[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14877-14884]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           U.S.-HAITI POLICY

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have a long standing interest in Haiti. 
I have made seven trips to this island nation in the past four years. I 
have spoken often about the developments in that country here on the 
Senate floor. I am here today because I am extremely concerned about 
the tumultuous conditions in Haiti. And, I feel the United States must 
understand the immediacy and vast importance of the present situation 
in order to act in an appropriate way.

[[Page 14878]]

  Mr. President, the serious political and financial circumstances 
leave Haiti at a crossroads. In order to survive, Haiti must act 
decisively, and the global community must respond accordingly.
  It is of vital importance that Haiti holds Parliamentary elections 
this year, and that we respond with our technical and security 
resources to support and strengthen this process. In addition, the U.S. 
Governments' policy on limiting financial assistance, which in the past 
I have whole heartedly embraced and which has been effective, should 
now be re-thought.
  Haiti has a heritage of political turmoil and unrest. To understand 
the present situation, one must first comprehend the series of events 
in the two years which have led to this unfortunate circumstance.
  The seriously flawed April 6, 1997 elections, which attracted less 
than 5 percent of the Haitian electorate, provoked the resignation in 
June 1997 of Prime Minister Rosney Smarth. For twenty months, a 
political deadlock existed between President Rene Preval and the 
majority party in Parliament over the contested April 1997 elections 
and over President Preval's nominee for Prime Minister, Jacques Edouard 
Alexis. The political crisis virtually paralyzed the government and 
delayed millions of dollars in international aid to Haiti.
  Mr. President, in January of this year, Haiti's drawn out crisis took 
a very troubling turn when President Preval announced that the Haitian 
National Assembly's term had expired and that he would proceed to 
install a government by ``executive order.'' What happened in essence, 
of course, was that President Preval chose to ignore Haiti's Parliament 
and rule by decree. Tragically, President Preval effectively disbanded 
the Parliament and stripped them of their power.
  Even though Prime Minister Alexis was approved by both Houses before 
the Parliament was dissolved, the new Prime Minister does not yet have 
any authority to govern because his cabinet has not been approved by 
the Parliament. And since there is no functioning Parliament, there can 
be no confirmation of the Prime Minister's cabinet. We have gone from a 
long period without a Prime Minister in Haiti to a period now without a 
governing Parliament.
  While the political crisis in Haiti deepens, there has been some 
progress made. In March of this year, President Preval and the 
opposition political parties agreed on a Provisional Electoral Council, 
charge with establishing fair and equal elections. And the Council has 
been effective. Specifically, the Council recently made a brave and 
bold move by announcing the annulment of the April 1997 elections. Mr. 
President, I applaud this recent action. We need to support this recent 
overture and take it to the next level. We must urge the Haitians to 
have parliamentary elections.
  We know that the present political vacuum must be filled with a 
credible government or else, we may risk it being filled by a de facto 
dictatorship. The global community has the responsibility to take 
action now.
  First, the Haitians must have Parliamentary elections before the end 
of this year. A balance of power is fundamental to an effective 
democracy. The election of a new Parliament prior to Presidential 
elections in December 2000, begins establishing this foundational 
balance, which is in the best interest of Haiti.
  The United States and the international community have the ability 
and resources to help in two specific ways, through technical 
assistance and security reinforcement. In order to ensure that the 
Haitians hold free, fair, open, and credible elections , the United 
States, in partnership with the international community, must leverage 
all available assets in a coordinated effort to support the election 
process.
  The United States should provide resources in support of the election 
process to include the encouragement of political coalition building. 
The technical assistance can be coordinated by the other countries who 
are involved in Haiti that can also provide substantial financial help.
  In addition to the technical assistance, Haiti's security must be 
strengthened in order for the elections to be held in a safe 
environment. We must increase support to the Haitian National Police. 
In addition, provisions should be made so that United Nations Civilian 
Police--known as the CIVPOL--can continue it's important mission 
through this election period. There should also be a large and 
significant presence of international observers during the six to eight 
weeks prior of the elections. These basic actions taken quickly and 
with authority will demonstrate that the United States is committed to 
democracy in Haiti.
  Second, we need to re-assess U.S. policy on financial assistance to 
Haiti.
  For the past several years, the U.S. Government has conditioned 
assistance to the Haiti due to the Haitian Government's ineptness. 
While the United States has tried to help Haiti sustain democracy, 
unfortunately, the Haitian Government has lacked political will. The 
Haitian Government has not taken action to resolve a number of 
extrajudicial and political killings in Haiti and there have been 
numerous human rights violations. The Government has also been 
extremely slow in privatization of its government owned enterprises, 
and it has not been accountable in maintaining government institutions 
through their constitutional and electoral processes.
  Let me be clear when I say that the objective in our conditioning of 
assistance to Haiti was to urge the Haitian Government to take the 
necessary steps to overcome these concerns and challenges. Our 
conditioning of assistance has produced some positive change in Haiti. 
With the upcoming Parliamentarian elections in Haiti, however, it is 
important that we provide flexibility in our assistance to assure that 
these very important and needed elections are transparent.
  Today, Mr. President, I am suggesting that the U.S. Government focus 
its appropriation policy on accountability. While the Congress is not 
losing the opportunity to review and perform oversight of our 
appropriated funds to Haiti, this new language sets congressional 
priorities. Specifically, the top areas include: First, aggressive 
action to support the institution of the Haitian National Police; 
second, steps to ensure that any elections undertaken in Haiti with 
U.S. assistance are full, free, fair and transparent; third, a program 
designed to develop the indigenous human rights monitoring capacity; 
fourth, steps to facilitate the continued privatization of state-owned 
enterprises; and fifth, a sustained agriculture development program.
  We have also incorporated reporting requirement language so that the 
Administration can give U.S. a detailed assessment of each benchmark. 
This new language was drafted by several Senators including myself and 
Senators Helms, Dodd, and Graham.
  The ideological and financial crossway that is before Haiti is of 
national and global importance. The U.S. national interest is served by 
a stable, democratic, prospering Haiti that cooperates with U.S. 
counter-drug efforts. We can help ensure this end through our technical 
and physical support of immediate Parliamentary elections and through 
lifting the limitations on financial assistance. Our Nation's eyes have 
been so focused across the Atlantic that I fear we may have forgotten 
our responsibility in our own hemisphere. But, now is the time to act 
in order that democracy may take her proper place in this hemisphere.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for 
their work on this legislation. This is not an easy bill.
  I certainly commend their efforts to keep this bill within the budget 
caps. I regret that in trying to balance our many important priorities, 
international affairs spending may have suffered disproportionately.
  Mr. President, national security can not be viewed solely through a 
defense lens, but also must comprise all the critical preventive 
measures offered through an active foreign affairs program. This means 
continuing to fight

[[Page 14879]]

the spread of disease and drugs, providing adequate nutrition for 
children and families, and pursuing U.S. goals in arms reduction. We 
also should continue to make our full contributions to the multilateral 
institutions, in particular the United Nations, on which the United 
States relies.
  I will, however, support this legislation.
  However, I do wish to comment on one area of funding in particular 
which has suffered cuts in this legislation, and that is international 
peacekeeping. This bill appropriates funds for America's voluntary 
peacekeeping activities, which includes such things as our 
contributions to the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, to the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and to the 
Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Middle East. The 
voluntary peacekeeping account also funds our contributions to 
important peacekeeping initiatives in Africa, including through an 
Africa regional fund and through the Africa Crisis Response Initiative.
  But Mr. President, this bill would cut the voluntary peacekeeping 
account by $50 million off the President's request; that's 40% below 
the request. While the bill would support a slight increase from last 
year's appropriation for this account, I am afraid that this level is 
inadequate to support our peacekeeping efforts in Africa.
  This voluntary peacekeeping fund is designed to support peacekeeping 
efforts other than assessed missions by the United Nations, which are 
funded separately through an account in another appropriations bill. 
The account funded in this bill is designed to try to anticipate needs 
in the peacekeeping arena, but also to be flexible and prepared to deal 
with unanticipated contingencies.
  This morning, the chairman of the Subcommittee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky, made the assertion that the administration's 
request regarding peacekeeping was, in his words, ``redundant,'' 
because there is more than one account that provides funds for 
peacekeeping in Africa.
  But, Mr. President, I would respectfully disagree with this 
characterization and note that the requirements for peacekeeping in 
Africa are such that a distinct account may be required.
  At a recent hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Chairman 
Frist and I heard testimony regarding the conflict raging in Central 
Africa, in which there are currently as many as nine countries 
involved. These wars don't get much press attention in the United 
States, but it is likely that more people are dying there right now 
than we have seen killed in Kosovo in recent months and in a number of 
other well publicized conflicts outside Africa.
  Mr. President, it is easy to make generalizations about the causes of 
conflict in Africa, but I think its roots are not well understood.
  At that hearing, I posed some important questions which I would like 
to repeat here on the floor.
  First, what is the basis for U.S. policy in Africa? Is it to support 
democracy and respect for human rights? Is it to avoid genocide? Is it 
to encourage stability and economic development? These are some of the 
things I hear administration officials saying, but sometimes I am not 
sure our actions are consistent with these lofty goals. For example, 
some would question how the United States government hopes to prevent 
genocide, when it is often hesitant to condemn atrocities that fall 
short of genocide. Some also question our commitment to preventing 
genocide in the future when our government has so far declined to 
examine in any detail our own weak response during the 1994 crisis.
  Second, if there were to be another ``genocide''--assuming there is 
consensus as to the meaning of that word--what steps is the United 
States prepared to take to stop it? Is NATO going to start launching 
air strikes against the offending powers? We all know that is 
unrealistic, yet the crisis in Kosovo is causing a lot of people--
including Members of Congress and including myself--to ask: ``Why 
Kosovo and not Rwanda?'' Why is it that the United States can spend 
billions of dollars trying to stop ethnic cleansing in one place, but 
yet wouldn't even use the word ``genocide'' in the Rwanda case until 
two months after the killing started, and thousands had been killed?
  The distinguished chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, 
the Senator from Kentucky, also noted the Committee's intent to have 
Serbia designated as a terrorist state, which is mandated in the 
legislation. I support this designation, and I agree with my colleague 
that it is hard to understand the difference, as he said this morning 
on the floor, ``between thugs blowing up a village with a car bomb or 
thugs shelling and burning a village to the ground. The intent and 
impact are the same. In both instances, innocent civilians are the 
targets and the victims.''
  Mr. President, this is precisely my point. Only I would make this 
point with respect to Africa and say this: I do not understand the 
difference between the terror and violence that is going on in Sierra 
Leone and what is going on in Kosovo! In both instances, innocent 
civilians are the targets and the victims. Yet the bill before us today 
provides millions of dollars to support peacekeeping and other 
activities for Kosovo, and barely anything for similar activities in 
Africa.
  I do not understand how the decision to intervene in Kosovo fits in 
with an overall post-Cold War American foreign policy strategy. 
Obviously, the tragedies and the horrors that have been perpetrated in 
Kosovo demand a response and that response must include a role for the 
United States. But as the world's only superpower, I do not believe the 
United States is able to act effectively only in Europe or only in our 
own region. We have shown our ability to project overwhelming power 
throughout the world. Is an accident of geography sufficient to allow 
inaction in Africa, while Kosovo requires a huge commitment? This 
question needs to be answered not so much for me but for the American 
people, and to some extent for the people of Africa. They do not 
understand, and I do not understand, why one tragedy demands our 
attention and our action, and another one simply does not.
  Mr. President, my point here is that, given the overwhelming response 
to the events in the Balkans, the very least we can do in response to 
conflict in Africa is to support regional peacekeeping efforts, as well 
as do all we can on the preventive side.
  The United States has been a significant contributor to existing 
regional efforts such as the actions of the Economic Community of West 
African States, or ECOWAS, and its peacekeeping force, ECOMOG in both 
Liberia and in the ongoing conflict in Sierra Leone. There is no doubt 
that ECOMOG has had its share of problems, but nevertheless, it is 
solely through the efforts of this regional peacekeeping force that 
there is even the hope of a peaceful resolution in the Sierra Leone 
situation.
  Mr. President, we can never truly anticipate the extent of needs such 
as this, and I would hope we could allow the administration some 
flexibility in this account. We should ensure the availability of 
funding to provide resources to support what I hope will be a peace 
agreement in Sierra Leone and maybe a cease-fire agreement in the 
conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. If these positive developments 
take place, the United States should be poised to provide some support. 
This is no time to send a signal that we are not concerned with these 
crises.
  Finally, just a quick word about the two Africa-related portions of 
this voluntary account. As I understand his remarks, the Senator from 
Kentucky believes it is ``redundant'' to have both an Africa Regional 
fund and monies for the Africa Crisis Response Initiative. But in my 
view, these two funds serve two separate purposes. The first, the 
Africa regional fund, represents our traditional peacekeeping 
functions. This is the account that has been used to provide logistical 
assistance to ECOMOG in both the Liberia and Sierra Leone cases. The 
other, the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), is different. ACRI 
seeks to assist African militaries to build their own capacities to 
conduct peacekeeping operations. It is hoped that countries which now 
receive training under ACRI would agree

[[Page 14880]]

to participate in future peacekeeping operations. In this regard, ACRI 
represents a forward-leaning approach; call it ``preventive 
diplomacy.''
  Mr. President, ACRI has been in operation for just a short while and 
can still be considered in its early stage. Most of the militaries that 
have received training through ACRI have been trained at the company 
or, in a few cases, battalion levels, but an important aspect of the 
program is also to conduct brigade level training. As envisioned, the 
brigade level training is key to the whole ACRI program because it 
would expand joint training exercises between and among participating 
countries and would help ensure interoperability between and among the 
forces of contributing nations.
  Mr. President, just as the ACRI program is getting underway, I do not 
think we should be cutting support for it. Our efforts to build 
peacekeeping capacity in Africa will fail if we can not assist in 
preparing our partners to actually participate and conduct peacekeeping 
operations.
  In summary, Mr. President, I believe the voluntary peacekeeping 
account represents an important part of our international affairs 
funding, and of America's ability to lead in the world, and I am 
concerned that the cuts to this account will have an inordinate impact 
on Africa.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG Mr. President, I rise today first of all to thank and 
commend the Chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee for their efforts to develop a bill to meet 
priority foreign affairs needs within the limits of the subcommittee 
allocation.
  Mr. President, the Budget Resolution did not allocate sufficient 
resources for Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee 
frankly did not receive a sufficient allocation to maintain America's 
world leadership role We need to recognize that neither isolationism 
nor limited engagement is an option if we want to maintain America's 
security and prosperity.
  We need to realize that we cannot conduct effective foreign policy 
solely by having a strong military In fact, by limiting funding for 
other tools of diplomacy we increase our reliance on threats and use of 
military force.
  This bill fails to fulfill the President's request in numerous areas.
  I am deeply concerned that the Wye aid package for Israel, the 
Palestinians, and Jordan requested by the President has not been fully 
funded The fact that it could not be accommodated within the 
subcommittee allocation without drastically cutting important programs 
around the world merely reinforces my previous point.
  In the near future, we are going to have to step up to the 
responsibility of funding aid to help implement the Wye River 
Memorandum I hope the Chairman will agree that we will need to find a 
way to fund this aid outside the confines of this bill This is a small 
price to pay for continued and renewed efforts to achieve a lasting 
peace in the Middle East.
  The bill does not include the $60 million I sought for tuberculosis 
prevention programs We need much stronger programs to combat 
tuberculosis now Tuberculosis kills more people worldwide than AIDS and 
malaria combined, yet receives substantially fewer aid dollars.
  TB is spread easily and each active case leads to many more, so 
concerted global action to bring TB under control, now estimated to 
require $1 billion, becomes more expensive the longer we wait We need 
to find more resources to begin to confront the challenge of TB this 
year.
  I hope we will also be able to find an additional $20 million for the 
United Nations Development Program UNDP has made great strides in 
cutting costs and improving coordination among UN agencies in the field 
to more effectively deliver essential assistance and promote 
sustainable economic development.
  Unfortunately, we're penalizing the poor in many countries by 
following the Administration's lead and failing to restore funding for 
UNDP to $100 million.
  I am also concerned that the bill significantly underfunds debt 
relief for the poorest countries.
  Funding for the Peace Corps is reduced from the requested level, when 
it should have been increased to make progress toward the President's 
goal of fielding ten thousand Peace Corps Volunteers.
  Even counter terrorism programs have not been adequately funded.
  Having raised these concerns, let me reiterate my commendation to the 
subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for making a real effort to 
achieve a balanced bill while remaining within an allocation nearly $2 
billion below the President's request.
  I would also like to thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking 
member for including many important programs. In particular, Seeds of 
Peace contributes to reconciliation in the Middle East by bringing 
together young people from throughout the region, including Israelis 
and Palestinians and other Arabs.
  Carelift International, which is largely funded by the private 
sector, improves health care in transition and developing countries at 
low cost by sharing refurbished American medical equipment.
  Senator McConnell has also put some real dollars behind the rhetoric 
supporting regional integration in Southeast Europe. We need to aid the 
Kosovars to rebuild their shattered lives and help the countries and 
peoples of this troubled region to overcome their differences and their 
history and truly become a part of the new Europe.
  I do hope we will be able to restore funding requested by the 
Administration for regional programs under the SEED Act, including 
programs to combat trans-national crime.
  I am not offering amendments to increase allocations to unfunded or 
underfunded programs because I think it would be very difficult to do 
so without reducing funding for other priorities.
  I voted for this bill in the subcommittee and committee because I 
think Senators McConnell and Leahy have done a good job with the 
limited resources available to them. I will likely vote for the bill in 
the Senate as well, but not without deep reservations about the overall 
funding level and priorities which have not been funded adequately.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, United States national security and 
economic well-being is closely tied to our ability to formulate and 
execute foreign policies that both protect our interests and reflect 
our ideals. It is the responsibility of the Congress to pass 
legislation on foreign policy consistent with those interests and 
ideals. We may differ about the means, but we seldom disagree about the 
goal: political stability and economic prosperity in every region of 
the globe. Sometimes we employ political and economic sanctions in 
pursuit of our objectives; sometimes we resort to the use of military 
force. These responsibilities are considerable, and they are real. And 
we owe it to the American public to handle them responsibly.
  I do not wish to exaggerate the implications of the questionable 
spending that is included in the bill before us. Clearly, the wasteful 
and unnecessary spending provisions, as well as the numerous earmarks, 
threaten neither our national interest nor our economic well-being. 
They do, however, detract from the integrity of the process by which 
the federal budget is put together, and they do undermine our 
credibility with the public. The net result is to diminish our ability 
to contribute substantially to this nation's national security and 
economic policies. Frivolous items placed in major spending bills for 
parochial or personal reasons is a serious disservice to the 
institution to which we belong, and to the public that we serve.
  It is for this reason that is so discouraging to read the foreign 
operations appropriations bill and find that, once again, it includes 
$5 million to establish an International Law Enforcement Academy in 
Roswell, New Mexico. To see that provision once again placed in the 
bill is to reaffirm the notion that fiscal prudence and operational 
requirements are alien

[[Page 14881]]

concepts to some members of this body. Similarly, language in the 
report accompanying the bill recommending that the Agency for 
International Development spend as much as necessary on such worthwhile 
projects as research on pond dynamics strikes me as representing a 
seriously misplaced sense of priorities. And should we really be 
earmarking more than $1 million in additional funds so that a Minnesota 
job training program can shift its dependence to private sector 
funding? In a foreign aid bill? I have to question the wisdom of 
provisions like these.
  Mr. President, as United States military forces take up positions in 
Kosovo while others continue their peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and 
soldiers serve unaccompanied hardship tours on the demilitarized zone 
of the Korean peninsula, what kind of message are we sending about our 
role in the foreign policy process when we pass a bill that directs the 
Agency for International Development to study and, almost certainly, 
fund research on protea germplasm in South Africa? With all the 
problems around the world demanding our attention, do we really need to 
focus on the future welfare of the Waboom tree? I think not. And, of 
course, the bill provides the usual absurd amount--specified as ``at 
least'' $4 million--for that oldie but goodie, the International 
Fertilizer Center in Alabama. I have to believe, Mr. President, that if 
the Department of State or the Agency for International Development 
agreed with the need to spend so much annually out of the foreign 
operations budget for research on fertilizer, it would probably include 
such an item in its budget request.
  Israel and Hawaii collaborating on research regarding the 
competitiveness of the tropical fish and plant global market sounds 
contrived, but I'll allow for the possibility that there's more to that 
program than meets the eye. When viewed alongside the report's language 
``urging'' AID to allocate $500,000 for the Pacific International 
Center for High Technology Research, a pattern begins to form, but I 
won't elaborate further.
  As usual, the foreign operations appropriations bill includes a long 
list of earmarks for specific American universities, the very kind of 
budgeting that ensures the American taxpayers get the least value for 
their dollar. A competitive process wherein funding is allocated 
according to which project, if any, is the most meritorious is a 
preferred process for allocating financial resources, but this bill 
goes far in the opposite direction. As a leader in the effort at 
developing normal economic relations with Vietnam, I applaud projects 
designed to facilitate the establishment of a market economy in that 
country; whether Boise State University deserves a $3 million earmark 
to establish a business school there, however, strains credulity.
  There is much that is good in this bill in terms of genuine efforts 
at improving health care in less developed countries. I continue to be 
troubled, however, by the Committee's tendency to specify precisely 
which organizations it believes should be the recipient of foreign aid 
dollars. That is a practice that deserves closer scrutiny than 
heretofore has been the case. I would like to think that such 
determinations are solely merit based following a competitive process 
and that parochial considerations play no part. Skepticism, though, is 
warranted.
  In closing, I am a strong supporter of maintaining an active U.S. 
role in global affairs. United States foreign aid programs are an 
essential instrument of our national security policy. Even with the 
vast number of troubling items in this bill, I will support its 
passage. But I would be remiss in my responsibilities were I to ignore 
what I firmly believe is an imprudent budgeting process that has a 
self-defeating tendency to squander foreign aid dollars that we can 
ill-afford to waste. I will continue to hope for improvements in the 
process by which these bills are assembled.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying list be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
 Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (S. 1234)--Directive Language 
                              and Earmarks


                       Report Language Provisions

       Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Directs the 
     Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to support 
     establishment of a new $200 million Maritime Fund using 
     United States commercial maritime expertise. Earmark is 
     included as Section 539 in the bill text.
       University Development Assistance Programs: The Committee 
     annually earmarks or ``recommends'' funding for specific 
     universities around the United States without benefit of 
     competitive analytical processes to determine the value of 
     the activity and whether it can best be done in an alternate 
     manner. The following universities are expected to continue 
     to receive such funds:
       University of Hawaii, to train health care and social 
     workers;
       University of Northern Iowa, to incorporate democratic 
     concepts and practices into schools and teachers education 
     programs;
       Washington State University, for water research in the 
     Middle East;
       Purdue University, for water research in the Middle East;
       South Carolina University, for water research in the Middle 
     East;
       Mississippi State University, at least $500,000 for water 
     research in Turkey;
       George Mason University, for health care in developing 
     countries;
       San Diego University Foundation Middle East Development 
     Program, to promote dialogue among Middle Eastern experts on 
     water planning;
       Boise State University, $3 million to establish a business 
     school in Vietnam;
       University of Idaho, $300,000, to train engineers in 
     Guatemala in water management;
       Utah State University, to establish, with $2.1 million, a 
     World Irrigation Training Center;
       University of South Alabama, $1 million to monitor birth 
     defects in Ukraine;
       Auburn University, $450,000 to continue its relationship 
     with Osmania University in India;
       University of Louisville, Spalding University, University 
     of Indiana/Purdue, University of Wisconsin, University of 
     Maine and Notre Dame, to continue to support the 
     establishment of an American University in Jordan;
       St. Thomas University, Miami, Florida, $5 million to 
     continue to encourage and promote democratic principles in 
     Africa;
       University of Idaho, at least $485,000 for the university's 
     Post Harvest Institute for Perishables under the 
     Collaborative Agribusiness Support Program;
       Montana State University-Bozeman, $1 million for soil 
     management, recommended to be conducted at MSU-Bozeman; and
       Washington State University, AID is expected to work with 
     WSU to establish small business development centers in 
     Romania and Russia.
       Maintenance of Protea Germplasm: Directs AID to consider 
     and fund if meritorious a joint proposal from the South 
     Africa and United States protea industries.
       Tropical Plant and Animal Research Initiative: AID is urged 
     to consider a joint application from Israel and Hawaii to 
     collaborate on research regarding the competitiveness of the 
     tropical fish and plant global market.
       International Fertilizer Development Center: ``at least'' 
     $4 million is earmarked for the center.
       Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Demonstration: AID is 
     urged to allocate $500,000 for the Pacific International 
     Center for High Technology Research.
       Soils Management Collaborative Research Support Program: 
     The Committee recommends that AID fund the program for as 
     much as is necessary for the achievement of the goals of all 
     approved projects.
       Opportunities Industrialization Centers, International: at 
     least $1 million is earmarked to enable OIC International in 
     Minnesota to continue its transition to private sector 
     funding.
       U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute: earmarks 
     $500,000 for the USTTI.
       Mitch McConnell Conservation Fund: earmarks $500,000 for 
     the Charles Darwin Research Station and the Charles Darwin 
     Foundation to support research on the Galapagos Islands.
       Johns Hopkins University's centers in Bologna, Italy, and 
     Nanjing, China [the Committee directs that at least $600,000 
     be provided the Nanjing center, noting its disappointment 
     with AID for not being sufficiently attentive to that 
     institution's funding.]
       Medical Relief: $7 million is earmarked for Carelift 
     International, Philadelphia, to continue and expand its 
     operations in needy countries.
       Orphanages: $4 million is recommended for improving 
     orphanage facilities in Russia, the funding to be provided 
     through Rotary International, the Anchorage Interfaith 
     Council, and the Municipality of Anchorage.


                             Bill Language

       International Law Enforcement Academy for the Western 
     Hemisphere, Roswell, New

[[Page 14882]]

     Mexico: The bill earmarks $5 million for establishment of an 
     International Law Enforcement Academy for the Western 
     Hemisphere, to be located at the deBremmond Training Center 
     in Roswell, NM.
       Global Environment Facility: the bill earmarks $25 million 
     as the U.S. contribution to the Global Environment Facility.
       Bilateral Economic Assistance: Note: The report 
     accompanying S. 1234 uses the influence of the Appropriations 
     Committee to ensure that funds go to specified organizations 
     without regard for alternative means of accomplishing desired 
     objectives, which in most cases are inarguably worthwhile:
       Tuberculosis: Specifies the American Lung Association and 
     the American Thoracic Society as nongovernmental 
     organizations that should be supported.
       Maternal Health: Encourages AID to provide $4 million to 
     Maternal Life International to reduce maternal mortality and 
     provide health care for HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.
       Iodine Deficiency: Recommends that AID provide $2 million 
     in Child Survival funds to Kiwanis International via UNICEF.
       Polio Eradication: Provides $25 million and encourages the 
     provision by AID of funds for Rotary International.
       Vitamins for At-Risk Women, Infants and Children: 
     Encourages provision by AID of $2.8 million to Magee 
     Womancare International to develop a program for children in 
     orphanages.
       Hepatitis: Encourages AID to support the Ramses Foundation 
     in its work in Egypt.
       Orphans, Displaced, and Blind Children: Recommends AID 
     provide at least $1 million through Helen Keller 
     International for its work with displaced children and 
     orphans.
       American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: The Appropriations 
     Committee regularly allocates funds for specific 
     institutions, usually the same institutions every year, under 
     the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program. The 
     following are specified as deserving of further support:
       American University in Beirut;
       The Lebanese American University (formerly Beirut 
     University College)
       Hadassah Medical Organization
       Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute of 
     Science, Israel
       University College Dublin: AID is requested to consider 
     funding the establishment of a Center of American Studies at 
     the Dublin center.
       Lebanon: earmarks minimum of $4 million for the American 
     University of Beirut, Lebanese American University and 
     International College and recognizes the ``commendable 
     efforts'' of the YMCA of Lebanon.
       India: $250,000 for healthcare in the Sringeri region of 
     India should be administered by the Sharada Dhanvantari 
     Charitable Hospital.
       Tibet: AID is urged to support development projects 
     sponsored by the Bridge Fund.
       Promoting Economic Growth: Supports $9 million to fund the 
     International Center for Economic Growth's Global Stability 
     Project to implement a ``third generation'' macroeconomic 
     model.
       Patrick Leahy War Victims Fund: Recommends that $10 million 
     be allocated for activities carried out by the Patrick Leahy 
     Fund.
       Palestinian-Israeli Cooperation Program: The Committee 
     recommends $600,000 for the program, which seeks to 
     facilitate the establishment of cooperative projects in 
     medicine, science, the arts, and children's activities.
       Distance Learning Technology: AID is urged to maintain 
     funding for programs oriented toward legal reform in Central 
     and Eastern Europe, including through the Central and Eastern 
     European Law Institute.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the foreign operations appropriation bill 
is a crucial bill. It is integral to all of our assistance programs 
overseas. The bill's importance to American foreign policy cannot be 
over emphasized. This bill provides funding for development aid to poor 
countries, funds to combat terrorism and proliferation of nuclear 
weapons overseas, and monies for all of the multilateral financial 
institutions which lend to needy countries.
  As I see it, the bill before the Senate has two major problems. 
First, the bill as a whole is significantly under-funded. The amount 
dedicated to our nation's foreign operations is almost $2 billion below 
the President's request for funding.
  I understand that some of this is due to the caps placed on 
expenditures as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; however, we in 
the Senate cannot hide behind that piece of legislation every time we 
want an excuse for why the administration's appropriations requests are 
under funded. I am not saying that this is not a legitimate reason for 
not granting the President's entire request, but $2 billion is an 
enormous shortfall.
  In addition to inadequate funding overall, there are particular 
programs and foreign policy initiatives which are either funded at a 
level which is drastically reduced from the President's request, or 
which have not been funded at all.
  Mr. President, the administration in its statement of policy with 
respect to this bill has clearly stated that ``A bill funded at this 
level would be grossly inadequate to maintain America's leadership 
around the world. It would inevitably require severe reductions from 
previously enacted levels for programs managed by the Departments of 
State and Treasury, the Agency for International Development and other 
agencies.''
  The statement quite clearly states that if the significant funding 
and language problems in this bill as reported are not resolved that 
``the President's senior advisors have no choice but to recommend that 
he veto the bill.''
  I wish to speak to several very important aspects of this bill that 
must be addressed in conference. First, the bill fails to provide the 
$500 million requested by the President to support the Middle East Wye 
River Agreement.
  Second, it fails to fund the administration's Expanded Threat 
Reduction Initiative, so important to our ability to reduce the 
proliferation threat and continue the elimination of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Third, this bill imposes new onerous conditions on U.S. funding for 
the 1994 Agreed Framework, the cornerstone of our North Korea policy.
  I also have very strong concerns with respect to two provisions in 
the bill relating to Kosovo and our ongoing relationship with Russia.
  Unfortunately, by withholding critical support for Jordan, Israel, 
and the Palestinian Authority, this bill would have us renege on the 
commitments that made the Wye River agreement possible. The leaders of 
Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel have taken great risks 
for peace. We pledged to stand with them as they took these risks.
  In the months ahead, we will undoubtedly be called upon to play a 
lead role in the peace talks. But by refusing to fund one penny of the 
President's request for the Wye River agreement, this bill calls into 
question our commitment to Middle East peace just as there is renewed 
hope for accelerated progress.
  Some may argue that the Middle East gets enough assistance as it is. 
Relative to other accounts that may be true, but the levels of 
assistance to the Middle East are a reflection of the strategic and 
moral issues at stake.
  The funds requested by the administration are in keeping with our 
commitment to Israel's security. They will help wage battle in 
Palestinian areas against the greatest enemy of peace--namely, the 
poverty and despair that provides a fertile breeding ground for 
extremism. They will help bolster Jordan--a close ally whose peace with 
Israel should serve as a model for others in the region.
  I am convinced that the sums requested by the administration to 
support peace pale in comparison to the costs we would incur if 
conflict and turmoil returned to the Middle East.
  One of the most disturbing elements of this bill is its failure to 
fund the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative that helps reduce the 
threat of weapons of mass destruction. Technically the cuts are to the 
larger budget lines for aid to the Newly Independent States and for 
Nonproliferation and related programs. But report language calls the 
funding of Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative programs ``ill 
advised,'' and they will bear the brunt of these cuts.
  Weapons of mass destruction dwarf the other threats to our national 
security. If we fail to help Russian experts find nonmilitary 
employment, we may foster Iran's nuclear weapons, or Iraq's biological 
weapons, or Libyan missiles. Even a single use of such weapons against 
the United States, U.S. forces, or our allies would be a terrible 
tragedy--especially if we failed to prevent it.
  The failure to fund the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiatives means 
no funds--not even the levels appropriated last year--for helping 
Russian biological weapons experts find new careers.

[[Page 14883]]

This is a vital program that has enabled biological weapons experts to 
resist offers from Iran and other rogue states. We should be expanding 
this program, rather than cutting it.
  The Threat Reduction cut means no funds for the International Science 
and Technology Centers in Russia and Ukraine that have helped over 
24,000 former weapons scientists since 1994. The Science Center program 
has been very successful. It has been praised for its tight management, 
under board chairman Ron Lehman, a former official in Republican 
administrations whom we all know to be a true patriot. Science Center 
support for Russian scientists is exempt from Russian taxes. We should 
be expanding this program, too, rather than cutting it.
  The Threat Reduction cut means no funds--not even last year's 
levels--for the Civilian Research and Development Foundation, which 
gives vital training to Russian former weapons scientists who are 
trying to form viable businesses. We tell Russian weapons experts to 
adapt to a market economy. But they will never achieve that, if we 
don't give them the training. And if they fail, they will be ripe for 
the plucking by rogue states who would buy their weapons expertise.
  The Threat Reduction cut means no funds--not even last year's 
levels--to assist customs officials in Russia and the rest of the 
former Soviet Union. The customs officials whom we assist are our most 
reliable allies in stopping the flow of nuclear and weapons of mass 
destruction materials.
  For example, it was customs officials in Azerbaijan who stopped a 
shipment of specialty steel to Iran that would have been used for 
missiles. This bill also contains only $5 million--out of $15 million 
requested--for world-wide assistance to customs services. This is the 
program that aids border control agencies in the Baltic states, where 
we have seen Russian nuclear smuggling efforts in the past. It makes no 
sense to provide only $5 million for this vital function.
  These cuts even wipe out the border security assistance to Georgia 
that Senator McConnell instituted last year.
  The Threat Reduction cut means no funds to assist in removing Russian 
troops from Moldova--a longstanding objective of the United States and 
of the Congress. Do we suddenly want the Russian troops to stay longer 
in a country that does not want them? Do we no longer care whether this 
exacerbates ethnic conflict in Moldova?
  The Foreign Operations Subcommittee made these cuts without 
prejudice. But it makes no sense to let us guard our national security 
only by cutting important programs to support democracy, free media, 
and the rule of law in the former Soviet Union.
  I am very pleased that the managers have accepted a sense of the 
Senate amendment I offered urging that the Threat Reduction funds be 
restored in conference to the level requested by the President.
  I urge the managers of this bill to do their utmost to achieve this, 
and I wish them complete success in that important effort.
  On the eve of South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's visit to 
Washington, and just as former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry is 
completing his comprehensive Korea policy review, this bill places the 
Agreed Framework in grave jeopardy.
  The bill not only provides inadequate funding for heavy fuel oil 
deliveries to North Korea--deliveries the United States is obligated to 
arrange under the 1994 Agreed Framework--it also effectively prevents 
the appropriated funds from being expended by requiring the President 
to certify the uncertifiable with respect to North Korea's conduct.
  Under existing law, the President must already certify that North 
Korea is in full compliance with the Agreed Framework and its 
confidential minute in order to expend monies appropriated for heavy 
fuel oil deliveries to the North. This a reasonable requirement. But if 
the North is fulfilling its side of the bargain, we should fulfill ours 
rather than dream up new requirements on the North.
  Do we have other serious concerns about North Korea, in addition to 
its nuclear ambitions? Of course we do. But these other concerns--
missile development and export, narcotics trafficking, armed 
provocations along the DMZ--cannot be addressed successfully if we 
abandon the Agreed Framework.
  For all of its imperfections, the Agreed Framework has served our 
national interest well, reducing the risk of war and capping the 
North's ability to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs. Five 
years ago, North Korea was on the verge of withdrawing from the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty and acquiring the capacity to build dozens of 
nuclear weapons every year. Today, with the Agreed Framework intact, 
the North's nuclear facilities stand idle.
  The spent fuel from its research reactor has been canned and placed 
under round-the-clock monitoring by the International Atomic Energy 
Agency. The Agreed Framework has also given us unprecedented access to 
North Korea, even to sensitive military sites, as demonstrated by the 
recent successful U.S. visit to the Kumchangni undergound facility.
  These are not insignificant accomplishments, and we should think 
twice before we risk turning back the clock.
  By underfunding the Korean Energy Development Organization and 
unilaterally imposing new obligations on North Korea, this bill could 
precipitate a crisis on the Peninsula and distance us from our key 
ally, South Korea.
  In addition, I have two serious problems with sections of the bill 
relating to Kosovo. First, $20 million shall be available ``for 
training and equipping a Kosova security force.'' Mr. President, this 
language conveys the impression that we want to train something like a 
national guard or an army. In the real world, most people would see 
this as our training and equipping a KLA Army.
  U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which gives 
international sanction to KFOR, is not specific about the future status 
of Kosovo. Any future Kosovo national guard or army presupposes an 
independent Kosovo.
  Aside from that being counter to United States policy, it is 
completely irrelevant to this bill. For the duration of fiscal year 
2000, security in Kosovo will be guaranteed by the heavily armed, NATO-
led KFOR. There is absolutely no need for any kind of an indigenous 
``security force'' other than a civilian police force.
  The final legislation should make it crystal-clear that the 
appropriation will be used to train and equip a police force, not an 
army.
  My second Kosovo-related objection concerns the requirement that the 
Secretary of State certify that the Russians have not established a 
``separate zone of operational control'' and are ``fully integrated 
under NATO unified command and control arrangements.''
  This requirement has been overtaken by events. The Military-Technical 
Agreement between NATO and Russia found a formula to include Russian 
peacekeepers in KFOR. This formula has been accepted by our government, 
by all other 18 NATO members, and by the United Nations.
  I have no doubt that Secretary Albright could broadly construe words 
like ``operational control'' and ``fully integrated'' and thereby make 
the required certification.
  But what would we get by retaining this language and forcing her to 
do so? I'll tell my colleagues. We would be gratuitously sticking our 
finger in the Russians' eye at the precise moment we are trying to 
involve them in KFOR and in the entire reconstruction effort in Kosovo.
  To sanitize a phrase used by an esteemed former President of the 
United States, I would rather have the Russians inside our tent looking 
out, than outside our tent looking in.
  I would like to remind my friend Senator McConnell that when the two 
of us recently appeared on the Sunday Fox Television News talk-show he 
said with regard to the Russians in Kosovo--and I quote; ``I don't know 
that we need to threaten foreign assistance.''
  Apparently he has changed his mind. I agreed with Senator McConnell 
that day on television. I wish he had held to his position.

[[Page 14884]]

  It is important that these problems be addressed in conference, and 
that a way be found to increase the overall funding levels.
  At this time I will reluctantly vote to send this legislation to 
conference. However, I reserve the right to vote against it should 
these problems not be addressed in the final conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Byrd
     Smith (NH)
      

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  The bill (S. 1234), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. President, I commend first the occupant of the Chair for an 
extraordinarily effective debate on the issue that dominated today's 
discussion in the foreign operations appropriations bill. I think the 
Senator from Kansas did an outstanding job.
  I also want to thank my staff. Robin Cleveland has done work on 
foreign policy matters for some 15 years now, and I thank Robin for, as 
usual, outstanding work; and Billy Piper, with whom I have worked 5 or 
6 years, has done an absolutely superb job; and his assistant, Jon 
Meek, from my personal staff; as well as Jennifer Chartrand, a new 
member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. All of those folks 
are on the majority side; and of course Tim Rieser and Cara Thanassi 
from the minority staff, with whom we always enjoy working, and Steve 
Cortese and Jay Kimmitt from the full committee.
  I say to my friend, Pat Leahy, I enjoy our annual collaboration on 
this bill, and I look forward to working with the Senator in 
conference.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished senior Senator 
from Kentucky for the alacrity with which he moved this bill. Those who 
have reached that level of knowledge know we Senators are 
constitutional impediments to our staffs.
  I compliment Robin Cleveland, who has worked so hard at trying to 
balance the competing interests of so many Senators on both sides of 
the aisle, as well as Billy Piper and Jennifer Chartrand; and on my 
side, the indefatigable Tim Rieser, a man who has not slept since it 
was announced we might go to this bill a month or so ago. He has, 
again, maintained the remarkable Rieser filing cabinet, which is 
primarily in his head, knowing all the ins and outs of this bill and 
handling it so well.
  He was ably assisted by Cara Thanassi. Ms. Thanassi began a few years 
ago on our staff. She has grown enormously in talent and ability and 
was absolutely essential in this work.
  In working with the Senator from Kentucky, we have tried to 
accommodate each other on issues, even though on some issues we 
obviously have a different philosophy. We have respected each other and 
accommodated each other and tried to make sure a bipartisan piece of 
legislation came through. I think the resulting vote today shows that 
bipartisanship on foreign policy was maintained.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________