[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 73 (Thursday, June 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5132-S5158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--Continued
Amendment No. 3635
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the hour of 2 o'clock has arrived; is that
true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is it true that the 5 minutes of time that
has been allocated to both sides is running at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be charged
equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be done.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is it time for the vote to occur?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is time for the vote on the motion to
table.
Mr. REID. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on that motion to
table?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. REID. Senator McCain asked that there be a rollcall vote on that,
so I ask there be a rollcall vote.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Snaator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Corzine
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
[[Page S5133]]
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--31
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--4
Bingaman
Daschle
Dayton
Helms
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I advise the leaders and managers that I
wish to bring up an amendment entitled, ``American Service Members
Protection Act.'' I would think this Senator and perhaps those who are
cosponsors--of which there are nine--would desire some time. We will
try to expedite this matter. I wonder if I could send it to the desk
and ask it be the pending amendment and then defer to the leadership
and others to see whether if I lay it aside I can get some----
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield.
Mr. WARNER. Yes, I yield.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Virginia, I have been told that a
Senator on this side wants to be involved in his amendment. So I cannot
agree now that we would have a queue to put his amendment in. We
recognize the Senator has a right to offer his amendment, but when the
Senator does offer it, I will have to get the other Senator over here.
I say to the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Arizona has
indicated he has one or two more amendments he wants to offer, and that
is the arrangement. If the Senator from Virginia has a subsequent time
he wants to offer the amendment, I certainly have no problem with that.
But if he offers it now, we will have to go into a quorum call and have
the other Senator come to the Chamber, and we will not be able to
expedite this process as much as we want.
Mr. WARNER. I wonder if the Senator standing next to the leader, who
is a principal cosponsor, the Senator from Georgia, wishes to be heard
on this matter?
Mr. MILLER. After the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arizona was kind enough to give us
notice of two additional amendments, and we sequenced them. I urge the
Senator to wait until that is over. We are going to establish
sequencing of amendments after that time. There have been others
waiting, too, during the morning until this first series is over. I
urge the Senator to cooperate with us, and we will put his in the
sequence that comes next.
Mr. REID. If the Senator from Alaska will yield, we have known the
Senator from Virginia is going to offer an amendment. I think it would
be in everyone's interest, as suggested by the Senator from Alaska,
that after Senator McCain finishes with his amendments, we move to the
amendment of the Senator from Virginia and other amendments.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is most accommodating. If we can have
a gentleman's understanding that at the conclusion of the two
amendments by the Senator from Arizona, the amendment the Senator from
Georgia and I want to put before the Senate could be considered at that
time without binding the leadership.
Mr. REID. Without that being a unanimous consent request, we will do
our best to put the Senator's amendment in the queue as quickly as we
can.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Virginia leaves
the floor, I say to him that we intend for sure to do one more
amendment. I want to discuss with the Senator from Texas if we have to
do an additional amendment because it is clear there is about a 30-vote
ceiling. The Senator and I have made our point.
Also, the Senator from Texas is probably going to at some point make
a budget point of order. How that falls into the queue the
distinguished managers of the bill will establish. In the interest of
full disclosure, I thought the Senator from Virginia should know that
perhaps there may not be a second amendment, only the one we are about
to offer, and the Senator from Texas is going to make a budget point of
order.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
Amendment No. 3704
(Purpose: To strike the appropriation for Agricultural Research Service
buildings and facilities)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire, which I
send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Gramm, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, proposes an amendment
numbered 3704.
On page 2, strike lines 24 through 26.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment that has been offered would
remove extraneous items from the supplemental and emergency
appropriations bill. In particular, I propose to remove language in the
bill that provides $50 million for buildings and facilities
construction at the National Animal Disease Laboratory at Ames, IA.
Mr. President, $50 million is designated to add new facilities to the
National Animal Disease Laboratory currently located in Ames, IA. The
current plans by the Agricultural Research Service, an estimated $380
million, will be utilized to construct new buildings and facilities to
further animal disease research and related activities.
These new facilities are approved and sanctioned by the
administration with funding previously allocated in the fiscal year
2002 budget. However, despite this support, the administration has
stated its view that additional funding suggested in this supplemental
bill is not an essential priority at this time.
According to the message sent by the President--to be totally
accurate, the Statement of Administration Policy sent by the Executive
Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget:
Funding provided for the construction and renovation of an
Ames, IA, facility is redundant because a total of $90
million has been provided for fiscal year 2002 as part of the
ERF and regular appropriations so that additional funding is
not needed in fiscal year 2002 and 2003.
The study of foreign animal diseases and controlling known and
unknown animal diseases are clearly national and public health issues.
As part of the Government's efforts to improve its knowledge of disease
agents and mechanisms, this institution and other related agencies
serve an important purpose. The work is already underway as the
administration asserts. Adding an additional $50 million as part of
this emergency spending measure is neither required nor necessary.
This ongoing project will clearly be subject to additional
appropriations in future years during the routine appropriations
process. These particular renovations are not scheduled to be completed
for another 8 years.
The renovations are not scheduled to be completed for another 8
years.
I find it difficult to believe that removing this $50 million earmark
at a time when it is not needed will jeopardize its continued planning
and construction. The report also indicates that this program was asked
for and funded long before the events of September 11.
I do not dispute the merit of a facility such as this. In 1998, it
says both agencies, the National Animal Disease Research Center and the
National Veterinary Services Lab, saw an excellent
[[Page S5134]]
new opportunity to create a single new center encompassing all their
work. The joint plan promises to provide many advantages over separate
new facilities, including a large cash saving and much shorter
completion time. The proposed facility will cost $375 million and an 8-
year completion plan beginning in 1999.
I am sure the National Animal Disease Center is an important project.
I have no doubt in my mind it has merit. I also note that it was in May
of 2001, I quote from the committee report, correspondence to this
committee, the Secretary of Agriculture noted, that there is an urgent
need to renovate and modernize existing facilities in Ames, IA, since
the events of September 11, in view of the fact that the primary
mission of this facility is research on highly infectious animal
diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which is mad cow
disease, and others which terrorists might use with devastating results
to the U.S. economy. The needs outlined by the Secretary have become
even more pronounced.
I have heard a long catalog of threats. The one at the Smithsonian
has risen now to national consciousness, that insects in alcohol are
now one of our highest priorities and deemed an emergency, but I did
not know the spread of mad cow disease was one of the tools of
preference for the terrorists. I understand that mad cow disease is a
serious problem. I am fully aware of the events of Europe where
thousands of cows had to be killed. But the administration, which is
responsible for the construction of these facilities, clearly states in
the President's veto threat that this $50 million is not necessary at
this time because it is an 8-year project.
I am sure the Senators from Iowa will rise, and the Senators from
Hawaii will rise, as will the Senators from whatever State that is
affected by these projects will rise, and stoutly defend them and make
it in the defense of freedom and democracy. The fact is that the name
of this bill is to respond to the acts committed on September 11 and
how to prepare for further responses to them. I do not believe it is
needed in this supplemental appropriations bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. The supplemental provides $50 million in construction funds
toward the modernization of the National Animal Disease Laboratory in
Ames, IA, under the Agricultural Research Service Buildings and
Facilities account. The full $50 million is offset. This is not
designated as an emergency. The money is fully offset. The total
construction costs for modernization of this laboratory are estimated
at $430 million. To date, including the $50 million in the
supplemental, the Congress will have provided $149 million.
Mission responsibilities of the Ames, IA, lab include the eradication
or control of devastating diseases, including bovine tuberculosis;
vaccine development; disease control strategies for scrapie; chronic
wasting disease; and others.
The National Animal Disease Laboratory combines the research and
regulatory responsibilities of the Agricultural Research Service and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
The National Animal Disease Laboratory has been responsible for
research on anthrax and it is the national research center responsible
for the prevention of mad cow disease in this country. Recent episodes
of mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease, and others in the United
Kingdom, are stark evidence of the public health and economic disasters
that result from such outbreaks.
In a May 25, 2001, correspondence to the committee, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, stated:
There is an urgent need to renovate and modernize the
existing facilities at Ames. Grossly debilitated and
inadequate for animal health programs of high national
priority, these facilities must be modernized.
Supportive documents provided by the Secretary on May 25, 2001,
state:
If facilities in Ames are not modernized, both agencies
could lose their ability to respond to animal disease
emergencies.
On May 15, 2002, the Secretary again notified the committee on
progress of the NADL modernization, including the implementation of
fast-track initiatives to begin construction of part of the laboratory
in fiscal year 2003, and approval by the USDA Office of General Counsel
of a justification for other than full and open competition to hire the
architectural/engineering firm.
In addition, on May 15, 2002, the Secretary notified the committee
that under the current schedule:
Construction of the animal health facility will be delayed
if less than $331 million is appropriated in fiscal year
2004.
So if we fail to provide the $50 million now in the supplemental, the
Congress will be required to appropriate $232 million in the next 2
years for this project, just to stay on the USDA's schedule.
Construction information from USDA has indicated that longer term
construction schedules than the one now in place could result in an
additional $117.7 million in construction costs. So the committee has
made its judgment that this money is appropriate, and I hope that the
amendment will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me be brief and try to put this
amendment in context. The President, as Commander in Chief, sent the
Congress a request for some $28 billion of emergency funding; that is,
funding that we deem so critical that we are going to waive the Budget
Act, increase the deficit, and spend Social Security money for the
purpose of funding it, to basically try to respond to the attack on 9-
11 and to try to prevent another attack.
The President made that request and the Senate Appropriations
Committee has now come forward with a bill that spends $4 billion more
than the President asked for; that underfunds his request for emergency
items by $10 billion. That overfunds nonemergencies by $14 billion.
There is no way on the floor of the Senate that we are going to get
this bill back in line with the President's request. Hopefully, that
will happen in conference. But the President has sent a letter saying
he is going to veto this bill because it spends $4 billion more than he
asked, he does not give him $10 billion he wanted, and it gives him $14
billion he did not want.
Obviously, it is within our capabilities and within the ingenious
ability of the Senate and Senators to make almost anything an
``emergency.''
I make the following points about this building. First, the President
did not ask for it. The President did not include this in his emergency
request. I assume he did not include it because, while he supported
funding it consistently in each budget, he did not believe it met the
high threshold of a national crisis.
Second, it is not as if we are talking about money for research. We
are talking about money for a building that will be built over an 8-
year period. It looks to me as if what we are seeing is an effort to
take this emergency bill and tack on money to speed up a project that
would be funded anyway.
Now maybe if we built this building in 7\1/2\ years instead of 8
years there would be a benefit to come from it. I don't doubt it. That
might very well be. I am against animal diseases, so I might be a
beneficiary. Next year I might be in the goat business and there might
be a benefit directly in this for me.
But the question is, Is this such a dire emergency that it ought to
be funded in an emergency bill that is aimed at the threat of
terrorism? A plausible case, even though the President did not ask for
it, that if this were direct funding for research that we were going to
conduct over the next 3 or 4 months, one might make a plausible case. I
don't believe you make a plausible case in a building that will be
built over the next 8 years, that giving it $50 million more now is an
emergency.
Again, some people want to view this as Senator McCain and I are
trying to be tightwads and that we are trying to take out these
projects that have merit. I assume since we have been funding this for
a while, and intend to fund it for another period of years, that it
does have merit. The question is, Is it a dire emergency? I don't
believe it is.
Senator McCain and I could have gone on and on and on in offering
these little amendments. After this third
[[Page S5135]]
one, we will have made our point. Our point is that no one cares. Our
point is, the fix is in, we have done this bill, and 31 people cared,
but the vast majority of Members of the Senate are not willing to try
to trim this bill back.
I don't want to use up the time of the Senate. I want the President
to sign an emergency bill. I personally believe we would get there
quicker if we get it closer to what he requested. I don't understand
why we want to move forward with a bill he said he would veto. Maybe it
will be fixed in conference.
After this vote, we will have made the point that the bottom line is,
when it gets right down to individual programs, even in what is
supposed to be a dire emergency, a crisis, and even though the
President did not request it, we just simply do not have the vote to
take these things out.
There is no lesson in the second kick of a mule and this is the third
kick Senator McCain and I are experiencing. If you didn't learn
anything from the first or second one, you are unlikely to learn
anything from the third one. It would be our intention, I believe, that
we have a vote on this, and whatever happens here, happens. Then I have
a point of order if there are 60 votes for this bill, so as far as I am
concerned, it is off to the President and conference and see what
happens.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the question really before the Senate is
whether or not we are going to provide $50 million for the
modernization of the USDA national animal disease facility.
I have listened to the comments made by the Senator from Arizona and
the Senator from Texas and, of course, I listened to the statements
made by the distinguished chairman of our committee laying out why this
is necessary.
I will not speak about any of the other amendments offered on this
bill, but this one is of the utmost importance if we are concerned
about homeland security. Perhaps one of the most vulnerable parts of
our country in terms of a terrorist threat that could have a multiplier
effect more rapidly than anything else in affecting more people is our
food supply chain. That is the most vulnerable right now, and we all
know it.
The chairman of the committee has asked me as the chairman of the
subcommittee that funds Health and Human Services medical research and
also the agriculture subcommittee that is chaired by the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl--and I serve on that--to focus on the
bioterrorism threat to America. We have had hearings on it. We have
looked at this. The National Animal Disease Laboratory is, if not the
key, one of the key elements we will need to ensure the safety and
security not only of animals but the people of this country.
Again, I suppose some people say, sure, Harkin, you are defending it
because it is in Iowa. I said some time ago that I was not responsible
for the National Animal Disease Lab being located in Iowa. That
predates not my birth but it predates my coming to Congress. I can
honestly say that I don't care where this facility would be and I don't
care in which State it would be. I would be a strong supporter of this
amendment and for, as rapidly as possible, refurbishing and rebuilding
this National Animal Disease Laboratory, even if it were not in the
State of Iowa. Keep in mind, this is a national laboratory. It is not
an Iowa lab. It is a national laboratory. It is the premier veterinary,
biologic, and diagnostics lab anywhere in the world. But it is about 60
years old. It is run down.
We found last year after the anthrax scare that permeated our country
in our mail system that we had some very dangerous pathogens located in
a strip mall in Ames, IA, because the National Animal Disease Lab did
not have the facilities for it. That has since been taken care of but
gives Members an idea for the need for this.
The National Animal Disease Lab should have been rebuilt and
modernized 10 or 15 years ago, probably more than that, but it was not.
We got a little complacent. But then when we saw what happened in
Europe and Great Britain with hoof and mouth and BSE, it became more
and more imperative that we not only rebuild the lab but do it very
rapidly.
We started on that last year, but the events of September 11 have
compelled us to move even more rapidly.
The modernization of the national animal disease facilities is
critical for both homeland defense and America's defense against animal
diseases such as anthrax, brucellosis, salmonella, E. coli, many of
which--in fact, all of which in these cases--can be transmitted to
humans and cause a lot of illness and death in our population.
So the importance of the facility is not in dispute. There are those
who say let's wait and do it later. We cannot wait and do it later. We
do not have that luxury right now because, as I said earlier, the most
vulnerable part of our society right now, in terms of a terrorist
threat, is the food supply and the animal systems in our country.
Let me read from a USDA 2001 report to the Appropriations Committee
to buttress that.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am glad to yield for a question.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that this $50 million in this bill
is not designated as an emergency, it is fully paid for; is that right?
Mr. HARKIN. This is not an emergency; it is fully offset in the bill.
Mr. REID. So people talk about this not being an emergency. It is not
deemed to be an emergency in this bill, it is fully paid for; is that
right?
Mr. HARKIN. It is fully paid for. The Senator is right. I am glad he
made the distinction.
There are those who say we don't have to do it now, we can put it off
until later. The USDA said last year in its report to the
Appropriations Committee:
USDA recognizes the swiftly increasing threats from known
and emerging diseases because of increased travel, trade,
production concentration, and pathogen resistance. A new
disease emerges, on average, once a year, requiring constant
vigilance and preparedness.
The report went on to quote the Animal Agriculture Coalition which
noted:
The modernization plan proposed by ARS and APHIS is crucial
to fulfilling the mission of USDA, specifically in ensuring a
safe food supply and expanding global markets for
agricultural products and services . . . if facilities in
Ames are not modernized, both agencies could lose their
ability to respond to animal disease emergencies. Because of
the safety concerns and levels of safeguards necessary to
work with animal pathogens, the work done in Ames is not
easily transferred elsewhere within USDA.
Before September 11, both the House and the Senate Appropriations
Committees had moved to provide an additional $40 million for the
design of the facility.
With the tragedy of September 11, the need for modernization sharply
increased. The Senator from Texas mentioned before that it would be 8
years before it would be done. The information we have now is if we
move rapidly we will have the facility done in 2006, that is 4 years
from now.
The Senate Appropriations Committee wisely placed an additional $50
million for construction of the facility in this measure. That is
because in these dangerous times we realize that America's food supply
could be the target of terrorism.
I would like to share with my colleagues some of the facts about the
NADL and the important work it does. I think it would shed some light
on this debate.
The USDA Animal Health Facilities in Ames have the highest level of
research capacity, expertise, and track record available in this area.
It also provides diagnostic expertise, technology transfer, and
training in the event of an outbreak.
The National Veterinary Services Laboratories, in Ames, is the
principal Federal diagnostic laboratory for animal diseases in the U.S.
As such, it is a reference point for the State and other diagnostic
laboratories, and provides training and testing. NVSL has recently been
involved in West Nile virus diagnosis, mad cow disease diagnosis, and
anthrax diagnosis. It has provided critical support to CDC in its
investigations of human anthrax cases.
The Center for Veterinary Biologics in Ames has the national
responsibility for regulating and licensing all biologics for use in
animals. Their knowledge, expertise, and capacity to expedite vaccine
availability in the event of a bioterrorist outbreak will be centrally
important to provide tools for disease control. As an example, they
[[Page S5136]]
were recently involved in anthrax vaccine issues during the recent
terrorism scare.
Secretary Veneman recently said we do not need this money right now.
But, in a report she provided to Appropriations Committee in May, just
last month. She noted that under the lab's master plan, construction
would be delayed if less than $331 million is spent on the lab in
fiscal year 2004, the start of which is less than 16 months away.
So the real question is, do we want to delay this in the hope that
maybe, somehow, terrorists will not attack our food supply chain, which
is the most vulnerable part of our system right now?
I suppose if you wanted to just hope on that, maybe you could vote to
support the McCain amendment. But I would not want to hope on that.
When we know what to do, we know this is a national animal disease lab
that will respond and provide the necessary resources, first to help
prevent any widespread terrorist attack on our food supply, especially
our animal system of agriculture, and second to respond immediately if,
God forbid, anything like that should happen.
Providing these funds now would provide important flexibility to the
design team and USDA to move forward with components of the facility at
a faster pace then in the original plan. Given the threat, sooner will
be much better than later.
And let's talk a little about the threat because those who are not
familiar with agriculture might not understand its seriousness.
A new organism of nonnative or native origin, once introduced into
the United States animal populations, can initiate an uncontrollable
epidemic due to the absence of vaccines or effective drugs,
concentration of animal feeding operations in the United States, and a
lack of resistance in host animals.
This was evident with the introduction of West Nile virus in New York
City in 1999. The current situation in Great Britain with foot-and-
mouth disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy also underscores the
need to take every possible action to strengthen our animal health
infrastructure. That, by the way, is able to be transmitted to humans.
So this is a threat that we face. It is no less a threat than a
terrorist taking a bomb on an airplane. It is no less a threat than
terrorist activity that might involve any kind of explosives or what
they might try to do in that regard in the future. This threat is real.
Frankly, our defenses are inadequate and we need to be about rebuilding
this laboratory and providing the kinds of resources that are needed,
as I said, to prevent such an outbreak; second, to control it
immediately if something does happen; and, third, to develop the
vaccines and responses necessary to keep it under control.
So again I say to my friend from Nevada, I thank him for pointing out
that this is fully offset. This is not an emergency. For the life of
me, I don't understand why the President would not want to move ahead
more rapidly with the modernization and rebuilding of this National
Animal Disease Laboratory.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
It is my understanding when the Senator from Arizona completes his
statement, the Senator from Iowa is going to move to table the
amendment of the Senator from Arizona; is that true?
Mr. HARKIN. That is true, yes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I agree with 99 percent of what the
Senator from Iowa just said.
Let us come back to what the amendment is all about. The amendment is
about $90 million that has already been provided for fiscal year 2002.
It is part of the regular appropriations. According to the President of
the United States--and I assume the Secretary of Agriculture who works
for him--if an additional money is needed for fiscal year 2002 or
fiscal year 2003, there is additional money for research, inspection,
and monitoring activities relating to bioterrorism. This is all the
money that anybody believes is necessary for research, inspection, and
monitoring activities.
Again, I share the view of the Senator from Iowa about the dangers of
bioterrorism. The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, who has been
involved in this issue for many years, just approached me. I explained
to him that this amendment in no way affects the moneys which are in
the bill for research, inspection, and monitoring activities. What it
simply does is take away money that is not needed for an 8-year
construction project. That is what this money is for--construction
which the administration and the President of the United States in his
message to Congress say is redundant and because the money is already
part of the regular appropriations process.
Again, perhaps this will accelerate construction of 8 years down to 7
years. But it has no place on an emergency supplemental appropriations
bill.
I would like to add that I filed 21 amendments which largely
reflected the views put forth in the statement from the administration.
I will not take the time of the Senate to read all of those amendments
and objections that I have. I still feel very strongly that those
amendments filed, along with those of the Senator from Texas, are
important amendments and would save tens or hundreds of millions of
dollars of the taxpayers' money that were taken directly out of the
Social Security trust fund. It is now increasing the debt by leaps and
bounds, but there is no point in taking up the time of the Senate by
having votes that--as the last two did and I imagine this one would--
get 30 or 31 Senators in support.
But I do think it is important that we are on record on this issue. I
will not waste the time of the Senate, but the American people deserve
to know when the time comes--we are $100 billion in debt this year, and
the previous estimates were that we would have a surplus--that all of
this money is not being spent in the name of the war on terrorism.
There is no more need to add to unneeded moneys for the construction
of these facilities anymore than there is an emergency in needing to
chart the coral reefs off the State of Hawaii--nor is there needed a
waiver of the cost-sharing requirement for the biomass project; nor is
there needed $2 million to begin construction of an alcohol storage;
nor is there a need for additional money for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
We are going to give millions of dollars to Amtrak to repair cars
that were damaged more than 10 years ago in the name of an emergency
supplemental.
We are going to dig wells in the State of New Mexico--just in a
certain place in the State of New Mexico--when wells are running dry
all over the Southwest, including my State. But we picked out a couple
in the State of New Mexico that we are going to spend $3 million on in
the name of combating terrorism and the results of the attacks of 9-11.
The list goes on.
Professional training of Middle East journalists may be important,
but I would argue that it is probably not necessary on this bill.
We are going to have acceleration of advanced technology program
awards; economic assistance for fishermen in the Northeast; the
National Water Level Observation Network. The list goes on and on. It
is very unfortunate.
As I say, sooner or later, the American people, when they see this
burgeoning deficit that looms ahead of us now in monumental
proportions, which was not in any way contemplated 6 months ago, are
going to want to know where the money went. They are going to want to
know where the money went. When they find out where the money went,
whether it be for Amtrak, or construction of apartments in Baltimore--
whatever they are--then I don't think they are going to be very happy
with our performance.
I have only been in Congress now for about 20 years. That is a short
time compared to a number of others in this body. But I have to tell
you, I have never seen spending like this going on, nor have other
observers observed this kind of incredible spending. The President of
the United States mentioned in his statement that Congress has already
provided $40 billion since September 11. Half of that money has been
spent. The President requested an additional $27.1 billion. But that
wasn't enough. We had to exceed that by some $4 billion--not to
mention, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, that much of the moneys
requested were not
[[Page S5137]]
granted and some $10 billion to $15 billion was used for purposes other
than that requested by the President.
I also hope this bill will be repaired in conference. I don't have
very much confidence in conferences. I think if you reviewed the record
of what conferences do, they usually come out in the appropriations
with higher numbers of spending. I hope that this will be an exception
to that general rule. I think, because of our inability to enact even
the smallest cuts and the smallest reductions, the President of the
United States said he will veto the bill. That will hold up the whole
process of these much needed funds to fight the war on terrorism.
I understand that the Senator from Iowa will move to table the
amendment. I will be glad to get that done so we can move on to other
issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, first, I wanted to say that I have a
great deal of respect for the Senator from Arizona and for his keeping
an eye on spending. I think he is to be commended for that. Sometimes
it is a lonely job. I commend him for that.
I appreciate what he said. He said he agrees with 99 percent of what
I had to say earlier. I guess the 1 percent just happens to be the time
limits.
But I will respond to my friend from Arizona by saying, first, that I
want to make it very clear. If there is not an emergency, we will fully
offset it.
Second, it is not a project that just happened; it was considered to
be a project some time ago. But with September 11, and with the
recognition now that our food supply is extremely vulnerable,
especially animal agriculture more than anything else, because of the
concentration, because of the travel in and out of the country, and the
ability to transmit some of these very deadly kinds of pathogens that
can infect our animals in this country--and some of those can be
transmitted to humans--after September 11, it is vitally important that
we move ahead as aggressively as possible to rebuild this national lab.
Intellectually and honestly, even if it weren't in my State of Iowa,
I would be saying the same thing the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on health
said. I don't care where it is. This needs to be done sooner rather
than later.
That is what the debate is all about: Do we want to make our food
supply safer sooner or take a chance and make it later? Do we want to
increase our ability to respond quickly to a terrorist attack to our
food supply sooner or do we want to do it later? That is what this is
about. By doing this, we can get this thing finished by 2006. I have a
timeline right here in front of me--by 2006; not 8 years, 4 years.
Quite frankly, we ought to do everything we can to collapse the
timeframe as much as possible.
So, Madam President, I just close and ask unanimous consent that a
letter dated today, June 6, by the Animal Agriculture Coalition,
strongly supporting the $50 million included in the Senate version of
the bill for the national animal disease facility, signed by a number
of animal agricultural associations in the United States, be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Animal Agriculture Coalition,
June 6, 2002.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Harkin: The undersigned members of the Animal
Agriculture Coalition (AAC) urge your support for the $50
million in the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense
Supplemental Appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Animal Health Facility Modernization Plan
in Ames, Iowa. The complete modernization of important U.S.
Department of Agriculture facilities; the National Animal
Disease Center, the National Veterinary Services
Laboratories, and the Center for Veterinary Biologics, is
urgently needed to protect the U.S. animal agriculture
industries.
The Secretary of Agriculture issued a report on May 25
assessing the scope and need of the Modernization Plan. The
report stated the ``urgent need to renovate and modernize the
existing facilities.'' The Secretary described four options
for modernizing the facilities. The AAC supports the
accelerated option of building the joint facilities in 6
years at a cost of only $430 million, compared to 10-year
plans costing from $440 to $548 million.
These current facilities are antiquated, inefficient and
need to be replaced with a centralized modern facility, able
to meet the national animal agricultural needs for research,
diagnosis, and product testing for animal health. Only an up-
to-date animal health and food safety research facility will
ensure the safety of our national meat supply, allow the
United States to compete globally and have the systems in
place to respond quickly to disease outbreaks, such as those
faced in Europe.
We urge your support for the $50 million in the FY 2002
Department of Defense Supplemental Appropriations bill for
the USDA Animal Health Facility Modernization Plan in Ames,
Iowa.
Sincerely,
American Feed Industry Association; American Horse
Council; American Meat Institute; American Society of
Animal Science; American Veterinary Medical
Association; Federation of Animal Science Societies;
Holstein Association USA, Inc.; National Association of
Federal Veterinarians; National Cattlemen's Beef
Association; National Chicken Council; National
Institute for Animal Agriculture; National Milk
Producers Federation; National Pork Producers Council;
National Renderers Association; United Egg Association;
United Egg Producers; U.S. Animal Health Association.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I now move to table the McCain amendment
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 24, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]
YEAS--72
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--24
Allen
Bennett
Bunning
Cantwell
Chafee
Crapo
Ensign
Fitzgerald
Gramm
Hagel
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
McCain
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--4
Bingaman
Daschle
Dayton
Helms
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I see in the Chamber
the distinguished majority whip who has been, in a most courteous
manner, allocating time slots to those desiring to offer amendments. I
wish to send an amendment to the desk, and my colleague from
Connecticut has an amendment in the second degree.
I am joined by the distinguished Senator from Georgia as a cosponsor
of the amendment. I would like to accommodate the distinguished
majority whip if he wishes to address the order of proceeding because
our good friend, the Senator from Illinois, is seeking recognition.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia yielding. I am
pleased the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Connecticut have
worked out a procedure to dispose of this amendment one way or the
other. It is my understanding that the amendment of the
[[Page S5138]]
Senator from Georgia will be called up, and the Senator from
Connecticut will offer a second-degree amendment to that amendment. We
should move through this pretty quickly.
I would say, even though he is not on the floor, I do appreciate
Senator McCain not offering his 15 amendments he had ready to offer,
and he did not take a lot of time offering amendments. He stopped at
three, and I appreciate that. We are moving down the road.
Following the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, the Senator
from Illinois has an amendment he will offer. That, to my knowledge, is
the only one we have on our side. I know Senator Graham of Florida is
talking about offering an amendment. We are about through on our side
as far as amendments to offer. I am told the Senator from Texas, Mr.
Gramm, wants to make a point of order. We will be ready for that when
that is done.
My point is, we are moving through these matters quite quickly. If
everyone continues to cooperate, there is no reason we should not be
able to finish this bill tonight.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. Yes, I yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the majority whip, would it be appropriate, since
the Senator is directing traffic, to put me in the queue before Senator
Warner and Senator Dodd so I can offer my amendment?
Mr. REID. We, of course, yesterday indicated that on the bill itself,
we would go back and forth, and the Senator from Virginia is offering
this amendment. It would be appropriate we go to this side and the
Senator from Illinois would be next recognized. I will put that in the
form of a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor. I have been
yielding for the purpose of letting our distinguished leader and others
get their points made. I think we are progressing. If I understand, the
UC has been granted; am I correct in that, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request has not been
granted.
Mr. WARNER. Is the Chair prepared to receive the vote of the Senate
on that? I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada did not have the floor
and thus cannot propound the unanimous consent request. The Senator
from Virginia has the floor.
Mr. REID. I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Virginia
yielded to me for the purposes of trying to move things through the
Senate. Of course, he has no objection to my offering this unanimous
consent request. He has not lost the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, before the leader leaves the floor, if I
might regain the attention of our distinguished leader, I would be
prepared to enter, not at this moment, but look at a time agreement so
we can move this process along. I hope we could explore that and advise
the Senator from Connecticut in due course because I have a series of
cosponsors, which I am about to read. If those cosponsors desire some
time, I hope they will inform me very quickly. In that way, we can get
a time agreement on the principal amendment and then we can have a time
agreement on the second-degree amendment.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, why don't we submit the amendments and see
how the debate goes. We are under a time limit anyway, under cloture
for 2 hours, an hour for either side. There is a time limit, but
possibly we can truncate that. Of course, the willingness of my friend
from Virginia to accept the amendment would be very appealing to the
Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 3597
(Purpose: To add the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002)
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send the 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 Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr.
Helms, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Craig, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Frist, proposes an amendment
numbered 3597.
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 text of the amendment is printed in the Record of June 5, 2002,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Amendment No. 3787 to Amendment No. 3597
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3787.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and
Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 3787 to amendment
No. 3597.
The amendment follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
Sec. 2015. Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United
states from rendering assistance to international efforts to
bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic and other
foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes
against humanity.
Sec. 2016. This title shall cease be effective at the end
of September 30, 2002.
Amendment No. 3787, As Modified
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I send to the desk a modification of that
amendment which my colleague from Virginia is looking at. It is a
slight modification of the amendment. Hopefully this modification will
be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
Sec. 2015. Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United
States from rendering assistance to international efforts to
bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama
bin Laden, other members of Al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic
Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war
crimes or crimes against humanity.
Sec. 2016. This title shall cease be effective at the end
of September 30, 2002.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, why don't I allow my
friend from Virginia to make his case on his amendment, and then I will
respond to that by talking about what my second-degree amendment does.
That way we can have some order to the debate.
I know the Senator from Georgia wants to be heard on this as well.
There may be others who want to be heard. In fact, I invite my
colleague to look at the second-degree amendment. He might be willing
to accept it. We can have a short debate on the amendment--it is a long
amendment, 29 pages. Nonetheless, we can focus on that amendment if the
second-degree amendment is acceptable. I will let him look at the
amendment and make his case for the first-degree amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think the normal way to proceed is for
the principal amendment to be addressed by the sponsor, myself, and the
cosponsors, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Craig, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Crapo, and Mr.
Frist and Senator Sessions likewise.
This is a matter with which the Senate has considerable familiarity
so I shall be brief in my remarks.
This amendment, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, is
necessary to protect--I repeat, protect--our servicemembers and certain
Government officials from prosecution--or that is potential
prosecution--by the International Criminal Court, hereinafter referred
to as the ICC, an institution which comes into effect on July 1, 2002,
over the objections of the United States of America.
This amendment would protect U.S. military personnel and other
elected and appointed officials of the U.S. Government against
potential criminal prosecution by an international tribunal court to
which the United States is not a party.
In light of our ongoing global war on terrorism, it is vital that the
Senate adopt this important amendment to protect our brave
servicepersons and others who are now being dispatched daily to the
farflung points of this globe in the battle against terrorism.
At the outset I would like to recognize the leadership of our
distinguished
[[Page S5139]]
colleague, Senator Helms, who by necessity is absent today; otherwise,
he would be handling this. This is his legislation which I am
privileged and, indeed, honored to bring forth on behalf of my
distinguished longtime friend and colleague from North Carolina.
He has worked tirelessly on this issue for a number of years, and we
all, every Member of this Senate, owe to him a debt of gratitude for
keeping this matter before the Senate and to be the ever watchful eye
on the steps this Senate must take to protect our servicepersons and
others.
President Bush has consistently--I repeat, consistently--opposed this
treaty. In May of 2002, a short time ago, President Bush notified the
United Nations that the United States does not intend to become a party
to the ICC.
However, since over 60 nations have ratified the treaty, the ICC will
be established and become effective on July 1 of this year. The
International Criminal Court will have the power at that moment to
proceed to indict, prosecute, and imprison persons anywhere in the
world accused by the Court of ``war crimes,'' ``crimes against
humanity,'' and ``genocide.''
In 2000 and again last year, Senator Helms introduced, and I
cosponsored, freestanding legislation similar to this amendment. Last
December, the Senate approved by a vote of 78 to 21--and I encourage my
colleagues to do their basic research on that vote to see how they cast
their vote--a version of this legislation on the Defense appropriations
bill. However, the provision was dropped in the conference. It is
important to note that the administration supports this amendment. I
repeat, the President supports the amendment brought by myself and
other colleagues, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice
have all been closely consulted and their views incorporated into this
amendment.
Also, an identical provision is contained in the House-passed
supplemental appropriations bill adopted by the House on May 24 of this
year.
I received a call from the distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Congressman Hyde, early this morning, expressing
his strong support of the Senate adopting favorably the amendment of
the Senator from Virginia.
This amendment seeks to protect American servicemembers, embassy
officials, and Government employees from the ICC, and preclude
cooperation with the ICC so long as the Senate does not ratify the
treaty. This body, I repeat, will again have the opportunity, if for
some reason it is brought up, to ratify this treaty. However, the
amendment does allow, on a case-by-case basis, cooperation with ad hoc
courts provided--that is, ad hoc courts elsewhere in the world--they
are created through the United Nations Security Council, examples being
those courts created by Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
I shall now outline key provisions of this amendment. First, no
Federal or State entity, including courts, may cooperate with the ICC
in law enforcement matters such as arrest and extradition, searches and
seizures, discovery, asset seizure, financial support, transfer of
property, personnel details, intelligence sharing, or otherwise render
services to the ICC.
No classified national security information can be transferred
directly or indirectly to the ICC.
The United States must secure permanent immunity from ICC
jurisdiction for American personnel before they can participate in any
United Nations peacekeeping operation or other arrangements must be in
effect to protect U.S. peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of this
Court. The President may submit a national interest certification,
however, effectively waiving this restriction if that is his judgment.
Another provision: No ICC treaty party can receive U.S. military
assistance except for NATO countries and major non-NATO allies. The
President again may waive this restriction for other countries that
ratify the treaty but then conclude agreements with the United States
to protect our personnel from the Court. The President may also waive
this restriction if he determines that such waiver is important to the
national interest.
The President is authorized to use all means necessary and
appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or allied
personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of
this Court.
The President is urged to analyze existing alliance command
arrangements and develop plans to achieve enhanced protection from the
ICC for U.S. military personnel subject to such arrangements.
Let me quote from testimony given before Congress in 1998 by the lead
U.S. negotiator on the ICC, Ambassador David Scheffer, a he explained
the danger posed by the Court:
Multinational peackeeping forces operating in a country
that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the court's
jurisdiction even if the country of the individual
peacekeeper has not joined the treaty. Thus, the treaty
purports to establish an arrangement whereby United States
armed forces operating overseas could be conceivably
prosecuted by the international court even if the United
States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is
this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty
law, it could inhibit the ability of the United States to use
its military to meet alliance obligations and participate in
multinational operations, including humanitarian
interventions to save civilian lives.
In closing, let me also quote from a floor statement on this
legislation given by Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the House
International Relations Committee, on May 10, 2001:
The ICC threatens the sovereignty of our Nation. This
legislation has been endorsed by a who's who of the American
foreign policy establishment--a bipartisan group of some of
our wisest and most experienced exports on national security
matters, men and women who held high office in every
Administration since that of Richard Nixon. From Henry
Kissinger, George Shultz and Brent Scowcroft to Donald
Rumsfeld, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, they
all agree, and I quote from their letter, that This
legislation is an appropriate response to the threat to
America's sovereignty and international freedom of action
posed by the International Criminal Court.
This is an important amendment that deserves the support of all our
colleagues. We have a responsibility to protect our servicemembers and
the adoption of this amendment is the right thing to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I rise to support the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act amendment. I am very pleased to join
with my distinguished colleague from Virginia in support of this
legislation, just as I was pleased to join with Senator Helms in
working with him and his staff on its behalf.
It might be worth noting that Senator Helms made a determined effort
and has been making a determined effort to pass this legislation. I
think that is very admirable, and I would like to commend him again for
his leadership and wish him well.
I will not restate the details of this amendment since Senator Warner
has already articulated them so well, but I would like to make a few
brief points.
As Senator Warner mentioned, the Senate passed legislation similar to
this amendment as part of the 2002 Defense appropriations bill. The
final vote was 78 to 21, which constituted a clear majority of this
Senate. Unfortunately, the conference committee missed an opportunity
to have this protective legislation in place before the International
Criminal Court was ratified earlier this year. Now the International
Criminal Court becomes effective on July 1, and American
servicemembers, officials, and citizens will then potentially be
subject to a court to which we are not a party.
That is why, in a nutshell, this legislation is so important. We need
some degree of protection for our men and women in uniform and for
other officials who sacrifice so much for our Nation.
This amendment is appropriately entitled the American Servicemembers'
Protection Act because our war on terrorism could put our military at
risk of politicized prosecutions by the International Criminal Court.
Other brave Americans who serve this country are also at risk, and this
legislation will protect them as well. I believe that as elected
lawmakers we are obligated to safeguard them from this potential threat
just as we would from threats on the battlefield. I also believe it is
important for our military to know that Congress will not stand idly by
while this questionable Court comes into existence.
Make no mistake about it, our servicemembers are very aware of the
[[Page S5140]]
importance of this pending legislation. We must send them the clear
message that they have our full support.
I can guarantee that if we do not get this done, and done soon, we
will look back and regret our inaction. I, for one, do not want to look
a parent in the eye and explain why their son or daughter is being
subjected to an international court on a trumped up charge of war
crimes.
The administration supports this amendment, as Senator Warner said,
and so should we. Let us do the right thing again, as we did in
December, and pass this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first let me explain my second-degree
amendment. In fact, I will read it because it is easier to read it than
go through an explanation.
At the end of the amendment being offered by my friend from Virginia,
we would add a new section that says:
Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from
rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to
justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden,
other members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and
other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or
crimes against humanity.
This title shall cease to be effective at the end of
September 30, 2002.
The reason for that last section is because presently, pending in
conference, is this very issue, in the Department of State-Justice
authorization bill.
I do not understand why we are proceeding with this matter today.
Currently, we have in conference a debate going on over this very
matter, why should we now add it to an appropriations bill? If we pass
the Warner amendment, those who sit on the committees of jurisdiction
of this matter will be excluded from the debate. This is not the place
for this amendment.
But first let me turn to my second-degree amendment. I hope my
colleagues might accept this second-degree amendment because I cannot
believe, I do not want to believe, that if we apprehend, through the
international community, people I have just mentioned on my list, that
under this bill we would be prohibited from assisting in the
prosecution of Osama bin Laden, the Islamic Jihad, Saddam Hussein, and
other members of the terrorist community in the world.
My amendment merely says that despite whatever else we have said,
when it comes to prosecuting these people, we would participate and
help, even though we are not a signatory or a participant in the
International Criminal Court.
I hope my amendment is adopted and accepted. It seems to me, if not,
we will have to have a vote on this amendment as the second-degree
amendment to this bill.
And, now let me make a case against the underlying proposal. I remind
my colleagues this amendment is 29 pages long. This is a bill. This is
not an amendment. It deserves to be looked at.
Let me state what the bill does, and remember that our NATO allies
have signed this treaty, I read from the bill: It bars intelligence of
law enforcement sharing, bars the transfer of intelligence of law
enforcement information which specifically relates to matters under
investigation by the ICC, to the ICC, or any government which is a
party to the Court.
That is stunning. We are going to bar intelligence sharing with the
European Community and our NATO allies because they have signed this?
Two, it restricts U.S. participation in U.S. peacekeeping. It bars
U.S. participation and U.S. peacekeeping or peace enforcement
operations unless the President certifies the action.
Third, it prohibits military assistance to any country that is a
party to the ICC. I have already mentioned NATO; and major non-NATO
allies are exempted, as well as Taiwan, unless they have concluded an
agreement to prevent proceeding against U.S. personnel.
Lastly, and this is one to pay attention to, this amendment
authorizes the President to use ``all means necessary and appropriate''
to free any U.S. personnel of NATO and major non-NATO allies, including
persons working on behalf of nonallied nations detained by the ICC.
We now send troops to free people from the ICC? The Philippines is an
allied nation, but there are terrorists in the Philippines. Now, in the
future the UN could bring Phillipine terrorists to The Hague and try
them, and the United States, under this, you can make a case, would
have to go in and free them because they are an allied nation.
Do we really want to do that? Please read this bill. This goes far
beyond what may be a reasonable proposal of trying to guarantee the
U.S. military personnel not be unfairly, unnecessarily, or unjustly
prosecuted. The idea we are going to bar intelligence sharing, bar
financial assistance, not going to participate in peacekeeping, and
that we are actually going to go in, not on behalf of just U.S.
personnel, but under this amendment, if adopted and agreed upon under
the supplemental appropriations bill, go in and free criminals when
allied personnel are subjected to the ICC.
This is a 29-page amendment. This goes way beyond what I think my
colleagues believe we are trying to do. Please read this amendment. We
are doing things quickly around here. It is a supplemental
appropriations bill, and we are trying to rush it through.
If we are in conference dealing with this very same proposal or one
like it, which is the place to be doing it--and we wouldn't deal with
defense matters here or other issues. That is the reason we have a
Foreign Relations Committee. It is the reason we have a Commerce
Committee. It is the reason we have a Judiciary Committee.
So we are going to turn this matter over to the Appropriations
Committee and deny the other committees that have worked on this a
chance to resolve it? That is not the way the Senate ought to be doing
its business, in my view.
Let me give my colleagues a bit of history. It was the United States
at the end of World War II, people like George Marshall and Harry
Truman and Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower and Arthur
Vandenberg, who stood in this Chamber and outside of it and argued for
rebuilding Japan, rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan, setting up
the U.N. system, the World Bank, the IMF. And they did it in spite of
huge opposition. Only about 18 percent of the American public believed
we ought to have a Marshall Plan. But we had a leader with the guts of
a George Marshall and an Arthur Vandenberg and a Harry Truman who said
it is the right thing to do. It may not be popular, but it is the right
thing to do.
When you have 133 nations, and 67 others who have ratified an
international court which we argued for, we ought to be trying to do
something to make it work right.
I quickly add, if that treaty as written were before the Senate
today, I would have a hard time voting for it. And my colleague from
Virginia is right. When President Clinton signed that treaty, he
recommended it not be ratified as written. However, to say we should
not ratify it does not mean we should not work at it. And it does not
mean you go around and penalize every one of your allies because they
have. We do protect service people. Each day we protect them. We have
agreements, where our servicemen are located all over the world, on how
they would be handled should a matter arise, such as it has in Japan
with allegations of rape by servicemen. And we deal with those matters.
But the idea that we would walk away at the very hour we are trying
to build support internationally for dealing with terrorists is absurd.
I also note that we have been told flatly there will be no further ad
hoc trials, the ICC is a U.N. system that has been set up so as not to
go through it on an ad hoc basis. It means for all the future efforts
our recourse only is military action.
There are many who believe if we had an international criminal court
in the early part of the 20th century, we might have been able to avoid
some of the tragedies that occurred. Listening to people such as Elie
Wiesel, today's proceedings are an insult to the Holocaust victims.
Elie Wiesel says this bill is an outrage, it is wrong. The people who
went through what they did as a result of the Nazis ought to understand
that we are trying to set up a system so that we might avoid that kind
of atrocity being repeated.
This bill is poorly written. It is poorly crafted. It does great
damage to the
[[Page S5141]]
United States at a critical time when we are trying to build support in
dealing with the issues of terrorism.
It should be fresh in our minds the fact that at the end of the cold
war, an explosion of ethnic brutality led to the necessity of creating
ad hoc tribunals in Rwanda and in Yugoslavia, but there was no means
available during those days to try the Idi Amins and Saddam Husseins of
the world and others who evade their nation's justice and avoid the
response of the international community. With very few exceptions, the
world has stood helpless and silent in the face of such crimes against
humanity.
Finally, the world stands up. We have been begging to do it for half
a century, and they finally do it. They finally adopt the Rome treaty--
133 countries, and 67 sign it. It goes into effect in a matter of days.
They are finally doing what we asked them to do for years. What do we
do? We walk away from it, and we threaten them. We tell them we will
not share intelligence. We tell them they do not get foreign aid or
military assistance, that we will deal with them in a harsh way. I
don't think that is wise. These are our NATO allies, European allies.
We should be rejoicing that finally--finally--at our insistence, with
the entry into force of this Court, any individual who commits
genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, will be on notice
that they will be prosecuted for those crimes.
So these thugs around the world who are doing what they are doing--we
are finally getting the world to recognize we have to stand up to them.
Now we are going to go after our allies and penalize them because they
signed the Rome treaty and because they believed that finally this may
be a way to proceed on some of these issues. We attack the Court and
those who have chosen to join it? We have nothing to fear from this
Court. We have nothing to fear about strengthening the rule of law.
That is what people such as Harry Truman, George Marshall, and
Douglas MacArthur stood for. They believed it. We ought to be joining
them historically by opposing this amendment and encouraging the
improvement of this International Criminal Court, becoming a party to a
great effort and not walking away from it.
I do not understand in many cases why our allies continue to support
our efforts when we react to them as we are doing with these
amendments.
Last month, in fact, the Bush administration took the unprecedented
step of unsigning the International Criminal Court. Ironically, I
offered an amendment at that time when we were debating the issue to
say I will accept this but give the President the authority to waive
all of this. He only got 48 votes in this Chamber. This President--not
the past President, this President--got 48 votes in this Chamber,
deferring to the President to decide whether or not to invoke the
provisions of this particular bill. Here we are now even walking away
from that.
I point out that when the President decided to unsign this treaty it
was an unprecedented act in the history of this Nation. I cannot find a
single example in our more than 200 years of great history where an
American President of either party ever unsigned something like this.
What does that say to the countries around the world that we get to
sign treaties with us when they decide to unsign them in the future?
What kind of precedent is that? You didn't have to ratify that treaty.
But for an American President to unsign it, while we encourage people
to live up to their agreements when an American President signs them,
is going to create real problems for us down the road, I predict.
On May 6, 2002, Under Secretary of State Grossman announced that the
United States would make its objections to the ICC clear through
nullification of its signature on the ICC's Rome statute and said the
United States would seek agreements with other countries to remove
American servicemen.
Mr. Grossman also said:
Not withstanding our disagreements with the Rome treaty,
[again, the Rome treaty was our idea] the United States
respects the decisions of those nations who have chosen to
join the ICC.
Is this respecting these other nations, when we go down that list of
the provisions of this bill? Is this respecting those who have signed
it? We bar intelligence or law enforcement sharing. We are not going to
participate in U.N. peacekeeping in their countries. We are going to
prohibit military assistance. And we threaten to use military force to
go in. That is respecting the decision of those who signed on to this
agreement?
Ambassador Pierre Prosper, who is head of the War Crimes Office,
said:
The President has made clear that what he wanted to do
today was make our intentions clear and to not take
aggressive action or wage war, if you will, against the ICC
or the supporters of the ICC.
Read that statement and then read this bill that you are going to
vote on shortly and ask whether that is consistent with the
administration's position. Read what we do here under this amendment if
adopted.
I wonder if our colleagues know the amendment that is being offered
is called The Hague Invasion Act by our allies because of its extreme
provisions authorizing the use of armed force.
All but one other NATO nation completely and strongly backs the ICC,
and the entire European Union has ratified the ICC and strongly
demarched the United States, indicating disappointment with the U.S.
signature nullification.
The amendment by the Senator from Virginia forces the United States
into a dangerous and counterproductive game of diplomatic chicken with
our closest allies at a time when the alliance is already under great
strain, and throws salt in the open wounds of our closest allies in the
war on terror, and I think it is dangerous.
The amendment is a very complex amendment. It is 29 pages. There are
waivers within waivers which turn out not to be waivers at all because
the conditions of the waivers are unattainable in many instances. This
is not an issue we should be considering as part of an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill, but as I said earlier, it truly
belongs in the conference where it is, with the members of the
committees of jurisdiction debating it. This matter is in that
conference. That is the place it ought to be considered.
The Warner amendment would prevent the United States from
participating in peacekeeping or peacemaking activities pursuant to the
United Nations in countries that happen to be members of the Court.
There is a significant amount of assistance in this bill for Colombia
on which we are voting here. I wonder if our colleagues know that
Colombia ratified this treaty on June 5 and is now a party with the
Court. President Pastrana said ratification with the ICC would send a
message to the FARC, the revolutionary group in Colombia, that it would
be held accountable for the murder of 119 civilians who took refuge in
a church in that country. The Warner amendment would prevent the
President from sharing national security information with a court or
any country which is a party to the Court, absent assurance the
information would not go directly or indirectly to the Court.
I don't think you could ever give that assurance. If faced with an
effort to prosecute the FARC and Colombian request for assistance to go
after the people who murdered those 119 innocent civilians, under the
provisions of this amendment, if adopted, the United States would
refuse cooperation.
I think that is outrageous, I think that is sad, if it is adopted.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a quick question? Is there not
incorporated in the amendment of the Senator from Virginia sufficient
Presidential waiver to take care of every point the Senator has made?
Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, you have to give assurance that none
of this information either indirectly or directly would go to the Court
in allowing for the prosecution of those people. I don't think the
President could get that assurance. If you are going to be prosecuted
in the Court and you are going to share information with the country
that wants them prosecuted, how can you give a waiver doing that? That
is what I mean about this bill.
Mr. WARNER. Why would the Secretary of Defense have indicated----
Mr. DODD. It is my time. I will be finished in a minute, and then I
will give my colleague all the time.
Mr. President, may I finish?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
[[Page S5142]]
Mr. DODD. This is outrageous, this amendment. I urge my colleagues to
read this. Read this, please, what we are about to do, here.
This has waivers within waivers. It is 29 pages of complex
contradictory provisions, in my view, that make it virtually impossible
in many instances for any kind of waivers to be applied here. Further,
the amendment would also prohibit the United States from providing
military assistance to many countries that are parties to the Court,
including such countries as Colombia, unless the President first takes
the step of waiving the provisions of that particular provision.
I would say what is going to happen, if our allies respond to this
prohibition by barring the sharing of information they may have, which
we have a strong national security interest in having--we are sort of
provoking this kind of tit for tat, back and forth.
I don't believe that is the way to go. There are ways of improving
this treaty. This is not the way. This is about politics and votes in
here. This is not about making this a stronger agreement and doing
something that would make our Nation proud.
I can only imagine what would have happened if this Senate had been
operating in the days after the end of World War II, when only a few of
Americans supported the Marshall Plan, when it wasn't popular to do so,
using taxpayer money to rebuild Japan and rebuild Europe. In a sense,
that is what we are trying to do here; it is to rebuild an
international community to deal with the issues of justice in the
world. We are now going to walk away from it entirely.
It has been further said you can set up ad hoc courts. No, you can't.
The U.N. system has established the ICC. That is it. Not ad hoc courts.
The ad hoc courts worked when there was no ICC. Now in the
establishment of an ICC, whether we like it or not, it is going to go
into effect in July. That is a fact. So the ad hoc courts are not going
to be set up.
So when we go after these other people, or try to anyway, the only
place you can bring them is to the ICC. But by not being a part of
that, we take ourselves out of the game and leave ourselves only the
option of militarily going after these people.
That may be a viable option if nothing else works, but I don't think
you want to exclude the option of taking these people to court under
the rule of law.
The ICC is now the only game in town. The bottom line is that the
Security Council is unlikely to approve any new ad hoc tribunals when
once the ICC is established. When international efforts attempt to
bring Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden or the Islamic Jihad to
justice, what is the United States going to be doing? What about slave
traders and war criminals around the globe?
We will exclude ourselves from assisting in those efforts. That is
what this amendment says. We will not be a party to it.
The Warner amendment gives the administration a war powers blank
check. Section 3008 of the Warner amendment authorizes ``use all means
necessary and appropriate'' just as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
authorized all necessary means to release persons arrested by the ICC.
This is a huge giveaway of congressional war powers authority.
Do we really want to be giving open-ended authority to the executive
branch to put American servicemembers at odds with the forces of some
our closest allies? Are we prepared to send troops, in a sense, to The
Hague? This extraordinary grant of authority in section 3008 just
doesn't apply to U.S. servicemen. It extends ``to any person working on
behalf of'' many foreign nations, including Egypt, Argentina, Jordan,
South Korea, and the like. That goes way beyond what we are being told
this amendment accomplishes.
This amendment breaks faith with the Holocaust victims. Elie Weisel
has warned that this bill ``would erase the legacy of U.S. leadership
on international justice.'' Further, he said, for the memory of the
victims of the genocide and the war crimes, this bill must be defeated.
This comes from Elie Weisel. These are the people we ought to be
listening to when it comes to establishing an international criminal
justice court to deal with crimes against humanity and genocide.
This amendment is bad for Israel. Israel signed the Rome Treaty,
which is supported by the American Jewish Committee and the Religious
Action Center to Reform Judaism. Most of Israel's concerns have already
been favorably resolved through negotiations. But Israel is going to
need the United States as a fully engaged partner in future
negotiations over the definition of aggression and other issues. No
matter what one thinks of the ICC, it is clear that U.S. disengagement
from the Court is bad for our ally in the Middle East at a critical
time, the State of Israel.
For all those reasons, I hope the second-degree amendment I have
offered will be agreed to. That would at least provide us an
opportunity to go after the people I have mentioned should they be
apprehended by the Court, and we could be a part of pursuing them.
It seems to me that in the absence of that we are going to look
rather ridiculous in making a claim about seeking support for
antiterrorism.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, if
the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut is agreed to, the Warner
amendment still stands. Will the Senator explain to the Senate the
finality of that, if both amendments are agreed to by the Senate?
Mr. DODD. If the Warner amendment is agreed to, I still have a
problem with it. However, I will read my amendment again.
It says:
Nothing in this title would prohibit the United States from
rendering assistance to the international efforts to bring to
justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden,
and other members of Al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and
other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or
crimes against humanity.
Mr. REID. I also ask my friend, if both amendments are agreed to, the
matter of the Senator from Virginia would still be before the body, and
he could still go forward in the manner he anticipated with the
exception that the Senator from Connecticut added. Is that right?
Mr. DODD. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wasn't able to hear the distinguished
leader.
Mr. DODD. If I may reclaim the floor--and I will finish--the question
of the Senator from Nevada was if my second-degree amendment is adopted
as part of the Warner underlying amendment, does the Warner amendment
go forward?
I want to be honest with my colleagues. I think it is a better
amendment; that is, the Warner amendment is a better amendment if my
adaptation is adopted as a second-degree amendment. Yet, I will still
have a problem with his amendment for the reasons I have outlined
beyond the adoption of it. It goes too far.
I will tell my colleagues that they could vote for the Warner
amendment with at least some comfort here should my second-degree pass.
Can you imagine the irony of this bill if my amendment is not
adopted? If someone catches bin Laden and brings him to the
International Criminal Court, the adoption of this amendment would
prohibit us from assisting in that prosecution. I can't believe that we
would want on record that kind of a judgment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question on
that point? Is there any way we can have a colloquy so we can inform
the Senate of what is taking place?
Mr. DODD. I want to make my point about this, and then I will be
happy to engage my friend in a colloquy.
Mr. WARNER. I am exhausted from listening.
Mr. DODD. The Senator from Virginia has a 29-page amendment. I didn't
read the whole thing. If I did, that could take more time than my
remarks. This is a bill; this isn't an amendment. I have an amendment.
This is a bill of 29 pages. It goes on and on. But read the bill. Don't
come over with this nice title, the American Servicemembers' Protection
Act. How am I going to vote against that?
Read it, and then ask yourself whether or not you really want to be
in a situation where ironically, in the same bill we are voting for aid
to Colombia, who is a member of the ICC.
Under the provisions of this, barring some waiver, maybe as long as
Colombia didn't share any information either
[[Page S5143]]
directly or indirectly with the ICC, we then would have to cut off the
aid to them.
Remember that this proposal is presently in conference. What do you
have a Foreign Relations Committee for? What do you have a Commerce
Committee for? What do you have a Judiciary Committee for? If we are
just going to adopt things on the appropriations bill, why not get rid
of the authorizing committees?
What is the point? If I have to watch things being thrown on a
supplemental appropriations bill, why do we spend the hours in
committee trying to work these things out if we come in and just wipe
it out and adopt it on a supplemental appropriations bill, when
negotiators have no knowledge of the work that has gone into drafting
the language that is sitting in a conference, trying to resolve it?
Unless you are on the Appropriations Committee, you have nothing to
do with this stuff. Why bring up all of the authorizing controversies
and throw them on here--to satisfy Tom Delay and the House leadership
who want to jam this thing through? That is what they want to do. There
is no mistake about it.
This isn't a serious debate about where the United States ought to be
on a critical issue facing our country at a time when we were attacked,
only 9 months ago, by terrorists.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully in a very
quiet and dispassionate way to my friend from Connecticut. I have
studied his amendment. I have an observation, and then a question to
put to my friend.
The first is, his amendment has two sections: Section 2015, and
section 2015 relates to any prohibition of the United States rendering
assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Hussein,
Milosevic, bin Laden, and so forth.
I say to by good friend that if you will look at my amendment, we
have a provision that begins actually on page 8, and I shall read it:
Authority to waive sections, and so and so, with respect to an
investigation or prosecution of a named individual, and the President
is authorized to waive the prohibitions and requirements of section
3004 and 3006 to the agreed section prohibitions, and so forth.
This was carefully crafted in consultation with the Department of
State to do precisely what the Senator from Connecticut desires to do
in section 2015.
I think our amendment has taken care of section 2015.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. I yield only for the purpose of a response to my
question.
Mr. DODD. You have to understand that, if you go on to page 9, line
14, a waiver pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of the prohibitions and
requirements of section 3005 and 3007, and I refer back to page 6, 3005
and 3007.
There it says, ``authority to initially'' waive these sections. It
says, ``notifies the appropriate congressional committees''; and
``determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees
that the International Criminal Court has entered into a binding
agreement.''
You have to get a waiver. You have to go back to the earlier waiver,
and you have to get agreement by the ICC.
That is what I mean by this.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in order to save the Senate time, I think
the amendment cares for the concerns that the Senator from Connecticut
has about 2015. But I make an offer to the Senator from Connecticut
that I amend my amendment to incorporate verbatim his section 2015.
Would he have any objection if I put it in? I think that would
alleviate his concerns. Then we have but one provision left in his
amendment to consider.
Mr. DODD. The only thing, 2016----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am directing a question to 2015. Let us
stay on that for a minute.
Mr. DODD. I want to respond as well. I appreciate that. The reason
2016 is there is to say at least give the authorizers a chance to
complete our work.
Mr. WARNER. That is a separate argument. Could we address them one at
a time? I put to my colleague the question: Would he have an objection
if the Senator from Virginia sought to amend his amendment to include
verbatim the provisions of the Senator designated as 2015?
Mr. DODD. My point is--I appreciate that--I want to also talk about
2016.
Mr. WARNER. Fine. Can we do them seriatim?
Mr. DODD. No. Let's do them together.
Mr. WARNER. Well, we are not, Mr. President. The question is not: May
I amend it to include 2016?
Mr. DODD. Section 2015----
Mr. WARNER. To facilitate the Senate moving ahead on this matter and
on the bill--you have raised this question--I am prepared to amend my
amendment to include 2015.
Mr. DODD. Let me suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I formally put to the Senate the
unanimous consent request that the Senator from Virginia may modify his
amendment to include verbatim section 2015 of the second-degree
amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the second part of my second-degree
amendment is critically important because it gives us a chance to
complete our work as authorizers. By not including this--and my friend
from Virginia has been candid enough to say they would not accept that
as part of this agreement--then I, reluctantly, have to object to this
unanimous consent request.
I am prepared to vote on the second-degree amendment, that we just
vote on it. Members can decide whether or not they think this provision
ought to be a part of this amendment or not. But as an authorizer who
has worked hard at this, along with others--we are in conference--we
have a chance to come out of a committee with a product for which the
Senate can be proud. I hope that is the case. To just sort of disregard
that and throw this on the appropriations bill is something I
reluctantly have to object to.
So I urge we just have a vote on this second-degree amendment and
complete the debate here and allow us to go to the Durbin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia moves to table
the second-degree amendment and asks for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I share the serious concerns of the sponsors
of this amendment about the potential for the International Criminal
Court to be used as a political weapon against our members of the Armed
Forces. This court, a permanent, international institution, is
unprecedented in history. The International Criminal Court holds the
power to indict and try individuals for war crimes, even if the person
is a citizen of a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that
creates the Court. It is not difficult to see that rogue states may
seek to indict Americans on frivolous charges simply as a means to
grind a political axe.
On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration renounced the United States'
signature on the Treaty of Rome, which creates the International
Criminal Court. But because the treaty has been ratified by 60 other
countries, the Court will come into existence on July 1. Proponents of
this amendment are correct in saying that the United States should take
some action to protect our military personnel who serve abroad from
unjustified prosecution by the Court.
But the amendment proposed to the supplemental appropriations bill
goes beyond protecting the members of our Armed Forces. It also
authorizes the President to ``use all means necessary
[[Page S5144]]
and appropriate'' to bring about the release of a ``covered person''
that is being held for trial before the International Criminal Court.
Who is a ``covered person''? The amendment defines him to be an
American, or a foreign national of one of our allies. Is Congress
really prepared to issue a blanket authorization to allow the President
to use ``all means necessary'' to rescue from prosecution a person from
counties like Argentina, Jordan, or Egypt?
There is no way that we could predict the circumstances under which a
person from one of these countries could be accused of war crimes. But
this amendment gives the President a congressional authorization to use
our military to compel the release of a prisoner of the International
Criminal Court before Congress even has a chance to examine if the use
of force is justified. This is a dangerous and unwise delegation of the
constitutional powers of the legislative branch.
I must also question why this amendment is being proposed to the
supplemental appropriations bill. This very same amendment is included
in the State Department authorization bill passed by the House of
Representatives. This provision is now being deliberated in a
conference committee. Further consideration of legislation relating to
the International Criminal Court would best be left to the conferees
from committees of jurisdiction, including the Foreign Relations
Committee, rather than the members of the Appropriations Committee who
will be appointed to the conference on the supplemental appropriations
bill.
To that end, I support the Dodd-Leahy amendment, which will limit the
duration of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act to fiscal year
2002 only. If the proponents of the American Servicemembers' Protection
Act believe that there is an urgent need to pass this legislation, then
there should be no problem in accepting the Senators' amendment. The
Dodd-Leahy amendment would provide for a stopgap protection against the
International Criminal Court until such time as the conferees to the
State Department authorization bill complete their work. This is a
reasonable limit to an intrusion into an issue that is being debated in
a conference committee.
While we must seek to preserve the sovereignty of the United States
by protecting our citizens against prosecution in front of the
International Criminal Court, a body which will operate without any
checks or balances from any branch of our government, this amendment
goes too far in delegating the constitutional responsibilities of
Congress over authorizing the use of force. Furthermore, the
supplemental appropriations bill is not an appropriate legislative
vehicle for addressing this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the
Dodd-Leahy amendment.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Virginia has moved
to table the Dodd amendment, and the yeas and nays have been ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) and the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--40
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Corzine
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Bingaman
Campbell
Daschle
Dayton
Helms
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Modification to Amendment No. 3597
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, the Senator from Virginia
renews his unanimous consent request to incorporate verbatim--and I do
so on behalf of my distinguished colleague and cosponsor from Georgia,
Mr. Miller--to offer verbatim section 2015 of the second-degree
amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The modification is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
Sec. 3015. Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United
States from rendering assistance to international efforts to
bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama
bin Laden, other members of Al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic
Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war
crimes or crimes against humanity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's offer, and I did
not object. I want to make clear to people why we ended up voting on
the second-degree amendment.
There is in Congress, on the State-Justice authorization bill, a
conference on this very matter. Many of us have spent weeks trying to
get the House to join us to resolve this matter. They have refused to
meet. We included language that would force the House to meet with us
or, under the supplemental, this language would die.
There is still a Defense appropriations bill and there is still a
foreign operations appropriations bill to which this language can be
added. It is sad in a way that authorizers cannot meet on the
authorizing track to resolve policy matters; that policy matters have
to be included on a supplemental appropriations bill. It is regrettable
that efforts are not made to force the authorizers to meet and work.
Maybe this Senate is so collapsed that there is no longer any need to
authorize. Every member of any authorizing committee: Henceforth know
that when similar provisions come up, I will join with my friend from
Virginia and let it be done on appropriations bills, not authorizing
bills.
I do not know why I serve on authorizing committees. I am half
tempted to get off them. I do not know why I spend all these hours
working on these matters and staff working on these matters to have it
included in a supplemental appropriations bill. Why does anyone serve
on these committees at all?
We are about to adopt a very delicate and important matter--29
pages--which I promise no one here has read. There are not two people
who have read it. They are going to vote on it because it has a nice
title.
It looks good in a 30-second spot. It is dangerous, and it is wrong.
It is terrible the Senate has come to this.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote against the Warner amendment.
Let
[[Page S5145]]
me state at the outset my view on several issues that this amendment
raises.
First, I want to make clear that I do not support the International
Criminal Court as it is constituted. The Rome Statute which creates the
Court is flawed, and it would be a mistake for the United States to
become a party to the Court under the Statute. The President made clear
last month that the United States will not do so.
I do support protecting American servicemen and women. The Court
statute purports to provide jurisdiction over individuals from nations
which have not become party to it. That is wrong as a matter of treaty
law and of basic fairness. We can and must protect our servicemen from
the jurisdiction of this tribunal. I believe the President and
Secretary Rumsfeld will do what is necessary to do so. We do not need
this amendment to allow a President to use ``a necessary force'' to
force any American servicemen from the custody of any international
court.
I do not want to harm U.S. interest overseas. Many of our closest
allies in Europe are strong supporters of this Court. This legislation
will further complicate our relationship with those friends. Moreover,
it takes aim at allies outside of Europe with punitive measures.
Finally, I do not, as a constitutional matter, want to give carte
blanche to any President to rescue even American individuals detained
by the Court who are not citizens.
The amendment contains a sweeping authorization to the President to
use force to rescue not only Americans detained by the International
Criminal Court, but also nationals of several allied countries.
The authority to rescue U.S. nationals, I submit, is probably
unnecessary: most scholars would agree that the President has the
authority to rescue Americans abroad who are in serious danger from a
foreign power or circumstance. If an American is detained by the Court,
the President will surely have the support of the Congress to take
whatever action necessary to rescue that servicemember.
The authority to rescue foreign nationals, such as an accused war
criminal from Australia or Egypt, is unwise. As a constitutional
matter, I am unwilling to give the President such a blank check to
invade the Netherlands--where this Court will be located. Only the
Congress has the power to authorize such use of force, and we should
not do so in advance, without knowing all the circumstances.
I am also concerned about a provision which bars military assistance
to countries which join the Court. This would apply, as the Senator
from Connecticut noted, to our assistance to Colombia, a country we
have been strongly supporting with substantial military assistance.
This restriction may be waived on two alternative grounds, but I ask my
colleagues: why would we even consider cutting off aid to our ally in
Colombia because it made the sovereign choice to join the International
Criminal Court?
This provision does not apply to our NATO partners, and certain non-
NATO allies like Egypt, Israel and Japan. How can we tell our NATO
allies or others that they are free to join the Court without fearing
an aid restriction, but then turn around and tell other countries that
they could face penalties if they join the Court?
This provision is directly contrary to the position of the Bush
Administration. When the Administration announced its position on the
International Criminal Court last month, Under Secretary of State Marc
Grossman made it clear that the United States was going to ``respect
the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC.'' This
provision to cut off military aid would violate that principle.
My bottom line is this: we should not join the Court as it is
currently constituted. Its provisions purporting to extend jurisdiction
to non-parties and the inclusion in the Statute of the crime of
aggression and sufficient reason to do so.
But this legislation is not necessary to protect our interests.
President Bush has adequate powers to do that. It adds very little to
the powers he now possesses. But it could complicate our foreign policy
with friends in Europe and elsewhere. And it gives future Presidents a
blank check to rescue foreign nationals detained by the Court. I think
that is a mistake, and therefore will vote no.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as you know, on December 31, 2000,
former President Clinton signed the UN's Rome Statute that would
obligate the United States to comply with the International Criminal
Court. I was disappointed in this action, and until President Bush
formally notified the United Nations on May 6 that the U.S. would not
become a party to the Rome Statute, I was prepared to fight the
ratification of this treaty if it was brought before the United States
Senate.
The ICC contains fundamental flaws that we cannot ignore and
jeopardizes our service and diplomatic personnel. Whether conducting
engagement activities, support operations, stability operations or
combat operations, we must ensure the protection of our servicemembers
and officials of the United States involved in such matters as
responding to acts of terrorism, preventing the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and deterring aggression. Many of these
issues and the official actions taken by servicemembers and others
involve protection of the national interests of the United States. We
should have every right to pursue those interests as a sovereign
Nation.
In order to accomplish this, we must pass the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act, ASPA, which has been offered as an
amendment to the pending bill by the ranking member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, Senator John Warner. I would like to commend my
colleague for his initiative and leadership on this issue. As he and
others would agree, failure to pass this Act will have a chilling
effect on our ongoing commitments to peace, democracy and prosperity
throughout the world.
This amendment is necessary because U.S. withdrawal from the treaty,
which we have already done, is not enough. Other countries may still
attempt to force the United States to comply with the treaty's
provisions. As you may know, the treaty will go into effect on July 1
because the requisite number of countries have ratified the Rome
Statute, notwithstanding our withdrawal from the treaty. What this
means is that the International Criminal Court could exercise
jurisdiction over action crimes committed in the territory of a state
party, including those by citizens and servicemen of non-parties.
Thus, under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, the court would have
jurisdiction for enumerated crimes alleged to have been committed by
U.S. citizens, including the U.S. servicemembers, in a country like
Afghanistan. Clearly this is an important protection for our soldiers
currently engaged in missions in that country.
Additionally, Article 5 allows parties to the treaty to define vague
crimes like ``aggression,'' but Article 121 also allows parties to the
treaty to opt-out of certain crimes. Article 121 does not afford that
same ``opt-out'' right to non-parties, including the United States. As
a result, U.S. servicemen and diplomats as well as other U.S. citizens
could be charged, tried, and jailed for crimes the U.S. had no part in
defining and crimes that parties to the threaties themselves are not
bound by.
The American Servicemembers' Protection Act, ASPA seeks to protect
the United States from these coercive elements of the treaty, and
precludes cooperation with the International Criminal Court so long as
the United States is not a Rome Statute party. ASPA still permits
cooperation with ad hoc courts created through the UN Security Council,
such as the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals, and prosecution of future
war criminals. Such a tribunal created by the Security council at least
provides the U.S. with a veto option where we have a say in its mandate
and are therefore about to ensure that war criminals will not escape
justice.
From Sudan to China, Eastern Europe to South Asia, many of my
colleagues and I have devoted considerable time in the Senate to
protecting human right, democracy, and religious freedom. This treaty
would undermine the U.S. ability to promote and protect the ideals that
we have fought for: the values of democracy, freedom and open societies
for the people of the world.
[[Page S5146]]
While this treaty may be well-intentioned, its vague language gives
UN officials unchecked authority, and it imposes an unbearable burden
upon the U.S.
This country's commitment to pursuing accountability for war crimes,
genocide and crimes against humanity is an important part of our
foreign policy objectives and one that serves as a model for others. It
was through U.S. leadership that Nazi war crimes were prosecuted. It
was through U.S. leadership that Balkan war criminals in Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Kosovo were brought to justice. If my fellow members
want to maintain America's ability to keep its international
commitments abroad, then we must protect our soldiers and our civilian
leaders by passing the American Servicemembers' Protection Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner
amendment, but before the vote is taken, I understand there is at least
one colleague, my colleague from Virginia, who would like to have 5
minutes. Are there others who wish to indicate to the managers a desire
to speak before that vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. REID. For the information of Senators, Senator Allen from
Virginia wishes to speak on this underlying amendment for 5 minutes. I
do not know of anyone else who wants to speak on this amendment. We
will have a vote in the next few minutes on the underlying amendment.
Following that, next in order, by virtue of a unanimous consent
agreement, is Senator Durbin. He has indicated he will speak for
perhaps half an hour. There may be others who wish to speak. We will
have a vote sometime after that. We are going to have a series of votes
in the near future. Members should remain close to the Chamber because
we are moving pretty well. It is yet to be seen whether we can complete
our work tonight.
I will say to my friend from Connecticut, this was not in the Senate
bill that is before this body. I just want to make sure the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate is not blamed. This was put in
on an amendment from the floor. The Appropriations Committee did not do
it.
I say to my friend, this was not put in by any member of the
Appropriations Committee. It was put in by an authorizer. I say to all
Senators, the Senator from Connecticut is an exemplary Senator who does
a great job on every authorizing committee he is on, but I want to say
do not blame the Appropriations Committee, because it did not put this
matter in the bill. It was offered separate and apart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WARNER. Were the yeas and nays ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield to the Senator?
Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. BIDEN. Has the Dodd amendment, which reads, ``Nothing in this
title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to
international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan
Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, and other leaders of al-Qaida, leaders of
Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war
crimes or crimes against humanity,'' been made a part of what we are
about to vote on?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been modified.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I assure the Senator it is. The Senator
from Virginia made two attempts, failed on the first attempt for the
vote, but succeeded on the second attempt just a minute or two ago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Virginia put
forth a unanimous consent agreement that there would be a vote
following 5 minutes from the other Senator from Virginia. Is that
right?
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the request was not made as a unanimous
consent.
Mr. REID. Then I would propound that as a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment that my
good friend, Senator Warner of Virginia, has offered. I am a cosponsor
of this act and a cosponsor of this amendment, along with my friend,
Senator Miller of Georgia. I continue to believe that the International
Criminal Court poses a threat to the sovereignty of the United States
and the individual freedoms of America.
Americans do care about the rest of the world. The rest of the world,
though, can make their own decisions. The Europeans, if they want to
merge their currencies, can do so. It does not mean we have to put our
dollar in with their currency. We have a right to control our own
destiny and the sovereignty and fair justice administered in our
country.
This International Criminal Court would have the jurisdiction to
punish individual American officials for foreign policy and military
actions of the U.S. Government. The laws and the rules of this treaty
do not offer fair and equal justice, nor do they offer the due process
rights guaranteed and protected under our Bill of Rights.
The mechanism used to introduce and try cases in this Court is an
independent prosecutor, who would be one who is not really accountable
but would be given the autonomy to enforce justice as that prosecutor
sees fit. Placing such power in the hands of one individual is not only
ill advised, it runs contrary to the very foundation of justice upon
which our country was built upon.
For example, if the international prosecutor believes a U.S. court's
decision was inadequate or incorrect, then this prosecutor is
authorized to indict the alleged human rights abuser and demand a new
trial in the International Criminal Court. This is all contrary to the
laws of the constitutions of our States and the Constitution of our
country for the last 225 years. Elected officials ought to protect and
uphold our rights. In reality, this ICC, or Rome Treaty, would erect an
institution superior to our courts in this country and in our States.
In considering whether to enact an amendment that would protect
Americans from this international treaty, we need to consider the
values and goals of the international prosecutors and the international
judges. It is unlikely persons given such authority will hold the same
values as the United States. Consider the fact that the Rome Treaty was
signed by Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria, among others. All of these
nations have extremely questionable records when it comes to justice,
due process, and equality. I believe we should consider the parties
involved when considering any international treaty.
Senator Dodd mentioned Elie Wiesel and Israel. Israel mostly has its
troops focused in its homeland. The United States has its spread across
the world.
The amendment of Senator Warner, the American Servicemembers'
Protection Act, is supported by the following organizations: The
National Guard Association of the United States, the Air Force
Sergeants Association, the Army Aviation Association of America, the
Association of the U.S. Army, the National Military Family Association,
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, Fleet
Reserve Association, the Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War
Veterans of the USA, the Marine Corps League, the Marine Corps Reserve
Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Navy
League of the United States, the Retired Officers Association, the
United Armed Forces Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States, and others.
I believe the former President, Mr. Clinton, made a serious mistake
when he signed the Rome Treaty in the last days of his administration.
President Bush wisely rejected the Rome Treaty
[[Page S5147]]
and notified the United Nations that the United States would not be
ratifying or participating in the accord. Unfortunately, the number of
ratifying nations is rising and the ICC will come into existence on
July 1 of this year. It is why we must pass this amendment.
We are all working in unity to fight corruption, hatred, and
dictatorships around the world. With the amendment that has been added,
our position is clear and we will fight war criminals.
In closing, I will quote Mr. Jefferson when he stated:
It is the right of every nation to prohibit acts of
sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its
limits . . .
I urge my colleagues to exercise that right, protect our sovereignty
and our men and women in the military in supporting this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3597, as modified.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), and the Senator from
Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Voinovich) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--19
Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kohl
Leahy
Lieberman
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Specter
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--6
Bingaman
Campbell
Daschle
Dayton
Helms
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 3597), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois is recognized.
Amendment No. 3729
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3729, which was
previously filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 3729.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 55, beginning on line 13, strike ``$100,000,000''
and all that follows through ``Provided, '' on line 17 and
insert the following: ``500,000,000, to remain available
until March 31, 2003, which may be made available as a United
States contribution to the Global Fund to combat AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria: Provided, That the entire amount
is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided
further,''.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Specter and Boxer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to clarify this amendment because some have followed this
issue. I have made a decision this evening to change the amount that I
am asking for in this amendment. I want to clarify it for the record so
there is no question in the minds of my colleagues as to what this
amendment will do.
Currently, in the supplemental appropriations bill there is $100
million for the global AIDS epidemic. It was my original intention to
increase that amount to $700 million. But after consulting with Senator
Frist and others, I decided that we should come together to try to work
together on a bipartisan basis at a lower number to make certain we do
everything in our power to have the resources to fight this global AIDS
epidemic.
I hoped we could come together and offer a bipartisan amendment with
Senator Frist relative to a funding level of $100 million.
Unfortunately, we were not able to reach that agreement today. However,
in the interest of drawing as many together--Republicans and
Democrats--to support this measure, I have reduced the amount which I
have requested to $500 million. I believe more is needed, but I am
asking for $500 million as part of this supplemental appropriation to
deal with the global AIDS epidemic.
I will tell my colleagues that this vote is not only important, but
it is not going to be an easy vote. I anticipate procedural motions to
be made on the floor which will ultimately require 60 votes to pass
this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join and agree with me that
it is an emergency amendment; that it deserves emergency status; that
it deserves the vote of at least 60 Members of the Senate tonight.
Is there anyone in this Chamber and is there anyone following this
debate who can seriously question whether the global AIDS epidemic is
an emergency? Clearly, it is.
At the end of 2001, more than 40 million people in the world were
living with HIV. Some estimates range from 42 million to 45 million.
But there is another statistic worth reflecting on. It is estimated
that 95 percent of the people currently infected in the world today
don't know they are infected. Think of that for a moment. Think of the
consequences of that in terms of the spread of this deadly disease.
There is a chart which shows a summary of the estimated 40 million
infected with HIV/AIDS at end of the year 2001. In North America,
940,000; in the Caribbean, one of the fastest growing areas in the
world for the AIDS epidemic, 420,000; 1.4 million in Latin America; 1
million in eastern Europe and central Asia; 1 million in east Asia and
the Pacific; 6.1 million in South and Southeast Asia; 470,000 in
western Europe; 440,000 in north Africa; then comes sub-Saharan Africa
with over 28 million people currently infected with HIV/AIDS.
It is our estimated that there are some 15 million AIDS orphans in
sub-Saharan Africa alone. Think of that. Children who have lost one or
two parents to the AIDS epidemic--15 million.
In 2001 alone, 5 million people were newly infected with HIV, more
than 95 percent of whom live in Third World countries, in the
developing world. The majority of these new infections occur in young
adults--especially women. Most of them are young people. Many don't
know they have it. More than 13 million children are orphaned, and 3
million died. Each day in the world, 8,000 people die from AIDS, and
6,000 from tuberculosis and malaria.
The purpose of this amendment is to start bringing together a clear
national sentiment--perhaps global sentiment--to do something
significant when it comes to dealing with this AIDS epidemic.
Consider for a moment the Global Fund. There was the suggestion by
Kofi Annan and world leaders that we make a special effort to fund
programs around the world to deal with AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
Two years ago, the United States contributed $300 million to this
Global Fund. This year we reduced the amount that we contributed to a
figure of $200 million.
[[Page S5148]]
You have to ask yourself: Why would you reduce the amount you are
spending fighting the global AIDS epidemic through the Global
Fund? There is no good explanation.
I had before the Appropriations Committee on Foreign Operations, on
April 24, a man I respect very much, Secretary of State Colin Powell.
I stated the following:
. . . Mr. Secretary, Senator Specter and I are going to
offer an amendment to the supplemental for $700 million
more----
That was our original amendment----
committed to multilateral and bilateral efforts on AIDS as an
emergency appropriation. I just can't think of money that we
could spend more wisely than to try to stop the pace of this
[global] epidemic.
I think the American people understand this, too. This
isn't a problem in some other part of the world. This is a
problem of our world; a problem that is sadly an airline
flight away from being delivered to the United States every
hour of every day. I hope that we can have the support of the
administration for $700 million.
This was in April of this year, a question I asked of Secretary of
State Colin Powell.
Let me read you his reply:
I will pass that on to my colleagues downtown and see what
we can do as it comes through, but I couldn't agree with you
more, sir.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has been a real leader. Sometimes he
has not been the most popular person in this administration with some,
but he certainly understands the gravity and scope of this crisis. And,
as he said, he couldn't agree with me more in terms of funding to fight
this epidemic.
We need to show real leadership in this Chamber. We need to step
forward and say--not only to America, but to the world--that this is
our chance and this is our opportunity.
The global summary of the HIV/AIDS epidemic I have shown you. Let me
also show you this chart: About 14,000 new HIV infections every day in
the year 2001. As I said, more than 95 percent in developing countries;
2,000 are in children under 15 years of age; about 12,000 are in
persons aged 15 to 49 years, of whom almost 50 percent are women, 50
percent are between the ages of 15 and 24.
Two years ago, I made a trip to Africa. I went there to look at other
issues. I really was not focused on the global AIDS epidemic. I went
there to look at feeding programs and microcredit programs that I am
involved with in my committees.
I went to South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda. And I can tell you, in a
very brief period of time I realized there is no other issue in Africa
than the AIDS epidemic. I saw things and witnessed experiences there I
will never forget.
In Kampala, Uganda, there is a clinic known as the TASO clinic. Each
day, hundreds of Ugandans come into this clinic who are already
infected with HIV, and some are dying from AIDS. These are men and
women who understand their time on Earth is limited. They come in for a
little help, some basic drugs and medicine, and they go about their
lives. We met with them, sat down with them.
One of my colleagues here on the floor a few minutes ago said, it
must have been very depressing. It was depressing, yes, to think that
so many people's lives would be shortened because of this deadly
disease. But at another level, it was inspirational. Here are people
who have absolutely nothing on Earth--nothing.
If one of us should hear that we have been diagnosed with a serious
disease, there are things we can do, doctors to see, hospitals to
visit, research to inquire about, medicines that might give us a
chance. None of that is true for most of the victims of HIV and AIDS in
Africa and around the world.
I can recall standing there as a choir of infected people in the
clinic came together to sing to us a chorus. That is not unusual in
Africa. They sing when they greet you; they sing when you leave; they
sing all the time. And as they sang the songs that they had written, a
young woman stepped forward, who was clearly thin, who did not have
much time left, and, in the most angelic voice, sang a song she had
written entitled ``Why me?'' I will never forget that--why him? Why
her? Why me?
You say to yourself, isn't this a hopeless situation? If they don't
have the medicine, if they don't have the medical care, if they don't
have the hospitals, what can we do? We cannot provide the Magic Johnson
therapy to every infected person in Africa. It would be too expensive.
We could not monitor it. But, trust me, there are things we can do and
things that help.
Ten years ago, when Uganda realized their problem, 30 percent of the
new mothers were found to be infected with HIV--30 percent. They
decided, as a government, to do something about it: A public education
campaign, condoms, talking to people about the dangers of unprotected
sex.
In a matter of 10 years, with this basic effort, they reduced the HIV
infection rate among new mothers to 15 percent. That meant that the
number of children infected with AIDS and HIV was cut in half by the
simplest methods, the most direct methods.
The message I am trying to deliver to my colleagues is this: The
money we spend on the global AIDS epidemic will save lives. We know it
will. We have made a commitment to this. But the commitment does not
meet the scope of the problem. The commitment does not reach to try to
catch an epidemic that is galloping away from us. We are taking small
steps forward saying, well, we are doing something in the United
States, and this epidemic is galloping away from us across the world.
(Ms. CANTWELL assumed the chair.)
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to.
Mr. STEVENS. Did I hear correctly that the Senator from Illinois
indicated we had reduced spending on AIDS for this fiscal year? There
is an increase across the board in several different components. Does
the Senator realize that?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes. I say to the Senator, what I said was, we reduced
our contribution to the Global Fund from $300 millon a year ago to $200
million in this year. Our total expenditures for HIV and AIDS worldwide
are in the range of $850 million.
Mr. STEVENS. We have $300 million right now, Madam President, in this
fund. The House bill has $100 million in addition, and we have $100
million in this. Does the Senator realize we are willing to go up to
another $100 million?
Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the Senator from Alaska, any additional
dollars are appreciated. But the point I am trying to make is, even
increasing our contribution to the level of $200 million is totally
inadequate in response to this global epidemic. I am going to quote----
Mr. STEVENS. Just one last question.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a question.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator realize how much we are contributing to
the research base for AIDS in the world, how much we are spending from
defense, NIH, from a series of accounts, in terms of basic research for
AIDS?
Mr. DURBIN. To the Senator from Alaska, I would say, yes, we are
making a contribution as a nation. What I am asking the Senate to
consider is whether it is adequate, whether it is adequate in terms of
this global AIDS epidemic.
Let me say to my colleague from Alaska, and others, that just a few
months ago two of my colleagues in the Senate--Senator Frist and
Senator Helms, who cannot be with us this evening because he is
recovering from a recent medical problem--came to the same conclusion
that I have come to this evening. Both Senator Frist and Senator Helms
sought a $500 million increase for AIDS.
That is the amount I am asking. It isn't as if I have come up with an
outlandish and outrageous figure. Dr. Frist, who is a Member of the
Senate, supported the same level of funding. Senator Helms said it as
well. In fact, he offered an editorial to the Washington Post which was
nothing short of inspirational. He was widely quoted across the United
States, saying that--and I am going to read this because I think, in
fairness to Senator Helms, this is a very important quote.
Senator Helms, our colleague, in his Washington Post editorial, said:
In February I said publicly that I was ashamed that I had
not done more considering the world's AIDS pandemic. I told
this to a conference organized by Samaritan's Purse, the
finest humanitarian organization I know of.
Senator Helms, I would like to say, if you are following this debate,
this amendment, the level of funding which
[[Page S5149]]
you suggested, is the right thing to do. It is still the right thing to
do.
For a variety of reasons, there has been a change of heart by some in
terms of asking for $500 million. I might say to my colleagues, the
problem is not diminishing. The problem is growing geometrically, and
we are responding arithmetically. We are providing a little bit more
and a little bit more, and this epidemic is raging across the world.
We talk a lot about the security of the United States. I spent a
whole day in the Judiciary Committee. The Intelligence Committee I
serve on also met. Can we be more secure in the United States if
countries around the world are being destabilized by the AIDS epidemic?
How are they destabilized? Frankly, if you lose one out of five adults
to AIDS, if you have millions of AIDS orphans, children who grow up on
the streets, little girls who end up turning to thievery and
prostitution to survive, little boys with no parental supervision
because their parents have died from AIDs, who become part of these
warring gangs in Africa and the Third World, ripe targets for
terrorism, how does that make America safer? I don't think it does.
In fact, just the opposite is true. We are, in fact, less secure as a
nation. Let me also quote two other members of the administration who
have addressed this issue. The Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Secretary Thompson, March 29 of this year:
The scourge of AIDS threatens to destroy economies, social
systems, and the very fabric of local communities. There is
no question that as a country, the United States must engage
with other nations and across all sectors to fight the most
devastating public health pandemics of the modern age.
That was Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson.
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil has been in the news for the last
several weeks touring Africa with Bono, a member of the Irish rock band
U2, who has been one of the world's leaders on this issue, who came to
visit me and so many other Senators to talk about this issue. He
invited Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to come with him to Africa, see
the AIDS epidemic firsthand. Let me quote Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill:
Nowhere is this more urgent, and more heartbreaking, than
the struggle against AIDS. In South Africa I saw mothers with
AIDS caring for babies with AIDS, even when proven,
inexpensive drugs are available to stop transmission between
mother and child. I saw the dedication of nurses and doctors
treating people with AIDS, and their patients' struggle to
survive.
That was Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.
Why is it that the leaders in this administration can travel around
the world and speak forthrightly about this terrible epidemic, yet this
Senate is hesitant to put funding into fighting the global AIDS
epidemic at a level that gives us a chance to make a real difference?
When I spoke earlier about what we can do and used Uganda as an
example, I also went to Mulago Hospital in Kampala. I saw research
projects underway there that are nothing short of miraculous. If a
mother is pregnant and diagnosed with HIV, there is a high likelihood
that her infant will also be HIV positive. But they have found a very
simple drug called nevirapine. If the mother goes into labor, she takes
the drug and the baby, as soon as it is born, is administered the drug.
They are finding remarkable results in terms of saving the baby's life.
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, whatever your position may
be, isn't that the right thing to do, for the United States to be
investing with other countries to try to stop this transmission of AIDS
from mother to child?
A proposal came to the Global Fund from Nigeria to support the
activities of six centers focusing just on this, to stop the
transmission from mother to baby. These centers will have the capacity
to test an estimated 14,000 women for HIV and provide this
antiretroviral therapy to 912 HIV positive mothers to protect their
babies from infection. Finally, the centers will link families with
comprehensive care and counseling services.
This is what the Global Fund does: Identifies projects all around the
Third World where we have victims of HIV and tuberculosis and malaria
to come up with proven, effective therapies to save their lives.
Why is it important that we provide more money to this Global Fund? I
will tell you why. Because as of last night or the night before, the
Global Fund ran out of money. It had allocated all the money for this
year. It is gone. It is down to zero. The $500 million which we are
proposing in this amendment can be used by the administration to
replenish the money in the Global Fund.
We currently know that there are at least $370 million of outstanding
projects that weren't funded, and we know a new round of applications
will be coming in in just a few months. We know that down the line even
more money will be needed.
As much as we have done as a nation, we should and can do more. We
absolutely must do more in terms of the impact this funding is going to
have on the world in which we live.
The Global Fund fights, of course, not only AIDS but TB and malaria.
I know my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, has been a leader
from the start on HIV/AIDS in the United States and around the world
and has focused, as well, on tuberculosis as a scourge in many Third
World countries--and malaria. I will credit her, as we served on the
House Budget Committee together many years ago, with being the first
person who made me consciously aware of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Little did I know I would be standing on the Senate floor next to her
in this situation, but here we are--a nation which has fought its own
battle against the HIV/AIDS epidemic and looks out at a world where
this epidemic is virtually out of control.
The Global Fund, suggested by Kofi Annan at the United Nations, is a
fund that encourages countries around the world to put in their
contribution. Do you know the first country that every other nation in
the world looks to to see whether this is a good idea, worthy of
investment? The United States. If the United States will put up
taxpayers' dollars, hard-earned money from our taxpayers to fight the
global AIDS epidemic, nations around the world follow suit.
The opposite is also true. If we don't put the money in, the Global
Fund lags, falls behind, in allocations. This Global Fund has rules
that were set down by USAID, Department of State. It has been approved
by our Government. There is no question that it is a good agency that
does a lot of great work. Frankly, they are running out of money. They
have none currently available.
When they gave countries around the world 7 weeks to prepare
proposals for the Global Fund to fight HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria,
they received $5 billion in funding requests. We are asking ourselves
whether $200 million from the United States is enough? It is not. It
clearly isn't. We need to do more.
I think we can do more. This fund has a stupendous resource gap. It
is being forced to triage important proposals that have been subjected
to vigorous review. The Global Fund may be forced to reject plans that
would save lives immediately around the world.
Over 100 country proposals have been submitted. The fund just can't
finance it. Over a 5-year window, the Global Fund received $5 billion
in applications. Billions more are coming.
I want to commend my colleagues, Senators Frist, Helms, Specter,
Boxer, Wellstone, and others, who have shown a real consciousness and
sensitivity to this problem. I beg you, think for a moment before we go
home this evening, having passed this supplemental emergency
appropriations bill, should we not consider the greatest health
emergency in the world today?
Shouldn't the United States say: We will continue to lead by example?
It isn't as if this is an unpopular idea. They took polls across the
United States and asked the people of America what they thought we
should be doing in terms of our international commitments. The people
came back in polling and said: Second to stopping the illegal flow of
drugs in the United States, there is nothing that we should spend more
money on when it comes to fighting HIV and AIDS around the world.
The American people understand this. They get it. It isn't a problem
in some faraway land. It is a problem that may have started in Africa,
but it quickly spread around the world and is now growing at a
proportionate rate
[[Page S5150]]
that many of us never imagined would be possible.
International health experts at the UNAIDS, World Bank, and the World
Health Organization have supplied us data on what would be needed to
make a serious intervention in this crisis. This amendment we are
offering tonight tries to meet that.
A few weeks ago, Bono, who I mentioned earlier, came to Capitol Hill
and visited a lot of our offices and created quite a stir. This man,
who is internationally known for his musical ability, has developed an
international reputation for fighting this AIDS epidemic. He is a very
likable man. I said: You have become a constant pest on Capitol Hill.
Every time we turn around, there is Bono opening up another door to
another office--whether the Senator is a Republican or a Democrat--
convincing them we have to do something. He is doing the Lord's work,
God's work. But all of those trips and all of the work he has done is
worth little if we don't follow through this evening by voting for this
additional $500 million.
This debate is about more than posing for photographs with Bono. This
amendment is about making a real commitment, a tangible commitment, an
effective commitment to a global epidemic. Can we make a difference? In
large and small ways, we can.
I went to a clinic in South Africa outside the city of Durban, up in
the mountainside. It was one of the most basic health clinics I had
ever been to. They didn't have much--very little technology and few
drugs. I saw people there suffering from burns and a young woman who
was clearly dying from HIV.
Then I met with a group of about 25 or 30 who lived in the villages
around the clinic. They sat lined up in neat rows and watched this
visitor, a Senator from the United States, come before them. They
wanted to make a presentation to me. They made a presentation of a
young woman who was brought forward.
She was very thin and obviously very sick. She was clearly nervous to
be addressing this crowd and standing before these people from the U.S.
She stood there and buttoned her shirt up to the top of her neck and
she was shaking.
She said: I have Tuberculosis. I have been very sick for several
years, and I have come to this clinic. Then she paused and she said: I
have AIDS. I don't know what is going to happen to my children. When
she said those words, ``I have AIDS,'' there was a gasp in the audience
because in South Africa, sadly--a country that is overwhelmed with the
AIDS epidemic--a few years before, a woman was stoned to death when she
admitted she had AIDS. She was beaten to death by the villagers. It
took real courage for that woman to tell this crowd she had AIDS. They
just don't speak of it.
As she was sobbing, they sat her down next to me on a bench, and I
reached my arm over and put it around her shoulder, and the audience
gasped again. A doctor stood up and said: Look at this now. I am
telling you, if you touch her, you will not be infected. He said: This
man from the United States has put his arm around her. I am telling
you, it is safe to touch people who have AIDS.
That is what the level of ignorance is when it comes to this epidemic
in some parts of the world.
My friends, those scenes I will never forget. My colleague in the
Senate, Senator Frist, has been there himself and has worked in these
clinics and has performed surgeries in Africa understands this. That is
why the amendment he offered for $500 million is a good amendment. It
is one that he and Senator Helms believe in very much, very
passionately. I believe in it, too.
I bring this to the floor tonight in the hopes that the 25 colleagues
in the Senate who signed a letter with me to Chairman Byrd and Senator
Stevens urging them to commit more money to the global AIDS crisis in
this emergency supplemental, and many others, will think about the
impact this vote will have not just on the Senate, but on the world. We
have a chance tonight--a small chance, perhaps, with one vote--to have
an impact on literally millions of people around the world, to save
lives of people we will never meet.
We can break the cycle of hopelessness and despair generated by the
death spiral of AIDS in so many nations. I invite my colleagues to join
me.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we have a number of people who wish to
speak on this issue: The Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Ohio,
the Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from California. I am
wondering--because Members have been calling both cloakrooms--if we can
get an idea as to how long the Senators wish to speak so we can have
some idea when the vote will take place. If I may, I ask the Senator
from Ohio, does he wish to speak?
Mr. VOINOVICH. I was just here listening to this interesting debate.
Mr. REID. How about the Senator from Tennessee?
Mr. FRIST. I will be offering an amendment later tonight related to
this amendment. I would like about 15 minutes, in which case I could
handle both of them.
Mr. REID. Could the Senator speak now for 15 minutes?
Mr. FRIST. Yes, 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. How much time does the Senator from Minnesota want?
Mr. WELLSTONE. About 5 minutes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Illinois be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Minnesota
for 5 minutes, the Senator from California wants 15 minutes, the
Senator from Tennessee for 15 minutes, the Senator from Pennsylvania
for 10 minutes, the Senator from Alaska for 5 minutes, and the Senator
from New Mexico for 5 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like 10 minutes at the conclusion of
which I expect to offer the motion.
Mr. REID. We will have the Senator from West Virginia be the last
speaker. I ask the Parliamentarian to advise the Chair how much time
remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour ten minutes.
Mr. REID. So we will vote on this at approximately 7:45?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that we have a vote on Senator
Byrd's motion to waive at 7:45 tonight.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, I request that my time
precede Senator Byrd's.
Mr. REID. That would be appropriate as comanager of the bill.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, we have several amendments yet. Is there
any hope of completing action on this bill tonight?
Mr. REID. We are going to complete action on the bill tonight.
Mr. BYRD. I wonder if Members will be agreeable to cutting their time
on this amendment to some extent. I am willing to cut mine in half.
Mr. REID. Senator Durbin can cut his in half, also. He agrees to do
five. Do I hear 12?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will save my own remarks for another time.
Mr. REID. How about the Senator from California, is 12 minutes OK?
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
Mr. FRIST. I can handle both of mine later tonight in a 15-minute
period.
Mr. REID. That is fair. We need a little time to determine what time
the vote is. So we have Senator Durbin for 5 minutes, Senator Byrd for
7\1/2\ minutes, and Senator Domenici with nothing.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am cut out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 57 minutes.
Mr. REID. So we can vote at about 7:25. I ask unanimous consent that
the vote on or in relation to the Durbin amendment occur at 7:25, or
whenever the time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I rise to accomplish two objectives: To
speak in response to the pending amendment and to briefly introduce
what I plan to do later tonight. In the interest of time, I will try to
achieve both of those objectives in the next 15 minutes. If the Chair
will notify me when I have 3 minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, first, the Senator from Illinois has
eloquently outlined the challenge, what I consider to be the greatest
public health challenge clearly of this generation. I say public health
challenge to
[[Page S5151]]
us as Americans, but equally importantly to us as citizens of the
world.
The statistics he mentioned are right on target, and they tell the
best picture globally of this scourge against which we are fighting a
losing battle. Every 10 seconds someone dies of HIV/AIDS, but every 10
seconds there is a new infection in two individuals--two new
infections. We have no cure. There is no cure for HIV/AIDS.
Second, I agree with the Senator from Illinois, we need to do more.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that we have to invest, and
we have to invest as the United States, as the global leader. Our
leadership is critically important for other nations to see, for
private companies to see, and for individuals to see so they will be
participants.
I agree with the Senator from Illinois that the dollars we spend on
HIV/AIDS can do something that really no amendment I have seen on the
floor today can with absolute certainty do, and that is to save lives.
If resources are handled appropriately when we fight global HIV/AIDS,
malaria, and tuberculosis, then each dollar invested, I am absolutely
convinced, will save the lives of innocent children who are infected
with this virus. This little virus is so adaptable; it moves 100,000
times faster than our own defense systems and tens of thousands of
times faster than the best medicines we apply to it. So it is a major
challenge for us all.
The Senator from Illinois mentioned Senator Helms, and I want to come
back to that because I will be offering later tonight a Helms-Frist
amendment. Our amendment was initially spelled out, at least its
framework, in the editorial in March from which the Senator from
Illinois quoted. Our amendment focuses on mother-to-child transmission,
and our amendment would, I believe, give greater flexibility to the
President than the amendment that is now before the Senate.
The Senator from Illinois mentioned Secretary Powell, Secretary
Thompson, and Secretary O'Neill, and I will add to that list the
President of the United States. We have an opportunity which I think is
unheralded, unprecedented, in that we are bringing all elements of
modern society together; all political elements, both conservative and
liberal; the private sector; the public sector; leaders around the
world; the very best of our pharmaceutical companies; the entertainers
of the world, all coming together with a spotlight, a focus on a battle
we are losing today in a global sense.
If there is a point of order later tonight on this underlying
amendment, I will support it, but not because of the amount of money in
the amendment. The $500 million is too little for where we need to go.
The magnitude of the problem is big, and the money we are talking about
is tiny. Yet we do need to recognize where the money is coming from,
and at what rate it is going to be spent. That $500 million is
something that Senator Helms and I both believe in, but, again, we have
to recognize what we do tonight is not the answer; it is just another
step in a very long journey.
I am going to support the point of order against this amendment, but
not because of lack of support for the Global Fund. I think it is the
best, most innovative, most creative way to pull together the
international community. It is not a U.S. fund. It is not a United
Nations fund. It is not a World Bank fund. It is a Global Fund
independently administered. It was started a year ago. We need to raise
a lot of money for it and have it distributed with good peer review. A
lot of that money is going out today.
I will be asking my colleagues to support the point of order on this
amendment, and then I will ask for their support of an amendment by
Senator Helms and myself which will be offered after we dispense with
this amendment.
Why? Because I believe our amendment is more focused. It centers,
though it does not commit all the money to, mother-to-child
transmission.
Secondly, our amendment gives greater flexibility over the use of
these funds. The funds will be under the direct control of the
President of the United States.
And thirdly, these funds will have a more direct impact on saving
lives. I am convinced of that. By focusing on mother-to-child
transmission, which the Helms-Frist amendment does, we can calculate
this impact.
The story goes like this: There are 800,000 innocent children born
every year into a world of HIV/AIDS, and they become infected. Of every
1,000 pregnant, HIV-infected women who go through delivery, about 200
HIV/AIDS babies will be delivered infected with HIV. If you use
nevirapine, a single dose for the mother and one for the child, that
number is cut in half. That is why I know a program focused on mother-
to-child transmission will ultimately save lives. For every one
thousand births to 1,000 HIV positive women, 100 children can be saved
from HIV infection. That is why I can say this and be so definite.
I mentioned the team that is in place in this administration, and I
will reinforce what the Senator from Illinois said when he mentioned
Secretaries Powell, Thompson, and O'Neill. The President's commitment
is there to provide more resources, not just to the Global Fund, which
is important, but resources for our much more comprehensive approach
for fighting HIV/AIDS, multilateral and unilateral efforts that include
prevention, response, care, and treatment. I do believe we have to link
all of those approaches for an effective response; no longer can we say
just prevention.
The President has increased financing dramatically in the year and a
half he has been President. He has promised to do more. He has shown a
real empathy for the victims of HIV/AIDS, and he has shown a detailed
understanding, to me in our conversations, of the treatments available.
He is surrounded, as the Senator said, with people who share that
commitment and that desire to do everything possible given the
technology, given our understanding, given what we have learned over
the last 20 years.
Twenty years ago, we did not even know the virus existed. Now we are
saying it is the No. 1 problem. Amazing. Twenty years ago, in 1981,
nobody had ever heard of HIV/AIDS. But with the President of the United
States, under his leadership and with this team, with our support and
through such cooperative efforts as the Helms-Frist amendment to
increase funding on mother-to-child transmission, we can make a
difference.
Why are we here today? We agree--Senator Durbin, Senator Specter, and
the cosponsors of the bill--we all agree and the reason is simple. The
global requirements to combat HIV/AIDS are far greater than the
international level of commitment. But it cannot be solved with just a
U.S. commitment. It has to be an international commitment. Part of the
Helms-Frist amendment will require a matching from other countries and
entities to leverage the money we invest. We need to lead, and we will
lead, but we will lead the global community together.
The amendment which I am offering tonight is the work of Senator
Helms. He could not be with us tonight. He recently underwent open
heart surgery. And I am please to report that he is recovering well. I
know he wanted to be here tonight to offer this amendment.
He first announced our intention to take this initiative on March 24
in a Washington Post article. Part of it has been quoted tonight.
I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 24, 2002]
Jesse Helms--We Cannot Turn Away
(By John Overmyer)
This year more than half a million babies in the developing
world will contract from their mothers the virus that causes
AIDS despite the fact that drugs and therapies exist that
could virtually eliminate mother-to-child transmission of the
killer disease.
It is my intent to offer an amendment with Sen. Bill Frist
(R-Tenn.) to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill
to add $500 million--contingent on dollar-for-dollar
contributions from the private sector--to the U.S. Agency for
International development's programs to fight the HIV-AIDS
pandemic. The goal of this new money will be to make
treatment available for every HIV-positive pregnant woman. As
President Bush would say, we will leave no child behind.
There is not reason why we cannot eliminate, or nearly
eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV-AIDS--just as
polio was virtually eliminated 40 years ago. Drugs and
therapies are already provided to many in
[[Page S5152]]
Africa and other afflicted areas. Only more resources are
needed to expand this most humanitarian of projects.
The stakes could not be higher. Already in many African
nations an entire generation has been lost to AIDS. Mother-
to-child transmission of HIV could eliminate another.
Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, experts
believe that more than 2 million pregnant women in sub-
Saharan Africa have HIV. Of these, nearly one-third will pass
the virus on to their babies through labor, child-birth or
breast feeding, making mother-to-child transmission of AIDS
the No. 1 killer of children under 10 in the world.
There will be obstacles to achieving universal availability
of drugs and therapies. Many African nations lack the
infrastructure and trained personnel to deliver health care
on this scale. Some governments may not be cooperative. My
amendment will provide the administration with the
flexibility to deliver the necessary assistance while
addressing these obstacles. For instance, if the new Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is deemed the
most efficient way to deliver assistance, then the president
can transfer money there.
The United Nations has already set an ambitious goal of
reducing the portion of infants infected with HIV by 20
percent by 2005 and by 50 percent by 2010. We can
accelerate these efforts, saving hundreds of thousands of
lives, with a larger investment of public and private
funds now. Private contributions, either financial or in
kind--such as the donations of the drug nevirapine by the
German pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim--are an
essential part of a successful anti-AIDS strategy.
In addition, national commitment is absolutely essential.
The government of Uganda can serve as an example. Through the
leadership of Uganda's first lady, Janet Museveni, that
country has cut in half its HIV infection rate.
In February I said publicly that I was ashamed that I had
not done more concerning the world's AIDS pandemic. I told
this to a conference organized by Samaritan's Purse, the
finest humanitarian organization I know of. Indeed, it is
their example of hope and caring for the world's most
unfortunate that has inspired action by so many. Samaritan's
Purse is led by Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham--both of
whom I count as dearest friends--but the organization was
founded by the late Bob Pierce. Dr. Pierce's mission was to
``Let my heart be broken with the things that break the heart
of God.'' I know of no more heartbreaking tragedy in the
world today then the loss of so many young people to a virus
that could be stopped if we simply provided more resources.
Some may say that, despite the urgent humanitarian nature
of the AIDS pandemic, this initiative is not consistent with
some of my earlier positions. Indeed, I have always been an
advocate of a very limited government, particularly as it
concerns overseas commitments. Thomas Jefferson once wrote
eloquently of a belief to which I still subscribe today: that
``our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the
less we use our power the greater it will be.''
The United States has become, economically and militarily,
the world's greatest power. I hope that we have also become
the world's wisest power, and that our wisdom will show us
how to use that power in the most judicious manner possible,
as we have a responsibility to those on this earth to
exercise great restraint.
But not all laws are of this earth. We also have a higher
calling, and in the end our conscience is answerable to God.
Perhaps, in my 81st year, I am too mindful of soon meeting
Him, but I know that, like the Samaritan traveling from
Jerusalem to Jericho, we cannot turn away when we see our
fellow man in need.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I will quote from the article. This is
Senator Helms:
In February I said publicly that I was ashamed that I had
not done more concerning the world's AIDS pandemic. I told
this to a conference organized by Samaritan's Purse, the
finest humanitarian organization I know of. Indeed, it is
their example of hope and caring for the world's most
unfortunate that has inspired action by so many. Samaritan's
Purse is led by Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham--both of
whom I count as dearest friends--but the organization was
founded by the late Bob Pierce. Dr. Pierce's mission was to
``Let my heart be broken with the things that break the heart
of God.'' I know of no more heartbreaking tragedy in the
world today than the loss of so many young people to a virus
that could be stopped if we simply provided more resources.
Those are Senator Helms' words from the Washington Post article. The
Helms-Frist amendment provides those resources, focusing on mother-to-
child transmission where we know we will have a measurable impact in
saving lives.
The American public shares the desire to help our fellow men and
women across the world. It is a moral imperative of saving innocent
lives. We live in a world where drug resistant strains of AIDS, of
malaria, and of tuberculosis, all of which are addressed in this Global
Fund, are really one economy airline seat away from our shores. There
are many reasons for us to fight this fight. It will take more
resources.
The Helms-Frist amendment, which will be introduced later tonight, is
focused on three things: No. 1, a requirement that the new funds be
focused on reducing mother to child transmission of AIDS, a problem
which lends itself to immediate action with what we know will be an
immediate response of saving lives, and that is the emergency component
of this legislation.
No. 2, a grant of authority to the President to spend the money to
optimize the impact of all the AIDS-fighting efforts in our Government.
In other words, unlike the Durbin amendment, it does not say that this
money goes into just the Global Fund, but it does give the President
authority to assess at that point in time how best to spend that money
to get the greatest impact.
No. 3, the Helms-Frist amendment, which will be coming later tonight,
has a requirement that funds not given to the Global Fund--and indeed
the President can put these funds into the Global Fund but moneys not
put into the Global Fund, indeed have to be matched by sources other
than the U.S. Government. The reason being to leverage and maximize our
support.
I have a letter I would also ask unanimous consent to be printed in
the Record. It is to me from Senator Helms, dated June 5.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2002.
Hon. Bill Frist, M.D.,
U.S. Senatee, Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: Dot and I--indeed all the Helmses--are grateful
to you for your support and counsel. I can truthfully report
that I am feeling better each day.
Obviously, I cannot be in the Senate to introduce our
amendment to add $500 million to the fight against HIV. On
matters relating to global disease your demonstrable
leadership in the Senate and in Africa has made us more aware
of the great needs around the world.
The Samaritan, on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho, could
not turn away from his fellow man in need. My friend, neither
can we. You and I know the stunning facts: Nearly one million
children are infected by HIV each year from their mothers
during labor, delivery or breast feeding. Our amendment will
prevent hundreds of thousands of innocent young people from
being infected in this manner.
I wish you and the rest of our colleagues all the best as
you deliberate on this important matter. Thank you, dear
friend.
Sincerely,
Jesse.
Mr. FRIST. Basically he says:
Obviously, I cannot be in the Senate to introduce our
amendment to add $500 million to the fight against HIV. On
matters relating to global disease, your demonstrable
leadership in the Senate and in Africa has made us more aware
of the great needs around the world.
The rest of the letter I will refer my colleagues to.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. Because of limited time, let me get through and then I
will come back to answer the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FRIST. In summary, we have worked together on how to increase
funding above the level in the underlying bill in a way that we know in
part will be a first step of what has to be done with leadership by the
United States in this global endeavor.
I have been working over the last several days with the staff of the
President of the United States, and I am delighted that sometime over
the next several weeks--or next several days--a major initiative will
be introduced by this administration addressing many of the issues that
are the underlying reason for proceeding with this amendment.
Again, I will leave it to the administration to talk about this new
commitment that they will unveil shortly, a multiyear plan to bring
substantial new resources to this effort. This is not the final word.
The amendment offered tonight, whether it is the Helms-Frist
amendment or the Durbin amendment, is not the final word on AIDS. We
are going to be coming back to this again and again. This is not an
easy problem. This is not an easy challenge. I am absolutely convinced,
working in this body, working with the House in a bicameral, bipartisan
way, which is represented tonight, with this administration, that we
can pull the very best out
[[Page S5153]]
of the United States of America and the global community in order to
defeat this little tiny virus, a challenge and a fight that currently
we have not quite been able to do.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. Absolutely.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator when he offers his
amendment, how much money will be in the amendment?
Mr. FRIST. We initially filed, as the Senator knows, $500 million,
which is a sum that I think is appropriate in terms of addressing the
issues, having them in the field very shortly.
Mr. DURBIN. Which is the amount----
Mr. FRIST. The amendment in the underlying bill, not your amendment
or mine, as the Senator pointed out earlier, is $100 million. As I
understand it, the amendment of the Senator would take that up to a
total of $500 million.
Our amendment will take $100 million on top of that with an
understanding, as I said earlier, that funds comparable to that $500
million will be laid out by the administration over the next 2 weeks.
Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry. I do not understand. The total amount that
the Senator from Tennessee is going to offer for this is $500 million?
Mr. FRIST. It is $100 million in addition to $100 million that is in
the underlying bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. So $200 million?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct, $200 million totally. We will be striking
$100 million in the bill, replacing $200 million. The Senator will
strike $100 million and will have $500 million.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank Senator Durbin for his amendment, and Senator
Boxer and other supporters. I am a little confused by the remarks of my
colleague from Tennessee. As I understand the Durbin amendment, this is
$500 million that goes to the administration, which can then decide
whether it wants to put it into this Global Fund or it wants to put it
into other programs. That is up to the administration. We hope they
will put it into the Global Fund because right now this Global Fund has
a deficit of $3.5 billion.
This is what I think is the issue for all Senators who are going to
vote: I think the question is whether or not when we have a situation
where today HIV/AIDS claims the lives of 8,000 people, today 13,000
people become newly infected with HIV, and my colleague is talking
about an amendment that I am still not clear is $100 million or $200
million.
The Durbin amendment, which I am proud to support, calls for $500
million. My God, given the magnitude of this crisis, given the
magnitude of what all this means in personal terms--I keep hearing my
colleague talk about mother to child transmission and the need to have
prevention, yes, but there are also many people who need treatment.
The Durbin amendment says tonight the Senate does something, that we
live up to being our own best selves, that Democrats and Republicans no
longer just give the speeches and no longer say we care so much, but we
back up our rhetoric with the resources.
In all due respect, the vote is simple. Do we believe, given this
huge gap and how little we have contributed, that we ought to give this
administration $500 million to work with so that our Government can
play a much stronger and more positive role, or would we vote against
this amendment, which means we are not providing anywhere near the
resources?
There will be another amendment later calling for much less, $100
million or $200 million, and then there is some discussion about how in
the future there will be more. But we do not vote on the basis of the
future. This is not an abstraction. There are a lot of people
throughout the world who are suffering, a lot of people who are dying,
and the Durbin amendment puts us on record that we, the Senate, tonight
are going to make a significant commitment. I cannot believe that we
would not get the vote for this amendment. It is time for all of us to
sort of live the words we speak. That is what this amendment calls for
us to do.
One more time, this goes to the administration, giving it the
flexibility. We certainly can talk about mother to child transmission,
we also can talk about treatment, but the most of all is that finally
the Senate goes on record with a real commitment of resources. That is
the least we can do. So I speak for the Durbin amendment and hope it
will get a strong vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to support
the amendment to add $500 million to fight global AIDS. When we take a
look at the statistics, what has happened in the world, there are 40
million people who are living with HIV/AIDS, including 2,700,000
children. AIDS claimed the lives of an estimated 2,300,000 Africans
last year alone.
Africa is not alone in this struggle. Almost 1 million new infections
were reported in south and Southeast Asia last year. These alarming
statistics are reminiscent of the early stages of the epidemic in sub-
Saharan Africa, and we cannot wait any longer.
What is required is a global effort. It has to be worldwide. We know
that it is a matter of leadership for the United States as the most
powerful country in the world and as the world's leader to provide
substantial funding. The estimates are that some $5.6 billion will be
necessary over the next 5 years. There are commitments of only $2.1
billion, leaving a deficit of $3.5 billion. This deficit has to be
fixed.
The AIDS epidemic is decimating entire countries, leaving a power
vacuum, leaving countries in turmoil. The human factor is overwhelming.
As the lead sponsor, Senator Durbin, pointed out in the opening of
his speech, what happens if you are diagnosed with AIDS, a killer. If
you are in Africa or in other Third World countries, it is hopeless,
unless someone comes to the rescue. On humanitarian principles,
something which the industrial countries ought to assume the
responsibility for, when it comes to political considerations, and AIDS
is decimating an entire country, it is a matter of a vacuum, where
dictatorships breed, where there are terrorist bodies, where there is
anarchy. That is very much contrary to the national interests of the
United States.
Beyond the humanitarian aspects, there is a definite national self-
interest on the part of the United States. You might not necessarily
call it national security, but if there is turmoil and you find al-
Qaida taking hold of a country which has a power vacuum, it could be
categorized broadly as a matter of national security.
I believe this is an important debate, and I believe one way or the
other the United States Government is going to come to a $500 million
figure. When the figure was talked about as to $700 million, it seems
to me, having spent 22 years in the conferences, in the negotiations
with the House, with the $200 million we would have ended up with $500
million or perhaps less. The rule has been if the House comes in at
$200 million, whatever the Senate comes in at, there is a tendency
consistently to split the difference. That will leave the figure low.
One most impressive statement was made by Senator Helms, who has not
exactly been a proponent of funding for HIV/AIDS, for many reasons
which we need not go into now. Senator Helms came out with a proposal
to have $500 million. It seems to me that is a benchmark. One might say
it is a minimum benchmark or one might say it is a maximum benchmark.
When Senator Helms made the public statement with such feeling at a
time, as he put it, when he was near the point of meeting his Maker, he
wanted to take a stand on something that was very important for
humanitarian purposes, and as a matter of basic fairness and basic
decency that a country which can afford it should undertake.
We are a very wealthy country with $10 trillion gross national
product and a national budget of $2.1 trillion. With leadership on $500
million, that could be an inspiration for other industrial countries to
come forward and do the right thing. That is why when Senator Durbin
approached me weeks ago on this amendment, I told him to count me in.
I urge my colleagues to support this figure.
[[Page S5154]]
In closing, I thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for
generously yielding to me, although she has been here all afternoon. I
have been occupied, as has the Presiding Officer, with the FBI Mueller-
Rowley hearings.
I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before my colleague from Pennsylvania
leaves, I wanted him to hear my comments. What he has done is shown
that this is a national security issue. We know when people are sick
and desperate there can be a void in a country and people can do
desperate things. I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator.
Madam President, we talk about many issues in the Senate. There are
moments when we know there is a particularly important issue, sometimes
more parochial to our State. I say tonight that I am very proud to
stand with Senator Durbin and Senator Specter. This is a Durbin-
Specter-Boxer amendment to provide $500 million for the fight against
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
I was very stunned when I heard what happened to this debate. For
weeks, I was elated that Senators Helms and Frist were going to support
a $500 million number. And then when I heard that Senators Durbin and
Specter were going to say we have to do even more, I felt so good
because I thought at the minimum we will get the $500 million that we
so desperately need for these diseases.
Then I find out the whole playing field has changed. We are in a
situation now that is quite troubling.
I will tell a story about a woman named Elizabeth Glaser whom I met
more than a decade ago, a beautiful woman, a young woman, a new mother.
She had a child, and in the hospital needed to have a blood
transfusion. Those were the years when no one knew that you could pick
up HIV through a blood transfusion. Lovingly nursing her daughter,
Ariel, she was at a high point in her life. She then had another child,
a son, still not knowing anything was wrong. Elizabeth, therefore,
faced a situation with her husband, Paul. They had three family members
HIV positive: The mother, the son, and the daughter.
Elizabeth Glaser was a fighter. A lot of us knew her around here. She
came here and begged us to do something. She focused on the whole issue
of AIDS and, of course, on the transmission of the virus from mother to
child. The Pediatric AIDS Foundation was formed and they became the
leaders in finding a way to stop the transmission.
My colleague, Senator Durbin has talked about it; Senator Frist has
talked about it.
Let me state how far we have come. We can really stop this epidemic
in its tracks in most of these mother-to-child transmissions. The cost
of this drug is a few dollars a dose. When Senator Frist says his
alternative will make more money available to stop transmission, he is
incorrect. I hope that the record has been corrected. Senator Durbin's
amendment allows the funding to go in whatever way the administration
wishes. If they want to take the entire $500 million, if that is their
choice, they could spend it in that fashion. So do not stand up here
and say: If you want to stop the mother-to-child transmission, support
the Frist amendment.
No, support the Durbin amendment. It is very important to do this. A
lot of people did not know, and Senator Durbin talked about it, that
AIDS and tuberculosis go hand in hand. If you look at the statistics,
they are stunning. Tuberculosis is the leading cause of death among
people who are HIV positive. Up to 50 percent of people with AIDS
develop TB because HIV infection severely weakens the immune system.
This is a very small world we live in. We are reminded of it every
single day. We knew it when planes came over and smashed into the World
Trade Center. As soon as we could respond, we were in Afghanistan.
The fact is, it is a small world, and if anyone in this body thinks
that having so many people impacted with tuberculosis doesn't impact
the health of America, they are wrong. Therefore, what we are doing
here by addressing these three diseases, is, yes, to help the people
all over the world who have HIV and AIDS, and who have tuberculosis,
but also to help those who get malaria, which kills around a million
people every single year.
TB is a disease we thought we had eliminated. In fact, in the Western
World we largely did, with the development of antibiotics in the 1950s.
But the disease made a comeback, and I saw it in my State of
California, where local public health officials never thought they
would ever have to worry about TB again. But they are worried.
I say to my friends on the Appropriations Committee who have turned
their back on this $500 million, think about these numbers. In the year
2000, there were 16,000 TB cases in the United States of America that
were reported to the Centers for Disease Control.
In my own State of California, 20 percent of those cases exist there.
TB is an airborne disease. You can get it when someone coughs or
sneezes. It is a small world. So don't think, if you vote against the
Durbin amendment, it doesn't have an impact here at home, because it
has an impact here at home. We are talking about tuberculosis, we are
talking about AIDS/HIV, and we are talking about malaria.
The good news is that TB can be cured. There is a treatment called
DOTS, D-O-T-S. It has been shown it can produce cure rates of 95
percent, even in the poorest countries. That means if we can stop TB in
these countries--and people who get on the planes sit next to our
people on the planes who do not have TB--we will be a far healthier
nation.
I think there are times here when it makes sense to act
incrementally. I have seen that. Sometimes there are problems, and you
say there are 10 things we should do to solve a problem, let's do 2 of
these every year and we will get there.
Sometimes you have to act boldly. Certainly we have seen our country
unite and do that in the face of what happened on 9-11. We did it
militarily. We liberated a country. We made sure that, to the greatest
extent possible, we got to the root cause of what happened to us. And
we continue, every day, to act boldly, or we certainly should, whether
it is taking a look at how we can make our intelligence agencies better
or making sure airport security is as tight as it could be, making
sure, as my friend in the chair wants to do, that we protect people
from a chemical plant being attacked or a nuclear powerplant being
attacked. We are acting boldly. At least I believe most of us are.
Why would we shirk from acting boldly in the face of these epidemics?
We spend a lot of time around here on things that make a difference
around the edges. But when historians write about today, I think it
will be written, if we do the right thing, that we made a decision that
wound up saving millions of lives; that we made a decision as the
leader of the free world to alleviate suffering, to alleviate disease,
to stop children from having to be orphans.
I will talk about my friend Elizabeth Glaser. She passed away from
AIDS. Her daughter passed away. And we are all fighting to see that
that is not going to be the fate of her son because he is getting the
advantage of the wonderful treatments we have.
How can we not act to make sure that every child and every woman and
man gets that same chance? How can we do that when we have the ability
to do it? It is either you pay now or you pay later. I thought Senator
Specter was right when he said: What you do when you turn your back on
a crisis such as this is you open the door for people to wreak havoc
with countries to fill a void, where people are desperate. They cannot
get involved. They are just trying to find out how to live, to survive,
to make sure a child is not deprived of family.
My daughter went to Uganda and got back about a week ago. She fell in
love with the place and told me she did not meet one person in her
travels who had not experienced a deep, tragic loss of a family
member--not one person, and she spoke to many people.
This is a test of our leadership. I did not expect to be here on the
floor.
I ask for 20 additional seconds.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has told me----
Mr. DURBIN. I yield 20 seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I just believed we were going to have that $500 million.
Senator Helms wrote from his heart and
[[Page S5155]]
talked about it. Senator Frist talked about it. Suddenly, what has
happened? What has happened is we are losing our boldness. I do not
want to see it happen.
I urge support for this very important amendment, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding under the unanimous consent that I
have 4 minutes 40 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens have 5 minutes each
before we come to the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to this
amendment: Senators Specter, Daschle, Leahy, DeWine, Kerry, Kennedy,
Boxer, Sarbanes, Feinstein, Mikulski, Clinton, Dodd, Lieberman,
Torricelli, Levin, Schumer, Landrieu, Biden, and Corzine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. What is the difference between $500 million and $200
million in the global AIDS fight? I do not believe for a second $500
million is going to turn back the global AIDS epidemic; no, I do not.
But I will say to my friend Senator Frist, you know as well as I do
what a $300 million difference means. It means money going into the
Global Fund from the United States that can be leveraged to induce even
greater contributions from countries around the world. It means $300
million more that will be spent for mother-child transmission, for
treatment to deal with HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria.
I came to this debate asking, in my mind, for $700 million, and I did
not think it was an outrageous request, even though it was emergency
spending. I concluded, watching the amendments on the floor of the last
several days, I could lose; I could lose $700 million. So I went to
Senator Frist and I said: Listen. My name on this proposal is
secondary. What is important is to get the $500 million. I'll join you.
I'll walk away from my amendment. I will be a cosponsor of your
amendment. I will give up whatever publicity might come from it. Who
cares? Let's get the job done.
We talked about it until just a few hours ago when, to my surprise,
the $500 million Helms-Frist amendment became $200 million.
What happened? In all these months, has the need decreased? Of course
not. The need has increased. So I come to the floor today to offer this
amendment for $500 million.
I say to my colleagues to please think twice. There will be a
parliamentary point of order made in a few moments by Senator Byrd. I
understand it. He is chairman of the committee. He is protecting the
committee. Even though I serve on it, I understand it.
But think for a minute. Are you going to let a procedural vote stop
the investment of $300 million--more than Senator Frist is going to
offer--$300 million in the Global Aids Fund that can be used across the
world to save lives? Of all the items we vote for day in and day out,
we have to walk down there many times and vote for things for our
colleagues from other States, and ask, Is it really worth it? We are
loyal. We do it. You know in your heart of hearts that this is the kind
of money that should be spent by America to make a difference. That is
why the United States leads the world, not just in military power and
with its economy but in our values. We define our values by our
pocketbook and how we spend it. Tonight, $500 million can make a big
difference. It can make a difference in places around the world that
you will never see.
But I will tell you this. Take a moment in your life and go to these
Third World countries. Look right into the eyes of these mothers and
their children and you will never have any question about a $500
million vote.
I went to a place in Kampala where they were putting together a
memory book. I sat on a porch with mothers as they showed me the
scrapbooks of their lives which they were putting together to leave for
their children playing in the yard. The mothers were dying of AIDS.
They wanted that little child playing in the yard to remember who they
were in the years to come.
That is the tragedy of AIDS. That is the reality of AIDS. That is why
we need $500 million.
I implore my colleagues. I have come to this floor so many times but
never with so much depth of feeling about the importance of what we are
going to do.
Let us not negotiate the difference and bid this down. Let us do what
we know is right in our hearts and minds and leave tonight with the
passage of this appropriations bill feeling that the United States once
again continues to lead the world in fighting the global AIDS epidemic
so our children and our grandchildren will not see that great scourge
that travels around the world.
I close by saying to you: I salute all of my colleagues--Democrats
and Republicans--who joined me. I thank them for their support. But
please, for the sake of the millions of people around the world who are
now feeling that they are so alone, give them a helping hand with a
$500 million investment in hope.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daschle be added as a cosponsor
of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORZINE). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, Senator
Daschle has been absent from today's session because he was attending
the graduation of his son Nathan from Harvard Law School.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, am I next in line?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after listening to a lecture in 1983
about a new problem called AIDS, I came back to the Senate and asked
that $50 million be dedicated to basic research on this subject. Today,
I can tell the Senate that right now we have in this year's budget
alone $12.5 billion committed to AIDS.
I have heard people talk about research for women, infants, and
children; about the need for remembering the children; and, the fact
that this bill, as Senator Boxer said, has an impact here at home. It
certainly does. No one can criticize what we have done about AIDS, no
one.
I visited with Bono and said: Yes. We will help with AIDS
internationally. We started that fund with a contribution in the year
2001. We then increased it for 2002, and we are going to increase it
even more for 2003.
The House has responded also with more money to help with AIDS. We
are going to respond, I hope, and increase this amount even more than
we did. We put in $100 million more. This will increase it again by
$200 million more. That will make it a $300 million effort for this
year in addition to what is already proposed and already in the system.
But let me summarize for the Senate what we are doing.
FDA has $77,700. The Health Resources and Services Administration has
$1.918 billion. Look at what they are doing. They are doing a Care
Grant Program, an Early Intervention program, Research for Women,
Infants, and Children, AIDS Education and Training Centers, Dental
Services, Counseling, Testing & Partnership Notification, Ricky
Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund. We have the Indian Health Service, another
$3 million; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $938 million,
and, in total, NIH, $2.5 billion. That covers a whole series of
institutes of health. But the main thing is there is a limit to what we
can do in the world to deal with the world's problem.
I believe we should do more, and we are going to do more. But it has
to be staged. It has to be increased in a way and be spent in a way
that encourages other countries to come forward, too.
When we went to visit the World Food Program in Rome this year, we
found that the United States is now paying 60 percent of all the costs
of the World Food Program. We used to pay 12.5 percent. Why are we
paying 60 percent? Because we kept increasing, and as we increased, the
other nations of the world decreased their effort.
That is exactly what is going to be happening here. If we don't stage
it, if we don't ask the world to come forward and join us to deal with
the problems of AIDS in the world, more and more they will say: Let
Uncle Sam do it.
[[Page S5156]]
I am all for our doing our part, but our part is to match others in a
world effort to deal with AIDS. We are doing it. We are doing more than
that.
Our budget today of $12.5 billion for the year 2002 alone--not
counting this money--is half of what the world is spending. There is
space here for some comments about what we should do and how we should
do it. But to just genuflect and come in and say, we need $200 million,
$500 million, or we need $700 million--we can't handle that in terms of
the partnership we have in the world in dealing with AIDS; if we do,
they will do the same thing they did in the World Food Program. They
will pull back and say, you wanted to do more; go ahead and do more.
It is not only 60 percent that we are spending on the World Food
Program. It doesn't include the money we spend on food under the
military accounts which our military people provide throughout the
world, such as in Afghanistan.
There is a limit. The limit is: What shall we do under an emergency
appropriations bill dealing with money that should be spent before
September 30?
No matter what anyone else has said, this money probably cannot be
spent before September 30. We will deal with more money within a month.
When the bill is before the Senate, I am certain there will be an
request to increase at by at least another $\1/2\ billion.
Let no one say this Senator has not done everything possible to deal
with AIDS. The answer is the cure and the answer is research. The
answer is not putting money out in the world before the world is ready
to join us in a partnership to deal with AIDS worldwide.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in
the Record.
ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS) PROGRAM LEVEL
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Drug Administration:
Biologics................................................ $35,000 $35,868 $36,943
Human Drugs.............................................. 19,618 20,104 20,710
Medical Devices.......................................... 2,300 2,357 2,427
Other Activities......................................... 5,400 5,535 5,700
Field.................................................... 13,500 13,836 14,250
--------------------------------------------------
Total, FDA............................................. 75,818 77,700 80,030
==================================================
Health Resources and Services Administration:
Emergency Assistance--Part A--Title I.................... 604,169 619,514 619,514
Care Grant Program--Part B--Title II..................... 910,969 977,373 977,373
Early Intervention--Part C--Title III.................... 186,274 194,334 194,507
Grants for Coordinated Services & Access to Research for 64,995 70,990 70,990
Women, Infants, Children--Part D--Title IV..............
AIDS Education and Training Centers--Part F.............. 31,598 35,295 35,295
Dental Services--Part F.................................. 9,999 13,498 13,498
Counseling, Testing & Partner Notification............... 2,000 2,000 2,000
Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund......................... 580,000 0 0
Program Management....................................... 4,996 4,996 4,996
--------------------------------------------------
Total, HRSA............................................ 2,395,000 1,918,000 1,918,173
==================================================
Indian Health Service:
HIV Surveillance......................................... 994 1,012 1,027
Information & Education/Prevention Services.............. 2,816 2,874 2,911
--------------------------------------------------
Total, IHS............................................. 3,810 3,886 3,938
==================================================
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV/AIDS Activity 859,045 938,646 938,910
--------------------------------------------------
Total, CDC............................................. 859,045 938,646 938,910
==================================================
National Institutes of Health:
NCI...................................................... 239,066 256,319 266,539
NHLBI.................................................... 67,437 72,146 75,380
NIDCR.................................................... 21,942 23,473 25,338
NIDDK.................................................... 24,685 27,642 29,847
NINDS.................................................... 37,774 42,366 45,682
NIAID.................................................... 1,063,074 1,191,919 1,350,452
NIGMS.................................................... 43,298 48,391 52,385
NICHD.................................................... 101,851 116,101 126,249
NEI...................................................... 11,555 12,730 12,777
NIEHS.................................................... 7,855 8,336 8,682
NIA...................................................... 4,386 4,985 5,379
NIAMS.................................................... 5,692 6,467 6,687
NIDCD.................................................... 1,592 1,737 1,738
NIMH..................................................... 145,112 163,938 176,207
NIDA..................................................... 245,397 279,676 304,187
NIAAA.................................................... 21,222 23,979 25,913
NINR..................................................... 9,678 10,990 11,891
NHGRI.................................................... 5,809 6,310 6,812
NIBIB.................................................... 843 843 843
NCRR..................................................... 117,485 135,195 147,198
NCCAM.................................................... 1,030 2,555 2,718
FIC...................................................... 16,149 18,328 21,523
NLM...................................................... 5,589 6,742 7,248
OD....................................................... 48,494 53,786 58,322
--------------------------------------------------
Total, NIH............................................. 2,247,015 2,514,954 2,769,997
==================================================
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration:
Programs of Regional & National Significance
Mental Health........................................ 11,681 13,035 10,560
Substance Abuse Treatment............................ 56,378 59,163 59,187
Substance Abuse Prevention........................... 32,100 38,100 38,100
Substance Abuse Block Grant (Set-aside).................. 55,918 57,987 60,088
Program Management....................................... 600 600 600
--------------------------------------------------
Total, SAMHSA.......................................... 156,677 168,885 168,535
==================================================
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality \1\: Research on 3,381 3,300 2,591
Health Costs, Quality, & Outcomes...........................
--------------------------------------------------
Total, AHRQ............................................ 3,381 3,300 2,591
==================================================
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
Medicaid (Federal Share) \2\............................. 3,700,000 4,200,000 4,700,000
Medicare................................................. 1,900,000 2,050,000 2,200,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, CMS............................................. 5,600,000 6,250,000 6,900,000
==================================================
Office of the Secretary:
Office of Public Health and Science:
Office of Minority Health, GDM....................... 13,404 12,421 10,771
Office on Women's Health............................. 140 865 1,040
Office of HIV/AIDS Policy, GDM....................... 906 961 1,304
[[Page S5157]]
AIDS in Minority Communities, GDM........................ 50,000 49,991 50,000
Office for Civil Rights.................................. 449 471 477
--------------------------------------------------
Total, OS.............................................. 64,899 64,709 63,592
==================================================
Global AIDS Trust Fund \3\................................... 0 100,000 100,000
==================================================
Total, AIDS............................................ 11,405,645 12,040,080 12,945,766
Foreign OPS.................................................. ............... 435,000 ...............
Defense...................................................... ............... 20,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. ............... 12,495,080 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY 2003 crosscutting estimates for AHRQ represent proportionate allocations based on FY 2002 estimated
actual amounts. Estimates will be updated when final decisions are made.
\2\ All Medicaid figures represent actuarial estimates.
\3\ While budgeted in NIH, HHS contributions to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis in
FY 2002/2003 are not accounted for in the NIH HIV/AIDS figures, but are accounted for separately.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of
increasing funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment programs
in the developing world.
The funding put forward in this amendment is essential to assisting
resource poor countries in confronting the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
The HIV virus has infected over 40 million people worldwide, with
over 95 percent of those infected living outside of the United States.
HIV/AIDS is now the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa. In
sub-Saharan Africa alone, an estimated 25.3 million people are living
with HIV/AIDS and 2.3 million died of HIV last year alone.
Unless we take a leading role in the international community in the
fight against HIV/AIDS, it is possible that sub-Saharan Africa will be
wiped-out, with profound political, economic, social, and security
consequences for the United States.
AIDS is a major problem not only in Africa, which has received so
much attention in the press, but also in India, Southeast Asia, China,
to name but a few countries impacted.
The AIDS pandemic is devastating, and quite literally wiping out,
many countries.
According to some analysis, AIDS will reduce economic growth by up to
1 percent of GDP per year and consume more than 50 percent of health
budgets in the hardest-hit countries.
The world has not seen an epidemic of this severity since the bubonic
plague, and it is going to take everyone in the global community,
working together, to halt the spread of the HIV virus.
There can be little doubt that HIV/AIDS is a health emergency of
monumental proportions.
I believe that the United States has a responsibility to assist
resource poor countries in gaining the funding necessary to provide
people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS with access to the services,
such as drug therapy, necessary to save lives.
It is clearly in the interest of the United States to prevent the
further spread of HIV/AIDS.
This is not just a humanitarian issue, but also one of global
security. In 2000, the National Intelligence Council reported that new
and reemerging infectious diseases will pose a rising global health
threat and will complicate U.S. and international security interests
over the next 20 years.
A CIA commissioned study by the State Failure Task Force found that a
high infant death rate is one of the best indicators of impending
instability and state collapse.
The global HIV/AIDS crisis is certainly an emergency and worthy of
funding as an emergency designation as part of the Fiscal Year 2002
Appropriations Supplemental. It is an emergency for the people of sub-
Saharan Africa. It is an emergency for the people of West Africa. It is
an emergency for the people of India.
Let's invest more funding in these countries now before we have to
add more countries to the growing list of countries experiencing an
emergency due to the HIV/AIDS crisis.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in support of the amendment by the
Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to provide urgently needed help
in the international battle against the AIDS pandemic. AIDS is the
fourth leading cause of death in the world. This terrible disease ends
lives, destroys families, undermines economies, and threatens the
stability and progress of entire nations.
We must carry the fight against AIDS to every corner of the globe.
And the Durbin amendment would help the United States and the world to
meet this extraordinary challenge.
We in America know of the pain and loss that this disease cruelly
inflicts. Millions of our fellow citizens, men, women, and children,
are infected with HIV/AIDS. And far too many have lost their lives.
While we still seek a cure to AIDS, we have learned to help those
infected by the virus to lead long and productive lives through the
miracle of prescription drugs.
But this disease knows no boundaries. It travels across borders to
infect innocent people in every continent across the globe.
We have an obligation to continue the fight against this disease at
home. But we should also share what we have learned to help those in
other countries in this life-and-death battle. And we must do all we
can to provide new resources to help those who cannot afford today's
therapies.
As we sought to enforce child labor laws at home, we also worked to
protect children abroad. As we developed new ways of promoting
children's health and public health, we have shared these life-saving
discoveries with other countries in need.
And once again, we are called upon to open the doors between nations
to do all we can to halt the spread of AIDS, and to treat those
infected by it.
Twelve years ago, this country demonstrated its commitment to the
care and treatment of Americans living with AIDS by passing the Ryan
White Care Act. Since that time, community-based care has become more
available, drug treatments have been developed that nearly double the
life expectancy of HIV positive individuals, and public campaigns have
increased awareness of the disease. Yet, advances such as these remain
largely the privilege of wealthy nations.
AIDS inflicts a particular toll on developing countries. Globally, 40
million people have HIV/AIDS, and the overwhelming majority live in
poor countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected region, where
nearly all of the world's AIDS orphans live. AIDS robs poor countries
of the workers they need to develop their economies. They lose teachers
needed to combat illiteracy and train their workers for modern
challenges. Africa has lost seven million farmers needed to meet the
food needs of entire nations. AIDS plunges poor nations into even
deeper, more desperate poverty.
Governments can make the difference in battling this epidemic. Where
governments in poor countries have been provided resources to fight the
spread of AIDS, infection rates have dropped 80 percent. But these
countries cannot turn the corner on AIDS on their own. Their
governments must be provided the technical assistance and resources to
carry out anti-AIDS campaigns. They need financial help to afford
expensive anti-retroviral drugs. And drug companies must do their part
to make these drugs more affordable to the poor.
In addition, more public education is needed. A UNICEF survey found
that most young people still have not heard of AIDS or do not
understand how the disease is transmitted. By speaking out, our
government can help to lift
[[Page S5158]]
the stigma and taboo surrounding the disease and save lives.
The challenges are great, but not insurmountable. The epidemic is in
its early stages. In most regions of the world, the prevalence rate is
still less than one percent of the population. But we cannot delay. It
only took 10 years for the HIV/AIDS population to double in the Russian
Federation. And in South Africa, the rate increased from 1 in 100
people to 1 in 4 in one decade.
Senator Durbin's amendment gives much needed support to fund the
programs that fight international HIV and AIDS.
By supporting this amendment to increase the funding for bi-lateral
AIDS prevention, care and treatment, as well as the United States
commitment to the global fund, we will be helping to address the global
public health crisis and maintain international stability.
I thank Senator Durbin for offering the amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like at this time to engage in
a colloquy with the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on
Appropriations, Senator Kohl, regarding the use of non-fat dry milk as
a source of nutritional assistance to countries ravaged by the AIDS
epidemic.
It is widely understood that the AIDS pandemic is having a
devastating impact on people the world over. Since the onset of the
epidemic, 22 million people worldwide have died. An estimated three
million people die from AIDS-related causes every year. Another 40
million people presently are living with HIV/AIDS, and although there
are some signs that the incidence of HIV may be stabilizing in sub-
Africa and elsewhere, the rate of infection remains alarmingly high. In
fact, 95 percent of HIV/AIDS victims reside in developing nations--86
percent of the total live in sub-Saharan Africa.
Children are at risk on an unparalleled scale, with HIV/AIDS
dramatically increasing the number of infant and child deaths. Nearly
2.7 million children under the age of 15, and 11.8 million young people
aged 15-24 are living with HIV/AIDS. More than 540,000 children were
infected in mother-to-child transmission in 2000, and a baby born and
nursed by an HIV-positive mother has a 25 to 35 percent chance of
becoming infected.
Further, most experts agree that nutrition is a co-fact in HIV
progression: poor nutritional status and infection affect the immune
system and interact with each other; and it helps protect against
opportunistic infection and malignancies. Since the immune system
requires protein to function properly, and protein needs increase
during times of stress and infection, HIV-positive individuals should
have two or more servings of low or non-fat milk or yogurt with active
cultures. In addition, many believe that dairy products should
accompany anti-retroviral drugs to boost the nutrition of HIV-positive
mothers, increase the effectiveness of the drugs, and help mothers give
birth to healthy children. I believe there is a opportunity to address
this need within the Department of Agriculture in the form of non-fact
dry milk currently in great surplus within USDA, the value of which is
deteriorating as the cost of storage is increasing.
Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator raising this issue. It is my
understanding that the United States has more than one billion pounds
of surplus non-fat dry milk in storage that has been acquired at an
average cost of over 90 cents per pound, for a total cost approaching
$1 billion, and storage costs of $1.5 million per month and growing.
This surplus milk deteriorates rapidly, going out of condition in about
three years, when it must be sold for a cost of only a few cents per
pound.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I believe that the Secretary of Agriculture, at this
time, has the authority to dispose of dairy surpluses, such as the ones
mentioned by my colleague, for direct feeding programs to mothers and
children living with HIV/AIDS and communities heavily impacted by the
HIV/AIDS pandemic. Therefore, I strongly believe that the Secretary of
Agriculture should make available funds for the provision of 100,000
metric tons of surplus non-fat dry milk to combat HIV/AIDS, focusing
especially on HIV/positive mothers and children. Careful consideration
should be given to local market conditions, so as not to undermine the
security and stability of the indigenous diary production and
processing sectors of these communities, and no funds or commodities
should be used in any programs that would substitute dairy products for
breast feeding.
We know that there is a dire need for nutritional assistance for
families affected by HIV/AIDS. In addition, without action, this milk
will remain in storage. It seems clear that we have been presented with
a unique opportunity to do something positive in the world. I believe
that to do nothing is not an option. We have the food and the
technology. Now is the time for action.
Mr. KOHL. I thank my colleague for his passionate statements on this
subject. I agree that the Secretary of Agriculture has the
responsibility to use here authority to help those in need when the
opportunity arises, as it clearly has in this case, and support the
comments of the Senator from Minnesota. I look forward to working with
my colleague on this issue.