[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8447-S8476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
H.R. 3057, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Landrieu amendment No. 1245, to express the sense of 
     Congress regarding the use of funds for orphans, and 
     displaced and abandoned children.
       Grassley amendment No. 1250, to prohibit the use of funds 
     to approve or administer a loan or guarantee for certain 
     ethanol dehydration plants.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 3057, the 
Foreign Operations appropriation bill. I would also like to highlight 
one aspect of the bill.
  Since coming to the Senate 6 months ago, one of the foreign policy 
and health issues I have focused on relates to the avian flu. I am 
pleased that this bill includes $10 million to combat the spread of 
this potential pandemic, adding to the $25 million that the Senate 
provided in the supplemental appropriations bill in April.
  I thank the managers of this bill, Senators McConnell and Leahy, and 
their staffs for working with me on this important issue. I know that 
Senator McConnell has a longstanding interest in Southeast Asia, and 
Senator Leahy has always been a champion of international health 
issues, making the avian flu something I know they both care deeply 
about.
  In the last few weeks, scientists have reported that a deadlier 
version of the avian flu has now spread to migrant birds that could 
carry the disease out of Asia and across the world.
  While it may not seem that threatening to many Americans at first, 
this bird flu could easily transform into a human flu. And if it does, 
it could be one of the deadliest flus mankind has ever known--even 
worse than the 1918 flu pandemic that killed 675,000 Americans and 50 
million worldwide.
  Already, there have been 108 human cases of avian flu, resulting in 
54 deaths. And while the virus has not yet mutated into a full-blown 
human flu, recent developments suggest it might be heading in that 
direction. In recent months, the virus has been detected in mammals 
that have never previously been infected, including tigers, leopards 
and cats.
  A few weeks ago, the World Health Organization reported that avian 
flu strains in Vietnam are lasting longer and spreading to more humans. 
And according to government officials, a few cases of human-to-human 
spread have already occurred.
  Every day, there are new reports about the increasing dangers of the 
avian flu. Last month, it was revealed that Chinese farmers have tried 
to suppress outbreaks of the avian flu by using human antiviral drugs 
on infected animals.
  As a result, one strain of the virus has become resistant to these 
drugs, thus making the drugs ineffective in protecting humans against a 
possible pandemic. And just this week, researchers found that ducks 
infected with the virus were contagious for up to 17 days, causing the 
animals to become--in the researchers' words--``medical Trojan horses'' 
for transmitting the disease to humans.
  Simply put, the world is not ready for a potential outbreak of this 
deadly flu. In fact, we aren't even close.
  There is no known vaccine for the avian flu, and producing one could 
take months once an outbreak occurs. And while the World Health 
Organization recommends that every nation stockpiles enough flu 
treatment to treat a quarter of its population, the United States has 
only ordered enough to treat less than 1 percent of ours.
  We can't just stand by and hope that this virus doesn't reach our 
shores when it only takes hours to travel from one side of the world to 
the other. It is time for America to lead the world in taking decisive 
action to prevent a potential global tragedy.
  We should start by doing what we can to fight the virus while it is 
still mainly in Southeast Asia. That is why I fought for and obtained 
$25 million for prevention efforts by the CDC, the Agency for 
International Development, the Health and Human Services Department, 
and other agencies. And that is why I requested another $10 million in 
this bill.
  In addition, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved language 
that I offered directing President Bush to form a senior-level task 
force to devise an international strategy to deal with the avian flu 
and coordinate policy among our government agencies. I hope that the 
Bush administration forms this task force immediately without waiting 
for legislation to be passed.
  Yet, these are only modest first steps. International health experts 
believe that Southeast Asia will be an epicenter of influenza for 
decades. That is why we need to create a permanent framework for 
curtailing the spread of future infectious diseases--a framework that 
would increase international disease surveillance, response capacity 
and public education and coordination, especially in Southeast Asia.
  But we must also prepare our own country in the event that a global 
pandemic reaches America. That is why I recently introduced the AVIAN 
Act, which helps make sure that Americans are protected from a possible 
outbreak of the avian flu.
  When the threat is this real, we should be increasing research into 
possible flu vaccines, and we should be ordering enough doses of flu 
treatment to cover the recommended 25 percent of our population--just 
like England and other Western countries have done.
  We should also ensure that our Health and Human Services Department 
and State governments put in place a plan as to how they would address 
a potential flu pandemic, including the purchasing and distributing of 
vaccines. A year after a draft of a Federal plan was published, a final 
version has yet to be finalized. We shouldn't have to wait any longer, 
because the avian flu certainly won't.
  We are extremely fortunate that so far, the avian flu has not been 
found in the United States. But in an age when you can board planes in 
Bangkok or Hong Kong and arrive in Chicago, Burlington or Louisville in 
hours, we must face the reality that these exotic killer diseases are 
not isolated health problems half a world away, but direct and 
immediate threats to security and prosperity here at home.
  Again, I thank Senators McConnell and Leahy for including this 
important funding in the supplemental appropriations bill and now 
including additional funding in this bill. And I thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator 
Lugar, for his leadership on this issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that several articles and editorials about 
the avian flu be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 18, 2005]

                  Avian Flu Virus Could Hide in Ducks

                       (By the Associated Press)

       Washington (AP).--Changes in the avian flu virus have made 
     it less deadly to ducks, potentially turning them into 
     medical Trojan horses where the flu can hide while continuing 
     to infect other birds and humans.
       Waterfowl such as ducks have been natural hosts of this 
     type of influenza before but rarely became ill from it until 
     2002, when an evolving strain killed off a large number of 
     the birds.
       Since then, however, the virus has continued to change, 
     reverting to a form less dangerous to ducks but still able to 
     cause illness and death in chickens and humans, according to 
     a study in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National 
     Academy of Sciences.
       ``These results suggest that the duck has become the Trojan 
     horse of Asian H5Nl influenza viruses,'' reported a research 
     team led by Robert G. Webster of St. Jude Children's Research 
     Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.
       ``The ducks that are unaffected by these viruses continue 
     to circulate these viruses, presenting a pandemic threat,'' 
     the team said.
       The researchers infected domestic ducks with flu isolated 
     at various times.
       They found that ducks infected with H5Nl from 2003 or 2004 
     were contagious for 11-17 days, a longer transmission time 
     than pre-2002 strains. The researchers also noted that the 
     virus was transmitted primarily through the upper respiratory 
     tract instead of through fecal matter as in older strains.
       When flu virus from ducks that had survived the disease was 
     administered to healthy animals, it no longer caused disease

[[Page S8448]]

     in ducks, but still caused disease in chickens.
       Over the last two years, hundreds of millions of birds, 
     including poultry and wild birds, have died or were 
     slaughtered across Asia because of the H5Nl bird flu virus, 
     which has also infected some humans, killing 51 people in 
     Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia.
       The humans appear to have been infected by contact with 
     birds. Experts fear that if the virus mutates into a form 
     that could be passed easily from person to person it could 
     spark a global pandemic, killing millions.
       Webster's research was funded by the U.S. Public Health 
     Service and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, July 7, 2005]

             Deadly Flu Strain Shows Up in Migratory Birds


Scientists' Discovery Gives Rise to Fears the Virus Could Spread Beyond 
                               East Asia

                            (By David Brown)

       The strain of bird flu responsible for the deaths of tens 
     of millions of chickens and 54 people in east Asia over the 
     past two years is now circulating in long-distance migratory 
     birds, potentially opening a way for the deadly virus to 
     reach India, Australia and Europe.
       That is the conclusion of two research teams whose findings 
     were rushed into print by the rival journals Science and 
     Nature yesterday.
       Spread of the virus beyond its current home in China and 
     neighboring countries could cause billions of dollars in 
     losses to poultry farmers around the world. It could also 
     give influenza A/H5N1--the virus's formal name--further 
     ,opportunity to adapt to human as well as avian hosts, a 
     development that theoretically could lead to a global flu 
     epidemic.
       Until now, the H5N1 virus has chiefly attacked chickens and 
     ducks in farms and markets. It also killed a small number of 
     birds in two Hong Kong nature parks in late 2002, and since 
     then has been found sporadically in hawks, herons and swans. 
     Those birds presumably acquired it from direct contact with 
     poultry.
       Now, however, it appears the virus is being transmitted 
     among wild birds that have had no known contact with 
     domesticated birds.
       ``It has been difficult to tell whether the true migrating 
     birds had been infected by this terrible virus. This leaves 
     no doubt in my mind,'' said Robert G. Webster, a flu 
     virologist at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in 
     Memphis who helped analyze virus samples collected during a 
     recent die-off of birds at a huge saltwater lake in western 
     China.
       Since the first reports emerged on April 30, between 1,000 
     and 6,000 birds have died on the shores and islands of remote 
     Qinghai Lake. The species most affected is the bar-headed 
     goose, a large bird whose migration over the Himalayas to 
     Burma, India and Pakistan starts in about a month. Illness 
     and death were also recorded in brown-headed gulls, black-
     headed gulls and great cormorants.
       There is a web of migratory flyways around the globe. The 
     ones taken by the species congregating at Qinghai Lake 
     intersect with others that lead to Europe. That theoretically 
     provides a way for the H5N1 virus to reach that continent.
       H5N1 influenza virus was first detected in southern China 
     in 1996. In 1997, it caused a major outbreak in Hong Kong, 
     which led to the death of 1.5 million poultry and six people.
       The virus most recently emerged in South Korea in late 
     2003. Since then, it has led to the death of 100 million to 
     200 million chickens in China and Southeast Asia. It has also 
     infected 108 people (most of them in Vietnam), of whom 54--
     exactly half--have died. Most human victims had direct 
     contact with dead or dying chickens, but in a few cases it 
     appears the virus was acquired directly from an infected 
     person.
       While person-to-person spread of H5N1 influenza is rare and 
     occurs with difficulty, the more the virus circulates the 
     greater its chance of acquiring genetic changes that permit 
     easy human transmission.
       If that occurs, the virus would have ``pandemic 
     potential''; it could travel quickly and infect much of the 
     world's population, which has no immunity to it.
       There is no guarantee H5N1's presence in migratory birds 
     will lead to global dissemination. It simply increases the 
     chance.
       For there to be further spread, a significant number of 
     infected birds would need to be healthy enough to start their 
     migration. They would need to establish a ``chain of 
     transmission'' in the migrating flock, with new birds 
     acquiring the virus as the infected ones died or recovered. 
     At their destinations, they would have to make contact with 
     poultry, igniting a new chicken outbreak and again putting 
     the virus into contact with human beings.
       The likelihood of any of these steps is unknown.
       ``What would migratory birds contribute to the 
     possibilities of disease outbreak? That is the question we 
     don't know the answer to,'' said David E. Swayne of the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture's Southeast Poultry Research 
     Laboratory in Athens, Ga.
       How the Qinghai Lake birds acquired H5N1 influenza is 
     unknown.
       There are chickens in Qinghai Province, but ``there is no 
     H5N1 infection in those chickens--they don't have it,'' 
     George F. Gao of the Institute of Microbiology of the Chinese 
     Academy of Sciences said in a telephone interview from 
     Beijing. He is the lead author of the paper that was 
     published online by Science.
       Both his team and one from the University of Hong Kong, 
     whose report is published online in Nature, detected in the 
     Qinghai Lake samples the three genetic defects and mutations 
     found in the H5N1 strains responsible for high mortality in 
     chickens and humans.
       According to the two reports, the wild-bird strain bears 
     genetic features of the virus found in chickens in China in 
     2003 and 2005 and in a peregrine falcon in Hong Kong in 2004. 
     It is not identical to any of them, however.
       The leader of the Hong Kong team, Yi Guan, a microbiologist 
     at the University of Hong Kong, said the Chinese Ministry of 
     Agriculture closed the Qinghai Lake area to his colleagues in 
     mid-May.
       ``We hope they will open the door and let us in to do long-
     term surveillance,'' he said yesterday from Hong Kong. 
     ``There are a lot of questions waiting for answers.''
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 17, 2005]

                     Unprepared for a Flu Pandemic

       If a much-feared pandemic of avian influenza starts 
     sweeping through the world's population anytime soon, neither 
     the United States nor international health authorities will 
     be prepared to cope with it. There is not enough vaccine or 
     antiviral medicine available to protect more than a handful 
     of people, and no industrial capacity to produce a lot more 
     of these medicines quickly.
       The best that can be hoped is that no pandemic will 
     materialize for the next several years, allowing time to 
     become better prepared, or that a potential pandemic can be 
     spotted early enough to allow international health officials 
     to snuff it out before the virus runs amok.
       It has been 37 years since the last influenza pandemic, or 
     widespread global epidemic, so by historic patterns we may be 
     due for another. And a particularly ominous strain of avian 
     influenza that has devastated poultry flocks in Asia seems 
     poised to wreak havoc in humans. This strain, known as H5N1, 
     first became a matter of health concern in 1997 when it was 
     found to have jumped from birds to humans in Hong Kong in an 
     outbreak that failed to spread widely. Since then, the virus 
     has looked more and more threatening. It has infected 
     poultry, domestic ducks and migratory birds in nine 
     countries, making the virus almost impossible to contain. 
     More ominously, the virus has developed the ability to jump 
     to a range of mammals, including pigs, mice, tigers and 
     domestic cats.
       The human toll has been slight. Only 108 people have been 
     infected, of whom 54 have died, an alarmingly high mortality 
     rate but one that seems to be diminishing. It is reassuring 
     that millions of people have lived and worked in close 
     proximity to infected birds without harm and even more 
     reassuring that the flu strain has not yet developed the 
     ability to spread easily from one person to another, the sine 
     qua non for a pandemic to take off. But that could change in 
     a trice if the virus mutates or combines its genes with a 
     human influenza virus.
       No one knows whether the world is headed toward a health 
     disaster or a false alarm, but virtually all experts agree we 
     need to strengthen our defenses. American health authorities 
     have taken the lead in testing vaccines against two strains 
     of avian flu and have contracted to buy two million doses of 
     a vaccine against H5N1. That is a tiny fraction of the amount 
     that would be needed if a pandemic hit, but will give the 
     manufacturer experience that would prove useful in a crisis. 
     Officials have also stockpiled enough antiviral medicine to 
     treat 2.3 million people, again a fraction of what would be 
     needed in a pandemic.
       Yet the best defense might be to go on the offensive. The 
     most urgent need is to control the disease in poultry and 
     other animals that might spread the virus to humans. Some 
     countries have done a good job. Others, including Vietnam, 
     which accounts for almost 80 percent of the human cases, need 
     more prodding and international assistance. If the virus 
     breaks through this line of attack, authorities should try to 
     quench an incipient outbreak before it can really get 
     started. The Bush administration is wisely pumping millions 
     of dollars into an international effort to improve 
     surveillance of the disease in humans and animals in the 
     infected regions of Asia, and the World Health Organization 
     has amassed a small stockpile of antiviral drugs that will 
     soon be enlarged and could be rushed to the scene of any 
     outbreak.
       Many experts are doubtful that it would be possible to 
     detect and contain an outbreak of transmissible influenza in 
     time to head off a pandemic. But that may be the best hope we 
     have until we are able to upgrade today's fragile and 
     unreliable vaccine production system with new processes that 
     can expand output quickly to meet a crisis.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 18, 2005]

                     Bird Flu Drug Rendered Useless


           Chinese Chickens Given Medication Made for Humans

                           (By Alan Sipress)

       Hong Kong.--Chinese farmers, acting with the approval and 
     encouragement of government officials, have tried to suppress 
     major bird flu outbreaks among chickens with an antiviral 
     drug meant for humans, animal

[[Page S8449]]

     health experts said. International researchers now conclude 
     that this is why the drug will no longer protect people in 
     case of a worldwide bird flu epidemic.
       China's use of the drug amantadine, which violated 
     international livestock guidelines, was widespread years 
     before China acknowledged any infection of its poultry, 
     according to pharmaceutical company executives and 
     veterinarians.
       Since January 2004, avian influenza has spread across nine 
     East Asian countries, devastating poultry flocks and killing 
     at least 54 people in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam, but 
     none in China. World Health Organization officials warned the 
     virus could easily undergo genetic changes to create a strain 
     capable of killing tens of millions of people worldwide.
       Although China did not report an avian influenza outbreak 
     until February 2004, executives at Chinese pharmaceutical 
     companies and veterinarians said farmers were widely using 
     the drug to control the virus in the late 1990s.
       The Chinese Agriculture Ministry approved the production 
     and sale of the drug for use in chickens, according to 
     officials from the Chinese pharmaceutical industry and the 
     government, although such use is barred in the United States 
     and many other countries. Local government veterinary 
     stations instructed Chinese farmers on how to use the drug 
     and at times supplied it, animal health experts said.
       Amantadine is one of two types of medication for treating 
     human influenza. But researchers determined last year that 
     the H5N1 bird flu strain circulating in Vietnam and Thailand, 
     the two countries hardest hit by the virus, had become 
     resistant, leaving only an alternative drug that is difficult 
     to produce in large amounts and much less affordable, 
     especially for developing countries in Southeast Asia.
       ``It's definitely an issue if there's a pandemic. 
     Amantadine is off the table,'' said Richard Webby, an 
     influenza expert at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in 
     Memphis.
       Health experts outside China previously said they suspected 
     the virus's resistance to the medicine was linked to drug use 
     at poultry farms but were unable to confirm the practice 
     inside the country. Influenza researchers at the U.S. Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention, in particular, have 
     collected information about amantadine use from Chinese Web 
     sites but have been frustrated in their efforts to learn more 
     on the ground.
       China has previously run afoul of international agencies 
     for its response to public and agricultural health crises, 
     notably the SARS epidemic that began in 2002. China's health 
     minister was fired after the government acknowledged it had 
     covered up the extent of the SARS outbreak by preventing 
     state-run media from reporting about the disease for months 
     and by minimizing its seriousness.
       In interviews, executives at Chinese pharmaceutical 
     companies confirmed that the drug had been used since the 
     late 1990s, to treat chickens sickened by bird flu and to 
     prevent healthy ones from catching it.
       ``Amantadine is widely used in the entire country,'' said 
     Zhang Libin, head of the veterinary medicine division of 
     Northeast General Pharmaceutical Factory in Shenyang. He 
     added, ``Many pharmaceutical factories around China produce 
     amantadine, and farmers can buy it easily in veterinary 
     medicine stores.''
       Zhang and other animal health experts said the drug was 
     used by small, private farms and larger commercial ones. 
     Amantadine sells for about $10 a pound, a fraction of the 
     drug's cost in Europe and the United States, where its price 
     would be prohibitive for all but human consumption.
       Two months before China first reported a bird flu outbreak 
     in poultry to the World Animal Health Organization in 
     February 2004, officials had begun a massive campaign to 
     immunize poultry against the virus. They have now used at 
     least 2.6 billion doses of a vaccine.
       But researchers in Hong Kong have reported that the H5N1 
     flu virus has been circulating in mainland China for at least 
     eight years and that Chinese farms suffered major outbreaks 
     in 1997, 2001 and 2003. Scientists have traced the virus that 
     has devastated farms across Southeast Asia in the last two 
     years to a strain isolated from a goose in China's Guangdong 
     province in 1996.
       The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization has long 
     recommended that countries try to eradicate infectious animal 
     diseases by slaughtering infected flocks and increasing 
     safety measures on farms. Last year, the FAO also suggested 
     that countries consider vaccinating their poultry against 
     bird flu. But the guidelines never recommended the use of 
     antiviral drugs such as amantadine, which, unlike 
     vaccination, has been proven to make viruses resistant, 
     officials said.
       In 1987, researchers at a U.S. Department of Agriculture 
     laboratory demonstrated that bird flu viruses developed drug 
     resistance within a matter of days when infected chickens 
     received amantadine.
       Still, a veterinarian with personal knowledge of livestock 
     practices across China said Chinese farmers responded to the 
     bird flu outbreak by putting the drug into their chickens' 
     drinking water. The veterinarian asked that his name not be 
     published because he feared for his livelihood.
       ``This would explain why we're seeing such high resistance 
     levels,'' said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center 
     for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University 
     of Minnesota. While various antibiotics have lost their 
     effectiveness because of overuse, he said, the emergence of 
     resistance to amantadine is unprecedented because it is an 
     antiviral.
       ``This is the first example of an antiviral drug that was 
     used for animal production that has major implications for 
     human health,'' Osterholm said.
       A popular Chinese handbook, titled Medicine Pamphlet for 
     Animals and Poultry, provides farmers and livestock officials 
     with specific prescriptions for amantadine use to treat 
     chickens and ferrets with respiratory viruses. The manual, 
     written by a professor at the People's Liberation Army 
     Agriculture and Husbandry University and issued by a 
     military-owned publishing company, prescribes 0.025 grams of 
     amantadine for each kilogram of chicken body weight.
       Farmers also use the drug to prevent healthy chickens from 
     catching bird flu, giving it to their poultry about once a 
     month or more often when the weather is liable to change and 
     chickens are considered susceptible to illness, veterinary 
     experts said. The antiviral is often mixed with Chinese 
     herbs, vitamins and other medicine.
       In the United States, amantadine was approved in 1976 by 
     the Food and Drug Administration for treating influenza in 
     adults. Amantadine and it sister drug, rimantadine, known 
     collectively as amantadines, work by preventing a flu virus 
     from reproducing itself. Both are now ineffective against the 
     H5N1 strain.
       International health experts stressed that amantadine could 
     have been vital in stanching the spread of the bird flu virus 
     in the early weeks of an epidemic.
       Now, the only alternative is oseltamivir and closely 
     related zanamivir, which stop the flu virus from leaving 
     infected cells and attacking new ones. Oseltamivir is easier 
     to use and has far greater sales.
       ``Amantadine is the cheapest drug against flu,'' said Malik 
     Peiris, an influenza expert at the University of Hong Kong. 
     ``It is much more affordable for many countries of the 
     region. Now, it is clearly no longer an option.''


                           Amendment No. 1264

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I also want to make a brief statement on 
amendment No. 1264, which is offered on behalf of Senator Hagel, 
Senator Gregg, Senator Leahy, and myself.
  It is a very simple amendment. It provides $13 million for the 
Special Court for Sierra Leone to help make up for a shortfall in 
international contributions to the Court.
  While the amendment is simple, it is critically important to 
promoting the rule of law in Africa; helping advance security and 
stability in West Africa; and holding accountable some of the worst war 
criminals of the 20th century.
  The Special Court was established by the United Nations Security 
Council with strong U.S. backing. The Court is working, as we speak, to 
bring to justice those most responsible for the atrocities committed in 
Sierra Leone during wars there in the 1990s.
  The Court, however, currently has one major piece of unfinished 
business--Charles Taylor.
  Although Mr. Taylor has been indicted by the Special Court on 17 
counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, he continues to live 
in exile in Nigeria, enjoying the protection of the Nigerian 
government.
  What is worse is there are credible reports that Mr. Taylor has 
repeatedly broken the terms of his agreement with the Nigerian 
government, continues to meddle in the affairs of Liberia and other 
West African nations, is involved in a number of activities that 
threaten to destabilize the region, and has associations with al-Qaida.
  There is no question that the United States and the international 
community owe the Nigerian government a debt of gratitude for helping 
to remove Mr. Taylor from power. However, the job of promoting regional 
peace and security cannot be completed until Mr. Taylor appears before 
the Special Court to answer to the charges against him.
  I would also point out that transferring Charles Taylor to the Court 
also is widely supported within Nigeria. Prominent members of Nigeria's 
military and civil society have vigorously opposed the decision to 
shield Taylor.
  This bipartisan amendment makes clear that bringing Mr. Taylor to 
justice is a top U.S. foreign policy priority. It makes clear that the 
Court is not going away anytime in the near future. It makes clear that 
the transfer of Mr. Taylor to the Court will help reduce transnational 
threats in West Africa, promote peace and security in the region, and 
enhance respect for the rule of law throughout Africa.

[[Page S8450]]

  I understand that the managers are in the process of working this 
amendment out, and I look forward to working with them to get this 
accepted. I would like to thank the cosponsors who played a leadership 
role Senators Hagel, Gregg, and Leahy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 The President's Supreme Court Nominee

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, we all learned, 
through the miracle of modern technology, that the President intends to 
announce his Supreme Court nominee tonight at 9 p.m. when he addresses 
the Nation.
  This is certainly the culmination of an unprecedented consultative 
process that this President has undertaken with the Senate, spending 
more than 2 weeks now, I believe, reaching out to Senators on both 
sides of the aisle, asking for their suggestions.
  Now, the President believes that it is appropriate for him to name 
the successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  It is my hope that tonight's announcement will be met with some 
restraint on the part of the Members of the Senate, that we will hold 
our fire, and that we will not prejudge this nominee or seek to use 
this as an opportunity to perhaps disparage the nominee before we have 
had a chance to ask questions, before the nominee has had a chance to 
meet with Members, and before we have had a chance to conduct a hearing 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as we will surely do either in 
late August or early September.
  We can do better in the Senate than we have done in the recent past 
when it comes to judicial nominations. I think we have shown that we 
can conduct ourselves with dignity and civility, even as we have 
disagreed. Indeed, that is one of the great things about this body--
that even people who disagree can debate, but then turn that debate 
over to our colleagues for an up-or-down vote and the judgment of the 
American people.
  I hope we have a dignified process and one that reflects well on the 
Senate, that treats this nominee fairly, and allows the President to 
have his nominee considered in the regular course of our business.
  Throughout this debate, even before the President has named a 
nominee, various Senators have come to the floor and opined about how 
this process should go forward. I will respond to some of the comments 
made earlier today by the senior Senator from Massachusetts regarding 
the process.
  The senior Senator from Massachusetts envisions a step in this 
process where the President gives him and his colleagues the ability to 
veto particular nominees--in other words, suggesting that the President 
ought to perhaps share some on his short list with the Senate before 
the President can name a particular nominee. Nothing in the 
Constitution provides for or requires such a step. The President is 
under no obligation to give any Senator the power to veto his 
nomination.
  The Constitution entrusts the President with the power to nominate, 
and there is no requirement for the President to do anything further. 
Indeed, as I mentioned a moment ago, this President has gone above and 
beyond the call and consulted in an unprecedented manner. But certainly 
the Constitution doesn't give this President, or impose upon this 
President, the obligation to allow Senators to co-nominate their 
particular choice along with the President. Rather, it provides for 
separate and distinct functions for the President to nominate and then 
for the Senate to conduct hearings, to act in its role of advice and 
consent, and then to vote on the nominee.
  The senior Senator from Massachusetts has said he wants the President 
to nominate someone who is independent and impartial. I submit that the 
best way to do that is to do precisely the opposite of what the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts says he intends to do; that is, he says he 
intends to demand that the nominee answer questions about how he or she 
will rule on particular questions or particular issues.
  The Senator has stated his intention to ask nominees how they would 
rule on a host of different issues. Today, he mentioned several of 
them--everything from retirement benefits to college admission 
standards. He even noted that all of these issues are likely to be 
subjects of future Court decisions. It would, however, undermine the 
independence of the nominee and the judiciary to demand that he or she 
answer questions about issues that are likely to come before the Court.
  How can a nominee be truly independent from the Congress if they are 
required to make a pledge to certain outcomes in the Senate in order to 
get confirmed? Well, simply stated, they cannot be independent and make 
such a pledge. So it would be inappropriate for any nominee to make 
that pledge. While certainly I recognize and respect the right of any 
Senator to ask any question he or she wants, no nominee worthy of 
confirmation would in fact answer those questions and make such a 
pledge.
  It would also undermine the impartiality of the person nominated to 
demand that he or she answer questions on issues likely to come before 
the Court. Imagine if you came before a judge and you find out that 
that judge already, during the confirmation process, stated his or her 
belief in the correctness of a certain outcome, before you have even 
had a chance to present your case to the Court. Imagine if that judge 
promised the President or a Senator that he or she would rule against 
you no matter what you said.
  That is not equal and open-minded justice. That is not a judicial 
process but rather a political process, and one we ought to avoid at 
all costs.
  It is also not how we have conducted our business in the recent past. 
Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 96 to 3. 
Before her service on the Federal bench, Justice Ginsburg served as 
general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal 
organization that has championed the abolition of traditional marriage 
laws and challenged the Pledge of Allegiance because the words ``under 
God'' are invoked in that pledge.
  Before she became a judge, now-Justice Ginsburg expressed opposition 
to laws prohibiting bigamy and prostitution. She wrote that the Boy 
Scouts and Girl Scouts were discriminatory institutions, and that 
taxpayer funds should be used to pay for abortions--hardly views that 
the American people would view as mainstream. Yet the Senate did not 
engage in asking her to make prejudgments about cases she later would 
rule on from the Supreme Court. They did not ask her to make promises 
to politicians about how she would perform once confirmed. Indeed, 
Republicans and Democrats alike set aside such concerns and approved 
her nomination.
  Make no mistake, I am just as curious as anybody else about what the 
private views of a nominee might be. But the need to assure a fair 
process and an independent judiciary and to avoid the hyper-
politicalization of this process more than outweighs a results-oriented 
curiosity on my part or on the part of any other Senator, I submit.
  Finally, the Senator from Massachusetts said he also wants the 
President to nominate a consensus choice to the Supreme Court. But it 
will be up to the Senator and his other colleagues whether the nominee 
meets their definition of what actually constitutes a consensus choice. 
The President has said he intends to nominate someone in the mold of 
Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0. That 
is quite a consensus.
  So long we do not change the standard from when the nomination of 
Justice Scalia was considered or Justice Ginsburg was considered, then 
we will have a relatively easy time confirming the President's 
selection if they meet the basic qualifications of legal scholarship, 
high ethical rectitude; in short, the type of person we would entrust 
with making the weighty decisions that are made by the Supreme Court.
  But if we, to the contrary, revert to a political process, one that 
is accusatory of this nominee before we actually have a chance to 
investigate their background and fitness for this office, if we engage 
in asking nominees to make promises to politicians about how they will 
rule in the future, I

[[Page S8451]]

think we will not have conducted ourselves in the best traditions of 
the Senate, and certainly not in a way that befits the awesome 
responsibility imposed upon the Senate under the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about 
an amendment to the pending matter, the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill. But the focal statements of my friend from Texas 
lead me to say a word about the apparently imminent nomination by the 
President of a Justice to the Supreme Court to replace Justice 
O'Connor.
  I want to particularly identify myself with Senator Cornyn's call 
that to the extent possible, we dispatch our very important 
responsibilities to advise and consent to the President's nomination to 
the Court in a nonpolitical manner.
  I have been in politics all my adult life, so I am not naive. I know 
when you have a political environment such as today, which is intensely 
partisan, when you have a Supreme Court, such as we have today, which 
is quite closely divided on some of the major issues facing our 
country, that it is going to be hard for this to be a totally 
nonpolitical process. But I do think, to the extent possible, that is 
what the Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of our country 
wanted us to do, and that is what our responsibility as Senators in 
this Chamber calls on us to do.
  The fact is, in the magnificent framework that the Founders created 
for the American Government, which has stood this great democracy, this 
great Republic so well for now more than two centuries, the Supreme 
Court was intended to occupy a unique place. It is the least political 
of the branches of Government. It is the branch of Government that is 
not occupied by elected officials. Supreme Court Justices, appointed by 
the President, serve life terms, going well beyond, in most cases, the 
term of the President who appointed them.

  The Supreme Court, in the contemplation of the Founders of this 
country, was meant to be that branch of Government that is most 
separated from the political passions of the moment that might lead the 
legislative or executive branch to take a particular action. The 
Supreme Court is there to apply, if you will allow me to say so, the 
eternal values incorporated in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights 
to the matters of the moment that come before them. They are human, so 
they obviously are sensitive to what is happening around them.
  The high calling of the Court is to look beyond the moment, including 
the political controversies of the moment, and do what they think the 
Constitution requires them to do and what the future of this 
constitutional Republic of ours requires them to do.
  This is a big moment which, to the best of our ability, we should try 
to keep as nonpolitical as possible, nonpartisan as possible, to focus 
on the nominee in a thoughtful way.
  I agree, it would be an unusual circumstance if people started to 
jump to conclusions immediately as to whether they were for or against 
the person the President will apparently announce tonight. It is going 
to require some consideration of the person's record, some thoughtful 
consideration. The Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. There will 
be public questioning. So we are going to have ample time to find out 
more about the nominee.
  There may be partisans on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, both 
ideological sides--left and right--who will want to immediately and, in 
some sense already have, make this nomination a matter of controversy, 
confrontation, division. That is their right in our democracy. But 
ultimately this comes down to 101 people: the President of the United 
States who, in the first instance, the most significant by virtue of 
having been elected, has earned the right to make this nomination, and 
then the other 100, of course, are the Members of this Senate. For the 
President and for the 100 of us privileged to serve in the Senate 
today, this is one of the big moments in our service because Supreme 
Court Justices have so much to say over the course of a generation or 
two about the quality of American freedom, about the quality of our 
Government, about the balance of rights, about the adjudication of 
controversies in our country. We are all going to be tested.
  I look forward to a nominee being named tonight who, I hope, will 
fill the President's pledge that he will nominate somebody who is 
mainstream, but he will not apply litmus tests. I thank the White 
House, including the President, for the consultation that has gone on 
with Members of the Senate of both parties leading up to this 
nomination tonight. Most of all, I hope we in this Chamber, because 
this is our responsibility, will conduct ourselves in a way that will 
be thoughtful; that not only will lead to an appropriate result in 
regard to the confirmation or failure to do so of the nominee, but will 
also bring some honor to this Chamber, and at a moment, as I said a 
moment ago, when there is too much polarization in our politics, that 
we will together do what is right for our country, at home and abroad.


                           Amendment No. 1248

  Mr. President, I came to the floor today to thank the floor managers, 
Senators McConnell and Leahy, for their stewardship of this very 
important bill, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. I also 
specifically came to thank them for accepting an amendment on refugees 
that I offered to this bill with Senators Brownback and Kennedy, a 
bipartisan measure.
  Senators McConnell and Leahy have a longstanding commitment to the 
well-being of refugees, and this priority is reflected in the 
legislation they have reported out of the committee which devotes $900 
million to refugee assistance. This is a worthy expenditure of 
America's money. That figure is more than the administration had 
requested. And I hope that in future years, the many supporters of 
refugees in both the Senate and the House--on both sides of the aisle--
can work together to increase our support for refugee assistance.
  This Nation of ours has been the home to so many who have come here 
seeking freedom and a better life. It is the essence of what America is 
about, and that includes addressing the systemic problems that have 
kept so many refugees in exile, confined in camps without a real home.
  Senator Kennedy and Senator Brownback have been leaders in calling 
attention to the longstanding plight of refugees in the world. Earlier 
this year, I was privileged to cosponsor a resolution they submitted 
condemning the so-called warehousing of refugees.
  The amendment we offered, which was accepted yesterday by the floor 
managers, builds on that antiwarehousing resolution by directing the 
expenditure of funds on programs that can help move refugees out of 
these camps and ease their assimilation into normal communities. The 
amendment addresses the heartrending conditions of millions of refugees 
who have been confined in these camps for many years.
  Here is a number that may stun people who are listening. Worldwide, 
there are 8 million refugees who have been confined to camps or other 
restricted settlements for longer than 5 years. That is a number that 
represents more than half of all refugees in the world--8 million in 
camps for at least 5 years.
  In many cases, the refugees have been confined in camps for decades. 
These warehouse refugees include people who have fled oppressive 
regimes, civil wars, even genocide. Their confinement deprives them, in 
my opinion, of the guaranteed right of the U.N. Refugee Convention of 
1951, such as the right to work, to travel, to own property, and to 
receive a basic education. Generations of refugees are born and die in 
camps. They cannot support their families. Their living conditions too 
often are horrendous. Their inherent potential as human beings, as 
recognized by our own Declaration of Independence, is suppressed and 
squandered.
  Unfortunately, the neighboring countries that have absorbed a sudden 
inflow of refugees are often the least equipped to care for them. So it 
is with the Burmese, the subject of the resolution adopted today, 
sanctioning the Burmese Government for antidemocratic policies. So it 
is with the Burmese who have fled to Thailand during this circumstance, 
to Bangladesh and India, the Angolans in Zambia, the

[[Page S8452]]

Bhutanese in Nepal, and the Somalians and Sudanese in Kenya.
  In response to immediate humanitarian needs, refugees are frequently 
massed in camps where nongovernmental organizations and the United 
Nations Commissioner for Refugees can more easily get aid to them. That 
is an understandable short-term reaction.
  Too often the camps have become long-term realities. We cannot expect 
developing countries such as Africa, Asia and Latin America to shoulder 
alone the burden of assimilating refugees, but neither can we accept a 
status quo that allows millions to remain massed at border camps 
indefinitely. Instead, we must work with countries that host refugee 
communities to develop alternatives to confinement in camps, and that 
is what the language of this amendment that Senators Kennedy, 
Brownback, and I have introduced will do.
  Our amendment directs the Secretary of State to work with the UNHR, 
with nongovernmental organizations, and with host countries to develop 
programs that support refugees outside of camps, programs that 
facilitate the integration of refugees by promoting their access to 
schools, health care, and other local services in the communities in 
which the camps are located.
  The international donor community will need to be responsive to local 
needs and, of course, local sensitivities. We have to create incentives 
for the host communities so they can see the local assimilation of 
refugees as an opportunity, not a threat. For example, refugees with 
special skills can help create economic opportunities for others around 
them. Our aid can pay for doctors, teachers, and facilities that are 
shared by the refugees and the local communities, thus benefiting the 
local community as well, or for job training and job creation programs 
that also would benefit the people in the surrounding communities. Our 
amendment calls on the State Department to fund programs that encourage 
dialog among local communities, the United Nations, and nongovernmental 
organizations.
  There is no easy solution to this refugee crisis that exists around 
the world, but it does cry out to us as the strongest and, in my 
opinion, greatest and most humanitarian nation in the world to do 
something to assist these people, these fellow citizens of this Earth.
  In some instances, conditions will improve sufficiently so that 
refugees can return to their home countries. Many nations offer to 
resettle refugees, but relatively few of the world's refugees actually 
get that opportunity. Permanent integration into the country of first 
asylum is also rare, and that leaves a temporary solution that is 
neither temporary nor a solution, which is confinement in camps.
  Many in Congress and others around the world are speaking out against 
the warehousing of refugees. They are looking for a better way. Helping 
to improve the lives of refugees will take work, it will take money, 
and it will take perseverance, but that is what this country is all 
about. It is worth it when we consider the living conditions of the 
Sudanese, Burmese, and other refugee children. Let us think about the 
children who are born in these camps and will die in these camps unless 
we do something to help them. Without our help, they will never have a 
future beyond the confinement of these camps.
  When we think about what this $900 million can do to open up the 
possibility of a future to these children, we know it is worth it. That 
is why I am honored to have worked with Senators Kennedy and Brownback 
on this amendment, and again I am very grateful to Senators McConnell 
and Leahy for accepting it. It was amendment No. 1248.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, are we now on the Foreign Operations 
bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                    Amendments Nos. 1276, 1277, 1278

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a managers' package to the desk. 
It is a series of amendments by Senators Brownback and Kennedy 
regarding Vietnamese refugees; Senator Leahy, regarding the Extractive 
Industries Transparency Initiative Trust Fund; and Mr. Brownback, 
regarding education programs in Egypt.
  I send these amendments to the desk. They have been cleared on both 
sides. I ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside and the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) proposes 
     amendments numbered 1276, 1277, 1278, en bloc.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on the amendments?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1276

 (Purpose: To extend eligibility for refugee status of unmarried sons 
             and daughters of certain Vietnamese refugees)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                          VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

       Sec. 6113. Section 594(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (enacted as division D of Public Law 10809447; 118 Stat. 
     3038) is amended by striking ``and 2005'' and inserting 
     ``through 2007''.

                           AMENDMENT NO. 1277

  (Purpose: To provide a United States contribution to the Extractive 
             Industries Transparency Initiative Trust Fund)

       On page 173, line 6, after the colon, insert the following:
       Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $1,000,000 should be made available 
     for a United States contribution to the Extractive Industries 
     Transparency Initiative Trust Fund:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1278

(Purpose: To ensure certain funds are used for educational programs in 
                                 Egypt)

       On page 169, lines 23 and 24, after ``programs'', insert 
     the following: ``, not less than $50,000,000 should be used 
     for education programs''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the votes on those amendments and 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1264

(Purpose: To support a United States contribution to the Special Court 
                           for Sierra Leone)

  Mr. McCONNELL. There are filed amendments which I will designate 
which I will send to the desk. They have been cleared on both sides. I 
call up amendment No. 1264, offered by Mr. Obama and Mr. Hagel. I ask 
its immediate consideration. I ask that Mr. Gregg and Mr. Leahy be 
added as cosponsors.
  The amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), for Mr. Obama, 
     for himself and Mr. Hagel, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Leahy, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1264.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 173, line 6 after ``Nepal:'' insert the following:
       Provided further, That of funds appropriated under this 
     heading, $13,000,000 should be made available for a United 
     States contribution to the Special Court for Sierra Leone:

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1264) was agreed to.
  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.

[[Page S8453]]

                    Amendment No. 1238, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. I call up amendment No. 1238, offered by Senator 
Allen, and send a modification to the desk. I ask Senator Leahy be 
added as a cosponsor. The amendment, as modified, has been cleared on 
both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) for Mr. Allen, 
     for himself and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1238, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


        combatting piracy of united states copyrighted materials

       Sec. __. (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of State 
     may carry out a program of activities to combat piracy in 
     countries that are not members of the Organization for 
     Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including 
     activities as follows:
       (1) The provision of equipment and training for law 
     enforcement, including in the interpretation of intellectual 
     property laws.
       (2) The provision of training for judges and prosecutors, 
     including in the interpretation of intellectual property 
     laws.
       (3) The provision of assistance in complying with 
     obligations under applicable international treaties and 
     agreements on copyright and intellectual property.
       (b) Consultation With World Intellectual Property 
     Organization.--In carrying out the program authorized by 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, consult with and provide assistance to the World 
     Intellectual Property Organization in order to promote the 
     integration of countries described in subsection (a) into the 
     global intellectual property system.
       (c) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under the heading ``International Narcotics Control 
     and Law Enforcement'', $5,000,000 may be available in fiscal 
     year 2006 for the program authorized by subsection (a).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1238), as modified, was agreed to.
  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.


                    Amendment No. 1253, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. I call up amendment No. 1253 offered by Senator 
Feingold and send a modification to the desk. The amendment, as 
modified, has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes amendment numbered 1253, as modified:

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


               REPORT ON ANTI-RETROVIRAL DRUG PROCUREMENT

       Sec.   . Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Coordinator of United States 
     Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally shall make 
     available to the public a report setting forth the amount of 
     United States funding provided under the authorities of the 
     United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
     Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), or under an 
     amendment made to that Act, to procure anti-retroviral drugs 
     in a country described in section 1(f)(2)(B)(VII) of the 
     State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     2651a(f)(2)(B)(VII)). The report shall include a detailed 
     description of the anti-retroviral drugs procured, 
     including--
       (1) the amount expended for generic and for name brand 
     anti-retroviral drugs;
       (2) the price paid per unit of each such drug; and
       (3) the vendor from which such drugs were purchased.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? 
Without objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1253), as modified, was agreed to.
  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.


                    Amendment No. 1262, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. I call up amendment No. 1262, offered by Senator 
Salazar, and send a modification to the desk. The amendment, as 
modified, has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), for Mr. Salazar, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1262, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 183, line 15, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, not less than $10,000,000 should be made 
     available for law enforcement programs to combat the 
     prevalence of violent gangs in Guatemala, Honduras, and El 
     Salvador.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1262), as modified, was agreed to.
  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.


                    Amendment No. 1273, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a modification to an amendment 
already filed, No. 1273. I send the modification to the desk.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1273, as modified:

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 326 between lines 10 and 11 insert the following:


                           EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

       Sec. 6113. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to 
     approve or administer a loan, guarantee, or insurance policy, 
     or an application for a loan, guarantee, or insurance policy, 
     for the development, or for the increase in capacity, of an 
     ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I are aware of only a 
few amendments to this bill which must be disposed of prior to final 
passage.
  Let me reiterate for all of our colleagues who are interested in 
amending this bill, we are not interested in encouraging that sort of 
thing, but if we are going to do it, since both the majority leader and 
Democratic leader have indicated we are going to finish this bill 
today, I think it would be considerate of all the Members of the 
Senate, and helpful, if we were to dispose of these amendments while 
the Sun is still up rather than this evening, because Members typically 
have many responsibilities in the evening. We would all like to finish 
up in the late afternoon.
  If you have an amendment that you simply must offer, come over and 
discuss it with us. Hopefully we can take it. If not, we will look for 
a short time agreement, a vote, and move toward final passage this 
afternoon.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 1283

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Brownback, Senator Leahy, and myself and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Brownback, for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1283.

  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 express the sense of the Senate regarding the forced 
                 repatriation of refugees in Cambodia)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


              FORCED REPATRIATION OF REFUGEES IN CAMBODIA

       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the United States Government is deeply concerned with 
     reports of the planned repatriation to Vietnam of 107 
     Montagnard refugees by the Government of Cambodia;
       (2) the United States Government strongly condemns any 
     forcible repatriation of refugees by the Government of 
     Cambodia; and

[[Page S8454]]

       (3) these refugees should be provided unobstructed legal 
     assistance from an independent organization in connection 
     with their appeals for fair review of their refugee claims, 
     and all such claims should be credibly and thoroughly 
     reviewed by the Office of the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva.

  Mr. McCONNELL. The amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1283) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  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. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside in order to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1271

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1271, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1271.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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 prevent funds from being made available to provide 
    assistance to a country which has refused to extradite certain 
                   individuals to the United States)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


      GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE FAILED TO PERMIT CERTAIN EXTRADITIONS

       Sec. 6113. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Department of State, other than funds made available in 
     title III under the heading ``international narcotics control 
     and law enforcement'', may be used to provide assistance to 
     any country whose government has notified the Department of 
     State of its refusal to extradite to the United States an 
     individual, or has not within a reasonable period of time 
     responded to a request for extradition to the United States 
     of an individual, charged with committing a criminal offense 
     in the United States for which the maximum penalty is life 
     imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or a lesser 
     term of imprisonment, regardless of the individual's 
     citizenship status.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the 
appropriations bill for State and Foreign Operations in regard to an 
issue that is very troubling to me. When an individual is charged with 
a crime and flees to a foreign country, it is the responsibility of the 
U.S. Department of State to seek extradition of that fugitive.
  In some instances, countries will refuse extradition. A common reason 
is where the prosecutors in the United States intend to seek the death 
penalty. Oftentimes, the prosecutors will waive the death penalty in 
order for the extradition to proceed successfully. I suppose this is an 
understandable bargain because not all countries around the world 
accept capital punishment.
  I am greatly concerned, however, about other instances where 
extradition is denied. For example, let me explain what happened to the 
son of a man named David Fulton, who is a constituent of mine from 
Hampton, GA.
  On December 21, 2002, Mr. Fulton's son, CPL Joshia Fulton of the U.S. 
Marine Corps, was murdered right here on the streets of Washington, DC. 
At the time of his murder, Corporal Fulton was a member of the elite 
Presidential protection program called Yankee White, an assignment 
through which he had the honor of traveling abroad with the President 
of the United States. Corporal Fulton was awaiting assignment for 
service as a guard in the West Wing of the White House when he was 
killed.
  After an investigation by the District of Columbia police department, 
a criminal complaint was filed charging a suspect named Carlos Almanza 
with the murder of Joshia Fulton. Almanza, however, fled the United 
States to his home country, the Republic of Nicaragua, where that 
country's constitution prohibits extradition of its citizens.
  If Nicaragua refuses to turn this murder suspect over to the U.S. 
authorities so he can be brought to justice in the United States, where 
this heinous crime occurred, then Nicaragua should not receive any 
financial aid from the United States under the appropriations bill now 
before the Senate. Nicaragua's constitutional ban on extradition of its 
citizens who are fugitives from justice is simply no excuse. That law 
needs to change if they want to continue to receive American aid.
  Mr. President, let me point out another situation in which 
extradition of criminal suspects has been frustrated in recent times; 
that is, where countries will not extradite fugitives not because they 
face the death penalty but because they face life in prison without 
parole.
  For example, in October 2001, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that 
extradition of a person from Mexico who faces life imprisonment in the 
United States would violate the Mexican Constitution's bar on cruel and 
unusual punishment. This decision has resulted in a serious setback to 
the United States-Mexico so-called bilateral relationship.
  Since that court decision, the Mexican Government has asked the 
United States for assurances that life imprisonment would not be 
imposed on persons extradited to this country. In the absence of such 
assurance, they refused to extradite.
  The impact of the Mexican Supreme Court decision has been ``severe,'' 
as described by the Department of Justice. Not only have extradition 
requests been denied by the courts, but many prosecutors hesitate to 
seek extradition due to the requirement of lessening a sentence.
  Costa Rica, Spain, Venezuela, and Portugal have also sought non-
imposition of life sentences. Some of these countries have even set 
term limits for the maximum number of years a criminal faces before 
they will extradite. In Costa Rica, it is 50 years; in Venezuela, it is 
30 years; in Portugal, it is 20 years.
  My amendment reads simply as follows:

       None of the funds made available in this Act for the 
     Department of State, other than funds made available in title 
     III under the heading ``International Narcotics Control and 
     Law Enforcement,'' may be used to provide assistance to any 
     country whose government has notified the Department of State 
     of its refusal to extradite to the United States an 
     individual, or has not within a reasonable period of time 
     responded to a request for extradition to the United States 
     of an individual, charged with committing a criminal offense 
     in the United States for which the maximum penalty is life 
     imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or a lesser 
     term of imprisonment, regardless of his or her citizenship 
     status.

  My intent in offering this amendment is not to deny aid to any 
country but, rather, to provide a substantial incentive for 
recalcitrant countries to reform their extradition laws so that 
suspected criminals can be brought to justice in the United States, 
which I submit to you offers the greatest due process protections to 
those who stand accused of a crime of any country in the world.
  Mr. President, I applaud the House of Representatives for recently 
passing similar amendments to the State-Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill that will deny U.S. aid to countries that refuse to 
extradite fugitive criminal suspects to the United States. My 
colleague, Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia, offered such an 
amendment in the House, and it passed by a vote of 294 to 132. 
Likewise, Congressman Bob Beauprez of Colorado offered an amendment 
that would withhold funds to any country that refuses to extradite a 
fugitive cop-killer suspect. His amendment passed on a vote of 327 to 
98.
  The thought behind my amendment, as well as those passed by our 
colleagues in the House, is that financial assistance from the United 
States is a privilege--a privilege that can and should be revoked where 
a recipient country refuses to extend to the United

[[Page S8455]]

States the simple courtesy of sending back those who have been charged 
with breaking our laws. These fugitives should not be allowed to seek 
refuge under the laws of countries who would purport to be our friends.
  Friendship should be reciprocal and, consequently, privileges like 
foreign aid can be revocable. The bottom line on my amendment is that 
we should not spend the tax dollars of hard-working Americans to assist 
countries that don't want to treat us with the respect that a 
friendship deserves.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to make a report to Republican 
Members of the Senate. We are down to a handful of amendments. I am 
aware of only one at the moment that may require a rollcall vote. So 
let me announce to our Republican colleagues that time is running out 
for them to come over and let me know for sure whether they need to 
offer an amendment so we can find out whether it can be worked out.
  As I indicated, at this moment, there is only one Republican 
amendment we know that will require a rollcall vote, and we have a 
tight time agreement on it that the author is willing to enter into.
  I know my friend and colleague Senator Leahy has worked hard to 
reduce the possible number of amendments on the Democratic side. I will 
yield the floor and hope we get a report to him on how we stand and see 
if he is making the same progress.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Kentucky for 
trying to move this bill along. I have been trying to do the same on my 
side. I am hoping we can.
  In fairness, if people actually have amendments, they should bring 
them forward. We have had several hours of quorum calls today. It would 
not seem to make a great deal of sense that we be here at midnight 
tonight finishing the bill. I join with the Senator from Kentucky. We 
could easily have had it finished by now. I will make one last call on 
our Members, but I am very eager to go to third reading.
  I see other Senators seeking recognition. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me add, we are going to finish the 
bill tonight. We hope to finish it late this afternoon. We have made 
good progress on this side of the aisle in whittling down the number of 
amendments. We would like to talk to anyone remaining on the Republican 
side who has an amendment they may want to offer, and Senator Leahy, of 
course, is open for business on the Democratic side.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I will make a few comments before I call 
up a couple of amendments.
  No. 1, I am disheartened that the committee, as well as the 
administration, would not take our restrictions on the USAID program 
for malaria. The Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had a very 
insightful and revealing hearing that revealed in testimony that the 
vast majority of the funds to help those in Africa suffering from 
malaria, both in terms of prevention and treatment, were not going for 
that purpose, but yet were being consumed by consultations and travel, 
and very little of the $90 million that is allocated each year actually 
is going to treat malaria.
  One million African children under 5 years of age each year die from 
a totally preventable disease, malaria. It takes 90 cents to treat them 
and cure them of that disease.
  I am markedly disappointed in the process that even though the 
administration has a great new program for malaria in Africa, 
limitations on the present program would not be agreed to and put in 
place. I assure this body and the administration that within 3 months, 
we are going to look at the USAID program for malaria again and if, in 
fact, they are still wasting money the way they are today and not 
achieving the goals of prevention and treatment for malaria, then we 
will be bringing another piece of legislation to the floor to modify 
the expenditures and put a limitation on them.
  I also am somewhat disheartened that the State Department failed to 
recognize the contribution of 47 individuals in Iraq and that, through 
their own inappropriateness and lack of ability to follow the law, 
overpaid these individuals. Their average work time was 16 to 18 hours 
a day, 7 days a week over the last year, and the State Department has 
now made a very onerous and difficult situation for those people, who 
are still in Iraq, to now have to pay back money inadvertently 
overpaid. This is a small price to pay. The cost to collect the 
overpayments is going to be more than the forgiveness would have been. 
But yet we have a stiff rule that we seem to be more interested in 
doing what the State Department wants in terms of its technical 
problems instead of doing what is probably the best thing to do for 
these people who have sacrificed greatly in Iraq.
  We are going to be debating a couple of amendments in a few moments. 
One amendment will be an amendment under which Senator Boxer and I 
limit some funds of the Export-Import Bank in terms of financing sales 
of nuclear powerplants to China. It is a fairly straightforward 
amendment. There is no question we want to promote jobs in this 
country. It is important for us to stay competitive. But competing with 
the French in terms of subsidizing a British corporation, not an 
American corporation, and subsidizing that to the intent that it will, 
in fact, allow technology that Westinghouse Electric, which is owned by 
British Nuclear Fuels which is owned by the British Government, that 
technology 10 years from now will belong to the Chinese. We are in 
essence through an American taxpayers' loan, subsidizing the Chinese to 
take more of our technology.
  The press is rife, the reports are rife, our trade people also 
recognize intellectual property is not something that is honored by the 
Chinese Government. There are some very significant inconsistencies in 
our policy that I think we need to reinforce, and this amendment with 
Senator Boxer is intended to do that.
  The other amendment I will be calling up has to do with the 
expenditure of USAID in terms of entertainment. There is no question 
that we have much to do in terms of our foreign policy internationally 
and that the USAID can and should be the agent of a lot of those 
changes. However, there are significant problems associated with that, 
and we will be discussing that.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 1241 and 1242, En Bloc

  Mr. COBURN. I call up amendments Nos. 1241 and 1242.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes amendment 
     No. 1241.
       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself, and 
     Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1242.

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


                           AMENDMENT No. 1241

  (Purpose: To prohibit funds from being made available to the United 
States Agency for International Development for entertainment expenses)

       On page 206, strike lines 6 through 10, and insert the 
     following:


                         LIMITATION ON EXPENSES

       Sec. 6004. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     pursuant to this Act may be used for entertainment expenses 
     of the United States Agency for International Development.

[[Page S8456]]

 (Purpose: To prohibit any funds from being used by the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to approve a loan or a loan guarantee related 
                     to a nuclear project in China)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

       Sec. 6113. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds appropriated or made available pursuant to 
     this Act may be used by the Export09Import Bank of the United 
     States to approve an application for a long-term loan or a 
     loan guarantee related to a nuclear project in the People's 
     Republic of China.

  Mr. COBURN. Amendment 1241 has to do with entertainment expenses 
associated with USAID. I have a couple of charts that I will refer to. 
We are going to run a true on-budget deficit this year of $541 billion. 
It is inappropriate for bureaucracies of our Government to spend money 
in ways that are not appropriate when, in fact, that money can do much 
greater things.
  In the current bill, and since 1999, there has been a limitation of 
$5,000 in the USAID budget for entertainment. Much of this 
entertainment has gone for personal gifts, for live entertainment, for 
dinners. One of the things I found quite striking was what the USAID 
handbook states about spending.
  The USAID handbook states: For budget purposes, entertainment 
includes food and drink, receptions, banquets, live or recorded music, 
live artistic performances, personal gifts and furnishings.
  The USAID handbook also states: The USAID has the authority to use 
program and regular operating expense funds for entertainment under the 
necessary expense doctrine. GAO decisions to the contrary are not 
binding on the executive branch. There are no restrictions on the use 
of the entertainment account or representation allowances for alcoholic 
beverages.
  Let us talk about what $5,000 per pop could do. Five thousand dollars 
per pop in Africa today is enough to prevent 1,250 babies from getting 
HIV. Are we going to have a party or buy gifts for officials of African 
governments, or are we going to cure babies of HIV and prevent the 
transmission?
  Five thousand dollars is enough to prevent 5,000 children from dying 
of malaria. Are we going to have a party with USAID, are we going to 
have entertainment, or are we going to direct USAID back to their 
directed purpose, which is carrying out the good will and the financial 
assets of Americans to make an impact on the health, lives, and 
prosperity of those we are attempting to serve?
  Five thousand dollars would buy 5,000 5-gallon bottles of clean water 
for the multitudes of cities that have no clean water. Are we going to 
spend it on entertainment--and we do not care what the GAO says, we do 
not care what Congress says--are we going to spend it on entertainment 
and furnishings?
  Five thousand dollars would buy 300 bags of rice, oats, and wheat for 
communities in need of food and nourishment. Are we going to have 
entertainment for USAID, or are we going to send the money?
  The problem the American people have with our foreign aid is not that 
they do not want to help people. They want to help. The problem is they 
have become skeptical that their tax dollars are actually getting to 
the very people they intend and want to help. USAID can limit this. 
They can make a bigger difference if, in fact, they will eliminate the 
entertainment portions of their budgets.
  Five thousand dollars can buy 10 additional body armor units for our 
troops. Are we going to have entertainment by USAID, or are we going to 
have additional body armor units for our troops?
  I am not a prude. I think there is an appropriate time for us to 
greet in a diplomatic fashion, in a way that is commensurate with what 
is protocol, but I do not think USAID has to be doing that. There are 
other areas within the State Department that should be doing that.
  The last thing I would say is $5,000 may seem like an inconsequential 
amount one at a time, but when it is done multiple times, it is not 
inconsequential, No. 1. No. 2, it could be the difference of life and 
death for the very people USAID proposes to want to help.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the 
desk.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from New Jersey yield for just a 
moment?
  Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from New Jersey be willing to 
withhold until I get a time agreement on one of the Coburn amendments, 
and then the Senator from New Jersey will be recognized again?
  Mr. CORZINE. I would be happy to yield for that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding after 
discussions with the Senator from Oklahoma, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee and myself, we have an agreement on voting on the Coburn-
Boxer amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 60 minutes for debate in 
relation to the Coburn-Boxer amendment No. 1242, with Senator Coburn in 
control of 20 minutes, Senator Boxer in control of 20 minutes, and 20 
minutes under my control; provided further that following the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not--I 
discussed this with the Senator from Kentucky before--I will make two 
additions, one to add 5 minutes for the Senator from Vermont, which I 
do not expect to be using but just because of the way it is broken 
down, just to make sure that I have time; and secondly, this debate not 
start until such time as the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from 
Wisconsin, and the Senator from New York who are on the floor, each 
waiting to speak briefly, make their statements before we begin the 
Coburn-Boxer amendment. With those provisos, the additional 5 minutes 
for myself, plus the time for the three of them, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. They are asking, as I understand it, for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Vermont would yield, I ask unanimous 
consent for up to 10 minutes for myself, 5 minutes for Senator Kohl, 
and 5 minutes for Senator Schumer.
  Mr. LEAHY. I make that as part of the agreement.
  Mr. McCONNELL. After which we would move to the Coburn-Boxer 
amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is now recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1290

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine], for himself, Mr. 
     DeWine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Obama, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1290.

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

  (Purpose: To make funds available for the African Union Mission in 
                                 Sudan)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                           TRANSFER OF FUNDS

       Sec. 6113. Of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``conflict response fund'', $50,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to, and merged with, the funds appropriated in 
     title IV under the heading ``foreign military financing 
     program'' and made available to provide assistance to support 
     the African Union Mission in Sudan.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise once again to speak out on the 
subject that I have addressed on the floor a number of times and feel 
passionately about--a number of us do--and that is the continuing 
genocide in Darfur.
  I offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill to provide funds 
for the African Union to provide the troops that will protect and stop 
the genocide if we have the will to take the steps to have the 
resources made available.

[[Page S8457]]

  Hundreds of people are dying every day, some by guns, some by 
illness, disease, and a whole host of things. There have been over 
300,000 lives lost over the last 2 years and 2 million people 
displaced. One year ago this Friday, the Senate recognized this 
genocide and spoke about it. Our Secretary of State testified in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the fact that genocide was taking 
place.
  To the President's credit, before he left for the G8, he spoke out 
again against the genocide that is taking place here and now. There is 
complete recognition that this is a tragedy that is unfolding, maybe 
more in slow motion today than it was 6 months or a year ago, but it is 
very much still taking place. People are losing their lives. Our 
President, the Congress, and the American people understand it is time 
to stop this genocide.
  Last weekend, there was a national weekend of prayer and reflection 
for Darfur based on a Senate resolution that Senator Brownback and I 
put forward. It was unanimously accepted by this body. Churches, 
synagogues, mosques, and other communities of faith, people across this 
country with conscience and compassion spoke up together that they want 
this genocide stopped.
  In New Jersey, I attended services at the B'nai Jeshurun Congregation 
at the Barnert Temple in Franklin Lakes and the Shiloh Baptist Church 
and First United Methodist Church in Trenton. People of all 
backgrounds, all religious faiths, people of conscience want us to act. 
The people are demanding that we act.
  We have looked at the history across the last century. We have seen 
the Holocaust, the genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenia, and we 
constantly are saying: Never again. Never again, we say, will we accept 
the slaughter of our fellow human beings; never again will we stand by 
while systematic crimes are being inflicted on humanity. Now is the 
time to put deed with words on ``never again.''
  The amendment I am offering provides critical assistance to the 
African Union and Darfur. My colleagues, Senators DeWine, Durbin, 
Brownback, and Obama, were seeking to provide the African Union with 
$50 million. Frankly, that is not enough. It does not meet what the 
State Department knows is necessary. It does not meet what is necessary 
to get the proper amount of troops on the ground in Darfur, Sudan. I am 
disappointed that we cannot figure out how we can declare this 
emergency funding, whatever it takes, to make sure that we put deeds 
with words on ``never again.''
  The African Union has been deployed. Where it has been deployed, it 
has been successful. The attacks have stopped. Keep in mind, Darfur is 
the size of Texas. The current deployment of about 3,300 troops just 
does not get the job done. There has to be a sustained presence. 
Civilians are protected one day, they move on to the next spot, and 
they are no longer.
  The African Union has a plan to put 7,700 troops there by the end of 
September. They need the funding. They do not have the resources. The 
real need is 12,000. There is a plan to have that done by next May. We 
are working with the United Nations on that.
  The United States has to step up and help. If we know that genocide 
is occurring, we have a moral obligation to help. It is tragic that we 
are not putting our money where our mouth is; we are not putting money 
for the deeds that match the words that we so willingly put out.
  Again, I compliment President Bush for speaking out on this and being 
attentive to it, as well as the State Department, but we need to make 
sure the resources match the stated policy. The Government of Khartoum 
is still not doing those things that are necessary. We ought to have a 
full policy with regard to putting a special envoy on the ground. We 
need to make sure that we are putting an arms embargo against the state 
of Sudan, all of Sudan. We need to make sure there is pressure about 
real sanctions on those who have been responsible for those crimes and 
that they are held accountable. All of this has been in legislation 
that Senator Brownback and I have brought before this body and have had 
passed unanimously at other times.

  The American people are watching us to see whether we have the will 
to address the moral challenge of genocide. They are watching to see 
whether we can make the choices to do something about it. Last weekend, 
Americans of faith and conscience spoke. I hope we will do that with 
regard to this amendment, but I hope we will go further and make sure 
we have all of the resources that are necessary to fulfill this plan of 
getting 7,700 troops on the ground by September and 12,000 by next 
spring.
  This is a moral challenge to the people in this body. It is a moral 
challenge to our country. I hope we accept it and work together to 
address something that we all know is necessary.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 The President's Supreme Court Nominee

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we have all just heard the President will 
announce this evening a candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor. Then, the Senate will begin its constitutional 
duty to examine the nominee and give or withhold our consent. As the 
Senator from Connecticut said earlier on the floor, this is one of our 
most important jobs. Whomever we put on the Supreme Court will affect 
the lives of every American. Further, that person will receive a 
lifetime appointment, unchecked by elections or any other 
accountability to the people for whom we work. The confirmation process 
is our only chance to make sure whomever we put in this very powerful 
job embraces our values, respects our laws, and protects our 
Constitution.
  We need to make sure this nominee is well-qualified and approaches 
legal issues with an open mind and no partisan, political agenda. He or 
she must have a keen understanding of the law and the ability to 
explain it in ways the American people will understand.
  Second, we hope he or she is someone who will represent the views of 
people all across America, someone who will respect the Constitution.
  Third, a qualified nominee must understand that the law is more than 
an intellectual game and more than a mental exercise. The law is about 
real people, often facing the all-too-real challenges of raising 
families and earning a living. Justice, after all, may be blind, but it 
should not be deaf.
  Finally, a nominee has to be willing to tell us how she or he will 
exercise the enormous power of their position. We need to know how the 
nominee sees the world and what he or she thinks about basic issues.
  The Senate is about to begin one of its most solemn and important 
duties. As the confirmation process unfolds, I sincerely hope we 
continue to talk to and listen to each other, regardless of party and, 
more importantly, to the people we represent.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if reports are correct, less than 5 hours 
from now, President Bush will announce to the Nation his first 
nomination to the Supreme Court. This process and his choice will 
surely make up a large part of his lasting legacy.
  The President no doubt spent a great deal of time and thought before 
making the selection he will announce tonight, and I am hopeful--still 
hopeful--that it will be a truly consensus nominee, one we can all 
support and one that will serve this country well on the highest court 
in the land.
  I must admit to some disappointment that President Bush did not do 
more to consult with the Senate on this pick because, as many of us 
have said all along, it is such consultation that helps ensure a smooth 
confirmation process and a unified vote.
  Had we been given some names beforehand, we would have been able to 
do some due diligence before any announcement and be able to suggest to 
the President who might quickly succeed and who might face a tougher 
road to confirmation, just as Orrin Hatch did with President Clinton.
  But be that as it may, tonight we start fresh and likely with a 
nominee who has not been vetted with the Senate beforehand. This will 
make the upcoming hearings on this nominee that

[[Page S8458]]

much more important--perhaps the most important we have had in several 
generations. We, in the Senate, will soon begin to fulfill our 
constitutional duty to advise and then to give or withhold our consent 
on the President's nominee. Whomever the nominee, whether Edith 
Clement, as many are rumoring, or another, there will be many tough 
questions on a broad range of issues. It is my hope that every Member 
of the Senate will take this solemn duty seriously and move forward 
with dignity, diligence, and a view toward coming to a deliberate, but 
not dilatory, conclusion on whether the coming nominee should be on the 
Supreme Court.
  Because Justice O'Connor was such a swing vote on so many issues 
vital to Americans, the answers this nominee gives at the hearings will 
be of incredible importance in determining whether the nominee is 
suitable for the Court.
  So tonight is a momentous night--for President Bush, for the nominee, 
for the Senate, and most of all for the country. We must renew our 
determination to fulfill this sacred trust with vigor and fairness, but 
with thoroughness as well.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1242

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Coburn amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of Members of the 
Senate, what we are trying to do is set up a series of three votes, 
between an hour and 1\1/2\ hours on two Coburn amendments and a Dorgan 
amendment. I will be back at the conclusion of Senator Coburn's remarks 
to propound a unanimous consent agreement that would lock in those 
three votes around the time that I just suggested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask consent that I be 
recognized following the debate on the Coburn-Boxer amendment to offer 
my amendment. I would say I only require 15 minutes for myself on my 
amendment. My guess is we would want to allocate 15 minutes to perhaps 
the Presiding Officer or others in the Chamber who would oppose the 
amendment, but that would be acceptable. I want to get it locked in so 
I could offer that amendment following the debate on the Coburn-Boxer 
amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest that there be 15 minutes under the control 
of the Senator from North Dakota; 15 minutes under the control of the 
occupant of the chair or myself; 15 minutes under the control of 
Senator Martinez, and that debate commence at the expiration of the 
time allocated that is about to start momentarily related to the Coburn 
amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I make that unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time on the Coburn amendment?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the Coburn-Boxer amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment that I 
called up earlier, the Coburn-Boxer amendment, banning the Export-
Import Bank of the United States from funding construction of nuclear 
facilities in the People's Republic of China.
  I want the American people to know, and especially this body, that we 
are walking down a road using taxpayers' funds for low-interest loans 
to finance a British Government-owned company to sell U.S. nuclear 
technology to the Chinese Government, which has already said that after 
they get that technology, they are going to take it and then they are 
going to start utilizing it to resell the same nuclear technology 
around the world. To me, that seems insane, that we would give a 
subsidy to finance the export of technology--American technology owned 
by the British Government through the British Nuclear Fuels 
Corporation--to the Chinese, who will then take that technology, once 
they build nuclear plants, own it themselves, and then sell that 
product around the world.
  We are going to take the largest amount of money the Export-Import 
Bank has ever used, $3.2 billion, a sum bigger than the Export-Import 
Bank has ever loaned--$1.8 billion was the highest in the past--and we 
are going to subsidize a country that is holding $165 billion worth of 
our notes. We already owe them $165 billion. They have plenty of cash 
to finance this themselves. And the reason we are told we are going to 
do this is it is going to help hold on to 5,000 jobs.
  The fact is, if we take that same kind of subsidy, through our 
Export-Import Bank, and put it into venture capital, small business, 
research in this country, we would create hundreds of thousands of 
jobs. So the only rationale for doing this is to hang on to some jobs. 
And we are going to ask the American taxpayer to subsidize this.

  What happens if the Chinese do not pay back the loan? The American 
taxpayer has to pay $5 billion. That is what happens if they, in fact, 
do not pay it back. I do not know if that is realistic or not. I don't 
know what is going to happen over the next 10 years to a $5 billion 
loan to a country that already is attempting to buy, through their 
Government, assets of this country's oil infrastructure.
  I think it behooves us to have a vigorous debate on what our policy 
should be with the Export-Import Bank and whether it is a shortsighted 
policy to save 5,000 jobs. The actual logic behind that is that if we 
don't do it, France will do it; France will beat us on this contract 
because the French Government will do it.
  If we are going to invest $5 billion or put that on the line, let's 
loan it to small businesses across America. Let's invest in technology 
here rather than invest in a corporation that is owned by the British. 
Let's invest in American corporations. Let's give American companies 
this kind of benefit.
  But, in fact, we have chosen to go down this path for a very good 
reason. It is important to save jobs. I don't mean to demean that 
whatsoever. But it is a short-range answer to a very long-range 
problem. If, in fact, $5 billion will save 5,000 jobs in the United 
States, that is $100,000 a job. It is important for us to be clear 
about what the intent is. The Export-Import Bank was designed to help 
us enhance our exports.
  First of all, there are some jobs in California and Pennsylvania and 
Louisiana that are affected by this deal. It is not to say that those 
jobs will not be there if this deal doesn't go through. As a matter of 
fact, I would say, as we look at the need for nuclear energy in the 
future in this country, most probably we are going to see some greater 
demand from these companies. But I find it very ironic that a country 
that has a trade surplus with us approaching $200 billion, that has a 
significant growth factor that is greater than ours, that is ``cash 
rich'' at this time to the tune of $165 billion just in U.S. Treasury 
securities, that the taxpayer ought to be financing the sale of nuclear 
powerplants and nuclear technology to China.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my understanding is I have 20 minutes; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask to be notified when I have used 14 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his work on 
this amendment. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor.
  As he explains, this amendment will stop the Export-Import Bank from 
financing a project to construct nuclear powerplants in China. Earlier 
this year, the Ex-Im Bank agreed to provide $5 billion in loans or loan 
guarantees to the American subsidiary of a British company, 
Westinghouse Electric Company, so the company could bid on a contract 
to build nuclear powerplants in China.
  This deal will, if we do not stop it, be the largest deal in the 
history of the Ex-Im Bank. In fact, it would be nearly

[[Page S8459]]

three times larger than the bank's previous deal, a $1.7 billion 
transaction in the mid-1980s. So this is not some small, 
inconsequential amendment. This is a big deal because this would be the 
biggest deal of the Ex-Im Bank since the 1980s, and three times the 
size of that deal. According to the Ex-Im Bank itself, some of these 
loans may go not to the company but directly to the Government of 
China. What is going on here?
  Over the last decade, China has emerged as an economic power. It is 
the sixth largest economy in the world with a gross domestic product of 
over $1.65 trillion. The economy is growing at 9.5 percent.
  What about our economic relationship with China? Last year, the 
United States had a trade deficit of $162 billion with China. This 
year, the trade deficit may go over $200 billion. This is in part 
because China purposely undervalued its currency in order to dump 
projects in America.
  Just last month, a company that is majority-owned by the Chinese 
Government offered to buy the American company, Unocol, for $18.5 
billion. In addition--and this shocks me every time I read it--the 
Chinese Government owns $230 billion of our Treasury bonds on which we 
are paying billions of dollars of interest. The Chinese Government is 
not poor, and it does not need a loan backed by U.S. taxpayers.
  What would that $5 billion loan be used for? It would be used to help 
Westinghouse build nuclear powerplants in China, one of the riskiest 
investments possible. Remember, as Senator Coburn has explained, 
Westinghouse is the American subsidiary of a large British company.
  Since 1948, in the United States the nuclear power industry has 
received more than $66 billion of Federal research and development 
funding. I am the first to say, the majority of Senators support these 
types of subsidies. Why? Because we have not seen a nuclear powerplant 
built in America since 1973. Why? Because it is too risky an 
investment. But the Ex-Im Bank is prepared to put our American taxpayer 
dollars at risk for nuclear powerplants in China. Nuclear power is not 
only a risky investment here, but think about nuclear powerplants being 
built in China where the terribly weak standards on workplace safety 
glare out at us and the terribly weak standards of environmental 
protection stand out. That in itself takes the risk to a whole new 
level.
  There are several other aspects of this deal that do not make sense. 
It comes down to the same bottom line: Why should we use American 
taxpayer dollars for this risky investment? Again, the beneficiary is 
not an American company but a subsidiary of a British-Government-owned 
company. The Brits are great allies. We love them. But let them put 
their taxpayers on the line. Why do we have to put our taxpayers on the 
line?
  As Senator Coburn points out, the biggest argument against our 
amendment is this will create 5,000 American jobs if we agree to this 
risky loan. Let's ignore for a minute that the Chinese Government says 
it fully intends to develop for itself the ability to manufacture the 
parts that Westinghouse would be selling to them--a point made very 
dramatically by my colleague, Senator Coburn. The fact is, those 5,000 
jobs will not last very long when the Chinese learn how to do the work. 
But, given that, that the 5,000 jobs will be created, we need to put 
that number in context. We are talking about $5 billion in loans and 
loan guarantees. It will create 5,000 jobs.
  U.S. manufacturers have estimated that China's undervaluation of its 
currency has resulted in the loss of 2 million American jobs. So why 
don't we do something to change this persistent unfair trade practice 
and create 2 million jobs--if everything was fair--not 5,000 jobs? If 
we can't do this through pressure by convincing the Chinese to change 
their practice or by pursuing a complaint with the WTO, surely there 
are easier ways to create 5,000 jobs.

  For example, spending $100 million--2 percent of the size of this 
deal--on transportation projects would create 5,000 jobs. According to 
the measurements used by the Small Business Administration, $5 billion 
in loans and loan guarantees to American small businesses would create 
100,000 new jobs. What is wrong with this picture? If we are so ready 
to give loan guarantees, let's look at giving them right here to our 
small businesses. Of course we are not going down that path today. It 
is a point of priorities.
  Count me out for this. The 5,000 jobs are not real. They will not 
last long. It is a British-owned company. And we can do much more with 
$5 billion in loan guarantees to our small businesses and create 
100,000 jobs.
  This Chinese nuclear powerplant deal is a bad deal from an American 
jobs standpoint. Another thing that makes no sense is that in order to 
build the nuclear powerplants, we would be selling our advanced nuclear 
technology to China. I say to my colleagues, wake up.
  Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu said:

       If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided 
     ammunition into the target zone on China's territory, I think 
     we will have to respond with nuclear weapons.

  The date was July 15, 4 days ago, that this major general threatened 
us with nuclear weapons.
  The same major general said on the same day to the Asian Wall Street 
Journal on the Financial Times:

       Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that 
     hundreds of, or two hundreds of (or) even more cities will be 
     destroyed by the Chinese.

  I believe this was stated in the context of the Taiwan situation.
  We are at the brink of giving a $5 billion loan, or loan guarantee, 
part of which, according to the Ex-Im Bank, will go directly to China 
to give them the technology they need so that this general can run 
around and make threats to use nuclear weapons. This is beyond belief. 
I hope and pray and maybe go so far as to trust this general is not 
reflective of reality in China.
  But even if you do not believe this guy has any clout, what a time to 
give them nuclear technology when one of their top military people is 
threatening us. What a time to give them the opportunity to steal our 
technology.
  China is one of the largest violators of U.S. intellectual property 
rights in the world. That is indisputable. Coming from California, I 
know too well the piracy of American movies, music, software, and other 
products committed by China. It costs American businesses billions of 
dollars every year. A movie and a record represents millions and 
billions of loss to my business people and American jobs, but it cannot 
kill. We are talking about nuclear technology. That can come back and 
bite us. We have to assume that the Chinese will pirate our nuclear 
technology if they pirate all our other technologies. They admit they 
are going to learn how to use it. When all is said, something is wrong 
with this picture.
  I conclude this portion of my remarks in this way. I will paint the 
picture as succinctly as I can. If the Ex-Im Bank's deal goes through, 
U.S. taxpayer dollars will be put at risk so that the Chinese 
Government can pay an American subsidiary of a British company to send 
U.S. nuclear technology to China where a major general has threatened 
to use nuclear weapons against the United States--all of this in order 
to undertake an incredibly risky financial investment, building nuclear 
powerplants. Not only is something wrong with this picture, something 
is horribly wrong with this picture.
  Am I permitted to refer to a House vote on the Senate floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may so refer.
  Mrs. BOXER. In the House of Representatives a very similar amendment 
was offered. It passed with the type of coalition we see here, across 
the aisle. It passed 3 to 1. We have an opportunity today to follow the 
lead of our colleagues who ask us to stand with them.
  This deal makes no sense. The Coburn-Boxer amendment stops this deal 
in its tracks. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  I retain the remainder of my time and defer to Senator McConnell.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Santorum wishes to use the time 
in opposition to the amendment. I believe he is on his way.
  Mr. COBURN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes 38 seconds.
  Mr. COBURN. I will yield such time as I may consume. I ask the 
Presiding

[[Page S8460]]

Officer to notify me when I have 5 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. COBURN. A couple of points: No. 1, this is not just the British-
owned corporation; this is a corporation owned by the British 
Government. There is a big difference. It is not a privately held 
corporation. The British Government owns British Nuclear Fuels, which 
owns Westinghouse. If there is a subsidized loan that ought to go 
anywhere, it ought to come from the British, not the American 
taxpayers.
  Second, I spoke in error. It is not $100,000 per job but $1 million 
per job; $5 billion for 5,000 jobs is $1 million a job. That is what we 
are putting at risk to save 5,000 jobs.
  The third point I make is we are not just offering a loan subsidy and 
guarantee to a Westinghouse power generation subsidiary of British 
Nuclear Fuels owned by the British Government. We are also allowing a 
subsidy for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that also has a large portion 
of this deal. What we are doing is financing just as many jobs out of 
the country as we are in the country. So the claim that we want to do 
this to save 5,000 jobs means we are going to enhance the ability of 
the Japanese steel manufacturers to compete with our steel 
manufacturers because we are going to give them a guaranteed loan to 
supply the steel for this facility.

  It makes no sense. How do we best create more jobs in this country? 
We trim Government spending. We cut taxes. We allow the entrepreneurs 
of this country, the people who have paid 14 percent more taxes this 
year already, to have the money with which to invest. If we are not 
going to do that, then let's subsidize the small businessmen, the 
venture capitalists in this country. Let's put it into our own research 
and development, our own science and our own technology. If we are 
going to put the taxpayer on hold for $5 billion, I would much rather 
do that than trying to collect it, because I think we would have a 
tough time trying to collect it from the Japanese if they did default. 
I don't think that would happen. But we start putting American 
taxpayers', Americans' future at risk on something that does not make 
any sense.
  I have a difference of opinion with the Senator from California about 
the need for nuclear power. We differ on that. There is no question 
about that. I happen to believe this very deal will come back to haunt 
us. I believe 20 years from now we will be buying nuclear powerplants 
from the Chinese rather than them buying from ourselves or from the 
British, because if you look at every other major manufacturer that has 
a deal in China, one of the components to have the deal in China is to 
give up your technology at the specified period of time. There isn't 
one manufacturer over there today that has not agreed to license or 
give away their technology for the opportunity to enter that market. 
That is not free trade. That is extortion and that is what is going on 
in China today. To get into that big market and to have access to that 
labor market, what American companies are doing is giving up their 
future. They are giving away their technology. And this is more of the 
same. It is bad medicine for America. It is bad medicine for American 
workers. It is bad medicine for investment in our own future 
technology. And it is bad medicine for the American taxpayer.
  With that, I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume under the agreement.
  Am I in control of the time in opposition?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, he controls the 
time. He can use as much as he wishes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I did not get a 
chance to hear all of the comments of Senator Coburn, and I did miss 
the comments of the Senator from California, but let me address this 
issue as someone who represents a State--Senator Specter and I were in 
a meeting so we could not be here for the debate, but we represent a 
State where a lot of these jobs are going to be located. Westinghouse 
Nuclear is a large and important entity in our State, in western 
Pennsylvania, and so for those who do not believe that jobs will accrue 
to the United States, let me assure you that I talked with the folks 
there and they most certainly will. This technology is commercial 
technology. This is not a technology that is any threat from a national 
security point of view. This is commercial nuclear power technology. As 
we all know, China has nuclear powerplants and we also know China has 
also nuclear weapons.
  The idea that this is a national security issue is not a relevant 
one, No. 1. No. 2, is this an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars? I 
think I heard the Senator from Oklahoma say he does not expect the 
Chinese Government to default on the purchase of these nuclear reactors 
and I think it is pretty safe to say they will not default. So this 
idea that this is putting taxpayer money at risk is probably 
overstating the point, that in fact this $5 billion loan guarantee is 
only going to cost the taxpayers dollars if in fact the Chinese 
Government defaults. The likelihood of that, according to the Senator 
from Oklahoma, is very slim. So the question is should the Export-
Import Bank get involved in financing and supporting an American 
company that wants to do business in competition in China versus a 
European and Russian competitor, when the European and Russian 
competitor is, like the U.S. Ex-Im Bank, supporting and financially 
backing the transaction? I guess the answer could be no, we don't want 
to participate, we don't want to compete in China, we don't want to 
have this technology be used in the construction of 4 good, safe 
nuclear plants, with a prospective 24 plants being built in the future. 
The 5,000 to 7,000 jobs that we talk about are real jobs, they are 
high-paying jobs, they are high-tech jobs. When we build a powerplant, 
we are not building something we can provide to China from here in the 
United States. We can't send power to China. It is not as though we are 
going to be able to build something here and export it to China. This 
is energy capacity they need in China.

  I might ask the question, well, what if we do not build nuclear 
plants? If we don't, then they are going to put more demand on the 
global need for oil and gas as well as coal. So if they are not 
building technology, they are going to be driving up demand for fuels 
we need and driving up the cost of those fuels. So we should be 
encouraging them to build this kind of technology, just as many of us 
are encouraging us to build this kind of technology so we don't put 
more demand on our petroleum resources, natural gas resources, and coal 
resources. I think it is a wise move for China to be building this kind 
of generating capacity. It is good for the global economy that they are 
building this kind of generating capacity. It is good for American jobs 
that we are in fact competing to build this generating capacity using 
American technology, something that can't be built here.
  I understand people have very strong feelings about China right now, 
and I am one of them. I voted for some of the toughest measures we have 
dealt with here on the Senate floor trying to send a message to China, 
but I don't know how this sends a message to China, to say that, well, 
now we don't want these jobs, let the French and let the Russians have 
these jobs, and let them create economic prosperity in those two 
countries, and let them build the technology in China, and we will 
sacrifice the jobs at no cost to the American taxpayer, if we accept 
the fact they are not going to default on this loan.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I understand we are competing in the global economy and 
the French or the Russians are going to subsidize it, but the fact is 
this is a

[[Page S8461]]

very low interest rate. We are borrowing money from China today and 
paying over 4 percent and we are going to finance this at less than 
that, so the cost to the taxpayer is real. There is a real cost to the 
American taxpayer. It is the difference between at what rate they 
invest and the interest rate we pay to them and at what rate we are 
going to subsidize this loan. So there is a cost to the taxpayer.
  The other thought I hope the Senator would agree with is, this is not 
just to Westinghouse, which is owned by the British Government, not a 
British corporation. This is also to Mitsubishi Steel because we are 
now going to take American taxpayer dollars, the difference between 
what we are paying on their notes that they are investing, their cash 
investment here, and we are going to subsidize a Japanese company. I 
hope the Senator would agree we shouldn't be doing that.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Two things. First, the Senator is right, Westinghouse 
is owned by an entity owned by the British Government. As you probably 
also know, there have been widely spread reports that they are selling 
that division, they are selling Westinghouse. So probably by the time 
this deal goes through, it will not be owned by the British Government 
and will be--by the way, I don't have anything against the British 
Government. They have been great allies and I don't want to suggest 
somehow that I am speaking ill of that entity. All I am suggesting is 
Westinghouse is clearly, according to news reports, going to be spun 
off and sold and maybe recapitalize itself as an American company. 
Nevertheless, the jobs are here. The benefit is here. With respect to 
Mitsubishi, if it is your test then to suggest that any project being 
built has to be built with all-American steel, all-American concrete, 
all-American--obviously, in a global economy that is not going to 
happen, particularly if you are building a product in China.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. In one second. So I would suggest, yes, there will be 
lots of corporations around the world that are part of this deal to 
build this reactor that would benefit from this, just as probably you 
could make the argument--and I don't want to make it for you, but I 
will make it for you--there may be an American company that benefits 
from the French building this reactor but certainly not to the extent 
if Westinghouse builds it.
  Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator agree that today this is a British-
Government-owned company and that the profits from this will accrue to 
the benefit of the Mitsubishi Corporation and Shaw Corporation? Why in 
the world wouldn't those two governments be subsidizing the loan rather 
than this government?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Well, again, Westinghouse is a company based in the 
United States. As you know, we have multinational companies that are 
headquartered all around the world. But the bottom line is Westinghouse 
is a U.S. company, it pays U.S. taxes, it has a U.S. payroll, and that 
is where the AP1000 is being built. The AP1000 is something that was 
designed--I went and saw it in Pittsburgh, PA. These are the folks who 
have the technology. These are the folks who are going to be building 
and constructing this plant.
  I am sure there may be some profit. Obviously, I am sure they would 
not be bidding if they didn't think there was profit. But the profit is 
in this U.S.-based subsidiary. And so I would suggest that the 
overwhelming benefit is coming to the United States, not to the British 
holding company.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. The Senator from Pennsylvania didn't hear the debate 
about the $5 billion loan guarantee, and what that would turn into if 
we did the same type of thing for other American-owned corporations and 
invested here. As the Senator from California outlined, the difference 
is a $100 million investment in highways will produce 5,000 jobs; $100 
million invested in small businesses will produce 5,000 jobs.
  I still stand by the contention that this subsidy--and that is what 
it is. We need to make sure we talk about what this really is. This is 
a subsidy by the American taxpayer, and it is going to cost them money 
because we are going to loan money at lower than we are borrowing now 
so there is a net cost to the American taxpayers for doing this. Even 
if they do pay it back, we are still going to be losing the jobs.
  What we have to recognize is our fiduciary responsibility. The 
fastest growing cost to the Federal Government is net interest. We are 
going to boot it up $5 billion, times about 1.5 percent, and that 
happens to be about $50 million a year that we are going to ask our 
grandkids to pay to subsidize this deal. Take $50 million. Can't we 
invest that $50 million in a better way? Can't we invest the true cost 
of this deal, about $50 million a year to the American taxpayer, in 
some other way to create 5,000 jobs in the future that will be here 
forever? We have already heard them say they have every intention of 
taking this technology; at the end of 10 years, it will be their 
technology and they will build their own plant, and there will be no 
benefit to Westinghouse or the British Government or Mitsubishi Steel 
or Shaw Corporation. There will be none because they will do as they 
have done on every other issue: They take the technology; once it 
becomes theirs, they will just duplicate it. Or if it doesn't become 
theirs legally, they reverse engineer it.

  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me?
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Again, I thank the Senator for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield so I can find out how much time I 
have?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I will 
be happy to yield time if the Senator comes up short.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. Very good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what I was going to ask the Senator--but 
it is more a rhetorical question--is, Why does China need this money 
anyway? We already owe China $230 billion they have loaned us buying 
our Treasury bills. We pay them now billions of dollars of interest--
billions, multibillions. I was going to ask my friend a question, but 
it was a rhetorical question. The Chinese do not need any more dollars. 
They have dollars all right. They have so many dollars it is 
unbelievable: dollars from the trade deficit that is huge and climbing. 
They have the interest payments that we pay them.
  Now they need another $5 billion? This is the most outrageous thing I 
have seen come across my desk. I will tell you this: If we cannot win 
this amendment, I say to my friend, I do not know who we are here 
fighting for. It does not make any sense. Set aside our differences on 
nuclear power, that does not even have to come into it. My friend from 
Pennsylvania says there is not a risk? Give me a break. Talk to any 
American businessman who has done business in China. I meet them all 
the time in California. Oh, everything is promised. Oh, it is all going 
to be great. Somehow it does not happen, and they are left holding the 
bag.
  I wish I could protect my California businesspeople. I cannot. But I 
sure can protect my California taxpayers. For 5,000 jobs in 
Pennsylvania--which, by the way, the Chinese Government admits they are 
going to take the technology. They admit it. I will give them that. And 
they are going to replace those 5,000 workers.
  In light of what the general said 4 days ago: The Americans will have 
to be prepared that hundreds of or two hundreds of or even more cities 
will be destroyed by the Chinese with nuclear weapons--he says: We'll 
have to respond with nuclear weapons--that is what he said in light of 
a conversation about Taiwan.
  So what is wrong with this picture? We are putting taxpayers on the 
hook for $5 billion in loans and loan guarantees to a British-
Government-owned subsidiary, where it will create, in the short term, 
5,000 jobs, what the Chinese say will not be long-lasting, to give them 
nuclear technology so they can build better weapons against us and have 
more materials to use against us. It makes no sense.
  I want to create 100,000 jobs in America. I want to create 2 million 
jobs in America. Do you know how we can do

[[Page S8462]]

that? By cracking down on the way the Chinese deal with their currency. 
If they would allow their currency to float, we would create more than 
2 million jobs in America, and it would not put the taxpayers on the 
hook for anything.
  As my colleague from Oklahoma said--as we both have said--if you want 
to put up $5 billion in loan guarantees, why not do it for American 
small businesses, and instead of creating 5,000 jobs, create 100,000 
jobs. If that is my choice, I come down on the side of the American 
worker. This is 5,000 jobs, at $1 million a job. This makes no sense 
whatsoever--and putting the taxpayers on the hook.
  So no matter how I look at it, the Chinese do not need this money. 
And do you know what I say? Let the Russians have this deal. Let the 
French have this deal. Let the French put their taxpayers at risk. Let 
the Russians put their taxpayers at risk. I am not moving forward 
toward this deal, which is the largest deal ever done by Ex-Im Bank, to 
benefit a country that has threatened us with nuclear weapons, at least 
the major general has.
  This is insane. If anything should garner a big bipartisan vote, it 
is the Coburn-Boxer amendment. We do not team up that often. We have a 
couple times. This is really interesting. And we do it for different 
reasons. But do you know what? Overall, it is looking out after the 
taxpayer. That is the bottom line of this particular amendment.
  There are many issues where I could stand up on this floor and say to 
my tax-paying constituents: There are certain things that I think are 
worth investing in. I think it is worth investing in No Child Left 
Behind and making sure our kids can read and write. Yes, it is going to 
cost money. Yes, it is a bit of a risk because some of the kids may not 
learn, and that is a problem. I guess you could argue with that. But I 
think, overall, the benefits outweigh the risks.
  What is the benefit here to give over technology that the Chinese say 
they are going to learn; they are going to replace the American 
workers; they will have technology they can use against us? I think it 
is a bad deal. It is bad for the American taxpayer. It is a terrible 
message to send from a foreign policy point of view. The jobs we are 
creating are costing $1 million a job. They are very few jobs. They 
will not last long.
  I cannot say enough how I hope this amendment will be adopted with an 
overwhelming vote.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from California withhold the 
suggestion of an absence of a quorum?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I always regret having to oppose an 
amendment proposed by my friend and colleague from California, but I am 
afraid I must. I have a very hard time understanding this amendment and 
understanding why we would even do it.
  I believe, if this amendment is adopted, it is a free gift to the 
French, the Russians, and other European contractors who would have 
been provided a majoring advantage over their U.S. counterparts. 
Secondly, it will only lead to a further increase of greenhouse gases 
in China. Thirdly, it will result in the initial loss of American jobs 
and potentially many thousands in the future. Finally, it would mean a 
lost opportunity to address our rising trade deficit with China and to 
cooperate in finding efficient sources of energy.
  I have been going to China for over 30 years now. I try to go every 
year. As mayor, I started a relationship with Shanghai. I traveled 
east, west, north, and south in China. China needs energy. All anybody 
has to do is be in China in the middle of the summer or the winter and 
see the effect of this coal-burning country.
  Do you remember when they wanted to build hydroelectric power and 
build the Three Gorges Dam and people in this country objected to it? 
They said: It is too big. And the Three Gorges Dam, the largest 
hydroelectric dam in the world, will only handle 5 percent of the 
energy needs of China. So China has to go somewhere. China has to find 
a source of clean power.
  This provision, I believe, would essentially shut out U.S. firms from 
being able to compete with their counterparts in Europe and, for all 
practical purposes, cede billions of dollars worth of contracts to non-
American companies.
  No matter what our personal views on nuclear power and the 
construction of nuclear powerplants in the United States--that is our 
business--it is clear that China intends to proceed with at least 30 
nuclear powerplants, the most advanced and the cleanest yet known to 
man, over the next decade. This is China's decision, and it is their 
right to make this decision.
  China, as its economy continues to expand by over 9 percent annually, 
is deeply concerned about an energy shortfall. As the world's No. 2 
consumer of energy, China currently imports 40 percent of its oil 
supplies.
  As its economy continues to grow--and it will--China will need to 
find additional and greater sources of energy. We do not want them to 
rival us as we look for those sources of energy.
  Let me give you an example. The International Energy Agency, in its 
2004 annual report, predicts that China's oil imports will increase by 
some 500 percent by 2030.
  Despite the negative impacts on its citizens' health and its 
contribution to greenhouse gases, China remains the world's largest 
producer and consumer of coal. Coal continues to make up two-thirds of 
energy consumption in China, and it is predicted that coal consumption 
will only double over the next two decades.
  Currently, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases--behind 
us--China is expected to surpass the United States as the world's 
largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2025. In an attempt to increase 
its reliance on cleaner, more efficient energy sources, China has been 
working to develop natural gas, hydroelectric power, and nuclear 
energy.
  Now, while nuclear energy is not a panacea for all of China's energy 
needs, it offers one of the most efficient and cleaner sources of 
energy. And it is certainly superior to coal.
  In the next 20 years, China is expected to top the world in nuclear 
power development. So I ask, what is the point of this amendment? Why 
would we want to pass legislation that would hurt American companies 
and try to tell China what sort of energy it can develop?
  I could understand if this was sensitive nuclear technology and had 
national security implications. But it has been vetted, and that is 
simply not the case. The administration--and, in particular, the 
Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy--has reviewed this 
technology and has offered its unequivocal support for American firms 
bidding or subcontracting on these projects.
  In the first project that would involve American technology, a 
multinational consortium, including the American Shaw group, is looking 
to design and construct four AP1000 pressurized water reactors on two 
sites in central and southern China. This AP1000 advanced nuclear 
powerplant will be the new standard for nuclear power throughout the 
globe and lead to thousands of high-tech jobs for Americans for many 
years to come.
  In February 2005, the Ex-Im Bank gave a preliminary commitment to 
provide $5 billion of assistance to this consortium. Should this 
amendment pass today, it would mean the loss of at least 5,000 high-
tech jobs throughout the Nation and could well set a precedent that 
precludes any American company from bidding on nuclear powerplant 
projects in China.
  By passing this amendment, we essentially hand the contract to either 
the French or the Russians, who have the full support and backing of 
their respective governments.
  With our trade deficit with China nearing $200 billion, I simply 
cannot understand why we would not want to provide American firms the 
best opportunity to successfully bid on these projects in China. For 
those, like myself, who have raised concerns with Chinese leaders about 
this unacceptable trade imbalance, it would seem counterproductive to 
support such an amendment.

[[Page S8463]]

  Some have raised concerns about the decision by the Ex-Im Bank to 
provide financial assistance to a multinational consortium that 
includes non-American companies, suggesting that the bank is going 
beyond its mandate.
  But the fact is, the Ex-Im Bank's primary responsibility is to assist 
in creating American jobs and export growth for the U.S. economy.
  With this mission in mind, since 1987, the Ex-Im Bank has financially 
supported equipment and services for several overseas nuclear power 
projects, providing these loans at fee-for-service.
  Despite what you may hear, American taxpayers do not subsidize these 
Ex-Im Bank loans to other countries and are not at credit risk.
  Even in cases where the primary contractor may not be an American-
owned company, these projects will spawn millions of dollars' worth of 
business for American subcontractors.
  The fact is, China already has extensive nuclear power production. 
This is China's choice to pursue the construction of nuclear 
powerplants. We should not be telling China, which needs an increasing 
number of energy options, what to do.
  Energy sufficiency has increasingly become a central component of 
China's long-term economic growth and development, and could have deep 
security implications as well.
  I believe it is vital for the United States and China to cooperate in 
order to avoid future tensions and conflicts over securing energy 
resources. If this amendment passes, you can be sure there will be 
these conflicts. Therefore, in my view, working with China is 
important.
  I oppose this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I listened very intently to the words of 
the Senator from California. I am somewhat confused. If in fact the 
American contractor, i.e. Bechtel, working with the British-owned 
company, not an American company, gets this contract, it will have an 
effect on reducing coal utilization. But in her first statement, the 
Senator said if the American company consortium doesn't get it, the 
French or Russians will. So the argument about coal and greenhouse 
gases doesn't fly. They are going to go with nuclear, much like this 
country should be doing, except we don't have the wisdom to do that.
  The fact is, we will be subsidizing the difference in the rate. Loans 
for nuclear powerplants are high-risk loans. There are not many 
commercial lenders that will lend for that, and when they do lend for 
it, you pay a premium. This is going to be a subsidized loan that will 
cost somewhere between $50 million and $100 million per year to the 
American taxpayer. What could we do with another $50 million or $100 
million to produce jobs? I am all for producing jobs. I want 
Westinghouse to produce lots of nuclear plants. I believe it is safe 
and smart for us to use nuclear power. Every time we have seen a 
problem in this country, the power systems and safety systems have 
worked.
  The debate is not whether I want nuclear power. I have been on record 
for nuclear power for a long time. I am not an advocate of us 
subsidizing the British Government, the Japanese Government, and their 
businesses, and having the American taxpayers pay for it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SANTORUM. My staff has been checking this. We cannot figure out 
where the Senator is coming up with the $50 million to $100 million 
figure, since the Ex-Im Bank has not decided how they are going to 
structure the transaction yet.
  Mr. COBURN. The assumption is, if this becomes an Export-Import Bank 
loan, then it, in fact, will be at a rate less than what China could 
borrow in the international markets for the same thing. If you go out 
and check loans on nuclear powerplants, what you see is they are high-
premium loans because there is a lot of risk. Whatever they do, if 
they, in fact, finance it, or if they, in fact, guarantee it and don't 
finance it, the rate is going to come down, so that builds the risk for 
the American people. I agree, they probably will pay it back. My 
argument is, whatever it is, if we are subsidizing it, either through 
the auspices of a guarantee or a loan through a reduced rate, what 
could we be using that same buying power for here?
  So there is an economic cost. If we put $5 billion over here, it is 
going to cost us by not putting it somewhere else in terms of loan 
guarantees. The question is not whether we ought to have a vibrant 
nuclear power industry in this country. The question in my mind is 
this. I understand the global economy. You are talking about the vast 
majority of the major players in this not being American companies--the 
vast majority. Although Westinghouse employs Americans, the profits 
that inure to Westinghouse through a loan guarantee for subsidy go to 
the British, not to Americans. That government owns it through the 
nuclear power unit, the research fuels unit of the British Government, 
British Nuclear Fuels. They own it 100 percent.

  We can muddy the water on who owns it. The fact is, American 
taxpayers should not be on the hook for subsidizing or guaranteeing 
what should be subsidized or guaranteed by the Japanese and British 
Governments. If they think this is a great deal--and I am all for 
reducing our deficit with China. I voted for looking at the floating of 
the currency, so I am with the Senator from Pennsylvania; but I don't 
believe we should put our grandchildren and our children at risk when 
we can use the money much more wisely and our credit rating more 
wisely.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 3 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask this question. You are aware that 
there is an exposure fee that is paid by the company to the Ex-Im Bank, 
which is calculated to cover the credit risk of the transaction, so the 
credit cost to the taxpayer would be zeroed out through this exposure.
  Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator like to yield back to me?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am asking a question.
  Mr. COBURN. The fact is, there should be no risk to the American 
people on this deal, period. There is risk. There is a guarantee for 
the full faith and credit of the United States through the Export-
Import Bank to finance the vast majority of a British-owned company--a 
British-Government-owned company, not by the taxpayer, but a British-
owned company and a Japanese company and a smaller American company. So 
my basic position is we should not have that risk placed on our 
children or grandchildren.
  The other issue that is important is that they have already said they 
are going to take the technology at the end of 10 years. I cannot 
believe we are saying at the end of 10 years whatever advantage we have 
they are going to get. We agreed in this deal that they get it. They 
are going to be turning around and selling nuclear powerplants to us.
  We ought to be doing something different. If this is the only way we 
can put jobs out there, by competing on subsidies with the French and 
Russians, we have lost the innovative spirit of America. We need to get 
back to investing in hard reserve, entrepreneurship, and in small 
business. We will create more jobs and more industries. If we keep 
playing the game of government-run subsidies and guarantees to buy 
business--because that is what we are doing. Why did the Chinese choose 
this one over the others? Because it is the best economic deal. They 
are essentially equivalent as to what they can buy. We are buying 
business. When you start buying business, it marks the end of your 
ability to compete.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Pennsylvania 
has 1 minute. The Senators from Oklahoma and California have a minute 
each. The Senator from Vermont has 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would be willing to yield back my time, 
if the others are, to accommodate the chairman of the subcommittee.

[[Page S8464]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I believe we 
immediately move to debate on the Dorgan amendment as soon as time 
expires on the Coburn-Boxer amendment. Am I hearing that all of the 
remaining time might be yielded back?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I just need a minute and then I am done.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will take just 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think I am hearing that Senators Santorum and Boxer 
would like to use the remainder of their time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Once they have finished their time, I will ask unanimous 
consent that my time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is about reducing the trade deficit 
with China, about creating American jobs, and about creating high-tech, 
high-quality, good-paying jobs in America, to build something that we 
cannot export to China, something that we cannot build here and send to 
China, something that China desperately needs.
  As the Senator from California said, it will reduce emissions in 
China. The reason we will get this contract is because we have the best 
technology. AP-1000 is the best technology. They are not going to buy 
the best technology if we are uncompetitive in the financing and 
because of the subsidies of the French and Russian Governments.
  We are trying to put up the best technology, developed with the best 
know-how, which is what the Senator from Oklahoma said we should be 
doing, but we cannot compete on an uneven playing field. This will even 
up the playing field. It costs nothing to the taxpayers. There is an 
exposure fee covering the credit risk.
  In all likelihood, there will be a guarantee. If anybody believes the 
Chinese Government will not come through on their guarantee, I have a 
bridge to sell you. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Coburn-Boxer amendment will stop us 
from putting at risk $5 billion of taxpayer money. My colleague from 
Pennsylvania can say all he wants that he believes the Chinese will 
never default, no problem, just come and talk to the business people 
who have made investments in China. It hasn't been a pretty picture.
  The fact is, if this is about creating jobs, the Senator from 
Oklahoma and I and others have shown much better ways to create far 
more jobs that will really benefit the American people. This is 
something that we should not do.
  I am on the Foreign Relations Committee with my colleague in the 
chair, and we are very proud of that committee. We want to be known as 
``Uncle Sam.'' We don't want to be known as ``Uncle Sucker.'' I think 
we have a chance tonight to say we are Uncle Sam; we are not Uncle 
Sucker. We are going to protect the taxpayers and American jobs. I hope 
we will have an overwhelming vote, just as the House voted for a 
similar amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to look at this for 
what it is. In the long run, we don't win; we lose. Even if it costs us 
nothing in terms of finance charges, in the long run the technology 
goes to China. We need to be investing in real jobs, real science, real 
entrepreneurs, and small business. We can create high-paying jobs. We 
have done that. I hope the body will do that.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is it correct that the pending business 
now is the Dorgan amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The order anticipates the 
offering of the Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The time division on that amendment is 15 minutes for 
Senator Dorgan and 15 minutes under the control of Senator Martinez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, my colleague from Florida, the senior 
Senator from Florida, I understand is interested in participating in 
the debate. At the request of the majority whip, I will be happy to 
yield a portion of my time. I have not discussed that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senator from Florida 
go ahead and begin his remarks. If his colleague arrives, he can make 
sure he has time left to yield to him.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I thought maybe the proponent would want to go first. I 
am happy to have him go, and I will respond once he has an opportunity 
to present his amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in a quorum call. The 
Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am waiting a minute for something to be 
delivered from the cloakroom. 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. DORGAN. 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. 1294

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment. The amendment 
I offer today is very simple. It is an amendment that will eliminate 
the $21 million in this appropriations bill for something called 
Television Marti and will instead use that $21 million to restore 
funding for the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps has been cut by $25 
million. This would restore most of that $25 million. It would restore, 
in fact, the $21 million that is allocated for Television Marti.
  Let me talk for a moment about Television Marti. It is for the 
purpose of broadcasting signals into the island of Cuba, apparently to 
tell the Cubans the truth, to tell them Castro is an awful person. I 
would agree with that, that they ought to live free. We ought to find a 
way to move Cuba toward freedom.
  We have Radio Marti that sends radio signals into Cuba. I have been 
to Cuba. The Cuban people told me they receive the radio signals. Of 
course, they can also receive the signals of the Miami radio stations, 
but Radio Marti is something that is valuable, is important, we should 
fund and will fund. I support it.
  Television Marti, on the other hand, is a tragic, complete waste of 
money. We have now spent a substantial amount of money, $189 million, 
sending television broadcast into Cuba that the Cuban people cannot 
see.
  Let me tell you how we do that. This is a picture of Fat Albert. Fat 
Albert is an aerostat balloon. We have this balloon go way up into the 
air and then, on a big tether, it broadcasts television signals into 
Cuba. Castro, through his technology, blocks the signals so the Cuban 
people cannot see them. So we have $189 million we have spent to send 
broadcast signals to Cuba that the Cuban people cannot receive.
  We will hear people say today: That is not true, the Cuban people are 
receiving it. I am sorry, they are not. They just are not. There is no 
evidence they are receiving it, except very sporadically and in only a 
few spots in Cuba.
  In fact, there have been some surveys that used to be taken and they 
have discontinued them because they could not find anyone who saw 
Television Marti and it was kind of embarrassing. On June 6, 2002, 
Brian Conniff, the acting director of the International Broadcasting 
Bureau, testified before the House subcommittee and said this. He is 
speaking of TV Marti:

       Transmission to Cuba has been consistently jammed by the 
     Cuban Government.

  Let me say that again. This is not me. This is the person in the 
administration who is the acting director of the International 
Broadcasting Bureau. He said:

       Transmission of these signals to Cuba has been consistently 
     jammed by the Cuban Government.

  So we spend $189 million to send television signals that they cannot 
see in Cuba. Maybe it makes people feel better to waste that money. It 
does not make me feel any better. There is $21 million proposed in this 
appropriations

[[Page S8465]]

bill. I say better use that to restore the funding for the Peace Corps 
where we need the money.
  This Fat Albert aerostat balloon was up on a tether broadcasting 
signals no one could see. Fat Albert actually got loose once. They 
tracked it down. It flew over by the Everglades. They had to grapple up 
and find the hooks to get ahold of Fat Albert.
  In all, $189 million of the taxpayers' money has been spent to send 
television signals into Cuba that the people cannot see. That was not 
enough, however. The President announced he was going to get tough with 
Cuba recently so he restricted the right of people to travel in Cuba. I 
am talking about United States visitors to Cuba, including, by the way, 
Sergeant Lazo, who earned the Bronze Star Medal for bravery in Iraq. He 
came back to this country and had a sick child in Cuba and was denied 
the freedom by this Government to visit his sick child. We had a vote 
on that issue on the floor of this Senate. Sixty Senators voted to let 
him see his child. We needed 63 votes. So this Senate decided to deny a 
soldier who won the Bronze Star Medal in Iraq the freedom to see his 
sick child in Cuba. That is another debate for another time, but it 
shows the obsession of this policy with Fidel Castro.

  Castro has lived through 10 Presidents. This embargo doesn't work. We 
understand it. This is a big, fat batch of politics dealing with 
particularly Florida, also New Jersey, and a couple of other spots in 
the country.
  The President announced he is going to get tough. On October 10, 
2003, in the Rose Garden, he said: We are going to get tough with Cuba. 
He says now instead of just Fat Albert, we are going to use Commando 
Solo C-130s. There are only a few of these planes. These are some real 
technology-laden airplanes that have been developed to use in combat 
areas for communications, specific communication areas. And so they fly 
this airplane.
  I didn't mention, by the way, that the broadcast signals from old Fat 
Albert into Cuba occurred from 3:30 in the morning until 8:30 in the 
morning. Under the best of circumstances--let's assume nobody is 
jamming signals--one would wonder what kind of audience exists at 3:30 
in the morning in Cuba. Notwithstanding that, they come up with this 
airplane. They expropriate this airplane from the National Guard, one 
of a few airplanes called Commando Solo. The C-130, with very special 
equipment, is now flying 4\1/2\ hours a week--let me say that again, 
4\1/2\ hours a week--broadcasting signals into Cuba--signals, by the 
way, which are still jammed.
  They say this jamming has now been overcome by this Commando Solo, 
this new airplane. Let me quote Chris Courson, former chairman of the 
President's Board Of Advisers on Broadcasting to Cuba. He was appointed 
to that position by the first President Bush. Until 6 years ago, TV 
Marti used to conduct exit interviews with Cubans coming to the United 
States on rafts and to determine whether Cubans, in fact, watch TV 
Marti. From the interviews, it was clear TV Marti was seen by virtually 
no one in Cuba. And finally, they stopped doing interviews altogether, 
and they have no idea whether anybody from Cuba is watching these 
programs. In fact, these programs are being jammed.
  We are going to hear, I am sure, today somehow somebody in Cuba is 
picking up the television signal. There is no credible evidence of 
that, except at most for a few sporadic reports from isolated spots in 
the Cuban hinterlands.
  This is a terrible waste of the taxpayers' money. First with a big, 
old balloon, an aerostat balloon called Fat Albert, and second with 
Commando Solo. And now to top it off--failure is not anything that 
slows anybody down around here or at the White House--to top it all 
off, they want to buy a new airplane. They took one from the National 
Guard, Commando Solo, a handful of special airplanes, but that wasn't 
enough. Now they want to buy an entirely new airplane. They get $21 
million this year. Better it should be used, in my judgment, for the 
Peace Corps.
  I have often wondered whether everything has a constituency in this 
Congress. It is quite clear, to me at least, that waste has a 
constituency. Waste has a relentless constituency. This is not the 
first time we have tried to shut this funding down. I think my 
colleague Dale Bumpers and I some years ago were trying to shut this 
down. But this keeps moving along. Waste has an enormous constituency 
here. Keep doing it. It doesn't matter if they can't see it; if it 
doesn't work, it doesn't matter what the facts are, keep doing it. It 
is as if the taxpayers have pockets with no bottoms. Have them ante up 
for a big balloon, ante up for an airplane, and send signals nobody can 
see.
  People in Cuba are jumping on rafts to come here. They deserve to be 
able to have a new government. They deserve freedom and democracy. 
Radio Marti gives them the hope of that; it gives them some 
information. So, too, does Cuban radio off the radio stations in Miami 
or the regular radio stations in Miami which they can pick up. But 
Television Marti? If they can't get the signal, do we keep sending it?
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator has 5 minutes 20 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DORGAN. I send this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and 
Senator Wyden.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will first report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1294.

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

  (Purpose: To provide that no funds may be made available to provide 
television broadcasting to Cuba, to increase by $21,100,000 the amount 
 appropriated to the Peace Corps, and to reduce by the same amount the 
    amount appropriated under title I to the Broadcasting Board of 
                  Governors for broadcasting to Cuba)

       On page 227, beginning on line 13, strike ``headings 
     `Foreign Military Financing Program' and `Broadcasting to 
     Cuba' '' and insert ``heading `Foreign Military Financing 
     Program' ''.
       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


             PROHIBITION ON TELEVISION BROADCASTING TO CUBA

       Sec. 6113. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this 
     Act may be made available to provide television broadcasting 
     to Cuba.
       (b) The amount appropriated by title III under the heading 
     ``peace corps'' is hereby increased by $21,100,000.
       (c) The amount appropriated by title I to the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors under the heading ``broadcasting to cuba'' 
     is hereby reduced by $21,100,000.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Kentucky how we 
allocate the time. I know we have two Senators who want to speak in 
opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe there is 15 minutes on the 
side of the opposition. I think I heard the junior Senator from Florida 
offer to divide the time with the senior Senator from Florida.
  I will take a moment to propose a unanimous-consent request related 
to several amendments so we can stack these votes for the very near 
future.
  I ask unanimous consent that following debate on the current 
amendment, the Dorgan amendment, that there then be 5 minutes for 
Senator Leahy and 5 minutes for Senator Coburn in relation to amendment 
No. 1241. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then proceed 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1242, which is the Coburn-Boxer 
amendment, on which we have already had debate, to be followed by a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 1241, which is the Coburn AID 
amendment, on which we have already had debate, to be followed by a 
vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment related to TV Marti.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, 
should we not have 2 minutes between each vote evenly divided between 
the sides in the usual form to discuss the next vote?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I had not put that in the request. We 
can

[[Page S8466]]

do that. I so amend the unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator from North 
Dakota yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am yielding on the time of the Senator 
from Florida. I will be happy to.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if we can see 
that photograph of the airplane, the C-130. Would the Senator be more 
amenable to this situation if he realized that the aircraft called 
Commando Solo has to fly all the way from Harrisburg, PA, to the 
Florida Keys on Saturdays to do the broadcasts, and what the 
Broadcasting Board of Governors is proposing is instead to buy a small 
aircraft that would be located in the Florida Keys so it would be close 
by and the broadcasts could be much more frequent? Would the Senator 
recognize that might be a wise thing?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, since my colleague from Florida is going 
to oppose my amendment, I will not give him a lot of satisfaction with 
my answer except to say this: Sending another airplane closer to Cuba 
to send signals that the Cubans cannot receive does little for the 
American taxpayer, in my judgment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to be heard on 
the amendment. I rise to oppose the amendment because anytime someone 
would offer an amendment that is going to deny the Cuban people the 
opportunity to hear the voices and see the signs of freedom, I do not 
believe that is an appropriate amendment, and I oppose it.
  I want to correct a couple of misperceptions. The Senator from North 
Dakota relishes showing the balloon photographs. I have heard him on 
several occasions discuss the unfortunate incident where apparently the 
wind blew it into the Everglades, which is inconsequential as to 
whether, in fact, it reaches Cuba.
  The fact is that technology began and the Cuban Government began to 
jam it. The Cuban Government jams that information coming into the 
Cuban people and the images of TV for some reason or another. It is 
obvious to them that it does harm to their political interests for the 
people of Cuba to see these images of freedom. So I would discount the 
fact that because Cubans do choose to take that dangerous route of 
coming through dangerous, treacherous waters, where more than one-third 
of them perish and die, and they do understand the difference between 
freedom and tyranny, and out of desperation may come to this country, 
that the information that they receive through the images of TV Marti 
are, in fact, remarkable and important.
  I also say that while Radio Marti does reach Cuba, the quantum 
importance of adding the images of television to those of radio are the 
same impact of the reasons I would daresay that most of us who have run 
for office in recent years choose to do television ads in preference 
over radio ads even though television ads are much more expensive, 
because the power of the images on the television set are much more 
powerful than those of the spoken word over the radio. That is why it 
is so important that not only Radio Marti but TV Marti also reach the 
people of Cuba.
  I add to that, even though it has been jammed by the Cuban 
Government, the Cuban Government has been unable to jam the flights of 
Commando Solo, which is why they are so important as an added measure 
of policy of the United States towards Cuba.
  In fact, the Cuban people were able to see me take my oath of office 
as the first Cuban American in the history of this Nation to become a 
United States Senator from the very floor of this Senate with images of 
TV Marti broadcast to Cuba. So I would daresay that the information 
that I receive anecdotally but certainly reliably is that the people of 
Cuba do see the Commando Solo flights, do see the images reaching them 
on television. The power of these images on television cannot be 
understated or minimized.
  The fact is, the people of Cuba recently have suffered the ravages of 
yet another hurricane. As a result of that hurricane, it is 
unquestionable that the people of Cuba are desperate to know the facts 
of free information flow. For instance, the Cuban Government has 
refused humanitarian aid from the U.S. Government. We hear that most of 
Cuba today has blackouts given the fact that the hurricane destroyed 
large parts of the electrical system. Would it not be good to get the 
information to the people of Cuba that their dictator, their tyrant, 
while he sleeps in a comfortable, dry bed, does not want them to have 
the humanitarian assistance that our Government would provide?
  We know from reports that are received that the audio and video 
signals are seen in the provinces of Havana, where more than one-third 
of the population of Cuba lives, also in Matanzas and Villa Clara 
provinces. Villa Clara happens to be the part of the country where I 
come from.
  The fact is, the images in Cienfuegos, Pinar del Rio, Ciego de Avila, 
and Sancti Spiritus also have been seen and are seen frequently with 
the assistance of the airplane which cannot be jammed.
  Why would Castro, why would this dictator, why would this tyrant, jam 
the signals that come into Cuba if it was of no significance to them 
politically?
  The policy towards Cuba changed on that day in the Rose Garden where 
I had the honor, by the President of the United States, to be appointed 
to a Cuba study commission, which I cochair with Secretary Powell. One 
of the important tenets of this policy toward Cuba was, in fact, to 
include information flow and to make it effective, which is why we 
shifted from the balloon to the airplane, a way in which the 
information could get to the people of Cuba.
  I would finally say that the same arguments that are being made today 
against TV Marti are the same arguments as those that have been made 
against Radio Marti. The words that are being used on this Senate floor 
to further this amendment, the fact that the voices and sounds and 
signs of freedom are given no importance, is a completely different 
message than that which we sent to the world when Radio Free Europe was 
piercing the Iron Curtain, when Radio Free Europe was beaming signs of 
hope and a better future to the people of Eastern Europe.
  In talking to the Natan Sharansky and other heroes of those days, we 
know that they value greatly the partnership and the solidarity with 
the United States as they sought to stand up for freedom.
  As the dissident movement in Cuba, each and every day growing, seeks 
to get a foothold and a toehold, the information from Radio and TV 
Marti is essential to the creation of voices of freedom, of people who 
live on an imprisoned island without the ability to get information 
that we today regard as casual and everyday, which is the evening news 
or the broadcast of any events that may take place in the world.
  I yield time to my senior colleague, the Senator from Florida, so 
that he might speak on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have been through this only 
a few weeks ago on another appropriations bill. This is the identical 
amendment that was offered then. It was defeated by a very strong vote 
of 65 votes against it and 35 votes in favor of it.
  Senator Dorgan, who is one of the fiscal watchdogs of this Chamber, 
is clearly well motivated in his attempt to find waste, but I want to 
lay out why I do not think this is a good place for him to look.
  Cuba successfully jammed TV signals before, when we were beaming them 
from a tower located in the Keys or when we were beaming them off of 
the ionosphere coming down where the Castro government could get a fix 
on the signal. Likewise, they were successful in jamming it when they 
could get a fix on a signal coming from a satellite. That is the reason 
the airplane is so useful. They cannot get a fix on the signal because 
the airplane is moving.
  That is why I asked the Senator from North Dakota my question 
earlier: why is it not reasonable to think that we could save money, 
which is what the Broadcasting Board of Governors wants to do, instead 
of flying this C-130 all the way from Pennsylvania to off the

[[Page S8467]]

coast of Cuba every Saturday? Let us have a smaller aircraft stationed 
nearby so that it can go more frequently and at much lower cost.
  Is there any reason why Castro wants to jam the broadcast? He wants 
to keep the information from getting in, but the Cuban people are 
hungry for this information.
  My position on this goes back to when I was 17 years old, when I was 
sent by this country as a representative of its youth to speak to young 
people behind the Iron Curtain on Radio Free Europe. We know the 
success of that program. We know that they tried to jam the broadcast, 
but some broadcasts got through and were the lifeline for those people 
who ultimately--we know the story. The Iron Curtain came down.
  Eliminating this funding would eliminate the Broadcast Board of 
Governors' radio and TV broadcast operations. With a dictator in Cuba 
who is trying to keep his people's minds enslaved, as well as their 
bodies, this is not the time to end these broadcasts.
  I hope our colleagues will defeat this amendment even more strongly 
than they defeated the last one. Let us see how our broadcasts operate 
under this new system. Let us see how, under the new leadership and 
administration of Radio and TV Marti and all other forms of U.S. 
outreach and support to the island, this can demonstrate our commitment 
to the Cuban people and to all the oppressed people around the world.
  If we were to end our support now we would be turning our backs on 
the dissidents who have been so brave to sign the petition in the 
Varela project, a petition signed by over 11,000 courageous Cuban 
citizens demanding greater freedoms. They made this petition in 
accordance with Cuban law, and yet were ignored by the Cuban 
Government.
  So I urge our colleagues, on behalf of my colleague from Florida and 
this Senator from Florida, to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 2 minutes 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. In closing, I would like to say a couple of words about 
the broader policy toward Cuba because I know that part of this has to 
do with whether, in fact, we believe that the policy of this country 
toward Cuba is misguided or actually correct.
  The policy of this country toward Cuba has been enshrined in a study 
that was carried out by Secretary Powell, myself, and others on behalf 
of President Bush to try to arrive at a consensus way in which we would 
look at Cuban policy well beyond the fact of an embargo. An embargo had 
been in place for a long time, but that in and of itself did not 
constitute a policy. The fact is, it was then a multifaceted approach 
that was chosen. Included among those facets, one of the most important 
underpinnings of it was the free information flow to the people of 
Cuba. Radio and TV Marti are only one of the means in which it is done.
  One has to understand this in the context of a society that is 
closed, that does not permit people to seek information as casually as 
we do today by going on the Internet. The Internet is denied to the 
people of Cuba. Access to news and information is denied to the people 
of Cuba.
  Cuba has always had the unfortunate circumstance of being an island, 
which has deprived it of communication and contact with other people in 
the Western Hemisphere. As a result of that, the ease of information 
control is greater there than it would be in many other places. That 
has been a great detriment to the Cuban people in being unable to free 
themselves from the shackles of oppression for now over 45 years.
  Today we ought to defeat this amendment. We did so just a couple of 
weeks ago. This, again, is the same issue, the same time, the same 
misguided look at the way in which we want to see the people of Cuba 
have the opportunity for the free flow of information. So I urge my 
colleagues to defeat this amendment and to, once again, allow the 
people of Cuba to hear and see the voices and sounds of freedom, the 
voices and sounds of liberty, as they seek to themselves regain that 
for themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 35 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just say that the case with respect 
to this country's dealing with Cuba is a case study in failure. I will 
not debate that at the moment, but it is absolutely absurd. We plead 
that the way to move China and Vietnam in a more constructive 
direction, both Communist counties, is through trade and travel and 
engagement. We take exactly the opposite position with respect to Cuba. 
This policy is the best friend Fidel Castro ever had, and that is why 
he is still in office.
  Aside from all of that, this amendment does not deal with the whole 
Cuba trade policy. It deals with the issue of Fat Albert, and, yes, the 
new airplane they want to buy. They say they are going to get a new 
little airplane, fly it off the coast of Florida, and we will get some 
television signals into Cuba.
  The fact is, they have already wasted $189 million. Apparently, now 
after 10 years, or however many years it is, there is a new approach. I 
don't believe it will work.
  Let me read something from the Chicago Tribune Foreign Correspondent, 
October 2004. He went right to the heart of this. Do the Cubans see 
these signals with Commando Solo or Fat Albert, the balloon? He says: 
In interviews on the island, speaking of Cuba, it is difficult to find 
anyone who says they have ever seen TV Marti, although one Havana 
resident said she picked up some of the audio portion of a Saturday 
evening broadcast.
  That viewer said: There was no picture but I could hear it and the 
static was very loud.
  One person hearing a voice without a picture on a television station.
  My colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, said at the start of his 
presentation that Fidel Castro jams these signals. Yes, he does. That 
is exactly my point.
  I am willing to do all kinds of things to send additional information 
to Cuba, to give them additional information, but I am not willing to 
sit by and say: Let's keep wasting money. If we send big fat balloons 
up in the air or send Commander Solo or buy a two-engine plane and run 
it off the coast of Florida and believe we are doing something, all we 
are doing is wasting the American taxpayers' money.
  Maybe I am confused. Maybe I am just hopelessly confused and 
misguided. I thought when you spend money that is not yours--and the 
money here is the taxpayers' money--I thought you should spend it 
wisely. When you find somebody wasting it, you stop it. Maybe I am 
confused about that. I thought surely if all the evidence--I am talking 
about the evidence of the people who ran this thing, TV Marti--if all 
the evidence is you are sending television signals that no one can 
receive and spending $189 million doing it, maybe at some point you 
would stop and say this doesn't make any sense. This doesn't pass any 
litmus test.
  What I suggest is this: $21 million, once again, $21 million more to 
send a television signal that no one can see. That $21 million is 
better spent by sending it to the Peace Corps, which is underfunded by 
$25 million. The Peace Corps is something of which I am enormously 
proud. It gives me great pride, these people moving around the world 
representing our country in the Peace Corps in all corners of the 
world. Underfunding $25 million to the Peace Corps and sticking $21 
million into this? Maybe next time it will not be Commander Solo or an 
aerostat balloon, or maybe they will train an eagle with some sort of 
transmitter. Who knows? No matter what it is, no matter what the waste 
is, no matter they spend millions and millions--now $180 million--no 
matter, there will be people here representing that waste.
  Vote for this amendment. Move this money to the Peace Corps where it 
will be used for the good of this country.
  Have the yeas and nays been requested on my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.

[[Page S8468]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, am I correct we are now into a 10-
minute debate on the Coburn amendment, or have we already had that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Five minutes is under the control of Senator Coburn 
and 5 minutes is under the control of Senator Leahy. Then, let me say 
for my colleagues, we are unaware of any other amendments on either 
side that will require votes. We are also unaware that there will be a 
request for a recorded vote on final passage. So we are very close to 
the end of consideration of the Foreign Operations bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 1242

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are about to have a vote on the Coburn-
Boxer amendment. It is a very straightforward amendment that says the 
U.S. Export-Import Bank should not subsidize a $5 billion loan for the 
sale of nuclear powerplants to China. We are opposed to it. I am 
personally not opposed to nuclear power. I am not opposed to the 
Chinese having nuclear power. But I am opposed to financing a company 
owned by the British Government through the British Nuclear Fuels 
Company, which is wholly owned by the British Government, which wholly 
owns Westinghouse Nuclear Powerplant Division. This Export-Import Bank 
financing will also finance Mitsubishi Steel out of Japan.
  The question that has been raised in the debate is if we don't do it, 
the French or Russians will. The fact is, if we have the best 
technology and the best quality, then we ought to earn it on the 
merits. The American taxpayers should not be put on the hook for 
financing.
  The second issue is that when we buy business in this country--which 
is what we are doing; we are buying business by subsidizing and giving 
a deal to compete--what we are doing is taking away moneys and Export-
Import financing that could be used elsewhere. This is by far the 
largest, by 250 percent, of any Export-Import Bank loan in the history 
of the Export-Import Bank. I don't believe our grandchildren should be 
on the hook for it, but I also don't believe this is the best use of 
that money.
  I am an advocate of nuclear power both in this country and around the 
world. I think it can be used safely. These are great companies, but it 
is time we get out of the idea of buying business and out of the idea 
of putting our kids and our grandkids at risk for something that fully 
should be subsidized by the governments that are going to benefit the 
most from it.

  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday on the floor I suggested that I 
might offer an amendment to this bill dealing with the CNOOC Chinese 
oil company's purchase of Unocal. I wanted to tell the ranking member 
that I decided not to offer this amendment to this appropriations 
subcommittee bill. There are other avenues with which to discuss and 
describe that issue. It is very controversial. It is something which I 
believe very strongly the Congress--the Senate needs to deal with, but 
I have elected not to do it on this particular piece of legislation 
because other opportunities will exist in the days ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Then, as the 
Senator from Kentucky said earlier, I think it is pretty clear we on 
our side do not have any amendments beyond the unanimous-consent 
agreement that would require rollcall votes. I know of nobody on this 
side, nor am I, requesting a rollcall vote on final passage, insofar as 
we are going to have to have a rollcall vote when the conference report 
comes back, in any event.


                           Amendment No. 1241

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes on the Coburn 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have spent almost 30 years on this committee, cutting 
out areas where I believed we spent tax dollars frivolously. This, 
however, is talking about $5,000 overall throughout AID regarding 
hospitality for visiting dignitaries. I have had disagreements with 
various Directors of AID over the years on particular programs, but I 
am not going to come on the Senate floor and seek to micromanage AID to 
the extent that if they have visiting dignitaries and they are trying 
to move through a program, they would be unable to even have recorded 
music for that or pay a modest honorarium to a local singer or 
something like that to come in and entertain, much the same way other 
countries do with us. We are talking about for the whole world--$5,000 
in a multimillion dollar budget.
  Frankly, I will give the Bush administration--as I have since I have 
been in the Senate the Ford administration, the Reagan administration, 
the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now the 
Bush administration--the benefit of the doubt that out of this 
multibillion dollar budget, they can handle this $5,000.
  I will vote against the amendment, and I yield the remainder of my 
time.


                           Amendment No. 1242

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Coburn 
amendment, numbered 1242.
  Mr. LEAHY. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Do we now have rollcall votes on all three stacked 
amendments? Have they been requested of all three?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry: Is it the 
intent of the distinguished Republican leader to request subsequent 
votes after this first one be 10-minute votes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the second and third 
votes on the three stacked amendments be 10-minute rollcall votes, and 
as was suggested earlier, there will be a minute on each side to 
describe each of the amendments prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Is there any Senator in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Allard
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Levin
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Obama
     Reed
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Landrieu
       
  The amendment (No. 1242) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 1241

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Coburn amendment No. 1241.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the claim is that this is micromanagement

[[Page S8469]]

of USAID. USAID's role is to deliver goods, health care, and support to 
the needy people around the world. What this amendment does is negate 
what they have already said they are going to ignore anyway. I will 
read: USAID has the authority to use program and regular operating 
expense funds for entertainment under the necessary expense doctrine. 
GAO decisions to the contrary are not binding on this Agency.
  This is a small amount of money, but it should send a signal to 
USAID, their job is to deliver what we want as American taxpayers in 
terms of health care and food and medicine to people in need. The best 
example of that is not to spend the money on furnishings, not on live 
recording artists, not on gifts for other bureaucrats but on food and 
medicine for those people who need it. That is what this amendment is 
about. It is not about micromanaging. It is about sending a signal: Do 
what you are expected to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have had questions about what six 
different administrations have done, since I have been in the Senate, 
in their operation of USAID, but I have never seen such 
micromanagement. This would could cost far more than it would save. It 
would actually cost far more money than this amount in debating it. It 
would not have been done in the Ford administration, the Nixon 
administration, the Reagan administration, the former Bush 
administration, the Clinton administration, and I would not support 
this kind of micromanagement in the current Bush administration. We 
would simply spend more money debating it than we could save, and I 
hope we would vote against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
wishing to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Landrieu
       
  The amendment (No. 1241) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1294

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Dorgan amendment No. 1294.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have now spent $198 million sending 
television signals to Cuba that the Cubans cannot see. It is called 
Television Marti. The President proposes to spend another $21 million 
in the coming year, including buying an airplane to send these signals. 
Let me say that the Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent recently 
reported on this and said he couldn't find anybody who had ever seen TV 
Marti. In all of the surveys that have been done on people who came 
over by raft and so on, they couldn't find anybody who saw TV Marti. 
Why? Because it was jammed. So we are spending another $21 million in 
the next year to send television signals the Cubans can't see. 
Meanwhile, we have now cut $25 million in this bill from the 
President's budget request for the Peace Corps. I say let's take the 
$21 million we now spend on television signals the Cubans can't watch 
and spend it on the Peace Corps which will invest in the future of this 
country and promote a better world.
  I don't think I need to say much more about this. I could speak about 
Fat Albert and Commando Solo and the aerostat balloon, but I shall not 
do that at the moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, a few weeks ago this same amendment was 
defeated in the Senate by a large majority. I urge my colleagues once 
again to defeat this bad amendment. The fact is, the people of Cuba 
have had these signals jammed by the Cuban Government because the Cuban 
Government places such a high value on controlling information and 
because it places such a high value on controlling how the people of 
Cuba think. With the addition of airplane flights, we have now been 
able to get the signal to the Cuban people because the signal is not in 
one fixed point. It can move about. As it moves about, the people in 
Cuba can, in fact, receive the signal and did, in fact, see me take my 
oath of office on the Senate floor. As the first Cuban American in this 
Senate, it was a historic moment for the people of Cuba, and it was an 
exciting thing for them to see.
  These are the kinds of voices and visual images that are encouraging 
the dissident movement within Cuba that is increasingly becoming more 
known and better known by the people of Cuba through the signals and 
the radio transmissions of Radio and TV Marti.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me and my colleague from Florida, 
Senator Nelson, in defeating the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me announce to all of our 
colleagues, this will be the last vote tonight. We are unable to finish 
the bill tonight. We will have to wrap it up tomorrow. But this is the 
last rollcall vote tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1294.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                                NAYS--66

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens

[[Page S8470]]


     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Landrieu
       
  The amendment (No. 1294) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think Senator Santorum is here and is 
prepared to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1260

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1260 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for himself 
     and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 1260.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 transfer $100,000,000 from the Economic Support Fund to 
  provide for an additional contribution to the Global Fund to Fight 
                    AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                           TRANSFER OF FUNDS

       Sec. 6113. Of the funds appropriated in title III for Other 
     Bilateral Economic Assistance under the heading ``economic 
     support fund'', $100,000,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with funds made available in title III for the United 
     States Agency for International Development for a United 
     States contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis and Malaria under the heading ``child survival 
     and health programs fund. The funds made available for 
     contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis 
     and Malaria in this section shall not be available for 
     obligation prior to September 30, 2006.''.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for 
agreeing to accept this amendment. We have been working diligently over 
the last few days to make sure this amendment could become part of the 
bill. Senator McConnell, in particular, has been exceptionally helpful 
in allowing this amendment to be entered into the managers' package, 
which I am told the Senator will be offering.
  It is an amendment Senator Durbin and I have been working on to add 
$100 million to the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS. It is an important $100 
million in that it brings the U.S. contribution up to the level of one-
third the amount that is estimated to be contributed to the Global 
Fund.
  A few years ago, we passed a piece of legislation on the floor of the 
Senate that the President signed into law that said that we would 
provide $1 for every $2 of international contributions to the Global 
Fund to help fight this scourge that is killing 270,000 people a 
month--a month--on the continent of Africa. It is just remarkable. The 
number is almost too much for all of us to comprehend, the devastation 
occurring on the continent of Africa.
  Senator Durbin and I have in the past worked together on a bipartisan 
basis to try to provide the money to the Global Fund as an incentive 
for other countries to make their contribution and to up their 
contributions. So this $100 million puts the marker out there, that 
those in the international community believe is the right marker for 
where they believe the international community will come in with 
contributions.
  It is keeping the American commitment. It is a commitment the 
President of the United States, as recently as the G8 summit, says he 
believes we should, in fact, keep a 1-to-2 ratio of funds for the 
Global Fund.
  This money is being used effectively. We are not only using the 
Global Fund effectively, but our bilateral aid, for which the President 
requested $3 billion, is being used effectively to treat hundreds of 
thousands of people with antiretroviral drugs, as well as treatment for 
malaria and tuberculosis, not just in Africa, but the Global Fund 
reaches beyond the continent of Africa into other countries where there 
is a rapid increase in the infection of HIV/AIDS.
  This is a vitally important amendment to keep our commitment, to keep 
the pressure on the international community to come up with the money 
necessary to help fight this pandemic in Africa and in many other 
countries around the world.
  It is an opportunity for the Senate to go into conference with the 
House with a stronger number, with the right number, and hold that 
number. The way we have offset this--again, we had a lot of cooperation 
from Senator McConnell and Senator Gregg on the Budget Committee. We 
understand we are going to have to work on it in conference to make 
sure the offset squares a little better than what we actually have in 
this amendment. We are willing to work with the managers, as well as 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, to make sure we do this in a way 
that will meet with their satisfaction.
  But we have laid down the marker tonight. This amendment is going to 
be adopted. We are going to be at $3 billion in bilateral aid and $600 
million for the Global Fund, so the total U.S. commitment is going to 
be $3.6 billion--$500 million with this amendment, and Senator Specter, 
in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, has an additional $100 million, 
which brings the total to $600 million, as I said before.
  This is a very gratifying day, I know, for Senator Durbin. I 
appreciate his support and the support of all the Members on the 
Democratic side of the aisle who have been stalwart supporters of the 
Global Fund and making sure that America keeps its commitment it has 
made to those who are suffering from this pandemic around the world.
  Mr. President, I thank again the Senator from Kentucky, the manager 
of this bill, for his tremendous cooperation. I thank all those who 
have worked very hard, all the outside groups who have been lobbying 
Members of Congress in the House and Senate and spending a lot of 
energy on this issue trying to get to this number, $3.6 billion, with 
$600 million in the Global Fund. That has been the target for this 
year. With the adoption of this amendment, all of that work has at 
least taken one big step in the right direction. Now our job is to make 
sure we hold this number in conference so we can do what is right for 
the people who are affected with this pandemic around the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Santorum-Durbin 
global AIDS amendment, which addresses the deadliest epidemic in modern 
times.
  The amendment before us presents a simple choice: fighting AIDS, or 
funding cost overruns. Providing lifesaving treatment for tens of 
thousands of the most vulnerable people in the world, or allocating 
scarce funds for excess, and perhaps questionable, reconstruction costs 
in Iraq.
  A number of my colleagues and I have argued on the floor of this 
Chamber that budgets are moral documents, that budgets are about 
choices.
  If budgets are moral documents, then appropriations bills are where 
our moral principles are put into practice. Appropriations bills are 
where we decide, line by line, where the people's money will be spent.
  The choice before us is simple: we cannot place cost overruns ahead 
of lifesaving treatment.
  AIDS is the deadliest pandemic of our times, killing 3 million people 
every year. That is one person ever 10 seconds.
  AIDS kills individuals, impoverishes families, orphans children, 
imperils economics, destabilizes societies, and steals hope.
  This disease can undermine the stability and economies of nations, to 
such a degree that the CIA has called HIV/AIDS a threat to our national 
security.
  Dr. Condoleezza Rice, while National Security Adviser, said that 
``fighting the scourge of HIV/AIDS is both a moral duty and a strategy 
priority.''
  I would like to commend the Appropriations Committee, which has 
demonstrated their strong commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS around the 
world. The bill before us fully funds the President's request for 
bilateral HIV/AIDS programs. It also provides $400 million for the 
global fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. When combined 
with the $100 million provided to

[[Page S8471]]

the global fund in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the total U.S. 
contribution for fiscal year 2006 to the global fund will be $500 
million.
  This is a good start, but it leaves us $100 million short of what the 
global fund needs to simply renew existing programs and ensure that 
people receiving lifesaving treatment will not lose their access to 
care. Making sure that no one loses their access to care is the moral 
minimum that we as a nation must meet.
  The global fund is an important complement to our bilateral programs. 
It supports projects in 130 countries, complementing the bilateral 
program's efforts in 15 focus countries.  The fund tackles tuberculosis 
and malaria, which together kill 3 million people a year, along with 
HIV/AIDS.
  The global fund also provides a unique opportunity for American 
leadership to directly result in increased contributions from others. 
The bill that created the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief 
established an important benchmark for the global fund. For every 
dollar that we put in, we asked other donors to put in $2. This has 
helped to make the global fund a truly global effort, by encouraging 
other countries to step up their contributions to the fund. In response 
to the fund's needs, Japan recently tripled its donation to the fund, 
and France doubled its donations. The United States should also put in 
its share. I believe strongly that no one should lose their access to 
lifesaving treatment because the United States didn't come up with its 
share of the needed funds.
  I have met a number of the individuals whose lives are being saved by 
global fund programs. I have met their young children and listened to 
their hopes for the future. I can't imagine that anyone in this Chamber 
would wish to cut off lifesaving care to any of these individuals. This 
is why our amendment provides an additional $100 million for the fund.
  To offset the $100 million increase for the global fund, the 
Santorum-Durbin amendment reduces funding to Iraq programs in the 
ecomomic support fund by $100 million. The Senate Appropriations 
Committee provided the full requested level of $3 billion for the 
economic support fund, including $360 million in new money for Iraq 
programs. However, Congress has already provided over $18 billion for 
Iraq relief and reconstruction programs in supplemental appropriations. 
Nearly $12 billion of these funds remain unspent, including nearly $5 
billion that have not even been obligated.
  A very small portion of this nearly $5 billion in unobligated funds 
could be used to make up for our proposed reduction of $100 million to 
the economic support fund.
  I would like to be clear that I strongly support the rebuilding and 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Reconstruction is vitally important for 
the people of Iraq, for stability in the Middle East, and for the 
spread of democracy around the globe.
  But, it is also clear that there is more money currently available 
for Iraq reconstruction than is being used. Over 18 months after 
Congress appropriated over $18 billion for reconstruction, nearly $5 
billion remains unobligated.
  Moreover, according to the White House, there is $1.3 billion that 
has not even been committed to programs. This $1.3 billion is instead 
intended for ``security-related cost overruns.'' This means that 7 
percent of the total amount Congress appropriated for reconstruction is 
being reserved for ``cost-overruns.''
  If cost overruns are preventing the use of reconstruction dollars for 
their intended purpose, Congress should be hearing about this so we can 
work with the administration to get these expenditures under control.
  If the nearly $5 billion in unobligated funds is not adequate to make 
up the $100 million reduction imposed by our amendment and additional 
funds are determined to be needed, I would support replenishment of 
these funds in future appropriations bills.
  I have voted for every penny for our troops, and I am committed to 
Iraqi reconstruction as part of our mission in Iraq. But if $5 billion 
is still unobligated, including $1.3 billion intended for ``cost 
overruns,'' then I believe that $100 million of these funds could be 
better served for another vital mission: saving lives.
  President Bush has described AIDS as ``an individual tragedy for all 
who suffer and a public health catastrophe that threatens the future of 
many nations.''
  And, Dr. Rice, while National Security Adviser, warned, ``History 
will treat us unkindly if those of us who had the means and those of us 
who had the way were unresponsive to this great crisis.''
  We have the ability today to literally save the lives of millions. 
This $100 million can provide antiretroviral treatment to 35,000 
people, and provide over 2 million mosquito nets to keep children safe 
from malaria.
  This is why I support an additional $100 million contribution to the 
global fund. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, no one has been more tenacious in 
fighting for adequate funding for HIV/AIDS than the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I thank him for his important contribution.
  His amendment is such a good idea that it has been approved on both 
sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I recommend we move forward and 
approve the amendment on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1260) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 1250 Withdrawn

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 1250 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1290

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1290, as it has 
been cleared on both sides, and ask that we adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1290) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment to 
provide $50 million in assistance for the African Union in Darfur, 
Sudan. The African Union is today our only line of defense against 
genocide in Darfur. As the President restated at the G8 meeting earlier 
this month, what is happening in Darfur is genocide. And, as he said, 
the human cost is beyond calculation.
  The African Union has struggled to raise the numbers of peacekeeping 
troops needed in Darfur, but it has nonetheless made a difference. The 
AU has saved lives, but it has not been able to create conditions of 
security. To make a greater difference, it will have to increase the 
number of troops on the ground.
  This amendment earmarks $50 million from the newly drafted Conflict 
Response Fund to the Foreign Military Finance Account for the African 
Union mission in Darfur.
  The administration has asked for a Conflict Response Fund to respond 
to conflicts that may emerge in the next year. The conflict in Darfur 
has already emerged. It must be addressed.
  And the State Department has said that it needs at least $100 million 
to support the expansion of the African Union mission. This amendment 
at least gets us halfway there.
  You might ask why the administration didn't ask for this money for 
the African Union directly. Apparently when the budget request was 
formulated, they did not think that the AU mission would have to be 
scaled up still further. Evidence on the ground tells us that expanding 
the mission is a necessity, and so is the additional funding.
  This spring, the Joint Assessment Team of the EU, the U.N., the AU, 
and

[[Page S8472]]

the U.S. conducted assessment of the AU's Darfur mission.
  The assessment found that where the current AU mission has deployed, 
the security situation has improved. The Joint Assessment Team also 
found that the general security level remains unacceptable. That is 
still true today.
  The Joint Assessment report concluded that the African Union mission 
should be doubled by September, followed by a subsequent expansion ``to 
contribute to a secure environment throughout Darfur in order to enable 
full returns of displaced persons.''
  To accomplish this task--even to undertake it--will require 
additional assistance from the United States. The AU is on the front 
lines against genocide. We have to help.
  There are those who think that the crisis in Darfur is over because 
today the villages in the region are no longer on fire.
  Sadly, the fires are out, not because the Sudanese Government has 
necessarily changed its policies, but because so many villages have 
already been burned to the ground.
  Darfur is still the scene of terrible violence and terrible fear.
  There are still hundreds of thousands, even millions of people who 
are living in displacement camps in Sudan or in refugee camps outside 
its borders. And these people are still under attack. Women and girls 
are still at risk of rape every time they go to collect firewood or 
water.
  People are still being killed. Children, especially, are still dying 
from the diseases that plague refugee camps.
  If the African Union cannot create conditions of greater security, 
these people cannot go home. If the AU cannot create conditions of 
safety, these people will not go home.
  Right now, they would rather risk the misery, the disease, and the 
danger of the camps than go home and risk facing the jingaweit and the 
Sudanese army.
  The violence, food insecurity, and enormous numbers of displaced 
persons combine to make Darfur still one of the most desperate places 
on the planet. This is not yesterday's tragedy.
  Over 2 million people have been driven from their homes. Over 300,000 
have probably been killed, maybe even more. The insecurity makes 
humanitarian assistance difficult, meaning still more people will die. 
Increasing our assistance to the African Union is, frankly, the very 
least that we can do--I believe we should do far more--but at the very 
minimum we should help the African Union try to end this slaughter.


                    Amendment No. 1254, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1254 and send a 
modification to the desk. It has been cleared on both sides as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1254, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


      SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE ACTIVITIES IN ZIMBABWE

       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' not less than $4,000,000 should be 
     made availabe to support democracy and governance activities 
     in Zimbabwe consistent with the provisions of the Zimbabwe 
     Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-
     99; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1254), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.


                    Amendment No. 1285, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1285 and send a 
modification to the desk. This also has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Nelson 
     of Florida, for himself and Mr. Coleman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1285, as modified.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                               VENEZUELA

       Sec. 6113. Of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' up to $2,000,000 should be used for 
     democracy programs in Venezuela administered through grants 
     by the National Endowment for Democracy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1285), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.


                    Amendment No. 1274, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1274 and send a 
modification to the desk. This, too, has been cleared on both sides of 
the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 1274, as modified.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any loan to the United 
      Nations in excess of $600,000,000 for the renovation of its 
                  headquarters in New York, New York)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec. 6113. It is the sense of the Senate that the amount of 
     any loan for the renovation of the United Nations 
     headquarters building located in New York, New York should 
     not exceed $600,000,000. Provided, That, if any loan exceeds 
     $600,000,000, the Secretary of State shall notify the 
     Congress of the current cost of the renovation and cost 
     containment measures.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1274), as modified, was agreed to.
  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.


                    Amendment No. 1273, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1273, as 
modified. This, too, has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1273), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.


                    Amendment No. 1287, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1287 and send a 
modification to the desk. This also has been cleared on both sides of 
the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Vitter, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1287, as modified.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees of a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States, unless 
     the Secretary of State determines that such attendance is in 
     the national interest.

  Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendment, as 
modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1287), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.


               Amendments Nos. 1295 through 1300, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a managers' package: On behalf 
of Senator Leahy and myself, an amendment regarding Indonesia; on 
behalf of Mr. Brownback, for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Inhofe, and Ms. 
Landrieu,

[[Page S8473]]

an amendment regarding malaria; an amendment by Senator Feinstein 
requiring a report on small arms; an amendment by Senator Sununu 
regarding assistance for Lebanon; an amendment by Mr. Kennedy and Mr. 
Biden regarding democracy promotion in Iraq; and an amendment by 
Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye regarding the Middle Eastern-Western 
Center for Dialogue.
  Mr. President, I urge the consideration of the managers' package, en 
bloc, and also that the amendments not be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to, en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:

          (Purpose: Technical amendment relating to Indonesia)

       On page 289, line 10, after the semicolon, insert the 
     following:
       (3) at the direction of the President of Indonesia, the 
     Armed Forces are cooperating with civilian judicial 
     authorities and with international efforts to resolve cases 
     of gross violations of human rights in East Timor and 
     elsewhere; and (4)
       On page 289, line 10, strike ``and''.
       On page 289, line 11, strike ``(3)''.
       On page 302, line 11, after ``may'' insert: ``only''.
       On page 289, line 12, after ``Navy'' insert ``,''.


                           Amendment No. 1296

  (Purpose: To support commodities, equipment and other assistance to 
                            combat malaria)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:


                                MALARIA

       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Child Survival and Health Programs Fund'', not less than 
     $105,000,000 should be made available for programs and 
     activities to combat malaria: Provided, That such funds 
     should be made available in accordance with best public 
     health, practices, and considerable support should be 
     provided for the purchase of commodities and equipment 
     including: (1) insecticides for indoor residual spraying that 
     are proven to reduce the transmission of malaria; (2) 
     pharmaceuticals that are proven effective treatments to 
     combat malaria; (3) long-lasting insecticide-treated nets 
     used to combat malaria; and (4) other activities to 
     strengthen the public health capacity of malaria affected 
     countries: Provided further, That not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days 
     thereafter until September 30, 2006, the Administrator of the 
     United States Agency for International Development shall 
     submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report 
     describing in detail expenditures to combat malaria during 
     fiscal year 2006.


                           Amendment No. 1297

  (Purpose: To require a report on states that have not cooperated in 
                          small arms programs)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                      REPORT ON SMALL ARMS PROGRAMS

       Sec.   . Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives a report--
       (1) describing the activities undertaken, and the progress 
     made, by the Department of State or other agencies and 
     entities of the United States Government to encourage other 
     states to cooperate in programs on the stockpile management, 
     security, and destruction of small arms and light weapons;
       (2) listing each state that refuses to cooperate in 
     programs on the stockpile management, security, and 
     destruction of small arms and light weapons; and
       (3) recommending incentives and penalties that may be used 
     by the United States Government to encourage states to comply 
     with programs on the stockpile management, security, and 
     destruction of small arms and light weapons.

                           Amendment No. 1298

 (Purpose: To increase by $5,000,000 the amount available for Economic 
Support Fund assistance for Lebanon, and to increase by $2,000,000 the 
      amount of such assistance that should be made available for 
scholarships and direct support of American educational institutions in 
                                Lebanon)

       On page 171, line 2, strike ``35,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$40,000,000''.
       On page 171, line 4, strike ``$4,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,000,000''.

                           Amendment No. 1299

  (Purpose: To make available, out of funds appropriated for Economic 
 Support Fund assistance, $28,000,000 to the International Republican 
  Institute and $28,000,000 to the National Democratic Institute for 
    fiscal year 2006 to support democracy building programs in Iraq)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                       DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS IN IRAQ

       Sec.   . Of the amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``economic support fund''--
       (1) $28,000,000 should be made available for fiscal year 
     2006 to the International Republican Institute to support, in 
     consultation with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 
     Labor of the Department of State, democracy building programs 
     in Iraq in the areas of governance, elections, political 
     parties, civil society, and women's rights; and
       (2) $28,000,000 should be made available for fiscal year 
     2006 to the National Democratic Institute to support, in 
     consultation with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 
     Labor of the Department of State, democracy building programs 
     in Iraq in the areas of governance, elections, political 
     parties, civil society, and women's rights.

                           amendment no. 1300

 (Purpose: To provide funding to the Center for Middle Eastern-Western 
                               Dialogue)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.__. FOR AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED IN THIS ACT.

       (a) Under the heading ``Center for Middle Eastern-Western 
     Dialogue'' in title I of this Act strike ``$2,000,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``$7,000,000.''
       (b) Under the heading ``Embassy Security, Construction, And 
     Maintenance'' in title I of this Act strike ``$603,800,000 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$598,800,000.''


                           amendment no. 1299

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment provides $28 million for 
the International Republican Institute and $28 million for the National 
Democratic Institute for their democracy-building programs in Iraq in 
fiscal year 2006. Funding will be used by the institutes to continue 
democratic development assistance in the areas of governance, 
elections, civil society, women's rights and political party 
development.
  The additional funding set aside in this bipartisan democracy 
amendment is necessary for the IRI and NDI to continue their important 
work in Iraq through the end of fiscal year 2006.
  Both institutes, whose cutting-edge democracy work is well-known and 
respected in Iraq and throughout the world, have substantial operations 
in Iraq outside the Green Zone. Unfortunately, despite their deep 
commitment to advancing democracy and the great risks their employees 
take by working in a war zone, they have not been assured funding 
beyond February 2006. If additional funding is not provided, the danger 
is very real that they will need to begin cutting back on their 
democracy activities.
  Under the current schedule, the new Iraqi Constitution now being 
drafted must be completed by August 15, and a referendum on it will 
take place on October 15. If it is approved, elections for a permanent 
government will take place in December. This is no time to short change 
democracy in Iraq. Doing so would send a very troubling and 
discouraging sign about the U.S. commitment to this difficult struggle.
  IRI's programs in Iraq are bigger than its programs anywhere else in 
the world. It has offices in Baghdad, Irbil, and Basra, and it also 
operates a substantial media center. The Institute employs some 200 
people, including those responsible for security.
  Similarly, NDI is conducting a number of democracy programs in Iraq 
focusing on elections, political parties, governance, civil society and 
women's rights. It works directly with Iraqi partners, including 
hundreds of civic organizations, the Iraqi National Assembly, more than 
81 political parties and entities, and the Constitutional Drafting 
Committee.
  It has helped train more than 10,000 Iraqi election monitors, who 
covered 80 percent of the country's polling sites in January and 
provided opportunities for ordinary Iraqis to participate in that 
election. It is currently providing legal assistance directly to the 
Constitutional Drafting Committee, and is facilitating countless local 
civic dialogues on the constitution in communities throughout Iraq.
  NDI operates much of the time outside the relative safety of the 
Green Zone. It has offices in Baghdad, Basra, and Irbil, with resource 
centers in Hilla and Kirkuk. It works with approximately 30 
international staff and 200 Iraqi staff, including security personnel, 
to strengthen democracy for all the people of Iraq.
  Its people have sacrificed greatly. In February, insurgents killed an 
Iraqi woman working for NDI, and a Czech security guard working for the 
institute was killed in April. Three of NDI's Iraqi staff left their 
jobs because they felt their lives were in danger.
  While Iraq continues to struggle with the insurgency, there is 
important

[[Page S8474]]

progress to be made on the political front. Thousands of Iraqis are 
working very hard, often at great risk to themselves, to develop civic 
groups, participate in political parties, run for and serve in 
political office, and contribute to the constitutional process. These 
are critical building blocks for the long-term development of democracy 
in Iraq. Its people continue to express a tremendous demand for the 
kind of nonpartisan assistance for long-term political development that 
NDI and IRI are providing.
  All of us feel that long-term progress to defeat the insurgency is 
directly related to progress on the political front, and ongoing work 
on this key issue must be a top priority. History shows that building 
democratic institutions, including government, parties, and civil 
society, takes many years, considerable political engagement, and 
patience. For a country as repressed as Iraq, a serious long-term 
democracy plan must look at least a decade into the future. At a 
minimum, it should look to the end of fiscal year 2006, as our 
amendment would do.
  The development of the constitution and the subsequent referendum and 
election are only the beginning of that process. It makes no sense to 
send a signal now that our support for Iraqi democracy will end next 
February.
  We must be clear in our intention to stand by organizations such as 
NDI and IRI that are working on the front lines in the struggle for 
democracy in Iraq every day. We also need to demonstrate to Iraqis and 
others that we are committed to Iraq's long-term democratic 
development. We need a long-term plan and a long-term strategy that is 
backed by appropriate resources.
  To date, approximately $1 billion of the $18 billion provided by 
Congress for reconstruction has been allocated for democracy-building 
and related activities, including governance, the rule of law, human 
rights, civic programs, and the U.S. Institute of Peace. Nearly all of 
these funds have already been committed for specific programs and more 
than half of this amount has been spent.
  We need to do far more. The hard work of strengthening democracy will 
continue long after the adoption of a constitution and the election of 
a permanent government.
  On June 28, in his address to the Nation, President Bush spoke about 
the importance of democracy in Iraq as a way to quell the insurgency 
and end the violence. He said:

       They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will 
     inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their 
     liberty, as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy 
     and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their 
     sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for 
     turning that region into a base for attacks on America and 
     our allies around the world.

  Our financial commitment to the organizations at the forefront of the 
democracy effort must be strong and unambiguous. Funding IRI and NDl 
only through February 2006 sends an ominous signal that can only be 
harmful to this very important effort.
  America spends $1 billion a week on the war in Iraq. At this rate, it 
would take the military just 10 hours to spend the $60 million. 
Certainly, we can make a commitment to spend this level of funding on 
democracy programs next year in Iraq.
  Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the war, we all agree 
that the work of building democracy requires patience, skill and, 
importantly, adequate resources.
  We need to demonstrate we are genuinely committed to Iraq's political 
development. We need a long-term political strategy, and we need to 
back up that strategy with the necessary resources, if we truly hope 
for a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 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 that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in 
order to the bill: Feingold amendment on oversight of funds; Chambliss 
amendment on extradition; Landrieu amendment on orphans; Schumer, 
reporting requirement; Frist, two relevant; McConnell, relevant; Leahy, 
relevant; Byrd, relevant; Lugar, MDB reform; Lugar, general provision; 
Reid, Iraq report; Reid, two relevant; Nelson of Florida, Haiti report; 
Dodd, Haiti report, Biden Nos. 1251 and 1252; Biden, nonproliferation.
  I further ask consent that they be subject to second degrees which 
are related to the first degree to which they are offered. I further 
ask consent that following the disposition of the above-listed 
amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a 
vote on the passage of the bill, as amended; provided further that 
following the vote, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Department of State, Foreign 
Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 
2006, H.R. 3057, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
provides $31.842 billion in budget authority and $34.998 billion in 
outlays in fiscal year 2006 for the Department of State and foreign 
assistance programs. Of these totals, $174 million in budget authority 
and outlays are for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 
2006 of $31.668 billion. This amount is $1 billion below the 
President's request, $3 million below the 302(b) allocations adopted by 
the Senate $11.4 billion more than the House-passed bill, and $3.2 
billion above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate. 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:

  H.R. 3057, 2006 STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS; SPENDlNG COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                                                  REPORTED BILL
                                          [Fiscal Year 2006, $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          General purpose       Mandatory            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority...................................             31,668                174             31,842
    Outlays............................................             34,824                174             34,998
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...................................             31,671                174             31,845
    Outlays............................................             34,827                174             35,001
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority...................................             28,466                175             28,641
    Outlays............................................             34,506                175             34,681
President's request:
    Budget authority...................................             32,671                174             32,845
    Outlays............................................             34,939                174             35,113
House-passed bill: *
    Budget authority...................................             20,270                 42             20,312
    Outlays............................................             25,062                 42             25,104
 

[[Page S8475]]

 
           SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...................................                 -3                  0                 -3
    Outlays............................................                 -3                  0                 -3
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority...................................              3,202                 -1              3,201
    Outlays............................................                318                 -1                317
President's request:
    Budget authority...................................             -1,003                  0             -1,003
    Outlays............................................               -115                  0               -115
House-passed bill: *
    Budget authority...................................             11,398                132             11,530
    Outlays............................................              9,762                132              9,894
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* House and Senate State-Foreign Operations subcommittees have differing jurisdictions.
NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping
  conventions.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support passage of the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This important 
legislation funds the international development and assistance portion 
of our national budget and with its passage, we acknowledge the vital 
nature of these programs. Supporting foreign aid, military assistance, 
development funds, democracy promotion activities and other programs 
should be a matter of course--something that America does as part of 
its responsibilities as the global superpower.
  This year's bill provides $31.8 billion to carry out our many fore 
operations programs. I commend Senator McConnell, chairman of the 
foreign operations subcommittee, and Senator Leahy, ranking member of 
the subcommittee, on developing an appropriations measure that is 
generally light on pork. There are, nevertheless, dozens of earmarks, 
especially in the report language, including a few that simply leave me 
scratching my head. I am a longstanding champion of robust funding of 
America's international affairs budget. But I ask, whether that budget 
should include an earmark of half a million dollars for the Neotropical 
Raptor Center in Panama. I wonder if the birds of prey the center seeks 
to protect have instead descended on our appropriations bill. Likewise, 
the report includes a $2 million earmark for ``activities to protect 
the orangutan from extinction'' and directs that some of these funds go 
to the Orangutan Foundation.
  I note with regret that, once again, the Senate has failed to pass an 
authorization bill prior to considering this legislation. Again, the 
responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be 
distinct. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has the responsibility 
for laying out a blueprint for the policies and funding levels of USAID 
and the Department of State and their programs. I hope that the Senate 
will finish consideration of the State Department authorization bill, 
so that the Senate will have the benefit of the Foreign Relations 
Committee's recommendations. We should not continue to fund 
unauthorized programs and risk marginalizing our authorizing 
committees.
  With that said, most of the provisions in the bill under 
consideration serve America's interests and values in powerful ways. 
Let me comment on just one group. This year's version of the Foreign 
Operations bill states that $495 million of our annual aid to Egypt 
``shall be provided with the understanding that Egypt will undertake 
significant economic political reforms which are additional to those 
which were undertaken in previous fiscal years.'' The bill also 
withholds $227 million in economic reform assistance until the 
Secretary of State determines that the Government of Egypt has met its 
2005 economic reform commitments--commitments it made to the United 
States. Finally, the bill directs that nongovernmental organizations 
providing democracy and governance assistance shall not be subject to 
prior approval by Government of Egypt. I believe that we should have 
conditioned aid to Egypt in this way for years, and I commend my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for these bold steps. The 
Government of Egypt has, for too long, gotten a free pass from the 
United States. We are grateful for its friendship with the U.S. and its 
peace agreement with Israel, but its lack of real reform offends the 
universal values we hold dear and poses a security threat to the United 
States.
  I would also like to note that the report language contains words of 
support for the ADVANCE Democracy Act. Working with Senator Lieberman 
and the other cosponsors of the ADVANCE Democracy Act, I will continue 
work toward passage of that bill this year, and I thank my colleagues 
on the Appropriations Committee for their support. I hope that we can 
work together to move the ADVANCE bill through the Senate in the near 
future.
  I must once again convey my gratitude to the members of the 
subcommittee. Their attention and commitment to supporting vital 
programs has provided a sound bill with which to fund our foreign 
operations for the coming fiscal year.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, somewhere in the world a child dies from 
malaria every 30 seconds. The disease debilitates more than 500 million 
people annually and kills well over 1 million of them. Suffering most 
acutely from this epidemic is the continent of Africa where 90 percent 
of the world's malaria deaths occur. In fact, malaria is the No. 1 
killer of pregnant women and children under the age of 5 in Africa.
  I have personally visited nearly 20 countries in Africa. Everywhere 
you go there, children have it. These trips have changed statistics 
into incomprehensible reality for me. Malaria--a debilitating and 
deadly disease--is a huge problem. I recently heard from a young boy in 
Ghana named Ibrahim who has accepted the dismal reality of dealing with 
malaria. ``Malaria is just a part of life,'' Ibrahim told me.
  The United States has been concerned about this problem for many 
years. The United States Agency for International Development, USAID, 
budget to fight this disease has increased nearly fivefold since 1998 
to $90 million in 2005. However, the incidence of malaria continues to 
increase alarmingly in underdeveloped African countries. Unequivocally, 
the current strategy is not working. USAID spends 90 percent of its 
money on advice giving, conferences, and technical assistance, but not 
on direct interventions that produce significant results.
  Insecticides to preempt malaria are cheap. Drugs to cure malaria can 
be purchased for $2--less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Indoor 
residual spraying is a technique that has eradicated malaria in many 
regions. We know how to address malaria and we have the resources to do 
it.
  We have talked enough about the problem. It is time to fix it.
  I am pleased that we have addressed this problem with language in the 
Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This is an important step 
toward achieving real results. Instead of doling out money to beltway-
based consultants, this language will ensure that tangible aid reaches 
desperate African women and children. It is vital that we require USAID 
malaria allocations go toward lifesaving drugs, mosquito nets, and 
pesticides, which are proven to reduce malaria death and infection 
rates. In the hands of the affected individuals these commodities can 
save lives. It does not take a lot of money to make a huge difference.
  Additionally, this language requires transparency from USAID. I have 
often had difficulty determining exactly how USAID malaria money is 
being spent. In fact, the latest data available to Congress on how 
USAID spends malaria funding is from fiscal year 2004.

[[Page S8476]]

That year only 1 percent of total malaria funding was spent on indoor 
residual spraying, 1 percent was spent on purchasing antimalarial 
drugs, and 6 percent was used to purchase insecticide-treated bed nets.
  I am also concerned that too much of our foreign aid goes to 
conferences and research. Not enough resources get directly to the 
Africans who suffer so acutely. No more studies. It is time to act and 
to prevent that aid from being diverted to Washington consultants.
  To effectively address this epidemic, Congress needs to ensure that 
the money it appropriates is wisely spent. Within 90 days of enactment, 
this language requires USAID to submit their malaria expenditure report 
to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to describe how they 
plan to follow these new priorities. I am confident that this increased 
accountability will prevent funds from going primarily primarily to 
beltway-based consultants.
  When we know how to eradicate malaria and possess the resources to do 
that, there is no reason that six children should have died in the time 
it took me to give this speech. It is a needless tragedy that we have 
the opportunity to arrest.
  Children in Africa have accepted the reality that malaria is 
inevitable. Today, we have the chance to change that dismal reality 
into tangible hope.

                          ____________________