The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S9853-S9855 on Sept. 4, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
THE OWENS RIVER VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND MANZANAR LAND
TRANSFER ACT OF 1996
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 2052. A bill to provide for disposal of certain public lands in support of the Manzanar National Historic Site in the State of California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would allow the Federal Government to obtain expeditiously the lands designated as the Manzanar National Historic Site.
As we look back in United States history, we see many triumphs, as well as many failures. We must be humble about our successes and apologetic for our errors. One of those mistakes was committed during World War II when 11,000 Japanese-Americans were held at the Manzanar Internment Camp. These individuals were some of the over 120,000 Japanese-Americans interned at 10 sites throughout the United States.
While we revel in the victory of World War II, we also make redress for the suffering that Japanese-Americans endured as a result of the internment. Legislation passed in 1988 directed an official apology by the Federal Government and symbolic payments to Japanese Americans that were interned. This legislation also included efforts to educate Americans about the internment.
The National Park Service determined in the 1980's that, of the 10 former internment camps, Manzanar was best suited to be preserved as a reminder to Americans of the blatant violation of civil rights that the internment represented. As a result, Congress passed legislation in 1992 to establish a national historic site at Manzanar.
My legislation will allow us to finish the process of creating the Manzanar national historic site and complete a necessary acknowledgment of mistaken practices. The bill will make it possible for the Federal Government to obtain the Manzanar site through a land exchange with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP], which currently owns the property. The LADWP, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Inyo County have agreed to a land exchange that can occur rapidly once our legislation is passed. I commend these parties, as well as the Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission and the Japanese-American community, for their work in bringing us to this stage in the process. I also deeply appreciate the commitment of my colleagues in the House, Congressman Bob Matsui and Congressman Jerry Lewis.
In addition to the cultural significance of this legislation, the land transfer will allow for the completion of a necessary environmental restoration project. Through an agreement between the LADWP and Inyo County, 60 miles of the Owens River Valley will be revived--wetlands will be restored, riparian areas will be renewed, and wildlife will again thrive.
The injustice that occurred at Manzanar should not be forgotten. Manzanar should be preserved as a reminder of a terrible mistake--one which should never have been committed and one we should never repeat. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we can quickly make the Manzanar national historic site a reality and instill in our citizens a high level of public awareness about the internment.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. Shelby):
S. 2053. A bill to strengthen narcotics reporting requirements and to require the imposition of certain sanctions on countries that fail to take effective action against the production of and trafficking in illicit narcotics and psychotropic drugs and other controlled substances, and for other purposes; read the first time.
NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to revise the annual certification process for drugs. It is called the International Narcotics Control Act of 1996.
Ten years ago, Congress passed bipartisan legislation in the Foreign Assistance Act that requires the President to report annually on international illegal drug production. That legislation also requires him to certify annually to the American public what major drug producing and transiting countries are doing to cooperate with international efforts to stop the production and transit of illegal drugs.
Virtually all the illegal drugs that come to the United States reach our shores from overseas. These drugs--particularly heroin and cocaine--are illegal to grow and produce in their countries of origin. In addition, these same major producers of illegal drugs are also signatories to various international agreements that commit them to stop this terrible trade. The certification legislation has the practical goal of giving us a realistic gage by which to determine whether others are doing their fair share in stopping illegal drugs.
The legislation of 10 years ago also encourages U.S. administrations to make stopping illegal drugs a foreign policy priority. It has also been instrumental in encouraging greater cooperation by other countries in taking meaningful steps to deal with illegal drug production and transportation.
We and others in the international community expect each nation--
producer or consumer--to take serious measures to stop the flow or use of illegal drugs. Unfortunately, not all countries have undertaken such efforts.
When these countries fall short of reasonable standards, the certification legislation requires the President to take note of this. In serious cases, it requires him to decertify a country if that country's efforts fall short of meaningful, credible cooperation.
It also requires the imposition of sanctions on countries that fail to take effective action against the production and trafficking of illegal drugs. These sanctions, however, have no real teeth. They are mainly an embarrassment.
Although there are tough sanctions available, in the Narcotics Control Trade Act, these are optional and have never been used. This is true even though some of the decertified countries, like Burma, have been on the list almost since the list was started. To many decertified countries, then, embarrassment is hardly a serious concern. For others, once they learn how limited the practical effects are, embarrassment soon disappears. It is time, therefore, to update the present legislation and to give it more realistic measures to encourage serious cooperation. This is even more important at a time when illegal drug production is growing overseas and teenage use in this country is on the rise.
The legislation I am proposing today puts more force behind our policy. It introduces serious sanctions for noncooperation. These sanctions would not take effect until the third year of decertification. They are, therefore, not arbitrary. It allows ample time for a country to improve its record. In addition, the proposed sanctions are more flexible than the present ones, which means they are more realistic. They give the President greater ability to use meaningful sanctions against countries that he determines are not living up to reasonable standards. If the administration has seen fit to decertify a country for 3 consecutive years, it is fitting that we take steps to support that judgment. This legislation does that.
In an effort to strengthen the reporting and certification process, this legislation would require the President to include information on the bilateral trade relationship between the United States and each country. This information will be necessary to evaluate the potential effect of various sanctions. Trade sanctions are perhaps one of the most powerful tools we have to put pressure on foreign governments, and also one of the least used. This legislation, however, gives us an effective tool for the future.
In addition, this legislation will require an update from the president on the status of cooperation of any country that did not receive full certification. As this information is already gathered throughout the year, and would only apply to a small number of countries--nine from 1996--this should not be a significant additional burden for the State Department.
This legislation also would codify additional items that should be taken into consideration regarding cooperation.
These cover changes in the drug trafficking industry that have occurred since certification was enacted in 1986. It also considers additional cooperation benchmarks that were unnecessary 10 years ago: such as, the better inspection of loaned or leased U.S. equipment; certification of the destruction of confiscated illegal drugs; and, enforcement of adequate confinement so that narco-traffickers cannot continue their activities from inside prisons.
The present legislation also contains a provision for reporting on extraditions. Congress has had considerable difficulty in getting information from the State Department or the Justice Department on pending extraditions. Often, the first notice that an extradition has been agreed to is discovered in the morning paper, weeks after the extradition occurred. In an effort to shed more light on extraditions, this legislation would require a notice to Congress of any extradition agreement that has been reached. It has very simple requirements. And it will increase information on what the United States is giving up in order to reach these extradition agreements.
This legislation also expands the trade sanctions that are available for the President to choose from to penalize countries that do not adequately participate in drug efforts. Presently, there are five sanctions which the President may implement. This legislation adds five more sanctions to this list, both more and less severe than those presently available.
These sanctions include withdrawal of U.S. personnel and resources from participation in any Customs preclearance; denial of trade benefits under any existing free-trade area agreements; refusal to begin or continue negotiations on the establishment of a free trade area; denial or restriction of applications for immigrant or nonimmigrant visas; increased inspection standards to at least 35 percent for goods coming in; and denial of export of U.S. products or importation from that country.
Implementation of these sanctions are at the President's discretion for the first 2 years that a country is decertified. If a country is fully decertified or receives a national interest waiver for 3 consecutive years, then the President must choose and implement at least one of the listed sanctions. These sanctions will remain in effect until a country receives full certification.
The third change to the certification process that this legislation would make are changes in the international narcotics control strategy report.
These added reporting requirements identify what action the United States has taken under section 487--official corruption--of the Foreign Assistance Act and how the country has been affected by its implementation. Also, the report should indicate how a country has been affected economically by the production and trafficking in illegal drugs, and how and where U.S. equipment are being used. And finally, any country that is defined as a major money laundering country will be treated as a major drug transit or drug producing country.
These proposed changes enhance the ability of the United States to encourage full international cooperation in dealing with the illegal drug trade. The provisions are fully in keeping with reasonable standards of international conduct. They are a serious part of making the stopping illegal drugs an important part of our foreign policy. There are fewer more direct and dangerous threats to our citizens today than that posed by illegal drugs. It is time to take the next step in ensuring that we are taking the responsible measures to control international drug trafficking.
That's why I am introducing this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and support this change.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN:
S. 2054. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exempt certain small lenders from the audit requirements of the guaranteed student loan program; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 AMENDMENT ACT OF 1996
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide regulatory relief to small-and medium-sized financial institutions and protect the availability of student loans.
In the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, Congress required financial institutions participating in the Federal Family Education Loan [EFEL] Program to audit their student loan portfolios.
Unfortunately, this change did not take into account the impact this audit requirement would have on lenders with small student loan portfolios. These small lending institutions earn only a few thousand dollars annually, while the audit costs as much or more.
As a result of this prohibitively expensive and unnecessary audit requirement, many lenders are selling off their portfolios and leaving the FFEL Program altogether.
The Department of Education has indicated they do not have the authority to waive the audit requirement. Further, the Department has informed those with loan portfolios of less than $10 million that, while they must perform the audits annually, the audit results shall be submitted to the Department only upon request. Thus, much of the time and money spent on these audits will be wasted.
The inspector general indicated in its semiannual report that they were concerned that the costs of legislatively required annual audits may outweigh the benefits. The inspector general has recommended that the Department take steps to establish in legislation a threshold for requiring these audits.
My legislation would eliminate the lender audit on institutions with portfolios equaling $10 million or less. Without the change in current law lending institutions will continue to sell off their portfolios, leave the FFEL Program, and reduce the opportunities for our Nations' students.
I urge my colleagues to support this much needed reform.
____________________
