[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24234-24247]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate on the bill H.R. 
     4811, ``Making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
     financing, and related programs for the fiscal year 2001, and 
     for other purposes,'' having met, have agreed that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, 
     and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree 
     to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the 
     part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The report was printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
October 24, 2000.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the conference report 
on the foreign operations bill.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the Senate is a half 
billion

[[Page 24235]]

dollars below last year's appropriation--the fiscal year 2000 bill was 
$15.4 billion--this year we are presenting a $14.9 billion bill. This 
includes $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2000 funds plus an additional 
$466 million in supplemental funding for debt relief, Southern Africa, 
and the Balkans.
  Although we are below last year's level, we have managed to 
substantially increase key priorities, including providing $865 million 
for Ex-Im, a nearly $100 million increase over last year, $1.3 billion 
for development assistance, again a $100 million increase, within child 
survival we surpassed the request for AIDS funding and provided $315 
million. Overall child survival funding was also increased to $963 
million. In addition to over $1 billion in supplemental funds for 
Colombia, the Narcotics and Law enforcement account was increased by 
$20 million over the request to $325 million. For the first time in 
years, we managed to increase security assistance. This account is of 
real concern to our friends and allies in Central and Eastern Europe. 
We exceeded the request and provided $3.545 billion. To respond to 
crises from Chechnya to Sierra Leone, we substantially increased 
funding both over last year's level and this year's request for 
refugees to $700 million. In this account we were able to work out a 
compromise that will improve management and oversight of UNHCR while 
affording the administration flexibility to respond rapidly to any real 
emergency.
  Finally, we provided funds for the fiscal year 2001 and the 
supplemental request for debt relief. In addition to language on IMF 
reforms recommended by Senator Gramm, we have included a number of HIPC 
conditions worked out between Senator Helms and Congressman Leach, 
representing the authorizing committees. There are a number of policy 
provisions which are also important to mention. Within the $675 million 
account for Eastern Europe, we have provided up to $100 million for 
Serbia. Senator Leahy and I agree that we will never be able to 
withdraw troops and help stabilize the Balkans as long as Milosevic and 
other criminals responsible for outrageous atrocities across the 
Balkans are allowed to go free. No government in the region will have 
confidence in Belgrade if the rule of law is not upheld.
  The administration lobbied heavily against our arguments that U.S. 
support for the new government should come with specific conditions 
attached. We thought aid should flow only if the Serb government met 
three specific conditions: First, they need to cooperate with the War 
Crimes Tribunal. Second, they must take steps to end support for 
organizations in the Republic of Srpska which prevent effective 
integration of Bosnia Hercegovina. Finally, given Belgrade's vicious 
track record, we thought it was important to seek assurances that the 
new government will implement policies which respect the rights and 
aspirations of minorities and the rule of law. Each of these conditions 
was designed to serve our interests in stabilizing the region so that 
an exit strategy for U.S. troops can be safely and effectively 
executed. The bill modifies this approach and includes an agreement 
which will give this administration and the new government in Belgrade 
a 5-month window in which assistance can move forward. After that 
period, only humanitarian aid and support to local mayors will be 
allowed if Belgrade refuses to meet the conditions which I have 
outlined.
  I must confess my reservations about this approach. I listened to the 
arguments for flexibility, but I have little confidence in the 
administration's past record of support for the Tribunal and standing 
up to Belgrade. I believe that there is no problem in Serbia that will 
be made easier by Milosevic's predatory presence. No regional 
government will have confidence in Belgrade as long as he is allowed to 
go free. It is in their interest and ours to see him turned over for 
trial. In the end I agreed to this compromise because funds for Serbia 
are made available subject to the committee's notification. If there is 
no sign of cooperation or progress on our conditions during the next 
five months, the administration should understand that I will put a 
hold on funding. This compromise is not a free pass to spend for five 
months--Senator Leahy and I will be expecting concrete progress. The 
second area of tremendous concern addressed in the bill is Russia's 
action in Chechnya. Since launching this war, Moscow has blocked all 
humanitarian relief operations or international human rights 
investigations from proceeding in Chechnya. While we cannot always 
change the views in Moscow, I was extremely disappointed by the 
administration refusal to support the U.N. High Commissioner for Human 
Rights call for an international investigation. Instead Secretary 
Albright testified the administration preferred to allow Moscow to 
conduct its own internal investigation. The State Department has also 
rejected support for non-government groups providing relief and 
preferred instead to work through the Russian government.
  To address these problems, we have earmarked $10 million for the more 
than 400,000 displaced families in Chechnya and Ingushetia which can 
only be provided through NGOs. Aid to the Russian government is also 
made contingent upon cooperation with international investigations in 
Chechnya. We have also made aid to the Russian Government contingent 
upon a certification that Moscow has terminated support for the nuclear 
program in Iran. In the past we have withheld 50 percent of the Russian 
government funds until this certification is made--this year we have 
increased the withholding to 60 percent. Putin has said Russia must 
build a dictatorship of law--what remains unclear is whether his 
personal emphasis will be on dictatorship or law. I think our aid 
should be leverage to secure a result which serves American interests 
and nuclear armed Iran certainly is not in U.S. interests.
  Finally, let me mention debt relief. Senator Helms and Congressman 
Leach reported out bills which conditioned U.S. support to the Heavily 
Indebted Poor Countries Initiative managed by the IMF and the World 
Bank. The Foreign Relations Committee bill requires the Secretary of 
Treasury to certify that it is World Bank policy to--(1) suspend 
funding if loans are diverted or misused, (2) not displace private 
sector funding, and (3) disburse funds based on the implementation of 
reforms by the recipient country including the promotion of open 
markets and liberalization of trade practices, the promotion of 
projects which enhance economic growth and the establishment of 
benchmarks to measure progress toward graduation from assistance. 
Similar conditions are required of the IMF. In addition to including 
language supported by Senator Helms and Congressman Leach, we have 
included House language limiting resources to countries engaged in a 
pattern of human rights abuses. I supported stronger language which 
would have required that the Secretary of Treasury certify that the IMF 
and Bank actually were implementing new policy conditions before 
Treasury was allowed to disburse funds--this approach was recommended 
by Senator Gramm, the chairman of the Banking Committee. That was my 
view of how it should have been handled. Instead, my colleagues on the 
conference supported Helms-Leach language which releases the funds and 
then requires reporting on performance over the course of the next 
year.
  While I completely agreed with Senator Gramm, I also shared the 
problem he has with his committee--there simply were not the votes to 
sustain this position. I think we have made progress on conditioning 
debt relief, but the Treasury Department should understand that I will 
continue to consult with Senator Gramm when we receive notifications on 
intended debt relief recipients. Performance benchmarks are essential 
if we are to avoid seeing the same groups of countries and banks back 
in 5 years seeking the same relief all over again. Separate from the 
HIPC relief, we did include binding requirements that the Treasury 
Department withhold 10 percent of our contribution to any multilateral 
bank until specific conditions are met on procurement and management 
reforms. Not only will the banks have to

[[Page 24236]]

improve internal management practices through audits, they will have to 
improve recipient country procurement management and financial 
practices. This is an important step in our battle against fraud and 
corruption. Once again, I think we have produced a balanced bill which 
funds U.S. priorities within sound budget principles and I urge its 
favorable consideration.
  Finally, I repeat, this bill is below the amount spent for foreign 
operations last year. That makes it somewhat unique among the 
appropriations bills we have been in the process of passing, and I am 
proud to say we were able to bring this bill in under last year's 
total.
  Mr. President, are we under some time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is under a 1-hour time limit.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum and further suggest 
the time during the quorum call be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Bennett is here and wishes to speak in morning 
business. It seems to me he ought to speak on the bill time so we do 
not have to move the vote any later in the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The ranking member is here. Maybe Senator Bennett can 
comment after the ranking member addresses the bill.
  Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad we are here. I commend Senator 
McConnell and also our counterparts in the House, Chairman Callahan and 
Mrs. Pelosi. The chairman, Senator McConnell, and I have worked closely 
together on this bill. In the same way I tried to accommodate those 
concerns of his side of the aisle, he has tried to do the same on our 
side. As a result, we have a good bipartisan bill.
  We tried to meet everyone's concerns without putting in unnecessary 
earmarks or taking away the appropriate flexibility the President 
should have. We funded the President's important priorities, and I note 
that both sides of the aisle supported those.
  I am disappointed, of course, as I am sure the Senator from Kentucky 
is, with the amount of time it took to get here. Finally, we are here. 
Had it been left to the two of us, we could have finished this bill 
before the August recess, but while we were told to make sure the cars 
in the train would follow, we were not allowed in the engineer's seat 
to get it down the track. It is here now, and it is a good result.
  I am glad that we found an acceptable compromise on family planning 
that does not restrict what private organizations can do with their own 
private funds. That is only wise. After all, we have heard speeches 
forever from people here about how the government should get off the 
backs of individuals. We have finally agreed to do that. It was not 
easy. I give very high praise to Congresswoman Pelosi for her work on 
this.
  I am also pleased that we include $425 million, the Senate funding 
level for family planning. This is not money for abortions. No funds in 
this bill can be used for abortions. This is money for family planning. 
So many countries I have visited are among the poorest of the poor, and 
they tell me that reducing the rate of population growth is one of 
their highest priorities but they lack the money to do so. They also 
say that when they have money for family planning, the number of 
abortions in their country goes down.
  We provide adequate authority and funding for debt forgiveness. That 
had overwhelming support at the meeting the President had with 
Republicans and Democrats, members of the clergy across the ideological 
spectrum, representing all faiths and persuasions. I felt honored to be 
in that meeting.
  One of our Senate guest Chaplains that week, Father Claude Pomerleau 
of the University of Portland, accompanied me there. I thank him for 
his advice and help on this. I should also say that Father Pomerleau is 
my wife's brother, my brother-in-law. Even the President said that it 
was probably Father Pomerleau's recommendation that got me into the 
White House, rather than my position that got him in.
  In seriousness, on the issue of debt forgiveness, we want to help the 
world's poorest countries get out of debt. We also want to be sure they 
make the necessary economic reforms so they can stay out of debt in the 
future. It is not enough to say, look, we are going to pay your bills 
so you can get out of debt. It does nothing if then within a few years 
they are back in debt.
  We provided aid to Serbia, subject to important conditions relating 
to Serbia's cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal. Chairman 
McConnell, myself, as well as Senator Biden and others, strongly 
support these conditions.
  The conditions do not take effect until March 31, 2001, and we do not 
intend the aid spigot to be opened wide before then. We expect the 
administration--this administration and the next one--to proceed 
cautiously. We will be watching, as appropriators, just how cautious 
they are. After all, administrations come and go, but the 
Appropriations Committee stays here, and we will be here to watch what 
is done next year.
  We want to support the new Serbian Government, but only if it is 
truly democratic and respects the rights of its neighbors and also the 
rights of minorities. We expect the administration to treat the 
apprehension and prosecution of war criminals as a priority.
  I am pleased with the amount of funds for HIV/AIDS. It is a $100 
million increase above last year's level. We provided up to $50 million 
for child immunization, and substantial increases for programs to 
combat TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
  There are a lot of other provisions I could mention, from 
restrictions on assistance for Peru--we did that because of the recent 
efforts to subvert democracy there. We hear the President of Peru make 
promises, but then take actions that belie what he has said. We put in 
additional funding for refugees. Unfortunately, we know that the 
reality throughout the world today is that there are more and more 
refugees. However, I strongly object to one House provision that was 
included. And I told the conferees that I objected. It is a $5.2 
million earmark for AmeriCares. This is a private organization that 
does work in Latin America and other places. I cannot recall a single 
instance--certainly not since 1989, when I became chairman of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee; nor in the 5 years I have been ranking 
member, and the Senator from Kentucky has been chairman--when we have 
earmarked funds for a private organization such as this.
  It was done here, as I understand it, because a 6-year, $5.2 million 
proposal of AmeriCares was rejected by AID. According to AID, the 
proposal was too high-tech to be sustainable in the country in 
question, and because some of the work was already being done by 
others. I suspect it was a proposal which would buy a lot of expensive 
equipment from some manufacturer somewhere but might not be something 
appropriate for that country.
  Although AID suggested to AmeriCares that they submit a revised 
proposal, AmeriCares opted instead to seek a congressional earmark, 
ignoring the usual practice, and basically saying: Just give us the 
money. We will decide what to do with it.
  I have no opinion on the merits of their proposal. But if you are 
going to be applying for Federal funds, you ought to follow the same 
rules everybody else does.
  There are literally hundreds of PVOs that submit requests to AID, and 
many are rejected--some because they do not make sense, and others 
because there is not the money to fund them. Are we now going to give 
those other dissatisfied PVOs their own earmarks? It is a

[[Page 24237]]

terrible precedent. It does not belong in this bill.
  I will give you an example. I have fought to ban landmines all over 
the world. We have the Leahy War Victims Fund that spends millions of 
dollars every year for landmine victims. I wrote the legislation that 
was the first piece of legislation ever in any country to ban the 
export of landmines.
  There are many NGOs and PVOs--that is, nongovernmental organizations 
and private voluntary organizations--that have come in and worked to 
get rid of landmines and care for landmine victims. Some are funded 
through the foreign aid bill or the defense appropriations bill. Some 
are funded through private donations that they raise. Many contact me 
because of my identification with this and say: Could I get Federal 
funding?
  One of the nice things is that a lot of these--they are screened just 
before the money goes out. But can you imagine how it would be if we 
simply gave them the money just because it was requested by a Senator 
who wants to eradicate landmines?
  It has always been my view we should let the experts judge the merits 
of these proposals, rather than just hand over the money to whichever 
organizations have the most political clout.
  Some have complained--and I heard this morning--that this is a 
Republican bill. Others have said it is a Democratic bill. They are 
both wrong. Neither side got everything they wanted. There were 
significant compromises on funding and on policy by both sides. That is 
as it should be, especially for a bill that deals with foreign policy. 
And that is why I am proud to be here with the Senator from Kentucky, 
because we should not have a Republican foreign policy or a Democratic 
foreign policy. We should have a foreign policy that represents the 
interests of the United States.
  We have had somewhat of an uneven record since the time when Senator 
Vandenberg spoke about ``politics ending at the water's edge.'' But on 
this bill, at least, Republicans and Democrats have come together.
  It is interesting, too, because the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations of the Appropriations Committee has probably the smallest 
staff of any committee around here--on the Republican side, with Robin 
Cleveland, and Tim Rieser on our side, aided by just a couple of people 
whom I will mention later--to put this together. We don't have huge 
armies of people to help us, but maybe that is just as well because as 
a result, in the end, Senators talk to Senators. That is the best way 
to do things around here.
  I see the Senator from Utah is on the floor.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                             The Rand Study

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his 
courtesy. I was more than happy to give him whatever leeway he wanted, 
but I appreciate the opportunity to make a comment. Given the nature of 
the session in which we find ourselves, we have to take every 
opportunity as it comes along. As the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
Senator from Kentucky, indicated, the time will be taken off the bill.
  I rise to take the opportunity to respond to the comments that were 
made earlier by the Senator from Massachusetts in his scathing attack 
on the education system in Texas. The Senator from Massachusetts, as 
well as Senator Harkin yesterday, referred to a Rand Corporation study 
on the State of Texas schools. They would have us believe that based on 
that study, the Texas schools are terrible and, further, that those of 
us who are saying nice things about Texas schools are deliberately 
misleading the public.
  I want to make it clear that the people who are missing this story 
are the people who sit in the gallery above the Chair. The press has 
missed the story here because they have bought the line laid down by 
the Senator from Massachusetts and others in his party that somehow the 
Rand Corporation has denounced Texas schools as being terribly 
inferior. The Rand Corporation has done no such thing. Democrats have 
used the recent Rand study to try to tell everybody that the Rand 
Corporation has done that. If I may, too many journalists have taken 
the press release as it has come out of the Democratic headquarters and 
not read the record for themselves.
  I took a class in journalism. The first thing they said was, check 
the facts yourself. I didn't follow that career, but I have tried to 
remember that advice. So I have checked the facts myself. The place I 
went to begin with, with the help of my staff, was the Rand 
Corporation. Let us go back to the Rand Corporation and see what they 
have to say about Texas schools. I will leave aside the argument as to 
whether or not they are right. There is always the possibility that 
even these so-called experts could be wrong in their analysis. Let us 
set that aside for just a minute and ask ourselves, what does the Rand 
Corporation have to say about Texas schools?
  This is what the Rand Corporation has to say about Texas schools. I 
am reading from a news release issued by the Rand Corporation itself. I 
ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. The Rand Corporation says:

       The education reforms of the 1980s and 1990s seem to be 
     working, according to a new RAND report, but some states are 
     doing far better than others in making achievement gains and 
     in elevating their students' performance compared with 
     students of similar racial and socioeconomic background in 
     other states. Texas and Indiana are high performers on both 
     these counts.

  I will repeat that last sentence:

       Texas and Indiana are high performers on both these counts.

  This is not a Republican speaking. This is not the Bush campaign 
speaking. This is the Rand Corporation speaking. Texas, a high 
performer.
  It goes on:

       Math scores are rising across the country at a national 
     average rate of about one percentile point per year, a pace 
     outstripping that of the previous two decades and suggesting 
     that public education reforms are taking hold. Progress is 
     far from uniform, however. One group of states--led by North 
     Carolina and Texas and including Michigan, Indiana and 
     Maryland--boasts gains about twice as great as the national 
     average.

  This is the Rand Corporation, Mr. President, saying Texas is boasting 
rates of improvement twice the national average.
  Back to the report:

       Even more dramatic contrasts emerge in the study's 
     pathbreaking, cross-state comparison of achievement by 
     students from similar families. Texas heads the class in this 
     ranking with California dead last.

  Interesting. They go on to say:

       Although the two states are close demographic cousins, 
     Texas students, on average, scored 11 percentile points 
     higher on NAEP math and reading tests than their California 
     counterparts. In fact, Texans performed well with respect to 
     most states. On the 4th-grade NAEP math tests in 1996, Texas 
     non-Hispanic white students and black students ranked first 
     compared to their counterparts in other states, while 
     Hispanic students ranked fifth. On the same test, California 
     non-Hispanic white students ranked third from the bottom, 
     black students last, and Hispanic students fourth from the 
     bottom among states.

  How can this be, for the Rand Corporation to be saying such wonderful 
things about Texas and then having Democratic Senators come to the 
floor and quote the Rand Corporation as saying terrible things about 
Texas? If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think the release of 
the latest Rand study might have something to do with the fact that 
there is an election in less than a week. But the president of the Rand 
Corporation has insisted that is not the case. He has insisted that the 
timing of the release of this second study, which is being used to 
trash Texas, was entirely coincidental and had nothing whatever to do 
with the election.
  All right. Let's take him at his word and read his words to see how 
he reconciles the earlier Rand statement with the later one. I didn't 
tell you, but that first study I quoted from was

[[Page 24238]]

released in July, before either of the conventions took place, before 
the question of Texas performance in education became a national 
priority or a national issue.
  How does the president of Rand reconcile these two apparently 
irreconcilable positions, one where Rand says, in July, Texas is No. 1, 
Texas comes in first with California last, and the two States are 
demographically very similar--how do they reconcile that statement with 
the statements we are hearing on the floor today?
  Read what he has to say, I say again to my journalist friends, who 
take the press release from the Democratic headquarters, put it in the 
headlines--top story in today's television--that the Rand Corporation 
has trashed the Texas record. I don't think any of them read what the 
president of Rand had to say because if they had, the story would have 
been different on this morning's news.
  This is what he has to say:

       The July study ``Improving Student Achievement'' touched on 
     the Texas schools and received widespread press play. Both 
     efforts--

  Talking about the July study and this last one--

       draw on NAEP scores. The new paper suggests a less positive 
     picture of Texas education than the earlier effort, but I do 
     not believe these efforts are in sharp conflict. Together, in 
     fact, they provide a more comprehensive picture of key 
     education issues.

  So Rand is not backing away from their earlier statement that Texas 
is No. 1 in the areas that they quoted and covered in their first 
statement. They are not repudiating that.
  They are not contradicting it. They are not backing away from it. 
Again, the president of Rand says:

       I do not believe that these efforts are in sharp conflict.

  It is the politicians who have put them in sharp conflict, not the 
researchers. Let's examine the research and see what it says. Quoting 
again from the president of Rand:

       The July report differed in scope.

  Then in parentheses he says:

       (It covered almost all States, not just Texas.)

  Therein lies the answer to this dilemma. The July report that says 
Texas ranks No. 1 was a comparative study of Texas against other 
States. In that study, they said: In these areas we are checking, Texas 
is the best. The Rand Corporation said ``Texas is the best.''
  Now, they came back to Texas to do a different study on an entirely 
different issue, and the issue they studied the second time was whether 
or not the Texas test system was a good one. They came to their own 
conclusion that the Texas system of testing needs to be improved. Their 
judgment, their opinion. Never at any time did they say that Texas was 
not getting better results than any other States, even with a system 
they claim needs to be improved.
  I see the chairman of the subcommittee has returned. I will be happy 
to yield the floor now and get back to the foreign operations bill, 
which is before us. I could not pass the opportunity to straighten out 
the record.
  The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa have misled 
us because they have not read the fine print of the report they are 
quoting from, and they have not consulted the opinion of the president 
of the organization they are citing. At no time, in no place, in spite 
of what the political headline said, has the Rand Corporation backed 
away from its conviction that Texas is first in many, if not all, of 
the categories they examined on education. The Governor of Texas and 
the two Senators from Texas who spoke earlier are rightly entitled to 
be very proud of the progress that has taken place in education in 
their State.

                               Exhibit 1

        Rising Math Scores Suggest Education Reforms Are Working


 state achievement differences tied to spending, policies texas first, 
           california last in test scores of similar students

       Washington, D.C., July 25--The education reforms of the 
     1980s and 1990s seem to be working, according to a new RAND 
     report, but some states are doing far better than others in 
     making achievement gains and in elevating their students' 
     performance compared with students of similar racial and 
     socioeconomic background in other states. Texas and Indiana 
     are high performers on both these counts.
       The study is based on an analysis of National Assessment of 
     Educational Progress (NAEP) tests given between 1990 and 
     1996. The authors rank the 44 participating states by raw 
     achievement scores, by scores that compare students from 
     similar families, and by score improvements. They also 
     analyze which policies and programs account for the 
     substantial differences in achievement across states that 
     can't be explained by demographics. Here are the key 
     findings:
       Math scores are rising across the country at a national 
     average rate of about one percentile point per year, a pace 
     outstripping that of the previous two decades and suggesting 
     that public education reforms are taking hold. Progress is 
     far from uniform, however. One group of states--led by North 
     Carolina and Texas and including Michigan, Indiana and 
     Maryland--boasts gains about twice as great as the national 
     average. Another group--including Wyoming, Georgia, Delaware, 
     and Utah--shows minuscule gains or none at all. Most states 
     fall in between.
       Even more dramatic contrasts emerge in the study's 
     pathbreaking, cross-state comparison of achievement by 
     students from similar families. Texas heads the class in this 
     ranking with California dead last. Wisconsin, Montana, Iowa, 
     Maine, North Dakota, Indiana and New Jersey cluster closely 
     behind Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama 
     and Rhode Island perform almost as dismally as California.
       Although the two states are close demographic cousins, 
     Texas students, on average, scored 11 percentile points 
     higher on NAEP math and reading tests that their California 
     counterparts. In fact, the Texans performed well with respect 
     to most states. On the 4th-grade NAEP math tests in 1996, 
     Texas non-Hispanic white students and black students ranked 
     first compared to their counterparts in other states, while 
     Hispanic students ranked fifth. On the same test, California 
     non-Hispanic white students ranked third from the bottom, 
     black students last, and Hispanic students fourth from the 
     bottom among states.
       Differences in state scores for students with similar 
     families can be explained, in part, by per pupil expenditures 
     and how these funds are allocated. States at the top of the 
     heap generally have lower pupil-teacher ratios in lower 
     grades, higher participation in public prekindergarten 
     programs and a higher percentage of teachers who are 
     satisfied with the resources they are provided for teaching. 
     These three factors account for about two-thirds of the 
     Texas-California differential. Teacher turnover also has a 
     statistically significant effect on achievement. (California 
     is now implementing class-size reduction and other reforms 
     but these steps began after the 1996 NAEP tests.)
       Having a higher percentage of teachers with masters degrees 
     and extensive teaching experience appears to have 
     comparatively little effect on student achievement across 
     states. Higher salaries also showed little effect, possibly 
     reflecting the inefficiency of the current compensation 
     system in which pay raises reward both high- and low-quality 
     teachers. However, the report points out that salary 
     differences may have more important achievements effects 
     within states than between states. Also, they may have 
     greater impact during periods when teachers are in shorter 
     supply than during the 1990-1996 measurement period.
       To raise achievement scores, the most efficient and 
     effective use of education dollars is to target states with 
     higher proportions of minority and disadvantaged students 
     with funding for lower pupil-teacher ratios, more widespread 
     prekindergarten efforts, and more adequate teaching 
     resources. As for teacher salaries and education, the report 
     adds, ``efforts to increase the quality of teachers in the 
     long run are important, but . . . significant productivity 
     gains can be obtained with the current teaching force if 
     their working conditions are improved.''
       The most plausible explanation for the remarkable rate of 
     math gains by North Carolina and Texas is the integrated sets 
     of policies involving standards, assessment and 
     accountability that both states implemented in the late 1980s 
     and early 1990s.
       The RAND study, led by David Grissmer, is based on NAEP 
     tests given in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1996 to representative 
     samples of 2,500 students from the 44 voluntarily 
     participating states. Five tests were given in mathematics 
     and two in reading at either the 4th- or 8th-grade level. Not 
     all of the states took all of the tests. And there were too 
     few reading tests to permit a separate analysis of those 
     results. Taken together, however, the tests provided the 
     first set of data permitting statistically valid achievement 
     comparisons across states. The researchers used data from the 
     census and from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey 
     to establish the student samples' family characteristics.
       The 1998 NAEP reading and math scores became available too 
     late to be incorporated in this analysis. ``We're examining 
     those data now, however, and we find that the

[[Page 24239]]

     state rankings change little and our findings about which 
     policies make the most difference aren't affected at all,'' 
     Grissmer declares.
       ``Our results certainly challenge the traditional view of 
     public education as `unreformable','' he concludes. ``But the 
     achievement of disadvantaged students is still substantially 
     affected by inadequate resources. Stronger federal 
     compensatory programs are required to address this 
     inequity.''
       Grissmer's coauthors include Ann Flanagan, Jennifer Kawata 
     and Stephanie Williamson. Improving Student Achievement: What 
     NAEP Test Scores Tell Us was supported by the ExxonMobil 
     Foundation, the Danforth Foundation, the NAEP Secondary 
     Analysis Program, the Center for Research on Education 
     Diversity and Excellence and by RAND.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Utah has made 
an extraordinarily good point. If he would like to speak further, I can 
wait. I am going to propose a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have probably exhausted my indignation on that 
subject, I say to the Senator from Kentucky. I will be available again 
if someone comes along to try to misinterpret and misquote these 
studies.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend for his very important contribution 
to what has become an issue across America.
  Mr. President, with relation to the foreign operations bill, I ask 
unanimous consent that the vote regarding the foreign operations 
conference report occur beginning at 4:30 p.m., and that there be 4 
minutes for debate immediately following the vote for closing remarks 
with respect to the pending Feingold amendment and S. 2508, and that 
that vote immediately occur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was told this had been cleared on 
both sides. We will propound the unanimous consent request later when 
it is cleared.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I had to leave the floor for a moment. Am I 
correct that the continuing resolution will not be here for a 4:30 
vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, would it be 
his intention, once all time is finished or yielded back, to go to a 
rollcall vote on this bill?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am told that is fine with our side. We will be happy 
to finish up the debate and vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I know we are discussing the underlying bill. I ask 
unanimous consent to be yielded 7 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: It is my 
understanding that we have a vote scheduled at 4:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not correct; that has been changed.
  Mr. REID. I don't understand how we are not having a vote at 4:30. 
How could it have been changed?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I propounded a unanimous consent 
agreement to which the Senator from Florida objected and that is how we 
found ourselves where we are.
  Mr. REID. So what I stated earlier on the floor--that we had a vote 
at 4:30--was really not accurate, is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote was to occur at that time, but the 
measure on which the vote was to occur has not yet arrived from the 
House.
  Who yields time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I have requested time. I understand under a previous 
unanimous consent request, Senator Graham of Florida was granted 30 
minutes. He is yielding me a part of his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida yield the time 
to the Senator from Louisiana?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we have been discussing a variety 
of subjects in the last few hours. The matter before the Senate is the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
  One of the difficulties all Members are having, is trying to get some 
accurate information about what is actually in these bills, as they 
come to us rather quickly. That is one of the things we have been 
talking about today. I think Senator Leahy raised an excellent point. 
There are provisions in foreign ops about which I also have some 
serious concerns. But right now, I just wanted to take a few minutes to 
discuss the Adoption Tax Credit.


                          Adoption Tax Credit

  Mr. President, the adoption tax credit is broadly supported in this 
Chamber by Democrats and Republicans. It is one of the issues we seem 
to be able to come together on to say, yes, we believe in adoption. 
Adoption affirms life. It affirms families. It helps us to build 
families in very special ways. It provides an opportunity for children 
who don't have parents, and for parents who desperately want children, 
to get together.
  Over the last couple of years, together, Democrats and Republicans, 
the White House, President Clinton and the First Lady, have been 
aggressive advocates of adoption. We have made great progress.
  Just last week, under the tremendous leadership of Chairman Helms, we 
passed the first ever International Treaty on Adoption. This treaty is 
going to reduce corruption, minimize the costs of international 
adoptions, and expedite this process so the children all around the 
world can find homes. We believe there are no unwanted children, just 
unfound families. We passed historic legislation a few years ago to 
help break down racial barriers to allow people of all different races 
to adopt children in need, in order to build families. We all know that 
love knows no color lines.
  We are doing a wonderful job. I am on the floor today to encourage my 
colleagues to just try to do a little bit better. I am concerned that 
we are not going to expand this adoption tax credit and increase it in 
ways that are meaningful, in ways that will make a difference.
  Just two months ago, many members of this body gathered in 
Philadelphia and vowed that under their leadership, no child would be 
left behind. This is a laudable goal, and one I think that every member 
of this body embraced. Here is our opportunity to prove it.
  Let me briefly explain what I mean. Right now, as many people know--
particularly those who have adopted children, or who have been touched 
in a positive way in their life through adoption, either as an adoptee, 
as a birth mother who is happy with the choice she made, or an adoptive 
couple--there is in place a $5,000 tax credit for adoption. We adopted 
this tax credit in 1996, in an effort to provide assistance to families 
wishing to adopt. It allows parents who adopt a child to receive a 
maximum of $5,000 in credit on their taxes. If that child is what we 
call a special needs child, the amount of the credit is raised by 
$1,000. In addition, reimbursements for adoption expenses from a 
private employer are also excluded from an adoptive parent's gross 
annual income.
  The National Adoption Clearinghouse estimates that a private adoption 
costs anywhere from $4,000 to $30,000. International adoptions are 
reported at between $10,000 and $30,000. About six months ago, I was at 
a citizenship ceremony for newly adopted children. One mother came up 
to me and told me that, without the tax credit, she could not have even 
thought about adopting a second child.
  So this is an important tax credit. It helps waiting children find 
homes. It helps working couples who want to be parents experience the 
sheer joy parenting brings. But it is not working for everyone. 
Unfortunately, the way the

[[Page 24240]]

credit is currently structured, it is not helping all adoptive 
families, just some. Let me show you why.
  As you can see, I have pictures of three children here, all of whom 
were adopted. The first Elena, a child from Guatemala, who was adopted 
when she was one year old. She has no known health conditions. This 
second child is Jack, a little boy from the United States, who was 
given up for adoption when he was born. Jack was immediately placed 
through a private adoption agency. Jack also has no known health 
conditions.
  And this is Serina, a little girl, also from the United States who 
was also recently adopted. Serina was taken into foster care 
immediately upon her birth. She was born with prenatal cocaine 
addiction. She is small, in a wheelchair, and has difficulty seeing and 
hearing. She suffers from Cerebral Palsy, as well as multiple other 
problems.
  As I mentioned, these two children, Elena and Jack, are relatively 
healthy. The third child, Serina, has multiple challenges. Under our 
current system, one would think all of these children and their 
families would deserve some help with adoption. But right now under our 
system, Elena and Jack have received help. Elena's parents received 
$9,786, while Jack's family claimed $5,890. Serina's parents, on the 
other hand, received nothing.
  Under the current tax code, only expenses which are incurred in the 
act of adoption are eligible. Although adopting Serina meant that her 
adoptive parents had to renovate their car and make their home 
wheelchair accessible, such costs are not ``qualified adoption 
expenses.''
  As I mentioned, the difficulty lies in the tax code. One can be 
reimbursed for expenses related to the adoption. But, as is widely 
known in the adoption community, when you adopt a special needs child, 
perhaps one who is not physically handicapped, or one who has emotional 
or mental difficulties or has been in foster care, there are little or 
no expenses related to the active adoption.
  Serina is a special needs child, just like the 100,000 special needs 
children who are freed for adoption in the United States and yet are 
still waiting for a home. These are all children like Serina, waiting 
for a family to love and care for them. We want that adoption tax 
credit to work for these children, as well. The Department of Treasury 
estimates that, not including step parents, there were 77,000 adoptions 
in 1998, 31,000 of which were special needs. That is almost half.
  Therefore, under our current system, the very children and families 
we are trying to help, encourage, and reward for opening up their homes 
and hearts to these children are actually being left out.
  Here is a report to Congress from our own Department of Treasury, a 
report we received just in the last week. I brought this to the 
attention of our ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator 
Moynihan. This has also been transmitted to Chairman Roth from 
Delaware, to help my colleagues understand that, according to this 
report, special needs children are being left out. I know that in the 
final days of the session, negotiators have been trying to reach a 
final agreement on a tax package. However, I am told that, while this 
package does include a provision to extend the non-special needs tax 
credit for two additional years, it does not include any relief for 
special needs children.
  I know some people might say: Senator Landrieu is not right. She 
couldn't possibly be right. This can not be happening. We are not 
giving a tax credit for healthy kids and no tax credit for special 
needs kids.
  That wasn't our intention. At least I believe it wasn't our 
intention.
  Let me conclude by saying, when people stand up on this floor, or in 
Philadelphia, or in California, giving speeches all over America, and 
say they don't want to leave children behind, that ``no child will be 
left behind'', we are about to leave 100,000 children behind, because 
we will not take the time and the energy to fix this adoption tax 
credit. Children such as Serina, children in my State and a number of 
others, all of these beautiful children from different States--these 
are the kids who are about to be left behind.
  If I have to come to this floor every day until we are finished--and 
Lord only knows how long we will be here--I will continue to do so, to 
speak for the children who are being left behind. We can fix the tax 
credit; it costs very little to fix it. If we are truly a body which 
vows to leave no child behind, then we must do something to help both 
special needs and non special needs children.
  Mr. President, I will come to the floor every day if necessary to 
ensure that these children are not left behind.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains under my 30 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes 10 seconds.


                             Fiscal Policy

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as is necessary.
  For the last several weeks, I have been raising concerns about the 
direction of our fiscal policy. Today, we reach a historic moment. Many 
were here in the 1980's and 1990's when the Federal Government, through 
annual deficits, acquired a record national debt of almost $5.5 
trillion. In 1992, we reached the peak of this when we had a 1-year 
deficit of in excess of $290 billion.
  In the 1990s, we took a number of steps to try to rectify this 
situation and to mitigate this constant increase in the national debt.
  A key part of that process occurred in 1997. In 1997, we set spending 
limits for ourselves, including spending limits on the discretionary 
accounts of the Federal Government such as the account that we are 
dealing with today. We promised ourselves and the public that for every 
tax dollar cut there would be $1 less spent, and vice versa. That is 
the way in which a family would approach having to restrain its budget 
in order to come into line with its income. It would buy the holiday 
gifts that it could afford but not necessarily the ones that everyone 
in the family wants because for those family budgets there are some 
very real caps.
  But, for Congress, the commitment to realistic budget and fiscal 
responsibility was a novel, even a radical idea. We had not even 
thought about it that much in the preceding 20 or 30 years. Apparently, 
it was so radical that it was too much to ask. It is almost as if this 
Halloween season we have all turned into Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On 
the campaign trail we put on one costume; that is, the costume of our 
better selves where we boast about the courage and foresight it took to 
balance the budget. We talk about all the good things we are going to 
do, whether it is saving Social Security, providing a prescription drug 
benefit for Medicare, cutting taxes, or adding spending in other 
favorable programs. Then we return to Congress and we take off our 
mask. We begin grabbing for what we can get, a few billion here, a few 
billion there, regardless of the long-term consequences.
  We have doled out treats to line our political pockets while we are 
playing a trick on the American public. That trick is that we are 
sleepwalking through the surplus. We are about to deny ourselves and 
future generations one of the greatest opportunities that we have had 
in American political and economic history: to use this enormous period 
of prosperity to deal with some of those long-term issues that will 
affect, not just ourselves, but future generations.
  But as we vote to set the deficit monster free, we make the promise 
that this is only for this year. We are not really going to let him out 
of the cage; we are just going to open the door a bit and let him sniff 
some of the desirable consequences of profligate spending. This year we 
tell the American public this is our chance to celebrate this American 
prosperity. Next year we will cut the monster down to size, put him 
back in his cage, and no long-term harm will have been done. But the

[[Page 24241]]

truth is for our children and our grandchildren this could be a very 
scary Halloween.
  My friends, are we really so humble as to believe that what we do 
today will not resonate through future years? I personally find it hard 
to believe that this will be just a 1-year exception to a constancy of 
fiscal discipline.
  In 1997, we planned for the future because we knew that what we did 
with the taxpayers' dollars would have real consequences. They are 
having real consequences.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Washington Post article 
aptly entitled ``Binges Becoming Regular Budget Fare'' be printed in 
the Record immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this story chronicles the crumbling of our 
wall of fiscal resolve in the face of a behemoth of appropriations 
bills. The bill we have before us, the foreign operations bill, carries 
a $14.9 billion price tag.
  It has been stated that this bill is actually lower than the bill 
that we passed last year. If I am in error--and it is very difficult to 
respond since we have only in the last few hours gotten a copy of a 
multipage bill, but as I read through the bill, it is my analysis that 
in calculating last year's $15.5 billion expenditure, we have included 
an almost $2 billion item, the Wye Plantation commitments for the 
Middle Eastern peace, which are nonrecurring. So if you are comparing 
apples to apples, those things that we spent money on last year and 
those things we are going to spend money on this year, actually last 
year's comparable appropriation for foreign operations was closer to 
$13.5 billion. So instead of the $14.9 billion being a reduction, it 
actually represents approximately a 10-percent increase over the 
spending that we had on this same account last year, a 10-percent 
increase, while we are operating under the rule that we are only 
supposed to spend the rate of inflation, which is 3.5 percent, as an 
increase from 1 year's budget to the next.
  But that is not what is the true monster in this bill. The true 
monster in this bill is stuck into the appropriations language, which 
for us on the floor is printed in the Congressional Record, since we do 
not have a copy of the actual bill and conference report. It is 
specifically stuck on page H10776, nestled in between a provision that 
relates to gifts to the United States for reduction of the public 
debt--and I am glad to know that we get some gifts to reduce the public 
debt--and a provision that provides debt relief for heavily indebted 
poor countries. It may be appropriate that this language I am about to 
quote is inserted in between those two provisions.
  In section 701(a), this language appears:

       Section 251 (c)(5) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 . . . is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) for discretionary category: $637,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $612,695,000,000 in outlays;''.

  That might seem fairly unexciting, but let me tell you what we are 
preparing to do. In that Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we provided a 
spending limit for discretionary accounts for each of the future years. 
For the fiscal year 2001, the year for which we are now appropriating, 
the spending limit was established at $542 billion. The legislation we 
are about to vote upon will increase that figure from $542 billion to 
$637 billion, a 17.5-percent increase in the allowable expenditure in 
this 1 year alone. That is the scale of the monster that we are about 
to let out of the cage by adopting this legislation.
  This figure will put far more than a dent in the surplus that we 
promised. It will put a massive hole in our budget projections. The 
fact is, by the time we are done, Social Security is more likely to be 
floundering midstream without a life vest than to be in a secure 
lockbox on dry land. Instead of fiscal responsibility, we are now 
practicing fiscal myopia. We are honing in on the magic number, a $4.6 
trillion surplus over the next 10 years. However, what we are 
forgetting to completely level with the American people about is that 
that $4.6 trillion is predicated on the assumption we are only going to 
spend $542 billion this year. We are about to authorize a number that 
is almost $100 billion larger.
  The forecasters of the Congressional Budget Office do not have a 
crystal ball. They can only see the future the way we look at it and 
the degree of confidence they place in our actions. The CBO numbers, 
upon which the $4.6 trillion surplus is predicated, are based on those 
commitments made in 1997.
  This appropriations bill demonstrates that we are not committed to 
those commitments of 1997. The surplus projections assume that 
discretionary spending increases each year would be restrained to the 
rate of inflation. We are about to completely abandon that facade.
  What are we about to do as we go into this new reckless era? The best 
case scenario--and we can assume under that that we will, indeed, be 
able to increase discretionary spending for the future only by the rate 
of inflation, that this is just a 1-year aberration through which we 
are living; that Halloween is going to be repealed for future years--if 
we have that best case scenario, we can anticipate that our surplus 
will sink by about $100 billion over the next 10 years--$100 billion 
less than the projections.
  I do not think that is a credible scenario. I do not believe there is 
any reason to believe that what we are doing today is exceptional. 
Rather, what we are doing today is going to be precedential for the 
future. And assume that it is precedential. The discretionary spending 
each year increases by the same rate that we are increasing it this 
year; that is, approximately 9 percent, or 5.5 percent more than the 
rate of inflation.
  If we act in each of the next 10 years with the same abandon that we 
do this year, we will spend the entire 10-year projected surplus on 
this increased spending. There will be no money to strengthen Social 
Security. There will be no money to finance a tax cut. There will be no 
money to provide for prescription drugs through Medicare. In fact, 
spending at this rate will not only eliminate all of those potentials, 
but Congress will be forced to dip into the Social Security surplus, 
that thing which it has committed it would never ever do, by $400 
billion over 10 years.
  So we are making some very serious decisions as we pass this 
appropriations bill with its enormous increase in the limitation on 
discretionary spending.
  Save Social Security, indeed. Could it be that when we talked about 
saving Social Security, we really meant preserving it as a museum piece 
so we could talk to our grandchildren about what it used to be like? We 
will tell them that back when we were young, the Government actually 
sent you money when you grew older and deserved a rest. But if 
discretionary spending will dent the surplus, the direction we are 
taking on mandatory spending will virtually hollow it out.
  Our lack of fiscal discipline is not only to be found in the 
appropriations bill but also in the creation of new entitlements. We 
have already passed the Defense Department authorization bill that 
changes the health benefits as a new entitlement and will reduce the 
surplus by $60 billion over the next 10 years.
  We are poised to approve give-backs to Medicare providers that will 
cost another estimated $75 to $80 billion of our surplus over the next 
10 years.
  Another $260 billion disappears if we pass a tax bill, which it is 
rumored that it is about to be presented to us by our colleagues from 
across the hall in the House of Representatives.
  So when you add up all of this laundry list, you will find that we 
have reduced our surplus to another return to deficits.
  It is very easy to add up these numbers and simply say it is too 
much, but I am well aware that much of the spending is for worthy 
causes, many of which I myself support. But what these individual 
pieces of legislation do not add up to is a solid plan for the future. 
What they do not add up to is the requirement that we make choices, 
that we set priorities, that we decide which

[[Page 24242]]

of all of these good things is most important, and that we have the 
discipline to stick to those priorities.
  I ask again, whatever happened to ``Save Social Security first''?
  Can we really say we have done anything to shore up the Medicare 
system which is desperately in need of an infusion if it is to remain 
viable for today's seniors, their children, and grandchildren?
  Are we ever going to be able to pay down the debt?
  Our colleagues in the House have suggested that 90 percent of the 
surplus for this year go to debt reduction. That proposal was for this 
year only, for fiscal year 2001, however, because they cannot do it 
over the next 10 years. Ten percent of the surplus would be $456 
billion. Congress may very well enact legislation in the next few years 
that will exceed that amount by in excess of $100 billion.
  We have already committed ourselves to more spending than the House 
of Representatives pledge would require using 90 percent of the surplus 
to pay down the national debt.
  Mr. President, $100 billion is more money than most Americans can 
ever conceive of.
  In a few short months, history will move forward again and we will 
gather together in the Chamber of the House of Representatives to greet 
a newly elected President to hear his first State of the Union Address.
  By almost any measure, the state of our Union is strong. Our economy 
is the envy of the world. Incomes are up. Unemployment is down. Home 
ownership is up. Inflation is low. Mortgage rates remain modest.
  As we await a new President, and the first State of the Union Address 
from that new President--the first new President elected in the 21st 
century--I am reminded of the historic State of the Union speech 
delivered by President Clinton at the beginning of 1998.
  To provide context from that time, we, as a nation, were on the verge 
of shifting from annual deficits to a hope for a promised projected 
surplus. We were looking at a prospect we had not faced in years: What 
do we do with a possible surplus?
  In his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton answered 
that question. If I could quote from his eloquent words of that 
evening:

       For three decades, six Presidents have come before you to 
     warn of the damage deficits pose to our nation. Tonight, I 
     come before you to announce that the federal deficit--once so 
     incomprehensibly large that it had eleven zeros--will be, 
     simply, zero.
       If we balance the budget for the next year, it is projected 
     that we'll then have a sizable surplus in the years that 
     immediately follow. What should we do with this projected 
     surplus?
       I have a simple, four-word answer: Save Social Security 
     first.

  Mr. President, that simple four-word answer, ``Save Social Security 
first,'' brought all of us to our feet in January of 1998. And, Mr. 
President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, your greatest legacy will be the 
restoration of fiscal discipline here in Washington.
  Mr. President, you are being challenged as to the fidelity and 
sustainability of that commitment to fiscal discipline. We should now 
resist the temptation to allow the deficit monster to escape from the 
cage again.
  We should give to President Clinton the rightful recognition for 
reversing decades of rampant borrowing and, as a result of that 
courage, producing sustained national prosperity and the potential for 
even more prosperity.
  But, Mr. President, at the end of your administration, we need you to 
remain true to the principles that have produced this legacy. If we in 
the Congress are unable to exercise fiscal discipline, we will have to 
turn to you to provide us with the necessary restraints.
  We are talking here about our children and our grandchildren. Are we 
again going to return to the days when we expect them to pay our bills 
or are we going to accept the responsibility that virtually every 
generation of Americans--but for those who have lived in the last 30 
years--were prepared to accept? And that is that we would--each 
generation, each year--pay our bills and not ask future generations to 
do so. That is the fundamental issue we face with this appropriations 
bill. Because I believe it fails to meet that test, I will vote no.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2000]

                  Binges Becoming Regular Budget Fare

                            (By Eric Pianin)

       Rules created more than two decades ago to impose fiscal 
     restraint on Congress have broken down, helping fuel a year-
     end spending spree that is resulting in billions of extra 
     dollars for highways and bridges, water projects, emergency 
     farm aid, school construction and scores of other projects.
       Many budget hawks have derided the binge as a typical 
     election year ``porkfest.'' But key lawmakers and experts on 
     federal budgeting say another less visible problem is that 
     the law aimed at reining in such spending has been 
     effectively gutted by the congressional leadership.
       In particular, lawmakers are increasingly ignoring the 
     annual congressional budge resolution, the document that is 
     supposed to guide spending and tax decisions in the House and 
     Senate every year. In years past, lawmakers might miss their 
     budget targets by a few billion dollars, but now they are 
     busting the budget by as much as $50 billion a year.
       This year's budget resolution, for instance, called for 
     about $600 billion in spending this fiscal year on defense, 
     health, education and other non-entitlement programs. When 
     Congress and the White House finally complete their 
     negotiations, probably this week, the total will be $640 
     billion or more.
       One reason, lawmakers say, is that the GOP congressional 
     leadership has adopted--largely for political reasons--
     unrealistic budgets that understate the amount of spending 
     members want. Another is that the emergence of big surpluses 
     has made Congress much less vigilant bout living within its 
     means--and more prone to make up the rules as it goes along.
       ``I think the budget process has been destroyed and I 
     think, unfortunately, Republicans have been heavily numbered 
     among the assassins,'' said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), a 
     veteran of budget skirmishes. ``I think we've made a mockery 
     of the process and it will be very difficult to revive it.''
       Stanley Collender, a prominent expert on federal spending, 
     added: ``What we're seeing is budget decision-making by the 
     seat of their pants.''
       Collender and other experts say the increased spending 
     being approved by Congress could begin to cut into projected 
     surpluses, leaving less for the spending and tax cut 
     initiatives proposed by Vice President Gore and Texas Gov. 
     George W. Bush. Outside of the Social Security program, 
     analysts have projected the federal government will run a 
     $2.2 trillion surplus over the next decade. But the Concord 
     Coalition, a bipartisan budget watchdog group, estimates that 
     the forecast surpluses are likely to shrink by two-thirds, to 
     about $172 billion, if congressional spending patterns 
     persist.
       Congress is on track to boost non-defense discretionary 
     spending by 5.2 percent above the rate of inflation during 
     fiscal 2001--the sharpest spending increase of its type in 25 
     years--according to a new analysis by Democrats on the House 
     Budget Committee.
       The decision to ignore the budget resolution is only one 
     sign of a general brreakdown of fiscal discipline on Capitol 
     Hill, according to fiscal experts. Congress and the Clinton 
     administration are also ignoring spending caps both agreed to 
     as part of the 1997 legislation to balance the federal 
     budget.
       Congress's enthusiasm for real budget constraints began to 
     wane almost as soon as deficits gave way to surpluses 
     beginning three years ago. Until then, the specter of 
     towering annual deficits of as much as $290 billion had 
     fostered a series of hardnosed policies, including a 1990 
     budget deal that for the first time imposed caps on spending 
     and required Congress to offset tax cuts by reducing spending 
     or raising other revenue.
       The emergence of surpluses has left it to lawmakers to 
     produce budget plans that would impose spending discipline 
     with an eye to the time when Medicare and Social Security 
     will begin to run short of money. But that has not happened.
       In the politically charged environment of Capitol Hill, the 
     House and Senate budget committees in recent years produced 
     plans that budget experts say were more GOP political 
     manifestors than practical blueprints. The problem came to a 
     head in 1998, when House Budget Committee Chairman John R. 
     Kasich (Ohio), then a Republican presidential aspirant, 
     produced a House budget resolution so top-heavy with tax cuts 
     and tough on domestic spending that he could not sell it to 
     Senate Republicans or the White House.
       For the first time in nearly 25 years, Congress completed 
     that year without a budget. The following year Republicans 
     managed to agree among themselves on a budget, but the 
     document was largely ignored by GOP leaders when they 
     negotiated a final spending agreement with the White House.
       This year's plan was somewhat more pragmatic, but even so 
     it called for $150 billion of tax cuts--about twice what 
     Congress will finally settle for--and spending cuts in many 
     areas that GOP members of the appropriations committees 
     refused to accept.

[[Page 24243]]

       Some of the additional funding this year will go for 
     emergencies, such as restoration of western forest lands hit 
     by fires last summer and security problems at the national 
     nuclear laboratory at Los Alamos, NM. But much of the 
     additional money will go to satisfy the election year demands 
     of Clinton and special projects sought by GOP and Democratic 
     lawmakers--ranging from $2 billion for extra highway and 
     bridge projects to $5 million for an insect-rearing facility 
     in Stoneville, Miss.
       ``The budget process can only do what the political will 
     can support,'' said G. William Hoagland, the Republican staff 
     director of the Senate Budget Committee. ``I would argue 
     that, if anything, what this year shows is that you need a 
     [tough] budget process even more in times of surpluses than 
     in times of deficits.''
       Another phenomenon in recent years has been a growing 
     propensity on the part of congressional leaders to overrule 
     key committees--even in promoting big policy changes. Last 
     year, for example, Republican leaders waited until late in 
     the year to unveil details of a plan to wall off the Social 
     Security surplus from the rest of the budget. They returned 
     from this year's August recess with a new idea for using 
     nine-tenths of next year's surplus for debt reduction.
       While both proposals, arguably, will help to impose some 
     limitations on spending, they were presented without any 
     meaningful debate or review by the committees with 
     jurisdiction. House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) 
     defended the practice, noting that ``the leadership can't 
     have any idea that holds water unless the [GOP] conference 
     holds it with them.''

                           BUSTING THE BUDGET
                          [Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Budget      Actual     Excess
              Fiscal year               resolution   spending   spending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997..................................        $528       $538        $10
1998..................................         531        533          2
1999..................................         533        583         50
2000..................................         540        587         47
2001..................................         600    \1\ 640        40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
 
Source: Senate Budget Committee.

                      THE CUBAN TRANSITION PROJECT

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator McConnell, 
Chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee in a 
colloquy regarding an important project addressed in both the Senate 
and House Committee Reports. This project is the Cuban Transition 
Project located in Miami, FL.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would be pleased to engage in such a colloquy.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my purpose for entering into this colloquy 
is to seek clarification from the Chairman regarding the Conferees' 
intent to support the Cuban Transition Project. The House Committee 
Report states that it supports $3.5 million be provided through USAID 
for this important initiative to provide policy makers, analysts and 
others with accurate information and practical policy recommendations 
that will be needed over a multi-year basis to assist this country in 
preparation for our next stage of interaction with the Cuban community 
and nation. The Senate Committee Report similarly supported this 
project, and it is my understanding that you support this project and 
intend that it receive support from USAID.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct. Support for the Cuban Transition 
Project was clearly stated in both the House and Senate Reports, and it 
is the Committee's intention that the project be supported by USAID as 
indicated. This project is envisioned as a critical component as we 
prepare ourselves for dealing with Cuban issues in the future. It is 
our intent that the Cuban Transition Project receive funding this year.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for reiterating his support and 
clarifying the intent of the subcommittee. This project has the strong 
support of the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, 
and I know that this committee will also be expressing support to the 
agency. I would like to ask if you will be willing to further advise 
the Agency formally of your position on this matter.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the subcommittee will further clarify 
this matter with USAID and I would be happy to work further on any 
concerns that my colleague from Florida may have.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his comments.


                           POLIO ERADICATION

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations 
Subcommittee. It is my understanding that the Senate Appropriations 
Committee report recommended $30 million for the global polio 
eradication campaign at USAID and the House recommended $25 million. It 
is also my understanding that the Child Survival and Disease Programs 
Fund received a $248 million increase for Fiscal 2001 and that there 
are sufficient funds for the USAID to provide the $30 million for 
global polio eradication, am I correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, we have provided sufficient funds to fund polio 
eradication at the Senate level of $30 million.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator work with me to ensure that the current 
USAID Administrator and the Administrator in the new administration 
provides $30 million for global polio eradication for fiscal 2001?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, I would be happy to work for the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Leahy for your commitment and 
leadership on this issue.


                         micronutrient funding

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished ranking 
member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Senator Leahy would 
engage in a brief colloquy about funding for USAID programs in 
micronutrients?
  Mr. LEAHY. I would be delighted to do so with the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland, a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. MILKULSKI. It is my understanding that the conference report 
currently under consideration makes no reference to micronutrient 
programs funded through the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund. 
However, the Senate provided $30 million for this activity in its 
version of H.R. 4811, while the House provided $25 million. Given that 
the conference report before the Senate provides $963 million for child 
survival and disease prevention activities, an increase of almost $250 
million that I strongly support, I was wondering if the Ranking Member 
would join me in working to obtain the Senate level of $30 million for 
micronutrient programs.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would be happy to. As the Senator has correctly pointed 
out, the conference report includes a significant increase for child 
survival activities at USAID. AID is strongly encouraged to dedicate 
more recourses to the micronutrient programs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the conference 
report on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
  I reluctantly voted against that conference report, because it 
contained a provision dramatically increasing the budget caps, 
effectively throwing fiscal discipline to the wind.
  But I want to go on record indicating that, if the amendment busting 
the budget caps had not been included in the bill, my vote would have 
been an enthusiastic yes. Substantively, this is a remarkably good 
bill, and I commend the managers, Chairman McConnell and the ranking 
member, Senator Leahy, as well as Chairman Callahan and Congresswoman 
Pelosi for their excellent work.
  An unprecedented commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS abroad and full 
funding of the Administration's request for debt relief initiatives are 
among the many laudable provisions in the bill that complement this 
year's authorizing work of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  The conference report contains significant assistance for important 
family planning work, which can help to bring better health and 
economic development to families and especially to women around the 
world. Moreover, I am pleased to see that the bill does not contain 
restrictive, so-called ``Mexico City'' language designed to limit what 
private organizations can do with funds raised from non-U.S. government 
sources.
  During the debate on the Senate's version of this bill earlier this 
year, I asked for, and received, the commitment of Senators McConnell 
and

[[Page 24244]]

Leahy to pursue full funding for flood recovery assistance in 
Mozambique and southern Africa, a region of the world utterly 
devastated by a series of cyclones earlier this year. This was 
especially tragic, because prior to the flooding, Mozambique had been 
making progress toward climbing out of poverty, enjoying economic 
growth rates of 10 percent per year. I want to thank both Senators for 
keeping their word. This conference report contains $135 million in 
flood recovery assistance for the region. This is the right thing to 
do.
  I took a particular interest in the southern Africa issue, in part 
because I serve as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs. In that same capacity, I 
have joined with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to insist that the Administration make accountability a top priority in 
the context of our policy towards Sierra Leone. I am gratified to note 
that the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report 
includes language urging the State Department to provide support for 
the Special War Crimes Court for Sierra Leone. The support of the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for this key 
Congressional priority in West Africa should not be overlooked.
  In another area of interest, I note that the conference report 
retains language suspending certain types of military and security 
assistance to Indonesia until a set of conditions relating to the 
disarmament and disbanding of militia forces and accountability for 
gross human rights abuses have been met. At the same time, it maintains 
an appropriate level of assistance for the people of East Timor, who 
are seeking to rebuild their communities and to fully realize their 
independence each day.
  Finally, the conference report provides strong support for the Peace 
Corps and for important development assistance accounts which, when 
responsibly administered and monitored, can serve U.S. interests in 
building a more stable, prosperous, and democratic world.
  All of these sound provisions make it all the more unfortunate that 
the bill has been tainted with the budget-busting amendment, so that my 
vote would have been an accurate reflection of my support for this 
bill. Too often in the past, the Congress has failed to understand the 
critical link between U.S. engagement with the rest of the world and 
our national interests--our security, our health, our economic 
stability, and even our national values. This bill recognizes those 
links and moves in the right direction. It's a shame that a bill that 
makes such sensible policy choices, so casually busts the budget caps 
that we rely upon to ensure fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Conference 
Report for Foreign Operations Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001.
  The bill before us includes much that is good; in fact, it includes 
much that is important for our national security. For example, with the 
Middle East experiencing a level of turmoil not witnessed since the 
1973 Yom Kippur War, the assistance in this bill for Israel and for 
other friends and allies in the region constitutes an essential 
component of our policy there. Vital humanitarian assistance programs 
are funded, including debt relief for especially poor countries.
  However, I cannot support this conference report because it raises 
fiscal year 2001 discretionary spending caps to $637 billion from the 
$600 billion that was provided for in the budget resolution passed in 
April. Assuming that will be the new total amount of spending allowed, 
that would be nearly $40 billion more than the budget resolution, $13 
billion more than what the President requested, and $50 billion more 
than what was spent in fiscal year 2000.
  In addition, there remains the usual plethora of parochially-driven 
spending directives. While the bill appears to avoid legally 
restrictive earmarks, the effect of numerous provisions intended to do 
precisely that: direct funds where Members of Congress want them to go, 
usually for parochial reasons. I will be submitting a list of such 
items for the Record.
  The decision to vote against this bill, irrespective of the usual 
pork-barrel provisions, however, was difficult. I recognize the 
importance of aid to Israel during this crucial period in its history, 
and I agree with the imperative of relieving the poorest countries of 
the burden of their international debts. The fiscal irresponsibility of 
Section 701 of this bill adjusting the spending caps upward to 
accommodate greater levels of pork barrel spending is too much to 
ignore. I'm not ignoring it, Mr. President. I oppose passage of this 
bill because I abhor the continuing disregard for fiscal responsibility 
it represents. And I abhor the cynicism illuminated by a decision to 
attach such fiscally irresponsible language to a spending bill so 
important to our national security.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record 
earmarks, Member-adds, and directive language.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Conference Report on H.R. 4811, Foreign Operations Appropriations for 
    Fiscal Year 2001--Earmarks, Member-Adds, and Directive Language

       International Fertilizer Development Center: $4 million;
       United States Telecommunications Training Institute: 
     $500,000;
       National Albanian American Council training program: $1.3 
     million;
       Section 536 Impact on Jobs in the United States: 
     restrictive language intended to curtail trade that adversely 
     affects employment in the United States;
       Section 545 Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products: Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report to 
     Congress on efforts by heads of Federal agencies to ensure 
     that directors of international financial institutions make 
     full use of American commodities, products and services;
       Kiwanis/UNICEF Iodine Deficiency Program: $5 million;
       University of California, San Fransisco: $500,000 to 
     develop detailed epidemiological HIV/AIDS profiles for 
     priority countries;
       Gorgas Memorial Institute, University of Alabama: AID is 
     ``urged'' to work closely with the institute, drawing from 
     the $60 million alloted to address global health threat from 
     tuberculosis;
       Notre Dame's Vector Biology Laboratory Tulane University's 
     Department of Tropical Medicine: AID is ``urged'' to direct 
     $2 million to these institutes to establish Centers of 
     Excellence for malaria research;
       Carelift International: AID is ``urged'' to direct $7 
     million to Carelift International;
       University of Missouri-St. Louis International Laboratory 
     for Tropical Agriculture biotechnology program: AID is 
     ``urged'' to allocate $1 million;
       University of California, Davis: AID is ``urged'' to 
     allocate $1 million for the university to train foreign 
     scientists;
       Tuskegee University, Alabama: AID is ``urged'' to allocate 
     $1 million to establish a Center to Promote Biotechnology in 
     International Agriculture at Tuskegee University;
       Marquette University, Wisconsin: AID is urged to allocate a 
     sum of money similar to that received under this bill as 
     other universities to the Les Aspin Center for Government;
       United States Telecommunications Training Institute: 
     $500,000 ``should'' be made available for the institute;
       Habitat for Humanity International: Department of State is 
     urged to coordinate with AID to ensure the program receives 
     $1.5 million;
       Foundation for Environmental Security and Sustainability: 
     AID is ``urged'' to allocate $2.5 million to support 
     environmental threat assessments with interdisciplinary 
     experts and academicians;
       Alfalit International: earmarks $1.5 million to combat 
     adult illiteracy;
       University of San Fransisco: earmarks $1 million for the 
     Center for Latin American Trade Expansion to assist in the 
     development of trade promotion initiatives;
       Patrick Leahy War Victims Fund: earmarks $12 million;
       American Center for Oriental Research: DoS and AID are 
     ``urged'' to allocate $2 million for the center, 
     headquartered in Amman, Jordan, with operations in Boston, 
     MA;
       Dartmouth Medical School: AID is ``urged'' to allocate 
     $750,000 for a joint program with the University of Pristina 
     to help restore educational programs;
       Florida State University: AID is ``urged'' to allocate $2 
     million for a distance learning program;
       Synchrotron Light Source Particle Accelerator project 
     (SESAME): ``the managers intend that $15 million of the funds 
     made available for Armenia should support this or a 
     comparable project.'' Berkeley, California, partnership;
       University of South Alabama: $1 million to study the 
     environmental causes of birth defects in Ukraine;

[[Page 24245]]

       Ohio Center for Economic Initiatives National Telephone 
     Cooperative Association, Arlington, VA: $3.2 million for 
     industrial sector management tours;
       University of Alaska/Alaska Pacific University/Alaska 
     Native regional governments (North Slope Borough and 
     Northwest Arctic Borough): $20 million for the activities of 
     these institutions in the Russian Far East;
       World Council of Hellenes/United States-Russia Investment 
     Fund: allocates an unspecified sum to the World Council of 
     Hellenes and the United States-Russia Investment Fund to 
     support the Primary Healthcare Initiative in Ukraine, 
     Georgia, and Russia;
       Notre Dame University: The Department of State is directed 
     to support the university's program of human rights, 
     democracy, and conflict resolution training in Colombia;
       Naval Post-Graduate School, Monterey, California: DoS and 
     AID are ``urged'' to allocate $150,000 for development of a 
     peacekeeping initiative at the school;
       Jamestown Foundation: $1 million to disseminate information 
     and support research about China.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in June of this year I expressed my 
displeasure with the foreign operations appropriations bill when it 
came to the floor of the Senate. The overall funding level was too low, 
security assistant accounts were unfunded, burdensome conditions were 
placed on contributions to international organizations and an 
inadequate appropriation was made for debt relief.
  I'm pleased to find that the conference report has corrected some of 
these problems in a very satisfactory way. Appropriators have done the 
right thing on debt relief, by fully funding the amounts requested. As 
the wealthiest nation in the world, there is no excuse for us ignoring 
the plight of the world's poorest countries which are laboring under an 
untenable debt burden.
  I'm also relieved to see that the overall funding level of the bill 
comes far closer to the administration's request than the bill that the 
Senate passed in June. That bill, to my dismay, was $1.7 billion short 
of what was asked for. The conference report is a vast improvement. It 
is still some $200 million below what the executive branch has 
projected that it will need to undertake foreign operations. Obviously 
this is quite a large sum and there is a very serious need for Congress 
to reverse the trend of undercutting State Department and Agency for 
International Development programs. However the conference report 
brings the money requested and the money appropriated substantially 
closer.
  The bill contains a provision for assistance to Serbia with which I 
am in agreement. To unilaterally lift sanctions, or to open up the aid 
spigot fully would be both premature and naive. The United States 
should adopt the more measured response reflected in this provision. 
The language in the conference report sends the right message that we 
must condition our aid to the new regime in Serbia until it has clearly 
demonstrated that it will cooperate with the Hague War Crimes Tribunal, 
respect the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not undermine 
the Dayton Accords, and that it will unequivocally renounce the use of 
force in Kosovo and take steps to implement policies that reflect a 
respect for minorities and rule of law.
  Finally Mr. President, let me say that I am also relieved to see that 
the level of funding dedicated to the Non-proliferation, Anti-
terrorism, De-mining and Related Programs (NADR) has been increased 
substantially. The amount is almost $100 million more than the level in 
the Senate passed bill, and slightly higher than the President's 
request. Although I would like to see more resources dedicated to the 
International Science and Technology Centers program, I welcome the 
plus up in the larger account. These programs are a crucial element in 
our strategy to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, and combat 
terrorism.
  One NADR account that received more than the amount requested was 
export control assistance, and I truly applaud that. The assistance 
that we give to other countries in developing export control laws, 
regulations, and enforcement is absolutely crucial from the non-
proliferation standpoint, and it can also help combat international 
terrorism. As we plus up that program, however, we must remember to 
provide the personnel to implement it. Many of those personnel are in 
the Department of Commerce, and more are needed. Unless appropriators 
provide elsewhere the requested 7 additional personnel (which 
translates into 5 additional FTE in Fiscal Year 2001) for the Bureau of 
Export Administration, the additional funds that we make available in 
this bill simply will not be implemented as effectively as we would 
wish.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Conference report. It has taken some time to 
reach an agreement satisfactory to all interested parties, but I 
believe that the bill before us goes a long way toward advancing 
American interests abroad. Furthermore, this bill contains important 
provisions to help poor and vulnerable world citizens.
  First of all, I am especially pleased that appropriators have agreed 
to fully fund the President's debt relief package for third world 
countries, and that language has been included to allow the 
International Monetary Fund to release $800 million from the sale of 
gold reserves so that the interest earned on the proceeds can be put to 
work providing debt forgiveness to heavily indebted poor nations in 
Africa and parts of Latin America. The burden of external debt has 
become a major impediment to economic development and poverty reduction 
in many of the world's poorest countries--a reality I have witnessed 
first-hand throughout my travels in Latin America. Until recently, the 
United States government and other creditors sought to address this 
problem by rescheduling loans, and in some cases, providing limited 
debt reduction. Despite such efforts, the cumulative debt of many of 
the poorest countries has continued to grow beyond their ability to 
repay, and thus, developing economies are struggling. And, even worse, 
it is the most vulnerable citizens in these fledgling democracies that 
are suffering from this debt. When already poor governments are 
investing vast amounts of their budgets in debt maintenance, little 
remains for social services for those most in need. As a result, women, 
children, and the poor end up suffering and living in want.
  Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have supported efforts to 
target assistance for programs designed to address the special needs 
and concerns of the poor, and I am grateful that we have had some 
success in this undertaking. United States assistance programs, 
together with other international aid efforts, have made basic human 
necessities available to many of those most in need. However, I believe 
that the debt reduction initiatives included in the Foreign Operations 
bill today build upon that success, and hope that they will 
dramatically increase the quality of life for citizens in indebted 
countries. We still have a long way to go to ensure that all people 
live free of hunger and want, but I think that today we are taking a 
dramatic leap forward toward that end.
  I am also pleased with the increase in funding for children's health 
programs included in this bill. This conference report provides $963 
million for child survival and disease programs, $413 million more than 
the administration requested. Besides providing funding of $110 million 
for UNICEF, this money will be used for immunization programs, prenatal 
care, polio eradication, combating illegal trafficking in women and 
children, and the establishment of orphanages for displaced children. 
My colleagues know of my deep commitment to child welfare both at home 
and abroad. Indeed, too often children are overlooked because they do 
not vote and have no voice in our political system. I am extremely 
happy that children's welfare programs have been so generously funded 
in this bill, and hope that this represents a trend that will continue 
in the years to come.
  Finally, I would like to comment on the family planning provisions in 
the bill. I believe the problem of overpopulation is an extremely 
important issue and population stabilization is crucial to the well-
being of the planet. Overpopulation threatens to exert tremendous 
social, ecological, medical, and economic hardship on much of the 
world, and we must take strong action to limit it.

[[Page 24246]]

  For families living under the conditions that exist in many 
developing nations, family planning is critical. Without it, mothers 
have great difficulty spacing their births and limiting the number of 
children they bear and, as a result, they suffer the tremendous 
physical stress of repeated childbirth--often without the aid of 
physicians or midwives. Furthermore, women are not the only ones who 
suffer in these cases; their children suffer too. Children in large 
families find themselves competing for food with other siblings. As a 
result, they suffer from higher incidents of malnutrition and hunger.
  Under the compromise included in the conference report, family 
planning groups abroad can finally use their own money to provide 
family planning services, although the restriction on federal funding 
of abortions continues. In addition, Congress has boosted the general 
funding available for international family planning from $370 million 
to $425 million which will be available for expenditure after February 
15, 2001. By helping women avoid pregnancy before conception, this 
funding will help mothers in developing countries better plan their 
child rearing, and will reduce the number of abortions performed 
annually. Moreover, it will ensure that every child born is a wanted 
child and will reduce the number of children born to parents who do not 
have the resources to care for them.
  I believe that this is a good bill. It helps those who need it most, 
and provides funding for our international priorities. It includes 
money to help end the devastation of AIDS in Africa, assists women, 
children, and the poor, and allows governments to finally get out of 
the shadow of crushing debt that both economic circumstance and 
mismanagement caused to be accrued. On balance, the programs funded in 
this appropriations bill advance America's foreign policy and national 
security interests. In short, it is good for the people of the world, 
and the people of America. When we invest pro-actively in global 
stability we encourage peace and commerce, and everybody wins. For 
these reasons, I will vote in favor of this bill and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee to express my strong support for 
this conference report. I want to extend my congratulations to Senator 
Leahy and Senator McConnell as this is clearly one of the best Foreign 
Operations bills produced in recent years.
  This is a good bill which will advance U.S. interests on many fronts. 
This is a good bill for my constituents who are engaged in global 
affairs in everything from international trade to humanitarian relief 
efforts. This is always a tough bill to finish because it address 
several very controversial issues. Unlike years past, however, this 
bill is being widely praised by both parties and by the Administration. 
Again, that is a tribute to the leaders of our subcommittee who worked 
so hard to bridge very difficult issues.
  Perhaps the most significant agreement within this bill is the 
commitment to fulfill U.S. obligations on debt relief. By providing the 
requested $435 million for debt relief, this Congress is sending a 
powerful message to the poorest countries in the world. The U.S. and 
the international community, by following through on debt relief to the 
world's poorest citizens, can give new hope to millions of people. I am 
proud to have supported this effort. And I am so proud of my 
constituents who embraced campaigns like Jubilee 2000 which made debt 
relief an issue no one could ignore.
  I want to single out one gentleman in particular who touched so many 
of us here on Capitol Hill with his work. The Reverend David Duncombe 
from White Salmon, Washington was a heroic champion for debt relief. On 
two occasions in the last year, Reverend Duncombe staged hunger strikes 
here in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate the effects of starvation on 
the human body. Reverend Duncombe visited my office almost every 
Wednesday morning when he was in Washington, D.C. He stood before us 
all, day after day, in solidarity with the millions of people affected 
by this issue. Passage of debt relief is a genuine tribute to people 
like David Duncombe who rallied Americans to the debt relief cause all 
across our country. I'm proud Americans came together to ensure our 
foreign aid dollars will make a difference for poor citizens around the 
world.
  I am strongly in support of this bill's increased funding for 
international family planning. This bill also repeals the global 
``Gag'' order which has crippled our international family planning 
efforts in previous bills. We know that more and more women in the 
developing world are starting businesses and contributing to the 
economic health of families. These women want access to family planning 
programs and information to build strong, sustainable families. It is 
time to take our domestic political debate out of the international 
family planning appropriations process once and for all. International 
family planning programs help save the lives of women throughout the 
world. International family planning in a health issue and should be 
treated that way.
  This bill is also strong in the area of export promotion. This bill 
provides more than $900 million to the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States which facilitates job creating exports from throughout our 
country. Other trade promotion entities like OPIC and TDA will receive 
increased funding under this bill as well. These programs are tangible, 
real proof that our foreign aid program generates jobs and economic 
opportunity for Americans.
  There's so much more in this bill which will benefit America's 
interests. We continue our strong program of microcredit lending. Our 
commitment to UNICEF and important organizations like the Peace Corps 
continues with this bill. And we are providing increased funding to 
confront AIDS, tuberculosis and other health threats to the developing 
world. I am particularly supportive of the bill's $50 million 
contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunizations. The 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee has devoted much energy to the GAVI 
effort, and I encourage the Senate to continue its involvement in this 
promising program.
  Our efforts to assist Russia and the former Soviet states as they 
continue to struggle with reform are key parts of this bill. Washington 
state is particularly interested in the Russian Far East. This bill 
funds democracy-building initiatives, economic transition and other 
programs for most regions of the former Soviet Union. It's frustrating 
work, but I support this assistance because it is important to our 
national interest. In other parts of the world, this bill funds human 
rights work, environmental protection programs, and other important 
democracy-building initiatives. From Burma to Serbia to Latin America, 
this bill works to advance America's interests in so many areas.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUTCHINSON). Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, does the Senator from Florida still 
have time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back my 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is there any other time remaining under the agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Leahy has 9 minutes. Senator Byrd and 
Senator Stevens have 5 minutes each remaining.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier I had mentioned Robin Cleveland and 
Tim Rieser. I also want to thank Jennifer Chartrand and Billy Piper on 
the Republican side, who are always very helpful and did a superb job. 
On the Democratic side, Mark Lippert, who recently joined my staff from 
the Democratic Policy Committee, is mastering the Appropriations 
Committee process. I saw Jay Kimmitt on the floor earlier of the 
committee staff. Not only is he a good friend but a repository of all

[[Page 24247]]

knowledge and the one to whom we can all turn when we need to know just 
how to get out of whatever mess we have stumbled into.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank Tim Rieser and Mark Lippert, a 
representative of Senator Leahy's staff, Jennifer Chartrand, and, of 
course, my longtime associate, Robin Cleveland, and Billy Piper as 
well, for their great work on this bill. I thank Senator Leahy. It was 
good to work with him again this year.
  Having said that, I understand there are 5 minutes that Senator 
Stevens has reserved. I am told he is happy for me to yield that time 
back.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I also yield 
back the time of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, 
Mr. Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me also thank Jay Kimmitt, majority appropriations 
staff, for his outstanding work as well. With that, I believe we are 
ready.
  Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent request before we 
go to the vote. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to 
the vote regarding the foreign operations conference report, to be 
followed by 4 minutes of debate with closing remarks with respect to 
the pending Feingold amendment to S. 2508 and that vote immediately 
occur following those closing remarks, to be followed by a vote in 
relation to the continuing resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Therefore, Mr. President, there will be three back-to-
back rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. 
Ashcroft), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), and the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.--
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Abraham
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Allard
     Bayh
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Craig
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gramm
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Miller
     Robb
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Burns
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grams
     Helms
     Lieberman
  The conference report was agreed to.

                          ____________________