[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9086-S9089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of S. 925, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 925) to authorize appropriations for the
Department of State and international broadcasting activities
for fiscal year 2004 and for the Peace Corps for fiscal years
2004 through 2007, and for other purposes.
Amendment No. 1136
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I send a substitute amendment to S. 925
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment
numbered 1136.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S9087]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, today the Senate will be considering S.
925, the State Department authorization bill. During the last 4 months,
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been working hard on issues
related to the funding and operations of the State Department. We have
held hearings on public diplomacy, embassy security, the role of the
State Department in the war on terrorism, the nonproliferation programs
overseen by the State Department, and the overall State Department
budget. In numerous other hearings and briefings covering such issues
as Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, and NATO, we have reviewed the vital
role of diplomacy at this stage of our United States history.
In our hearings and through our daily contacts with the State
Department, the Foreign Relations Committee has witnessed the
commitment and the skill of departmental personnel as they work to
improve national security and our prosperity in increasingly difficult
and often very dangerous circumstances.
We have seen both the benefits of our successes and the consequences
of our failures. We cannot expect diplomacy to succeed 100 percent of
the time, but it is vital that our diplomats have the resources and the
capabilities that will maximize their chances of success. That is the
job of the Senate today. We must make certain that Secretary Powell and
this Department have the tools they need to make our case convincingly.
I wish to thank especially the ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden, for his strong support of this
process and his leadership in foreign policy matters. We have agreed on
the vast majority of provisions in this bill, and when we have
disagreed, we have worked hard to bridge our differences and find
bipartisan solutions with our colleagues.
We have always shared the common goal of bringing good legislation to
the floor for the Senate's judgment. Senator Biden's commitment to this
process and his innumerable contributions to the substance of this bill
have been indispensable.
After consultations with Senator Biden and the majority leader, we
determined the Senate would best be served by adding the foreign
assistance authorization bill, passed by the Foreign Relations
Committee in May, to the State Department bill.
Consequently, the substitute amendment that is the pending business
contains the language of both S. 925 and S. 1161. Both bills passed in
committee by votes of 19-0. I believe that this combination will give
us a chance for a meaningful debate on foreign policy, while expediting
the work of the Senate.
At this time in our history we are experiencing a confluence of
foreign policy crises that is unparalleled in the post-cold war era.
Our Nation has lived through the September 11 tragedy, and we have
responded with a worldwide war against terrorism. We have fought wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are likely to be engaged in security
and reconstruction efforts for years to come. We have been confronted
by a nuclear crisis in North Korea that threatens U.S. national
security and that could destabilize the entire northeast Asian region.
We are continuing efforts to safeguard Russia's massive stockpiles of
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and to prevent proliferation
throughout the world. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic
Alliance, even as we plan for its expansion. We are trying to respond
to the AIDS pandemic in Africa and elsewhere, as well as help stabilize
Colombia and preserve democracy in Venezuela.
Despite these extraordinary international conditions that demand the
constant attention of our Government, the State Department and our
foreign assistance programs are still underfunded. Although President
Bush and Secretary of State Powell have supported important funding
increases for our foreign policy accounts during the last 2 years, we
dug a deep hole for ourselves during the 1990s, when diplomatic
capabilities were placed at the bottom of our spending priorities.
From 1994 through 1997, for example, the Function 150 account, which
funds State Department operations and foreign assistance, sustained
consecutive annual real decreases of 3.6 percent, 5.6 percent, 11.4
percent, and 1.5 percent. This slide occurred even as the State
Department was incurring the heavy added costs of establishing new
missions in the 15 states of the former Soviet Union. Relative to other
spending priorities, we continue to disadvantage our diplomatic
capabilities. As a percentage of discretionary spending, the
international affairs account stands at about 3.4 percent in fiscal
year 2003. This is the lowest percentage of discretionary funding
devoted to international affairs in the past 2 decades. We are still
conducting diplomacy on a shoestring in an era when embassies are prime
terrorist targets and we depend on diplomats to build alliances; work
with foreign governments to apprehend terrorists before they reach U.S.
soil; and explain U.S. principles, values, and policies worldwide.
In April, with the assistance of Senators Feinstein, Biden, DeWine,
Hagel, Sarbanes, Chafee, Smith, Jeffords, Kennedy, and others, I
offered an amendment to the Senate budget resolution that restored
$1.15 billion to the 150 account. The amendment brought the 150 account
up to the level requested by the President. The success of the
amendment on this Senate floor, during a process when few amendments
received favorable votes, illustrates the growing appreciation for and
understanding of the role of Secretary Powell and the State Department.
But we need to go further. We need to commit to a long-term course that
assigns U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic
priority that we assign to military capabilities.
There is a tendency in the media and sometimes in this body to see
diplomatic activities as the rival of military solutions to problems.
We have to get beyond this simplistic formulation. We have to
understand that our military and our diplomats are both instruments of
national power that depend on one another. They both help shape the
international environment and influence the attitudes of governments
and peoples. They both gather information and provide expertise that is
vital to the war on terrorism. And they both must be unsurpassed in
their capabilities, if the United States is going to survive and
prosper.
Americans rightly demand that U.S. military capabilities by unrivaled
in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet the same test? If
a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our
embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon, or the spiral into
chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the
investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.
Both the State Department authorization bill and the foreign
assistance authorization bill for 1-year authorizations. Given that the
Foreign Relations Committee has many new members, the State
Department's responsibilities are expanding, and world events are
unpredictable, we decided that it would be wise to retain the
opportunity for the committee and the Senate to revisit these bills
next year after we have had some time to perform oversight.
The State Department portion of this bill contains funding that
covers the operating expenses for the department, embassy construction
and security, education and cultural exchange programs, as well as
other programs and activities. It also includes funding for: assessed
contributions to international organizations required by treaty;
international commissions and such centers as the Asia Foundation and
the East-West Center; international broadcasting activities; refugee
and migration assistance; and Peace Corps funding for 2004 through
2007.
The committee is recommending increases to the administration's
request for the State Department of about $400 million, or roughly 4
percent. These increases address needs that the Foreign Relations
Committee identified as keys to U.S. success in this dangerous new
century. They include: an additional $312 million for embassy
construction that will allow groundbreaking this
[[Page S9088]]
year for three new embassy compounds; approximately $8 million to
increase the cap on hardship pay and danger pay for State Department
employees; an increase of $8.9 million to restore cuts in international
broadcasting to Eastern and Central European nations; the restoration
of $25 million that was cut for SEED and Freedom Support Act funding to
Central Europe and the Balkans; and an additional $30 million to
strengthen public diplomacy and international exchanges with the
Islamic world.
In addition, in committee, individual members offered amendments on
such important issues as international support for a successor regime
in Iraq, U.S. policy toward Haiti, and U.S. policy regarding
recognition of a Palestinian state. A detailed listing of other issues
covered and policy recommendations made by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in this bill are contained in the committee report.
As our committee undertook an in-depth study of State Department
needs, we simultaneously examined our foreign assistance programs and
their evolving role in U.S. humanitarian and national security efforts.
As I indicated, in May, we passed a foreign assistance authorization
bill by a 19 -0 vote.
The committee held hearings on U.S. foreign assistance in six
strategic regions of the world: the Near East, South Asia, East Asia,
Eurasia, the Western Hemisphere, and Africa. In other hearings we
explored numerous topics related to foreign assistance, including
global hunger, reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President
Bush's vision for a new Millennium Challenge Corporation.
In the hearings, we learned how the administration's 2004 budget
request would support U.S. foreign policy interests. Those hearings
were very informative, and I again want to express my appreciation to
the subcommittee chairs and ranking members who conducted them, as well
as to all Senators who participated.
This was only a first step. Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not
fulfilled its responsibilityb to pass an Omnibus Foreign Assistance
Act. Several discrete measures, such as the Global AIDS bill, the
Freedom Support Act, and the Support for Eastern European Democracy,
SEED, have been enacted.
But in the absence of a comprehensive authorization, much of the
responsibility for providing guidance for foreign assistance policy has
fallen to the Appropriations Committees. The appropriators have kept
our foreign assistance programs going, but in many cases, they have had
to do so without proper authorization. In most years, the Foreign
Relations Committee did pass a State Department authorization bill, but
that bill only authorizes about 35 percent of the function 150 account.
To fund the remaining accounts, appropriators frequently had to waive
the legal requirement to appropriate funds only following the passage
of an authorization bill.
There is no single reason why the Congress has failed to pass a
comprehensive foreign assistance authorization bill for so long. But we
all recognize the difficult legislative task involved. As a general
spending item, foreign assistance rarely is high on the list of
constituent priorities. Yet specific provisions in foreign assistance
bills have often raised political emotions. Thus, comprehensive foreign
assistance bills have contended with the most difficult of legislative
circumstances--they have generated seemingly intractable political
disputes, while lacking an overriding legislative payoff.
We must stop thinking in conventional political terms. Passing a
comprehensive foreign assistance bill is good politics, as well as good
policy. It is good politics because it underscores the leadership of
this Senate at a time when our country is in great peril. It is good
politics because foreign assistance is an instrument of national power
in the war on terrorism. It is good politics because it recognizes that
our standard of living, the retirements of our parents, our children's
educations, advancements in our health care, and the security of
Americans depend on winning the war on terrorism.
With this in mind, Senator Biden and I, with the support of the
majority leader, bring the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act to the
floor in tandem with the State Department authorization bill.
The Foreign Assistance bill before you authorizes funding levels for
most of the foreign operations accounts within function 150 for fiscal
year 2004. The committee took as a starting point the request submitted
by the President last February. The executive branch has been working
with our embassies around the world for many months to develop accurate
budget numbers.
As I previously mentioned, the Foreign Relations Committee worked
closely with the Budget Committee on maintaining the President's
requests for the 150 account. I note this to highlight the fact that we
have sought to work within the rules to achieve the overall funding
levels that are before us today. Many members of the committee,
including myself, would like to have more funding available. But I am
hopeful that members will respect the budget process and the decisions
that were made earlier in the year.
With respect to the foreign assistance authorization, the committee
made relatively few changes to the dollar amounts requested by the
President. We provided a $70 million increase for the Freedom Support
Act, a $40 million increase for the Support for Eastern European
Democracy Act, a $15 million increase for development assistance, a $6
million increase for peacekeeping operations, and a $100 million
increase for the Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and
Related Programs account. The additional funds in the Account would be
used to safeguard and hasten the destruction of weapons of mass
destruction. They also would provide $15 million for a new initiative,
The Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2003, contained in
title IV of the bill. This legislation authorizes the State Department
to provide contributions and technical assistance to the IAEA to deal
with the dirty bomb threat. The bill is the result of a cooperative
effort between Senator Biden and myself, as well as Senator Domenici. I
want to thank Senator Biden for his leadership, going all the way back
to the hearings he held in 2002 on this issue.
On the other side of the ledger, we have reduced funding for two of
the President's requested programs. The Millennium Challenge
Corporation has been reduced from $1.3 billion to $1 billion. This is
not an expression of doubt about the MCC concept. Rather, the reduction
is based on the judgment that the MCC will require time to become
established and may not be able to efficiently distribute the entire
$1.3 billion request in the first fiscal year. The $300 million has
been deferred until the next fiscal year when the MCC would be in a
better position to spend it. We also have made a small cut in the
Andean counter-drug initiative. It has been reduced from $731 million
to $700 million--the amount appropriated in the previous fiscal year.
In addition, we have authorized 2 new contingency funds at the request
of the President--the Complex Foreign Crises Fund and the Famine Fund.
But we have not authorized specific amounts for these Funds.
Finally, I would like to address the Millennium Challenge
Corporation. For those Senators who have not studied this concept, it
is a bold proposal by President Bush to provide a new model for U.S.
foreign assistance programs. A compromise version of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation bill is included in the substitute before us.
Our foreign assistance must be aimed at both humanitarian objectives
and goals that aid in the fight against terrorism over the long run.
These include strengthening democracy, building free markets, and
encouraging civil society in nations that otherwise might become havens
or breeding grounds for terrorists. We must seek to encourage societies
that can fulfill the aspirations of their citizens and deny terrorists
the uncontrolled territory and abject poverty that the terrorists use
to their advantage. To do this, all of us should begin to think about
foreign assistance as a critical asset in the long-term war on
terrorism.
This process will require us to ask how nations develop political
stability and economic momentum and how they become good international
citizens that contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world
community. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has
[[Page S9089]]
been proposed on the assumption that we do know some of the answers. We
believe that successful societies cannot be built without good
leadership, economies based on sound market principles, and significant
investments in health and education. By establishing firm criteria to
measure and reward the progress of low-income nations in these areas,
the MCC can provide a powerful incentive to foreign governments to
embrace and sustain reform.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee strongly supported the basic
premise of the MCC and applauded the President's personal commitment to
the concept. However, members came forward with differing proposals on
the organization and bureaucratic status of the MCC. The committee
passed a version of the MCC that differed substantially from the
President's initial vision.
Since that time, Senator Hagel, Senator Biden, and myself have sought
to construct an efficient format for this concept that would be
supported by the White House while meeting the concerns of our
committee. These talks were difficult, but they also were a positive
indication of the interest in the ultimate success of the MCC. I
believe that we have succeeded in constructing a good compromise.
Everyone gave up something to move the bill forward. Senator Biden and
Senator Hagel will be addressing the Senate on their views toward the
MCC, and I am sure that they will outline some concerns and
reservations. I want to thank both of them for their willingness to be
flexible and their contributions during this process.
I would note that the White House also was instrumental in concluding
this compromise. The administration has endorsed Senate passage of the
the Lugar-Hagel version of the MCC.
Our MCC compromise creates the needed ingredients for inter-agency
coordination, a top priority among a majority on the committee. It puts
the MCC under the authority of the Secretary of State and has the chief
executive officer report to the Secretary. But it does not determine
the integrity of the President's concept. It gives the MCC the same
autonomous status as the US Agency for International Development with
the right to manage itself, hire staff, and create its own new culture.
It mandates coordination between the MCC and USAID in the field and
gives USAID the primary role in preparing countries for MCC
eligibility.
I believe our MCC approach is the right plan at the right time. It
provides a way to focus single-mindedly on economic development that is
results-based and meets clear benchmarks of success. We can have the
coordination we seek while also insulating it from short-term political
considerations so that it can focus on the long-term benefits of
widening the universe of countries that live in peace and look to a
prosperous and stable future.
I would like to notify members that I will be offering a managers'
package of amendments and will be asking unanimous consent that it be
adopted. As part of that package, Section 204 of S. 925 will be deleted
from our bill because it has been included in the defense authorition
bill. I would like to express appreciation to Senator Warner, the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for his help on
that matter.
The other amendments in the managers' package are technical in
nature, clarifying original intention, or correcting errors.
I am looking forward to the debate on this bill and the constructive
contributions of our Members at this important time in our Nation's
history.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
____________________