[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13894-S13902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FOREIGN OPERATIONS EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 2506) and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2506), making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, having met, have 
     agreed that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an 
     amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, signed by a 
     majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report can be found in the House proceedings of 
December 19, 2001.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with American troops on the ground in 
Afghanistan, with an uneasy coalition of nations confronting an 
unprecedented war on terrorism, and with the possibility of all-out war 
looming over the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations conference report before us today comes at a pivotal 
moment in our nation's history. Given the volatility of the situation 
in the Middle East in the midst of America's war on terrorism, it is 
vital that Congress and the Administration present a united foreign 
policy front to the rest of the world. For that reason, I will vote for 
the FY 2002 Foreign Operations conference report, I do so reluctantly 
and with reservation--and I do not often vote for Foreign Operations 
appropriations bills.
  I believe it is time--I believe it is past time--to rethink our 
foreign aid policy and how relates to our national security priorities. 
September 11 was a wake up call on many fronts. As a result of the 
attack on America, we have made sweeping changes in our concept of 
national security. We have learned that national security also means 
homeland defense. We have learned that airplanes can be bombs and that 
letters in the mail can be lethal. We have learned that we must change 
our definition of defense to encompass defending our domestic 
infrastructure as well as defending against ballistic missile threats.
  These changes reflect the realization that the September 11 terrorist 
attacks on U.S. soil may not be an isolated incident. At this moment, 
there may be people planning other terrorist acts against our homeland. 
We have already experienced three terrorism alerts in the U.S. since 
September 11. Almost daily, we hear grim predictions of what the future 
may bring. We are living in an age of global instability, 
disenfranchised and desperate peoples, and widespread proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. The volatility of the current world 
situation is without precedent.
  And yet, in many ways, the major instrument of our foreign policy--
the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act--reflects a distressing 
attitude of business-as-ususal. I do not fault the authors of this 
bill. Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell have done an excellent job in 
balancing the priorities of the Administration with the concerns of 
Congress and the needs of our allies throughout the world. They have 
done so with care and skill, and they are to be commended for their 
work.
  No, the fault, I believe, lies with our inability as a nation to 
relinquish long held conventional wisdom about foreign aid and 
recognize that the changing global environment requires a revamping of 
our foreign policy. We must move away from using dollars to symbolize 
the strength of our relations with other countries, and instead focus 
our energies--and our resources on promoting a new understanding of 
foreign policy that complements and enhances our global war on 
terrorism.
  Nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East, where renewed 
violence and antipathy have brought Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority to the brink of open warfare. Since September 29, 2000, the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fueled by generations of hatred, has 
claimed nearly 1,000 lives. For the past 15 months, the unending cycle 
of violence has pitted the home-made bombs and deadly suicide missions 
of the Palestinians against the heavy armor and missile attacks of the 
Israelis. Many, perhaps most, of the victims have been young people 
barely on the cusp of adulthood. The sad fact is that the next 
generation of leaders of the Israelis and the Palestinians are being 
sacrificed to the blood feud of their elders.
  The United States, like the rest of the world, has looked on this 
ceaseless carnage in horror. We have expressed dismay, regret, sorrow, 
and anger. We have wrung our hands in despair. We have condemned the 
violence in the strongest terms. But we have not suited our words to 
any meaningful action. In this bill, our foreign assistance to the 
Middle East virtually ignores the spiraling violence in the region. 
This bill provides $5.1 billion dollars in foreign assistance to the 
Middle East, primarily Israel and Egypt, a level almost identical to 
last year's funding. It is as if nothing has changed. There are no 
strings on the money. There is no requirement that the bloodshed abate 
before the funding is released. There is no motivation for Egypt to 
step up its effort to mediate between the sides, and there is no 
incentive whatsoever for Israel and the Palestinians to make meaningful 
progress toward a peaceful settlement of their differences.
  In short, we are doing little more than offering a tacit 
acknowledgment that the United States is powerless to stop the 
bloodshed. We are sending the wrong signal to the Middle East. By not 
using our foreign assistance dollars as an instrument to effect change 
in the Mideast, we are inadvertently helping to fuel the continued 
cycle of violence. And what has this hands-off policy produced? Empty 
promises, escalating violence, and the prospect of war instead of peace 
between Israel and the Palestinians.
  Now what? Where does the so-called peace process go from here? Can we 
really expect the Israelis to exercise restraint following the most 
recent escalation of violence against their citizens? Is there any 
point in urging Yassar Arafat to seize and punish the terrorists within 
his control when he is obviously unable to live up to his promises? Is 
there any hope that the Israelis and Palestinians will be able to re-
engage in meaningful discussions in the foreseeable future?
  In the current poisonous environment, neither side has any incentive 
to resume peace talks. To give his expressions of dismay any 
credibility, Mr. Arafat will have to conduct a swift and sweeping 
crackdown on the leaders of the Palestinian terrorist cells--something 
he has never been able to accomplish in the past. And even if Mr. 
Arafat could deliver on his promises, it will take masterful leadership 
on the part of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to restrain his 
military options and to place Israel's settlements in disputed areas on 
the negotiating table--two difficult but necessary prerequisites for 
peace.
  The Israelis and the Palestinians, riven by generations of hatred, 
cannot hope to accomplish these goals on their own. It is time for 
Egypt--with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Jordan--to exercise its 
considerable influence in the region and place long term security 
interests over short term internal political costs. Such leadership 
will not be easy. President Mubarak will have to make hard choices and 
steel himself and his government against the predictable political 
backlash from the more radical elements of his own country. But 
President Mubarak's leadership is necessary to temper the emotions of 
his fellow members of the Arab League.

[[Page S13895]]

  The United States has a similarly difficult task before it. Despite 
our clear alliance with Israel, the U.S. must regain the role of honest 
broker. We must stop rewarding the status quo with an uninterrupted 
flow of foreign aid dollars and instead use foreign assistance as a 
tool to leverage peace.
  We are certainly not doing so now. Just a few weeks ago, the State 
Department confirmed the intended sale of 53 advanced anti-ship 
missiles to Egypt. Egypt contends that these missiles are needed to 
protect its borders, but the fact is, these deadly accurate missiles 
have the range to threaten Israel's ports and shipping. Given the 
tinderbox that is the Middle East today, why is the United States 
contemplating sending these weapons into the region at this time?
  Meanwhile, we routinely sell advanced aircraft and missiles to Israel 
as part of our foreign assistance package. Some of these U.S.-made 
high-tech weapons have been used to target and assassinate Palestinian 
terrorists. Just days ago, we again saw television images of Israeli-
operated, American-made jets and helicopters launching missiles at 
buildings used by the Palestinian Authority. You can be sure those 
images were seen throughout the Arab world. How can we demand peace on 
one hand when we are providing instruments of destruction with the 
other?
  Israel and the United States are the staunchest of allies. No one 
should question our support of Israel's right to exist. But support 
need not translate into enabling. The United States, the Middle East, 
and the world would be better served if we changed our policy in the 
Middle East to reflect reality, not rhetoric. The Palestinians must 
stop the cycle of violence. The Israelis must practice restraint. The 
United States must back up its words with action.
  We have a road map to restart the Middle East peace process, the 
Mitchell Report. This blueprint, drawn up by former Senator George 
Mitchell and issued last April, is a step-by-step plan to end the 
violence and resume negotiations between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians. The Mitchell Report is often cited as a practical and 
workable solution. It has strong support in both the Administration and 
the Congress. But to date, it is doing little more in real terms than 
gathering dust on a shelf. To date, there has been no incentive on 
either side to make the hard decisions that are required to actually 
implement the steps of the Mitchell Report.
  It is time for the United States to provide some incentive. It is 
time to try to implement the Mitchell Report. Just as we must hold the 
Palestinians responsible for increasing the violence, so must we hold 
the Israelis responsible for the inflammatory expansion of settlements 
in disputed areas. The Mitchell Report provides a clear and unbiased 
insight into the realities of the dispute between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians. It is remarkable in its fairness and even-handedness in 
holding both sides accountable for their transgressions. Our foreign 
assistance policy should do no less. I call on the Administration and 
this body to take a fresh look at how we apply our foreign assistance 
to the Middle East before we take up another foreign policy measure in 
the Senate.

  And when we take that fresh look at our Middle East policy, we should 
look at all facets--all facets--of our relationship both with Israel 
and its Arab neighbors. For example, if we are quick to condemn Iran 
for the transfer of missile technology to North Korea, how can we stand 
silent in the face of Israel's sale of advanced weapons and components 
to China--weapons that are based on U.S. technology or developed in 
Israel with U.S. tax dollars? China may not be in the same category as 
North Korea, but it defies logic to think that the sale of advanced 
American weapons technology to China is in the security interests of 
the United States. Foreign policy decisions do not exist in a vacuum. 
Our support for Israel affects the Arab world's policies toward the 
U.S. The weapons systems that Israel sells to China could effect 
China's capability to inflict harm on the United States. With the new 
urgency to protect our homeland, these are significant issues that 
should be dealt with honestly and openly in future foreign assistance 
programs.
  In light of September 11, the P-3 incident of April 1 has almost 
faded from many memories. That was 5 months before 9-11, and our 
service men and women were put in harm's way by a brutal regime, which 
summarily executes dissidents and independence-seeking nationalists in 
Tibet and other occupied lands. Have the recipients of our fungible 
foreign aid dollars and other friends and allies been arming this 
potential adversary of ours, which in turn provides chemical and 
biological weapon delivery systems to terrorist-sponsoring states? The 
answer is yes. China is a known proliferator of chemical weapons and 
ballistic missiles capable of delivering chemical and biological 
warheads, and Britain, France, Russia, and Israel have been selling 
weapons and transferring advanced military and dual-use technologies to 
China. Regrettably, our record is not clean either. Our excessively 
profit-motivated corporations have also transferred technologies to the 
PRC, sometimes as the price of doing business there and sometimes even 
voluntarily. China is known to have provided missiles capable of being 
equipped with chemical and biological warheads to Iraq. Iraq is a 
terrorist state, a manufacturer and user of chemical and biological 
weapons, and a sponsor of terrorist groups. China has provided 
ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, to Syria, to Iran, and to Libya. It 
has provided nuclear weapons to Syria, to Japan, and to Iraq. It 
provided chemical weapons to Syria. It provided them to Iran.
  Could these weapons be used against our personnel and our allies in 
the event of a future confrontation? The answer is yes. Are these 
weapons sales to China in the interests of American national security? 
Of course not. I was one of the initiators of the enabling legislation 
of the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, a bipartisan 
Congressional commission. One of its specific mandates is to analyze 
the transfer of our advanced military and dual-use technology by trade, 
procurement, or other means to China. The Commission is looking into 
technology transfers to the PRC through third parties. Another specific 
mandate to
  The Commission is to look at the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. The basic purpose of the Commission is to assess the 
impact of these and other acts on the national security interests of 
the United States. The Commission is to report its findings and 
recommendations to Congress and the President in May. I look forward to 
the report today, the United States is embroiled in a war of its own in 
the Middle East. Until recently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had 
largely vanished from the headlines, displaced by the specter of hand-
to-hand combat between American troops and Taliban forces in 
Afghanistan. But the importance of seeking a peaceful solution to the 
violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis is no less urgent 
than it has always been. The recent terrorist attacks against innocent 
Israeli citizens and the possibility that Israel will launch its own 
war against Palestinian terrorists is all the proof--all the proof--
that we need.
  If this cycle of violence continues unabated, if the Israelis and the 
Palestinians are unable to come to terms themselves, then the United 
States should intervene by conditioning future foreign assistance to 
the Middle East--to all the major players, including Egypt, including 
Israel, including Jordan and including the Palestinians--on 
implementation of the Mitchell Report or something very like it.
  U.S. interests are not served by the perpetuation of violence between 
the Israelis and the Palestinians. No one should be more cognizant of 
this fact than the citizens of Israel, where precious lives have once 
again fallen victim to Arab extremists bent on wreaking havoc. No one 
should be more cognizant of this fact than Yassar Arafat, who time and 
again has failed to moderate the extremist Palestinians who are 
determined to sabotage any movement toward peace. No one should be more 
cognizant of this fact than the United States, which has spent billions 
upon billions of tax dollars and sponsored countless rounds of peace 
talks, to no apparent avail.
  The path to peace in the Middle East is a two-way street, and like 
most roads in that ancient part of the world, the path is steep and the 
path is rocky

[[Page S13896]]

and the path is difficult to traverse. But, with faith and 
perseverance, it need not be a dead end street. There is no ideal 
solution to the travail in the Middle East. There is no right answer, 
there is no fair solution, there is no justice for all those who have 
suffered. There is only accommodation and acceptance, giving ground and 
restraining hatred. But there is no other solution.
  If the Palestinians and the Israelis continue to pursue hatred and 
revenge, the future of Israel will be written in blood, as the past 
pages are written in blood, and the dreams of a new Palestinian state 
will lie shattered in the dust. If the players in this tragedy cannot 
bring themselves to accept that fact, the United States should use its 
every tool--every tool--and I am including dollars, I am including the 
instrument of foreign assistance--to pressure the sides to negotiate a 
peace. To do otherwise makes us little more than an accessory to the 
violence.
  Mr. President, these are strong words. They are intended to be. These 
are perilous times. This is not the time to mince words. As we saw on 
September 11, and as we all fear we may see again, allowing hatred to 
rage unfettered in the Middle East places our very homeland in 
jeopardy. The war that we are waging against terrorism is the first and 
most urgent step in protecting our homeland. But defeating the 
terrorists is only the first step. We must also work to eradicate 
terrorism, eradicate the causes, if we can. Abandoning conventional 
wisdom in these unconventional times and using our foreign assistance 
dollars to effect change instead of making a pro forma allotment of 
funds is the best, and perhaps the only, means that we have at hand to 
help shape a peaceful future for the Middle East.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Louisiana will be 
seeking recognition in a moment. I will be relatively brief.
  Let me say to Senator Byrd from West Virginia, I stayed on the floor 
because even in all the tumult here this afternoon, as we were trying 
to get final agreement on a number of bills or establish disagreement, 
I learned that Senator Byrd was going to give a speech on foreign 
policy issues. I have heard him speak on this subject before and found 
it very interesting, thoughtful, and thought provoking. That is why I 
stayed and listened because I wanted to hear what the Senator from West 
Virginia had to say in this area.
  As I suspected, I found it interesting and useful. I hope the 
administration will review these remarks, and I hope those in the 
Middle East who are involved in a very dangerous situation on all sides 
will take into consideration what has been said there.
  For years I have been concerned that our policy didn't always make 
sense. We seemed to be giving money to all sides with no assurances and 
sometimes not even participation by those who received that aid. I have 
always thought it was almost contradictory, maybe even hypocritical. 
This is a volatile part of the world. It is a place where the pages of 
history do reflect conflict and bloodshed. We all hope and pray for a 
peaceful solution.
  I do think it is going to take an extraordinary effort. First, the 
Palestinians have to be prepared to accept peace and security with 
Israel. Israel has to be prepared to seek a negotiated peace agreement. 
All have to be participants, including other Arab countries in the 
world receiving aid from America. And America has to be prepared to 
press these points on them.
  I say to Senator Byrd, I appreciate his taking the time. More 
Senators should think about this subject and express themselves. We 
should take a look at our foreign operations appropriations process 
more closely, maybe consider making some changes next year.
  We also need to take advantage of this time in which we find 
ourselves with support from countries that have not traditionally been 
our allies, a number of people who are working with us against whom we 
had been taking unilateral sanction actions. We should review all of 
that. The world is different now. It is an opportunity, as we move 
forward in fighting terrorism, completing the action in Afghanistan, 
and looking at where terrorism may be in other parts of the world. It 
is going to be an opportunity for this administration, under the 
leadership of President Bush and Secretary Powell and his other 
advisers, such as Condoleezza Rice, to change our thinking and to 
improve our position and our relationship with a number of countries 
around the world.
  I thank Senator Byrd for his remarks this afternoon. I do commend 
them to all Senators when they have an opportunity.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Republican leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield to Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the leader for his comments and his observations. I 
thank him for remaining on the floor, and I thank him for what I accept 
to be an observation that we do need to use our foreign aid dollars as 
a tool to help bring about peace in the Middle East.
  I am not attempting to take sides one way or the other. We give $3 
billion to Israel every year. We give $2 billion to Egypt--$5 billion. 
And we seem to give this without asking the question. We ought to 
require both Israel and Egypt to work hard for peace and to be willing 
to give a little here and give a little there or else this money isn't 
going to be paid.
  Could the leader imagine with me what we could do in this country for 
the American people with $5 billion more every year; what that would do 
for homeland security, $5 billion a year; what it would do for New York 
City? We give these dollars practically without asking a question. I 
think both those countries look upon this $5 billion--$3 billion in the 
case of Israel, $2 billion in the case of Egypt--I think they virtually 
look upon these $5 billion as entitlements. They put these figures into 
their budgets. They apparently have no doubts that the moneys are going 
to come. And the way we have been operating for several years, those 
moneys have come.
  I think it is time to put some strings on those moneys: If you want 
this money to help, we want you to work for peace.
  That is what I am saying today. I am not attempting to take any 
sides. But we hand this taxpayers' money out to the tune of $5 billion 
a year. That is $5 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. We 
ought to make those dollars work for peace, and we can make them work 
for peace. That is what I am asking.
  I thank the distinguished Republican leader.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring for the conference report to H.R. 2506, 
the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002.
  The conference report provides $15.346 billion in discretionary 
budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $5.537 
billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into 
account, discretionary outlays for the conference report total $15.106 
billion in 2002. By comparison, the Senate-passed version of the bill 
provided $15.524 billion in discretionary budget authority, which would 
have resulted in $15.138 billion in total outlays. H.R. 2506 is within 
its Section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. In 
addition, it does not include any emergency designations.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee 
scoring of H.R. 2506 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     H.R. 2506, CONFERENCE REPORT TO THE FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT
        FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
    [Spending comparisons--Conference Report, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:
  Budget Authority...............       15,346           45       15,391
  Outlays........................       15,106           45       15,151
Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
  Budget Authority...............       15,524           45       15,569
  Outlays........................       15,149           45       15,194
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............       15,169           45       15,214
  Outlays........................       15,081           45       15,126
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............       15,167           45       15,212
  Outlays........................       15,080           45       15,125
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority...............       15,524           45       15,569
  Outlays........................       15,138           45       15,183
 

[[Page S13897]]

 
  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
  Budget Authority...............         -178            0         -178
  Outlays........................          -43            0          -43
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............          177            0          177
  Outlays........................           25            0           25
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............          179            0          179
  Outlays........................           26            0           26
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority...............         -178            0         -178
  Outlays........................          -32            0          -32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the
  conference report to the Senate 302(b) allocation.
 
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill 
is one of the most important appropriations related to national 
security that Congress makes during the course of the year. It is a 
little known fact to most Americans, but foreign assistance is among 
the first lines of defense in ensuring the safety and security of each 
and every American here and abroad.
  Through this appropriation we fund anti-terrorism activities, we 
provide money to give jobs to Russian nuclear physicists who would 
otherwise be offering their services to whatever terrorist 
organizations were willing to pay them, we fund our antinarcotics 
efforts and provide money to combat the spread of deadly diseases 
before they reach our shores. Mr. President, we are in no way devoting 
the necessary resources to the front line.
  I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriation sub-Committee. They did the best they could with the 
allocation they were given. I know that if he had his druthers the 
chairman would have been working with a much bigger number. I do not 
intend to criticize the hard work that the subcommittee has done. And I 
will acknowledge that for its part, the Senate Budget Committee 
certainly exceeded the administration's grossly inadequate request when 
it made the initial allocation. I applaud that. And I applaud the fact 
that the conferees understood the importance of the Non-proliferation, 
AntiTerrorism, Demining and Related Programs, fully funding vitally 
important accounts such as those for Non-proliferation and Disarmament, 
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory 
Commission, Antiterrorism, Terrorist Interdiction and the International 
Science and technology Centers.
  What I would say to my colleagues, however, is that the conference 
report, although it is slightly more than the administration's request, 
makes it clear that we need to do much, much more. We need to stop 
thinking about foreign assistance as a handout, as welfare for the 
developing world, and consider it a strategic investment in America's 
security.
  The tragic events of September 11 were a wake-up call. The United 
States is not isolated from the rest of the world in a sea of 
invulnerable tranquility. As we stand here today, there are radicals 
preaching anti-American sentiments around the globe. They are saying 
that democracy breeds corruption, and that globalization is the reason 
for poverty. These radicals take advantage of the desperation of the 
poor and the hopeless.
  Poverty and ignorance are one of the most fertile breeding grounds of 
terrorism. By now my colleagues are aware of the fact that many members 
of the Taliban, the same group of radical fiends that harbored Osama 
bin Laden, were refugees in Pakistan who were too poor to afford 
school. They were educated in radical seminaries that they attended 
free of charge. Where were we and the rest of the international 
community with an alternative for these children? We were absent. It 
did not concern us. It was not our problem.

  On the other side of the world in Mali, a Washington Post article 
dated September 30 states that Muslim missionaries have taken 
``hundreds of recruits'' abroad for religious training. The story 
states that radical Islamic religious movements are gaining popularity 
due to corruption and rising poverty. Are we going to ignore the 
warning signs in west Africa as well? Will we let Mali, an emerging 
democracy struggling to hold on by the skin of its teeth, become a 
source of turmoil, unrest and violence? The government there is trying 
to do the right things in terms of economic and market reform. We 
should be empowering the Agency for International Development and the 
State Department to provide the country with the ability to make the 
transition to democracy in such a way that all people benefit. This 
appropriation in no way provides enough money to adequately do so.
  Those who are hopeless and disaffected swell the ranks of terrorist 
organizations. Autocratic politically repressive regimes, where 
discontent and disagreement cannot be expressed, are fertile grounds 
for terrorist recruitment. In countries that prohibit free speech, 
freedom of association and political choice, violence becomes the only 
means through which to affect political change. The United States 
foreign policy apparatus has the mandate to push for change in these 
countries. It lacks the means to do so to the extent necessary.
  I say to my colleagues that we have got to take heed. The problems in 
other countries are our problems. We need to engage, and it is 
impossible to do so on the cheap. We cannot adequately engage the world 
with the monies allocated in this appropriation. The United States 
cannot hope to participate meaningfully in the reconstruction of 
Afghanistan out of these meager funds. The cost of that alone is 
projected to be as much as $18-20 billion over the next 5 years. A cost 
which we must be prepared to share among the donor community.
  As we speak there are students in the very schools in Pakistan that I 
spoke of learning to hate America. As we speak there are anti-Western 
sentiments being preached to people in some mosques in west Africa. 
What are we doing to expose them to American values and ideals so that 
they will not be the perpetrators of violence against U.S. citizens in 
the future?

  The United States cannot be all things to all people everywhere. We 
cannot cure the ills of the world. And I do not believe that 
eliminating poverty will be the silver bullet that eradicates 
terrorism. There is no silver bullet or magic potion that will achieve 
that aim. But let's consider the state of our efforts today. President 
Bush has declared a war on terrorism. He has stated that we must fight 
terrorism on all fronts. I submit that foreign assistance is one 
important tool in our arsenal. We have just been rudely and shockingly 
awakened to the fact that we need to take advantage of each of these 
tools.
  There is nothing we can do which would 100 percent guarantee that 
America will not be attacked by terrorists again. What we can do is 
mitigate the threat. We can help the UN and the government of Pakistan 
provide alternatives to the madrassass that refugee children in 
Pakistan attend because there is no other form of education available. 
We can help eliminate poverty and corruption in developing countries 
that radical elements seize on as a reason to attack so called western 
values and democracy.
  The United States is spending a billion dollars a month on the war in 
Afghanistan. I do not begrudge a penny of that money. We must do 
whatever it takes for however long it takes to wipe Al-Qaida from the 
face of the earth. However, I strongly believe that we must do all we 
can to prevent ever having to fight such a war again. One of the ways 
we can do this is to invest more in preventative measures. We must 
foster the spread of democracy, bolster the judicial and law 
enforcement capabilities of developing countries and help strengthen 
the economies where necessary. What we have done to date is clearly not 
enough.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of 
adoption of the conference report on the Fiscal Year 2002 
appropriations bill for Foreign Operations H.R. 2506.
  The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary 
legislative vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. foreign aid 
budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making generally. 
It contains the largest share--over two-thirds--of total U.S. 
international affairs spending.
  I regret that I was forced to vote against the original Senate 
version of this bill on October 24th, after the Senate rejected my 
attempts to restore

[[Page S13898]]

funding for the Andean Regional Initiative to the level which the 
administration had requested.
  The Andean Regional Initiative represents our best strategy for 
fighting terrorism in this hemisphere. President Andres Pastrana and 
his administration have been leading a valiant fight against the 
narcotraffickers who have been threatening the economy, the society, 
the very civilization of the Republic of Colombia for more than two 
decades now.
  In 2000, Congress approved the first installment of our commitment to 
Plan Colombia. President Bush correctly requested $731 million for 
Fiscal Year 2002, which would have broadened our involvement beyond 
military support and expanded this assistance to Bolivia, Ecuador and 
Peru.
  The Senate bill would have cut this important strategic initiative by 
22 percent, from $731 million to $567 million, which would endanger the 
progress we have made.
  The conferees have agreed to fund the initiative at $660 million, 
which represents a reduction of $71 million from the President's 
request, but that is $93 million above the Senate's level.
  While I remain concerned about what the impact will be on the program 
at the level of funding, it is an improvement to the Senate's position, 
so I am willing to vote for this conference report.
  I also want to emphasize my support for other important priorities 
that are funded by this conference report--priorities that I in no way 
intended to disavow when I voted against the Senate version of the 
bill.
  They include $2.04 billion in military grants and $720 million in 
economic grants for Israel in Fiscal Year 2002.
  We have no stronger ally in the global war on terrorism than the 
State of Israel, and this aid recognizes Israel's key role in helping 
us protect our interests in the Middle East and around the world. I am 
profoundly grateful for the support and assistance that our good 
friends have provided, and I have no doubt that their assistance will 
continue well into the future.
  They include a 22 percent increase in disaster aid, to $235 million.
  The Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis--a new 
initiative for Fiscal Year 2002--receives $435 million from the Child 
Survival and Health Programs Fund and $40 million in other accounts.
  They include $3.5 billion for the Agency for International 
Development (AID). This is $350 million above the administration's 
request and $210 million above fiscal year 2001.
  And finally, there are several terrorism-related issues addressed in 
the Foreign Operations bill, including direct funding for two counter-
terrorism programs; increased resources to meet physical security needs 
at USAID's overseas missions; aid restrictions for countries engaged in 
terrorist activities, and aid allocations for nations helping combat 
terrorism.
  I am pleased to support the conference report, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do so.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are about to pass the foreign operations 
conference report for fiscal year 2002. I want to again thank Senator 
McConnell, Chairman Byrd, and Senator Stevens for their support 
throughout this process.
  I also want to recognize Chairman Kolbe, who worked extraordinarily 
hard to get this conference report passed in the House, and 
Congresswoman Lowey, who was extremely helpful. This was a 
collaborative effort in every sense of the word.
  Mr. President, the attacks of September 11th hold important lessons 
that are relevant to this conference report. They showed us how our 
security is directly and indirectly linked to events and conditions 
around the world.
  With the exception of the cost of deploying our Armed Forces, the 
$15.3 billion in this conference report is what we have available to 
protect our security outside our borders.
  These funds are used to combat poverty, which engulfs a third of the 
world's people who barely survive, and often succumb, on less than $2 
per day. The misery, despair and ignorance that poverty breeds is 
unquestionably one of the reasons for the resentment felt by so many 
people toward the United States.
  The funds in this conference report are used to protect the 
environment and endangered wildlife, to strengthen democracy and the 
rule of law, and to help prevent the proliferation of chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons.
  We support agriculture research at American universities, and we 
promote exports through loans and guarantees for American companies 
competing in foreign markets.
  Mr. President, we call these programs ``foreign assistance.'' They 
are held up as proof of America's generosity. But anyone paying 
attention can see that is only part of the story. These funds directly, 
and indirectly, protect our economy, our democracy, our national 
security. It is in our self-interest, plain and simple.
  This conference report contains 1 percent of the total federal 
budget. On a per capita basis that amounts to about $40 per American 
citizen per year--the cost of a pair of shoes.
  To use another example, next year we plan to spend about $150 million 
on children's education in poor countries where many children, 
especially girls, receive only a few years of schooling. That is less 
than most American cities spend on children's education, yet that is 
all we have for the whole world.
  A year ago, some might have asked what children's education in 
Afghanistan or other countries has to do with America's security. Today 
it should be obvious. People who are educated, who can earn money to 
feed and clothe their families, and participate meaningfully in the 
political process, are not training to be terrorists.
  For years, organizations working on the front lines in poor countries 
have appealed to the Congress and the administration to significantly 
increase the amount of funding to address the inter-related problems of 
population growth, poverty, political and economic instability, 
corruption, environmental degradation, narco-trafficking, and 
terrorism. Year after year, the Congress and the administration have 
turned a deaf ear.
  Is it any wonder that Afghanistan today is a destroyed country that 
became a haven for terrorists?
  Part of the problem is misconceptions about the foreign operations 
budget. People think it's some kind of give-away, when in fact, we use 
it to protect our security.
  Mr. President, since September 11th, a large majority of the American 
public, and a broad, bipartisan cross-section of Members of Congress--
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives--have called for 
substantial increases in funding to address the causes of poverty and 
disillusionment that persists not only in many Muslin countries, but 
among a third of the world's population.
  We can no longer pretend that spending 1 percent of our $2 trillion 
Federal budget is a serious response to these national security needs. 
The widening gap between rich and poor nations is the best evidence of 
that.
  Many have made these points before. Today they are a common refrain. 
Senators Feinstein, Gordon Smith, and I have introduced a resolution 
calling for tripling the foreign assistance budget. Others have 
proposed similar legislation. There have been numerous speeches, 
editorials, and other commentary.
  Yet we have yet to see any effective response from the political 
process. Our foreign assistance budget--I would prefer to call it our 
international security budget--has fallen in real terms since the 
1980s. Rumor has it that the President's fiscal year 2003 budget 
request for International Affairs will be at about the fiscal year 2002 
level--in other words, business as usual, despite the lessons of 
September 11.
  That would be extraordinary short sighted. We cannot possibly deal a 
lasting blow to international terrorism without a multi-prong 
strategy--addressing the social and economic causes of terrorism and 
conflict with foreign assistance, diplomacy, and law enforcement, and 
when necessary, military force.
  Mr. President, the security of an American citizen is worth a lot 
more than the price of a pair of shoes, yet that is how much we are 
spending on the prevention part of this strategy. It is, frankly, 
ludicrous.
  We argue over a few million dollars to alleviate the suffering in 
refugee camps, which are fertile grounds for terrorist recruits. We 
debate about another $5 or $10 million to help the

[[Page S13899]]

world's poorest families start businesses, to work their way out of 
poverty. We rob Peter to pay Paul to get a few more millions for 
children's education or programs to improve health care. We struggle, 
year after year, to increase funding for family planning and 
reproductive health to the level it was six years ago.

  Have we so soon forgotten the lessons of September 11? We are the 
richest, most powerful nation in history, yet we continue to act as 
though the rest of the world barely matters to us.
  We cannot put those lessons into effect without Presidential 
leadership. If President Bush, today, were to ask every American to 
support a tripling of our foreign operations budget, and he explained 
why it is important too our national security and to combating 
international terrorism, does anyone think the Congress would not 
respond or that the public would object? The polls show unequivocally 
that the public understands these issues.
  This conference report is the best we could do with what we had, and 
we owe a debt of gratitude to Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens. But we 
need a multi-prong strategy if we are going to combat international 
terrorism and protect our other security around the world. I hope 
someone in the White House is listening, because this is what the 
President should be saying to America and the world.
  Mr. President, I want to briefly mention a few of the important 
provisions in this conference report.
  It provides sufficient funding for the Export Import Bank to support 
export financing well above the fiscal year 2000 level. This is of 
great importance to American companies who compete for markets in 
developing countries.
  It provides increases for the Foreign Military Financing and 
International Military Education and Training programs.
  It includes additional funding for international peacekeeping and for 
assistance for the former Yugoslavia, including Serbia, Montenegro, and 
Macedonia.
  It includes $475 million for the prevention and treatment of HIV/
AIDS, including $50 million for the Global Fund to combat AIDS, TB and 
malaria. This falls short of what our country should be providing, but 
it is a significant increase above last year's level.

  The conference report also increases funding for other infectious 
disease and children's health programs. These programs are desperately 
needed to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to conduct 
surveillance and respond to diseases like polio and measles. But they 
are equally important for combating the spread of biological agents 
used in acts of terrorism, like anthrax.
  It includes $625 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. This 
is in addition to the $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia that we 
appropriated last year. We include several conditions on our assistance 
to the Colombian Armed Forces, and on the aerial spraying of chemical 
herbicides which are used to eradicate coca.
  The conference report provides $34 million for the UN Population 
Fund, and $446.5 million for USAID's family planning and reproductive 
health programs. Although still less than what the United States was 
providing for these activities in the mid-1990's, it is an increase 
above the fiscal year 2001 level. With 100 million new births each 
year--95 percent of which are in developing countries many of which 
cannot feed their people today, these programs are of vital importance 
in combating poverty.
  The conference report contains the usual earmarks for the Middle East 
countries. It also continues various limitations or restrictions on 
assistance to several governments beyond those I have already 
mentioned, where there is a history of corruption or human rights 
violations that have gone unpunished.
  Mr. President, I want to again thank Senator McConnell for his 
invaluable help.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before us, the foreign operations, 
export financing, and related programs bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal year 
2002. This bill is the primary legislative means by which this body can 
review the U.S. foreign aid budget. That has always been an important 
task, but the events of September 11th have only enhanced the 
importance of examining our priorities and international commitments as 
we seek to stop international terrorism while continuing to promote 
democracy, the rule of law and free markets throughout the world.
  The events of September 11th have caused the United States to re-
examine its relations with many nations including Armenia and 
Azerbaijan. For nearly a decade, our relations with these two nations 
has been shaped by section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act, 102-511. 
Section 907 has restricted aid to Azerbaijan until it ceases the 
blockade and use of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. Section 
907 has been seen as a vital tool in the efforts to encourage Armenia 
and Azerbaijan to resolve the dispute over Nagorno-Karabagh in a 
peaceful manner.
  In spite of the vital role section 907 has played in trying to end 
the blockade of Nagorno-Karabagh, H.R. 2506 will allow the President to 
waive section 907 only with respect to our immediate crisis, the 
international was against terrorism. It is my hope that the President 
will not use this waiver given the important role section 907 plays in 
encouraging a cessation of this blockade that threatens the peace and 
stability of the entire Caucasus region.
  I am heartened by the fact that Congress will review the waiver to 
section 907 in the FY 2003 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and 
will be closely monitoring Azerbaijan's actions and progress in the 
Nagorno-Karabagh peace process.
  In addition, I am particularly pleased that Armenia will receive 
significant military financing and training assistance and it is my 
hope that in the long run, this balanced approach will speed the 
Nagorno-Karabagh process.
  I would like to express my gratitude to Senators Leahy and McConnell 
for their hard work with regard to this bill. In addition, I would like 
to recognize the input of those individuals and organizations from the 
Armenian-American community who understand the importance of America's 
efforts to combat terrorism in the aftermath of September 11th.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
patience as the final negotiations on the FY 2002 foreign operations 
bill came to a conclusion only this week.
  The conference report reflects a compromise between both sides of the 
aisle in the Senate, and with our House colleagues. Let me take a brief 
moment to underscore a few accomplishments in the bill:
  Conferees accepted the Senate amendment--which was painstakingly 
reached with the help of Senator Brownback--permitting counter
terrorism assistance to Azerbaijan, while protecting the integrity of 
section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act. This will ensure that America's 
war on terrorism can be waged effectively--but not at the expense of 
the ongoing negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I thank all 
the conferees for understanding the delicate balance struck on this 
important issue, and I want to recognize the unabashed patriotism of 
the Armenia-American community in supporting the Senate's language.
  Conferees accepted, with modifications, the Senate amendment 
providing $10 million for programs and activities to promote democracy, 
human rights, the rule of law, women's development, and press freedoms 
in countries with a significant Muslim population, and where such 
programs would be important to America's war on terrorism. I strongly 
urge the administration to act quickly in supporting activities 
relating to the welfare and status of Afghan women, and to explore 
initiating women's development programs along border areas where Afghan 
refugees are located.
  Conferees maintained, with modifications, House language requiring 
the President to report to Congress on whether the Palestinian 
Liberation Organization, PLO, has lived up to its 1993 commitments to 
renounce the use of violence against Israel. My colleagues may recall 
that the Senate did not offer a similar provision--at the request of 
Secretary of State Colin Powell--but inclusion of this provision in the 
conference report could not be more timely. I am disheartened and 
sickened by continued incidents of terrorism against the people of 
Israel. The stakes are high for Chairman Arafat, and his political life 
is on the line.

[[Page S13900]]

Arafat needs to get a grip on the extremists he has given free reign on 
the West Bank and Gaza. As we say in Kentucky, you reap what you sow.
  Finally, I want to express my continued frustrations with Egypt over 
its less than enthusiastic support for America's war against terrorism, 
lackluster performance to further the peace process between 
Palestinians and Israelis, and continued anti-American and anti-Semitic 
drivel in its government-controlled press. I have said it before, and I 
will say it again: the Egyptians need to be a better ally to the United 
States. It is not acceptable to purchase No-Dong missiles from North 
Korea. It is appalling to accuse the United States of fattening up the 
people of Afghanistan before slaughtering them. And it is beyond the 
realm of human decency that the song ``I hate Israel'' by Shaaban Abdel 
Rahim is a popular hit in Egypt. Each of these actions will be 
carefully considered during next year's appropriations process.
  Let me close my remarks by thanking Chairman Byrd, Senator Stevens, 
and all the members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for their 
support of this bill. My staff and I look forward to working with 
Senator Leahy and his capable crew--Tim Rieser and Mark Lippert--on the 
Fiscal Year 2003 foreign aid bill early next year. Finally, I extend my 
heartfelt thanks to Jennifer Chartrand, Billy Piper, and Paul Grove for 
their hard work throughout this challenging year.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my sincere 
disappointment that the foreign operations conference report before us 
includes a provision that will suspend the certification process 
worldwide. This goes far beyond what this Senate passed just weeks ago.
  The certification process is this Nation's best--and in many cases, 
only--mechanism to persuade problem nations to work with us as we try 
to stem the flow of illegal narcotics across our borders and onto our 
streets.
  The purpose of the certification profess is not to punish any one 
individual country, but rather to hold all countries to a minimum 
standard of cooperation in the war against illegal drugs. In that 
regard, I believe it is the most effective system we have available to 
us. There simply is no alternative.
  Many have tried to turn the certification issue into a simplistic 
clash between the United States and Mexico. To be sure, in the past 
that relationship has received the most attention.
  But in fact, there are more than 30 countries that undergo an annual 
certification review under current law--including countries like 
Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Burma, and even China.
  Afghanistan, for instance, has been decertified 10 out of 12 times 
they have faced review. As a result, U.S. aid has been withheld from 
the Nation.
  Burma, also, has been decertified 10 out of the 12 times it has faced 
review.
  It is interesting to note that Mexico has never once been 
decertified.
  So this is not a U.S.-Mexico issue. This is an issue affecting our 
global efforts to reduce the supply of drugs to the United States. 
Suspending the certification process worldwide means that countries 
failing to cooperate in the drug war will face no penalty for that 
failure. And that is a step we should not be taking.
  Now is not the time to be letting up on the war on drugs.
  The connection between terrorist and narcotics traffickers is real, 
and closer than ever before.
  In Colombia, in Afghanistan, and in other places around the world, 
drug money helps terrorist organizations carry out violent, 
destructive, and even deadly acts of terror against citizens of the 
United States and other countries.
  The Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that last year, 
Afghanistan supplied 70 percent of the world's opium. Money from the 
drug trade in Afghanistan helped keep the Taliban in power, and some of 
that money undoubtedly made it to the al Qaeda organization.
  In Colombia, the FARC narco-terrorists make millions every year in 
extortion and protection money from drug traffickers. This money helps 
them maintain control over an area within Colombia the size of 
Switzerland, and funds activities that include kidnaping and even 
murder.
  Even beyond the drug-terror connection, the drug trade around the 
world is ever-developing. Supplies of many drugs are near or at all 
time highs. In the last few years alone, the drug known as Ecstasy has 
become a virtual phenomenon among young people in this country, and is 
smuggled into the United States from countries as diverse as Mexico and 
the Netherlands, Belgium and Israel.
  If anything, this administration and this Congress should be taking 
the certification process even more seriously--not moving to abandon it 
wholesale.
  If anything, the real threat of decertification should be used more 
often as a tool to modify the behavior of problem nations, not less 
often.
  To do as this conference report does and completely stop the 
certification process for all nations will essentially remove the one 
good means we have of encouraging foreign nations to work with us in 
reducing the supply of illegal drugs to the United States.
  This moratorium is a mistake, plain and simple.
  I do want to again stress that a partial moratorium is warranted, 
particularly for the government of Mexico. I believe that Mexican 
President Vicente Fox has shown a clear willingness to work with the 
United States in the drug war, much like the government of Colombia has 
over the last few years in the battle against strong drug cartels.
  That is why a temporary moratorium on the certification process in 
this hemisphere makes some sense. And that is why I did not object to 
such a moratorium when this issue first came up on the floor of the 
Senate.
  But expanding the moratorium to countries that have shown far less 
cooperation, and continue to do little to keep drug traffickers from 
producing drugs or moving drugs through their territory, is a step 
backward in the war against drugs.
  I feel very strongly about this issue, and it is my belief that this 
provision may very well be an attempt by the opponents of the 
certification process to begin the process of dismantling certification 
altogether.
  Well, let's just say that while I am happy to work with my colleagues 
to consider reasonable ways to address the certification issue--
especially, in cases like Mexico, where the record may warrant 
changes--I intend to make sure that next year's foreign operations 
legislation does not reflect such a poorly conceived approach to this 
issue.


                              Bioterrorism

  Mr. BYRD. While the Republican leader is on the floor, if I may 
change the subject, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas proposed to me 
earlier seeking unanimous consent to pass a bioterrorism bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, bioterrorism.
  Mr. BYRD. At that point, I didn't know about the bill and didn't know 
anything about it. I objected. I thought he was going to remain around. 
But I want to say to the Senate Republican leader that I have no 
objection. I have had my staff look at it, and I am advised by the 
staff and on reading this measure and contemplating it and 
understanding it, I certainly have no objection if the leader wants to 
call it up. That is the bill in which Pat Roberts of Kansas is 
interested.
  Mr. LOTT. That is the bioterrorism legislation, I might say to the 
Senator from West Virginia. It has been very laboriously worked through 
by Senator Craig, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Frist. This is an area 
where we need to do more. This is only authorization. It would still be 
subject to the appropriations process. But it does authorize a great 
deal more activity in very critical areas such as public health 
service. And, of course, Senator Roberts also worked to get a food 
aspect of that in agriculture. Agriculture terrorism is an area where 
we have to be concerned, too.
  I think it is good legislation. I appreciate Senator Byrd's making 
that observation and agreeing that we could move it. Once Senator Reid 
returns to the floor, we will renew our unanimous consent request at 
that time.
  Mr. BYRD. Pat Roberts came to my office earlier this year and 
explained the need for this kind of program.
  Mr. LOTT. We need to do it because he has been in my office several 
times explaining it. I would like to get it done because I have heard 
enough to be convinced.

[[Page S13901]]

  Mr. BYRD. I remove my objection.


                          Victims' Tax Relief

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do want to say on other matters that we 
passed this afternoon and on which we didn't get to comment too much, I 
am glad we did what we did with regard to victims' tax relief, the 
spouses who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. I 
met with a group of them, most of them women, but a man also.
  It was one of the most cheerful things I have experienced. These are 
women, most of them young women with children, some of them pregnant, 
some of them with no income right now; some of them hadn't gotten much 
in terms of charitable assistance. I was floored to learn that we taxed 
charitable contributions or receipts to individuals who had been hit by 
a disaster such as this. I think we should say as to the funds they 
receive from charitable contributions, these spouses who have lost 
their loved ones, not only should they not have to pay taxes on the 
charity they receive but no American should.
  I have gone back and checked on the history now and found out how 
that happened. At one point there was a budget need for $10 billion. So 
they said, we can just do a tax on charitable receipts for 5 years and 
that will take care of this $10 billion hole.
  So I am glad we did that. I appreciate that there were Senators from 
all over the country on other issues, such as Senator Baucus and the 
Senator from New York, who were willing to put aside very important 
issues to them to make sure we didn't leave this issue on the table.


                         Terrorism Reinsurance

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, another issue I was very sorry we couldn't 
work out was the terrorism reinsurance. We should have moved that 
today. We should have moved it a month ago.
  What happened was Senator Gramm, Senator Dodd, and Senator Sarbanes 
came to agreement on a bill in the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Banking and Financial Services Committee. It had some limits on 
liability. But then it was basically taken away from those Senators, 
and they were told we were not going to do it that way.
  The bill that Senator Daschle asked consent to move this afternoon 
did not have any limits on attorney's fees or any prohibitions on 
punitive damages. And Senator McConnell then said: We should move the 
bill, but we should have at least a vote on whether or not there should 
be any limits on liabilities. That is all we were asking, not that it 
just be included, which it should have been because that was what was 
in the committee, but that we have an opportunity to vote on that.
  And, by the way, as an old whip, I had counted the votes, and the 
votes were here in the Senate to pass that bill with no punitive 
damages allowed and some limits on liability.
  Otherwise, we would have lawsuits being settled and attorney fees and 
punitive damages coming out of the Federal Treasury if we had a 
terrorist attack that invoked this terrorism reinsurance.
  So I hope we don't have a situation at the end of the year where 
buildings will not be able to be built because they won't get loans 
because there won't be terrorism insurance. Maybe too much won't happen 
between now and the end of January or early February, but we need to 
address this issue. When we do, it should have some reasonable tort 
reform included, as the Federal tort claims law now provides.
  One other brief point, and I will yield so others may speak. Mr. 
President, in the 29 years I have been in Congress, the House and the 
Senate, we have worked through a lot of difficult issues. We have 
committee action, we pass things in the House and Senate, we have 
intense negotiations in conference, but at some point we bring it to a 
conclusion and we pass it.
  I have never seen an issue that more work went into than this 
stimulus package with no result. The President was personally involved. 
The President personally made concessions. The House and the Senate 
were involved. We set up a system of negotiators involving Senator 
Baucus, Senator Grassley, and Senator Rockefeller. We finally had a 
bill before us this afternoon that would provide stimulus for the 
economy, tax incentives for businesses, big and small, and for 
individuals to be able to keep a little more of their taxes, lowering 
the 27 percent tax bracket down to 25, helping people who make as low 
as $28,000 for an individual, and $40,000 for a couple--not exactly 
wealthy people, and not even middle income, if you get down to it--and 
assistance for unemployed, increased benefits for them, and a new 
precedent of health insurance coverage.
  We could not even get it up to a vote. I believe if we would have had 
a vote on that issue today, there would have been 60 votes to override 
a point of order. I would not want to have to go back to my State and 
explain how I voted against a bill that provided additional 
unemployment compensation, health insurance coverage for the 
unemployed, expensing for small business men and women, and rate cuts 
for middle-income individuals. I don't think I could have defended 
that. Therefore, I would have voted for it, and I believe 60 or more 
Senators would have voted for it. But it is here.
  I hope the economy begins to show continued growth. There is good 
news for the third week in a row. Unemployment claims are down. We have 
a robust, dynamic economy in America. Maybe it won't be needed. But if 
we come back in late January and February and it is still stumbling 
along, and we are not seeing positive signs of real recovery, we are 
going to have to revisit this issue.
  We should also revisit the issue Senator Domenici raised--the payroll 
tax holiday--and put that in place of some of the other provisions in 
this bill. This bill is pretty expensive already. I think we need to 
take some things out of this bill. That would provide a quick, 
immediate impact on the economy. If we didn't collect that 12.4 percent 
payroll tax for 1 month on individuals and employers, that would have 
an impact immediately. So that may be something to which we will have 
to return.
  There will be a lot of accusations back and forth as to why we didn't 
get it done, but I will say I think for the American people, no matter 
how it happened, it is a shame we didn't complete work on that piece of 
legislation.

  I hope next year we will start on a positive note and pass a national 
energy policy bill, and pass an agriculture bill that has better policy 
in it than the one we considered, and also pass trade legislation that 
would help the economy. I think we can do those things, a lot of other 
good things, and a stimulus bill if the economy calls for it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I yield back the 
17 minutes he has. It is my understanding that Senator Lott has the 
authority to yield back the time of Senator McConnell on the foreign 
operations bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, and I do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2506 is agreed to and the motion to reconsider 
is laid upon the table.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Virginia is recognized for 
up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I spoke to Senator Baucus, and I know he 
has a measure he wants to discuss and, without objection, I would 
actually defer to Senator Baucus for his remarks he wanted to make if I 
may follow right behind Senator Baucus.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I inquire of the Senator 
from Virginia and the Senator from Montana about the timeframe they are 
speaking of because I wanted to address the Senate on a matter 
different from the subject about which they want to speak.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I might answer the question posed, it 
is my intention that the matter I intend to bring up will probably 
consume 4, 5 minutes maximum.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may ask the courtesy of my friends, 
Senator Lott and I have something we have been trying to do all day. It 
will take a short time, a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Virginia?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I do object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page S13902]]

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana, I would 
have liked to yield 5 minutes, but I had better take them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

                          ____________________