Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 153 (Tuesday, October 28, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 28, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13349-S13372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Leahy asked that I fill in for him
for the next little bit. We have an amendment to offer. We have no one
here from the majority, but I am very confident there is no problem
with the Senator from North Dakota offering an amendment. I ask
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so the
Senator from North Dakota can offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 1994

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and
Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 1994.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S13350]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To urge the President to release information regarding
sources of foreign support for the 9-11 hijackers)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Sense of the Senate on declassifying portions of
the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities
Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The President has prevented the release to the American
public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks
of September 2001.
(2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of
foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers
while they were in the United States.
(3) The Administration's decision to classify this
information prevents the American people from having access
to information about the involvement of certain foreign
governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
(4) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested that the
President release the 28 pages.
(5) The Senate respects the need to keep information
regarding intelligence sources and methods classified, but
the Senate also recognizes that such purposes can be
accomplished through careful selective redaction of specific
words and passages, rather than effacing the section's
contents entirely.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that in light of these findings the President should
declassify the 28-page section of the Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the
Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 that deals with foreign
sources of support for the 9-11 hijackers, and that only
those portions of the report that would directly compromise
ongoing investigations or reveal intelligence sources and
methods should remain classified.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment. I note there are other sense-of-the-Senate amendments in
this legislation. I will at the end of my statement ask consent that we
consider waiving points of order.
Let me describe what the amendment is and why I have offered the
amendment. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator
Schumer from New York.
The Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry into the
intelligence community activities before and after the terrorist
attacks of September 2001 finished its work. This past summer, when the
report was finally authorized for release by the administration, we
discovered that the report, which took 9 months to write and 7 months
to declassify, contained 28 pages that had been redacted by White House
lawyers.
I will quote a couple of people, one who is in the Chamber now. I
will quote Senator Shelby and Senator Graham, the chair and ranking
member of the Intelligence Committee while this inquiry was underway.
As I indicated, 28 pages of this report were redacted by White House
lawyers. That means the American public cannot see what was in that
report. We will have no knowledge and no information about what was
contained in that rather exhaustive report.
The Bush administration has refused to declassify these pages, citing
concern for intelligence-gathering ``sources and methods.'' I don't
think that is an insignificant issue, by the way. I think intelligence
gathering and the sources and methods for doing so are important. But
it is also important, it seems to me, to ask the question, Should these
28 pages have been redacted? Should the 28 pages have been outside the
view of the American people, given the fact that this report was done
in order to evaluate what happened leading up to 2001, what was
happening with respect to our intelligence community, what was
happening with respect to other countries?
There has been a great deal of speculation about Saudi Arabia. It is
assumed that somehow in these pages there is discussion about the
Saudis. The Saudi Government is implicated by some because 15 of the 19
hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Even the leaders of the Saudi
Government, who some have said are the object of the redacted pages,
want it declassified. They are angry and embarrassed at being singled
out and want to defend themselves, and therefore they want this
declassified.
How much of the 28 pages could be declassified? Senators Graham and
Shelby, the former chair and cochair of the Intelligence Committee who
directed the report are quoted saying the following: ``I think they are
classified for the wrong reason,'' the former vice chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee told NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``I went
back and read every one of those pages thoroughly. My judgment is 95
percent of that information should be declassified and become
uncensored so the American people would know.'' Asked why the section
was blacked out, Shelby said: ``I think it might be embarrassing to
international relations.''
Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who was the chairman of the committee
investigating this, also called for declassification. He said releasing
the report would permit ``the Saudi Government to deal with any
questions which may be raised in the currently censored pages and allow
the American people to make their own judgment about who are our true
friends and allies in the war on terrorism.'' Senator Graham made that
request in a letter to President Bush.
This is a very important issue and it has gone on for months and
months and months. This report was developed after an extensive amount
of study and investigation. The report was then published after being
edited by the Bush administration and the White House. And a rather
substantial portion of that report--most speculate dealing with the
Saudis--was censored, classified, or redacted. That is, the American
people are not permitted to see that which is included in the report on
those 28 pages.
Again, the chairman and vice chairman of the committee that led or
that directed the preparation of this report say most of that
information of the 28 pages should be declassified, implying, I
believe, since they are not quoted directly, that declassifying that
would not compromise sources and methods and not compromise our
intelligence community.
My hope is that the Senate, with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution,
will weigh in on this in a very significant way and say to the
administration these 28 pages should be made available.
Now, in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I point out that it is
the sense of the Senate that in light of the findings--and I have a
series of findings--the President should declassify the 28-page section
of the joint inquiry into intelligence community activities before and
after the terrorist attacks of 2001 that deal with the foreign sources
of support for the 9/11 hijackers and that only those portions of the
report that would directly compromise ongoing investigations or reveal
intelligence sources or methods should remain classified.
In point of fact, those whose expert opinions I respect have said
they have read the redacted or the censored or classified portions very
carefully and believe most of it should not have been classified; most
of it should have been made available to the American people. If that
is the case, and if the Saudi Government itself has said this
information ought to be declassified, let us deal with it on the public
record. Then I believe the American people ought to expect a right to
see this information.
My hope is we will have a vote on this amendment, a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment that will allow the Senate in this forum to send a
message to the President and to the White House that we believe the
bulk of this 28-page redaction should be made available to the American
people posthaste.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the
Senator from North Dakota, for having offered this sense of the Senate.
The sense of the Senate has an additional significance as we face some
fundamental issues in the closing days of this session.
First, I will talk about the base concerns. As the Senator from North
Dakota said, the principal purpose of the joint inquiry was to
determine what had been the role of the intelligence community in the
events leading up to September 11. In many instances in the course of
that pursuit, the committee staff came to unearth FBI reports, CIA
reports, and other intelligence community reports. We were not in a
position, either in terms of our staff capabilities or our
jurisdiction, to then go behind those reports to attempt to validate
them. These were reports written by

[[Page S13351]]

agents of these appropriate intelligence agencies, but we could not,
from primary sources, validate them. The FBI, primarily--and some other
intelligence agencies, as well--were tasked to do exactly that, to find
out if their own documents in many cases could be substantiated.
Those requests were made approximately a year ago. Still, today, many
of those requests have not been answered. The administration has said,
either directly or in some cases through intermediaries, that our
report is deficient in that there is not second- and third-party
confirmation of the statements we include. We included exactly what the
FBI or CIA or other agencies had written. We asked the appropriate
agencies, primarily FBI, to pursue these to determine if they were
substantiated, and in many instances that has not occurred.
There is also an issue not of micro but of macro importance: This
report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submitted
by the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government which
was complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least as
it relates to some of the terrorists who were present in one part of
the United States.
There are two big questions yet to be answered. Why would this
government have provided the level of assistance--financial,
logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not
to all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no
response.
My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that--is that in fact
similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of the
terrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set of
circumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to have
an unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similar
window on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine if
they were, in fact, receiving that assistance. That effort has, in my
judgment, been grossly insufficiently pursued.
An even more serious question is what would lead us to believe that
if there was this infrastructure of a foreign government supporting
some of the 19 terrorists, that as soon as September 11 concluded, as
soon as the last flames were put out at the Pentagon, the World Trade
Center and on the field in Pennsylvania, all that infrastructure was
immediately taken down? Again, this is my hypothesis: I don't believe
it was taken down. I believe that infrastructure is likely to still be
in place assisting the next generation of terrorists who are in the
United States.
Those are very fundamental questions, and if the public had access to
these 28 pages, they would be demanding answers.
As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, there is another issue
which is going to emerge in the next few days. We had a long debate in
this Chamber on the supplemental appropriations bill, the bill
providing $87 billion for the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq. We
had a long debate as to whether some of that reconstruction money
should be in the form of loans rather than, as the President has
insisted, all of it being in grants.
What is one of the practical effects of making all of the U.S. money
which will go into the reconstruction of Iraq a grant? The answer to
that question is that one of the consequences, ironically, will be that
we will make all of the countries which currently have loans to Iraq
that much more solvent because we will have, without any request for
repayment, made a significant investment in enhancing the economic
viability of Iraq and, therefore, the ability of whatever government is
placed in ultimate control of Iraq more capable of repaying those
loans.
There is a further irony that some of those countries, which are
disclosed in the 28 censored pages as having been complicitous with the
terrorists, are among the list of those creditors of Iraq that are
going to get this indirect economic benefit. I believe the Members of
Congress, who are going to be called upon to vote on whether we should
grant this indirect benefit to a country that has been less than
supportive of our Nation's war on terror, ought to know that before we
vote and then find out later the full consequences of what we have
done.
So there was an issue as to why these 28 pages should have been
released when the report was initially completed in December of 2002.
Those issues remain today. And there is the additional issue of whether
we are going to inadvertently grant a significant financial benefit to
a country that has been to say less than our ally in the war on terror
would be a gross understatement.
I commend the Senator from North Dakota for having offered this sense
of the Senate. It is a very important issue. I hope this Senate will
adopt the sense of the Senate. If not, if the President continues to
refuse to allow the American people to have access to this information,
then I hope the Congress will be willing to use some of the authorities
that it has to declassify information. Because the higher interest is
not in placating this administration's unwillingness to be forthcoming
on the issue. The higher interest in this democracy is that the people
have access to relevant information which is not an issue of national
security but which is a significant issue in terms of understanding the
consequences of decisions that we have and will soon be making.
I urge adoption of the sense of the Senate and again express my
admiration to the Senator from North Dakota for having presented it
this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a few additional comments. My
colleague from Florida is in a very unique position. Having worked with
his colleague from Alabama, Senator Graham and Senator Shelby provided
a great public service as they initiated this inquiry.
The inquiry, as described by my colleague in part, is an evaluation
of whether there were other governments that participated in supporting
groups of terrorists who committed acts of terror against this country.
The answer to that question is very important. My colleague indicates
that if such a program were in place or had been in place by another
government to support groups of terrorists, what leads us to believe
that parts of that program are not continuing to still operate and,
therefore, continue to threaten our country?
The very important question with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution
is: Should we not have the ability to know, should full disclosure not
be the routine rather than the exception? Should the 28 pages that have
been withheld from the American people be made available to them so we
all are able to evaluate exactly the same set of information?
My conclusion is, yes, absolutely. It ought to be done sooner rather
than later.
I have been intending to offer two amendments to this appropriations
bill. One dealt with this sense of the Senate which I have just
offered. The second dealt with a sense of the Senate with respect to
the cooperation that is now being received or lack of cooperation by
the 9/11 Commission, the other commission that is headed by former
Governor Kean that is looking into 9/11 and the relationship of a
series of issues, both prior to 9/11 and following, by our intelligence
community and others.
One of my great concerns is reading in the newspapers just in recent
days about the 9/11 Commission. This is a blue-ribbon commission. One
of our former colleagues, Senator Cleland, is on the Commission. It is
a commission that has to finish its work by May of next year. It has a
relatively short timeframe. Now we hear that they have had to issue a
subpoena to one of the Federal agencies to get them to cooperate giving
information to them. There were other stories yesterday and the day
before. They are concerned about not getting information from the White
House.
We are not going to be satisfied until we have everything we need to
do our job. Governor Kean says--he is a former Republican Governor from
New Jersey--this is not about politics. It is about a blue-ribbon
commission having access to all of the information so it can do its
job.
I find it unbelievable that any agency or crevice or any corner of
this Government would not open its records and provide full and
immediate cooperation with the 9/11 Commission. That is the least we
should expect of every single

[[Page S13352]]

agency. They have had to subpoena information from the FAA and yet they
are not getting information from the White House that they are
requesting. Kean said in an interview that he will resume negotiations
with the White House this week and hopes to reach a resolution one way
or the other on documents the panel is seeking. The Commission has the
power to issue subpoenas and Kean says he does not rule out sending one
to the White House.
Why should we read this in the papers? I don't understand it. There
ought not be any agency, including the White House, that does not fully
cooperate in every respect immediately with the request for information
from this 9/11 Commission.
We have had two studies, one initiated by the Senate Intelligence
Committee. That is the one that was the focus of my first amendment.
The second was to have been the focus of the second amendment. Both
were sense of the Senate--first, to declassify the information so that
the American people will be able to see what was there. Don't censor
this material; give the American people information. The second is to
say to all Federal agencies, cooperate with the 9/11 Commission fully,
completely, and immediately.
Now, my understanding is, having consulted with the majority, they
will raise a point of order against the amendment I have offered just
moments ago because it is ``legislating on an appropriations bill.'' My
second amendment would be the same. They would make a point of order
against them, and the point of order would stand, I expect. So when
such a point of order is made, I will regret it. I understand those are
the rules of the Senate. But on the very next piece of legislation that
comes to the floor--and I believe one is coming later this week that is
an amendable vehicle and is a nonappropriations bill--we will vote on
both of these sense-of-the-Senate amendments.
I might also say that while a point of order will be raised on these,
there are sense-of-the-Senate provisions, I believe, in the underlying
bill, or sense-of-the-Senate provisions to be added to it. I will not
raise similar points of order. My hope is that all Senators will join
me in understanding that this is not partisan or political, it is about
this country's interests--our interests in preventing future acts of
terrorism, our interests in finding out what happened, what went wrong,
and how we can improve the intelligence-gathering system in this
country. Who did what? Were foreign governments involved? If so, which
ones and to what extent? These questions need to be answered. Both of
my resolutions are designed to do one thing--provide more information
to the American people, No. 1; No. 2, to ask every corner of our
Government in every official working of this Government to decide that
they will completely, cooperatively, and immediately work with the 9/11
Commission to provide the requested information.
We ought not to have to come to the Senate floor to ask why the White
House, the FAA, or this or that agency has not already fully cooperated
with the 9/11 Commission. It is in this country's interest to see that
happen.
Mr. President, I ask for consideration of my amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. Was consent requested, Mr. President? I am sorry, I
didn't hear.
Mr. DORGAN. I asked for consideration of my amendment. I ask
unanimous consent that we waive points of order and have my amendment
be considered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in accordance with the precedent of May
17, 2000, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.

Amendment No. 1974

(Purpose: To authorize appropriations for Foreign Relations
and for Foreign Assistance, and to authorize Millennium
Challenge Assistance)

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment? Without objection, the pending amendment will be set
aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment
numbered 1974.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment that
authorizes the spending contained in this appropriations bill. I thank
Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy specifically for the way in which
they have worked with me throughout this year on matters pertaining to
foreign policy. Our staffs have consulted closely for months, and I
believe that our respective legislative efforts have been enhanced
greatly by this cooperation.
My amendment is an up-to-date version of S. 925, the foreign affairs
authorization bill. It contains all of the amendments included in the
S. 925 Senate floor action in July. It is truly a bipartisan product.
On those 3 days in July in which we debated the bill, we considered
dozens of amendments from both sides of the aisle. The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee worked with Members on constructive legislative
language to enhance the bill; various components have received
unanimous committee support.
I thank almost every Member of this body who has contributed in one
way or another to this amendment because the amendments of almost every
Member of this body are a part of the product we are considering today.
That is why it not only has enormous bipartisan support, it has pride
of authorship of virtually every Senator.
In this amendment, the Senate speaks forthrightly on the foreign
policy challenges that this appropriations bill addresses by setting
forth funding levels for specific programs and projects. This amendment
gives voice to the Senate's views on issues touching every continent,
from the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to the
safety of Americans working in our embassies overseas, to the
President's proposed Millennium Challenge Account, which is designed to
spur economic growth in the poorest countries.
My amendment authorizes appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign
aid workers, our Peace Corps volunteers, many of them in harm's way.
They are our civilian soldiers in the war on terrorism, and they are
engaged in a noble battle against disease, poverty, and humanitarian
disasters. American diplomats and aid workers have become targets in
most countries and embassies around the world, but there is no shortage
of recruits who want to be trained and sent abroad to do America's
work.
I thank every member of my committee for their hard work during the
authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle have devoted
tens of hours to developing constructive approaches to a number of very
difficult foreign policy questions. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee has approached many foreign policy problems in a bipartisan
spirit; thus, all of our authorizing legislation in S. 925 passed out
of the committee by a vote of 19 to 0.
I thank and commend, once again, the distinguished ranking member of
our committee, Senator Biden, for his abiding cooperation through this
whole lengthy process of this year. Republicans and Democrats reasoned
together and made compromises that led to excellent legislation. The
members of our committee are united in our belief that the
authorization bill contained in this amendment will enhance U.S.
national security.
A vote for this amendment is a vote of confidence in the Senate's
ability to help shape a world where peace, justice, and prosperity
might prevail. This is not an academic exercise. Authorization
legislation is important. If we are to have a foreign policy that has
the long-term support of the American people, the Congress must be in
it on the takeoffs as well as the landings. We should not be satisfied
with appropriating funds after American soldiers

[[Page S13353]]

are on the ground. Congress must be in on the policy formulations and
the fulfillment of U.S. commitments. Our role is to help make the hard
decisions, not just to sign the checks after decisions are made.
Extensive hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have
formed this amendment. The Senate needs the authorization process to
project its voice on foreign policy and to have an impact on the
direction this country takes in the world. I believe this step is
especially necessary because we are now trying to accomplish our
legislative work in extraordinary and dangerous times. These times
demand the Senate do its duty to pass a foreign affairs authorization
bill.
Up to this point, we have not done our duty. We are asking a great
deal of our diplomats, our military, and the administration; and on a
daily basis, Senators of both parties can be heard delivering
commentary on the administration's war effort. Our responsibilities as
the elected representatives of the people make such commentary relevant
and expected.
Even as we perform oversight and function as loyal critics within our
Government, we cannot forget we have our own responsibilities in
fighting the war on terrorism. If we function merely as critics and
commentators without taking the time and effort to authorize the very
legislation that pertains to our Nation's security, we are failing in
our duties. This simply cannot continue.
After September 11, 2001, we know we need a robust civilian foreign
policy capacity in addition to a strong military if we are going to
shape a world that embraces democracy, tolerance, open markets, and the
rule of law. But we find the State Department is stretched thin. Our
public diplomacy is underfunded and unfocused on many occasions. Our
foreign assistance faces constant conflicting pressures and we need to
play catchup just to make sure Americans are as safe as possible in
their embassy workplaces, and Americans who approach those workplaces
are as safe as possible.
We have no civilian surge capacity so our soldiers in Afghanistan and
Iraq end up doing the nonmilitary tasks that should be done by
civilians. Our appropriators have been sensitive to foreign policy
needs. They have carried the burden of keeping vital foreign policy
programs going, but a few lines in appropriations bills are not
sufficient to provide the needed direction and framework and the
sustained oversight this body should be paying to our civilian foreign
affairs capacity.
This year the foreign affairs authorization bill has had to overcome
obstacles that have had little to do with its own merits. This
authorizing amendment lays out Senate priorities for foreign affairs
spending. I have resisted adding anything to it that was not approved
in July in open debate and after the adoption of the dozens of
amendments I talked about from virtually most, if not all, Senators on
this floor. The bill exists as it emerged from the Senate floor at that
time and it puts people first, as well as the safety of Americans who
work around the world for us. It places a high priority on programs
that help foreign governments cooperate with us in tracking down
terrorists. It authorizes additional funds for security upgrades at
embassies which we know are among the most threatened U.S. targets in
the world. As we saw in Kenya and Tanzania, Americans serving in
embassies are on the front line in the war against terrorism.
The amendment authorized an increase in danger pay for the diplomats
who serve in high-risk posts. We are in a race to prevent terrorists
from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the authorization of
this amendment will increase our capabilities. The amendment authorizes
a greater American effort to reach out to the Islamic world. Beyond the
war on terrorism, the amendment places a high priority on recognizing
the deep reservoir of hope for humanity that resides in the American
heart. It authorizes the fulfillment of our humanitarian instincts,
including programs for child survival, nutrition and health, famine
assistance and the Peace Corps. It authorizes the Millennium Challenge
Account, President Bush's new program to invest American development
dollars where they are most likely to spur economic growth.
A lot of work has gone into the deliberations on the Millennium
Challenge Account and the final product is supported by Republicans and
Democrats in the Senate, as well as the President of the United States
and the Secretary of State. All of us now support the President's
concept for creating a new means of delivering economic assistance to
nations that are implementing positive and measurable economic and
political reforms. We agree with the President that this and our
development assistance programs are important tools in the war on
terrorism. They can prevent failed states, improve our relationships
with developing countries, and reduce impoverished conditions that are
conducive to terrorist recruitment.

The Senate has been diligent this year in moving other foreign policy
items. Among the measures we have passed are the global AIDS bill, the
Moscow Treaty, NATO expansion, and the Iraq supplemental. The Senate
has shown a capacity to act decisively on the Nation's foreign policy
business because we recognize that in these perilous times it is our
duty to do so. American national security is at risk, and as the
leaders entrusted with passing legislation to keep America secure, we
should include the authorization for the civilian foreign affairs
agencies and their programs among our accomplishments this year.
I ask for adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I apologize because I
just arrived on the floor--I am sorry. I thought my distinguished
friend, the senior Senator from Indiana, had propounded a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. LUGAR. Yes. I am prepared to accept the passage of the amendment
by voice vote if it is the pleasure of both managers of the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. 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 that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say initially that in my experience
in the Congress I have learned to recognize the quality of the senior
Senator from Indiana. He is a fine man, an outstanding legislator, and
his heart is always in the right place.
I understand the importance of the State Department authorization
bill. I have understood it for the more than two decades I have been in
the Congress. It is important legislation. On this side of the aisle,
we understand that and that is why we have worked so hard over the
years to try to move forward. As the Senator from Indiana knows, it
certainly was not his fault, but we had great difficulty moving the
bill previously as a result of one Senator. On this legislation he now
wants to make a part of this foreign operations appropriations bill, we
have spent 2 days on this bill and during that period of time we had
some good debate. We adopted some amendments. But we on this side feel
we should move forward as with all legislation and not cut it off. In
effect, that is what is happening.
So without belaboring the point more, I raise a point of order that
this is legislating on an appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to suspend rule XVI of the standing rules of the
Senate during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2800 in order to offer
amendment 1974 to that bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the question of the two managers of
the bills: How much time do we need to spend on this? It is my
understanding the issue that has been raised by the Senator from
Indiana will take a two-thirds vote to pass the Senate. I am sure there
are a few people who wish to speak on this, and I am sure on our side
we could arrive at a reasonable period of time prior to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask the Senator from Indiana how much time he
desires before proceeding to a vote?

[[Page S13354]]

Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator that I would like
15 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Are there any requests for time on the other side?
Mr. LEAHY. Then would the request be a half hour evenly divided? Is
that what the Senator is suggesting?
Mr. REID. I think that is totally reasonable, if I could interrupt.
We need to check with the ranking member of the Foreign Relations
Committee. Senator Harkin has agreed to take 15 minutes. We don't know
of anyone else who wished to speak on it, other than the manager of the
bill.
I hope, if we can go into an extremely brief quorum call, we can come
up with a time agreement very quickly.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I hope we can move on with this very
quickly. I think a brief quorum call is a good idea. I therefore
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that there be 30 minutes of
debate, equally divided, on the Lugar amendment, after which we will
have a vote on that amendment. Have we had the yeas and nays?
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on Lugar--on the motion to
waive.
Mr. REID. No, on the motion to suspend.
Mr. LEAHY. On the motion to suspend; I am sorry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes at the outset of
this debate.
Mr. President, I regret that objection has been made, although I
understand the reasoning of those who have made the objection.
I identified this as the State Department authorization bill, a bill
that also included authorization for the money in the challenge account
and, for that matter, a good number of other things that, in this
particular urgent period of the war on terrorism, attempts to help
brave Americans who are serving in our embassies, who are serving in
humanitarian ways abroad. I need not remind the Senate that a number of
these brave Americans have lost their lives in recent days and weeks. I
need not remind the Senate we are at war. This is not an incidental
amendment or a last-minute whim of one Senator.
Nor, for that matter, is it a particular desire of our committee--
which voted 19 to zero in behalf of some very important principles that
support Americans on the civilian side of the war against terrorism--to
impose our will upon the Senate. Obviously, we are not in a position to
do so. But I pointed out in the days of debate on the amendment that I
have offered today, there were tens of amendments offered by many
Senators. A majority, I believe, of the body have tried to perfect this
bill. It is not a controversial bill. It is, in fact, a statement of
the best motivation, the idealism of the Senate. It is our best
collective effort to try to meet an imperative in the war against
terrorism.
At this point, a point of order has been raised that this is
legislation on an appropriations bill. Indeed, it is. I have made a
motion to waive that requirement, given what I believe is the gravity
and the importance of the lives of the Americans we are trying to
serve.
Members may decide that they wish to debate procedure today. And
procedure in the Senate and the rules of the Senate are very important.
But the rules of the Senate also permit, as one rule of the Senate, the
waiver, so that authorization might occur on an appropriations bill.
Some Senators have approached me and indicated they think there is a
lot of merit in the bill. As a matter of fact, some of their own work
is in this bill, in this amendment I am offering. Yet at the same time,
they are reluctant to vote for my waiver on this occasion, my desire to
set aside rule XVI, because they believe there are, after all, many
considerations the Senate might be taking up today. There is a broad
gamut of domestic issues, for that matter, discussions of foreign
policy--various ideas that might come to Senators that might be quite
welcome to our national debate.
I do ask for consideration of the whole package of the ideas,
authorizations, and support that my amendment provides the Senate today
because I believe it is important to our country. I believe it is
important, as a statement of who we are, that we are doing business. We
might make a statement, when we have this vote, that we are prepared,
really, not to do business, but in our own internal difficulties we are
prepared to frustrate each other at almost every pass.
We enjoy the fact that, as a Senate, we are fairly evenly divided.
Yet I pointed out on this particular bill we are not divided. So there
almost has to be a very peculiar twist, it seems to me, that finds this
debate whether or not we should authorize the State Department
Millennial Challenge.
Beyond that, there has been perhaps a debate in the Senate throughout
the year. It is an important one. It is important to be resolved
constructively. There may be some Senators who would say that, by and
large, it is probably useful to have authorization bills but some
Senators almost in the next breath will say it is not very necessary.
In other words, if in fact programs are not thought through and they
are not fleshed out and there are not formats for them that, by and
large, somehow we get along year by year appropriating money and adding
some verbiage that gives a hint that someone authorized these
expenditures along the way as well as appropriated them.
We found in July when Senator Biden and I were attempting to manage
this bill that there were a lot of Senators who were in favor of what
we were doing but some Senators said we have not really had our day on
the floor; we have really not had a chance to offer our agenda; the
reason we couldn't was because the format of the Senate always seemed
to be taking up appropriations bills; and rule XVI says you cannot have
authorization of general legislation. Therefore, we were cut out from
any consideration of objectives which we thought were very important.
As a result, we came along with an authorization bill and Senators said
finally we have an authorization bill. This offers us the opportunity
to pile in everything that we have.
The Senators who argued against that point of view said, no, that
really wasn't what the debate on foreign policy was about. But the
opposition to that was simply we understand that, but we have not had
our chance and we don't see that we are going to have our chance. We
don't see another authorization bill coming along the pike. Therefore,
although yours will somehow disappear in the midst of all of these
other discussions, that has happened for years. Very seldom do we pass
authorization bills, and in the case of foreign relations, as a matter
of fact, not many for many, many years.
As a result, our staff found as we approached the State Department
and foreign assistance and what have you that this year there was a
need for cleanup of a lot of our case activity, and we hope to do some
more of that work next year. One reason for that is if you do not have
authorization bills and force things to happen, no one really examines
legislative language. There are a whole series of bureaucracies and
responsibilities from year to year. No one pays attention and,
legislatively, no one cares.
Let me say we do care. In fact, a large majority of Senators care
about the content of this legislation. I believe it is very important
on this occasion that my proposal to lay aside rule XVI should be
adopted, and that will be our goal. I encourage an ``aye'' vote not
only on the rule XVI waiver but a vote on behalf of brave Americans who
this amendment supports and serves and remembers.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to each side?

[[Page S13355]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes in opposition, and 6
minutes for the proponents.
Mr. LEAHY. Obviously, if the distinguished Senator from Indiana needs
more time, I would not object to a unanimous consent request from him.
Does the Senator from Iowa wish time?
Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment but I am not seeking time on this
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, time is running. I ask unanimous consent
that the time under the quorum call not be charged against the side of
the distinguished Senator from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, that leaves us how much time on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 11 minutes 12 seconds, and
the proponents have 6 minutes 12 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't know if we have people coming to
speak. If no one does, I will soon yield back the time so we can vote.
I urge, as Senator McConnell has and as the leaders have, those who
have amendments on which they seek votes to come to the floor and offer
their amendments. I know that the intent of Senator McConnell and
myself is if there are no other amendments waiting to be disposed of or
pending, we plan to go to third reading. Going to the third reading
could be in a matter of the next couple of hours at that pace.
Some Senators have said they had a number of amendments. At such
point that there are no amendments pending, it is our intention to go
to third reading.
I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the
time be charged to my side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note the senior Senator from
Massachusetts has arrived. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those in opposition have 9 minutes and 12
seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate it. I will be prepared to address the
Senate in a minute. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, the amendment before the
Senate is the State Department reauthorization legislation. I commend
the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Delaware for fashioning
the reauthorization. It has not been done for a number of years, and I
am very strong in support of that proposal. If the amendment of the
Senator from Indiana is effective, we will lose the opportunity to have
at least considered one of the very important amendments to the State
Department reauthorization which dealt with hate crimes. I think it is
entirely appropriate we have an opportunity to address the hate crimes
issue on the State Department reauthorization because the State
Department reauthorization obviously is dealing with foreign policy
issues, and the origin of hate crimes is domestic terrorism. We have
seen in recent times the growth of hate crimes in the United States. It
is of significant importance. Hate crimes are not just crimes against
an individual; they are crimes against a group in our society. They do
not just do damage to an individual; they do something to our whole
sense of community. That is why they are so treacherous. That is why
they are so heinous. That is why they are so wrong.
We have seen the hate crimes that have taken place on the basis of
race, and on the basis gender, and the basis of sexual orientation.
Particularly the time of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death
of Matthew Shephard, whose death in Wyoming was tragic. He had studied
overseas and was fluent in Arabic and German before joining the Federal
service.
Mr. President, crimes motivated by hate because of the victim's race,
religion, sex, ethnic background, and disability are not confined to
geographical boundaries of our great Nation. The current conflicts in
the Middle East, the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia, Rwanda or
the Holocaust itself demonstrate that violence motivated by hate is a
worldwide danger. We have a special responsibility to combat it here at
home.
Since the September 11th attacks, we have seen a shameful increase in
the number of hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans, Sikh
Americans, and Americans of Middle Eastern descent. Congress has done
much to respond to the vicious attacks on September 11. We authorized
the use of force against terrorists and those who harbor them in other
lands. We have enacted legislation to provide aid to victims and their
families, to strengthen airport security, to improve security of our
borders, to strengthen our defenses against bioterrorism, and to give
law enforcement and intelligence officers enhanced powers to
investigate and prevent terrorism. But the one thing we have not done
is to try to deal with the hate crimes issue.

We are prepared to vote on that. We are interested in half an hour
time limitation, but we are told people have holds on that legislation.
Members will refuse to let the Senate consider this legislation. I have
indicated to the Senator from Indiana that I am prepared to permit and
support the State Department reauthorization, but at least give us some
opportunity to vote on hate crimes as a clean bill with a short time
limit. We will take next week or the week after. We will even take a
date in January or February of next year, but give us an opportunity to
vote on hate crimes. The other side says no--not the Senator from
Indiana--but the other side says no. So we are in a situation that
says, well, let's circumvent or at least use the rules in such a way
that will say we have two-thirds of the Senate that will permit him to
use this reauthorization and effectively deny the Senate the
opportunity to address the hate crimes issue. I don't fault the Senator
from Indiana, but if this goes on, I am going to be there on the next
amendment offering the hate crimes bill. Make no mistake about it. Make
no mistake about it. We will have the opportunity and the time to take
this up.
I might mention there are some other issues as well, including the
issue of the minimum wage. Here we just increased our own salaries by
$3,400 and we have not been given an opportunity to increase the
minimum wage by 75 cents an hour for 2 years. We are denied that
opportunity. We are excluded from that. We had that as an amendment to
the State Department authorization and we were told we cannot have an
hour to debate that.
Meanwhile, we see what is happening to the people at the lowest end
of the economic ladder, primarily women.

Regarding the minimum wage, it is a women's issue because a
majority of those receiving the minimum wage are women. It is
a children's issue because one-third of the women who receive
the minimum wage have children. It is a civil rights issue
because a disproportionate number of the men and women who
receive the minimum wage are men and women of color. And it
is a fairness issue. In this country of ours, people who work
40 hours a week, 52 weeks, ought to have a living wage. But
we are denied that opportunity. What is it about our
Republican friends that they refuse to permit the Senate to
go on record on these issues?

Now we are asked, let's have an exception. If we have an exception to
this, we should face up to minimum wage, to hate crimes, and other
issues. Fair is fair. I am for this legislation. It is up to the
majority to set the agenda and give us an opportunity to vote on these
issues and not deny a vote in the

[[Page S13356]]

Senate in terms of hate crimes and minimum wage. They say no, no way,
you are not going to get your opportunity.
I hope this amendment will not be accepted. I hope we can work this
out with the majority leader. We have tried, we have tried, we have
tried, and we have tried, but to no avail. Since it is of no avail and
we do not have cooperation, there will be no alternative for me other
than to offer the amendment.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Let me respond as thoughtfully and calmly as I can because the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has indicated he has been a
very strong friend of American diplomacy, of our diplomats abroad, of
those who are at risk presently in the war against terror. I appreciate
that. I have visited with him about ways in which we could have an
authorization bill for the State Department, the millennium challenge,
and the other issues that were in this comprehensive Senate bill, S.
925, originally, as amended by so many Senators. The Senator's
statement illustrates precisely the problem on which Senators must now
vote.
That is, simply, if we are to have an authorization bill this year
for the State Department, this is the opportunity. We had an
opportunity in July. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
points out correctly that he and other distinguished Senators had a
number of issues that they believed were important. Hate crimes and the
minimum wage are two of them. And there were additional ideas that
Senators wanted to present. They made the point at that time that they
believed that on our side of the aisle, they had not been given an
opportunity to forward their agenda, to have a time certain for clean
bills.
Therefore, although in some cases they said, we regret the fact that
the State Department authorization bill is likely now to be withdrawn
and not to happen, essentially it hasn't happened for many years. As a
matter of fact, very few authorization bills were happening. The only
reason, I gather, that hate crimes and unemployment compensation came
up in July was a belief on the part of proponents of those ideas that
they had no other authorization bill on which to have a debate or to
attach their amendments, that the appropriations procedure we are under
today precluded all of that.
I ask that even those who are strong proponents of legislation
dealing with the minimum wage and hate crimes support the authorization
of legislation that helps civilian Americans who are at risk in the war
against terror now. That is an important objective. It has not been my
purpose to try to frustrate the aims of any Senator but, rather, simply
on behalf of a committee that voted 19 to zero and on behalf of a
Senate that approved tens of constructive amendments, to try to forward
that work product while there is still an opportunity this year.
This is the moment in which Senators must make that sort of decision.
Some may wish to make it on the basis of procedure or the basis of how
the two parties get along with each other in the Senate. But I would
plead with Senators that this is important by itself. It is an
important, relevant vote for American security and American good
governance.
I believe the American people respect this effort. They want us to do
this. They want Senators to vote aye, even though some may say this is
at least an opportunity to make points on other discussions at the
expense of the totality of all of it ending up in failure.
I appreciate very much the cooperation of the managers of the bill. I
thank, once again, my distinguished ranking member, Joe Biden, who has
served our committee well as chairman and as a member for three
decades, for all of the constructive work. I thank especially the
members of the staffs on both sides of the aisle who have diligently
devoted hundreds of hours of constructive work trying to reform aspects
of the State Department, a bureaucracy of our Government that had not
been observed and touched for a long time and which this bill, an
authorization bill, has really the unique capacity to do.
For all these reasons, I ask that Senators vote aye and that we have
an opportunity for this legislation to proceed.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 20 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the hate
crimes bill be considered as original text before March 15 on the floor
of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LUGAR. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. I make a similar request in terms of the minimum wage
before March 15 of next year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LUGAR. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 1 minute 15
seconds remaining.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me just say, in view of the two
proposals made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I
offered objection on both of these counts because I am the only
Republican Senator in the Chamber. On behalf of the leadership of our
party, that was my duty, given the fact that our party had not had an
opportunity to consider those proposals.
I would just say, personally, I am hopeful that consideration will be
given to the Senator from Massachusetts and to all Senators for
proposals that are constructive. Those two have a lot of constructive
emphasis, and it may well be that before March 15, the Senate will be
able to entertain those motions. I hope the Senator understands my
objection today. That is why I stated it as a part of this conclusion.
Once again, I am hopeful that Senators will vote constructively in
favor of the foreign relations bill.
I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on
agreeing to the motion to suspend rule XVI with regard to amendment No.
1974.
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 North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 413 Leg.]

YEAS--40

Alexander
Allen
Bayh
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
Murkowski
Smith
Snowe
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--57

Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feinstein
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are
57. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not

[[Page S13357]]

having voted in the affirmative, the motion to suspend rule XVI
pursuant to notice previously given in writing is rejected. The point
of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am shortly going to bring up an amendment
on UNFPA. I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa was here waiting.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will my friend from Vermont yield, just for an
observation? The Senator from Colorado is here. He has an amendment
which I believe is acceptable. I wonder if we could go ahead and
process that.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, obviously I will follow the lead of my
friend from Kentucky. If the Senator from Colorado has one that is
going to be accepted, let's do that. I ask we do that and then go to
the Senator from Iowa. I hope he would accept a time agreement just so
we can get moving because, as I stated earlier, certainly on my side,
once there are no amendments pending, I am ready to go to third
reading.
Mr. McCONNELL. We are looking at the amendment of the Senator from
Iowa and hope to get back to him shortly as to whether we can support
it. In the meantime, if it is all right with my colleagues--
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield just for a brief question?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd is on a very important
appropriations conference committee. He is going to recess tonight at 6
o'clock. Senator Byrd cannot be here until 6 o'clock. On his amendment
he would like to speak for 20 minutes.
Senator Landrieu, as I have said before, has an amendment she wishes
to offer. She said she could speak for 15 minutes on her side on that.
Senator Harkin has an amendment. If that cannot be worked out, he
wants 15 or 20 minutes. And there, of course, are a couple of other
things that need to be resolved. I just indicate that everyone on our
side, as Senator Leahy has announced, should come over and start
offering these amendments because I have been told by the two leaders
they want to finish this bill tonight. If that is the case, the way
things are moving here--which is not very fast--it would be a long
night. So I hope they would come over and offer these amendments on
both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I certainly agree with my friend from
Nevada. The idea is to finish tonight. In order to facilitate that, we
have a Senator on the floor ready to offer an amendment. I suggest the
Senator from Colorado be allowed to send his amendment forward, say a
few words on its behalf, and let's adopt it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Amendment No. 1995, As Modified

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for
allowing me to offer this amendment at this time.
There is an amendment I have at the desk, No. 1995. I understand I
have the right to modify that. I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an
amendment numbered 1995, as modified.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To limit international military education and training funds
from being made available for Indonesia)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:

limitation on the provision of imet funds to indonesia

Sec. 692. (a) Subject to subsection (c), no funds
appropriated by title IV of this Act, under the subheading
``international military education and training'' under the
heading ``Funds Appropriated to the President'' shall be made
available for military education and training for Indonesia.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the United
States Government from continuing to conduct programs or
training with the Indonesian Armed Forces, including counter-
terrorism training, officer visits, port visits, or
educational exchanges that are being conducted on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) The President may waive the application of subsection
(a) if the President--
(1) determines that the national interests of the United
States justify such a waiver; and
(2) submits notice of such a waiver and a justification for
such a waiver to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives in accordance with the regular notification
procedures of such Committees.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this amendment, co-sponsored by Senator
Gordon Smith, would prohibit International Military Education Training
funds for Indonesia. It also gives the President the authority to waive
this prohibition for national security reasons. Let me explain why it
is important for the Senate to consider and approve this amendment.
Nearly 15 months ago on August 31, 2002, 10 Americans living in
Indonesia were brutally attacked less than 6 miles from their homes.
Hundreds of rounds of ammunition were fired at them for 45 minutes,
leaving two Americans dead and most of the other survivors nursing
multiple bullet wounds.
I have had the opportunity to meet with one of the survivors of this
horrible tragedy, Mrs. Patsy Spiers, who, along with her husband Rick,
was shot multiple times. While Patsy was fortunate enough to survive
this ordeal, her husband was not. In January, Mrs. Spiers was brave
enough to sit down with me and walk through her painful experience. The
next day I contacted President Bush urging him to press the Indonesian
government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack.
Immediately after the ambush, an investigation into the ambush was
conducted by the Indonesian civil police. The police report implicated
the Indonesian military in the attack, but indicated that further
investigation into the ambush needed to be done. Shortly after the
police report was filed, the Indonesian military exonerated themselves
from the attack.
Only after diplomatic pressure from the United States did the
Indonesian government decide to continue the investigation into the
ambush. The Indonesian government also promised to permit the full
participation of the FBI. Despite visiting the country multiple times,
the FBI has not received the cooperation it needs to determine who was
responsible for these brutal murders.
At this juncture, there are indications that Indonesian military may
have had some involvement in this attack. Yet, despite these continued
allegations and lack of cooperation, the Indonesian government and its
military still receives U.S. assistance through the International
Military Education Training fund. I believe that until a full and open
investigation has been completed and those responsible are prosecuted,
IMET funding for the Indonesians should be denied.
Since my face-to-face meeting with Mrs. Spiers, I have continued to
work with the administration, FBI investigators, and colleagues here in
the Senate with two distinct goals in mind. The first is to deny the
release of funds until the Indonesians have completed the investigation
into these murders. The second goal is to ensure that an impartial
investigation, with help from the FBI, is conducted into the brutal
attack so that those responsible will be brought to justice.
In no way should the United States government provide military
assistance to Indonesia until this matter is resolved. What kind of
message will we be sending to other governments if we provide this
assistance without first determining who was responsible? Just as
important, what kind of message do we send to the families of Ted
Burgon and Rick Spiers who were murdered in the ambush if we continue
this military assistance. Are not the lives of American citizens more
important than this military assistance?
I fear that by our inaction we send the wrong message to the world.
What kind of precedent will be set for other Americans who travel
overseas? We cannot allow the murder of our citizens to be ignored and
the Indonesian government should not let those responsible go
unpunished.
I appreciate the efforts by the manager of this bill and his staff
for their assistance on this amendment. It is my

[[Page S13358]]

hope that we can quickly resolve any concerns with my amendment so it
can be accepted. These American families deserve a resolution and
justice.
I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member on
getting agreement on my amendment.
I need to get the attention of the floor manager, the Senator from
Kentucky, if I might.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think there
may be a Senator on this side who has a question. We are not quite
prepared to accept it yet. I suggest that a way to handle this is to
set it aside. Of course, it can be brought back at any time. If there
is a need to have more debate and a vote, we will bring it up for that
purpose.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from
Colorado. I misspoke earlier when I thought it was cleared on the other
side. We are working on that now. Hopefully, we will be able to get it
cleared. If the Senator from Colorado will agree to temporarily set it
aside and go back to it before we finish the bill, we hope to get it
cleared.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky and
the Senator from Vermont working on this most important amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd already has an amendment
pending and he is here to speak on it. We have been waiting for him.
His amendment is already here.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he wouldn't mind if
I presented this for 5 minutes. That is all the time I need.
Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to that.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. What does this mean with respect to the amendment I have
pending, which is being set aside by unanimous consent?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is our hope that after the Senator
from West Virginia speaks--and I have maybe 5 minutes or so to oppose
the amendment--we vote.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Kentucky that Senator Byrd is here.
I hope that before we dispose, with a recorded vote, of the Landrieu
amendment, we will allow Senator Byrd to speak and, if necessary, we
can have two votes in succession.
Mr. McCONNELL. We are certainly prepared to vote on the Byrd
amendment. I will have to get back to the Senator from Louisiana on her
amendment. I have no problem if she would like to explain it and send
it to the desk.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside for Senator Landrieu to offer her amendment;
that following the offering and her statement, Senator Byrd obtain the
floor and be allowed to make a statement. He indicated he would take
approximately 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object--and I shall not--when would
the vote on the Byrd amendment occur?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with the other side,
it is my expectation that, after 5 minutes or less to oppose the Byrd
amendment, we will move to a vote.
Mr. REID. That would be appropriate with us on this side.
Mr. BYRD. The vote on the Byrd amendment would occur, and after how
many minutes can we vote on the amendment by the Senator from
Louisiana?
Mr. REID. The majority has not seen that amendment. They don't know
what they are going to do with it or whether we can have a vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.

Amendment No. 1998

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy
because he was involved in a very important conference earlier today
and he is anxious to proceed on his amendment.
I will offer this amendment in the hope that my friends on the other
side will support it. There is very good support on this side for this
amendment. It has to do with women and children in armed conflict.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an
amendment numbered 1998.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that women and children have access to basic
protection and assistance services in complex humanitarian emergencies)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 692. (a) None of the funds made available by title II
under the heading ``international disaster assistance'',
``transition initiatives'', ``migration and refugee
assistance'', or ``united states emergency refugee and
migration assistance fund'' or made available for such
accounts by any other provision of law for fiscal year 2004
to provide assistance to refugees or internally displaced
persons may be provided to an organization that has failed to
adopt a code of conduct consistent with the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee Task Force on Protection From Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crises six core
principles for the protection of beneficiaries of
humanitarian assistance.
(b) In administering the amounts made available for the
accounts described in subsection (a), the Secretary of State
and Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development shall incorporate specific policies
and programs for the purpose of identifying specific needs
of, and particular threats to, women and children at the
various stages of a complex humanitarian emergency,
especially at the onset of such emergency.
(c) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives a report on activities of the Government of
the United States to protect women and children affected by a
complex humanitarian emergency. The report shall include--
(1) an assessment of the specific protection needs of women
and children at the various stages of a complex humanitarian
emergency;
(2) a description of which agencies and offices of the
United States Government are responsible for addressing each
aspect of such needs and threats; and
(3) guidelines and recommendations for improving United
States and international systems for the protection of women
and children during a complex humanitarian emergency.
(d) In this section, the term ``complex humanitarian
emergency'' means a situation that--
(A) occurs outside the United States and results in a
significant number of--
(i) refugees;
(ii) internally displaced persons; or
(iii) other civilians requiring basic humanitarian
assistance on an urgent basis; and
(B) is caused by one or more situations including--
(i) armed conflict;
(ii) natural disaster;
(iii) significant food shortage; or
(iv) state-sponsored harassment or persecution.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, recent reports indicate that the
percentage of civilians killed and wounded as a result of armed
conflict has risen from 5 percent at the turn of the century to almost
90 percent today, which means that in war it is not just the soldiers
who are being killed, the men and women in uniform, but also civilians.
That is a new occurrence in this century. It is something that this
amendment attempts to address by directing our resources--not adding
money, not authorizing new language, but simply directing, within the
context of this bill, some attention to be given to this fact.
War is not what it used to be. Its horrors are experienced by more
than just the soldiers fighting on far-off battlefields. It is
experienced by women and children. It is taking a brutal toll on

[[Page S13359]]

these civilians, most of them women and children.
Over 30 wars are now being waged around the world. One in four of the
world's children live in war zones.
In the past decade, more than 2 million children were killed during
wartime, more than 4 million were wounded, and 1 million have been
orphaned or separated from their families as a result of war.
It is estimated that over 300,000 children have been forced to serve
as soldiers. These are children as young as 7, 8, and 9 years old
serving as soldiers, including an alarming number of girls serving as
combatants, cooks, and, unfortunately, sex slaves.
In Sierra Leone, 94 percent of displaced families surveyed had
experienced sexual assaults, including rape, torture, and sexual
slavery.
After the genocide in Rwanda, 70 percent of the remaining population
was female and more than half of the mothers were widows.
Despite these statistics, a survey of current Government-sponsored
foreign aid programs reveals that there are but a few coordinated
programs targeted at the protection of women and children in conflict
and after.
Senator Biden and I offered legislation to address the shortfall. S.
1001 would authorize the new women and children armed conflict fund,
similar to the displaced children's fund. In addition, it would require
several other efforts to be undertaken by our Government to make sure
that this issue was addressed appropriately. It would require that the
U.S. Government develop and implement a strategy to ensure that its
humanitarian programs respond to and reduce the risks of exploitation,
violence and abuse of women and children in places like Uganda,
Liberia, and Iraq; prevent future crises by creating a list of early
warning signs to alert policymakers of possible risks to women and
children; foster stability in conflict-prone environments by focusing
on reducing threats to innocent civilians in crises around the world.

What my amendment does is provide a bridge for us to stand on until
this bill can be passed and this fund can be established. It says: Here
is what we can do not, within our existing programs with our existing
funds.
The Landrieu amendment ensures that organizations and programs
currently serving refugees and displaced persons incorporate
protections against violence; encourages the Secretary of State and
Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda
specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of, and
particular threats to, women and children; asks for the Secretary to
report to Congress on their progress in this area to date and provide
recommendations for improving U.S. and international systems for the
protection of women and children.
Protecting women and children is not only the right thing to do, but
it is also the smart thing to do. Women are a critical part of
rebuilding war torn countries.
In March 2003, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the following
observation:

Study after study has shown that there is no effective
development strategy in which women do not play a central
role. When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen
immediately: families are healthier and better fed; their
income, savings and reinvestment go up. And what is true of
families is also true of communities and, in the long run, of
whole countries.

A focus on safety and protection directly impacts the overall well
being of women and children. This year's Mothers Index, published by
Save the Children, reports that there is a direct correlation between
under education and poor health and conflict. Seven of the bottom ten
countries in the area of health and education are in conflict and post-
conflict situations.
This amendment does not call for us to break the budget caps or
create a new program. It merely ensures that every dollar that we are
spending to secure the peace is spent in the most effective way
possible.
Again, this amendment provides a bridge for us to stand on until the
bill I just described can be passed in its complete authorized form. So
this fund can be established, and then the authorizing bill would come
forward with more of the details.
But it is important that we take this step today to recognize the
fact that there are so many women and children brutalized in war. It is
not just about the soldiers in uniform any longer, unfortunately. This
amendment asks the Secretary to report to Congress on their progress in
this area, and it encourages the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda
specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of and
particular threats to women and children.
In conclusion, I submit that study after study has shown the
necessity of our effort to direct funds in this way.
I ask unanimous consent that specific quotes from individual young
women and girls, particularly, be printed in the Record. The language
is pretty graphic so I will not read it in the Chamber, but I want it
printed in the Record to say how serious this issue is in terms of the
United States and all of the aid we are giving, and directing a portion
of that, and to be cognizant of the tremendous torture, humiliation,
and pain inflicted upon innocent women and children.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Protection From Sexual Violence and Physical Harm

``From Pweto down near the Zambian border right up to Aru
on the Sudan/Uganda border, it's a black hole where no one is
safe and where no outsider goes. Women take a risk when they
go out to the fields or on a road to a market. Any day they
can be stripped naked, humiliated and raped in public. Many,
many people no longer sleep at home, though sleeping in the
bush is equally unsafe. Every night there is another village
attacked, burned and emptied. It could be any group, no one
knows, but always they take the women and girls away.''--
United Nations official in Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Protection From Trafficking and Prostitution

``My mother died when I was very small and my father worked
as a laborer on other people's farms. At the age of 16, I was
lured by my neighbor into a good job. Feeling the pressure
and hard times faced by my family and myself, I was very
pleased to receive this opportunity. I didn't realize that my
faith would land me into the brothel of Bombay. I spent the
hell of my life for one year there. Then I was sold to a
brothel in Calcutta. I spent three-and-a-half hears there,
and it was more bitter than ever. I'm happy that I was
rescued, but now I've started thinking who will rescue all
those Nepalese who are still in the brothels in many parts of
India? I'm worried for those sisters and request the stop of
such evil practices in the society.''--Sita, 23-year-old
former prostitute from Nepal
``I was eleven when the rebels attacked our town in
Liberia. I got separated from my parents and was captured. I
stayed with the rebels for four years. Seven men raped me at
the same time and I was forced to pick up arms. I have one
child of the rebels--I don't know exactly which one the
father is. I escaped and went to Guinea. I had no caretaker
and started to work as a `hotel girl' (prostitute). I thank
Save the Children protection workers for having identified me
and offering me skill training.''--Florence, 18-year-old girl
living in a refugee camp in Guinea

Protection of Children From Military Recruitment

``I've seen people's hands get cut off, a 10-year-old girl
raped and then die, and many men and women burned alive. So
many times I just cried inside, because I didn't dare cry out
loud.''--Mariama, 14-year-old girl soldier from Sierra Leone
``During the fighting, you don't have time to think. Only
shoot. If a bad person gives an order, you have to follow it.
If he says burn the village, you have to burn it. If he says
kill a person, you have to do it.''--Aung, boy soldier from
Myanmar, abducted from school at age 14 and forced into the
army

Protection From Psychological Trauma

``We were living in a small village in Port Loko district
when the rebels attacked us in 1998. It was daytime and we
tried to run away, but I was unfortunate and was captured. I
was holding my 2-year-old baby boy. First they killed him
with an axe. I cried out: `Where is my baby, oh my baby.' So
they struck me on the head with a machete. There is a deep
scar there. After that they ordered me to put my hand on a
stick which was on the ground. They chopped and nearly
severed my right hand. Then they ran away and left me. My
hand hadn't completely severed so the doctor in the next town
cut it off. It's hard to find someone who will marry you when
your hand has been cut off.''--Adamasay, 16-year-old girl
from Sierra Leone

Protection From Family Separation

``When I lived in Palangkaraya, every day I helped my Dad
and Mum sell chicken. When I had to run it felt as if my feet
weren't even touching the ground. I followed the other people
running, and I wasn't even thinking about where my parents
were. The news that my parents were dead, victims of

[[Page S13360]]

the violence, came from my aunt who was still in
Palangkaraya. It's true I cried, I wanted to scream but I
tried to be firm and I entrusted my fate to Allah. Now I have
to find my own food. I was happy when my parents were still
here. There was no need to think about how to eat. If I could
go to school again and follow through the exams and gain a
diploma, that would be great.''--Rosi, 15-year-old street boy
from Indonesia

Protection of Displaced Women and Children in Camp Settings

``When ma asked me to go down to the stream to wash plates,
a peacekeeper asked me to take my clothes off so that he can
take picture. When I asked him to give me money he told me,
no money for children, only biscuit.''--Refugee child in West
Africa

Ms. LANDRIEU. That is the essence of my amendment. I hope it can be
accepted. I hope there won't be a necessity for a vote on such a
commonsense and much-needed amendment. I ask for the Senate's
consideration at the appropriate time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Jeffords and Senator Corzine be added as cosponsors to Byrd amendment
No. 1969.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is my amendment pending before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not yet pending, but if the Senator
calls for the regular order it will be.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I call for the regular
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order has been called for. The
amendment is now pending.

Amendment No. 1969

Mr. BYRD. Does that amendment need to be stated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not necessary.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes
amendment numbered 1969. At the appropriate place add the
following: Section (a) None of the funds made available by
this Act or any other Act may be used by the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) unless the Administrator of the
Coalition Provisional Authority is an officer of the United
States Government appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. (b) This provision shall be
effective March 1, 2004.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the clerk.
I suggest my statement in support of this amendment be entitled ``Too
Much Money, Too Little Accountability.'' That would be an appropriate
title if I were to suggest it.
This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment to
ensure that those administration officials charged with spending
taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their
representatives in the Congress.
To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, has not been held
accountable for the money it spends, and that is your money. That is
your money, I say to the taxpayers of this great country. Those who
spend it should be held accountable. That is what you believe, I am
sure.
Not until the President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid
for Iraq did the CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the
public about the administration's reconstruction plans. Let me say that
again. This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment
to ensure that those administration officials charged with spending
taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their
representatives in the Congress.
To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority has not been held
accountable for the money it spends--your money. Not until the
President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq did the
CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the public about the
administration's reconstruction plans.
The CPA's access to nonappropriated funds--now get this--has allowed
it to maintain a low profile, so low that one cannot see it, and to
operate largely outside the scope of congressional oversight.
Last fiscal year, the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, in
Iraq spent $1.7 billion in assets frozen under the Saddam Hussein
regime. The CPA spent almost $1 billion in assets seized after the war.
That is your money. The CPA spent $2.5 billion in oil revenues
collected through the United Nations Food for Oil Program. Altogether,
it spent $7.5 billion in the fiscal year 2003, including $2.5 billion
appropriated in the supplemental that was passed and enacted by
Congress in April of this year.
This CPA did not appear before the Congress even once to explain how
those funds would be spent. This year, assuming that the Congress
appropriates the $20 billion in reconstruction aid requested by the
President, the CPA's budget will grow to $23 billion, which includes $2
billion in unappropriated funds left over from last fiscal year and
almost $1 billion included in the supplemental for the Coalition
Provisional Authority's administrative expenses.
At $23 billion, the Coalition Provisional Authority's budget will be
more than three times what it spent in the last fiscal year. Now, that
will be more than the Federal budget for seven Cabinets out of the 15
Cabinet Departments that run the Federal Government. That is a lot of
money to flow through the hands of the Coalition Provisional Authority
in Iraq.
The CPA's budget is four times the budget of the Commerce Department.
Think of that. Do we demand accountability from the Commerce
Department? The CPA's budget is twice the size of the entire Interior,
Labor, and Treasury Departments and it is billions of dollars larger
than the budgets of the Agriculture Department and the Justice
Department.
The Senate gives its advice and consent to Presidential appointments
to the highest level positions in the Bush administration, or any
administration. In the Clinton administration, Reagan administration,
and Carter administration, the Senate gave its advice and consent to
Presidential appointments to these high-level positions in the
Departments. Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army--now get this.
Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army, who is responsible for the
two dozen to three dozen soldiers under his command, is subject to the
confirmation by the Senate. And yet the official who is responsible for
governing and rebuilding Iraq, a country made up of 23 million, 24
million people--the official with a budget larger than half the Federal
departments and responsible for the livelihood of 23 million or 24
million Iraqis--is not subject to confirmation by the Senate.

As it stands today, the people's representatives--that is you,
Senator. That is you, Senator. And that is you, I say to every other
Senator and I say it to myself as well. As it stands today, the
people's representatives--that is us. I am talking about us--the
people's representatives in the Senate have no say in who leads the
CPA, even though the administration's endeavors in Iraq have drained
$118 billion from our budget, have seized tens of thousands of National
Guardsmen from our States, and have so far taken the lives of 351 U.S.
soldiers in this war. The CPA claims to be vested with all the
legislative, executive, and judicial authority necessary to achieve the
administration's objectives in Iraq and yet the Congress has done
nothing--nothing--to ensure that its administrator is held accountable
to the American people.
Beginning March 1, 2004, my amendment would prohibit the Coalition
Provisional Authority in Iraq from spending any appropriated funds
until its administrator has been appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Is it asking too much, that we ask
that the person, the one individual, the Coalition Provisional
Authority's administrator--is it asking too much that he be appointed
by the President of the United States by and with the consent of the
Senate? That is not asking too much. That is in defense of the American
taxpayer. That will make sure, yes, that person will be accountable to
the American taxpayer, to the American people, to the representatives
of the American people in Congress.
The sums of money that are being spent in Iraq are enormous. This is
not just chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about huge
amounts of the taxpayers' money. That person should be accountable to
the taxpayers

[[Page S13361]]

of the country, accountable to the Congress of the United States, made
up of the elected representatives of the people. The sums of money are
enormous--$87 billion we spent, of which $20.3 billion would be in that
amount. I said a moment ago we have appropriated already $118 billion.
That includes the April supplemental and includes the supplemental we
just passed. It was passed by the Senate. This is too much money to
appropriate without ensuring that the decisionmakers in Iraq will be
held accountable to the American people. We owe it to the taxpayers,
don't we? Yes. We owe it to the taxpayers to do better than that.
I urge the adoption of my amendment and I reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, with all due respect to my good
friend from West Virginia, who has had many good ideas in his 45 years
in the Senate, let me suggest this may not be one of them. What the
Senator from West Virginia is suggesting here is that we change a
temporary position--a position currently held by Ambassador Bremer,
which he is trying very hard to work his way out of by having at the
earliest opportunity a chance to turn Iraq over to Iraqis and come
home--into a confirmed Senate position. Ambassador Bremer spent a lot
of time back here testifying, as he should have, on the supplemental.
But the real job to do is over in Iraq, trying to get this new
government up and running, trying to get the Iraqi security force to a
substantial level so we can begin to draw down American troops. I think
most of us have concluded we have too many positions that need to be
confirmed.
In fact, I can recall a meeting in my office earlier this year, right
before the August recess, a bipartisan meeting discussing the
possibility of reducing the number of positions which require
confirmation and having that bill take effect January 20, 2005, for
whoever the next President is, to try to make it possible for the next
administration to function more successfully without all of the
problems that come from an excessive number of confirmations.
Secretary Rumsfeld is the designated authority for Iraq. Of course,
he was confirmed by the Senate. Ambassador Bremer, the CPA
administrator, reports to the Secretary of Defense. During the
consideration of the supplemental, my good friend from Vermont tried to
shift the authority from the Defense Department over to the State
Department. Certainly an argument can be made for that. But that failed
on a vote of 56 to 42.
The fact is Ambassador Bremer, as I indicated earlier, is trying very
hard to work his way out of this job. This is very much a temporary
position. We didn't go in there to be there a very lengthy period of
time. This temporary job can end the moment the Iraqis are in a
position to take over the administration of their own country. We all
know how lengthy confirmations can be. Do we really want to derail
reconstruction by having Ambassador Bremer back here for lengthy
confirmation proceedings? He is already on the job. As I understand the
amendment, if this were to take effect and he were not to be confirmed
by March 1 of next year, all the funding would be cut off. So this
would be an extraordinarily high profile confirmation.
I know my good friend from West Virginia thought this war was a
mistake. He has been very clear about that. A Senator would have to be
extraordinarily inattentive not to get the point that the Senator from
West Virginia believes the whole thing was a mistake. But I would say
with the utmost respect for my good friend, we are there. We are there
now. Regardless of how one felt about the process of getting us there,
it seems to me we have a lot on the line in having this Iraqi effort be
successful, regardless of how we felt about going in.
I venture the opinion that no matter who the next President is, they
will try to finish the job in Iraq just like this administration is
still in Bosnia and Kosovo, an administration policy of the previous
administration.
This job needs to be finished. I plead with my colleagues. Let us not
make it any more difficult to wrap up this very tough assignment and
have Ambassador Bremer come back and do something else for the rest of
his life.
I hope the Byrd amendment will not be approved. We have had ample
opportunity to cross-examine Ambassador Bremer and to question him on
every conceivable issue related to this, and I am sure we will have
other opportunities to do it. But I think the confirmation process is
simply not appropriate for this particular position.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains to the senior
Senator from West Virginia?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for 3 minutes, of course with an equal amount of time on the
other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to have a few minutes myself with an equal amount of time allotted
to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I have a few words I would
like to say in attempting to rebut what my friend said.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I really have said all I wish to say.
I would be happy to yield time, if I have any time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit at this point.
Mr. LEAHY. I thought we had 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from West Virginia
that I basically have completed my argument and am not interested
necessarily in having the last word. I would be anxious to move ahead
with a vote.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I didn't realize there was no time limit.
I will be brief.
I have heard the arguments of my friend from Kentucky: Why stop
things now ahead of this confirmation? Unfortunately, while a great
deal of planning went into the war in Iraq--even though there was never
any question of the outcome, because we are the most powerful nation
history has ever known, of course, and we would succeed against a
third-rate or fourth-rate military power like Saddam Hussein--it
appears that very little planning went into what happens after the war.
Of course, there have been more American casualties since the President
said the mission was accomplished, the war was over, and as he famously
taunted the Iraqis, ``Bring it on.'' Unfortunately, they did. But we
saw first a general being placed in there, which didn't work, and we
put Paul Bremer in there, again without much planning. The
distinguished Senator from Kentucky said we had debate on the floor
about the transfer from the Department of Defense to the State
Department. That was defeated. I remember the debate very well.
Interestingly enough, the talking points of the administration in
opposition were that they are perfectly satisfied with having all of
this coordinated by the Secretary of Defense. There was no need to
place it anywhere but the Secretary of Defense. That was it, and the
White House position carried.
What the White House talking points didn't say, and we all found out
about 3 days later, was they had already made the decision to take it
out of the Department of Defense and put it into Dr. Rice's office.
Actually, moving it out of the Department of Defense had already been
decided by the White House. But as often happens when we are told one
thing and something else is being done, the talking points coming over
from the White House said they had every intention of leaving it--in
effect emphatically every intention of leaving it--under the direction
of the Under Secretary of Defense.
That probably should have been the tipoff, that they were emphatic
and intended to leave it there. They had already made up their mind to
leave it there. Of course, that is not how it turned out. But I worry
because if you have somebody who is in charge of more foreign
assistance than the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID
combined, both of whom require confirmation, if you give all of this
power to someone who does not require confirmation, what does that say
about our role in the Senate? What does that say about what we feel
about transparency and accountability?

[[Page S13362]]

We are appropriating over $20 billion basically to be distributed
solely as the Administrator feels he should. That is more than the
Secretary of State and the Administrator of the USAID get to
distribute, and they have to be confirmed. The answers were not
forthcoming.
I think of the plan we were suddenly shown on the Appropriations
Committee. I recall the distinguished Senator from West Virginia asked
for more time and, of course, he could not get it. Ambassador Bremer
came here, and we were given a plan. They had gone out, apparently, for
a couple of months before saying what they were going to do. Then it
turned out, amazingly, I know--I am just shocked to find this out--the
plan was given only to the Republicans, maintaining the same kind of
partisanship there is on this. We were supposed to ask questions of
Ambassador Bremer. But only Republicans were allowed to see this plan
paid for by the taxpayers of this country. When Democrats asked about
it, he said, Well, I thought that had all been sent to you. Apparently
the mail only goes to 51 Senators and not to the other 49.
Be that as it may, the plan was interesting. It did say the United
States wanted to give the Iraqi people a chance to form a government
and a country that would fulfill President Bush's vision for them. Some
thought that was a little bit condescending to a country where
civilization goes back long before this country's was ever discovered.
At least we had a chance finally to talk about it.
The same way in which the White House told us the Secretary of
Defense was the only one who should be in charge of this--we find they
had already made the decision; They did not tell us about it--
apparently they didn't tell the Secretary of Defense about it either.
They were yanking it out from him and putting it with somebody else.
My point is, if we are going to give somebody $20 billion to buy
$33,000 pickup trucks and $6,000 telephones for Taj Mahal jail cells
and have scholarships that are not available to Americans but
apparently will be to Iraqis, the person ought to be at least confirmed
so we have a chance to ask questions.
I think the Senator from West Virginia is right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, my amendment does not cut off funds for
reconstruction, as I thought I understood the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky to say. If I am incorrect and did not hear him say that
or indicate that, I certainly would be glad to be corrected.
My amendment would allow the President to allocate that money to
other agencies but would not allow the CPA to spend that money until
the Administrator is confirmed by the Senate. This won't shut down
funding for the troops. The Senate has until March 1--4 months away--to
confirm the Administrator of the CPA. After the Homeland Security
Department was created, for example, the Senate confirmed Governor Tom
Ridge in just a few short weeks--in just a matter of days. I think it
would be the same with Ambassador Bremer.
I certainly have no complaint with respect to Ambassador Bremer. My
amendment is not about Ambassador Bremer, currently the head of the
CPA, and all of his potential successors. They will have a great deal
of authority.
I say again that a lowly second lieutenant in the Army is subject to
confirmation by the Senate. Surely the head of CPA should be as well.
My colleague talks about the desire to bring the situation to a
conclusion in Iraq as soon as possible.
I agree with him that the job in Iraq should be finished as soon as
possible. But it should be carried out with accountability to the
elected representatives of the American people.
I also add this postscript: Judging from the events as we have seen
them transpire going back several months, I don't believe this
situation in Iraq is going to end very quickly. It shows every
indication of intensifying. We are in one big mess.
I remember a time when I believed if the President and the
administration were to hold out the olive branch and show an indication
of willingness to share in economic and political responsibility in
Iraq with major European countries and other countries in Asia and
elsewhere, if that willingness had been demonstrated some months ago,
there would be other major countries making large contributions in
treasure and in manpower in Iraq today. But that olive branch was not
extended. That willingness to share economic and political
responsibility in Iraq was not voiced. It was not made manifest.
Now, I hope that the train has not gone by the station without
stopping. As we see the horrific events unfolding in Iraq, I am not so
sure that those major European erstwhile contributors would be so
willing even to contribute now. The back of the hand was extended to
them before the war and it has not been otherwise since the war, to any
extent.
By virtue of these mistakes that the administration has made, it is
not my belief that the situation in Iraq is going to end all that
quickly. I hope it will. But we should not bet on that. Therefore, it
would be appropriate to require the President appoint an Administrator
and that the Senate be required to confirm or reject that person. That
would assure the American people of accountability and of
responsibility on the part of their elected representatives and on the
part of the CPA Administrator. It is the right thing to do by the
American people. It is the right thing to do under the Constitution
because the power of the purse is vested here, in the Congress, in this
body and the other body.
That power of the purse carries with it the duty of oversight.
Congress cannot properly oversee an administrator who is not
accountable to the Congress, an administrator who has not been
confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, Congress is not in a position to
carry out its responsibility under the Constitution of being
accountable to the American people and in accordance with the words of
the Constitution.
I say that it is time the Senate act. The Senate has been silent too
long. The Senate was silent before the war. The Senate was silent
before it voted on October 11 of last year to give the authority to the
President of the United States to use the military forces of this
country as he saw fit. The Congress gave the President of the United
States a blank check, as it were, with respect to authority to take
this Nation into war and to put these men and women, soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines, in harm's way. It was a most shameful moment when
Congress washed its hands. One of the most shameful moments in the
history of the Senate was when it passed the cusp and attempted to wash
its hands of the responsibility of following the Constitution of the
United States which says that Congress shall have the power to declare
war.
That moment has come and gone, but still, as the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky says, our people are there. We are now there. So
what do we do?

I say to Senators, put yourselves into these desks, these chairs,
into these shoes of ours 1 year from today and look back and see if you
cast the right vote on this amendment. How will it be 1 year from today
if we find we are in deeper and deeper and deeper and it has become
another Vietnam--which I supported; I supported the war in Vietnam. I
was practically the last person out of Vietnam because I supported the
President. I supported Johnson. I supported Nixon. I supported them all
the way. But one should learn by his mistakes.
We were ill advised when it came to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We
were ill advised by the administration. I voted for it. Two Senators
voted against it. Wayne Morse said that the resolution would pass but
that those who voted for it would be sorry. I voted for it. I was
sorry. I am sorry. We should learn by our mistakes.
We were not properly advised by that administration and we were not
properly advised by this administration. That is why we are in Iraq. I
will have more to say about that at another time.
The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is right. We are there. What
do we do? In this matter, we have a responsibility to hold Ambassador
Bremer, or whoever is the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional
Authority, accountable to the Congress.
It has been said that Mr. Bremer has already testified before the
Congress in

[[Page S13363]]

supporting the President's $87 billion request for Iraq. Of course he
testified. Yes, he testified. He was before the Appropriations
Committee a short time, a few hours. Ambassador Bremer wanted the
Congress to give him $20 billion. But how often will he testify after
he receives the money? How receptive will he be to further invitations
to testify before congressional committees once he has received a blank
check, as it were?
Let's not delude ourselves to the extent which Ambassador Bremer was
made available to the Congress. He testified only once before the
Senate Appropriations Committee and he did not have to respond to a
single outside witness called to challenge the administration's lying.
Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the
Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, ``I
don't have time.'' He said that in response to me. I asked Ambassador
Bremer if he could make himself available and would make himself
available to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the event the
chairman asked him to return and he said: I don't have time. I am sorry
that the transcripts have not been printed--yet--but the transcripts
are around, the transcripts of the hearings.
He said: I don't have time. Can you imagine that? He wouldn't say
that if he had to be confirmed by the Senate. He would have time. He
would make himself available whether the Senate would be under the
control of the Republicans or under the control of the Democrats,
whatever. He would find time. He would be available. Yes, indeed.
So he said: I don't have time. I am completely booked, and I have to
get back to Baghdad to my duties.
What are his duties? If he were required to be confirmed, his duty
would be to come back before the Senate and to answer questions, and to
answer questions under oath, if necessary.
Senators who believe that sufficient action has been taken to ensure
accountability by the CPA Administrator are kidding themselves. The CPA
has not been sanctioned by the Congress. And Ambassador Bremer has not
been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Congress has no legislative ties to
the CPA or its Administrator. Congress has no strings by which it can
say to the Administrator: You come before this committee and, if
necessary, you be prepared to take an oath that what you say is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
That is a part of it. That is what we are talking about.
The secret national security directive that created the CPA dictates
that Ambassador Bremer shall report to the Secretary of Defense and the
President. It does not mention the Congress. It does not mention the
American people.
When Tom Ridge was appointed Homeland Security Director after the
September 11 attacks, the White House refused to allow him to testify
before Congress. The President said: No, he is a member of my staff.
Well, technically that was correct. The President opted to create a
new Homeland Security Department and reorganize the Federal Government
rather than allow an unconfirmed member of his administration to
testify before the Congress.
That kind of record should not comfort Members of Congress. We have a
responsibility to the American people to ensure that the administration
officials responsible for the lives of their loved ones who are
fighting in Iraq and for their taxpayer dollars that are being spent in
Iraq are held accountable for their actions. We must stop just passing
the buck along to the President.
With regard to the argument that holding these officials accountable
will somehow endanger our troops, I urge Senators to reject that flimsy
scare tactic. What endangers the troops is not having their
decisionmakers held accountable to the people. When funds are being
spent on postal ZIP Codes, garbage trucks, and escalator and garage
beautification projects rather than the necessities of the troops, that
is when the Congress must be the most vocal in questioning the judgment
of those in the administration who wield power.
I urge Senators to focus on the bigger picture. Senators should cast
their votes not only with the thought of a Republican administration
directing reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but with an image of a
Democratic administration directing the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
I think I know what the answer would be then.
We need to look beyond the party label of the current administration.
I am not talking about Mr. Bremer. I spoke of his saying he didn't have
time, and he didn't. Those were his words, made of his own free will.
Milton wrote about man's free will, ``Paradise Lost.'' Those were Mr.
Bremer's words. I have no reason to find fault with Mr. Bremer at all.
He is not there without confirmation by virtue of his choice. But that
is the way it is. As Walter Cronkite used to say, that is the way it
was.
We need to look beyond the party label. We need to take a longer term
view of accountability.
Let me say in closing, I thank my friend from Kentucky, who has
always been a gentleman with me, has always been straightforward with
me, and has conducted himself, on this occasion, as on all others, as a
gentleman should.
I thank him for his characteristic courtesy in this instance. I
respect his argument. I respect his vote. But the record will be made
and the record will stand.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am aware of no further debate on
this amendment. I assume the Senator would like a rollcall vote.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1969. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 414 Leg.]

YEAS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--53

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)

[[Page S13364]]

Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 1969) was rejected.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Corzine be added as a cosponsor to the Burma amendment No. 1970.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Feinstein also be
added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1970, the Burma amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for accepting an amendment for the
managers' package that deals with making sure we have something in the
criteria for the Millennium Challenge Account, assistance dealing with
people with disabilities.
Basically, the amendment makes a small but significant change to the
Millennium Challenge Account ensuring that one criteria used in
determining a country's eligibility for the Millennium Challenge
Account funds is their commitment to providing opportunities for the
inclusion of people with disabilities. This account represents one of
the largest increases in foreign aid spending in half a century, about
$1 billion this year and an additional $4 billion within the next 3
years.
People with disabilities have been left out of our foreign assistance
programs for too long. This amendment does not require they do anything
new.
Since 1996, over 100 countries, including the United States, have
submitted reports to the United Nations under implementation of 22
rules to equalize opportunities for people with disabilities. President
Bush has implemented a new freedom initiative in this country on behalf
of people with disabilities. In 2001, he charged each agency with
reviewing their policies to remove barriers that promote inclusion of
people with disabilities in American society. I commend and I
compliment President Bush for taking this step. This amendment takes
this initiative and extends it basically to our foreign assistance
programs.
I have a report from the National Council on Disability, dated
September 9, 2003. It is titled: ``Foreign Policy and Disability:
Legislative Strategies and Civil Rights Protections To Ensure Inclusion
of People with Disabilities.''
In the cover letter from the chairperson of the National Council on
Disability to President Bush, Mr. Lex Frieden pointed out that in 1996:

NCD recommended a series of policy changes to ``ensure the
inclusion of people with disabilities in all foreign
assistance programs. . . .

He goes on to say:

Seven years later, NCD has concluded that inclusion of
people with disabilities in U.S. foreign policy will be
achieved only when specific legislation is enacted to achieve
that purpose.

That is what we have done. We have added specific legislative
language to ensure in the Millennium Challenge Account one of the
criteria to be used is whether that country is trying to provide
opportunities for the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
In the executive summary of this report filed by the National Council
on Disability, it says:

Individuals with disabilities are subject to a broad
pattern of discrimination of segregation in almost every part
of the world. In most countries, people with disabilities and
their families are socially stigmatized, politically
materialized and economically disadvantaged. The economic
cost to society of excluding people with disabilities is
enormous. No nation in the word will achieve its full
potential for economic development when it leaves out people
with disabilities. No society will be a complete democracy
unless people with disabilities can participate in public
life. Failure to respond to the concerns of people with
disabilities ignores one of the great humanitarian and human
rights challenges of the world today.
The United States is well positioned to lead the world in
demonstrating how to build on the tremendous human potential
of people with disabilities.
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) represents a
sweeping commitment on the part of the U.S. government to
abolish discrimination against people with disabilities in
all walks of life.
At present, U.S. foreign policy does not reflect the great
accomplishments of people with disabilities within the United
States. U.S. citizens with disabilities cannot serve in many
embassies abroad because these buildings are physically
inaccessible. Qualified and talented individuals may be
excluded from U.S. government service abroad based on their
medical history.
The U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD) calls on the
Executive Branch and Congress to create a new foreign policy
that ensures access by people with disabilities to the
benefits of democracy and economic development around the
world.

I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the National
Council on Disability's report be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Part I. Executive Summary and Conclusions

More than 600 million people, almost 10 percent if the
world's population, have a disability. This number will rise
dramatically in the coming years as the population ages and
as more people become disabled by AIDS. Rates of disability
are particularly high in post-conflict societies, among
refugee populations, and in countries with histories of
political violence. Even in stable societies, however, people
with disabilities make up the poorest of the poor. In some of
the world's poorest countries, according to the United
Nations (UN), up to 20 percent of the population has a
disability.
Individuals with disabilities are subject to a broad
pattern of discrimination and segregation in almost every
part of the world. In most countries, people with
disabilities and their families are socially stigmatized,
politically marginalized, and economically disadvantaged. The
economic cost to society of excluding people with
disabilities is enormous. No nation in the world will achieve
its full potential for economic development while it leaves
out people with disabilities. No society will be a complete
democracy unless people with disabilities can participate in
public life. Failure to respond to the concerns of people
with disabilities ignores one of the great humanitarian and
human rights challenges of the world today.
The United States is well positioned to lead the world in
demonstrating how to build on the tremendous human potential
of people with disabilities. It is among the world leaders in
protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities, with
legislation that seeks to ensure their full participation in
society, and in supporting their independent living. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) represents a sweeping
commitment on the part of the U.S. government to abolish
discrimination against people with disabilities in all walks
of life. Since the adoption of the Rehabilitation Act in
1973, U.S. civil rights laws have required all U.S.
government programs to be inclusive of and accessible to
people with disabilities. As they have exercised their rights
over the past 30 years, Americans with disabilities have
broken barriers to inclusion, shattered stereotypes about
their limitations, and contributed to the economic, cultural,
and political life of the nation.
At present, U.S. foreign policy does not reflect the great
accomplishments of people with disabilities within the United
States. U.S. citizens with disabilities cannot serve in many
embassies abroad because these buildings are physically
inaccessible. Qualified and talented individuals may be
excluded from U.S. government service abroad based on their
medical history. In addition to failing to protect U.S.
citizens with disabilities in foreign operations, U.S.
foreign policies and programs have generally not been
designed to respond to the concerns of individuals with
disabilities abroad. While the Foreign Assistance Act has
long established that ``a principal goal of the foreign
policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased
observance of internationally recognized human rights by all
countries,'' the rights of people with disabilities have been
long ignored.
The U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD) calls on the
Executive Branch and Congress to create a new foreign policy
that ensures access by people with disabilities to the
benefits of democracy and economic development around the
world. All U.S. foreign operations abroad (including foreign
assistance efforts) would be greatly improved if the
principles established in U.S. civil rights law--under the
Rehabilitation Act and the

[[Page S13365]]

ADA--were applied to U.S. operations abroad. Such a policy
would require U.S. foreign assistance funding to be used in a
manner that is accessible to people with disabilities. Such
protections would also ensure that U.S. citizens and
contractors with disabilities would be protected against
discrimination in the implementation of U.S. programs abroad.
Leadership by U.S. citizens with disabilities in our foreign
operations would greatly improve our ability to respond to
the concerns of people with disabilities in other countries.

Mr. HARKIN. I also ask unanimous consent that the cover letter
preceding that by Mr. Lex Frieden also be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Council on Disability,

Washington, DC, September 9, 2003.
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the National Council on
Disability (NCD), I am submitting a report entitled Foreign
Policy and Disability: Legislative Strategies and Civil
Rights Protections To Ensure Inclusion of People with
Disabilities. This report is a follow-up to NCD's 1996
Foreign Policy and Disability report that found continued
barriers to access for people with disabilities in U.S.
foreign assistance programs.
In the 1996 report, NCD recommended a series of policy
changes to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities in
all foreign assistance programs, including the establishment
of specific objectives for inclusion with a timetable for
their fulfillment. Seven years later, NCD has concluded that
inclusion of people with disabilities in U.S. foreign policy
will be achieved only when specific legislation is enacted to
achieve that purpose. This report reviews a number of models
that Congress has adopted for linking human rights and
foreign policy that can be adapted to ensure the inclusion of
people with disabilities. This report looks primarily at the
U.S. Department of State and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). Among the various
strategies and approaches to improve foreign assistance
policies and practices, NCD recommends that Congress amend
the Foreign Assistance Act to ensure inclusion of people with
disabilities in all U.S. programs by requiring every U.S.
agency operating abroad to operate in a manner that is
accessible and inclusive of people with disabilities. NCD
recommends that this be accomplished by, among other reforms,
amending the Foreign Assistance Act to create a Disability
Advisor at the State Department and creating an office on
Disability and Development at USAID.
NCD also calls on your Administration to recognize that all
U.S. government operations abroad should be brought into
compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The principles of non-discrimination, access, and inclusion
of people with disabilities have been established as civil
rights. The reforms discussed in this report are needed to
ensure that people with disabilities can fully contribute to
U.S. foreign policies and programs abroad as they have done
so effectively at home.
Sincerely,
Lex Frieden,
Chairperson.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the manager and the ranking member for
working out the language. This may seem like a small thing but, believe
me, this is big. This is going to say--and we look at other criteria--
but we will look at a country to see what they are doing to provide for
people with disabilities.
Quite frankly, this country ought to be taking the lead around the
world in that area because we have a lot to talk about in what we have
done in our own country since the Americans with Disabilities Act was
passed in 1990. What we have done is shown that people with
disabilities can provide economic stimulus to a country. They can
provide part of that economic engine that a country needs. We have
shown conclusively, no matter where you are, no matter what country,
that if your policy is one of exclusion of people with disabilities,
keeping them institutionalized, materialized, not fully participating
in society, it costs that society more to do that than it does to
include them in education, for example, transportation, employment, and
cultural affairs.
My amendment was designed basically to implement what the National
Council on Disability concluded when they said, ``The inclusion of
people with disabilities in United States foreign policy will be
achieved only when specific language is enacted to achieve that
purpose.'' That is what we have done this evening with the inclusion of
this amendment.
I only hope when we go to conference with the House that we can have
the support of the administration. As I said, President Bush had an
enlightened policy on people with disabilities when he came in in 2001.
I hope the White House will take that inclusion policy of theirs and
make sure we keep it in this foreign operations appropriations bill for
the next year and that they will use the Millennium Challenge Account
to promote and to stimulate other countries in thinking about how they
can provide for the inclusion of people with disabilities.
I thank Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and their respective staffs
for working on this issue.
I yield the floor and 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2001; 2002; 2003; 1995, As Modified Further; 2004;
2005; 2006; 1973; 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015;
1998, As Modified; 2016; 2017; 2018; and 2019; En Bloc

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have two blocks of amendments that
have been agreed to on both sides that we are prepared to move at this
point.
The first is a series of amendments as follows: Senator Leahy,
providing funds for U.S. contribution to UNAIDS; Senator Voinovich,
annual report on antisemitism; Senator Dodd, providing assistance for
OAS mission in Haiti; Senator Allard, amendment No. 1995 as modified
further; Senator Feingold, relating to U.S. citizens in Indonesia;
Senator Lugar, relating to danger pay for USAID; Senator Daschle, sense
of Congress on delivery of assistance by air; Senator McCain, amendment
No. 1973 relating to Azerbaijan; Senator Feingold, report on Sierra
Leone; Senator Biden, technical amendment; Senator Feingold, report on
Somalia; Senator Lugar, relating to the Global Fund; Senator Inouye,
related to the guinea worm eradication; Senator Harkin, disabilities;
Senator Allen, related to intellectual property rights; Senator
Brownback, providing assistance to promote democracy in Iran; Senator
Brownback, sense of the Senate on Iran; Senator Landrieu, modification
to amendment No. 1998; Senator Dodd, relating to contracts in Egypt;
Senator Lugar, relating to Millennium Challenge Account; Senator
Ensign, relating to democracy in Cuba; and Senator Leahy, relating to
HIV/AIDS.
Mr. President, I send this block of amendments to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to consideration of the
amendments en bloc? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
On page 23, line 8, before the period, insert the
following:
: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under
this heading, not less than $28,000,000 shall be made
available for a United States contributions to UNAIDS.

amendment no. 2002

(Purpose: To require the Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom to include a section on anti-Semitism and other religious
intolerance)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:

annual report on international religious freedom to include information
on anti-semitism and other religious intolerance

Sec. 692. Section 102(b)(1) of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Acts of anti-semitism and other religious
intolerance.--A description for each foreign country of--
``(i) acts of violence against people of the Jewish faith
and other faiths that occurred in that country;
``(ii) the response of the government of that country to
such acts of violence; and
``(iii) actions by the government of that country to enact
and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to
religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith;

Amendment No. 2003

(Purpose: To provide assistance for the OAS Special Mission in Haiti to
implement OAS Resolution 822 to restore security and hold elections)

On page 21, line 18, after the comma insert the following:

[[Page S13366]]

``That of the funds appropriated under this heading, up to
$15,000,000 should be made available as a United States
contribution to the Organization of American States for
expenses related to the OAS Special Mission in Haiti and the
implementation of OAS Resolution 822 and subsequent
resolutions related to improving security and the holding of
elections to resolve the political impasse created by the
disputed May 2000 election: Provided further,''

amendment no. 1995, as further modified

(Purpose: To limit international military education and training funds
from being made available for Indonesia)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:

limitation on the provision of imet funds to indonesia

Sec. 693. (a) Subject to subsection (c), no funds
appropriated by title IV of this Act, under the subheading
``international military education and training'' under the
heading ``Funds Appropriated to the President'' shall be made
available for military education and training for Indonesia.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the United
States Government from continuing to conduct expanded IMET
programs, programs or training with the Indonesian Armed
Forces, including counter-terrorism training, officer visits,
port visits, or educational exchanges that are being
conducted on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) The President may waive the application of subsection
(a) if the President--
(1) determines that important national security interests
of the United States justify such a waiver; and
(2) submits notice of such a waiver and a justification for
such a waiver to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives in accordance with the regular notification
procedures of such Committees.

amendment no. 2004

(Purpose: To encourage the Government of Indonesia to meet the
conditions necessary for the normalization of military relations with
the United States)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

united states citizens in indonesia

Sec. 692. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States recognizes the cooperation and
solidarity of the Government of Indonesia and the people of
Indonesia in the global campaign against terrorism.
(2) Increased cooperation between the United States and the
Indonesia police forces is in the interest of both countries
and should continue.
(3) Normal military relations between Indonesia and the
United States are in the interest of both countries.
(4) The respect of the Indonesia military for human rights
and the improvement in relations between the military and the
civilian population of Indonesia are extremely important for
the future of relations between the United States and
Indonesia.
(b) The normalization of the military relationship between
the United States and Indonesia cannot begin until--
(1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation has received full
cooperation from the Government of Indonesia and the
Indonesia armed forces with respect to its investigation into
the August 31, 2002, murder of 2 American schoolteachers in
Timika, Indonesia; and
(2) the individuals responsible for those murders are
brought to justice.
(c) Congress looks forward to continued and increased
cooperation with respect to this investigation and to the
resolution of the issue, which will contribute to the
normalization of military relations between the United States
and Indonesia.

amendment no. 2005

(Purpose: To increase the maximum rate of post differentials and danger
pay allowances for civilian employees of the United States Agency for
International Development)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

post differentials and danger pay allowances

Sec. 692. (a) Section 5925(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended in the third sentence by inserting after
``25 percent of the rate of basic pay'' the following: ``or,
in the case of an employee of the United States Agency for
International Development, 35 percent of the rate of basic
pay''.
(b) Section 5928 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after ``25 percent of the basic pay of the
employee'' both places it appears the following: ``or 35
percent of the basic pay of the employee in the case of an
employee of the United States Agency for International
Development''.
(c) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall
take effect on October 1, 2003, and shall apply with respect
to post differentials and danger pay allowances paid for
months beginning on or after that date.

amendment no. 2006

(Purpose: To state the sense of Congress on the use of small, locall-
owned air transport providers to provide for the delivery by air of
assistance under the bill)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

sense of congress on contracting for delivery of assistance by air

Sec. 692. It is the sense of Congress that the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development should, to the maximum extent practicable and in
a manner consistent with the use of full and open competition
(as that term is defined in section 4(6) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(6))), contract
with small, domestic air transport providers for purposes of
the delivery by air of assistance available under this Act.

amendment no. 1973

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the October 15, 2003
election in Azerbaijan and require a report on an investigation in
Azerbaijan)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 692. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) International organizations and non-governmental
observers, including the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, the National Democratic Institute, and
Human Rights Watch documented widespread government
manipulation of the electoral process in advance of the
Presidential election held in Azerbaijan on October 15, 2003.
(2) Such organizations and the Department of State reported
widespread vote falsification during the election, including
ballot stuffing, fraudulent additions to voter lists, and
irregularities with vote tallies and found that election
commission members from opposition parties were bullied into
signing falsified vote tallies.
(3) The Department of State issued a statement on October
21, 2003 concluding that the irregularities that occurred
during the elections ``cast doubt on the credibility of the
election's results''.
(4) Human Rights Watch reported that government forces in
Azerbaijan used excessive force against demonstrators
protesting election fraud and that such force resulted in at
least one death and injuries to more than 300 individuals.
(5) Following the elections, the Government of Azerbaijan
arrested more than 330 individuals, many of whom are leaders
and rank-and-file members of opposition parties in
Azerbaijan, including individuals who served as observers and
polling-station officials who refused to sign vote tallies
from polling stations that the individuals believed were
fraudulent.
(6) The national interest of the United States in promoting
stability in the Caucasus and Central Asia and in winning the
war on terrorism is best protected by maintaining
relationships with democracies committed to the rule of law.
(7) The credible reports of fraud and intimidation cast
serious doubt on the legitimacy of the October 15, 2003
Presidential election in Azerbaijan and on the victory of
Ilham Aliev in such election.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President and the Secretary of State should urge
the Government of Azerbaijan to create an independent
commission, with participation from the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe,
to investigate the fraud and intimidation surrounding the
October 15, 2003 election in Azerbaijan, and to hold a new
election if such a commission finds that a new election is
warranted;
(2) the violence that followed the election should be
condemned and should be investigated in a full and impartial
investigation;
(3) the perpetrators of criminal acts related to the
election, including Azerbaijani police, should be held
accountable; and
(4) the Government of Azerbaijan should immediately release
from detention all members of opposition political parties
who were arrested for peacefully expressing political
opinions.
(c) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Attorney General, shall submit a report to the Committee on
Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate and the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee of Appropriations of the House of Representatives
on the investigation of the murder of United States democracy
worker John Alvis. Such report shall include--
(1) a description of the steps taken by the Government of
Azerbaijan to further such investigation and bring to justice
those responsible for the murder of John Alvis;
(2) a description of the actions of the Government of
Azerbaijan to cooperate with United States agencies involved
in such investigation; and
(3) any recommendations of the Secretary for furthering
progress of such investigation.

amendment no. 2007

(Purpose: An amendment requiring a report on a USAID mission in Sierra
Leone)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

report on sierra leone

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development shall submit a report to the
Committee on Foreign Relations and Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations and Committee on Appropriations of
the

[[Page S13367]]

House of Representatives on the feasibility of establishing a
United States mission in Sierra Leone.

AMENDMENT NO. 2008

(Purpose: To provide a clarification with respect to the availability
of funds for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic
Energy Agency)

On page 40, line 18, insert after ``Commission'' the
following: ``and that are not necessary to make the United
States contribution to the Commission in the amount assessed
for fiscal year 2004''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2009

Purpose: To require a report on a strategy for promoting stability and
improving the quality of life in Somalia)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

report on somalia

Sec. 692. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to
the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and International
Relations of the House of Representatives a report on a
strategy for engaging with competent and responsible
authorities and organizations within Somalia, including in
Somaliland, to strengthen local capacity and establish
incentives for communities to seek stability.
(b) The report shall describe a multi-year strategy for--
(1) increasing access to primary and secondary education
and basic health care services;
(2) supporting efforts underway to establish clear systems
for effective regulation and monitoring of Somali hawala, or
informal banking, establishments; and
(3) supporting initiatives to rehabilitate the livestock
export sector in Somalia.

AMENDMENT NO. 2010

(Purpose: To provide for the designation of the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria under the International Organizations
Immunities Act)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

designation of the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria
under the international organizations immunities act

Sec. 692. The International Organizations Immunities Act
(22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 16. The provisions of this title may be extended to
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in
the same manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same
conditions, as they may be extended to a public international
organization in which the United States participates pursuant
to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress
authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for
such participation.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2011

(Purpose: To provide funding for the Carter Center's Guinea Worm
Eradication Program)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7 insert the following new
section:

guinea worm eradication program

Sec. 692. Of the funds made available in title II under the
headings ``child survival and health programs fund'' and
``development assistance'', not less than $5,000,000 may be
made available for the Carter Center's Guinea Worm
Eradication Program.

amendment no. 2012

(Purpose: To clarify the criteria to be considered in determining
eligibility for Millennium Challenge assistance)

On page 46, line 15, insert after ``resources'' the
following: ``and to providing opportunities for the inclusion
of persons with disabilities''.

Amendment No. 2013

(Purpose: To fund enhanced enforcement of intellectual property rights
in foreign countries)

On page 32, line 10, before the period insert ``: Provided
further, That $5,000,000 of amounts made available under this
heading shall be for combating piracy of United States
intellectual property''.

amendment no. 2014

(Purpose: To set aside an amount for grants to media organizations to
support broadcasting that promotes human rights and democracy in Iran)

Beginning on page 78, line 25, strike ``funds'' and all
that follows through ``Iran:'' on page 79, line 3, and insert
the following: ``not to exceed $5,000,000 of such funds may
be used in coodination with the Middle East Partnership
Initiative for making grants to Educational, Humanitarian and
Nongovernmental Organizations and individuals inside Iran to
support the advancement of democracy and human rights in
Iran.

Amendment No. 2015

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the development of
democracy in Iran)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 692. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Islamic Republic of Iran is neither free nor fully
democratic, and undemocratic institutions, such as the
Guardians Council, thwart the will of the Iranian people.
(2) There is ongoing repression of journalists, students,
and intellectuals in Iran, women in Iran are deprived of
their internationally recognized human rights, and religious
freedom is not respected under the laws of Iran.
(3) The Department of State asserted in its ``Patterns of
Global Terrorism 2002'' report released on April 30, 2003,
that Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism
and that Iran continues to provide funding, safe-haven,
training, and weapons to known terrorist groups, notably
Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
(4) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found
that Iran has failed to accurately disclose all elements of
its nuclear program. The IAEA is engaged in efforts to
determine the extent, origin and implications of Iranian
nuclear activities that were not initially reported to the
IAEA.
(5) There have been credible reports of Iran harboring Al-
Qaeda fugitives and permitting the passage of terrorist
elements into Iraq.
(b) It is the sense of Congress that it should be the
policy of the United States to--
(1) support transparent, full democracy in Iran;
(2) support the rights of the Iranian people to choose
their system of government.
(3) condemn the brutal treatment and imprisonment and
torture of Iranian civilians expressing political dissent;
(4) call upon the Government of Iran to comply fully with
requests by the International Atomic Energy Agency for
information and to immediately suspend all activities related
to the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery
systems;
(5) demand that al Qaeda members be immediately turned over
to governments requesting their extradition; and
(6) demand that Iran prohibit and prevent the passage of
armed elements into Iraq and cease all activities to
undermine the Iraqi Governing Council and the reconstruction
of Iraq.

Amendment No. 1998, as modified

(Purpose: To ensure that women and children have access to basic
protection and assistance services in complex humanitarian emergencies)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:
Sec. . (a) None of the funds made available by title II
under the heading ``migration and refugee assistance'', or
``united states emergency refugee and migration assistance
fund'' to provide assistance to refugees or internally
displaced persons may be provided to an organization that has
failed to adopt a code of conduct consistent with the Inter-
Agency Standing Committee Task Force on Protection From
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crises six core
principles for the protection of beneficiaries of
humanitarian assistance.
(b) In administering the amounts made available for the
accounts described in subsection (a), the Secretary of State
and Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development shall incorporate specific policies
and programs for the purpose of identifying specific needs
of, and particular threats to, women and children at the
various stages of a complex humanitarian emergency,
especially at the onset of such emergency.
(c) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives
and the Committees on Appropriations a report on activities
of the Government of the United States to protect women and
children affected by a complex humanitarian emergency. The
report shall include--
(1) an assessment of the specific protection needs of women
and children at the various stages of a complex humanitarian
emergency;
(2) a description of which agencies and offices of the
United States Government are responsible for addressing each
aspect of such needs and threats; and
(3) guidelines and recommendations for improving United
States and international systems for the protection of women
and children during a complex humanitarian emergency.

amendment no. 2016

(Purpose: To obtain assurance and a timetable for payments of U.S.
contractors by the Egyptian Government)

On page 17, line 18 after the first comma add the
following:
``That the Government of Egypt should promptly provide the
United States Embassy in Cairo with assurances that it will
honor contracts entered into with United States companies in
a timely manner: Provided further,''

amendment no. 2017

(The amendment No. 2017 is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

amendment no. 2018

(Purpose: Democracy Building in Cuba)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:

[[Page S13368]]

Democracy Building In Cuba

Sec. 692. (a) Of the funds appropriated in Title II, under
the heading ``Transition Initiatives'' not more than
$5,000,000 shall be available for individuals and independent
nongovernmental organizations to support democracy-building
efforts for Cuba, including the following:
(1) Published and informational material, such as books,
videos, and cassettes, on transitions to democracy, human
rights, and market economics, to be made available to
independent democratic groups in Cuba.
(2) Humanitarian assistance to victims of political
repression, and their families.
(3) Support for democratic and human rights groups in Cuba.
(4) Support for visits and permanent deployment of
independent international human rights monitors in Cuba.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``independent nongovernmental organization''
means an organization that the Secretary of State determines,
not less than 15 days before any obligation of funds made
available under this section to the organization, is a
charitable or nonprofit nongovernmental organization that is
not an agency or instrumentality of the Cuban Government.
(2) The term ``individuals'' means a Cuban national in
Cuba, including a political prisoner and the family of such
prisoner, who is not an official of the Cuban Government or
of the ruling political party in Cuba, as defined in section
4(10) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023(10)).
(c) The notification requirements of section 634A of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1) shall apply
to any allocation or transfer of funds made pursuant to this
section.

Amendment No. 2019

On page 23, line 3, before the colon, insert the following:
: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under
this heading, funds shall be made available to the World
Health Organization's HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Cluster.
On page 23, line 8, before the period, insert the
following:
: Provided further, That the Coordinator should seek to
ensure that an appropriate percent of the budget for
prevention and treatment programs of the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is made available to support
technical assistance to ensure the quality of such programs.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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.

Amendment No. 2004

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on August 31, 2002, two American
schoolteachers and one Indonesian citizen who were working at an
international school for the children of Freeport McMoRan's mine
employees were killed, and eight more Americans were wounded, when they
were ambushed on a mountain road in Indonesia. Indonesian garrisons
reportedly controlled all access to the remote road where the attack
occurred. Police reports indicated that the Indonesian military was
very likely involved in the attack, but the investigation was then
turned over to that same military, where it has stalled. The Indonesian
military, to date, has proven unwilling to fully cooperate with the
FBI.
The survivors of the attack and the families of the murdered want
their government to insist that Indonesia cooperate in uncovering the
truth about the ambush and in bringing those responsible to justice.
The Senate should support them.
The House already has. Congressman Hefley of Colorado offered an
amendment linking resolution of this issue to Indonesia's access to the
International Military Education and Training program when the House
considered the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. His amendment
was accepted by unanimous consent. The Senate should send an equally
unequivocal signal.
Today I offered an amendment, with the support of Senators Campbell
and Wyden, to do just that. I appreciate the support of the managers,
Senators McConnell and Leahy, who have accepted this amendment into the
larger bill. I also appreciate the efforts of Senator Allard, who
shares my interest in this issue.
My amendment is not out of step with current policy. I would like to
call my colleagues' attention to an article from the October 23 edition
of the Australian Financial Review. The article states that, during
their recent talks in Bali, ``Mr. Bush told Mrs. Megawati military
relations could not resume until Jakarta had completed a full
investigation into the killing of two Americans near the Freeport mine
in Timika in Indonesia's Papua province last year.'' Our President was
right to make that point. There can be no ``business as usual'' when it
comes to the murder of American citizens, and there can be no
``business as usual'' until the FBI has received full cooperation, and
any perpetrators uncovered by the investigation are held accountable
for their actions.
This amendment simply makes it clear that the Senate wholeheartedly
endorses that policy. It states that the full normalization of the
military relationship between the United States and Indonesia cannot
begin until the FBI has received full cooperation, not partial
cooperation, in its investigation, and individuals found to be
responsible are brought to justice. I am pleased that the Senate has
taken action to make certain that our resolve is firm and our signal
perfectly clear.

Amendment No. 2020

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I also have an amendment by Senator
Feingold that has been approved on both sides. I send the amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr.
Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 2020.

Mr. McCONNELL. 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:

(Purpose: To provide funds to support the development of responsible
justice and reconciliation mechanisms in central Africa)

On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

responsible justice and reconciliation mechanisms in central africa

Sec. 692. (a) Of the funds appropriated under title II
under the heading ``economic support fund'', $12,000,000
should be made available to support the development of
responsible justice and reconciliation mechanisms in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and
Uganda, including programs to increase awareness of gender-
based violence and improve local capacity to prevent and
respond to such violence.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am aware of no opposition to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2020) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gregg
be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1968 relating to the Leahy
amendment on war crimes in Africa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are very close to completing the
bill. We have a couple of problems on this side that are not yet worked
out. We have a few more amendments we are working on which we are going
to clear tonight. For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1966

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few comments
about the DeWine-Durbin amendment. It is well meaning. It is dealing
with a critical subject that I am particularly interested in: the
spread of AIDS in Africa.
I think we can do better in a lot of ways about how to confront that
issue. I appreciate Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy today agreeing
to an amendment that I proposed to deal with the medical transmission
of AIDS. But I would just say a couple of things here.
We are moving to a historic increase in the amount of money we are
spending for AIDS. The $15 billion we have approved is quite a
significant increase in this important effort throughout the world,
particularly in Africa.

[[Page S13369]]

If this amendment is passed, it would add another $289 million to the
$2 billion that was requested by the President. I would like to offer
into the Record and quote from a letter dated October 16 to Chairman
Stevens of the Appropriations Committee from Mr. Joseph O'Neill, deputy
coordinator and chief medical officer, Office of the Global AIDS
Coordinator.
As I said, this is in his letter of October 16:

Dear Chairman Stevens: It is my understanding that an
amendment regarding funding for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria may be offered today to the Fiscal Year 2004
Supplemental Appropriations bill currently under
consideration on the Senate floor.
I want to reiterate the Administration's strong support for
the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request of $2 billion for all
international HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria activities,
including $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria, as part of the President's larger
commitment to spend $15 billion over the next five years
through the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. I also want to
highlight that it is by careful design that the President's
Fiscal Year 2004 budget request is for $2 billion.
The cornerstone of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief is its focused approach to use $9 billion in new
funding over the next five years to bring comprehensive and
integrated HIV/AIDS prevention, care and large-scale
antiretroviral treatment to 14 countries in Africa and the
Caribbean. These countries are home to nearly 70 percent of
HIV-infected persons in Africa and the Caribbean and 50
percent of the HIV-infected persons in the world. There are
considerable challenges inherent in meeting the bold goals
the President has set for these 14 countries which must be
addressed in the early years of implementation. We believe it
is important to ramp up spending on these countries in a
focused manner, increasing the amount spent each year to
efficiently and effectively create the necessary training,
technology, and infrastructure base needed to deliver
appropriate long-term medical treatment in a sustainable and
accountable way.

That is a mouthful, but I think it says some valuable things. This
administration believes we have to effectively utilize the money, and
it takes some time. It is certainly necessary for training, technology,
and infrastructure that there be a base of that before we can fully
implement and spend this extra amount of money we intend to spend.
It goes on to say:

Similarly, the U.S. Government support for the Global Fund
to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is strong. Currently,
the United States is responsible for 40 percent of all
contributions made to the Global Fund. We have reached a
critical time in the Global Fund's development, and other
nations must join the United States in supporting the work of
the Global Fund.
For the reasons stated above, the Administration strongly
opposes any efforts to increase funding beyond the $2 billion
requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget. I
appreciate your support on this issue and look forward to the
continued strong bipartisan support of the Senate in ensuring
the success of this lifesaving initiative. It is signed:
Joseph F. O'Neill, MD, Deputy Coordinator and Chief Medical
Officer, Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator.

One of our Senators, Mr. Alexander, on September 3 made this
statement. It has a lot of truth to it. He came back from a trip to
Africa. He wrote an op-ed piece. He gave 10 very wise and practical
bits of advice to the leadership in this AIDS effort on the Senate
floor on September 3. This is one of his final bits of advice on how to
handle the situation.

Finally, move fast, but do not spend too fast. I imagine we
are going to have a pretty good debate about that in the
Senate. I have already heard some people say let's spend $2
billion and others say let's spend $2.5 and others say let's
spend $3 billion. The fact is, we are going to spend $15
billion of taxpayers' money in fighting HIV/AIDS in 14
countries and the Caribbean. We are going to do it over 5
years. We need to keep in mind that the African system cannot
absorb too much money too quickly. There are treatment
guidelines to prepare and to teach. They are very
complicated. There is a staff to recruit. There are patients
to find and persuade. There are health care organizations to
establish.

This amendment unfortunately is not offset. I would be very
interested in seeing if we could fund this or we could utilize this
money. I am very reluctant to not support an amendment Senator DeWine
has worked so hard on. He is a person committed to doing the right
thing. He is a person committed to fighting AIDS. He wants to see us do
even more than we are doing. I respect that. I admire him terrifically.
He has been around this world. He has met people who are suffering. He
wants to help, as we all do.
But the problem is, we agreed to a budget. I serve on the Budget
Committee. That budget is a very serious matter. We decided we could
spend only so much money. This foreign operations bill has a limit on
the amount of money we have agreed to spend in foreign operations. If
this amendment were to frame itself in terms of having an offset, that
it would fund this $289 million out of the billions of dollars in this
account and would show where we could withdraw and reduce some of those
other accounts, I would be very tempted to support Senator DeWine's
amendment. Unfortunately, it does not. It spends on top of the budget.
It increases and breaks the budget. It is $289 million above the amount
we have agreed we could afford to spend. I can't see us doing that.
There are so many good ideas here. There are so many things we can do
in this country and outside of this country. We have another increase
in spending this year in our Federal appropriations bills. We would all
like to spend more on projects than we are able to. But we have an
increase that is not slashing our budget. We are not cutting our
budget, even though we are going to set a record this year for deficit
spending. We are going to set a record in deficit spending this year.
But we can't continue to break the budget we fought so hard to create,
a budget most of us committed to staying with.
Maybe somewhere, as this process goes along, there can be some
offsets that can help increase funding for the Global AIDS Program. I
hope so. But I have, as so many have, voted against extra spending for
things I care about--IDEA, kids in school, education, highways, matters
I believe in and care about, when they exceed our budget. I have not
been able to support them. I will not be able to support this one.
I know all of us have priorities, items we care passionately about. I
certainly do. I know Senators DeWine and Durbin do. I respect their
concerns and their passion. We are going to have a huge increase in
spending for HIV/AIDS in Africa. It is the right thing to do. I have
had two hearings in the HELP Committee on which I am a member on the
AIDS problem in Africa. I have concluded we can do more for medical
care. The amendment I crafted deals with rearranging the moneys we plan
to expend to focus on that problem which can result in the greatest
immediate decline in infections of any other action we could take. I
cannot go along with breaking the budget on this matter. I hope we can
work on it. I will certainly be willing to work with the Senator and we
will see what we can do to increase this funding as we can.
The budget is an important matter. We don't need to get in the habit
of breaking it. I will not vote to break it in this instance.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

reforestation program in afghanistan

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Chairman McConnell for the hard
work he has put into the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and
he has done an excellent job balancing competing interests within the
confines of a limited budget allocation.
I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee regarding the development of a reforestation program in
Afghanistan. In this appropriations bill, with the adoption of an
amendment the chairman and ranking member and I have worked on, $5
million is to further a reforestation program in Afghanistan. I
recently traveled to the Middle East with the chairman and witnessed
first hand the devastating conditions of the natural landscape in
Afghanistan.
As the chairman of Public Lands and Forestry Subcommittee, it saddens
me to see the degradation that has occurred to the natural landscape of
this country. Years of war and poverty have put a great strain on the
ecosystems of this country. It is time to put an end to the denuding of
the hillsides and turn them back to their brilliant shades of green.

[[Page S13370]]

I would like to see this funding be used to develop a reforestation
program for the country. I think it is important to cultivate the
native species to replenish and rejuvenate the area to provide
additional opportunities for recreation, wildlife, and business
development. The intent of this provision is that the expertise and
skill of land grant universities, such as the University of Idaho,
should be used to assist in developing this program. I also feel that
this is an area in which the private sector could lend their assistant
with both the development of the program and the reforestation of the
country. Again, there are also leading edge forest products companies
in my State like Potlatch Corporation and Boise Cascade who also have
expertise of their own and a long time working relationship with the
university.
This is an opportunity, through active management, to change the fate
of the natural landscape of Afghanistan.
Mr. McCONNELL. I commend the Senator for his interest in this project
and look forward to the development of the reforestation program.

Landmine Awareness Programs for Afghan Children

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for over two decades, the Afghan people have
endured conflict and internal unrest. And although they are now in the
process of rebuilding their country, for many, safety remains elusive.
One reason is the continued presence of landmines, which were put into
use by occupying powers and governments such as the Soviet Union and
Taliban. Unfortunately, these weapons, whose danger is recognized by
nations throughout the world, remain a major threat to the safety of
ordinary Afghans--especially children.
I know my colleague, Senator Leahy, has been a leader in calling the
world's attention to the dangers created by land mines and the
obligation of the United States and other governments to help ensure
that innocent civilians, especially children, are not killed or
critically injured by land mines and unexploded ordnance left behind
after armed conflict ceases.
There are now over 10 million land mines throughout Afghanistan. This
number is truly staggering. It is estimated that the process of
clearing these devices could take up to 25 years--almost three decades.
These land mines pose a tremendous danger to the children of
Afghanistan. As my colleagues may be aware, Afghan children often
perform a variety of chores that entails their passage through mine-
laden fields. In fact, as several types of mines are small and brightly
colored, children can be tempted to pick them up or to play with them.
Too often, young Afghans die or lose a limb as a result of landmine-
related incidents. Indeed, every month, 150 Afghans are injured by
landmines, and many of these are children.
We need to help these innocent children. We need to protect them not
only from the horrors of war, but from the dangers that are left
behind. Let me call to the attention of my colleagues an ideal
organization to further this effort. Its name is ``No Strings,'' and it
is a new aid organization that seeks to use theater and puppetry to
provide life-saving education about landmines to children in
Afghanistan. ``No Strings'' is composed of two main groups: one with a
broad background in humanitarian relief organizations, and the other
with extensive experience in the field of children's educational
entertainment and puppetry. I believe my colleague, Senator Leahy also
is aware of this organization.
I had intended to offer an amendment so that, ``No Strings''--and
other worthy organizations--would be able to engage Afghan children and
teach them life saving mine safety lessons. Clearly, we must act in
order to help to protect a generation of Afghans. However, since
Senator Leahy has generously offered to join with me in discussing this
matter with appropriate officials at the State Department to encourage
the Department to fund innovative programs like ``No Strings,'' I will
withhold offering the amendment at this time.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Connecticut
that we need to give special attention to children in Afghanistan and
elsewhere who are being put at risk by landmines and unexploded
ordnances that are a dangerous byproduct of the civil conflict in that
country. Creative ways to teach children about the dangers that
landmines and unexploded ordnances pose is critically needed to prevent
any more innocent Afghani children from being killed or crippled. I
believe that organizations, such as ``No Strings'' which has been
mentioned by Senator Dodd, that are prepared to develop novel programs
to protect children from the dangers of landmines are worthy of US
support. I look forward to working with Senator Dodd in support of
funding for such important projects.

international water security center

Mr. LEAHY. I would like to ask the assistant minority leader two or
three questions about international water security. First, what do we
mean by water security and what is its relevance to foreign operations?
Mr. REID. I appreciate the question asked by my friend, the senior
Senator from Vermont. As you know, water is vital for the life and
health of people and ecosystems and a basic requirement for the
development of countries. Yet, around the world, people lack access to
adequate and safe water to meet their most basic needs. Water resources
and the related ecosystems that provide and sustain them are under
threat from pollution, unsustainable use, land-use changes, climate
change and many other forces. Water shortages and degradation
disproportionately affect arid regions of the world, many of which lack
the technical and financial wherewithal to effectively address the
problems. Water and poverty are closely related. In areas of water
scarcity, the poor are hit first and hardest. Conversely, water is the
single factor most limiting economic development in many arid regions.
There is, of course, a huge diversity of needs and situations around
the world, but together we have one common goal: to provide water
security. This means ensuring that freshwater, coastal and related
ecosystems are protected and improved; that sustainable development and
political stability are promoted; and that every person has access to
enough safe water at an affordable cost to lead a healthy and
productive life.
Water security is closely linked to national security. As we in the
west are fond of saying, ``whiskey is for drinking; water is for
fighting.'' That may sound tongue-in-cheek, but in reality, there
exists a long history of international tensions and conflicts over
water resources, the use of water systems as weapons during war, and
the targeting of water systems during conflicts caused by other
factors. Strategic areas of the Middle East, South and Central Asia,
South America and North Africa are plagued by recurring tensions over
transboundary allocation of scarce water resources.
Mr. McCONNELL. I understand that over 1 billion people do not have
access to safe and secure sources of drinking water. Does my friend
from Nevada have any thoughts on additional actions this subcommittee
can take to promote international water security?
Mr. REID. I appreciate the question from my friend, the senior
Senator from Kentucky. To achieve water security, we face the serious
challenges of meeting basic needs, securing the food supply, protecting
ecosystems, sharing water resources, managing risks, valuing water, and
involving stakeholders in governing water wisely, while maintaining a
balance between social, political, cultural, environment needs. The
challenges are formidable, but so are the opportunities.
There are many experiences around the world that can be built upon.
For example, through our experiences in managing scarce water resources
in the desert State of Nevada, we have gained a valuable knowledge base
upon which other arid and water-starved regions can build. Scientists
in our university system are recognized among the foremost world
leaders in water management in these lands. As an important initiative
to increase water security, they have prepared an impressive proposal
to launch an International Water Security Center.

Mr. LEAHY. What do you envision as the role of an International Water
Security Center?
Mr. REID. The center would be a clearinghouse for scientific research
in support of water conflict resolution. As a focal point for advanced
research and education in water security issues, it would bring
together scientists, engineers, water managers, and policy

[[Page S13371]]

makers from arid and other water-starved regions worldwide. Through
collaborative research exchanges, the center would promote long-term
capacity building in developing countries, which would benefit from our
leadership in desalinization, water treatment, hydrologic modeling,
water-use efficiency, and other technical approaches. The center would
also support education of young Americans in international water policy
and security, an area of expertise that we will certainly need in the
future. The wide spectrum of cultures and landscapes would broaden the
outlook of everyone involved, fostering the multidisciplinary
approaches needed to ensure project viability and longevity.
Mr. McCONNELL. Where might the center be based?
Mr. REID. The University and Community College System of Nevada would
provide an excellent home for the center. Through the research and
educational programs undertaken by its major institutions, this
University System is known throughout the world for its expertise in
water resource and watershed management. For example, the Desert
Research Institute, or DRI, is a unique blend of academia and
entrepreneurship. Grounded in fundamental research, DRI and its Center
for Watersheds and Environmental Sustainability apply scientific
understanding to the management of scarce water resources in countries
around the world while addressing needs for economic diversification
and science-based education.
The University of Nevada, Reno, and University of Nevada, Las Vegas
collaborate with DRI and conduct nationally recognized research and
educational programs in their own right. The University of Nevada,
Reno, UNR, has one of the Nation's largest and well-known education
programs in the study of groundwater. A new international program at
UNR sends undergraduate and graduate students to work with local
villagers in some of the world's most impoverished nations. This
training works both ways, helping the world's poorest people and
training American students to work safely and effectively overseas. At
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, UNLV, the interdisciplinary
educational program in Water Resource Management considers the
scientific and engineering aspects of the hydrologic sciences within
the context of policy and management issues related to water and water
security. The expertise of UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law in the
field of water rights and water allocations is also a fundamental to
this program.
With its strong tradition of fundamental research and collaboration,
the University and Community College System of Nevada is perfectly
poised to host an International Water Security Center. The University
System is overseen by a chancellor and a 13-member Board of Regents.
Mr. LEAHY. How much funding is requested and how would it be used?
Mr. REID. I am requesting an annual appropriation of $1.25 million
dollars each year for the next 3 years. This funding would be used to
develop an administrative structure, identify potential collaborators
and projects, initiate ``seed'' projects, educate and train American
students in water security, launch research initiatives, and develop
and implement a plan for continued center activities without the need
for additional Congressional appropriations. The funding would be
administered by the University of Nevada Chancellor's office, and made
available to scientists and researchers throughout the University
System. The Chancellor's office has a long tradition and expertise in
administering federal, state and non-profit research grants.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, S. 1426, the fiscal year 2004 Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act
for 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations
provides $18.1 billion in discretionary budget authority and $20.3
billion in discretionary outlays in fiscal year 2004 for Foreign
Operations appropriations. This bill contains about two-thirds of total
international affairs spending in the budget. The bill funds U.S.
Export and Investment Assistance, Bilateral Economic Assistance,
Military Assistance, and Multilateral Economic Assistance.
The bill equals the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget
authority and is $9 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The
bill provides $796 million less in budget authority and $713 million
less in outlays than the President's budget request. The bill provides
$5.6 billion in budget authority less and $148 million in outlays more
than the 2003 enacted level including 2003 supplemental appropriations.
Excluding those supplemental appropriations, the bill provides a $1.866
billion increase over last year, or 11.5 percent.
I am concerned about a proposed amendment that would add funds for
Global HIV/AIDs programs without providing an offset within the bill.
Any amendments that add funding without offsets will have a budget act
violation and I will not be able to support them.
I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee
scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1426, FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS, 2004.--SPENDING COMPARISONS--
SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 2004, dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............. 18,093 44 18,137
Outlays...................... 20,294 44 20,338
Senate Committee allocation:
Budget authority............. 18,093 44 18,137
Outlays...................... 20,303 44 20,347
2003 level:
Budget authority............. 23,708 45 23,753
Outlays...................... 20,146 45 20,191
President's request:
Budget authority............. 18,889 44 18,933
Outlays...................... 21,007 44 21,051
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 17,119 44 17,163
Outlays...................... 20,182 44 20,226

Senate-Reported Bill Compared To

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. 0 0 0
Outlays...................... -9 0 -9
2003 level:
Budget authority............. -5,615 -1 -5,616
Outlays...................... 148 -1 147
President's request:
Budget authority............. -796 0 -796
Outlays...................... -713 0 -713
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............. 974 0 974
Outlays...................... 112 0 112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I take a brief moment to draw the
attention of my colleagues to the situation in Cambodia, and in
particular to the continued courage and determination of the Alliance
of Democrats.
The Alliance--which consists of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party and
the royalist FUNCINPEC party--has taken a bold stand for freedom in
Cambodia in the wake of flawed parliamentary elections last July.
Despite intimidation and pressure from the ruling Cambodian People's
Party, CPP, the Alliance is refusing to enter into a coalition
government that is led by Prime Minister Hun Sen--himself an enemy of
democracy and justice.
Having met with Alliance leaders in Washington not too long ago, and
having personally traveled to Cambodia in 1998, I can appreciate their
refusal to allow Hun Sen to continue to mislead that country. In the
past, senior Alliance leaders have been targets of assassination
attempts, a bloody coup d'etat staged by the CPP, and imprisonment and
political exile. Under Hun Sen's misrule, terrorists, criminal triads
and pederasts find a haven in Cambodia. Corruption is the norm in that
country, as are politically motivated killings.
It might interest my colleagues to know that there have been two high
profile shootings in Phnom Penh over the past several weeks, both
victims being affiliated with the FUNCINPEC party. Reporter Chour
Chetharith was murdered outside the Ta Prohm radio station. According
to press reports, the ``execution-style killing followed a warning by
Prime Minister Hun Sen . . . that Ta Prohm should stop broadcasting
programs critical of his speeches.''
Pop singer Touch Sunnich was shot a few short days ago--her only
crime apparently being a supporter of non-CPP party. My heart goes out
to these victims and their families.
It is not enough for the diplomatic community to condemn this
killing. It

[[Page S13372]]

is past time that someone is held accountable for all the lawlessness,
violence, and corruption that unfortunately has become the norm in
Cambodia. I offer to my colleagues that the Alliance is trying to do
just that by holding Hun Sen accountable--and they deserve the full
backing and support of the international community.
Let me close by expressing my great disappointment with the U.S.
Embassy in Phnom Penh. Recently, they issued a visa to travel to the
United States to a notorious human rights abuser and gangster in
Cambodia--Chief of the National Police Hok Lundy. Why the Embassy would
issue a visa to someone considered by many of his own compatriots to be
a terrorist is beyond me. It is no understatement that Hok Lundy is the
Li Peng of Cambodia--and should be held accountable for the violence
following the 1998 elections.

Amendments Nos. 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, En Bloc

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there are four remaining amendments
that have been cleared on both sides: One by Senator Brownback
providing funds for certain programs in Tibet; Senator Leahy,
additional funds for the related accounts; Senator Kennedy regarding
HIV/AIDS; Senator Frist, myself, Senator Leahy, technical
clarifications on HIV/AIDS. I send these four amendments to the desk
and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 2021

(Purpose: To provide for the use of not less than $3,000,000 by the
Bridge Fund for certain programs in Tibet)

On page 77, beginning on line 20, strike ``not to exceed
$3,000,000 may be made available to nongovernmental
organizations to support activities which preserve cultural
traditions and promote sustainable development and
environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the
Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan communities in
China:'' and insert ``not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be
provided to nongovernmental organizations to support
activities which preserve cultural traditions and promote
sustainable development and environmental conservation in
Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in
other Tibetan communities in China, of which up to $3,000,000
may be made available for the Bridge Fund of the Rockefeller
Philanthropic Advisors to support such activities:''.

amendment no. 2022

On page 53, line 21, strike ``$8,898,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof the following: $898,000
On page 55, line 26, strike ``$314,550,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof the following: $322,550,000

amendment no. 2023

(Purpose: To provide for the disclosure of prices paid for HIV/AIDS
medicines in developing countries)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. XX. The Secretary of State should make publicly
available prices paid to purchase HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals,
antiviral therapies, and other appropriate medicines,
including medicines to treat opportunistic infections, for
the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS and the prevention of
mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS in developing
countries--
(1) through the use of funds appropriated under this Act;
and
(2) to the extent available, by--
(A) the World Health Organization; and
(B) the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria.

amendment no. 2024

(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to activities for the
prevention, treatment, and control of HIV/AIDS)

On page 22, strike line 3 and insert the following:

ACTIVITIES TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS GLOBALLY FUND

On page 22, line 10, insert ``except for the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of
2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) as amended by
section 692 of this Act,'' after ``law,''.
On page 74, line 22, insert ``except for the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of
2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) as amended by
section 692 of this Act'' before the colon.
On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following
new section:

assistance for hiv/aids

Sec. 692. The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22
U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 202(d)(4)(A), by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(vi) for the purposes of clause (i), `funds contributed
to the Global Fund from all sources' means funds contributed
to the Global Fund at any time during fiscal years 2004
through 2008 that are not contributed to fulfill a commitment
made for a fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2004.'';
(2) in section 202(d)(4)(B), by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(iv) Notwithstanding clause (i), after July 1 of each of
the fiscal years 2004 through 2008, any amount made available
under this subsection that is withheld by reason of
subparagraph (A)(i) is authorized to be made available to
carry out sections 104A, 104B, and 104C of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by title III of this Act).
''; and
(3) in section 301(f), by inserting ``, except that this
subsection shall not apply to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria or to any United Nations voluntary
agency'' after ``trafficking''.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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.

____________________