[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.

                          ____________________