[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8629-S8633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

       The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this year the foreign operations bill 
provides $12.246 billion to administer our foreign assistance programs. 
This slightly exceeds the bill signed into law last year but is more 
than $700 million below the administration's request. Although this is 
a substantial reduction, I believe we have crafted a bill which 
addresses congressional concerns about balancing the budget while 
continuing to serve vital U.S. national security priorities.
  Let me briefly review both the funding levels and policy provisions 
which advance our common international interests.
  In title I, we have provided $632 million for export promotion 
programs. The Trade Development Agency and the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation are fully funded, and the Export-Import Bank is 
near the request level.
  Virtually all of us have learned of the direct benefit these programs 
have had in securing new markets and opportunities for American 
business. While some people have expressed concern about our 
subsidizing American corporations, this support we offer in this bill 
is a reflection of how competitive the international market has become. 
I believe our export promotion programs are essential to our long-term 
economic security.

  If you have any doubt about the significance of this funding, there 
is one statistic which makes clear how important our competition thinks 
these programs are. Last year the Export-Import Bank extended $2.9 
billion in loans. Its Japanese counterpart provided $19.3 billion in 
support.
  While I am a strong supporter of the Bank, I have been deeply 
concerned about recent management problems. Both the Office of 
Personnel Management and the General Accounting Office investigated the 
Bank's misuse of certain salary-related authorities. In a 1995 audit, 
OPM concluded that retention allowances have been granted to 
approximately 200 of the Bank's 450 employees ``contrary to law and 
regulation.'' Instead of meeting the legal requirement of establishing 
an employee's unique qualifications and intent to leave Government 
service, the current management at the Bank treated retention 
allowances as performance bonuses.
  While the problem was drawn to White House attention, the acting 
Chairman's nomination pending before the Banking Committee was 
resubmitted as a recess appointment. This has prompted the committee to 
limit funding for the Chairman's salary until this matter can be fully 
reviewed in the context of a nomination hearing.
  Let me now turn to title II. We have provided $1.7 billion in funding 
for development assistance, including child survival programs, and the 
Development Fund for Africa, the Inter-American Foundation and the 
African Development Foundation. This level is close to the 
administration's request and was a high priority of Senator Leahy and a 
majority of the members of the committee.
  Within the bilateral aid account there are a handful of earmarks 
including funds for Camp David Partners, Burma and Cyprus.
  Given our strong interest in securing the transition of free market 
democracies, we have fully funded the administration's request for the 
New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. In addition to 
earmarking levels of support for Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia, the 
bill provides funding for safety programs at nuclear reactors, small 
business development, strengthening agricultural productivity, and 
treatment for children who are victims of the Chernobyl disaster.
  While not in statute, I want to take note of important report 
language regarding Russia.
  President Yeltsin has made a lot of extravagant financial pledges on 
the campaign trail which must be reconsidered if the nation is to stay 
within IMF fiscal guidelines and sustain economic reforms. The 
committee points out that the outcome of the elections reflects U.S. 
assistance is less important

[[Page S8630]]

than the political and economic choices Russia's citizens and leaders 
will make in the coming months.
  The report states that this is an important transition year for 
Russia. With over $10 billion in IMF loan commitments and $4.2 billion 
in United States bilateral support, it is the committee's expectation 
that most aid will be phased out and that Russia will graduate from our 
foreign operations programs in fiscal 1997.
  Let me now address the independent agencies which are also funded in 
title II. Given the strong bipartisan support for the Peace Corps, we 
were able to come close to the administration's request and provide a 
total in resources of $217 million.
  The International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Program has been 
increased substantially over last year's level from $115 million to 
$160 million. I continue to be deeply concerned that the administration 
made the decision to shift resources away from transit countries to 
source countries. Long-term, this approach may make sense, but the 
reductions in the transit country effort seem to have been made well 
before the source country strategy and programs had been put in place. 
Hopefully, the strong funding level will assure we can maintain an 
aggressive effort in both transit and source countries.
  Mr. President, in consultation with the House, we have established a 
consolidated account which includes proliferation, demining and some of 
the related international organization programs. Within this account, 
we have provided funding to complete our commitment to Israel's 
counterterrorism effort.
  This account also provides funding at last year's level for the Korea 
Peninsula Energy Development Organization also known as KEDO. As the 
report reflects, the committee supported the administration's request 
to leave the actual funding number out of last year's bill in order not 
to impede global fundraising efforts.
  I thought we had a clear understanding as to precisely what level had 
been justified and was permissible. Unfortunately, the administration 
took advantage of our effort to help them and substantially exceeded 
justified levels of spending.
  In documents submitted last year the administration suggested we 
planned to contribute 20 percent or $10 million toward the annual costs 
of 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil. Subsequently, without submitting 
required reprogramming notifications, the White House announced it 
intended to provide $22 million to cover fuel oil. I think it is 
important that there is no further confusion on the burden the United 
States is willing to assume, so we have included a specific level of 
funding.
  We have also included a requirement that oil may only be made 
available subject to confirmation that the North Koreans are not 
diverting it for military or other illegal uses. This is consistent 
with the Secretary of State's pledge to the subcommittee to assure 
compliance on oil use.
  Turning now to our military assistance programs in title III, we have 
earmarked resources for the Camp David partners and provided sufficient 
funds to cover the transfer of F-16's to Jordan. In other areas, we 
have funded IMET at $40 million and provided $65 million for voluntary 
peacekeeping activities.
  For several years, the subcommittee has been supportive of programs 
under the Partnership for Peace and Warsaw Initiative. This year we 
moved forward and consistent with the NATO Participation Act and 
subsequent similar legislation, the bill designates Poland, Hungary, 
and the Czech Republic eligible for NATO admission. The committee has 
made $20 million in loans and $30 million in grants available to these 
three nations to improve their military capabilities. This is an 
initiative crafted in conjunction with the former majority leader and 
in which there had been strong bipartisan interest.

  Finally, with regard to title IV which funds the international 
financial institutions, we have done the best we could given the 
enormous size of the administration's request. In response to interest 
expressed by a majority of the committee, we have provided $295 million 
to cover our international organizations and programs. This will allow 
the administration to fully fund our pledge to UNICEF.
  Our treatment of the International Development Association bears some 
explanation. For the first time in history, this administration agreed 
to vote for an arrangement which segregated $3.3 billion in 
contributions in a new interim trust fund to be managed by IDA. The ITF 
will allow only corporations and suppliers from those nations 
contributing to the fund to compete for contracts. Like many of my 
colleagues, I oppose the administration's decision to vote to exclude 
U.S. suppliers from competition for contracts. Thus, we have provided 
$626 million as a U.S. contribution to the interim trust fund. This 
assures American companies will continue to have access to resources we 
invest in the banks.
  There is one further item worth drawing attention to. In the general 
provisions section of the bill we have included sanctions legislation 
regarding Burma. I recognize this is unusual in an appropriations bill 
and expect some debate here on the floor on that issue. However, it is 
my view, a view shared by the elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu 
Kyi, that the time has come for the United States to exercise 
leadership on this issue.
  That basically completes my summary of the bill.
  I would like to hear from my friend and colleague Senator Leahy. We 
will have a couple of amendments to lay down tonight, one of which we 
expect to be able to get a vote on at 9:30 in the morning.
  With that overview, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am prepared to go to third reading right 
now, if the distinguished chairman would want it, and save having to 
come in at 9:30 in the morning, but I suspect there are some who may 
disagree.
  Mr. President, this is a balanced bill. It is a balanced bill only 
within an allocation which, frankly, does not meet our needs. Foreign 
aid would never win a popularity contest. In fact, we were able to pass 
foreign aid bills in the past because the funds in the bills were 
distributed among diverse constituencies. This year is no exception. It 
is fast becoming more difficult because there is less money to go 
around.
  The bill is more than $700 million below the President's request. To 
put that in perspective, President Clinton has requested for foreign 
aid about 40 percent less than President Reagan used to request. It is 
not that somehow there is a Democrat foreign aid giveaway. This 
administration is requesting about 40 percent less than either the 
Reagan or Bush administrations did, but it is also $1.5 billion below 
the level for foreign operations in fiscal year 1995.
  Each year, what we do is we take a larger and larger share of the 
overall pie and we earmark it for the Middle East. Unquestionably that 
is a major priority of the United States. But, of course, it does leave 
less and less for the United States to carry out any policies in other 
parts of the world.
  We should ask what that means. For example, last week the Agency for 
International Development laid off 200 employees. Some of these were 
among the finest in or out of government, people who had a decade, 
sometimes even two decades, of exemplary experience, exemplary and 
loyal service to the United States. Some programs, including ones that 
everyone here strongly supports--in agriculture, in the environment, in 
education--they lost half their staff. A number of these programs 
directly or indirectly created jobs here in the United States through 
our export programs. They are gone--to say nothing of what it does to 
our security.
  There is actually a crisis in our foreign aid programs that few 
people even know about. Senators on both sides of the aisle, Democrats 
and Republicans, need to understand this. Both Senator McConnell and I 
had some very difficult choices to make. This bill represents a 
delicate compromise. Any attempt to alter that balance by shifting 
significant amounts of money from one account to another, I believe, 
would seriously threaten its prospects for passage.
  We have worked with Republicans and Democrats across the political 
spectrum, in this body, to try to use what small allocations we had to 
make them work. In doing that, we have had

[[Page S8631]]

to basically rob from almost every single allocation except for one 
area. And now if we try to change those, a lot of the support this bill 
has disappears.
  Senator McConnell has made clear what his priorities are and what the 
priorities of the Republican side are. Let me give one example. Despite 
a lower allocation than last year and cuts in many programs, funding 
for counternarcotics activities in this bill is increased. It is 
increased by $45 million. That is a 39-percent increase for the 1996 
level.

  I believe the evidence is indisputable that despite huge amounts of 
money over the past 6 years, over $1 billion, the program really has 
not reduced the flow of illegal drugs into this country. I know this is 
a priority of my friend from Kentucky and that we do need to support 
this effort, although other programs will have to be cut short to fund 
the increase. I would not want to see them cut further.
  There are many, some on the other side, who would like to cut further 
our support for international development programs. Now we shift to a 
priority on this side of the aisle. In fact, it is not only a priority 
of mine, but a priority of Senators on both sides. Some of these 
programs were cut by as much as half this year.
  So there is a balance. I want to preserve that balance. I know 
Senator McConnell would want to.
  Basically, what we have been told to do by the Senate is to take an 
allocation which is way below what is necessary, but within the 
realities it is the only allocation we could have, take a foreign aid 
program which is about 40 percent less than what we had in the past two 
Republican administrations, and make it work. We have done the best we 
can. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will refrain from 
taking apart that balance.
  The statement of administration policy in this bill is relative to 
what I have just said. The White House said they can live with most of 
the budgetary levels in the bill as Senator McConnell and I presented 
it. If a couple of problems are solved, the President's advisers will 
recommend he signs the bill even though it is funded far below his 
request levels. They know the allocation left us no alternative.
  But understand the reality: The bill does not meet our international 
needs and responsibilities. That is not the fault of the managers of 
this bill. We did the best we could with too little money. We face 
enormous challenges and opportunities in a dangerous and competitive 
world.
  Our foreign policy has suffered from a lack of strategic thinking 
since the cold war. We seem to lurch from crisis to crisis without a 
clear sense of where we are going or how to get there. It is a concern 
of mine and should be a concern of every Member of the Senate of either 
party.
  We are now the most powerful democracy history has ever known. Much 
of the rest of the world looks to us for direction and guidance, but we 
seem to determine our direction and our guidance based on what is on 
the evening news. We must have a clear policy. We must have a clear 
policy of our foreign policy, our foreign aid, our foreign involvement 
as we go into the next century.
  Certainly, every other country does. Japan does. Japan spends more 
money in this area than we do but creates more jobs as a result of it. 
They know where they are going. A lot of other countries do. We have 
the world's largest economy, but our future hinges on building foreign 
markets in supporting democracy. If we want to create jobs for 
Americans, export jobs in other countries, we have to help create those 
jobs. They are not going to happen all by themselves. That is why Japan 
and the Netherlands and all these other countries go out and create the 
jobs. We cut back the money so we don't do it.
  If we don't want to find ourselves caught up in wars around the 
world, we should be supporting democracies. That is what less powerful 
nations do. Yet, we cut back. We spend less than 1 percent of our 
budget on foreign aid, and we continue to cut it. Other countries see 
an opening. Japan and others spend a lot more.
  In fact, a dozen or more countries spend more, a higher percentage of 
their budget than we do on foreign aid. Several spend more money in 
actual dollars. Why? Because they figure if the United States does not 
want to go after those jobs, if the United States does not want to go 
after the influence in other parts of the world, they will. So they 
spend the money, their products get sold, jobs in their countries are 
created, we lose the jobs, they create the expertise in foreign policy, 
we fire and get rid of the people having the expertise in this country, 
and they get the influence.
  There are several things in this bill that concern me. None of us are 
going to get everything we want. Some things will be revisited in 
conference. I do want to mention one item. The bill caps the United 
States contribution to the Korea Economic Development Corporation at 
$12 million below the President's request.
  The administration said this could undermine our nuclear agreement 
with North Korea. I would not want to see that agreement unravel. It is 
in our national security interest, it is in our regional interest in 
that part of the world that that agreement go through. I hope that we 
will resolve this, but I also compliment Senator McConnell and his 
staff for the way they have worked with us on this bill, and I hope 
perhaps before the end of this week, we can have this bill finished.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator McCain 
and Senator Coverdell both have amendments to lay down. The McCain 
amendment is the one we will be able to schedule a vote on at 9:30 in 
the morning. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona would like to proceed first.
  Mr. McCAIN. If that is agreeable with the distinguished managers of 
the bill.


                           Amendment No. 5017

  (Purpose: To require information on cooperation with United States 
   anti-terrorism efforts in the annual country reports on terrorism)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Coats, Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Faircloth, Mrs. Feinstein, 
     Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lott, and 
     Ms. Moseley-Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 5017.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
would like to see, however, a copy of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Does the Senator from 
Vermont still reserve the right to object?
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection. I understand a copy is on its way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 198, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:


information on cooperation with united states anti-terrorism efforts in 
                  annual country reports on terrorism

       Sec. 580. Section 140 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 
     2656f) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) with respect to each foreign country from which the 
     United States Government has sought cooperation during the 
     previous five years in the investigation or prosecution of an 
     act of international terrorism against United States citizens 
     or interests, the certification of the Secretary--
       ``(A) whether or not the government of the foreign country 
     is cooperating fully with the United States Government in 
     apprehending, convicting, and punishing the individual or 
     individuals responsible for the act; and
       ``(B) whether or not the government of the foreign country 
     is cooperating fully with the United States Government in 
     preventing further acts of terrorism against United States 
     citizens in the foreign country; and
       ``(4) with respect to each foreign country from which the 
     United States Government has sought cooperation during the 
     previous five years in the prevention of an act of 
     international terrorism against such citizens or interests, 
     the certification of the Secretary described in paragraph 
     (3)(B).''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--

[[Page S8632]]

       (A) by striking ``The report'' and inserting ``(1) Except 
     as provided in paragraph (2), the report'';
       (B) by indenting the margin of paragraph (1), as so 
     designated, 2 ems; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) If the Secretary determines that the transmittal of a 
     certification with respect to a foreign country under 
     paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) in classified form 
     would make more likely the cooperation of the government of 
     the foreign country as specified in such paragraph, the 
     Secretary may transmit the certification under such paragraph 
     in classified form.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding, if it is agreeable 
with the distinguished managers of the bill, that we will debate this 
in the morning at about 9 or 9:15, whatever is agreeable to the 
managers of the bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arizona, the 
leader was hoping to schedule a vote at 9:30. You graciously agreed to 
let it be on this amendment. As to when the debate occurs, we can 
accommodate the Senator from Arizona on that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from 
Vermont, if it is agreeable, I don't need more than 10 minutes. We 
could start, say, at 9:10 with the amendment, if the leader insists on 
a vote at 9:30, if that is agreeable.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me suggest we have the vote at 9:45 
and start at 9:30.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to see the amendment. I hate 
to agree to a time, and I am sorry to upset the clerk by saying that, 
but it is a little bit difficult to get the exact time when we might 
vote. I am not sure exactly what the amendment is. I hate to cut off 
other people.
  Why don't we agree on an hour evenly divided? The amendment I now 
have in my hand ends ``this transmits certification such paragraph 
in.''
  Mr. McCAIN. I have a better copy for the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. The Senator from Arizona has given me 
another copy. He may want to send that one to the desk. I believe the 
one at the desk may have had a typo. I certainly have no objection to 
having him substitute.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a revised 
version of the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is revised.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if this is agreeable with the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky, why don't we have the vote, say, at 9:45, either 
a vote on it or a vote on tabling. I expect it will be a vote up or 
down. I just don't want to give up that right. I am sure the Senator 
from Arizona can understand that. And maybe have, prior to the vote, 20 
minutes on each side. Will that be agreeable?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is certainly agreeable. I only need 10 minutes on 
this side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona and the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont are going to discuss the amendment 
that is currently at the desk. What we would like to do at this point 
is to have an opening statement from Senator Coverdell on the amendment 
that he is going to be offering, which will be laid aside and will be 
taken up subsequent to the vote on the McCain amendment.
  So, Mr. President, the order will be, we will hopefully vote on the 
McCain amendment sometime as early as possible in the morning and then 
go to the Coverdell amendment which Senator Coverdell is now prepared 
to discuss. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky 
would yield for a moment. Would it be appropriate to go ahead and lay 
the amendment down, and then I would make an opening statement? At the 
time they resolve that, you can set mine aside and proceed with the 
other amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest to my friend from Georgia, go on and make 
the statement. By the time you finish, it will probably be ready to be 
laid down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will be 
sending to the desk an amendment that deals with international 
narcotics and law enforcement.
  As you know, Mr. President, the President of the United States and 
this Senator have been in extended disagreement about drug policy in 
the United States. I have been exceedingly critical of the reduction of 
an investment in drug interdiction. I have been critical of the 
reduction of our resources available for international narcotics law 
enforcement. I have been critical of the fact that the drug czar's 
office was virtually closed. I have been critical of the fact that the 
message coming from the White House has been less than clear to the 
young people of our country on how dangerous drugs are to them.
  I find myself tonight in the unusual circumstance of defending 
President Clinton's policy for his 1997 budget request for 
international narcotics and law enforcement.
  Mr. President, President Clinton requested that $213 million be 
appropriated for international narcotics and law enforcement. That 
figure is only half what the investment in this arena was in 1992, 
which is just another example of the downsizing of the drug role. But 
unfortunately, the House bill only appropriates $150 million in 
international narcotics and law enforcement, and the Senate, as we have 
it before the floor, is $160 million.
  The purpose of my amendment will be to restore the President's 
request, to honor the President's request. He has requested $213 
million. I think it should be more, but it certainly, in my judgment, 
should not be less.
  My amendment restores $53 million to this effort. Where does it come 
from? Mr. President, the Senate's position that is before us assigns 
$356 million to international operations and programs, a significant 
program. That is $31 million higher than the President's request, $31 
million more than the President requested for international operations 
and programs.

  So my proposal would take $28 million from this proposal and shift it 
to international narcotics and law enforcement. In other words, we are 
taking money from an account for which the President requested less, 
but we would put in more and shift it over to where he requested more 
but got less. Second, we take $25 million from development assistance, 
that is AID, which is requiring only a 2 percent reduction in the 
Senate-proposed appropriations, which is $1.929 billion. Having 
accomplished these two shifts, $28 million from international 
operations programs, $25 million from AID or development assistance, we 
would have the effect at the end of the day of having restored--
restored--this very important function, international narcotics and law 
enforcement.
  Mr. President, in the last 3 years, as an underpinning for my 
amendment and for the President's request, which I am trying to 
fulfill, we have created in the United States a full-fledged drug 
epidemic. Until I had seen the figures I could not believe it. From 
1980 to 1992, drug use among our teenagers was cut in half. In the last 
36 months it has doubled. Every statistic--marijuana use, heroin use--
we are seeing a war flash across our country. In fact, Mr. President, 
if the casualties we are taking were from people in uniform, we would 
have declared war in our hemisphere by what is happening across the 
board.
  What am I talking about, Mr. President? What I am talking about is 
that 2 million--2 million--more teenagers are into drugs tonight than 
there were 3 years ago--2 million. That is as large as the city of 
Atlanta, the host of the 1996 Olympics. Two million sisters, brothers, 
fathers, mothers, 2 million friends, associates, folks who live next 
door, somebody in the workplace, whose lives are stunted, tragically 
altered, and the line is going straight up.

[[Page S8633]]

  The drug war was shut off. It needs to be turned back on. We need to 
be concerned about what is happening to children in our own country. 
Mr. President, this is the first war that has been waged against 
children. In the 1960's and 1970's, the target audience was 17 to 21 
years old. Today the drug war is waged against kids who are 8 to 13 
years of age. It is a tragedy occurring right before our eyes.
  The President has appointed a new drug czar. He has called for new 
international narcotics money. While we may disagree on the policies 
that got us here, I agree with his effort to get the war back on.
  Mr. President, I yield for a moment. Apparently the Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from Vermont have worked out their differences. 
I will yield and return and submit my amendment officially after they 
have concluded their work.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5017

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the managers have agreed to a 
unanimous consent that we have a vote at 10 tomorrow with one-half hour 
equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the agreement was--I understand that the 
Republican leader has a scheduling concern--that we would go to the 
amendment of the distinguished Senator from Arizona at 9:30 in the 
morning, that we would have one-half hour equally divided in the usual 
form, but obviously we could yield that back. I mean, technically we 
could be on the vote at 9:31.
  I say that only because I do not want the two leaders, my 
distinguished friends from Mississippi and South Dakota, to suddenly 
have to hear from Members, why are we having a vote at 9:30, not 10? 
But my understanding is that the distinguished chairman will soon ask 
unanimous consent on behalf of the distinguished majority leader that 
we would be on the McCain amendment at 9:30, one-half hour equally 
divided, though we can yield back.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in fairness to the Members, I think it 
is better to have a time certain for the first vote.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that vote occur on or in 
relation to the McCain amendment no later than 10 a.m., Thursday, and 
that the time between 9:30 and 10 a.m., be equally divided in the usual 
form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that would be a McCain 
amendment, and that there would be no second-degrees in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also ask, if I could have unanimous 
consent, that a modification would be in order tomorrow morning, as we 
are still in negotiations with the Senator from Vermont concerning, 
perhaps, modifications for the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to modify the amendment tomorrow 
morning in agreement with the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the McCain 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5018

 (Purpose: To increase the amount of funds available for international 
       narcotics control programs, offset by reductions in other 
                            appropriations)

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk that 
amends the bill in more than one place, and I ask unanimous consent 
that it be immediately considered, and no second-degree amendments be 
in order.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I did not 
hear.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say that the amendment of the Senator from 
Georgia will be laid aside after he finishes his discussion.
  We will vote first in the morning on the amendment of the Senator 
from Arizona, Senator McCain, and no time agreement will be entered 
into tonight for a time certain on a vote on the Coverdell amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator 
from Georgia is agreed to.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for himself, Mr. 
     Lott, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5018.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 104, line 19, strike ``$1,290,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,262,000,000''.
       On page 124, line 20, strike ``$160,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$213,000,000''.
       On page 138, line 5, strike ``$295,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$270,000,000''.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have basically concluded my opening 
statement on the proposal, and explained that we are restoring funding 
to the President's request in the arena of international narcotics.
  I did misspeak when I said we were taking $28 million, the figure is 
$25 million for international narcotics; and I said $25 million from 
development and assistance, and it is $28 million. I got them reversed.
  Just to reiterate, we are in the midst of a drug epidemic. This is 
not a time to undercut the Presidential request for direct funding to 
the war on narcotics and the war on 8- to 13-year-olds in America--8 to 
13 years of age. They are the target. The havoc that we would pay for 
this is immeasurable and indescribable.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I commend the Senator from Georgia for his amendment. 
I support it.
  As far as I know, there is no further business to be conducted this 
evening, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________