[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11878-11898]
[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 Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2522, which the clerk will report.
  The 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.

  Pending:

       Helms amendment No. 3498, to require the United States to 
     withhold assistance to Russia by an amount equal to the 
     amount which Russia provides Serbia.
       Nickles amendment No. 3569, to provide that not less than 
     $100,000,000 shall be made available by the Department of 
     State to the Department of Justice for counternarcotic 
     activity initiatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, is recognized to call up an amendment relative 
to Mozambique.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 3520

 (Purpose: To increase amounts appropriated for international disaster 
   assistance for Mozambique and Southern Africa and to offset such 
                               increase)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3520.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 17, lines 1 and 2, strike ``$220,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended'' and insert ``$245,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That, of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, $25,000,000 shall be 
     available only for Mozambique and Southern Africa: Provided 
     further, That, of the amounts that are appropriated under 
     this Act (other than under this heading) and that are 
     available without an earmark, $25,000,000 shall be withheld 
     from obligation and expenditure''.


                    Amendment No. 3520, As Modified

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment, and I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3520), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the text, insert the following:

[[Page 11879]]



     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ADDITIONAL 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR MOZAMBIQUE AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) In February and March of 2000, cyclones Gloria, Eline, 
     and Hudah caused extensive flooding in southern Africa, 
     severely affecting the Republic of Mozambique.
       (2) The floods claimed at least 640 lives and left nearly 
     500,000 people displaced or trapped in flood-isolated areas.
       (3) The floods contaminated water supplies, destroyed 
     hundreds of miles of roads, and washed away homes, schools, 
     and health clinics.
       (4) This heavy flooding and the displacement it caused 
     created conditions in which infectious disease has 
     flourished.
       (5) The southern African floods of 2000 washed previously 
     identified and marked landmines to new, unmarked locations.
       (6) Prior to the flooding, Mozambique has been making 
     progress toward climbing out of poverty, enjoying economic 
     growth rates of 10% per year.
       (7) The World Bank estimates that the costs of 
     reconstruction in Mozambique alone will be $430 million, with 
     an additional $215 million in economic costs.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that an additional $168,000,000 should be made available for 
     disaster assistance in Mozambique and Southern Africa.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for 
working with me to reach agreement on this modification. I thank them 
for cosponsoring it. I thank Senator Frist for joining me in offering 
it.
  This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the 
administration's request for flood recovery in southern Africa, and 
particularly in the Republic of Mozambique, should be fully funded.
  Right now the foreign operations bill falls far short of fulfilling 
the administration's request for flood relief in southern Africa. The 
floods that took so many lives there, and destroyed so many farms, 
businesses, schools, and hospitals there, have faded from our 
television screens. But Mr. President, the terrible destruction of 
these floods has not receded in Mozambique. On the contrary, the longer 
Mozambique waits for additional flood relief, the more severe the long-
term damage of this disaster will become. In February and March 
Mozambique was in the news because it was devastated by flooding. But 
before that Mozambique made headlines with the highest economic growth 
rate in the world. The people of Mozambique have proven that they are 
fighters, who worked their way back from a terrible civil war to 
achieve impressive economic and social progress. But today the people 
of Mozambique are in a fight that they can't win without the help of 
their African neighbors, and the help of the United States.
  It was not long ago that Americans saw dramatic images of daring 
rescues and remarkable perseverance in Mozambique. Massive rainstorms 
and furious cyclones inundated the low lands of Mozambique and flooded 
the rivers that meander through southeastern Africa. The region was 
ravage by not one, not two, but three cyclones. As we stand here, 
thousands of miles away on the floor of the Senate, it's hard to 
comprehend the human cost of this disaster. But these floods claimed 
the lives of 640 people, and displaced or trapped 491,000 others. 
Schools, business, and clinics were destroyed, and, in a devastating 
blow to rescue efforts and to prospects for economic recovery, hundreds 
of miles of the transportation system were destroyed.
  The floods washed away roads, contaminated water supplies, and forced 
whole families onto rooftops--even into trees--for days on end. The 
people of Mozambique have seen their crops flooded, their homes 
destroyed, and their loved ones drowned by the worst flooding southern 
Africa has seen in the last 100 years. Yet, alongside these tragedies, 
we saw vivid images of hope as fellow African nations rose up to help 
their neighbors--most notably South Africa with its courageous 
helicopter pilots, but also Malawi and even tiny Lesotho, which helped 
to get supplies to those in need as quickly as possible. I was proud of 
the U.S. involvement in these efforts, and I know that many of my 
constituents shared that pride. It is my intent, with this amendment, 
to ensure that the people of southern Africa are not forgotten in this 
bill. The administration asked for $193 million to assist the flood-
ravaged countries of southern Africa. This bill provides for only $25 
million. That, Mr. President, is simply not good enough.
  I urge my colleagues to remember that these floods are particularly 
tragic because the country most seriously affected by them, Mozambique, 
has made significant strides toward recovery from its long and brutal 
civil war. Though the country is still affected by extreme poverty, in 
recent years Mozambique has enjoyed exceptional rates of economic 
growth, and while more needs to be done, the country has improved its 
record with regard to basic human rights. It has been making great 
strides ever since the end of a civil war that ended in the early 
1990's. Up until the flood, Mozambique was registering economic growth 
at a rate of 10 percent a year. That's an incredible achievement for 
any nation, Mr. President, and it deserves special recognition as a 
nation of sub-Saharan Africa, where some of its neighbors have 
struggled to achieve growth rates a fraction of that size.
  The people of Mozambique have been working hard for a better future--
too hard to see that future swept away by the floodwaters that have 
already destroyed so much. They need our help. Recovery assistance is 
critically needed to help the people of Mozambique to hold on to the 
opportunities that lay before them before the waters rose. The World 
Bank estimates that the cost of reconstruction in Mozambique alone will 
be $430 million. The floodwaters washed landmines into new, unmarked 
locations, and infectious diseases spread quickly in the wake of the 
disaster. In Mozambique, forecasts suggest that the floods have led to 
grain production shortfalls of more than 15 percent. And the outlook 
for the future could be even worse if we don't act. Without repaired 
roads, farmers and small businesses will be unable to function. Without 
working railroad lines, lost revenues will total an estimated $35 
million per year. And without working hospitals and sanitation 
facilities, Mozambique will suffer further outbreaks of disease. If we 
don't reach out to help Mozambique now, it won't be long until were 
read about this nation again in headlines, as the people of Mozambique 
suffer the consequences of these floods alone without help, Mozambique 
may never be able to regain its footing on the road to stability and 
prosperity.
  I am pleased that both Senators Leahy and McConnell intend to work to 
address this issue in conference. I thank them for their cosponsorship, 
their attention to this, and their assistance with this amendment.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers intend to 
accept this amendment. With that understanding, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is to be recognized to call up two amendments, Nos. 3541 and 
3542, on which there shall be a total of 40 minutes of debate.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, what was the disposition of the 
amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin? Was that accepted?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I think people had assumed there would have to be a 
vote. It is my understanding that the managers have no objection, and I 
suggest it be accepted at this point.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The amendment (No. 3520), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


    Amendments Nos. 3551, As Modified; 3553, As Modified; 3555, As 
                    Modified; and 3569, As Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a group of modified amendments 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page 11880]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 3551, as modified; 3553, as modified; 
     3555, as modified; and 3569, as modified.

  The amendments are as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3551, AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the United States 
should authorize and fully fund a bilateral and multilateral program of 
             debt relief for the world's poorest countries)

       On page 140, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON DEBT RELIEF FOR WORLD'S POOREST 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (1) the relevant committees of the Senate should report to 
     the full Senate legislation authorizing comprehensive debt 
     relief aimed at assisting citizens of the poor countries 
     under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries 
     initiative;
       (2) these authorizations of bilateral and multilateral debt 
     relief should be designed to strengthen and expand the 
     private sector, encourage increased trade and investment, 
     support the development of free markets, and promote broad-
     scale economic growth in beneficiary countries;
       (3) these authorizations should also support the adoption 
     of policies to alleviate poverty and to ensure that benefits 
     are shared widely among the population, such as through 
     initiatives to advance education, improve health, combat 
     AIDS, and promote clean water and environmental protection;
       (4) these authorizations should promote debt relief 
     agreements that are designed and implemented in a transparent 
     manner so as to ensure productive allocation of future 
     resources and prevention of waste;
       (5) these authorizations should promote debt relief 
     agreements that have the broad participation of the citizenry 
     of the debtor country and should ensure that country's 
     circumstances are adequately taken into account;
       (6) these authorizations should ensure that no country 
     should receive the benefits of debt relief if that country 
     does not cooperate with the United States on terrorism or 
     narcotics enforcement, is a gross violator of the human 
     rights of its citizens, or is engaged in military or civil 
     conflict that undermines poverty alleviation efforts or 
     spends excessively on its military; and
       (7) if the conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) through 
     (6) are met in the authorization legislation approved by 
     Congress, Congress should fully fund bilateral and 
     multilateral debt relief.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 3553 as modified

       On page 33, line 6 strike ``funds made available under this 
     heading shall be available subject to authorization by the 
     appropriate committees'' and insert in lieu thereof, ``funds 
     made available to carry out the provisions of part V of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or as a contribution to the 
     Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) or the HIPC 
     Trust Fund shall be subject to authorization and approval by 
     Congress''.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 3555 as modified

 (Purpose: To provide funds for the President to direct the executive 
 directors to international financial institution to prohibit funds to 
the Russian Federation if the Russian Federation delivers SN22 Missiles 
                   to the People's Republic of China)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``SEC.   . RUSSIAN MISSILE SALES TO CHINA

       ``It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of the 
     Treasury should direct the executive directors to all 
     international financial institutions to use the voice and 
     vote of the United States to oppose loans, credits, or 
     guarantees to Russian Federation, except for basic human 
     needs, if the Russian Federation delivers any additional SS-
     N-22 missiles or components to the People's Republic of 
     China.''.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 3569 as modified

       On page 157, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:


               methamphetamine production and trafficking

       For initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and 
     trafficking, $40 million to be made available until expended: 
     Provided, That entire amount is designated by the Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That the amount provided 
     shall be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request that includes designation of the entire amount as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the effort here 
today--led by Senator Chafee--to put the Senate on record in support of 
United States' participation in an international program to lift the 
burden of debt from the poorest countries of the world. That is the 
HIPC program, named for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries for which 
it is intended.
  With this amendment the Senate is now on record in support of a 
simple, but powerful, idea.
  Right now, in the poorest countries of the world, desperately needed 
resources--including both money and some of the best-educated public 
officials--are used to pay money to the richest industrial economies. 
That's right--they are sending money to us.
  That is happening because, over the years, we and our allies have 
loaned substantial amounts to those countries, often to pursue our own 
goals of fighting communism during the Cold War or for other foreign 
policy purposes. That often meant that we turned a blind eye to the 
problems in those countries, including how their governments might 
spend the money, or if they had any hope of repayment.
  The perverse result is that, while we seek to promote economic growth 
and opportunity in the least developed countries of the world, at the 
same time we continue to collect payments on those debts. At a time 
when foreign assistance of all kinds is shrinking, we continue to 
expect these countries to send money to us, most commonly to pay the 
interest to simply service their debts.
  And this is no small problem for these poor countries. Many of them 
will spend more on just servicing the interest on their debts than they 
do on childhood immunizations, or education.
  That is not just unconscionable, Mr. President, it is bad policy. It 
defeats many of our best efforts to help those countries turn the 
corner to more sustainable economic growth and development.
  There is so little chance that these countries will ever be able to 
pay off the principal on these loans that we carry them on our own 
books at just a few cents on the dollar. That means that it will cost 
us very little to give a great deal of benefit to these countries.
  Those benefits come not just from the lifting of the debt itself. The 
HIPC program requires that each country that is to receive debt relief 
must draw up and stick to a plan for social and economic development, 
reducing poverty and creating sustainable growth.
  Banks here in the United States and all around the world know that 
when there is no chance that a loan will be repaid, you take it off the 
books.
  But the HIPC program is more than just a bookkeeping matter--it is a 
way of leveraging money that we are unlikely to ever see into essential 
resources for the neediest countries.
  Earlier this year, I made full authorization of the HIPC program my 
top priority when the Foreign Relations Committee passed its first 
foreign assistance authorization bill in fifteen years. With the 
cooperation of Senator Helms, we reached agreement on all of the pieces 
needed for full U.S. participation in the HIPC program, participation 
which we have already pledged, along with our partners among the 
advanced industrial nations.
  That legislation authorized full funding, at the levels requested by 
the Administration earlier this year, as well as the authorization 
needed from us to permit the International Monetary Fund to dedicate to 
the debt relief effort the proceeds from a revaluation of their gold 
holdings.
  As it stands, the Foreign Operations Bill before us today cuts the 
Administration's request of $262 million for debt relief by $187 
million--that's a cut of more than 70 percent. That affects both the 
HIPC program and another priority of mine, the Tropical Forest 
Protection Act, a debt-for-nature program that was established with 
strong bi-partisan support.
  While this amendment will not change that situation, it does put the 
Senate on record in favor of changing it, when this process is once 
again engaged later on in this session.

[[Page 11881]]

  Whatever disagreements we have about the IMF, the World Bank, or 
other aspects of foreign assistance, we should all be able to support 
this program. The HIPC program comes with its own strong program that 
the poor countries must comply with to be eligible for debt relief.
  It stands on its own merits and should not be tangled up in other 
debates. Given the heavy burdens on these poor countries, relief 
delayed is relief denied. Every day that debt relief is put off, those 
obligations continue to sap their limited resources.
  This is a program that has the support of a strong, ecumenical, 
inter-faith effort by the world's major religions. The Pope, the 
Reverend Billy Graham, and other religious leaders have dedicated their 
time and effort to making debt relief a reality.
  Considering the small and shrinking support we give to the poorest 
nations, and the importance to us of their economic health and 
stability, this is an issue where conscience and economic common sense 
agree.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Chafee, Senator Sarbanes, Senator 
Hagel, and all of our cosponsors, for keeping this issue before us. I 
am confident that at the end of the day, we will do what is right, and 
fully fund this worthy program.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment sponsored by Senator Chafee from Rhode Island. This amendment 
expresses the sense that the United States should support bilateral and 
multilateral debt relief for the world's poorest countries with 
unsustainable debts, and provide the funding for bilateral and 
multilateral debt relief the Clinton administration has requested.
  Last year, United States and other industrialized countries agreed to 
provide $27 billion in debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries 
that adopt sound economic policies and use the savings for health, 
education, and poverty reduction efforts, and the Clinton 
administration pledged to pay four percent of the total. The $435 
million the administration requested for Fiscal Year 2001 is a down-
payment on our $920 million pledge.
  The countries that will benefit are classified by the World Bank and 
International Monetary Fund as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs), 
which means they have unsustainable debts and are extremely poor.
  In these countries:
  One in ten children dies before his or her first birthday;
  One in three children is malnourished;
  More than half of all citizens live on less than $1 per day; and
  HIV infection rates are as high as 20 percent.
  More than two out of three of these countries spend more on debt 
service than health care.
  Every dollar in debt payments these countries make to the United 
States and other creditors is one fewer dollar to spend on education, 
health care, and other basic needs.
  Many of these countries, including Zambia, Uganda, Togo, Cote 
d'Ivoire, Mozambique, and Tanzania, to name but a few, are in the midst 
of a HIV/AIDS pandemic. Every dollar in debt payments these countries 
make is one fewer dollar to spend on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment 
programs.
  This debt relief proposal will not solve every problem in these 
countries, but it will help. Bolivia, our democratic ally, began 
receiving debt relief in 1997. In 1999, Bolivia saved $77 million in 
debt service as a result of debt relief provided by multilateral 
institutions. Most of the savings went to increased spending on health 
care and education.
  Uganda has also received multilateral debt relief. Uganda saved $45 
million in debt service payments in 1999, and it increased spending on 
poverty reduction programs, primary education, and primary health care 
by $55 million. Since 1997, the primary school enrollment rate has 
increased by 50 percent.
  Uganda is not the only country in desperate need of debt relief in 
Africa. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund list 33 
countries in Africa as HIPCs, meaning they are extremely poor and have 
unsustainable debts.
  As Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the Center for International 
Development at Harvard University, wrote in The Washington Post, on May 
23, 2000, in regard to malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis,

       Debt cancellation for Africa has come down to a matter of 
     life and death. African leaders know very well that for their 
     own countries to muster the internal resources to fight these 
     dread diseases, they will have to be permitted by the 
     creditor nations to shift the funds now spent on debt 
     servicing into public health.

  We must provide debt relief to accountable governments, not to 
dictatorial regimes that waste funds on the military and violate human 
rights.
  This amendment urges the Senate to fund multilateral debt relief 
efforts carried out by the World Bank and the International Monetary 
Fund for countries that use the funds transparently, allow 
participation by civil society, do not grossly violate human rights, 
and do not spend excessively on the military.
  Debt relief will allow Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, which use up 
to 60 percent of their budgets for debt service on loans made by the 
United States and other industrialized countries to dictators during 
the Cold War, to use these precious resources to meet basic needs.
  The debt burden condemns these countries to poverty. Relieving the 
burden from these debts will give these countries a chance to develop. 
Relieving debts that can never be repaid is the humane thing to do.
  The Clinton administration has requested $435 million for this 
initiative to help the world's poorest people. The United States has 
committed to this multinational debt relief plan, and we should live up 
to our commitment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to support funding for debt relief for the world's poorest people. I 
urge my colleagues to do the right thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments, as 
modified, are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3551, 3553, 3555, and 3569), as modified, were 
agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that leaves amendments by Senator Boxer 
and Senator Byrd as the only amendments left to dispose of.


                    Amendment No. 3531, As Modified

  (Purpose: To provide support for the Defense Classified Activities)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3531, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in Title VI of the bill insert the 
     following:
       Sec.  .In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this 
     Act, $8,500,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense under the heading, ``Military Construction, Defense 
     Wide'' for classified activities related to, and for the 
     conduct of a utility and feasibility study referenced under 
     the heading of ``Management of MASINT'' in Senate Report 105-
     279 to accompany S. 2507, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount provided shall be available only to the extent 
     an official budget request for $8,500,000 that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing would provide 
$8.5 million to the Department of Defense under the heading ``Military 
Construction, Defense-wide'' for classified activities, to remain 
available until expended. The entire amount would be designated as an 
emergency requirement and would be available only to the extent that an 
official budget request for $8.5 million is transmitted by the 
President to the Congress. These funds would be used for the conduct of 
a utility and feasibility study referenced under the heading of 
``Management of MASINT'' in Senate Report

[[Page 11882]]

106-279. I am constrained from speaking further about this matter due 
to the nature of the classification of the amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I urge adoption of the amendment, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The amendment (No. 3531), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3541, As Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment No. 
3541 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3541), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.   . INTERNATIONAL HEALTH EMERGENCIES.

       In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated in this Act, 
     $40 million shall be available for necessary expenses to 
     carry out the provisions of Chapters 1 and 10 of part I of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for global health and 
     related activities: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this section, not less than $30 million shall be made 
     available for programs to combat HIV/AIDS: Provided further, 
     That of the funds appropriated under this section, not less 
     than $10 million shall be made available for the prevention, 
     treatment, and control of tuberculosis: Provided further, 
     That amounts made available under this section are hereby 
     designated by the Congress to be emergency requirements 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That 
     such amounts shall be made available only after submission to 
     the Congress of a formal budget request by the President that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in such Act.
       On page 155, line 25, strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$35,000,000''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this legislation 
on both sides for agreeing to this. It isn't everything I had asked for 
regarding tuberculosis and the HIV/AIDS fight, but it is helpful. It 
will also take into consideration Senator Feingold's request on the 
flooding in Mozambique. It will give an additional $30 million for the 
worldwide fight against HIV/AIDS, an additional $10 million for the 
worldwide fight against tuberculosis, and $10 million for the flooding 
in Mozambique. I am proud that Senators Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Dodd, 
and Kerry are sponsors of this amendment.
  I want to take a moment of the Senate's time, because we won't need 
to have a rollcall on this, to simply say that if we are looking at a 
true emergency, we have one here. The U.N. Security Council met on the 
issue of HIV, and it was the first time the Security Council ever met 
on an international health issue.
  Last month, our own National Security Council declared that the 
global spread of AIDS is a direct threat to U.S. national security 
because of the destabilizing impact of this deadly disease.
  One of the reasons they so found was that the CIA did something they 
call the National Intelligence Estimate. They titled it ``The Global 
Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States.'' 
I am simply going to read a tiny bit from this report.

       New and reemerging infectious diseases will pose a rising 
     global health threat and compromise U.S. and global security 
     over the next 20 years. These diseases will endanger United 
     States citizens at home and abroad, threaten U.S. Armed 
     Forces deployed overseas, and exacerbate social and political 
     instability and keep countries and regions in which the 
     United States has significant interest.

  I know that my colleagues are very aware of the horrific problem of 
AIDS in Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. President, 84 
percent of all the people in the world who have died of AIDS have been 
from that region. It is now predominantly a women's disease. Many 
children are left as orphans.
  Lastly, as far as tuberculosis is concerned, this is a disease we 
thought we had eliminated in the 1950s. However, the disease is making 
a comeback. The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 2 
million people die of tuberculosis-related conditions annually. One-
third of the entire world's population is infected with tuberculosis--
an extraordinary number when you think about it.
  I am pleased we have this amendment and it is in agreement. I trust 
and hope and pray for the sake of people all across this world and in 
our own Nation that these numbers will hold up in the conference. 
Believe me, it means so much. We know how to treat tuberculosis. We 
know how to stop HIV transmission from mother to child. It would be a 
real sin, it seems to me, if we didn't push as hard as we could to 
fight these diseases.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I took the floor to thank the Senator 
from California and to ask consent I be included as an original 
cosponsor. It is a very important amendment and directly connected to 
people's lives. I thank the Senator for her fine work.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy for a voice vote, if the manager is ready to 
do that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3541, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3541), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3542, As Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains to explain this next amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 35 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I assure my friends I do not intend to take anything near 
that time.
  Mr. President, I send my modified amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Mr. Leahy and Mr. Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the 
amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, could we see what is 
being modified?
  Mrs. BOXER. This is, at the suggestion of my friend, for a sense of 
the Senate. It shows support of rules for engagement in Colombia for 
the Department of Defense.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the Senator being able to modify her amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 3542), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . POLICY REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESOURCES AND 
                   ACTIVITIES IN COLOMBIA.

       (a) Affirmation of Policy.--The United States Senate 
     affirms and supports the Department of Defense policy that 
     United States Armed Forces personnel in Colombia should make 
     every effort to minimize the possibility of confrontation, 
     whether armed or otherwise, with civilians in Colombia, and 
     that funds appropriated by this Act and other resources of 
     the Department of Defense will not be used--
       (1) to support the training of any Colombian security force 
     unit that engages in counter-insurgency operations;
       (2) to participate in any law enforcement activity in 
     Colombia, including search, seizure and arrest;
       (3) to permit any Department of Defense employee to 
     accompany any United States drug enforcement agency 
     personnel, or any law enforcement or military personnel of 
     Colombia with counter-narcotics authority, on any counter-
     narcotics field operation; and
       (4) to permit any Department of Defense employee to 
     participate in any activity in which counter-narcotics 
     related hostilities are imminent.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair clarifies at this time the amount

[[Page 11883]]

of time now evenly divided under previous agreement. The intention was 
to divide 20 minutes equally. The Senator from California has 10 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, after I make just an opening remark, I 
will yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Vermont.
  I am offering an amendment which is completely consistent with the 
Department of Defense guidelines on the activities of their own 
personnel in Colombia. It actually says that we support these 
guidelines, we think it is good to put limits on our involvement, and 
we should express ourselves on that point.
  The first part of the amendment supports the prohibition of the DOD 
using its personnel, equipment, or other resources to get involved in 
the counterinsurgency; in other words, to get involved in what some 
call the civil war between the left and the right in that country.
  Again, written by the Secretary of Defense in March 2000:

       I am directing that no DOD personnel, funds, equipment, or 
     resources may be used to support any training program that 
     engages solely in counterinsurgency operations.

  That supports that DOD guideline.
  The same thing occurs on the second part of my amendment; that we 
support the fact they shouldn't be involved, our own personnel, in law 
enforcement activities in Colombia. Again, that mirrors the position of 
our Secretary of Defense.
  The third part of the amendment says we agree with the Secretaries 
that our personnel shouldn't conduct any counterdrug field operation in 
which counterdrug-related hostilities are imminent. That is to protect 
our people from harm.
  Finally, we say we agree with the Secretary of Defense that U.S. 
military personnel should make every effort to minimize the possibility 
of confrontations with civilians.
  Clearly, what we should do here is support our own Secretary of 
Defense and our own administration. I don't think it should be 
controversial.
  I am hopeful it can be accepted because I believe we ought to go on 
record in support of these limits. I think it is sensible. I think the 
DOD is correct on this.
  Yesterday, we voted millions and millions of dollars to send 
advisers. I think it would be wonderful if we stood with our own DOD 
and said there ought to be limits on the participation of our own 
personnel.
  I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is 
another modification on the Boxer amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. Senator McConnell has offered a 
modification.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California if it is 
her understanding that the most recent modification does not undercut 
or diminish in any way the so-called Leahy law that is in effect in 
Colombia and in U.S. operations in Colombia?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is certainly my understanding.
  I ask Senator McConnell if he would comment on that further.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that is also the understanding of the 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope we can just adopt this as it is and 
do so by voice vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Has the further modification been sent to the desk?


                 Amendment No. 3542 As Further Modified

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send the further modification we have 
just been discussing to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is further modified.
  The amendment (No. 3542), as further modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.  . POLICY REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESOURCES AND 
                   ACTIVITIES IN COLOMBIA.

       (a) Affirmation of Policy.--The United States Senate afirms 
     and supports the Department of Defense policy that United 
     States Armed Forces personnel in Colombia should make every 
     effort to minimize the possibility of confrontation, whether 
     armed or otherwise, with civilians in Colombia, and that 
     funds appropriated by this Act and other resources of the 
     Department of Denfense should not be used--
       (1) to support the training of any Colombian security force 
     unit that directly engages in counter-insurgency operations;
       (2) to directly participate in any law enforcement activity 
     in Colombia, including search, seizure and arrest;
       (3) to permit any Department of Defense employee to 
     accompany any United States drug enforcement agency 
     personnel, or any law enforcement or military personnel of 
     Colombia with counter-narcotics authority, on any counter-
     narcotics field operation; and
       (4) to permit any Department of Defense employee to 
     directly participate in any activity in which counter-
     narcotics related hostilities are imminent.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what we were hoping to achieve was to 
voice vote this. A number of Senators are missing important 
conferences.
  The Senator from Florida is interested in seeing the modification.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to see the final language of 
this amendment before we vote on it. Would it be appropriate to suggest 
the absence of a quorum until we have that opportunity?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the 
pending amendment that it violates rule XVI as legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order must await the finalization 
of all time ordered. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. STEVENS. I apologize.
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not yield my time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has not yielded 
time back.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there time left on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9\1/2\ minutes remaining to the 
opponents and 5 minutes remaining to the sponsor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Alaska whatever time he 
may desire of our time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment covers resources in the 
Department of Defense and it deals with matters with which we are 
dealing in the supplemental right now. I do not want to mislead the 
Senate. We are trying to settle this matter in a conference on the 
military construction bill with the supplemental portions associated 
with it. I am perfectly happy to see the Senate express its point of 
view on the Colombia money, but in terms of the item as a place in the 
Department of Defense portion of the Colombia money, it really has been 
objected to by the Department of Defense, and as chairman of the 
Defense Subcommittee, I strenuously object to it.
  We should be in the position of determining how defense money is 
spent, how Armed Forces personnel are governed when they are abroad, 
and we should not take the occasion now to put limitations on the use 
of defense assets in connection with the war on drugs.
  I just returned from Key West, Tampa, and Alameda in California. I 
know some of the defense assets we are using to supplement the 
activities in the war on drugs. I am very reluctant to see the Senate 
act on a bill at this time like this to set down rules that apply to 
the use of defense personnel, defense assets, and defense money in 
connection with the war on drugs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am deeply distressed that the Senator 
from Alaska raised a point of order. I want to explain why.
  Yesterday we voted for almost $1 billion to get involved in a very 
serious problem in Colombia. Our people will be exposed to a lot of 
danger there. All we are simply trying to do with this

[[Page 11884]]

sense-of-the-Senate amendment is to protect them. Further, all we are 
trying to do is say to Secretary Cohen: You are right on your 
guidelines that you have issued. And those guidelines simply say our 
people should not be involved in counterinsurgency, that our people 
should not be in the line of hostile fire. It is very straightforward, 
and it is very simple.
  Frankly, the way the Senate has responded to this shows me I did the 
right thing when I never voted for this in the first place. If we 
cannot stand up in the Senate and support the Secretary of Defense in 
his very straightforward directive, then I am very concerned about what 
we are getting ourselves into. I hope I am wrong.
  I am distressed the Senator from Alaska did this. When Senator 
Sessions from Alabama, from his side of the aisle, offered legislation 
on an appropriations bill yesterday, no one said the amendment of the 
Senator from Alabama, which dealt with this very same subject, was 
legislation on an appropriations bill. I do not think it is fair to 
have a double standard. If we are going to use that rule, we ought to 
use it.
  I did not like Senator Sessions' amendment yesterday. Frankly, I 
viewed it as a way to get us far more involved in the 
counterinsurgency, but I did not make a point of order. The fact the 
Senator did this is distressing.
  I am not going to ask for a vote on a procedural motion because that 
would not even be close to the kind of vote I think I could get on this 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment. That is what I fear is happening. People 
do not seem to want to vote on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is 
not fair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator does make a good point about the point of 
order. We should either be consistent on these points of order or not 
have them, one or the other.
  The Senator is correct that when a similar motion was made from the 
Republican side of the aisle yesterday, Senators on this side of the 
aisle who wanted to make a point of order refrained because there have 
been a number of amendments accepted on this bill by both Republicans 
and Democrats that were subject to the point of order of which the 
Senator from California speaks. We all refrained from making them.
  The Senator from California raises a legitimate point that now, at 
the end of the bill, on her amendment, which is no more subject to a 
point of order than those other amendments where a point of order was 
waived, suddenly she faces the only point of order in this whole bill. 
I can understand her concern, and I share her concern.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I believe it is not fair play, and if 
there is one thing I expect in the Senate--and I think we all stand for 
it--it is fair play. We voted huge amounts of money into this region of 
the world. We have horrible problems there. We have a few disagreements 
here, but I had hoped we could agree that the Secretary of Defense is 
correct when he puts limits on the use of DOD personnel.
  I am very saddened by this. I do not want to keep repeating it, but 
it is sad. The people in this country are going to be upset about it. 
The people in this country, when we get involved in a foreign place, 
want to know that we in the Senate put restrictions on the use of our 
personnel.
  We have had a lot of experience in this. We have had a lot of tears 
over this. Yet yesterday we had an amendment from Senator Sessions that 
was clearly legislation on an appropriations bill, which I believe gets 
us deeper involved because it says we should support the military and 
the political policies of the Government of Colombia, and no one raised 
a point of order. But a simple amendment supporting the Secretary of 
Defense, and where are we? We get a point of order.
  I am not going to play that game. I am not going to get caught in a 
procedural vote. I will just let it go, but I want to make it clear 
that we have a lot of options later when this bill comes back. If there 
are going to be things in this bill that violate our parliamentary 
procedures, some of us are going to get tough on it. It is not right.
  This is a sad day, frankly, for this Senate. It is also a sad day for 
our men and women in uniform that we cannot vote on a simple sense of 
the Senate supporting our own Secretary of Defense on his views as to 
how we can, in fact, make sure our people over there are as safe as 
they can be.
  I thank the Chair. I have no need to retain any further time. We will 
await the decision of the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from California has 
expired. Who yields time? Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I make the point of order that the pending amendment No. 3542, as 
further modified, violates rule XVI as legislation on an appropriations 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order. The 
amendment falls.
  Mr. LEAHY. Regular order, Mr. President.


                     Amendment No. 3498, Withdrawn

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Helms 
amendment No. 3498 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, by now it should come as no secret that I 
believe that the bill as it stands right now is inadequately funded. 
The foreign operations appropriation bill is one of the most important 
pieces of legislation we pass each year. Yet for the past several years 
Congress has not been devoting the necessary funds to this portion of 
the budget.
  Due in large part to the crucial need for the Colombia supplemental I 
am going to vote yes on final passage. The Pastrana government urgently 
and desperately needs these funds to continue its fight against drug 
lords who are not only undermining the stability and viability of 
Colombia as a nation, but who are literally killing the people of two 
nations: Colombians through violence, and Americans through drugs. The 
government of Colombia deserves our help as they put their lives on the 
line to stop the production of illegal drugs. I think the outcome of 
the votes rejecting the Wellstone and Gorton amendments, which would 
have significantly decreased the amounts available in the supplemental, 
showed that the majority of my colleagues agree about the severity of 
the problem in that country and the necessity of U.S. aid.
  During the course of this debate, we have been faced with having to 
make several other untenable decisions. I and my colleagues have had to 
come to the floor and in essence attempt to get blood from a rock. I 
believe that we need more money for non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, 
and de-mining. My colleague Senator Feingold rightly believes that the 
amount designated for the Mozambique supplemental appropriation needs 
to be increased.
  Senator Boxer has attempted to channel more funds towards combating 
HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
  In every instance, each of us has been stymied by the fact that there 
is not enough money in this bill. It simply isn't there. So we are left 
with the option of either not attempting to raise the level of 
appropriations for programs that we think are important, or of using 
different political maneuvers, none of which is particularly effective, 
to get the money that we feel these programs need. We should not have 
to face a choice between helping victims of flooding in Mozambique, and 
preventing the spread of AIDS. The United States should be able to help 
with these activities as well as drug eradication and non-
proliferation.
  I spoke briefly this morning about the shortfall in the NADR 
accounts,

[[Page 11885]]

and at length yesterday about Plan Colombia. These are not the only 
accounts about which I am concerned. Development assistance is 
shortchanged, funds for voluntary peacekeeping activities fall below 
requested amounts, and as the Senator from Wisconsin points out, the 
President's request for resources to aid victims of the flooding in 
Mozambique is virtually ignored. I will continue to go on record as 
being adamantly and staunchly opposed to any attempts to undertake 
diplomacy on the cheap. That is what the Senate is attempting to do 
here. By neglecting to grant the administration's request for 
development assistance and economic support, we are robbing ourselves.
  According to a report published in April by a nonpartisan research 
organization called the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
spending on development aid--defined as all international development 
and humanitarian assistance, as well as economic support fund monies--
measured either as a share of the federal budget or as a share of the 
U.S. economy, will be lower than at any time in the fifty years before 
1998. The report further states that out of the countries belonging to 
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United 
States ranked ``the lowest of all . . . OECD countries examined in the 
share of national resources devoted to development of poor countries.'' 
Some would argue that this is because the administration has not asked 
for enough money. I would answer that constitutionally, Congress 
controls the purse strings, thus we have only ourselves to blame. I 
suggest that we make a commitment to take corrective action, because 
our foreign assistance programs are vital to our national interests.
  Foreign assistance helps us further international peace and security. 
U.S. citizens and citizens of the world benefit from programs that U.S. 
assistance pays for. I spoke before about programs aimed at keeping 
Russian scientists from being employed by states intent on developing 
nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. I am sure that we 
can all agree that keeping these scientists out of countries such as 
Iraq makes for a safer world.
  When the United States provides assistance to Colombia for crop 
substitution programs, it is the citizens of the United States who 
benefit. Less drug production means less drugs on the streets of our 
neighborhoods. When the United States funds vaccines for infectious 
diseases such as tuberculosis, we are helping to protect our own 
citizens from being infected by these illnesses.
  Every time United States economic support funds help bolster a new 
democracy, we widen America's sphere of influence in the hopes of 
increasing security for the United States. And the preceding represent 
only a few of the ways in which our foreign assistance aids in 
promoting our national security. I could go on at length about the 
positive effects of aid to the Middle East, Russia, and Eastern Europe. 
Programs in these regions have prevented conflict, helped build 
economic and financial infrastructure, and combated transnational crime 
and corruption.
  Let me conclude by saying this: our foreign assistance is a 
preventative tool. The idea behind it is to aid in building a community 
of like-minded states, states free of internal conflict, states that 
get along with their neighbors. If we are able to do that, if we are 
successful with our preventative tools in increasing security, then we 
will never have to use our corrective tool--that of military action--to 
achieve security. Think about that. If prevention works, correction is 
not necessary. Given the sentiments of some Members of this chamber 
about the commitment of our soldiers overseas, doesn't it make sense to 
make every effort to prevent our troops from having to deploy?
  Some of my colleagues urge frugality in our foreign assistance 
spending. I agree with the notion that Congress should spend wisely. 
However I would caution against an approach that is penny-wise and 
pound foolish. Mr. President, I cannot emphasize this point enough, and 
it brings back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks: We cannot 
obtain security on the cheap. By stinting on our foreign assistance 
programs we are shortchanging our national security.
  As the administration indicated in their statement regarding this 
bill, if the sum appropriated for our foreign operations is not 
increased, the President will have no choice but to veto this 
legislation. I sincerely hope that as the fiscal year comes to a close, 
the allocation for the foreign operations appropriation is 
significantly increased, and conferees distribute any additional 
amounts wisely.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Baucus-
Roberts amendment to engage China on the important issue of rapid 
industrialization and the environment. The amendment would permit 
appropriated funds for the US-Asia Environmental Partnership (USAEP)--
an initiative of the U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID)--to be used for environmental projects in the People's Republic 
of China (PRC). In other words, the U.S. government would finally be 
able to, for example, help U.S. businesses connect with provincial and 
municipal governments in China to initiate badly needed environmental 
engineering projects. This work is necessary to attempt to prevent a 
possible long-term environmental catastrophe resulting from intense 
industrialization and development in the PRC and Asia in general.
  Why should one care whether Chinese or Asian people breath clean air 
or drink clean water? Besides the obvious humanitarian concern, a 
ruined environment throughout Asia will--at some point--effect us here 
in the United States and our interests. This is common sense.
  The Baucus-Roberts amendment also sends a strong pro-engagement 
message to the PRC since the U.S. excluded de jure or de facto the PRC 
from U.S. foreign aid programs with passage and signing of the FY 90-FY 
91 State Department Authorization, specifically section 902 of H.R. 
3792.
  Our government purports to be concerned about global environmental 
issues, Mr. President, about avoiding contamination of the world's 
water, air, and soil. Yet, we prohibit ourselves from consulting and 
cooperating on a government to government basis with the one nation 
with the greatest potential to impact the world's environment over the 
next 50 to 100 years. That makes no sense.
  What is the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership? It is a 
public-private initiative implemented by the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID). Its aim is to encourage 
environmentally sustainable development in Asia as that region 
industrializes at a phenomenal rate. By ``environmentally sustainable 
development,'' we mean industrial and urban development that does not 
irreparably damage the air, water, and soil necessary for life. It's 
really that simple. US-AEP currently works with governments and 
industries in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, 
Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 
creating US-AEP, the U.S. government recognized the long-term 
environmental hazards of Asia's rapid industrialization and the need 
for the U.S. government to engage on the issue.
  The program provides grants to U.S. companies for the purpose of 
facilitating the transfer of environmentally sound and energy-efficient 
technologies to the Asia/Pacific region. Again, the objective is to 
address the pollution and health challenges of rapid industrialization 
while stimulating demand for U.S. technologies. In cooperation with the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, US-AEP has placed Environmental Technology 
Representatives in 11 Asian countries to identify trade opportunities 
for U.S. companies and coordinate meetings between potential Asian and 
U.S. business partners.
  Mr. President, on the basic issue of the global environmental impact 
of Asian industrialization, specifically Chinese modernization, the 
Senate has the responsibility to authorize at least some cooperation 
between Beijing and Washington. I ask for my colleague's

[[Page 11886]]

support for this common sense amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak about one of the 
most important parts of the proposed aid package for Colombia, the 
human rights conditions.
  Narcotics traffickers, rebel forces, and paramilitary groups present 
a clear threat to democracy and economic development in Colombia. The 
bill before us provides $934 million to help the Colombian Government 
meet this threat. About 75 percent of this aid is for military 
equipment, training, and logistical support. The Colombian Government 
says it needs this military assistance--especially the helicopters--to 
enable its armed forces to retake the southern part of the country from 
the narcotraffickers and the rebel forces who protect and profit from 
their activities.
  Like my colleagues, I am interested in ensuring that this aid does 
not contribute to human rights abuses. While allegations of human 
rights violations by military personnel have decreased in the past 
several years, the State Department's 1999 Country Report on Human 
Rights Practices concluded that the Colombian Government's human rights 
record ``remained poor'' and that ``armed forces and the police 
committed numerous, serious violations of human rights throughout the 
year.'' The Colombian Armed Forces are consistently and credibly linked 
to illegal paramilitary groups, which are now responsible for the 
majority of serious human rights abuses in Colombia, including an 
estimated 153 massacres in 1999 which claimed 889 lives. These 
paramilitary groups have stepped up their own illegal narcotics 
operations, which, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
include drug trafficking abroad.
  When I met with President Pastrana last December, he emphasized his 
commitment to improving the human rights performance of the Colombian 
Armed Forces, which have a long history of human rights violations. The 
bill before us makes this commitment the basis for new military 
assistance to Colombia. The bill requires the Secretary of State to 
certify that the Colombian Government has met or is meeting four 
conditions before new military aid can be provided.
  The first condition requires the Secretary of State to certify that 
the President of Colombia has directed in writing that Colombian Armed 
Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed gross 
violations of human rights will be brought to justice in Colombia's 
civilian courts, in accordance with the 1997 ruling of Colombia's 
Constitutional Court.
  Currently, the military justice system does not aggressively or 
consistently pursue cases against high-ranking military personnel 
accused of human rights abuses. The 1999 State Department Human Rights 
Report states that ``authorities rarely brought officers of the 
security forces and the police charged with human rights offenses to 
justice, and impunity remains a problem.'' It concludes that the 
``workings of the military judiciary lack transparency and 
accountability, contributing to a generalized lack of confidence in the 
system's ability to bring human rights abusers to justice.''
  To rectify this problem, in August 1997, Colombia's Constitutional 
Court ruled that ``crimes against humanity'' could never be considered 
acts of military service and that military personnel alleged to have 
committed such crimes must be prosecuted in civilian courts. However, 
the military has consistently challenged civilian court jurisdiction. 
The military has retained jurisdiction by threatening government 
investigators and by arguing that alleged violations of human rights, 
such as collusion with paramilitary groups, are simply acts of 
omission. Acts of omission are considered acts of military service, as 
if they were simple dereliction of duty. Most importantly, the military 
continues to retain jurisdiction in human rights by relying on the 
support of a pro-military block within the Superior Judicial Council, 
the body responsible for determining the jurisdiction of individual 
cases.
  The U.S. Government has said that these practices undercut the intent 
of the Constitutional Court ruling. According to the 1999 State 
Department Human Rights Report, the Superior Judicial Council 
``regularly employed an extremely broad definition of acts of service, 
thus ensuring that uniformed defendants of any rank, particularly the 
most senior, were tried in military tribunals.'' In the 8 years the 
Superior Judicial Council has existed, it has never sent a case of a 
general accused of a human rights violation to a civilian court.
  As a result of these practices, the military has retained 
jurisdiction even in cases of the most egregious atrocities. For 
example, dozens of civilians were killed, and thousands were forced to 
flee for their lives, in the town of Mapiripan in July 1997. The 
Superior Judicial Council ruled that the case involved an act of 
omission by General Jaime Uscategui. Therefore, as an act of military 
service, it belonged before a military court. The General was 
eventually forced to resign, but he has yet to be prosecuted for his 
crimes.
  The Colombian Armed Forces have claimed that they are abiding by the 
Constitutional Court ruling and accepting civilian court jurisdiction 
in human rights cases. However, a careful analysis of the military's 
own statistics demonstrates the opposite. In a recent publication on 
human rights, Colombia's Defense Ministry asserts that, pursuant to the 
1997 Constitutional Court ruling, the Colombian Armed Forces had turned 
over 576 cases of possible human rights violations to civilian courts 
for investigation and possible prosecution. For 3 months my office has 
tried to obtain a breakdown of this number in order to determine the 
nature of the crimes committed, the number of these cases that were 
actually prosecuted, and the rank of the personnel involved. To date, 
the Colombian Defense Ministry has only documented 103 of the 576 
cases. Of these 103 cases, only 39 actually involved human rights 
violations by members of the Armed Forces. The highest ranking 
officials were two lieutenant colonels. The remaining 64 cases involved 
abuses by members of the Colombian National Police or common crimes. In 
other words, the Colombian Defense Ministry grossly misrepresented its 
record. In fact, the Colombian Armed Forces have transferred only 39 
cases of human rights violations, committed by low level officials, to 
civilian courts in the past 2 years--not the 576 cases that the 
Colombian Defense Ministry claimed.
  Colombian lawyers have analyzed this matter. The highly respected 
Colombian Commission of Jurists concluded that the requirement in the 
amendment that the President issue a written directive requiring the 
military to accept civilian jurisdiction in human rights cases is 
consistent with President Pastrana's role as Commander-in-Chief of the 
Armed Forces. In fact, the Commission recently filed a petition with 
President Pastrana requesting that, as Commander-in-Chief, he order the 
military to cease disputing jurisdiction in cases involving credible 
allegations of human rights abuse. This requirement does not compromise 
the integrity of Colombia's separation of powers or the independence of 
the executive and judiciary. To the contrary, it would uphold the 
judiciary's power by obligating the military to abide by civilian rule 
and the law.
  The second condition contained in this bill requires the Secretary of 
State to certify that the Commander General of the Armed Forces is 
promptly suspending from duty any Armed Forces personnel who are 
credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights or 
to have aided or abetted paramilitary groups.
  Currently, there is no automatic process for suspending a member of 
the Colombian Armed Forces alleged to have violated human rights. The 
case of Colombian Senator Manuel Cepeda is illustrative. Senator Cepeda 
was murdered in 1994. The investigation carried out by the Attorney 
General's Office revealed that the murder had been carried out by the 
military in collusion with paramilitary groups. Nevertheless, the 
accused officers remained on active duty for five years, from 1994 
until 1999, when they were finally suspended as a result of vigorous

[[Page 11887]]

protests by the human rights community.
  In contrast, General Serrano, who just recently resigned as head of 
the National Police, had the authority to suspend police suspected of 
corruption, human rights abuses, or other misconduct. To his credit, 
General Serrano discharged over 11,000 officers since taking command in 
1994.
  This condition supports the recent actions of the Colombian Congress. 
On March 15, the Colombian Congress passed a law to restructure the 
Armed Forces, including granting the Armed Forces Commander the 
authority to suspend Armed Forces personnel suspected of misconduct. 
President Pastrana was given 6 months, until September, to issue the 
necessary implementing decrees. If he does not, the law becomes null 
and void.
  The third condition contained in the bill requires the Secretary of 
State to certify that the Colombian Armed Forces and its Commander 
General are fully complying with the provisions regarding prosecution 
and suspension of Armed Forces personnel credibly alleged to have 
committed gross violations of human rights. The Colombian Armed Forces 
must also cooperate fully with civilian authorities in investigating, 
prosecuting, and punishing in the civilian courts Colombian Armed 
Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed such 
crimes.
   As I discussed earlier, the Colombian Armed Forces have consistently 
resisted the 1997 Constitutional Court's ruling that transfers 
jurisdiction for human rights cases from military to civilian courts. 
They have failed to ensure that Armed Forces personnel who are credibly 
alleged to have committed human rights abuses are investigated, 
prosecuted, and punished in the civilian courts. They have resisted 
suspending military personnel who are alleged to be involved in human 
rights violations or to have collaborated with paramilitary groups. And 
they have grossly misrepresented their record, claiming that 576 human 
rights cases involving Armed Forces personnel were transferred to 
civilian courts when, in fact, only 39 cases of human rights violations 
were transferred--and those cases involved low level officials.
  The fourth condition contained in the bill requires the Secretary of 
State to certify that the Government of Colombia is vigorously 
prosecuting in the civilian courts the leaders and members of 
paramilitary groups and Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are aiding 
or abetting these groups.
  According to the 1999 State Department Human Rights Report, 
paramilitary groups accounted for about 78 percent of human rights 
abuses in 1999. In a rare televised interview, notorious paramilitary 
leader Carlos Castano recently admitted that cocaine and heroin fund an 
entire unit of 3,200 paramilitary fighters. Overall, he said that 70 
percent of his war chest is culled from drug trafficking.
  Despite President Pastrana's commitment to eliminate ties between the 
Colombian Armed Forces and paramilitary groups, the State Department, 
the United Nations, and human rights groups have documented continuing 
links. The 1999 State Department Human Rights Report stated that the 
Armed Forces and National Police sometimes ``tacitly tolerated'' or 
``aided and abetted'' the activities of paramilitary groups. According 
to the report, ``in some instances, individual members of the security 
forces actively collaborated with members of paramilitary groups by 
passing them through roadblocks, sharing intelligence, and providing 
them with ammunition. Paramilitary forces find a ready support base 
within the military and police.'' The report also concluded that 
``security forces regularly failed to confront paramilitary groups.'' 
The fact that Carlos Castano appeared on Colombian television in March, 
but remains invisible to Colombian law enforcement agencies, 
demonstrates the impunity with which he is able to operate in Colombia.
  Human Rights Watch has documented links between military and 
paramilitary groups. These links are not only in isolated, rural areas 
but in Colombia's principal cities. According to evidence collected by 
Human Rights Watch, half of Colombia's 18 brigade-level units are 
linked to paramilitary activity.
  The Colombian military has resisted investigating these links. 
Instead of investigating a credible allegation of military 
collaboration with paramilitary groups in a civilian massacre that 
occurred in the town of San Jose de Apartado on February 19, 2000, the 
Commander of the 17th Brigade filed suit against the non-governmental 
organization that made these allegations, charging that it had 
``impugned'' the honor of the military. If the Colombian Government is 
serious about severing the links between military and paramilitary 
groups, it must demonstrate, at all levels of government and the 
military, that these allegations will be investigated promptly and 
punished seriously. These links must be severed if the Colombian 
Government, with United States assistance, is to mount a successful 
counternarcotics campaign and stop the violence committed by illegal 
paramilitary groups. If these links are not severed, our Government 
will be complicit in the abuses.
  I recently met with Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, the chairman of 
the Colombian Senate's Human Rights Committee. She personally witnessed 
this military-paramilitary cooperation during her May 1999 kidnapping 
by paramilitary leader Carlos Castano. Senator Cordoba told me that the 
kidnappers' car passed through eight military roadblocks without being 
stopped or searched. She said that the helicopter that took her to the 
jungle camp where she was held landed at an airstrip just a few miles 
from a military base. She told me that Castano boasted when he showed 
her transcripts of her private telephone conversations, transcripts 
that he could have only obtained from military intelligence sources.
  The strong human rights conditions contained in this bill will ensure 
that the Colombian Government takes concrete steps to prosecute and 
punish military personnel alleged to have committed human rights abuses 
or to have collaborated with paramilitary groups. I commend Senators 
McConnell and Leahy for including this language in the bill. The 
conditions will also encourage the Colombian Government to arrest and 
prosecute at least some paramilitary leaders and members.
  During the conference on this bill, I urge the Senate conferees to 
insist on retaining these strong and well-considered conditions. The 
conditions contained in the House version of the bill, while certainly 
well-intentioned, are both weak and inconsistent with Colombia's 
Constitution. For example, the requirement to create a Judge Advocate 
General Corps within the Armed Forces to investigate human rights 
abuses is contrary to the 1997 ruling of Colombia's Constitutional 
Court that requires the investigation and prosecution of these abuses 
in the civilian justice system. The House provision regarding a 
Presidential waiver of the human rights conditions in case of 
``extraordinary circumstances'' seriously degrades the importance of 
human rights as a fundamental principle of U.S. foreign policy--a 
principle shared on a bipartisan basis over many years. The protection 
of human rights should not be a ``waivable'' foreign policy objective. 
It should be enforced with the same vigor as our anti-drug goals. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of a May 11 letter from Human Rights 
Watch on the House provisions be included in the Record at the end of 
my remarks. This letter reflects the strong opposition of the human 
rights community to these House provisions.
  Two years ago, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial presented its annual 
Human Rights Award to four Colombians who are leaders of grassroots 
efforts to defend human rights in Colombia. These Human Rights 
Laureates--Jaime Prieto Mendez, Mario Humberto Calixto, Gloria Ines 
Florez Schneider, and Berenice Celeyta Alayon--represented groups that 
fight for human rights, the rights of displaced persons, and the rights 
of political prisoners. These courageous individuals, and thousands of 
others like them throughout Colombia, risk their lives every

[[Page 11888]]

day. They need and deserve our support. The conditions included in this 
bill are for them. The conditions are also for us. They will guard 
against America's complicity in human rights violations in Colombia.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have followed the issue of 
narcotrafficking and other international crimes for years, particularly 
during my tenure as chairman of the Subcommittee on International 
Operations, Narcotics and Terrorism. Although I have many concerns 
about this piece of legislation, I believe we have a chance here to 
provide support to a Colombian administration trying to address its 
largest problem--drug trafficking.
  The line between counternarcotics and counterinsurgency is not at all 
clear in Colombia, but we cannot let this stop our extension of aid. 
Withholding aid is not an option. In doing so, we would send the 
message to Colombia, our important ally in the war on drugs, that when 
the going gets tough, they must go it alone. We must be very clear: the 
terrible human rights conditions in Colombia are inextricably tied to 
the narcoterrorists. That won't change overnight with our support of 
this assistance package, but it won't change at all without our help. 
And just as important as our support for this package will be our 
continuing oversight of its implementation. If human rights abuses 
continue, or if we begin to get embroiled in the counterinsurgency 
efforts, the Senate must remain vigilant, ending the program if 
necessary. But we cannot simply turn our backs and walk away.
  Civil conflict in Colombia has worn on for half a century as the 
government has fought narcoterrorists for control of the country. 
Opposition groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 
[FARC] and the National Liberation Army has made a business of 
guerrilla warfare and continue to terrorize the civilian population. 
Paramilitary groups, formed in the 1980's as anti-guerrilla forces, 
have resorted to many of the same terror tactics. Opposition and 
paramilitary groups control much of the country and the vast majority 
of the drug producing areas. It is clear that drug money fuels the 
fighting. In the last decade, this conflict has claimed over 35,000 
lives and has created a population of over a million and a half 
internally displaced persons.
  Colombian President Andres Pastrana, in sharp contrast to his recent 
predecessor, is trying to improve human rights conditions and promote 
democracy, under extremely difficult conditions. Under Pastrana, the 
Colombian Government has begun the first peace talks ever with the 
FARC. Though the talks have been slow moving and have encountered 
setbacks, Pastrana has clearly made the peace process a top priority.
  Plan Colombia was developed by President Pastrana as a comprehensive 
approach to strengthening the Colombian economy and promoting 
democracy, with heavy emphasis on fighting drug trafficking. In my 
view, any successful approach to Colombia's myriad of problems will 
require a strong counterdrug effort. The United States contribution to 
Plan Colombia, as proposed by the administration, does this.
  Let us be clear, however, that the drug trade in Colombia is not 
simply a Colombian problem. The United States is the largest and most 
reliable market for the Colombian cocaine and heroin that is at the 
center of this conflict. We have approximately 5.8 million cocaine 
users and 1.4. million heroin users. Based on the most recent National 
Household Survey on Drug Abuse estimates, fourteen million Americans 
are current drug users. Clearly we are making a large contribution to 
the problem and should therefore contribute to finding a solution.
  The United States must seize the opportunity presented by President 
Pastrana's current efforts to fight drug trafficking and bring 
stability to Colombia. This legislation offers us a chance to play a 
constructive role in Colombia while simultaneously promoting American 
interests.
  The Plan addresses the major components of the problem. ``Push into 
Southern Colombia'' is designated to affect the major growing and 
production areas in the South. It provides for the training of special 
dedicated narcotics battalions, and the purchase of helicopters for 
troop transport and interdiction. To complement this effort, 
interdiction tools will also be upgraded, including aircraft, 
airfields, early warning radar and intelligence gathering. The Plan 
also provides increased funding for eradication of coca and poppy, and 
the promotion of alternative crop development and employment. Perhaps 
most importantly, the Plan calls for and provides resources for 
increasing protection of human rights, expanding the rule of law, and 
promoting the peace process.
  As I outlined earlier, Colombia's situation is bleak, and this may be 
its last chance to begin to dig its way out. If we fail to support aid 
to Colombia, we can only sit back and watch it deteriorate even 
further. This Plan presents a unique opportunity to support the 
Colombian Government's effort to address its problems while at the same 
time promoting U.S. interests. The Colombian Government, despite 
immense obstacles, has begun to address significant human rights 
concerns and is working to instill the rule of law and democratic 
institutions. Though the United States is not in the business of 
fighting insurgents, we are in the business of fighting drugs, and this 
is clearly an opportunity to work with a willing partner in doing so.
  While I support a United States contribution to helping Colombia, I 
believe that if we are going to commit, we must do so in the context of 
an ongoing process under constant review to respond to changing needs.
  My first concern is the fine line that exists between 
counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations, particularly since 
they are so intertwined in Colombia. It is impossible to attack drug 
trafficking in Colombia without seriously undercutting the insurgents' 
operations. We must acknowledge that the more involved in Colombia's 
counternarcotics efforts we become the more we will become involved in 
its counterinsurgency, regardless of our intentions to steer clear of 
it. But, because the drug trade is the most destabilizing factor in 
Colombia, our cooperation with the government will over the long run, 
advance the development and expansion of democracy, and will limit the 
insurgents' ability to terrorize the civilian population. But our 
military involvement in Colombia should go no further than this. 
Efforts to limit number of personnel are designed to address this.
  I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleagues that the United 
States contribution to Plan Colombia is skewed in favor of the 
military, but we must keep in mind that our contribution is only a 
percentage of the total Plan. The total Plan Colombia price tag is 
approximately $7.5 billion. The Colombian Government has already 
committed $4 billion to the Plan, and has secured donations and loans 
from the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development 
Bank, the World Bank, the Andean Development Corporation, and the Latin 
American Reserve Fund. As part of our contribution, and to balance 
military aid, the United States must continue to support Colombian 
requests for additional funding from international financial 
institutions and other EU donors. We must also continue to implement 
stringent human rights vetting and end-use monitoring agreements, and 
make sure that our Colombia policy does not end with the extension of 
aid.
  Second, I am concerned that even if the Plan is successful at 
destroying coca production and reducing the northward flow of drugs, 
large numbers of coca farmers will be displaced, worsening the current 
crisis of internally displaced people in Colombia. Colombia has the 
largest population of internally displaced persons in the world, 
estimated at over one and half million in November 1999. Seventy 
percent of those displaced are children, and the vast majority of them 
no longer attend school. There is every indication that as Plan 
Colombia is implemented, this population may grow. This problem 
underscores the importance of supporting

[[Page 11889]]

the Colombians in their efforts to secure economic aid for alternative 
development. Unless we strongly support loans and additional donations, 
the danger remains that desperate farmers will simply move across the 
borders into Peru and Bolivia, and undo all the eradication progress 
that has been made in those areas.
  My third major concern with respect to this aid package is that it 
does not adequately address Colombia's human rights problem. The 
Colombian Government has made a real effort to address human rights and 
to promote the rule of law. Pastrana has worked to root out members of 
the military who have committed gross violations of human rights, and 
has suspended a number of high-level officers. He has also attacked 
corruption in the legislature, and has come under heavy fire for doing 
so. Despite this progress, there is no question that recent events in 
Colombia have raised some cause for concern. The Colombian Government's 
unfortunate decision to send back to the legislature a bill to 
criminalize genocide and forced disappearance was a significant setback 
for the promotion of human rights and the rule of law. I would like to 
commend my colleagues on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for 
bolstering the human rights component of this legislation. In addition 
to requiring additional reporting from the Secretary of State on the 
human rights practices of the Colombian security forces, Senator 
Leahy's provisions for human rights programs in the Colombian police 
and judiciary, a witness protection program and additional human rights 
monitors in our embassy and Bogota, and Senator Harkin's provision to 
provide $5 million to Colombian NGOs to protect child soldiers, 
demonstrate our commitment to improving the human rights situation.
  Despite my reservations, the potential benefits of this plan are too 
large to ignore. In light of the changes made by the committee, I 
believe the plan can help advance United States interests by reducing 
drug trafficking and thereby promoting stability and democracy in 
Colombia. We must now work to ensure that our concerns do not become 
realities. Recognizing that we are not the sole contributors to this 
Plan, we must support Colombia's requests for additional aid from our 
allies, and work closely with them to ensure that additional aid 
complements our efforts in the areas of human rights and strengthening 
the rule of law. The committee report recognizes the importance of 
reducing the drug trade first to build confidence among the Colombian 
people that progress can be made in other important areas such as 
economic development and democracy.
  Plan Colombia's counterdrug focus will also benefit the United States 
by reducing the flow of drugs to the United States. The United States 
is faced with a serious drug problem which must be attacked at both 
ends--supply and demand. Our consideration of counterdrug aid to 
Colombia should force us to look inward, reexamine our domestic 
counterdrug plan, and find ways strengthen it.
  The United States has long been the cocaine traffickers' largest and 
most reliable market, fueling continued and expanded cultivation and 
production. Without addressing the problem here at home, we present no 
reason to expect that the growers and traffickers will not continue to 
shift their operations to maintain access to their best market.
  Increasing funding and expanding drug treatment and prevention 
programs are absolutely imperative if we are to coordinate an effective 
counterdrug campaign, particularly if we are to expect any real 
improvement in the situation in Colombia. Levels of drug abuse in the 
United States have remained unacceptably high, despite stepped-up 
interdiction efforts and increased penalties for drug offenders.
  Our criminal justice system is flooded with drug offenders. Three-
quarters of all prisoners can be characterized as alcohol or drug 
involved offenders. An estimated 16 percent of convicted jail inmates 
committed their offense to get money for drugs, and approximately 70 
percent of prisoners were actively involved with drugs prior to their 
incarceration.
  America's drug problem is not limited to our hardened criminals. The 
1997 National Household Survey revealed that 77 million, or 36 percent 
of Americans aged 12 and older reported some use of an illicit drug at 
least once in their lifetime. The statistics in U.S. high schools are 
even more disturbing. According to a 1998 study by the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, 54 percent of high school seniors reported 
that they had used an illicit drug at least once and 41.4 percent 
reported use of an illicit drug within the past year.
  As we support Colombia's efforts to attack the sources of illegal 
drugs, we need to make sure we are addressing our own problems. 
According to recent estimates, approximately five million drug users 
needed immediate treatment in 1998 while only 2.1 million received it. 
It was also found that some populations--adolescents, women with small 
children, and racial and ethnic minorities--are badly underserved by 
treatment programs. Only 37 percent of substance-abusing mothers of 
minors received treatment in 1997. Drug offenders, when released from 
jail, are often not ready or equipped to deal with a return to social 
pressures and many return to their old habits if they are not provided 
with effective treatment while incarcerated and the social safety net 
they so desperately need upon release.
  It is clear that drug treatment works, and there is no excuse for the 
high numbers of addicts who have been unable to receive treatment. As 
we increase funding for supply reduction programs in Colombia, we must 
increase funding for treatment to balance and complement it. Drug 
research has made significant strides in recent years, and there are a 
variety of treatment options now available to help even the most 
hardcore addicts. These treatments have been successful in the lab 
studies. Now we must allow these methods to be successful in helping 
the population for whom they were developed. Access to drug abuse 
treatment in the United States is abysmal when compared to the 
resources we have to provide it.
  The administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy argues 
that a balanced approach that addresses both demand reduction and 
cutting off supply at the source is necessary to significantly reduce 
drug abuse in America. While Plan Colombia works to cut off the drug 
supply, we must balance that with increased funding for drug abuse 
prevention and better treatment programs that reach more of the 
population that so desperately needs it.
  Plan Colombia is an opportunity to help an important ally attack the 
sources of illegal drug production reduce the flow of cocaine and 
heroin to the United States. The United States must stay engaged with 
the Pastrana government and support its critical efforts to combat drug 
trafficking. Instead of being limited by our reservations, we must use 
them to carefully craft a policy that addresses economic development, 
political stability, human rights and the rule of law. Drug trafficking 
is the major obstacle to the advancement of these goals, and it must be 
curbed if any progress is to be made in our drug war at home.


                           amendment no. 3546

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the capital city of India, a woman is 
burned to death every 12 hours. Earlier this week, NPR reported the 
story of a courageous survivor of a phenomenon that is commonly 
referred to as ``dowry deaths.'' Joti Dowan was held prisoner by her 
husband and mother-in-law for two years because she refused to ask her 
mother for a $1,000 dowry.
  Locked in a tiny room, isolated from friends and family, and rationed 
only two pieces of bread a day, Joti weighed only 55 pounds when 
authorities found her. Frequent beatings and malnutrition left her too 
weak to stand without help. A long scar covers her arm because, at one 
point during her torture, her husband and his family tried to kill her 
by dousing her with kerosene. It was only because they feared her 
screams would alert the neighbors that they extinguished the fire.
  Shelanie Agerwall was shot and killed by her husband when he became 
dissatisfied with the new car that originally came with her dowry. He

[[Page 11890]]

traded in the vehicle for a more expensive one and demanded his wife's 
family compensate him for the extra cost. When Shelanie Agerwall's 
family did not pay him quickly enough, he murdered her.
  Death resulting from dowry disputes are on the rise. In 1998, 12,600 
women in India were victims of dowry deaths--a 15 percent increase from 
the previous year. Burning a woman to death is the most common form of 
dowry death. Commonly referred to as ``bride burning,'' women are 
doused with kerosene and lit on fire. In many cases, their murder is 
planned to look like a cooking accident.
  The law provides little or no support for the victims of dowry 
disputes. Corruption is rampant throughout the system--police are 
bribed by the husbands' families to destroy evidence, doctors are 
persuaded to change their testimony, and the legal system rarely 
convicts husbands and families guilty of dowry deaths.
  Dowry has evolved from a custom to a form of extortion. The demand 
for quick money to buy consumer goods has increased the demands for so-
called ``dowries'' throughout India. As a result, the use of dowries 
has spread to communities which never before had a dowry custom. The 
growing middle class has been met by eager manufacturers. Conspicuous 
consumption demands greater dowry payments.
  In April, a 29-year-old Pakistani woman was shot dead in the law 
office of a leading human rights activist. Her parents had ordered the 
killing because she had shamed the family by seeking a divorce.
  Perveen Aktar, a 37-year-old woman living in Pakistan, was severely 
burned in September when her husband, a fruit peddler, threw acid on 
her. According to Aktar, whose face, back, and chest are badly scarred, 
her husband wanted to return to his first wife, and she refused. She 
went to the police, but her husband paid them a series of bribes, and 
they did not investigate.
  These women's struggles are a part of a larger epidemic of ``honor 
killings''--or culturally sanctioned killing of women in the name of 
preserving a family's honor. ``Honor crimes'' remain a serious problem 
in many countries, including: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.
  Few statistics are available on honor crimes, but the independent 
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported that in 1998 and 1999, 
more than 850 women were killed by their husbands, brothers, fathers or 
other relatives in Punjab, Pakistan's most populous province.
  In many of those cases, the woman was suspected of what was 
considered ``immoral behavior.'' According to lawyers and women's 
rights advocates, many such cases are never brought to trial. Police 
are easily bribed or persuaded by the men's families to dismiss the 
complaints as ``domestic accidents.''
  Some say that the problems of ``dowry deaths'' and ``honor killings'' 
are cultural. These problems are criminal, not cultural, and we have an 
obligation to do something about it.
  The amendment I offered would encourage the Secretary of State to 
meet with representatives from countries that have a high incidence of 
``dowry deaths'' and ``honor killings'' to assess ways to work together 
to increase awareness about these problems and to develop strategies to 
end these practices.
  The United States, as a world leader, needs to realize its influence 
in the world. I do not believe it is our place to go into other 
countries and dictate their traditions. But at the same time, we need 
to send a message to those countries that condone the brutal killings 
of innocent women.


               international rule of law program in china

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my good friend, the senior Senator 
from Pennsylvania, yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I am pleased to yield to my friend the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I note in the committee's report that $2 million is 
being designated for the creation of an International Rule of Law 
Program in China. The report states that the U.S. Agency for 
International Development is requested to give serious consideration to 
the proposal of Temple University Law School in cooperation with New 
York University Law School to establish a Business Law Center in China.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. It is the intention of the committee to 
support these two prestigious institutions in building upon the very 
important Temple University Masters of Law Program in Beijing, which is 
the first and only foreign law degree-granting program in China. After 
reviewing the case of Yongyi Song, a librarian at Dickinson College in 
Pennsylvania who was released in January after being held under dubious 
charges in China, I believe the U.S. Congress should support programs 
that advance the rule of law in China. At a time when the People's 
Republic of China is seeking permanent most-favored-nation status and 
seeking entry into the World Trade Organization, it is my hope that the 
government of the PRC will respect basic norms for due process such as 
an open public trial and the right to confer with counsel. 
International Rule of Programs such as the Temple University/NYU 
Program are important means to build understanding and respect for 
these basic norms in the Chinese legal community.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I agree that this is an important program which the 
Congress should support, and it is my hope that this funding will be 
maintained as the bill goes to conference with the House. I have one 
further question. Is it the committee's intention that the U.S. Agency 
for International Development provide the full amount of this funding 
to an individual rule of law program in the People's Republic of China, 
such as the program by Temple University, in cooperation with New York 
University, for the creation of their Business Law Center in China?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. I certainly encourage AID to release 
the full funding as designated in the committee's report.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my good friend for his helpful clarification.


                           amendment no. 3547

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, over the years, I have come to the Senate 
floor on many occasions to talk about female genital mutilation (FGM). 
Still, it is very difficult for me to stand here and talk about 
something as repulsive, as cruel and as unusual as the practice of FGM. 
But ignoring this issue because of the discomfort it causes us does 
nothing but perpetuate the silent acquiescence of its practice.
  For those who are unfamiliar with this ritual, FGM is the cutting 
away of the female genitals and then sewing up the opening, leaving 
only a small hole for urine and menstrual flow. In many cases, the 
girl's legs are bound together for weeks while a permanent scar forms. 
It is performed on girls between the ages of 4 and 12.
  This is a practice that has been around for thousands of years and is 
not going to go away overnight. We need to continue to talk about it 
and insist upon aggressive education of the African communities that 
practice it, as well as the implementation of laws prohibiting it.
  Several years ago, I passed legislation that requires the Health and 
Human Services Secretary to identify and compile data on immigrant 
communities in the United States who are practicing FGM. I worked to 
pass legislation, that is now law, to make criminal the practice of FGM 
in the United States.
  I have offered two amendments that would keep the United States 
focused on its work to eliminate FGM abroad. One amendment would allow 
US AID (US Agency for International Development) to spend up to $1.5 
million on its activities to eradicate FGM. My second amendment 
requires the Secretary of State to further study FGM and to submit her 
findings along with a set of recommendations on how the United States 
can best work to eliminate the practice of FGM to Congress by June 1, 
2001.
  US AID has a long history of supporting the eradication of FGM, 
however, it still has a long way to go. In 1995, Congress mandated that 
US AID

[[Page 11891]]

dedicate one million dollars to efforts to end FGM. Since 1995, funding 
for this program has fluctuated from a low level of $500,000 per year 
to a high level of $800,000 per year. My amendment will restore funding 
to this important program.
  It is estimated that 130 million girls are genitally mutilated. Every 
year, two million girls face FGM--that's 6,000 girls every day.
  Last year, I met with Waris Dirie, an activist and supermodel, who 
serves as a special ambassador for the Elimination of FGM for the 
United Nations Population Fund. A native of Somalia and born to a 
nomadic family, Ms. Dirie survived the traditional form of FGM that 
kills hundreds of women every year--her younger sister and two cousins 
died from the procedure. At age 13, just before she was to be married 
off to an elderly man, Ms. Dirie ran away from home. She has left the 
glamour of the fashion world to speak out and work to eradicate this 
heinous procedure.
  As Ms. Dirie will tell you, the initial operation leads to many 
health complications that will plague the girl throughout her life--if 
she does not bleed to death during the procedure. But the immediate 
health risks are not over after a couple of months or even a couple of 
years after the operation. When a girl is married, her husband either 
has to force himself upon her, or re-cut her in order to have sexual 
intercourse.
  During child birth, additional cutting and stitching takes place with 
each birth. All of this re-cutting and stitching creates tough scar 
tissue. The procedure is usually performed by female laypeople and is 
most often performed with a razor, knife, or even a piece of glass.
  Often, we refer to FGM as a women's issue, but this needs to be seen 
as a child abuse issue as well. A four year-old girl does not have the 
ability to consent or to understand the significance and the 
consequence this ritual will have on her life, on her health, or on her 
dignity. Young girls are tied and held down, they scream in pain and 
are not only physically scarred, they are emotionally scarred for life.
  We know a lot about the psychological effects of child abuse from 
studying children of domestic abuse in the United States. Imagine the 
psychological effect this must have on children from the initial 
operation throughout adulthood. The health complications are a constant 
reminder of the mutilation they endured.
  I understand that this custom is deeply embedded in African culture. 
However, that does not mean we should pretend it is not happening. 
According to a report by Amnesty International, FGM is practiced in 
African countries where it has already been criminalized. In some of 
these countries, over 90% of the women undergo FGM, in spite of laws 
prohibiting it.
  This is a cruel and tortuous procedure performed on young girls 
against their will. The United States must make all efforts to condemn 
and to curb this practice.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 
2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which has been moved to 
third reading.
  Most immediately, the supplemental emergency funding for Assistance 
to Plan Colombia--requested by the President at the beginning of the 
year, and passed by the House months ago--can finally be included in 
the Military Construction Appropriations bill already in Conference.
  In Colombia, we have a real opportunity to work with a 
democratically-elected government which is committed to combatting drug 
production and trafficking in a country which supplies most of the 
heroin and about 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I recently visited Colombia to assess what our aid 
could accomplish. I went to see the scope of drug crop cultivation and 
processing, to look into the political context, the human rights 
situation, the goals of the Pastrana Government, and to assess the 
capabilities of the military and the police.
  I went with an open mind, though I was concerned about the horrendous 
abuses of human rights and with the effects of Colombian cocaine and 
heroin on the streets of New Jersey and other states.
  I left Colombia convinced that we can help Colombia and help America 
by cooperating in the fight against drug production, trafficking, and 
use. Let me briefly share a few of my observations and conclusions:
  Aid for Plan Colombia is strongly in the U.S. interest. While there 
can be legitimate differences of opinion about the exact content of the 
aid package, we must use the opportunity to cooperate with a fellow 
democracy to fight the scourge of drugs which harms both our people.
  This is a genuine emergency and should be funded as such. Drug crop 
eradication, training, and counter-narcotics military and police 
operations have been curtailed for lack of funds. Other elements of the 
package--like helicopters and alternative development aid--have longer 
lead times, but the process cannot start until the funds are passed.
  Every week we delay, 1,000 more acres of coca are planted, so the 
problem grows ever larger and narcotics-trafficking groups grow 
stronger.
  Colombia's political will is strong. While the political situation in 
Colombia is uncertain, President Pastrana and the Colombian Congress 
have backed away from forcing early elections and appear to be working 
out their differences. But the Colombian people and their elected 
representatives want an end to the violence.
  They support peace negotiations with the FARC and ELN guerrillas. And 
they know the violence will not end as long as it is fueled by drug 
trafficking and its dirty proceeds.
  The U.S. and Colombia have a symbiosis of interest in combating drug 
production and trafficking.
  While the Colombians mainly want to end financial support for various 
armed groups, they are highly motivated to cooperate with our main 
goal--eliminating a major source of narcotics destined for the United 
States.
  Colombia's military and police need reform and assistance. I was 
appalled to learn that any conscript with a high school education is 
exempt from combat duty, so only the poorest, least-educated people 
serve in front-line units.
  Moreover, the standards of training for most military personnel are 
quite low, and the NCO corps is particularly weak. Colombia needs to 
accelerate military reforms, some of which require legislation.
  But the U.S. can also help a great deal by providing sound training 
to the Counter-Narcotics Battalions which will be most directly 
involved in operations supporting the Colombian National Police as they 
eradicate crops, destroy laboratories and processing facilities, and 
arrest traffickers.
  We need to improve protection for human rights in Colombia. The 
Colombian people face very real risks of murder, kidnapping, extortion, 
and other heinous crimes, so they always live in fear. Hundreds of 
thousands of people have fled the violence. The Colombian Government--
including the military and the police--take human rights issues very 
seriously.
  We need to hold them to their commitments to make further progress, 
as the Senate bill language Senators Kennedy and Leahy and I authored 
would do. I was particularly impressed that the independent Prosecutor 
General's Office--known as the Fiscalia --is firmly committed to 
prosecuting criminals, particularly human rights violators.
  But in meeting with Colombian human rights groups, I learned that the 
overwhelming majority of human rights abuses are committed by the 
paramilitary groups, followed by the guerrillas. Colombia must sever 
any remaining ties between its military and the paramilitary groups and 
treat them like the drug-running outlaws they are.
  On the whole, winning the war on drugs in Colombia should do more to 
improve security and safeguard human rights than anything else we or 
the Colombian government can do.
  Mr. President, I reluctantly opposed the Amendment offered by the 
Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.

[[Page 11892]]

  I share his conviction that we as a country must do more to reduce 
the demand for illegal drugs in our society.
  In 1998, the most recent year for which I have these statistics, more 
than 5 million Americans were chronic, hard-core users of illegal 
drugs.
  Just over 2 million--less than half of them--received treatment. I 
firmly believe that we should provide drug treatment for every drug 
addict willing to make the tremendous effort to overcome his or her 
addiction. In my view, we should ensure that no one leaves our 
prisons--whether federal, state, or local--addicted to narcotics.
  We absolutely must do more to reduce demand and thus reduce the use 
of dangerous drugs and reduce the terrible toll drug use and related 
crime takes on our society.
  Where I differ with the Senator from Minnesota is that I do not 
believe we should undermine our Assistance for Plan Colombia to pay for 
increased domestic drug treatment and prevention programs.
  Even if we were to fully fund the President's request for Assistance 
to Plan Colombia, our international programs would account for only 
about one-tenth of our counter-narcotics budget.
  In Colombia, we have a real opportunity to work with a 
democratically-elected government which is committed to combating drug 
production and trafficking in a country which supplies most of the 
heroin and about 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United 
States.
  In short, Mr. President, I opposed the Wellstone Amendment because I 
believe we need to keep working to reduce demand for drugs here in 
America, but not at the expense of cutting efforts to eliminate a major 
source of drugs to our country.
  I also opposed the Amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, 
Senator Gorton. I voted against a similar Amendment in the 
Appropriations Committee, and my subsequent visit to Colombia leaves me 
more convinced than ever that I was right to do so.
  Our vote on the Gorton Amendment was, quite simply, a vote on the 
proposed Assistance to Plan Colombia. We all know that President 
Pastrana's Plan Colombia--which includes an aggressive counternarcotics 
effort--could not go forward with only one hundred or two hundred 
million dollars in U.S. aid.
  Even if the Gorton amendment had merely delayed funding, as its 
sponsor has argued, it would have prevented President Clinton from 
seizing the opportunity to act now. In my view, we have waited too long 
already to address a major source of the narcotics which bring so much 
harm on the American people.
  We have a tremendous opportunity--if we are willing to devote a 
reasonable level of funding--to drastically curtail the production 
cocaine and heroin in Colombia while supporting democracy and the rule 
of law in that country.
  I am concerned that other emergency needs have not been met.
  The President requested emergency supplemental funds for Kosovo and 
the Southeast Europe Initiative to help bring peace and stability to 
that troubled region, but those funds have not been provided.
  Funding for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, 
multilateral debt relief trust fund also was not provided, so we cannot 
fulfill our goals to help relieve the world's poorest countries from 
the crushing burdens of debt. I hope we will be able to address these 
deficiencies in Conference with the House on emergency supplemental 
appropriations.
  Let me turn now to the underlying Foreign Operations Appropriations 
for fiscal year 2001.
  As I noted when we considered this bill in Committee, I believe 
Subcommittee Chairman McConnell and Ranking Member Leahy, working with 
other Senators and aided by their capable staff, have done a good job 
of allocating the resources available to them.
  I particularly appreciate their help to include revised language to 
ensure our aid in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia is used 
to help bring war criminals to justice. I also support the creation of 
an account for Global Health, with increased funding for tuberculosis, 
AIDS, and other health challenges. And the bill fully funds support for 
our ally Israel and peace in the Middle East.
  That said, Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the funds 
provided for the Foreign Operations Subcommittee simply are not 
sufficient to sustain America's global leadership as we begin a new 
century.
  President Clinton requested increased funding for international 
programs in fiscal year 2001, though still far less in real terms than 
we spent in the mid-1980s.
  But the bill before us today falls about $1.7 billion short of the 
President's request.
  Let me cite just a few examples of the cuts:
  Funding for the Global Environment Facility is more than $125 million 
below the President's request, so our arrears will continue to mount 
and environmentally-sustainable development projects in poor countries 
will not be funded. Even the International Development Association, or 
IDA--the main institution known as the World Bank--is funded below last 
year's level and more than $85 million below the Administration's 
request.
  While I appreciate Chairman McConnell's strong funding for Central 
and Eastern Europe, it's not nearly enough to make up for the Kosovo 
supplemental which was apparently not funded.
  Meanwhile, assistance to the Independent States of the former Soviet 
Union--many of them still at a critical stage in their economic and 
political transition--is $55 million below the level requested by the 
Administration.
  The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement and Non-
Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism and Demining accounts are each cut by 
nearly $100 million from the President's request.
  I don't want to waste the Senate's time citing all the examples, but 
I hope I've made my point.
  President Clinton sought a more responsible level of international 
affairs spending within his balanced budget, but this bill is more than 
11 percent below the Administration's request.
  Mr. President, I believe we need to strengthen Foreign Operations 
funding as this bill goes to Conference with the House. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues on the subcommittee to make that happen, 
so we can avoid having this bill vetoed.
  We need to work together to achieve a responsible Foreign Operations 
funding level which will advance America's interest and reflect 
America's values around the world.
  I thank the chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the foreign operations appropriations bill 
that the Senate completed debate on today contains $934 million to 
launch a major counter-narcotics initiative in Colombia. Other 
financing attached to the Military Construction and Defense 
Appropriations bills boosts that total to well over a billion dollars.
  This funding will enable the United States to embark on a massive 
ramping up of its counter-narcotics offensive in Colombia. But 
curiously enough, the bulk of this program is being implemented through 
a series of supplemental funding measures. A major anti-narcotics 
program in Central America, anchored on the provision of U.S. military 
equipment and U.S. military and State Department advisers, seems to me 
to be a policy issue that begs for in depth Congressional discussion 
and consideration. And yet, we are effectively creating it through 
supplemental appropriations. This may be an expedient way to deal with 
a difficult problem, but I question its efficacy. I wholeheartedly 
support aggressive counter-narcotics efforts. Illegal drugs and drug 
abuse are scourges on our society, and we cannot pretend that the 
problem will go away if we simply ignore it. But I am concerned about 
the large number of unanswered questions surrounding the President's 
plan.
  I understand where the money is to be spent, and what it is to be 
spent on, but I am unclear as to what the results are expected to be. 
What precise impact is the U.S. assistance expected to

[[Page 11893]]

have on the production of cocaine and heroin into the United States? 
What impact will massive U.S. assistance to Colombia have on drug 
production in other Andean Ridge nations? What impact will intensified 
U.S. assistance to the government of Colombia's have on Colombia's 
internal politics and simmering civil war? And, most importantly, what 
impact will this initiative have on reducing drug abuse and the toll of 
the illegal drug trade within the United States.
  Providing answers to those, and other questions, is the primary 
intent of a provision that I added in Committee to the foreign 
operations appropriations bill. My provision requires the 
Administration to seek and receive congressional authorization before 
spending any money on U.S. support for the counter-narcotics program in 
Colombia, called Plan Colombia, beyond the funding contained in this 
and other relevant spending bills. If this funding is sufficient, all 
well and good. But if more money is needed to prolong or expand the 
anti-drug effort, then Congress has a responsibility to reevaluate the 
entire program. The purpose of my provision is to prevent the U.S. 
government from slowly but steadily increasing its participation in the 
anti-narcotics effort in Colombia until it finds itself embroiled in, 
at best, a costly and open-ended anti-drug campaign throughout the 
Andean Ridge, or, at worst, a bloody civil war in Colombia.
  A secondary goal of my provision is to limit the number of U.S. 
personnel engaged in the counter-narcotics offensive in Colombia to 
specific levels unless Congress approves higher levels of U.S. 
personnel. The provision, which I modified to address concerns raised 
by the Defense Department, imposes a ceiling of 500 U.S. military 
personnel and 300 U.S. civilian contractors working on Plan Colombia in 
Colombia unless Congress authorizes higher levels.
  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Defense 
Department indicated that it would not be opposed to troop caps. This 
is a prudent measure that Congress should endorse to ensure that U.S. 
involvement does not unwittingly spiral out of control in Colombia.
  In an effort to ensure that my provision does not impede ongoing 
counter-narcotics operations in Colombia, I amended it to address 
concerns raised by the Administration regarding the availability of 
funds provided in the FY 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill, and the 
availability of relevant unobligated balances in other spending bills. 
My amendment protects ongoing programs without giving the 
Administration the green light to begin empire building in Colombia.
  There are those, I am sure, who will say that my provision is too 
cumbersome, that we should simply handle this huge counter-narcotics 
offensive in the normal course of business. That, I believe, would be a 
dangerous course of action, one that would invite mission creep and 
deep entanglement in the internal affairs of Colombia.
  U.S. assistance to Plan Colombia is not, and should not be, business 
as usual. If the Administration is sincere in its commitment to launch 
a major, coordinated, inter-agency offensive against the burgeoning 
drug industry in Colombia, then the Administration should welcome the 
spotlight that my provision will shine on its efforts. The 
Administration should welcome the extra safeguards that this language 
provides against unintended consequences.
  Mr. President, winning the war against illegal drugs is vitally 
important to the future of our nation and to the future of our 
neighbors, but it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that we 
are allocating U.S. taxpayers dollars in the most effective manner 
possible. Congress cannot make that determination without fully 
exploring the goals and potential ramifications of this effort to 
provide assistance to Colombia. My provision provides the minimum 
necessary safeguards to ensure congressional oversight of Plan 
Colombia. I commend the Senate for maintaining the integrity and the 
intent of this provision.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with several of my 
colleagues, including Senator Chafee, Senator Mack, Senator Biden, and 
Senator Leahy in sponsoring this Sense of the Senate amendment to the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. I am also very pleased that 
agreement has been reached for the amendment to be accepted. The 
amendment calls on the Senate to support full authorization and funding 
for international debt relief. I worked with Senator Mack last year in 
introducing the ``Debt Relief for Poor Countries Act of 1999,'' and am 
glad to work with him again on this important issue.
  The purpose of this amendment is to highlight one of the major 
shortcomings in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, as reported 
out of Committee, which only included $75 million for the purposes of 
debt relief. That allocation falls far short of what the Administration 
has requested and what is needed to meet our obligations to the HIPC 
(Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) trust fund and bilateral debt relief 
commitments. The Administration has requested $210 million for FY 2000 
for HIPC and $225 million for FY 2001 ($150 million to HIPC and $75 
million for bilateral debt relief). This money is necessary for us to 
meet our commitments to the HIPC trust fund, estimated at $600 million 
over the next three years, and our commitments to bilateral debt 
reductions, estimated at $375 million over the same period.
  The Administration has also requested an authorization from Congress 
to support use for HIPC debt relief of the full earnings on profits 
from IMF off-market gold sales.
  Why is debt relief so important? Many poor countries are saddled with 
large debt payments. All too often, payments on the foreign debt--which 
account for as much as 70 percent of government expenditures in some 
countries--mean there is little left to meet basic human needs of the 
population, such as health, education, nutrition, sanitation, and basic 
social services.
  As a group, HIPCs post some of the world's lowest human development 
indicators: one in ten children dies before their first birthday; one 
in three children is malnourished; the average person attends only 
three years of school; half of all citizens live on less than $1 dollar 
a day; HIV infection rates are as a high as 20 percent.
  In effect, debt service payments are making it even harder for the 
recipient governments to enact the kinds of economic and political 
reforms that the loans were designed to encourage, and that are 
necessary to ensure broad-based growth and future prosperity.
  Last year, President Clinton pledged to cancel all $5.7 billion of 
debt owed to the U.S. government by 36 of the poorest countries. 
Canceling the debt will not cost the full $5.7 billion because many of 
the loans would never have been repaid and are no longer worth their 
full face-value. It does not make economic sense to keep these loans on 
the books.
  Additionally, I believe U.S. leadership is at stake. As the richest 
country in the world and as one that has long been interested in the 
development of poor countries, we risk losing our moral authority in 
the international arena if we cannot, especially during our country's 
time of prosperity, alleviate the crushing debt burden of many poor 
countries.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like once again to address the 
issue of unrequested and unnecessary earmarks in the annual foreign 
operations appropriations bill.
  It is a constant struggle, Mr. President, to maintain a reasonable--
if not always adequate--amount of funding for foreign operations when 
the public overwhelmingly opposes foreign aid programs. It is therefore 
incumbent upon those of us who believe that foreign aid programs are an 
important component of U.S. national security policy to spend that 
budget wisely. As usual, the foreign operations appropriations bill 
before us squanders vital financial resources for unnecessary, low-
priority and unrequested programs. Once again, pressuring the Agency 
for International Development to fund research into the future welfare 
of the Waboom tree; providing millions

[[Page 11894]]

of dollars for organizations like the Orangutan Foundation, the 
Peregrine Fund's Neotropical Raptor Center, the Missouri Botanical 
Garden, the Dian Fossey Gorrilla Fund, and the World Council of 
Hellenes--none of which was requested by the Agency for International 
Development or the Department of State--was deemed preferential to 
higher priority activities that unquestionably contribute to regional 
stability in less developed countries.
  Mr. President, the notion that funding from the foreign aid budget 
not requested by the Administration should only go to organizations and 
programs following an objective, rigorous and competitive process 
eludes the Appropriations Committee. I am not reflexively opposed to 
all of the programs for which funding was added in this bill. I do take 
strong exception to the process by which funding is earmarked for 
parochial reasons. The bill before us today is replete with such 
examples. A long list of earmarks for university programs, the vast 
majority of which coincide with membership on the Appropriations 
Committee, is more evidence than even the O.J. Simpson jury would need 
that reasonable doubt exists as to whether such objective criteria are 
employed.
  United States military forces are being deployed at record levels; 
conflicts in Africa and elsewhere are raging out of control, bringing 
with them untold misery, and we continue to pass spending bills of such 
dubious merit. I will support passage of the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, but only because it is imperative that funding for 
Israel, Egypt, refugee and migration assistance, and other vital 
programs receive the timely assistance they require. But to be forced 
to swallow such questionable earmarks as the $1 million for the Fort 
Valley State University agribusiness program in Georgia--and I should 
point out that the Republic of Georgia has no greater friend in the 
Senate than me--without the benefit of a competitive analytical process 
is more than a little painful. I suppose it is only appropriate that, 
once again, we are adding funding, this year to the tune of $4 million, 
for the International Fertilizer Development Center. There is something 
strangely appropriate that we spend tens of millions of dollars to fund 
the fertilizer center given the process by which this bill is put 
together every year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement appear in 
the Record, accompanied by the list of earmarks and directive language 
that I have assembled.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
           Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S. 2522)


                    directive language and earmarks

     Report language provisions
       Iodine Deficiency/Kiwanis: Recommends that AID provide at 
     least $5 million to Kiwanis International via UNICEF
       Streetwise Program: Encourages AID to provide $50,000 for 
     the program
       Morehouse School of Medicine: Expects AID to provide $5.5 
     million for the Morehouse School of Medicine's International 
     Center for Health and Development
       Iowa State University: Recommends that $1 million provided 
     to support Iowa State University's International Women in 
     Science and Engineering program
       International Executive Service Corporation: Strongly 
     supports the efforts of the IESC, believes that AID has 
     underutilized the corporation, and urges AID to grant funds 
     to IESC to expand its programs
       International Rice Research Institute: Recommends $5 
     million for the institute
       Donald Danforth Plant Science Center: Recommends up to 
     $500,000 to train Thai researchers at the center, and 
     recommends up to $500,000 for research into bacterial and 
     virus problems related to rice
       Tropical Plant and Animal Research Initiative: Urges AID to 
     fund a joint Israel-State of Hawaii research and development 
     project to enhance the competitiveness of the tropical fish 
     and global plant market
       Protea Germplasm: Urges AID to fund meritorious aspects of 
     a joint South Africa-U.S. protea industry proposal to create 
     a repository to safeguard protea germplasm
       Missouri Botanical Garden: Directs AID to increase funding 
     for biodiversity conservation above current level and to work 
     with the Missouri Botanical Garden to protect biodiversity
       Orangutan Foundation: Provides $1.5 million to support 
     organizations such as the Orangutan Foundation
       Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International and the Karisoke 
     Research Center: Provides $1.5 million to support the fund 
     and the center
       Peregrine Fund: Recommends $500,000 for the Peregrine 
     Fund's Neotropical Raptor Center
       Pacific International Center for High Technology Research: 
     Encourages AID to provide up to $500,000 for the center
       Soils Management Collaborative Research Support Program/
     Montana State University: Recommends that AID provide $3 
     million for the SM-CRSP, and encourages AID to provide 
     $500,000 through the SM-CRSP to Montana State University-
     Bozeman
       U.S./Israel Cooperative Development Program and Cooperative 
     Development Research Program: Urges an increase in funding 
     for CDP/CDR
       Patrick J. Leahy War Victims Fund: Recommends that $11 
     million be made available to support the fund's work
       American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: The Appropriations 
     Committee regularly allocates funds for specific 
     institutions, usually the same institutions every year, under 
     the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program. The 
     following are specified as deserving of further support:
       The Lebanese American University, International College
       The Johns Hopkins University's Centers in Nanjing and 
     Bologna
       The Hadassah Medical Organization
       The Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute of 
     Science
       American University in Beirut: encourages consideration of 
     a plan to establish a Palestinian scholarship and education 
     initiative
       City University-Bellevue, Washington: encourages AID to 
     provide adequate resources to build a new administrative 
     center and expand the program to educate Eastern European 
     students in democratic practices and principles
       University Development Assistance Programs: The Committee 
     annually earmarks or ``recommends'' funding for specific 
     universities around the United States without benefit of 
     competitive analytical processes to determine the value of 
     the activity and whether it can best be done in an alternate 
     manner. The following universities are expected to continue 
     to receive such funds:
       University of Vermont, $500,000, to establish and advanced 
     telecommunications link between three hospitals in Vietnam 
     and the University of Vermont College of Medicine
       Champlain College, for the U.S.-Ukraine Community 
     Partnerships Project
       American University in Bulgaria, to sustain the 
     university's program
       Utah State University, $1.1 million, for the university's 
     proposed World Irrigation Applied Research and Training 
     Center, and $1 million for the university to assist the Arab-
     American University of Jenin to establish a College of 
     Agriculture of Jenin
       University of Missouri, $2 million, for establishment of 
     the Center for Livestock Infectious Disease
       University of Mississippi, $2 million, for the National 
     Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, for 
     the purpose of transferring technology to the Polish Academy 
     of Sciences
       Mississippi State University, $2 million, for the Office of 
     International Programs
       Boise State University, $2 million, to continue and expand 
     the university's involvement with the National Economics 
     University's Business School in Vietnam
       University of Miami, $3.5 million, for the Cuban transition 
     project
       University of Northern Iowa, for the Orava Project in 
     Slovakia
       Washington State University, Purdue University, South 
     Carolina University, and the University of Jordan, $1 
     million, for water research in the Middle East
       Washington State University, $2.46 million, for research, 
     education, and training in international food security in 
     collaboration with the State of Washington, the International 
     Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement, and institutions in 
     Central Asia and the Caucasus
       University of South Carolina, $1 million, for the 
     International Urban Growth Network; $1 million, for the Earth 
     Sciences and Resources Institute; $2.5 million, for joint 
     Chernobyl-effect research with Texas Tech University
       George Mason University, $2 million, for health care in 
     developing countries
       Loyola University, $1 million, for the Family Law Institute 
     for Latin American Judges
       Louisiana State University, $1 million, for the 
     International Emergency Management Training Center
       Historically Black Colleges, $1 million, for the Renewable 
     Energy for African Development Program
       St. Thomas University, $5 million, for the Institute for 
     Democracy in Africa
       University of Notre Dame, $1.2 million, to support human 
     rights & democracy in Colombia in collaboration with Inter-
     American Dialogue and the Colombian Commission of Jurists

[[Page 11895]]

       Western Kentucky University, $2 million, for an independent 
     media initiative
       University of Louisville, $1.5 million, to work with 
     impoverished South African communities in partnership with 
     Rand Afrikaans University
       China Rule of Law/Temple Law School: Recommends $2 million 
     for an International Rule of Law program and urges AID to 
     consider a proposal for Temple Law School, in collaboration 
     with New York University School of Law, to operate a Business 
     Law Center in China
       Tibet/Bridge Fund: Recommends $1.5 million to support 
     development projects administered by the Bridge Fund
       Sharada Dhanvantari Charitable Hospital: Recommends 
     $250,000 for the Sharada Dhanvantari Charitable Hospital to 
     administer health care in Karnataka, India
       University of Chicago/Chicago House: Urges AID to continue 
     to support the Chicago House in Luxor, Egypt
       Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust: Urges the International 
     Fund for Ireland to support the work of this organization
       Academic Consortium for Global Education: Expects AID to 
     continue funding the consortium at the current level
       Florida State University: Recommends AID support a distance 
     learning project being developed by the university
       University of South Carolina: Directs AID to provide 
     $750,000 for the University of South Carolina College of 
     Criminal Justice's Moscow Police Command College
       Magee Womancare International: Encourages AID to work with 
     Magee Womancare International to distribute vitamins and 
     educate at-risk Russian women on the importance of nutrition 
     in pregnancy and infancy
       World Council of Hellenes: Urges the Department of State to 
     provide $1.5 million for the council's Primary Health Care 
     Initiative
       Rotary International/Anchorage Interfaith Council/
     Municipality of Anchorage: Supports $5 million for providing 
     medical and other assistance to improve the lives of Russian 
     orphans, and expects AID to work with Rotary International, 
     the Anchorage Interfaith Council, and the Municipality of 
     Anchorage to do so
       International Republican Institute/National Democratic 
     Institute: Directs AID to assure continuity in support for 
     IRI & NDI efforts to contribute to political reforms in 
     Ukraine
       University of Louisville: Earmarks $1 million for training 
     in water and wastewater management in the Republic of Georgia
       Fort Valley State University: Earmarks $1 million for 
     training in agribusiness in the Republic of Georgia
       City University of New York: Earmarks $1 million for 
     training in transportation in the Republic of Georgia
       Colombia Child Soldiers: Instructs the Secretary of State 
     to transfer $5 million to the Department of Labor for 
     rehabilitation and demobilization of child soldiers, and 
     urges the Department of Labor to work with the Colombia 
     Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, Justapaz, Asoda, 
     Ceda Vida, and Defense for Children International to develop 
     and fund programs to counsel, educate, and reintegrate former 
     child soldiers
     Bill Language
       Substitutes 30 Blackhawk helicopters requested by the 
     Administration and the Colombian Government for a total of 60 
     Huey II helicopters
       University of Missouri: Earmarks $1 million for 
     International Laboratory for Tropical Agriculture 
     Biotechnology
       University of California-Davis: Earmarks $1 million for 
     research and training foreign scientists
       Tuskegee University: Earmarks $1 million to support a 
     Center to Promote Biotechnology in International Agriculture
       International Fertilizer Development Center: Earmarks $4 
     million for the center
       United States Telecommunication Institute: Earmarks 
     $500,000 for the institute
       American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: Earmarks $17 million 
     for ASHA programs
       International Media Training Center: Earmarks $2 million 
     for the center
       Carelift International: Provides up to $7 million for 
     Carelift International
       American Educational Institutions in Lebanon: Provides $15 
     million for scholarships and direct support of the American 
     educational institutions in Lebanon
       American University in Cairo: Provides up to $35 million 
     for the relocation of the American University in Cairo
       Egypt Endowment/Theban Mapping Project: Provides up to $15 
     million for the establishment of an endowment to promote the 
     preservation and restoration of Egyptian antiquity, of which 
     $3 million may be made available for the Theban Mapping 
     Project
       American Center for Oriental Research: Earmarks $2 million 
     for the center
       Cochran Fellowship Program in Russia: Earmarks $400,000 for 
     the program
       Moscow School of Political Science: Earmarks $250,000 for 
     the school
       University of Southern Alabama: Earmarks $1 million to 
     study environmental causes of birth defects
       Ukranian Land and Resource Management Center: Earmarks $5 
     million for the center.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Senate today will pass the foreign 
operations appropriations bill and I rise to speak in support of the 
additional funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that 
is contained in this legislation. The bill makes additional FY2000 
funds available for the DEA to step up efforts against the burgeoning 
epidemic of methamphetamine--commonly called ``meth''. This funding is 
needed for the DEA to combat the explosive meth problem which is 
emerging as one of the fastest growing threats in our country, 
especially in Missouri.
  With its roots on the west coast, the meth epidemic has now exploded 
in middle America. Meth is today what cocaine was to the 1980s and 
heroin was to the 1970s--the hot, ``in'' drug with a catastrophic 
potential to destroy all those it comes in contact with--financially, 
spiritually, and physically. It is currently the largest drug threat we 
face in Missouri. Unfortunately, it is most likely coming soon to a 
city or town near you.
  If one wanted to design a drug to have the worst possible effect on 
the community, one would make methamphetamine. It is highly addictive, 
highly destructive, cheap, and easy to manufacture.
  To give my colleagues an idea on the scope of the problem in Missouri 
alone, let me share with you these frightening statistics: during the 
whole year of 1992, law enforcement seized two clandestine Meth labs in 
Missouri and in 1994, the number of Meth labs seized increased to 14. 
By 1998, the number of seized labs mushroomed to 679. Based on reports 
of the figures collected in 1999, that number jumped again last year to 
over 900 labs in Missouri alone. According to the latest national 
statistics from the DEA, reported meth lab seizures in 1999 for the 
entire United States totaled 6,438, up from 5,786 in 1998 and 3,327 in 
1997. This is nearly a 100% increase in only two years.
  The rapid increase and spread of meth across the country has brought 
with it the problems that we too often see with illegal drug use. As 
the ``popularity'' of meth has increased, we have seen the proportional 
increases in domestic abuse, child abuse, burglaries and drug related 
murders. In addition, from 1992 to 1998 meth-related emergency room 
incidents increased by 63 percent.
  What is most unacceptable to me is that meth is ensnaring our 
children. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth had 
doubled from the 1992 level. In recent conversations I have had with 
local law enforcement officers in Missouri, they estimated that as many 
as 10% of high school students know the recipe for meth. In fact, one 
need only log-on the Internet to find numerous web sites giving 
detailed instructions for setting up a meth lab. This is troublesome.
  We in Congress have taken these indicators seriously. Despite yearly 
appropriations to combat meth abuse and trafficking, the meth problem 
continues to grow. I believe it is time to dedicate more resources to 
stopping this scourge once and for all. To that end, earlier this year 
I joined a number of my colleagues in the Senate in sending letters to 
President Clinton and Attorney General Reno requesting that at least 
$10,000,000 in additional funds be made available for the DEA to assist 
state and local law enforcement in the proper removal and disposal of 
hazardous materials recovered from clandestine methamphetamine 
laboratories. This funding would provide the necessary resources for 
the DEA and state and local law enforcement officials to combat this 
growing meth problem.
  Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have faced other 
challenges in the past and we can face this one as well. In fact, the 
history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing people's 
highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All it takes is that we 
marshal our will and channel the great indomitable American spirit.
  In order to successfully combat this growing meth problem, we must 
provide law enforcement officials with adequate resources to stifle 
this growing epidemic. To this end, I support the increased level of 
funding in this foreign operation bill, and I encourage the

[[Page 11896]]

conferees to maintain adequate funding in the Supplemental 
appropriations measure for fighting the scourge of methamphetamine. 
Through legislative efforts like this to assist law enforcement efforts 
to combat meth, we will meet this new meth challenge and defeat it.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the managers of 
this bill, Senators McConnell and Leahy, for accepting a revised 
version of the amendment I submitted yesterday. This amendment 
addresses international debt relief.
  Today we are at the dawn of the new millennium--2000 is the Year of 
Jubilee. It is in this year that people throughout the world have been 
inspired by the Book of Leviticus in the Hebrew Scriptures. This book 
describes a Year of Jubilee, in which slaves are freed, land is 
returned to original owners, and debts are canceled.
  The Bible's teachings of the Year of Jubilee has led to a worldwide 
movement to have the world's wealthiest nations forgive the debt of the 
world's poorest nations. Great Britain, Canada, the Philippines, 
Australia, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Sweden, South Africa, and the 
United States have national campaigns in this regard. The most 
prominent churches and relief groups worldwide also endorse this goal.
  This spiritual movement in turn is helping motivate the United States 
and our G-7 allies to put forth the heavily indebted poor countries 
(``HIPC'') initiative. This groundbreaking effort will provide 
substantial debt relief to poor nations conditioned on making real 
progress towards economic growth and poverty reduction. It will also 
emphasize greater budget discipline within recipient countries so that 
scarce resources, rather than being wasted, are directed where they are 
needed most.
  Although the President requested $435 million this year for the U.S. 
contribution to the HIPC initiative, the appropriations bill before the 
Senate today provides just $75 million. The amendment I have authored 
expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should 
authorize and appropriate full funding. This amendment is cosponsored 
by seventeen of my colleagues, including those who have been leaders on 
this issue during the past several years. Cosponsors of my amendment 
are Senators Mack, Sarbanes, Biden, Hagel, Wellstone, Lieberman, 
Landrieu, Dodd, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Gordon Smith, DeWine, Lugar, 
Feinstein, Grams, Inouye, and Bryan.
  I believe it is important to draw attention to this critical issue, 
and would again like to thank the bill's managers for accepting my 
amendment. I am hopeful that in the coming weeks, we will make further 
progress towards full U.S. participation in the HIPC initiative. Thank 
you.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as Americans, we have two vital tasks in 
our relations with Colombia. We are obligated to help a neighbor that 
is struggling to build democracy and civil society, and it is in our 
best interest to assist them in halting the flow of lethal narcotics 
from the Andean mountains of Colombia to American communities. These 
are the two underlying grounds for the Clinton Administration's ``Plan 
Colombia,'' a request for $1.07 billion in emergency supplemental funds 
over the next two years to aid Colombia.
  After a painful decade of violence, the Colombian people have boldly 
elected an unassailable ally of democracy and reconciliation, President 
Andres Pastrana, and they are demanding an end to human rights abuses 
and impunity by both the paramilitaries and the FARC guerillas. At the 
same time, the lawlessness and violence of southern Colombia have 
permitted the narcotics dealers to widen their cultivation and 
consolidate their delivery routes into the U.S. With the remarkable 
success of U.S. Government anti-narcotics programs in Peru and Bolivia, 
eighty percent of the heroin consumed in the U.S. is now cultivated in 
Colombia. We have no choice now but to focus our anti-drug efforts in 
Colombia.
  While I realize that we must bring pressure to bear on the drug 
cartels, my experience with Central America in the 1980s leads me to be 
very skeptical about the utility of the military response to social and 
political problems. I therefore have been wary of the Administration's 
Plan Colombia. My chief concerns with it have been the Colombian 
military campaign against narcotics cultivation, and the abysmal human 
rights record of paramilitary groups that have frequently been linked 
to the military forces. I am also concerned that we not get dragged 
into a major, long-term counter-insurgency effort which is not our 
fight.
  In the end, though, I decided to go along with the Administration's 
proposal as significantly improved by the Senate Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee downsized the scale of the Colombian 
military effort, and shifted the funding from Blackhawk to Huey 
helicopters. Smaller and more agile, the Hueys are more suited to 
fighting narcotics cultivation, while the Blackhawks are more suited to 
counter-insurgency combat. The Subcommittee also increased the bill's 
sizable human rights component, including new programs to bolster the 
rule of law and fight corruption. The Subcommittee also shares my 
concern for U.S. Government responsibility for this expensive anti-
narcotics effort by increased funding for end-use monitoring. Given the 
well-documented human rights problems in Colombia, heightened 
monitoring is an extremely important component of this program. 
Although we will be funding a military effort, I note that U.S. 
military personnel are barred from any military operation, and that the 
Leahy Amendment puts strict safeguards on the activities of any U.S. 
funded partner, so that the human rights behavior of the Colombian 
military will now be under a microscope.
  An integral component of the final legislation is sizable funding to 
encourage judicial reform, strengthen the rule of law, and improve the 
quality of life for all Colombians. Without greater social and income 
equality and greater respect for human rights, all our efforts will 
fail. The military aid can only provide an opening for those who are 
trying to build the foundation for civil society. By electing President 
Pastrana, the Colombian people have indicated their desire for a future 
free of drugs and violence. We must ensure that U.S. assistance is 
instrumental in helping them achieve that goal.
  Let's make no mistake. If this bill becomes law, the U.S. will have 
made a major commitment to helping Colombia eradicate the narco-
business that plagues both it and us. We are pledging to stand beside 
President Pastrana, an enlightened and popular leader with a broad 
mandate to pursue this campaign, while he also resolutely holds 
negotiations with entrenched but highly unpopular insurgents. I think 
that, for his sake and ours, we must give him the tools and the 
confidence to see this through.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I voted for S. 2522, the Senate 
version of the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. 
I voted for the bill despite serious reservations about parts of it 
because it also funds some very important priorities.
  First, the bill provides economic and military assistance to some of 
America's most important allies, at the level requested by the 
President.
  The bill includes $450 million for international family planning 
programs, less than requested by the President but more than last year.
  S. 2522 also provides funding for many very important international 
programs, including the Peace Corps, U.N. peacekeeping operations, 
refugee assistance, and antiterrorism efforts.
  I am especially pleased that, with the passage of my amendment to add 
$40 million, the final bill includes $51 million for international 
tuberculosis control and treatment and $255 million to fight HIV/AIDS 
in developing countries.
  Unfortunately, attached to the foreign operations bill this year was 
almost $1 billion in emergency spending for counter-narcotics efforts 
in Colombia. I am disappointed that the Senate rejected an amendment 
offered by Senator Wellstone, which I cosponsored,

[[Page 11897]]

which would have transferred the military aid portion--$225 million--to 
domestic drug treatment programs.
  We would have done more to fight the so-called drug war by putting 
those dollars into proven drug treatment programs here to reduce 
demand. A Rand Corporation study found that for every dollar spent on 
demand reduction you have to spend 23 dollars on supply reduction in 
order to get the same decrease in drug consumption.
  And because I fear that the military assistance may lead to further 
U.S. involvement in the 40-year-old civil war in Colombia, I tried to 
offer an amendment to simply affirm current Defense Department policy 
regarding activities of DoD personnel in Colombia. This policy states 
that DoD funds may not be used to support training for Colombian 
counter-insurgency operations, participate in law enforcement 
activities or counternarcotics field missions, or join in any activity 
in which counter-narcotics related hostilities are imminent.
  I was not allowed a roll call vote on my amendment because the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee made a point of order that it 
was legislation on an appropriations bill. However, less than 24 hours 
earlier, the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, had an amendment 
accepted which also dealt with U.S. policy toward Colombia, and which 
was also subject to the very same point of order. But no senator 
objected to the Sessions amendment.
  This selective enforcement of Senate rules is a double standard and 
is unfair. I am particularly bothered because I had strong concerns 
about the Sessions amendment. This is another breakdown in comity and 
civility in the Senate, and I am very troubled by it.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to 
increase funding for the U.S. Peace Corps.
  This amendment will increase funding for the Peace Corps by $24 
million, restoring funding to the enacted FY2000 level of $244 million. 
Even with passage of this amendment, $244 million is well below the 
amount authorized under the four-year Peace Corps Authorization Act 
which I sponsored with Senator Dodd and that passed Congress with 
overwhelming bipartisan support last year. The Act authorizes an FY2001 
level of $298 million to expand the Peace Corps to 10,000 volunteers, 
just as President Reagan originally intended fifteen years ago. This 
amendment will allow the Peace Corps to keep pace in reaching this 
important goal of 10,000 Volunteers within the next five years.
  I remind my colleagues that the Peace Corps represents just 1 percent 
of the international affairs account. Over the past several years the 
Peace Corps has worked to increase the number of Volunteers through 
modest increases in its budget and more efficient management that 
reduced costs and staff.
  As former Director of the Peace Corps, I have learned first-hand of 
the tremendous impact that the relatively small amount we spend on the 
Peace Corps has throughout the world. Not only does the Peace Corps 
continue to be a cost effective tool for providing assistance and 
developing stronger ties with the international community, it has also 
trained over 150,000 Americans in the cultures and languages of 
countries around the world. Returned volunteers often use these skills 
and experiences to contribute to myriad sectors of our society--
government, business, education, health, and social services, just to 
name a few.
  This amendment will help put the Peace Corps on the firm footing it 
needs and deserves as we enter the 21st century. I firmly believe that 
a rejuvenated Peace Corps will help ensure that America continues to be 
an engaged world leader, and that we continue to share with other 
countries our own legacy of freedom, independence, and prosperity. This 
is an investment in our country and our world that we need to make.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move we go to third reading.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, all Senators have worked very closely on 
this. We tried to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle. I 
hope we will go to third reading. I am waiting for the chairman of the 
subcommittee to come back to the floor. I see him on the floor now. We 
can go to third reading. I hope we will support this bill.
  This is not a perfect bill, by any means. It does not do anywhere 
near enough on debt forgiveness, which is something we are going to 
have to address, I hope, in conference, and I hope we will have a 
larger allocation for that. It does not do enough on infectious 
diseases for the poorest of the poor countries, especially in Africa. 
It does not do enough for Mozambique and other areas. But it is a 
considerably well-balanced bill within the resources we had. I do 
compliment the senior Senator from Kentucky in working as hard as he 
has to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to my good 
friend from Vermont. I have enjoyed working with him on this bill. And 
I express my particular gratitude to Robin Cleveland, Billy Piper, 
Jennifer Chartrand, Jon Meek, Chris Williams, Cara Thanassi, and all of 
my staff involved in developing this measure.
  Are we now ready for third reading?
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Shall the bill be engrossed and advanced to third 
reading?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                                NAYS--4

     Feingold
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The bill was ordered to be read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The clerk will read the bill 
for the third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is now returned to the calendar.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this very important 
legislation, the foreign operations appropriations bill. It has a lot 
of important provisions in it, funds that are critical to our foreign 
policy. We did have two very significant votes with regard to the 
Colombian aid. I think probably some Members were surprised by the show 
of support, with 89 votes against cutting the funds in one instance and 
maybe 79 in the other instance.

[[Page 11898]]

  This has been good work. It did take patience by the managers and 
some cooperation on both sides of the aisle. We were able to get it 
done in a very short period of time. I thank all concerned for their 
good work. I hope we can continue that and make real progress on the 
Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill this week. After the work 
we have already done, I think we can show we are doing the people's 
business.
  I commend Senator McConnell and I commend Senator Leahy for being 
willing to stay here last night and suggest we were going to have more 
votes last night. That helped get this done. I thank the Senators.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to also thank the distinguished 
majority leader for his work in bringing this up. This can sometimes be 
a contentious bill, as he knows. His efforts in working also with the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, paid off. And the 
distinguished majority leader had the patience to allow Senator 
McConnell and me to work through an awful lot of amendments on both 
sides of the aisle.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. We heard 
periodically the crunch in the Cloakroom as he broke a few arms, but we 
moved it through and got an overwhelming vote.
  Senator McConnell showed close cooperation with me and with Senators 
on both sides of the aisle throughout the process. I enjoy working with 
him. I know he agrees we need more resources for some of these issues, 
and we will work together to get them.
  We have many interests around the world. We know U.S. leadership 
costs money. I think Senator McConnell and I have tried to show a 
bipartisan cohesion on that.
  I thank the staff. They spent many long days and late nights, many 
long weekends in getting this far. I appreciate that. Robin Cleveland, 
Senator McConnell's chief of staff on the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee, as always, has been a pleasure to work with. She shows 
enormous competence and knowledge. I appreciate that. Her assistant, 
Jennifer Chartrand, was indispensable to this. Jay Kimmitt on the 
committee staff and Billy Piper on Senator McConnell's personal staff 
have all been of great help.
  On the Democratic side, I mention several. First, I want to mention 
Cara Thanassi of my staff who was there from start to finish. Ms. 
Thanassi, on the floor now with me, is a Vermonter. She will be heading 
back to graduate school, only after she spends a month in East Timor. I 
am proud of her and what she has done for the Senate. She has shown the 
best attributes of a true Vermonter.
  J.P. Dowd, my legislative director, helped on the Senate floor during 
the many busy times of the last few days. Of course, Tim Rieser, the 
Democratic clerk on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, has worked on 
these issues in the Senate for nearly 15 years. He probably has as 
great an institutional memory on the foreign policy issues as anybody 
in the Senate staff or Senate and was truly indispensable.
  Again, I thank the leader for his help in getting the Senate this 
far.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________