at length, refused the right to an attorney, and at
risk of being tortured. Six prisoners being held in connection with the
Dili massacre were moved to a prison in central Java in May, probably
with the intent of keeping them from meeting the Special Rapporteur.
Torture continues. According to Bishop Belo and other observers,
prisoners are often tied up and dunked in tubs of water until they
nearly drown. Prisoners are burned with cigarettes. Prisoners are
subjected to mock executions. An article in the New York Times reports
that during a torture session, an intelligence officer told an East
Timorese prisoner, ``We only need your land. We don't need people like
you Timorese.''
Also very upsetting is that the military is targeting religious
Catholics and clergy. In December 1993 the military captured several
young Catholics in East Timor, beat them, tortured them, and forced
them to confess to ``subversion.'' On January 4, 1994, Bishop Belo
reports that military men were waiting for a student at the Pastoral
Institute--Salvador Sarmento--where they beat, tortured, and kicked him
until he almost died. They then forced his parents--who are
illiterate--to declare that they had seen their son participate in
subversive activity.
The suppression extends even beyond the borders of Indonesia. In June
there was to be a private conference on East Timor in Manila, in the
Philippines, organized at the University of the Philippines. The
conference was to be attended by Danielle Mitterand and the Nobel Peace
Prize Laureate Mairead Maguire. The Indonesian Government went so far
as to seek the cancellation of the conference in Manila.
Threatening to cut off an economic relationship with the Philippines;
to exact consequences in the Philippine peace talks with Muslim
separatists; to impound Filipino fishing vessels in Indonesian waters,
President Suharto succeeded in bullying and intimidating Manila into
closing off the conference to any foreign attendants.
But he piqued international concern over exactly what he has to hide.
But East Timor is hardly the only battleground for the Indonesian
armed forces.
The armed forces have a dual role in the society, and it addresses
all domestic rather than just international security concerns. Troops
are deployed down to the village level to control society. The civil
servants in the bureaucracy are soldiers in the armed forces. The
military gets involved in labor disputes. In essence, the word of the
military is law.
Every Indonesian citizen is required to pledge allegiance to the
state ideology, Pancasilia, critics or deviations from this code are
punishable under the anti-subversion law. Almost every kind of dissent
is considered ``subversive.''
Being subversive subjects you to ``disappearance'', imprisonment,
torture, or even extrajudicial execution.
In addition, the workers rights issue in Indonesia is also quite
important--especially as we intensify our economic relations with
Indonesia.
The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, has even acknowledged
that better labor relations is in Indonesia' self-interest. Yet, in the
last year, there has been an intensification of workers' strikes, and
the Indonesian government has cracked down on independent labor groups.
Demonstrations are often broken up, protestors detained and arrested,
leaders imprisoned under bogus charges.
In one case, in May 1993 a 25-year-old labor activist was tortured,
raped, and killed in East Java. There was clear evidence that the
murder was premeditated and that at least one Military officer who
complied. After intense pressure, the Indonesia Government finally
brought charges against nine company executives and even charged one
army captain. The national human rights commission--which has no
jurisdiction or statutory authority--was unable to charge the suspects
and basically acquiesced in a sham trial. The military office was
simply charged with ``failure to report a crime.''
In East Timor, Bishop Belo reports that:
Indonesian authorities have taken more than 400 young East
Timorese to Java with the promise of work. When they arrived
there, they were distributed amongst a number of factories
without keeping the initial agreement. There were changes of
factory and the young people did not receive a sufficient
salary. Many of the young East Timorese in Jakarta suffer
like slaves. Two of them died already. Others are being
persecuted and beaten. It is great injustice and suffering.
The U.S. Trade Representative has also found that the military has
been involved in labor issues and that the Indonesian Government has
refused the freedom of association for Indonesian workers.
Clearly, the issues of workers rights and human rights are connected.
Finally, Indonesia has taken the lead in criticizing U.S. human
rights policy. At the 1993 world conference on human rights in Vienna,
Indonesia vocally opposed the U.S. position on the Universality of
basic human rights. This is who we want to consider a close ally? An
emerging democracy? Indonesia's positions and actions undermine what
the president says he wants in a foreign policy, and counter everything
we fought the cold war over.
Mr. President, I would prefer to stop supplying the Indonesian
military to carry out such control altogether. I am strongly supportive
of a conditional ban on light arms because it is these weapons with the
Indonesian military uses to control crowds and torture and massacre
people in East Timor.
They also are used in Indonesia proper to quell dissent. For example,
in a number of incidents, peasants have been shot at at peaceful
demonstration by American-supplied M-16s.
A light arm ban is also consistent with the 1958 Mutual Defense
Agreement between the United States and Indonesia on equipment,
materials, and services, of 1958 which stipulates in section 2A:
Any weapons or other military equipment or services
purchased by the government of Indonesia from the government
of the United States shall be used by the government of
Indonesia solely for legitimate national self-defense, and it
is self-evident that the government of Indonesia, as a member
of HTE United Nations Organization, interprets the term
``legitimate national self-defense'' within the scope of the
United Nations Charter as excluding an act of aggression
against any other state.
The U.N., in two Security Council resolutions (R. 384 in 1975 and R.
389 in 1976) and eight General Assembly resolutions on the invasion of
East Timor, concluded that Indonesia was in violation of the U.N.
charter and was engaged in an act of aggression. In 1975, the State
Department legal office reached the same conclusion and said the treaty
was being violated.
It is scandalous that the U.S. Government supplies the tools of
repression to Indonesia.
Since the 1991 massacre, the State Department has licensed more than
250 military sales to Indonesia. They have licensed machine guns, riot
control chemicals and gear, M-16 assault rifles, electronic components,
ammunition, communications gear, and spare parts for attack planes,
including F-16s. With every shipment, the U.S. is not only signalling
its support for the Indonesian military, but also giving it the tools
with which to oppress.
While we should fully support Indonesia's right to legitimate self-
defense, we should not support its occupation of East Timor--not until
the military accepts a U.N.-supervised referendum in which the Timorese
would freely choose their own political status; not until the
Indonesian military begins to withdraw its troops; not until the
military improves its human rights record against its own people and
against East Timor.
Mr. President. I would like to make clear exactly what we are seeking
here.
The United Nations has never recognized that East Timor is part of
Indonesia. The United States has said that a process of self-
determination has been violated. East Timor is a land in disputed
status.
The U.N. has developed a process to allow the people of East Timor to
determine their fate, to choose their own government--by holding
elections under international supervision. This is hardly a radical
goal. Indeed, it is consistent with the goal of democracy we are
promoting every where else.
Most importantly, it is supported by the indigenous leadership in
East Timor, including Bishop Belo.
Indonesia has killed a third of the population in East Timor since
its Bloody Annexation of the area. It has flagrantly disregarded
international pressure and United Nations resolutions. Indonesia has
not paid a price for its brutal and immoral occupation. But occupation,
terror, and abuse of human rights are expensive.
As Indonesia gains international prominence it is time to extract the
cost of its occupation. If Indonesia wants our friendship, if it wants
to be a leader on the world stage, it has to clean up its act. Until it
does, U.S. policy should be decisive and principled. U.S. policy should
support the goals we fostered throughout the cold war: Human rights and
democracy. Indonesia should not be exempt from those goals.
We can no longer facilitate or ignore the horror in East Timor and
the other abuses carried out by the forces which are the Indonesian
Government.
amendment no. 2292
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the provision of
humanitarian aid to Haiti)
Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2292 for Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Helms.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 112, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
policy regarding humanitarian aid to haiti
Sec. 577. It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary
of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Administrator of the Agency for International Development
should expedite approval of valid applications for emergency
medical evacuation flights out of Haiti and for humanitarian
aid flights to Haiti, where such aid consists of food,
medicine, or medical supplies, or spare parts or equipment
for the transportation or distribution of humanitarian aid by
nongovernmental or private voluntary organizations.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this amendment attempts to address an
issue that a number of Senators have already mentioned today--providing
aid to Haiti.
As my colleagues know, the United Nations (in Security Council
Resolution 917) and the United States (in a series of Executive Orders)
have imposed a trade embargo on Haiti. I fully acknowledge that this
embargo is intended to undermine the de facto regime in Haiti and to
lead to the reestablishment of democracy in that country.
Tragically, however, the embargo to further democracy is causing
greater human suffering. And this suffering is growing despite the
embargoes' exemption of humanitarian aid. Several senators have
expressed their concerns about the flood of Haitian refugees that the
United States is struggling to handle. We would do well to address the
humanitarian conditions that are contributing to this refugee crisis.
Hospitals and clinics in Haiti increasingly lack basic medicines. As
a result, according to a recent Agency for International Development
report, cases of malaria, diarrhea, and respiratory infections are
rising.
One reason might be that two organizations that fly supplies to
missions in Haiti have flown one flight each since early May. Agape
Airlines and Missionary Flights International used to fly several times
a week. Twenty medical teams that had been planning to work in Haiti
have had to cancel their flights to that beleaguered country, because
they knew that flights to Haiti have been shut down. The AID report
also states that 51 percent of Haiti's children are malnourished, 17
percent of them severely so.
One reason might be that private aid groups need spare parts to keep
their trucks going. These trucks distribute and deliver the food that
Haiti's children need. Despite the good intentions of the
Administration and of the United Nation, the evidence is that the
international embargoes are hurting the most defenseless and innocent
of Haiti's people.
I believe that the Senate must express its view on this crisis.
My colleagues will recall that the international embargo exempts
humanitarian aid shipments by sea. This is because we are in a position
to intercept shipments by sea, inspect vessels trying to reach Haiti,
and turn back cargo that violates the embargo.
However, the United Nations has established a different policy for
air shipments of humanitarian aid. Aid flights need approval by the UN
sanctions committee in New York. This is the same committee that
approves exemptions to the embargoes against Libya and Iraq.
Under Resolution 917, members of the Security Council have 48 hours
in which to object to a proposed waiver for a humanitarian flight to
Haiti. If no country lodges an objection, the application is approved.
However, private aid organizations tell me that the waiver approval
process is taking more than 2 weeks.
Why? It turns out that there is a cumbersome procedure here in
Washington by which the Administration receives, processes, and
forwards to the U.N. applications for waivers.
Let me trace the steps that an application must take.
Let's say a private aid group wants to fly humanitarian aid to Haiti.
As I understand it, they apply to the Agency for International
Development. AID forwards the application to the Treasury Department
and the Sate Department. At Treasury, the Office of Foreign Assets
Control looks the application over. Then at State, the Office of
Sanctions Policy checks it out. If the application is okayed at this
level, it goes to the International Organizations Bureau at State,
which forwards it to our UN mission in New York, which gives the
application to the UN Secretariat, which distributes the application to
the 15 Security Council members and tells them that the 48-hour clock
has begun to run.
I think this process can be streamlined and hastened. My amendment
doesn't dictate how--it simply urges that the Administration continue
its efforts to hasten this approval process.
I also hope that the United Nations and the Administration will work
to hasten their approval of medical evacuation flights from Haiti. This
issue is important because missionaries and humanitarian volunteers in
Haiti have a right to know that if they become ill or suffer an
accident, an air ambulance will quickly evacuate them to a hospital in
the United States.
The Administration and the U.N. have been working hard to hasten the
approval of medical evacuation flights. The record approval time is now
down to 6 hours. However, if I were a missionary in Haiti, I would want
to be medivacked a lot faster than that.
Let me also note that this amendment has the support of Catholic
Relief Services, one of the private voluntary organizations that works
so hard to provide humanitarian relief to Haiti. We need to support CRS
and other such groups that are doing the Lord's work under very
difficult circumstances. World Hunger Year, a group that has been
concerned about Haitian hunger and poverty, hopes that the current
embargo will not exacerbate a situation that is already tragic. And
that's why World Hunger Year also supports this amendment.
In summary, Madam President, this amendment expresses the sense of
the Senate regarding efforts to relieve the humanitarian crisis in
Haiti. It puts the Senate on record as supporting swift approval of
applications to fly aid into Haiti.
Madam President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
amendment no. 2296
(Purpose: To amend the section on Assistance for the NIS to require
protection of biological diversity and environmental quality)
Mr. LEAHY offered amendment No. 2296 for Mr. Levin.
The amendment is as follows:
Funds made available in this Act for assistance to the New
Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be
subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to
Environment and Natural Resources) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961.
promoting environmental quality in the new independent states
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, a major portion of this bill relates to
United States Government-funded assistance to the New Independent
States of what used to be the USSR. I would like to engage in a
discussion with the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittee to clarify that it is the intent of the
Senate that the assistance programs we fund should not be implemented
in ways that reduce biological diversity or environmental quality in
the NIS. Is it the Chairman's belief that U.S. Government assistance to
the NIS should not be allowed to degrade biodiversity or environmental
quality?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, that is a critical aspect of our assistance. All
Senators should be aware that the nations of the former Soviet Union
have access to vast natural resources and unique environmental assets.
As the United States and other nations of the world continue our
efforts to help these countries develop sound market economies and
stable democratic societies, we have an opportunity to do so in a way
that protects and conserves the most vulnerable of these assets and
promotes sustainable development of natural resources. Without a
careful and comprehensive approach, the United States Government would
be helping these nations to squander some of the most valuable assets
they possess.
Russia, for example, contains thousands of unique species found
nowhere else in the world, many of which are highly endangered. The
Russian Far East alone contains highly endangered Siberian tigers, Amur
leopards, several eagle and crane species, sable, lynx, wild boar,
Siberian musk deer, wild ginseng, and much more. Economic deregulation
and rapid development projects seriously jeopardize this biodiversity.
Protection of the environment and conservation of biological
diversity are essential to long-term sustainable development in the
NIS, just as they are throughout the world. Protecting the environment
and biological diversity is necessary for long-term economic stability
and public health, as well as for recreation, cultural and aesthetic
values.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman. His Subcommittee and other Members
of Congress have urged the Administration to provide more timely and
targeted assistance to the NIS. I hope he will also agree we should
assure that even rapidly designed projects meet the longer term goals
of protecting biodiversity and promoting environmental conservation,
which are priorities of both the U.S. Government and governments of
these new States.
The United States Government has recently underscored the importance
of preserving the Earth's diverse plant and animal species in
coordination with other nations by signing the Convention on Biological
Diversity. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly
on June 29 to recommend ratification of this treaty.
The Clinton Administration has also reaffirmed its policy to make
biodiversity conservation a high priority for all U.S. Government
agencies and programs to promote sustainable development, most recently
in a Presidential Decision Directive last May, and in the ``Statement
of the White House Office on Environmental Policy,'' of May 27, 1994.
Is the Chairman also aware that United States and Russia have been
working at the highest levels to incorporate these goals into United
States Government-funded assistance programs for the NIS?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, I am aware of these high-level efforts, but many of
us remain concerned about how well those goals are being implemented at
the project level.
Throughout the meetings of the Commission on Environmental
Cooperation chaired by Vice President Gore and Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin, the Russian Ministry of Environment has emphasized that
its priority for United States aid is to support Russia's protected
areas and maintain the country's biodiversity.
Mr. LEVIN. I share the Chairman's concern, and that is why all U.S.
Government assistance programs for the NIS, including those still being
implemented with prior year funds, and those to be conceived in the
future, should strive to protect biodiversity and enhance environmental
quality, never the opposite.
Does the Chairman believe that AID should make a special effort
immediately to review its economic, technical and environmental
assistance programs, especially in the Russian Far East but also
throughout the NIS, to ensure that those programs promote protection of
biological diversity, maintenance of unique ecosystems and sustainable
development of forest products?
Mr. LEAHY. I believe such an effort by AID is appropriate and timely.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chairman. I believe that AID should take
several steps to ensure that projects do not degrade biodiversity, and
I would recommend the following.
Foreign assistance projects that may significantly affect
biodiversity or the environment should proceed only after a rapid
environmental assessment, to be prepared jointly with local specialist
in the region. Assessments should address wildlife and plant diversity,
as well as the project's effects on soil, water quality and carbon
sequestration.
AID should also assess the economic value of non-timber products,
such as medicinal and edible plants, animals for fur and meat, local
consumption needs and non-timber industries such as ecotourism. Where
alternative forms of energy are available or feasible, U.S. assistance
projects should seek to use or develop them.
Does the distinguished Chairman believe this set of suggestions would
be appropriate steps for AID to take to achieve the environmental goals
that the Clinton Administration has established?
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator's suggestions are very good ones that AID
would do well to implement in a concerted fashion, and I am sure that
the Subcommittee would welcome a report back from AID on how they have
taken these suggestions to heart.
I appreciate the Senator raising these concerns, and his suggestions
are entirely consistent with the bill before us. His questions serve
the added purpose of underscoring just how strong an interest the
Senate has in making sure our assistance to the NIS is done well. We
need to incorporate environmental concerns into all U.S assistance
programs for the NIS, not just projects specifically aimed at
environmental protection there.
Mr. LEVIN. I am very gratified at the Chairman's responses to my
questions, and thank him for his leadership on these issues.
amendment No. 2298
(Purpose: To enhance congressional review of efforts to facilitate
peace in the Middle East and for other purposes)
Mr. McCONNELL offered amendment No. 2298 for Mr. Specter and Mr.
Shelby.
The amendment is as follows:
(a) On page 102, line 1, strike all that follows after
``Gaza'' through the end of line 3 and insert a period after
``Gaza''.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) Additional Congressional Expectation.--Section
583(b)(5) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) amending its National Covenant to eliminate all
references calling for the destruction of Israel.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, would that all moved this quickly. Were
the rest of the bill to move this rapidly--and, incidentally, I commend
and thank Senators on both sides of the aisle for their work in doing
that--if the rest of the bill would move this rapidly, we could finish
by about 11 o'clock tonight. If it does not, I suspect we are going to
be here in the wee hours of the morning and for some long time
tomorrow.
I think Senators are trying to avoid--at least the Senators who
cooperated in clearing these amendments are trying to avoid--the
Dracula rule of legislation.
For those who are new, of course, the Dracula rule is that rule of
legislation found in an unpublished version of the Jefferson Manual
which says that legislation, like Dracula, comes out after dark and
that is when the votes come.
Some of us would, of course, much prefer it be in the daylight hours.
I have a lovely wife of 32 years, my dearest friend and truly the
person I miss most when I have these late evenings. I wish I could be
home with her. Others here have friends, family, or maybe even the joy
of some time when they could do things other than this, and I am sure
they would like that, too.
So perhaps we could ease the Dracula rule a bit with the help of any
Senators who might be here.
We are very close to 5 minutes of 9. Madam President, I believe at
that time, we then go to 5 minutes evenly divided on the Brown
amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with
the time evenly divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________