[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11427-11429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report S. 2522 by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2522) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the pending bill provides $13.4 billion 
for foreign assistance programs. By comparison, last year the Senate 
voted 97-2 for a $12.6 billion bill and the President signed a $13.7 
billion bill. Given the budget constraints, the fact that we are just 
below last year's final level is a tribute to Senator Stevens' and 
Senator Byrd's adept management of allocations.
  I think the bill strikes a good balance between meeting emerging 
requirements yet requiring accountability for the funds we make 
available.
  In terms of meeting emerging global needs, we have invested $651 
million in a new, global health initiative which will help ramp up 
immunizations and combat malaria, tuberculosis, polio, and AIDS. 
Senator Leahy deserves special recognition for his efforts to establish 
this initiative with adequate funding. The committee's interest in 
health began several years ago when we earmarked $25 million for polio 
programs. The administration's initial howls of protest have been 
silenced since we are on the verge of wiping out the disease thanks 
largely to the public-private collaboration between the Rotary Club and 
international donors.
  We have a unique opportunity, if not responsibility, to replicate the 
success of this public-private partnership in other health areas, given 
recent generous support for vaccination research and programs by 
pharmaceutical companies and the Gates Foundation.
  The bill also increases funding for key countries in the Balkans 
struggling to accelerate economic and political reforms. The 
administration requested $195 million in a supplemental and $610 
million for 2001. Instead of adding to emergency spending, the 
committee has increased the overall amount made available for fiscal 
year 2001 to $635 million rather than add to emergency spending. I do 
not think the region needs more money so much as it requires better 
management of American resources. With $635 million, I think we have 
more than adequately responded to the needs of the region.
  Within this increase we were able to provide $89 million for 
Montenegro and

[[Page 11428]]

$60 million for Croatia, which in each case combined the Supplemental 
and 2001 request. Our assistance to the government in Montenegro is a 
lifeline as they struggle to address mounting political and economic 
pressure applied by the regime in Belgrade. Within the last few weeks 
we have seen an escalation of political violence which can be traced to 
Belgrade including the assassination of a presidential bodyguard and an 
attack on a member of the political opposition. We need to be clear 
about U.S. support for the embattled Montenegrin Government.
  Croatia's recent elections renew prospects for real reforms and real 
growth, which I expect our funding help encourage. I commend the new 
government for making serious commitments to allow for the return of 
refugees, suspend support for extremists in Bosnia, and press forward 
with political and economic reforms. To give the new government some 
leverage, the bill includes those commitments as benchmarks for 
releasing our assistance.
  As the Croatian provisions illustrate, this bill is not just about 
spending. It is fundamentally about accountability--we must have more 
confidence that the resources we commit will, in fact, achieve results.
  U.S. resources cannot singlehandedly rebuild, rehabilitate, reform, 
or develop a nation, but we can assure that aid is effectively 
administered and we must guarantee our partners--including other 
donors, recipients, and nongovernment organizations--all share the 
burden and share our commitment to free market economics and democracy.
  I think it is pretty clear in Kosovo we are off track. Last year, we 
earmarked $150 million for Kosovo with the requirement that our pledge 
would not exceed 15 percent of the total committed by European and 
other donors. We also made clear we would not assume any responsibility 
for major infrastructure reconstruction. The initial affect of this 
conditionality was positive, and the Secretary of State was able to 
determine that other donors pledged enough to meet at least 85 percent 
of the resource requirements. Unfortunately, those pledges have been 
slow to materialize. Donor support for roads, clinics, schools, 
utilities, courts, and industry is imperceptible.
  Instead of supporting an effort to build up Kosova, we are building 
up a U.N. bureaucracy--and a pretty incompetent one at that. UNMIK is 
like a huge Macy's Thanksgiving Day float--bloated and detached--
drifting far above the crowd--fluttering in a confetti cloud of 
rulings, edicts, ordinances, and injunctions.
  Few Kosovars I talk with can point to a single meaningful 
accomplishment. Instead, they suggest Serb rule has been supplanted by 
the United Nations--a more benign influence, perhaps, but every bit as 
indifferent and irrelevant to real Kosovar needs.
  And, we are expected to pay the lion's share for this waste. For 
months, the committee has been besieged by requests to release funds 
because of urgent shortfalls and gaps other donors have failed to fill.
  We are making the same mistake we made in Bosnia. And it isn't just 
the U.N.'s failure. Within weeks of setting up a mission, AID set off 
on a course to fund large-scale contracts with groups that had no local 
experience or no inclination to build up and to leave behind a 
strengthened local civic society.
  To address these problems, the bill structures new conditions on our 
support for Kosovo. This year, we have modified language so that U.S. 
actual expenditures do not exceed 15 percent of the total actual 
expenditures by all donors. And, we require that 50 percent of all 
resources flow through local nongovernment organizations which know 
what they are doing and have the only, real prospect of making a 
difference at the community level.
  Turning to Russia, the new Putin government is untested in many 
respects, but not in its ability to wage a ruthless war against 
civilians in Chechnya. After creating 440,000 refugees, Moscow not only 
is limiting access by international relief workers, they have 
stonewalled international attempts to allow investigations of alleged 
war crimes and atrocities.
  The Clinton administration has made a bad situation worse. Not only 
did they refuse to vote in support the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner's 
call for an international investigation and tribunal, the Bureau of 
Refugees and the U.S. Embassy in Moscow have rejected requests to 
support the courageous relief workers operating in the region. The 
Department argues they don't want to encourage groups to enter unsafe 
areas. This is both disingenuous and unjust--these groups are already 
in Chechnya and Ingushetia desperate for contributions. What the 
administration refuses to admit is they simply don't want to challenge 
or upset the Russians. This is a dangerous, longstanding pattern which 
compromises our values and our interests.
  Russia's war against the Chechen people makes me wonder what kind of 
democracy the administration has helped fund with more than $5 billion 
in assistance.
  Over the years, and including administration veto threats, we have 
tried--and often failed--to establish benchmarks and conditions on U.S. 
aid to Russia. This year, we have conditioned further support to the 
Russian Government upon certification that the Putin government is 
allowing relief workers unimpeded access in Chechnya and Ingushetia. We 
also require certification that the Russian Government is fully 
cooperating with international investigations of war crimes and 
atrocities committed in Chechnya and relief efforts. Finally, of money 
made available to Russia, we have earmarked $10 million for 
nongovernment organization relief operations in Chechnya and 
Ingushetia.
  Turning to our hemisphere, after spending more than $2 billion in 
Haiti, most of us are frustrated by the fact that it remains the 
poorest country in the hemisphere with political assassinations and 
violence a staple of daily life. Only real political change holds out 
hope of producing stability and economic progress, so we have 
conditioned further assistance upon certification that the Preval 
government has allowed free and fair elections to proceed and that a 
parliament is seated on schedule this month.
  That may prove difficult given yesterday's news. Apparently, 
according to the New York Times, Haiti's top election official fled the 
country, ``fearing for his life after he refused to approve results for 
last month's contested legislative and local elections.''
  Now, let me take a moment to describe the committee's treatment of 
the Colombia supplemental request. Our disposition of Plan Colombia 
differs from the request in four ways.
  First, within the Foreign Operations area, the overall funding is 
lower. The administration requested $1,073,500,000. The Committee has 
appropriated $934,100,000.
  Second, that lower funding level is primarily a result of providing a 
different helicopter package. The request was for 30 Blackhawks at a 
cost of $388 million. We have provided 60 Huey IIs at a cost of $118.5 
million. These numbers include the first year's operating costs.
  Third, with the savings in the helicopter package we were able to 
invest in a regional strategy and substantially increase aid to 
Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. I felt the administration's singular focus 
on Colombia guaranteed that the production and trafficking problem 
would simply be pushed across the border. The bill's regional emphasis 
on interdiction and development keeps Colombian traffickers from 
becoming a moving target. We more than doubled the regional request of 
$76 million and provided $205 million.
  This level allowed us to fully fund Bolivia's request of $120 million 
for both alternative development and interdiction programs. With an 
impressive track record in eradication of coca and alternative 
development, Bolivia deserves our continued support as the government 
completes the task. The results in Bolivia are truly noteworthy, almost 
to the point of being astonishing.
  Similarly, we nearly tripled the support for Ecuador while increasing 
aid to the Peruvian Government as well.
  Fourth and finally, we added $50 million to the $93 million request 
for

[[Page 11429]]

human rights monitoring. As the military pressure picks up, so will the 
likelihood of abuses, so we have expanded witness, prosecutor, and 
judicial protection programs as well as support to monitoring groups. 
We have also conditioned aid on the Secretary of State certifying that 
the Colombian military is in full compliance with their own laws 
requiring the prosecution of military officers in civilian courts for 
alleged human rights abuses. This should help end the pattern of 
allowing these cases to be dropped in military courts.
  In addition to supplemental funds for Colombia, the administration 
also submitted a $193 million supplemental request for Mozambique, only 
$10 million dedicated to meeting immediate disaster needs. While there 
is no question the flooding in Mozambique was a disaster, the question 
the committee had to consider was whether the requested funds were for 
immediate urgent needs or long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction 
which should be addressed in the fiscal year 2001 regular spending 
bill. What we chose to provide in emergency spending will offer 
immediate relief on a one-time basis, rather than support the longer-
term reconstruction and rehabilitation needs which can be covered by 
the increase we provided in the 2001 development assistance.
  Finally, the committee was asked to support a $210 million 
supplemental package for a contribution to the Heavily Indebted Poor 
Countries Initiative Trust Fund. The committee has provided an initial 
commitment of $75 million pending authorization legislation currently 
being considered by the Banking Committee.
  With that, let me pass the baton to my friend and colleague, Senator 
Leahy, with whom I have enjoyed working on this legislation each year 
during our time together, as either chairman or the ranking member. I 
express my gratitude to him for his friendship and the cooperative way 
in which we have proceeded every year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Kentucky for his gracious comments.
  I am very pleased to join my friend from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, 
who as chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee has done a 
superb job getting this bill to the floor.
  The Appropriations Committee reported this bill on May 9 after very 
little debate. The fact that it sailed through our committee was a 
reflection of the bipartisan way the bill was put together. We did 
everything possible to accommodate the wishes of Senators on both sides 
of the aisle.
  This bill is $780 million above last year's Senate foreign operations 
bill. We increased funding for global health programs, which many 
Senators support.
  We increased export assistance. We increased funding for a number of 
other important programs. That is the good news. But this bill is $350 
million below last year's enacted level, and $1.7 billion below the 
President's 2001 budget request.
  We were not able to fully fund several programs that have broad 
support, such as the Peace Corps, but I expect that more will be done 
in the conference committee.
  The bill also does not respond adequately to the emergency disaster 
needs in Mozambique, which was devastated by floods earlier this year. 
We provided only $25 million out of a request of $193 million. I cannot 
help but compare the billions we have spent to relieve the suffering of 
people in Bosnia and Kosovo, with our minuscule aid to Southern Africa.
  The bill provides only $75 million of the $435 million in emergency 
supplemental and fiscal year 2001 funding for debt relief for the 
poorest countries, which has bipartisan support in both the House and 
Senate. This is an international initiative led by the United States. 
We need to do our share.
  We also fell short on the International Development Association, the 
soft-loan window of the World Bank. We are about $85 million short.
  I have some real concerns about the way the World Bank is handling 
staff complaints of misconduct, such as harassment and retaliation.
  I am preparing some proposals for the World Bank to address these 
problems.
  Several Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, have written to me 
urging more funding for the Global Environment Facility, which supports 
programs to protect the ozone, reduce ocean pollution, and protect 
biodiversity. We were only able to provide $50 million, out of a 
request of $175 million.
  Some have complained that the GEF is funding the Kyoto Protocol. 
Those critics owe it to the GEF to specify which activities they 
oppose, rather than making vague objections that are not based on 
facts. We need to find common ground on addressing these critical 
environmental problems.
  Finally, I want to address the emergency funding for Colombia, which 
was attached to this bill in the committee. I want to help Colombia, 
which is facing threats from left-wing guerrillas, right-wing 
paramilitaries, and drug traffickers allied with both.
  I also have a lot of respect for Colombia's President Pastrana. We 
are already giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Colombia.
  But I cannot endorse a proposal that would vastly increase our 
military involvement in Colombia that is so poorly thought out and 
suffers from so many unanswered questions.
  Although the administration does not like to talk about it, this is 
only the first billion-dollar installment of a multiyear, open-ended 
commitment of many more billions of dollars.
  Nobody can say what they expect this to cost, what we can expect to 
achieve, in what period of time, how intensifying a war that cannot be 
won will lead to peace, or what the risks are to hundreds of American 
military and civilian personnel in Colombia or to Colombian civilians. 
I have asked the Administration these questions, but their answers are 
vague at best.
  Even the goal is vague. If it is to stop the flow of illegal drugs 
into the United States, that is wishful thinking. If it is to defeat 
the guerrillas, this is not the way to do it. I think the American 
people deserve better answers before we spend billions of their tax 
dollars on another civil war in South America.
  Having said that, I very much appreciate Chairman McConnell's 
willingness to include a number of conditions on the aid, which have 
strong bipartisan support. If this Colombia aid passes, these human 
rights conditions and reporting requirements are essential to ensure 
that the aid is not misused and that human rights are protected.
  As with many other appropriations bills, we are going to need to get 
a higher allocation if the President is going to sign this bill. But as 
the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, has 
said, this is one step in the process. I believe it is a good start and 
that we should pass this bill. There is no reason why we cannot wrap it 
up very quickly.
  With the distinguished chairman on the floor, I tell him that on my 
side of the aisle, I urge anybody who has amendments to get them over 
here and let us try to wrap it up in the morning so that by early 
tomorrow afternoon we can go on to a different bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say in response to the suggestion of 
the Senator from Vermont, I believe we now do have a consent agreement 
that will allow us to move ahead, not quite as rapidly as the Senator 
from Vermont and I had hoped.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I must say that the Senator from Kentucky 
would probably like to do it at the same speed I would but we are both 
realists in this regard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe this will move us toward a completion, 
hopefully by early evening tomorrow.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all first-
degree amendments to the pending bill must be filed at the desk by 3 
p.m. on Wednesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.




                          ____________________