[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 113 (Tuesday, September 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9719-S9724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to S. 2334, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2334) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the manager of 
the bill. I wanted to take just a moment to describe a provision that 
we have offered which the managers have indicated that they will 
accept.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the Senator 
cannot be heard. May we have order in the Chamber, please. The Senate 
will please come to order. Please take your conversations to the 
Cloakroom.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I indicated, we have talked with the 
manager and the ranking member of the measure about a provision that I 
have offered with respect to the development of weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq. I thank them for their willingness to accept it.
  I wanted to tell my colleagues very briefly what it is, because this 
is an issue of such great importance today.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order. I see at least eight 
conversations going on in the Senate. The Senator is entitled to be 
heard. I hope we will be able to hear him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators please take their conversations 
to the Cloakroom.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conversations have not yet been ended. 
May we have order in the Senate. Mr. President, I hope Senators will 
pay attention to the Chair and show some respect for the Chair as well 
as the Senator who seeks to address the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee. I remember well the days when I 
came back from summer vacation, and for the first days of school it was 
a little difficult to focus attention. It is good to see colleagues 
again. I appreciate very much the effort so that we can discuss what 
unfortunately has become a very serious problem.
  Mr. President, in light of the continued proliferation issues which 
surround the world and the Middle East in particular, I believe that 
now, more than ever, it is important for the United States to maintain 
its vigilance with

[[Page S9720]]

respect to Iraq's insatiable appetite to procure the most terrible 
weapons on earth.
  Saddam Hussein has attempted to avoid any and every attempt by the 
civilized world to control and monitor his government's obsession with 
attaining weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has a proven 
track record of his proclivity to utilize these weapons if he does not 
believe that the consequences of his actions would lead to his own 
destruction or at least to severe injury. The continued aggressive 
monitoring of Iraq's weapons stockpiles is critical to preventing him 
from building and using these weapons to make another attempt to 
dominate the region through physical threats to neighboring 
populations.
  The recent resignation of Scott Ritter from the inspection team and 
his reasons for doing so should not go unheeded by this body. The 
coalition of nations which developed originally to thwart Iraq's 
aggression against its neighbors has deteriorated to the point where 
each new confrontation with Iraq becomes a test of wills within the 
United Nations and the Security Council. Time and time again, Saddam 
has scoffed at United States stated policy of ``no compromise'' and 
time and time he is proven correct. No longer do we punish Iraqi 
transgressions; we become party to negotiating additional concessions. 
We no longer lead with resolve; we follow timidly and make excuses for 
delay and inaction.
  We must not shirk from our responsibility to have the administration 
and the world understand our commitment to insuring that Iraq abandon 
its weapons of mass destruction program through strict inspections 
programs and a well defined and consistently implemented set of 
consequences for non-compliance. To achieve that I have proposed a 
resolution which outlines concerns I have regarding Iraqi weapons of 
mass destruction, calls upon the administration to oppose any effort to 
relax inspection regimes and has the President submit a report to 
Congress on the United States Government's assessment of Iraq's weapons 
program.
  I understand that the resolution I have proposed has been accepted by 
both sides and has been included in the bill and I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member and other members of the committee for their 
help to include this resolution in this bill which outlines our most 
grave concerns and calls upon the President to issue a report which 
certifies the level of compliance by the Iraqi regime to the numerous 
non-proliferation protocols currently in effect, the effectiveness of 
these protocols, and the implementation of United States' policy to 
curb Iraq's weapons program.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member for permitting me to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the bill before us is a $12.599 billion 
bill within an allocation of $12.6 billion.
  While it is below the administration's request of $14.1 billion in 
fiscal year 1999, we provided virtually the same level as last year's 
funding. If we compare last year's level with this year, including 
arrears, both bills are approximately the same level--$13.1 billion.
  Fortunately, we can achieve this level because Senator Domenici and 
the Budget Committee decided to give arrears special treatment 
relieving scoring pressure.
  Let me review some of the highlights which many members have 
expressed interest in.
  For the first time we have reduced the level of support for Israel 
and Egypt. This is the first reduction of a planned 10 years, evenly 
distributed schedule. We reduced Israel's economic aid by a total of 
$120 million to $1.080 billion and increased security assistance by $60 
million to $1.860 billion.
  There is no increase in security assistance for Egypt so to maintain 
proportionality we have only reduced the economic aid program by $40 
million to $775 million. Security assistance stays constant at $1.3 
billion.
  We have also tried to preserve a relatively strong level of funding 
for the New Independent States which most of us agree need the help to 
finish their transition to free market democracies. In total we have 
provided $740 million.
  Within the NIS account we have continued to earmark levels for three 
countries, Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia.
  Although I strongly support securing Ukraine's political and economic 
independence, and believe we should do all we can to help, I must 
confess some frustration with the pace of reforms in that country. It 
is clear the economic environment in Ukraine is very difficult to work 
in. In particular, the government has been slow to recommend--and the 
Rada even slower to pass--essential tax and commercial law reforms, the 
key to attracting and expanding private investment.
  Because of the slow pace of reforms, the bill reduces the overall 
level of support for Ukraine from $225 million to $210 million. The 
bill also authorizes the Secretary of State to withhold 50 percent of 
the funds for 120 days until she certifies that the Ukrainians are on 
the right track and have made progress in their tax and commercial 
structure and demonstrated a serious commitment to economic reforms. 
This will not be easy, but I believe President Kuchma has recognized it 
is in Ukraine's interest to advance and accelerate reforms.
  Ukraine is not the only weak and worrisome economy. Since working on 
the 1993 bill, Senator Leahy and I have both expressed concern about 
the inconsistent and slow pace of reforms in Russia which are very much 
in the news this very day. August headlines once again demonstrate our 
aid and that of other donors is not achieving crucial and sustainable 
results.
  For at least 4 years, we have all read the same headlines. Russia 
faces imminent financial collapse and Moscow calls for immediate 
international support, always with a measure of justifiable urgency. 
There are round the clock negotiations, in which Moscow, once again, 
agrees to all the right tough financial, tax and economic reforms, 
donor funds are disbursed, there is a deep sigh of international 
relief, and then absolutely nothing happens.
  I have repeatedly warned officials at Treasury that it seems unwise 
at the very time we are dismantling our welfare system here at home, 
that we create a new program of destructive dependency abroad. Russia's 
addiction to international loans is not healthy--for their economy or 
our interests. The administration must follow through and use our aid 
for programs which will sustain the needed tax and commercial reforms 
or the current crisis will only get worse, if that is possible.
  The crisis in investor confidence and the flight of capital is not a 
recent event. In fact this latest crisis reflects how little foreign 
capital has been invested in generating jobs, income and growth in 
manufacturing and production. The collapse we are witnessing is driven 
by the fact that the Russian budget and economy are fueled primarily by 
two sources--international loans and the artificially inflated bond 
market. Given the choice between the promise of a government bond 
return of 150 percent or sinking capital into an industrial plant where 
there are no commercial regulations protecting contract sanctity or 
investment, money has moved into Moscow's bond market.

  But, even that investment has been slim compared to other global 
economies. Before the stock market was closed, only a handful of 
companies were being traded, each losing enormous ground. Reports of 80 
percent losses in value in such thin markets exaggerate the impression 
of the scale of trade and more importantly hid the real story. A few 
companies lost, and are losing, a lot of money. However, real, long 
term investment in Russia's productive capacity has never really grown. 
With no equity, no real investment to back it, the Russian ruble was 
bound to collapse calling attention to the basic problems with the 
commercial environment which neither the administration nor the Yeltsin 
government have been willing to tackle. Now, there is little chance--
but no choice to carry out overdue reforms.
  Let me add one more caution. This overhaul should not be the IMF's 
formula response. Raising taxes in an economy where there is little 
income and less growth isn't painful; it's stupid. Some Russian 
entities, most notably Gazprom, clearly have evaded tax

[[Page S9721]]

collection in the past, at the expense of starved government coffers. 
But, in general higher taxes are not going to solve Russia's long term 
crisis. Confidence and investment will only be restored and expanded by 
reforms which implement and enforce a rational, consistent commercial 
rule of law.
  While the NIS accounts is both large and important, I think the core 
of this year's bill has been defined by events in Asia. What is new 
this year is the serious commitment we have made to support our trading 
partners, allies and friends across the Pacific, as they work through 
the most turbulent economic conditions they have experienced since 
World War II.
  There are several Asian related initiatives worth noting.
  First, in title VI, we include full support for the new arrangements 
to borrow and the quota to replenish depleted resources for the IMF. 
After extensive discussion and debate, the Senator voted for a bill 
which provided both funding and reforms in the management of the IMF. 
This bill includes the Senate passed version in its entirety.
  Many share my concern that the IMF, and other international 
institutions, have been remote, indifferent and very closed societies 
dominated by foreign bureaucrats who are happy to take our money and 
spend it without accountability to any public authority or government.
  This legislation takes a first step toward opening the IMF's doors 
and shedding light on their management polices and practices. I don't 
want anyone to conclude that the IMF will be as accessible as your 
credit union on the corner, but we have started a process which I hope 
eventually will produce a better managed and more open, accountable 
institution.
  While I was less concerned in the Spring about the IMF's financial 
standing, I now believe the time has come for the Congress to complete 
our commitment. The recent repackaged $22 billion Russian loan 
compelled activation of Fund's reserve line of credit known as the 
General Arrangements to Borrow which this legislation will replenish. 
With the possibility of new requirements in Asia and closer to home in 
Latin America, I think the Fund's solid financial footing avoids 
further U.S. bilateral commitment of funds and is key to the recovery 
of our Pacific trading partners which, I expect, in turn, will help 
stave off a slow down of our economy.
  In addition to replenishing the IMF, we have recommended other steps 
to strengthen the Asian economies. We have increased the subsidy for 
the Export Import Bank significantly over last year, which was not easy 
given the overall budget pressure. However, export support is more 
important than ever for the U.S. economy, especially as our traditional 
partners suffer setbacks and devaluations making their products cheaper 
and more competitive on the world market.
  In addition to our commitment to U.S. financial institutions deeply 
engaged in Asia, this bill also specifically addresses the crisis in 
Indonesia, Burma and Cambodia.
  Senator Stevens and Inouye have been especially concerned by the 
collapse of the Indonesia economic and political situation, as all of 
us have. This time last year, I was convinced that the collapse in 
investor confidence, driving the rupiah down to devastating new lows 
each week, would only be reversed with a major political change. I 
believed then, as now, that until elections are held, and the country 
is provided honest, strong democratic leadership, Indonesia is destined 
to struggle, if not fail,
  Suharto's departure was welcome, but long overdue. He has left behind 
a shell of a government and the risk of more violence and instability 
grows. In this context, I have been deeply disappointed by AID and the 
administration's slow response to Indonesia's problems. Indonesia 
continues to be the regional economic undertow dragging down and 
potentially drowning each of her neighbors. The IMF, the World Bank, 
the Asian Bank, and AID all lack a clear, consistent strategy on how to 
address this crisis.
  At this point conservative estimates suggest at least 60 million 
people are unemployed placing pressure on virtually every family. This 
bill provides $100 million to launch a serious economic and political 
effort to help put the country back on track. It directs funds to 
strengthen political parties to assure quick and fair elections and it 
provides food, medical, job generating an related humanitarian 
assistance. But what is equally important is it will compel AID to 
carry out this support outside the cozy, long standing relationship 
with official ministries and their bureaucrats. The bill requires 80 
percent of the aid be administered through non-government organizations 
which not only will ease suffering but also help build new, grass roots 
aid delivery mechanisms and strengthen the next generation of political 
and economic leaders.
  Next, the bill expands political and humanitarian support to Burma. I 
think we are at a point where our ASEAN partners agree the junta in 
Rangoon has gone too far. I commend Secretary Albright for her public 
statements and effort to secure the return of the legitimate government 
and urge her to continue her crucial work in the days ahead.
  While I have confidence in her commitment, much of her effort seems 
to be undermined by events in country. To assure American policy and 
practice are consistent both in Washington and in Rangoon, I have set 
aside $2 million which may be expended only after written consultation 
with the legitimate government elected in 1990. This is not a 
precedent--there has been past dialog between other donors and the 
legitimate government establishing guidelines for the administration of 
development aid. I do recognize this may be difficult to accomplish, 
but U.S. policy and practice must press forward and actively include 
the 1990 government in any dialog which involves our funds. Ultimately, 
these funds may simply sit in trust for a future free day in Burma, but 
I think our support for democracy must be in both words and financial 
action.
  For the past 2 years, I have held deep reservations about American 
embassy officials failure to support the restoration of democracy, but 
that is a debate for another day. What I hope to achieve today is a 
clear statement and representation of support for those who suffer the 
brutality of the regime by increasing our humanitarian aid and, to make 
absolutely clear support or the legitimate government which we should 
be working with rather than against.
  Finally, and briefly, I want to turn to Cambodia. I am deeply 
concerned that the environment leading up to elections was not 
conducive to a free and fair outcome. While the turnout was high, as we 
all know, elections are less about election day and more about the 
weeks and months beforehand.
  After Hun Sen's bloody coup in which scores of people were killed and 
many fled the country, his junta seemed to recognize the need to 
establish some margin of legitimacy or face a cut off of all 
international aid. Hun Sen called for elections and then for months 
systematically denied any opponent any real opportunity to campaign. At 
least 49 people were targeted and assassinated in politically motivated 
hits. Candidates were denied access to the press, and restricted from 
giving speeches, holding rallies or meeting and getting their message 
out to voters.
  While the opposition urged a delay in the election date, the 
Administration decided to support moving forward. Now there are real 
questions about the final outcome with opposition challenges over fraud 
and irregularities. Whatever the outcome, what is very clear is many of 
the candidates who returned to Cambodia to campaign did so at 
considerable risk. Sam Rainsy and his party members and FUNCIPEC 
candidates, all put their lives on the line to run for office, to 
reclaim their nation.
  I believe it is vital to stand by their commitment to democracy and 
assure their risk was not in vain. Thus, aid to Cambodia is conditioned 
upon certifications related to the fairness of the elections and the 
prospects for real democratic growth. Humanitarian aid and development 
aid provided through non-government organizations can proceed 
regardless, but it makes no sense to prop up a vicious, selfserving 
dictatorship.
  In conclusion, the market slides and crashes across Asia have 
convinced even the most isolationists among us that our economic and 
political security interests are defined and can be

[[Page S9722]]

damaged by events as far away as Jakarta. With increased export 
assistance, by expanding humanitarian and economic initiatives, and 
building programs, to strengthen independent, democratic institutions 
worldwide, I believe this bill supports and secures U.S. interests in 
international economic growth and political stability, while living 
within the balanced budget agreement.
  I encourage my colleagues' support.
  I certainly urge my colleagues to support the bill. That completes my 
opening statement. Senator Leahy will probably want to make an opening 
statement.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew 
Weinschenk, a fellow in Senator Lautenberg's office, be granted the 
privilege of the floor for the duration of debate on the foreign 
operations appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year we completed debate on the 
foreign operations bill in record time. This year the bill contains 
$250 million less than last year, so I hope it will take even less 
time.
  The bill represents a delicate compromise. As I said, we have a lot 
less money this year, and since almost half the funds in this bill is 
earmarked for the Middle East, the quarter-billion-dollar cut from last 
year has to come out of other programs. That is a very significant cut. 
It is over $1 billion below the President's request.
  A quarter of a billion dollars may not be a lot in some budgets, like 
the defense budget, but it is a great deal when it means cuts in 
funding for diplomacy and programs to--and I will give you examples of 
the areas we are cutting--support for U.S. exports, or to promote 
economic reforms in the former Soviet Union and democracy in Indonesia, 
or to aid refugees in Bosnia and support business exchange programs in 
Eastern Europe, or money to combat the spread of illegal drugs and 
infectious diseases. Infectious diseases--Mr. President, I remind 
everybody that the most virulent disease in the world is only an 
airplane trip away from any one of our homes in the United States. And, 
of course, money to protect the environment.
  These are but a few examples of what is in this bill and what we have 
had to cut because of this year's low budget allocation.
  Having said that, I commend the chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee. Senator McConnell has done an outstanding job to try to 
make the most of the funds we have in as balanced a way as possible. No 
one can be entirely happy with what we have done, because we don't have 
the money to make everybody happy. I think the chairman has done his 
best to honor the many requests of the Senators on both sides of the 
aisle and to fund the foreign policy priorities of the United States.
  I also thank the committee chairman, Senator Stevens, and the ranking 
member, Senator Byrd, for their help. They have a difficult job in 
trying to balance the interests of all the appropriations 
subcommittees. I know they have tried to give us the funds we need and, 
at the same time, stay within the parameters of the balanced budget 
agreement.
  I simply note that the entire foreign operations budget amounts to 
less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, but these are the funds we 
use besides the defense budget to promote our influence around the 
world. There is not a Senator here who does not want to protect our 
national interests. Those national interests can be in Korea or they 
can be in our own hemisphere. But for the United States, the most 
powerful, wealthiest nation history has ever known, the United States 
which has become that way because we have worldwide interests, it is 
hard to point to any part of the world on any continent of the world 
where our interests are not involved. All of us like to say, ``Well, we 
are the United States--we should influence this, that, or the other 
thing in the world.'' If we are going to do that, we have to have the 
power to do it, too.
  It is like saying you want to go to such and such a spot, in your 
State, but if there are no roads and no way to get there, then you are 
not going to do it. And the cost to carry out our responsibilities and 
to project our influence worldwide is not something that is going to be 
picked up by the State or local governments.
  These programs are not ``foreign handouts'' as some have called it. 
They are going to determine the kind of world in which our children and 
grandchildren live 10, 20, 50 years hence.
  Frankly, I do not believe this bill adequately funds our foreign 
policy and national security needs. As a superpower that is 
increasingly dependent on the global economy--in the last 2 days if 
there is anybody who did not realize we were dependent on the global 
economy, wake up; we are. As a superpower intent on solving global 
problems by leading by example, I think we are going to look back years 
from now and wonder why we were so shortsighted.
  Leadership and security are not just abstract concepts, they cost 
money. The amount in this bill is a pittance for a superpower that has 
important interests to protect on every continent, important American 
interests to protect on every continent.
  Mr. President, if history is any guide, I think the chairman and I 
can expect there will be Senators who have amendments to shift funds 
from one account to another in this bill. They may feel we have done 
too little for their favorite program. And they may be right. But we 
had to make some very painful choices, choices we would not have had to 
make if we had a larger budget to begin with. The chairman and I are 
going to have to oppose such amendments.
  This is a very delicately put together piece of legislation, based on 
the allocation we have. I might have done things differently if I were 
chairman. And the 98 other men and women in this body may have each 
done it somewhat differently. But we have to have one bill. The Senator 
from Kentucky and I have worked very closely together to balance the 
interests of both sides of the aisle, the interests of the United 
States and the interests of the administration, the interests of the 
U.S. Senate. With the funds we have, I think we should go forward with 
this bill as it is. If there are amendments, I would hope that they 
come up; if there are not, I am prepared to go to third reading.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.


                           Amendment No. 3491

                      (Purpose: To amend title I)

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 3491.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 6, strike the following proviso: ``Provided 
     further, That the Export Import Bank shall not disburse 
     direct loans, loan guarantees, insurance, or tied aid grants 
     or credits for enterprises or programs in the New Independent 
     States which are majority owned or managed by state 
     entities:''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 3492 and 3493 En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments 
modifying language included on global climate change. Senators Byrd and 
Hagel have been very involved in this issue and have recommended these 
changes so that programs can go forward, but Congress will have an 
opportunity to determine details on the planned activities.

[[Page S9723]]

  It has been very difficult to pin down just what the administration 
plans to do in the area of global climate change. I think these 
amendments strike the appropriate balance and meet the concerns raised 
by colleagues who want to maintain a U.S. leadership role on 
environmental issues, yet at the same time preserve the congressional 
oversight of these activities.
  So I send, Mr. President, both of these amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes amendments numbered 3492 and 3493 en 
     bloc.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3492

            (Purpose: To amend the Foreign Operations bill)

       On page 71, line 17, after the word ``activities'' insert: 
     ``and, subject to the regular notification procedures of the 
     Committees on Appropriations, energy programs aimed at 
     reducing greenhouse gas emissions''.


                           Amendment No. 3493

            (Purpose: To amend the Foreign Operations bill)

       On page 107, line 25, strike ``and activities that reduce 
     vulnerability to climate change.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Leahy and I believe there is no opposition to 
these amendments on either side of the aisle.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is right. I 
support the pending amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss with 
the subcommittee chairman, Senator McConnell, his amendments to modify 
section 540(b) and section 752(a) of the bill, modifications which I 
strongly support.
  It is my understanding that the purpose of the change to section 
540(b) is to make clear that funds in the bill may be used, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, to support energy programs 
aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, because of 
concerns expressed by certain senators that requests to AID for 
specific information about these activities was not provided and that 
they therefore have been unable to determine precisely what these funds 
were used for, they requested that these funds be subject to the 
Committees' regular notification procedures. Does the subcommittee 
chairman agree that the purpose of subjecting these funds to the 
notification procedures is not to prevent funding for these activities 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, since we could have done 
that by simply leaving the section as it is, but rather to be sure that 
the Congress gets the information it requests?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct. AID has not been responsive to 
the requests of senators for information about these activities. We are 
adding the notification requirement to section 540(b) in order to 
ensure that information that is requested about certain energy programs 
is provided in a timely way.
  Mr. LEAHY. Thank you. I would like to take another minute to ask the 
subcommittee chairman about section 572(a) of the bill, which makes 
funds available for certain environmental activities subject to the 
regular notification procedures of the committees. The language is 
quite broad, and it includes any activities promoting country 
participation in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Again, I 
want to be clear about the purpose of this provision. It is my 
understanding that, like section 540(b), it was included due to 
concerns expressed by some senators that AID has not been sufficiently 
responsive to requests for information about the expenditure of certain 
funds for these activities. The information that was provided was very 
general and did not fully describe what the funds were used for. It is 
my understanding that this provision does not seek to prevent funding 
for these activities, but instead aims to ensure that when senators 
request AID to provide specific information about its use of these 
funds the information is provided in a timely way.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. If the managers of the bill would entertain a question, it 
is my understanding from their explanation that their intent in 
including the notification requirements in sections 540(a) and 572(b) 
is to support these activities, and to ensure that information the 
Congress asks for is provided by the administration. I want to be sure 
that, assuming the administration keeps the Congress informed about how 
appropriated funds are to be spent, the Congress intends for these 
programs to receive the necessary funds. Am I correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is my intention.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As the author of these provisions that is also my 
intention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3492 and 3493) were agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3494

       (Purpose: To make technical corrections)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a package of technical 
amendments to the desk. It is a fairly long list, but essentially 
involves corrections, language inadvertently left out, changes to 
assure consistency and date corrections. For example, the word 
``appropriated'' was struck in one instance and replaced with the 
technically correct ``made available.'' I send these technical 
amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 3494.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 5 and 6, strike ``1999 and 2000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof, ``1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002''.
       On page 8, line 23 and 24, strike ``, and shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2000''.
       On page 13, line 13, insert ``demining or'' after the words 
     ``apply to''.
       On page 13, line 14, strike ``other''.
       On page 21, line 3, strike ``other than funds included in 
     the previous proviso,''.
       On page 29, line 9, strike ``appropriated'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``made available''.
       On page 29, line 13, strike ``deBremmond'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``deBremond''.
       On page 31, line 23, insert ``clearance of'' before 
     ``unexploded ordnance''.
       On page 39, line 1, insert ``may be made available'' after 
     ``(MFO)''.
       On page 40, lines 5 and 6, strike ``Committee's 
     notification procedures'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
     ``regular notification procedures of the Committees on 
     Appropriations''.
       On page 49, line 2, insert after ``commodity'' the 
     following, ``: Provided, That such prohibition shall not 
     apply to the Export-Import Bank if in the judgment of its 
     Board of Directors the benefits to industry and employment in 
     the United States are likely to outweigh the injury to United 
     States producers of the same, similar or competing commodity, 
     and the Chairman of the Board so notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations''.
       On page 57, line 17, insert ``disease programs including'' 
     after ``activities or''.
       On page 84, beginning on line 25, through page 85, line 5, 
     strike all after the words ``The authority'' through the 
     word, ``countries'' and, insert in lieu thereof, ``Any 
     obligation or portion of such obligation for a Latin American 
     country, to pay for purchases of United States agricultural 
     commodities guaranteed by the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     under export credit guarantee programs authorized pursuant to 
     section 5(f) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act 
     of June 29, 1948, as amended, section 4(b) of the Food for 
     Peace Act of 1966, as amended (Public Law 89-808), or section 
     202 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (Public 
     Law 95-501)''.
       On page 90, on lines 1, 5, and 15 before the word 
     ``Government'' insert the word ``central''.
       On page 90, line 13, after the word ``re-signed'' insert 
     the word ``or is implementing''.
       On page 91, line 24, before the word ``Government'' insert 
     the word ``central''.
       On page 95, line 5, delete ``steps'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof, ``effective measures''.
       On page 95, line 7, strike the word ``further''.
       On page 106, line 8, strike ``1998 and 1999'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``1999 and 2000''.
       On page 109, line 21, strike ``any''.
       On page 117, line 24, after ``remain available'' insert 
     ``until expended''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe there is no objection to 
these technical amendments.

[[Page S9724]]

  Mr. LEAHY. There are no objections, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3494) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, those are the only amendments I am 
aware of as of this moment. So we are moving right along, I say to my 
friend.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I said 
earlier we did it in record time last year. We may break that now. 
Again, I am perfectly willing to go forward and wrap it up. There may 
be some who feel otherwise.


                   community-based telecommunications

  Mr. President, organizations such as the National Telephone 
Cooperative Association are able to help provide new and innovative 
methods to bring modern telecommunications service to rural and remote 
areas around the globe. Such initiatives, particularly those that 
encompass a grass-roots, community-based approach, are key to economic 
development, business creation and income generation. They enhance 
economic stability, create jobs, improve agricultural production and 
further the development of democratic processes and traditions.
  The committee has, in the past, encouraged AID to work with 
organizations like the National Telephone Cooperative Association to 
bring modern means of communication to rural areas. Cooperatives foster 
community involvement and help to build civil society--important steps 
along the path away from a socialist, government-controlled economy 
toward a free-market economy. These programs are just the type that we 
should be promoting in the Ukraine and other NIS states, where any 
growth in the private sector represents a challenge to the government 
and encourages sustainable income generation and economic growth on a 
local level.
  Another program that the committee urged AID to support was rural 
telephone cooperative programs in Poland, which have achieved 
significant success. The on-going program in the Philippines has also 
seen success. However, this project is in need of continued 
participation by AID's country and central programs. AID should also 
promote the development of telephone cooperatives in Africa. Countries 
in the Horn, Ghana, and South Africa are poised for developing useful 
rural telecommunications. There is no doubt that in addition to 
promoting economic growth, rural citizens in these countries would 
benefit enormously.
  For these reasons, I encourage AID to continue to work with telephone 
cooperatives in the United States to foster community-based 
telecommunications programs in the developing countries. I hope that 
language to this effect can be included in the conference report on 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.

                          ____________________