[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10924-S10969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS EXPORT FINANCING AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2002--Continued
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, is there an amendment pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two amendments that have been set
aside.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky is off the floor. So I will not move any action while he is
gone.
I wish to urge Senators who have amendments to come forward. There is
no reason this bill cannot be finished. Even if we finish it fairly
soon, I hope Members of the Senate will realize the importance of this
bill.
I remember coming to the Senate at a time when so many would talk
about foreign aid as some kind of a massive giveaway. People would ask,
What have these countries done to help us? Why are we sending money
there? Fortunately, at that time we had people such as Senator Mike
Mansfield, a happy memory in the Senate, and people who preceded the
Presiding Officer, Senator Jacob Javits on the Republican side who knew
how important these programs were.
Of course, you can argue that there are a whole number of reasons. We
are the wealthiest, most powerful nation history has ever known. You
could speak to the moral reasons we should be helping other countries.
We could talk about what it does for our security interests. If we
bring about stability in other parts of the world, we help democracy
flourish. We would help the middle class build up in areas that
otherwise were prone to overthrows of governments, instability,
rebellions.
I think of some of the programs that Members of this body have
proposed--not necessarily on this bill but others--the School Lunch
Program for Africa that former Senator Dole and former Senator McGovern
proposed.
I recall last year being down at the White House when they discussed
this with President Clinton, and the interesting points brought out.
They were talking about countries where families could not feed their
children any way, not mentioning anything about educating them.
But if we help those countries have a school lunch program, something
that costs us a tiny fraction of what we spend on foreign aid, then
children could go to school and learn. But also in a lot of these
countries where girls do not go to school, where only the boys go to
school, some of the families said: Wait a minute. If we can feed our
daughters as well as our sons, we will be able to do that.
Now, what has happened in doing that is we not only benefit those
countries, but we can benefit the people there. We carry out the moral
aspects of our foreign aid bill. But then we also have money in this
bill for health care, not only the health care of the people in these
other countries, but there is a provision which would allow us to build
up the medical infrastructure of other nations to get rid of possibly
another Ebola plague, to have an early warning system when one is
existing so the country can act to stop it.
Now, this is not just altruism. There is no disease anywhere in the
world that is more than an airplane trip or a postage stamp away from
our own country. If we can help countries fight these diseases within
their own borders, not only do they help those people but they help all
the rest of us.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1942 through 1948, En Bloc
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have discussed this with Senator
McConnell. We have a number of amendments I will just briefly describe.
There is one by Senator Helms on Venezuela, one by Senator McConnell
and myself on development credit authority, another Leahy-McConnell
amendment on MDB authorizations, a McConnell-Leahy amendment on
documentation center, an amendment by Senator McConnell on nuclear
safety, a Mikulski amendment on small business, and a Gordon Smith
amendment on religious freedom. Also, there are two previously offered
amendments by Senator Boxer; one is on Afghan reconstruction and one is
on suicide bombings.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to send all the
amendments to the desk; that they be considered to be in order; that
they be considered en bloc, and they be adopted en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 1942 through 1948), en bloc, were agreed to, as
follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1942
On page 142, line 21, after the colon, insert the
following: ``Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, up to $2,000,000 should be
made available to support democracy-building activities in
Venezuela:''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1943
On page 130, line 4, strike ``September 30, 2003'', and
insert in lieu thereof: ``expended''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1944
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
authorizations
Sec. . The Secretary of the Treasury may, to fullfill
commitments of the United States, contribute on behalf of the
United States to the seventh replenishment of the resources
of the Asian Development Fund, a special fund of the Asian
Development Bank, and to the fifth replenishment of the
resources of the International Fund for Agriculture
Development. The following amounts are authorized to be
appropriated without fiscal year limitation for payment by
the Secretary of the Treasury: $412,000,000 for the Asian
Development Fund and $30,000,000 for the International Fund
for Agricultural Development.
____
amendment no. 1945
On page 133, line 8 insert before the period: ``: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading,
not less than $250,000 should be made available for
assistance for the Documentation Center of Cambodia: Provided
further, That no later than 60 days after the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to the
Committees on Appropriations on a 3-year funding strategy for
the Documentation Center of Cambodia''.
____
amendment no. 1946
(Purpose: Technical amendment)
On page 136, line 24 strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$35,000,000''.
____
amendment no. 1947
On page 190, between line 14 and 15, insert the following
new subsection:
(f) Small Business.--In entering into multiple award
indefinite-quantity contracts with funds appropriated by this
Act, the United States Agency for International Development
may provide an exception to the fair opportunity process for
placing task orders under such contracts when the order is
placed with any category of small or small disadvantaged
business.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1948
(Purpose: To restrict the availability of funds for the Government of
the Russian Federation unless certain conditions are met)
On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
[[Page S10925]]
discrimination against minority religious faiths in the russian
federation
Sec. 581. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be made available for the
Government of the Russian Federation after the date that is
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, unless
the President determines and certifies in writing to the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations
and the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives that the Government of the Russian Federation
has not implemented any statute, executive order, regulation,
or other similar government action that would discriminate,
or would have as its principal effect discrimination, against
religious groups or religious communities in the Russian
Federation in violation of accepted international agreements
on human rights and religious freedoms to which the Russian
Federation is a party.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a freshman Senator in 1997, I
offered an amendment to the foreign operations bill that predicated
foreign aid to the Russian Federation on the implementation of a new
law restricting religious freedom in Russia. That law, passed by the
Russian Duma on July 4, 1997, had the potential of severely restricting
freedom of religion in Russia. The bill was ironically titled ``on
freedom of conscience and on religious associations.''
That bill was eventually signed into law--a law that required
religious groups to register with the State and submit their religious
doctrines and practices to scrutiny by a commission of experts with the
power to deny religious status. Without this status, these groups would
lose the rights to rent or own property, employ religious workers or
conduct charitable and educational activities. Clearly that law in
Russia and its implementation would have a grave impact on religious
freedom in that country.
I am happy to report that my 1997 amendment passed the Senate 95 to
4. I would also note that both the bill managers, Senators Leahy and
McConnell, voted in favor of this amendment and I thank them for their
support.
In following years this amendment was included as part of the foreign
operations bill. This year it was not. I rise today to offer this same
amendment again and understand that it will be accepted by the managers
of this bill sometime today during its consideration.
In my years in the Senate I have remained vigilant on the issue of
religious freedom. The Foreign Relations Committee has held yearly
hearings on religious freedom abroad--especially what is going on in
the Russian Federation. I also host, with the Department of State, a
series of yearly roundtable discussions on religious freedom.
These roundtable discussions are attended by members of each
religious community impacted by this new law in Russia and by various
State Department and NSC officials that are responsible for religious
freedom abroad.
As the years went by and the registration period closed regarding
religions, it was felt by all those interested in religious freedom in
that country that this amendment was a positive influence on how the
new Russian law was implemented.
It let the Russian Government know that Americans cared about freedom
of religion in Russia--that the eyes of the world were upon the Russian
Government as it implemented the law on religions.
Although the amendment has never been implemented--and each year aid
has gone out to the Russian Federation--the amendment's influence and
impact has been positive and undeniable according to those religions
``on the ground'' in Russia.
In general many of the problems initially have worked themselves out
under this new law. Many of the problems with denials of registration
or persecution have occurred in the far reaches of the Russian
Federation. The conventional wisdom regarding implementation of that
law is that persecution occurs abroad--the farther away from Moscow and
the centralized government, the greater the risk is for religious
intolerance.
But even in Moscow there is a requirement of vigilance. And I am
happy to report that this body has been vigilant on this issue--
especially regarding the old problem of anti-Semitism in Russia. Some
might say that we shouldn't single out Russia regarding this issue. I
would agree--we should fight anti-Semitism in every nation including
our own.
Because I believe that how a nation treats the sons and daughters of
Israel is a bellweather for tolerance.
I would like to submit for the Record letters from years past that
almost all of my colleagues signed regarding their concerns over the
rise in anti-Semitism in Russia. Each of these letters contain 98 to 99
signatures--virtually all of the Senate was united on this issue.
I firmly believe that this language is needed again this year. I
would also like to submit for the Record a letter from NCSJ--advocates
on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States and Eurasia.
NCSJ is the leading advocate for the plight and well-being of the
Jewish community in Russia.
NCSJ's executive director, Mark Levin, writes:
We wish to underline NCSJ's support for your amendment to
condition certain assistance to the Russian Federation
on verification by President Bush that the Russian
Government has no way acted to restrict freedom of
religion as guaranteed by international commitments and
treaties.
. . . the 1997 law on religion, under which ``non-
traditional'' groups must register with government
authorities, has continued to generate misunderstandings,
difficulties and intimidation.
The Russian law, among other things, limits the activities of foreign
missionaries and grants unregistered ``religious groups'' fewer rights
than accredited Russian religious organizations such as the Russian
Orthodox Church, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This law if poorly
implemented, could also sharply restrict the activities of foreign
missionaries in Russia.
The Russian Government should permit foreign missionaries to enter
and reside in Russia--within the framework of Russian law--and work
with fellow believers.
Furthermore, foreign missionaries should be allowed to enjoy the
religious freedom guaranteed Russian citizens and legal residents by
the Russian constitution, OSCE commitments, and other international
agreements to which Russia is signatory.
One of my own constituents, Pastor Dan Pollard, is a missionary with
a church in the Russian far east--in a town called Vanino. Pastor
Pollard has been continually harassed by local officials, many who cite
the 1997 law as an official reason for barring Pollard from
ministering.
I thank the managers again for accepting this amendment as part of
the foreign operations bill and hope that this legislation sends a
strong signal to President Putin that human rights and religious
freedom are core American values and we seek to share them with all our
friends and allies. However it must be understood that American dollars
will not find their way to support a country that treats freedom of
religion in such a manner.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the letters to which I previously referred.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Conference on Soviet Jewry,
Washington, DC, October 8, 2001.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: We wish to underline NCSJ's support for
your amendment to condition certain assistance to the Russian
Federation on verification by President Bush that the Russian
government has in no way acted to restrict freedom of
religion as guaranteed by international commitments and
treaties.
We are encouraged that President Putin continues to express
public support for tolerance and pluralism. Nevertheless,
some disturbing trends toward intolerance and oppression
remain of concern. In particular, the 1997 Law on Relation,
under which ``non-traditional'' groups must register with
government authorities, has continued to generate
misunderstandings, difficulties and intimidation. Groups such
as Jehovah's Witnesses and Evangelical Christians have had
financial assets and membership rolls confiscated, and some
have been subject to outright violence.
In addition, new incidents of anti-Semitism have also
arisen, affecting the Jewish community. Judaism is, under
Russian law, a sanctioned (``traditional'') religion.
Unfortunately, at times local police response to acts of hate
against schools and synagogues has been delayed. And, in
October 2000, the federal Interior Ministry conducted an
illegal, prolonged search of the Moscow Choral Synagogue.
[[Page S10926]]
We write in a spirit of cooperation and concern for the
fabric of Russian society. We believe Russia can and should
be a country that embraces and celebrates religious
differences. By monitoring progress toward unrestricted
religious liberty, we can help ensure that it will come to
pass.
Thank you for your continuous leadership in this cause.
Respectfully,
Mark B. Levin,
Executive Director.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 18, 1999.
President Boris Yeltsin,
Russian Federation, The Kremlin,
Moscow, Russia.
Dear President Yeltsin: We are writing to you to express
our serious concerns over the rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric
heard at both the national and local levels of Russian
society and politics. We strongly believe that the first line
of defense against the growth of anti-Semitism in your
country is exposing and condemning the hate-filled rhetoric
at all levels of contact between our two governments.
As you know, recent events and remarks in Russia have
marred this decade's re-emergence of Jewish life in post-
communist Russia. The Russian Jewish community now numbers
upwards of one million, and the opening of synagogues,
schools and community centers has been a bright counterpoint
to the centuries of violence and anti-Semitic laws against
the Russian Jewish community. We strongly feel that the
recent spate of anti-Semitic rhetoric, in particular those
comments from Russian communist and extremist/nationalist
political groups, should be disavowed. In particular, the
fascist extremism exhibited by Alexander Barkashov's Russia
National Unity Party is alarming in its use of slanderous
stereotyping and crude scapegoating.
Recently, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's
Subcommittee on European Affairs held a hearing on the rise
of anti-Semitism in Russia. This was not the first hearing on
this subject--in fact, the Senate held hearings and
considered resolutions regarding the treatment of Jews in
Tsarist Russia as early as 1879. Over the years it has not
been unusual for the United States to act on this subject,
linking American foreign policy with what should now be
regarded as a cornerstone of human rights policies in Russia.
While we support a strong effort to address the economic
difficulties in Russia and encourage the development of a
strong, market-oriented economy, we want you to know that the
United States also expects from Russia a strong commitment to
human rights and religious freedom. As your country enters an
election cycle, there may well be temptations to sound ultra-
nationalist themes that attempt to blame the small Jewish
community for Russia's problems.
President Yeltsin, we believe it is imperative that you
demonstrate, through your emphatic disagreement with those
who espouse anti-Semitism in Russia, your understanding of
the importance the Russian government places upon religious
freedom. The United States predicates its support for
democratic institutions in Russia upon unwavering opposition
to anti-Semitism at any level, in any form. While we are
pleased by your administration's statements against anti-
Semitism, the horrific explosions near two of Moscow's
largest synagogues on May 1st and the recent attacks on the
only synagogue in Birobidzhan, are reason enough for further
vigorous and more public condemnation.
We hope you share our deep concern for this issue and look
forward to receiving your response.
Sincerely,
Craig Thomas, Sam Brownback, Charles Schumer, Joe
Lieberman, Wayne Allard, Paul D. Wellstone, Harry Reid,
Barbara Boxer, Peter G. Fitzgerald, John Edwards, Bob
Smith, Mike Crapo, Rick Santorum, Chuck Robb, Susan
Collins, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Jim Inhofe.
Mitch McConnell, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara A. Mikulski.
Richard Shelby, Tim Hutchinson, Jeff Sessions, Paul
Coverdell, Arlen Specter, Russ Feingold, Olympia Snowe,
Richard H. Byron, Strom Thurmond, Ben Nighthorse
Campbell, Jim Jeffords, Spencer Abraham, George V.
Voinovich, Blanche L. Lincoln, Patty Murray, Patrick
Leahy, Mike DeWine, Mary L. Landrieu, Jim Bunning, Pete
V. Domenici, Herb Kohl, Jack Reed, Frank H. Murkowski,
Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, Larry E. Craig, Rod Grams.
Jesse Helms, Daniel K. Inouye, Dick Durbin, John Warner,
Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Jon Kyl, Bill Roth, John F.
Kerry, Orrin Hatch, Chris Dodd, Slade Gorton, Paul
Sarbanes, Byron L. Dorgan, Robert Torricelli, Ron
Wyden, Michael B. Enzi, Kit Bond, John Ashcroft, John
McCain, Evan Bayh, Connie Mack, Max Baucus, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Chuck Grassley, Jay
Rockefeller, Daniel K. Akaka, Dianne Feinstein, Max
Cleland.
Phil Gramm, Conrad Burns, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Robert F.
Bennett, Bob Graham, Fritz Hollings, Daniel P.
Moynihan, Tim Johnson, Don Nickles, Trent Lott, Bill
Frist, Fred Thompson, Ted Stevens, Tom Harkin, Thad
Cochran, Pat Roberts, John Chafee, Judd Gregg, Robert
C. Byrd.
____
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC, March 9, 2000.
Hon. Vladimir Putin,
Acting President, Russian Federation, The Kremlin, Moscow,
Russia.
Dear President Putin: As you assume your new leadership
position, we write to you with hope for your success in
leading Russia through a newly prosperous and democratic
millennium. We are writing to you, as we have to other
Russian leaders, to express our repeated concerns over the
risk in anti-Semitic rhetoric heard at both the national and
local levels of Russian society and politics.
We strongly encourage you to make fighting anti-Semitism
one of the priorities of your new administration. President
Putin, we believe it is imperative that you demonstrate,
through your emphatic disagreement with those who espouse
anti-Semitism in Russia, your understanding of the importance
the Russian government places upon religious freedom. We
understand that in past discussions with both Russian and
American Jewish leaders you have expressed your concern about
anti-Semitism. We applaud your past comments and efforts and
urge you to take corresponding action in keeping with your
new position as acting president.
The Russian Jewish community represents a vibrant and
active portion of the Russian population. Though emigration
has reduced the community size in the past ten years, the
birth of democracy in the Russian Federation has also
resulted in the opening of new synagogues, schools and
community centers in Moscow, St. Petersburg and beyond.
Currently there are almost 200 Jewish organizations,
institutions, and religious communities in 75 cities and
towns throughout Russia. One hundred and fifteen schools
serve over 7,000 students, and Jewish organizations publish
18 newspapers and journals. This open and free blossoming of
culture and community will only benefit the Russian nation
and her people.
Anti-Semitism in Russia must not become a weapon in the
struggle for power by political parties. Indecisive actions
on the part of the Russian government only further feed the
belief that hate is an allowable and integral component of
political life. The hate-filled rhetoric of a number of
Communist Party leaders, some of whom retain important
parliamentary positions, must be condemned by your strong
deed and word. Further, it is our belief, that the violence
that follows such hate, for example the May, 1999 Moscow
synagogue bombings, must always be strongly and loudly
condemned in order to avoid further violence in the future.
President Putin, last year ninety-nine out of 100 United
states Senators signed a letter to President Yeltsin similar
to this one. Few issues in politics unite the United States
Senate more. As we wrote your predecessor, we believe it is
imperative that you demonstrate, through your emphatic
disagreement with those who espouse anti-Semitism in Russia,
your understanding of the importance the Russian government
places upon religious freedom. The United States predicates
its support for democratic institutions in Russia upon
unwavering opposition to anti-Semitism at any level, in any
form.
We hope you share our deep concern for this issue and look
forward to receiving your response.
Sincerely,
Gordon H. Smith, Joe Biden, Jr., Sam Brownback, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Craig Thomas, Chuck Robb, Rod Grams, Daniel
P. Moynahan, Phil Gramm, Carl Levin, Bill Frist, Patty
Murray, Jim Inhofe, Mike Crapo, Rick Santorum, Fritz
Hollings, Orrin Hatch, Mike DeWine, Ben Nighthorse
Campbell, Jeff Sessions, Mitch McConnell, Dick Durbin.
Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, Larry E. Craig, Harry Reid,
Robert F. Bennett, Jesse Helms, Max Cleland, Blanche L.
Lincoln, Bob Smith, Spencer Abraham, Tim Hutchinson,
Conrad Burns, Robert Torricelli, Paul Sarbanes, Charles
Schumer, Dick Lugar, Pat Roberts, Dianne Feinstein,
Herb Kohl, Pete V. Domenici, Tim Johnson, Frank H.
Murkowski, Jack Reed, George V. Voinovich, John
Ashcroft, Chris Dodd, Susan Collins, Fred Thompson,
Patrick Leahy, Judd Gregg, Bill Roth, Bob Kerrey.
Thad Cochran, Ted Kennedy, Michael B. Enzi, Kit Bond, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, Richard H. Byran, Olympia Snowe, John
McCain, John Warner, Strom Thurmond, John F. Kerry, Jon
Kyl, Daniel K. Inouye, Daniel K. Akaka, Russ Feingold,
Byron L. Dorgan, Arlen Spector, Barbara A. Mikulski,
Joe Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman, Tom Harkin, Slade Gorton,
Jim Jeffords, Ted Stevens, Connie Mack, Bob Graham,
Wayne Allard, Ron Wyden, Max Baucus, Tom Daschle, John
Breaux, Jim Bunning.
Paul D. Wellstone, Don Nickles, Chuck Grassley, Richard
Shelby, Lincoln Chafee, Barbara Boxer, Peter G.
Fitzgerald, Evan Bayh, Mary L. Landrieu, John Edwards,
Paul D. Coverdell, Trent Lott.
[[Page S10927]]
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, August 3, 2001.
His Excellency Vladimir Putin,
President, Russian Federation, The Kremlin, Moscow, Russia.
Dear President Putin: We are writing to you, as members of
the United States Senate to again express our concerns over
the anti-Semitic rhetoric heard at both the national and
local levels of Russian society and politics.
In years past, the U.S. Senate has been united in its
condemnation of such virulent anti-Semitism, which,
unfortunately, has been present during much of Russia's
history. Your remarks last year publicly condemning anti-
Semitism assume special significance against a backdrop of
centuries of tsarist and Stalinist persecution. We strongly
encourage you to continue to publicly condemn anti-Semitism
whenever it manifests itself in the Russian Federation.
We also believe that it is important to back up the
rhetoric of condemnation with the substance of action. Sad to
say, physical violence against Jews still occurs in the
Russian Federation. In Ryazan last year, youths attacked a
Jewish Sunday school, threatening teachers and children and
later intimidated school officials into revoking the Jewish
community's use of a classroom. Rhetorical anti-Semitism also
continues. In July anti-Semitism played a minor role in the
gubernatorial race in Ryazan and has also played a role in
gubernatorial elections in Krasnodar.
Radical extremists continue to operate openly in more than
half of Russia's 89 regions. While most of these
organizations are small, there is also little social or
governmental opposition to them. There are at least ten
ultra-nationalist groups in Russia with memberships between
100 and 5,000 members each. Anti-Semitism is a staple of most
ultra-nationalist groups and is evident in the publication of
the groups' periodicals. At least 37 newspapers and magazines
of ultra-nationalist bent published anti-Semitic materials in
2000.
The year 2000 witnessed increasing cooperation between
Russian extremists and their ideological counterparts abroad.
The most notorious example of such cooperation was that of
David Duke, the U.S. white supremacist, who visited Russia
twice during the year. Duke's most recent anti-Semitic tract
was prepared exclusively for the Russian market.
We recognize that you have made important statements in
response to manifestations of anti-Semitism, and that law
enforcement has in some cases been effective in investigating
and prosecuting the perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence and
crimes. More consistent and comprehensive implementation of
your government's policies and of Russian laws would
represent a significant improvement in this area. The United
States Senate supports efforts to promote public awareness
and training programs within the Russian Federation. We would
welcome additional ways for the American involvement and
cooperation in these efforts.
As members of the Senate we have sent you or your
predecessor a similar letter for the past three years. We
continue to believe it vital that you continue to
demonstrate, through your emphatic disagreement with those
who espouse anti-Semitism in Russia, the importance the
Russian government places upon religious freedom. The United
States predicates its support for democratic institutions in
Russia upon unwavering opposition to anti-Semitism at any
level, in any form.
We hope you share our deep concern for this issue and look
forward to receiving your response.
Sincerely,
Joe Biden, Gordon H. Smith, Evan Bayh, Bob Smith, Mitch
McConnell, Charles Schumer, John McCain, Herb Kohl,
John Warner, Barbara Boxer, Jesse Helms, Debbie
Stabenow, Orrin Hatch, Olympia Snowe, Don Nickles, Joe
Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Mike Crapo.
Max Cleland, Zell Miller, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Robert
G. Torricelli, John Edwards, Daniel K. Akaka, Byron L.
Dorgan, Paul Sarbanes, Dianne Feinstein, Jack Reed, Jon
S. Corzine, George V. Voinovich, Tim Johnson, Kent
Conrad, Tim Hutchinson, Peter G. Fitzgerald, Dick
Durbin, Patty Murray, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Carl
Levin, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K. Inouye, Russ Feingold,
Dick Lugar, Rick Santorum, Blanche L. Lincoln, John F.
Kerry, Mike DeWine, Larry E. Craig.
Bill Frist, Patrick Leahy, Mark Dayton, Fritz Hollings,
Max Baucus, Robert C. Byrd, Jean Carnahan, Tom Carper,
Ron Wyden, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, John Breaux,
Mary L. Landrieu, E. Benjamin Nelson, Maria Cantwell,
Bill Nelson, Barbara A. Mikulski, Tom Harkin, Bob
Graham, James M. Jeffords, Paul D. Wellstone, Tom
Daschle, John Ensign, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby,
Conrad Burns, Craig Thomas, Pete V. Domenici, Chuck
Grassley, Sam Brownback.
Jim Bunning, Frank H. Murkowski, Robert F. Bennett, Wayne
Allard, George Allen, Strom Thurmond, Michael B. Enzi,
Susan Collins, Kit Bond, Phil Gramm, Lincoln Chafee,
Trent Lott, Jim Inhofe, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Kay
Bailey Hutchison, Thad Cochran, Pat Roberts, Jon Kyle,
Ted Stevens, Judd Gregg.
The amendments (Nos. 1940 and 1941) were agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see the distinguished senior Senator
from Florida, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in the
Chamber. He would be recognized next, but while he is preparing his
papers, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1949
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, earlier today I came to this Chamber
and notified the manager on the Republican side and staff for Senator
Leahy that I intended to offer a resolution as an amendment. I believe
I saw Senator Leahy in this Chamber a moment ago. At this time, 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an
amendment numbered 1949.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To urge the Senate, prior to the end of the first session of
the 107th Congress, to vote on at least the judicial nominations sent
to the Senate by the President prior to August 4, 2001)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
The Senate finds that:
Currently 106 Federal judgeships are vacant, representing
12.3 percent of the Federal judiciary;
40 of those vacancies have been declared ``judicial
emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the Courts;
Last year, at the adjournment of the 106th Congress, 67
vacancies existed, representing 7.9 percent of the judiciary;
In May 2000, when there were 76 Federal judicial vacancies,
Senator Daschle stated, ``The failure to fill these vacancies
is straining our Federal court system and delaying justice
for people all across this country'';
In January 1998, when there were 82 Federal judicial
vacancies, Senator Leahy stated, ``Any week in which the
Senate does not confirm three judges is a week in which the
Senate is failing to address the vacancy crisis'';
The events of September 11, 2001, make it more important
than ever that the branches of the Federal Government should
operate at maximum efficiency which requires the Federal
judiciary to be as close to full strength as possible;
100 percent of President Reagan's judicial nominees sent to
the Senate prior to the 1981 August recess were confirmed
during his first year in office;
100 percent of President George H.W. Bush's judicial
nominees sent to the Senate prior to the 1989 August recess
were confirmed during his first year in office;
93 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees sent to
the Senate prior to the 1993 August recess were confirmed
during his first year in office;
President George W. Bush nominated and sent to the Senate
44 judicial nominees prior to the 2001 August recess;
21 of all pending nominees have been nominated to fill
``judicial emergencies''; and
The Senate has confirmed only 8 judicial nominees to date,
which represents 18 percent of President Bush's judicial
nominations sent to the Senate prior to the 2001 August
recess;
It is the sense of the Senate that (1) prior to the end of
the first session of the 107th Congress, the Committee on the
Judiciary shall hold hearings on, and the Committee on the
Judiciary and the full Senate shall have votes on, at a
minimum, the judicial nominations sent to the Senate by the
President prior to August 4, 2001, and (2) the standard for
approving pre-August recess judicial nominations for past
administrations should be the standard for this and future
administrations regardless of political party.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the resolution calls for a sense of the
Senate that all of the nominations submitted by President Bush to the
Senate for the Federal judiciary prior to August 4, which was the start
of the August recess, be considered by the Senate before the close of
the first session of the 107th Congress.
[[Page S10928]]
There has been considerable concern and controversy over the number
of judges which have been confirmed. And there had been a form of a
filibuster engaged in on opposing the motion to proceed to the foreign
operations appropriations bill last week and again yesterday.
That effort has not been pursued. It is my view that in the long run
it is not productive to stop legislation as a pressure tactic, although
that is a longstanding practice in the Senate by both parties. But in
any event, that is not being pursued.
This resolution seeks to establish a standard which would be
applicable not only to the occasions when a Republican President
submits nominations to a Senate controlled by Democrats, but also to
situations where there is a President who is a Democrat who submits
nominations to a Senate which is controlled by Republicans.
I had written to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator
Leahy, on October 12, enclosing for him a first draft of this
resolution and advising him in his capacity as chairman of the
Judiciary Committee that I intended to raise it at the Judiciary
Committee meeting first in order to give the Judiciary Committee the
first opportunity to act on it. It was on the agenda for last Thursday,
October 18, when it was considered and, on a party-line vote, voted
down.
This is the first opportunity there has been to submit the resolution
for consideration by the full Senate, which I am doing at this time.
Before proceeding to the merits of the resolution, I am going to
yield the floor and wait for the arrival of the Senator from Vermont,
who is also chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and is the
manager for the Democrats.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. I will.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, he need
not wait for Senator Leahy. He is aware that the Senator has offered
this amendment. The Senator should say whatever he has to say.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for saying that. I
wanted to give him the courtesy of awaiting his arrival. I did see him
momentarily, just about a minute and a half before I took the floor.
With the comment by the assistant majority leader, I shall proceed to
make an argument.
The resolution recites the facts that there are currently 106 Federal
judicial vacancies, representing more than 12 percent of the Federal
judiciary. Forty of these vacancies have been declared judicial
emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts. What
that means is that there is an urgent need for judges to be sitting in
those courts.
Last year at the adjournment of the 107th Congress, there were 67
vacancies, representing 7.9 percent of the Federal judiciary. It is
obvious that the vacancies now are more than 50-percent higher than
they were when the 106th Congress adjourned.
When Senator Daschle was the Democratic leader and not in the
majority in May of 2000, when there were 76 Federal judicial vacancies,
Senator Daschle said, as set forth in this resolution:
The failure to fill these vacancies is straining our
Federal court system and delaying justice for people all
across the country.
In January of 1998, when there were 82 Federal judicial vacancies,
Senator Leahy stated--again set forth in the body of the resolution:
Any week in which the Senate does not confirm three judges
is a week in which the Senate is failing to address the
vacancy crisis.
The events of September 11 of this year, when the terrorists attacked
New York City, the Pentagon, and Somerset County, PA, make it all the
more imperative that all branches of the Federal Government shall
operate at maximum efficiency, which requires the Federal judiciary to
be as close to full strength as possible.
As analogous here, the first year of President Reagan's
administration, 100 percent of all judicial nominees sent to the Senate
prior to the August 1981 recess were confirmed during his first year in
office. During the first year in office of President George H.W. Bush,
1989, again, 100 percent of the nominations sent prior to the August
recess were confirmed. During President Clinton's first year in office,
in 1993, 93 percent of the vacancies were filled during the first year
in office. President George W. Bush this year has nominated and sent to
the Senate 44 judicial nominees prior to the August 2001 recess.
Twenty-one of all pending nominees have been nominated to fill
``judicial emergencies.''
The Senate has confirmed only twelve judicial nominees to date, which
represent 27 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees sent to the
Senate prior to the August 4 recess.
The resolution calls for the sense of the Senate that prior to the
end of the first session of the 107th Congress, which will be sometime
before the end of 2001, that all of the nominees sent prior to August 4
be acted upon by the Judiciary Committee, sent to the Senate, and voted
on one way or another, up or down, further that the standard for
approving all of the nominees submitted prior to the August recess be a
standard policy of the U.S. Senate which would apply in future years
and apply in future circumstances where there was a President who was a
Democrat and a Senate controlled by Republicans.
During the course of our discussion during the Judiciary Committee
meeting last Thursday, the issue was raised by one of the Senators who
was a Democrat that this position was taken contrary to what it was in
prior years. I said that I would modify the resolution to apply equally
to times when there was a Democrat who was President and a Republican-
controlled Senate.
It is a rather straightforward resolution. That is the essence of the
argument.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, this matter was raised in the Judiciary
Committee. It was tabled. We have for 3 weeks been experiencing a
filibuster in the Senate based on these same issues. That ended
yesterday. Thankfully, we are now on this legislation.
The record is replete about Chairman Leahy doing the very best he can
under extremely difficult circumstances. We are going to move judges as
quickly as we can under the direction of the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Based upon that, I raise a point of order against the amendment that
the amendment is not germane under rule XVI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
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. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am informed that there was a
typographical error in the resolution and that the figure 8 judicial
nominees should have been 12, which represents 27 percent of President
Bush's judicial nominees sent to the President prior to August 4, 2001.
I wanted to make sure the record was accurate in that respect.
I yield the floor.
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. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I do not intend to appeal the ruling of
the Chair because I do not wish to establish a precedent for nongermane
amendments to be heard on appropriations bills. This has been a
procedural quagmire which has been very problemsome for the Senate for
a very long time and has a special impact on my own views, since I am a
member of the Appropriations Committee. I regret that the issue of
germaneness was raised and a point of order was raised, but I thought
it was important to put this resolution before the body. I do believe
it is the appropriate way to establish a standard--much preferable to
having a filibuster and trying to block
[[Page S10929]]
the work of the Senate to establish a standard which would apply to
both parties or both sides that a very reasonable cutoff date is the
August recess. This year it started on August 4. Now the matter was
considered in the Judiciary Committee. It was not tabled. There was a
vote on the merits; not that that makes a lot of difference, it was 10-
9.
But with the point of order having been raised by the assistant
majority leader, there may be some political evaluation by the
electorate of the position taken by the Democrats on this issue. It is
not an unusual practice to have amendments offered on the Senate floor,
and those who oppose them will have to explain them to their
constituencies. It is my hope that those who have opposed this standard
that all judges be voted on when submitted prior to the August recess,
that they will have to explain that to their constituency.
The point of order having been raised by the assistant majority
leader for the Democrats, not being considered on the merits, being
defeated, we will just take it to the electorate for whatever
consideration they may wish to give.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. REID. First of all, I express my appreciation to the Senator from
Pennsylvania for not appealing the ruling of the Chair. The Senator, as
has been indicated, is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee,
and the precedent this would set if the Chair would overrule makes
appropriations bills almost unmanageable. So the Senator from
Pennsylvania has knowledge of the needs of the Senate compared to the
issue he feels strongly about--and I know how strongly he feels about
it. I appreciate the Senator not appealing the ruling of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, it is my intention to send to the desk
an amendment that will restore the funding recommended by the President
for the Andean Regional Counterdrug Initiative. I consider this to be a
central issue in the U.S. relationship with our neighbors in Latin
America, but maybe even at this time a more important statement as to
our commitment to the war against terrorism.
To develop these points, I want to first give a brief resume of the
history of this region over the past several years. By the late 1990s,
Colombia and the Andean region were nations in peril and at risk.
Colombia had been one of the most stable countries in Latin America
during most of the 20th century. It had a phenomenal economic record,
with some 50 years of unbroken increases in its rate of gross domestic
product growth. It also was the oldest democracy on the continent of
South America, with a long tradition of transition of power from one
political party to the other without violence.
Unfortunately, it was also a region which had been infected by strong
guerrilla groups. These guerrilla groups had their origin in various
nuances of Marxism. They were guerrillas who represented Soviet
Marxism, guerrillas who represented East German Marxism, Chinese
Marxism, North Korean Marxism, Cuban Marxism. They were ideologically
oriented.
Over time, they had become less political and more economic. They had
made the transition from being Lenin to being Al Capone in their
orientation.
Something else was developing in the countries in the Andean region
during the last half of the 20th century, and that was a surge of
illicit drug production, starting with marijuana and then moving to
cocaine, with a very high percentage of the world's cocaine being
produced in this region.
The drug traffickers who were producing cocaine were of the General
Motors format: They were highly centralized. They had a CEO. They had a
vertically integrated process that started by financing the farmers who
grow the raw coca to the ultimate distribution and financing of that
system in the United States and Europe.
We made a major effort--we, the civilized world, with the United
States playing a key role--to take down these highly centralized drug
organizations--the Medellin cartel, the Cali cartel. After a long
period of significant investment and loss of life, we were successful.
We thought that by taking off the head of the snake of the drug cartels
we would kill the rest of the body.
In fact, what we found in the late 1990s was that these decapitated
snakes were beginning to reconstitute themselves, and they were moving
away from the General Motors model towards a more entrepreneurial
model; whereas they used to have vertically integrated parts of the
drug trafficking chain, now they have multiple small drug traffickers
doing each phase, from the growing in the field, to the transporting,
to the financing of the drug trade.
For a period of time, these new entrepreneurial drug traffickers
found themselves at risk because they did not have the kind of security
protection that the old centralized system had, and so they turned to
these now economic guerrillas, the Al Capones of Colombia, and made a
pact with them. The pact was: We will pay you well if you will provide
us security so that we can conduct our illicit activities.
For a while, that was the relationship, but then the Al Capones
figured out: We are providing the reason and the capability of these
drug traffickers to do their business. They are making a lot more money
in drug trafficking than we are providing the security for the drug
traffickers; why don't we become the drug traffickers ourselves?
By the end of the nineties, the drug trade, in particular in
Colombia, had been largely taken over by the former ideological
guerrillas who had become Al Capones and now were becoming drug
traffickers.
In addition to the two things I have indicated were occurring, the
change in the way in which the drug trade was organized and, second,
the role of the guerrillas in the drug trade, a third thing was
occurring in the late 1990s, and that was, after this long unbroken
period of economic progress and the benefits that was providing for the
people of the Andean region, particularly Colombia, they started to go
into economic decline.
The two previous events were a principal reason for that decline:
Both domestic and outside investors became leery about investing in
Colombia and other Andean pact countries because of their concern about
the level of violence and the influence the drug trade was gaining over
those countries.
Just 18 months ago, unemployment in Colombia exceeded 20 percent as
many of its traditional legal businesses went out of business.
Into this very difficult environment came a new leader for Colombia:
President Pastrana. President Pastrana was not a person who was
unknowing or immune from these forces that were shaping his country. He
himself had been kidnapped by the guerrillas and held for a
considerable period of time. Members of his family had been kidnapped
and assassinated by the guerrillas. He was elected on a reform platform
that he was going to, as the hallmark of his administration, lean
toward a resolution of all three of these issues: The guerrillas, the
drug trafficking, and begin to build a base for a new period of
economic expansion.
The key to this became Plan Colombia which President Pastrana
developed early in his administration. Plan Colombia is a very
misunderstood concept, particularly from the perspective of the United
States. I like to present it as being a jigsaw puzzle with 10 pieces.
That total puzzle, once assembled, was a comprehensive plan to rid
Colombia of the influence of the guerrillas, to suppress the drug
trafficking and large-scale production of cocaine, and to engage in
social and economic and political reform within Colombia, to transform
Colombia into a fully functioning, modern, democratic, capitalistic
nation state.
Of those 10 pieces that made up that total picture of Plan Colombia,
the Colombians were going to be responsible for 5 of those 10 pieces.
The total cost of Plan Colombia was estimated at $8 billion, and the
Colombian Government was going to pay for $4 billion. They raised
taxes, made adjustments in their budget, and did other things to get
prepared to accept their 50-percent share of this plan.
The other 50 percent was going to be divided between the United
States, which would assume approximately 20 percent of the cost of Plan
Colombia, and the rest of the international community, which was to
assume 30 percent of the cost.
When the decisions were being made as to what parts of that
international
[[Page S10930]]
effort should be the U.S. component, the decision was made that most of
our responsibility was going to be on the military side.
Why was that? The reason was, because a key part of a successful
attack against the drug traffickers and since, in many instances, drug
traffickers and guerrillas were the same people in the same uniform,
the United States had the best ability to provide the intelligence the
Colombian military would need to use its forces as effectively as
possible.
We had the ability to provide the training that the Colombian
military needed to increase its professionalism, and particularly to
deal with issues such as the long history of human rights abuses within
the military of Colombia, and we also could provide some of the
equipment the Colombian military needed, specifically helicopters, to
give the Colombian military greater mobility so that when they
identified through intelligence where there was a drug activity that
was susceptible to being attacked, they would be able to deliver the
troops and the materials necessary to successfully carry out that
attack.
I go into this in some detail because, for Americans, there has been
a tendency to assume that since our component of Plan Colombia was
heavily oriented toward military activities, that described the
totality of Plan Colombia. That is not quite the fact.
The fact is the totality of Plan Colombia was a balanced plan that
had social, economic, political components, as well as law enforcement
and military components. It just happened that because we were in the
best position to provide the military components, that was where most
of our part of Plan Colombia happened to fall.
Plan Colombia was presented to the Congress in 2000, and in the
summer of 2000 the Congress voted to provide as the first installment
towards our commitment to Plan Colombia $1.3 billion. We also committed
we would have follow-on commitments to Plan Colombia as the progress of
this effort to fight the three ills of Colombia: The guerrillas, the
drug traffickers, and the economic decline.
President Bush has continued the Plan Colombia commitment which had
been made by President Clinton. He has recommended to us that we
appropriate $731 million. His plan substantially broadens the
commitment from a primary focus on Colombia, which was the focus of the
first year of the plan under President Clinton's leadership, to a
regional focus.
The funds, as proposed by President Bush, are roughly evenly divided
between Colombia on the one hand and the other Andean pact countries
that are beneficiaries, which are Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. President
Bush also recommended that of the 50 percent to go to Colombia, that
should also be divided roughly 50/50 between law enforcement and
military on the one side and economic and social development on the
other.
Part of the reason for that recommendation was the fact it has been
thus far difficult to get the other components of the international
community, with a few major exceptions, Spain and Great Britain being
two of those exceptions, to fully participate as had been anticipated
in Plan Colombia. So we are now, in addition to our original area of
principal responsibility, becoming more engaged in the social and
economic development aspects of this now Andean legislative initiative.
The reason I am speaking this afternoon is the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee rejected much of what President Bush had recommended, and
they recommended the $731 million be cut by 22 percent, or to $567
million. That cut will have serious implications on the United States
and our relationship with this region and the future of this region,
and our commitments we are making today towards the fight against
terrorism around the world.
To be specific, what are some of the implications of a 22-percent cut
in the now Andean Regional Counterdrug Initiative? Let me start with
the country that has been our principal focus and would be the
recipient of half of these funds: The Republic of Colombia. Support for
the Colombian National Police interdiction and eradication effort would
be reduced because there would be less funding for spare parts for the
equipment we provided and fuel to operate the equipment. This would
make coca reduction targets less likely to be attained. The failure to
attain those coca reduction targets means there will be more cocaine in
the streets of the United States of America, afflicting the people of
this Nation.
A second result will be security for government officials, which the
military provides in high conflict areas, will also be reduced, making
the police and alternative development workers even more vulnerable.
Last week there was a meeting held in Washington of an organization
in which several members of this body participate called the Inter-
American Legislative Network. The purpose of this organization is to
encourage the full development of the parliaments and congresses of the
nations of the Western Hemisphere on the belief if they are truly going
to have a democratic society, the institution in which we serve is a
critical component of that society.
We started our meeting last Tuesday with a period of silence. That
period of silence was in recognition of the fact two legislators from
Colombia had been assassinated the week before we met, illustrative of
the level of violence which is being directed towards the democratic
institutions by the assassination of the members of democratic
institutions in Colombia.
A third effect of this cut will be the Colombian alternative
development program will be restricted, and the success we have had to
date of signing up farmers who have been producing illicit coca to
start producing legal crops will be substantially hampered, and our
ability to comply with commitments we have already made will be
restricted.
Next, programs to strengthen democratic institutions such as the
judiciary and witness protection will also be reduced because of less
funds available to support those programs. Lowered support for the
police and military would also call into question our political support
for Colombia, which might undermine the progress that has been made to
date in human rights.
Finally, in the next year a new President will be elected in
Colombia. They have a one-term limit on their Presidents. So President
Pastrana could not run for reelection. There is an active campaign
underway to elect his successors, and the candidates for the
Presidential election which will occur next spring might raise
questions as to the reliability of United States support, particularly
during this difficult and significant period in the history of
Colombia.
The consequences both within Colombia and on the U.S.-Colombian
relationship of this proposed reduction are dire, but the implications
are not limited to Colombia because, as I indicated, half of this money
will now go to the other countries, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.
Speaking of Peru, where there has been a very aggressive alternative
development program which has been enormously successful, 15 years ago
most of the coca produced in the world was produced in either Peru or
Bolivia and then was transported to Colombia for processing into
cocaine. That level of production in Peru and Bolivia has been
dramatically reduced. That reduction has, in large part, been because
we have been encouraging the farmers to do the same thing we hoped to
accomplish in Colombia, which is to transition to legal crops.
We had no funding for that alternative development program in either
fiscal year 2000 or 2001 because of our concerns about President
Fujimori. As we know, President Fujimori was forced out of the country.
He is now living in exile. A new President, President Toledo, has been
elected and had been anticipating we would resume the level of support
we have been giving to Peru. That support is now at risk. Failure to
support Peru in this area of alternative development will undermine the
hopeful reflourishing of democracy that will come to Peru under the
leadership of President Toledo.
Similarly, Brazil's success is also being challenged as a new
President takes office. Planting of coca is beginning to occur in the
Champara region, which was the principal area of coca production in
Bolivia. We need to help the new Government continue to enforce the
coca ban and to offer further
[[Page S10931]]
alternative development assistance, not to retreat as this subcommittee
recommendation would have us do.
Ecuador is also vulnerable to cuts as we seek to maintain enforcement
and foster community development, particularly in the northern border
region adjacent to Colombia's major coca cultivation zones. Ecuador,
which is one of the poorer countries of Latin America, has a long
border with Colombia which is immediately adjacent to the area where
the principal guerilla group called the FARC in Colombia operates, and
the area where we have been putting the principal focus of our coca
eradication.
There has been a great deal of cross-border activity, and Ecuador has
been looking to us to give them some assistance in maintaining the
sanctity of their borders so they can maintain what has been a
surprisingly effective effort to avoid substantial coca production in
Ecuador. Brazil, Panama, and Venezuela also have modest enforcement
programs which need support to have a chance to overcome the efforts of
traffickers to transit drugs and corrupt local governments.
The whole Andean region is a region at risk. I suggest we are sending
exactly the wrong signal of our awareness of that risk and our
willingness to be a good partner at a time of need by this 22-percent
cut in our program of assistance to the Andean region.
The proposed Andean Regional Counterdrug Initiative, in my opinion,
is an integrated, balanced package. There are proposals now, even with
those funds that are left, to earmark those funds in ways that will not
be consistent with an integrated effort in the Andean region.
Earmarking funds for non-Colombian programs will increase the
likelihood of failure and increased violence in Colombia, the largest
coca producer in the world. As indicated, we are already proposing--the
administration is proposing--to allocate these funds on a 50/50 basis
between Colombia and the other Andean countries. The earmarking would
change that rational balance.
Finally, following September 11, U.S. law enforcement and military
resources which had been placed in the Andean region were withdrawn.
Significant numbers of law enforcement personnel were withdrawn back to
the United States to assist in homeland security. Many of the military
personnel are now in central Asia. This regional effort, funded by
foreign assistance, the effort we are considering today, represents the
most significant remaining activity in the world to stem the flow of
drugs into the United States. For those who say they want to fight
drugs, this is the drug program in terms of reducing the supply into
the United States. To cut it by almost a quarter will seriously curtail
a program on the verge of success, with no alternative supply reduction
strategy available. The consequences of this action are serious,
immediate, but also with very long-range implications.
I close by asking this question: What is the message the United
States of America is sending to our own citizens, what is the message
we are sending to the world, when on October 24, 2001, we come before
the Senate with a proposal to cut back on the only effective program we
have in the world to reduce the flow of cocaine into the United States
and one of the most important programs we have in the world to attack
terrorists?
These are some of the messages. We are saying we are prepared to give
up on the international effort to strengthen the forces of democracy,
lawfulness, and future economic growth in a very important region for
the United States. How do we ask a European country to make a
commitment to support this region if we, who have much more immediate
interests and so much more at risk, take the action being recommended
today?
Second, are we giving up on Latin America? President Bush, when he
came into office, and previously as Governor of Texas and as a
candidate for the Presidency, emphasized the importance of the United
States relations with Latin America. Unfortunately, we have yet to move
forward on an effective program to influence our closest neighbors in
the Western Hemisphere.
The one next to this program that is most important is to increase
our trade relations. We have a 10-year program with the countries of
the Andean region, called the Andean trade pact, whereby we have
provided beneficial trade relations. That program will expire in early
December. As of today, less than 60 days to expiration day, we have not
moved in either the House Ways and Means Committee or the Senate
Finance Committee the legislation even to renew that program which is a
vital part of the economic capacity of that region and particularly
critical now as we are trying, for instance in the case of Colombia, to
disemploy 400,000 people who are now working in illicit drug
activities, and give them some opportunity to work in a legal,
productive area of the economy. Yet we are about to see an important
part of the pillar of that legal economy eroded.
The irony is that much of the funding that has been stripped out of
the Andean region has been diverted to, as I understand it, providing
additional funds to the Export-Import Bank, the purpose of which is to
increase our trade. Here we are with some of the best self-trading
partners the United States has, a region of the world in which we have
a positive trade balance, and we are undercutting its capacity so we
can fund the Export-Import Bank whose purpose is to promote trade. That
is ironic.
Third, I am concerned we are returning to neo-isolationism, and doing
so at the very time when we need to be building strong international
coalitions to prepare for the long-range war against terrorism.
That brings me to my final point. What is the message we are sending?
A number of Members earlier today were asked to go to the White House
to meet with the President, the Vice President, and other leaders of
the administration and the newly appointed head of the Homeland
Security Agency, Gov. Tom Ridge. At the end of the meeting, President
Bush gave us a final challenge. I would like, to the best of my
ability, to quote what he said in that final challenge. He asked this
question: Do we really want to win the war against terrorism? His
answer: Absolutely, and that it will require unity, that we must be
prepared to act in different ways in order to win this war. We must be
prepared to win it at home, and we must be prepared to win it at the
source.
I agree with all of those challenges the President has given to the
American people. But what is it going to say if, today, on October 24,
some 6 weeks and 1 day after the tragedy of September 11, we strip away
a substantial amount of the resources that are being used to fight one
of the most virulent terrorist operations extant in the world? The FARC
terrorists of Colombia.
In the year 2000 alone there were 423 terrorist attacks against U.S.
interests by guerrillas in Colombia. Tell me that we are not fighting
terrorism as we fight the source of funding for those terrorists, which
is the drug trade in Colombia.
Of those 423 international terrorist acts against U.S. interests,
over a third were in Colombia. Mr. President, 44 percent of all attacks
against American interests in 2000 were conducted in the country of
Colombia.
We have a war against terrorists. An important component of that war
is not just 6 weeks old but now is several years old. We have made
representations to the people of the United States, the people of
Colombia, the people of the Andean region, that we were going to be a
full partner in the successful pursuit of that war.
More recently, we have made similar representations to the people of
Pakistan and to its leadership and to other countries around the world
as we ask them to join the coalition for a long, protracted, difficult
war to root out global terrorism wherever it exists in the world. I
suggest our true commitment is not going to be judged by the words we
speak but by the actions we take.
If we, today, accept a budget which strips 22 percent of the funds we
have committed to an area which has become in many ways the global
testing ground for our commitment against terrorism, I believe we will
be sending a signal that will reverberate around the world, and one
that will potentially substantially erode our credibility.
We have only had Plan Colombia now for a few days more than 12
months. It went into effect October 1 of 2000. Today is October 24 of
2001. Yet hardly
[[Page S10932]]
more than a year into this battle we are beginning to sound the trumpet
of retreat and run up the white flag of surrender. That is not what
America wants this Senate to say on its behalf. We want to say, as
President Bush asked us: Are we really in this war to win? Absolutely.
We will have a chance later today to decide whether we want to put an
exclamation point behind the President's statement and commitment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a moment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. As long as I can regain the floor.
Amendment No. 1950
Mr. GRAHAM. I sought the floor for the purpose of submitting the
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] for himself, Mr.
Hagel, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1950.
On page 142, line 17, strike ``$567,000,000'' and insert
``$731,000,000, of which, $164,000,000 shall be derived from
reductions in amounts otherwise appropriated in this act.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief. I want to
respond to my colleague from Florida.
First of all, the Senator from Florida is about as committed to this
region of the world, and to the country of Colombia, as anybody in the
Senate. I understand that. This is just a respectful difference of
opinion we have.
The two members of the Colombian Congress my colleague spoke about
were killed by paramilitaries, the AUC, not by the FARC or ELN, the
guerrillas. Although I agree that the FARC and ELN are terrorist
organizations and should be listed as such, so is the AUC, which is now
listed as a terrorist organization. I will go into this in a moment
because I think it is an important point.
There are reasons we do not want to put an additional $71 million
into this package without much more accountability when it comes to
human rights and who is committing the violence.
I also want to point out that of the money we are talking about, the
$71 million, a lot of that money in this package goes to disaster
relief, goes to refugees, goes to combating HIV/AIDS, goes to public
health, goes to education. I think we are probably a lot better off in
a foreign operations bill with these priorities than we are putting an
additional $71 million into this package.
I also have, which I think is very relevant to this debate, an EFE
News, Spain piece, the headline of which is ``Colombian Paramilitaries
Kidnap 70 Farmers to Pick Coca Leaves.''
The truth is, the FARC and ELN, these are not Robin Hood
organizations; they are into narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. But
so is the AUC and the paramilitary.
The problem is this effort, Plan Colombia, has been all too one-
sided. If it was truly counternarcotics, we would see just as much
effort by the Government and by the military focused on the AUC and
their involvement in drug trafficking as we see vis-a-vis ELN and FARC.
But we don't see that.
There are other reasons we can make better use of this $71 million.
Since we started funding Plan Colombia, unfortunately we have seen a
dramatic increase in paramilitary participation.
By the way, let me also point out that on the whole question of the
war against drugs, not only do I think we would be much better off
spending money on reducing demand in our own country--there is a reason
why Colombia exports 300 metric tons of cocaine to the United States
every year or more, and that is because of the demand. We ought to get
serious about reducing the demand in our own country. As long as there
is demand, somebody is going to grow it and somebody is going to make
money and you can fumigate here and fumigate there and it will just
move from one place to another.
My colleague from Florida talked about this effective effort, but the
United Nations, with a conservative methodology, pointed out that
although 123,000 acres of coca plants have been fumigated under Plan
Colombia, cultivation increased 11 percent last year. Cultivation
increased 11 percent last year.
Senator Feingold and I will have an amendment and we will talk about
the fumigation and we will see where the social development money is
that was supposed to come with the fumigation. That was supposed to be
part of Plan Colombia. We are also going to be saying we ought to
involve the local people who live in these communities in decisions
that are made about this aerial spraying.
There are health and safety effects. We can raise those questions.
But it is a little naive to believe these campesinos are not going to
continue to grow coca if they are not given alternatives, and the
social development money has just not been there.
What I want to focus on, which is why I am opposed to the Graham
amendment, is the human rights issues. The ranks of the AUC and
paramilitary groups continue to swell. The prime targets are human
rights workers, trade unionists, drug prosecutors, journalists, and
unfortunately two prominent legislators, murdered not by FARC or ELN
but murdered by AUC, with the military having way too many ties--the
military that we support --with the paramilitary at the brigade level.
I objected to such a huge infusion of military assistance to the
Colombian security forces when civilian management remained weak, and
the ties between the military and paramilitaries were so notorious and
strong.
Since Plan Colombia funding began pouring into Colombia, we have seen
a massive increase in paramilitary participation and its incumbent
violence. The ranks of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)
and other paramilitary groups continue to swell. Their prime targets:
human rights workers, trade unionists, judges, prosecutors,
journalists, and myriad other civilians.
The linkages between Colombia's security forces and paramilitary
organizations are long and historic. Everybody agrees, including the
Colombian Ministry of Defense, that the paramilitaries account for 75
percent of the killings in Colombia.
The media and international human rights groups continue to show
evidence of tight links between the military and human rights violators
within paramilitary groups.
The U.S. State Department, the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights,
Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are among the
organizations who have documented that the official Colombian military
remains linked closely with paramilitaries and collaborates in the
atrocities.
According to the Colombian Committee of Jurists (CCJ), ``[i]n the
case of the paramilitaries, one cannot underestimate the collaboration
of government forces.''
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), the offical
Colombian military has in some cases created paramilitary units to
carry out assassinations.
The State Department's September 2000 report itself mentions
``credible allegations of cooperation with paramilitary groups,
including instances of both silent support and direct collaboration by
members of the armed forces.''
Likewise, in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released
in February 2001, the State Department reported that ``the number of
victims of paramilitary attacks during the year increased.'' It goes on
to say: ``members of the security forces sometimes illegally
collaborated with paramilitary forces. The armed forces and the police
committed serious violations of human rights throughout the year.''
More from State Department Reports:
The Government's human rights record remained poor; there
were some improvements in the legal framework and in
institutional mechanisms, but implementation lagged, and
serious problems remain in many areas. Government security
forces continued to commit serious abuses, including
extrajudical killings. Despite some prosecutions
and convictions, the authorities rarely brought higher-
ranking officers of the security forces and the police
charged with human rights offenses to justice, and
impunity remains a problem. Members of the security forces
collaborated with paramilitary groups that committed
abuses, in some instances allowing such groups to pass
through roadbacks, sharing information, or providing them
with supplies or ammunition. Despite
[[Page S10933]]
increased government efforts to combat and capture members
of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed to
take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary
forces find a ready support base within the military and
police, as well as among local civilian elites in many
areas.
Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch released a report titled ``The
`Sixth Division': Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in
Colombia.'' It contains charges that Colombian military and police
detachments continue to promote, work with, support, profit from, and
tolerate paramilitary groups, treating them as a force allied to and
compatible with their own.
The ``Sixth Division'' is a phrase Colombians use to refer to
paramilitary groups, seen to act as simply another part of the
Colombian military. The Colombian Army has five divisions.
In the report, Human Rights Watch focuses on three Colombian Army
brigades: the Twenty-Fourth, Third, and Fifth Brigades.
At their most brazen, the relationships described in this report
involve active coordination during military operations between
government and paramilitary units; communication via radios, cellular
telephones, and beepers; the sharing of intelligence, including the
names of suspected guerrilla collaborators; the sharing of fighters,
including active-duty soldiers serving in paramilitary units and
paramilitary commanders lodging on military bases; the sharing of
vehicles, including army trucks used to transport paramilitary
fighters; coordination of army roadblocks, which routinely let heavily-
armed paramilitary fighters pass; and payments made from paramilitaries
to military officers for their support.
President Andres Pastrana has publicly deplored paramilitary
atrocities. But the armed forces have yet to take the critical steps
necessary to prevent future killings by suspending high ranking
security force members suspected of supporting these abuses.
This failure has serious implications for Colombia's international
military donors, especially the United States. So far, however, the
United States has failed to fully acknowledge this situation, meaning
that military units implicated in abuses continue to receive U.S. aid.
Human Rights Watch contends that the United States has violated the
spirit of its own laws and in some cases downplayed or ignored evidence
of continuing ties between the Colombian military and paramilitary
groups in order to fund Colombia's military and lobby for more aid,
including to a unit implicated in a serious abuse.
Although some members of the military have been dismissed by
President Pastrana, it appears that many military personnel responsible
for egregious human rights violations continue to serve and receive
promotions in the Colombian military.
For example, according to a Washington Office on Latin America,
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch joint report, General
Rodrigo Quinones, Commander of the Navy's First Brigade was linked to
57 murders of trade unionists, human rights workers and community
leaders in 1991 and 1992. He also played a significant role in a
February 2000 massacre. A civilian judge reviewing the case of one of
his subordinates stated that Quinones' guilt was ``irrefutable'' and
the judge could not understand how Quinones was acquitted in a military
court. Nevertheless, he was promoted to General in June 2000.
According to the Colombian Attorney General's office, another
general, Carlos Ospina Ovalle, commander of the Fourth Brigade, had
extensive ties to military groups. He and his brigade were involved in
the October 1997 El Aro massacre, wherein Colombian troops surrounded
and maintained a perimeter around the village while residents were
rounded up and four were executed. General Ospina Ovalle also was
promoted.
In the State Department's January 2001 report Major Jesus Maria
Clavijo was touted as an example of a successful detention of a
military officer associated with the paramilitaries. Yet, by several
NGO accounts he ``remains on active duty and is working in military
intelligence, an area that has often been used to maintain links to
paramilitary groups.''
Colombian and international human rights defenders are under
increased surveillance, intimidation, and threats of attack by
paramilitary groups.
According to a recent Amnesty International press release, two men
identifying themselves as members of a paramilitary group approached
members of Peace Brigades International, threatened them with a gun and
declared PBI to be a ``military target.''
Members of Colombian human rights groups such as the Association of
Family Members of the Detained and Disappeared and the Regional
Corporation for the Defense of Human Rights have been ``disappeared,''
murdered in their homes and harassed with death threats. Despite
reports to the military and requests for help, Colombian authorities
seemingly have failed to take significant steps on behalf of the human
rights groups.
The systematic, mass killing of union leaders and their members by
paramilitaries in Colombia can only be described as genocide. There has
been a dramatic escalation in violations against them--kidnapping,
torture, and murder--and the response by the Colombian authorities in
the face of this crisis has been negligible.
These attacks are an affront to the universally recognized right to
organize.
One hundred and thirty-five trade unionists, both leaders
and members, were assassinated during the year, bringing the
total number of trade unionists killed since 1991 to several
thousand. At least another 1,600 others have received death
threats over the last three years, including 180 in 2000; 37
were unfairly arrested and 155 had to flee their home region.
A further 24 were abducted, 17 disappeared and 14 were the
victims of physical attacks. (International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions--10 October 2001. Colombia: Annual Survey
of Violations of Trade Union Rights--2001).
I would like to share this quote with my colleagues; it will reveal
the true nature of the situation in Colombia. The quote is attributed
to Carlo Castano, head of the AUC, the largest paramilitary group in
Colombia): ``We have reasons for killing all those we do. In the case
of trade unionists, we kill them because they prevent others from
working.''
Most of the union killings have been carried out by Castano's AUC,
because they view union organizers as subversives. One of the most
recent killings occurred on June 21, when the leader of Sinaltrainal--
the union that represents Colombia Coca-Cola workers--Oscar Dario Soto
Polo was gunned down. His murder brings to seven the number of
unionists who worked for Coca-Cola and were targeted and killed by
paramilitaries.
I recently met with the new leader of Sinaltrainal, Javier Correa. In
our meeting, he described the daily threats to his life, and the
extremely dangerous conditions he and his family are forced to endure.
In his quiet, gentle manner he told me about the kidnaping of his 3-
year-old son and his mother, both at the hands of the paramilitaries.
Frankly, I fear for his life and that of his family. In the wake of
this meeting, I dread news from the Colombian press, mainly out of fear
of what I may read.
In response to these threats, the United Steelworkers of America
recently sued Coca-Cola in Federal court for its role in such violent
attacks on labor, and other large corporations are being investigated.
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO),
the vast majority of trade union murders are committed by
either the Colombian state itself--e.g. army, police and DAS
(security department)--or its indirect agents, the right-wing
paramilitaries.
On both of my visits to Colombia, I heard repeated reports of
military-paramilitary collusion throughout the country, including in
the southern departments of Valle, Cauca, and Putamayo, as well as in
the city of Barrancabermeja, which I visited in December and March.
Consistently, the military, in particular the army, was described to
me as tolerating, supporting, and actively coordinating paramilitary
operations, which often ended in massacres. I was also told that too
often detailed information was supplied to the military and other
authorities about the whereabouts of armed groups, the location of
their bases, and yet authorities were unwilling or unable to take
measures to protect the civilian population or to pursue their
attackers.
While in Colombia, I discussed with General Carreno the status and
location of the San Rafael--de Lebrija--paramilitary base. The base is
operating openly in an area under his command, and its activities have
directly
[[Page S10934]]
caused much of the bloodshed in the region. Almost 7 months after our
meeting, however, no effective action has been taken to curtail the
operations of the San Rafael paramilitary base, and that it remains
open for business.
The Colombian military knows where the base is, and who operates it.
The Colombian government knows. I know, for heaven's sake. But, just in
case they don't know, I will tell them here. The base is on the
Magdalena River about 130 kilometers north of Barrancabermeja on the
same side of the River as Barranca, northwest of the Municipio of Rio
Negro, in the Department of Santander.
It is from San Rafael de Lebrija that the paramilitaries launch their
operations to dominate the local governments and the local community
organizations in the area around and including Barrancabermeja. It is
there that they organize their paramilitary operations of intimidations
of the citizens of the area including the attacks on Barrancabermeja.
It is from there that they stage the murder of innocent civilians
like Alma Rosa Jaramillo and Eduardo Estrada. These brave volunteers
were brutally assassinated in July, simply because they stand for
democracy, civil rights, and human rights. They are against the war,
and have no enemies in the conflict. They were both leaders in the
Program of Development and Peace of the Magdalena Medio, located in
Barranca, lead by my friend Father ``Pacho'' Francisco De Roux.
I call on the Colombian government and military to show the U.S.
Senate that they are serious about cracking down on paramilitaries.
Close San Rafael. Close Mirafores and Simon Bolivar, also located in
Barranca, in the northeast quadrant of the city. Close San Blas, south
of the Municipio of Simiti near San Pablo in the South of the
Department of Bolivar. Close Hacienda Villa Sandra, a base about one
mile north of Puerto Asis, the largest town in Putumayo. Is this too
much to ask?
From the annual report on Colombia, by the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights (Organization of American States--year 2000) (The OAS
on paramilitary bases):
. . . observations . . . confirm that the free operation of
patrol checks, paramilitary bases and acts perpetrated by the
AUC in the areas of Putumayo (La Hormiga, La Dorada, San
Miguel, Puerto Asis, Santa Ana), Antioquia (El Jordan, San
Carlos), y Valle (La Iberia, Tulua) are being investigated
mainly in the disciplinary jurisdiction.
It further says:
The Commission is particularly troubled by the situation in
Barrancabermeja, Department of Santander. Complaints are
periodically received concerning paramilitary incursions and
the establishment of new paramilitary camps in the urban
districts. The complaints report that even though civilian
and military authorities have been alerted, paramilitary
groups belonging to the AUC have settled in the Mirafores and
Simon Bolivar districts in the northeast quadrant of the
city, and have spread to another 32 districts in the
southern, southeastern, northern and northeastern sectors.
Arrest the notorious paramilitary leaders who open and sustain these
bases. Nearly everyone knows who they are, where they operate. I know,
and I've only been to Colombia twice.
They are operated by the AUC, led by the likes of Carlos Castano,
Julian Duque, Alexander ``El Zarco'' Londono, Gabriel Salvatore ``El
Mono'' Mancuso Gomez, and Ramon Isaza Arango.
The men on this short list--a mere five paramilitaries--account for
over 40 arrest warrants over several years. They are responsible for
untold cases of kidnaping, torture, and murder. Go get them.
In its annual report on Columbia, the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (Organization of American States--year 2000) addressed the
problem of paramilitary groups and their bases of operations. Here is
what they said:
The Commission must point out . . . that although the human
rights violations committed by paramilitary are frequently
investigated by the regular courts, in many cases, the arrest
warrants the courts issue are not executed, especially when
they involve the upper echelons of the AUC and the
intellectual authors. This creates a climate of impunity and
fear. A case in point is the fact that in 2000, the highest
ranking chief of the AUC, Carlos Castano, has had access to
the national and international media and contacts at the
ministerial level, yet the numerous arrest warrants against
him for serious human rights violations, have never been
executed.
The Colombian government seems to have accepted paramilitary take
overs, in places like Barranca. The Colombian government and military
must find a way to respond to the paramilitary threat. It is a threat
to the rights of free speech, free assembly, and moreover, the rule of
law in Colombia.
Mr. President, as I have said all along, if we are really serious
about counter-narcotics we should strongly encourage the Colombian
government to act boldly and officiously in response to the increasing
strength of the paramilitaries, who are actively engaged in narco-
trafficking.
Carlos Castano has admitted that about 70 percent of his
organization's revenues come from taxing drug traffickers. He is listed
as a major Colombian drug trafficker in recent documents of the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Agency.
Drug trafficking is a lucrative business for all parties involved in
the Colombian conflict. The fact is, many military personnel are
finding that paramilitary work is simply more lucrative than military
pay. In addition, they are not forced to comply with even the minimum
in standards for conduct. Yet, this begets another crucial question:
where do all these vetted officers and soldiers end up? I fear the
answer again lies in the paramilitaries. After all, their ranks have
swelled dramatically in recent years.
To date, the debate surrounding Plan Colombia has been disingenuous.
Why has there been little effort to combat paramilitary drug lords? I'm
afraid we may be exposing this plan for what it really is;
counterinsurgency against the leftist guerrillas, rather than a sincere
effort to stop the flow of drugs. A recent Rand report suggested that
the U.S. government should abandon this charade, in favor of an all-out
military offensive on guerrilla forces.
Lamentably, I do not see any improvement on the rule of law front.
Since Plan Colombia started, and the requisite oversight, we have
witnessed an unprecedented increase in the power and authority of a
Colombian military with a long history of corruption and abuse.
Last summer, President Pastrana signed a new national security law
that gives the Colombian military sweeping new powers. Among other
things, the law allows military commanders to declare martial law in
combat zones, suspending powers of civilian authorities and some
constitutional protections afforded civilians. The law also shortens
the period for carrying out human rights investigations of police and
army troops, allowing soldiers to assume some of the tasks that had
been assigned to civilian investigators.
Other controversial aspects of the law are provisions that allow the
military to hold suspects for longer periods before turning them over
to civilian judges. Under the old law, government troops had to free
suspected drug traffickers and guerrillas if they were unable to turn
them over to civilian authorities within 36 hours. I am very concerned
about the implications of these provisions. Like many, I fear that
torture or other human rights violations may increase as a result.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia believes, as
I do, that some of the provisions of the law are either
unconstitutional or violate international human rights treaties. I have
conveyed my objections about this law to the Colombian government. By
pouring another $135 million into the coffers of the Colombian
military, we will be increasing their power further without adequately
strengthening checks on military abuses. Frankly, I feel this is the
wrong direction.
I am pleased that my colleagues, especially Senator Leahy, have
fought to attach safeguards to U.S. military aid to ensure that the
Colombian armed forces are: First, cooperating fully with civilian
authorities, in prosecuting and punishing in civilian courts those
members credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human
rights or aided or abetted paramilitary groups; second, severing links,
including intelligence sharing, at the command, battalion, and brigade
levels, with paramilitary groups, and executing outstanding arrest
warrants for members of such groups; and third, investigating attacks
against human
[[Page S10935]]
rights defenders, trade unionists, and government prosecutors,
investigators and civilian judicial officials, and bringing the alleged
perpetrators to justice.
Moreover, the paramilitaries undermine the peace process. How can
guerrillas--be they ELN or FARC--agree with the government about future
political inclusion in the context of a cease fire without first
defining the problem of paramilitary groups?
In early 2001, President Pastrana agreed to create a DMZ for the ELN
in the northern state of Bolivar. This backfired badly when ELN rebels
were chased out by members of the paramilitary group Autodefensas
Unidas de Colombia, AUC. The ELN subsequently pulled out of the peace
process.
Frustration with the peace process on the part of the military and
the country's elites has helped transform the paramilitary AUC into a
major player in the conflict. Some estimates of the strength and size
of the AUC are as high as 9,500 fighters. In my view, this resurgence
can be directly linked to the flawed peace process.
The AUC poses a real threat to the FARC and the ELN, who may now be
forced to co-operate with each other more closely. That is bad news for
the security situation, particularly given the boost it could provide
to the weaker ELN.
What's even more telling is the trend of FARC guerrillas joining the
ranks of the paramilitaries. Their motives are based on greed.
Paramilitaries, financed by narcotraffickers, are now using ex-
gerrillas as scouts and officers, to combat the FARC and ELN more
forcefully. This amounts to a deadly coalition. The narcotrafficers
have money without limits, the paramilitaries use violence without
scruples, and the military supplies inside information and protection.
Press reports detailing U.S. reluctance to paticipate, even as an
observer, in peace talks between President Pastrana and FARC leaders
only serve to increase my concerns. All sides need to encourage a
continued dialogue among all sectors of civil society, but the
escalating violence makes that increasingly impossible.
Some of my colleagues have argued that the present campaign against
terrorism merits our continued military involvement in Colombia. These
funds, it is said, are going toward counternarcotics operations,
targeting the FARC and ELN, both of which are on the State Department's
terrorist list.
I am well aware that paramilitary groups are not the only armed
actors committing human rights violations in Colombia, and I am no
friend of these guerrilla movements. In fact, I have consistently
decried their repressive tactics and blatant disregard for
international human rights standards.
I was deeply saddened by recent reports from Colombia which suggest
that the FARCC kidnapped and murdered Consuelo Aruajo, the nation's
former culture minister. She was a beloved figure across Colombia,
known for her promotion of local culture and music. So, I would like to
take this opportunity to again call upon the FARC to suspend
kidnappings, killings and extortion of the civilian population and the
indigenous communities.
That said, I further believe that we should be more forceful in going
after paramilitary death squads, with longstanding ties to some in the
Colombian military and government.
Several weeks ago, Representative Luis Alfredo Colmenares, a member
of the opposition Liberal Party was assassinated in Bogota. We do not
yet know who perpetrated this despicable act, but most signs point to
paramilitary death squads, AUC. These same paramilitaries are believed
to be responsible for the October 2 murder of representative Octavio
Sarmiento, also a member of the Liberal Party. Both men represented the
province of Arauca, Northeast of the capital, on the Venezuelan
frontier--a region that has become increasingly ravaged by the ever-
widening war.
I was pleased that Secretary Powell made the decision to add the AUC
to the State Department's terrorist list. It was a sign that the United
States oppposes threats--from both the left and right--in the
hemisphere, and I am encouraged by this development. Yet, I do not
believe it goes far enough. As Senators, we should embrace the
challenge of making a bold effort to quell paramilitary violence. Wwe
must not shirk from that responsibility.
The way out of this mess is nothing particularly new or innnovative.
What has been lacking in Bogota and Washington is the political will to
take the risks to make the old proposals work.
The Congress and the Bush administration must insist on credible and
far-reaching efforts to stop the paramilitaries.
Further, we must provide serious and sustained support for the peace
process, and work to deliver economic assistance programs that work
instead of dramatic military offensives.
Finally, we need to embrace demand reduction as the most effective
mechanism for success in the campaign against drugs.
General Tapias, the highest ranking military person in Colombia was
coming to meet with me. It was the day the Hart Building was evacuated.
We talked on the phone. I know the Presiding Officer spent some time in
Colombia. I said to him on the basis of the good advice from a
wonderful human rights priest, Francisco De Roux, General: (A) thank
you for trying to do a better job of breaking the connection between
the military and the paramilitary. Thank you for trying to do that. We
know you have made that effort. (B) I said thank you for going after
the FARC and the ELN.
The third question I asked him was when it comes to the murder of
civil society people such as the people I met on two trips to
Barrancabermeja--some of whom I met, some of whom are no longer alive--
people who work with Francisco De Roux, probably the best economic
development organization in Colombia--they are murdered with impunity.
I said to the general: Where are you? Where is the military? And where
are the police in defending the civil society?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for just
one moment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, military-paramilitary linkages are long
and historic. Everybody agrees. I told you that FARC and the ELN are
not Robin Hood organizations. But the paramilitaries, now listed as a
terrorist organization by our State Department, account for 75 percent
of the killings in Colombia by the AUC.
The U.S. State Department, the United Nations High Commission on
Human Rights, Amnesty international, and Human Rights Watch are among
the organizations who have documented that the official Colombian
military has remained linked closely with the paramilitaries and all
too often collaborates in these atrocities.
We don't need to be giving out any more money.
The State Department's September 2000 report mentions ``credible
allegations of cooperation with paramilitary groups, including
instances of both silent support and direct collaboration by members of
the armed forces.''
Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch released a report titled, ``Sixth
Division: Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in Colombia.'' It
is troubling.
The ``Sixth Division'' is a phrase Colombians use to refer to
paramilitary groups seen to act as simply another part of the Colombian
military. The Colombian military has five divisions.
In this report, Human Rights Watch focuses on three Colombian Army
brigades: The Twenty-Fourth, Third, and Fifth Brigades.
I asked the general about direct ties to the paramilitary. They are
documented. The paramilitaries are brazen. President Pastrana operates
in good faith, and I know he has publicly deplored the paramilitary
atrocities. But the armed forces have yet to take the critical steps
necessary to prevent future killings by suspending these high-ranking
security force members suspected of supporting these abuses.
I am telling you that it is documented. We know. But these military
folks aren't removed. They are not suspended. Nothing or very little is
done. I don't think we need to spend more money on this.
Human rights abusers are rewarded with promotion. The joint report of
the
[[Page S10936]]
Washington Office on Latin America, Amnesty International, and Human
Rights Watch talks about the fact that a number of different high-
ranking military people involved in atrocities are directly involved
with the paramilitary, and are promoted.
Human rights workers are under attack. There are systematic mass
killings of union leaders and their members by the paramilitary in
Colombia.
I describe that as genocide. That is what it is. As a matter of fact,
the AUC has actually bragged about this. Their leader bragged about
this.
And we need to give them more money? I don't think so.
I wish I could mention some of the courageous people who have been
murdered.
I have gone to Colombia twice. I have gone to Barrancabermeja. I have
gone there because it is sort of a safe haven in Colombia. It is one of
the most violent cities in a very violent country.
I have had the opportunity to meet with a man that I consider to be
really one of the greatest individuals I have ever met--Francisco De
Roux, referred to as Father ``Pacho.'' Why is he so respected and
beloved? He has an organization called the Program of Development and
Peace of the Magdalena Medio located in Barranca. They do wonderful
social justice and economic development work.
In the last several months, a number of innocent civilians, such as
Alma Rosa Jaramillo and Eduardo Estrada, brave volunteers, were
brutally assassinated--one, I think, in front of his family members. It
was awful. They were murdered by the AUC. They were murdered by the
paramilitary, and the civil society people who work for their
organization still wait for the prosecution.
I said to General Carreno, the military man in the region: Here is
AUC's leader, the bad guys. Go get them.
It hasn't happened.
I thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, because I think there are some
important human rights safeguards and Leahy safeguards in this
legislation that go absolutely in the right direction.
I will zero in on this for the Feingold amendment on fumigating and
spraying. I am in profound opposition with the amendment of my
colleague from Florida, who is one of my favorite Senators. I am not
just saying that; he is. I have great respect for him. I oppose the
additional ways in which money is being spent.
Funding for disaster relief--you name it--and health care makes a
whole lot more sense. I don't think we need to be putting any more
money into this plan. Believe me. There are important human rights
questions to be raised. I don't think the Colombian Government has been
nearly as accountable as they should.
Frankly, even with the war on the counternarcotics effort, there are
very real questions as to how effective this is.
At the very minimum, let's not spend even more money without making
sure first we have the accountability, especially on the human rights
issues.
My colleague from Florida said: What is the message going to be? I
will say this: What is the message going to be if the United States of
America, over and over, all of a sudden says when it comes to democracy
and when it comes to the human rights question that we are going to put
all of that in parenthesis, and we are going to turn our gaze away from
it, that it makes no difference to us, and it is not a priority for our
government?
If we do that, we will no longer be lighting the candle for the
world. It would be a profound mistake.
I hope colleagues will vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am rather disappointed with this
amendment. Senators have every right, of course, to offer any amendment
they have.
This bill has been before the Senate for almost 2 weeks now. We just
heard about this amendment a very short time ago today. This amendment
cuts at least $164 million from important programs, as the Senator from
Minnesota and others have pointed out. I mention the money it is
cutting because these are programs where funds have been requested by
both Republicans and Democrats.
The amendment of the Senator from Florida would transfer those funds
to the Andean Counterdrug Program. That program essentially consists of
military and economic assistance to four principal countries--Colombia,
Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador--but these are not countries that are going
unfunded. They already get over a half billion dollars in this bill--
well over a half billion dollars. They get $567 million.
I do not believe there is any region, other than possibly Middle East
countries and the former Soviet Republics, that gets that amount of
money. That $567 million is on top of the $1,300 million--$1.3
billion--that we provided for Plan Colombia last year. In fact, it is
not a half billion dollars; it is more than a half billion dollars. It
is nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars when you include the
economic and development aid in this bill for the Andean countries, and
that is there on top of the counterdrug aid.
So you take the funds that are already in this bill--not the funds
added by the Senator from Florida, but the funds already in this bill--
and we will have provided over $2 billion for these countries in the
past 16 months; in 1\1/3\ years, over $2 billion.
In fact, by pouring money down there so fast, they can't even spend
it yet. Much of last year's funds have not even been disbursed. Even
though they have not spent all the money, we are giving them another
$700 million in additional funding this year.
It is no secret that--and, actually, I am not alone in this body--I
am skeptical that this program will have an appreciable impact on the
amount of illegal drugs coming into the United States. We have spent
billions down there, and drugs are just as accessible. In fact, in our
country, for many types of drugs the price has actually gone down.
I suggest, until we start doing something about reducing the
insatiable demand for drugs here, in the world's wealthiest country, we
are not going to do too much good about incoming drugs. As long as the
money is there, we can stop them in Colombia, but they will just come
from somewhere else. Secretary Rumsfeld has said much the same thing.
In fact, a lot of other members of the Appropriations Committee--in
both parties--expressed similar doubts in a hearing we held earlier
this year. We had a hearing where the administration came up.
We asked them: By the way, how much money has been spent that we have
given you so far?
They said: Gee, we don't know. We will try to get back to you on
that.
We said: Well, with a billion dollars or so, you must have some kind
of basic idea what you spent the money on.
They said: We don't know, but we will sure check into it.
When my kids were little, I gave them a small allowance. I did not
expect them to tell me where it all went--whether it was baseball cards
or comic books or ice cream cones or something like that--but we were
talking about a few dollars. When you give somebody $1 billion, you
would kind of like to know what they do with it.
So I said: If you can't tell us where you spent it, how about letting
us in on a little secret. Has anything been accomplished with the money
we gave you?
They said: We will have to get back to you on that. We don't know how
much has been spent. We don't know how much has been accomplished. We
do know we have another $700 million in this bill, and we have a whole
lot of money in the pipeline that is not yet spent.
We keep pouring money in. We do not even know if the program will
work. But the administration wants some money in there. We put in a lot
of money. We have a lot of other similar programs, especially in
foreign policy. We pour a whole lot of money in there and not much
comes out.
We have spent billions of dollars to combat drugs in the Andes over
the past 15 years, and we have eradicated coca and we have eradicated
opium poppy in several places, but, of course, they just pop up
somewhere else. It is sort of like Whack-A-Mole--knock down one, it
pops up somewhere else.
[[Page S10937]]
And we have found one other thing: The flow of illegal drugs into
this country, no matter what we do in other countries, reflects our
demand. If the demand for drugs goes up in this country, the flow of
drugs coming into this country increases. If the demand for drugs
drops, the flow of drugs into this country drops. Far more than what we
do with our Customs agents--and they are extremely good--or the DEA or
the Coast Guard or anything else, in a nation of a quarter of a billion
people, if we want to spend billions upon billions upon billions of
dollars for drugs, the drugs will come.
But even though there is serious doubts about whether this works,
Senator McConnell and I have tried to give the administration the
benefit of the doubt. We include another half billion dollars in this
bill, on top of the billions already there.
The senior Senator from Florida, who is in this Chamber right now, is
a good friend of mine. We have worked together on many issues. But I
would like to see him try to do the balancing act we have had to do in
this bill to get money for a program that actually most of us on the
committee do not even like, but to give money for that program, and do
the other things in this bill.
We have had 81 Senators requesting funding for all sorts of programs
we tried to fund. I want to be fair; 81 Senators asked for some
funding, and 3 did ask for some money for the Andean Counterdrug
Program. Eighty-one of the 100 Senators asked for funding for various
items in this bill; 3 of the 100 Senators asked for funding for the
Andean Counterdrug Program. Other than a few lobbyists, it does not
seem to be the most popular program.
But we have a bill that is in balance. I know the administration
supports the Andean program. They also support the Economic Support
Fund. They support the Foreign Military Financing Program. They support
funding for the former Soviet Republics. They support money for Central
and Eastern Europe. They support money for the International Military
Education and Training Program. They support money for our
contributions to the World Bank and United Nations programs. There are
a number of things the administration supports.
In fact, they have put together a legislative blivet. They support a
lot more programs than there is money in this bill. If you put up a
chart: Shown up here is what they support in programs, down here is
where they put money. So we have had to take the money we have
available. We have taken the programs supported by the administration,
and also assuming the Congress has some say in how the money is spent
on programs supported by this body and the other body.
All these accounts were cut by the House and, actually, in some cases
they were cut below what the President requested. We restored them to
help out the administration. We made choices. We made choices which
reflect the administration's priorities and Senators' priorities. They
are not always the same requests. In fact, we were unable to fund over
$3.4 billion in requests from 81 Senators. Now this amendment would cut
those even further.
In fact, the Andean Counterdrug Program received a lot more funding
than many other critical programs. We provide more money for the Andean
Counterdrug Program than we do to combat AIDS, which infects another
17,000 people every day. Many Senators wanted to provide more money to
fight AIDS and also to help fulfill the President's commitment to do
that, but we are $1 billion short of what we should be spending on
AIDS.
Incidentally, we provide more for the Andean Regional Initiative than
we do for assistance to the world's 22 million refugees.
Other Senators have asked for more money for refugees, but we were
unable to do it partly because of the huge amount of money we are
already putting in the Andean Counterdrug Program.
Incidentally, we provide over twice as much in this bill for the
Andean Counterdrug Program as for all disaster relief programs
worldwide--for victims of war, earthquakes, drought, and other
calamities in all of Africa, Central America, and Asia--even at a time
when we are trying to point out to the rest of the world that we are
not the Great Satan that Osama bin Laden and others try to make us out
to be, that we do help in these areas. We don't help as much as the
Andean Counterdrug Program, but we will help.
When I see requests for more money for the Andean Counterdrug
Program, it worries me. We already spend four times as much for the
Andean Counterdrug Program as for basic education programs worldwide,
even though the President and Members of both parties have said we
should do more to help improve education worldwide so that we will have
educated people and the next generation coming along will be educated
and have a better idea of what the United States and other democracies
are like as well as what the real culture of their own country is like.
We provide four times as much for the Andean Counterdrug Program as
for microcredit programs for loans for the world's absolutely poorest
people, loans that help in many countries allow women, for the first
time in the history of those countries, to have a basic modicum of
independence. For women who have absolutely nothing otherwise, have no
way of doing it, this program helps. We provide four times as much for
the Andean Counterdrug Program. We provide more for the Andean
Counterdrug Program than we do for antiterrorism programs or
nonproliferation programs. We actually should be spending twice as much
for those programs. We can't because of all the money we are already
putting into the Andean Counterdrug Program.
At some point we have to set some priorities. We have poured in money
so fast they can't even spend the money they have in the pipeline. The
administration, when they provide sworn testimony before the Congress,
can't even tell us what the money is being spent for. Yet they want
more. How many other programs do we have to cut? We provide more for
this than we do for our export programs.
Let's go back and tell some of the small businesses in America that
depend on the export business and that could employ people at a time
when the economy is going in the tank, let's tell some of these small
companies, sorry, we can't help you build up your business so you can
export and hire people who have been laid off to come back because we
have to give the Andean Counterdrug Program more money beyond the
billions we have already spent.
Maybe we ought to be cutting these export programs. The heck with
putting people back to work; we have to send some money down to the
Andean Counterdrug Program. We don't know where it is going. We don't
know how it is being spent. We know it is not effective. We know it
hasn't stopped drugs coming up here. But let's make ourselves feel good
and send it down there. Sorry, you are getting laid off from your
factory job here.
I care about international health. We have a total of $175 million in
this bill to combat infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and
malaria. They kill about 3 million people a year. We can help, with
some of this money, to make sure some of these infectious diseases that
are a postage stamp or an airplane trip away from the United States, to
stop them from coming in this country. But we don't have enough money
to do that. We don't have enough money not only to help these people
eradicate these diseases in their own country but to stop them from
coming into our country because we don't have enough money. Why? We are
spending four times more on the Andean Counterdrug Program, four times
what we are doing to stop diseases--smallpox, tuberculosis, malaria, or
the Ebola plague--from coming into our country.
Ask somebody who has picked up the paper in the last few days what
they think our priorities are.
One would think from this amendment that Senator McConnell and I
don't support a counterdrug program. That is not so. We are willing to
give the benefit of the doubt. It hasn't proven it has done anything
yet. It has yet to demonstrate any impact on the drug program in this
country. But we are willing to give the administration a chance, and so
we have thrown in a half a billion dollars on top of the $1.3 billion
of last year. The administration says it has not worked. It can't show
[[Page S10938]]
anything where it has been successful, but ``give us some more and we
will do it.'' We have done that.
If we add even more money for it, where do we cut? This amendment
cuts across the board. It cuts Egypt. It cuts Israel. It cuts Jordan.
It cuts money for the former Soviet Union. It cuts education. It cuts
TB prevention programs. It cuts education of children. It cuts programs
that might give some economic stability to poor women across the world.
Why? To go into an Andean Counterdrug Program where they can't even
account for the money they have.
I want to help Colombia. I want to help Bolivia. I want to help
Ecuador. I want to help Peru. We have put a half a billion dollars in
here to do that, even though that is money from priorities that might
do the country better.
I met the head of Colombia's armed forces last week. I have met him
before. I have nothing but complete respect and admiration for
President Pastrana of Colombia. I consider Colombia's Ambassador,
Ambassador Moreno, a friend. I think he is one of the best ambassadors
any country has sent here. He knows how the administration works. He
knows how our country works. He knows what our culture is. He speaks
out forcefully for his own country. He does it with great respect for
Colombia, but also with appropriate respect for the country in which he
is serving. In fact, I sometimes wish some of the ambassadors we sent
to other countries could do their job as well as Ambassador Moreno
does.
I hope that this half a billion dollars--actually more than half a
billion dollars--that Senator McConnell and I have put into this bill
will pay off in the Andean Counterdrug Program. But in the past year we
have seen the civil war in Colombia intensify. We have seen the
paramilitaries double in size. There have been more massacres of
innocent civilians by paramilitaries this year than ever before. There
is indisputable evidence that the paramilitaries are receiving support
from some in the Colombian armed forces.
Funding that we provided last year to strengthen Colombia's justice
system has yet to be spent. Some of it has been allocated for purposes
that bear little if any resemblance to what Congress intended, in a
bipartisan fashion, it to be used for.
Aerial fumigation has destroyed a lot of coca. But there are also
supposed to be alternative programs from which to give farmers
something else to earn a living. They have barely been used. They have
not spent tens of millions of dollars we provided last year, and USAID
has serious doubt about Colombia's ability to implement these programs.
If we don't give these farmers an alternative source of income, if we
don't use the money we sent to do that, does anybody doubt that we will
see these farmers planting coca again so they can feed their families?
I wish they wouldn't. I think it is wrong they do. But let's be
realistic. If you have a hungry family there, you are not going to
think of the people of another country who spend more money on their
drug habit in a week than these people ever see in a year.
I share the concerns of the Senator from Florida about the use of
drugs in this country, especially in my own State. I was a prosecutor
for 8 years. I have some very strong views on these issues. Heroin use
has been steadily increasing in Vermont. Like any Vermonter, that
frightens me and worries me. But the Andean Counterdrug Program is not
going to have any impact on that problem we have in Vermont. Yet there
is a half billion dollars in this bill. It is not going to help most
States. Let's see how last year's money gets spent. Let's see how this
year's half billion dollars gets spent. Then if the administration
comes here before Senator McConnell's and my committee next year and
starts telling us, gee, we don't know where the money is going, how it
is being spent, or if it is having any effect, or they are able to tell
us how it is being spent and what effect it has had, then we can talk
about more money.
Before we throw a whole lot more money into the problem, let's see if
the $718 million does any good in the first place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the committee funded the President's
$731 million request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative at $567
million, which is a cut of $164 million. This figure reflects an
attempt by the subcommittee to balance the interest of Congress and the
President over such issues as restoring the administration's 25 percent
or $119 million cut in the export-import pact funding.
Senator Graham's amendment seeks to restore that $164 million to this
initiative. I think he knows this is going to be an issue for the
conference, as Senator Leahy pointed out, because the House funding
level is $675 million. While I can appreciate his arguments for funding
the Andean initiative, it is clear from a hearing Senator Leahy and I
held on this issue earlier this year that there are Members who are
concerned with Plan Colombia and the ability of the United States to
impact narcotics growth and production in the civil war zones. Reducing
funds for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative will not starve our
counterdrug efforts. The disbursement of funds from last year's Plan
Colombia is occurring, frankly, at a rather slow pace. Figures from
USAID show that of the $119 million provided for judicial, economic,
and other reforms, only $8 million has been actually spent to date.
So Senator Leahy and I included an amendment in the managers' package
to ensure adequate levels of funding for counterdrug assistance for
Bolivia and Ecuador.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to which
I understand the Senator from Kentucky has agreed.
I ask unanimous consent that the Graham amendment No. 1950 be laid
aside, to recur at 4:40 p.m.; that there then be 20 minutes remaining
for debate prior to a vote on a motion to table the amendment, with the
time to be equally divided and controlled between the Senator from
Vermont and the senior Senator from Florida, or their designees; that
no second-degree amendment be in order to the Graham amendment prior to
a vote on a motion to table; that Senator Feingold now be recognized to
offer two amendments, one with respect to Andean drug and one with
respect to congressional COLA; that if debate has not concluded on the
two Feingold amendments at 4:40 p.m., they be laid aside, to recur upon
disposition of the Graham amendment in the order in which they are
offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair, and I am sure he understood that
convoluted agreement just as much as the propounder of it did.
By doing this--and I see the Senator from Wisconsin in the Chamber--
we will be able to move forward. Again, the Senator from Kentucky and I
are open to do business. I will have other things to say and will speak
on the Andean drug matter, but I remind everybody that we have a huge
amount of money in the bill already, and we are cutting a lot of
programs that should have higher priority.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Wisconsin is recognized.
Amendment No. 1951
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and
Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 1951.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page S10939]]
(Purpose: To provide an additional condition for the procurement of
chemicals for aerial coca fumigation under the Andean Counterdrug
Initiative)
On page 143, beginning on line 9, strike ``and (3)'' and
all that followed through the colon and insert the following:
``(3) effective mechanisms are in place to evaluate claims of
local citizens that their health was harmed or their licit
agricultural crops were damaged by such aerial coca
fumigation, and provide fair compensation for meritorious
claims; and (4) within 6 months of the enactment of this
provision alternative development programs have been
developed, in consultation with communities and local
authorities in the departments in which such aerial coca
fumigation is planned, and in the areas in which such aerial
coca fumigation has been conducted, such programs are being
implemented within 6 months of the enactment of this
provision:
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his help in
making it possible to get going on this amendment. I rise to offer an
amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill. I am very
pleased to have as an original cosponsor the distinguished senior
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, who has certainly made it his
business to follow closely our policy in Latin America, in particular
in Colombia.
My amendment is intended to improve the efficacy of U.S. efforts to
eradicate the supply of narcotics that threatens our families and
communities and to ensure that our efforts to address this issue do not
inadvertently plunge the people of Latin America into a humanitarian
and economic crisis.
The amendment is very simple. It requires that the administration
have alternative development plans for a given region in place before
engaging in aerial fumigation in that area, and it requires that
alternative development plans are being implemented in areas where
fumigation has already occurred.
This is hardly a radical initiative. I recently received a letter
from the administration responding to some of my inquiries and concerns
about our fumigation policy. In the letter, the State Department itself
noted that alternative development must work in concert with
eradication and with law enforcement. Unfortunately, though, over the
past year fumigation has occurred in areas where there are no
alternative development programs in place at all or in areas where
alternative development assistance has been exceedingly slow.
According to a recent Center for International Policy meeting with
experts from southern Colombia, communities that signed pacts agreeing
to eradicate coca in December and January in Puerto Asis and Santa Ana,
Putumayo, have not yet received aid. AID as of mid-July states that
only 2 out of 29 social pacts signed have received assistance so far.
These facts tell us that our policy has to be better coordinated. More
important, they tell us our policy cannot possibly be working.
Of course, some people simply disagree with this policy as a whole. I
have heard from a number of my constituents who are concerned about
fumigation in and of itself. They are concerned about the health
effects of this policy, and they are concerned about whether or not
local communities and authorities have been adequately consulted and
informed about their policies.
Frankly, I share those concerns. I strongly support the language the
Appropriations Committee has included conditioning additional funding
for fumigation on a determination to be submitted by the Secretary of
State, after consultation with the Secretary of HHS and the Surgeon
General, that the chemicals involved do not pose an undue risk to human
health or safety; that fumigation is being carried out according to
EPA, CDC, and chemical manufacturers' guidelines; and that effective
mechanisms are in place to evaluate claims of harm from citizens
affected by fumigation. I believe these provisions are critically
important, and I share the skepticism of many with regard to United
States policy in Colombia in general.
Nevertheless, like those underlying conditions in this bill, my
amendment does not seek to eliminate fumigation from our policy
toolbox. It does seek to ensure that when we use that tool, we use it
in a rational and effective way. If we keep on fumigating without
improving the conditions of coca growers, drug crops will simply shift
to other locations or spring up again as soon as the fumigation stops.
It makes no sense to take away a farmer's livelihood, provide him no
alternative, and expect him not to plant illicit crops again.
Without this amendment, we risk failing in our counternarcotics
efforts in creating a humanitarian and economic disaster for the people
of Colombia, one that will doubtless also be costly for the United
States in the long run.
I also want to point out that my amendment calls for consultation
with affected communities and local authorities. Supporting democratic
governance and a strong civil society in Colombia are important United
States policy goals. Those aims reflect our clear interest in a stable
and law-governed Colombia.
This is a very modest proposal. It aims to make our policy work
rationally and in a coordinated fashion. It recognizes that eradication
without alternative development simply makes no sense.
It acknowledges the stake of the Colombian people in our policy. So I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Amendment No. 1951, As Modified
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. This
modification changes a typographical error in the original amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 143, beginning on line 9, strike ``and (3)'' and
all that follows through the colon and insert the following:
``(3) effective mechanisms are in place to evaluate claims of
local citizens that their health was harmed or their licit
agricultural crops were damaged by such aerial coca
fumigation, and provide fair compensation for meritorious
claims; and (4) within 6 months of the enactment of this
provision alternative development programs have been
developed, in consultation with communities and local
authorities in the departments in which such aerial coca
fumigation is planned, and in the departments in which such
aerial coca fumigation has been conducted, such programs are
being implemented within 6 months of the enactment of this
provision:''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, did the Senator from Wisconsin wish to say
something further?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make sure, before we proceed
with this amendment, the Senator from Minnesota has an opportunity to
address it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I assure the Senator from Wisconsin, and
others who will come with other matters, I will turn over the floor in
a few minutes.
Sometimes we take these bills and we move them. We do this bill now,
we will do that bill now, and it is fairly routine. Even on this bill--
and I have had the privilege of being either chairman or ranking member
of this subcommittee for years, handling our foreign aid bill through a
number of different administrations, Republican and Democrat. It occurs
to me, we have never quite had a time as we do today with this bill. We
have never quite had the situation where what happens in other parts of
the world might threaten us so directly.
Let me tell my colleagues why I say that. It is not a case where we
have this threat of an army marching into the United States or a navy
sailing against us. We are too powerful for that. It is partly because
of our power and our world status that we have both the good news and
the bad news.
Our economy is intricately intertwined with the global economy. Our
health depends on our ability and the ability of countries in Africa,
Asia, and Latin America to control the spread of deadly infectious
diseases. Our security is linked to the spread of nuclear, biological,
and chemical weapons, on our ability to stop terrorism,
narcotrafficking, and organized crime. These threats are prevalent from
as far away as China, to our own cities.
Another less defined threat, but potentially the trigger that ignites
many others, is poverty. We are surrounded by a sea of desperate
people. Two billion people, a third of the world's inhabitants, live on
the edge of starvation. They barely survive on whatever scraps they can
scavenge. Oftentimes one sees children in food dumps scavenging for
something. Many of the children die before they reach the age of 5.
[[Page S10940]]
In some countries, they do not even list their births until they are 4
or 5 years old. They wait to see whether the children make it.
This grinding, hopeless, desperate existence, something that is
unimaginable for all of us within this Chamber, it is overladen with
despair. That despair fuels hatred, fuels fear and violence. We see it
on so many continents. We see it today in Pakistan, where thousands of
people are threatening to overthrow their own government if that
government gives American troops access to Pakistani territory. We see
it across Africa, Colombia, and Indonesia. We see it in the form of
refugees and people displaced from their homes, and they number in the
tens of millions.
The world is on fire in too many places to count, and in most of
those flash points poverty and the injustice that perpetuates it are at
the root of that instability.
Our foreign assistance programs provide economic support to poor
countries, health care to the world's neediest women and children, food
and shelter to refugees and victims of natural and manmade disasters,
and technical expertise to promote democracy and free markets and human
rights and the rule of law. That is the way it should be, when we are
so blessed in this Nation with such abundance.
As important as this aid is, the amount we give is a pittance when
considered in terms of our wealth and the seriousness of the threats we
face. So many countries give so much more.
I can make an argument for the foreign aid bill on national security.
I can make an argument for this bill because it helps create American
jobs. I can make an argument for this bill because when we eliminate
disease, we protect ourselves. The biggest argument I will make for
this bill is how can we accept the enormous blessings of this country--
we are about 5 percent of the world's population. We are consuming more
than half of the world's resources. How can we say we are a moral
people if we do not help others?
This goes beyond politics. This goes beyond economics. This goes
beyond security. It is a matter of morality; morality to shape our
whole nation in the helping of others.
If somebody came up to us today and said look at this child who is
going to die of malaria; if you would give us 75 cents or a dollar you
would save the child, if you knew it was real and you could save the
child, of course you would give that. We do not even give that in these
bills.
The approximately $10 billion that we provide in this type of
assistance, through the State Department or the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the contributions to the World Bank, the
U.N. Development Program, the World Food Program, all of that money
comes out to well under a dollar a week from us.
The amount that each of us gives does not keep two refugees alive a
year. We do not keep up with the number of people living in poverty,
which is rising steadily.
I know our economy is suffering and our people are hurting in this
country. As much suffering as we have and as hurting as we are, I can
show you places where billions of people would trade places with us in
a heartbeat.
We will work to help people in our country, as we should, but let us
not bury our heads in the sand. We do not protect our national
interests in today's complex and dangerous world on a foreign
assistance budget that is less in real terms than it was 15 years ago
when I was a junior Senator. Our world is not simply our towns and our
States and our country. It is the whole world. We live in a global
economy.
The Ebola virus is like a terrorist; it is only an airplane flight
away from our shores. We can try our best to control our borders, but
we cannot hide behind an impenetrable wall. We have to go to the source
of the problem; that is, to countries that are failing from AIDS, from
ignorance, from poverty, and from injustice. We need a better
understanding of the world in which we live.
Almost 60 percent of the world's people live in Asia. That number is
growing. Seventy percent of the world's people are nonwhite. Seventy
percent are non-Christian. About 5 percent, though, own more than half
of the world's wealth. Half the world's people suffer from
malnutrition. Can one imagine what a tragedy it would be if we went
back to our home States and half of the people of the State were
malnourished? Well, half the world's people are.
Seventy percent of the people in this world are illiterate. Instead
of $10 billion to combat poverty, support democracy, promote free
markets, and the rule of law, and aid victims of disaster, we should be
spending $50 billion.
Is it a lot? With a Federal budget of $2 trillion, that depends. We
are going to spend more than that just to recover from the September 11
terrorist attacks. We are going to spend a lot more to conduct a
campaign against terrorism, and we must. Maybe if we had spent more
money in the first place on some of these problems we might not have
faced a September 11 terrorist attack. We also have to look at other
global problems. Not the problems, thank God, that killed 6,000
Americans in a day, but they have posed immense long-term problems
affecting our lives.
Extreme poverty on a massive scale, population growth effects on
countries, and the poisoning of our environment are problems we cannot
continue to treat as afterthoughts. We cannot spend so little to combat
these threats, anymore than we could justify failing to anticipate the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We cannot solve all
the problems. Nobody can.
Maybe one of the positive things that will come from the time of
national soul-searching is to think differently about what the future
holds in our role in the world. The Senator from Kentucky and I have
done our best to respond to these problems, but it is not enough and
falls far short. We are not going to do it with a budget that is less
than that of a decade ago. Because of that, we fail the American people
and we fail future generations.
We say with pride we are a superpower. And I say that with pride. But
let's start acting like a superpower, like the leading democracy of the
world. Let's reach deep inside of the best of our country. Then let us
lead the world in combating poverty and supporting the development of
democracy and preserving what is left of the world's natural
environment. Let's start paying our share. We have a moral
responsibility.
But even if we are not reaching inside ourselves to answer that moral
call, give a pragmatic reason why we should not do our share. We are,
after all, the Nation with the very most at stake.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Feingold, with this amendment.
Mr. President, I rise today to address disturbing developments in our
antinarcotics efforts in Colombia, and to join Senator Feingold in
calling for a shift in our fumigation policy.
The motivations behind the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and last
year's Plan Colombia are important--stop the flow of illicit drugs into
the United States. I, like every other member of this body, am
extremely concerned about the effects of drug use on our citizens,
particularly our children. That said, I am becoming more and more
convinced that the plan advanced for combating this problem targets the
wrong source. What's more, I think that the methodology used is neither
fair nor effective.
I am talking about aerial coca eradication, which has been the focus
of our efforts in Colombia. Last December, the Colombian military began
a massive fumigation campaign in southern Colombia, with U.S. support.
Under the current plan, pilots working for DynCorp, a major U.S.
government military contractor, spray herbicide on hundreds of
thousands of acres of Colombian farmland. To date, the provinces of
Putumayo, Cauca, and Narino have been most affected, but expansion of
the program is imminent. I have a number of concerns about this
approach.
First, I have become increasingly convinced that fumigation is an
extreme, unsustainable policy causing considerable damage. Since the
fumigation campaign started last December, rivers, homes, farms, and
rainforests have been fumigated with the herbicide Round-Up. Because
[[Page S10941]]
Round-Up is a ``non-selective'' herbicide, it kills legal food crops
and the surrounding forest, in addition to coca plants. Furthermore,
farmers and their supporters contend that glyphosate is hazardous. I'm
beginning to believe they're right.
Round-Up is classified by its manufacturer, Monsanto, as ``relatively
safe.'' However, the EPA classifies Round-Up as ``most poisonous,''
while the World Health Organization classifies it as ``extremely
poisonous.'' Directions on glyphosate products, like Round-Up, warn
users not to apply the product in a way that will cause contact with
people ``either directly or through drift.'' These instructions and
warnings are not being taken into consideration.
What's more, according to the Round-Up website, the herbicide is not
recommended for aerial application and is not supposed to be applied
near or in bodies of water. However, in Colombia, much of the coca
cultivation takes place alongside rivers and ponds, and these bodies of
water are routinely fumigated. A November 2000 report by the American
Bird Conservancy notes that Round-Up is extremely toxic to fish and
other aquatic organisms.
Putumayo, where the spraying has been principally concentrated,
reports over 4,000 people with skin or gastric disorders, above and
beyond normal averages. In January and February alone, over 175,000
animals were killed in that region. All had been sprayed with Round-Up
and Cosmo Flux, a Colombian-made mix.
Mr. President, in light of this mounting evience, I don't believe
that we can sit idly by as U.S. taxpayer dollars go toward such a
policy. The environmental consequences are serious. The health effects
are concerning at best, deadly at worst.
This is an especially personal issue for me. As the only United
States Senator to withstand aerial fumigation, I feel I have a unique
obligation to address this matter forcefully. When I visited Colombia
last year, I was sprayed with glyphosate. At the time, I had little
idea of the threats that such activity entailed.
Families continue to suffer hunger as legal food crops have been
destroyed and livestock have been harmed. No emergency aid has been
provided, and economic development efforts have yet to be realized. In
fact, according to a report by Colombian Human Rights Ombudsman Eduardo
Cifuentes, eleven different alternative development projects were
fumigated during the campaigns. We are undermining our own programs.
This brings me to my second point; alternative development aid has
not been delivered, even though fumigation has been in place since
December.
While fumigation began soon after the passage of Plan Colombia,
alternative development programs have yet to get off the ground. Last
July, the Center for International Policy held a meeting with experts
from southern Colombia. At that meeting, they reported that those
communities who have signed pacts agreeing to eradicate coca in
December and January have not yet received aid. These communities--like
Puerto Asis and Santa Ana, both in Putumayo--have expressed their
willingness to work on the problem. What have they gotten instead? They
have gotten babies with rashes, dead animals, ruined food crops, and
tainted water.
In addition, the slowness in aid delivery makes farmers lose further
trust in the Colombian government and in eradication. As we all know,
alternative development takes time to plan and implement. We can expect
that USAID will be moving ahead in the future. But it is clear from
events in southern Colombia that there was no coordination between
fumigation efforts and alternative development. A massive fumigation
campaign went ahead when development programs were still in the
planning stage. This is the height of irresponsibility.
How are we going to get Colombian peasants to change their practices
without viable alternatives?
Under the current plan, the government of Colombia will give each
family up to $2,000 in subsidies and technical assistance to grow
substitute crops like rice, corn and fruit. We are providing $16
million specifically for these purposes--a mere 1 percent of the total
Colombian aid package. Many believe this is not enough, with the
average coca farmer making about $1,000 a month. Regardless, these
subsidies have yet to take effect. We haven't even tried.
In the USAID ``Report on Progress Toward Implementing Plan Colombia--
Supported Activities'' released at the end of last month, these facts
become apparent. Of the more than $40 million obligated under Plan
Colombia for promoting economic and social alternatives to illicit crop
production, a mere $6 million has been spent. Of the 37,000 families
who signed ``social pacts'' agreeing to eliminate coca in exchange for
alternative development programs, only 568 families had received their
first package of assistance.
Moreover, fumigation campaigns without alternative development
threaten the very goals they claim to support. They fuel a mistrust in
the national government, as communities are forced by the campaigns to
flee their homes and move elsewhere in search of food. Individuals in
these areas often turn to the guerrillas or paramilitaries in search of
security, exacerbating the violent conflict and undermining the rule of
law in the region. An abandonment of the fumigation policy will help to
strengthen the relationship between farmers in these areas and the
national government, which will help eradication efforts in the long
term.
A recent study by the conservative think tank, Rand Corporation,
rightly notes that the aerial fumigation of coca crops is backfiring
politically. They say: ``Absent viable economic alternatives [such as
crop substitution and infrastructure development], fumigation may
simply displace growers to other regions and increase support for the
guerrillas.''
Next, I don't believe that fumigation solves the problem of coca
cultivation, but simply shifts the problem from one area to another. In
a New York Times interview with Juan de Jesus Cardenas, governor of the
Huila province, reporter Juan Forero wrote the following: ``the
governor of Huila said regional leaders across the southern area of
Colombia believed that defoliation would simply drive farmers to
cultivate coca and poppies in other regions. `That is what happened
with defoliation of Putumayo, with the movement of displaced people
into Narino,' said the governor.'' Likewise, our Ambassador to
Colombia, Mrs. Anne Patterson, has acknowledged that coca had appeared
for the first time in the eastern departments of Arauca and Vichada.
Fumigation without adequate alternative development programs in place
creates a vacuum in the local economy and food supply. This causes coca
growers to flee and move deeper into the agrarian frontier, where they
replant coca, often twice as much, as an insurance policy. This causes
deforestation and instability among residents indigenous to the new
areas of production.
This has implications not only on ecology, but also on regional
security. Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela, have been and
will increasingly be affected by massive population flows caused by
aerial eradication. Frankly, I do not want to be responsible for
contributing to an already devastating humanitarian catastrophe.
Putting aside these concerns, I must ask: ``to date, just how
effective have our efforts been at eradicating coca?'' Regrettably, the
answer is--not very good!
Recent estimates by U.S. analysts report that there are now at least
336,000 acres of coca in Colombia, far higher than earlier estimates.
The United Nations, using different methodology, put the amount even
higher for last year's major growing season--402,000 acres. Although
about 123,000 acres of coca plants have been fumigated under Plan
Colombia, cultivation increased by 11 percent last year. What are we
accomplishing here?
There is a way out. Local governments have pledged to eradicate coca-
without harmful fumigation; I think they deserve a chance.
In May, six governors from southern Colombia, the region where most
of Colombia's coca is grown, presented ``Plan Sur,'' a comprehensive
strategy for coca elimination, alternative development, and support for
the peace process. The plan opposes fumigation as destructive and
unnecessary. The governors ask that communities have
[[Page S10942]]
the chance to manually eradicate their crops, and call for sufficient
alternative development funding.
Twice this year, I have met with these governors, as well as
representatives from the Colombian House and Senate, and NGO leaders.
They are an impressive, courageous group. In their visit to Washington
in March, four of the governors from southern Colombia, led by Ivan
Guerrero of Putumayo, denounced fumigation and called for a more humane
and sustainable approach to coca eradication. Governor Jaramillo
Martinez of Tolima stated: ``fumigation is not working as expected. It
is displacing people and continuing to deforest the jungle. We need to
give these farmers the opportunity to grow other crops.''
I am in full agreement. The present course is not only destructive,
but also ineffective.
Meanwhile, opposition to fumigation continues to mount. Numerous
mayors from southern Colombia support the governors in their call to
change the policy. And, prompted by these same concerns, other
prominent officials like Carlos Ossa, the nation's general comptroller,
have called for a suspension of spraying. In July, Judge Gilberto Reyes
ordered ``the immediate suspension of the entire fumigation project'';
it seems he, too, wants definitive answers on the effects of
glyphosate.
However, President Pastrana's government continues to spray large
swaths of territory. Frankly, the decision to proceed despite
widespread opposition was a disappointment. In a country that has
struggled to promote democracy and lawfulness, surely this was the
wrong course of action.
Yet I refuse to give up on Colombia and its brave citizenry. I
believe there are many positive steps the United States can take to
reduce drug production and promote peace and democracy in Colombia and
the Andes.
I join Senator Feingold in opposing only those parts of this package
that damage human rights and the environment--not the bulk of the
assistance for alternative development, judicial support and
interdiction efforts through the police.
In concluding, I believe there must be a moratorium on further
fumigation until alternative development is implemented. I am pleased
that my colleague, Senator Leahy saw fit to include language that would
withhold funding for aerial fumigation without first determining and
reporting to Congress on the health and safety effects of the chemicals
being used, and the manner of their application. Our decisions should
reflect the will of the Colombian people. Colombian governors,
parliamentarians, mayors, judges, and activists have all called for an
end to spraying. Too much is riding on our decisions, made so far away.
I further believe we should play a more effective role by helping
create genuine economic alternatives for the peasant farmers and others
involved in the Andean drug trade. As the failure of our current policy
shows, the most that can be expected from the strategy of eradication
and interdiction is moving the areas of production from one country to
another and thereby spreading the problems associated with the drug
market.
Finally, we should better combat drug abuse here at home through
funding drug treatment and education programs. As long as there is
constant demand for cocaine and heroin in our country, peasants in the
Andes with no viable alternatives will continue to grow coca and
poppies simply to survive.
I will summarize this way. When I look at this Andean Counterdrug
Initiative and last year's Plan Colombia, I think the intention is
right on the mark and in good faith: protecting our children and our
citizens, from drugs. The methodology is absolutely flawed. We would
actually be doing a much better job if we focused on the demand for the
drugs in our own country.
I remember when I met with the Defense Minister in Colombia, Mr.
Ramirez, he said: We export 300 metric tons of cocaine to the United
States. As long as we have this demand, we will continue to do it.
Someone will do it.
There will come a point when we will look at addiction and make sure
we cover this and we will get help to people so they get into treatment
programs. We will do what we need to do by way of prevention. That will
be far more the answer than this effort.
I will focus on the fumigation. I have become increasingly
convinced--and I think Senator Feingold talked about this--that it is
an extreme, unsustainable policy which I think causes damage to people.
The experts will say that the spraying is classified by Monsanto as
``relatively safe''. But the EPA calls it ``most poisonous'', and the
World Health Organization classifies it as ``extremely poisonous''.
Talk to the people living there and listen to them. They are the ones
saying they have the rashes, headaches, nausea, and are getting sick.
With all due respect, I cannot blame them for being a little
skeptical about what all these experts tell them. There is some good
language in this foreign operations bill that Senator Leahy worked on
saying we have to do a careful study of the health effects of this,
which I believe is right on the mark. Talk to the Governors of
different regions. They are worried about what this is doing to them.
It is easy for us to say it is not a problem. It is easy for Monsanto
to say that.
I was kidding around with Senator Feingold, and said: I feel like I
have some expertise in that I think I am the only U.S. Senator to
withstand aerial fumigation. I was sprayed when I was in Colombia--I
don't think on purpose. I don't live there. It was just one time, not
over and over and over again.
The second point that this amendment speaks to--and I pressed the
Ambassador, who I think is very good; we have a very good Ambassador. I
said to her, ``the social development money was supposed to go with
this''. Unfortunately, what we are doing, we are also eradicating legal
crops. That is part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is we are telling campesinos we are
going to do the spraying and eradicate the crops without alternatives
for them to put food on the table for themselves and their families.
The whole idea was, with the spraying we're going to give campesinos
the social development money and the viable alternatives for their
families. This amendment speaks to that and makes it clear we have to
see that social development money on the ground; that is to say, where
people live.
I join Senator Feingold in this focus on what I call environmental
justice. We both have tried, to the best of our ability, to raise the
human rights concerns. I did that in an earlier statement today. I will
not go over it again.
The Leahy language would withhold funding for aerial fumigation
without first determining and reporting to Congress on the health and
safety effects of the chemicals being used and the manner of their
application. It is important that language be implemented. I say that
on the floor of the Senate.
Many Colombian governors, parliamentarians, mayors, judges, and
activists have called for an end to the spraying. Between the focus of
this amendment, with the Leahy language, the emphasis we have on this
amendment on the alternative economic developments--and again I say one
more time, since I have already spoken to the best of my ability on
human rights--it will make a lot more difference when we deal with the
demand for it here in our own country. That is what will make a
difference.
My hope is this amendment will be accepted. I thank the Senator for
his effort. I don't want to hold up the progress of the bill. I thank
Senator Leahy for his statement about this foreign operations
appropriations bill. I think it was a very important statement. In
particular, I say to my colleagues, I think probably people in the
United States of America will no longer be isolationist again. People
are painfully aware of the interconnections of the world in which we
live. Many of these countries are our neighbors whether we want them to
be so or not. I think there is much more of a focus on the world. We
understand now that we ignore the world at our own peril.
This is a good piece of legislation overall. I presented my critique
of Plan Colombia, and I would like to see some things change. I think
we have done our very best through some amendments and speaking out.
As long as we are talking about this world in which we live, I want
to mention, and I will do this in 3 minutes, on September 11--everybody
has talked
[[Page S10943]]
about it--but I have my own framework for thinking about this and I
just want to mention it.
In 1940 and 1941, the Germans engaged in an unprecedented bombing of
civilians in Great Britain to weaken civilian opposition to Nazism, and
20,000 citizens were killed, murdered. On September 11, almost 6,000
Americans, innocent civilians, were murdered. Therefore, I think there
is absolute moral justification for taking the kind of action we
believe we must take so terrorists don't have free rein, to try to
prevent this from happening again. That is why I reject the arguments
about what were the underlying causes of the hatred or violence.
I said to friends, some who make that argument, you never ask me to
give a speech about what caused those men to murder Matthew Shepard, a
gay man in Wyoming. How could they have that hatred? They murdered him.
Murder is murder. Camus said murder is never legitimate.
Here is the question I have. In trying to achieve this goal, I think
that force, unfortunately--and for me, the military option, the use of
force, is always the last option--is one of the options that is
necessary. In the end, I think the question is: Do we make this a
better world, this journey we are taking?
I have spoken of humanitarian assistance. But the other point I want
to make is, over and over again, we should speak on the floor, I
understand that this is easier said than done, but reports of innocent
people being murdered in a nursing home or hospital are concerning. I
have no reason to believe that those who are carrying out the military
campaign are not making every effort to keep this away from innocent
civilians. I have no reason to believe that they are not making every
effort. But I will tell you, we have to be concerned every single time
our military action, our bombing, leads to the death of an innocent
civilian in Afghanistan. These people are not our enemies. Every time
it happens, even though it is inadvertent, never on purpose, it is a
contradiction of the values we live by. It does us no good when it
comes to the rest of the Muslim and Islamic world.
So I would like to continue to make the appeal that in carrying this
out with the use of force, the highest priority must be to avoid the
loss of innocent life in Afghanistan.
As President Bush said, these Afghans are among the poorest people in
the world. They are not our enemies. The terrorists and those who
harbor terrorists are our enemies. The Afghans are not our enemies. It
is a tragedy, and I deeply regret the fact that there are innocent
Afghans who lost their lives as a result of the bombing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for
his tremendous support of this amendment and his knowledge of the
subject. I am also hopeful this amendment will be accepted and make it
all the way through the process. It is extremely modest. I appreciate
his help.
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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1952
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and
Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 1952.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost
of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2002)
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following
sections:
SEC. . COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment
shall be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of
living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal
year 2002.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a great sense of unity across
the Nation as we begin the process of recovering from the events of
September 11. I have been very heartened by the bipartisanship
demonstrated by Congress as it acts to respond to the human and
economic devastation. We will need to maintain that unity as we ask for
the sacrifices necessary to end this business.
Given all that has happened, all that will happen, and the sacrifices
that will be asked of all Americans, Congress should not accept a
$4,900 pay raise. My amendment would stop it.
The automatic pay raise is something that I never regarded as
appropriate. It is an unusual thing for someone to have the power to
raise their own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our
constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual
is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to
exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate,
amendment, and a vote on the record.
That is why this process of pay raises without accountability must
end. The 27th amendment to the Constitution states:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the
senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an
election of representatives shall have intervened.
A number of my colleagues have approached me about this pay raise in
the past few weeks, and many have indicated they support the pay raise.
In fact, one of my colleagues said they would offer an amendment that
actually increased the scheduled $4,900 pay raise because they felt it
was too low.
While I strongly disagree with that position, I certainly respect
those who hold it. But whatever one's position on the pay raise, the
Senate ought to be on record on the matter if it is to go into effect.
The current pay raise system allows a pay raise without any recorded
vote. Even those who support a pay raise should be willing to insist
that Members go on record on this issue.
This process of stealth pay raises must end, and I have introduced
legislation to stop this practice. But the amendment I offer today does
not go that far. All it does is to stop the $4,900 pay raise that is
scheduled to go into effect in January.
We are spending the hard-earned tax dollars of millions of Americans
to recover from the horrific events of September 11 and to ensure that
it does not happen again. We have spent all of the on-budget surplus,
and are well into the surplus that represents Social Security trust
fund balances. That is something we should do only to meet the most
critical national priorities.
A $4,900 pay raise for Congress is not a critical national priority.
This to me obviously is not the time for Congress to accept a pay
raise. Let's stop this backdoor pay raise, and then let's enact
legislation to end this practice once and for all.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, knowing the Senator from Wisconsin as I do,
and knowing the seriousness of everything he does legislatively, I want
the Record to reflect my personal understanding of why he is offering
this amendment and reiterating how strongly he feels about it.
Being a member of the Appropriations Committee and having been a
Member of this body when we had a rule XVI which didn't mean anything--
you could add anything you wanted to appropriations bills; you could
legislate on them--appropriations bills should be appropriations bills.
As a proud member of the Appropriations Committee, I raise a point of
order against the amendment that the amendment is not germane under
rule XVI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair
aware of any basis in the bill for the defense of germaneness?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is unaware of any defense.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The
amendment falls.
[[Page S10944]]
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of the Chair's ruling, I want
to let the body know that this issue is not going away. I understand a
number of my colleagues want a pay raise. While I disagree with that
sentiment, I certainly respect their right to hold it. I believe at the
very least there should be a rollcall vote on this matter itself and
not on any procedural approach. I will bring this issue back at every
reasonable opportunity until I get a roll call on the merits.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1953
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Dodd, proposes
an amendment numbered 1953.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1953
(Purpose: To require a study and report on the feasibility of
increasing the number of Peace Corps volunteers serving in countries
having a majority Muslim population)
On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
increased peace corps presence in muslim countries
Sec. 581.(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, it is more important than ever to foster peaceful
relationships with citizens of predominantly Muslim
countries.
(2) One way to foster understanding between citizens of
predominantly Muslim countries and the United States is to
send United States citizens to work with citizens of Muslim
countries on constructive projects in their home countries.
(3) The Peace Corps mission as stated by Congress in the
Peace Corps Act is to promote world peace and friendship.
(4) Within that mission, the Peace Corps has three goals:
(A) To assist the people of interested countries in meeting
the need of those countries for trained men and women.
(B) To assist in promoting a better understanding of
Americans on the part of the peoples served.
(C) To assist in promoting a better understanding of other
peoples on the part of Americans.
(5) The Peace Corps has had significant success in meeting
these goals in the countries in which the Peace Corps
operates, and has already established mechanisms to put
volunteers in place and sustain them abroad.
(6) The Peace Corps currently operates in very few
predominantly Muslim countries.
(7) An increased number of Peace Corps volunteers in Muslim
countries would assist in promoting peace and understanding
between Americans and Muslims abroad.
(b) Study.--The Director of the Peace Corps shall undertake
a study to determine--
(1) the feasibility of increasing the number of Peace Corps
volunteers in countries that have a majority Muslim
population;
(2) the manner in which the Peace Corps may target the
recruitment of Peace Corps volunteers from among United
States citizens who have an interest in those countries or
who speak Arabic;
(3) appropriate mechanisms to ensure the safety of Peace
Corps volunteers in countries that have a majority Muslim
population; and
(4) the estimated increase in funding that will be
necessary for the Peace Corps to implement any recommendation
resulting from the study of the matters described in
paragraphs (1) through (3).
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Peace Corps shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
containing the findings of the study conducted under
subsection (b).
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and
the Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
Vitiation of Vote--Amendments Nos. 1922 and 1923
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the action on
the Wellstone amendments numbered 1922 and 1923 be vitiated. These
amendments were modified and accepted as part of the managers' package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Reid for Dodd
amendment No. 1953.
Mr. LEAHY. Time has not been divided or anything on that amendment,
has it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it has not.
Mr. LEAHY. The reason I ask, Mr. President, is I do not want to cut
into anybody else's time. But since I do not see anybody else seeking
recognition, I will continue, as I have throughout consideration of
this bill, to point out some of the issues we face in our foreign aid
bill. Maybe one issue is especially good to look at as we look at the
world's attention focused on Afghanistan.
I was struck by what I heard over and over again from various
military analysts and others; that is, there are millions of unexploded
landmines scattered throughout that mountainous country. It is not
hyperbole when I say millions of unexploded landmines; there are
millions. Most of them are plastic Russian mines--those are probably
the most difficult to detect--but some are Chinese mines, some are
British mines, some are Italian mines, and some are American mines.
The reason I mention that is, any one of those mines could kill a
soldier--ours or theirs--or kill a child. A lot of them are designed to
injure a combatant, blow a leg off a soldier, the idea being, if the
soldier is not dead, it might tie up three or four of his comrades to
take care of him or carry him back to a safe place. But, of course, a
shiny little mine that might blow a leg off a soldier--it looks like a
shiny toy to a child--sometimes blows off the hands, arms, or head of a
child. In fact, the vast majority of those who will be injured by them
will be noncombatants.
Because landmines are also weapons of terror, they are routinely used
to terrorize not combatants but civilian populations. Afghanistan is
only one example. There are lots of countries--dozens--that are plagued
by mines.
Landmines maim and kill innocent people every day in the Balkans, in
Southeast Asia, Africa, Chechnya, even in Central America. What is as
tragic is that the killing goes on long after the war that brought the
mines is over.
We usually see the newspaper articles or television specials where
the parties come together and they sign the armistice, they sign a
peace agreement at the end of the war. They say: OK, it is all over. We
are now friends again, or at least we are noncombatants. They leave.
The armies march off, the tanks drive away, and so forth, but the mines
stay. A child not even born at the time the peace agreement is signed
is killed when first learning to walk.
We have mines and unexploded munitions from the United States in
Vietnam and Laos. They were dropped when I first came to the Senate a
quarter of a century ago. They are still blowing people up. They are
still killing and wounding people in Vietnam and Laos.
In Bosnia, most American casualties were from landmines. The same was
true in Somalia.
In Afghanistan, we gave mines to the anti-Russian forces, some of
whom are now the Taliban. You know the phrase: What goes around comes
around. We gave the Taliban landmines. We also gave them Stinger
missiles. But landmines, think of that; we gave some of the Taliban
landmines. When our troops go there--as they already have, according to
the press accounts, and we assume will continue to go there--one of the
biggest dangers they will face is some of the landmines we left there
from the 1980s.
We and the rest of the international community are going to be paying
for many years to clean up this deadly legacy. The right thing to do is
to clean it up. In fact, this bill contains $40 million for demining
programs and has another $12 million to assist victims of war,
including mine victims.
But I think of the $12 million or so that gets spent every year in
the Leahy War Victims Fund, and the tens of millions of dollars in
demining, and I think, wouldn't it be wonderful if we
[[Page S10945]]
did not have to spend any of that money because the world stopped the
indiscriminate use of landmines and we had a chance to clean up what
was there.
A lot of nations already have stopped using them. Every member of
NATO, with the exception of one, has agreed to stop using them.
Ironically enough, even though we are spending a lot of money to clean
up landmines, the one nation in NATO that has not agreed to stop using
landmines is the United States.
Every nation in the Western Hemisphere has banned the use of
landmines except two, the United States and Cuba. Interesting company.
Cuba should ban them; the United States should ban them. Every other
country in our Western Hemisphere has.
Two months ago, terrorism was a foreign concept to so many Americans.
Anthrax was a foreign concept. But it is not any longer. We have
experienced the tragedy and fear that people in many countries have
lived with for years.
Fortunately, in our Nation, when it comes to landmines, we have not
used landmines on American soil since the Civil War. I can't help but
think if landmines were used in this country to terrorize Americans, as
they are in other countries, then the United States, I am sure, would
have joined the 142 other nations in banning their use.
Ask people who have served in combat. Most people who actually served
in combat tell me that mines are more trouble than they are worth, and
any enemy worth its salt can breach a minefield in a matter of minutes.
A child cannot; the enemy can.
You scatter landmines and then your own troops--who often need to
maneuver quickly because sometimes the battlefront moves very quickly--
risk triggering their own mines. The battle might be over in a matter
of hours, but even self-deactivating mines stay longer than that. The
battle can ebb and flow very quickly.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon has been bogged down in a costly, poorly
designed program to find alternatives to mines. Although it might have
seemed like a good idea when it was proposed 6 years ago, it has been
managed by people who have no sense of urgency and who never believed
in the goal anyway. They spent the money, but there is little to show
for it.
It makes me think of that PBS program, ``Yes, Minister''--a wonderful
program. You had a British minister who, while elected, had the head of
the public service for his ministry who did not agree with anything the
minister wanted to do; but he was so nice.
Every time the minister said, we have to go forward with programs
like this, that, or the other thing, the head of his civil service
would say: Yes, Minister. Of course, Minister. Wonderful idea,
Minister. We will do it in the fullness of time. And the minister
finally realized ``the fullness of time'' was not his lifetime.
That is what has happened with those who have been tasked with the
idea of coming up with this alternative to landmines. They do not
believe in it, so they drag their feet. They know those of us in
Congress who support it will someday leave; they hope the sooner the
better. Administrations come and go. But the irony is, we do not need
to even search for alternatives.
As many retired and active duty defense officials will say privately,
we already have suitable alternative weapons technologies. We have
smart weapons. We have sensor technologies that are a lot more cost-
effective than mines. They are safer for our soldiers, and they don't
impede their mobility. I hope that the Pentagon, with all the weapons
in its arsenal, is not going to add to the millions of landmines
already littering Afghanistan.
They threaten civilian and humanitarian aid workers. They terrorize
and kill and maim refugees who are trying to flee. These indiscriminate
weapons don't belong on today's battlefield no matter who is putting
them there, no matter how right they think their cause.
The administration is conducting a review of its landmine policy. We
can have a mine-free military if we want. Then probably it would not be
long before Russia would do the same. Wouldn't it be nice if we could
say that in the western hemisphere, where today every country except
the United States and Cuba has banned mines, we banned mines as every
other country except Cuba? Now it is your turn. Wouldn't it be nice
when we sent our Ambassador to NATO not to have to look away when every
single NATO ally tells us they have banned their landmines and we
haven't?
The Clinton administration took some first steps, but they never
fully grasped the issue. They didn't understand it. Some did not want
to. I believe the President did want to but didn't follow through.
This administration has an opportunity to design a roadmap to finish
the job. It would increase the effectiveness and mobility and the
safety of our own troops. This is not something we do just to help
other countries. It would actually help our own troops. It would take
White House leadership, but it can be done. The White House lead would
be strongly supported by the Congress, Republicans and Democrats,
because so many across the political spectrum have already voted to ban
landmines.
One person in this country has done more than any other to bring to
the world's attention the need to ban landmines. That is Bobby Muller,
the head of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Bobby Muller is
known and admired by so many Senators, particularly those who served in
combat. He is perhaps the most visionary, eloquent, dedicated, and
inspiring person I have met.
He enlisted in the Marine Corps. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam.
He was paralyzed from the waist down from a gunshot wound. Last weekend
he was honored by Hofstra University, his alma mater, with its lifetime
achievement award.
I ask unanimous consent that a Newsday article about this award be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Newsday, Oct. 17, 2001]
A Man Reborn
(By Marc Siegelaub)
United States Marine Corps 1st Lt. Robert Olivier Muller
will remember the day he died for the rest of his life.
On April 29, 1969, the 23-year-old infantry officer was
standing at the base of a hill in northernmost South Vietnam,
10,000 feet below the demilitarized zone and some 10,000
miles from his home in Great Neck.
Lt. Muller was serving in an advisory capacity to 600 South
Vietnamese soldiers. They were massing for attack against a
handful of dug-in Viet Cong, 15 or so suicidal fanatics
bleeding and dazed from the concussive air attacks and
ferocious shelling unleashed upon them.
With soldierly instincts honed from eight months on active
duty in a country ravaged by civil war, Muller sensed a big
mismatch: He knew his battalion lacked the stomach to take
the high ground from an entrenched enemy force bent on
defending its turf to the death. Incensed that 15 Viet Cong
could keep his 600-man unit at bay, Muller rallied the outfit
into formation behind three U.S. Marine tanks and led them up
the rise. Foot by foot, they ascended the hill without a
misstep until the bullets started to fly. Instantly, the
South Vietnamese scattered, turning Muller into a sitting
duck.
And that's when it happened. That's when a bullet ripped
through Muller's chest, puncturing both lungs and splintering
the fifth thoracic vertebrae of his spine before exiting his
broken back. That's when this stranger in a strange land
collapsed on the dank dirt and closed his eyes in the
midafternoon light.
Fast forward more than three decades to Hofstra University
on Long Island, where homecoming weekend kicks off Friday
with a special awards reception. The high point is the honor
to be bestowed on one of Hofstra's own for extraordinary
lifetime achievement--alumnus of the year.
The distinction in 2001 goes to a local boy who never made
the top half of his class in law school. ``I was the most
average student you could have imagined,'' the recipient says
matter-of-factly.
But consider that when Kerry Kennedy Cuomo compiled a short
list of ``human-rights defenders who are changing our world''
for inclusion in her book, ``Speak Truth to Power,'' this
``most average student'' made it beside such stalwarts as the
Dalai Lama and Elie Wiesel. Or when Bruce Springsteen
composed ``Born in the U.S.A.,'' his hard-driving tribute to
Vietnam veterans, this ``most average student'' served as a
good part of his inspiration. Or when the 1997 Nobel Peace
Prize was conferred on the International Campaign to Ban
Landmines, this ``most average student'' was the co-founder
of the movement.
Considering all the testimonials heaped on this ``most
average student,'' perhaps his greatest act was the act of
survival. Hofstra's alumnus of the year, you see, is Robert
O. Muller, whose life ended on April
[[Page S10946]]
29, 1969, in Vietnam, only to be reborn a short time later,
crippled from the chest down and altered forever from the
neck up.
By all accounts, Bobby Muller, now 56, never should have
made it to the dawning of a new day, much less to home or to
homecoming.
``I was conscious long enough after I got hit to feel the
life ebbing out of my body,'' Muller recalled. ``I was on my
back, looking at the sky and grabbing my gut. I couldn't feel
a thing. My last thought on this earth was I'm dying on
this--piece of ground.''
Muller lapsed into a coma. Suddenly, a medevac helicopter
hovering overhead swooped down, and medical personnel scooped
him up and whisked him off. In no time, he was in surgery on
a state-of-the-art hospital ship, the U.S.S. Repose. The
vessel just happened to be positioned farther north than it
had ever been, mere miles from the stricken Marine.
``Despite the instant medevac and great care, it was
written on my chart that had I arrived one minute later I
would have died,'' said Muller. ``When I came to, there were
seven tubes sticking out of me, but I was ecstatic. I
couldn't believe my luck--I was alive!''
Alive but paralyzed, the doctors told him about his
condition. ``Don't worry about it, that's OK. I'll handle
it,'' Muller shot back without hesitation. ``The fact that I
was permanently disabled. the sorrow of being told that I'd
be a paraplegic--a word I never heard before--was so lost in
the overwhelming joy of realizing I was going to make it.''
The bullet that stuck Muller cut him off from his past in a
flash. One second he had the sinewy limbs of a long-distance
runner; the next second he was laid out flat, unable even to
wiggle his toes.
Something else got severed on Muller's tour of duty in
Vietnam--his close connection to the country he loved and
trusted.
He as born in Switzerland at the tail end of World War II,
and his family moved to New York City while he was still in
diapers. The family later settled in Great Neck. Always on
the go, Muller played soccer, ran track and wrestled in high
school and college.
In 1965, Muller entered Hofstra. The Vietnam War was
raging, as were his red-white-and-blue sensibilities. ``I
felt it was my duty as a citizen of the greatest country in
the world to join the service . . . I never questioned the
war or studied the history of Vietnam. I only knew that my
government wanted me there to repeal a massive northern
communist invasion threatening the freedom -loving people of
South Vietnam.''
On graduation day in January, 1968, Muller enlisted in the
Marines. He underwent 33 weeks of intense training in boot
camp and officer's school, after which he was wound as tight
as a racehorse at the starting gate. ``I demanded Vietnam,
and I demanded front-line infantry.''
Muller got his wish in September of 1968, but he never got
his bearings abroad. ``The South Vietnamese civilians didn't
tell us where the booby traps were or the land mines or the
trails and supply caches; they harbored the VC, gave them
information and plotted against us. And our military allies
were nicknamed `The Roadrunners' for hightailing it at the
first sign of danger. What the hell were we doing there?
``I was bitter because I put my allegiance in my
government,'' Muller said. ``I did so with the best, most
honest intentions, believing I was doing the right thing. I
gave my country 100 percent, and they used me as a pawn in a
game.
``But I don't feel sorry for myself--I'm here and a lot of
my buddies aren't. The real tragedy is that I was totally
naive . . . As a college graduate. I was supposed to be
educated. I was an idiot. I never asked `Why?' And that is my
greatest tragedy--one which was shared by all too many
Americans.''
I Vietnam was Muller's baptism under fire, where the seeds
of activism took root, then his rehabilitation in a Veterans
Administration hospital in the Bronx was the detonator that
launched him on the path of social resistance.
This was the same rodent-infested, broken-down facility
featured in a shocking 1970 Life magazine spread ``My closet
pal and eight of my friends with spinal-cord injuries
committed suicide in the Bronx VA,'' said Muller. ``I was the
quadriplegics, multiple amputees, men who could only move
their heads. We were entitled to care second to none. I had
to fight against that system for reasons of my own
survival.''
At the ripe young age of 25, Muller ventured into the den
of inequity and started his own private war. He showed up in
Times Square and blocked traffic on the same afternoon that
President Richard Nixon vetoed a veterans' benefits act on
the grounds that it was ``fiscally irresponsible and
inflationary.''
``I said, `Wait a minute, I was a Marine infantry officer,
I called in hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to kill
people. I got shot and now I come back and you suddenly tell
me it's `fiscally irresponsible and inflationary' to provide
critical medical care? I don't think so.''
As an activist he was a natural. ``From the moment a TV
crew stuck a microphone under his nose, Muller discovered he
had a gift for articulating what was on his mind,'' wrote
Gerald Nicrosia in ``Home to War,'' a history of the Vietnam
veterans' movement.
Muller began popping up all over the place-in Hofstra's
School of Law, learning how the system works and how to work
the system; in Miami Beach, shouting down Nixon during his
1972 acceptance speech; in the Academy Award-winning
documentary ``Hearts and Minds,'' spitting invectives at how
everything went awry in Vietnam; in the vanguard of anti-war
protests, riding his photographable wheelchair; in Congress,
carrying the burdens of veterans on his broken back.
Once again, Muller found himself leading the charge up the
hill. He arrived in Washington, D.C., in January 1978, as
head of the New York-based Council of Vietnam Veterans. ``I
figured if somebody went to Washington and simply told the
American people what was going on with Vietnam veterans. . .
. a compassionate society would have to respond.''
That February, The Washington Post ran an op-ed piece
headlined ``Vietnam Veteran Advocate Arrives.'' It was just
the beginning of a yearlong editorial campaign undertaken by
the Post on behalf of Vietnam vets. ``The New York Times
picked it up, and when that happens, you wind up setting a
lot of amplification,'' Muller said.
Even so, ``not a single thing we were fighting for was
enacted into law. That was a lesson: To argue for something
simply in terms of justice, fairness, equity doesn't make it
in our political process.''
So Muller switched gears and went grass roots. ``We
traveled into the districts that the members of key
congressional committees were elected from, and got into
their editorial pages and did their radio talk shows and
brought pressure from the people in their districts. And
finally we started to get the programs we critically needed
and deserved.''
In the summer of 1979, Muller co-founded the Vietnam
Veterans of America, a national movement designed to give
veterans a voice and vehicle to air their grievances and
drive their concerns. The political advocacy group would
bring about the passage of landmark legislation to treat and
compensate victims of Agent Orange and post-traumatic stress
disorder, and to secure the right to judicial review of VA
decisions.
With a measure of progress achieved on the home front,
Muller began to cast a wary eye beyond his own borders. In
1980, he established the Vietnam Veterans of America
Foundation, a nonprofit group that was separate and
autonomous from the VVA. Located smack in the lap of
government in Washington, D.C.--where Muller still works and
resides--the philanthropic organization set out to raise
revenue and raise consciousness on mattes of human rights
affecting victims of war throughout the world.
Muller led the first group of American veterans back to
Vietnam in 1981. The historic visit was cathartic: They
reconciled with their former adversaries, introduced
humanitarian assistance programs and laid the groundwork for
future economic and diplomatic detente between the two
countries.
Several years later, the VVAF brigade visited Cambodia on a
fact-finding mission. ``Cambodia changed my life even more
than Vietnam did,'' Muller said. ``What took place on the
killing fields was genocide. The horror of seeing 10,000
skulls piled up in a ditch and legless kids walking on their
hands in the capital city of Phnom Penh was a whole different
order of suffering.
``And I learned there were more land mines in Cambodia than
there were people, and it was considered proportionally the
most disabled society of any country on Earth.''
The VVAF launched a new campaign against the hidden scourge
of Southeast Asia--lethal underground bombs meant to wreak
havoc on innocent men, women and children.
``If you've got a machine gun, a rifle, an artillery piece,
a tank, there's a target to fire at and a command-and-control
function with directing that fire,'' explained Muller. ``Not
so with a land mine. You simply set it, you bury it, you hide
it and whoever happens to step on that land mine becomes the
victim, long after the other weapons have been put back in
the armories.
What's more, land mines cause inhuman suffering. ``Step on
one, and all this crap--dirt, shrapnel, garbage, clothing--
gets blown up your limb. You go through a whole series of
operations when you're treated like a piece of salami and
keep getting resected and cut down. Guys on the hospital ship
would cry out for their mothers when the dressing was changed
on their raw wounds,'' said Muller.
Beyond the physical pain, psychological torture is
inflicted on the peasants who are denied use of the land.
``This stupid $3 weapon winds up being the major
destabilizing factor in Third World countries, these
agrarian-based societies that are trying to recover,'' Muller
said. ``And not just in Cambodia, but in Afghanistan,
Kurdistan, Angola, Bosnia, Mozambique.''
And so the VVAF established a charitable beachhead on
foreign soil, setting up rehabilitation clinics in Cambodia.
``By setting up the clinics to fit amputees with prosthetic
limbs and orthotic braces, by supplying wheelchairs free of
charge, by initiating programs to employ disabled people, we
went through a process of emotionally connecting with an
issue that we intellectually understood was devastating.''
Muller and the VVAF co-founded the International Campaign
to Ban Landmines in 1991, but they needed to recruit a potent
political presence to spearhead the effort in Congress. Enter
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), who controlled the money as
chair of the Appropriations Committee on Foreign Operations,
and ``who had seen, with
[[Page S10947]]
his own eyes, what land mines were doing to civilians.''
In 1992, Leahy procured a one-year moratorium on the
trafficking of anti-personnel land mines. Before the ink was
dry, he was back on the Senate floor to draft a three-year
extension of the act, and his colleagues passed it
unanimously. ``I gotta tell you,'' Muller said admiringly,
``the Senate doesn't vote a hundred to nothing that the moon
circles the Earth.''
Leahy, in turn, praised Muller for his pivotal role in the
campaign. ``Whenever I needed more votes, whenever I asked
him to talk to someone, he never failed me,'' Leahy said.
Meanwhile, a huge global network of anti-land- mine
organizations had begun to germinate, and influential support
had started to flourish in high places, most noticeably in
the Clinton White House and in the royal realm of Diana,
princess of Wales.
The bow was about to be tied on a comprehensive pact when
the coalition began to unravel. First the United States
balked at signing, with President Bill Clinton citing the
safety of American troops stationed in South Korea, where the
U.S. military had planted anti-personnel mines on the North
Korean border. Then the UN failed to reconvene the council on
conventional weapons. By September 1996, the landmark treaty
was in jeopardy of being shelved.
``But we had a five-term senator go nuts on this issue and
drive it,'' Muller said. ``And the foreign minister of
Canada, Lloyd Axworthy, with great personal courage, said,
`We're going to do something totally different. We're going
to set a standard, and we're going to invite anybody who
wants to come and sign this treaty to do so in a year.' ''
For his part, Muller rounded up a posse of retired military
leaders who agreed to put their collective might behind a
full-page open letter in The New York Times, urging President
Clinton to scrap antipersonnel land mines because ``it was
militarily the responsible thing to do.''
The signatories included Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf and more
than a dozen other retired brass of the first rank.
``Fact is, anti-personnel land mines were the leading cause
of our casualties in Vietnam,'' Muller said, ``and they are
the leading cause of casualties for our peacekeepers through
NATO and the UN,'' not to mention the peril they now pose to
our own foot soldiers in Afghanistan.
Off the record, officials from the Pentagon told Muller
that land mines were ``garbage.'' But if we let you reach
into our arsenal and take them out, went their reasoning,
then other categories of weapons would be at risk--the domino
theory as applied to armaments.
On Dec. 3, 1997, Axworthy delivered, as promised, an
international agreement involving 122 nations to scrap land
mines. But the achievement was muted by the refusal of the
U.S. government to put its John Hancock on the document.
Muller has no tolerance for hollow victories. Not when some
80 million land mines remain buried in the ground; not when
the job of providing assistance in all the countries that
need to be cleaned up and put back together lies ahead.
``You cannot be looking to stigmatize land mines in the
public's thinking if the world's superpower, which has every
alternative to meet any possible military requirement, say
it's OK to continue to use them,'' Muller said.
``If we allow genocide, if we allow innocent people to be
slaughtered on the scale that we're witnessing, it sows the
seeds of destruction. And one day that degree of madness is
gong to walk up the block and come into your neighborhood.''
It already has. Muller's view of the recent carnage in the
United States--the main hit taking place just 25 miles from
Hofstra--is colored by his frequent treks to ``ground
zeroes'' in Third World nations. He has eyeballed the
atrocities wrought by land mines. ``A terrorist is a
terrorist is a terrorist,'' said Muller.
With characteristic energy and purpose, Muller is
mobilizing his forces at the VVAF to confront the terrorist
threats to domestic safety and security in the wake of Sept.
11. The lessons he learned in the land mines campaign apply
readily to this grave new world, Muller said. ``Political
strength has got to be connected to the righteousness of the
argument; multilateral cooperation and agreements have got to
be in place; philanthropic funding has got to support global
efforts and concerns, and the American people have got to be
alert to and engaged in the issues that affect their
democratic way of life.''
Actually, the VVAF had already been hard at work on ``the
Justice Project''--an ambitious undertaking that includes
educational outreach programs and curriculum guides on
terrorism for schoolchildren.
This weekend, at homecoming, Muller will look upon the
youthful revelers and wonder who among them will go out and
absorb some hard knocks, ask tough questions, learn how and
why things happen, search for the plain truth, undergo vital
changes, and--as a result--get involved in trying to correct
the injustices they uncover.
The all-American boy who left the sanctuary of home and
Hofstra in 1968 and emerged at the other end of the Earth in
a brutal conflict got jolted to the core. ``I'm a better man
now than I was before I went to Vietnam,'' Muller said. ``I'm
certainly more aware of the sanctity of life.''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we do good things in this bill to help with
the scourge of landmines. We do put in tens of millions of dollars to
remove landmines. That is a credit to this Nation. It took a lot of
effort and a lot of fighting, bipartisan efforts on the floor of the
Senate to get the previous administration to do that and the current
one to continue.
We do fund every year the Leahy War Victims Fund. I appreciate the
honor of my Republican colleagues, who were the ones who renamed it the
Leahy War Victims Fund. I appreciate the bipartisan gesture. Frankly, I
wish we didn't need the fund. I suspect every Senator wishes we didn't.
This is money that buys prosthetics for those who have had their arms
or legs blown off by landmines.
My wife, who is a registered nurse, and I have gone to hospitals and
landmine sites around the world and seen what good that does. It does
help.
I see the Senator from Illinois on the floor. I don't want to take up
his time, but I remember very well one day going with our distinguished
leader Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan, and our former colleague John
Glenn to one of these war victims sites, run by the Vietnam Veterans of
America and others. We saw people getting their first artificial limbs
since the Vietnam War. Some were getting their first wheelchairs. It
was a hot, muggy day. I was dressed in slacks and an open-neck shirt.
There was a man who was able to drag himself on pallet things on the
ground who was finally able to get his first wheelchair. They said, why
don't you go over and lift him into the wheelchair. He looked like a
really small man. He had no legs. He was probably about my age. He was
just looking at me stoically, staring at me. I didn't know what to
expect, but I went over, picked him up, carried him, and put him in the
wheelchair.
The expression never changed. But as I started to go back, he grabbed
my shirt, pulled me down, and kissed me. He didn't speak the language.
It was his way of saying thank you.
John Glenn, who we know is a wonderful man, certainly not an
emotional man, also carried somebody to a wheelchair. I remember the
emotion on his face. He said to us afterward, as we were going back on
the bus to Saigon: If anybody on this trip ever complains about
anything again, I am throwing you out the door of the bus, after what
we have just seen.
The humanitarian part is good, but the injury is bad. We should ban
these landmines. We are not going to do it on this bill. The Senator
from Kentucky has worked with me shoulder to shoulder in getting money
to remove landmines and for the War Victims Fund. In fact, it was his
amendment I was referring to earlier that I thought was an
extraordinarily generous act by my Republican colleagues in its
renaming. We have done a great deal of good with it.
The United States can do a lot more good by just removing the ban on
landmines.
I have imposed on the time of the Senator from Illinois, and I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say in response to my friend and
colleague and chairman from the State of Vermont, Senator Patrick Leahy
has written an amazing record in the Senate. Time after time when I
would look for those issues that touched my heart or defined it, Pat
Leahy had arrived there first a long time ago.
On the issue of landmines, a scourge across the world, Pat Leahy was
a leader in the United States in defying his own party's administration
in begging for the United States to join with other civilized nations
around the world in banning landmines. The Patrick Leahy War Victims
Fund that is part of this legislation is an effort to say something
very simple but very true to the rest of the world; that is, that we
care. It is money that is given in the name of a Senator who has proven
in his decades of public service that he does care.
The point I would like to address is part of our debate on this bill.
I am honored to be part of this committee, to bring this bill forward.
I am honored to be part of this debate which will result in a vote very
shortly. I hope we will put this matter in some perspective.
[[Page S10948]]
My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, who took the floor
early this afternoon, spelled out in some detail the exact dollar
commitment being made by the United States in foreign assistance. It is
a substantial sum of money, until you put that sum in comparison to
expenditures for many other items. Then you find that it is only a very
small part of our national budget.
Senator Feinstein made a point made by others, that if you ask the
average person in California or my State of Illinois what percentage of
the Federal budget is spent on foreign aid, people guess, oh, 15
percent, maybe 10 percent. It couldn't be as low as 5 percent. In fact,
less than 2 percent of our total budget is spent on foreign aid.
America has learned a lot about itself since September 11. We as
political figures have learned a lot about ourselves as well. I believe
the President of the United States has done an extraordinary job in
leading this country. I told him in a chance meeting we had flying out
to Chicago just a few weeks ago that although I didn't vote for him, I
was certainly singing his praises. He said he understood that.
I do mean it. I believe he has assembled an excellent team: Secretary
of State Colin Powell, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Don
Rumsfeld as head of the Department of Defense. What an extraordinary
grouping of experience that we bring to one of the most important
battles America has ever faced, the war against terrorism.
I say in good faith to this administration that I believe it has
learned since September 11 that certain things that were assumed before
are not true today.
For example, there were those who criticized Bill Clinton, the former
President, for his personal involvement in the peace process in the
Middle East. I think those critics realize today that our President,
our leaders, have to be involved in Middle East peace. No other country
is likely to lead those warring factions to the peace table with any
meaningful result.
I am happy we are continuing to work with the leaders in the Middle
East to calm down tensions, to try to find a road to peace in an area
that has been wracked with war for almost 60 years. Nation building was
criticized in the last campaign as something the United States should
not get into, that we should not be worried about building up another
nation. That is the U.S. role. We know better now. When we finally have
our hands on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist organization,
and the Taliban is long gone, you can bet the United States will be in
the first row rebuilding the nation of Afghanistan. It will be
difficult, but we know it has to be done, so that we can leave behind a
stable government that can shun terrorism when they try to find refuge
again.
Of course, in rebuilding that nation of Afghanistan, we will say to
the Muslim world that what we told you at the beginning of this
conflict is true at the end of it: This is not a war against Muslims or
against the Afghan people; this is a war against terrorism and those
who harbor them. We will invest in Afghanistan, as we will invest in
Pakistan, to stabilize their leadership and give them an indication of
the caring of the United States--not just to prove our virtue but
because it is important for our national interest. A stable world that
doesn't fall into war or doesn't harbor terrorism is a better world for
everyone who lives in America.
We have also come to realize, since September 11, that organizations
such as the United Nations are absolutely critical. I have been
embarrassed in the last several years how in the Senate in particular,
and in Congress in general, we have really made a mockery of our
commitment to the United Nations. Thank goodness those days have ended.
The United Nations is important. There are times when the U.N. and the
Security Council infuriate me because they say and stand for things I
don't agree with at all. But that is the nature of a true debate. The
United Nations is a gathering place for every country in the world, and
it is a good place for that debate. It avoids war in many instances.
The need for global alliances has become clear. Whether we are
talking about tracking down financial transactions, fighting terrorism,
or putting together a military alliance that will root out terrorism
around the world, we need allies and friends. The United States cannot,
will not, should not go it alone. We have learned that since September
11. It has been heartening in our grief and sorrow to see so many
nations around the world who have shared that grief with us and raised
their hands and said, we want to join the United Nations in this fight
against terrorism.
So we have learned a great deal about ourselves and our role in the
world because of the tragedy of September 11. I think we have to pause
and reflect and ask whether we are doing enough and whether there is
more we should do. I don't believe this Congress has been sparing when
it comes to any request from this administration to help our military
or invest in our intelligence. We want to be certain they are the very
best. We will not cut back or shortchange the men and women in uniform.
We want them to be well equipped, well funded, well prepared so that
they can fight these battles successfully and come home safely. I think
we have seen that time and again, where both Democrats and Republicans
have said that is our goal.
But I think we also have to concede the fact that in addition to
solidarity when it comes to the war effort and intelligence gathering,
we should show solidarity as well in this effort that is reflected in
this bill on foreign operations because in this bill you will find
money that is being directed to countries around the world to deal with
some of the hardships and problems and challenges they face.
As you go through this bill, you see it is almost a catalog of the
problems facing the world. There is a section in here about the HIV/
AIDS epidemic in Africa. I went there just last year. It is an
experience I will never forget. I really salute Senator Leahy for
helping a mutual friend of ours who is running an orphanage for AIDS
victims, small children, in Nairobi, Kenya. This Jesuit priest, who is
a mutual friend of ours, is devoting his life to those children. In
stories such as that, where a small amount of money from the United
States is being spent, it is well spent not because it is for a good
purpose of showing what is in the heart of America, but it is also
attacking an epidemic which is the scourge of the 21st century.
If you were to grade the United States in terms of what we have
achieved, I think you would have to put us No. 1 in the world when it
comes to the military. There is no one who can rival what we can bring
to a military undertaking, a military enterprise. I think the United
States, justifiably, is proud of the men and women in uniform and all
those who have supported them, which has led to that great reputation
we do deserve.
I think if you would grade the United States in terms of other
foreign operations around the world, we would not be at that high a
level. In fact, many countries give a higher per capita contribution
than the United States when it comes to foreign assistance. I want to
answer them and say: But when you are in trouble and you need someone
to come in a hurry with the best military in the world, we are there,
and it costs a lot of money, and we put the lives of our men and women
on the line.
So it is not as if we don't care. We support the world in a different
way. This bill seeks to reach out beyond the military commitment and
say there are other ways we can create support and stability in this
world.
Just a few weeks ago, Newsweek magazine had a cover story I read
carefully and shared with my family and all my friends entitled bluntly
``Why They Hate Us.'' It tried to spell out in historic terms and
political and economic terms why so many people in the Muslim world
around this globe have such a low opinion of the United States. Some of
it is undeserved. What has happened to many people of the Islamic faith
over centuries that led up to this moment is certainly not of our
creation. Yet we are viewed as ``the West'' and ``the enemy,'' as ``the
infidels.'' That is a sad commentary.
We have to search for ways we can reach those around the world who
will listen to the message of for what America really stands. I commend
to my colleagues two ideas that are not part of this legislation but I
hope will be part of our thinking in the future. They
[[Page S10949]]
come from two former colleagues in the Senate. One is a man who is a
very close friend of mine--one of my closest--former Senator Paul
Simon. When he was a Senator from Illinois, he identified an issue that
I believe is critically important today and will become increasingly
important around the world, particularly in the Islamic world, in the
nations that are struggling to survive, and that is simply the issue of
water, the availability of drinking water. We will find, I am sure,
that in the future there will be wars waged over the rights to water as
more and more people are born on the Earth and it taxes the resources
available.
Senator Simon suggested that the United States be a world and global
leader when it comes to desalinization of ocean water so people can
drink it, so that we would provide fresh water, safe water to babies
around the world--a message the United States could send saying, we
will bring our best technology, use it in a humane fashion, and your
life and your family will be benefited by it. What a positive message
that would be to those who are at least skeptical of us--if not those
who despise us--that we are a caring people. I hope the idea of moving
forward with that initiative is one we might be able to pursue.
The second one is one that also was suggested by two former Senators,
Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole. It was about a year ago that
Senator McGovern, from a position in Rome, wrote a guest editorial in
the Washington Post calling for an international school feeding
program. I think it is one of the best single ideas I have heard. He
enlisted in support Senator Bob Dole. A Republican and a Democrat came
together with the belief that the largess of America's agricultural
plenty could be used in schools around the world to feed hungry
children.
That not only encourages children to go to school, it particularly
encourages young girls to go to school. Their families see this as a
nutritious meal. As we educate these children in foreign lands with the
bounty God has given us, their education helps them understand better
the world in which they live.
From what I read about the madaris, the Islamic schools in Pakistan
where children are sent, they do not learn the basics of reading,
writing, history, or science, but literally spend every hour of every
day memorizing every word of the Koran, and after that is done, they
leave. Meanwhile they are being indoctrinated into political belief.
That to me is a terrible waste of a mind and intelligence, to limit
their education to that sole purpose.
What Senator McGovern, Senator Dole, and many of us who support them
believe is if we take some of our money and gather with other like-
minded countries, we can provide a nutritious meal at a school so a
child going to that school will know they will not only get a good
day's education but perhaps the only nutritious meal of the day.
We know what is going to happen. The more education we give young
girls in Third World countries, the less likely they are to have large
families, the more likely they are to have self-esteem and to have the
kind of careers and opportunities and a future which we want for all
children all around the world. Two simple ideas from former Senate
colleagues addressing the need for water that is safe and sterile,
addressing the need for food that is associated with education, so that
the United States can continue to deliver the same message that we have
for so many years to parts of the world we may have ignored for the
last few decades.
I sincerely hope this bill receives a resounding bipartisan vote from
the Senate because it is part of our strategy to make certain we not
only defeat terrorism, but that we replace it with more positive values
around the world and that we replace it with an image of the United
States that is a true image, an image of a caring people that not only
cares for its own, but cares for many less fortunate around the world.
I salute Senator Leahy, and I also salute Senator McConnell and the
entire committee for their hard work in the preparation of this
legislation which I hope will receive a sound bipartisan vote of
support.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I spoke a few weeks ago about my belief that
the United States needs to more actively and constructively involve
itself in educating the citizens of the Muslim world about our culture,
values, and everyday life, and that, likewise, Americans need to become
better educated about Muslim countries and the religion of Islam. As I
have stated before, it seems to me that the time has come to be honest
with ourselves about why international terrorism has become such a
growing threat. Our citizenry does not understand the Muslim world, and
citizens of Muslim countries do not understand us. I believe that if
both the East and the West had a true understanding of the similarities
inherent in our value systems that the world would be a safer place.
We need only look into the oppressed faces of the citizens of some of
the governments we have supported over the years, despite their less
than acceptable treatment of their own citizenry, to see why some of
the residents of these countries continue to cling to misguided
perceptions of America's vision and values. The young people in many of
these countries grow up hating their leaders for their oppression and,
subsequently, they begin to hate our own country for keeping them in
power. It is then easy for the likes of the Osama bin Ladens of this
world to persuade these young people to become terrorism's footsoldiers
convinced that violence is the answer to their grievances.
I hope that as we analyze what we need to do to protect our country
at home, we also examine ways that the United States can play a more
constructive role internationally. We need to come to grips with the
Muslim faith. That doesn't mean trying to keep secular governments in
place in countries where the will of the people is otherwise. It means
beginning to understand the underlying premises of Islam, and conveying
our respect for a population's right to practice it. In addition, we
need to reach out to individuals in Muslim countries on a one-on-one
basis to educate them on what America really stands for. One way to do
this is to send our citizens to work with citizens of Muslim countries
on constructive projects in their home countries.
This type of mutual understanding is what President Kennedy was
trying to accomplish when he created the Peace Corps 40 years ago. The
Peace Corps mission as stated by Congress in The Peace Corps Act, P.L.
87-293, is to promote world peace and friendship. Within that mission,
the Peace Corps has three goals: to help the people of interested
countries in meeting their need for trained men and women; to help
promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples
served; and to help promote a better understanding of other peoples on
the part of Americans.
The Peace Corps has had significant success in meeting these goals in
the countries in which it operates, and has already established
mechanisms to put volunteers in place and sustain them abroad. However,
it has not been as active, in my view, as it could be in Muslim
countries where the need for mutual understanding, and basic
infrastructure, may be the greatest.
It is not an easy task for the Peace Corps to go everywhere, but the
focus should be on those areas where the need is the greatest--places
like Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, and others. In addition, the
Peace Corps should take the time to recruit people with the language
skills, ability, and knowledge of these cultures. Sending civic-minded
individuals with these skills as emissaries to Muslim countries could
do an awful lot to change some of the anti-American attitudes we see
around the globe, in my view. The Peace Corps should start
investigating ways to do this now so that in the aftermath of the
military actions already occurring we will be ready to show a different
face of our country, one that isn't simply militarily strong, but one
that is also willing to learn and willing to help. Yes, we need to act
in the coming days to address the immediate threats and challenges
confronting our nation. But we have to take a long and hard look at
ways, at home and abroad, to make ourselves and the world safer for our
citizens and the citizens of this globe.
We need to explore ways to reach out to the international community
and
[[Page S10950]]
rebuild after the military strikes are over. We also need to begin a
process of mutual understanding between the United States and the
Muslim world. In my view, the Peace Corps is best suited to this
mission. For that reason, I am introducing an amendment to the foreign
operations appropriations bill today that directs the Peace Corps to
undertake a study to examine ways it can better serve Muslim countries
while increasing recruitment efforts of qualified Arab-speaking
individuals in the United States. This amendment mandates that the
Peace Corps deliver a report to Congress 6 months after this
legislation is signed into law, and I hope that this report will
suggest legislative remedies that will help the Peace Corps undertake
this important task.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it had been my intention, along with
Senator Feinstein, to offer to this bill an amendment relating to the
Palestinian Liberation Organization's adherence to its 1993 commitments
to renounce terrorism and violence. The intent of the amendment would
have been similar to the provisions of S. 1409, the Middle East Peace
Compliance Act of 2001, which my friend from California and I offered
last month, which today has 31 cosponsors.
We are, however, refraining from action at the personal request of
the Secretary of State who believes the amendment may adversely impact
his ability to form an international coalition against terrorism and
efforts to bring the peace process in the Middle East back on track.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary relating to
this request be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, few would disagree that America's top
foreign policy today is to search out and destroy terrorist networks
and prevent further incidents from occurring. Secretary Powell and the
entire administration obviously have all of our support in this
endeavor.
Perhaps more than any other democracy, Israel knows well the horror
of terrorism. The extremists who hijacked American commercial aircraft
and used them as missiles against the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon on September 11 are cut from the very same cloth as the
suicide terrorists who slaughter innocent women, children, and men in
the Israeli pizza parlors, discos, and buses. The loss of life is no
less tragic, nor the fear any less real, in incidents that occur in the
streets of Manhattan or Jerusalem. Like America, Israel serves as proof
that nations founded in freedom and democracy do not crumble when
attacked by extremists. In fact, the opposite is true. America and
Israel have become more united as individual nations and as allies
against a common enemy.
The events of September 11 have been seared into America's national
conscience, just as horrific attacks against civilians in Israel are
felt in the hearts and minds of all of its citizens. While terrorism is
a grave threat that both nations face, I ask each of my colleagues to
consider the following:
The terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks traveled
thousands of miles to our shores to commit their evil deeds. In Israel,
terrorists live within an easy bus ride to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and
other major urban areas. Where satellites beamed pictures of
Palestinian celebrations for the mass murder of Americans into our
homes and offices, Israel declared a day of mourning. Israelis need
only open their front door to encounter openly offensive, aggressive,
and hostile behavior; and Israel has demonstrated restraint in its
response to recent attacks against its citizens.
When 20 Israeli kids were killed by a suicide bomber earlier this
summer in a Tel Aviv disco, there was no massive Israeli retaliation.
When Israelis were killed in a Jerusalem pizza parlor, again, there was
no massive response. I think we can all now better understand the
incredible restraint Israel has shown in the face of such attacks.
Criticisms over the use of excessive force by Israeli soldiers in
targeting and destroying Arab terrorists on the West Bank and in Gaza
are simply misguided. America is doing similar targeting of terrorist
cells but on a global scale. Israel's elected leadership, as ours, has
a duty and responsibility to protect its citizens against foreign and
domestic threats.
Let me close with some candid comments. First, I do not believe the
administration can make the determination that the PLO or the
Palestinian Authority have lived up to their 1993 commitments to
renounce terrorism. The proof is admitted into hospitals and morgues or
buried in cemeteries every single day.
In attempting to resuscitate the peace process, America must be
careful that it plays no role in recognizing or establishing a
Palestinian state that is rooted in terrorism.
Second, I do not believe for one second PLO Chairman Arafat wants to
end the violence. He allows terrorists to exist on the West Bank and in
Gaza and spurs them into action through newspapers, textbooks, evening
prayers, and even children's television programs.
Finally, America cannot win the war against terrorism without Israel.
Israel has the experience, dedication, and freedom that is absolutely
necessary to prevail over these fanatics. We must stand arm in arm with
our ally. We must help Israel in its battle against terrorism.
Senator Feinstein and I are not going to offer the amendment we
planned to offer because of the extraordinary situation in which we
find ourselves and as a result of the direct request of the Secretary
of State. Having said that, I do not believe the Palestinian Authority
has been constructive, nor do I believe they have lived up to their
agreements signed back in 1993.
Shifting for a moment to another ally, if you will, of the United
States--if you can call the Palestinian Authority an ally these days--I
want to talk for a few moments about Egypt. I had intended to offer an
amendment restricting assistance to Egypt but have been requested by
the Secretary of State and the administration to withhold such action,
again in light of the events of September 11 and our current efforts to
respond to those events.
While I continue to have serious concerns with many of Egypt's words
and deeds toward the Middle East peace process and Israel, and the
troubling state of democracy and rule of law in that country, I am
going to honor the administration's request. It is not my intention to
impede in any way ongoing efforts to identify, track down, and punish
those individuals and groups responsible for the slaughter of American
civilians and soldiers.
While America finds itself at a critical moment in history, so does
Egypt. A major recipient of United States assistance to the tune of
nearly $2 billion, stretching back to 1979, Egypt must today
unequivocally prove it is a full partner in our war against terrorism.
It is not acceptable for President Mubarak and his Foreign Minister to
obfuscate the assault against freedom with their not-so-hidden agenda
to propagate Arab hatred against Israel and to muzzle democracy and
civil society in Egypt.
An October 11 editorial in the Washington Post boldly stated what has
been whispered in the Halls of Congress and in the corridors of the
State Department. Here is what the editorial said:
The largest single ``cause'' of Islamic extremism and
terrorism is not Israel, nor U.S. policy in Iraq, but the
very governments that now purport to support the United
States while counseling it to lean on Ariel Sharon and lay
off Saddam Hussein.
Egypt is a leading example. It is an autocratic regime. It
is politically exhausted and morally bankrupt. President
Mubarak, who checked Islamic extremists in Egypt only by
torture and massacre, has no modern program or vision of
progress to offer his people as an alternative to Osama bin
Laden's Muslim victimology. . . . It also explains why so
many of [bin Laden's] recruits are Egyptian.
Let me be clear that during these dark and troubling times, Egypt
should prove to the people of the United States and all the world's
democracies, including Israel, it is indeed an ally in the fight
against terrorism. The $2 billion question is whether they will succeed
or fail in this task.
Secretary Powell knows that at a more appropriate time I may revisit
this important issue. In the meantime, I urge the Egyptian Government
to advise its ministers and media to be more
[[Page S10951]]
responsible and constructive and to aggressively encourage its
citizenry to understand the grave dangers of legitimizing terrorism
under the guise of Islamic teachings and practices.
The Egyptian people should understand Americans were horrified and
angered at news reports of celebrations of the September 11 attacks in
the streets of Cairo and elsewhere. Sadly, this may be an indication
the Egyptians do not share the same principles of freedom and tolerance
we do. If Egypt wants to continue to have United States support, Egypt
ought to earn it.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Arab Paradox
Thursday, October 11, 2001
ARAB NATIONS, including those considered allies of the
United States, have been struggling with their response to
the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. If their
contortions were not so familiar they would be hard to
understand: After all, Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda
organization are sworn enemies of the Egyptian and Saudi
governments, which in turn depend on the United States for
their security. But it took Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
three days to choke out a statement supporting ``measures
taken by the United States to resist terrorism''; and even
then he coupled it with a parallel demand that Washington
``take measures to resolve the Palestinian problem.''
Meanwhile, Mr. Mubarak's longtime foreign minister, Amr
Moussa, now the secretary general of the Arab League,
prompted first Arab states and then the 56-nation Islamic
Conference to adopt a resolution yesterday opposing U.S.
attacks on any Arab country as part of the anti-terrorism
campaign--a position that offers cover to Iraq's Saddam
Hussein.
In effect, Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Moussa are backing both the
military action of the U.S. alliance and the political
position of Osama bin Laden, who on Sunday claimed that
unjust American policies in Israel and Iraq justified his
acts of mass murder. The world, Mr. Moussa said, needs to
address the ``causes'' of the terrorism, and he suggested
that a United Nations conference might be the best forum.
There's little doubt what he has in mind: After all, Mr.
Moussa only a couple of months ago led the attempt to hijack
the U.N. conference on racism and revive the libel that
``Zionism is racism.''
Behind this contradictory rhetoric lies one of the central
problems for U.S. policy in the post-Sept. 11 world: The
largest single ``cause'' of Islamic extremism and terrorism
is not Israel, nor U.S. policy in Iraq, but the very
governments that now purport to support the United States
while counseling it to lean on Ariel Sharon and lay off
Saddam Hussein. Egypt is the leading example. Its autocratic
regime, established a half-century ago under the banner of
Arab nationalism and socialism, is politically exhausted and
morally bankrupt. Mr. Mubarak, who checked Islamic extremists
in Egypt only by torture and massacre, has no modern
political program or vision of progress to offer his people
as an alternative to Osama bin Laden's Muslim victimology.
Those Egyptians who have tried to promote such a program,
such as the democratic activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, are
unjustly imprisoned. Instead, Mr. Mubarak props himself up
with $2 billion a year in U.S. aid, while allowing and even
encouraging state-controlled clerics and media to promote the
anti-Western, anti-modern and anti-Jewish propaganda of the
Islamic extremists. The policy serves his purpose by
deflecting popular frustration with the lack of political
freedom or economic development in Egypt. It also explains
why so many of Osama bin Laden's recruits are Egyptian.
For years U.S. and other Western governments have been
understanding of Mr. Mubarak and other ``moderate'' Arab
leaders. They have to be cautious in helping the United
States, it is said, because of the pressures of public
opinion--the opinion, that is, that their own policies have
been decisive in creating. Though the reasoning is circular,
the conclusion has been convenient in sustaining
relationships that served U.S. interests, especially during
the Cold War. But the Middle East is a region where the
already overused notion that Sept. 11 ``changed everything''
may just turn out to be true. If the United States succeeds
in making support or opposition to terrorism and Islamic
extremism the defining test of international politics, as
President Bush has repeatedly promised, then the straddle
that the ``moderate'' Arabs have practiced for so long could
soon become untenable. Much as it has valued its ties with
leaders such as Mr. Mubarak, the Bush administration needs to
begin preparing for the possibility that, unless they can
embrace new policies that offer greater liberty and hope,
they will not survive this war.
Exhibit 1
the Secretary of State,
Washington, DC, September 21, 2001.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator McConnell: The President and I are working
intensively to build an international anti-terrorism
coalition to track down the perpetrators of the September 11
attacks and put an end to their terror networks. The
engagement of the broadest possible coalition, including key
Arab and Muslim countries, will be critical to the success of
our efforts. At the same time, we cannot shrink from our
long-standing role in supporting peace efforts between Israel
and its neighbors, and will not stop working with the
Israelis and Palestinians to end the violence there,
implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations, and return
to productive negotiations. I need your help on this.
The Palestinian compliance legislation you introduced with
Senator Feinstein--and which may become an amendment to the
Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill--would be
counterproductive to our coalition-building and peace process
efforts and we would like to see it withdrawn.
Imposing sanctions, or even waiving sanctions following a
mandatory determination that would have triggered sanctions,
would undermine our ability to play a role in defusing the
crisis and returning the parties to negotiations. Both sides
have undertaken specific commitments to each other. We remain
engaged with the Palestinians to ensure that the PLO and PA
understand exactly what they have to do to meet their
commitments. But requiring the President to make formal
determinations of the compliance of only one of the parties
would undermine our efforts to put an end to the violence and
facilitate a resumption of peace efforts. At the same time,
it would bolster segments of Arab public opinion that are
already very critical of their regimes' relations with the
U.S. and Israel, and their support for Middle East peace. In
this regard I also urge you to avoid any actions or
statements that single out key Arab allies such as Egypt and
Jordan.
The bottom line is that we agree with the need for the
Palestinians to comply with their commitments and control the
violence and to move toward implementation of the Mitchell
Committee recommendations. But in this critical period, I
urge you not to tie the President's hands and restrict our
ability to engage with both parties to help achieve these
goals.
Sincerely,
Colin L. Powell.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is No. 1953, Senator
Reid for Senator Dodd.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily
set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to explain why I did not want to
incorporate that amendment in a series of amendments, a Durbin, user
fees; a Helms-McConnell, Cambodia; a Leahy-McConnell, excess defense
articles; Dodd No. 1953, Peace Corps; Byrd, passports; Brownback-Frist,
Sudan with colloquy; Feingold, fumigation; Brownback colloquy on human
trafficking, I mention that.
Amendment Nos. 1951, As Modified, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and
1958, En Bloc
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider en
bloc and agree to en bloc amendment No. 1954, Durbin, user fees;
amendment No. 1955, Helms-McConnell, Cambodia; amendment No. 1956,
Leahy-McConnell, excess defense articles; amendment No. 1953, Dodd,
Peace Corps; amendment No. 1957, Byrd, passports; amendment No. 1958,
Brownback-Frist, Sudan with colloquy; amendment No. 1951, as modified,
Feingold, fumigation; and Brownback colloquy on human trafficking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes amendments
numbered 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958, en bloc.
Mr. LEAHY. Including No. 1953, I understand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958) were agreed to
en bloc, as follows:
amendment no. 1954
On page 230, line 6, after ``grams'' insert the following:
``, and to oppose the approval
[[Page S10952]]
or endorsement of such user fees or service charges in
connection with any structural adjustment scheme or debt
relief action, including any Poverty Reduction Strategy
Paper''.
____
amendment no. 1955
(Purpose: To prohibit funding for any Cambodian genocide tribunal
unless certain conditions are met)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following;
restriction on funding for Cambodian genocide tribunal
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to provide equipment,
technical support, consulting services, or any other form of
assistance to any tribunal established by the Government of
Cambodia pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the
United Nations, unless the President determines and certifies
to Congress that the tribunal is capable of delivering
justice for crimes against humanity and genocide in an
impartial and credible manner.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1956
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND CERTAIN OTHER COUNTRIES.
Notwithstanding section 516(e) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)), during each of the fiscal
years 2002 and 2003, funds available to the Department of
Defense may be expended for crating, packing, handling, and
transportation of excess defense articles transferred under
the authority of section 516 of such Act to Albania,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Former Yugoslavia Republic of
Macedonia, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Pakistan, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan:
Provided, That section 105 of Public Law 104-164 is amended
by striking ``2000 and 2001'' and inserting ``2002 and
2003''.
____
amendment no. 1957
(Purpose: to prevent abuses in the visa waiver program)
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. 417. MACHINE READABLE PASSPORTS.
(a) Audits.--The Secretary of State shall--
(1) perform annual audits of the implementation of section
217(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1187)(c)(2)(B));
(2) check for the implementation of precautionary measures
to prevent the counterfeiting and theft of passports; and
(3) ascertain that countries designated under the visa
waiver program have established a program to develop tamper-
resistant passports.
(b) Periodic Reports.--Beginning one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the
Secretary of State shall submit a report to Congress setting
forth the findings of the most recent audit conducted under
subsection (a)(1).
(c) Advancing Deadline for Satisfaction of Requirement.--
Section 217(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2003''.
(d) Waiver.--Section 217(a)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``On or after'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
on or after''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Limited waiver authority.--During the period
beginning October 1, 2003, and ending September 30, 2007 the
Secretary of State may waive the requirement of subparagraph
(A) with respect to nationals of a program country (as
designated under subsection (c)), if the Secretary of State
finds that the program country--
``(i) is making progress toward ensuring that passports
meeting the requirement of subparagraph (A) are generally
available to its nationals; and
``(ii) has taken appropriate measures to protect against
misuse of passports the country has issued that do not meet
the requirement of subparagraph (A).''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1958
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to Sudan)
On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
sudan
Sec. 581. (a) Findings Regarding the Need for Humanitarian
Assistance.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The war in Sudan has cost more than 2,000,000 lives and
has displaced more than 4,000,000 people.
(2) The victims of this 18-year war are not confined to one
ethnic group or religion as moderate Moslems in eastern and
western Sudan suffer greatly, as do Christians and animists
in southern Sudan.
(3) Humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese is a
cornerstone of United States foreign assistance policy and
efforts to end the war in Sudan.
(4) The United States Government has been the largest
single provider of humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese
people, providing $1,200,000,000 in humanitarian assistance
to war victims during the past 10 years, including
$161,400,000 during fiscal year 2000 alone.
(5) Continued strengthening of United States assistance
efforts and international humanitarian relief operations in
Sudan are essential to bring an end to the war.
(b) Findings Regarding the NIF Government.--In addition to
the findings under subsection (a), the Senate makes the
following findings:
(1) The people of the United States will not abandon the
people of Sudan, who have suffered under the National Islamic
Front (NIF) government.
(2) For more than a decade, the NIF government has provided
safe haven for well-known terrorist organizations, including
to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
(3) The NIF government has been engaged, and continues to
engage, in gross human rights violations against the civilian
population of Sudan, including the enslavement of women and
children, the bombardment of civilian targets, and the
scorched-earth destruction of villages in the oil fields of
Sudan.
(c) Sense of the Senate.--In recognition of the sustained
struggle for self-determination and dignity by the Sudanese
people, as embodied in the IGAD Declaration of Principles,
and the statement adopted by the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom on October 2, 2001, it is the
sense of the Senate that--
(1) the National Islamic Front (NIF) government of Sudan
should--
(A) establish an internationally supervised trust fund that
will manage and equitably disburse oil revenues;
(B) remove all bans on relief flights and provide
unfettered access to all affected areas, including the Nuba
Mountains;
(C) end slavery and punish those responsible for this crime
against humanity;
(D) end civilian bombing and the destruction of communities
in the oil fields;
(E) honor the universally recognized right of religious
freedom, including freedom from coercive religious
conversions;
(F) seriously engage in an internationally sanctioned peace
process based on the already adopted Declaration of
Principles; and
(G) commit to a viable cease-fire agreement based on a
comprehensive settlement of the political problems; and
(2) the President should continue to provide generous
levels of humanitarian, development, and other assistance in
war-affected areas of Sudan, and to refugees in neighboring
countries, with an increased emphasis on moderate Moslem
populations who have been brutalized by the Sudanese
government throughout the 18-year conflict.
AMENDMENT NO. 1958
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for almost 20 years, the Government of
Sudan has prosecuted a war of incredible barbarity against its own
people, leading to the deaths of over 2 million of its citizens through
mass starvation, indiscriminate bombing raids, slave raids and other
outrages.
I have made medical missionary trips to Sudan for the past three
years and have witnessed firsthand this human tragedy. I have long
supported an overhaul of our policy towards Sudan to strengthen and
expand humanitarian operations in Sudan and to design a framework to
assist the Administration and our allies in bringing pressure to bear
on the Government of Sudan and the rebels to resume peace talks.
Recently, the Administration has taken significant next steps to
address the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. On September 11, the new
Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, along with
OFDA Director Roger Winter and other Administration officials, visited
Sudan to explore ways to bring added relief to the beleaguered
population.
The Nuba Mountains is a region with massive humanitarian needs, where
access has been nearly impossible. In an unprecedented action, a
special humanitarian relief flight sponsored by the U.S. and cleared by
the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and Government of Sudan
delivered eight metric tons of wheat to this extremely remote area that
had been cut off from international assistance. The immediate needs
though are for more than 2,000 tons of food. The Administration is now
negotiating expanded delivery of food aid through airdrops to the Nuba
Mountains to be implemented by the World Food Program. These new
initiatives will not move forward without additional funding.
In order to start and maintain such aid, $35 million would be
required beginning in FY 2002 to fund the Administration's critical new
initiatives.
These new plans have great potential to move the southern Sudanese in
the direction of economic self-sufficiency. For example, to spur
economic development, USAID is planning an agricultural initiative to
create more entrepreneurs producing honey, vegetable oils, hides and
skins, and other agricultural products.
[[Page S10953]]
Another important part of USAID's Sudan program is education. One of
the contributing factors to the instability of Southern Sudan is the
loss of its educated citizenry. Over two generations of southerners
have gone without education since the civil war began in 1955. Civil
government is dependent upon education. The new education initiatives
would help revitalize education and training in southern Sudan through
teacher training, scholarships, and other important projects.
A final aspect of USAID's new initiative focuses on rebuilding
shattered communities. Through churches and other community groups, the
people-to-people reconciliation effort has brought peace among tribes
in Southern Sudan and border communities between the North and South.
USAID's new Sudan initiatives would build upon these efforts by
identifying and supporting critical community level rehabilitation
activities.
These are just a few of the new programs that are critical to
bringing relief to Sudan, but current funding levels are not sufficient
to take advantage of them. Therefore, I urge the appropriators to give
our government the resources to bring real change to one of the most
war-torn countries in the world by adding $35 million for new
initiatives in Sudan.
I thank the managers of the bill, Senators Leahy and McConnell, for
working with my colleagues--Senators Brownback, Helms, and Feingold--
and me to accept our amendment to encourage an additional
appropriations for humanitarian purposes in Sudan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1951, as modified, and amendment
No. 1953 are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 1951, as modified, and 1953) were agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the votes.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield for a
question?
Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the Senator from Vermont and
Senator McConnell have worked through most of these amendments. At 20
minutes to 5, we have Senator Graham coming to speak for 10 minutes. A
Senator opposed will have 10 minutes. There will be a vote on his
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Or in relation thereto.
Mr. REID. Or in relation thereto, that is right. It is my
understanding we made an announcement earlier today--both managers
did--that we are moving toward final passage. I hope the two managers
will be able to announce prior to 5 if that, in fact, might be the
case.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from Nevada, there is one other
issue related to Armenia Azerbaijan on which we are working. We should
have a sense in the next 15 to 20 minutes whether we have been able to
work that out or not. That may require one additional vote.
Mr. REID. I say to the two managers, I think the work today has been
exemplary. There have been some very difficult issues. They have been
discussed. Agreements have been made on a number of the amendments.
Speaking for Senator Daschle, there has been great movement in moving
an appropriations bill. It should be an example for those who are going
to follow.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Nevada, we hope he will still
be able to say that an hour from now.
Mr. LEAHY. I certainly hope it is finished an hour from now.
Mr. President, I also say in response to what the Senator from Nevada
said, there has been an enormous amount of cooperation from the Senator
from Kentucky and other Senators from both sides of the aisle, and that
is what has made it possible for us to complete this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kansas, we
are in the process of getting the colloquy copy. The Senator from
Kansas and I have come to talk about some legislation we have done
together that deals with one of the horrible aspects of this global
economy; namely, the trafficking of women and girls and sometimes boys
and men for purposes of forcing them into prostitution and some really
deplorable labor conditions.
I wonder whether the Senator from Kansas might give us a little bit
of context, and then we will quickly do this colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have a colloquy we are prepared to
enter into. In the context of this, last year we passed a bill on the
issue of sex trafficking. It was ground-breaking legislation for this
body, ground-breaking legislation for around the world. Its effort and
focus was to get at the people who are trafficking, generally, young
women and children for the purposes of prostitution. It is a global
phenomenon. About 700,000 are trafficked to different places from
different countries around the world each year, about 50,000 into the
United States.
We increased the penalties for people who are involved in
trafficking. We have an annual report coming out from the Government--
the first one came out this year. It was citing the problems of
trafficking taking place. The colloquy we are entering into today is to
get the initial office up and running at the State Department and
intends for funding in the foreign operations bill.
Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator
Wellstone on the topic of appropriations to combat international
trafficking in human beings.
I know that Senator Wellstone and other members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, as well as the Senate Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittee, are greatly concerned about human
trafficking, which impacts approximately 1 million people annually
worldwide. Last year, this body unanimously passed legislation, the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act which included an authorization of
over $30 million from the foreign operations budget to address three
principle components of anti-trafficking: law enforcement, prevention,
and victim assistance.
The bill allocates only $10 million for law enforcement related to
human trafficking, and thus is $20 million shy of the hoped-for
appropriation of $30 million for Fiscal Year 2002 which was passed by
the House. Given this shortfall, I hope that the State Department will
spend more funds than those earmarked in this foreign operations
appropriations bill. Furthermore, the Congress expects, as expressed
through the trafficking legislation, that it will be combated worldwide
through both enforcement and prevention programs; that is, sex
trafficking could be combated worldwide, and that the trafficking
victims would be assisted. Is it your understanding, Senator Wellstone,
that the State Department and other relevant agencies and departments
would dedicate and spend funds substantially over the $10 million
presently allocated in this appropriation?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is our intention. Human
trafficking is a massive and multi-dimensional problem, impacting
countless victims. The U.S. government is responding, but I am
concerned that our response though well-intentioned, is both under-
funded and under-coordinated. I believe that approximately $15 million
is currently being spent to address human trafficking in the overall
State Department budget, but it is not at all clear to me that
activities are being coordinated among departments and agencies or that
the results are being optimized. I believe that the State Department
should work this year to dedicate not less than the $30 million
authorized in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and that this
funding would be distributed to all three prongs including law
enforcement, victims assistance, and trafficking prevention activities.
I am very optimistic that the newly established office to combat
trafficking
[[Page S10954]]
at the State Department will bring some transparency and coordination
to these activities. I'm sure that both of us, as well as other
members, will be watching for this to happen.
To assist us all in monitoring progress, I will seek to add language
to the statement of the managers to the conference report asking the
State Department to report back to us next spring regarding plans and
funding allocations for trafficking. Again, this is an important issue
that certainly warrants more than $10 million and I believe there are
ample funds in this bill to enable the State Department to meet the
authorized levels.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Senator Wellstone, I agree completely. I would like to
make one last comment about the fiscal expectations for 2003. We
understand that the trafficking budget for Fiscal Year 2002 is
underfunded by at least $20 million in relation to the authorization.
However, once the office is fully up and running next year, I believe
that everyone is committed to seeing a full appropriation for Fiscal
Year 2003 for the activities needed to combat trafficking worldwide.
This amount should be not less than $33 million for Fiscal Year 2003,
in addition to the other amounts authorized under HHS, Labor, and CJS
appropriations legislation. In closing, we expect a full appropriation
for Fiscal Year 2003, without which, worldwide trafficking cannot be
effectively challenged.
Everybody has tried to do everything they could this year to address
the trafficking and get the office up and going. It is not a full
appropriation. Next year, we will push for the full appropriation.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1950
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at 5 o'clock we are going to vote on an
amendment which I have offered, which would restore the 22 percent cut
that is contained in the subcommittee report as it relates to the
Andean Region Initiative. This is funding which would provide for the
four countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, with funds
divided approximately 50 percent to Colombia and 50 percent to the
other three; 50 percent of the funds for law enforcement and military
activities, 50 percent for economic and social development programs.
This is the second chapter of the Plan Colombia which this Congress,
under the leadership of President Clinton, adopted last year. It is
also the continuation of the only program that we will have left to
provide a means by which to suppress the supply of cocaine into the
United States from its primary sources, which are these four countries
and today primarily Colombia.
I have listened to some of the arguments that have been made in
opposition to this amendment. They raise questions about the
accountability of this program, raise questions about the efficacy of
this program, and raise positive comments about the activities that are
going to be funded with the 22 percent of the fund that is going to be
taken away from this account.
This is a program which has only been in effect since October 1 of
last year, for less than 13 months. I believe it has accomplished
significant good. It has helped professionalize the army of Colombia,
which has made it more able to launch effective attacks against drug
dealers. It has begun to show the ability to reduce the amount of coca
being produced in Colombia. It has stabilized the governments of,
particularly, Peru and Ecuador.
But beyond all of those positive benefits, I think the fundamental
benefit today, on October 24, is that this is the longest running U.S.
partnership program to attack terrorism in the world. In this case, the
terrorists happen to also be drug dealers. We are attacking them in
their uniform as drug dealers, but, in so doing, we are also attacking
them in their 50-year role as terrorists, formerly ideological
terrorists, now essentially thugs. They have gone from Che Guevara to
being Al Capone.
I believe it would send the worst possible signal to the world that
we are trying to unite in an effective program against terrorism, to be
pulling the plug, essentially, on the effort that we have underway
against one of the most vicious terrorist groups in the world, a group
which in the year 2000, the last year for which statistics are
available, committed 44 percent of the all the terrorist assaults
against U.S. citizens and interests in the world.
Mr. President, 44 percent of them were committed in Colombia. That is
an indication of how concentrated, how deep, and how violent the
terrorist activity is there, directed against U.S. citizens, to say
nothing of the assaults against Colombian citizens and persons from
other nations who are in Colombia.
I hope to reserve a few moments to close, but I urge in the strongest
terms the adoption of this amendment which will recommit ourselves to a
strong U.S. partnership with our neighbors in Latin America, a strong
program of attacking drugs at the source as we build up our capability
to reduce the demand in the United States and to avoid sending the
signal that all of our rhetoric about how strongly we are prepared to
resist terrorism is just that--rhetoric. Because when it comes to
actual performance, we failed.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from
Florida and how much time to the Senator from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 3 minutes and 47
seconds and the Senator from Vermont has 8 minutes and 10 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reserve myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
I don't want Senators to think we are not putting money in for
counterdrug programs in this bill. We have included $718 million for
the Andean Region Initiative. We will have put $2 billion in there in
just the last 16 months. The administration's own witnesses couldn't
tell us how much was disbursed, and for what purposes. And they cannot
show what we have gotten from it. So we have an act of faith here,
putting in another $718 million.
What the $164 million cut in other programs the Senator from Florida
proposes, to add to the $718 million already in the bill--where do we
cut? This is sort an across-the-board kind of open-ended cut which
allows cuts to come from military, economic, or other assistance to
anywhere, including countries such as Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.
It could be cut from HIV/AIDS, from money the President and others
have promised to help combat the worst health crisis in half a
millennium; from money to cure TB and prevent malaria; from military
assistance, including aid to NATO allies and the former Soviet
republics. It could cut the Peace Corps. We increased money for the
Peace Corps, but those increases may be gone if we do this cut.
Or the Eximbank, when many companies are laying people off today.
It could cut refugee and disaster relief assistance for places such
as Sudan and the Caucasus.
How about programs to stop the spread of biological, nuclear, and
chemical weapons? This is certainly not a time when we should be
cutting those programs; or the money we have in here to strengthen
surveillance and respond to outbreaks of infectious diseases, including
diseases that may come here in a terrorist attack; or our money for
UNICEF and peacekeeping operations.
Do we really want to cut those programs, when we have already put
$718 million in for the Andean region?
I don't want to cut the Peace Corps. I don't want to cut funding for
AIDS. But we will if this passes.
Obviously, the Senate has to make up its mind about what it wants.
But even without this amendment, we are going to have $718 million on
top of billions already in this program, a program that has millions of
dollars which they have yet to spend.
I want to help. I set aside my own misgivings about this program by
putting in the $718 million. But I remind the 81 Senators who have sent
letters requesting increases in everything from Peace Corps to AIDS
that this is where this money would come from.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
[[Page S10955]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes, thirty-nine seconds.
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are obviously choices made all over
the place in terms of programs being cut. The point of this is that the
Senator from Florida and I are proposing that we get back to the level
the President suggested. This is about the Andean region. In the past
we dealt with Colombia. There were concerns raised by many about that
program. This deals with the Andean region. It is more than just one
country. This is a critical issue. I know our attention today is
focused on Central Asia, as it should be, and Afghanistan and the
Taliban. But we will have to have a continuing effort in other parts of
the globe on threats we face.
Clearly, we will lose thousands of people every year in this country
in drug-related deaths, and about 98 percent of the product which is
the source of this devastation in our country comes from the Andean
region. Our attention today has shifted.
All we are suggesting is that we get back to the level the President
suggested, $164 million. It is a cut of 22 percent dealing with several
countries in the region, not just one. I am sure my friend from Florida
has gone over the details of this to explain where the resources go and
how effective we hope it will be. I join with him.
Obviously, I am not interested in seeing the Peace Corps cut, or
Eximbank, or other programs, which I know my friend from Vermont cares
about very much. I understand the difficulty of wrestling with these
programs. But I believe very strongly that this is an area where we
have to maintain a level of consistent involvement, or we are going to
find that the resources we have committed are going to be diluted
significantly.
This is a very serious effort. It is not on the front pages today,
but it will be again, I guarantee you. That is the reason we offered
this amendment. My hope is that we can reach some agreement so we can
do more.
Again, I believe very strongly that this is one of the most critical
issues--not just for ourselves. It is in the direct interest of people
who are dying every day in our streets as a result of what happened in
these countries. Our efforts are to work with friends in the area--
particularly in Colombia--people who have paid an awful price over the
years, a devastating price. They have attempted to shed this country
down there of any vestige of its own long historic democratic
institutions.
We are under siege in a lot of places around the globe. This is a
major one. Therefore, the cut that has come here is one we would like
to see restored. Therefore, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand we are going to vote at 5
o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
Does the Senator understand that takes my time?
Am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I would not cut off the time of the Senator from Florida.
That is really not showing very much comity.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it was certainly not my intention to do
that. In fact, I wanted to use the 39 seconds that were left to me. I
wanted to use them. And there might be a few more people in the Chamber
than is the case now. I suggest the absence of a quorum without that
counting against the time of either the Senator from Vermont or the
Senator from Florida.
Mr. LEAHY. That would take unanimous consent, and I will not give it.
We told people we are going to vote at 5 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of the Senator
from Florida, who has spent an enormous amount of time in this area,
and the Senator from Connecticut. I am sorry the Senator from
Connecticut would not stay to hear these comments. But we have included
$718 million for the Andean Regional Initiative. That is for Colombia,
Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador--$2 billion in just over a year. We have not
ignored this part of the world.
As the Senator from Connecticut says, it may not be on the front
page. The Ebola plague is not on the front page. But we have inadequate
amounts of money in here to help protect us against such a health
disaster.
Can you imagine? Nobody would be wanting to cut money for that if the
Ebola plague were in the headlines. But this amendment would result in
a cut of some of that money.
We have money in here to help put Americans back to work at a time
when tens of thousands are being laid off daily. It may not be the big
headline. But this amendment would in effect cut efforts to put these
people back to work.
What the Peace Corps has accomplished over the years is not in the
headlines. But this money would cut some of the increase in funds we
put in for the Peace Corps.
There are a lot of things that are not in the headlines. Helping to
stop the spread of AIDS may not be in the daily headlines. But this
would cut money for that.
This is not about whether you are for or against the Andean
Initiative. We put nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in here
following well over $1 billion in just the past year. It is not without
funding.
His amendment allow cuts to be made in everything from the Middle
East, refugee aid, basic education, biological, nuclear, and chemical
weapons non-proliferation programs, anti-terrorism programs, and money
to clear landmines. We need to strike a balance, which is what this
bill does.
What is the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains for my colleague
from Florida?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator McConnell and I have gone through
this bill and we have tried to set priorities. We have put considerable
amounts of money in this bill for counterdrug programs. The House has
even more. In conference, as a practical matter, the money for the
Andean Initiative is likely to go up some amount.
But let us not cut money for bioterrorism, money to stop plagues from
reaching the United States, money to aid refugees from Afghanistan or
Africa, money to support the countries which the President has promised
to help with our campaign against Osama bin Laden--let's not cut those
funds--and the Peace Corps and the Exim Bank and everything else, to
add even more funds for counterdrug programs when they have not spent
what they already have.
Madam President, I yield back whatever time I have left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 11 seconds.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, in my 11 seconds, I want to direct them
to our friends on the other side of the aisle. Our amendment would
restore the recommendation which has been made by President Bush of his
best assessment of what is necessary in order to accomplish the
purposes. The President challenged us today to answer the question: Is
America prepared to stay in the war against terrorism? His answer was:
Absolutely.
If we want to say, absolutely, we need to vote yes for the amendment
that will restore the funds to the longest running antiterrorism
campaign in which the United States is currently engaged.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the Graham
amendment No. 1950 violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The bill before us is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
Therefore, any net increase in budget authority or outlays would
trigger a 60-vote point of order.
[[Page S10956]]
The Graham amendment does not identify a specific offset for its $164
million increase in discretionary budget authority for the Andean
Counterdrug Program, nor does it establish a mechanism to ensure that
the funds are, in fact, offset. Therefore, if the Graham amendment
passed, it would cause the Foreign Operations Subcommittee to exceed
its spending allocation.
Additionally, even if the administration were to identify offsets for
the entire $164 million in budget authority, the Congressional Budget
Office is not confident that cuts would occur to programs with an equal
or faster outlay rate. A net increase in outlays from the Graham
amendment would also trigger a violation of the subcommittee's
allocation and a 60-vote point of order.
Therefore, I make a point of order that the Graham amendment No. 1950
violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor to the amendment of the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the request
by Senator Kyl be modified to also include Senators Grassley and McCain
as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I move to waive the Budget Act and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in
relation to the Graham amendment No. 1950. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 27, nays 72, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 311 Leg.]
YEAS--27
Bayh
Biden
Breaux
Carnahan
Chafee
Clinton
Corzine
Craig
DeWine
Dodd
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson (AR)
Kyl
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
Miller
Nelson (FL)
Rockefeller
Schumer
Sessions
Thompson
Torricelli
NAYS--72
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Gramm
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison (TX)
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed (RI)
Reid (NV)
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Frist
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 27, the nays are
72. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator Reid and Senator Nickles have
been asking our intent. Senator McConnell and I have been here for a
couple days and would like to wrap up.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for an announcement while everybody
is here?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Daschle has asked me to announce
we have a section-by-section analysis of the antiterrorism bill. Copies
of the bill and a short summary are available in Senator Daschle's
office, the Democratic Cloakroom, and Senator Leahy's Russell office.
They will be there by 5:45 p.m. The same is available in the Republican
Cloakroom.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 1959
Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished
Senator from Texas, Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchison, I send an amendment to
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and
Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 1959.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: Amendment to modify the annual drug certification procedures
for FY 2002 with respect to countries in the Western Hemisphere)
At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new
section:
Sec. . During fiscal year 2002 funds in this Act that
would otherwise be withheld from obligation or expenditure
under Section 490 with respect to countries in the Western
Hemisphere may be obligated or expended provided that--
(a) Not later than November 30 of 2001 the President has
submitted to the appropriate congressional committees a
report identifying each country in the Western Hemisphere
determined by the President to be a major drug-transit
country or major illicit drug producing country.
(b) In each report under subsection (a), the President
shall also--
(1) designate each country, if any, identified in such
report that has failed demonstrably, during the previous 12
months, to make substantial efforts--
(A) to adhere to its obligations under international
counter narcotics agreements; and
(B) to take the counter narcotics measures set forth in
section 489(a)(1); and
(2) include a justification for each country so designated.
(c) Limitation on Assistance for Designated Countries.--In
the case of a country identified in a report for a fiscal
year 2002 under subsection (a) that is also designated under
subsection (b) in the report, United States assistance may be
provided under this Act to such country in fiscal year 2002
only if the President determines and reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that--
(1) provision of such assistance to the country in such
fiscal year is vital to the national interests of the United
States; or
(2) commencing at any time after November 30, 2001, the
country has made substantial efforts--
(A) to adhere to its obligations under international
counternarcotics agreements; and
(B) to take the counternarcotics measures set forth in
section 489(a)(1).
(d) International Counternarcotics Agreement Defined.--In
this section, the term ``international counternarcotics
agreement'' means--
(1) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; or
(2) any bilateral or multilateral agreement in force
between the United States and another country or countries
that addresses issues relating to the control of illicit
drugs, such as--
(A) the production, distribution, and interdiction of
illicit drugs,
(B) demand reduction,
(C) the activities of criminal organizations,
(D) international legal cooperation among courts,
prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies (including the
exchange of information and evidence),
(E) the extradition of nationals and individuals involved
in drug-related criminal activity,
(F) the temporary transfer for prosecution of nationals and
individuals involved in drug-related criminal activity,
(G) border security,
(H) money laundering,
(I) illicit firearms trafficking,
(J) corruption,
(K) control of precursor chemicals,
(L) asset forfeiture, and
(M) related training and technical assistance;
and includes, where appropriate, timetables and objective and
measurable standards to assess the progress made by
participating countries with respect to such issues; and
(e) Section 490 (b)-(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) shall not apply during FY 2002 with
respect to any
[[Page S10957]]
country in the Western Hemisphere identified in subsection
(a) of this section.
(f) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
supersedes or modifies the requirement in section 489(a) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (with respect to the
International Control Strategy Report) for the transmittal of
a report not later than March 1 of 2002 under that section.
(g) Sense of Congress on Enhanced International Narcotics
Control.--
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) many governments are extremely concerned by the
national security threat posed by illicit drug production,
distribution, and consumption, and crimes related thereto,
particularly those in the Western Hemisphere;
(2) an enhanced multilateral strategy should be developed
among drug producing, transit, and consuming nations designed
to improve cooperation with respect to the investigation and
prosecution of drug related crimes, and to make available
information on effective drug education and drug treatment;
(3) the United States should at the earliest feasible date
convene a conference of representatives of major illicit drug
producing countries, major drug transit countries, and major
money laundering countries to present and review country by
country drug reduction and prevention strategies relevant to
the specific circumstances of each country, and agree to a
program and timetable for implementation of such strategies;
and
(4) not later than one year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the President should transmit to Congress any
legislation necessary to implement a proposed multilateral
strategy to achieve the goals referred to in paragraph (2),
including any amendments to existing law that may be required
to implement that strategy.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and
myself--and I ask my colleague from Texas to make the comments she
wants to make--this amendment for 1 year would impose a moratorium on
the drug certification process only for the Western Hemisphere.
Interested colleagues--Senator Feinstein, Senator Grassley, and Senator
Helms--have all indicated they support this amendment. Those are the
Members who have the most interest particularly with regard to the
larger proposal.
We believe this is a very important message to be sending. We know
our colleagues have a deep interest in it. The administration supports
this amendment, and we urge its adoption.
As my colleagues know, the issue of how to construct and implement an
effective international counternarcotics policy has been the subject of
much debate in Congress over the years. Earlier this year, I introduced
legislation with the goal of seeing if there is some way to end what
has become a stale debate that has not brought us any closer to
mounting a credible effort to eliminate or contain the international
drug mafia.
Thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations
Committee we were able to develop an effective alternative to the
current certification process, and that bill was reported out of the
committee unanimously.
We all know that, by and large, the drug cooperation issue has been
focused on our relations with Mexico. We know as well that it is a new
day in United States-Mexico relations. President Fox has been
enormously supportive of the U.S. across the board. He wants very much
to work cooperatively with the United States in fighting drugs and
believes that the certification process could get in the way of that
effort. It is important that we make a change in that process as
quickly as possible.
It is not likely that we will get to the free-standing bill this year
and therefore I have decided to offer the substance of this bill today
with slight changes to conform to the appropriations requirements.
First the current certification process will be altered for only
fiscal year 2002, consistent with the scope of this bill. Second, it
will be limited to countries in the Western Hemisphere. Other than
those modest changes the thrust of the amendment is virtually identical
to the committee bill.
We can all agree that drugs are a problem--a big problem. We also can
agree that the international drug trade poses a direct threat to the
United States and to international efforts to promote democracy,
economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the
world, and most specifically, in our hemisphere.
While the international effects of the drug trade are important, what
concerns me the most personally is the effect of the drug trade here at
home.
Last year, Americans spent more than $60 billion to purchase illegal
drugs. Nearly 15 million Americans over the age of 12 use illegal
drugs, including 1.5 million cocaine users, 208,000 heroin addicts, and
more than 11 million smokers of marijuana. And, the menace of drug
abuse is not confined to just the inner cities and the poor. Illegal
drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group
in the United States.
The human and economic costs of illegal drug consumption by Americans
are enormous. More than 16,000 people die annually as a result of drug
induced deaths. Drug related illness, death, and crime cost the United
States over $100 billion annually, including costs for lost
productivity, premature death, and incarceration.
The drug trade is extremely lucrative, generating estimated revenues
of $400 billion annually. The United States has spent more than $30
billion in foreign interdiction and source country counternarcotics
measures since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the border, on
the high seas, and in other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and
more plentiful in the United States today than two decades ago.
I believe, and I hope that the Senate agrees, that for a variety of
reasons the time is right to give the incoming Bush administration some
flexibility with respect to the annual certification process, so that
it can determine whether this is the best mechanism for producing the
kind of international cooperation and partnership that is needed to
contain this transnational menace.
I believe that government leaders, particularly in this hemisphere,
have come to recognize that illegal drug production and consumption are
increasingly threats to political stability within their national
borders. Clearly President Pastrana of Colombia has acknowledged that
fact and has sought to work very closely with the United States in
implementing Plan Colombia. Similarly, President Vicente Fox of Mexico
has made international counternarcotics cooperation a high priority
since assuming office last December. These leaders also feel strongly,
however, that unilateral efforts by the United States to grade their
governments' performance in this area is a major irritant in the
bilateral relationship and counterproductive to their efforts to
instill a cooperative spirit in their own bureaucracies.
The legislation I introduced recognizes that illicit drug production,
distribution and consumption are national security threats to many
governments around the globe, and especially many of those in our own
hemisphere, including Mexico, Columbia, and other countries in the
Andean region. It urges the administration to develop an enhanced
multilateral strategy for addressing these threats from both the supply
and demand side of the equation. It also recommends that the President
submit any legislative changes to existing law which he deems necessary
in order to implement this international program within 1 year from the
enactment of this legislation.
In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual
respect that must be present if the Bush administration's effort is to
produce results, the bill would also suspend the annual drug
certification procedure for a period of 3 years, while efforts are
ongoing to develop and implement this enhanced multilateral strategy. I
believe it is fair to say that while the certification procedure may
have had merit when it was enacted into law in 1986, it has now become
a hurdle to furthering bilateral and multilateral cooperation with
other governments, particularly those in our own hemisphere such as
Mexico and Colombia--governments whose cooperation is critical if we
are to succeed in stemming the flow of drugs across the borders.
Let me make clear, however, that while we would not be ``grading''
other governments on whether they have ``cooperated fully'' during the
3-year ``suspension'' period, the detailed reporting requirements
currently required by law concerning what each government has done to
cooperate in the areas of eradication, extradition, asset seizure,
money laundering and demand reduction during the previous calendar year
will remain in force. We will be fully informed as to whether
[[Page S10958]]
governments are falling short of their national and international
obligations. The annual determination as to which countries are major
producers or transit sources of illegal drugs will also continue to be
required by law. The President is also mandated to withhold U.S.
assistance from any country that has been deemed to have failed to meet
its international obligations with respect to counter
narcotics matters, although he may waive that mandate if he deems it
will serve U.S. interests.
I believe that we need to reach out to other governments who share
our concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the fabric of their
societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we are the only nation
that cares about such matters. We need to sit down and figure out what
each of us can do better to make it harder for drug traffickers to ply
their trade. Together, working collectively, we can defeat the
traffickers. But if we expend our energies playing the blame game, we
are certainly not going to effectively address their threat. We are not
going to stop one additional teenager from becoming hooked on drugs, or
one more citizen from being mugged outside his home by some drug crazed
thief.
During the Clinton administration, Barry McCaffrey, the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy did a fine job in attempting
to forge more cooperative relations with Colombia, Mexico, and other
countries in our own hemisphere. The OAS has also done some important
work over the last several years in putting in place an institutional
framework for dealing with the complexities of compiling national
statistics so that we can better understand what needs to be done. The
United Nations, through its Office for Drug Control and Crime
Prevention has also made some important contributions in furthering
international cooperation in this area. However, still more needs to be
done. I believe my legislation will build upon that progress.
It is my hope that a change in the certification process coupled with
new administrations in the United States and Mexico provide a window of
opportunity for the United States working with Mexico to spearhead
international efforts to find better and more effective ways for
multilateral cooperation. That is why I hope my colleagues will support
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be added
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, this is something we must do. We
have been working with Mexico on the drug issue for a long time, and we
want to put forward a comprehensive program that will be a sharing of
responsibility. We will do that, but at this time we do not want the
deadline to come on us and not be able to certify Mexico.
We are working with Colombia. They are trying very hard to rid
themselves of their drug problem. We want to help them, not hurt them.
I thank the Senator from Connecticut for taking the lead on this
issue. I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1959.
The amendment (No. 1959) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I believe we are almost done. Just so
people will know, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request
regarding a Hutchison amendment on tuberculosis, a Bingaman amendment
on Central America drought relief, a Leahy AIDS and malaria funding
amendment, a Stabenow amendment on the victims of terrorism, a Landrieu
amendment on child soldiers, and a McConnell technical amendment.
Amendments Nos. 1960 through 1965, En Bloc
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to bring forward an amendment by Senator Hutchison of Texas,
Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator
Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, Senator
Thompson of Tennessee, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, and Senator
McConnell of Kentucky, and that they be considered en bloc and agreed
to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr.
McConnell, for themselves and others, proposes amendments
numbered 1960 through 1965, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 1960
On page 120, line 3, strike ``$1,455,500,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof: ``$1,465,500,000''.
On page 121, line 6, after ``diseases'' insert the
following: ``,of which not less than $65,000,000 should be
made available for the prevention, treatment, and control of,
and research on, tuberculosis''.
On page 142, line 17, strike ``$567,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$557,000,000''.
____
amendment no. 1961
On page 142, line 17, strike ``$567,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$557,000,000''.
On page 124, line 17, strike ``$1,235,000,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof: ``$1,245,000,000''.
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
central america disaster relief
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated under the headings
``International Disaster Assistance'', ``Development
Assistance'', and ``Economic Support Fund'', not less than
$35,000,000 should be made available for relief and
reconstruction assistance for victims of earthquakes and
drought in El Salvador and elsewhere in Central America.
____
amendment no. 1962
On page 116, line 23, delete ``$753,323,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$727,323,000''.
On page 145, line 17, delete $326,500,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$318,500,000''.
On page 157, line 3, strike ``CONTRIBUTION'' and all that
follows through the period on line 8.
On page 136, line 9, delete ``$800,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$795,500,000''.
On page 128, line 13, delete ``$255,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$245,000,000''.
On page 133, line 13, delete ``$603,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$615,000,000''.
On page 121, line 5, delete ``$175,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$185,000,000''.
On page 121, line 6, after ``diseases'' insert: ``, of
which not less than $65,000,000 should be made available to
combat malaria''.
On page 159, line 13, delete ``217,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$218,000,000''.
On page 160, line 1, delete ``$39,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$40,000,000''.
On page 120, line 3, delete ``$1,455,500,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof: ``$1,500,500,000''.
On page 120, line 24, delete ``$415,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$450,000,000''.
On page 120, line 25, delete ``$40,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof: ``$90,000,000''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1963
(Purpose: To make agreed technical amendments by the managers of the
bill)
On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
projects honoring victims of terrorist attacks
Sec. 581. The National and Community Service Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.) is amended by inserting before
title V the following:
``TITLE IV--PROJECTS HONORING VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `Foundation'
means the Points of Light Foundation funded under section
301, or another nonprofit private organization, that enters
into an agreement with the Corporation to carry out this
section.
``(b) Identification of Projects.--
``(1) Estimated number.--Not later than December 1, 2001,
the Foundation, after obtaining the guidance of the heads of
appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Director of the
Office of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall--
``(A) make an estimate of the number of victims killed as a
result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001
(referred to in this section as the `estimated number'); and
``(B) compile a list that specifies, for each individual
that the Foundation determines to be such a victim, the name
of the victim and the State in which the victim resided.
``(2) Identified projects.--The Foundation shall identify
approximately the estimated number of community-based
national and community service projects that meet the
requirements of subsection (d). The Foundation shall name
each identified project in honor of a victim described in
subsection
[[Page S10959]]
(b)(1)(A), after obtaining the permission of an appropriate
member of the victim's family and the entity carrying out the
project.
(c) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to have a project
named under this section, the entity carrying out the project
shall be a political subdivision of a State, a business, or a
nonprofit organization (which may be a religious
organization, such as a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim
organization).
``(d) Projects.--The Foundation shall name, under this
section, projects--
``(1) that advance the goals of unity, and improving the
quality of life in communities; and
``(2) that will be planned, or for which implementation
will begin, within a reasonable period after the date of
enactment of this section, as determined by the Foundation.
``(e) Website and Database.--The Foundation shall create
and maintain websites and databases, to describe projects
named under this section and serve as appropriate vehicles
for recognizing the projects.''.
____
amendment no. 1964
(Purpose: To make available funds for services aimed at the
reintegration of war-affected youth in East Asia)
On page 125, line 16, before the period at the end of the
line insert the following: ``: Provided further, That, of the
funds appropriated under this heading or under `Child
Survival and Health Programs Fund', $5,000,000 should be made
available for activities in South and Central Asia aimed at
reintegrating `child soldiers' and other war-affected
youth''.
____
amendment no. 1965
On page 137, line 17 through page 138 line 11, strike all
after ``(e)'' through ``assistance''.
HIV/AIDS
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, HIV/AIDS has become a world-wide
pandemic. More than 16 million people have died of AIDS. The Joint
United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the World Health
Organization, WHO, have estimated that over 32.4 million adults and 1.2
million children around the world are already living with HIV. Half of
all people who acquire HIV become infected before they turn 25 and
typically die of AIDS before their 35th birthday.
The overwhelming majority of people with HIV live in the developing
world, and that proportion is likely to grow even further as infection
rates continue to rise in countries where poverty, poor health systems,
and limited resources for prevention and care fuel the spread of the
virus.
Sub-Saharan Africa bears the brunt of HIV and AIDS, with close to 70
percent of the global total of HIV-positive people. Over 14 million
Africans have already been claimed by the disease, leaving behind
shattered families and crippled prospects for development. There have
also been recent reports of growing problems in China, India, and
elsewhere. Of course, the United States is not immune to this virus,
and its spread globally only contributes to risks in America.
It is estimated that approximately 90 percent of people in sub-
Saharan Africa do not know if they are HIV infected or not. They have
no means of gaining this vital knowledge so that they can protect
themselves and others. Thus, testing is a critical aspect of the effort
to stop the further spread of HIV/AIDS. However, one must be careful
that tests are appropriate to the regions where they are used.
In developing regions served by USAID, tests should be fast,
accurate, simple, designed to assist those providing counseling, and
have no need for labs or refrigeration. The importance of testing
cannot be overstated. Early detection of HIV/AIDS might enable
treatment to be more effective. We must do all we can to control and
stop the spread of this dreaded virus, and I urge USAID to seek to
develop rapid tests that serve this purpose.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for bringing up
this important issue. I believe that USAID should be committed to
furthering the cause of finding a suitable field test for HIV/AIDS. I
would expect that of the funds appropriated to USAID, the Agency would
evaluate potential tests for deployment in sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. LEAHY. I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and agree with
him on the importance of testing as an important part of the effort to
stop the spread of HIV and AIDS. The bill under consideration includes
$375 million for U.S. Agency for International Development programs to
combat HIV/AIDS. It is my belief that a portion of these funds should
be committed to the development of rapid tests.
hacia la seguridad
Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I have a question for Senator
McConnell, distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittee, regarding an important rule of law project
currently underway in the Andean region. The project is the Hacia la
Seguridad project located in Quito, Ecuador.
Mr. McCONNELL. I will be pleased to answer the Senator's question.
Mr. THOMPSON. The mission of the Hacia la Seguridad project is to
increase transparency throughout Ecuador's legal system as a means of
promoting bureaucratic and judicial accountability, effective
governance and law enforcement, and improved access to justice. The
project specifically focuses on the identification and elimination of
invalid regulations and statutes, the design of modern legal codes,
judicial monitoring, and public education and support for rule of law
reform. It is my understanding that the Senator supports this project
and that it is the intention of the committee that it receive support
from USAID.
Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct. The project advances the goals set
forth in the International Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Act of
2000 and helps promote stability and democracy in the Andean region
generally. It is the committee's intent that this project receive ESF
funding in fiscal year 2002.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator for his clarifying statement and
ask that the committee seek Statement of Manager's language directing
USAID to fund the project.
Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to work with the conferees to try to
develop Statement of Manager's language advising USAID of this project
and its importance.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator for his comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments (Nos. 1960 through 1965) were agreed to, en bloc.
Mr. LEAHY. 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.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, there is one more amendment which we
expect will be agreed to by voice vote. We have been working on it all
day. It is about to miraculously appear from back in the Cloakroom. It
is related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute.
I say to my colleagues, we will be able to agree to that shortly, we
believe on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 1921
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1921.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an
amendment numbered 1921.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1921
(Purpose: To authorize the President to waive the restriction of
assistance for Azerbaijan if the President determines that it is in the
national security interest of the United States to do so)
On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
WAIVER OF RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO AZERBAIJAN.
Sec. 581. Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act (Public
Law 102-511; 22 U.S.C. 5812 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``United States'' and inserting ``(a)
Restriction.--United States''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Waiver.--The President is authorized to waive the
restriction in subsection (a) if the President determines
that it is in the national security interest of the United
States to do so.''.
Amendment No. 1966 To Amendment No. 1921
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to
the Brownback amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S10960]]
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1966 to amendment No. 1921.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
amendment to no. 1966 to amendment no. 1921
Strike all after the word Sec. and add the following:
Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply to--
(A) activities to support democracy or assistance under
Title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public
Law 104-201 or nonproliferation assistance;
(B) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development
Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421);
(C) any activity carried out by a member of the United
States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his
or her official capacity;
(D) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee or other
assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation under title IV of Chapter 2 of part I of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);
(E) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act
of 1945; or
(F) humanitarian assistance.
(2) The President may waive section 907 of the FREEDOM
Support Act if he determines and certifies to the Committees
on Appropriations that to do so:
(A) is necessary to support United States efforts to
counter terrorism; or
(B) is necessary to support the operational readiness of
United States Armed Forces or coalition partners to counter
terrorism; or
(C) is important to Azerbaijan's border security; and
(D) will not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to
negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and
Azerbaijan or be used for offensive purposes against Armenia.
(3) The authority of paragraph (2) may only be exercised
through December 31, 2002.
(4) The President may extend the waiver authority provided
in paragraph (2) on an annual basis on or after December 31,
2002 if he determines and certifies to the Committees on
Appropriations in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(2).
(5) The Committees on Appropriations shall be consulted
prior to the provisions of any assistance made available
pursuant to paragraph (2).
(6) Within 60 days of any exercise of the authority under
Section (2), the President shall send a report to the
appropriate Congressional committees specifying in detail the
following:
(A) The nature and quantity of all training and assistance
provided to the government of Azerbaijan pursuant to Section
(2);
(B) the status of the military balance between Azerbaijan
and Armenia and the impact of U.S. assistance on that
balance; and
(C) the status of negotiations for a peaceful settlement
between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the impact of U.S.
assistance on those negotiations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I want to speak in favor of the
amendment put forward by my colleague from Kentucky. As he mentioned,
this is a contentious, difficult issue on which people have been
working all day. We have gotten to an agreement of what we think can
work.
Basically, the issue is trying to prosecute the war on terrorism. I
think we have been able to work some issues out to be able to get that
done. I am very appreciative of all my colleagues, particularly the
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and the Senator from Maryland,
Mr. Sarbanes, and a number of other people for working aggressively on
it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of
support on this issue from the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and
ask it be printed in the Record along with a letter from three former
National Security Advisers to Senator Daschle and Senator Lott in
support of this amendment we are putting forward.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of State,
Washington, October 15, 2001.
Hon. Jesse A. Helms,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Helms: The President has asked me to request
your support for providing legislative authority that would
allow assistance to the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan
has joined the coalition to combat terrorism and has granted
the United States overflight rights, the use of its air
bases, and has provided critical intelligence cooperation.
Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act of 1992, however,
severely constrains our ability to provide most support to
the Government of Azerbaijan including assistance needed to
support our operations in the ongoing war against terrorism.
In addition to purely military matters, no less urgent is
our need to engage and assist Azerbaijan's intelligence and
law enforcement agencies. It is also imperative that we
assist and work with Azerbaijan's financial authorities to
track and disrupt assets of the terror network. The
campaign's evolution will probably bring other requirements
to the fore that we will need flexibility to address.
I request your assistance in passing legislation that would
provide a national security interest waiver from the
restrictions of section 907. Removal of these restrictions
will allow the United States to provide necessary military
assistance that will enable Azerbaijan to counter terrorist
organizations and elements operating within its borders. This
type of assistance is a critical element of the United States
fight against global terrorism.
Sincerely,
Colin L. Powell.
October 17, 2001.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Lott: Now that the United
States has been compelled to undertake a comprehensive world
war against terrorism, it is imperative that we ensure that
our President benefits from the diplomatic flexibility and
military capacities necessary to succeed decisively in this
war.
The first front of this war is the Caucasus and Central
Asia. Fostering and solidifying enduring partnerships with
the countries of this region is a strategic and operational
imperative.
For this reason, we urge you to support the repeal of an
archaic sanction against Azerbaijan, a country whose
cooperation will be no less vital than any of its neighbors.
Azerbaijan was among the first countries to condemn the
September 11th attacks. It has offered the United States
military overflight rights and the use of its military bases
in this war against terrorism.
However, Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act prohibits
the United States from benefitting from this offer. Unless
Section 907 is repealed, our military will not be able to
cooperate with Azerbaijan's security forces to create
capacities that will increase not only our ability to strike
against terrorist targets, but also our ability to provide
much needed security and logistical support to U.S. forces
operating in that region.
There is not a doubt that Azerbaijan is ready and willing
to be a full ally in the war against terrorism. Ironically,
it is not Azerbaijan's will, but an archaic legislative
provision that precludes the United States from accepting
Baku's hand of partnership. This is not only a diplomatic
loss, it is strike against our men and women in uniform now
conducting a military offensive in Afghanistan against Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.
For these strategic and operational reasons, we urge you to
support the repeal of Section 907. Doing so will help to
maximize America's ability to wage the war on terrorism.
Respectfully,
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brent Scowcroft.
Anthony Lake.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I don't know if there is further need for us to debate
on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator
from Kansas for his tenacity in advocating his point of view. He and I
and the Senator from Maryland have had some great debates on the issue
of section 907 of the Freedom of Support Act in previous Congresses,
but I do believe we have been able to work out an approach that both
allows the administration to engage with these areas in a way that
facilitates the fighting of the war and also preserves section 907 to
be dealt with at a later date when the final settlement comes between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, which will obviously happen on another day. I
think this is a compromise that is worthwhile, and I am happy to
support it.
I yield the floor. I see Senator Kerry here, the original author of
section 907.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I will be very brief. I thank Senator
Sarbanes for his strong commitment to trying to balance this properly
and for his tenacity through the course of the day. His leadership has
been really superb in helping to try to balance the interests.
I thank Senator Brownback for understanding what we have been trying
to achieve. As the original author of 907, obviously I am sensitive to
the change. But I completely understand the circumstances in which we
find ourselves. These are changed circumstances. We need to respond,
and we need to respond thoughtfully.
My hope is that the amendment we have put in that was just adopted a
[[Page S10961]]
moment ago, which Senator McConnell sponsored on our behalf, adequately
sets forth the balance we are trying to strike so the long-term
interests of peace and of the peaceful negotiations, bringing people to
the table representing all parties' interests, will be respected.
I hope we have achieved that. Obviously, there is more to play out.
We will watch this very closely as we go forward.
I thank Senator McConnell for his efforts today, and Senator
Sarbanes. Hopefully, the balance we have tried to achieve has been
achieved.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am confident if the dispute between
Azerbaijan and Armenia is not settled on some other day that the
Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Massachusetts and I will be
allies in this fight on another day. I think for today we have worked
out a compromise which is acceptable to the administration and which is
acceptable to Senator Brownback and is the best we can achieve at the
moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from
Massachusetts.
There is not a settlement of a longstanding dispute between Armenia
and Azerbaijan. It is really an attempt for us to be able to work to
deal with terrorism and work with the country we need to work with in
this case; that is, Azerbaijan.
The language is being drafted very carefully so that we can work in
our best interests in the United States fighting terrorism with the
assistance of being able to land planes and to house planes, and
personnel being treated in hospitals in Azerbaijan, should we need to.
Indeed, some of that is taking place now. We have tried carefully to
pull that together without touching the issue of peace talks which need
to proceed. I hope we can get a final settlement of that sometime soon.
Do we have time for a vote? If not, we don't need a recorded vote but
a voice, I hope.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
in the second degree, No. 1966.
The amendment (No. 1966) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
in the first degree, as amended, No. 1921.
The amendment (No. 1921), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam 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.
Amendment No. 1967
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have one final amendment related to
the United States-Armenia relationship that would provide some
assistance for Armenia. It has been approved on both sides of the
aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1967.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 152 line 10, after the word ``Appropriations'' and
before the period insert the following: ``:Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, not less
than $600,000 shall be made available for assistance for
Armenia''
On page 153 line 7, after the colon insert the following:
``Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this
paragraph, not less than $4,000,000 shall be made available
for assistance for Armenia''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no debate, the question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1967) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1968
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have another amendment on behalf of
the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Smith of
Oregon, proposes an amendment numbered 1968.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. . FEDERAL INVESTIGATION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Federal Investigation Enhancement Act of 2001.''
(b) Undercover Investigative Practices Conducted by Federal
Attorneys.--Section 530 B (a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence,
``Notwithstanding any provision of State law, including
disciplinary rules, statutes, regulations, constitutional
provisions, or case law, a Government attorney may, for the
purpose of enforcing Federal law, provide legal advice,
authorization, concurrence, direction, or supervision on
conducting undercover activities, and any attorney employed
as an investigator or other law enforcement agent by the
Department of Justice who is not authorized to represent the
United States in criminal or civil law enforcement litigation
or to supervise such proceedings may participate in such
activities, even though such activities may require the use
of deceit or misrepresentation, where such activities are
consistent with Federal law.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1968) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
global environment facility
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to address the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations on the subject of the Global
Environment Facility, an organization which for a number of reasons is
vital to the restoration and preservation of our earth's environment.
The GEF channels funding from over 30 nations to help developing
countries confront the problems within their borders which affect the
global environment. Traditionally, GEF's focus has been on global
warming, biodiversity, international waters, and the ozone layer.
Recently, the GEF was given a critical new assignment. It is now the
funding mechanism to implement the new international conservation on
persistent organic pollutants, or POPS, which was signed by the United
States and other nations in June. Though long banned in the U.S., these
toxic chemicals continue to be used in the developing world. They
travel on air and water currents and work their way up the food chain
into humans, particularly native populations in northern latitudes like
Alaska. As the funding mechanism for the POPS convention, GEF will have
a critical role in phasing out their use.
I greatly appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee chairman to
provide slightly more than the President's request for the GEF this
year. However, I had been hopeful that the Congress would be able to
provide not only the budget request, but significantly more to pay off
existing arrears. In June I joined Senators Chafee, Biden, Bingaman,
Collins, Jeffords, Lieberman, Lugar, Murray, and Snowe in writing to
the subcommittee leadership urging the payment of a substantial amount
of our arrears.
Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the support of the Senator from Massachusetts
for our proposed increase over the President's budget request for the
GEF. I agree that this is a vital organization. GEF's work gets at many
of the international environmental problems which simply cannot be
fixed by the U.S. or any nation acting alone, such as global warming.
Poor nations which struggle to feed and clothe their people simply do
not have the resources to devote to global environmental problems. Yet
if we do not have a unified global approach to these problems, we have
little hope of addressing them effectively. The GEF funds worthy
projects in 160 countries.
[[Page S10962]]
Unfortunately, the United States has lagged behind in meeting our
obligations to the GEF. Since 1994, twice the U.S. has pledged $107.5
million a year to GEF. We are now in the final year of the second
replenishment, and our total arrears stand at $203.9 million. Our
recommended appropriation this year will make only a small dent in that
figure, but at least will not add to them.
Mr. KERRY. I have been a part of international environmental
discussions for a decade, and attended talks not only in Kyoto but also
in Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and The Hague. During this time, I have
watched tensions grow between the developed and developing world, which
increasingly views Western efforts to convince them to adopt strict
environmental standards as an effort to hold them down economically.
This concern is an important factor in the dispute over a new round of
world trade negotiations. Cooperative efforts between developed nations
and the developing world through organizations like the Global
Environmental Facility can bridge this distrust.
Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the Senator. I am pleased that the Senate is
recommending a considerably higher appropriation than the House for the
GEF, and I intend to work diligently to persuade the House to agree to
our GEF number in conference. We must get back on track and pay our
arrears to the GEF.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chairman. This year's appropriations debate
coincides with new discussions among GEF members for a new
replenishment, one which must for the first time accommodate the new
responsibility for implementing POPS. Hence it's critical that the U.S.
send a strong statement that we remain committed to meeting our
obligations to the GEF.
american companies doing business in Colombia
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we often hear from American companies
whose investments in developing countries have gone sour. That is the
risk of doing business, and nobody disputes that. But international
arbitration was created in order to mitigate the risks of overseas
investments and to avoid depending on shaky legal institutions in those
countries. Arbitration has been one of the principal building blocks to
the extraordinary growth in international trade. It has brought
investments to countries which would have otherwise been considered too
risky because it gives investors and sovereign nations an agreed-upon
mechanism to resolve disputes. Key to its success is the agreement by
all parties that arbitration can only work if it is binding.
It recently came to Senator McConnell's and my attention that at
least two American companies, Sithe and Nortel, have participated in
binding arbitration to resolve disputes with the Colombian Government.
According to information we have received, Sithe and perhaps Nortel, we
are told, companies from Mexico and Germany, have won awards through
binding arbitration, only to have the Colombian Government renege on
its commitment to honor the arbitration decision.
We have not had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the
Colombian Government, but if our information is correct, that American
companies have agreed to binding arbitration and prevailed, only to
have the Colombian Government refuse to pay, that is unacceptable. We
want to help Colombia's economy develop in an environment where the
rule of law is respected. This is crucial to Colombia's future. If
Colombia flaunts the rules of the private market, it will have
increasing difficulty attracting private investment because it cannot
be trusted.
Representatives of these companies have urged us to withhold a
portion of U.S. assistance to Colombia until the Colombian Government
fulfills its legal obligations to these companies. We considered
offering such an amendment, because of the importance we give to the
fair treatment of American companies, respect for the rule of law, and
the international arbitration process. I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of our proposed amendment be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
We decided not to offer the amendment, because of the precedent it
could set. But we want to emphasize that respecting binding,
internationally, sanctioned arbitration is essential to the investment
that will ultimately be the engine for Colombia's economic development.
No amount of foreign assistance can do that. The pattern of Colombia's
apparent abuse of the international arbitration process is very
disturbing, and by conveying our concern about it we mean to strongly
encourage the Colombian Government to act expeditiously to resolve
these matters.
I know that both Senator McConnell and I will be following this issue
closely, and discussing it with the Colombian Ambassador, the American
Ambassador to Colombia, and the Department of State, in the coming
months.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just add a word or two to Senator Leahy's
comments. Few would disagree that Colombia's long term political and
economic development resides in its ability to forge a lasting peace,
establish the rule of law, and attract foreign investment. No service
is done to the nation or the people of Colombia when the Colombian
government refuses to recognize the legitimacy of an arbitration award
to international businesses. The leadership in Bogota should understand
that such action further erodes confidence in the overall investment
climate in Colombia within the international business community--and in
foreign capitals. It is my hope that the Colombian government takes
note of the amendment Senator Leahy and I contemplated offering and
initiates corrective action in the very near future.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as the Senate considers the Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, I would like to
take this opportunity to discuss discrepancies between the House and
Senate versions regarding funding for the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (FRY).
I have strong reservations about certain language included by the
House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying H.R. 2506. In
its report, the House Committee recommends $145 million in funding for
the FRY, of which $60 million is to be provided to Montenegro. I
support at least $145 million for the FRY, which is the amount
requested by the President. However, if the House funding level stands
for Montenegro, with a population of just 600,000 people, which is one-
thirteenth the size of Serbia, it would receive more than 40 percent of
the total assistance package for the FRY.
I do not believe Montenegro could constructively absorb this much
assistance, and I am concerned about the impact such a division of
assistance for the FRY would have on U.S. assistance to Serbia. In my
conversations with State Department officials, they also expressed
strong reservations about providing $60 million to Montenegro, as they
believe it is more than Montenegro can effectively absorb. The State
Department believes Montenegro should not receive more than the $45
million recommended by the Senate, and in fact, they believe that $35-
40 million would be an appropriate amount.
Given disturbing reports of official corruption that have surfaced
regarding illicit activity in Montenegro, it is particularly important
that we are able to fully account for the expenditure of U.S.
assistance there. Moreover, if the House recommendation of $60 million
prevails, U.S. assistance for the Republic of Serbia could fall to $85
million, which is significantly below the $100 million we provided to
Serbia in fiscal year 2001.
As my colleagues are aware, significant changes have taken place in
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the past twelve months. On
Friday October 5, 2001, marked the one-year anniversary of the fall of
the Milosevic regime and the beginning of a new, democratic government.
Since then, the new leaders have made significant strides in
implementing political and economic reforms. While there is still much
work to be done, it is critical that we recognize the important
progress that has been made in the past year. A cut in funding for
Serbia would send precisely the wrong message. We want to support the
Serb reformers, who took the courageous step of arresting and
transferring Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague. We want to encourage
their continued cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal, as well
[[Page S10963]]
as other democratic reforms and respect for the rule of law.
When the conference committee meets to reconcile the House and Senate
versions of the foreign operations bill for fiscal year 2002, I urge
the Senate conferees to support the funding levels for Serbia and
Montenegro that are recommended in the Senate bill.
I would appreciate knowing if the chairman and ranking member of the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee agree with me about this.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, for far too long, corruption has been
allowed to run rampant in Southeastern Europe. Recent events have
highlighted the citizens of Montenegro as being among the most
beleaguered by the corruption of its government.
Montenegro is the beneficiary of a proud, freedom loving people
courageously standing against the tyranny of Slobodan Milosevic.
However, they have not been well served by their government, whose
actions have undercut United States assistance to Montenegro.
For example, the President of Montenegro purchases two luxury
aircrafts, during the Kosovo Crisis! Costing 26 to 30 million dollars
or more, one plane was a Lear Jet, and the other a Cessna Citation X.
President Djukanovic has been flown in these planes at the very same
time the taxpayers of the United States were making emergency cash
payments to help the Montenegrin Government pay its pensions and energy
bills.
The $26 million spent on aircraft would have averted electricity
power shortages in Montenegro. These purchases, by the way, were not
reported to the United States Government, the Montenegrin Parliament
which is now investigating this matter, or, the citizens of Montenegro.
It is now clear that the Government of Montenegro was keeping two
budgets: one facilitated the flow of international assistance; the
second apparently served the personal interests of senior government
officials.
Since actions speak louder than words, it is obvious that a premium
was placed on personal comfort of senior officials over legal reforms
essential to rebuilding the Montengrin economy.
Last year the United States earmarked $89 million in foreign
assistance for fiscal year 2001 for Montenegro; plans are to dedicate
about half that much in fiscal year 2002.
Let me be clear, United States assistance must never be permitted to
be a free ride for such officials. The citizens of Montenegro fought
Milosevic to the very end. Now develops that, during that time, they,
and the United States, were cheated by the government in Podgorica.
The people deserve a responsible governing body that puts foreign
assistance into its economy not the pockets of corrupt officials. The
United States deserves assurance that United States assistance dollars
are used for their intended purpose.
Not one red cent should go to the government of Montenegro unless and
until these planes have been fully accounted for--and sold. In
addition, United States assistance to the Montenegrin government should
be firmly conditioned upon tangible progress toward rooting out
corruption and reintroducing the rule of law.
The people of Montenegro deserve far better than they have received
from their government and their President Djukanovic.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friends from Ohio and North Carolina for
bringing to the attention of the Senate the important issue of
assistance to Serbia and Montenegro. The short answer to Senator
Voinovich's inquiry is that Senator Leahy and I strongly support the
funding levels for Serbia and Montenegro that are recommended by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, and that will be our position in the
Conference.
Those of us who closely follow developments in the Balkans appreciate
the many challenges that reformers in Serbia and Montenegro face each
day, and we note the progress that has been made in the past year
alone. As Senators Voinovich and Helms have stated, many challenges lie
ahead, including the need to address the troubling and complex issues
of corruption and legal reform. I think we all agree that America must
be clear in our support of these reform efforts. Senator Leahy and I
believe that the carefully drafted provisions in our bill, and the
funding levels we recommend, do just that.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friends for their comments. This is an issue of
great importance to the Senate. In crafting this bill, Senator
McConnell and I had three principal objectives with respect to the FRY.
First, we want to send a message to Serb reformers that we strongly
support their efforts. We recommend $115 million for Serbia in fiscal
year 2002, a $15 million increase in United States assistance above
last year. We have also provided authority for debt relief for Serbia.
We were told by Serb finance officials and our Treasury Department that
this is a top priority if Serbia is to attract new foreign investment,
which is the key to Serbia's future economic development.
Second, we want to make clear that we expect to see continued
cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal and respect for the rule of
law. While we fully appreciate the courage of Serb officials in
arresting and transferring Milosevic to The Hague in April, since then
we have seen little in the way of cooperation with the Tribunal. We are
also disappointed that political prisoners continue to languish in Serb
jails, even though Serb officials have acknowledged that they should be
released. We therefore include language similar to last year, that
links our assistance to continued progress in these areas.
Finally, with respect to Montenegro, we want to provide sufficient
assistance to convey our strong support for Montenegro, and at the same
time ensure a proper balance within the $115 million available for the
FRY. Montenegro is making impressive strides in reforming its economy,
and we should support that. The reports of corruption are disturbing,
and we need to ensure that our assistance is not misused.
Unfortunately, corruption is a region-wide phenomenon, and we have
emphasized to USAID and the State Department that combating corruption
should be a key component of our assistance relationship. Corruption
corrodes democracy, and the new leaders of Montenegro and Serbia, and
indeed throughout the former Yugoslavia, will pay a heavy price in the
long run if they ignore it.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the Record the
Budget Committee's official scoring for H.R. 2506, the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2002.
The Senate bill provides $15.524 billion in discretionary budget
authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $5.580 billion.
When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account,
discretionary, outlays for the Senate bill total $15.149 billion in
2002. The Senate bill is at its Section 302(b) allocation for both
budget authority and outlays. Once again, the committee has met its
target without the use of any emergency designations.
We have begun the 2002 fiscal year without the Congress completing a
single appropriations bill. While extraordinary events have contributed
greatly to this late start, it is time that the Congress complete its
work. Earlier this month, the President reached agreement with Senate
and House appropriators on a revised budget for 2002. The Congress must
now expeditiously provide funding that complies with that bipartisan
agreement.
I ask for unanimous consent that a table diplaying the budget
committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2506, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATION ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE REPORTED BILL
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget Authority............... 15,524 45 15,569
Outlays........................ 15,149 45 15,194
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............... 15,524 45 15,569
Outlays........................ 15,149 45 15,194
House-passed:
Budget Authority............... 15,167 45 15,212
Outlays........................ 15,080 45 15,125
President's request:
Budget Authority............... 15,169 45 15,214
Outlays........................ 15,081 45 15,126
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
Budget Authority............... 0 0 0
Outlays........................ 0 0 0
House-passed:
Budget Authority............... 357 0 357
[[Page S10964]]
Outlays........................ 69 0 69
President's request:
Budget Authority............... 355 0 355
Outlays........................ 68 0 68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the Senate-
reported bill to the Senate 302(b) allocation.
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to speak briefly
about two interconnected issues--the destruction of the world's few
remaining tropical forests, and the pressures of population growth,
poverty, and development that is causing it.
The world's few remaining tropical forests, which are located in
Indonesia, Central Africa, and parts of South America, are being cut
down at a staggering rate. Whether it is local farmers scratching out a
living by slash and burn agriculture, or multinational timber or mining
companies, experts predict that these irreplaceable ecosystems will be
completely gone in 15 to 20 years.
The forests are not just trees. They are the habitat for the majority
of the Earth's endangered species, from great apes to insects, many of
which we have yet to identify. They are also the source of many of the
life-saving drugs that are sold in America's pharmacies today, and who
knows how many future cures wait to be discovered from rainforest
plants.
They are home to the few remaining groups of indigenous people who
continue to live in much the same way as they have for centuries,
threatening no one.
Development is widely regarded as synonymous with progress. That is
why the United States Agency for International Development has its
name. But it would be unforgivable if a decade or two from now the few
remaining virgin tropical forests were gone. It is not simply a matter
of planting new trees. They are a complex web of species.
There are many private homes in Washington, DC that are worth more
than what it would cost to protect hundreds of thousands of acres of
virgin rainforest in some African countries. Yet we have difficulty
finding a few million dollars to do that.
Even worse, the United States is a major consumer of timber stolen
from the forests of Indonesia, Africa and South America. According to a
recent report, the U.S. imported over $300 million in illegal timber
from Indonesia alone last year.
The international trade in illegal timber is out of control. It is
rampant. It is accelerating, and it is driven by greed, an insatiable
demand, corruption, and the lack of effective strategies and resources
to address it. This bill contains funds to increase our efforts, but I
would be the first to say is not enough.
There are two ways to protect these forests, and both are essential.
One is law enforcement. Many countries, like Indonesia and Brazil have
environmental laws, but they are routinely violated, including by those
who are responsible for enforcing them.
In Indonesia, the military is deeply involved in the illegal timber
trade, and I encouraged the White House to discuss this with President
Megawati when she was in Washington recently.
The same is true in Cambodia and the so-called ``Democratic''
Republic of the Congo. The military trades protection for illegal
loggers in exchange for a slice of the profits. So cracking down on
this corruption is essential.
What also must be done is to provide the people who live in the
forests alternative sources of income and access to family planning to
reduce population pressures on these fragile ecosystems.
As it is, they have no other way to survive except by cutting the
trees for fuel or timber and killing the animals for bush meat, which
has become a high priced delicacy.
Once the forests are gone, they will have to abandon their homes,
joining the throngs of other impoverished people migrating to urban
slums--without housing, without jobs, without health care, without
hope.
On the other hand, if they are made to understand that the forest and
the animals can be a continuing source of tourist income, then they
become the protectors of the forests.
We want USAID to expand its support for organizations and individuals
who have devoted their lives to protecting endangered species and the
tropical forests where they live.
In some countries, like Brazil, some of the most courageous advocates
for the environment have been murdered, presumably by the mining and
timber interests.
There is still time to stop this, but only if we make it a priority.
We have to, because ten years from now will be too late.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as the Senate considers the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, I would like to
take a few minutes to address U.S. assistance to the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia.
As many of my colleagues are aware, I have taken a strong interest in
issues affecting Southeast Europe during my time in the Senate. I have
made many trips to the region, most recently in December of 2000 with
my friend from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, and I continue to
meet with the region's political, spiritual and community leaders both
in the United States and during time abroad.
I have long recognized the destabilizing influence that men such as
Slobodan Milosevic have had on the region and the broader European
community. The international community witnessed the devastating
influence of this so-called leader during years of violent conflict in
the former Yugoslavia, and we continue to see evidence of its affects
in Kosovo and other parts of the region.
While the Balkans have not been without recent challenges, as
demonstrated by the situation in Macedonia and continued violence and
destruction in Kosovo and parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, significant
changes have taken place in this part of the world during the past year
and a half. The death of Franjo Tudjman in Croatia in December of 1999
and the ouster of the Milosevic regime in October of 2000 have removed
major obstacles to positive change in the region.
One year ago this month, I watched with tremendous gratification when
the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia went to the polls, and
then to the streets, to demonstrate their support of democracy and
their denouncement of Milosevic.
Since my days as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of the State of
Ohio, I have been an ardent supporter of democratic reformers in
Serbia. I have long admired the courage and determination of many
individuals who remained focused on a democratic future for Serbia,
whatever the odds, such as members of the OTPOR student movement.
When I met with a group of these young leaders following the election
of President Vojislav Kostunica and the removal of Milosevic from
power, they told me that the feat we witnessed last October would not
have been possible without the support and influence of the United
States.
Just a few weeks ago in my office in the Hart building, I met with
one of the founders of the OPTOR student movement, who is now a member
of the Serbian Parliament. Once focused on removing Milosevic from
power, he is now intent on helping the government to strength its
democratic institutions so that the FRY may better position itself
among Europe's new democracies. Without a doubt, the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia is a different place today than it was one year ago.
When the Senate considered the foreign operations bill last year, we
conditioned U.S. assistance to Serbia after March 31, 2001 on three
conditions. In order to receive continued non-humanitarian assistance,
the United States had to certify that the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was doing the following: First, cooperating with the War
Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; next, taking steps to
implement the Dayton Accords; and finally, taking steps to implement
policies reflecting the rule of law and respect for human rights.
Given the importance of a democratic and stable government in the FRY
to the broader region and Europe as a whole, I was pleased that the new
government was, in fact, making significant progress in the areas
outlined
[[Page S10965]]
in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, thus
allowing President Bush and the Secretary of State to grant
certification and allow non-humanitarian U.S. assistance to the FRY to
continue following the March 31 deadline.
Additionally, the FRY's progress facilitated help from the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund, and the international community
pledged more than $1.2 billion for the country during a donors'
conference sponsored by the World Bank at the end of June. Most
recently, we have seen positive developments in the FRY's negotiations
with the Paris Club to reschedule a portion of its debt.
The reforms took important action in each of the three areas.
Regarding cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia, we all remember the dramatic scenes on television during
the days before Slobodan Milosevic was transferred to The Hague in the
middle of the night. It was a courageous and necessary step, and I am
pleased that the government understood the necessity to doing so.
In efforts to implement policies reflecting the rule of law and
respect for human rights, perhaps the most significant accomplishment
demonstrating the government's actions involved its work with the
international community to successfully resolve the situation in
southern Serbia, without significant international incident. In line
with the Dayton Agreement, the FRY has reduced its military to military
ties with the Republic Srpska, and it has indicated its commitment to
eliminate remaining ties and ensure transparency of any dealings it
might have with the Republic Srpska in the future.
While we acknowledge the positive things that have taken place during
the past twelve months, we must also recognize the reality that is
still work that remain to be done. Of highest priority is the release
of ethnic Albanian prisoners who continue to remain incarcerated in
Serbian jails. Moreover, it is critical that the Government further
its cooperation with The Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Certainly the
transfer of Milosevic was highly important; at the same time, other
indicated war criminals remain at large in the FRY, and every effort
should be made to work with The Hague Tribunal to rid the country of
those responsible for past atrocities.
That being said, as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia joins the
ranks of southeast Europe's new democracies, I believe it is important
that we begin to look beyond the conditions outlined in the foreign
operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, and work to create
an assistance program for the FRY that is in line with our aid programs
to other countries in the region.
Last October, when House and Senate conferees considered the final
version of the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations spending bill.
Vojislav Kostunica had been in office just a few short weeks. The
status of Milosevic was widely unknown. Given the nascent state of the
new government at that time, I believe including language allowing the
United States flexibility in its assistance program to the FRY, should
the new government have moved in a direction contrary to U.S.
interests, was a reasonable thing to do.
However, in the year following final consideration of last year's
foreign operations appropriations bill, I believe the reformers in the
FRY have developed a position--though not perfect--track record. While
it is clear that additional steps must be taken to further cooperation
with The Hague and implementation of the rule of law, I believe we have
solid evidence that the new government is committed to moving forward
with reforms. If they fail to make the progress they have promised, we
have many avenues from which to demonstrate our displeasure.
As my colleagues are aware, the State Department must notify Congress
before distributing U.S. funds abroad. At that time, our Foreign
Relations Committee or Foreign Operations Subcommittee can withhold
assistance to any country abroad. Additionally, we may instruct U.S.
representatives to international organizations such as the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund to withhold their support for
programs benefitting the FRY. Finally, if the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia does not act in accordance with actions deemed to be in
their best interests by the United States and other members of the
international community, there is no doubt in my mind that future U.S.
support will be terminated.
I appreciate the work that my colleagues on the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee have done in preparing the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. I recognize their efforts to
send a positive message to reformers in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia by increasing the level of assistance to Serbia to $115
million for fiscal year 2002, which is $15 million above the fiscal
year 2001 level, and providing $45 million for Montenegro.
Further, the committee has included language in its report applauding
the work that has been done by reformers in the FRY during the past
year. I also strongly support my colleagues' decision to provide $28
million toward debt relief for the FRY, and I was pleased to join
Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell as a cosponsor of an amendment
authorizing that authority.
While I support many provisions in the bill, I am nonetheless
concerned that the same conditions on U.S. assistance to the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia that were crafted in October 2000, just weeks
after the change of government, appear in the bill one year later. It
is my feeling that placing the same conditions on U.S. assistance to
FRY now may send the wrong message to the country's reformers. While we
should continue to encourage progress in the FRY, I believe placing the
same three conditions on U.S. aid to the country year after year could
be counterproductive.
I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee and the Foreign Relations Committee during the next year
regarding developments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as our aid
program to the country evolves, with the hope that we will be able to
move beyond conditionality in years to come.
While it is important for the United States to understand progress
that is made in the FRY, it is also imperative that the leaders of the
FRY understand that the actions they take on the three areas outlined
in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2001 will have a
dramatic impact on whether or not the conditions are included in next
year's bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, one of the most important provisions in
this legislation conditions assistance to the Colombian Armed Forces on
improvements in human rights.
It is essential to ensure that U.S. military aid does not contribute
to human rights abuses in Colombia. Allegations of human rights
violations by military personnel there have decreased, but the State
Department's 2000 Country Report on Human Rights Practices concluded
that the Colombian Government's human rights record ``remained poor''
and that ``government security forces continued to commit serious
abuses, including extrajudicial killings.''
Many of us are particularly concerned about persistent links between
the Colombian Armed Forces and illegal paramilitary groups. On
September 10, Secretary of State Powell included the largest of these
groups, known by its acronym as the AUC, on the State Department's list
of terrorist groups. According to the State Department's Human Rights
report, the Colombian military has repeatedly reassured our government
``that it would not tolerate collaboration'' with such groups and that
``the army would combat paramilitary groups.'' However, the report
concludes that such links persist and that ``actions in the field were
not always consistent with the leadership's positions.''
The report says:
Members of the security forces collaborated with
paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances
allowing such groups to pass through roadblocks, sharing
information, or providing them with supplies or ammunition.
Despite increased government efforts to combat and capture
members of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed
to take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary
forces find a ready support base within the military and
police, as well as among local civilian elites in many areas.
A report recently released by Human Rights Watch titled ``The Sixth
Division: Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in Colombia,''
states that
[[Page S10966]]
the Colombia military and police detachments continue to promote, work
with, support profit from, and tolerate paramilitary groups, treating
them as a force allied to and compatible with their own.
Paramilitary groups continue to be linked to most human rights
violations committed in Colombia, including massacres. The State
Department's Human Rights report cites a sharp increase in the number
of victims of paramilitary violence in the last year. Just two weeks
ago, a new and ruthless massacre was committed by the AUC in Colombia.
At least twenty-four men were forced to lie on the ground and then were
executed one by one in cold blood.
Many of us are deeply concerned that a majority of the armed forces
personnel who collaborate with the paramilitary organizations and who
are responsible for human rights abuses are not prosecuted effectively.
According to the State Department's report, ``impunity for military
personnel who collaborated with members of paramilitary groups remained
common.'' Although the Colombian government claims to have dismissed
more than 500 members of the military, the State Department says that
it does not know how many were dismissed for collaborating with illegal
paramilitary groups.
The conditions included in this legislation are intended to address
these concerns. They require the Secretary of State to certify that the
Colombian Armed Forces are suspending members who have been credibly
alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, including
extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted paramilitary
groups, and are providing to civilian prosecutors and judicial
authorities requested information on the nature and cause of the
suspension.
The conditions require the Secretary of State to certify that the
Colombian Armed Forces are cooperating with civilian prosecutors and
judicial authorities, including unimpeded access to witnesses and
relevant military documents and other information, in prosecuting and
punishing in civilian courts members of the armed forces who have been
credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights,
including extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted
paramilitary groups.
Finally, the conditions require the Secretary of State to certify
that the Colombian Armed Forces are taking effective steps to sever
links, including denying access to military intelligence, vehicles, and
other equipment or supplies, ceasing other forms of active or tacit
cooperation with paramilitary groups, and carrying out existing arrest
warrants.
These conditions will help ensure that U.S. assistance does not
contribute to human rights violations in Colombia. I urge my colleagues
to support these important provisions.
Another important provision is intended to improve the lives of the
Dalit in India.
India's 160 million Dalits, who are also known as ``untouchables,''
suffer severe hardship and face a unique form of discrimination. As
victims of economic exploitation rooted in the caste system, they are
virtually excluded from Indian society and endure some of the worst
health conditions in the world. Dalits are born poor and landless and
face discrimination at almost every stage in life. Wages from their
jobs rarely provide enough income to feed their families or educate
their children, and so the cycle of poverty and illiteracy continues
from generation to generation.
In rural areas, where sewer systems are virtually non-existent, many
Dalits make their living cleaning human waste. These workers, known as
scavengers, use little more than a broom, a tin plate and a basket,
they clear human waste from public and private latrines, and carry the
waste long distances in porous wicker baskets to disposal sites. In
urban areas, they often work neck-deep in pits filled with human waste
and risk asphyxiation in city sewers. Health conditions are appalling.
Nearly all of these workers are women, and some are children.
A Dalit in India once described their existence:
When we are working, they ask us not to come near them. At
tea canteens, they have separate tea tumblers and they make
us clean them ourselves and make us put the dishes away
ourselves. We cannot enter temples. We cannot use upper-caste
water taps. We have to go one kilometer away to get water. .
. .
Dalit communities are frequently punished for individual
transgressions. With little knowledge of their rights, limited access
to attorneys, and no money for hearings or bail, they are easy targets
for criminal prosecution. Police single out Dalit activists for
persecution and frequently abuse and torture Dalit suspects.
While the Indian Constitution and the 1955 Civil Rights Act abolished
untouchability, and subsequent laws allow for affirmative action,
hiring quotas and special training funds, discrimination against Dalits
continues to flourish in Indian society. As the great author of the
Indian constitution--and Dalit--statesman Dr. Ambedkar once said:
``Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas have gone but the Untouchables have
remained as Untouchables.''
While there are many people of goodwill in India, discrimination and
poverty are widespread in the Dalit community. The foreign aid we
provide to India should contribute to easing the hardship and misery
suffered by this community and to addressing the disparity between
Dalits and others in India.
To advance this objective, a provision in this legislation requires
the executive director of the World Bank to vote against any water or
sewage project in India that does not prohibit the use of scavenger
labor. Precious and limited resources should be used to provide
incentive to communities in India to abolish this kind of labor and to
reward those that do so.
Additionally, the report accompanying the Senate bill highlights the
important role an organization called the Navsarjan Trust in India is
building a civil society in India by promoting the rights of the Dalit
community. The report encourages AID to provide funding for the Trust,
which is run by Martin Macwan, who received the Robert F. Kennedy Human
Rights Award in 2000 for his work on behalf of the Dalit.
Founded in 1989, the Navsarjan Trust seeks to end discrimination
against the Dalit. Since it was founded, it has become a highly
respected force that focuses on five issues for the Dalit community:
bringing about the land reforms promised fifty years ago in the Indian
Constitution, improving the working conditions and wages of farm
workers, abolishing scavenger labor, improving educational
opportunities for children, and reducing violence. The Trust achieves
its goals through non-violent protest and the judicial process. In
eleven years, it has grown to 187 full-time organizers and has a
presence in more than 2,000 villages. It is widely viewed as one of the
most effective Dalit advocacy groups in India today, and it has filed a
class action suit to abolish manual scavenging.
Although our assistance program in India is limited, the Navsarjan
Trust would be an important ally and a useful way to help the Dalit
community. Supporting the trust will demonstrate America's commitment
to ending the discrimination faced by India's Dalits. I urge USAID to
make funding available for the organization to advance its worthwhile
objections.
I commend the subcommittee chairman, Senator Leahy, and the other
members of the Appropriations Committee for including these important
provisions to reduce the discrimination faced by the Dalit community in
India. Senator Leahy is an effective champion of human rights
throughout the world. I commend his leadership on this issue, and I
look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress to
improve the lives of the Dalit community in India.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am an enthusiastic supporter of robust
American engagement with the world, and I believe current circumstances
demand such a presence. We must also resolve to back our commitment
with the financial resources to support the range of our interests
overseas. For this reason, I am particularly disappointed by the long
list of unrequested and unnecessary earmarks in the FY 2002 Foreign
Operations Appropriations bill, which total $186.2 million. This figure
represents $30 million more than was contained in last
[[Page S10967]]
year's Foreign Operations bill for programs neither requested by the
Administration nor authorized by Congress through the regular, merit-
based process for allocating scarce resources.
It is the task of America's leaders to make the case for meaningful
foreign operations funding in the face of public skepticism about the
flow of American tax dollars overseas. It is incumbent upon those of us
who serve in elective office to uphold the bipartisan tradition of
enlightened American leadership around the world. In this era of
globalization, international affairs touch the lives of average
Americans in unprecedented ways. And as we wage a global campaign to
purge from the world the terrorist threat against our very way of life,
the assistance we provide to friendly governments and impoverished
peoples across the globe supports our ability to sustain an
international coalition to fight terror and retain the popular goodwill
necessary to this task.
Unfortunately, the excessive and unwarranted earmarks in this bill do
not inspire confidence that all our tax dollars are being spent in a
manner most conducive to the advancement of our shared national
concerns. Indeed, it may shock some Americans to know that parochial
interests, not the national interest, have driven a disturbing
proportion of the spending allocations contained in this bill.
Fragile allies suffering from civil unrest and economic decay will
not be helped by this bill's provision of $2.3 million in ``core
support'' for the International Fertilizer Development Center, or the
report language's recommendation of $4 million for its work. Peanuts,
orangutans, gorillas, neotropical raptors, tropical fish, and exotic
plants also receive the committee's attention, although it's unclear
why any individual making a list of critical international security,
economic, and humanitarian concerns worth addressing would target these
otherwise meritorious flora and fauna.
The committee has disturbingly singled out for funding a laundry list
of American universities some with multi-billion dollar endowments in
contravention of the usual merit-based process of allocating scarce
foreign assistance dollars to the most worthy causes. Although
disappointing, it is perhaps not surprising that there is a correlation
between the geographic locations of many of the universities targeted
for special treatment and the home states of those on the
Appropriations Committee and members of the Senate leadership. Those
left out of this correlation predicated on patronage rather than value
to American national interests are, of course, the very people we would
like to help overseas, and the programs of liberalization and reform we
would otherwise use the money to encourage.
Given the unprecedented war we are in, we should be redoubling our
efforts to target as many resources as possible to win it. To this end,
we should all heed the words of Office of Management and Budget
Director Mitch Daniels, who said, ``Everything ought to be held up to
scrutiny. Situations like this can have a clarifying benefit. People
who could not identify a low priority or lousy program before may now
see the need.''
America will go on, and we will continue to lead the world as only we
can. The security and prosperity of our people demand it. Our wish to
see our values flourish universally requires it. But we are
handicapping ourselves in refusing, even in these times, to abandon the
parochialism that infected congressional spending decisions long before
our compelling international responsibilities provided us with a higher
calling. Perhaps some of this parochial funding could be spent in a
better way, helping more people and further advancing the virtuous
causes we aspire to lead.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
documentation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002
bill language
TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Development Assistance:
The International Fertilizer Development Center: provides
$2,300,000 for core support.
The United States Telecommunications Training Institute:
provides $500,000 for support.
The American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program: provides
$19,000,000.
report language
TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
The Gorgas Memorial Institute Initiative for Tuberculosis
Control: Committee recommends $2,000,000.
Iodine Deficiency/Kiwanis: Committee recommends that AID
provide at least $2.5 million to Kiwanis International
through UNICEF.
Helen Keller Worldwide, the International Eye Foundation,
and others: Committee expects USAID to provide $1.3 million.
Helen Keller Worldwide-initiated programs to aid the
visually impaired in Vietnam and Cambodia: committee urges
USAID to expand funding for similar programs.
Population Media Center: Committee supports.
International Medical Equipment Collaborative: urges AID to
consider for funding.
Mobility International USA: recommends AID consider support
for up to $300,000.
Women's Campaign International: Committee recommends
$600,000.
Vital Voices Global Partnership: Committee recommends
$100,000.
American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: Committee has
provided not less than $19 million and expects USAID to
allocate funds for Operating Expenses. The following are
specified as deserving further support: Lebanese American
University, International College, the Johns Hopkins
University's Centers in Nanjing and Bologna, the Center
for American Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, the
Hadassah Medical Organization, the American University of
Beirut, and the Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann
Institute of Science.
Patrick J. Leahy War Victims Fund: Committee expects $12
million be made available to support the fund's work.
United States Telecommunications Training Institute:
Committee has provided not less than $500,000.
International Executive Service Corps: Committee recommends
$5 million to support additional work by the IESC.
American University of Beirut: Committee urges AID to fund
this program.
Sustainable Harvest International: Committee urges AID to
provide $100,000.
U.S./Israel Cooperative Development Program and Cooperative
Development Research Program: Committee supports funding.
World Council of Credit Unions: Committee recommends up to
$2 million.
Protea Germplasm: requests AID to fund a joint South
Africa-U.S. conference on sustaining the protea industries in
South Africa and United States.
International Fertilizer Development Center: Committee
recommends $4 million for the core grant and research and
development activities.
Biodiversity Programs: Committee expects AID to provide
$100 million to enhance biodiversity in marine environments.
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research:
Committee recommends $500,000 to initiate a demonstration
program on sustainable renewable energy systems.
Tropical Fish and Plant Global Market: Committee urges
funding by AID.
Parks in Peril: Committee continues strong support for the
program.
Foundation for Security and Stability: Committee recommends
$2.5 million.
The Peregrine Fund: Committee recommends $500,000 for the
Neotropical Raptor Center.
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International: Provides $1.5
million to support the fund and the center.
Orangutan Foundation: Expects provision of $1.5 million to
support such organizations.
International Project WET: encourages AID to support the
project's efforts.
Soils Management Collaborative Research Support Program:
Recommends $3 million for ongoing activities and initiate
work on carbon storage.
Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program: Committee
recommends that AID increase funding for this program.
University Programs: Committee recommends AID and/or the
Department of State consider proposals for funding by the
following organizations: Africa-America Institute, Alliance
of Louisiana Universities, Atlanta-Tbilisi Partnership, City
University, Columbia University, Connecticut State University
System, Dakota Wesleyan University, Dartmouth Medical School,
DePaul University College of Law--includes Arab-Israeli
discussion on arms control and Inter-American Commission of
Women and the Inter-American Children's Institute, EARTH
University, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University,
Florida International University, Green Mountain College,
Iowa State University--includes International Women in
Science and Engineering Program and support to the
International Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics,
Historically Black Colleges, John Hopkins University, Kansas
State University, La Roche College, Louisiana State
University--includes LSU/Latin American Commercial Law
project and International Emergency Training Center, Loyola
University, Marquette University, Mississippi State
University,
[[Page S10968]]
Montana State University Billings,--includes development of
an online Master of Health Administration Degree Program and
expanded programs in international business, St. Michael's
College, St. Thomas University, South Dakota State
University--includes International Arid Lands Consortium
and food security in Central Asia, Temple University,
Tufts University, University of Alaska, University of
Arkansas Medical School, University of Dayton, University
of Illinois--Chicago, University of Indianapolis,
University of Iowa, University of Kentucky, University of
Louisville--includes partnership with Rand Afrikaans
University, program in Georgia, and collaborative research
program on plant materials in Philippine rain forest,
University of Miami, University of Mississippi, University
of Nebraska Medical Center, University of New Orleans,
University of Notre Dame, University of Northern Iowa--
includes, Orava Project Global Health Corps program, and
Russo-American Institute of Mutual Understanding,
University of Rhode Island, University of San Francisco,
University of South Alabama, University of Vermont,
University of Vermont College of Medicine, Utah State
University--includes establishment of a College of
Agriculture of Jenin and World Irrigation Applied Research
and Training Center, Vermont Law School, Yale University,
and Western Kentucky University.
Bridge Fund in Tibet: Committee supports this project.
Joslin Diabetes Center: Committee encourages AID to
support.
Galilee Society and Arava Institute for Environmental
Studies: urges the Administration to consider funding.
School for International Training's Conflict Transformation
Across Cultures Program: Committee believes funding is
needed.
Care for Children International, Romania: encourages AID to
support.
American Bar Association: Requests AID to consider
providing $500,000 to develop international database of
ongoing legal reform efforts.
North Dakota-Turkmenistan Health Partnership and others:
Committee supports.
Eurasian Medical Education Program of the American College
of Physicians: Committee requests to be consulted on future
funding.
Primary Health Care Initiative of the World Council of
Hellenes: Recommends $2 million.
United States-Ukraine Foundation: supports funding.
American Academy in Tbilisi: recommends an increased level
of funding.
Georgia: Provides not less than $3 million for a small
business development project.
Total: $186,200,000.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am heartened by the amount of
cooperation I have witnessed among my Senate colleagues and the
expeditious way they have addressed our national security concerns in
the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11. The passage of the
Airline Security and Anti-Terrorism bills will give the administration
necessary tools to combat terrorism here at home. Whether the anthrax
attacks of last week on our Nation's Capitol prove to be connected to
Al Qaeda, it is certain that the attempt to bring our government to a
standstill has failed. To be sure, the quarters here have been cramped
but our commitment to work together has not been affected. Our thoughts
and prayers go out to the families of the postal workers who lost their
lives this week, but this sad chapter only strengthens our resolve to
find the culprits of these heinous acts and bring them to justice.
I commend the administration for its success in forming an
international coalition on such short notice. The President's visit to
Shanghai last week, and Secretary Powell's visit to India, were
fruitful in getting us needed support from the two most populous
countries in the world. I join the President in admonishing all nations
who want to be a part of the civilized world to either side with us, or
side with the terrorists. The time to be lukewarm is gone; we need to
draw a line in the sand. I believe we are entering into a ``New Cold
War,'' where the stakes are no less grave than they were in the cold
war of the twentieth century. The fight against radical Islam, like the
fight against communism, is a fight to preserve the republican ideals
that made our Nation so great. May we look to President Reagan and the
example he set for American courage and American resolve to win in this
``New Cold War''.
Many of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee know that I am
not a big fan of foreign aid, particularly when there are many vital
projects that deserve attention here at home. The Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill has many flaws, the worst of which has incited a
Presidential veto threat due to provisions that would allow federal
funding for international family planning organizations that perform
abortions overseas. American taxpayer dollars should not be used to
subsidize groups that do not respect the life of the unborn. This sends
the wrong message to our children and cheapens the value of life. Other
flaws include the onerous certification requirements that the
administration must fulfill in order to assist in the rebuilding of
vital infrastructure that we destroyed in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo
war. Yugoslavia has made tremendous strides towards democracy, as can
be witnessed by the free and fair elections that peacefully removed the
Milosevic regime. Rather than further harm the Yugoslav people who are
in need of such basic things as clean water, and heating for the coming
winter months, we should allow the administration to grant assistance
as it sees fit in this area.
I also have a problem with a bill that is over a half a billion
dollars larger than last year, but is over $160 million below the
funding level requested by the administration for programs to curb
illicit narcotics trafficking in the Andean region. How can we justify
a spending increase of this magnitude at the expense of important
programs that help to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into this
country? Where is this increase in spending going?
Despite these flaws, however, the events over the past 6 weeks have
understandably changed Americans' outlook on international affairs, and
our need to stay engaged. I recognize the responsibility the United
States has in leading the fight to defend democracy and Western
Civilization and, as such, the United States must remain involved in
the international arena. This is not the time to isolate ourselves. The
administration must have a complete arsenal at its disposal for the war
against terrorism, and that includes having the ability to use foreign
aid as a means to reward and reinvest in those nations who actively
support us in this fight. Therefore, I will support the passage of this
bill on condition that its most grave flaws be remedied in conference
with the House. However, should the conference report be sent to the
Senate floor ``unremedied,'' I will be forced to consider opposing the
report and urging my colleagues to do likewise.
Lastly, as a complement to the ongoing efforts to strengthen our
national security, I urge the speedy passage of a revamped Intelligence
Authorization bill that will give our intelligence community the
capability it needs not to not only streamline the gathering and
sharing of information among various agencies, but to have the
discretion to act on that information as well. Our agents in the field
should not be more worried about getting reprimanded for the methods
they use in collecting information, than they should about ensuring the
safety of our Nation.
I would also like to reiterate the importance to our national
security of passing an energy bill that will allow us to explore other
sources of energy domestically. As the prospects of a widened war in
the Middle East becomes more likely, it is crucial that we take steps
now to wean ourselves away from foreign sources of oil. We currently
consume up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq alone. If the
American people are worried about the state of the economy now, just
wait until we have a real energy crisis, and we will all see the
economy go into a tailspin.
The eyes of the free world look to us for direction. We must not fail
them.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the ranking member, Senator
McConnell, for his support and cooperation throughout this process. He
has been a partner in writing the bill, in resolving the amendments,
and I value his friendship and his advice.
I also commend the staff, for all their work. In particular, I
recognize Paul Grove, who took over as the Republican clerk for the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee earlier this year. Paul has quickly
learned the appropriations process and has been a pleasure to work
with.
In addition, Mark Lippert, the new deputy clerk on the Democratic
side, has done an outstanding job.
Jennifer Chartrand, who has been a professional staff member for the
Appropriations Committee for several years, provided essential advice
and support to my staff. She was indispensable.
[[Page S10969]]
I thank Tara Magner of my Judiciary Committee staff, and J.P. Dowd,
my legislative director, for their help during floor consideration of
this bill.
I recognize Tim Rieser, the Democratic clerk for the subcommittee,
for all his help.
And I thank Dakota Rudesill, staff member for the Budget Committee,
who provided excellent and very helpful advice during floor
consideration of this bill.
Finally, as always, we owe a debt to Billy Piper, on Senator
McConnell's staff. Billy came in at crucial times to resolve a number
of important issues.
That completes action on the Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year
2002.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know of no other amendments.
I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.R. 2506, the foreign
operations appropriations bill, upon the disposition of all amendments,
the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the
bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses,
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the
Senate, with the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read
the third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:
[Roll Call Vote No. 312 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Byrd
Graham
NOT VOTING--2
Kyl
Landrieu
The bill (H.R. 2506) was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. REID. Madam 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair appoints. Mr. Leahy,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Byrd, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Bond,
and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity to
thank the staff of my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, with
whom we have worked on this bill for these many years. They are Tim
Rieser, Mark Lippert, and J.P. Dowd. I also extend my thanks to
Jennifer Chartrand, Billy Piper of my personal staff, and Paul Grove,
who replaced my long-time staffer, Robert Cleveland of the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee. He has done a superb job with his first bill.
I thank them all from the bottom of my heart.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished chairman
and ranking member for their excellent work. This is not an easy bill.
Oftentimes, it is one that keeps us occupied for days, if not weeks. I
thank them for their leadership, and I am very grateful for the fact
that we were able to get this bill done.
Also, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy,
for his work on the global AIDS matter. Were it not for him, we would
not have had the additional resources that are so critical right now,
this year, from this country. He did an outstanding job in that regard,
too. While he is not on the floor at the moment, I thank him personally
for all of his work.
As I announced earlier, it is our intention to take up the
counterterrorism legislation. It has now passed in the House. We have
had a good debate in the Senate. I would like to proceed with a
unanimous consent request that would accommodate a good deal of debate
again on a bill. I know there may be a colloquy involved. Let me
proceed with the unanimous consent request, and I ask the cooperation
of all Senators. I will propound the request now.
____________________