May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7529 

(3) Iran has opposed the Middle East peace 

process and continues to support the terrorist group Hezballah in Lebanon and radical Palestinian groups; 

(4) Iran has asserted control over the Persian Gulf island of Abu Musa, which it had 

been previously sharing with the United 

Arab Emirates; 

(5) during the last few years Iran has reportedly acquired several hundred improved 

Scud missiles from North Korea; 

(6) Iran has moved modern air defense missile systems, tanks, additional troops, artillery, and surface-to-surface missiles onto islands in the Persian Gulf, some of which are 

disputed between Iran and the United Arab 

Emirates; 

(7) Iran has already taken delivery of as 

many as 30 modern MiG–29 fighter aircraft 

from the Russian Federation; 

(8) the Russian Federation has sold modern 

conventionally powered submarines to Iran, 

which increases Iran’s capability to blockade 

the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf; 

and 

(9) the Russian Federation has continued 

to pursue a commercial agreement intended 

to provide Iran with nuclear technology despite being provided with a detailed description by the President of the United States of 

Iran’s nuclear weapons program. 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of 

Congress that the Russian Federation should 

be strongly condemned if it continues with a 

commercial agreement to provide Iran with 

nuclear technology which would assist that 

country in its development of nuclear weapons, and, if such transfer occurs, that Russian would be ineligible for assistance under 

the terms of the Freedom Support Act. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I 

am submitting a resolution expressing 

the sense of Congress that the Russian 

Federation should be strongly condemned for continuing with a commercial agreement to provide Iran with nuclear technology which would assist 

that country in its development of nuclear weapons, and that such an agreement would make Russia ineligible for 

United States assistance under the 

terms of the Freedom Support Act. 

This past January, Russia signed a 

billion-dollar deal to sell nuclear power 

reactors to Iran. In the United States, 

this news was greeted with very strong 

concern that this Russian nuclear technology would be used to support Iran’s 

nuclear weapons development program. 

At the recent summit in Moscow, 

Russian President Yeltsin was asked 

by President Clinton to cancel the reactor sale to Iran. Yeltsin would not. 

Instead, he offered us a fig leaf when he 

cancelled the Russian sale of a gas centrifuge to Iran and halted the training 

of 10 to 20 Iran scientists a year in Moscow. 

Iran is aggressively pursuing a nuclear-weapons acquisition program. 

The CIA said last September that Iran 

probably could, with some foreign help, 

acquire a nuclear weapons capability 

within 8 to 10 years. And Iran is receiving that foreign help, and it is not just 

from the Russians. China is helping 

Iran build a nuclear research reactor, 

and in April it concluded a deal to sell 

Iran two light-water reactors. Pakistan, a country with its own significant nuclear weapons program, has reportedly provided key technical assistance to Iran. 

Iran’s nuclear weapons program is 

not the only cause for concern. The Defense Department is increasingly concerned about—and is closely watching—the Iranian military buildup in 

the Persian Gulf. 

Let me just review some of the disturbing facts about this Iranian buildup. Iran has acquired as many as 30 

Mig–29’s out of a reported deal with 

Russia for 50 of these modern combat 

jets, and Russia has also sold Iran sophisticated air-to-air missiles to arm 

these aircraft. Iran has received numerous surface-to-air missile systems 

from both Russia and China. Iran’s submarine force consists of two modern 

Russian-made Kilo-class submarines, 

and a third is expected to be delivered. 

Russia also provided Iran with sophisticated torpedoes for these subs. 

In addition, despite U.S. pressure, 

Poland is going ahead with the planned 

sale to Iran of over 100 T–72 tanks, and 

Iran has also taken delivery of several 

hundred other T–72’s from Russia. And 

over the last few years Iran has reportedly acquired several hundred improved Scud missiles from North 

Korea. 

Iran has asserted control over the 

Persian Gulf island of Abu Musa, which 

it had been previously sharing with the 

United Arab Emirates. And Iran has 

moved air defense missile systems, 

tanks, additional troops, artillery, and 

surface-to-surface missiles onto islands 

in the Persian Gulf, some of which are 

disputed between Iran and the United 

Arab Emirates. 

Mr. President, Iran’s military buildup in the Persian Gulf and its aggressive nuclear program should be of serious concern to us all. Iran has opposed 

the Middle East peace process and continues to support the terrorist group 

Hezballah in Lebanon and radical Palestinian groups. And whether Russia 

realizes it or not, Iran also poses a 

long-term threat to them as well. A nuclear-armed Iran poses just as great a 

threat to Russia as it does to United 

States interests in the Persian Gulf 

and the Middle East. President Clinton 

tried to reason with the Russians earlier this month, but they refused to listen. Russia’s misguided commercial 

agreement to sell nuclear technology 

to Iran should be condemned. 

f 

SENATE RESOLUTION 125—HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 

FATHER JOSEPH DAMIEN DE 

VEUSTER 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, 

Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SIMON, 

and Mr. MURKOWSKI) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: 

S. RES. 125 

Whereas Father Joseph Damien de Veuster 

was born in Tremeloo, Belgium, on January 

3, 1840; 

Whereas Father Damien entered the Sacred Hearts Order at Louvain, Belgium, as a 

postulant in January 1859 and took his final 

vows in Paris on October 7, 1860; 

Whereas, after arriving in Honolulu on 

March 19, 1864, to join the Sacred Hearts Mission in Hawaii, Father Damien was ordained 

to the priesthood in the Cathedral of Our 

Lady of Peace on May 21, 1864; 

Whereas Father Damien was sent to the 

Puna, Kohala, and Hamakua districts on the 

island of Hawaii, where Father Damien 

served people in isolated communities for 9 

years; 

Whereas the alarming spread of Hansen’s 

disease, also known as leprosy, for which 

there was no known cure, prompted the Hawaiian Legislature to pass an Act to Prevent 

the Spread of Leprosy in 1865; 

Whereas the Act required segregating 

those afflicted with leprosy to the isolated 

peninsula of Kalaupapa, Molokai, where 

those afflicted by leprosy were virtually imprisoned by steep cliffs and open seas; 

Whereas those afflicted by leprosy were 

forced to separate from their families, had 

meager medical care and supplies, and had 

poor living and social conditions; 

Whereas in July 1872, Father Damien wrote 

to the Father General that many of his parishioners had been sent to the settlement 

on Molokai and lamented that he should join 

them; 

Whereas on May 12, 1873, Father Damien 

petitioned Bishop Maigret, having received a 

request earlier for a resident priest at 

Kalaupapa, to allow Father Damien to stay 

on Molokai and devote his life to leprosy patients; 

Whereas for 16 years, from 1873 to 1889, Father Damien labored to bring material and 

spiritual comfort to the leprosy patients of 

Kalaupapa, building chapels, water cisterns, 

and boys and girls homes; 

Whereas on April 15, 1889, at the age of 49, 

Father Damien died of leprosy contracted a 

few years earlier; 

Whereas the Roman Catholic Church began 

the consideration of beatification of Father 

Damien in February 1955, and Father Damien 

will be beatified on June 4, 1995, by Pope 

John Paul II in Brussels, Belgium; 

Whereas Father Damien was selected by 

the State of Hawaii in 1965 as 1 of the distinguished citizens of the State whose statue 

would be installed in Statuary Hall in the 

United States Capitol; 

Whereas the life of Father Damien continues to be a profound example of selfless 

devotion to others and remains an inspiration for all mankind; 

Whereas common use of sulfone drugs in 

the 1940’s removed the dreaded sentence of 

disfigurement and death imposed by leprosy, 

and the 1969 repeal of the isolation law allowed greater mobility for former Hansen’s 

disease patients; 

Whereas in the mid-1970’s, the community 

of former leprosy patients at Molokai recommended the establishment of a United 

States National Park at Kalaupapa, out of a 

strong sense of stewardship of the legacy left 

by Father Damien and the rich history of 

Kalaupapa; 

Whereas the Kalaupapa National Historical 

Park was established in 1980 with a provision 

that former Hansen’s disease patients may 

remain in the park as long as they wish; and 

Whereas the remaining patients at 

Kalaupapa, many of whom were exiled as 

children or young adults and who have endured immeasurable hardships and untold 

sorrows, are a special legacy for America, exemplifying the dignity and strength of the 

human spirit: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate of the United 

States recognizes Father Damien for his 

service to humanity and takes this occasion 

to—

(1) celebrate achievements of modern medicine in combating the once-dreaded leprosy 

disease; 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7530 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

(2) remember that victims of leprosy still 

suffer social banishment in many parts of 

the world; and 

(3) honor the people of Kalaupapa as a living American legacy of human spirit and dignity. 

f 

SENATE RESOLUTION 126—TO 

AMEND THE SENATE GIFT RULE 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration: 

S. RES. 126 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Senate Gift Rule Reform Resolution’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE GIFT RULE. 

Rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘RULE XXXV 

‘‘GIFTS

‘‘1. (a) No Member, officer, or employee of 

the Senate, or the spouse or dependent thereof, shall knowingly accept, directly or indirectly, any gift in any calendar year of more 

than the minimal value as established by 

section 7342(a)(5) of title 5, United States 

Code, or $100, whichever is less from any person, organization, or corporation unless, in 

limited and appropriate circumstances, a 

waiver is granted by the Select Committee 

on Ethics. 

‘‘(b) The prohibitions of subparagraph (a) 

do not apply to gifts—

‘‘(1) from relatives; or 

‘‘(2) of personal hospitality of an individual. 

‘‘2. For purposes of this rule—

‘‘(a) The term ‘gift’ means a payment, subscription, advance, forbearance, rendering, 

or deposit of money, services, or anything of 

value, including food, lodging, mementos, 

transportation, or entertainment, and reimbursement for expenses, unless consideration 

of equal or greater value is received, but does 

not include (1) a political contribution otherwise reported as required by law, (2) a loan 

made in a commercially reasonable manner 

(including requirements that the loan be repaid and that a reasonable rate of interest be 

paid), (3) a bequest, inheritance, or other 

transfer at death, (4) a bona fide award presented in recognition of public service and 

available to the general public, (5) anything 

of value given to a spouse or dependent of a 

reporting individual by the employer of such 

spouse or dependent in recognition of the 

service provided by such spouse or dependent, (6) free attendance at a widely attended 

event (as such term is defined by the Select 

Committee on Ethics) connected with the official duties of the Member, officer, or employee, (7) permissible travel, lodging, and 

meals at an event connected with the official 

duties of the Member, officer, or employee, 

or (8) permissible travel, lodging, and meals 

at an event to raise funds for a bona fide 

charity, subject to a determination by the 

Select Committee on Ethics that participation in the charity event is in the interest of 

the Senate and the United States. 

‘‘(b) The term ‘relative’ has the same 

meaning given to such term in section 107(2) 

of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 

1978 (Public Law 95–521). 

‘‘(c) The term ‘permissible travel’ means 

reasonable expenses for transportation which 

are incurred by a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate in connection with services provided to or participation in an event 

sponsored by the organization which provided reimbursement for such expenses or 

which provides transportation directly, however expenses do not include the provision of 

transportation, or the payment for such expenses, for a continuous period in excess of 3 

days exclusive of travel time within the 

United States of 7 days exclusive of travel 

time outside of the United States unless 

such travel is approved by the Select Committee on Ethics as necessary for participation in the event. 

‘‘(d) The terms ‘lodging’ and ‘meals’ do not 

include expenditures for recreational activities or entertainment, other than that provided to all attendees as an integral part of 

the event. 

‘‘3. (a) For purposes of the exceptions provided by paragraphs 2(a)(6), 2(a)(7), and 

2(a)(8), a sponsor’s unsolicited offer of free 

attendance at an event for an accompanying 

spouse shall not be considered to be a gift if 

others in attendance will generally be accompanied by spouses or if such attendance 

is appropriate to assist in the representation 

of the Senate. 

‘‘(b) The Select Committee on Ethics shall 

publish notice in the Congressional Record of 

the attendance by a Member, officer, or employee at an event permitted by paragraphs 

2(a)(7) and 2(a)(8) not later than 30 days after 

such attendance. Attendance by an employee 

at an event permitted by paragraphs 2(a)(7) 

and 2(a)(8) shall be subject to approval of the 

employee’s supervisor. 

‘‘4. If a Member, officer, or employee, after 

exercising reasonable diligence to obtain the 

information necessary to comply with this 

rule, unknowingly accepts a gift described in 

paragraph 1, such Member, officer, or employee shall, upon learning of the nature of 

the gift and its source, return the gift or, if 

it is not possible to return the gift, reimburse the donor for the value of the gift. 

‘‘5. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

this rule, a Member, officer, or employee of 

the Senate may participate in a program, 

the principal objective of which is educational, sponsored by a foreign government 

or a foreign educational or charitable organization involving travel to a foreign country paid for by that foreign government or 

organization if such participation is not in 

violation of any law and if the Select Committee on Ethics has determined that participation in such program by Members, officers, or employees of the Senate is in the interests of the Senate and the United States. 

‘‘(b) Any Member who accepts an invitation to participate in any such program shall 

notify the Select Committee in writing of 

his acceptance. A Member shall also notify 

the Select Committee in writing whenever 

he has permitted any officer or employee 

whom he supervises (within the meaning of 

paragraph 11 of rule XXXVII) to participate 

in any such program. The chairman of the 

Select Committee shall place in the Congressional Record a list of all individuals participating; the supervisors of such individuals, 

where applicable; and the nature and 

itinerary of such program. 

‘‘(c) No Member, officer, or employee may 

accept funds in connection with participation in a program permitted under subparagraph (a) if such funds are not used for necessary food, lodging, transportation, and related expenses of the Member, officer, or employee.’’. 

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The amendment made by section 2 shall 

take effect on October 1, 1995. 

f 

SENATE RESOLUTION 127—RELATIVE TO BORDER CROSSING 

FEES 

Ms. SNOWE submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary: 

S. RES. 127 

Whereas in the budget of the United States 

for fiscal year 1996 that was submitted to 

Congress, the President proposed to impose 

and collect a boarder crossing fee for individuals and vehicles entering the United States; 

Whereas both the Canadian and Mexican 

governments have expressed opposition to 

the imposition and collection of such a fee 

and have raised the possibility of imposing 

retaliatory border crossing fees of their own; 

Whereas the imposition and collection of 

such a fee would have adverse effects on 

tourism and commerce that depend on travel 

across the borders of the United States; 

Whereas the imposition and collection of 

such a fee would have such effects without 

addressing illegal immigration in a meaningful way; 

Whereas on February 22, 1995, the President modified his proposal making the imposition of the new fees voluntary on United 

States border States (but tied the availability of Federal funds to improve border 

crossing infrastructure on their willingness 

to impose such fees); and 

Whereas on May 4, 1995, the President further modified the border crossing fee proposal in immigration control legislation he 

submitted to Congress setting a $1.50 per car 

and $.75 per pedestrian fee structure: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate 

that the United States Government should 

not impose or collect a border crossing fee 

along its borders with Canada and Mexico. 

f 

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED 

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT NO. 

1168 

Mr. EXON (for Mr. LAUTENBERG) proposed an amendment to the concurrent 

resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting 

forth the congressional budget for the 

U.S. Government for the fiscal years 

1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002; 

as follows: 

On page 68, add at the end of line 12 the following: ‘‘In addition, paragraph (1)(B) of this 

section shall not apply to legislation that 

proposes to eliminate up to $1,000,000,000 

from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and 

wasteful procurement in the military budget, and to apply the resulting savings for use 

in strengthening enforcement of immigration laws.’’. 

LAUTENBERG (AND WELLSTONE) 

AMENDMENT NO. 1169 

Mr. EXON (for Mr. LAUTENBERG for 

himself and Mr. WELLSTONE) proposed 

an amendment to the concurrent resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 

13, supra; as follows: 

On page 68, add at the end of line 12 the following: ‘‘In addition, paragraph (1)(B) of this 

section shall not apply to legislation that 

proposes to eliminate up to $2,000,000,000 

from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and 

wasteful procurement in the military budget, and to apply the resulting savings for use 

in addressing the problem of domestic violence.’’. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS