May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6821

crime we are talking about, the violent

crime, is really heavily concentrated in

certain areas. Princeton Prof. John

DeIulio reports that while Philadelphia—just as an example—while Philadelphia contains only 14 percent of the

population of the State of Pennsylvania, it accounts for 42 percent of the

entire State’s crime—an unbelievable

figure. What is happening to the children who live in these high-crime

areas? They are living a life, frankly,

that would be unimaginable for Americans of my parents’ generation.

Over 25 percent of inner-city children

growing up in this country think they

are likely to be shot at some point in

their life—25 percent, one-fourth of

these children growing up. A male

teenager growing up in an inner city is

at least six times more likely to be a

victim of violent crime than a male

teenager growing up somewhere else in

the country—six times. I do not think

we can give up on these young people,

these young Americans. They need

hope and opportunity every bit as

much as any other child in this country. They need a chance. And I believe

putting more police in their neighborhoods is something we can do to start

giving them that chance, the chance to

live without constant fear for themselves and for their families.

Let us make no mistake about it,

putting more police into those crimeinfested areas, the most crime-ridden

areas of our country, is not going to

solve all the problems of those communities. We all know that and we all

have an obligation to work on the

other problems—welfare reform, jobs,

making sure the schools in every

neighborhood in this country are good

schools so the children do in fact have

a chance and opportunity. But no matter what we do with our schools, no

matter what we do with welfare, no

matter what we do with job creation,

nothing positive can really take place

as long as crime does exist.

So, having community policing, having law enforcement targeted to these

areas, I believe, is clearly the right

thing to do. I do not think it is fair to

say to that child who, because of accident of birth, happens to be growing up

in an area where he or she is six times

more likely to be killed than a child in

a suburb, I do not think it is fair to say

to that child: We cannot do anything

about it. We are, for political reasons,

going to spread out these police officers, these new police men and women.

We are going to spread them out

throughout the country because for political reasons we think we can get

more votes that way for a particular

bill. I do not think that is right. I

think the right thing to do is to target

where these police men and women go,

and that is what our bill does.

Our bill does many other things. I see

my colleague from Michigan is on the

floor, so I am not going to speak very

much longer, let me advise him. But

let me say in conclusion that this bill

is aimed at doing things that matter,

doing things that will make a difference, doing things that will get the

job done. It is a very pragmatic bill, a

very hardheaded bill. And it basically

says this: If we as a Congress have

made the decision, as apparently we

have, that over the next 5 years we are

going to spend $30 billion on this very,

very important problem, then we

should spend it correctly and we should

listen to the men and women who are

professionals, who can tell us how to

spend it: More technology, more police

officers deployed correctly, and finally,

taking off the streets the violent repeat career criminals.

Let me conclude by saying that I

want to thank the original cosponsors

of this bill, Senator ASHCROFT, Senator

STEVENS, and Senator HATCH, and ask

for additional cosponsors. I look forward to working with the Members of

the Senate as we take these ideas that

I presented today, this past week, presented in this bill, take these ideas, incorporate them with other ideas of my

colleagues to come up with a final bill

this year, or next year, that will in fact

make a difference and will save lives,

that will reduce crime.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

At this point, I yield the floor.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

fS. 338

At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the

name of the Senator from Minnesota

[Mr. WELLSTONE] was added as a cosponsor of S. 338, a bill to amend title

38, United States Code, to extend the

period of eligibility for inpatient care

for veterans exposed to toxic substances, radiation, or environmental

hazards, to extend the period of eligibility for outpatient care for veterans

exposed to such substances or hazards

during service in the Persian Gulf, and

to expand the eligibility of veterans exposed to toxic substances or radiation

for outpatient care.

S. 389

At the request of Mr. JOHNSTON, the

name of the Senator from Colorado

[Mr. BROWN] was added as a cosponsor

of S. 389, a bill for the relief of Nguyen

Quy An and his daughter, Nguyen Ngoc

Kim Quy.

S. 433

At the request of Mr. KERRY, the

name of the Senator from Illinois [Mr.

SIMON] was added as a cosponsor of S.

433, a bill to regulate handgun ammunition, and for other purposes.

S. 619

At the request of Mr. SMITH, the

name of the Senator from Oklahoma

[Mr. INHOFE] was added as a cosponsor

of S. 619, a bill to phase out the use of

mercury in batteries and provide for

the efficient and cost-effective collection and recycling or proper disposal of

used nickel cadmium batteries, small

sealed lead-acid batteries, and certain

other batteries, and for other purposes.

S. 641

At the request of Mrs. KASSEBAUM,

the name of the Senator from Idaho

[Mr. CRAIG] was added as a cosponsor of

S. 641, a bill to reauthorize the Ryan

White CARE Act of 1990, and for other

purposes.

S. 684

At the request of Mr. HATFIELD, the

names of the Senator from Arkansas

[Mr. PRYOR], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI], and the Senator

from New Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERG]

were added as cosponsors of S. 684, a

bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for programs of research regarding Parkinson’s disease,

and for other purposes.

S. 689

At the request of Mrs. MURRAY, the

name of the Senator from Washington

[Mr. GORTON] was added as a cosponsor

of S. 689, a bill to amend the Solid

Waste Disposal Act regarding the use

of organic sorbents in landfills, and for

other purposes.

S. 770

At the request of Mr. DOLE, the

names of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS], the Senator from

Alabama [Mr. HEFLIN], and the Senator

from Montana [Mr. BURNS] were added

as cosponsors of S. 770, a bill to provide

for the relocation of the United States

Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and

for other purposes.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14—RELATIVE TO THE PANfAMA CANAL

Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. CRAIG,

Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. MACK, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. D’AMATO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. CON. RES. 14

Whereas the Panama Canal is a vital strategic asset to the United States, its allies,

and the world;

Whereas the Treaty on the Permanent

Neutrality and Operation of the Panama

Canal signed on September 7, 1977, provides

that Panama and the United States have the

responsibility to assure that the Panama

Canal will remain open and secure;

Whereas such Treaty also provides that

each of the two countries shall, in accordance with their respective constitutional

processes, defend the Canal against any

threat to the regime of neutrality, and consequently shall have the right to act against

any aggression or threat directed against the

Canal or against the peaceful transit of vessels through the Canal;

Whereas the United States instrument of

ratification of such Treaty includes specific

language that the two countries should consider negotiating future arrangements or

agreements to maintain military forces necessary to fulfill the responsibility of the two

countries of maintaining the neutrality of

the Canal after 1999;

Whereas the Government of Panama, in

the bilateral Protocol of Exchange of instruments of ratification, expressly ‘‘agreed

upon’’ such arrangements or agreements;

Whereas the Navy depends upon the Panama Canal for rapid transit in times of emergency, as demonstrated during World War II,

the Korean War, the Vietnam conflict, the

Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Persian Gulf

conflict;
S6822 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

Whereas drug trafficking and money laundering has proliferated in the Western Hemisphere since the Treaty on the Permanent

Neutrality and Operation of the Panama

Canal was signed on September 7, 1977, and

such trafficking and laundering poses a

grave threat to peace and security in the region;

Whereas certain facilities now utilized by

the United States Armed Forces in Panama

are critical to combat the trade in illegal

drugs;

Whereas the United States and Panama

share common policy goals such as strengthening democracy, expanding economic trade,

and combating illegal narcotics throughout

Latin America;

Whereas the Government of Panama has

dissolved its military force and has maintained only a civilian police organization to

defend the Panama Canal against aggression;

and

Whereas certain public opinion polls in

Panama suggest that many Panamanians desire a continued United States military presence in Panama: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense

of the Congress that—

(1) the President should negotiate a new

base rights agreement with the Government

of Panama—

(A) to allow the stationing of United

States Armed Forces in Panama beyond December 31, 1999, and

(B) to ensure that the United States will be

able to act appropriately, consistent with

the Panama Canal Treaty, the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, and the resolutions of ratification thereto, for the purpose

of assuring that the Panama Canal shall remain open, neutral, secure, and accessible;

and

(2) the President should consult with the

Congress throughout the negotiations described in paragraph (1).

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall

transmit a copy of this concurrent resolution to the President.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in a moment I shall send to the desk, a resolution urging the President to negotiate

a new base rights agreement with the

Government of Panama to permit the

United States Armed Forces to remain

in Panama beyond December 31, 1999.

Senators CRAIG, COVERDELL, THOMAS,

MACK, SMITH, and D’AMATO are principal cosponsors of the resolution, as

are several other Senators who desire

cosponsorship, and we will add those

names this afternoon.

We feel strongly that it is in the

United States strategic interest to

maintain a military presence in Panama. Millions of Americans feel that

the Senate allowed President Carter to

give away the Panama Canal to the

great detriment of the security of the

United States, and it was indeed a perilous mistake.

But what is done is done; I am not

here today to reopen the Panama Canal

Treaty debate. That may come later.

For the moment we seek only a simple

base rights agreement—the kind of

agreement we pursue with other countries in Europe and in Asia.

This resolution strongly advocates

U.S. presence after the implementation

of the existing canal treaties. We believe it to be obvious that a U.S. military presence offers the best means of

protecting the canal and ensuring its

neutrality.

Eighty percent of the Panamanians

agree with that. The Panamanian Foreign Minister agrees with that.

If nothing is done, then the American

flag will be lowered for the last time in

Panama at noon on December 31, 1999,

after having flown there for almost a

century. Thus, absent any change in

the matter, a historical and unique relationship between the United States

and Panama will come to a close. The

United States will withdraw completely its military presence from Panama, and this Senator is absolutely

persuaded that should not happen.

In the Exchange of Instruments of

the Ratification of the Panama Canal

Treaties, a protocol—in ‘‘The Treaty

Concerning the Permanent Neutrality

and Operation of the Panama Canal’’

[Neutrality Treaty]—makes clear that

nothing in the treaties precludes Panama and the United States from agreeing to the stationing of United States

military forces or the maintenance of

defense sites in Panama after December 1999. Specifically, the Permanent

Neutrality Treaty states:

Nothing in the treaty shall preclude the

Republic of Panama and the United States of

America from making, in accordance with

their respective constitutional processes,

any agreement or arrangement between the

two countries to facilitate performance at

any time after December 31, 1999, of their responsibilities to maintain the regime of neutrality established in the Treaty, including

agreements or arrangements for the stationing of any United States military forces or

the maintenance of defense sites after that

date in the Republic of Panama that the Republic of Panama and the United States of

America may deem necessary or appropriate.

Latin America is important to the

United States, and vice versa. Every

few years something dramatic happens

in Latin America that has a direct impact on the United States, whether it

be a security threat or a natural disaster. The United States needs a strategic military capability in the region,

and maintaining United States military forces in Panama will give us the

best option and capability.

Many Americans have the misleading

impression that Latin America is as

close and accessible as their back yard.

While parts of Latin America are indeed only hours away, the vast majority of the region is not that easily or

quickly accessible. Geographically, Europe is not even half the size of South

America. Brazil is larger than the continental United States.

If total United States military withdrawal from Panama is allowed to happen, we will be left with no significant

military presence in the region. Furthermore, it will be both politically

difficult and enormously costly to reintroduce U.S. forces into the region.

Keeping United States forces in Panama promotes stable democracies and

market economies throughout the region; also it helps support United

States efforts to counter the flow of illegal drugs. Without question, then,

United States forces offer the best protection and defense of the Panama

Canal.

Although the United States is engaged in a draw-down of our forces

both overseas and in the United States,

we are, nevertheless, leaving more than

135,000 troops in Europe and almost

100,000 in the Pacific. Maintaining

forces overseas is part of the military

mission. Congress budgets for this.

By the end of this year, however,

only 6,000 troops will remain in Panama. This number will continue to diminish. In other words, United States

presence in all of Latin America is a

mere drop in the bucket compared to

our presence in other parts of the

world.

A continued United States presence

is also supported by the Panamanian

people. Current polls in Panama indicate that more than 70 percent of Panamanians questioned want the United

States to maintain a military presence

in Panama.

Since a continued U.S. military presence is in the interests of both nations,

it is the time to negotiate a new base

rights agreement. The Panama Canal

treaties provide for a continued United

States military presence, and the Panamanian public overwhelmingly favors

it. The United States Congress should

strongly urge the President to begin

negotiating a new base rights agreement to keep United States military

forces in Panama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the results of a recent public opinion poll commissioned

by the U.S. Information Agency be

printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

PANAMANIANS WANT U.S. TROOPS TO STAY

Most Panamanians still hold favorable

views of the United States, despite political

and economic frustrations since Operation

‘‘Just Cause’’ in 1989. Moreover, Panamanians continue to believe that some U.S.

troops should remain in Panama after 1999,

despite the Canal Treaty agreements on

complete withdrawal.

KEY FINDINGS

In a September 1994 poll, large majorities

expressed favorable opinions of the United

States. Most thought the U.S. had ‘‘done

much’’ to promote democracy and economic

development in Panama.

An overwhelming majority rated the U.S.-

Panama relationship as ‘‘good;’’ many called

it ‘‘very’’ good. Many also thought the U.S.

treated Panama with ‘‘dignity and respect,’’

but opinion was more negative on U.S. efforts to understand Panamanian problems.

And a large majority thought the U.S. expected Panama to cede to its wishes on important issues.

Better than eight in ten continued to believe that at least some U.S. troops should

remain in Panama beyond 1999—with half endorsing the maintenance of present troop

levels and one-third favoring reduced levels.

The main reasons given for the extended U.S.

military presence were ‘‘security reasons’’

and ‘‘employ-ment opportunities.’’

Eight in ten or more also said it would be

acceptable for U.S. troops to remain in Panama to provide security for the Canal, to

continue the regional counter narcotics,

fight, and to provide assistance in natural

emergencies or for refugees. Better than six
May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6823

1 A USIA poll in mid–1990 found that 87 percent approved (77% ‘‘strongly’’) of the U.S. sending troops

to remove Gen. Noriega and 75 percent considered

the operation a ‘‘liberation’’ rather than an ‘‘invasion.’’ 2 The winner, Perez Balladares, was inaugurated

just a week before interviewing for the poll began on

September 8.

in ten thought it acceptable that the U.S.

provide support for American military forces

in other parts of the hemisphere from Panama bases.

In contrast to widespread doubts expressed

in previous years, half the public thought

the Panamanian government would be able

to manage the canal well when it assumes

full control in the year 2000.

OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES REMAINS VERY

HIGH

Panamanians have faced a variety of political and economic frustrations since 1989

when General Manuel Noriega was removed

from power. These appear to have had little

effect on the favorable views most Panamanians have held of the United States.1 In a

September 1994 poll, eight in ten (82%)—

across all regional and educational levels—

voiced favorable opinions of the United

States. Half (47%) expressed ‘‘very’’ favorable views, while just over one in ten (14%)

regarded the U.S. unfavorably. On two key

U.S. initiatives:

Eight in ten (83%) agreed that the U.S. had

‘‘done much to promote democracy’’ in Panama. Six in ten were in strong agreement,

perhaps influenced in part by the successful

democratic elections in May.2

A similar majority (82%) also thought that

the U.S. had ‘‘done much to promote the economic development’’ of Panama. Again, six

in ten agreed strongly with the statement.

MOST JUDGE THE U.S.-PANAMA RELATIONSHIP

AS GOOD

A great majority believed that relations

between Panama and the United States were

good (89%); four in ten (39%) felt they were

‘‘very’’ good. Seven in ten agreed (72%)—and

half (48%) ‘‘strongly’’ agreed—that the U.S.

treats Panama with ‘‘dignity and respect.’’

(The university-educated were somewhat

less likely to agree with this statement than

Panamanians with less schooling.)

Public opinion was less favorable on two

other aspects of the relationship:

Opinion was split about evenly on whether

the U.S. tries to understand the problems

facing Panama (44% said it does, 49% said it

doesn’t).

A large majority agreed (80%; 58% ‘‘strongly’’) that the U.S. expects Panama to ‘‘give

in to its wishes in matters of importance to

both countries.’’ This perception apparently

did not influence favorable opinions on other

issues, however.

MOST STILL WANT SOME U.S. TROOPS TO

REMAIN—

Panamanians continue to want a U.S. military presence in Panama beyond December,

1999, when the Torrijos-Carter Canal Treaties

stipulate the withdrawal of all American

troops. There has been virtually no change

in public attitudes on this issue since 1991:

Half the public (50%) said the U.S. should

maintain ‘‘about the same number of troops

it has now,’’ while a third (35%) said the

troop presence should remain in ‘‘reduced’’

form. Just one in ten (10%) preferred that all

U.S. troops leave Panama. In general, the

less-educated tended to support the status

quo, while the university-educated were

somewhat more likely to favor a reduced

presence.

FOR SECURITY AND EMPLOYMENT REASONS

When those favoring a continued U.S. presence in Panama were asked why they

thought the troops should stay, most mentioned either the security of the canal (46%)

or employment opportunities generated by

the U.S. base (34%). Political stability was

mentioned by only a few (7%).

In addition, when asked if it would be ‘‘acceptable’’ for U.S. troops to remain in Panama for selected purposes, large majorities

say yes to the following: to provide security

for the canal (87%); to continue the fight

against illegal drugs in the region (87%); to

provide assistance in times of natural disasters or for refugees in Panama (81%); and to

provide support for U.S. military forces in

other parts of the hemisphere (64%).

Only the last purpose, ‘‘support for U.S.

military forces in other parts,’’ was considered ‘‘unacceptable’’ by significant minorities of the general public (27%) and the university-educated (40%).

CONFIDENCE INCREASES ON GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT OF CANAL

Public confidence in the Panamanian government’s ability to manage the canal when

it assumes full control in 2000 appears to

have increased in recent years: Half (51%) believed the government would manage the

canal at least fairly well, while four in ten

(42%) thought it would manage the canal

badly. Interestingly, the university-educated

were considerably more optimistic about the

government’s management capacity than the

less-educated (62% to 45%). Polls in 1990 and

1992 had found that large majorities believed

the Panamanian government was paying little or no attention to canal-management

matters and that it would be best if the U.S.

and Panama managed the canal together.

HOW THIS POLL WAS TAKEN

This public opinion survey was commissioned by USIA and conducted by CID-Gallup

of Costa Rica. It is based on face-to-face

interviews with 1200 adults aged 18 and over

in all regions of Panama. Fieldwork took

place September 8–18, 1994. Sample construction and fieldwork were performed by CID in

accordance with USIA instructions. Questions were written by USIA in consultation

with AID and USIS Panama. They were

translated by the contractor, with final review by USIA.

The survey sample was selected by a modified probability method, and covered both

urban and rural populations. When necessary, respondent selection was adjusted for

age, sex, and education to more closely

match estimated population profiles.

Ninety-five times out of one hundred, results from samples of this size will yield results which differ by no more than about 3

percentage points in either direction from

what would have been obtained were it possible to interview everyone in the population. The comparison of smaller subgroups

increases the margin of error. In addition,

the practical difficulties of conducting any

survey of public opinion may introduce other

sources of error.

Additional information on methodology

may be obtained from the analyst.

SENATE RESOLUTION 120—ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL COMMITTEE

fADMINISTERED BY THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND

URBAN AFFAIRS

Mr. D’AMATO (for himself and Mr.

DOLE) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed

to:

S. RES. 120

Resolved,

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a

special committee administered by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to be known as the ‘‘Special Committee

to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters’’ (hereafter in

this resolution referred to as the ‘‘special

committee’’).

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the special

committee are—

(1) to conduct an investigation and public

hearings into, and study of, whether improper conduct occurred regarding the way

in which White House officials handled documents in the office of White House Deputy

Counsel Vincent Foster following his death;

(2) to conduct an investigation and public

hearings into, and study of, the following

matters developed during, or arising out of,

the investigation and public hearings concluded by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs prior to the adoption

of this resolution—

(A) whether any person has improperly

handled confidential Resolution Trust Corporation (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘RTC’’) information relating

to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association or Whitewater Development Corporation, including whether any person has

improperly communicated such information

to individuals referenced therein;

(B) whether the White House has engaged

in improper contacts with any other agency

or department in the Government with regard to confidential RTC information relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan

Association or Whitewater Development Corporation;

(C) whether the Department of Justice has

improperly handled RTC criminal referrals

relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and

Loan Association or Whitewater Development Corporation;

(D) whether RTC employees have been improperly importuned, prevented, restrained,

or deterred in conducting investigations or

making enforcement recommendations relating to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan

Association or Whitewater Development Corporation; and

(E) whether the report issued by the Office

of Government Ethics on July 31, 1994, or related transcripts of deposition testimony—

(i) were improperly released to White

House officials or others prior to their testimony before the Committee on Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs pursuant to Senate Resolution 229 (103d Congress); or

(ii) were used to communicate to White

House officials or to others confidential RTC

information relating to Madison Guaranty

Savings and Loan Association or Whitewater

Development Corporation;

(3) to conduct an investigation and public

hearings into, and study of, all matters that

have any tendency to reveal the full facts

about—

(A) the operations, solvency, and regulation of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan

Association, and any subsidiary, affiliate, or

other entity owned or controlled by Madison

Guaranty Savings and Loan Association;

(B) the activities, investments, and tax liability of Whitewater Development Corporation and, as related to Whitewater Development Corporation, of its officers, directors,

and shareholders;

(C) the policies and practices of the RTC

and the Federal banking agencies (as that

term is defined in section 3 of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Act) regarding the legal

representation of such agencies with respect

to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association;