[Pages S9854-S9869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 3527

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

[[Page S9855]]

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

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

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

[[Page S9856]]

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

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

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

Sister Dianna is Inspirational

(By Paul Ferris)

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

[[Page S9857]]

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

Dianna Ortiz Joins Vigil for Torture Victims

(By Arthur Jones)

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

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

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

[[Page S9858]]

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

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

We write:

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

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

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

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

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes
amendments numbered 3491, 3366 and 3535, en bloc.

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3366

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

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

Amendment No. 3491

(Purpose: To amend title I)

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

Amendment No. 3535

office of security

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

[[Page S9859]]

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

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

Amendment No. 3527

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

Amendment No. 3501

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. McCONNELL. This has been approved by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3501) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3527

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

[[Page S9860]]

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]

YEAS--50

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

NAYS--43

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

NOT VOTING--7

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

Global environment facility

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

Development Assistance for Africa

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

[[Page S9861]]

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

[[Page S9862]]

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

S. 2334, FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS, 1999 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Nondefense Crime Mandatory Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 12,554 ...... 45 12,599
Outlays..................................................... ....... 12,595 ...... 45 12,640
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 12,600 ...... 45 12,645
Outlays..................................................... ....... 12,600 ...... 45 12,645
1998 level:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 13,215 ...... 44 13,259
Outlays..................................................... ....... 12,829 ...... 44 12,873
President's request:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 14,079 ...... 45 14,124
Outlays..................................................... ....... 13,002 ...... 45 13,047
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... .......... ...... 45 ........
Outlays..................................................... ....... 7,695 ...... 45 ........

SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............................................ ....... -46 ...... ......... -46
Outlays..................................................... ....... -5 ...... ......... -5
1998 level:
Budget authority............................................ ....... -661 ...... 1 -660
Outlays..................................................... ....... -234 ...... 1 -233
President's request:
Budget authority............................................ ....... -1,525 ...... ......... -1,525
Outlays..................................................... ....... -407 ...... ......... -407
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............................................ ....... 12,554 ...... ......... 12,554
Outlays..................................................... ....... 4,900 ...... ......... 4,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
conventions.<bullet>

U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification

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

The Problem of Desertification

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

[[Page S9863]]

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

peace corps

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

[[Page S9864]]

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

section 907

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

Amendment No. 3516

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

restrictions on imet for indonesia

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

[[Page S9865]]

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

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

[[Page S9866]]

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

OBJECTIONABLE PROGRAMS IN THE FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS BILL
FOR FY 1999

TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

[In millions]

Programs with funds earmarked:

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

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

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

Global Environment Facility

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

[[Page S9867]]

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

Amendment No. 3506

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

amendments nos. 3536 through 3538, en bloc

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

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

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3536

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

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

SEC. __01. AFRICA FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE.

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

SEC. __02. MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE.

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

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

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

[[Page S9868]]

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

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

SEC. __05. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.

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

Amendment No. 3537

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

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

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

amendment no. 3538

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 3536, 3537, and 3538) were agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana wants to
modify an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.

Amendment No. 3526, As Modified

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

Amendment No. 3539

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page S9869]]

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

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]

YEAS--90

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

NAYS--3

Byrd
Faircloth
Smith (NH)

NOT VOTING--7

Bingaman
Coverdell
Domenici
Glenn
Helms
Inouye
Murkowski
The bill (S. 2334), as amended, was passed.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, is
recognized.

____________________