[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7905-S7911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S.-HAITI POLICY
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have a long standing interest in Haiti.
I have made seven trips to this island nation in the past four years. I
have spoken often about the developments in that country here on the
Senate floor. I am here today because I am extremely concerned about
the tumultuous conditions in Haiti. And, I feel the United States must
understand the immediacy and vast importance of the present situation
in order to act in an appropriate way.
Mr. President, the serious political and financial circumstances
leave Haiti at a crossroads. In order to survive, Haiti must act
decisively, and the global community must respond accordingly.
It is of vital importance that Haiti holds Parliamentary elections
this year, and that we respond with our technical and security
resources to support and strengthen this process. In addition, the U.S.
Governments' policy on limiting financial assistance, which in the past
I have whole heartedly embraced and which has been effective, should
now be re-thought.
Haiti has a heritage of political turmoil and unrest. To understand
the present situation, one must first comprehend the series of events
in the two years which have led to this unfortunate circumstance.
The seriously flawed April 6, 1997 elections, which attracted less
than 5 percent of the Haitian electorate, provoked the resignation in
June 1997 of Prime Minister Rosney Smarth. For twenty months, a
political deadlock existed between President Rene Preval and the
majority party in Parliament over the contested April 1997 elections
and over President Preval's nominee for Prime Minister, Jacques Edouard
Alexis. The political crisis virtually paralyzed the government and
delayed millions of dollars in international aid to Haiti.
Mr. President, in January of this year, Haiti's drawn out crisis took
a very troubling turn when President Preval announced that the Haitian
National Assembly's term had expired and that he would proceed to
install a government by ``executive order.'' What happened in essence,
of course, was that President Preval chose to ignore Haiti's Parliament
and rule by decree. Tragically, President Preval effectively disbanded
the Parliament and stripped them of their power.
Even though Prime Minister Alexis was approved by both Houses before
the Parliament was dissolved, the new Prime Minister does not yet have
any authority to govern because his cabinet has not been approved by
the Parliament. And since there is no functioning Parliament, there can
be no confirmation of the Prime Minister's cabinet. We have gone from a
long period without a Prime Minister in Haiti to a period now without a
governing Parliament.
While the political crisis in Haiti deepens, there has been some
progress made. In March of this year, President Preval and the
opposition political parties agreed on a Provisional Electoral Council,
charge with establishing fair and equal elections. And the Council has
been effective. Specifically, the Council recently made a brave and
bold move by announcing the annulment of the April 1997 elections. Mr.
President, I applaud this recent action. We need to support this recent
overture and take it to the next level. We must urge the Haitians to
have parliamentary elections.
We know that the present political vacuum must be filled with a
credible government or else, we may risk it being filled by a de facto
dictatorship. The global community has the responsibility to take
action now.
First, the Haitians must have Parliamentary elections before the end
of this year. A balance of power is fundamental to an effective
democracy. The election of a new Parliament prior to Presidential
elections in December 2000, begins establishing this foundational
balance, which is in the best interest of Haiti.
The United States and the international community have the ability
and resources to help in two specific ways, through technical
assistance and security reinforcement. In order to ensure that the
Haitians hold free, fair, open, and credible elections , the United
States, in partnership with the international community, must leverage
all available assets in a coordinated effort to support the election
process.
The United States should provide resources in support of the election
process to include the encouragement of political coalition building.
The technical assistance can be coordinated by the other countries who
are involved in Haiti that can also provide substantial financial help.
In addition to the technical assistance, Haiti's security must be
[[Page S7906]]
strengthened in order for the elections to be held in a safe
environment. We must increase support to the Haitian National Police.
In addition, provisions should be made so that United Nations Civilian
Police--known as the CIVPOL--can continue it's important mission
through this election period. There should also be a large and
significant presence of international observers during the six to eight
weeks prior of the elections. These basic actions taken quickly and
with authority will demonstrate that the United States is committed to
democracy in Haiti.
Second, we need to re-assess U.S. policy on financial assistance to
Haiti.
For the past several years, the U.S. Government has conditioned
assistance to the Haiti due to the Haitian Government's ineptness.
While the United States has tried to help Haiti sustain democracy,
unfortunately, the Haitian Government has lacked political will. The
Haitian Government has not taken action to resolve a number of
extrajudicial and political killings in Haiti and there have been
numerous human rights violations. The Government has also been
extremely slow in privatization of its government owned enterprises,
and it has not been accountable in maintaining government institutions
through their constitutional and electoral processes.
Let me be clear when I say that the objective in our conditioning of
assistance to Haiti was to urge the Haitian Government to take the
necessary steps to overcome these concerns and challenges. Our
conditioning of assistance has produced some positive change in Haiti.
With the upcoming Parliamentarian elections in Haiti, however, it is
important that we provide flexibility in our assistance to assure that
these very important and needed elections are transparent.
Today, Mr. President, I am suggesting that the U.S. Government focus
its appropriation policy on accountability. While the Congress is not
losing the opportunity to review and perform oversight of our
appropriated funds to Haiti, this new language sets congressional
priorities. Specifically, the top areas include: First, aggressive
action to support the institution of the Haitian National Police;
second, steps to ensure that any elections undertaken in Haiti with
U.S. assistance are full, free, fair and transparent; third, a program
designed to develop the indigenous human rights monitoring capacity;
fourth, steps to facilitate the continued privatization of state-owned
enterprises; and fifth, a sustained agriculture development program.
We have also incorporated reporting requirement language so that the
Administration can give U.S. a detailed assessment of each benchmark.
This new language was drafted by several Senators including myself and
Senators Helms, Dodd, and Graham.
The ideological and financial crossway that is before Haiti is of
national and global importance. The U.S. national interest is served by
a stable, democratic, prospering Haiti that cooperates with U.S.
counter-drug efforts. We can help ensure this end through our technical
and physical support of immediate Parliamentary elections and through
lifting the limitations on financial assistance. Our Nation's eyes have
been so focused across the Atlantic that I fear we may have forgotten
our responsibility in our own hemisphere. But, now is the time to act
in order that democracy may take her proper place in this hemisphere.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for
their work on this legislation. This is not an easy bill.
I certainly commend their efforts to keep this bill within the budget
caps. I regret that in trying to balance our many important priorities,
international affairs spending may have suffered disproportionately.
Mr. President, national security can not be viewed solely through a
defense lens, but also must comprise all the critical preventive
measures offered through an active foreign affairs program. This means
continuing to fight the spread of disease and drugs, providing adequate
nutrition for children and families, and pursuing U.S. goals in arms
reduction. We also should continue to make our full contributions to
the multilateral institutions, in particular the United Nations, on
which the United States relies.
I will, however, support this legislation.
However, I do wish to comment on one area of funding in particular
which has suffered cuts in this legislation, and that is international
peacekeeping. This bill appropriates funds for America's voluntary
peacekeeping activities, which includes such things as our
contributions to the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and to the
Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Middle East. The
voluntary peacekeeping account also funds our contributions to
important peacekeeping initiatives in Africa, including through an
Africa regional fund and through the Africa Crisis Response Initiative.
But Mr. President, this bill would cut the voluntary peacekeeping
account by $50 million off the President's request; that's 40% below
the request. While the bill would support a slight increase from last
year's appropriation for this account, I am afraid that this level is
inadequate to support our peacekeeping efforts in Africa.
This voluntary peacekeeping fund is designed to support peacekeeping
efforts other than assessed missions by the United Nations, which are
funded separately through an account in another appropriations bill.
The account funded in this bill is designed to try to anticipate needs
in the peacekeeping arena, but also to be flexible and prepared to deal
with unanticipated contingencies.
This morning, the chairman of the Subcommittee, the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky, made the assertion that the administration's
request regarding peacekeeping was, in his words, ``redundant,''
because there is more than one account that provides funds for
peacekeeping in Africa.
But, Mr. President, I would respectfully disagree with this
characterization and note that the requirements for peacekeeping in
Africa are such that a distinct account may be required.
At a recent hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Chairman
Frist and I heard testimony regarding the conflict raging in Central
Africa, in which there are currently as many as nine countries
involved. These wars don't get much press attention in the United
States, but it is likely that more people are dying there right now
than we have seen killed in Kosovo in recent months and in a number of
other well publicized conflicts outside Africa.
Mr. President, it is easy to make generalizations about the causes of
conflict in Africa, but I think its roots are not well understood.
At that hearing, I posed some important questions which I would like
to repeat here on the floor.
First, what is the basis for U.S. policy in Africa? Is it to support
democracy and respect for human rights? Is it to avoid genocide? Is it
to encourage stability and economic development? These are some of the
things I hear administration officials saying, but sometimes I am not
sure our actions are consistent with these lofty goals. For example,
some would question how the United States government hopes to prevent
genocide, when it is often hesitant to condemn atrocities that fall
short of genocide. Some also question our commitment to preventing
genocide in the future when our government has so far declined to
examine in any detail our own weak response during the 1994 crisis.
Second, if there were to be another ``genocide''--assuming there is
consensus as to the meaning of that word--what steps is the United
States prepared to take to stop it? Is NATO going to start launching
air strikes against the offending powers? We all know that is
unrealistic, yet the crisis in Kosovo is causing a lot of people--
including Members of Congress and including myself--to ask: ``Why
Kosovo and not Rwanda?'' Why is it that the United States can spend
billions of dollars trying to stop ethnic cleansing in one place, but
yet wouldn't even use the word ``genocide'' in the Rwanda case until
two months after the killing started, and thousands had been killed?
The distinguished chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee,
the Senator from Kentucky, also noted the Committee's intent to have
Serbia designated as a terrorist state, which is mandated in the
legislation. I support this designation, and I agree with my colleague
that it is hard to understand
[[Page S7907]]
the difference, as he said this morning on the floor, ``between thugs
blowing up a village with a car bomb or thugs shelling and burning a
village to the ground. The intent and impact are the same. In both
instances, innocent civilians are the targets and the victims.''
Mr. President, this is precisely my point. Only I would make this
point with respect to Africa and say this: I do not understand the
difference between the terror and violence that is going on in Sierra
Leone and what is going on in Kosovo! In both instances, innocent
civilians are the targets and the victims. Yet the bill before us today
provides millions of dollars to support peacekeeping and other
activities for Kosovo, and barely anything for similar activities in
Africa.
I do not understand how the decision to intervene in Kosovo fits in
with an overall post-Cold War American foreign policy strategy.
Obviously, the tragedies and the horrors that have been perpetrated in
Kosovo demand a response and that response must include a role for the
United States. But as the world's only superpower, I do not believe the
United States is able to act effectively only in Europe or only in our
own region. We have shown our ability to project overwhelming power
throughout the world. Is an accident of geography sufficient to allow
inaction in Africa, while Kosovo requires a huge commitment? This
question needs to be answered not so much for me but for the American
people, and to some extent for the people of Africa. They do not
understand, and I do not understand, why one tragedy demands our
attention and our action, and another one simply does not.
Mr. President, my point here is that, given the overwhelming response
to the events in the Balkans, the very least we can do in response to
conflict in Africa is to support regional peacekeeping efforts, as well
as do all we can on the preventive side.
The United States has been a significant contributor to existing
regional efforts such as the actions of the Economic Community of West
African States, or ECOWAS, and its peacekeeping force, ECOMOG in both
Liberia and in the ongoing conflict in Sierra Leone. There is no doubt
that ECOMOG has had its share of problems, but nevertheless, it is
solely through the efforts of this regional peacekeeping force that
there is even the hope of a peaceful resolution in the Sierra Leone
situation.
Mr. President, we can never truly anticipate the extent of needs such
as this, and I would hope we could allow the administration some
flexibility in this account. We should ensure the availability of
funding to provide resources to support what I hope will be a peace
agreement in Sierra Leone and maybe a cease-fire agreement in the
conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. If these positive developments
take place, the United States should be poised to provide some support.
This is no time to send a signal that we are not concerned with these
crises.
Finally, just a quick word about the two Africa-related portions of
this voluntary account. As I understand his remarks, the Senator from
Kentucky believes it is ``redundant'' to have both an Africa Regional
fund and monies for the Africa Crisis Response Initiative. But in my
view, these two funds serve two separate purposes. The first, the
Africa regional fund, represents our traditional peacekeeping
functions. This is the account that has been used to provide logistical
assistance to ECOMOG in both the Liberia and Sierra Leone cases. The
other, the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), is different. ACRI
seeks to assist African militaries to build their own capacities to
conduct peacekeeping operations. It is hoped that countries which now
receive training under ACRI would agree to participate in future
peacekeeping operations. In this regard, ACRI represents a forward-
leaning approach; call it ``preventive diplomacy.''
Mr. President, ACRI has been in operation for just a short while and
can still be considered in its early stage. Most of the militaries that
have received training through ACRI have been trained at the company
or, in a few cases, battalion levels, but an important aspect of the
program is also to conduct brigade level training. As envisioned, the
brigade level training is key to the whole ACRI program because it
would expand joint training exercises between and among participating
countries and would help ensure interoperability between and among the
forces of contributing nations.
Mr. President, just as the ACRI program is getting underway, I do not
think we should be cutting support for it. Our efforts to build
peacekeeping capacity in Africa will fail if we can not assist in
preparing our partners to actually participate and conduct peacekeeping
operations.
In summary, Mr. President, I believe the voluntary peacekeeping
account represents an important part of our international affairs
funding, and of America's ability to lead in the world, and I am
concerned that the cuts to this account will have an inordinate impact
on Africa.
Mr. LAUTENBERG Mr. President, I rise today first of all to thank and
commend the Chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittee for their efforts to develop a bill to meet
priority foreign affairs needs within the limits of the subcommittee
allocation.
Mr. President, the Budget Resolution did not allocate sufficient
resources for Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee
frankly did not receive a sufficient allocation to maintain America's
world leadership role We need to recognize that neither isolationism
nor limited engagement is an option if we want to maintain America's
security and prosperity.
We need to realize that we cannot conduct effective foreign policy
solely by having a strong military In fact, by limiting funding for
other tools of diplomacy we increase our reliance on threats and use of
military force.
This bill fails to fulfill the President's request in numerous areas.
I am deeply concerned that the Wye aid package for Israel, the
Palestinians, and Jordan requested by the President has not been fully
funded The fact that it could not be accommodated within the
subcommittee allocation without drastically cutting important programs
around the world merely reinforces my previous point.
In the near future, we are going to have to step up to the
responsibility of funding aid to help implement the Wye River
Memorandum I hope the Chairman will agree that we will need to find a
way to fund this aid outside the confines of this bill This is a small
price to pay for continued and renewed efforts to achieve a lasting
peace in the Middle East.
The bill does not include the $60 million I sought for tuberculosis
prevention programs We need much stronger programs to combat
tuberculosis now Tuberculosis kills more people worldwide than AIDS and
malaria combined, yet receives substantially fewer aid dollars.
TB is spread easily and each active case leads to many more, so
concerted global action to bring TB under control, now estimated to
require $1 billion, becomes more expensive the longer we wait We need
to find more resources to begin to confront the challenge of TB this
year.
I hope we will also be able to find an additional $20 million for the
United Nations Development Program UNDP has made great strides in
cutting costs and improving coordination among UN agencies in the field
to more effectively deliver essential assistance and promote
sustainable economic development.
Unfortunately, we're penalizing the poor in many countries by
following the Administration's lead and failing to restore funding for
UNDP to $100 million.
I am also concerned that the bill significantly underfunds debt
relief for the poorest countries.
Funding for the Peace Corps is reduced from the requested level, when
it should have been increased to make progress toward the President's
goal of fielding ten thousand Peace Corps Volunteers.
Even counter terrorism programs have not been adequately funded.
Having raised these concerns, let me reiterate my commendation to the
subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for making a real effort to
achieve a balanced bill while remaining within an allocation nearly $2
billion below the President's request.
I would also like to thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking
member for including many important programs. In particular, Seeds of
Peace contributes to reconciliation in the
[[Page S7908]]
Middle East by bringing together young people from throughout the
region, including Israelis and Palestinians and other Arabs.
Carelift International, which is largely funded by the private
sector, improves health care in transition and developing countries at
low cost by sharing refurbished American medical equipment.
Senator McConnell has also put some real dollars behind the rhetoric
supporting regional integration in Southeast Europe. We need to aid the
Kosovars to rebuild their shattered lives and help the countries and
peoples of this troubled region to overcome their differences and their
history and truly become a part of the new Europe.
I do hope we will be able to restore funding requested by the
Administration for regional programs under the SEED Act, including
programs to combat trans-national crime.
I am not offering amendments to increase allocations to unfunded or
underfunded programs because I think it would be very difficult to do
so without reducing funding for other priorities.
I voted for this bill in the subcommittee and committee because I
think Senators McConnell and Leahy have done a good job with the
limited resources available to them. I will likely vote for the bill in
the Senate as well, but not without deep reservations about the overall
funding level and priorities which have not been funded adequately.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, United States national security and
economic well-being is closely tied to our ability to formulate and
execute foreign policies that both protect our interests and reflect
our ideals. It is the responsibility of the Congress to pass
legislation on foreign policy consistent with those interests and
ideals. We may differ about the means, but we seldom disagree about the
goal: political stability and economic prosperity in every region of
the globe. Sometimes we employ political and economic sanctions in
pursuit of our objectives; sometimes we resort to the use of military
force. These responsibilities are considerable, and they are real. And
we owe it to the American public to handle them responsibly.
I do not wish to exaggerate the implications of the questionable
spending that is included in the bill before us. Clearly, the wasteful
and unnecessary spending provisions, as well as the numerous earmarks,
threaten neither our national interest nor our economic well-being.
They do, however, detract from the integrity of the process by which
the federal budget is put together, and they do undermine our
credibility with the public. The net result is to diminish our ability
to contribute substantially to this nation's national security and
economic policies. Frivolous items placed in major spending bills for
parochial or personal reasons is a serious disservice to the
institution to which we belong, and to the public that we serve.
It is for this reason that is so discouraging to read the foreign
operations appropriations bill and find that, once again, it includes
$5 million to establish an International Law Enforcement Academy in
Roswell, New Mexico. To see that provision once again placed in the
bill is to reaffirm the notion that fiscal prudence and operational
requirements are alien concepts to some members of this body.
Similarly, language in the report accompanying the bill recommending
that the Agency for International Development spend as much as
necessary on such worthwhile projects as research on pond dynamics
strikes me as representing a seriously misplaced sense of priorities.
And should we really be earmarking more than $1 million in additional
funds so that a Minnesota job training program can shift its dependence
to private sector funding? In a foreign aid bill? I have to question
the wisdom of provisions like these.
Mr. President, as United States military forces take up positions in
Kosovo while others continue their peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and
soldiers serve unaccompanied hardship tours on the demilitarized zone
of the Korean peninsula, what kind of message are we sending about our
role in the foreign policy process when we pass a bill that directs the
Agency for International Development to study and, almost certainly,
fund research on protea germplasm in South Africa? With all the
problems around the world demanding our attention, do we really need to
focus on the future welfare of the Waboom tree? I think not. And, of
course, the bill provides the usual absurd amount--specified as ``at
least'' $4 million--for that oldie but goodie, the International
Fertilizer Center in Alabama. I have to believe, Mr. President, that if
the Department of State or the Agency for International Development
agreed with the need to spend so much annually out of the foreign
operations budget for research on fertilizer, it would probably include
such an item in its budget request.
Israel and Hawaii collaborating on research regarding the
competitiveness of the tropical fish and plant global market sounds
contrived, but I'll allow for the possibility that there's more to that
program than meets the eye. When viewed alongside the report's language
``urging'' AID to allocate $500,000 for the Pacific International
Center for High Technology Research, a pattern begins to form, but I
won't elaborate further.
As usual, the foreign operations appropriations bill includes a long
list of earmarks for specific American universities, the very kind of
budgeting that ensures the American taxpayers get the least value for
their dollar. A competitive process wherein funding is allocated
according to which project, if any, is the most meritorious is a
preferred process for allocating financial resources, but this bill
goes far in the opposite direction. As a leader in the effort at
developing normal economic relations with Vietnam, I applaud projects
designed to facilitate the establishment of a market economy in that
country; whether Boise State University deserves a $3 million earmark
to establish a business school there, however, strains credulity.
There is much that is good in this bill in terms of genuine efforts
at improving health care in less developed countries. I continue to be
troubled, however, by the Committee's tendency to specify precisely
which organizations it believes should be the recipient of foreign aid
dollars. That is a practice that deserves closer scrutiny than
heretofore has been the case. I would like to think that such
determinations are solely merit based following a competitive process
and that parochial considerations play no part. Skepticism, though, is
warranted.
In closing, I am a strong supporter of maintaining an active U.S.
role in global affairs. United States foreign aid programs are an
essential instrument of our national security policy. Even with the
vast number of troubling items in this bill, I will support its
passage. But I would be remiss in my responsibilities were I to ignore
what I firmly believe is an imprudent budgeting process that has a
self-defeating tendency to squander foreign aid dollars that we can
ill-afford to waste. I will continue to hope for improvements in the
process by which these bills are assembled.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying list be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (S. 1234)--Directive Language
and Earmarks
Report Language Provisions
Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Directs the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to support
establishment of a new $200 million Maritime Fund using
United States commercial maritime expertise. Earmark is
included as Section 539 in the bill text.
University Development Assistance Programs: The Committee
annually earmarks or ``recommends'' funding for specific
universities around the United States without benefit of
competitive analytical processes to determine the value of
the activity and whether it can best be done in an alternate
manner. The following universities are expected to continue
to receive such funds:
University of Hawaii, to train health care and social
workers;
University of Northern Iowa, to incorporate democratic
concepts and practices into schools and teachers education
programs;
Washington State University, for water research in the
Middle East;
Purdue University, for water research in the Middle East;
South Carolina University, for water research in the Middle
East;
[[Page S7909]]
Mississippi State University, at least $500,000 for water
research in Turkey;
George Mason University, for health care in developing
countries;
San Diego University Foundation Middle East Development
Program, to promote dialogue among Middle Eastern experts on
water planning;
Boise State University, $3 million to establish a business
school in Vietnam;
University of Idaho, $300,000, to train engineers in
Guatemala in water management;
Utah State University, to establish, with $2.1 million, a
World Irrigation Training Center;
University of South Alabama, $1 million to monitor birth
defects in Ukraine;
Auburn University, $450,000 to continue its relationship
with Osmania University in India;
University of Louisville, Spalding University, University
of Indiana/Purdue, University of Wisconsin, University of
Maine and Notre Dame, to continue to support the
establishment of an American University in Jordan;
St. Thomas University, Miami, Florida, $5 million to
continue to encourage and promote democratic principles in
Africa;
University of Idaho, at least $485,000 for the university's
Post Harvest Institute for Perishables under the
Collaborative Agribusiness Support Program;
Montana State University-Bozeman, $1 million for soil
management, recommended to be conducted at MSU-Bozeman; and
Washington State University, AID is expected to work with
WSU to establish small business development centers in
Romania and Russia.
Maintenance of Protea Germplasm: Directs AID to consider
and fund if meritorious a joint proposal from the South
Africa and United States protea industries.
Tropical Plant and Animal Research Initiative: AID is urged
to consider a joint application from Israel and Hawaii to
collaborate on research regarding the competitiveness of the
tropical fish and plant global market.
International Fertilizer Development Center: ``at least''
$4 million is earmarked for the center.
Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Demonstration: AID is
urged to allocate $500,000 for the Pacific International
Center for High Technology Research.
Soils Management Collaborative Research Support Program:
The Committee recommends that AID fund the program for as
much as is necessary for the achievement of the goals of all
approved projects.
Opportunities Industrialization Centers, International: at
least $1 million is earmarked to enable OIC International in
Minnesota to continue its transition to private sector
funding.
U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute: earmarks
$500,000 for the USTTI.
Mitch McConnell Conservation Fund: earmarks $500,000 for
the Charles Darwin Research Station and the Charles Darwin
Foundation to support research on the Galapagos Islands.
Johns Hopkins University's centers in Bologna, Italy, and
Nanjing, China [the Committee directs that at least $600,000
be provided the Nanjing center, noting its disappointment
with AID for not being sufficiently attentive to that
institution's funding.]
Medical Relief: $7 million is earmarked for Carelift
International, Philadelphia, to continue and expand its
operations in needy countries.
Orphanages: $4 million is recommended for improving
orphanage facilities in Russia, the funding to be provided
through Rotary International, the Anchorage Interfaith
Council, and the Municipality of Anchorage.
Bill Language
International Law Enforcement Academy for the Western
Hemisphere, Roswell, New Mexico: The bill earmarks $5 million
for establishment of an International Law Enforcement Academy
for the Western Hemisphere, to be located at the deBremmond
Training Center in Roswell, NM.
Global Environment Facility: the bill earmarks $25 million
as the U.S. contribution to the Global Environment Facility.
Bilateral Economic Assistance: Note: The report
accompanying S. 1234 uses the influence of the Appropriations
Committee to ensure that funds go to specified organizations
without regard for alternative means of accomplishing desired
objectives, which in most cases are inarguably worthwhile:
Tuberculosis: Specifies the American Lung Association and
the American Thoracic Society as nongovernmental
organizations that should be supported.
Maternal Health: Encourages AID to provide $4 million to
Maternal Life International to reduce maternal mortality and
provide health care for HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Iodine Deficiency: Recommends that AID provide $2 million
in Child Survival funds to Kiwanis International via UNICEF.
Polio Eradication: Provides $25 million and encourages the
provision by AID of funds for Rotary International.
Vitamins for At-Risk Women, Infants and Children:
Encourages provision by AID of $2.8 million to Magee
Womancare International to develop a program for children in
orphanages.
Hepatitis: Encourages AID to support the Ramses Foundation
in its work in Egypt.
Orphans, Displaced, and Blind Children: Recommends AID
provide at least $1 million through Helen Keller
International for its work with displaced children and
orphans.
American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: The Appropriations
Committee regularly allocates funds for specific
institutions, usually the same institutions every year, under
the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program. The
following are specified as deserving of further support:
American University in Beirut;
The Lebanese American University (formerly Beirut
University College)
Hadassah Medical Organization
Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute of
Science, Israel
University College Dublin: AID is requested to consider
funding the establishment of a Center of American Studies at
the Dublin center.
Lebanon: earmarks minimum of $4 million for the American
University of Beirut, Lebanese American University and
International College and recognizes the ``commendable
efforts'' of the YMCA of Lebanon.
India: $250,000 for healthcare in the Sringeri region of
India should be administered by the Sharada Dhanvantari
Charitable Hospital.
Tibet: AID is urged to support development projects
sponsored by the Bridge Fund.
Promoting Economic Growth: Supports $9 million to fund the
International Center for Economic Growth's Global Stability
Project to implement a ``third generation'' macroeconomic
model.
Patrick Leahy War Victims Fund: Recommends that $10 million
be allocated for activities carried out by the Patrick Leahy
Fund.
Palestinian-Israeli Cooperation Program: The Committee
recommends $600,000 for the program, which seeks to
facilitate the establishment of cooperative projects in
medicine, science, the arts, and children's activities.
Distance Learning Technology: AID is urged to maintain
funding for programs oriented toward legal reform in Central
and Eastern Europe, including through the Central and Eastern
European Law Institute.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the foreign operations appropriation bill
is a crucial bill. It is integral to all of our assistance programs
overseas. The bill's importance to American foreign policy cannot be
over emphasized. This bill provides funding for development aid to poor
countries, funds to combat terrorism and proliferation of nuclear
weapons overseas, and monies for all of the multilateral financial
institutions which lend to needy countries.
As I see it, the bill before the Senate has two major problems.
First, the bill as a whole is significantly under-funded. The amount
dedicated to our nation's foreign operations is almost $2 billion below
the President's request for funding.
I understand that some of this is due to the caps placed on
expenditures as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; however, we in
the Senate cannot hide behind that piece of legislation every time we
want an excuse for why the administration's appropriations requests are
under funded. I am not saying that this is not a legitimate reason for
not granting the President's entire request, but $2 billion is an
enormous shortfall.
In addition to inadequate funding overall, there are particular
programs and foreign policy initiatives which are either funded at a
level which is drastically reduced from the President's request, or
which have not been funded at all.
Mr. President, the administration in its statement of policy with
respect to this bill has clearly stated that ``A bill funded at this
level would be grossly inadequate to maintain America's leadership
around the world. It would inevitably require severe reductions from
previously enacted levels for programs managed by the Departments of
State and Treasury, the Agency for International Development and other
agencies.''
The statement quite clearly states that if the significant funding
and language problems in this bill as reported are not resolved that
``the President's senior advisors have no choice but to recommend that
he veto the bill.''
I wish to speak to several very important aspects of this bill that
must be addressed in conference. First, the bill fails to provide the
$500 million requested by the President to support the Middle East Wye
River Agreement.
Second, it fails to fund the administration's Expanded Threat
Reduction Initiative, so important to our ability to reduce the
proliferation threat and continue the elimination of weapons of mass
destruction.
Third, this bill imposes new onerous conditions on U.S. funding for
the 1994 Agreed Framework, the cornerstone of our North Korea policy.
[[Page S7910]]
I also have very strong concerns with respect to two provisions in
the bill relating to Kosovo and our ongoing relationship with Russia.
Unfortunately, by withholding critical support for Jordan, Israel,
and the Palestinian Authority, this bill would have us renege on the
commitments that made the Wye River agreement possible. The leaders of
Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel have taken great risks
for peace. We pledged to stand with them as they took these risks.
In the months ahead, we will undoubtedly be called upon to play a
lead role in the peace talks. But by refusing to fund one penny of the
President's request for the Wye River agreement, this bill calls into
question our commitment to Middle East peace just as there is renewed
hope for accelerated progress.
Some may argue that the Middle East gets enough assistance as it is.
Relative to other accounts that may be true, but the levels of
assistance to the Middle East are a reflection of the strategic and
moral issues at stake.
The funds requested by the administration are in keeping with our
commitment to Israel's security. They will help wage battle in
Palestinian areas against the greatest enemy of peace--namely, the
poverty and despair that provides a fertile breeding ground for
extremism. They will help bolster Jordan--a close ally whose peace with
Israel should serve as a model for others in the region.
I am convinced that the sums requested by the administration to
support peace pale in comparison to the costs we would incur if
conflict and turmoil returned to the Middle East.
One of the most disturbing elements of this bill is its failure to
fund the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative that helps reduce the
threat of weapons of mass destruction. Technically the cuts are to the
larger budget lines for aid to the Newly Independent States and for
Nonproliferation and related programs. But report language calls the
funding of Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative programs ``ill
advised,'' and they will bear the brunt of these cuts.
Weapons of mass destruction dwarf the other threats to our national
security. If we fail to help Russian experts find nonmilitary
employment, we may foster Iran's nuclear weapons, or Iraq's biological
weapons, or Libyan missiles. Even a single use of such weapons against
the United States, U.S. forces, or our allies would be a terrible
tragedy--especially if we failed to prevent it.
The failure to fund the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiatives means
no funds--not even the levels appropriated last year--for helping
Russian biological weapons experts find new careers. This is a vital
program that has enabled biological weapons experts to resist offers
from Iran and other rogue states. We should be expanding this program,
rather than cutting it.
The Threat Reduction cut means no funds for the International Science
and Technology Centers in Russia and Ukraine that have helped over
24,000 former weapons scientists since 1994. The Science Center program
has been very successful. It has been praised for its tight management,
under board chairman Ron Lehman, a former official in Republican
administrations whom we all know to be a true patriot. Science Center
support for Russian scientists is exempt from Russian taxes. We should
be expanding this program, too, rather than cutting it.
The Threat Reduction cut means no funds--not even last year's
levels--for the Civilian Research and Development Foundation, which
gives vital training to Russian former weapons scientists who are
trying to form viable businesses. We tell Russian weapons experts to
adapt to a market economy. But they will never achieve that, if we
don't give them the training. And if they fail, they will be ripe for
the plucking by rogue states who would buy their weapons expertise.
The Threat Reduction cut means no funds--not even last year's
levels--to assist customs officials in Russia and the rest of the
former Soviet Union. The customs officials whom we assist are our most
reliable allies in stopping the flow of nuclear and weapons of mass
destruction materials.
For example, it was customs officials in Azerbaijan who stopped a
shipment of specialty steel to Iran that would have been used for
missiles. This bill also contains only $5 million--out of $15 million
requested--for world-wide assistance to customs services. This is the
program that aids border control agencies in the Baltic states, where
we have seen Russian nuclear smuggling efforts in the past. It makes no
sense to provide only $5 million for this vital function.
These cuts even wipe out the border security assistance to Georgia
that Senator McConnell instituted last year.
The Threat Reduction cut means no funds to assist in removing Russian
troops from Moldova--a longstanding objective of the United States and
of the Congress. Do we suddenly want the Russian troops to stay longer
in a country that does not want them? Do we no longer care whether this
exacerbates ethnic conflict in Moldova?
The Foreign Operations Subcommittee made these cuts without
prejudice. But it makes no sense to let us guard our national security
only by cutting important programs to support democracy, free media,
and the rule of law in the former Soviet Union.
I am very pleased that the managers have accepted a sense of the
Senate amendment I offered urging that the Threat Reduction funds be
restored in conference to the level requested by the President.
I urge the managers of this bill to do their utmost to achieve this,
and I wish them complete success in that important effort.
On the eve of South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's visit to
Washington, and just as former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry is
completing his comprehensive Korea policy review, this bill places the
Agreed Framework in grave jeopardy.
The bill not only provides inadequate funding for heavy fuel oil
deliveries to North Korea--deliveries the United States is obligated to
arrange under the 1994 Agreed Framework--it also effectively prevents
the appropriated funds from being expended by requiring the President
to certify the uncertifiable with respect to North Korea's conduct.
Under existing law, the President must already certify that North
Korea is in full compliance with the Agreed Framework and its
confidential minute in order to expend monies appropriated for heavy
fuel oil deliveries to the North. This a reasonable requirement. But if
the North is fulfilling its side of the bargain, we should fulfill ours
rather than dream up new requirements on the North.
Do we have other serious concerns about North Korea, in addition to
its nuclear ambitions? Of course we do. But these other concerns--
missile development and export, narcotics trafficking, armed
provocations along the DMZ--cannot be addressed successfully if we
abandon the Agreed Framework.
For all of its imperfections, the Agreed Framework has served our
national interest well, reducing the risk of war and capping the
North's ability to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs. Five
years ago, North Korea was on the verge of withdrawing from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and acquiring the capacity to build dozens of
nuclear weapons every year. Today, with the Agreed Framework intact,
the North's nuclear facilities stand idle.
The spent fuel from its research reactor has been canned and placed
under round-the-clock monitoring by the International Atomic Energy
Agency. The Agreed Framework has also given us unprecedented access to
North Korea, even to sensitive military sites, as demonstrated by the
recent successful U.S. visit to the Kumchangni undergound facility.
These are not insignificant accomplishments, and we should think
twice before we risk turning back the clock.
By underfunding the Korean Energy Development Organization and
unilaterally imposing new obligations on North Korea, this bill could
precipitate a crisis on the Peninsula and distance us from our key
ally, South Korea.
In addition, I have two serious problems with sections of the bill
relating to Kosovo. First, $20 million shall be available ``for
training and equipping a Kosova security force.'' Mr. President, this
language conveys the impression that we want to train something like a
national guard or an army. In the real world, most people would see
this as our training and equipping a KLA Army.
[[Page S7911]]
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which gives
international sanction to KFOR, is not specific about the future status
of Kosovo. Any future Kosovo national guard or army presupposes an
independent Kosovo.
Aside from that being counter to United States policy, it is
completely irrelevant to this bill. For the duration of fiscal year
2000, security in Kosovo will be guaranteed by the heavily armed, NATO-
led KFOR. There is absolutely no need for any kind of an indigenous
``security force'' other than a civilian police force.
The final legislation should make it crystal-clear that the
appropriation will be used to train and equip a police force, not an
army.
My second Kosovo-related objection concerns the requirement that the
Secretary of State certify that the Russians have not established a
``separate zone of operational control'' and are ``fully integrated
under NATO unified command and control arrangements.''
This requirement has been overtaken by events. The Military-Technical
Agreement between NATO and Russia found a formula to include Russian
peacekeepers in KFOR. This formula has been accepted by our government,
by all other 18 NATO members, and by the United Nations.
I have no doubt that Secretary Albright could broadly construe words
like ``operational control'' and ``fully integrated'' and thereby make
the required certification.
But what would we get by retaining this language and forcing her to
do so? I'll tell my colleagues. We would be gratuitously sticking our
finger in the Russians' eye at the precise moment we are trying to
involve them in KFOR and in the entire reconstruction effort in Kosovo.
To sanitize a phrase used by an esteemed former President of the
United States, I would rather have the Russians inside our tent looking
out, than outside our tent looking in.
I would like to remind my friend Senator McConnell that when the two
of us recently appeared on the Sunday Fox Television News talk-show he
said with regard to the Russians in Kosovo--and I quote; ``I don't know
that we need to threaten foreign assistance.''
Apparently he has changed his mind. I agreed with Senator McConnell
that day on television. I wish he had held to his position.
It is important that these problems be addressed in conference, and
that a way be found to increase the overall funding levels.
At this time I will reluctantly vote to send this legislation to
conference. However, I reserve the right to vote against it should
these problems not be addressed in the final conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Byrd
Smith (NH)
NOT VOTING--1
Mack
The bill (S. 1234), as amended, was passed.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. President, I commend first the occupant of the Chair for an
extraordinarily effective debate on the issue that dominated today's
discussion in the foreign operations appropriations bill. I think the
Senator from Kansas did an outstanding job.
I also want to thank my staff. Robin Cleveland has done work on
foreign policy matters for some 15 years now, and I thank Robin for, as
usual, outstanding work; and Billy Piper, with whom I have worked 5 or
6 years, has done an absolutely superb job; and his assistant, Jon
Meek, from my personal staff; as well as Jennifer Chartrand, a new
member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. All of those folks
are on the majority side; and of course Tim Rieser and Cara Thanassi
from the minority staff, with whom we always enjoy working, and Steve
Cortese and Jay Kimmitt from the full committee.
I say to my friend, Pat Leahy, I enjoy our annual collaboration on
this bill, and I look forward to working with the Senator in
conference.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished senior Senator
from Kentucky for the alacrity with which he moved this bill. Those who
have reached that level of knowledge know we Senators are
constitutional impediments to our staffs.
I compliment Robin Cleveland, who has worked so hard at trying to
balance the competing interests of so many Senators on both sides of
the aisle, as well as Billy Piper and Jennifer Chartrand; and on my
side, the indefatigable Tim Rieser, a man who has not slept since it
was announced we might go to this bill a month or so ago. He has,
again, maintained the remarkable Rieser filing cabinet, which is
primarily in his head, knowing all the ins and outs of this bill and
handling it so well.
He was ably assisted by Cara Thanassi. Ms. Thanassi began a few years
ago on our staff. She has grown enormously in talent and ability and
was absolutely essential in this work.
In working with the Senator from Kentucky, we have tried to
accommodate each other on issues, even though on some issues we
obviously have a different philosophy. We have respected each other and
accommodated each other and tried to make sure a bipartisan piece of
legislation came through. I think the resulting vote today shows that
bipartisanship on foreign policy was maintained.
I yield the floor.
____________________