[Pages S12931-S12942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

the coastal barrier resources reauthorization act of 1999

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

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

[[Page S12932]]

a set of criteria for determining whether a coastal barrier is
developed. Codifying the criteria will make it easier for homeowners,
Congress and the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if an area
qualifies as an undeveloped coastal barrier. The legislation would also
require the Secretary of the Interior to complete a pilot project to
determine the feasibility of creating digital versions of the coastal
barrier system maps. Digital maps would improve the accuracy of the
older coastal barrier maps, and make it easier for the Department of
Interior and homeowners to determine where a structure is located.
Eventually, we hope that the entire System can be accessed by the
Internet.
I believe that Congress should make every effort to conserve barrier
islands and beaches. This legislation offers an opportunity to increase
protection of coastal barriers, and at the same time, saves taxpayers
money. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 1753. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
provide that an adopted alien who is less than 18 years of age may be
considered a child under such Act if adopted with or after a sibling
who is a child under such Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

keeping immigrant siblings together

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

S. 1753

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

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

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

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

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

denying safe havens to international and war criminals act of 1999

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

[[Page S12933]]

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

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

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

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

title i--denying safe havens to international criminals

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

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

Section 2. Technical and Conforming Amendments

This section amends related statutes to conform with
Section 1.

Section 3. Temporary Transfer of Persons in Custody for Prosecution

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

Section 4. Prohibiting Fugitives From Benefiting From Fugitive Status

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

[[Page S12934]]

a statutory basis. This section provides that basis.

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

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

Section 6. Transit of Fugitives for Prosecution in Foreign Countries

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

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

Section 1. Streamlined Procedures for Execution of MLAT Requests

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

Section 2. Temporary Transfer of Incarcerated Witnesses

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

title III--anti-atrocity alien deportation

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

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

Section 2. Establishment of the Office of Special Investigations

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

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 1755. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate
interstate commerce in the use of mobile telephones; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the mobile telecommunications sourcing act

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

[[Page S12935]]

Under this legislation, a consumer's primary place of residence would
be designated as the taxing jurisdiction for the purposes of taxing
roaming and other charges that are subject to state and local taxation.
This legislation does not impose any new taxes nor does it change the
authority of state and local governments to tax wireless services. It
does, however, provide consumers with simplified billing, reduce the
chances of double taxation, preserve the authority of state and local
jurisdictions to tax wireless services, and reduce the costs of tax
administration for carriers and governments. In the end, the consumer
will benefit through this tax clarification legislation that is badly
needed.
As many of my colleagues in the Senate know, I have been involved in
many battles over the years where state and local governments have
attempted to preserve their taxation authority as Congress has sought
to preempt that authority on behalf of some special interest. I am very
pleased to be in a position today to sponsor legislation which
addresses a legitimate need to clarify and simplify state and local
taxation in a manner that works for consumers, industry, and state and
local governments alike.
I also want to express my gratitude to my colleague Senator Brownback
for his work on this measure. I hope that our colleagues will take note
that Senator Brownback and I stand together on this consensus,
bipartisan legislation and join us to advance this bill
expeditiously.<bullet>
______

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

[[Page S12936]]

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

National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 1999

Summary

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

Background/Discussion

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

Section by Section Description

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

[[Page S12937]]

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

Technology Industries

Association of New Mexico,

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

City of Albuquerque,

Albuquerque, NM, October 13, 1999.
Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator, Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the citizens of
Albuquerque, I want to state my strong support of your
proposed legislation, ``The National Laboratories Partnership
Improvement Act of 1999.'' For the past 50 years the synergy
among our scientific, civic, and educational communities and
the Department of Energy's national laboratories has helped
to build and enhance our modern city. While we welcome these
working partnerships, we recognize that stronger technical
relationships between the labs, private businesses, and other
nearby institutions are needed to leverage additional
resources, both public and private, and promote high tech
economic growth at the local, regional, and national levels.
Your leadership in the past and your thorough understanding
of the complex issues involving tech transfer has deeply
benefited Albuquerque's economic diversification, job growth,
and stability. This legislation provides an important and
timely framework for the future, and we look forward to
working with you and your staff in whatever way necessary to
implement it. To this end, we would hope that monies
generated by the legislation might come directly to the
community, and not go to existing or proposed lab tech
transfer programs. This will enable our business,
institutional and civic leadership to develop the
infrastructure required by this well-crafted, thoughtful, and
far-reaching proposal.
Sincerely,
Jim Baca,
Mayor.
______

By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1758. A bill to authorize urgent support for Colombia and front
line states to secure peace and the rule of law, to enhance the
effectiveness of anti-drug efforts that are essential to impending the
flow of deadly cocaine and heroin from Colombia to the United States,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the current situation in Colombia is a
nightmare. Embroiled in a bloody, complex, three decade-long civil war,
Colombia is spiraling toward collapse. Since the early 1990s, more than
35,000 Colombians have lost their lives at the hands of two well-
financed, heavily-armed guerrilla insurgency groups, along with a
competing band of ruthless paramilitary operatives, hell bent on
crushing the group of leftist guerrillas. Sadly, many of those killed
so far have been innocent civilians caught in the constant cross-fire.
The American drug habit is at the core of the Colombian crisis, with
drug users and pushers in this country subsidizing the anti-democratic
leftists. Americans want drugs. The drug traffickers want money. To
ensure their prosperity and to maintain a profitable industry, the
traffickers essentially hire the guerrillas and, increasingly, the
paramilitary groups to protect their livelihoods. Violence and
instability reign. Democracy is crumbling.
That's why, Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator
Coverdell, we are introducing the Anti-Drug Alliance with Colombia and
the Andean Region Act of 1999. This comprehensive bill is designed to
promote peace and stability in Colombia and the Latin American region.
Our colleague, Senator Grassley also joins us as a co-sponsor. We
believe it is time that our government work in conjunction with the
government and the people of Colombia to help lessen the growing crisis
in the region.
The problems in Colombia run deep. There are no easy ``overnight''
solutions. If we are to assist in creating and sustaining long-term
stability in Colombia, we must commit the resources to achieving that
end. It is in our national interest to support Colombia in its effort
to thwart further destabilization. Without a strong Colombia, narco-
traffickers will flourish, an abundant and steady flow of illicit drugs
will head for the United States, one of our largest export markets in
the western hemisphere will continue to falter, and a democratic
government will further erode.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I met with Colombian President Pastrana
during his visit to Washington. We discussed how our two countries can
work together--in cooperation--to eliminate drugs from our hemisphere
and to begin restoring democracy and the rule of law in Colombia.
For more than three decades, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, otherwise known as the FARC, and the National Liberation Army
(ELN) have waged the longest-running guerrilla insurgency in Latin
America. Both rebel groups have a combined strength of between 15,000
and 20,000 full-time guerrillas. These armed terrorists control or
influence up to 60% of rural Colombia. At present, the Colombian
military does not appear to have the strength and resources to counter
these menacing forces.
Well over a decade ago, the biggest threat to stability from within
our hemisphere was communism--Soviet and Cuban communists pushing their
anti-democratic propaganda in Central America. We overcame that threat.
Under the Reagan and Bush Administrations, Democracy prevailed. Today,
in our hemisphere, the communists have been replaced by drug
traffickers and the rebels they hire to protect their lucrative
industry. These drug traffickers also are financing the roughly 5,000
armed paramilitary combatants, whose self-appointed mission is to
counter the strength of the leftist guerrillas. If we hope to have any
impact at all in eliminating the drugs in our cities, in our schools,
and in our homes, we need to attack drug trafficking head on--here and
abroad. This is how we can help both the people of Colombia and the
people of our own country.

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

[[Page S12938]]

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

S. 1758

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

TITLE I--UNITED STATES POLICY AND PERSONNEL

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

TITLE II--ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED

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

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

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

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

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

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

[[Page S12939]]

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

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

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

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S12940]]

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

SEC. 104. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

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

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

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

SEC. 106. EXTRADITION OF NARCOTICS TRAFFICKERS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S12941]]

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

SEC. 204. REPORT ON COLOMBIAN MILITARY JUSTICE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 214. TARGETING ILLICIT ASSETS OF IRREGULAR FORCES.

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

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

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

[[Page S12942]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________