[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24096-24102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
         APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, to my amazement, we received a letter 
indicating the President might want to veto the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, a stunning development, it seems to me, almost 
inexplicable.
  This bill, while not as much as the President requested, is as large 
as he signed last year and includes a number of items important not 
only to many of us but to him as well.
  For example, if this bill were to ultimately be vetoed, the President 
would be vetoing--would be stopping--aid to the Newly Independent 
States of the former Soviet Union of $735 million; developmental 
assistance, which was $83 million over his request in this bill that he 
is threatening to veto; narcotics assistance at $285 million, which is 
$24 million above last year, the bill that he signed; for AIDS, $180 
million to fight AIDS, which is $55 million above the bill that he 
signed last year; for UNICEF, an important program of the United 
Nations, there is $110 million in this bill for UNICEF, which is $5 
million more than in the bill last year that he signed.
  Obviously, we continue the Middle East earmarks to Israel and Egypt. 
Vetoing this bill would deny $3 billion to Israel. I think it is 
important to note that The American Israel Public Affairs Committee 
supports this bill. AIPAC supports this bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that letter of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                        AIPAC,

                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 1999.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     United States Senate,
     Washington,DC.
       Dear Chairman McConnell: We are writing to express our 
     support for the Conference Report on HR 2606, the FY 2000 
     Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which contains 
     funding for Israel's regular aid package, including 
     provisions for early disbursal, offshore procurement and 
     refugee resettlement. The Middle East peace process is moving 
     forward with both Israel and the Palestinians committed to 
     resolving issues between them within a year. It is important 
     that Congress support Israel as this process moves ahead, and 
     we therefore also hope and urge that Congress find a way to 
     fund assistance to the Wye River signatories before the end 
     of this year.
           Sincerely,
     Lionel Kaplan,
       President.
     Howard Kohr,
       Executive Director.
     Brad Gordon,
       Legislative Director.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, other items in this bill of interest: 
Child health, immunization, and education initiatives. For Kosovo--we 
fought a war there a few months ago--there is $535 million for Kosovo 
and for some of the countries surrounding Kosovo that were impacted by 
the war that was fought there. That is $142 million more than the 
President requested.

[[Page 24097]]

  In addition, there is money in this bill for the environment, for 
biodiversity, for tropical rain forests, unique ecosystems initiatives. 
All of that will be denied if the President vetoes this bill.
  For Lebanon and Cyprus, to help in the reconciliation process there, 
there is $15 million for Lebanon and $15 million for Cyprus.
  Infectious diseases, especially polio and TB campaigns, which have 
been priorities of Senator Leahy, all of that would be vetoed by this 
bill.
  Funds for Georgia, for Ukraine, for Armenia, for Poland--all of which 
is supported vigorously by Americans of Georgian, Ukrainian, Armenian, 
and Polish descent--all of that would not go forward if this bill were 
vetoed. The vote on this bill, when it went through the Senate--and it 
is not all that different now from the way it was when it cleared the 
Senate--was 97-2. This is virtually the same bill, at $12.6 billion, 
which protects virtually all of the Senate priorities passed here at 
97-2. On the threat reduction initiative, we have spent $5.9 billion in 
Russia over the years. There are no restrictions on the $735 million we 
provide for that area of the world preventing funding of this new $250 
million initiative to control the nuclear problem there.
  On development assistance, the President claims it is dramatically 
underfunded. In fact, we not only exceeded last year's level--that is 
the bill President Clinton signed--we exceeded last year's level of 
spending and we have exceeded his request for this year. The President 
requested $83 million less than the conference has provided.
  The veto threat to the Senator from Kentucky is inexplicable. It 
doesn't make any sense, unless this important bill for the assistance 
of Israel and Egypt and Armenia and Georgia and Ukraine and a number of 
other worthwhile causes that are supported around the world is somehow 
being made part of a larger strategy by the administration to veto all 
of these bills.
  This bill enjoys strong support from AIPAC, from Armenian Americans, 
from Georgian Americans, Polish Americans, Latvian, Lithuanian, 
Estonian, and Ukranian Americans. They are but a few of the Americans 
who appreciate this bill.
  As I indicated, all of these items are threatened by the President's 
inexplicable decision to threaten to veto this bill.
  Finally, let me say, before turning to my friend and colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Leahy, I don't know where the President wants to get 
more money for this bill. Are we going to take it out of the Social 
Security trust fund to spend on foreign aid? Is that what the President 
is suggesting we do? Does President Clinton want us to take money out 
of the Social Security trust fund and spend it on foreign aid? I don't 
think that is something we ought to be doing. I don't think the 
American people would like that.
  I repeat, this is a bill that was supported overwhelmingly on a 
bipartisan basis when it cleared the Senate the first time. It is about 
the same size as the bill the President signed last year.
  I don't think there is any rational basis for the vetoing of this 
bill. I encourage the Senate to speak once again on a broad bipartisan 
basis with a large vote to support this important bill which means so 
much to peace and stability around the world.
  With that, Mr. President, I understand we are planning on voting 
around noon. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is available to this side of 
the aisle?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 14 minutes 50 
seconds remaining, and the Senator from Kentucky has 17 minutes 24 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon, Mr. Wyden, had spoken earlier as in morning business; is that 
correct, and that was taken from my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The UC took the time from this bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the time taken by Mr. Wyden 
be restored to my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. We may well not use it. I am trying to 
protect time for some who may want to come and speak.
  It has been a week since the conference committee on foreign 
operations completed its work. The House tried, during that week, to 
muscle the votes to pass it, and yesterday they did, by a three-vote 
margin.
  As stated by some of the leadership in the House, the bill is part of 
a grand Republican strategy to force the President to either except a 
large cut in funding for foreign policy or veto the bill and then be 
blamed for cutting Social Security to pay for foreign policy, even 
though everybody knows that is not going to happen. I think the 
American people are more savvy than that. They know that foreign policy 
is the key responsibility of the Federal Government. It has been ever 
since the days of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
  Today the world is far more complex, more dangerous, more independent 
than anybody could have assumed. They also know the President is not 
going to do anything to harm Social Security.
  The House finally passed the conference report by three votes. The 
bill will pass here, with a third of the Senate voting against it. Then 
the President vetoes it. It is unfortunate we are here.
  In that regard, let me say something about the distinguished senior 
Senator from Kentucky. I should warn him and alert him that I am going 
to praise him. That may bring about the Republican State committee 
initiating in Kentucky a recall petition, but that is the price of fame 
and glory.
  The fact is, the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky took an 
allocation, as chairman of this subcommittee, which by anybody's 
standards--his, mine or anybody else's--was too small. With that, he 
tried to fashion a bill that reflects the best interests of our country 
and the needs of our country and the great humanitarian nature of 
Americans.
  He has done it extraordinarily well. He has bent over backward--I say 
this to all Democratic Members of the Senate as well as Republican 
Members--to accommodate the needs of Senators on both sides of the 
aisle. His chief of foreign policy, Robin Cleveland, and others have 
worked very closely with Senators on both sides of the aisle to try to 
accommodate all they could. Are there things not in here? Of course. 
You only have so much money.
  There are things the Senator from Kentucky would like to increase in 
here, substantially. Without embarrassing him, I won't go down the 
list, but he could think of a number of areas. Are there things the 
Senator from Vermont would want to see increased? Of course, there are, 
substantial areas.
  We have seen, for example, the situation we now have in New York City 
where, after an outbreak of encephalitis, there is now a feeling that 
this disease came over transported by a bird. It is now infecting birds 
and humans in New York. As birds migrate south, it will affect others. 
Where did the disease come from? A different continent. It demonstrates 
that every disease is only an airplane trip away.
  We have money in here to approach that problem, working with a number 
of people, Dr. Nils Daulaire and others, to try to help countries 
identify diseases when they occur in their country, help them eradicate 
them there, help them contain them--both for the humanitarian effort of 
helping this country get rid of the disease, but also one that protects 
all the rest of the world so the disease doesn't spread. Could we use a 
lot more money? Yes, we could. Ironically, we will end up spending 
hundreds of times more in this country, if we don't do this, just to 
help protect our own people within our own borders, than the fraction 
of that amount we would spend to stop the disease from occurring in the 
first place. That is one example. AIDS, the greatest calamity to hit 
the world since

[[Page 24098]]

World War II, does not have ample funds.
  It has extra money in here. I complimented him and the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky for helping get that money in. Both of us believe 
and both of us have said repeatedly that the money in here falls short 
of what is needed to protect our interests around the world.
  For years, we urged the administration to fight harder for the 
foreign operations budget. Let me say this as a criticism of the 
administration of my own party: Too often, the administration has done 
too little, too late to build the support in Congress.
  At the same time, the Congress has failed to allocate to our 
subcommittee the funds we need. This bill is $800 million below the 
1999 level and $1.9 billion below the President's request, which, 
frankly, was not an unreasonable request. It is substantially less than 
this Congress was willing to give President Ronald Reagan for foreign 
aid. At a time when President Reagan was expressing concerns about 
foreign aid, he was still spending far more than we have in here, in a 
world much smaller than it is today.
  It may surprise Senators to know that the President's fiscal year 
2000 budget request for foreign operations, which he didn't get, is 
about the same as the amount we appropriated a decade ago. It is far 
less if you count inflation and far, far less if you count the amount 
we actually came up with.
  We have a lot of interests around the globe. The United States, a 
nation of a quarter of a billion people, has the preeminent economy and 
military might in the world. But our economy and military might, by 
itself, does not protect our interests totally and does not enable us 
to continue our interests into the next century.
  It is absurd that at the threshold of the 21st century, we continue 
to nickel and dime our foreign policy spending. We spend less than 1 
percent of the Federal budget on foreign policy. Yet we are a worldwide 
power. Companies in my little State of Vermont are involved in 
international trade. We are, on a per capita basis, about third or 
fourth in the country in exporting outside our borders. With the 
Internet, any company in Vermont, or Kentucky, or Arkansas, or 
Illinois, or anywhere else, which does business on the Internet, if 
they are selling something, they are going to get inquiries from Sri 
Lanka, from Japan, from Germany, from the Middle East. We are a 
worldwide, interconnected economy.
  We are also a nation that is called upon almost as a 911 source to 
help put out regional battles, fights, and so on, where democracy has 
not taken hold, and we will spend tens of billions, even hundreds of 
billions, of dollars to do that. But we won't spend a tiny fraction of 
that amount of money in our foreign policy budget to try to help 
democracy take place in the first place, so we don't have to call out 
the marines.
  Unfortunately, the majority in Congress refuses to face up to that. 
We continue to underfund these programs and to underfund our diplomacy 
in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.
  It is an isolationist, shortsighted approach that weakens our 
security, puts undue burdens on our Armed Forces, and does damage to 
future generations of Americans. We still have Members of Congress who 
call this foreign aid, and they even brag about cutting foreign aid. 
These are the same Members of Congress who say, ``I will never leave 
the shores of this Nation while I serve in Congress,'' as though this 
Nation exists just within its shores--a nation where every one our 
Fortune 500 companies do business around the world, every one of our 
States' economies is greatly affected by what kind of business we do 
around the world. Our students travel abroad; our citizens travel 
abroad. I don't know how many times we have people going to other 
countries saying, ``I am an American, I must have some rights.'' What 
do we do to help support those rights?
  To say we don't need to be involved in foreign aid, especially when 
the United States spends far less of its budget than most other 
nations--actually less in dollars than some-- is simplistic, self-
serving, and mostly inaccurate. These programs benefit all Americans.
  We have a number of programs that are underfunded in this budget that 
create jobs in the United States. We create the greatest number of jobs 
in our economy in those jobs that affect our exports. To the extent 
that our foreign aid and foreign policy programs improve the economies 
of other countries, they improve our markets. But unlike the request 
the President has made for funding to support America's export 
community, the bill cuts those funds.
  The President has requested funding to support national security 
programs, including to safeguard nuclear material in the former Soviet 
Union. If you want something to make you wake up at 3 o'clock in the 
morning, think of the inadequate controls over the nuclear material 
that is now stored in the former Soviet Union. Ask any American, 
``Would you support something that would help us secure those nuclear 
materials?'' and they will say yes. This bill cuts those funds.
  The President has asked for funds to build free markets, to 
strengthen democratic governments that support our policies, to protect 
the global environment. I don't think anybody opposes these programs, 
but we are just not going to pay for them. Rather than funding them at 
a level commensurate with the requirements and needs of a superpower 
with the world's largest economy, some want to make political points. I 
disagree with that. I think that is dangerous.
  I voted to report the bill from the committee. I did that mostly out 
of respect for the efforts of the chairman of the subcommittee. I voted 
for it on the floor, as most Senators did, to send it to conference. 
But I said at that time my vote was contingent upon additional funding 
being added in conference. It did not happen.
  I don't support everything the President has asked for at all. I want 
to make that clear. Some things I would vote against. But there is much 
in this conference report I do support. I don't support a cut in 
funding. I think the long-term security costs to our economy and our 
security will be far greater. It is simply irresponsible.
  Year after year, I have voted for foreign operations bills I thought 
were too low. I thought last year's bill was too low, and I said so at 
the time. I voted for it because I thought it was the best we could do 
and it would not do irreparable harm to our national security. But this 
bill is $800 million less than last year's.
  We have written a balanced bill. I have talked about the provisions I 
support, such as funding to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa and other 
development assistance programs. It also includes some provisions I 
don't support, but we had a fair debate and vote on them. That is fine 
with me.
  Funding for IDA, which makes low-cost loans to the poorest countries, 
was cut by $175 million. Funding for the U.N. agencies was cut. Funding 
for the Korea Energy program cut by $20 million. Funding for 
peacekeeping was cut. Funding for nonproliferation, antiterrorism, and 
other security programs was cut. The Peace Corps was cut.
  The world's population is going to pass 6 billion people next week, 
yet this conference report provides $50 million less for international 
family planning than the amount passed by the Senate in July and $100 
million less than we spent 10 years ago, when the population was much 
smaller.
  It cuts funding for the Global Environment Facility by $157 million 
below last year's level and $108 million below the President's request.
  I want to see a bill the President can sign. I say this to the 
administration and the leadership of the House and Senate: You have 
many Members on both sides of the aisle who want a good bill. But all 
of you are going to have to help us get the money so we can have a 
better bill.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be voting against the fiscal year 
2000 Foreign Operations appropriations bill conference report. Although 
I supported this bill when it came through

[[Page 24099]]

the Senate, I was hopeful that during the conference we would find the 
resources to address the serious deficiencies in this bill. 
Unfortunately, that was not the case and we have before us a bill that 
dramatically cuts the Administration's request for foreign operations 
by 14 percent.
  At a time of great uncertainty around the world, when we are being 
called on to foster new democracies, support peacekeeping operations, 
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and provide critical support for 
the ongoing Middle East peace process, we have before us a bill which 
threatens to undermine many of these vital foreign policy interests. If 
we nickel and dime our foreign policy priorities now, we will pay a 
higher price down the road when we respond to the ensuing international 
crises.
  I have generally supported our foreign aid budget. It is a less than 
one percent of our annual budget, a small amount to protect our 
national interests and provide tremendous benefit to those in need. In 
the past, however, when our spending contributed to burgeoning 
deficits, I opposed foreign aid or for that matter any spending bill 
that surpassed the spending levels of the previous year. However, in 
this era of budget surpluses the debate has shifted to a question of 
priorities. And, it is in this context that I must oppose this bill. We 
cannot afford to give short shrift to basic priorities traditionally 
funded in this bill. It is my hope that after the President vetoes this 
bill, we produce a bipartisan foreign operations budget that can be 
supported by all.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Foreign 
Operations Conference Report and to express my disappointment that in 
passing this report the Committee has not provided funding for the U.S. 
commitment to the Wye River agreement.
  This conference agreement, which provides $12.6 billion in funding, 
is nearly $2 billion below the President's request and $1 billion less 
than last year's bill. This low level of funding makes it all but 
impossible for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in the 
international community. Indeed, nearly every major account in the 
conference report is underfunded, including funding for voluntary 
international peacekeeping, the Peace Corps, Multilateral Development 
Banks, the Enhanced Threat Reduction Initiative, African development 
loan initiatives, the Global Environment Facility, and debt relief for 
the world's poorest countries.
  Most troubling, one specific initiative, the Wye assistance for the 
Middle East peace process, is nonexistent.
  As Israel and the Palestinian Authority move ahead with 
implementation of the Wye agreement and final status negotiations, it 
is vital that the United States also do its part in meeting its 
commitments and obligations.
  On Monday I, and twenty-one of my colleagues, sent letters to the 
President and to the Majority and Minority leaders about the critical 
importance of meeting our Wye commitments. Let me tell you why I 
consider this to be such an important issue.
  On September 4, 1999 Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority 
President Arafat signed the Sharm el-Shiekh Memorandum, expediting the 
fulfillment of Israeli and Palestinian obligations under prior 
treaties, particularly the Wye agreement, and establishing a time line 
for the completion of final status negotiations by September 13, 2000. 
Under this agreement: Israel has now relinquished an additional 7 
percent of the West Bank, with 5 percent more slated for turnover to 
the Palestinian Authority later this year; Israel has released 199 
Palestinian prisoners with another 150 scheduled for release later this 
year; Israel has started to open the Shuhada Road in Hebron; the 
Palestinian Authority has submitted its list of police; and, Israel and 
the Palestinian Authority have formally initiated final status 
negotiations.
  Israel and the Palestinian Authority are meeting their obligations, 
and as Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority continue to make 
progress in these negotiations, it is all the more critical for the 
United States to provide the financial assistance and support that has 
been promised.
  Whereas the first land transfer from Israel to the Palestinian 
Authority did not involve the movement of Israeli troops or bases, the 
next two planned transfers will involve the redeployment of troops, 
bases, and other infrastructure at considerable cost to Israel. In 
fact, there is some concern in Israel that if the U.S. is unable or 
unwilling to meet its commitments under Wye, the budget of the 
government of Israel will be thrown into chaos.
  The United States has pledged to provide $1.2 billion to Israel, $400 
million to the Palestinians, and $300 million to Jordan to assist them 
in meeting their obligations under the Wye accord, as well as for 
economic assistance for Jordan and areas under the Palestinian 
Authority.
  The United States has a deep commitment to Israel and its Arab 
partners in the peace process to help advance negotiations and to help 
meet the financial burden placed on the parties in the peace process in 
meeting their obligations. We have undertaken this commitment both 
because it is the right thing to do and because it serves well vital 
U.S. national security interests.
  The Wye agreement represents an important step on the road to peace 
in the Middle East. We must meet our obligations under Wye, and I do 
not believe that Congress should pass a Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill that does not include such funding.
  I do not believe that the United States can adequately pursue our 
national interests and foreign affairs priorities with this Conference 
Report. It will not allow the U.S. to continue to operate important 
international programs at current levels, will undoubtedly detract from 
the stature of the U.S. in the international community, and lets down 
our partners in the Middle East peace process. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in opposition to this conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a member of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have always supported the subcommittee's 
bill here on the Senate floor. We always have difficult and 
controversial choices before our subcommittee. Under the leadership of 
Senators McConnell and Leahy, we have been able to do a reasonable job 
crafting a bill with bipartisan support.
  Unfortunately, that is not the case this year. I will be voting 
against the foreign operations appropriations measure. I take this 
action for a number of reasons.
  Most importantly, this bill is woefully underfunded. The bill is $2 
billion less than President Clinton's request and some $800 million 
below last year's congressionally approved funding level. This account 
has already been cut significantly in recent years. The most recent 
cuts, in my estimation, will cripple our already meager foreign aid 
efforts. We spend a great deal of time here in the Congress talking 
about the U.S. role as the world's lone superpower. The foreign 
operations bill is a test of our sincerity in providing global 
leadership beyond the realm of U.S. military might.
  This bill does so many things that project an America to the world 
that we can and should all be proud of. We educate young girls, we 
provide microcredit loans to small family enterprises, we export 
democracy throughout the world, we cooperate with human rights 
activists and monitors, and we create opportunities for American 
citizens and business interests abroad. Unfortunately, the bill on the 
floor today cripples our efforts to work internationally, vital work 
that is in the national interest of the United States.
  The foreign operations bill fails to provide any funding to the 
important Middle East peace process. The President had requested $500 
million in assistance to aid the implementation of the Wye River 
Accords. This small investment in peace and security is even more 
important given the recent agreement between Israel's new government 
and the Palestinian Authority. Now is the time to reassert U.S. support 
for the peace process that, at this moment, shows so much hope and 
promise.
  I also am disappointed that this bill underfunds our export promotion 
programs. For example, the Export-Import

[[Page 24100]]

Bank, which protects and creates American jobs, is funded below the 
1999 level and far below the Administration's 2000 request. U.S. 
workers compete in the global economy. That's a fact. It is equally 
true that other governments in Asia and Europe do far more to help 
their exporters succeed. Our ability to compete and win abroad for 
American workers is impacted by the foreign operations bill. And this 
bill could do far more for American workers.
  Finally, I continue to have reservations regarding the funding levels 
and the restrictive language placed on our international family 
planning assistance programs. The restrictive language is particularly 
harmful as it cripples the provision of valuable family planning 
programs which aid population control, economic development, 
environmental protection and some many other areas. Our false family 
planning debates driven by domestic politics here in the United States 
only harm thousands of women and families in the developing world.
  Mr. President, this bill will not become law. President Clinton has 
promised a veto for numerous, very legitimate reasons. I encourage the 
President to follow through with a veto if this bill makes it to his 
desk. And I am anxious to work with my Senate colleagues on a new 
version of this bill. This is an important bill. Given the resources, I 
am confident that Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy can deliver a 
bill the Senate will again endorse with wide bipartisan margins.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have to say that I am disappointed in the 
foreign operations appropriations conference report. In my estimation 
then, and in my estimation now, this bill has two huge flaws: First of 
all, the bill as a whole is under funded. It simply does not dedicate 
the necessary monies for our nation's foreign operations.
  The Administration has indicated that the President will veto this 
bill, and I approve that decision. The amount in this bill is nearly $2 
billion less than the administration's request. That is unacceptable.
  The second major problem is that, not only is overall funding 
inadequate, two essential programs have either faced draconian cuts, or 
have not been funded at all. It is on those programs that I wish to 
speak.
  Perhaps the biggest failure of this bill is that it does not provide 
the amount that the President requested to support the Middle East Wye 
River Agreement.
  I find it irresponsible that the conference report does not include a 
single penny to fulfill our commitment to support the agreement. Early 
in September, Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement 
to carry out Wye and to move to final status negotiations.
  Just as the peace process is getting back on track, this conference 
report sends a signal of American retreat from our historic moral and 
strategic commitments in the Middle East.
  The $800 billion in aid missing from the conference report for fiscal 
years 1999, and the $500 missing form this year's appropriation were 
requested to support Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority in 
critical areas.
  In Israel, funds were requested to assist Israel in carrying out its 
military re-deployments and to acquire anti-terrorism equipment. In the 
Palestinian Authority, support was requested for education, health 
care, and basic infrastructure in order to reduce the influence of 
radical groups that thrive off of economic misery.
  In Jordan, support is needed to bolster the new King as he takes bold 
and risky moves to support peace and aggressively fight terror.
  The parties in the region will need to know that we are a reliable 
partner as they move to the most contentious issues in the peace 
process. This conference report calls into question our ability to 
carry out our commitments.
  The second failure of this year's conference report is that it does 
not fund the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative, an essential part of 
U.S. efforts to reduce the chances for the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction from the former Soviet Union.
  Almost every one of the Department of State budget increases proposed 
in the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative has been zeroed out in the 
conference report. This occurred despite the inclusion in the Senate 
bill of two floor amendments calling for the conferees to achieve full 
funding of these program requests. I regret that this message was 
ignored by the conferees, and Frankly I fear that their action could 
endanger our national security.
  Some of the programs that are unfunded in this bill were to help 
Russia's biological weapons experts find new fields of work. If we fail 
to do that, these very same experts could later threaten our crops, our 
livestock, and our very lives.
  Assistance for the Newly Independent States was decreased by 445 
million from a Senate passed level that was already $250 million below 
the Administration's request. While it is unclear where the additional 
cut would be made, it could reduce existing non-proliferation 
assistance programs such as the International Science and Technology 
Centers in Russia and Ukraine. Through these centers over 24,000 former 
weapons scientists have found jobs in places other than nuclear and 
biological weapons labs in Iraq and Iran.
  The same could be said for the Civilian Research and Development 
Fund. This foundation provides training for Russians who are former 
weapons scientist so that they can embark in nonmilitary careers. Not 
only the United States, but the entire world has benefited from this.
  I accept the fact that Congress has to make some tough choices in all 
of our appropriations. There are literally a dozen more programs in 
this bill that I would like to see increased funding for. We cannot 
designate as much money as we would like in all the areas we would 
like. However, I believe that the programs I have outlined above are 
crucial to the effective execution of United States foreign policy.
  By ignoring them, we are creating serious problems which may very 
well be costly to correct. Diplomacy and assistance are cheap compared 
to the price we pay when they fail. When the Senate passed its 
appropriation bill in June, I hoped that these flaws I have just 
discussed would be corrected. They were not. As it stands, I cannot 
support the conference report.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the foreign operations 
conference report includes a major concession to the Clinton 
administration--it strikes language which attempted to stop U.S. 
taxpayer dollars from being used to promote abortion abroad, imposing 
an imperialistic, left-wing, pro-death agenda on the nearly 100 
countries who have, for deeply-held religious reasons, upheld the 
sanctity of human life and who believe that life, including lives of 
the innocent and unborn, are sacred in God's eyes.
  Regrettably, the House-passed language, the Smith-Barcia Foreign 
Families Protection amendment, while not cutting funding for the 
international population assistance, would have at least restored the 
prohibition on using these funds to support foreign organizations that 
lobby to repeal or undermine the laws of foreign governments against 
abortion. Since the Senate refused to negotiate with the House on a 
proposed compromise on the issue, as a result, the conference report on 
foreign operations has no pro-life safeguards. The Senate conferees did 
not accept the House's proposal to reinstate last year's ban on funding 
for the U.N. Population Fund in exchange for dropping the Foreign 
Families Protection Act Amendment.
  The UNFPA has cooperated with the Peoples Republic of China in 
implementing coercive population control including forced abortion and 
sterilization. There are examples of poor people around the world being 
coerced into sterilization and fertility experimentation, sometimes, as 
was reported in Peru, by the threat of withholding food aid.
  More recently, in Kosovo, Concerned Women for America reported that 
while refugees sought water, clothing and other basic necessities, the 
UNFPA and Planned Parenthood delivered what they considered ``life-
saving supplies''--working with the UNHCR,

[[Page 24101]]

whey dispatched ``emergency reproductive health kits'' for about 
350,000 people for a period of 3 to 6 months.
  These kits included oral and indictable contraception kits, sexually 
transmitted disease kits, intrauterine device (IUDs) kits, 
complications of abortion kits, vacuum extraction equipment and, 
condoms (UNFPA press release, 4/8/99).
  The U.S. State Department estimates that of the 350,000 refugees, 10 
percent are either pregnant, breastfeeding or caring for very young 
infants. Also, Kosovo has one of the two highest total fertility rates 
in Europe, making it a prime target for population controllers like 
UNFPA (Planned Parenthood press release, 4/13/99).
  UNFPA and Planned Paenthood are putting these women at risk. CWA 
found a doctor with 10 years experience with the UNHCR, as well as 
numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who was willing to 
testify without attribution about the danger of providing birth control 
pills and emergency ``contraception'' to refugee women. This doctor 
worked extensively within the U.N. and externally to prevent 
distribution of emergency ``contraception'' which causes chemical 
abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and manual vacuum aspirators 
used to perform abortions.
  The doctor confirmed the fact that refugee women who use birth 
control pills are vulnerable in two specific ways. First, they do not 
receive information to make an informed decision, nor are they 
guaranteed a doctor's continuing care.
  Vacuum aspirators included in the UNFPA kit are particularly 
dangerous. These manual devices cannot be sterilized, risking fatal 
infections, and can puncture the uterus. Rather than life-saving, these 
devices can be life-threatening.
  The UNFPA and PPFA are exploiting these desperate, vulnerable refugee 
women. They are attempting to indoctrinate them with the U.N.'s radical 
notions about sexuality and abortion. Abortions may only intensify 
their physical and emotional distress. Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is 
a type of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, once believed only to affect 
war veterans.
  This year, unsuccessfully, an effort was made in the House to 
transfer funds from ``international family planning'' programs to child 
survival programs--this is based on the pleas of many respected people 
in the children's health field, including health ministers in Africa, 
who have begged the West for basic medicines like penicillin and 
rehydration salts. They have said their shelves are overflowing with 
condoms, while they watch their infants and young children die from 
basic maladies that would never go untreated in the industrialized 
world. Their calls have gone unheeded. The Clinton Administration's 
foreign policy priority is to ensure that women can abort their babies, 
not to ensure that mothers who give birth can properly care for their 
children.
  The fight is not over--the issue of protecting women and their unborn 
children and of respecting the pro-life, pro-family laws of foreign 
nations will resurface this year.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I rise in opposition to the adoption of H.R. 
2606--the fiscal year 2000 foreign operations conference report.
  Let me say at the outset that it is very unusual for me to oppose an 
appropriations bill of this kind, but I do so today because I believe 
that if it becomes law it will jeopardize United States interests 
globally. Why are our interests threatened? They are threatened because 
this bill does not provide the wherewithal to the Clinton 
administration so that it can effectively carry out United States 
foreign policies and programs. Many programs being funded by this bill 
are at drastically reduced levels. The total dollar value of the 
appropriations contained in this conference report are approximately $2 
billion below levels requested by the President.
  The conferees apparently did not think that the Middle Peace Process 
is of critical interest to the United States because nowhere can a find 
funding in support of the implementation of the Wye Agreement--clearly 
a critical component in ensuring that the peace process more forward. I 
believe that this omission is extremely unwise and is reason enough 
alone for Members of this body to oppose it.
  But that is not the only problem with this bill. Let me discuss some 
of the other deficiencies as well.
  First, Mr. President, we all know how much bipartisan support the 
Peace Corps engenders in both Houses of Congress. Peace Corps 
volunteers are our ``citizen diplomats'' abroad. The lasting good will 
and friendship that results from American men and women serving as 
volunteers for two years in countries that need and want their presence 
is immeasurable. No one that I know of has any complaints about the 
organization. Yet, this bill would short change its fiscal year 2000 
budget by $35 million, making it nearly impossible for the Peace Corps 
to meet its congressionally mandated goal of placing 10,000 volunteers 
in the field early in the next decade.
  Nor does this conference report contain a penny for use by the 
Clinton administration as its initial responses to the tragic natural 
disasters that have just occurred in Turkey and Taiwan. Surely we could 
have provided some start up monies to assist our friends in their hour 
of need. Similarly, money was not included in this bill to assist the 
people of Kosovo begin the painful process of rebuilding after the 
devastation wrought by Serbian forces earlier this year.
  The phrase ``penny wise and pound foolish'' comes readily to mind as 
one reviews the provisions of this bill. Let me highlight some of the 
most important deficiencies as I see them: $175 million reduction in 
loan programs designed to help the poorest nations address their 
critical needs; $157 million reduction in global environmental 
protection programs; $26 million below the Senate passed appropriated 
amounts for the U.S. Export Import Bank and additional unnecessary 
Congressional notification requirements that could delay approval of 
export credit applications; $85 million reduction in debt relief for 
the poorest countries; $200 million reduction in regional democracy 
building and economic development programs for Africa, Latin America 
and Asia; $297 million reduction in democracy and civil society 
programs in the independent states of the former Soviet Union; and $20 
million reduction in funds to support the Korean Peninsula Development 
Organization and seriously restrictive legislative conditions which 
jeopardize important ongoing U.S. diplomatic efforts to contain the 
North Korean nuclear threat to the Korean Peninsula.
  This is certainly not an exhaustive listing of all the problems I 
have with this bill, but merely the highlights, or low lights as the 
case may be, of the serious inadequacies with the foreign operations 
conference report. Having said that I believe that the issues I have 
cited are more than enough reason for members to vote against this 
legislation and I urge them to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am sorry my friend and colleague, the 
Senator from Vermont, is not going to be able to support the bill. But 
I do want to commend him for his ongoing effort with regard to 
demining. The Leahy War Victims Fund has had a dramatic impact not only 
on rehabilitation but also on safety; in addition, Senator Leahy's 
interest in and devotion to the subject of infectious diseases. He has 
single-handedly driven the funding levels up. The surveillance, 
control, and treatment have improved throughout the world because of 
his commitment.
  I commend him for that.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that both sides are interested 
in having this vote at noon. I am prepared to yield back my time, if 
Senator Leahy is, and we will proceed with the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my understanding is that no one else on 
this side wishes to speak.
  In that case, I yield our time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.

[[Page 24102]]

  The yeas and nays have not be ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 312 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________