[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quorum call be rescinded.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.