[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5609-S5628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2522, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2522) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Helms amendment No. 3498, to require the United States to
withhold assistance to Russia by an amount equal to the
amount which Russia provides Serbia.
Nickles amendment No. 3569, to provide that not less than
$100,000,000 shall be made available by the Department of
State to the Department of Justice for counternarcotic
activity initiatives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, is recognized to call up an amendment relative
to Mozambique.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 3520
(Purpose: To increase amounts appropriated for international disaster
assistance for Mozambique and Southern Africa and to offset such
increase)
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 3520.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 17, lines 1 and 2, strike ``$220,000,000, to remain
available until expended'' and insert ``$245,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That, of the funds
appropriated under this heading, $25,000,000 shall be
available only for Mozambique and Southern Africa: Provided
further, That, of the amounts that are appropriated under
this Act (other than under this heading) and that are
available without an earmark, $25,000,000 shall be withheld
from obligation and expenditure''.
Amendment No. 3520, As Modified
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
[[Page S5610]]
amendment, and I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
so modified.
The amendment (No. 3520), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the text, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ADDITIONAL
ASSISTANCE FOR MOZAMBIQUE AND SOUTHERN AFRICA
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) In February and March of 2000, cyclones Gloria, Eline,
and Hudah caused extensive flooding in southern Africa,
severely affecting the Republic of Mozambique.
(2) The floods claimed at least 640 lives and left nearly
500,000 people displaced or trapped in flood-isolated areas.
(3) The floods contaminated water supplies, destroyed
hundreds of miles of roads, and washed away homes, schools,
and health clinics.
(4) This heavy flooding and the displacement it caused
created conditions in which infectious disease has
flourished.
(5) The southern African floods of 2000 washed previously
identified and marked landmines to new, unmarked locations.
(6) Prior to the flooding, Mozambique has been making
progress toward climbing out of poverty, enjoying economic
growth rates of 10% per year.
(7) The World Bank estimates that the costs of
reconstruction in Mozambique alone will be $430 million, with
an additional $215 million in economic costs.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress
that an additional $168,000,000 should be made available for
disaster assistance in Mozambique and Southern Africa.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for
working with me to reach agreement on this modification. I thank them
for cosponsoring it. I thank Senator Frist for joining me in offering
it.
This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the
administration's request for flood recovery in southern Africa, and
particularly in the Republic of Mozambique, should be fully funded.
Right now the foreign operations bill falls far short of fulfilling
the administration's request for flood relief in southern Africa. The
floods that took so many lives there, and destroyed so many farms,
businesses, schools, and hospitals there, have faded from our
television screens. But Mr. President, the terrible destruction of
these floods has not receded in Mozambique. On the contrary, the longer
Mozambique waits for additional flood relief, the more severe the long-
term damage of this disaster will become. In February and March
Mozambique was in the news because it was devastated by flooding. But
before that Mozambique made headlines with the highest economic growth
rate in the world. The people of Mozambique have proven that they are
fighters, who worked their way back from a terrible civil war to
achieve impressive economic and social progress. But today the people
of Mozambique are in a fight that they can't win without the help of
their African neighbors, and the help of the United States.
It was not long ago that Americans saw dramatic images of daring
rescues and remarkable perseverance in Mozambique. Massive rainstorms
and furious cyclones inundated the low lands of Mozambique and flooded
the rivers that meander through southeastern Africa. The region was
ravage by not one, not two, but three cyclones. As we stand here,
thousands of miles away on the floor of the Senate, it's hard to
comprehend the human cost of this disaster. But these floods claimed
the lives of 640 people, and displaced or trapped 491,000 others.
Schools, business, and clinics were destroyed, and, in a devastating
blow to rescue efforts and to prospects for economic recovery, hundreds
of miles of the transportation system were destroyed.
The floods washed away roads, contaminated water supplies, and forced
whole families onto rooftops--even into trees--for days on end. The
people of Mozambique have seen their crops flooded, their homes
destroyed, and their loved ones drowned by the worst flooding southern
Africa has seen in the last 100 years. Yet, alongside these tragedies,
we saw vivid images of hope as fellow African nations rose up to help
their neighbors--most notably South Africa with its courageous
helicopter pilots, but also Malawi and even tiny Lesotho, which helped
to get supplies to those in need as quickly as possible. I was proud of
the U.S. involvement in these efforts, and I know that many of my
constituents shared that pride. It is my intent, with this amendment,
to ensure that the people of southern Africa are not forgotten in this
bill. The administration asked for $193 million to assist the flood-
ravaged countries of southern Africa. This bill provides for only $25
million. That, Mr. President, is simply not good enough.
I urge my colleagues to remember that these floods are particularly
tragic because the country most seriously affected by them, Mozambique,
has made significant strides toward recovery from its long and brutal
civil war. Though the country is still affected by extreme poverty, in
recent years Mozambique has enjoyed exceptional rates of economic
growth, and while more needs to be done, the country has improved its
record with regard to basic human rights. It has been making great
strides ever since the end of a civil war that ended in the early
1990's. Up until the flood, Mozambique was registering economic growth
at a rate of 10 percent a year. That's an incredible achievement for
any nation, Mr. President, and it deserves special recognition as a
nation of sub-Saharan Africa, where some of its neighbors have
struggled to achieve growth rates a fraction of that size.
The people of Mozambique have been working hard for a better future--
too hard to see that future swept away by the floodwaters that have
already destroyed so much. They need our help. Recovery assistance is
critically needed to help the people of Mozambique to hold on to the
opportunities that lay before them before the waters rose. The World
Bank estimates that the cost of reconstruction in Mozambique alone will
be $430 million. The floodwaters washed landmines into new, unmarked
locations, and infectious diseases spread quickly in the wake of the
disaster. In Mozambique, forecasts suggest that the floods have led to
grain production shortfalls of more than 15 percent. And the outlook
for the future could be even worse if we don't act. Without repaired
roads, farmers and small businesses will be unable to function. Without
working railroad lines, lost revenues will total an estimated $35
million per year. And without working hospitals and sanitation
facilities, Mozambique will suffer further outbreaks of disease. If we
don't reach out to help Mozambique now, it won't be long until were
read about this nation again in headlines, as the people of Mozambique
suffer the consequences of these floods alone without help, Mozambique
may never be able to regain its footing on the road to stability and
prosperity.
I am pleased that both Senators Leahy and McConnell intend to work to
address this issue in conference. I thank them for their cosponsorship,
their attention to this, and their assistance with this amendment.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers intend to
accept this amendment. With that understanding, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
California is to be recognized to call up two amendments, Nos. 3541 and
3542, on which there shall be a total of 40 minutes of debate.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, what was the disposition of the
amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin? Was that accepted?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I think people had assumed there would have to be a
vote. It is my understanding that the managers have no objection, and I
suggest it be accepted at this point.
Mr. McCONNELL. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Wisconsin.
The amendment (No. 3520), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3551, As Modified; 3553, As Modified; 3555, As
Modified; and 3569, As Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a group of modified amendments
to the desk.
[[Page S5611]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes
amendments numbered 3551, as modified; 3553, as modified;
3555, as modified; and 3569, as modified.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 3551, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the United States
should authorize and fully fund a bilateral and multilateral program of
debt relief for the world's poorest countries)
On page 140, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON DEBT RELIEF FOR WORLD'S POOREST
COUNTRIES.
(1) the relevant committees of the Senate should report to
the full Senate legislation authorizing comprehensive debt
relief aimed at assisting citizens of the poor countries
under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries
initiative;
(2) these authorizations of bilateral and multilateral debt
relief should be designed to strengthen and expand the
private sector, encourage increased trade and investment,
support the development of free markets, and promote broad-
scale economic growth in beneficiary countries;
(3) these authorizations should also support the adoption
of policies to alleviate poverty and to ensure that benefits
are shared widely among the population, such as through
initiatives to advance education, improve health, combat
AIDS, and promote clean water and environmental protection;
(4) these authorizations should promote debt relief
agreements that are designed and implemented in a transparent
manner so as to ensure productive allocation of future
resources and prevention of waste;
(5) these authorizations should promote debt relief
agreements that have the broad participation of the citizenry
of the debtor country and should ensure that country's
circumstances are adequately taken into account;
(6) these authorizations should ensure that no country
should receive the benefits of debt relief if that country
does not cooperate with the United States on terrorism or
narcotics enforcement, is a gross violator of the human
rights of its citizens, or is engaged in military or civil
conflict that undermines poverty alleviation efforts or
spends excessively on its military; and
(7) if the conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) through
(6) are met in the authorization legislation approved by
Congress.
____
amendment no. 3553 as modified
On page 33, line 6 strike ``funds made available under this
heading shall be available subject to authorization by the
appropriate committees'' and insert in lieu thereof, ``funds
made available to carry out the provisions of part V of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or as a contribution to the
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) or the HIPC
Trust Fund shall be subject to authorization and approval by
Congress''.
____
amendment no. 3555 as modified
(Purpose: To provide funds for the President to direct the executive
directors to international financial institution to prohibit funds to
the Russian Federation if the Russian Federation delivers SN22 Missiles
to the People's Republic of China)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
``SEC. . RUSSIAN MISSILE SALES TO CHINA
``It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of the
Treasury should direct the executive directors to all
international financial institutions to use the voice and
vote of the United States to oppose loans, credits, or
guarantees to Russian Federation, except for basic human
needs, if the Russian Federation delivers any additional SS-
N-22 missiles or components to the People's Republic of
China.''.
____
amendment no. 3569 as modified
On page 157, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
methamphetamine production and trafficking
For initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and
trafficking, $40 million to be made available until expended:
Provided, That entire amount is designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended: Provided further, That the amount provided
shall be available only to the extent that an official budget
request that includes designation of the entire amount as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the effort here
today--led by Senator Chafee--to put the Senate on record in support of
United States' participation in an international program to lift the
burden of debt from the poorest countries of the world. That is the
HIPC program, named for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries for which
it is intended.
With this amendment the Senate is now on record in support of a
simple, but powerful, idea.
Right now, in the poorest countries of the world, desperately needed
resources--including both money and some of the best-educated public
officials--are used to pay money to the richest industrial economies.
That's right--they are sending money to us.
That is happening because, over the years, we and our allies have
loaned substantial amounts to those countries, often to pursue our own
goals of fighting communism during the Cold War or for other foreign
policy purposes. That often meant that we turned a blind eye to the
problems in those countries, including how their governments might
spend the money, or if they had any hope of repayment.
The perverse result is that, while we seek to promote economic growth
and opportunity in the least developed countries of the world, at the
same time we continue to collect payments on those debts. At a time
when foreign assistance of all kinds is shrinking, we continue to
expect these countries to send money to us, most commonly to pay the
interest to simply service their debts.
And this is no small problem for these poor countries. Many of them
will spend more on just servicing the interest on their debts than they
do on childhood immunizations, or education.
That is not just unconscionable, Mr. President, it is bad policy. It
defeats many of our best efforts to help those countries turn the
corner to more sustainable economic growth and development.
There is so little chance that these countries will ever be able to
pay off the principal on these loans that we carry them on our own
books at just a few cents on the dollar. That means that it will cost
us very little to give a great deal of benefit to these countries.
Those benefits come not just from the lifting of the debt itself. The
HIPC program requires that each country that is to receive debt relief
must draw up and stick to a plan for social and economic development,
reducing poverty and creating sustainable growth.
Banks here in the United States and all around the world know that
when there is no chance that a loan will be repaid, you take it off the
books.
But the HIPC program is more than just a bookkeeping matter--it is a
way of leveraging money that we are unlikely to ever see into essential
resources for the neediest countries.
Earlier this year, I made full authorization of the HIPC program my
top priority when the Foreign Relations Committee passed its first
foreign assistance authorization bill in fifteen years. With the
cooperation of Senator Helms, we reached agreement on all of the pieces
needed for full U.S. participation in the HIPC program, participation
which we have already pledged, along with our partners among the
advanced industrial nations.
That legislation authorized full funding, at the levels requested by
the Administration earlier this year, as well as the authorization
needed from us to permit the International Monetary Fund to dedicate to
the debt relief effort the proceeds from a revaluation of their gold
holdings.
As it stands, the Foreign Operations Bill before us today cuts the
Administration's request of $262 million for debt relief by $187
million--that's a cut of more than 70 percent. That affects both the
HIPC program and another priority of mine, the Tropical Forest
Protection Act, a debt-for-nature program that was established with
strong bi-partisan support.
While this amendment will not change that situation, it does put the
Senate on record in favor of changing it, when this process is once
again engaged later on in this session.
Whatever disagreements we have about the IMF, the World Bank, or
other aspects of foreign assistance, we should all be able to support
this program. The HIPC program comes with its own strong program that
the poor countries must comply with to be eligible for debt relief.
It stands on its own merits and should not be tangled up in other
debates. Given the heavy burdens on these poor countries, relief
delayed is relief denied. Every day that debt relief is put off, those
obligations continue to sap their limited resources.
[[Page S5612]]
This is a program that has the support of a strong, ecumenical,
inter-faith effort by the world's major religions. The Pope, the
Reverend Billy Graham, and other religious leaders have dedicated their
time and effort to making debt relief a reality.
Considering the small and shrinking support we give to the poorest
nations, and the importance to us of their economic health and
stability, this is an issue where conscience and economic common sense
agree.
Again, I want to thank Senator Chafee, Senator Sarbanes, Senator
Hagel, and all of our cosponsors, for keeping this issue before us. I
am confident that at the end of the day, we will do what is right, and
fully fund this worthy program.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
amendment sponsored by Senator Chafee from Rhode Island. This amendment
expresses the sense that the United States should support bilateral and
multilateral debt relief for the world's poorest countries with
unsustainable debts, and provide the funding for bilateral and
multilateral debt relief the Clinton administration has requested.
Last year, United States and other industrialized countries agreed to
provide $27 billion in debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries
that adopt sound economic policies and use the savings for health,
education, and poverty reduction efforts, and the Clinton
administration pledged to pay four percent of the total. The $435
million the administration requested for Fiscal Year 2001 is a down-
payment on our $920 million pledge.
The countries that will benefit are classified by the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs),
which means they have unsustainable debts and are extremely poor.
In these countries:
One in ten children dies before his or her first birthday;
One in three children is malnourished;
More than half of all citizens live on less than $1 per day; and
HIV infection rates are as high as 20 percent.
More than two out of three of these countries spend more on debt
service than health care.
Every dollar in debt payments these countries make to the United
States and other creditors is one fewer dollar to spend on education,
health care, and other basic needs.
Many of these countries, including Zambia, Uganda, Togo, Cote
d'Ivoire, Mozambique, and Tanzania, to name but a few, are in the midst
of a HIV/AIDS pandemic. Every dollar in debt payments these countries
make is one fewer dollar to spend on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment
programs.
This debt relief proposal will not solve every problem in these
countries, but it will help. Bolivia, our democratic ally, began
receiving debt relief in 1997. In 1999, Bolivia saved $77 million in
debt service as a result of debt relief provided by multilateral
institutions. Most of the savings went to increased spending on health
care and education.
Uganda has also received multilateral debt relief. Uganda saved $45
million in debt service payments in 1999, and it increased spending on
poverty reduction programs, primary education, and primary health care
by $55 million. Since 1997, the primary school enrollment rate has
increased by 50 percent.
Uganda is not the only country in desperate need of debt relief in
Africa. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund list 33
countries in Africa as HIPCs, meaning they are extremely poor and have
unsustainable debts.
As Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the Center for International
Development at Harvard University, wrote in The Washington Post, on May
23, 2000, in regard to malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis,
Debt cancellation for Africa has come down to a matter of
life and death. African leaders know very well that for their
own countries to muster the internal resources to fight these
dread diseases, they will have to be permitted by the
creditor nations to shift the funds now spent on debt
servicing into public health.
We must provide debt relief to accountable governments, not to
dictatorial regimes that waste funds on the military and violate human
rights.
This amendment urges the Senate to fund multilateral debt relief
efforts carried out by the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund for countries that use the funds transparently, allow
participation by civil society, do not grossly violate human rights,
and do not spend excessively on the military.
Debt relief will allow Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, which use up
to 60 percent of their budgets for debt service on loans made by the
United States and other industrialized countries to dictators during
the Cold War, to use these precious resources to meet basic needs.
The debt burden condemns these countries to poverty. Relieving the
burden from these debts will give these countries a chance to develop.
Relieving debts that can never be repaid is the humane thing to do.
The Clinton administration has requested $435 million for this
initiative to help the world's poorest people. The United States has
committed to this multinational debt relief plan, and we should live up
to our commitment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues
to support funding for debt relief for the world's poorest people. I
urge my colleagues to do the right thing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments, as
modified, are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 3551, 3553, 3555, and 3569), as modified, were
agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that leaves amendments by Senator Boxer
and Senator Byrd as the only amendments left to dispose of.
Amendment No. 3531, As Modified
(Purpose: To provide support for the Defense Classified Activities)
Mr. LEAHY. 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 Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Byrd,
proposes an amendment numbered 3531, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in Title VI of the bill insert the
following:
Sec. .In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this
Act, $8,500,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department of
Defense under the heading, ``Military Construction, Defense
Wide'' for classified activities related to, and for the
conduct of a utility and feasibility study referenced under
the heading of ``Management of MASINT'' in Senate Report 105-
279 to accompany S. 2507, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the
entire amount provided shall be available only to the extent
an official budget request for $8,500,000 that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing would provide
$8.5 million to the Department of Defense under the heading ``Military
Construction, Defense-wide'' for classified activities, to remain
available until expended. The entire amount would be designated as an
emergency requirement and would be available only to the extent that an
official budget request for $8.5 million is transmitted by the
President to the Congress. These funds would be used for the conduct of
a utility and feasibility study referenced under the heading of
``Management of MASINT'' in Senate Report 106-279. I am constrained
from speaking further about this matter due to the nature of the
classification of the amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. I urge adoption of the amendment, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The amendment (No. 3531), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page S5613]]
Amendment No. 3541, As Modified
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment No.
3541 to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 3541), as modified, is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. . INTERNATIONAL HEALTH EMERGENCIES.
In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated in this Act,
$40 million shall be available for necessary expenses to
carry out the provisions of Chapters 1 and 10 of part I of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for global health and
related activities: Provided, That of the funds appropriated
under this section, not less than $30 million shall be made
available for programs to combat HIV/AIDS: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated under this section, not less
than $10 million shall be made available for the prevention,
treatment, and control of tuberculosis: Provided further,
That amounts made available under this section are hereby
designated by the Congress to be emergency requirements
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That
such amounts shall be made available only after submission to
the Congress of a formal budget request by the President that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in such Act.
On page 155, line 25, strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert
``$35,000,000''.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this legislation
on both sides for agreeing to this. It isn't everything I had asked for
regarding tuberculosis and the HIV/AIDS fight, but it is helpful. It
will also take into consideration Senator Feingold's request on the
flooding in Mozambique. It will give an additional $30 million for the
worldwide fight against HIV/AIDS, an additional $10 million for the
worldwide fight against tuberculosis, and $10 million for the flooding
in Mozambique. I am proud that Senators Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Dodd,
and Kerry are sponsors of this amendment.
I want to take a moment of the Senate's time, because we won't need
to have a rollcall on this, to simply say that if we are looking at a
true emergency, we have one here. The U.N. Security Council met on the
issue of HIV, and it was the first time the Security Council ever met
on an international health issue.
Last month, our own National Security Council declared that the
global spread of AIDS is a direct threat to U.S. national security
because of the destabilizing impact of this deadly disease.
One of the reasons they so found was that the CIA did something they
call the National Intelligence Estimate. They titled it ``The Global
Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States.''
I am simply going to read a tiny bit from this report.
New and reemerging infectious diseases will pose a rising
global health threat and compromise U.S. and global security
over the next 20 years. These diseases will endanger United
States citizens at home and abroad, threaten U.S. Armed
Forces deployed overseas, and exacerbate social and political
instability and keep countries and regions in which the
United States has significant interest.
I know that my colleagues are very aware of the horrific problem of
AIDS in Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. President, 84
percent of all the people in the world who have died of AIDS have been
from that region. It is now predominantly a women's disease. Many
children are left as orphans.
Lastly, as far as tuberculosis is concerned, this is a disease we
thought we had eliminated in the 1950s. However, the disease is making
a comeback. The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 2
million people die of tuberculosis-related conditions annually. One-
third of the entire world's population is infected with tuberculosis--
an extraordinary number when you think about it.
I am pleased we have this amendment and it is in agreement. I trust
and hope and pray for the sake of people all across this world and in
our own Nation that these numbers will hold up in the conference.
Believe me, it means so much. We know how to treat tuberculosis. We
know how to stop HIV transmission from mother to child. It would be a
real sin, it seems to me, if we didn't push as hard as we could to
fight these diseases.
I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I took the floor to thank the Senator
from California and to ask consent I be included as an original
cosponsor. It is a very important amendment and directly connected to
people's lives. I thank the Senator for her fine work.
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy for a voice vote, if the manager is ready to
do that.
Mr. McCONNELL. There is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3541, as modified.
The amendment (No. 3541), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3542, As Modified
Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains to explain this next amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 35 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I assure my friends I do not intend to take anything near
that time.
Mr. President, I send my modified amendment to the desk on behalf of
Mr. Leahy and Mr. Feingold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the
amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, could we see what is
being modified?
Mrs. BOXER. This is, at the suggestion of my friend, for a sense of
the Senate. It shows support of rules for engagement in Colombia for
the Department of Defense.
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.
Is there objection to the Senator being able to modify her amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 3542), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . POLICY REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESOURCES AND
ACTIVITIES IN COLOMBIA.
(a) Affirmation of Policy.--The United States Senate
affirms and supports the Department of Defense policy that
United States Armed Forces personnel in Colombia should make
every effort to minimize the possibility of confrontation,
whether armed or otherwise, with civilians in Colombia, and
that funds appropriated by this Act and other resources of
the Department of Defense will not be used--
(1) to support the training of any Colombian security force
unit that engages in counter-insurgency operations;
(2) to participate in any law enforcement activity in
Colombia, including search, seizure and arrest;
(3) to permit any Department of Defense employee to
accompany any United States drug enforcement agency
personnel, or any law enforcement or military personnel of
Colombia with counter-narcotics authority, on any counter-
narcotics field operation; and
(4) to permit any Department of Defense employee to
participate in any activity in which counter-narcotics
related hostilities are imminent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair clarifies at this time the amount of
time now evenly divided under previous agreement. The intention was to
divide 20 minutes equally. The Senator from California has 10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, after I make just an opening remark, I
will yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Vermont.
I am offering an amendment which is completely consistent with the
Department of Defense guidelines on the activities of their own
personnel in Colombia. It actually says that we support these
guidelines, we think it is good to put limits on our involvement, and
we should express ourselves on that point.
The first part of the amendment supports the prohibition of the DOD
using its personnel, equipment, or other resources to get involved in
the counterinsurgency; in other words, to get involved in what some
call the civil war between the left and the right in that country.
Again, written by the Secretary of Defense in March 2000:
[[Page S5614]]
I am directing that no DOD personnel, funds, equipment, or
resources may be used to support any training program that
engages solely in counterinsurgency operations.
That supports that DOD guideline.
The same thing occurs on the second part of my amendment; that we
support the fact they shouldn't be involved, our own personnel, in law
enforcement activities in Colombia. Again, that mirrors the position of
our Secretary of Defense.
The third part of the amendment says we agree with the Secretaries
that our personnel shouldn't conduct any counterdrug field operation in
which counterdrug-related hostilities are imminent. That is to protect
our people from harm.
Finally, we say we agree with the Secretary of Defense that U.S.
military personnel should make every effort to minimize the possibility
of confrontations with civilians.
Clearly, what we should do here is support our own Secretary of
Defense and our own administration. I don't think it should be
controversial.
I am hopeful it can be accepted because I believe we ought to go on
record in support of these limits. I think it is sensible. I think the
DOD is correct on this.
Yesterday, we voted millions and millions of dollars to send
advisers. I think it would be wonderful if we stood with our own DOD
and said there ought to be limits on the participation of our own
personnel.
I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is
another modification on the Boxer amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. Senator McConnell has offered a
modification.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California if it is
her understanding that the most recent modification does not undercut
or diminish in any way the so-called Leahy law that is in effect in
Colombia and in U.S. operations in Colombia?
Mrs. BOXER. That is certainly my understanding.
I ask Senator McConnell if he would comment on that further.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that is also the understanding of the
Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope we can just adopt this as it is and
do so by voice vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. Has the further modification been sent to the desk?
Amendment No. 3542 As Further Modified
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send the further modification we have
just been discussing to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is further modified.
The amendment (No. 3542), as further modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . POLICY REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESOURCES AND
ACTIVITIES IN COLOMBIA.
(a) Affirmation of Policy.--The United States Senate afirms
and supports the Department of Defense policy that United
States Armed Forces personnel in Colombia should make every
effort to minimize the possibility of confrontation, whether
armed or otherwise, with civilians in Colombia, and that
funds appropriated by this Act and other resources of the
Department of Denfense should not be used--
(1) to support the training of any Colombian security force
unit that directly engages in counter-insurgency operations;
(2) to directly participate in any law enforcement activity
in Colombia, including search, seizure and arrest;
(3) to permit any Department of Defense employee to
accompany any United States drug enforcement agency
personnel, or any law enforcement or military personnel of
Colombia with counter-narcotics authority, on any counter-
narcotics field operation; and
(4) to permit any Department of Defense employee to
directly participate in any activity in which counter-
narcotics related hostilities are imminent.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what we were hoping to achieve was to
voice vote this. A number of Senators are missing important
conferences.
The Senator from Florida is interested in seeing the modification.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to see the final language of
this amendment before we vote on it. Would it be appropriate to suggest
the absence of a quorum until we have that opportunity?
Mr. LEAHY. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the
pending amendment that it violates rule XVI as legislation on an
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order must await the finalization
of all time ordered. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. STEVENS. I apologize.
Mrs. BOXER. I do not yield my time back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has not yielded
time back.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there time left on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9\1/2\ minutes remaining to the
opponents and 5 minutes remaining to the sponsor.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Alaska whatever time he
may desire of our time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment covers resources in the
Department of Defense and it deals with matters with which we are
dealing in the supplemental right now. I do not want to mislead the
Senate. We are trying to settle this matter in a conference on the
military construction bill with the supplemental portions associated
with it. I am perfectly happy to see the Senate express its point of
view on the Colombia money, but in terms of the item as a place in the
Department of Defense portion of the Colombia money, it really has been
objected to by the Department of Defense, and as chairman of the
Defense Subcommittee, I strenuously object to it.
We should be in the position of determining how defense money is
spent, how Armed Forces personnel are governed when they are abroad,
and we should not take the occasion now to put limitations on the use
of defense assets in connection with the war on drugs.
I just returned from Key West, Tampa, and Alameda in California. I
know some of the defense assets we are using to supplement the
activities in the war on drugs. I am very reluctant to see the Senate
act on a bill at this time like this to set down rules that apply to
the use of defense personnel, defense assets, and defense money in
connection with the war on drugs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am deeply distressed that the Senator
from Alaska raised a point of order. I want to explain why.
Yesterday we voted for almost $1 billion to get involved in a very
serious problem in Colombia. Our people will be exposed to a lot of
danger there. All we are simply trying to do with this sense-of-the-
Senate amendment is to protect them. Further, all we are trying to do
is say to Secretary Cohen: You are right on your guidelines that you
have issued. And those guidelines simply say our people should not be
involved in counterinsurgency, that our people should not be in the
line of hostile fire. It is very straightforward, and it is very
simple.
Frankly, the way the Senate has responded to this shows me I did the
right thing when I never voted for this in the first place. If we
cannot stand up in the Senate and support the Secretary of Defense in
his very straightforward directive, then I am very concerned about what
we are getting ourselves into. I hope I am wrong.
I am distressed the Senator from Alaska did this. When Senator
Sessions from Alabama, from his side of the aisle, offered legislation
on an appropriations bill yesterday, no one said the amendment of the
Senator from Alabama, which dealt with this very same subject, was
legislation on an appropriations bill. I do not think it is fair to
have a double standard. If we are going to use that rule, we ought to
use it.
I did not like Senator Sessions' amendment yesterday. Frankly, I
viewed it as a way to get us far more
[[Page S5615]]
involved in the counterinsurgency, but I did not make a point of order.
The fact the Senator did this is distressing.
I am not going to ask for a vote on a procedural motion because that
would not even be close to the kind of vote I think I could get on this
sense-of-the-Senate amendment. That is what I fear is happening. People
do not seem to want to vote on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is
not fair.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will be happy to yield.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator does make a good point about the point of
order. We should either be consistent on these points of order or not
have them, one or the other.
The Senator is correct that when a similar motion was made from the
Republican side of the aisle yesterday, Senators on this side of the
aisle who wanted to make a point of order refrained because there have
been a number of amendments accepted on this bill by both Republicans
and Democrats that were subject to the point of order of which the
Senator from California speaks. We all refrained from making them.
The Senator from California raises a legitimate point that now, at
the end of the bill, on her amendment, which is no more subject to a
point of order than those other amendments where a point of order was
waived, suddenly she faces the only point of order in this whole bill.
I can understand her concern, and I share her concern.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I believe it is not fair play, and if
there is one thing I expect in the Senate--and I think we all stand for
it--it is fair play. We voted huge amounts of money into this region of
the world. We have horrible problems there. We have a few disagreements
here, but I had hoped we could agree that the Secretary of Defense is
correct when he puts limits on the use of DOD personnel.
I am very saddened by this. I do not want to keep repeating it, but
it is sad. The people in this country are going to be upset about it.
The people in this country, when we get involved in a foreign place,
want to know that we in the Senate put restrictions on the use of our
personnel.
We have had a lot of experience in this. We have had a lot of tears
over this. Yet yesterday we had an amendment from Senator Sessions that
was clearly legislation on an appropriations bill, which I believe gets
us deeper involved because it says we should support the military and
the political policies of the Government of Colombia, and no one raised
a point of order. But a simple amendment supporting the Secretary of
Defense, and where are we? We get a point of order.
I am not going to play that game. I am not going to get caught in a
procedural vote. I will just let it go, but I want to make it clear
that we have a lot of options later when this bill comes back. If there
are going to be things in this bill that violate our parliamentary
procedures, some of us are going to get tough on it. It is not right.
This is a sad day, frankly, for this Senate. It is also a sad day for
our men and women in uniform that we cannot vote on a simple sense of
the Senate supporting our own Secretary of Defense on his views as to
how we can, in fact, make sure our people over there are as safe as
they can be.
I thank the Chair. I have no need to retain any further time. We will
await the decision of the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from California has
expired. Who yields time? Who seeks recognition?
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
I make the point of order that the pending amendment No. 3542, as
further modified, violates rule XVI as legislation on an appropriations
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order. The
amendment falls.
Mr. LEAHY. Regular order, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 3498, Withdrawn
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Helms
amendment No. 3498 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, by now it should come as no secret that I
believe that the bill as it stands right now is inadequately funded.
The foreign operations appropriation bill is one of the most important
pieces of legislation we pass each year. Yet for the past several years
Congress has not been devoting the necessary funds to this portion of
the budget.
Due in large part to the crucial need for the Colombia supplemental I
am going to vote yes on final passage. The Pastrana government urgently
and desperately needs these funds to continue its fight against drug
lords who are not only undermining the stability and viability of
Colombia as a nation, but who are literally killing the people of two
nations: Colombians through violence, and Americans through drugs. The
government of Colombia deserves our help as they put their lives on the
line to stop the production of illegal drugs. I think the outcome of
the votes rejecting the Wellstone and Gorton amendments, which would
have significantly decreased the amounts available in the supplemental,
showed that the majority of my colleagues agree about the severity of
the problem in that country and the necessity of U.S. aid.
During the course of this debate, we have been faced with having to
make several other untenable decisions. I and my colleagues have had to
come to the floor and in essence attempt to get blood from a rock. I
believe that we need more money for non-proliferation, anti-terrorism,
and de-mining. My colleague Senator Feingold rightly believes that the
amount designated for the Mozambique supplemental appropriation needs
to be increased.
Senator Boxer has attempted to channel more funds towards combating
HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
In every instance, each of us has been stymied by the fact that there
is not enough money in this bill. It simply isn't there. So we are left
with the option of either not attempting to raise the level of
appropriations for programs that we think are important, or of using
different political maneuvers, none of which is particularly effective,
to get the money that we feel these programs need. We should not have
to face a choice between helping victims of flooding in Mozambique, and
preventing the spread of AIDS. The United States should be able to help
with these activities as well as drug eradication and non-
proliferation.
I spoke briefly this morning about the shortfall in the NADR
accounts, and at length yesterday about Plan Colombia. These are not
the only accounts about which I am concerned. Development assistance is
shortchanged, funds for voluntary peacekeeping activities fall below
requested amounts, and as the Senator from Wisconsin points out, the
President's request for resources to aid victims of the flooding in
Mozambique is virtually ignored. I will continue to go on record as
being adamantly and staunchly opposed to any attempts to undertake
diplomacy on the cheap. That is what the Senate is attempting to do
here. By neglecting to grant the administration's request for
development assistance and economic support, we are robbing ourselves.
According to a report published in April by a nonpartisan research
organization called the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
spending on development aid--defined as all international development
and humanitarian assistance, as well as economic support fund monies--
measured either as a share of the federal budget or as a share of the
U.S. economy, will be lower than at any time in the fifty years before
1998. The report further states that out of the countries belonging to
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United
States ranked ``the lowest of all . . . OECD countries examined in the
share of national resources devoted to development of poor
countries.'' Some would argue that this is because the administration
has not asked for enough money. I would answer that constitutionally,
Congress controls the purse strings, thus we have only ourselves to
blame. I suggest that we make a commitment to take
[[Page S5616]]
corrective action, because our foreign assistance programs are vital to
our national interests.
Foreign assistance helps us further international peace and security.
U.S. citizens and citizens of the world benefit from programs that U.S.
assistance pays for. I spoke before about programs aimed at keeping
Russian scientists from being employed by states intent on developing
nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. I am sure that we
can all agree that keeping these scientists out of countries such as
Iraq makes for a safer world.
When the United States provides assistance to Colombia for crop
substitution programs, it is the citizens of the United States who
benefit. Less drug production means less drugs on the streets of our
neighborhoods. When the United States funds vaccines for infectious
diseases such as tuberculosis, we are helping to protect our own
citizens from being infected by these illnesses.
Every time United States economic support funds help bolster a new
democracy, we widen America's sphere of influence in the hopes of
increasing security for the United States. And the preceding represent
only a few of the ways in which our foreign assistance aids in
promoting our national security. I could go on at length about the
positive effects of aid to the Middle East, Russia, and Eastern Europe.
Programs in these regions have prevented conflict, helped build
economic and financial infrastructure, and combated transnational crime
and corruption.
Let me conclude by saying this: our foreign assistance is a
preventative tool. The idea behind it is to aid in building a community
of like-minded states, states free of internal conflict, states that
get along with their neighbors. If we are able to do that, if we are
successful with our preventative tools in increasing security, then we
will never have to use our corrective tool--that of military action--to
achieve security. Think about that. If prevention works, correction is
not necessary. Given the sentiments of some Members of this chamber
about the commitment of our soldiers overseas, doesn't it make sense to
make every effort to prevent our troops from having to deploy?
Some of my colleagues urge frugality in our foreign assistance
spending. I agree with the notion that Congress should spend wisely.
However I would caution against an approach that is penny-wise and
pound foolish. Mr. President, I cannot emphasize this point enough, and
it brings back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks: We cannot
obtain security on the cheap. By stinting on our foreign assistance
programs we are shortchanging our national security.
As the administration indicated in their statement regarding this
bill, if the sum appropriated for our foreign operations is not
increased, the President will have no choice but to veto this
legislation. I sincerely hope that as the fiscal year comes to a close,
the allocation for the foreign operations appropriation is
significantly increased, and conferees distribute any additional
amounts wisely.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Baucus-
Roberts amendment to engage China on the important issue of rapid
industrialization and the environment. The amendment would permit
appropriated funds for the US-Asia Environmental Partnership (USAEP)--
an initiative of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID)--to be used for environmental projects in the People's Republic
of China (PRC). In other words, the U.S. government would finally be
able to, for example, help U.S. businesses connect with provincial and
municipal governments in China to initiate badly needed environmental
engineering projects. This work is necessary to attempt to prevent a
possible long-term environmental catastrophe resulting from intense
industrialization and development in the PRC and Asia in general.
Why should one care whether Chinese or Asian people breath clean air
or drink clean water? Besides the obvious humanitarian concern, a
ruined environment throughout Asia will--at some point--effect us here
in the United States and our interests. This is common sense.
The Baucus-Roberts amendment also sends a strong pro-engagement
message to the PRC since the U.S. excluded de jure or de facto the PRC
from U.S. foreign aid programs with passage and signing of the FY 90-FY
91 State Department Authorization, specifically section 902 of H.R.
3792.
Our government purports to be concerned about global environmental
issues, Mr. President, about avoiding contamination of the world's
water, air, and soil. Yet, we prohibit ourselves from consulting and
cooperating on a government to government basis with the one nation
with the greatest potential to impact the world's environment over the
next 50 to 100 years. That makes no sense.
What is the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership? It is a
public-private initiative implemented by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). Its aim is to encourage
environmentally sustainable development in Asia as that region
industrializes at a phenomenal rate. By ``environmentally sustainable
development,'' we mean industrial and urban development that does not
irreparably damage the air, water, and soil necessary for life. It's
really that simple. US-AEP currently works with governments and
industries in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. In
creating US-AEP, the U.S. government recognized the long-term
environmental hazards of Asia's rapid industrialization and the need
for the U.S. government to engage on the issue.
The program provides grants to U.S. companies for the purpose of
facilitating the transfer of environmentally sound and energy-efficient
technologies to the Asia/Pacific region. Again, the objective is to
address the pollution and health challenges of rapid industrialization
while stimulating demand for U.S. technologies. In cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Commerce, US-AEP has placed Environmental Technology
Representatives in 11 Asian countries to identify trade opportunities
for U.S. companies and coordinate meetings between potential Asian and
U.S. business partners.
Mr. President, on the basic issue of the global environmental impact
of Asian industrialization, specifically Chinese modernization, the
Senate has the responsibility to authorize at least some cooperation
between Beijing and Washington. I ask for my colleague's support for
this common sense amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak about one of the
most important parts of the proposed aid package for Colombia, the
human rights conditions.
Narcotics traffickers, rebel forces, and paramilitary groups present
a clear threat to democracy and economic development in Colombia. The
bill before us provides $934 million to help the Colombian Government
meet this threat. About 75 percent of this aid is for military
equipment, training, and logistical support. The Colombian Government
says it needs this military assistance--especially the helicopters--to
enable its armed forces to retake the southern part of the country from
the narcotraffickers and the rebel forces who protect and profit from
their activities.
Like my colleagues, I am interested in ensuring that this aid does
not contribute to human rights abuses. While allegations of human
rights violations by military personnel have decreased in the past
several years, the State Department's 1999 Country Report on Human
Rights Practices concluded that the Colombian Government's human rights
record ``remained poor'' and that ``armed forces and the police
committed numerous, serious violations of human rights throughout the
year.'' The Colombian Armed Forces are consistently and credibly linked
to illegal paramilitary groups, which are now responsible for the
majority of serious human rights abuses in Colombia, including an
estimated 153 massacres in 1999 which claimed 889 lives. These
paramilitary groups have stepped up their own illegal narcotics
operations, which, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration,
include drug trafficking abroad.
When I met with President Pastrana last December, he emphasized his
commitment to improving the human rights performance of the Colombian
Armed Forces, which have a long history of human rights violations. The
[[Page S5617]]
bill before us makes this commitment the basis for new military
assistance to Colombia. The bill requires the Secretary of State to
certify that the Colombian Government has met or is meeting four
conditions before new military aid can be provided.
The first condition requires the Secretary of State to certify that
the President of Colombia has directed in writing that Colombian Armed
Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed gross
violations of human rights will be brought to justice in Colombia's
civilian courts, in accordance with the 1997 ruling of Colombia's
Constitutional Court.
Currently, the military justice system does not aggressively or
consistently pursue cases against high-ranking military personnel
accused of human rights abuses. The 1999 State Department Human Rights
Report states that ``authorities rarely brought officers of the
security forces and the police charged with human rights offenses to
justice, and impunity remains a problem.'' It concludes that the
``workings of the military judiciary lack transparency and
accountability, contributing to a generalized lack of confidence in the
system's ability to bring human rights abusers to justice.''
To rectify this problem, in August 1997, Colombia's Constitutional
Court ruled that ``crimes against humanity'' could never be considered
acts of military service and that military personnel alleged to have
committed such crimes must be prosecuted in civilian courts. However,
the military has consistently challenged civilian court jurisdiction.
The military has retained jurisdiction by threatening government
investigators and by arguing that alleged violations of human rights,
such as collusion with paramilitary groups, are simply acts of
omission. Acts of omission are considered acts of military service, as
if they were simple dereliction of duty. Most importantly, the military
continues to retain jurisdiction in human rights by relying on the
support of a pro-military block within the Superior Judicial Council,
the body responsible for determining the jurisdiction of individual
cases.
The U.S. Government has said that these practices undercut the intent
of the Constitutional Court ruling. According to the 1999 State
Department Human Rights Report, the Superior Judicial Council
``regularly employed an extremely broad definition of acts of service,
thus ensuring that uniformed defendants of any rank, particularly the
most senior, were tried in military tribunals.'' In the 8 years the
Superior Judicial Council has existed, it has never sent a case of a
general accused of a human rights violation to a civilian court.
As a result of these practices, the military has retained
jurisdiction even in cases of the most egregious atrocities. For
example, dozens of civilians were killed, and thousands were forced to
flee for their lives, in the town of Mapiripan in July 1997. The
Superior Judicial Council ruled that the case involved an act of
omission by General Jaime Uscategui. Therefore, as an act of military
service, it belonged before a military court. The General was
eventually forced to resign, but he has yet to be prosecuted for his
crimes.
The Colombian Armed Forces have claimed that they are abiding by the
Constitutional Court ruling and accepting civilian court jurisdiction
in human rights cases. However, a careful analysis of the military's
own statistics demonstrates the opposite. In a recent publication on
human rights, Colombia's Defense Ministry asserts that, pursuant to the
1997 Constitutional Court ruling, the Colombian Armed Forces had turned
over 576 cases of possible human rights violations to civilian courts
for investigation and possible prosecution. For 3 months my office has
tried to obtain a breakdown of this number in order to determine the
nature of the crimes committed, the number of these cases that were
actually prosecuted, and the rank of the personnel involved. To date,
the Colombian Defense Ministry has only documented 103 of the 576
cases. Of these 103 cases, only 39 actually involved human rights
violations by members of the Armed Forces. The highest ranking
officials were two lieutenant colonels. The remaining 64 cases involved
abuses by members of the Colombian National Police or common crimes. In
other words, the Colombian Defense Ministry grossly misrepresented its
record. In fact, the Colombian Armed Forces have transferred only 39
cases of human rights violations, committed by low level officials, to
civilian courts in the past 2 years--not the 576 cases that the
Colombian Defense Ministry claimed.
Colombian lawyers have analyzed this matter. The highly respected
Colombian Commission of Jurists concluded that the requirement in the
amendment that the President issue a written directive requiring the
military to accept civilian jurisdiction in human rights cases is
consistent with President Pastrana's role as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces. In fact, the Commission recently filed a petition with
President Pastrana requesting that, as Commander-in-Chief, he order the
military to cease disputing jurisdiction in cases involving credible
allegations of human rights abuse. This requirement does not compromise
the integrity of Colombia's separation of powers or the independence of
the executive and judiciary. To the contrary, it would uphold the
judiciary's power by obligating the military to abide by civilian rule
and the law.
The second condition contained in this bill requires the Secretary of
State to certify that the Commander General of the Armed Forces is
promptly suspending from duty any Armed Forces personnel who are
credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights or
to have aided or abetted paramilitary groups.
Currently, there is no automatic process for suspending a member of
the Colombian Armed Forces alleged to have violated human rights. The
case of Colombian Senator Manuel Cepeda is illustrative. Senator Cepeda
was murdered in 1994. The investigation carried out by the Attorney
General's Office revealed that the murder had been carried out by the
military in collusion with paramilitary groups. Nevertheless, the
accused officers remained on active duty for five years, from 1994
until 1999, when they were finally suspended as a result of vigorous
protests by the human rights community.
In contrast, General Serrano, who just recently resigned as head of
the National Police, had the authority to suspend police suspected of
corruption, human rights abuses, or other misconduct. To his credit,
General Serrano discharged over 11,000 officers since taking command in
1994.
This condition supports the recent actions of the Colombian Congress.
On March 15, the Colombian Congress passed a law to restructure the
Armed Forces, including granting the Armed Forces Commander the
authority to suspend Armed Forces personnel suspected of misconduct.
President Pastrana was given 6 months, until September, to issue the
necessary implementing decrees. If he does not, the law becomes null
and void.
The third condition contained in the bill requires the Secretary of
State to certify that the Colombian Armed Forces and its Commander
General are fully complying with the provisions regarding prosecution
and suspension of Armed Forces personnel credibly alleged to have
committed gross violations of human rights. The Colombian Armed Forces
must also cooperate fully with civilian authorities in investigating,
prosecuting, and punishing in the civilian courts Colombian Armed
Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed such
crimes.
As I discussed earlier, the Colombian Armed Forces have consistently
resisted the 1997 Constitutional Court's ruling that transfers
jurisdiction for human rights cases from military to civilian courts.
They have failed to ensure that Armed Forces personnel who are credibly
alleged to have committed human rights abuses are investigated,
prosecuted, and punished in the civilian courts. They have resisted
suspending military personnel who are alleged to be involved in human
rights violations or to have collaborated with paramilitary groups. And
they have grossly misrepresented their record, claiming that 576 human
rights cases involving Armed Forces personnel were transferred to
civilian courts when, in fact, only 39 cases of human rights violations
were transferred--and those cases involved low level officials.
The fourth condition contained in the bill requires the Secretary of
State to certify that the Government of Colombia is vigorously
prosecuting in the
[[Page S5618]]
civilian courts the leaders and members of paramilitary groups and
Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are aiding or abetting these
groups.
According to the 1999 State Department Human Rights Report,
paramilitary groups accounted for about 78 percent of human rights
abuses in 1999. In a rare televised interview, notorious paramilitary
leader Carlos Castano recently admitted that cocaine and heroin fund an
entire unit of 3,200 paramilitary fighters. Overall, he said that 70
percent of his war chest is culled from drug trafficking.
Despite President Pastrana's commitment to eliminate ties between the
Colombian Armed Forces and paramilitary groups, the State Department,
the United Nations, and human rights groups have documented continuing
links. The 1999 State Department Human Rights Report stated that the
Armed Forces and National Police sometimes ``tacitly tolerated'' or
``aided and abetted'' the activities of paramilitary groups. According
to the report, ``in some instances, individual members of the security
forces actively collaborated with members of paramilitary groups by
passing them through roadblocks, sharing intelligence, and providing
them with ammunition. Paramilitary forces find a ready support base
within the military and police.'' The report also concluded that
``security forces regularly failed to confront paramilitary groups.''
The fact that Carlos Castano appeared on Colombian television in March,
but remains invisible to Colombian law enforcement agencies,
demonstrates the impunity with which he is able to operate in Colombia.
Human Rights Watch has documented links between military and
paramilitary groups. These links are not only in isolated, rural areas
but in Colombia's principal cities. According to evidence collected by
Human Rights Watch, half of Colombia's 18 brigade-level units are
linked to paramilitary activity.
The Colombian military has resisted investigating these links.
Instead of investigating a credible allegation of military
collaboration with paramilitary groups in a civilian massacre that
occurred in the town of San Jose de Apartado on February 19, 2000, the
Commander of the 17th Brigade filed suit against the non-governmental
organization that made these allegations, charging that it had
``impugned'' the honor of the military. If the Colombian Government is
serious about severing the links between military and paramilitary
groups, it must demonstrate, at all levels of government and the
military, that these allegations will be investigated promptly and
punished seriously. These links must be severed if the Colombian
Government, with United States assistance, is to mount a successful
counternarcotics campaign and stop the violence committed by illegal
paramilitary groups. If these links are not severed, our Government
will be complicit in the abuses.
I recently met with Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, the chairman of
the Colombian Senate's Human Rights Committee. She personally witnessed
this military-paramilitary cooperation during her May 1999 kidnapping
by paramilitary leader Carlos Castano. Senator Cordoba told me that the
kidnappers' car passed through eight military roadblocks without being
stopped or searched. She said that the helicopter that took her to the
jungle camp where she was held landed at an airstrip just a few miles
from a military base. She told me that Castano boasted when he showed
her transcripts of her private telephone conversations, transcripts
that he could have only obtained from military intelligence sources.
The strong human rights conditions contained in this bill will ensure
that the Colombian Government takes concrete steps to prosecute and
punish military personnel alleged to have committed human rights abuses
or to have collaborated with paramilitary groups. I commend Senators
McConnell and Leahy for including this language in the bill. The
conditions will also encourage the Colombian Government to arrest and
prosecute at least some paramilitary leaders and members.
During the conference on this bill, I urge the Senate conferees to
insist on retaining these strong and well-considered conditions. The
conditions contained in the House version of the bill, while certainly
well-intentioned, are both weak and inconsistent with Colombia's
Constitution. For example, the requirement to create a Judge Advocate
General Corps within the Armed Forces to investigate human rights
abuses is contrary to the 1997 ruling of Colombia's Constitutional
Court that requires the investigation and prosecution of these abuses
in the civilian justice system. The House provision regarding a
Presidential waiver of the human rights conditions in case of
``extraordinary circumstances'' seriously degrades the importance of
human rights as a fundamental principle of U.S. foreign policy--a
principle shared on a bipartisan basis over many years. The protection
of human rights should not be a ``waivable'' foreign policy objective.
It should be enforced with the same vigor as our anti-drug goals. I ask
unanimous consent that a copy of a May 11 letter from Human Rights
Watch on the House provisions be included in the Record at the end of
my remarks. This letter reflects the strong opposition of the human
rights community to these House provisions.
Two years ago, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial presented its annual
Human Rights Award to four Colombians who are leaders of grassroots
efforts to defend human rights in Colombia. These Human Rights
Laureates--Jaime Prieto Mendez, Mario Humberto Calixto, Gloria Ines
Florez Schneider, and Berenice Celeyta Alayon--represented groups that
fight for human rights, the rights of displaced persons, and the rights
of political prisoners. These courageous individuals, and thousands of
others like them throughout Colombia, risk their lives every day. They
need and deserve our support. The conditions included in this bill are
for them. The conditions are also for us. They will guard against
America's complicity in human rights violations in Colombia.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have followed the issue of
narcotrafficking and other international crimes for years, particularly
during my tenure as chairman of the Subcommittee on International
Operations, Narcotics and Terrorism. Although I have many concerns
about this piece of legislation, I believe we have a chance here to
provide support to a Colombian administration trying to address its
largest problem--drug trafficking.
The line between counternarcotics and counterinsurgency is not at all
clear in Colombia, but we cannot let this stop our extension of aid.
Withholding aid is not an option. In doing so, we would send the
message to Colombia, our important ally in the war on drugs, that when
the going gets tough, they must go it alone. We must be very clear: the
terrible human rights conditions in Colombia are inextricably tied to
the narcoterrorists. That won't change overnight with our support of
this assistance package, but it won't change at all without our help.
And just as important as our support for this package will be our
continuing oversight of its implementation. If human rights abuses
continue, or if we begin to get embroiled in the counterinsurgency
efforts, the Senate must remain vigilant, ending the program if
necessary. But we cannot simply turn our backs and walk away.
Civil conflict in Colombia has worn on for half a century as the
government has fought narcoterrorists for control of the country.
Opposition groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
[FARC] and the National Liberation Army has made a business of
guerrilla warfare and continue to terrorize the civilian population.
Paramilitary groups, formed in the 1980's as anti-guerrilla forces,
have resorted to many of the same terror tactics. Opposition and
paramilitary groups control much of the country and the vast majority
of the drug producing areas. It is clear that drug money fuels the
fighting. In the last decade, this conflict has claimed over 35,000
lives and has created a population of over a million and a half
internally displaced persons.
Colombian President Andres Pastrana, in sharp contrast to his recent
predecessor, is trying to improve human rights conditions and promote
democracy, under extremely difficult conditions. Under Pastrana, the
Colombian Government has begun the first peace talks ever with the
FARC. Though the talks have been slow moving and have encountered
setbacks,
[[Page S5619]]
Pastrana has clearly made the peace process a top priority.
Plan Colombia was developed by President Pastrana as a comprehensive
approach to strengthening the Colombian economy and promoting
democracy, with heavy emphasis on fighting drug trafficking. In my
view, any successful approach to Colombia's myriad of problems will
require a strong counterdrug effort. The United States contribution to
Plan Colombia, as proposed by the administration, does this.
Let us be clear, however, that the drug trade in Colombia is not
simply a Colombian problem. The United States is the largest and most
reliable market for the Colombian cocaine and heroin that is at the
center of this conflict. We have approximately 5.8 million cocaine
users and 1.4. million heroin users. Based on the most recent National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse estimates, fourteen million Americans
are current drug users. Clearly we are making a large contribution to
the problem and should therefore contribute to finding a solution.
The United States must seize the opportunity presented by President
Pastrana's current efforts to fight drug trafficking and bring
stability to Colombia. This legislation offers us a chance to play a
constructive role in Colombia while simultaneously promoting American
interests.
The Plan addresses the major components of the problem. ``Push into
Southern Colombia'' is designated to affect the major growing and
production areas in the South. It provides for the training of special
dedicated narcotics battalions, and the purchase of helicopters for
troop transport and interdiction. To complement this effort,
interdiction tools will also be upgraded, including aircraft,
airfields, early warning radar and intelligence gathering. The Plan
also provides increased funding for eradication of coca and poppy, and
the promotion of alternative crop development and employment. Perhaps
most importantly, the Plan calls for and provides resources for
increasing protection of human rights, expanding the rule of law, and
promoting the peace process.
As I outlined earlier, Colombia's situation is bleak, and this may be
its last chance to begin to dig its way out. If we fail to support aid
to Colombia, we can only sit back and watch it deteriorate even
further. This Plan presents a unique opportunity to support the
Colombian Government's effort to address its problems while at the same
time promoting U.S. interests. The Colombian Government, despite
immense obstacles, has begun to address significant human rights
concerns and is working to instill the rule of law and democratic
institutions. Though the United States is not in the business of
fighting insurgents, we are in the business of fighting drugs, and this
is clearly an opportunity to work with a willing partner in doing so.
While I support a United States contribution to helping Colombia, I
believe that if we are going to commit, we must do so in the context of
an ongoing process under constant review to respond to changing needs.
My first concern is the fine line that exists between
counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations, particularly since
they are so intertwined in Colombia. It is impossible to attack drug
trafficking in Colombia without seriously undercutting the insurgents'
operations. We must acknowledge that the more involved in Colombia's
counternarcotics efforts we become the more we will become involved in
its counterinsurgency, regardless of our intentions to steer clear of
it. But, because the drug trade is the most destabilizing factor in
Colombia, our cooperation with the government will over the long run,
advance the development and expansion of democracy, and will limit the
insurgents' ability to terrorize the civilian population. But our
military involvement in Colombia should go no further than this.
Efforts to limit number of personnel are designed to address this.
I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleagues that the United
States contribution to Plan Colombia is skewed in favor of the
military, but we must keep in mind that our contribution is only a
percentage of the total Plan. The total Plan Colombia price tag is
approximately $7.5 billion. The Colombian Government has already
committed $4 billion to the Plan, and has secured donations and loans
from the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development
Bank, the World Bank, the Andean Development Corporation, and the Latin
American Reserve Fund. As part of our contribution, and to balance
military aid, the United States must continue to support Colombian
requests for additional funding from international financial
institutions and other EU donors. We must also continue to implement
stringent human rights vetting and end-use monitoring agreements, and
make sure that our Colombia policy does not end with the extension of
aid.
Second, I am concerned that even if the Plan is successful at
destroying coca production and reducing the northward flow of drugs,
large numbers of coca farmers will be displaced, worsening the current
crisis of internally displaced people in Colombia. Colombia has the
largest population of internally displaced persons in the world,
estimated at over one and half million in November 1999. Seventy
percent of those displaced are children, and the vast majority of them
no longer attend school. There is every indication that as Plan
Colombia is implemented, this population may grow. This problem
underscores the importance of supporting the Colombians in their
efforts to secure economic aid for alternative development. Unless we
strongly support loans and additional donations, the danger remains
that desperate farmers will simply move across the borders into Peru
and Bolivia, and undo all the eradication progress that has been made
in those areas.
My third major concern with respect to this aid package is that it
does not adequately address Colombia's human rights problem. The
Colombian Government has made a real effort to address human rights and
to promote the rule of law. Pastrana has worked to root out members of
the military who have committed gross violations of human rights, and
has suspended a number of high-level officers. He has also attacked
corruption in the legislature, and has come under heavy fire for doing
so. Despite this progress, there is no question that recent events in
Colombia have raised some cause for concern. The Colombian Government's
unfortunate decision to send back to the legislature a bill to
criminalize genocide and forced disappearance was a significant setback
for the promotion of human rights and the rule of law. I would like to
commend my colleagues on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for
bolstering the human rights component of this legislation. In addition
to requiring additional reporting from the Secretary of State on the
human rights practices of the Colombian security forces, Senator
Leahy's provisions for human rights programs in the Colombian police
and judiciary, a witness protection program and additional human rights
monitors in our embassy and Bogota, and Senator Harkin's provision to
provide $5 million to Colombian NGOs to protect child soldiers,
demonstrate our commitment to improving the human rights situation.
Despite my reservations, the potential benefits of this plan are too
large to ignore. In light of the changes made by the committee, I
believe the plan can help advance United States interests by reducing
drug trafficking and thereby promoting stability and democracy in
Colombia. We must now work to ensure that our concerns do not become
realities. Recognizing that we are not the sole contributors to this
Plan, we must support Colombia's requests for additional aid from our
allies, and work closely with them to ensure that additional aid
complements our efforts in the areas of human rights and strengthening
the rule of law. The committee report recognizes the importance of
reducing the drug trade first to build confidence among the Colombian
people that progress can be made in other important areas such as
economic development and democracy.
Plan Colombia's counterdrug focus will also benefit the United States
by reducing the flow of drugs to the United States. The United States
is faced with a serious drug problem which must be attacked at both
ends--supply and demand. Our consideration of counterdrug aid to
Colombia should force us to look inward, reexamine our domestic
counterdrug plan, and find ways strengthen it.
[[Page S5620]]
The United States has long been the cocaine traffickers' largest and
most reliable market, fueling continued and expanded cultivation and
production. Without addressing the problem here at home, we present no
reason to expect that the growers and traffickers will not continue to
shift their operations to maintain access to their best market.
Increasing funding and expanding drug treatment and prevention
programs are absolutely imperative if we are to coordinate an effective
counterdrug campaign, particularly if we are to expect any real
improvement in the situation in Colombia. Levels of drug abuse in the
United States have remained unacceptably high, despite stepped-up
interdiction efforts and increased penalties for drug offenders.
Our criminal justice system is flooded with drug offenders. Three-
quarters of all prisoners can be characterized as alcohol or drug
involved offenders. An estimated 16 percent of convicted jail inmates
committed their offense to get money for drugs, and approximately 70
percent of prisoners were actively involved with drugs prior to their
incarceration.
America's drug problem is not limited to our hardened criminals. The
1997 National Household Survey revealed that 77 million, or 36 percent
of Americans aged 12 and older reported some use of an illicit drug at
least once in their lifetime. The statistics in U.S. high schools are
even more disturbing. According to a 1998 study by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, 54 percent of high school seniors reported
that they had used an illicit drug at least once and 41.4 percent
reported use of an illicit drug within the past year.
As we support Colombia's efforts to attack the sources of illegal
drugs, we need to make sure we are addressing our own problems.
According to recent estimates, approximately five million drug users
needed immediate treatment in 1998 while only 2.1 million received it.
It was also found that some populations--adolescents, women with small
children, and racial and ethnic minorities--are badly underserved by
treatment programs. Only 37 percent of substance-abusing mothers of
minors received treatment in 1997. Drug offenders, when released from
jail, are often not ready or equipped to deal with a return to social
pressures and many return to their old habits if they are not provided
with effective treatment while incarcerated and the social safety net
they so desperately need upon release.
It is clear that drug treatment works, and there is no excuse for the
high numbers of addicts who have been unable to receive treatment. As
we increase funding for supply reduction programs in Colombia, we must
increase funding for treatment to balance and complement it. Drug
research has made significant strides in recent years, and there are a
variety of treatment options now available to help even the most
hardcore addicts. These treatments have been successful in the lab
studies. Now we must allow these methods to be successful in helping
the population for whom they were developed. Access to drug abuse
treatment in the United States is abysmal when compared to the
resources we have to provide it.
The administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy argues
that a balanced approach that addresses both demand reduction and
cutting off supply at the source is necessary to significantly reduce
drug abuse in America. While Plan Colombia works to cut off the drug
supply, we must balance that with increased funding for drug abuse
prevention and better treatment programs that reach more of the
population that so desperately needs it.
Plan Colombia is an opportunity to help an important ally attack the
sources of illegal drug production reduce the flow of cocaine and
heroin to the United States. The United States must stay engaged with
the Pastrana government and support its critical efforts to combat drug
trafficking. Instead of being limited by our reservations, we must use
them to carefully craft a policy that addresses economic development,
political stability, human rights and the rule of law. Drug trafficking
is the major obstacle to the advancement of these goals, and it must be
curbed if any progress is to be made in our drug war at home.
amendment no. 3546
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the capital city of India, a woman is
burned to death every 12 hours. Earlier this week, NPR reported the
story of a courageous survivor of a phenomenon that is commonly
referred to as ``dowry deaths.'' Joti Dowan was held prisoner by her
husband and mother-in-law for two years because she refused to ask her
mother for a $1,000 dowry.
Locked in a tiny room, isolated from friends and family, and rationed
only two pieces of bread a day, Joti weighed only 55 pounds when
authorities found her. Frequent beatings and malnutrition left her too
weak to stand without help. A long scar covers her arm because, at one
point during her torture, her husband and his family tried to kill her
by dousing her with kerosene. It was only because they feared her
screams would alert the neighbors that they extinguished the fire.
Shelanie Agerwall was shot and killed by her husband when he became
dissatisfied with the new car that originally came with her dowry. He
traded in the vehicle for a more expensive one and demanded his wife's
family compensate him for the extra cost. When Shelanie Agerwall's
family did not pay him quickly enough, he murdered her.
Death resulting from dowry disputes are on the rise. In 1998, 12,600
women in India were victims of dowry deaths--a 15 percent increase from
the previous year. Burning a woman to death is the most common form of
dowry death. Commonly referred to as ``bride burning,'' women are
doused with kerosene and lit on fire. In many cases, their murder is
planned to look like a cooking accident.
The law provides little or no support for the victims of dowry
disputes. Corruption is rampant throughout the system--police are
bribed by the husbands' families to destroy evidence, doctors are
persuaded to change their testimony, and the legal system rarely
convicts husbands and families guilty of dowry deaths.
Dowry has evolved from a custom to a form of extortion. The demand
for quick money to buy consumer goods has increased the demands for so-
called ``dowries'' throughout India. As a result, the use of dowries
has spread to communities which never before had a dowry custom. The
growing middle class has been met by eager manufacturers. Conspicuous
consumption demands greater dowry payments.
In April, a 29-year-old Pakistani woman was shot dead in the law
office of a leading human rights activist. Her parents had ordered the
killing because she had shamed the family by seeking a divorce.
Perveen Aktar, a 37-year-old woman living in Pakistan, was severely
burned in September when her husband, a fruit peddler, threw acid on
her. According to Aktar, whose face, back, and chest are badly scarred,
her husband wanted to return to his first wife, and she refused. She
went to the police, but her husband paid them a series of bribes, and
they did not investigate.
These women's struggles are a part of a larger epidemic of ``honor
killings''--or culturally sanctioned killing of women in the name of
preserving a family's honor. ``Honor crimes'' remain a serious problem
in many countries, including: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.
Few statistics are available on honor crimes, but the independent
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported that in 1998 and 1999,
more than 850 women were killed by their husbands, brothers, fathers or
other relatives in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province.
In many of those cases, the woman was suspected of what was
considered ``immoral behavior.'' According to lawyers and women's
rights advocates, many such cases are never brought to trial. Police
are easily bribed or persuaded by the men's families to dismiss the
complaints as ``domestic accidents.''
Some say that the problems of ``dowry deaths'' and ``honor killings''
are cultural. These problems are criminal, not cultural, and we have an
obligation to do something about it.
The amendment I offered would encourage the Secretary of State to
meet with representatives from countries that have a high incidence of
``dowry deaths'' and ``honor killings'' to assess ways to work together
to increase awareness about these problems and to
[[Page S5621]]
develop strategies to end these practices.
The United States, as a world leader, needs to realize its influence
in the world. I do not believe it is our place to go into other
countries and dictate their traditions. But at the same time, we need
to send a message to those countries that condone the brutal killings
of innocent women.
international rule of law program in china
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my good friend, the senior Senator
from Pennsylvania, yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. I am pleased to yield to my friend the Senator from New
York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I note in the committee's report that $2 million is
being designated for the creation of an International Rule of Law
Program in China. The report states that the U.S. Agency for
International Development is requested to give serious consideration to
the proposal of Temple University Law School in cooperation with New
York University Law School to establish a Business Law Center in China.
Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. It is the intention of the committee to
support these two prestigious institutions in building upon the very
important Temple University Masters of Law Program in Beijing, which is
the first and only foreign law degree-granting program in China. After
reviewing the case of Yongyi Song, a librarian at Dickinson College in
Pennsylvania who was released in January after being held under dubious
charges in China, I believe the U.S. Congress should support programs
that advance the rule of law in China. At a time when the People's
Republic of China is seeking permanent most-favored-nation status and
seeking entry into the World Trade Organization, it is my hope that the
government of the PRC will respect basic norms for due process such as
an open public trial and the right to confer with counsel.
International Rule of Programs such as the Temple University/NYU
Program are important means to build understanding and respect for
these basic norms in the Chinese legal community.
Mr. SCHUMER. I agree that this is an important program which the
Congress should support, and it is my hope that this funding will be
maintained as the bill goes to conference with the House. I have one
further question. Is it the committee's intention that the U.S. Agency
for International Development provide the full amount of this funding
to an individual rule of law program in the People's Republic of China,
such as the program by Temple University, in cooperation with New York
University, for the creation of their Business Law Center in China?
Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. I certainly encourage AID to release
the full funding as designated in the committee's report.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my good friend for his helpful clarification.
amendment no. 3547
Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the years, I have come to the Senate
floor on many occasions to talk about female genital mutilation (FGM).
Still, it is very difficult for me to stand here and talk about
something as repulsive, as cruel and as unusual as the practice of FGM.
But ignoring this issue because of the discomfort it causes us does
nothing but perpetuate the silent acquiescence of its practice.
For those who are unfamiliar with this ritual, FGM is the cutting
away of the female genitals and then sewing up the opening, leaving
only a small hole for urine and menstrual flow. In many cases, the
girl's legs are bound together for weeks while a permanent scar forms.
It is performed on girls between the ages of 4 and 12.
This is a practice that has been around for thousands of years and is
not going to go away overnight. We need to continue to talk about it
and insist upon aggressive education of the African communities that
practice it, as well as the implementation of laws prohibiting it.
Several years ago, I passed legislation that requires the Health and
Human Services Secretary to identify and compile data on immigrant
communities in the United States who are practicing FGM. I worked to
pass legislation, that is now law, to make criminal the practice of FGM
in the United States.
I have offered two amendments that would keep the United States
focused on its work to eliminate FGM abroad. One amendment would allow
US AID (US Agency for International Development) to spend up to $1.5
million on its activities to eradicate FGM. My second amendment
requires the Secretary of State to further study FGM and to submit her
findings along with a set of recommendations on how the United States
can best work to eliminate the practice of FGM to Congress by June 1,
2001.
US AID has a long history of supporting the eradication of FGM,
however, it still has a long way to go. In 1995, Congress mandated that
US AID dedicate one million dollars to efforts to end FGM. Since 1995,
funding for this program has fluctuated from a low level of $500,000
per year to a high level of $800,000 per year. My amendment will
restore funding to this important program.
It is estimated that 130 million girls are genitally mutilated. Every
year, two million girls face FGM--that's 6,000 girls every day.
Last year, I met with Waris Dirie, an activist and supermodel, who
serves as a special ambassador for the Elimination of FGM for the
United Nations Population Fund. A native of Somalia and born to a
nomadic family, Ms. Dirie survived the traditional form of FGM that
kills hundreds of women every year--her younger sister and two cousins
died from the procedure. At age 13, just before she was to be married
off to an elderly man, Ms. Dirie ran away from home. She has left the
glamour of the fashion world to speak out and work to eradicate this
heinous procedure.
As Ms. Dirie will tell you, the initial operation leads to many
health complications that will plague the girl throughout her life--if
she does not bleed to death during the procedure. But the immediate
health risks are not over after a couple of months or even a couple of
years after the operation. When a girl is married, her husband either
has to force himself upon her, or re-cut her in order to have sexual
intercourse.
During child birth, additional cutting and stitching takes place with
each birth. All of this re-cutting and stitching creates tough scar
tissue. The procedure is usually performed by female laypeople and is
most often performed with a razor, knife, or even a piece of glass.
Often, we refer to FGM as a women's issue, but this needs to be seen
as a child abuse issue as well. A four year-old girl does not have the
ability to consent or to understand the significance and the
consequence this ritual will have on her life, on her health, or on her
dignity. Young girls are tied and held down, they scream in pain and
are not only physically scarred, they are emotionally scarred for life.
We know a lot about the psychological effects of child abuse from
studying children of domestic abuse in the United States. Imagine the
psychological effect this must have on children from the initial
operation throughout adulthood. The health complications are a constant
reminder of the mutilation they endured.
I understand that this custom is deeply embedded in African culture.
However, that does not mean we should pretend it is not happening.
According to a report by Amnesty International, FGM is practiced in
African countries where it has already been criminalized. In some of
these countries, over 90% of the women undergo FGM, in spite of laws
prohibiting it.
This is a cruel and tortuous procedure performed on young girls
against their will. The United States must make all efforts to condemn
and to curb this practice.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the fiscal year
2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which has been moved to
third reading.
Most immediately, the supplemental emergency funding for Assistance
to Plan Colombia--requested by the President at the beginning of the
year, and passed by the House months ago--can finally be included in
the Military Construction Appropriations bill already in Conference.
In Colombia, we have a real opportunity to work with a
democratically-elected government which is committed to combatting drug
production
[[Page S5622]]
and trafficking in a country which supplies most of the heroin and
about 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States.
Mr. President, I recently visited Colombia to assess what our aid
could accomplish. I went to see the scope of drug crop cultivation and
processing, to look into the political context, the human rights
situation, the goals of the Pastrana Government, and to assess the
capabilities of the military and the police.
I went with an open mind, though I was concerned about the horrendous
abuses of human rights and with the effects of Colombian cocaine and
heroin on the streets of New Jersey and other states.
I left Colombia convinced that we can help Colombia and help America
by cooperating in the fight against drug production, trafficking, and
use. Let me briefly share a few of my observations and conclusions:
Aid for Plan Colombia is strongly in the U.S. interest. While there
can be legitimate differences of opinion about the exact content of the
aid package, we must use the opportunity to cooperate with a fellow
democracy to fight the scourge of drugs which harms both our people.
This is a genuine emergency and should be funded as such. Drug crop
eradication, training, and counter-narcotics military and police
operations have been curtailed for lack of funds. Other elements of the
package--like helicopters and alternative development aid--have longer
lead times, but the process cannot start until the funds are passed.
Every week we delay, 1,000 more acres of coca are planted, so the
problem grows ever larger and narcotics-trafficking groups grow
stronger.
Colombia's political will is strong. While the political situation in
Colombia is uncertain, President Pastrana and the Colombian Congress
have backed away from forcing early elections and appear to be working
out their differences. But the Colombian people and their elected
representatives want an end to the violence.
They support peace negotiations with the FARC and ELN guerrillas. And
they know the violence will not end as long as it is fueled by drug
trafficking and its dirty proceeds.
The U.S. and Colombia have a symbiosis of interest in combating drug
production and trafficking.
While the Colombians mainly want to end financial support for various
armed groups, they are highly motivated to cooperate with our main
goal--eliminating a major source of narcotics destined for the United
States.
Colombia's military and police need reform and assistance. I was
appalled to learn that any conscript with a high school education is
exempt from combat duty, so only the poorest, least-educated people
serve in front-line units.
Moreover, the standards of training for most military personnel are
quite low, and the NCO corps is particularly weak. Colombia needs to
accelerate military reforms, some of which require legislation.
But the U.S. can also help a great deal by providing sound training
to the Counter-Narcotics Battalions which will be most directly
involved in operations supporting the Colombian National Police as they
eradicate crops, destroy laboratories and processing facilities, and
arrest traffickers.
We need to improve protection for human rights in Colombia. The
Colombian people face very real risks of murder, kidnapping, extortion,
and other heinous crimes, so they always live in fear. Hundreds of
thousands of people have fled the violence. The Colombian Government--
including the military and the police--take human rights issues very
seriously.
We need to hold them to their commitments to make further progress,
as the Senate bill language Senators Kennedy and Leahy and I authored
would do. I was particularly impressed that the independent Prosecutor
General's Office--known as the Fiscalia --is firmly committed to
prosecuting criminals, particularly human rights violators.
But in meeting with Colombian human rights groups, I learned that the
overwhelming majority of human rights abuses are committed by the
paramilitary groups, followed by the guerrillas. Colombia must sever
any remaining ties between its military and the paramilitary groups and
treat them like the drug-running outlaws they are.
On the whole, winning the war on drugs in Colombia should do more to
improve security and safeguard human rights than anything else we or
the Colombian government can do.
Mr. President, I reluctantly opposed the Amendment offered by the
Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.
I share his conviction that we as a country must do more to reduce
the demand for illegal drugs in our society.
In 1998, the most recent year for which I have these statistics, more
than 5 million Americans were chronic, hard-core users of illegal
drugs.
Just over 2 million--less than half of them--received treatment. I
firmly believe that we should provide drug treatment for every drug
addict willing to make the tremendous effort to overcome his or her
addiction. In my view, we should ensure that no one leaves our
prisons--whether federal, state, or local--addicted to narcotics.
We absolutely must do more to reduce demand and thus reduce the use
of dangerous drugs and reduce the terrible toll drug use and related
crime takes on our society.
Where I differ with the Senator from Minnesota is that I do not
believe we should undermine our Assistance for Plan Colombia to pay for
increased domestic drug treatment and prevention programs.
Even if we were to fully fund the President's request for Assistance
to Plan Colombia, our international programs would account for only
about one-tenth of our counter-narcotics budget.
In Colombia, we have a real opportunity to work with a
democratically-elected government which is committed to combating drug
production and trafficking in a country which supplies most of the
heroin and about 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United
States.
In short, Mr. President, I opposed the Wellstone Amendment because I
believe we need to keep working to reduce demand for drugs here in
America, but not at the expense of cutting efforts to eliminate a major
source of drugs to our country.
I also opposed the Amendment offered by the Senator from Washington,
Senator Gorton. I voted against a similar Amendment in the
Appropriations Committee, and my subsequent visit to Colombia leaves me
more convinced than ever that I was right to do so.
Our vote on the Gorton Amendment was, quite simply, a vote on the
proposed Assistance to Plan Colombia. We all know that President
Pastrana's Plan Colombia--which includes an aggressive counternarcotics
effort--could not go forward with only one hundred or two hundred
million dollars in U.S. aid.
Even if the Gorton amendment had merely delayed funding, as its
sponsor has argued, it would have prevented President Clinton from
seizing the opportunity to act now. In my view, we have waited too long
already to address a major source of the narcotics which bring so much
harm on the American people.
We have a tremendous opportunity--if we are willing to devote a
reasonable level of funding--to drastically curtail the production
cocaine and heroin in Colombia while supporting democracy and the rule
of law in that country.
I am concerned that other emergency needs have not been met.
The President requested emergency supplemental funds for Kosovo and
the Southeast Europe Initiative to help bring peace and stability to
that troubled region, but those funds have not been provided.
Funding for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC,
multilateral debt relief trust fund also was not provided, so we cannot
fulfill our goals to help relieve the world's poorest countries from
the crushing burdens of debt. I hope we will be able to address these
deficiencies in Conference with the House on emergency supplemental
appropriations.
Let me turn now to the underlying Foreign Operations Appropriations
for fiscal year 2001.
As I noted when we considered this bill in Committee, I believe
Subcommittee Chairman McConnell and Ranking Member Leahy, working with
other Senators and aided by their capable staff, have done a good job
of allocating the resources available to them.
[[Page S5623]]
I particularly appreciate their help to include revised language to
ensure our aid in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia is used
to help bring war criminals to justice. I also support the creation of
an account for Global Health, with increased funding for tuberculosis,
AIDS, and other health challenges. And the bill fully funds support for
our ally Israel and peace in the Middle East.
That said, Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the funds
provided for the Foreign Operations Subcommittee simply are not
sufficient to sustain America's global leadership as we begin a new
century.
President Clinton requested increased funding for international
programs in fiscal year 2001, though still far less in real terms than
we spent in the mid-1980s.
But the bill before us today falls about $1.7 billion short of the
President's request.
Let me cite just a few examples of the cuts:
Funding for the Global Environment Facility is more than $125 million
below the President's request, so our arrears will continue to mount
and environmentally-sustainable development projects in poor countries
will not be funded. Even the International Development Association, or
IDA--the main institution known as the World Bank--is funded below last
year's level and more than $85 million below the Administration's
request.
While I appreciate Chairman McConnell's strong funding for Central
and Eastern Europe, it's not nearly enough to make up for the Kosovo
supplemental which was apparently not funded.
Meanwhile, assistance to the Independent States of the former Soviet
Union--many of them still at a critical stage in their economic and
political transition--is $55 million below the level requested by the
Administration.
The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement and Non-
Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism and Demining accounts are each cut by
nearly $100 million from the President's request.
I don't want to waste the Senate's time citing all the examples, but
I hope I've made my point.
President Clinton sought a more responsible level of international
affairs spending within his balanced budget, but this bill is more than
11 percent below the Administration's request.
Mr. President, I believe we need to strengthen Foreign Operations
funding as this bill goes to Conference with the House. I look forward
to working with my colleagues on the subcommittee to make that happen,
so we can avoid having this bill vetoed.
We need to work together to achieve a responsible Foreign Operations
funding level which will advance America's interest and reflect
America's values around the world.
I thank the chair and yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the foreign operations appropriations bill
that the Senate completed debate on today contains $934 million to
launch a major counter-narcotics initiative in Colombia. Other
financing attached to the Military Construction and Defense
Appropriations bills boosts that total to well over a billion dollars.
This funding will enable the United States to embark on a massive
ramping up of its counter-narcotics offensive in Colombia. But
curiously enough, the bulk of this program is being implemented through
a series of supplemental funding measures. A major anti-narcotics
program in Central America, anchored on the provision of U.S. military
equipment and U.S. military and State Department advisers, seems to me
to be a policy issue that begs for in depth Congressional discussion
and consideration. And yet, we are effectively creating it through
supplemental appropriations. This may be an expedient way to deal with
a difficult problem, but I question its efficacy. I wholeheartedly
support aggressive counter-narcotics efforts. Illegal drugs and drug
abuse are scourges on our society, and we cannot pretend that the
problem will go away if we simply ignore it. But I am concerned about
the large number of unanswered questions surrounding the President's
plan.
I understand where the money is to be spent, and what it is to be
spent on, but I am unclear as to what the results are expected to be.
What precise impact is the U.S. assistance expected to have on the
production of cocaine and heroin into the United States? What impact
will massive U.S. assistance to Colombia have on drug production in
other Andean Ridge nations? What impact will intensified U.S.
assistance to the government of Colombia's have on Colombia's internal
politics and simmering civil war? And, most importantly, what impact
will this initiative have on reducing drug abuse and the toll of the
illegal drug trade within the United States.
Providing answers to those, and other questions, is the primary
intent of a provision that I added in Committee to the foreign
operations appropriations bill. My provision requires the
Administration to seek and receive congressional authorization before
spending any money on U.S. support for the counter-narcotics program in
Colombia, called Plan Colombia, beyond the funding contained in this
and other relevant spending bills. If this funding is sufficient, all
well and good. But if more money is needed to prolong or expand the
anti-drug effort, then Congress has a responsibility to reevaluate the
entire program. The purpose of my provision is to prevent the
U.S. government from slowly but steadily increasing its participation
in the anti-narcotics effort in Colombia until it finds itself
embroiled in, at best, a costly and open-ended anti-drug campaign
throughout the Andean Ridge, or, at worst, a bloody civil war in
Colombia.
A secondary goal of my provision is to limit the number of U.S.
personnel engaged in the counter-narcotics offensive in Colombia to
specific levels unless Congress approves higher levels of U.S.
personnel. The provision, which I modified to address concerns raised
by the Defense Department, imposes a ceiling of 500 U.S. military
personnel and 300 U.S. civilian contractors working on Plan Colombia in
Colombia unless Congress authorizes higher levels.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Defense
Department indicated that it would not be opposed to troop caps. This
is a prudent measure that Congress should endorse to ensure that U.S.
involvement does not unwittingly spiral out of control in Colombia.
In an effort to ensure that my provision does not impede ongoing
counter-narcotics operations in Colombia, I amended it to address
concerns raised by the Administration regarding the availability of
funds provided in the FY 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill, and the
availability of relevant unobligated balances in other spending bills.
My amendment protects ongoing programs without giving the
Administration the green light to begin empire building in Colombia.
There are those, I am sure, who will say that my provision is too
cumbersome, that we should simply handle this huge counter-narcotics
offensive in the normal course of business. That, I believe, would be a
dangerous course of action, one that would invite mission creep and
deep entanglement in the internal affairs of Colombia.
U.S. assistance to Plan Colombia is not, and should not be, business
as usual. If the Administration is sincere in its commitment to launch
a major, coordinated, inter-agency offensive against the burgeoning
drug industry in Colombia, then the Administration should welcome the
spotlight that my provision will shine on its efforts. The
Administration should welcome the extra safeguards that this language
provides against unintended consequences.
Mr. President, winning the war against illegal drugs is vitally
important to the future of our nation and to the future of our
neighbors, but it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that we
are allocating U.S. taxpayers dollars in the most effective manner
possible. Congress cannot make that determination without fully
exploring the goals and potential ramifications of this effort to
provide assistance to Colombia. My provision provides the minimum
necessary safeguards to ensure congressional oversight of Plan
Colombia. I commend the Senate for maintaining the integrity and the
intent of this provision.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with several of my
colleagues, including Senator Chafee, Senator Mack, Senator Biden, and
Senator Leahy in sponsoring this Sense of
[[Page S5624]]
the Senate amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. I
am also very pleased that agreement has been reached for the amendment
to be accepted. The amendment calls on the Senate to support full
authorization and funding for international debt relief. I worked with
Senator Mack last year in introducing the ``Debt Relief for Poor
Countries Act of 1999,'' and am glad to work with him again on this
important issue.
The purpose of this amendment is to highlight one of the major
shortcomings in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, as reported
out of Committee, which only included $75 million for the purposes of
debt relief. That allocation falls far short of what the Administration
has requested and what is needed to meet our obligations to the HIPC
(Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) trust fund and bilateral debt relief
commitments. The Administration has requested $210 million for FY 2000
for HIPC and $225 million for FY 2001 ($150 million to HIPC and $75
million for bilateral debt relief). This money is necessary for us to
meet our commitments to the HIPC trust fund, estimated at $600 million
over the next three years, and our commitments to bilateral debt
reductions, estimated at $375 million over the same period.
The Administration has also requested an authorization from Congress
to support use for HIPC debt relief of the full earnings on profits
from IMF off-market gold sales.
Why is debt relief so important? Many poor countries are saddled with
large debt payments. All too often, payments on the foreign debt--which
account for as much as 70 percent of government expenditures in some
countries--mean there is little left to meet basic human needs of the
population, such as health, education, nutrition, sanitation, and basic
social services.
As a group, HIPCs post some of the world's lowest human development
indicators: one in ten children dies before their first birthday; one
in three children is malnourished; the average person attends only
three years of school; half of all citizens live on less than $1 dollar
a day; HIV infection rates are as a high as 20 percent.
In effect, debt service payments are making it even harder for the
recipient governments to enact the kinds of economic and political
reforms that the loans were designed to encourage, and that are
necessary to ensure broad-based growth and future prosperity.
Last year, President Clinton pledged to cancel all $5.7 billion of
debt owed to the U.S. government by 36 of the poorest countries.
Canceling the debt will not cost the full $5.7 billion because many of
the loans would never have been repaid and are no longer worth their
full face-value. It does not make economic sense to keep these loans on
the books.
Additionally, I believe U.S. leadership is at stake. As the richest
country in the world and as one that has long been interested in the
development of poor countries, we risk losing our moral authority in
the international arena if we cannot, especially during our country's
time of prosperity, alleviate the crushing debt burden of many poor
countries.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like once again to address the
issue of unrequested and unnecessary earmarks in the annual foreign
operations appropriations bill.
It is a constant struggle, Mr. President, to maintain a reasonable--
if not always adequate--amount of funding for foreign operations when
the public overwhelmingly opposes foreign aid programs. It is therefore
incumbent upon those of us who believe that foreign aid programs are an
important component of U.S. national security policy to spend that
budget wisely. As usual, the foreign operations appropriations bill
before us squanders vital financial resources for unnecessary, low-
priority and unrequested programs. Once again, pressuring the Agency
for International Development to fund research into the future welfare
of the Waboom tree; providing millions of dollars for organizations
like the Orangutan Foundation, the Peregrine Fund's Neotropical Raptor
Center, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the Dian Fossey Gorrilla Fund,
and the World Council of Hellenes--none of which was requested by the
Agency for International Development or the Department of State--was
deemed preferential to higher priority activities that unquestionably
contribute to regional stability in less developed countries.
Mr. President, the notion that funding from the foreign aid budget
not requested by the Administration should only go to organizations and
programs following an objective, rigorous and competitive process
eludes the Appropriations Committee. I am not reflexively opposed to
all of the programs for which funding was added in this bill. I do take
strong exception to the process by which funding is earmarked for
parochial reasons. The bill before us today is replete with such
examples. A long list of earmarks for university programs, the vast
majority of which coincide with membership on the Appropriations
Committee, is more evidence than even the O.J. Simpson jury would need
that reasonable doubt exists as to whether such objective criteria are
employed.
United States military forces are being deployed at record levels;
conflicts in Africa and elsewhere are raging out of control, bringing
with them untold misery, and we continue to pass spending bills of such
dubious merit. I will support passage of the foreign operations
appropriations bill, but only because it is imperative that funding for
Israel, Egypt, refugee and migration assistance, and other vital
programs receive the timely assistance they require. But to be forced
to swallow such questionable earmarks as the $1 million for the Fort
Valley State University agribusiness program in Georgia--and I should
point out that the Republic of Georgia has no greater friend in the
Senate than me--without the benefit of a competitive analytical process
is more than a little painful. I suppose it is only appropriate that,
once again, we are adding funding, this year to the tune of $4 million,
for the International Fertilizer Development Center. There is something
strangely appropriate that we spend tens of millions of dollars to fund
the fertilizer center given the process by which this bill is put
together every year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement appear in
the Record, accompanied by the list of earmarks and directive language
that I have assembled.
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 2001 (S. 2522)
directive language and earmarks
Report language provisions
Iodine Deficiency/Kiwanis: Recommends that AID provide at
least $5 million to Kiwanis International via UNICEF
Streetwise Program: Encourages AID to provide $50,000 for
the program
Morehouse School of Medicine: Expects AID to provide $5.5
million for the Morehouse School of Medicine's International
Center for Health and Development
Iowa State University: Recommends that $1 million provided
to support Iowa State University's International Women in
Science and Engineering program
International Executive Service Corporation: Strongly
supports the efforts of the IESC, believes that AID has
underutilized the corporation, and urges AID to grant funds
to IESC to expand its programs
International Rice Research Institute: Recommends $5
million for the institute
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center: Recommends up to
$500,000 to train Thai researchers at the center, and
recommends up to $500,000 for research into bacterial and
virus problems related to rice
Tropical Plant and Animal Research Initiative: Urges AID to
fund a joint Israel-State of Hawaii research and development
project to enhance the competitiveness of the tropical fish
and global plant market
Protea Germplasm: Urges AID to fund meritorious aspects of
a joint South Africa-U.S. protea industry proposal to create
a repository to safeguard protea germplasm
Missouri Botanical Garden: Directs AID to increase funding
for biodiversity conservation above current level and to work
with the Missouri Botanical Garden to protect biodiversity
Orangutan Foundation: Provides $1.5 million to support
organizations such as the Orangutan Foundation
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International and the Karisoke
Research Center: Provides $1.5 million to support the fund
and the center
Peregrine Fund: Recommends $500,000 for the Peregrine
Fund's Neotropical Raptor Center
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research:
Encourages AID to provide up to $500,000 for the center
Soils Management Collaborative Research Support Program/
Montana State University:
[[Page S5625]]
Recommends that AID provide $3 million for the SM-CRSP, and
encourages AID to provide $500,000 through the SM-CRSP to
Montana State University-Bozeman
U.S./Israel Cooperative Development Program and Cooperative
Development Research Program: Urges an increase in funding
for CDP/CDR
Patrick J. Leahy War Victims Fund: Recommends that $11
million be made available to support the fund's work
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:
The Lebanese American University, International College
The Johns Hopkins University's Centers in Nanjing and
Bologna
The Hadassah Medical Organization
The Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute of
Science
American University in Beirut: encourages consideration of
a plan to establish a Palestinian scholarship and education
initiative
City University-Bellevue, Washington: encourages AID to
provide adequate resources to build a new administrative
center and expand the program to educate Eastern European
students in democratic practices and principles
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 Vermont, $500,000, to establish and advanced
telecommunications link between three hospitals in Vietnam
and the University of Vermont College of Medicine
Champlain College, for the U.S.-Ukraine Community
Partnerships Project
American University in Bulgaria, to sustain the
university's program
Utah State University, $1.1 million, for the university's
proposed World Irrigation Applied Research and Training
Center, and $1 million for the university to assist the Arab-
American University of Jenin to establish a College of
Agriculture of Jenin
University of Missouri, $2 million, for establishment of
the Center for Livestock Infectious Disease
University of Mississippi, $2 million, for the National
Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, for
the purpose of transferring technology to the Polish Academy
of Sciences
Mississippi State University, $2 million, for the Office of
International Programs
Boise State University, $2 million, to continue and expand
the university's involvement with the National Economics
University's Business School in Vietnam
University of Miami, $3.5 million, for the Cuban transition
project
University of Northern Iowa, for the Orava Project in
Slovakia
Washington State University, Purdue University, South
Carolina University, and the University of Jordan, $1
million, for water research in the Middle East
Washington State University, $2.46 million, for research,
education, and training in international food security in
collaboration with the State of Washington, the International
Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement, and institutions in
Central Asia and the Caucasus
University of South Carolina, $1 million, for the
International Urban Growth Network; $1 million, for the Earth
Sciences and Resources Institute; $2.5 million, for joint
Chernobyl-effect research with Texas Tech University
George Mason University, $2 million, for health care in
developing countries
Loyola University, $1 million, for the Family Law Institute
for Latin American Judges
Louisiana State University, $1 million, for the
International Emergency Management Training Center
Historically Black Colleges, $1 million, for the Renewable
Energy for African Development Program
St. Thomas University, $5 million, for the Institute for
Democracy in Africa
University of Notre Dame, $1.2 million, to support human
rights & democracy in Colombia in collaboration with Inter-
American Dialogue and the Colombian Commission of Jurists
Western Kentucky University, $2 million, for an independent
media initiative
University of Louisville, $1.5 million, to work with
impoverished South African communities in partnership with
Rand Afrikaans University
China Rule of Law/Temple Law School: Recommends $2 million
for an International Rule of Law program and urges AID to
consider a proposal for Temple Law School, in collaboration
with New York University School of Law, to operate a Business
Law Center in China
Tibet/Bridge Fund: Recommends $1.5 million to support
development projects administered by the Bridge Fund
Sharada Dhanvantari Charitable Hospital: Recommends
$250,000 for the Sharada Dhanvantari Charitable Hospital to
administer health care in Karnataka, India
University of Chicago/Chicago House: Urges AID to continue
to support the Chicago House in Luxor, Egypt
Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust: Urges the International
Fund for Ireland to support the work of this organization
Academic Consortium for Global Education: Expects AID to
continue funding the consortium at the current level
Florida State University: Recommends AID support a distance
learning project being developed by the university
University of South Carolina: Directs AID to provide
$750,000 for the University of South Carolina College of
Criminal Justice's Moscow Police Command College
Magee Womancare International: Encourages AID to work with
Magee Womancare International to distribute vitamins and
educate at-risk Russian women on the importance of nutrition
in pregnancy and infancy
World Council of Hellenes: Urges the Department of State to
provide $1.5 million for the council's Primary Health Care
Initiative
Rotary International/Anchorage Interfaith Council/
Municipality of Anchorage: Supports $5 million for providing
medical and other assistance to improve the lives of Russian
orphans, and expects AID to work with Rotary International,
the Anchorage Interfaith Council, and the Municipality of
Anchorage to do so
International Republican Institute/National Democratic
Institute: Directs AID to assure continuity in support for
IRI & NDI efforts to contribute to political reforms in
Ukraine
University of Louisville: Earmarks $1 million for training
in water and wastewater management in the Republic of Georgia
Fort Valley State University: Earmarks $1 million for
training in agribusiness in the Republic of Georgia
City University of New York: Earmarks $1 million for
training in transportation in the Republic of Georgia
Colombia Child Soldiers: Instructs the Secretary of State
to transfer $5 million to the Department of Labor for
rehabilitation and demobilization of child soldiers, and
urges the Department of Labor to work with the Colombia
Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, Justapaz, Asoda,
Ceda Vida, and Defense for Children International to develop
and fund programs to counsel, educate, and reintegrate former
child soldiers
Bill Language
Substitutes 30 Blackhawk helicopters requested by the
Administration and the Colombian Government for a total of 60
Huey II helicopters
University of Missouri: Earmarks $1 million for
International Laboratory for Tropical Agriculture
Biotechnology
University of California-Davis: Earmarks $1 million for
research and training foreign scientists
Tuskegee University: Earmarks $1 million to support a
Center to Promote Biotechnology in International Agriculture
International Fertilizer Development Center: Earmarks $4
million for the center
United States Telecommunication Institute: Earmarks
$500,000 for the institute
American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: Earmarks $17 million
for ASHA programs
International Media Training Center: Earmarks $2 million
for the center
Carelift International: Provides up to $7 million for
Carelift International
American Educational Institutions in Lebanon: Provides $15
million for scholarships and direct support of the American
educational institutions in Lebanon
American University in Cairo: Provides up to $35 million
for the relocation of the American University in Cairo
Egypt Endowment/Theban Mapping Project: Provides up to $15
million for the establishment of an endowment to promote the
preservation and restoration of Egyptian antiquity, of which
$3 million may be made available for the Theban Mapping
Project
American Center for Oriental Research: Earmarks $2 million
for the center
Cochran Fellowship Program in Russia: Earmarks $400,000 for
the program
Moscow School of Political Science: Earmarks $250,000 for
the school
University of Southern Alabama: Earmarks $1 million to
study environmental causes of birth defects
Ukranian Land and Resource Management Center: Earmarks $5
million for the center.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Senate today will pass the foreign
operations appropriations bill and I rise to speak in support of the
additional funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that
is contained in this legislation. The bill makes additional FY2000
funds available for the DEA to step up efforts against the burgeoning
epidemic of methamphetamine--commonly called ``meth''. This funding is
needed for the DEA to combat the explosive meth problem which is
emerging as one of the fastest growing threats in our country,
especially in Missouri.
With its roots on the west coast, the meth epidemic has now exploded
in middle America. Meth is today what cocaine was to the 1980s and
heroin was to the 1970s--the hot, ``in'' drug with a catastrophic
potential to destroy all those it comes in contact with--financially,
spiritually, and physically. It is currently the largest drug threat we
face in Missouri. Unfortunately, it is most likely coming soon to a
city or town near you.
[[Page S5626]]
If one wanted to design a drug to have the worst possible effect on
the community, one would make methamphetamine. It is highly addictive,
highly destructive, cheap, and easy to manufacture.
To give my colleagues an idea on the scope of the problem in Missouri
alone, let me share with you these frightening statistics: during the
whole year of 1992, law enforcement seized two clandestine Meth labs in
Missouri and in 1994, the number of Meth labs seized increased to 14.
By 1998, the number of seized labs mushroomed to 679. Based on reports
of the figures collected in 1999, that number jumped again last year to
over 900 labs in Missouri alone. According to the latest national
statistics from the DEA, reported meth lab seizures in 1999 for the
entire United States totaled 6,438, up from 5,786 in 1998 and 3,327 in
1997. This is nearly a 100% increase in only two years.
The rapid increase and spread of meth across the country has brought
with it the problems that we too often see with illegal drug use. As
the ``popularity'' of meth has increased, we have seen the proportional
increases in domestic abuse, child abuse, burglaries and drug related
murders. In addition, from 1992 to 1998 meth-related emergency room
incidents increased by 63 percent.
What is most unacceptable to me is that meth is ensnaring our
children. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth had
doubled from the 1992 level. In recent conversations I have had with
local law enforcement officers in Missouri, they estimated that as many
as 10% of high school students know the recipe for meth. In fact, one
need only log-on the Internet to find numerous web sites giving
detailed instructions for setting up a meth lab. This is troublesome.
We in Congress have taken these indicators seriously. Despite yearly
appropriations to combat meth abuse and trafficking, the meth problem
continues to grow. I believe it is time to dedicate more resources to
stopping this scourge once and for all. To that end, earlier this year
I joined a number of my colleagues in the Senate in sending letters to
President Clinton and Attorney General Reno requesting that at least
$10,000,000 in additional funds be made available for the DEA to assist
state and local law enforcement in the proper removal and disposal of
hazardous materials recovered from clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories. This funding would provide the necessary resources for
the DEA and state and local law enforcement officials to combat this
growing meth problem.
Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have faced other
challenges in the past and we can face this one as well. In fact, the
history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing people's
highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All it takes is that we
marshal our will and channel the great indomitable American spirit.
In order to successfully combat this growing meth problem, we must
provide law enforcement officials with adequate resources to stifle
this growing epidemic. To this end, I support the increased level of
funding in this foreign operation bill, and I encourage the conferees
to maintain adequate funding in the Supplemental appropriations measure
for fighting the scourge of methamphetamine. Through legislative
efforts like this to assist law enforcement efforts to combat meth, we
will meet this new meth challenge and defeat it.
Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the managers of
this bill, Senators McConnell and Leahy, for accepting a revised
version of the amendment I submitted yesterday. This amendment
addresses international debt relief.
Today we are at the dawn of the new millennium--2000 is the Year of
Jubilee. It is in this year that people throughout the world have been
inspired by the Book of Leviticus in the Hebrew Scriptures. This book
describes a Year of Jubilee, in which slaves are freed, land is
returned to original owners, and debts are canceled.
The Bible's teachings of the Year of Jubilee has led to a worldwide
movement to have the world's wealthiest nations forgive the debt of the
world's poorest nations. Great Britain, Canada, the Philippines,
Australia, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Sweden, South Africa, and the
United States have national campaigns in this regard. The most
prominent churches and relief groups worldwide also endorse this goal.
This spiritual movement in turn is helping motivate the United States
and our G-7 allies to put forth the heavily indebted poor countries
(``HIPC'') initiative. This groundbreaking effort will provide
substantial debt relief to poor nations conditioned on making real
progress towards economic growth and poverty reduction. It will also
emphasize greater budget discipline within recipient countries so that
scarce resources, rather than being wasted, are directed where they are
needed most.
Although the President requested $435 million this year for the U.S.
contribution to the HIPC initiative, the appropriations bill before the
Senate today provides just $75 million. The amendment I have authored
expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should
authorize and appropriate full funding. This amendment is cosponsored
by seventeen of my colleagues, including those who have been leaders on
this issue during the past several years. Cosponsors of my amendment
are Senators Mack, Sarbanes, Biden, Hagel, Wellstone, Lieberman,
Landrieu, Dodd, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Gordon Smith, DeWine, Lugar,
Feinstein, Grams, Inouye, and Bryan.
I believe it is important to draw attention to this critical issue,
and would again like to thank the bill's managers for accepting my
amendment. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks, we will make further
progress towards full U.S. participation in the HIPC initiative. Thank
you.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as Americans, we have two vital tasks in
our relations with Colombia. We are obligated to help a neighbor that
is struggling to build democracy and civil society, and it is in our
best interest to assist them in halting the flow of lethal narcotics
from the Andean mountains of Colombia to American communities. These
are the two underlying grounds for the Clinton Administration's ``Plan
Colombia,'' a request for $1.07 billion in emergency supplemental funds
over the next two years to aid Colombia.
After a painful decade of violence, the Colombian people have boldly
elected an unassailable ally of democracy and reconciliation, President
Andres Pastrana, and they are demanding an end to human rights abuses
and impunity by both the paramilitaries and the FARC guerillas. At the
same time, the lawlessness and violence of southern Colombia have
permitted the narcotics dealers to widen their cultivation and
consolidate their delivery routes into the U.S. With the remarkable
success of U.S. Government anti-narcotics programs in Peru and Bolivia,
eighty percent of the heroin consumed in the U.S. is now cultivated in
Colombia. We have no choice now but to focus our anti-drug efforts in
Colombia.
While I realize that we must bring pressure to bear on the drug
cartels, my experience with Central America in the 1980s leads me to be
very skeptical about the utility of the military response to social and
political problems. I therefore have been wary of the Administration's
Plan Colombia. My chief concerns with it have been the Colombian
military campaign against narcotics cultivation, and the abysmal human
rights record of paramilitary groups that have frequently been linked
to the military forces. I am also concerned that we not get dragged
into a major, long-term counter-insurgency effort which is not our
fight.
In the end, though, I decided to go along with the Administration's
proposal as significantly improved by the Senate Foreign Operations
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee downsized the scale of the Colombian
military effort, and shifted the funding from Blackhawk to Huey
helicopters. Smaller and more agile, the Hueys are more suited to
fighting narcotics cultivation, while the Blackhawks are more suited to
counter-insurgency combat. The Subcommittee also increased the bill's
sizable human rights component, including new programs to bolster the
rule of law and fight corruption. The Subcommittee also shares my
concern for U.S. Government responsibility for this expensive anti-
narcotics effort by increased funding for
[[Page S5627]]
end-use monitoring. Given the well-documented human rights problems in
Colombia, heightened monitoring is an extremely important component of
this program. Although we will be funding a military effort, I note
that U.S. military personnel are barred from any military operation,
and that the Leahy Amendment puts strict safeguards on the activities
of any U.S. funded partner, so that the human rights behavior of the
Colombian military will now be under a microscope.
An integral component of the final legislation is sizable funding to
encourage judicial reform, strengthen the rule of law, and improve the
quality of life for all Colombians. Without greater social and income
equality and greater respect for human rights, all our efforts will
fail. The military aid can only provide an opening for those who are
trying to build the foundation for civil society. By electing President
Pastrana, the Colombian people have indicated their desire for a future
free of drugs and violence. We must ensure that U.S. assistance is
instrumental in helping them achieve that goal.
Let's make no mistake. If this bill becomes law, the U.S. will have
made a major commitment to helping Colombia eradicate the narco-
business that plagues both it and us. We are pledging to stand beside
President Pastrana, an enlightened and popular leader with a broad
mandate to pursue this campaign, while he also resolutely holds
negotiations with entrenched but highly unpopular insurgents. I think
that, for his sake and ours, we must give him the tools and the
confidence to see this through.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I voted for S. 2522, the Senate
version of the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
I voted for the bill despite serious reservations about parts of it
because it also funds some very important priorities.
First, the bill provides economic and military assistance to some of
America's most important allies, at the level requested by the
President.
The bill includes $450 million for international family planning
programs, less than requested by the President but more than last year.
S. 2522 also provides funding for many very important international
programs, including the Peace Corps, U.N. peacekeeping operations,
refugee assistance, and antiterrorism efforts.
I am especially pleased that, with the passage of my amendment to add
$40 million, the final bill includes $51 million for international
tuberculosis control and treatment and $255 million to fight HIV/AIDS
in developing countries.
Unfortunately, attached to the foreign operations bill this year was
almost $1 billion in emergency spending for counter-narcotics efforts
in Colombia. I am disappointed that the Senate rejected an amendment
offered by Senator Wellstone, which I cosponsored, which would have
transferred the military aid portion--$225 million--to domestic drug
treatment programs.
We would have done more to fight the so-called drug war by putting
those dollars into proven drug treatment programs here to reduce
demand. A Rand Corporation study found that for every dollar spent on
demand reduction you have to spend 23 dollars on supply reduction in
order to get the same decrease in drug consumption.
And because I fear that the military assistance may lead to further
U.S. involvement in the 40-year-old civil war in Colombia, I tried to
offer an amendment to simply affirm current Defense Department policy
regarding activities of DoD personnel in Colombia. This policy states
that DoD funds may not be used to support training for Colombian
counter-insurgency operations, participate in law enforcement
activities or counternarcotics field missions, or join in any activity
in which counter-narcotics related hostilities are imminent.
I was not allowed a roll call vote on my amendment because the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee made a point of order that it
was legislation on an appropriations bill. However, less than 24 hours
earlier, the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, had an amendment
accepted which also dealt with U.S. policy toward Colombia, and which
was also subject to the very same point of order. But no senator
objected to the Sessions amendment.
This selective enforcement of Senate rules is a double standard and
is unfair. I am particularly bothered because I had strong concerns
about the Sessions amendment. This is another breakdown in comity and
civility in the Senate, and I am very troubled by it.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
amendment offered by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to
increase funding for the U.S. Peace Corps.
This amendment will increase funding for the Peace Corps by $24
million, restoring funding to the enacted FY2000 level of $244 million.
Even with passage of this amendment, $244 million is well below the
amount authorized under the four-year Peace Corps Authorization Act
which I sponsored with Senator Dodd and that passed Congress with
overwhelming bipartisan support last year. The Act authorizes an FY2001
level of $298 million to expand the Peace Corps to 10,000 volunteers,
just as President Reagan originally intended fifteen years ago. This
amendment will allow the Peace Corps to keep pace in reaching this
important goal of 10,000 Volunteers within the next five years.
I remind my colleagues that the Peace Corps represents just 1 percent
of the international affairs account. Over the past several years the
Peace Corps has worked to increase the number of Volunteers through
modest increases in its budget and more efficient management that
reduced costs and staff.
As former Director of the Peace Corps, I have learned first-hand of
the tremendous impact that the relatively small amount we spend on the
Peace Corps has throughout the world. Not only does the Peace Corps
continue to be a cost effective tool for providing assistance and
developing stronger ties with the international community, it has also
trained over 150,000 Americans in the cultures and languages of
countries around the world. Returned volunteers often use these skills
and experiences to contribute to myriad sectors of our society--
government, business, education, health, and social services, just to
name a few.
This amendment will help put the Peace Corps on the firm footing it
needs and deserves as we enter the 21st century. I firmly believe that
a rejuvenated Peace Corps will help ensure that America continues to be
an engaged world leader, and that we continue to share with other
countries our own legacy of freedom, independence, and prosperity. This
is an investment in our country and our world that we need to make.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move we go to third reading.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, all Senators have worked very closely on
this. We tried to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle. I
hope we will go to third reading. I am waiting for the chairman of the
subcommittee to come back to the floor. I see him on the floor now. We
can go to third reading. I hope we will support this bill.
This is not a perfect bill, by any means. It does not do anywhere
near enough on debt forgiveness, which is something we are going to
have to address, I hope, in conference, and I hope we will have a
larger allocation for that. It does not do enough on infectious
diseases for the poorest of the poor countries, especially in Africa.
It does not do enough for Mozambique and other areas. But it is a
considerably well-balanced bill within the resources we had. I do
compliment the senior Senator from Kentucky in working as hard as he
has to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to my good
friend from Vermont. I have enjoyed working with him on this bill. And
I express my particular gratitude to Robin Cleveland, Billy Piper,
Jennifer Chartrand, Jon Meek, Chris Williams, Cara Thanassi, and all of
my staff involved in developing this measure.
Are we now ready for third reading?
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Shall the bill be engrossed and advanced to third
reading?
[[Page S5628]]
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson)
is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--4
Feingold
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Johnson
The bill was ordered to be read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The clerk will read the bill
for the third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is now returned to the calendar.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this very important
legislation, the foreign operations appropriations bill. It has a lot
of important provisions in it, funds that are critical to our foreign
policy. We did have two very significant votes with regard to the
Colombian aid. I think probably some Members were surprised by the show
of support, with 89 votes against cutting the funds in one instance and
maybe 79 in the other instance.
This has been good work. It did take patience by the managers and
some cooperation on both sides of the aisle. We were able to get it
done in a very short period of time. I thank all concerned for their
good work. I hope we can continue that and make real progress on the
Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill this week. After the work
we have already done, I think we can show we are doing the people's
business.
I commend Senator McConnell and I commend Senator Leahy for being
willing to stay here last night and suggest we were going to have more
votes last night. That helped get this done. I thank the Senators.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to also thank the distinguished
majority leader for his work in bringing this up. This can sometimes be
a contentious bill, as he knows. His efforts in working also with the
distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, paid off. And the
distinguished majority leader had the patience to allow Senator
McConnell and me to work through an awful lot of amendments on both
sides of the aisle.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. We heard
periodically the crunch in the Cloakroom as he broke a few arms, but we
moved it through and got an overwhelming vote.
Senator McConnell showed close cooperation with me and with Senators
on both sides of the aisle throughout the process. I enjoy working with
him. I know he agrees we need more resources for some of these issues,
and we will work together to get them.
We have many interests around the world. We know U.S. leadership
costs money. I think Senator McConnell and I have tried to show a
bipartisan cohesion on that.
I thank the staff. They spent many long days and late nights, many
long weekends in getting this far. I appreciate that. Robin Cleveland,
Senator McConnell's chief of staff on the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, as always, has been a pleasure to work with. She shows
enormous competence and knowledge. I appreciate that. Her assistant,
Jennifer Chartrand, was indispensable to this. Jay Kimmitt on the
committee staff and Billy Piper on Senator McConnell's personal staff
have all been of great help.
On the Democratic side, I mention several. First, I want to mention
Cara Thanassi of my staff who was there from start to finish. Ms.
Thanassi, on the floor now with me, is a Vermonter. She will be heading
back to graduate school, only after she spends a month in East Timor. I
am proud of her and what she has done for the Senate. She has shown the
best attributes of a true Vermonter.
J.P. Dowd, my legislative director, helped on the Senate floor during
the many busy times of the last few days. Of course, Tim Rieser, the
Democratic clerk on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, has worked on
these issues in the Senate for nearly 15 years. He probably has as
great an institutional memory on the foreign policy issues as anybody
in the Senate staff or Senate and was truly indispensable.
Again, I thank the leader for his help in getting the Senate this
far.
I yield the floor.
____________________