Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I want to commend the chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking Democratic member, Senator Bumpers, for their efforts in putting together this Agriculture appropriations measure. They have put a lot of work into crafting a bill that stays within the subcommittee's allocation while seeking to satisfy many competing demands for funding. I have appreciated very much working with them and with their staffs in the subcommittee on this bill. Amendment No. 968 (Purpose: To provide funding for tobacco and nicotine enforcement activities of the Food and Drug Administration, with an offset)

Mr. HARKIN. That is correct.

Mr. HARKIN. That is correct.

Mr. HARKIN. And then if that amendment failed, then there would be an up-or-down vote on the underlying amendment, and that is what we are asking the Senate to do, to carry out that agreement that we made.

Mr. HARKIN. That is correct. It would be an up-or-down vote on the perfecting amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let this Senator be clear. This Senator, in good faith, just went over to my friend from North Carolina and asked if we could get past this impasse in the following manner: Could we agree to have the yeas and nays on this Senator's underlying amendment, then to let the Senator from North Carolina modify his amendment and then ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment, and further, we agreed and shook hands that we would then have a vote on his amendment up or down, and then if he failed, then we would have a vote up or down on my amendment. I believe that was what the agreement was.

Mr. HARKIN. If the perfecting amendment is defeated. Is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. I understand. As I further understand, the Senator from North Carolina asked consent that we have an up-or-down vote on his amendment, his perfecting amendment, and then an up-or-down vote on the underlying amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it----

Mr. HARKIN. As I further understand----

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. I just want to know where we stand. We have now ordered the yeas and nays on both the underlying amendment and on the perfecting amendment, is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. We ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. I object.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is right on the mark.

Mr. HARKIN. Why not? So the Senator is right on the mark. As long as you ID them, you better make sure they don't get the alcohol, too. So I thank the Senator from West Virginia for helping us take the blinders off to see this has broader implications than just tobacco. This can help us cut down a lot on teenage drinking, and I thank my friend.

Mr. HARKIN. I just wanted to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his addition to this amendment. The Senator from West Virginia, as I mentioned earlier, is the leading voice in this Chamber about the dangers of alcohol and alcohol addiction, especially drinking under age. It has become, like tobacco, the scourge of our Nation, especially, as the Senator said, beer drinking among teenagers in college, and that is just a gateway to harder alcohol and other drugs. The Senator from West Virginia has done us a great service because most of the data that we have seen indicate that the teenagers who illegally buy tobacco also illegally buy alcohol. Sometimes we tend to get blinders on around here; we don't see other things, and I would admit freely and openly that I had been focusing on the teenage smoking and had not thought about the other aspects of the teenager who walks in to buy the tobacco. And you can bet your bottom dollar, I say to my friend from West Virginia, that if this girl here--as I said earlier, which one of these is underage--you really cannot tell--Melissa or Amy. This one looks the youngest. She has a pair of overalls on. This one looks older. But it turns out this one is 16 and this one is 25. And you bet your bottom dollar, I ask the Senator from West Virginia, if this one, who is 16, walks in and is successful in buying cigarettes, then the next thing might be, well, as long as she got by with that, how about a six-pack of beer, too.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Government of Pakistan is pursuing dramatic economic reforms, including liberalization, privatization, and deregulation in order to transition its economy into a fully market- oriented system. Once OPIC support is reinstated, the United States will be able to institute trade and development assistance programs as well. U.S. companies will be able to pursue business opportunities in a wide variety of sectors, such as power generation, telecommunications, highway construction, port development and operations, oil and gas, and banking and finance. I also point out, Mr. President, that the Government of Pakistan is in the process of privatizing its banking system. OPIC can be of great help and support in doing that. Further, the prohibition of IMET has meant an emerging generation of Pakistani military officers has not had access to training in the United States. Let me be clear that IMET does not mean the transfer or sale of any weapons. It only means valuable education assistance to other militaries which help foster valuable military-to-military contacts with the United States and the host country and allows the United States to impart its values to other militaries. Mr. President, according to the Department of Defense, the Chinese are currently the single largest provider of military training to Pakistani Forces. Cutting off Pakistan from IMET assistance over the last 7 years has therefore reduced our contacts among the military leadership in Pakistan and reduced their exposure to United States institutions and values. This 7-year vacuum has been filled by China-- not in our best interests. In addition to providing American-style military training, IMET can be used to provide training in human rights, military justice, and civilian-military relations. The chief of the Army staff, General Karamat, for Pakistan, who attended the United States Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, KS, has stated that he would rather send his officers to the United States to study rather than to China. I think we ought to take him up on that. The United States has an IMET Program with every country in South Asia except for Pakistan, including Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, even the Maldives. This policy does not make sense. IMET should be restored not as a favor to Pakistan but because it is clearly in the United States interests to do so. That is what this amendment is really all about, helping the Unites States. It is pro-American. Pakistan is not getting military training from the United States; it is getting it from China. Is that serving U.S. interests? I do not think so. This amendment is not for anyone else but the United States because it will be our interests that are best served by it. Mr. President, let me briefly outline the long history of friendship between Pakistan and the United States. I believe it is important that this appear in the Record. Since 1947--50 years ago--the founding of the nation of Pakistan, the people of Pakistan have been helping to serve United States interests in South Asia and around the world. When the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan, chose to undertake his first overseas visit, it was to the United States instead of to the Soviet Union, despite efforts by Moscow to entice him there and despite their proximity to both the Soviet Union and China. Since the late 1940's, Pakistan has helped the United States on numerous occasions in promoting and protecting American interests. In a speech to this Congress, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan proclaimed--and I quote-- No threat or persuasion, no material peril, or ideological allurement could deflect Pakistan from its chosen path of free democracy. Pakistan lived up to its commitments later on in June 1950, when it declared its unqualified support for the United States in our war in Korea and backed us in that war. In 1954, they joined the Central Treaty Organization. In 1955, they joined SEATO, the South East Asian Treaty Organization. These two American-backed alliances were aimed at the containment of communism and were very successful. In 1959, our two countries signed a mutual defense treaty which is still operational today. So this is a long history. Again, some will say, well, Pakistan has had military dictatorships and violations of human rights. That is true. I understand that. But I believe that the freedom advocates, the freedom fighters, those who struggle continually in Pakistan for democracy and freedom have been at it continually. They have been assassinated and tortured and put in jail, but they continue to struggle for democratic freedoms in that country. Those are the ones about whom I speak, not the military dictatorships, but the brave people in Pakistan that continue to struggle and fight and to maintain an adherence to democracy. Mr. President, from that time on, Pakistan has been on our side and by our side whether it is in Korea or whether it is in Somalia, whether it is in Haiti, or in Bosnia. Yes, Pakistan right now has troops in Bosnia. And they have faced dangers time and time again, but they have stuck by our side. I spoke, not the military dictators, not the repressive forces in Pakistan, but to those brave people of Pakistan who, through all of this, continue to struggle and to fight against corruption and to maintain an adherence to democracy. In 1960, Pakistan's commitment, its friendship to the United States was put to a very severe test. Again, in accordance with the Mutual Defense Treaty, Pakistan allowed us to set up some bases. One of them was a base from which we flew our U-2 flights over the Soviet Union. One of those flights, as we all sadly remember, was shot down by the Soviets. Francis Gary Powers was the pilot, and we all know how the Soviets paraded him as one of their trophies. Soviet leader Nikita Khruschchev turned his ire on Pakistan because he knew that was where the plane was based. He threatened to use nuclear arms and weapons against Pakistan. He boasted that the city of Peshawar would be wiped off the face of the Earth. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, in his recently published account of the incident, describes the cool and confident reaction of the then-President of Pakistan, who dismissed the Soviet threat by saying, ``So what?'' Again, put yourself in that context. Korean war, Mutual Defense Treaty, allowing us to base our U-2 spy planes there. They are bordering right on the Soviet Union, and yet they stood by us. Pakistan again came to the assistance of the United States by helping to facilitate the crucial opening of American relations with China. In 1970, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger undertook a secret visit to China from Pakistan. Thus, again, Pakistan served as that vital bridge between the United States and China. Again, it was critical in the cold war to restrain the Soviet Union. From 1979 to 1989, the United States went to Pakistan and asked them to cooperate with us in and help us fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan through infiltration of military equipment and other devices. Once again, Pakistan said yes to the United States even though they faced great danger. Not only did the Soviet Union, again, threaten Pakistan with dire consequences, but launched a campaign of subversion and terror against Pakistan. The country experienced numerous violations of its ground and air space, terrorist bombings, and subversion. Since 1992, Pakistan has been at the forefront of peacekeeping operations. We went to them and asked them to supply troops for Somalia, and they said yes. And we went to them and asked them to supply troops for the Haiti operation, and they said yes. And, Pakistan made significant contributions to the multinational force during the Gulf War to help liberate Kuwait. Pakistani troops are currently in Bosnia. In 1995, we asked Pakistan to return a suspected terrorist, Ramzi Yousaf, for his alleged involvement in the World Trade Center bombing. And they did. And, recently, the CIA was able to return to the United States, Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani who is charged with killing two CIA employees outside CIA headquarters. As a moderate democratic Islamic ally, Pakistan is our most tried and trusted friend we have in the Islamic world. They have stood by our side against the Soviet Union's aggression. And they have stood by our side in the fight against terrorism. So I say to my colleagues, let us treat our friend and ally Pakistan as they deserve to be treated due to their longstanding support for the United States, but most importantly it is in our best interests to do so. Granting OPIC and IMET will help U.S. business interests and U.S. national security interests. It will help exports, foster military-to- military contacts and give the United States better intelligence in the region. It is fair, it is right, and makes good sense for the United States to change its shortsighted policy and pursue long-term interests in the region. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, a number of prominent United States business leaders have asked the State Department to resume OPIC support for investment in Pakistan so that American business interests are promoted in that region. In no other country in South Asia is OPIC prohibited from providing support and assistance. I have examples, a number of letters of United States businesses urging the administration to resume OPIC's support of Pakistan. Mr. President, I have letters from several different companies that I have here that have written letters asking that OPIC be allowed to resume in Pakistan so that they can begin to invest in Pakistan--a letter from Occidental Oil and Gas; a letter from MCI Communications; a letter from Solar Turbines, a Caterpillar Company; a letter from Alpha- Gamma Technologies, Inc., in Raleigh, NC; a letter from Boston Technology, Inc., in Wakefield, MA; a letter from Hawkins Oil & Gas, Inc., in Oklahoma; a letter from Tenaska International, Omaha, NE; and several other letters. I will not read them all. But Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Let me read further from Secretary Cohen's letter. I want to get this last paragraph in. Secretary Cohen said: Opponents of your legislation will claim that Pakistan's performance with regard to proliferation should not be ``rewarded'' by making it eligible for these assistance programs. We would respond that our denying any of these programs will not cause the Pakistanis to forego strategic programs which they believe are essential for their national security. However, by making these assistance programs available, we will not only serve U.S. interests directly but will improve the climate of our overall relationship thus encouraging Pakistan to be more receptive to our point of view in other areas. Mr. President, I am also in receipt of a letter signed by Under Secretary Thomas Pickering. Again, I will just read a couple parts of that: Dear Senator Harkin: The Secretary has asked me to convey her strong support for your proposed amendment to restore OPIC, IMET, TDA and democracy-building programs for Pakistan. We firmly believe that allowing these programs to operate in Pakistan is in the U.S. interest, and that once restored they will be a key factor in strengthening our relationship with an important and friendly country in a vital part of the world. Mr. Pickering goes on: In the wake of the election of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan has adopted important political and constitutional reforms, which promise to strengthen both the quality and continuity of democratic rule. We want to bolster that effort by implementing programs to train Pakistan's elected representatives in democratic structures and legislative procedures. Your amendment would give us the requisite flexibility to proceed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Pickering's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Warner, Senator Torricelli, Senator Santorum, and Senator Johnson. Put simply, this amendment will allow the resumption of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, International Military and Education Training, IMET, Trade and Development Assistance, TDA, and democracy-building programs in Pakistan, such as the National Endowment for Democracy. This measure, I will say at the outset, is not anti-India and it is not pro-Pakistan, it is pro-American interests. This will not be a vote for or against India or Pakistan. India is, of course, a friend of longstanding and an ally to the United States and is the largest and oldest democracy in the region. It already receives the benefit of OPIC and IMET, and it has for some time over 35 years. Therefore, I am confident that we can restore these programs to Pakistan without upsetting any balance at all to the region. Trade between India and Pakistan is growing. OPIC assistance to Pakistan could actually help India because they are working with Pakistan in the energy sector. OPIC assistance would promote American investment in this sector. Mr. President, it is now clear that continuing the policy of restricting OPIC and IMET to Pakistan will do nothing to direct further U.S. nonproliferation efforts in South Asia. At the same time, these restrictions seriously hinder our ability to advance United States interests in trade and investment in Pakistan. Our influence in the Pakistani military leadership and our ability to strengthen democracy and economic institutions in Pakistan is also adversely affected by these restrictions. I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues in regard to Pakistan, and I share some of those concerns. The issue of nonproliferation in South Asia is, indeed, an extremely important issue, but U.S. interests in South Asia are important and increasing. The region contains one-fifth of the world's population and occupies a critical geostrategic position--surrounded by China, the surging economies of East Asia, the Indian Ocean, the huge oil and gas reserves in the Persian Gulf and the Caspian basin. Mr. President, I visited Pakistan and India earlier this year. I met in Pakistan with Prime Minister Sharif and other members of his government. I believe that Mr. Sharif has learned from past mistakes and is moving Pakistan in the right direction. He has a strong mandate in parliament and has already taken bold steps toward rooting out corruption, privatizing the economy and normalizing relations with India. These are positive steps, and the United States must send a strong signal of support and encouragement for Prime Minister Sharif's initiatives. I strongly believe that it has come to the point where our uneven policy toward Pakistan is hampering our interests in the region. Improved human rights, nonproliferation and greater trade and investment are being held hostage by this shortsighted policy. I am pleased that my amendment has the strong support of the administration in an effort to engage Pakistan on these important issues. Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen both feel strongly about the need for these changes. Mr. President, I have a letter dated the 16th of July from Secretary of Defense Cohen. He said: I am writing to express my strong support for your legislation to restore IMET, OPIC, TDA and democracy-building programs in Pakistan . . . We believe it essential to pursue these programs--not as a reward to Pakistan--but as a means of furthering important U.S. interests. Pakistan is now, and long has been, a friendly, moderate Islamic democracy in a very difficult region. We believe that by enabling it to participate in IMET, OPIC, TDA and democracy-building programs we will strengthen democracy in Pakistan as an institution, strengthen Pakistan's troubled economy, and strengthen our relationship with the Pakistani military--all of which serve important U.S. interests in South Asia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Cohen be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN. I just want to thank my colleague for his aid, his assistance, and strong support of this amendment, and for talking to colleagues here on the Senate floor about the importance to the U.S. interests of making sure we reinstate OPIC, IMET, TDA, the democracy initiative, and thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his strong support and his help in this effort.