[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20571-20618]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



FOREIGN OPERATIONS EXPORT FINANCING AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS 
                          ACT, 2002--Continued

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two amendments that have been set 
aside.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky is off the floor. So I will not move any action while he is 
gone.
  I wish to urge Senators who have amendments to come forward. There is 
no reason this bill cannot be finished. Even if we finish it fairly 
soon, I hope Members of the Senate will realize the importance of this 
bill.
  I remember coming to the Senate at a time when so many would talk 
about foreign aid as some kind of a massive giveaway. People would ask, 
What have these countries done to help us? Why are we sending money 
there? Fortunately, at that time we had people such as Senator Mike 
Mansfield, a happy memory in the Senate, and people who preceded the 
Presiding Officer, Senator Jacob Javits on the Republican side who knew 
how important these programs were.
  Of course, you can argue that there are a whole number of reasons. We 
are the wealthiest, most powerful nation history has ever known. You 
could speak to the moral reasons we should be helping other countries. 
We could talk about what it does for our security interests. If we 
bring about stability in other parts of the world, we help democracy 
flourish. We would help the middle class build up in areas that 
otherwise were prone to overthrows of governments, instability, 
rebellions.
  I think of some of the programs that Members of this body have 
proposed--not necessarily on this bill but others--the School Lunch 
Program for Africa that former Senator Dole and former Senator McGovern 
proposed.
  I recall last year being down at the White House when they discussed 
this with President Clinton, and the interesting points brought out. 
They were talking about countries where families could not feed their 
children any way, not mentioning anything about educating them.
  But if we help those countries have a school lunch program, something 
that costs us a tiny fraction of what we spend on foreign aid, then 
children could go to school and learn. But also in a lot of these 
countries where girls do not go to school, where only the boys go to 
school, some of the families said: Wait a minute. If we can feed our 
daughters as well as our sons, we will be able to do that.
  Now, what has happened in doing that is we not only benefit those 
countries, but we can benefit the people there. We carry out the moral 
aspects of our foreign aid bill. But then we also have money in this 
bill for health care, not only the health care of the people in these 
other countries, but there is a provision which would allow us to build 
up the medical infrastructure of other nations to get rid of possibly 
another Ebola plague, to have an early warning system when one is 
existing so the country can act to stop it.
  Now, this is not just altruism. There is no disease anywhere in the 
world that is more than an airplane trip or a postage stamp away from 
our own country. If we can help countries fight these diseases within 
their own borders, not only do they help those people but they help all 
the rest of us.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 1942 through 1948, En Bloc

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have discussed this with Senator

[[Page 20572]]

McConnell. We have a number of amendments I will just briefly describe.
  There is one by Senator Helms on Venezuela, one by Senator McConnell 
and myself on development credit authority, another Leahy-McConnell 
amendment on MDB authorizations, a McConnell-Leahy amendment on 
documentation center, an amendment by Senator McConnell on nuclear 
safety, a Mikulski amendment on small business, and a Gordon Smith 
amendment on religious freedom. Also, there are two previously offered 
amendments by Senator Boxer; one is on Afghan reconstruction and one is 
on suicide bombings.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to send all the 
amendments to the desk; that they be considered to be in order; that 
they be considered en bloc, and they be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1942 through 1948), en bloc, were agreed to, as 
follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1942

       On page 142, line 21, after the colon, insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated under this heading, up to $2,000,000 should be 
     made available to support democracy-building activities in 
     Venezuela:''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1943

       On page 130, line 4, strike ``September 30, 2003'', and 
     insert in lieu thereof: ``expended''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1944

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:


                             authorizations

       Sec.   . The Secretary of the Treasury may, to fullfill 
     commitments of the United States, contribute on behalf of the 
     United States to the seventh replenishment of the resources 
     of the Asian Development Fund, a special fund of the Asian 
     Development Bank, and to the fifth replenishment of the 
     resources of the International Fund for Agriculture 
     Development. The following amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated without fiscal year limitation for payment by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury: $412,000,000 for the Asian 
     Development Fund and $30,000,000 for the International Fund 
     for Agricultural Development.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1945

       On page 133, line 8 insert before the period: ``: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not less than $250,000 should be made available for 
     assistance for the Documentation Center of Cambodia: Provided 
     further, That no later than 60 days after the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations on a 3-year funding strategy for 
     the Documentation Center of Cambodia''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1946

                     (Purpose: Technical amendment)

       On page 136, line 24 strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$35,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1947

       On page 190, between line 14 and 15, insert the following 
     new subsection:
       (f) Small Business.--In entering into multiple award 
     indefinite-quantity contracts with funds appropriated by this 
     Act, the United States Agency for International Development 
     may provide an exception to the fair opportunity process for 
     placing task orders under such contracts when the order is 
     placed with any category of small or small disadvantaged 
     business.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1948

 (Purpose: To restrict the availability of funds for the Government of 
       the Russian Federation unless certain conditions are met)

       On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:


    discrimination against minority religious faiths in the russian 
                               federation

       Sec. 581. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for the 
     Government of the Russian Federation after the date that is 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, unless 
     the President determines and certifies in writing to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives that the Government of the Russian Federation 
     has not implemented any statute, executive order, regulation, 
     or other similar government action that would discriminate, 
     or would have as its principal effect discrimination, against 
     religious groups or religious communities in the Russian 
     Federation in violation of accepted international agreements 
     on human rights and religious freedoms to which the Russian 
     Federation is a party.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a freshman Senator in 1997, I 
offered an amendment to the foreign operations bill that predicated 
foreign aid to the Russian Federation on the implementation of a new 
law restricting religious freedom in Russia. That law, passed by the 
Russian Duma on July 4, 1997, had the potential of severely restricting 
freedom of religion in Russia. The bill was ironically titled ``on 
freedom of conscience and on religious associations.''
  That bill was eventually signed into law--a law that required 
religious groups to register with the State and submit their religious 
doctrines and practices to scrutiny by a commission of experts with the 
power to deny religious status. Without this status, these groups would 
lose the rights to rent or own property, employ religious workers or 
conduct charitable and educational activities. Clearly that law in 
Russia and its implementation would have a grave impact on religious 
freedom in that country.
  I am happy to report that my 1997 amendment passed the Senate 95 to 
4. I would also note that both the bill managers, Senators Leahy and 
McConnell, voted in favor of this amendment and I thank them for their 
support.
  In following years this amendment was included as part of the foreign 
operations bill. This year it was not. I rise today to offer this same 
amendment again and understand that it will be accepted by the managers 
of this bill sometime today during its consideration.
  In my years in the Senate I have remained vigilant on the issue of 
religious freedom. The Foreign Relations Committee has held yearly 
hearings on religious freedom abroad--especially what is going on in 
the Russian Federation. I also host, with the Department of State, a 
series of yearly roundtable discussions on religious freedom.
  These roundtable discussions are attended by members of each 
religious community impacted by this new law in Russia and by various 
State Department and NSC officials that are responsible for religious 
freedom abroad.
  As the years went by and the registration period closed regarding 
religions, it was felt by all those interested in religious freedom in 
that country that this amendment was a positive influence on how the 
new Russian law was implemented.
  It let the Russian Government know that Americans cared about freedom 
of religion in Russia--that the eyes of the world were upon the Russian 
Government as it implemented the law on religions.
  Although the amendment has never been implemented--and each year aid 
has gone out to the Russian Federation--the amendment's influence and 
impact has been positive and undeniable according to those religions 
``on the ground'' in Russia.
  In general many of the problems initially have worked themselves out 
under this new law. Many of the problems with denials of registration 
or persecution have occurred in the far reaches of the Russian 
Federation. The conventional wisdom regarding implementation of that 
law is that persecution occurs abroad--the farther away from Moscow and 
the centralized government, the greater the risk is for religious 
intolerance.
  But even in Moscow there is a requirement of vigilance. And I am 
happy to report that this body has been vigilant on this issue--
especially regarding the old problem of anti-Semitism in Russia. Some 
might say that we shouldn't single out Russia regarding this issue. I 
would agree--we should fight anti-Semitism in every nation including 
our own.
  Because I believe that how a nation treats the sons and daughters of 
Israel is a bellweather for tolerance.
  I would like to submit for the Record letters from years past that 
almost all of my colleagues signed regarding their concerns over the 
rise in anti-Semitism in Russia. Each of these letters contain 98 to 99 
signatures--virtually all of the Senate was united on this issue.
  I firmly believe that this language is needed again this year. I 
would also

[[Page 20573]]

like to submit for the Record a letter from NCSJ--advocates on behalf 
of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States and Eurasia. NCSJ is the 
leading advocate for the plight and well-being of the Jewish community 
in Russia.
  NCSJ's executive director, Mark Levin, writes:

       We wish to underline NCSJ's support for your amendment to 
     condition certain assistance to the Russian Federation on 
     verification by President Bush that the Russian Government 
     has no way acted to restrict freedom of religion as 
     guaranteed by international commitments and treaties.
       . . . the 1997 law on religion, under which ``non-
     traditional'' groups must register with government 
     authorities, has continued to generate misunderstandings, 
     difficulties and intimidation.

  The Russian law, among other things, limits the activities of foreign 
missionaries and grants unregistered ``religious groups'' fewer rights 
than accredited Russian religious organizations such as the Russian 
Orthodox Church, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This law if poorly 
implemented, could also sharply restrict the activities of foreign 
missionaries in Russia.
  The Russian Government should permit foreign missionaries to enter 
and reside in Russia--within the framework of Russian law--and work 
with fellow believers.
  Furthermore, foreign missionaries should be allowed to enjoy the 
religious freedom guaranteed Russian citizens and legal residents by 
the Russian constitution, OSCE commitments, and other international 
agreements to which Russia is signatory.
  One of my own constituents, Pastor Dan Pollard, is a missionary with 
a church in the Russian far east--in a town called Vanino. Pastor 
Pollard has been continually harassed by local officials, many who cite 
the 1997 law as an official reason for barring Pollard from 
ministering.
  I thank the managers again for accepting this amendment as part of 
the foreign operations bill and hope that this legislation sends a 
strong signal to President Putin that human rights and religious 
freedom are core American values and we seek to share them with all our 
friends and allies. However it must be understood that American dollars 
will not find their way to support a country that treats freedom of 
religion in such a manner.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letters to which I previously referred.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          National Conference on Soviet Jewry,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 2001.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: We wish to underline NCSJ's support for 
     your amendment to condition certain assistance to the Russian 
     Federation on verification by President Bush that the Russian 
     government has in no way acted to restrict freedom of 
     religion as guaranteed by international commitments and 
     treaties.
       We are encouraged that President Putin continues to express 
     public support for tolerance and pluralism. Nevertheless, 
     some disturbing trends toward intolerance and oppression 
     remain of concern. In particular, the 1997 Law on Relation, 
     under which ``non-traditional'' groups must register with 
     government authorities, has continued to generate 
     misunderstandings, difficulties and intimidation. Groups such 
     as Jehovah's Witnesses and Evangelical Christians have had 
     financial assets and membership rolls confiscated, and some 
     have been subject to outright violence.
       In addition, new incidents of anti-Semitism have also 
     arisen, affecting the Jewish community. Judaism is, under 
     Russian law, a sanctioned (``traditional'') religion. 
     Unfortunately, at times local police response to acts of hate 
     against schools and synagogues has been delayed. And, in 
     October 2000, the federal Interior Ministry conducted an 
     illegal, prolonged search of the Moscow Choral Synagogue.
       We write in a spirit of cooperation and concern for the 
     fabric of Russian society. We believe Russia can and should 
     be a country that embraces and celebrates religious 
     differences. By monitoring progress toward unrestricted 
     religious liberty, we can help ensure that it will come to 
     pass.
       Thank you for your continuous leadership in this cause.
           Respectfully,
                                                    Mark B. Levin,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1999.
     President Boris Yeltsin,
     Russian Federation, The Kremlin,
     Moscow, Russia.
       Dear President Yeltsin: We are writing to you to express 
     our serious concerns over the rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric 
     heard at both the national and local levels of Russian 
     society and politics. We strongly believe that the first line 
     of defense against the growth of anti-Semitism in your 
     country is exposing and condemning the hate-filled rhetoric 
     at all levels of contact between our two governments.
       As you know, recent events and remarks in Russia have 
     marred this decade's re-emergence of Jewish life in post-
     communist Russia. The Russian Jewish community now numbers 
     upwards of one million, and the opening of synagogues, 
     schools and community centers has been a bright counterpoint 
     to the centuries of violence and anti-Semitic laws against 
     the Russian Jewish community. We strongly feel that the 
     recent spate of anti-Semitic rhetoric, in particular those 
     comments from Russian communist and extremist/nationalist 
     political groups, should be disavowed. In particular, the 
     fascist extremism exhibited by Alexander Barkashov's Russia 
     National Unity Party is alarming in its use of slanderous 
     stereotyping and crude scapegoating.
       Recently, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's 
     Subcommittee on European Affairs held a hearing on the rise 
     of anti-Semitism in Russia. This was not the first hearing on 
     this subject--in fact, the Senate held hearings and 
     considered resolutions regarding the treatment of Jews in 
     Tsarist Russia as early as 1879. Over the years it has not 
     been unusual for the United States to act on this subject, 
     linking American foreign policy with what should now be 
     regarded as a cornerstone of human rights policies in Russia.
       While we support a strong effort to address the economic 
     difficulties in Russia and encourage the development of a 
     strong, market-oriented economy, we want you to know that the 
     United States also expects from Russia a strong commitment to 
     human rights and religious freedom. As your country enters an 
     election cycle, there may well be temptations to sound ultra-
     nationalist themes that attempt to blame the small Jewish 
     community for Russia's problems.
       President Yeltsin, we believe it is imperative that you 
     demonstrate, through your emphatic disagreement with those 
     who espouse anti-Semitism in Russia, your understanding of 
     the importance the Russian government places upon religious 
     freedom. The United States predicates its support for 
     democratic institutions in Russia upon unwavering opposition 
     to anti-Semitism at any level, in any form. While we are 
     pleased by your administration's statements against anti-
     Semitism, the horrific explosions near two of Moscow's 
     largest synagogues on May 1st and the recent attacks on the 
     only synagogue in Birobidzhan, are reason enough for further 
     vigorous and more public condemnation.
       We hope you share our deep concern for this issue and look 
     forward to receiving your response.
           Sincerely,
         Craig Thomas, Sam Brownback, Charles Schumer, Joe 
           Lieberman, Wayne Allard, Paul D. Wellstone, Harry Reid, 
           Barbara Boxer, Peter G. Fitzgerald, John Edwards, Bob 
           Smith, Mike Crapo, Rick Santorum, Chuck Robb, Susan 
           Collins, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Jim Inhofe.
         Mitch McConnell, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara A. Mikulski. 
           Richard Shelby, Tim Hutchinson, Jeff Sessions, Paul 
           Coverdell, Arlen Specter, Russ Feingold, Olympia Snowe, 
           Richard H. Byron, Strom Thurmond, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, Jim Jeffords, Spencer Abraham, George V. 
           Voinovich, Blanche L. Lincoln, Patty Murray, Patrick 
           Leahy, Mike DeWine, Mary L. Landrieu, Jim Bunning, Pete 
           V. Domenici, Herb Kohl, Jack Reed, Frank H. Murkowski, 
           Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, Larry E. Craig, Rod Grams.
         Jesse Helms, Daniel K. Inouye, Dick Durbin, John Warner, 
           Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Jon Kyl, Bill Roth, John F. 
           Kerry, Orrin Hatch, Chris Dodd, Slade Gorton, Paul 
           Sarbanes, Byron L. Dorgan, Robert Torricelli, Ron 
           Wyden, Michael B. Enzi, Kit Bond, John Ashcroft, John 
           McCain, Evan Bayh, Connie Mack, Max Baucus, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Chuck Grassley, Jay 
           Rockefeller, Daniel K. Akaka, Dianne Feinstein, Max 
           Cleland.
         Phil Gramm, Conrad Burns, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Robert F. 
           Bennett, Bob Graham, Fritz Hollings, Daniel P. 
           Moynihan, Tim Johnson, Don Nickles, Trent Lott, Bill 
           Frist, Fred Thompson, Ted Stevens, Tom Harkin, Thad 
           Cochran, Pat Roberts, John Chafee, Judd Gregg, Robert 
           C. Byrd.
                                  ____



                                                   U.S. Senate

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2000.
     Hon. Vladimir Putin,
     Acting President, Russian Federation, The Kremlin, Moscow, 
         Russia.
       Dear President Putin: As you assume your new leadership 
     position, we write to

[[Page 20574]]

     you with hope for your success in leading Russia through a 
     newly prosperous and democratic millennium. We are writing to 
     you, as we have to other Russian leaders, to express our 
     repeated concerns over the risk in anti-Semitic rhetoric 
     heard at both the national and local levels of Russian 
     society and politics.
       We strongly encourage you to make fighting anti-Semitism 
     one of the priorities of your new administration. President 
     Putin, we believe it is imperative that you demonstrate, 
     through your emphatic disagreement with those who espouse 
     anti-Semitism in Russia, your understanding of the importance 
     the Russian government places upon religious freedom. We 
     understand that in past discussions with both Russian and 
     American Jewish leaders you have expressed your concern about 
     anti-Semitism. We applaud your past comments and efforts and 
     urge you to take corresponding action in keeping with your 
     new position as acting president.
       The Russian Jewish community represents a vibrant and 
     active portion of the Russian population. Though emigration 
     has reduced the community size in the past ten years, the 
     birth of democracy in the Russian Federation has also 
     resulted in the opening of new synagogues, schools and 
     community centers in Moscow, St. Petersburg and beyond. 
     Currently there are almost 200 Jewish organizations, 
     institutions, and religious communities in 75 cities and 
     towns throughout Russia. One hundred and fifteen schools 
     serve over 7,000 students, and Jewish organizations publish 
     18 newspapers and journals. This open and free blossoming of 
     culture and community will only benefit the Russian nation 
     and her people.
       Anti-Semitism in Russia must not become a weapon in the 
     struggle for power by political parties. Indecisive actions 
     on the part of the Russian government only further feed the 
     belief that hate is an allowable and integral component of 
     political life. The hate-filled rhetoric of a number of 
     Communist Party leaders, some of whom retain important 
     parliamentary positions, must be condemned by your strong 
     deed and word. Further, it is our belief, that the violence 
     that follows such hate, for example the May, 1999 Moscow 
     synagogue bombings, must always be strongly and loudly 
     condemned in order to avoid further violence in the future.
       President Putin, last year ninety-nine out of 100 United 
     states Senators signed a letter to President Yeltsin similar 
     to this one. Few issues in politics unite the United States 
     Senate more. As we wrote your predecessor, we believe it is 
     imperative that you demonstrate, through your emphatic 
     disagreement with those who espouse anti-Semitism in Russia, 
     your understanding of the importance the Russian government 
     places upon religious freedom. The United States predicates 
     its support for democratic institutions in Russia upon 
     unwavering opposition to anti-Semitism at any level, in any 
     form.
       We hope you share our deep concern for this issue and look 
     forward to receiving your response.
           Sincerely,
         Gordon H. Smith, Joe Biden, Jr., Sam Brownback, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Craig Thomas, Chuck Robb, Rod Grams, Daniel 
           P. Moynahan, Phil Gramm, Carl Levin, Bill Frist, Patty 
           Murray, Jim Inhofe, Mike Crapo, Rick Santorum, Fritz 
           Hollings, Orrin Hatch, Mike DeWine, Ben Nighthorse 
           Campbell, Jeff Sessions, Mitch McConnell, Dick Durbin.
         Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, Larry E. Craig, Harry Reid, 
           Robert F. Bennett, Jesse Helms, Max Cleland, Blanche L. 
           Lincoln, Bob Smith, Spencer Abraham, Tim Hutchinson, 
           Conrad Burns, Robert Torricelli, Paul Sarbanes, Charles 
           Schumer, Dick Lugar, Pat Roberts, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Herb Kohl, Pete V. Domenici, Tim Johnson, Frank H. 
           Murkowski, Jack Reed, George V. Voinovich, John 
           Ashcroft, Chris Dodd, Susan Collins, Fred Thompson, 
           Patrick Leahy, Judd Gregg, Bill Roth, Bob Kerrey.
         Thad Cochran, Ted Kennedy, Michael B. Enzi, Kit Bond, Kay 
           Bailey Hutchison, Richard H. Byran, Olympia Snowe, John 
           McCain, John Warner, Strom Thurmond, John F. Kerry, Jon 
           Kyl, Daniel K. Inouye, Daniel K. Akaka, Russ Feingold, 
           Byron L. Dorgan, Arlen Spector, Barbara A. Mikulski, 
           Joe Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman, Tom Harkin, Slade Gorton, 
           Jim Jeffords, Ted Stevens, Connie Mack, Bob Graham, 
           Wayne Allard, Ron Wyden, Max Baucus, Tom Daschle, John 
           Breaux, Jim Bunning.
         Paul D. Wellstone, Don Nickles, Chuck Grassley, Richard 
           Shelby, Lincoln Chafee, Barbara Boxer, Peter G. 
           Fitzgerald, Evan Bayh, Mary L. Landrieu, John Edwards, 
           Paul D. Coverdell, Trent Lott.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 2001.
     His Excellency Vladimir Putin,
     President, Russian Federation, The Kremlin, Moscow, Russia.
       Dear President Putin: We are writing to you, as members of 
     the United States Senate to again express our concerns over 
     the anti-Semitic rhetoric heard at both the national and 
     local levels of Russian society and politics.
       In years past, the U.S. Senate has been united in its 
     condemnation of such virulent anti-Semitism, which, 
     unfortunately, has been present during much of Russia's 
     history. Your remarks last year publicly condemning anti-
     Semitism assume special significance against a backdrop of 
     centuries of tsarist and Stalinist persecution. We strongly 
     encourage you to continue to publicly condemn anti-Semitism 
     whenever it manifests itself in the Russian Federation.
       We also believe that it is important to back up the 
     rhetoric of condemnation with the substance of action. Sad to 
     say, physical violence against Jews still occurs in the 
     Russian Federation. In Ryazan last year, youths attacked a 
     Jewish Sunday school, threatening teachers and children and 
     later intimidated school officials into revoking the Jewish 
     community's use of a classroom. Rhetorical anti-Semitism also 
     continues. In July anti-Semitism played a minor role in the 
     gubernatorial race in Ryazan and has also played a role in 
     gubernatorial elections in Krasnodar.
       Radical extremists continue to operate openly in more than 
     half of Russia's 89 regions. While most of these 
     organizations are small, there is also little social or 
     governmental opposition to them. There are at least ten 
     ultra-nationalist groups in Russia with memberships between 
     100 and 5,000 members each. Anti-Semitism is a staple of most 
     ultra-nationalist groups and is evident in the publication of 
     the groups' periodicals. At least 37 newspapers and magazines 
     of ultra-nationalist bent published anti-Semitic materials in 
     2000.
       The year 2000 witnessed increasing cooperation between 
     Russian extremists and their ideological counterparts abroad. 
     The most notorious example of such cooperation was that of 
     David Duke, the U.S. white supremacist, who visited Russia 
     twice during the year. Duke's most recent anti-Semitic tract 
     was prepared exclusively for the Russian market.
       We recognize that you have made important statements in 
     response to manifestations of anti-Semitism, and that law 
     enforcement has in some cases been effective in investigating 
     and prosecuting the perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence and 
     crimes. More consistent and comprehensive implementation of 
     your government's policies and of Russian laws would 
     represent a significant improvement in this area. The United 
     States Senate supports efforts to promote public awareness 
     and training programs within the Russian Federation. We would 
     welcome additional ways for the American involvement and 
     cooperation in these efforts.
       As members of the Senate we have sent you or your 
     predecessor a similar letter for the past three years. We 
     continue to believe it vital that you continue to 
     demonstrate, through your emphatic disagreement with those 
     who espouse anti-Semitism in Russia, the importance the 
     Russian government places upon religious freedom. The United 
     States predicates its support for democratic institutions in 
     Russia upon unwavering opposition to anti-Semitism at any 
     level, in any form.
       We hope you share our deep concern for this issue and look 
     forward to receiving your response.
           Sincerely,
         Joe Biden, Gordon H. Smith, Evan Bayh, Bob Smith, Mitch 
           McConnell, Charles Schumer, John McCain, Herb Kohl, 
           John Warner, Barbara Boxer, Jesse Helms, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Orrin Hatch, Olympia Snowe, Don Nickles, Joe 
           Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Mike Crapo.
         Max Cleland, Zell Miller, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Robert 
           G. Torricelli, John Edwards, Daniel K. Akaka, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Paul Sarbanes, Dianne Feinstein, Jack Reed, Jon 
           S. Corzine, George V. Voinovich, Tim Johnson, Kent 
           Conrad, Tim Hutchinson, Peter G. Fitzgerald, Dick 
           Durbin, Patty Murray, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Carl 
           Levin, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K. Inouye, Russ Feingold, 
           Dick Lugar, Rick Santorum, Blanche L. Lincoln, John F. 
           Kerry, Mike DeWine, Larry E. Craig.
         Bill Frist, Patrick Leahy, Mark Dayton, Fritz Hollings, 
           Max Baucus, Robert C. Byrd, Jean Carnahan, Tom Carper, 
           Ron Wyden, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, John Breaux, 
           Mary L. Landrieu, E. Benjamin Nelson, Maria Cantwell, 
           Bill Nelson, Barbara A. Mikulski, Tom Harkin, Bob 
           Graham, James M. Jeffords, Paul D. Wellstone, Tom 
           Daschle, John Ensign, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, 
           Conrad Burns, Craig Thomas, Pete V. Domenici, Chuck 
           Grassley, Sam Brownback.
         Jim Bunning, Frank H. Murkowski, Robert F. Bennett, Wayne 
           Allard, George Allen, Strom Thurmond, Michael B. Enzi, 
           Susan Collins, Kit Bond, Phil Gramm, Lincoln Chafee, 
           Trent Lott, Jim Inhofe, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Kay 
           Bailey Hutchison, Thad Cochran, Pat Roberts, Jon Kyle, 
           Ted Stevens, Judd Gregg.

  The amendments (Nos. 1940 and 1941) were agreed to.

[[Page 20575]]


  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see the distinguished senior Senator 
from Florida, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in the 
Chamber. He would be recognized next, but while he is preparing his 
papers, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1949

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, earlier today I came to this Chamber 
and notified the manager on the Republican side and staff for Senator 
Leahy that I intended to offer a resolution as an amendment. I believe 
I saw Senator Leahy in this Chamber a moment ago. At this time, 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1949.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To urge the Senate, prior to the end of the first session of 
 the 107th Congress, to vote on at least the judicial nominations sent 
        to the Senate by the President prior to August 4, 2001)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       The Senate finds that:
       Currently 106 Federal judgeships are vacant, representing 
     12.3 percent of the Federal judiciary;
       40 of those vacancies have been declared ``judicial 
     emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the Courts;
       Last year, at the adjournment of the 106th Congress, 67 
     vacancies existed, representing 7.9 percent of the judiciary;
       In May 2000, when there were 76 Federal judicial vacancies, 
     Senator Daschle stated, ``The failure to fill these vacancies 
     is straining our Federal court system and delaying justice 
     for people all across this country'';
       In January 1998, when there were 82 Federal judicial 
     vacancies, Senator Leahy stated, ``Any week in which the 
     Senate does not confirm three judges is a week in which the 
     Senate is failing to address the vacancy crisis'';
       The events of September 11, 2001, make it more important 
     than ever that the branches of the Federal Government should 
     operate at maximum efficiency which requires the Federal 
     judiciary to be as close to full strength as possible;
       100 percent of President Reagan's judicial nominees sent to 
     the Senate prior to the 1981 August recess were confirmed 
     during his first year in office;
       100 percent of President George H.W. Bush's judicial 
     nominees sent to the Senate prior to the 1989 August recess 
     were confirmed during his first year in office;
       93 percent of President Clinton's judicial nominees sent to 
     the Senate prior to the 1993 August recess were confirmed 
     during his first year in office;
       President George W. Bush nominated and sent to the Senate 
     44 judicial nominees prior to the 2001 August recess;
       21 of all pending nominees have been nominated to fill 
     ``judicial emergencies''; and
       The Senate has confirmed only 8 judicial nominees to date, 
     which represents 18 percent of President Bush's judicial 
     nominations sent to the Senate prior to the 2001 August 
     recess;
       It is the sense of the Senate that (1) prior to the end of 
     the first session of the 107th Congress, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall hold hearings on, and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and the full Senate shall have votes on, at a 
     minimum, the judicial nominations sent to the Senate by the 
     President prior to August 4, 2001, and (2) the standard for 
     approving pre-August recess judicial nominations for past 
     administrations should be the standard for this and future 
     administrations regardless of political party.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the resolution calls for a sense of the 
Senate that all of the nominations submitted by President Bush to the 
Senate for the Federal judiciary prior to August 4, which was the start 
of the August recess, be considered by the Senate before the close of 
the first session of the 107th Congress.
  There has been considerable concern and controversy over the number 
of judges which have been confirmed. And there had been a form of a 
filibuster engaged in on opposing the motion to proceed to the foreign 
operations appropriations bill last week and again yesterday.
  That effort has not been pursued. It is my view that in the long run 
it is not productive to stop legislation as a pressure tactic, although 
that is a longstanding practice in the Senate by both parties. But in 
any event, that is not being pursued.
  This resolution seeks to establish a standard which would be 
applicable not only to the occasions when a Republican President 
submits nominations to a Senate controlled by Democrats, but also to 
situations where there is a President who is a Democrat who submits 
nominations to a Senate which is controlled by Republicans.
  I had written to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Leahy, on October 12, enclosing for him a first draft of this 
resolution and advising him in his capacity as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee that I intended to raise it at the Judiciary 
Committee meeting first in order to give the Judiciary Committee the 
first opportunity to act on it. It was on the agenda for last Thursday, 
October 18, when it was considered and, on a party-line vote, voted 
down.
  This is the first opportunity there has been to submit the resolution 
for consideration by the full Senate, which I am doing at this time.
  Before proceeding to the merits of the resolution, I am going to 
yield the floor and wait for the arrival of the Senator from Vermont, 
who is also chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and is the 
manager for the Democrats.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, he need 
not wait for Senator Leahy. He is aware that the Senator has offered 
this amendment. The Senator should say whatever he has to say.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Nevada for saying that. I 
wanted to give him the courtesy of awaiting his arrival. I did see him 
momentarily, just about a minute and a half before I took the floor. 
With the comment by the assistant majority leader, I shall proceed to 
make an argument.
  The resolution recites the facts that there are currently 106 Federal 
judicial vacancies, representing more than 12 percent of the Federal 
judiciary. Forty of these vacancies have been declared judicial 
emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts. What 
that means is that there is an urgent need for judges to be sitting in 
those courts.
  Last year at the adjournment of the 107th Congress, there were 67 
vacancies, representing 7.9 percent of the Federal judiciary. It is 
obvious that the vacancies now are more than 50-percent higher than 
they were when the 106th Congress adjourned.
  When Senator Daschle was the Democratic leader and not in the 
majority in May of 2000, when there were 76 Federal judicial vacancies, 
Senator Daschle said, as set forth in this resolution:

       The failure to fill these vacancies is straining our 
     Federal court system and delaying justice for people all 
     across the country.

  In January of 1998, when there were 82 Federal judicial vacancies, 
Senator Leahy stated--again set forth in the body of the resolution:

       Any week in which the Senate does not confirm three judges 
     is a week in which the Senate is failing to address the 
     vacancy crisis.

  The events of September 11 of this year, when the terrorists attacked 
New York City, the Pentagon, and Somerset County, PA, make it all the 
more imperative that all branches of the Federal Government shall 
operate at maximum efficiency, which requires the Federal judiciary to 
be as close to full strength as possible.
  As analogous here, the first year of President Reagan's 
administration, 100 percent of all judicial nominees sent to the Senate 
prior to the August 1981 recess were confirmed during his first

[[Page 20576]]

year in office. During the first year in office of President George 
H.W. Bush, 1989, again, 100 percent of the nominations sent prior to 
the August recess were confirmed. During President Clinton's first year 
in office, in 1993, 93 percent of the vacancies were filled during the 
first year in office. President George W. Bush this year has nominated 
and sent to the Senate 44 judicial nominees prior to the August 2001 
recess. Twenty-one of all pending nominees have been nominated to fill 
``judicial emergencies.''
  The Senate has confirmed only twelve judicial nominees to date, which 
represent 27 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees sent to the 
Senate prior to the August 4 recess.
  The resolution calls for the sense of the Senate that prior to the 
end of the first session of the 107th Congress, which will be sometime 
before the end of 2001, that all of the nominees sent prior to August 4 
be acted upon by the Judiciary Committee, sent to the Senate, and voted 
on one way or another, up or down, further that the standard for 
approving all of the nominees submitted prior to the August recess be a 
standard policy of the U.S. Senate which would apply in future years 
and apply in future circumstances where there was a President who was a 
Democrat and a Senate controlled by Republicans.
  During the course of our discussion during the Judiciary Committee 
meeting last Thursday, the issue was raised by one of the Senators who 
was a Democrat that this position was taken contrary to what it was in 
prior years. I said that I would modify the resolution to apply equally 
to times when there was a Democrat who was President and a Republican-
controlled Senate.
  It is a rather straightforward resolution. That is the essence of the 
argument.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this matter was raised in the Judiciary 
Committee. It was tabled. We have for 3 weeks been experiencing a 
filibuster in the Senate based on these same issues. That ended 
yesterday. Thankfully, we are now on this legislation.
  The record is replete about Chairman Leahy doing the very best he can 
under extremely difficult circumstances. We are going to move judges as 
quickly as we can under the direction of the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Based upon that, I raise a point of order against the amendment that 
the amendment is not germane under rule XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained.
  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. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am informed that there was a 
typographical error in the resolution and that the figure 8 judicial 
nominees should have been 12, which represents 27 percent of President 
Bush's judicial nominees sent to the President prior to August 4, 2001. 
I wanted to make sure the record was accurate in that respect.
  I yield the floor.
  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. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I do not intend to appeal the ruling of 
the Chair because I do not wish to establish a precedent for nongermane 
amendments to be heard on appropriations bills. This has been a 
procedural quagmire which has been very problemsome for the Senate for 
a very long time and has a special impact on my own views, since I am a 
member of the Appropriations Committee. I regret that the issue of 
germaneness was raised and a point of order was raised, but I thought 
it was important to put this resolution before the body. I do believe 
it is the appropriate way to establish a standard--much preferable to 
having a filibuster and trying to block the work of the Senate to 
establish a standard which would apply to both parties or both sides 
that a very reasonable cutoff date is the August recess. This year it 
started on August 4. Now the matter was considered in the Judiciary 
Committee. It was not tabled. There was a vote on the merits; not that 
that makes a lot of difference, it was 10-9.
  But with the point of order having been raised by the assistant 
majority leader, there may be some political evaluation by the 
electorate of the position taken by the Democrats on this issue. It is 
not an unusual practice to have amendments offered on the Senate floor, 
and those who oppose them will have to explain them to their 
constituencies. It is my hope that those who have opposed this standard 
that all judges be voted on when submitted prior to the August recess, 
that they will have to explain that to their constituency.
  The point of order having been raised by the assistant majority 
leader for the Democrats, not being considered on the merits, being 
defeated, we will just take it to the electorate for whatever 
consideration they may wish to give.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. First of all, I express my appreciation to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for not appealing the ruling of the Chair. The Senator, as 
has been indicated, is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, 
and the precedent this would set if the Chair would overrule makes 
appropriations bills almost unmanageable. So the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has knowledge of the needs of the Senate compared to the 
issue he feels strongly about--and I know how strongly he feels about 
it. I appreciate the Senator not appealing the ruling of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, it is my intention to send to the desk 
an amendment that will restore the funding recommended by the President 
for the Andean Regional Counterdrug Initiative. I consider this to be a 
central issue in the U.S. relationship with our neighbors in Latin 
America, but maybe even at this time a more important statement as to 
our commitment to the war against terrorism.
  To develop these points, I want to first give a brief resume of the 
history of this region over the past several years. By the late 1990s, 
Colombia and the Andean region were nations in peril and at risk. 
Colombia had been one of the most stable countries in Latin America 
during most of the 20th century. It had a phenomenal economic record, 
with some 50 years of unbroken increases in its rate of gross domestic 
product growth. It also was the oldest democracy on the continent of 
South America, with a long tradition of transition of power from one 
political party to the other without violence.
  Unfortunately, it was also a region which had been infected by strong 
guerrilla groups. These guerrilla groups had their origin in various 
nuances of Marxism. They were guerrillas who represented Soviet 
Marxism, guerrillas who represented East German Marxism, Chinese 
Marxism, North Korean Marxism, Cuban Marxism. They were ideologically 
oriented.
  Over time, they had become less political and more economic. They had 
made the transition from being Lenin to being Al Capone in their 
orientation.
  Something else was developing in the countries in the Andean region 
during the last half of the 20th century, and that was a surge of 
illicit drug production, starting with marijuana and then moving to 
cocaine, with a very high percentage of the world's cocaine being 
produced in this region.
  The drug traffickers who were producing cocaine were of the General 
Motors format: They were highly centralized. They had a CEO. They had a

[[Page 20577]]

vertically integrated process that started by financing the farmers who 
grow the raw coca to the ultimate distribution and financing of that 
system in the United States and Europe.
  We made a major effort--we, the civilized world, with the United 
States playing a key role--to take down these highly centralized drug 
organizations--the Medellin cartel, the Cali cartel. After a long 
period of significant investment and loss of life, we were successful. 
We thought that by taking off the head of the snake of the drug cartels 
we would kill the rest of the body.
  In fact, what we found in the late 1990s was that these decapitated 
snakes were beginning to reconstitute themselves, and they were moving 
away from the General Motors model towards a more entrepreneurial 
model; whereas they used to have vertically integrated parts of the 
drug trafficking chain, now they have multiple small drug traffickers 
doing each phase, from the growing in the field, to the transporting, 
to the financing of the drug trade.
  For a period of time, these new entrepreneurial drug traffickers 
found themselves at risk because they did not have the kind of security 
protection that the old centralized system had, and so they turned to 
these now economic guerrillas, the Al Capones of Colombia, and made a 
pact with them. The pact was: We will pay you well if you will provide 
us security so that we can conduct our illicit activities.
  For a while, that was the relationship, but then the Al Capones 
figured out: We are providing the reason and the capability of these 
drug traffickers to do their business. They are making a lot more money 
in drug trafficking than we are providing the security for the drug 
traffickers; why don't we become the drug traffickers ourselves?
  By the end of the nineties, the drug trade, in particular in 
Colombia, had been largely taken over by the former ideological 
guerrillas who had become Al Capones and now were becoming drug 
traffickers.
  In addition to the two things I have indicated were occurring, the 
change in the way in which the drug trade was organized and, second, 
the role of the guerrillas in the drug trade, a third thing was 
occurring in the late 1990s, and that was, after this long unbroken 
period of economic progress and the benefits that was providing for the 
people of the Andean region, particularly Colombia, they started to go 
into economic decline.
  The two previous events were a principal reason for that decline: 
Both domestic and outside investors became leery about investing in 
Colombia and other Andean pact countries because of their concern about 
the level of violence and the influence the drug trade was gaining over 
those countries.
  Just 18 months ago, unemployment in Colombia exceeded 20 percent as 
many of its traditional legal businesses went out of business.
  Into this very difficult environment came a new leader for Colombia: 
President Pastrana. President Pastrana was not a person who was 
unknowing or immune from these forces that were shaping his country. He 
himself had been kidnapped by the guerrillas and held for a 
considerable period of time. Members of his family had been kidnapped 
and assassinated by the guerrillas. He was elected on a reform platform 
that he was going to, as the hallmark of his administration, lean 
toward a resolution of all three of these issues: The guerrillas, the 
drug trafficking, and begin to build a base for a new period of 
economic expansion.
  The key to this became Plan Colombia which President Pastrana 
developed early in his administration. Plan Colombia is a very 
misunderstood concept, particularly from the perspective of the United 
States. I like to present it as being a jigsaw puzzle with 10 pieces. 
That total puzzle, once assembled, was a comprehensive plan to rid 
Colombia of the influence of the guerrillas, to suppress the drug 
trafficking and large-scale production of cocaine, and to engage in 
social and economic and political reform within Colombia, to transform 
Colombia into a fully functioning, modern, democratic, capitalistic 
nation state.
  Of those 10 pieces that made up that total picture of Plan Colombia, 
the Colombians were going to be responsible for 5 of those 10 pieces.
  The total cost of Plan Colombia was estimated at $8 billion, and the 
Colombian Government was going to pay for $4 billion. They raised 
taxes, made adjustments in their budget, and did other things to get 
prepared to accept their 50-percent share of this plan.
  The other 50 percent was going to be divided between the United 
States, which would assume approximately 20 percent of the cost of Plan 
Colombia, and the rest of the international community, which was to 
assume 30 percent of the cost.
  When the decisions were being made as to what parts of that 
international effort should be the U.S. component, the decision was 
made that most of our responsibility was going to be on the military 
side.
  Why was that? The reason was, because a key part of a successful 
attack against the drug traffickers and since, in many instances, drug 
traffickers and guerrillas were the same people in the same uniform, 
the United States had the best ability to provide the intelligence the 
Colombian military would need to use its forces as effectively as 
possible.
  We had the ability to provide the training that the Colombian 
military needed to increase its professionalism, and particularly to 
deal with issues such as the long history of human rights abuses within 
the military of Colombia, and we also could provide some of the 
equipment the Colombian military needed, specifically helicopters, to 
give the Colombian military greater mobility so that when they 
identified through intelligence where there was a drug activity that 
was susceptible to being attacked, they would be able to deliver the 
troops and the materials necessary to successfully carry out that 
attack.
  I go into this in some detail because, for Americans, there has been 
a tendency to assume that since our component of Plan Colombia was 
heavily oriented toward military activities, that described the 
totality of Plan Colombia. That is not quite the fact.
  The fact is the totality of Plan Colombia was a balanced plan that 
had social, economic, political components, as well as law enforcement 
and military components. It just happened that because we were in the 
best position to provide the military components, that was where most 
of our part of Plan Colombia happened to fall.
  Plan Colombia was presented to the Congress in 2000, and in the 
summer of 2000 the Congress voted to provide as the first installment 
towards our commitment to Plan Colombia $1.3 billion. We also committed 
we would have follow-on commitments to Plan Colombia as the progress of 
this effort to fight the three ills of Colombia: The guerrillas, the 
drug traffickers, and the economic decline.
  President Bush has continued the Plan Colombia commitment which had 
been made by President Clinton. He has recommended to us that we 
appropriate $731 million. His plan substantially broadens the 
commitment from a primary focus on Colombia, which was the focus of the 
first year of the plan under President Clinton's leadership, to a 
regional focus.
  The funds, as proposed by President Bush, are roughly evenly divided 
between Colombia on the one hand and the other Andean pact countries 
that are beneficiaries, which are Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. President 
Bush also recommended that of the 50 percent to go to Colombia, that 
should also be divided roughly 50/50 between law enforcement and 
military on the one side and economic and social development on the 
other.
  Part of the reason for that recommendation was the fact it has been 
thus far difficult to get the other components of the international 
community, with a few major exceptions, Spain and Great Britain being 
two of those exceptions, to fully participate as had been anticipated 
in Plan Colombia. So we are now, in addition to our original area of 
principal responsibility, becoming more engaged in the social and 
economic development aspects of this now Andean legislative initiative.

[[Page 20578]]

  The reason I am speaking this afternoon is the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee rejected much of what President Bush had recommended, and 
they recommended the $731 million be cut by 22 percent, or to $567 
million. That cut will have serious implications on the United States 
and our relationship with this region and the future of this region, 
and our commitments we are making today towards the fight against 
terrorism around the world.
  To be specific, what are some of the implications of a 22-percent cut 
in the now Andean Regional Counterdrug Initiative? Let me start with 
the country that has been our principal focus and would be the 
recipient of half of these funds: The Republic of Colombia. Support for 
the Colombian National Police interdiction and eradication effort would 
be reduced because there would be less funding for spare parts for the 
equipment we provided and fuel to operate the equipment. This would 
make coca reduction targets less likely to be attained. The failure to 
attain those coca reduction targets means there will be more cocaine in 
the streets of the United States of America, afflicting the people of 
this Nation.
  A second result will be security for government officials, which the 
military provides in high conflict areas, will also be reduced, making 
the police and alternative development workers even more vulnerable.
  Last week there was a meeting held in Washington of an organization 
in which several members of this body participate called the Inter-
American Legislative Network. The purpose of this organization is to 
encourage the full development of the parliaments and congresses of the 
nations of the Western Hemisphere on the belief if they are truly going 
to have a democratic society, the institution in which we serve is a 
critical component of that society.
  We started our meeting last Tuesday with a period of silence. That 
period of silence was in recognition of the fact two legislators from 
Colombia had been assassinated the week before we met, illustrative of 
the level of violence which is being directed towards the democratic 
institutions by the assassination of the members of democratic 
institutions in Colombia.
  A third effect of this cut will be the Colombian alternative 
development program will be restricted, and the success we have had to 
date of signing up farmers who have been producing illicit coca to 
start producing legal crops will be substantially hampered, and our 
ability to comply with commitments we have already made will be 
restricted.
  Next, programs to strengthen democratic institutions such as the 
judiciary and witness protection will also be reduced because of less 
funds available to support those programs. Lowered support for the 
police and military would also call into question our political support 
for Colombia, which might undermine the progress that has been made to 
date in human rights.
  Finally, in the next year a new President will be elected in 
Colombia. They have a one-term limit on their Presidents. So President 
Pastrana could not run for reelection. There is an active campaign 
underway to elect his successors, and the candidates for the 
Presidential election which will occur next spring might raise 
questions as to the reliability of United States support, particularly 
during this difficult and significant period in the history of 
Colombia.
  The consequences both within Colombia and on the U.S.-Colombian 
relationship of this proposed reduction are dire, but the implications 
are not limited to Colombia because, as I indicated, half of this money 
will now go to the other countries, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.
  Speaking of Peru, where there has been a very aggressive alternative 
development program which has been enormously successful, 15 years ago 
most of the coca produced in the world was produced in either Peru or 
Bolivia and then was transported to Colombia for processing into 
cocaine. That level of production in Peru and Bolivia has been 
dramatically reduced. That reduction has, in large part, been because 
we have been encouraging the farmers to do the same thing we hoped to 
accomplish in Colombia, which is to transition to legal crops.
  We had no funding for that alternative development program in either 
fiscal year 2000 or 2001 because of our concerns about President 
Fujimori. As we know, President Fujimori was forced out of the country. 
He is now living in exile. A new President, President Toledo, has been 
elected and had been anticipating we would resume the level of support 
we have been giving to Peru. That support is now at risk. Failure to 
support Peru in this area of alternative development will undermine the 
hopeful reflourishing of democracy that will come to Peru under the 
leadership of President Toledo.
  Similarly, Brazil's success is also being challenged as a new 
President takes office. Planting of coca is beginning to occur in the 
Champara region, which was the principal area of coca production in 
Bolivia. We need to help the new Government continue to enforce the 
coca ban and to offer further alternative development assistance, not 
to retreat as this subcommittee recommendation would have us do.
  Ecuador is also vulnerable to cuts as we seek to maintain enforcement 
and foster community development, particularly in the northern border 
region adjacent to Colombia's major coca cultivation zones. Ecuador, 
which is one of the poorer countries of Latin America, has a long 
border with Colombia which is immediately adjacent to the area where 
the principal guerilla group called the FARC in Colombia operates, and 
the area where we have been putting the principal focus of our coca 
eradication.
  There has been a great deal of cross-border activity, and Ecuador has 
been looking to us to give them some assistance in maintaining the 
sanctity of their borders so they can maintain what has been a 
surprisingly effective effort to avoid substantial coca production in 
Ecuador. Brazil, Panama, and Venezuela also have modest enforcement 
programs which need support to have a chance to overcome the efforts of 
traffickers to transit drugs and corrupt local governments.
  The whole Andean region is a region at risk. I suggest we are sending 
exactly the wrong signal of our awareness of that risk and our 
willingness to be a good partner at a time of need by this 22-percent 
cut in our program of assistance to the Andean region.
  The proposed Andean Regional Counterdrug Initiative, in my opinion, 
is an integrated, balanced package. There are proposals now, even with 
those funds that are left, to earmark those funds in ways that will not 
be consistent with an integrated effort in the Andean region. 
Earmarking funds for non-Colombian programs will increase the 
likelihood of failure and increased violence in Colombia, the largest 
coca producer in the world. As indicated, we are already proposing--the 
administration is proposing--to allocate these funds on a 50/50 basis 
between Colombia and the other Andean countries. The earmarking would 
change that rational balance.
  Finally, following September 11, U.S. law enforcement and military 
resources which had been placed in the Andean region were withdrawn. 
Significant numbers of law enforcement personnel were withdrawn back to 
the United States to assist in homeland security. Many of the military 
personnel are now in central Asia. This regional effort, funded by 
foreign assistance, the effort we are considering today, represents the 
most significant remaining activity in the world to stem the flow of 
drugs into the United States. For those who say they want to fight 
drugs, this is the drug program in terms of reducing the supply into 
the United States. To cut it by almost a quarter will seriously curtail 
a program on the verge of success, with no alternative supply reduction 
strategy available. The consequences of this action are serious, 
immediate, but also with very long-range implications.
  I close by asking this question: What is the message the United 
States of America is sending to our own citizens, what is the message 
we are sending to the world, when on October 24, 2001, we come before 
the Senate with a proposal

[[Page 20579]]

to cut back on the only effective program we have in the world to 
reduce the flow of cocaine into the United States and one of the most 
important programs we have in the world to attack terrorists?
  These are some of the messages. We are saying we are prepared to give 
up on the international effort to strengthen the forces of democracy, 
lawfulness, and future economic growth in a very important region for 
the United States. How do we ask a European country to make a 
commitment to support this region if we, who have much more immediate 
interests and so much more at risk, take the action being recommended 
today?
  Second, are we giving up on Latin America? President Bush, when he 
came into office, and previously as Governor of Texas and as a 
candidate for the Presidency, emphasized the importance of the United 
States relations with Latin America. Unfortunately, we have yet to move 
forward on an effective program to influence our closest neighbors in 
the Western Hemisphere.
  The one next to this program that is most important is to increase 
our trade relations. We have a 10-year program with the countries of 
the Andean region, called the Andean trade pact, whereby we have 
provided beneficial trade relations. That program will expire in early 
December. As of today, less than 60 days to expiration day, we have not 
moved in either the House Ways and Means Committee or the Senate 
Finance Committee the legislation even to renew that program which is a 
vital part of the economic capacity of that region and particularly 
critical now as we are trying, for instance in the case of Colombia, to 
disemploy 400,000 people who are now working in illicit drug 
activities, and give them some opportunity to work in a legal, 
productive area of the economy. Yet we are about to see an important 
part of the pillar of that legal economy eroded.
  The irony is that much of the funding that has been stripped out of 
the Andean region has been diverted to, as I understand it, providing 
additional funds to the Export-Import Bank, the purpose of which is to 
increase our trade. Here we are with some of the best self-trading 
partners the United States has, a region of the world in which we have 
a positive trade balance, and we are undercutting its capacity so we 
can fund the Export-Import Bank whose purpose is to promote trade. That 
is ironic.
  Third, I am concerned we are returning to neo-isolationism, and doing 
so at the very time when we need to be building strong international 
coalitions to prepare for the long-range war against terrorism.
  That brings me to my final point. What is the message we are sending? 
A number of Members earlier today were asked to go to the White House 
to meet with the President, the Vice President, and other leaders of 
the administration and the newly appointed head of the Homeland 
Security Agency, Gov. Tom Ridge. At the end of the meeting, President 
Bush gave us a final challenge. I would like, to the best of my 
ability, to quote what he said in that final challenge. He asked this 
question: Do we really want to win the war against terrorism? His 
answer: Absolutely, and that it will require unity, that we must be 
prepared to act in different ways in order to win this war. We must be 
prepared to win it at home, and we must be prepared to win it at the 
source.
  I agree with all of those challenges the President has given to the 
American people. But what is it going to say if, today, on October 24, 
some 6 weeks and 1 day after the tragedy of September 11, we strip away 
a substantial amount of the resources that are being used to fight one 
of the most virulent terrorist operations extant in the world? The FARC 
terrorists of Colombia.
  In the year 2000 alone there were 423 terrorist attacks against U.S. 
interests by guerrillas in Colombia. Tell me that we are not fighting 
terrorism as we fight the source of funding for those terrorists, which 
is the drug trade in Colombia.
  Of those 423 international terrorist acts against U.S. interests, 
over a third were in Colombia. Mr. President, 44 percent of all attacks 
against American interests in 2000 were conducted in the country of 
Colombia.
  We have a war against terrorists. An important component of that war 
is not just 6 weeks old but now is several years old. We have made 
representations to the people of the United States, the people of 
Colombia, the people of the Andean region, that we were going to be a 
full partner in the successful pursuit of that war.
  More recently, we have made similar representations to the people of 
Pakistan and to its leadership and to other countries around the world 
as we ask them to join the coalition for a long, protracted, difficult 
war to root out global terrorism wherever it exists in the world. I 
suggest our true commitment is not going to be judged by the words we 
speak but by the actions we take.
  If we, today, accept a budget which strips 22 percent of the funds we 
have committed to an area which has become in many ways the global 
testing ground for our commitment against terrorism, I believe we will 
be sending a signal that will reverberate around the world, and one 
that will potentially substantially erode our credibility.
  We have only had Plan Colombia now for a few days more than 12 
months. It went into effect October 1 of 2000. Today is October 24 of 
2001. Yet hardly more than a year into this battle we are beginning to 
sound the trumpet of retreat and run up the white flag of surrender. 
That is not what America wants this Senate to say on its behalf. We 
want to say, as President Bush asked us: Are we really in this war to 
win? Absolutely. We will have a chance later today to decide whether we 
want to put an exclamation point behind the President's statement and 
commitment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. As long as I can regain the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1950

  Mr. GRAHAM. I sought the floor for the purpose of submitting the 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] for himself, Mr. 
     Hagel, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1950.

       On page 142, line 17, strike ``$567,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$731,000,000, of which, $164,000,000 shall be derived from 
     reductions in amounts otherwise appropriated in this act.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief. I want to 
respond to my colleague from Florida.
  First of all, the Senator from Florida is about as committed to this 
region of the world, and to the country of Colombia, as anybody in the 
Senate. I understand that. This is just a respectful difference of 
opinion we have.
  The two members of the Colombian Congress my colleague spoke about 
were killed by paramilitaries, the AUC, not by the FARC or ELN, the 
guerrillas. Although I agree that the FARC and ELN are terrorist 
organizations and should be listed as such, so is the AUC, which is now 
listed as a terrorist organization. I will go into this in a moment 
because I think it is an important point.
  There are reasons we do not want to put an additional $71 million 
into this package without much more accountability when it comes to 
human rights and who is committing the violence.
  I also want to point out that of the money we are talking about, the 
$71 million, a lot of that money in this package goes to disaster 
relief, goes to refugees, goes to combating HIV/AIDS, goes to public 
health, goes to education. I think we are probably a lot better off in 
a foreign operations bill with these priorities than we are putting an 
additional $71 million into this package.
  I also have, which I think is very relevant to this debate, an EFE 
News, Spain piece, the headline of which is ``Colombian Paramilitaries 
Kidnap 70 Farmers to Pick Coca Leaves.''

[[Page 20580]]

  The truth is, the FARC and ELN, these are not Robin Hood 
organizations; they are into narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. But 
so is the AUC and the paramilitary.
  The problem is this effort, Plan Colombia, has been all too one-
sided. If it was truly counternarcotics, we would see just as much 
effort by the Government and by the military focused on the AUC and 
their involvement in drug trafficking as we see vis-a-vis ELN and FARC. 
But we don't see that.
  There are other reasons we can make better use of this $71 million. 
Since we started funding Plan Colombia, unfortunately we have seen a 
dramatic increase in paramilitary participation.
  By the way, let me also point out that on the whole question of the 
war against drugs, not only do I think we would be much better off 
spending money on reducing demand in our own country--there is a reason 
why Colombia exports 300 metric tons of cocaine to the United States 
every year or more, and that is because of the demand. We ought to get 
serious about reducing the demand in our own country. As long as there 
is demand, somebody is going to grow it and somebody is going to make 
money and you can fumigate here and fumigate there and it will just 
move from one place to another.
  My colleague from Florida talked about this effective effort, but the 
United Nations, with a conservative methodology, pointed out that 
although 123,000 acres of coca plants have been fumigated under Plan 
Colombia, cultivation increased 11 percent last year. Cultivation 
increased 11 percent last year.
  Senator Feingold and I will have an amendment and we will talk about 
the fumigation and we will see where the social development money is 
that was supposed to come with the fumigation. That was supposed to be 
part of Plan Colombia. We are also going to be saying we ought to 
involve the local people who live in these communities in decisions 
that are made about this aerial spraying.
  There are health and safety effects. We can raise those questions. 
But it is a little naive to believe these campesinos are not going to 
continue to grow coca if they are not given alternatives, and the 
social development money has just not been there.
  What I want to focus on, which is why I am opposed to the Graham 
amendment, is the human rights issues. The ranks of the AUC and 
paramilitary groups continue to swell. The prime targets are human 
rights workers, trade unionists, drug prosecutors, journalists, and 
unfortunately two prominent legislators, murdered not by FARC or ELN 
but murdered by AUC, with the military having way too many ties--the 
military that we support --with the paramilitary at the brigade level.
  I objected to such a huge infusion of military assistance to the 
Colombian security forces when civilian management remained weak, and 
the ties between the military and paramilitaries were so notorious and 
strong.
  Since Plan Colombia funding began pouring into Colombia, we have seen 
a massive increase in paramilitary participation and its incumbent 
violence. The ranks of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) 
and other paramilitary groups continue to swell. Their prime targets: 
human rights workers, trade unionists, judges, prosecutors, 
journalists, and myriad other civilians.
  The linkages between Colombia's security forces and paramilitary 
organizations are long and historic. Everybody agrees, including the 
Colombian Ministry of Defense, that the paramilitaries account for 75 
percent of the killings in Colombia.
  The media and international human rights groups continue to show 
evidence of tight links between the military and human rights violators 
within paramilitary groups.
  The U.S. State Department, the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights, 
Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are among the 
organizations who have documented that the official Colombian military 
remains linked closely with paramilitaries and collaborates in the 
atrocities.
  According to the Colombian Committee of Jurists (CCJ), ``[i]n the 
case of the paramilitaries, one cannot underestimate the collaboration 
of government forces.''
  According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), the offical 
Colombian military has in some cases created paramilitary units to 
carry out assassinations.
  The State Department's September 2000 report itself mentions 
``credible allegations of cooperation with paramilitary groups, 
including instances of both silent support and direct collaboration by 
members of the armed forces.''
  Likewise, in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released 
in February 2001, the State Department reported that ``the number of 
victims of paramilitary attacks during the year increased.'' It goes on 
to say: ``members of the security forces sometimes illegally 
collaborated with paramilitary forces. The armed forces and the police 
committed serious violations of human rights throughout the year.''
  More from State Department Reports:

       The Government's human rights record remained poor; there 
     were some improvements in the legal framework and in 
     institutional mechanisms, but implementation lagged, and 
     serious problems remain in many areas. Government security 
     forces continued to commit serious abuses, including 
     extrajudical killings. Despite some prosecutions and 
     convictions, the authorities rarely brought higher-ranking 
     officers of the security forces and the police charged with 
     human rights offenses to justice, and impunity remains a 
     problem. Members of the security forces collaborated with 
     paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances 
     allowing such groups to pass through roadbacks, sharing 
     information, or providing them with supplies or ammunition. 
     Despite increased government efforts to combat and capture 
     members of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed 
     to take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary 
     forces find a ready support base within the military and 
     police, as well as among local civilian elites in many areas.

  Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch released a report titled ``The 
`Sixth Division': Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in 
Colombia.'' It contains charges that Colombian military and police 
detachments continue to promote, work with, support, profit from, and 
tolerate paramilitary groups, treating them as a force allied to and 
compatible with their own.
  The ``Sixth Division'' is a phrase Colombians use to refer to 
paramilitary groups, seen to act as simply another part of the 
Colombian military. The Colombian Army has five divisions.
  In the report, Human Rights Watch focuses on three Colombian Army 
brigades: the Twenty-Fourth, Third, and Fifth Brigades.
  At their most brazen, the relationships described in this report 
involve active coordination during military operations between 
government and paramilitary units; communication via radios, cellular 
telephones, and beepers; the sharing of intelligence, including the 
names of suspected guerrilla collaborators; the sharing of fighters, 
including active-duty soldiers serving in paramilitary units and 
paramilitary commanders lodging on military bases; the sharing of 
vehicles, including army trucks used to transport paramilitary 
fighters; coordination of army roadblocks, which routinely let heavily-
armed paramilitary fighters pass; and payments made from paramilitaries 
to military officers for their support.
  President Andres Pastrana has publicly deplored paramilitary 
atrocities. But the armed forces have yet to take the critical steps 
necessary to prevent future killings by suspending high ranking 
security force members suspected of supporting these abuses.
  This failure has serious implications for Colombia's international 
military donors, especially the United States. So far, however, the 
United States has failed to fully acknowledge this situation, meaning 
that military units implicated in abuses continue to receive U.S. aid. 
Human Rights Watch contends that the United States has violated the 
spirit of its own laws and in some cases downplayed or ignored evidence 
of continuing ties between the Colombian military and paramilitary 
groups in order to fund Colombia's

[[Page 20581]]

military and lobby for more aid, including to a unit implicated in a 
serious abuse.
  Although some members of the military have been dismissed by 
President Pastrana, it appears that many military personnel responsible 
for egregious human rights violations continue to serve and receive 
promotions in the Colombian military.
  For example, according to a Washington Office on Latin America, 
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch joint report, General 
Rodrigo Quinones, Commander of the Navy's First Brigade was linked to 
57 murders of trade unionists, human rights workers and community 
leaders in 1991 and 1992. He also played a significant role in a 
February 2000 massacre. A civilian judge reviewing the case of one of 
his subordinates stated that Quinones' guilt was ``irrefutable'' and 
the judge could not understand how Quinones was acquitted in a military 
court. Nevertheless, he was promoted to General in June 2000.
  According to the Colombian Attorney General's office, another 
general, Carlos Ospina Ovalle, commander of the Fourth Brigade, had 
extensive ties to military groups. He and his brigade were involved in 
the October 1997 El Aro massacre, wherein Colombian troops surrounded 
and maintained a perimeter around the village while residents were 
rounded up and four were executed. General Ospina Ovalle also was 
promoted.
  In the State Department's January 2001 report Major Jesus Maria 
Clavijo was touted as an example of a successful detention of a 
military officer associated with the paramilitaries. Yet, by several 
NGO accounts he ``remains on active duty and is working in military 
intelligence, an area that has often been used to maintain links to 
paramilitary groups.''
  Colombian and international human rights defenders are under 
increased surveillance, intimidation, and threats of attack by 
paramilitary groups.
  According to a recent Amnesty International press release, two men 
identifying themselves as members of a paramilitary group approached 
members of Peace Brigades International, threatened them with a gun and 
declared PBI to be a ``military target.''
  Members of Colombian human rights groups such as the Association of 
Family Members of the Detained and Disappeared and the Regional 
Corporation for the Defense of Human Rights have been ``disappeared,'' 
murdered in their homes and harassed with death threats. Despite 
reports to the military and requests for help, Colombian authorities 
seemingly have failed to take significant steps on behalf of the human 
rights groups.
  The systematic, mass killing of union leaders and their members by 
paramilitaries in Colombia can only be described as genocide. There has 
been a dramatic escalation in violations against them--kidnapping, 
torture, and murder--and the response by the Colombian authorities in 
the face of this crisis has been negligible.
  These attacks are an affront to the universally recognized right to 
organize.

       One hundred and thirty-five trade unionists, both leaders 
     and members, were assassinated during the year, bringing the 
     total number of trade unionists killed since 1991 to several 
     thousand. At least another 1,600 others have received death 
     threats over the last three years, including 180 in 2000; 37 
     were unfairly arrested and 155 had to flee their home region. 
     A further 24 were abducted, 17 disappeared and 14 were the 
     victims of physical attacks. (International Confederation of 
     Free Trade Unions--10 October 2001. Colombia: Annual Survey 
     of Violations of Trade Union Rights--2001).

  I would like to share this quote with my colleagues; it will reveal 
the true nature of the situation in Colombia. The quote is attributed 
to Carlo Castano, head of the AUC, the largest paramilitary group in 
Colombia): ``We have reasons for killing all those we do. In the case 
of trade unionists, we kill them because they prevent others from 
working.''
  Most of the union killings have been carried out by Castano's AUC, 
because they view union organizers as subversives. One of the most 
recent killings occurred on June 21, when the leader of Sinaltrainal--
the union that represents Colombia Coca-Cola workers--Oscar Dario Soto 
Polo was gunned down. His murder brings to seven the number of 
unionists who worked for Coca-Cola and were targeted and killed by 
paramilitaries.
  I recently met with the new leader of Sinaltrainal, Javier Correa. In 
our meeting, he described the daily threats to his life, and the 
extremely dangerous conditions he and his family are forced to endure. 
In his quiet, gentle manner he told me about the kidnaping of his 3-
year-old son and his mother, both at the hands of the paramilitaries. 
Frankly, I fear for his life and that of his family. In the wake of 
this meeting, I dread news from the Colombian press, mainly out of fear 
of what I may read.
  In response to these threats, the United Steelworkers of America 
recently sued Coca-Cola in Federal court for its role in such violent 
attacks on labor, and other large corporations are being investigated.

       According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), 
     the vast majority of trade union murders are committed by 
     either the Colombian state itself--e.g. army, police and DAS 
     (security department)--or its indirect agents, the right-wing 
     paramilitaries.

  On both of my visits to Colombia, I heard repeated reports of 
military-paramilitary collusion throughout the country, including in 
the southern departments of Valle, Cauca, and Putamayo, as well as in 
the city of Barrancabermeja, which I visited in December and March.
  Consistently, the military, in particular the army, was described to 
me as tolerating, supporting, and actively coordinating paramilitary 
operations, which often ended in massacres. I was also told that too 
often detailed information was supplied to the military and other 
authorities about the whereabouts of armed groups, the location of 
their bases, and yet authorities were unwilling or unable to take 
measures to protect the civilian population or to pursue their 
attackers.


  While in Colombia, I discussed with General Carreno the status and 
location of the San Rafael--de Lebrija--paramilitary base. The base is 
operating openly in an area under his command, and its activities have 
directly caused much of the bloodshed in the region. Almost 7 months 
after our meeting, however, no effective action has been taken to 
curtail the operations of the San Rafael paramilitary base, and that it 
remains open for business.
  The Colombian military knows where the base is, and who operates it. 
The Colombian government knows. I know, for heaven's sake. But, just in 
case they don't know, I will tell them here. The base is on the 
Magdalena River about 130 kilometers north of Barrancabermeja on the 
same side of the River as Barranca, northwest of the Municipio of Rio 
Negro, in the Department of Santander.
  It is from San Rafael de Lebrija that the paramilitaries launch their 
operations to dominate the local governments and the local community 
organizations in the area around and including Barrancabermeja. It is 
there that they organize their paramilitary operations of intimidations 
of the citizens of the area including the attacks on Barrancabermeja.
  It is from there that they stage the murder of innocent civilians 
like Alma Rosa Jaramillo and Eduardo Estrada. These brave volunteers 
were brutally assassinated in July, simply because they stand for 
democracy, civil rights, and human rights. They are against the war, 
and have no enemies in the conflict. They were both leaders in the 
Program of Development and Peace of the Magdalena Medio, located in 
Barranca, lead by my friend Father ``Pacho'' Francisco De Roux.
  I call on the Colombian government and military to show the U.S. 
Senate that they are serious about cracking down on paramilitaries.
  Close San Rafael. Close Mirafores and Simon Bolivar, also located in 
Barranca, in the northeast quadrant of the city. Close San Blas, south 
of the Municipio of Simiti near San Pablo in the South of the 
Department of Bolivar. Close Hacienda Villa Sandra, a base about one 
mile north of Puerto Asis, the largest town in Putumayo. Is this too 
much to ask?

[[Page 20582]]

  From the annual report on Colombia, by the Inter-American Commission 
on Human Rights (Organization of American States--year 2000) (The OAS 
on paramilitary bases):

       . . . observations . . . confirm that the free operation of 
     patrol checks, paramilitary bases and acts perpetrated by the 
     AUC in the areas of Putumayo (La Hormiga, La Dorada, San 
     Miguel, Puerto Asis, Santa Ana), Antioquia (El Jordan, San 
     Carlos), y Valle (La Iberia, Tulua) are being investigated 
     mainly in the disciplinary jurisdiction.

  It further says:

       The Commission is particularly troubled by the situation in 
     Barrancabermeja, Department of Santander. Complaints are 
     periodically received concerning paramilitary incursions and 
     the establishment of new paramilitary camps in the urban 
     districts. The complaints report that even though civilian 
     and military authorities have been alerted, paramilitary 
     groups belonging to the AUC have settled in the Mirafores and 
     Simon Bolivar districts in the northeast quadrant of the 
     city, and have spread to another 32 districts in the 
     southern, southeastern, northern and northeastern sectors.

  Arrest the notorious paramilitary leaders who open and sustain these 
bases. Nearly everyone knows who they are, where they operate. I know, 
and I've only been to Colombia twice.
  They are operated by the AUC, led by the likes of Carlos Castano, 
Julian Duque, Alexander ``El Zarco'' Londono, Gabriel Salvatore ``El 
Mono'' Mancuso Gomez, and Ramon Isaza Arango.
  The men on this short list--a mere five paramilitaries--account for 
over 40 arrest warrants over several years. They are responsible for 
untold cases of kidnaping, torture, and murder. Go get them.
  In its annual report on Columbia, the Inter-American Commission on 
Human Rights (Organization of American States--year 2000) addressed the 
problem of paramilitary groups and their bases of operations. Here is 
what they said:

       The Commission must point out . . . that although the human 
     rights violations committed by paramilitary are frequently 
     investigated by the regular courts, in many cases, the arrest 
     warrants the courts issue are not executed, especially when 
     they involve the upper echelons of the AUC and the 
     intellectual authors. This creates a climate of impunity and 
     fear. A case in point is the fact that in 2000, the highest 
     ranking chief of the AUC, Carlos Castano, has had access to 
     the national and international media and contacts at the 
     ministerial level, yet the numerous arrest warrants against 
     him for serious human rights violations, have never been 
     executed.

  The Colombian government seems to have accepted paramilitary take 
overs, in places like Barranca. The Colombian government and military 
must find a way to respond to the paramilitary threat. It is a threat 
to the rights of free speech, free assembly, and moreover, the rule of 
law in Colombia.
  Mr. President, as I have said all along, if we are really serious 
about counter-narcotics we should strongly encourage the Colombian 
government to act boldly and officiously in response to the increasing 
strength of the paramilitaries, who are actively engaged in narco-
trafficking.
  Carlos Castano has admitted that about 70 percent of his 
organization's revenues come from taxing drug traffickers. He is listed 
as a major Colombian drug trafficker in recent documents of the U.S. 
Drug Enforcement Agency.
  Drug trafficking is a lucrative business for all parties involved in 
the Colombian conflict. The fact is, many military personnel are 
finding that paramilitary work is simply more lucrative than military 
pay. In addition, they are not forced to comply with even the minimum 
in standards for conduct. Yet, this begets another crucial question: 
where do all these vetted officers and soldiers end up? I fear the 
answer again lies in the paramilitaries. After all, their ranks have 
swelled dramatically in recent years.
  To date, the debate surrounding Plan Colombia has been disingenuous. 
Why has there been little effort to combat paramilitary drug lords? I'm 
afraid we may be exposing this plan for what it really is; 
counterinsurgency against the leftist guerrillas, rather than a sincere 
effort to stop the flow of drugs. A recent Rand report suggested that 
the U.S. government should abandon this charade, in favor of an all-out 
military offensive on guerrilla forces.
  Lamentably, I do not see any improvement on the rule of law front. 
Since Plan Colombia started, and the requisite oversight, we have 
witnessed an unprecedented increase in the power and authority of a 
Colombian military with a long history of corruption and abuse.
  Last summer, President Pastrana signed a new national security law 
that gives the Colombian military sweeping new powers. Among other 
things, the law allows military commanders to declare martial law in 
combat zones, suspending powers of civilian authorities and some 
constitutional protections afforded civilians. The law also shortens 
the period for carrying out human rights investigations of police and 
army troops, allowing soldiers to assume some of the tasks that had 
been assigned to civilian investigators.
  Other controversial aspects of the law are provisions that allow the 
military to hold suspects for longer periods before turning them over 
to civilian judges. Under the old law, government troops had to free 
suspected drug traffickers and guerrillas if they were unable to turn 
them over to civilian authorities within 36 hours. I am very concerned 
about the implications of these provisions. Like many, I fear that 
torture or other human rights violations may increase as a result.
  The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia believes, as 
I do, that some of the provisions of the law are either 
unconstitutional or violate international human rights treaties. I have 
conveyed my objections about this law to the Colombian government. By 
pouring another $135 million into the coffers of the Colombian 
military, we will be increasing their power further without adequately 
strengthening checks on military abuses. Frankly, I feel this is the 
wrong direction.
  I am pleased that my colleagues, especially Senator Leahy, have 
fought to attach safeguards to U.S. military aid to ensure that the 
Colombian armed forces are: First, cooperating fully with civilian 
authorities, in prosecuting and punishing in civilian courts those 
members credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human 
rights or aided or abetted paramilitary groups; second, severing links, 
including intelligence sharing, at the command, battalion, and brigade 
levels, with paramilitary groups, and executing outstanding arrest 
warrants for members of such groups; and third, investigating attacks 
against human rights defenders, trade unionists, and government 
prosecutors, investigators and civilian judicial officials, and 
bringing the alleged perpetrators to justice.
  Moreover, the paramilitaries undermine the peace process. How can 
guerrillas--be they ELN or FARC--agree with the government about future 
political inclusion in the context of a cease fire without first 
defining the problem of paramilitary groups?
  In early 2001, President Pastrana agreed to create a DMZ for the ELN 
in the northern state of Bolivar. This backfired badly when ELN rebels 
were chased out by members of the paramilitary group Autodefensas 
Unidas de Colombia, AUC. The ELN subsequently pulled out of the peace 
process.
  Frustration with the peace process on the part of the military and 
the country's elites has helped transform the paramilitary AUC into a 
major player in the conflict. Some estimates of the strength and size 
of the AUC are as high as 9,500 fighters. In my view, this resurgence 
can be directly linked to the flawed peace process.
  The AUC poses a real threat to the FARC and the ELN, who may now be 
forced to co-operate with each other more closely. That is bad news for 
the security situation, particularly given the boost it could provide 
to the weaker ELN.
  What's even more telling is the trend of FARC guerrillas joining the 
ranks of the paramilitaries. Their motives are based on greed. 
Paramilitaries, financed by narcotraffickers, are now using ex-
gerrillas as scouts and officers, to combat the FARC and ELN more 
forcefully. This amounts to a deadly coalition. The narcotrafficers 
have money without limits, the

[[Page 20583]]

paramilitaries use violence without scruples, and the military supplies 
inside information and protection.
  Press reports detailing U.S. reluctance to paticipate, even as an 
observer, in peace talks between President Pastrana and FARC leaders 
only serve to increase my concerns. All sides need to encourage a 
continued dialogue among all sectors of civil society, but the 
escalating violence makes that increasingly impossible.
  Some of my colleagues have argued that the present campaign against 
terrorism merits our continued military involvement in Colombia. These 
funds, it is said, are going toward counternarcotics operations, 
targeting the FARC and ELN, both of which are on the State Department's 
terrorist list.
  I am well aware that paramilitary groups are not the only armed 
actors committing human rights violations in Colombia, and I am no 
friend of these guerrilla movements. In fact, I have consistently 
decried their repressive tactics and blatant disregard for 
international human rights standards.
  I was deeply saddened by recent reports from Colombia which suggest 
that the FARCC kidnapped and murdered Consuelo Aruajo, the nation's 
former culture minister. She was a beloved figure across Colombia, 
known for her promotion of local culture and music. So, I would like to 
take this opportunity to again call upon the FARC to suspend 
kidnappings, killings and extortion of the civilian population and the 
indigenous communities.
  That said, I further believe that we should be more forceful in going 
after paramilitary death squads, with longstanding ties to some in the 
Colombian military and government.
  Several weeks ago, Representative Luis Alfredo Colmenares, a member 
of the opposition Liberal Party was assassinated in Bogota. We do not 
yet know who perpetrated this despicable act, but most signs point to 
paramilitary death squads, AUC. These same paramilitaries are believed 
to be responsible for the October 2 murder of representative Octavio 
Sarmiento, also a member of the Liberal Party. Both men represented the 
province of Arauca, Northeast of the capital, on the Venezuelan 
frontier--a region that has become increasingly ravaged by the ever-
widening war.
  I was pleased that Secretary Powell made the decision to add the AUC 
to the State Department's terrorist list. It was a sign that the United 
States oppposes threats--from both the left and right--in the 
hemisphere, and I am encouraged by this development. Yet, I do not 
believe it goes far enough. As Senators, we should embrace the 
challenge of making a bold effort to quell paramilitary violence. Wwe 
must not shirk from that responsibility.
  The way out of this mess is nothing particularly new or innnovative. 
What has been lacking in Bogota and Washington is the political will to 
take the risks to make the old proposals work.
  The Congress and the Bush administration must insist on credible and 
far-reaching efforts to stop the paramilitaries.
  Further, we must provide serious and sustained support for the peace 
process, and work to deliver economic assistance programs that work 
instead of dramatic military offensives.
  Finally, we need to embrace demand reduction as the most effective 
mechanism for success in the campaign against drugs.
  General Tapias, the highest ranking military person in Colombia was 
coming to meet with me. It was the day the Hart Building was evacuated. 
We talked on the phone. I know the Presiding Officer spent some time in 
Colombia. I said to him on the basis of the good advice from a 
wonderful human rights priest, Francisco De Roux, General: (A) thank 
you for trying to do a better job of breaking the connection between 
the military and the paramilitary. Thank you for trying to do that. We 
know you have made that effort. (B) I said thank you for going after 
the FARC and the ELN.
  The third question I asked him was when it comes to the murder of 
civil society people such as the people I met on two trips to 
Barrancabermeja--some of whom I met, some of whom are no longer alive--
people who work with Francisco De Roux, probably the best economic 
development organization in Colombia--they are murdered with impunity. 
I said to the general: Where are you? Where is the military? And where 
are the police in defending the civil society?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for just 
one moment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, military-paramilitary linkages are long 
and historic. Everybody agrees. I told you that FARC and the ELN are 
not Robin Hood organizations. But the paramilitaries, now listed as a 
terrorist organization by our State Department, account for 75 percent 
of the killings in Colombia by the AUC.
  The U.S. State Department, the United Nations High Commission on 
Human Rights, Amnesty international, and Human Rights Watch are among 
the organizations who have documented that the official Colombian 
military has remained linked closely with the paramilitaries and all 
too often collaborates in these atrocities.
  We don't need to be giving out any more money.
  The State Department's September 2000 report mentions ``credible 
allegations of cooperation with paramilitary groups, including 
instances of both silent support and direct collaboration by members of 
the armed forces.''
  Two weeks ago, Human Rights Watch released a report titled, ``Sixth 
Division: Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in Colombia.'' It 
is troubling.
  The ``Sixth Division'' is a phrase Colombians use to refer to 
paramilitary groups seen to act as simply another part of the Colombian 
military. The Colombian military has five divisions.
  In this report, Human Rights Watch focuses on three Colombian Army 
brigades: The Twenty-Fourth, Third, and Fifth Brigades.
  I asked the general about direct ties to the paramilitary. They are 
documented. The paramilitaries are brazen. President Pastrana operates 
in good faith, and I know he has publicly deplored the paramilitary 
atrocities. But the armed forces have yet to take the critical steps 
necessary to prevent future killings by suspending these high-ranking 
security force members suspected of supporting these abuses.
  I am telling you that it is documented. We know. But these military 
folks aren't removed. They are not suspended. Nothing or very little is 
done. I don't think we need to spend more money on this.
  Human rights abusers are rewarded with promotion. The joint report of 
the Washington Office on Latin America, Amnesty International, and 
Human Rights Watch talks about the fact that a number of different 
high-ranking military people involved in atrocities are directly 
involved with the paramilitary, and are promoted.
  Human rights workers are under attack. There are systematic mass 
killings of union leaders and their members by the paramilitary in 
Colombia.
  I describe that as genocide. That is what it is. As a matter of fact, 
the AUC has actually bragged about this. Their leader bragged about 
this.
  And we need to give them more money? I don't think so.
  I wish I could mention some of the courageous people who have been 
murdered.
  I have gone to Colombia twice. I have gone to Barrancabermeja. I have 
gone there because it is sort of a safe haven in Colombia. It is one of 
the most violent cities in a very violent country.
  I have had the opportunity to meet with a man that I consider to be 
really one of the greatest individuals I have ever met--Francisco De 
Roux, referred to as Father ``Pacho.'' Why is he so respected and 
beloved? He has an organization called the Program of Development and 
Peace of the Magdalena Medio located in Barranca. They do wonderful 
social justice and economic development work.
  In the last several months, a number of innocent civilians, such as 
Alma

[[Page 20584]]

Rosa Jaramillo and Eduardo Estrada, brave volunteers, were brutally 
assassinated--one, I think, in front of his family members. It was 
awful. They were murdered by the AUC. They were murdered by the 
paramilitary, and the civil society people who work for their 
organization still wait for the prosecution.
  I said to General Carreno, the military man in the region: Here is 
AUC's leader, the bad guys. Go get them.
  It hasn't happened.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, because I think there are some 
important human rights safeguards and Leahy safeguards in this 
legislation that go absolutely in the right direction.
  I will zero in on this for the Feingold amendment on fumigating and 
spraying. I am in profound opposition with the amendment of my 
colleague from Florida, who is one of my favorite Senators. I am not 
just saying that; he is. I have great respect for him. I oppose the 
additional ways in which money is being spent.
  Funding for disaster relief--you name it--and health care makes a 
whole lot more sense. I don't think we need to be putting any more 
money into this plan. Believe me. There are important human rights 
questions to be raised. I don't think the Colombian Government has been 
nearly as accountable as they should.
  Frankly, even with the war on the counternarcotics effort, there are 
very real questions as to how effective this is.
  At the very minimum, let's not spend even more money without making 
sure first we have the accountability, especially on the human rights 
issues.
  My colleague from Florida said: What is the message going to be? I 
will say this: What is the message going to be if the United States of 
America, over and over, all of a sudden says when it comes to democracy 
and when it comes to the human rights question that we are going to put 
all of that in parenthesis, and we are going to turn our gaze away from 
it, that it makes no difference to us, and it is not a priority for our 
government?
  If we do that, we will no longer be lighting the candle for the 
world. It would be a profound mistake.
  I hope colleagues will vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am rather disappointed with this 
amendment. Senators have every right, of course, to offer any amendment 
they have.
  This bill has been before the Senate for almost 2 weeks now. We just 
heard about this amendment a very short time ago today. This amendment 
cuts at least $164 million from important programs, as the Senator from 
Minnesota and others have pointed out. I mention the money it is 
cutting because these are programs where funds have been requested by 
both Republicans and Democrats.
  The amendment of the Senator from Florida would transfer those funds 
to the Andean Counterdrug Program. That program essentially consists of 
military and economic assistance to four principal countries--Colombia, 
Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador--but these are not countries that are going 
unfunded. They already get over a half billion dollars in this bill--
well over a half billion dollars. They get $567 million.
  I do not believe there is any region, other than possibly Middle East 
countries and the former Soviet Republics, that gets that amount of 
money. That $567 million is on top of the $1,300 million--$1.3 
billion--that we provided for Plan Colombia last year. In fact, it is 
not a half billion dollars; it is more than a half billion dollars. It 
is nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars when you include the 
economic and development aid in this bill for the Andean countries, and 
that is there on top of the counterdrug aid.
  So you take the funds that are already in this bill--not the funds 
added by the Senator from Florida, but the funds already in this bill--
and we will have provided over $2 billion for these countries in the 
past 16 months; in 1\1/3\ years, over $2 billion.
  In fact, by pouring money down there so fast, they can't even spend 
it yet. Much of last year's funds have not even been disbursed. Even 
though they have not spent all the money, we are giving them another 
$700 million in additional funding this year.
  It is no secret that--and, actually, I am not alone in this body--I 
am skeptical that this program will have an appreciable impact on the 
amount of illegal drugs coming into the United States. We have spent 
billions down there, and drugs are just as accessible. In fact, in our 
country, for many types of drugs the price has actually gone down.
  I suggest, until we start doing something about reducing the 
insatiable demand for drugs here, in the world's wealthiest country, we 
are not going to do too much good about incoming drugs. As long as the 
money is there, we can stop them in Colombia, but they will just come 
from somewhere else. Secretary Rumsfeld has said much the same thing.
  In fact, a lot of other members of the Appropriations Committee--in 
both parties--expressed similar doubts in a hearing we held earlier 
this year. We had a hearing where the administration came up.
  We asked them: By the way, how much money has been spent that we have 
given you so far?
  They said: Gee, we don't know. We will try to get back to you on 
that.
  We said: Well, with a billion dollars or so, you must have some kind 
of basic idea what you spent the money on.
  They said: We don't know, but we will sure check into it.
  When my kids were little, I gave them a small allowance. I did not 
expect them to tell me where it all went--whether it was baseball cards 
or comic books or ice cream cones or something like that--but we were 
talking about a few dollars. When you give somebody $1 billion, you 
would kind of like to know what they do with it.
  So I said: If you can't tell us where you spent it, how about letting 
us in on a little secret. Has anything been accomplished with the money 
we gave you?
  They said: We will have to get back to you on that. We don't know how 
much has been spent. We don't know how much has been accomplished. We 
do know we have another $700 million in this bill, and we have a whole 
lot of money in the pipeline that is not yet spent.
  We keep pouring money in. We do not even know if the program will 
work. But the administration wants some money in there. We put in a lot 
of money. We have a lot of other similar programs, especially in 
foreign policy. We pour a whole lot of money in there and not much 
comes out.
  We have spent billions of dollars to combat drugs in the Andes over 
the past 15 years, and we have eradicated coca and we have eradicated 
opium poppy in several places, but, of course, they just pop up 
somewhere else. It is sort of like Whack-A-Mole--knock down one, it 
pops up somewhere else.
  And we have found one other thing: The flow of illegal drugs into 
this country, no matter what we do in other countries, reflects our 
demand. If the demand for drugs goes up in this country, the flow of 
drugs coming into this country increases. If the demand for drugs 
drops, the flow of drugs into this country drops. Far more than what we 
do with our Customs agents--and they are extremely good--or the DEA or 
the Coast Guard or anything else, in a nation of a quarter of a billion 
people, if we want to spend billions upon billions upon billions of 
dollars for drugs, the drugs will come.
  But even though there is serious doubts about whether this works, 
Senator McConnell and I have tried to give the administration the 
benefit of the doubt. We include another half billion dollars in this 
bill, on top of the billions already there.
  The senior Senator from Florida, who is in this Chamber right now, is 
a good friend of mine. We have worked together on many issues. But I 
would like to see him try to do the balancing act we have had to do in 
this bill to get money for a program that actually most of us on the 
committee do not

[[Page 20585]]

even like, but to give money for that program, and do the other things 
in this bill.
  We have had 81 Senators requesting funding for all sorts of programs 
we tried to fund. I want to be fair; 81 Senators asked for some 
funding, and 3 did ask for some money for the Andean Counterdrug 
Program. Eighty-one of the 100 Senators asked for funding for various 
items in this bill; 3 of the 100 Senators asked for funding for the 
Andean Counterdrug Program. Other than a few lobbyists, it does not 
seem to be the most popular program.
  But we have a bill that is in balance. I know the administration 
supports the Andean program. They also support the Economic Support 
Fund. They support the Foreign Military Financing Program. They support 
funding for the former Soviet Republics. They support money for Central 
and Eastern Europe. They support money for the International Military 
Education and Training Program. They support money for our 
contributions to the World Bank and United Nations programs. There are 
a number of things the administration supports.
  In fact, they have put together a legislative blivet. They support a 
lot more programs than there is money in this bill. If you put up a 
chart: Shown up here is what they support in programs, down here is 
where they put money. So we have had to take the money we have 
available. We have taken the programs supported by the administration, 
and also assuming the Congress has some say in how the money is spent 
on programs supported by this body and the other body.
  All these accounts were cut by the House and, actually, in some cases 
they were cut below what the President requested. We restored them to 
help out the administration. We made choices. We made choices which 
reflect the administration's priorities and Senators' priorities. They 
are not always the same requests. In fact, we were unable to fund over 
$3.4 billion in requests from 81 Senators. Now this amendment would cut 
those even further.
  In fact, the Andean Counterdrug Program received a lot more funding 
than many other critical programs. We provide more money for the Andean 
Counterdrug Program than we do to combat AIDS, which infects another 
17,000 people every day. Many Senators wanted to provide more money to 
fight AIDS and also to help fulfill the President's commitment to do 
that, but we are $1 billion short of what we should be spending on 
AIDS.
  Incidentally, we provide more for the Andean Regional Initiative than 
we do for assistance to the world's 22 million refugees.
  Other Senators have asked for more money for refugees, but we were 
unable to do it partly because of the huge amount of money we are 
already putting in the Andean Counterdrug Program.
  Incidentally, we provide over twice as much in this bill for the 
Andean Counterdrug Program as for all disaster relief programs 
worldwide--for victims of war, earthquakes, drought, and other 
calamities in all of Africa, Central America, and Asia--even at a time 
when we are trying to point out to the rest of the world that we are 
not the Great Satan that Osama bin Laden and others try to make us out 
to be, that we do help in these areas. We don't help as much as the 
Andean Counterdrug Program, but we will help.
  When I see requests for more money for the Andean Counterdrug 
Program, it worries me. We already spend four times as much for the 
Andean Counterdrug Program as for basic education programs worldwide, 
even though the President and Members of both parties have said we 
should do more to help improve education worldwide so that we will have 
educated people and the next generation coming along will be educated 
and have a better idea of what the United States and other democracies 
are like as well as what the real culture of their own country is like.
  We provide four times as much for the Andean Counterdrug Program as 
for microcredit programs for loans for the world's absolutely poorest 
people, loans that help in many countries allow women, for the first 
time in the history of those countries, to have a basic modicum of 
independence. For women who have absolutely nothing otherwise, have no 
way of doing it, this program helps. We provide four times as much for 
the Andean Counterdrug Program. We provide more for the Andean 
Counterdrug Program than we do for antiterrorism programs or 
nonproliferation programs. We actually should be spending twice as much 
for those programs. We can't because of all the money we are already 
putting into the Andean Counterdrug Program.
  At some point we have to set some priorities. We have poured in money 
so fast they can't even spend the money they have in the pipeline. The 
administration, when they provide sworn testimony before the Congress, 
can't even tell us what the money is being spent for. Yet they want 
more. How many other programs do we have to cut? We provide more for 
this than we do for our export programs.
  Let's go back and tell some of the small businesses in America that 
depend on the export business and that could employ people at a time 
when the economy is going in the tank, let's tell some of these small 
companies, sorry, we can't help you build up your business so you can 
export and hire people who have been laid off to come back because we 
have to give the Andean Counterdrug Program more money beyond the 
billions we have already spent.
  Maybe we ought to be cutting these export programs. The heck with 
putting people back to work; we have to send some money down to the 
Andean Counterdrug Program. We don't know where it is going. We don't 
know how it is being spent. We know it is not effective. We know it 
hasn't stopped drugs coming up here. But let's make ourselves feel good 
and send it down there. Sorry, you are getting laid off from your 
factory job here.
  I care about international health. We have a total of $175 million in 
this bill to combat infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and 
malaria. They kill about 3 million people a year. We can help, with 
some of this money, to make sure some of these infectious diseases that 
are a postage stamp or an airplane trip away from the United States, to 
stop them from coming in this country. But we don't have enough money 
to do that. We don't have enough money not only to help these people 
eradicate these diseases in their own country but to stop them from 
coming into our country because we don't have enough money. Why? We are 
spending four times more on the Andean Counterdrug Program, four times 
what we are doing to stop diseases--smallpox, tuberculosis, malaria, or 
the Ebola plague--from coming into our country.
  Ask somebody who has picked up the paper in the last few days what 
they think our priorities are.
  One would think from this amendment that Senator McConnell and I 
don't support a counterdrug program. That is not so. We are willing to 
give the benefit of the doubt. It hasn't proven it has done anything 
yet. It has yet to demonstrate any impact on the drug program in this 
country. But we are willing to give the administration a chance, and so 
we have thrown in a half a billion dollars on top of the $1.3 billion 
of last year. The administration says it has not worked. It can't show 
anything where it has been successful, but ``give us some more and we 
will do it.'' We have done that.
  If we add even more money for it, where do we cut? This amendment 
cuts across the board. It cuts Egypt. It cuts Israel. It cuts Jordan. 
It cuts money for the former Soviet Union. It cuts education. It cuts 
TB prevention programs. It cuts education of children. It cuts programs 
that might give some economic stability to poor women across the world. 
Why? To go into an Andean Counterdrug Program where they can't even 
account for the money they have.
  I want to help Colombia. I want to help Bolivia. I want to help 
Ecuador. I want to help Peru. We have put a half a billion dollars in 
here to do that, even though that is money from priorities that might 
do the country better.

[[Page 20586]]

  I met the head of Colombia's armed forces last week. I have met him 
before. I have nothing but complete respect and admiration for 
President Pastrana of Colombia. I consider Colombia's Ambassador, 
Ambassador Moreno, a friend. I think he is one of the best ambassadors 
any country has sent here. He knows how the administration works. He 
knows how our country works. He knows what our culture is. He speaks 
out forcefully for his own country. He does it with great respect for 
Colombia, but also with appropriate respect for the country in which he 
is serving. In fact, I sometimes wish some of the ambassadors we sent 
to other countries could do their job as well as Ambassador Moreno 
does.
  I hope that this half a billion dollars--actually more than half a 
billion dollars--that Senator McConnell and I have put into this bill 
will pay off in the Andean Counterdrug Program. But in the past year we 
have seen the civil war in Colombia intensify. We have seen the 
paramilitaries double in size. There have been more massacres of 
innocent civilians by paramilitaries this year than ever before. There 
is indisputable evidence that the paramilitaries are receiving support 
from some in the Colombian armed forces.
  Funding that we provided last year to strengthen Colombia's justice 
system has yet to be spent. Some of it has been allocated for purposes 
that bear little if any resemblance to what Congress intended, in a 
bipartisan fashion, it to be used for.
  Aerial fumigation has destroyed a lot of coca. But there are also 
supposed to be alternative programs from which to give farmers 
something else to earn a living. They have barely been used. They have 
not spent tens of millions of dollars we provided last year, and USAID 
has serious doubt about Colombia's ability to implement these programs.
  If we don't give these farmers an alternative source of income, if we 
don't use the money we sent to do that, does anybody doubt that we will 
see these farmers planting coca again so they can feed their families? 
I wish they wouldn't. I think it is wrong they do. But let's be 
realistic. If you have a hungry family there, you are not going to 
think of the people of another country who spend more money on their 
drug habit in a week than these people ever see in a year.
  I share the concerns of the Senator from Florida about the use of 
drugs in this country, especially in my own State. I was a prosecutor 
for 8 years. I have some very strong views on these issues. Heroin use 
has been steadily increasing in Vermont. Like any Vermonter, that 
frightens me and worries me. But the Andean Counterdrug Program is not 
going to have any impact on that problem we have in Vermont. Yet there 
is a half billion dollars in this bill. It is not going to help most 
States. Let's see how last year's money gets spent. Let's see how this 
year's half billion dollars gets spent. Then if the administration 
comes here before Senator McConnell's and my committee next year and 
starts telling us, gee, we don't know where the money is going, how it 
is being spent, or if it is having any effect, or they are able to tell 
us how it is being spent and what effect it has had, then we can talk 
about more money.
  Before we throw a whole lot more money into the problem, let's see if 
the $718 million does any good in the first place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the committee funded the President's 
$731 million request for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative at $567 
million, which is a cut of $164 million. This figure reflects an 
attempt by the subcommittee to balance the interest of Congress and the 
President over such issues as restoring the administration's 25 percent 
or $119 million cut in the export-import pact funding.
  Senator Graham's amendment seeks to restore that $164 million to this 
initiative. I think he knows this is going to be an issue for the 
conference, as Senator Leahy pointed out, because the House funding 
level is $675 million. While I can appreciate his arguments for funding 
the Andean initiative, it is clear from a hearing Senator Leahy and I 
held on this issue earlier this year that there are Members who are 
concerned with Plan Colombia and the ability of the United States to 
impact narcotics growth and production in the civil war zones. Reducing 
funds for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative will not starve our 
counterdrug efforts. The disbursement of funds from last year's Plan 
Colombia is occurring, frankly, at a rather slow pace. Figures from 
USAID show that of the $119 million provided for judicial, economic, 
and other reforms, only $8 million has been actually spent to date.
  So Senator Leahy and I included an amendment in the managers' package 
to ensure adequate levels of funding for counterdrug assistance for 
Bolivia and Ecuador.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to which 
I understand the Senator from Kentucky has agreed.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Graham amendment No. 1950 be laid 
aside, to recur at 4:40 p.m.; that there then be 20 minutes remaining 
for debate prior to a vote on a motion to table the amendment, with the 
time to be equally divided and controlled between the Senator from 
Vermont and the senior Senator from Florida, or their designees; that 
no second-degree amendment be in order to the Graham amendment prior to 
a vote on a motion to table; that Senator Feingold now be recognized to 
offer two amendments, one with respect to Andean drug and one with 
respect to congressional COLA; that if debate has not concluded on the 
two Feingold amendments at 4:40 p.m., they be laid aside, to recur upon 
disposition of the Graham amendment in the order in which they are 
offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair, and I am sure he understood that 
convoluted agreement just as much as the propounder of it did.
  By doing this--and I see the Senator from Wisconsin in the Chamber--
we will be able to move forward. Again, the Senator from Kentucky and I 
are open to do business. I will have other things to say and will speak 
on the Andean drug matter, but I remind everybody that we have a huge 
amount of money in the bill already, and we are cutting a lot of 
programs that should have higher priority.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Wisconsin is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1951

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and 
     Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 1951.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide an additional condition for the procurement of 
   chemicals for aerial coca fumigation under the Andean Counterdrug 
                              Initiative)

       On page 143, beginning on line 9, strike ``and (3)'' and 
     all that followed through the colon and insert the following: 
     ``(3) effective mechanisms are in place to evaluate claims of 
     local citizens that their health was harmed or their licit 
     agricultural crops were damaged by such aerial coca 
     fumigation, and provide fair compensation for meritorious

[[Page 20587]]

     claims; and (4) within 6 months of the enactment of this 
     provision alternative development programs have been 
     developed, in consultation with communities and local 
     authorities in the departments in which such aerial coca 
     fumigation is planned, and in the areas in which such aerial 
     coca fumigation has been conducted, such programs are being 
     implemented within 6 months of the enactment of this 
     provision:

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his help in 
making it possible to get going on this amendment. I rise to offer an 
amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill. I am very 
pleased to have as an original cosponsor the distinguished senior 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, who has certainly made it his 
business to follow closely our policy in Latin America, in particular 
in Colombia.
  My amendment is intended to improve the efficacy of U.S. efforts to 
eradicate the supply of narcotics that threatens our families and 
communities and to ensure that our efforts to address this issue do not 
inadvertently plunge the people of Latin America into a humanitarian 
and economic crisis.
  The amendment is very simple. It requires that the administration 
have alternative development plans for a given region in place before 
engaging in aerial fumigation in that area, and it requires that 
alternative development plans are being implemented in areas where 
fumigation has already occurred.
  This is hardly a radical initiative. I recently received a letter 
from the administration responding to some of my inquiries and concerns 
about our fumigation policy. In the letter, the State Department itself 
noted that alternative development must work in concert with 
eradication and with law enforcement. Unfortunately, though, over the 
past year fumigation has occurred in areas where there are no 
alternative development programs in place at all or in areas where 
alternative development assistance has been exceedingly slow.
  According to a recent Center for International Policy meeting with 
experts from southern Colombia, communities that signed pacts agreeing 
to eradicate coca in December and January in Puerto Asis and Santa Ana, 
Putumayo, have not yet received aid. AID as of mid-July states that 
only 2 out of 29 social pacts signed have received assistance so far. 
These facts tell us that our policy has to be better coordinated. More 
important, they tell us our policy cannot possibly be working.
  Of course, some people simply disagree with this policy as a whole. I 
have heard from a number of my constituents who are concerned about 
fumigation in and of itself. They are concerned about the health 
effects of this policy, and they are concerned about whether or not 
local communities and authorities have been adequately consulted and 
informed about their policies.
  Frankly, I share those concerns. I strongly support the language the 
Appropriations Committee has included conditioning additional funding 
for fumigation on a determination to be submitted by the Secretary of 
State, after consultation with the Secretary of HHS and the Surgeon 
General, that the chemicals involved do not pose an undue risk to human 
health or safety; that fumigation is being carried out according to 
EPA, CDC, and chemical manufacturers' guidelines; and that effective 
mechanisms are in place to evaluate claims of harm from citizens 
affected by fumigation. I believe these provisions are critically 
important, and I share the skepticism of many with regard to United 
States policy in Colombia in general.
  Nevertheless, like those underlying conditions in this bill, my 
amendment does not seek to eliminate fumigation from our policy 
toolbox. It does seek to ensure that when we use that tool, we use it 
in a rational and effective way. If we keep on fumigating without 
improving the conditions of coca growers, drug crops will simply shift 
to other locations or spring up again as soon as the fumigation stops. 
It makes no sense to take away a farmer's livelihood, provide him no 
alternative, and expect him not to plant illicit crops again.
  Without this amendment, we risk failing in our counternarcotics 
efforts in creating a humanitarian and economic disaster for the people 
of Colombia, one that will doubtless also be costly for the United 
States in the long run.
  I also want to point out that my amendment calls for consultation 
with affected communities and local authorities. Supporting democratic 
governance and a strong civil society in Colombia are important United 
States policy goals. Those aims reflect our clear interest in a stable 
and law-governed Colombia.
  This is a very modest proposal. It aims to make our policy work 
rationally and in a coordinated fashion. It recognizes that eradication 
without alternative development simply makes no sense.
  It acknowledges the stake of the Colombian people in our policy. So I 
urge my colleagues to support it.


                    Amendment No. 1951, As Modified

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk. This 
modification changes a typographical error in the original amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 143, beginning on line 9, strike ``and (3)'' and 
     all that follows through the colon and insert the following: 
     ``(3) effective mechanisms are in place to evaluate claims of 
     local citizens that their health was harmed or their licit 
     agricultural crops were damaged by such aerial coca 
     fumigation, and provide fair compensation for meritorious 
     claims; and (4) within 6 months of the enactment of this 
     provision alternative development programs have been 
     developed, in consultation with communities and local 
     authorities in the departments in which such aerial coca 
     fumigation is planned, and in the departments in which such 
     aerial coca fumigation has been conducted, such programs are 
     being implemented within 6 months of the enactment of this 
     provision:''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, did the Senator from Wisconsin wish to say 
something further?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make sure, before we proceed 
with this amendment, the Senator from Minnesota has an opportunity to 
address it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I assure the Senator from Wisconsin, and 
others who will come with other matters, I will turn over the floor in 
a few minutes.
  Sometimes we take these bills and we move them. We do this bill now, 
we will do that bill now, and it is fairly routine. Even on this bill--
and I have had the privilege of being either chairman or ranking member 
of this subcommittee for years, handling our foreign aid bill through a 
number of different administrations, Republican and Democrat. It occurs 
to me, we have never quite had a time as we do today with this bill. We 
have never quite had the situation where what happens in other parts of 
the world might threaten us so directly.
  Let me tell my colleagues why I say that. It is not a case where we 
have this threat of an army marching into the United States or a navy 
sailing against us. We are too powerful for that. It is partly because 
of our power and our world status that we have both the good news and 
the bad news.
  Our economy is intricately intertwined with the global economy. Our 
health depends on our ability and the ability of countries in Africa, 
Asia, and Latin America to control the spread of deadly infectious 
diseases. Our security is linked to the spread of nuclear, biological, 
and chemical weapons, on our ability to stop terrorism, 
narcotrafficking, and organized crime. These threats are prevalent from 
as far away as China, to our own cities.
  Another less defined threat, but potentially the trigger that ignites 
many others, is poverty. We are surrounded by a sea of desperate 
people. Two billion people, a third of the world's inhabitants, live on 
the edge of starvation. They barely survive on whatever scraps they can 
scavenge. Oftentimes one sees children in food dumps scavenging for 
something. Many of the children die before they reach the age of 5.

[[Page 20588]]

In some countries, they do not even list their births until they are 4 
or 5 years old. They wait to see whether the children make it.
  This grinding, hopeless, desperate existence, something that is 
unimaginable for all of us within this Chamber, it is overladen with 
despair. That despair fuels hatred, fuels fear and violence. We see it 
on so many continents. We see it today in Pakistan, where thousands of 
people are threatening to overthrow their own government if that 
government gives American troops access to Pakistani territory. We see 
it across Africa, Colombia, and Indonesia. We see it in the form of 
refugees and people displaced from their homes, and they number in the 
tens of millions.
  The world is on fire in too many places to count, and in most of 
those flash points poverty and the injustice that perpetuates it are at 
the root of that instability.
  Our foreign assistance programs provide economic support to poor 
countries, health care to the world's neediest women and children, food 
and shelter to refugees and victims of natural and manmade disasters, 
and technical expertise to promote democracy and free markets and human 
rights and the rule of law. That is the way it should be, when we are 
so blessed in this Nation with such abundance.
  As important as this aid is, the amount we give is a pittance when 
considered in terms of our wealth and the seriousness of the threats we 
face. So many countries give so much more.
  I can make an argument for the foreign aid bill on national security. 
I can make an argument for this bill because it helps create American 
jobs. I can make an argument for this bill because when we eliminate 
disease, we protect ourselves. The biggest argument I will make for 
this bill is how can we accept the enormous blessings of this country--
we are about 5 percent of the world's population. We are consuming more 
than half of the world's resources. How can we say we are a moral 
people if we do not help others?
  This goes beyond politics. This goes beyond economics. This goes 
beyond security. It is a matter of morality; morality to shape our 
whole nation in the helping of others.
  If somebody came up to us today and said look at this child who is 
going to die of malaria; if you would give us 75 cents or a dollar you 
would save the child, if you knew it was real and you could save the 
child, of course you would give that. We do not even give that in these 
bills.
  The approximately $10 billion that we provide in this type of 
assistance, through the State Department or the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, the contributions to the World Bank, the 
U.N. Development Program, the World Food Program, all of that money 
comes out to well under a dollar a week from us.
  The amount that each of us gives does not keep two refugees alive a 
year. We do not keep up with the number of people living in poverty, 
which is rising steadily.
  I know our economy is suffering and our people are hurting in this 
country. As much suffering as we have and as hurting as we are, I can 
show you places where billions of people would trade places with us in 
a heartbeat.
  We will work to help people in our country, as we should, but let us 
not bury our heads in the sand. We do not protect our national 
interests in today's complex and dangerous world on a foreign 
assistance budget that is less in real terms than it was 15 years ago 
when I was a junior Senator. Our world is not simply our towns and our 
States and our country. It is the whole world. We live in a global 
economy.
  The Ebola virus is like a terrorist; it is only an airplane flight 
away from our shores. We can try our best to control our borders, but 
we cannot hide behind an impenetrable wall. We have to go to the source 
of the problem; that is, to countries that are failing from AIDS, from 
ignorance, from poverty, and from injustice. We need a better 
understanding of the world in which we live.
  Almost 60 percent of the world's people live in Asia. That number is 
growing. Seventy percent of the world's people are nonwhite. Seventy 
percent are non-Christian. About 5 percent, though, own more than half 
of the world's wealth. Half the world's people suffer from 
malnutrition. Can one imagine what a tragedy it would be if we went 
back to our home States and half of the people of the State were 
malnourished? Well, half the world's people are.
  Seventy percent of the people in this world are illiterate. Instead 
of $10 billion to combat poverty, support democracy, promote free 
markets, and the rule of law, and aid victims of disaster, we should be 
spending $50 billion.
  Is it a lot? With a Federal budget of $2 trillion, that depends. We 
are going to spend more than that just to recover from the September 11 
terrorist attacks. We are going to spend a lot more to conduct a 
campaign against terrorism, and we must. Maybe if we had spent more 
money in the first place on some of these problems we might not have 
faced a September 11 terrorist attack. We also have to look at other 
global problems. Not the problems, thank God, that killed 6,000 
Americans in a day, but they have posed immense long-term problems 
affecting our lives.
  Extreme poverty on a massive scale, population growth effects on 
countries, and the poisoning of our environment are problems we cannot 
continue to treat as afterthoughts. We cannot spend so little to combat 
these threats, anymore than we could justify failing to anticipate the 
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We cannot solve all 
the problems. Nobody can.
  Maybe one of the positive things that will come from the time of 
national soul-searching is to think differently about what the future 
holds in our role in the world. The Senator from Kentucky and I have 
done our best to respond to these problems, but it is not enough and 
falls far short. We are not going to do it with a budget that is less 
than that of a decade ago. Because of that, we fail the American people 
and we fail future generations.
  We say with pride we are a superpower. And I say that with pride. But 
let's start acting like a superpower, like the leading democracy of the 
world. Let's reach deep inside of the best of our country. Then let us 
lead the world in combating poverty and supporting the development of 
democracy and preserving what is left of the world's natural 
environment. Let's start paying our share. We have a moral 
responsibility.
  But even if we are not reaching inside ourselves to answer that moral 
call, give a pragmatic reason why we should not do our share. We are, 
after all, the Nation with the very most at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Feingold, with this amendment.
  Mr. President, I rise today to address disturbing developments in our 
antinarcotics efforts in Colombia, and to join Senator Feingold in 
calling for a shift in our fumigation policy.
  The motivations behind the Andean Counterdrug Initiative and last 
year's Plan Colombia are important--stop the flow of illicit drugs into 
the United States. I, like every other member of this body, am 
extremely concerned about the effects of drug use on our citizens, 
particularly our children. That said, I am becoming more and more 
convinced that the plan advanced for combating this problem targets the 
wrong source. What's more, I think that the methodology used is neither 
fair nor effective.
  I am talking about aerial coca eradication, which has been the focus 
of our efforts in Colombia. Last December, the Colombian military began 
a massive fumigation campaign in southern Colombia, with U.S. support. 
Under the current plan, pilots working for DynCorp, a major U.S. 
government military contractor, spray herbicide on hundreds of 
thousands of acres of Colombian farmland. To date, the provinces of 
Putumayo, Cauca, and Narino have been most affected, but expansion of 
the program is imminent. I have a

[[Page 20589]]

number of concerns about this approach.
  First, I have become increasingly convinced that fumigation is an 
extreme, unsustainable policy causing considerable damage. Since the 
fumigation campaign started last December, rivers, homes, farms, and 
rainforests have been fumigated with the herbicide Round-Up. Because 
Round-Up is a ``non-selective'' herbicide, it kills legal food crops 
and the surrounding forest, in addition to coca plants. Furthermore, 
farmers and their supporters contend that glyphosate is hazardous. I'm 
beginning to believe they're right.
  Round-Up is classified by its manufacturer, Monsanto, as ``relatively 
safe.'' However, the EPA classifies Round-Up as ``most poisonous,'' 
while the World Health Organization classifies it as ``extremely 
poisonous.'' Directions on glyphosate products, like Round-Up, warn 
users not to apply the product in a way that will cause contact with 
people ``either directly or through drift.'' These instructions and 
warnings are not being taken into consideration.
  What's more, according to the Round-Up website, the herbicide is not 
recommended for aerial application and is not supposed to be applied 
near or in bodies of water. However, in Colombia, much of the coca 
cultivation takes place alongside rivers and ponds, and these bodies of 
water are routinely fumigated. A November 2000 report by the American 
Bird Conservancy notes that Round-Up is extremely toxic to fish and 
other aquatic organisms.
  Putumayo, where the spraying has been principally concentrated, 
reports over 4,000 people with skin or gastric disorders, above and 
beyond normal averages. In January and February alone, over 175,000 
animals were killed in that region. All had been sprayed with Round-Up 
and Cosmo Flux, a Colombian-made mix.
  Mr. President, in light of this mounting evience, I don't believe 
that we can sit idly by as U.S. taxpayer dollars go toward such a 
policy. The environmental consequences are serious. The health effects 
are concerning at best, deadly at worst.
  This is an especially personal issue for me. As the only United 
States Senator to withstand aerial fumigation, I feel I have a unique 
obligation to address this matter forcefully. When I visited Colombia 
last year, I was sprayed with glyphosate. At the time, I had little 
idea of the threats that such activity entailed.
  Families continue to suffer hunger as legal food crops have been 
destroyed and livestock have been harmed. No emergency aid has been 
provided, and economic development efforts have yet to be realized. In 
fact, according to a report by Colombian Human Rights Ombudsman Eduardo 
Cifuentes, eleven different alternative development projects were 
fumigated during the campaigns. We are undermining our own programs.
  This brings me to my second point; alternative development aid has 
not been delivered, even though fumigation has been in place since 
December.
  While fumigation began soon after the passage of Plan Colombia, 
alternative development programs have yet to get off the ground. Last 
July, the Center for International Policy held a meeting with experts 
from southern Colombia. At that meeting, they reported that those 
communities who have signed pacts agreeing to eradicate coca in 
December and January have not yet received aid. These communities--like 
Puerto Asis and Santa Ana, both in Putumayo--have expressed their 
willingness to work on the problem. What have they gotten instead? They 
have gotten babies with rashes, dead animals, ruined food crops, and 
tainted water.
  In addition, the slowness in aid delivery makes farmers lose further 
trust in the Colombian government and in eradication. As we all know, 
alternative development takes time to plan and implement. We can expect 
that USAID will be moving ahead in the future. But it is clear from 
events in southern Colombia that there was no coordination between 
fumigation efforts and alternative development. A massive fumigation 
campaign went ahead when development programs were still in the 
planning stage. This is the height of irresponsibility.
  How are we going to get Colombian peasants to change their practices 
without viable alternatives?
  Under the current plan, the government of Colombia will give each 
family up to $2,000 in subsidies and technical assistance to grow 
substitute crops like rice, corn and fruit. We are providing $16 
million specifically for these purposes--a mere 1 percent of the total 
Colombian aid package. Many believe this is not enough, with the 
average coca farmer making about $1,000 a month. Regardless, these 
subsidies have yet to take effect. We haven't even tried.
  In the USAID ``Report on Progress Toward Implementing Plan Colombia--
Supported Activities'' released at the end of last month, these facts 
become apparent. Of the more than $40 million obligated under Plan 
Colombia for promoting economic and social alternatives to illicit crop 
production, a mere $6 million has been spent. Of the 37,000 families 
who signed ``social pacts'' agreeing to eliminate coca in exchange for 
alternative development programs, only 568 families had received their 
first package of assistance.
  Moreover, fumigation campaigns without alternative development 
threaten the very goals they claim to support. They fuel a mistrust in 
the national government, as communities are forced by the campaigns to 
flee their homes and move elsewhere in search of food. Individuals in 
these areas often turn to the guerrillas or paramilitaries in search of 
security, exacerbating the violent conflict and undermining the rule of 
law in the region. An abandonment of the fumigation policy will help to 
strengthen the relationship between farmers in these areas and the 
national government, which will help eradication efforts in the long 
term.
  A recent study by the conservative think tank, Rand Corporation, 
rightly notes that the aerial fumigation of coca crops is backfiring 
politically. They say: ``Absent viable economic alternatives [such as 
crop substitution and infrastructure development], fumigation may 
simply displace growers to other regions and increase support for the 
guerrillas.''
  Next, I don't believe that fumigation solves the problem of coca 
cultivation, but simply shifts the problem from one area to another. In 
a New York Times interview with Juan de Jesus Cardenas, governor of the 
Huila province, reporter Juan Forero wrote the following: ``the 
governor of Huila said regional leaders across the southern area of 
Colombia believed that defoliation would simply drive farmers to 
cultivate coca and poppies in other regions. `That is what happened 
with defoliation of Putumayo, with the movement of displaced people 
into Narino,' said the governor.'' Likewise, our Ambassador to 
Colombia, Mrs. Anne Patterson, has acknowledged that coca had appeared 
for the first time in the eastern departments of Arauca and Vichada.
  Fumigation without adequate alternative development programs in place 
creates a vacuum in the local economy and food supply. This causes coca 
growers to flee and move deeper into the agrarian frontier, where they 
replant coca, often twice as much, as an insurance policy. This causes 
deforestation and instability among residents indigenous to the new 
areas of production.
  This has implications not only on ecology, but also on regional 
security. Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela, have been and 
will increasingly be affected by massive population flows caused by 
aerial eradication. Frankly, I do not want to be responsible for 
contributing to an already devastating humanitarian catastrophe.
  Putting aside these concerns, I must ask: ``to date, just how 
effective have our efforts been at eradicating coca?'' Regrettably, the 
answer is--not very good!
  Recent estimates by U.S. analysts report that there are now at least 
336,000 acres of coca in Colombia, far higher than earlier estimates. 
The United Nations, using different methodology, put the amount even 
higher for last year's

[[Page 20590]]

major growing season--402,000 acres. Although about 123,000 acres of 
coca plants have been fumigated under Plan Colombia, cultivation 
increased by 11 percent last year. What are we accomplishing here?
  There is a way out. Local governments have pledged to eradicate coca-
without harmful fumigation; I think they deserve a chance.
  In May, six governors from southern Colombia, the region where most 
of Colombia's coca is grown, presented ``Plan Sur,'' a comprehensive 
strategy for coca elimination, alternative development, and support for 
the peace process. The plan opposes fumigation as destructive and 
unnecessary. The governors ask that communities have the chance to 
manually eradicate their crops, and call for sufficient alternative 
development funding.
  Twice this year, I have met with these governors, as well as 
representatives from the Colombian House and Senate, and NGO leaders. 
They are an impressive, courageous group. In their visit to Washington 
in March, four of the governors from southern Colombia, led by Ivan 
Guerrero of Putumayo, denounced fumigation and called for a more humane 
and sustainable approach to coca eradication. Governor Jaramillo 
Martinez of Tolima stated: ``fumigation is not working as expected. It 
is displacing people and continuing to deforest the jungle. We need to 
give these farmers the opportunity to grow other crops.''
  I am in full agreement. The present course is not only destructive, 
but also ineffective.
  Meanwhile, opposition to fumigation continues to mount. Numerous 
mayors from southern Colombia support the governors in their call to 
change the policy. And, prompted by these same concerns, other 
prominent officials like Carlos Ossa, the nation's general comptroller, 
have called for a suspension of spraying. In July, Judge Gilberto Reyes 
ordered ``the immediate suspension of the entire fumigation project''; 
it seems he, too, wants definitive answers on the effects of 
glyphosate.
  However, President Pastrana's government continues to spray large 
swaths of territory. Frankly, the decision to proceed despite 
widespread opposition was a disappointment. In a country that has 
struggled to promote democracy and lawfulness, surely this was the 
wrong course of action.
  Yet I refuse to give up on Colombia and its brave citizenry. I 
believe there are many positive steps the United States can take to 
reduce drug production and promote peace and democracy in Colombia and 
the Andes.
  I join Senator Feingold in opposing only those parts of this package 
that damage human rights and the environment--not the bulk of the 
assistance for alternative development, judicial support and 
interdiction efforts through the police.
  In concluding, I believe there must be a moratorium on further 
fumigation until alternative development is implemented. I am pleased 
that my colleague, Senator Leahy saw fit to include language that would 
withhold funding for aerial fumigation without first determining and 
reporting to Congress on the health and safety effects of the chemicals 
being used, and the manner of their application. Our decisions should 
reflect the will of the Colombian people. Colombian governors, 
parliamentarians, mayors, judges, and activists have all called for an 
end to spraying. Too much is riding on our decisions, made so far away.
  I further believe we should play a more effective role by helping 
create genuine economic alternatives for the peasant farmers and others 
involved in the Andean drug trade. As the failure of our current policy 
shows, the most that can be expected from the strategy of eradication 
and interdiction is moving the areas of production from one country to 
another and thereby spreading the problems associated with the drug 
market.
  Finally, we should better combat drug abuse here at home through 
funding drug treatment and education programs. As long as there is 
constant demand for cocaine and heroin in our country, peasants in the 
Andes with no viable alternatives will continue to grow coca and 
poppies simply to survive.
  I will summarize this way. When I look at this Andean Counterdrug 
Initiative and last year's Plan Colombia, I think the intention is 
right on the mark and in good faith: protecting our children and our 
citizens, from drugs. The methodology is absolutely flawed. We would 
actually be doing a much better job if we focused on the demand for the 
drugs in our own country.
  I remember when I met with the Defense Minister in Colombia, Mr. 
Ramirez, he said: We export 300 metric tons of cocaine to the United 
States. As long as we have this demand, we will continue to do it. 
Someone will do it.
  There will come a point when we will look at addiction and make sure 
we cover this and we will get help to people so they get into treatment 
programs. We will do what we need to do by way of prevention. That will 
be far more the answer than this effort.
  I will focus on the fumigation. I have become increasingly 
convinced--and I think Senator Feingold talked about this--that it is 
an extreme, unsustainable policy which I think causes damage to people. 
The experts will say that the spraying is classified by Monsanto as 
``relatively safe''. But the EPA calls it ``most poisonous'', and the 
World Health Organization classifies it as ``extremely poisonous''. 
Talk to the people living there and listen to them. They are the ones 
saying they have the rashes, headaches, nausea, and are getting sick.
  With all due respect, I cannot blame them for being a little 
skeptical about what all these experts tell them. There is some good 
language in this foreign operations bill that Senator Leahy worked on 
saying we have to do a careful study of the health effects of this, 
which I believe is right on the mark. Talk to the Governors of 
different regions. They are worried about what this is doing to them. 
It is easy for us to say it is not a problem. It is easy for Monsanto 
to say that.
  I was kidding around with Senator Feingold, and said: I feel like I 
have some expertise in that I think I am the only U.S. Senator to 
withstand aerial fumigation. I was sprayed when I was in Colombia--I 
don't think on purpose. I don't live there. It was just one time, not 
over and over and over again.
  The second point that this amendment speaks to--and I pressed the 
Ambassador, who I think is very good; we have a very good Ambassador. I 
said to her, ``the social development money was supposed to go with 
this''. Unfortunately, what we are doing, we are also eradicating legal 
crops. That is part of the problem.
  The other part of the problem is we are telling campesinos we are 
going to do the spraying and eradicate the crops without alternatives 
for them to put food on the table for themselves and their families. 
The whole idea was, with the spraying we're going to give campesinos 
the social development money and the viable alternatives for their 
families. This amendment speaks to that and makes it clear we have to 
see that social development money on the ground; that is to say, where 
people live.
  I join Senator Feingold in this focus on what I call environmental 
justice. We both have tried, to the best of our ability, to raise the 
human rights concerns. I did that in an earlier statement today. I will 
not go over it again.
  The Leahy language would withhold funding for aerial fumigation 
without first determining and reporting to Congress on the health and 
safety effects of the chemicals being used and the manner of their 
application. It is important that language be implemented. I say that 
on the floor of the Senate.
  Many Colombian governors, parliamentarians, mayors, judges, and 
activists have called for an end to the spraying. Between the focus of 
this amendment, with the Leahy language, the emphasis we have on this 
amendment on the alternative economic developments--and again I say one 
more time, since I have already spoken to the best of my ability on 
human rights--it will make a lot more difference when we deal with the 
demand for it here in our own country. That is what will make a 
difference.

[[Page 20591]]

  My hope is this amendment will be accepted. I thank the Senator for 
his effort. I don't want to hold up the progress of the bill. I thank 
Senator Leahy for his statement about this foreign operations 
appropriations bill. I think it was a very important statement. In 
particular, I say to my colleagues, I think probably people in the 
United States of America will no longer be isolationist again. People 
are painfully aware of the interconnections of the world in which we 
live. Many of these countries are our neighbors whether we want them to 
be so or not. I think there is much more of a focus on the world. We 
understand now that we ignore the world at our own peril.
  This is a good piece of legislation overall. I presented my critique 
of Plan Colombia, and I would like to see some things change. I think 
we have done our very best through some amendments and speaking out.
  As long as we are talking about this world in which we live, I want 
to mention, and I will do this in 3 minutes, on September 11--everybody 
has talked about it--but I have my own framework for thinking about 
this and I just want to mention it.
  In 1940 and 1941, the Germans engaged in an unprecedented bombing of 
civilians in Great Britain to weaken civilian opposition to Nazism, and 
20,000 citizens were killed, murdered. On September 11, almost 6,000 
Americans, innocent civilians, were murdered. Therefore, I think there 
is absolute moral justification for taking the kind of action we 
believe we must take so terrorists don't have free rein, to try to 
prevent this from happening again. That is why I reject the arguments 
about what were the underlying causes of the hatred or violence.
  I said to friends, some who make that argument, you never ask me to 
give a speech about what caused those men to murder Matthew Shepard, a 
gay man in Wyoming. How could they have that hatred? They murdered him. 
Murder is murder. Camus said murder is never legitimate.
  Here is the question I have. In trying to achieve this goal, I think 
that force, unfortunately--and for me, the military option, the use of 
force, is always the last option--is one of the options that is 
necessary. In the end, I think the question is: Do we make this a 
better world, this journey we are taking?
  I have spoken of humanitarian assistance. But the other point I want 
to make is, over and over again, we should speak on the floor, I 
understand that this is easier said than done, but reports of innocent 
people being murdered in a nursing home or hospital are concerning. I 
have no reason to believe that those who are carrying out the military 
campaign are not making every effort to keep this away from innocent 
civilians. I have no reason to believe that they are not making every 
effort. But I will tell you, we have to be concerned every single time 
our military action, our bombing, leads to the death of an innocent 
civilian in Afghanistan. These people are not our enemies. Every time 
it happens, even though it is inadvertent, never on purpose, it is a 
contradiction of the values we live by. It does us no good when it 
comes to the rest of the Muslim and Islamic world.
  So I would like to continue to make the appeal that in carrying this 
out with the use of force, the highest priority must be to avoid the 
loss of innocent life in Afghanistan.
  As President Bush said, these Afghans are among the poorest people in 
the world. They are not our enemies. The terrorists and those who 
harbor terrorists are our enemies. The Afghans are not our enemies. It 
is a tragedy, and I deeply regret the fact that there are innocent 
Afghans who lost their lives as a result of the bombing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
his tremendous support of this amendment and his knowledge of the 
subject. I am also hopeful this amendment will be accepted and make it 
all the way through the process. It is extremely modest. I appreciate 
his help.
  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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1952

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I send 
an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and 
     Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 1952.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost 
          of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2002)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     sections:

     SEC.   . COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment 
     shall be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of 
     living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal 
     year 2002.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a great sense of unity across 
the Nation as we begin the process of recovering from the events of 
September 11. I have been very heartened by the bipartisanship 
demonstrated by Congress as it acts to respond to the human and 
economic devastation. We will need to maintain that unity as we ask for 
the sacrifices necessary to end this business.
  Given all that has happened, all that will happen, and the sacrifices 
that will be asked of all Americans, Congress should not accept a 
$4,900 pay raise. My amendment would stop it.
  The automatic pay raise is something that I never regarded as 
appropriate. It is an unusual thing for someone to have the power to 
raise their own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our 
constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual 
is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to 
exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, 
amendment, and a vote on the record.
  That is why this process of pay raises without accountability must 
end. The 27th amendment to the Constitution states:

       No law, varying the compensation for the services of the 
     senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an 
     election of representatives shall have intervened.

  A number of my colleagues have approached me about this pay raise in 
the past few weeks, and many have indicated they support the pay raise. 
In fact, one of my colleagues said they would offer an amendment that 
actually increased the scheduled $4,900 pay raise because they felt it 
was too low.
  While I strongly disagree with that position, I certainly respect 
those who hold it. But whatever one's position on the pay raise, the 
Senate ought to be on record on the matter if it is to go into effect.
  The current pay raise system allows a pay raise without any recorded 
vote. Even those who support a pay raise should be willing to insist 
that Members go on record on this issue.
  This process of stealth pay raises must end, and I have introduced 
legislation to stop this practice. But the amendment I offer today does 
not go that far. All it does is to stop the $4,900 pay raise that is 
scheduled to go into effect in January.
  We are spending the hard-earned tax dollars of millions of Americans 
to recover from the horrific events of September 11 and to ensure that 
it does not happen again. We have spent all of the on-budget surplus, 
and are well into the surplus that represents Social Security trust 
fund balances. That is something we should do only to meet the most 
critical national priorities.
   A $4,900 pay raise for Congress is not a critical national priority.
  This to me obviously is not the time for Congress to accept a pay 
raise.

[[Page 20592]]

Let's stop this backdoor pay raise, and then let's enact legislation to 
end this practice once and for all.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, knowing the Senator from Wisconsin as I do, 
and knowing the seriousness of everything he does legislatively, I want 
the Record to reflect my personal understanding of why he is offering 
this amendment and reiterating how strongly he feels about it.
  Being a member of the Appropriations Committee and having been a 
Member of this body when we had a rule XVI which didn't mean anything--
you could add anything you wanted to appropriations bills; you could 
legislate on them--appropriations bills should be appropriations bills.
  As a proud member of the Appropriations Committee, I raise a point of 
order against the amendment that the amendment is not germane under 
rule XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair 
aware of any basis in the bill for the defense of germaneness?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is unaware of any defense.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The 
amendment falls.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of the Chair's ruling, I want 
to let the body know that this issue is not going away. I understand a 
number of my colleagues want a pay raise. While I disagree with that 
sentiment, I certainly respect their right to hold it. I believe at the 
very least there should be a rollcall vote on this matter itself and 
not on any procedural approach. I will bring this issue back at every 
reasonable opportunity until I get a roll call on the merits.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1953

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Dodd, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1953.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1953

     (Purpose: To require a study and report on the feasibility of 
 increasing the number of Peace Corps volunteers serving in countries 
                  having a majority Muslim population)

       On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:


           increased peace corps presence in muslim countries

       Sec. 581.(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 
     11, 2001, it is more important than ever to foster peaceful 
     relationships with citizens of predominantly Muslim 
     countries.
       (2) One way to foster understanding between citizens of 
     predominantly Muslim countries and the United States is to 
     send United States citizens to work with citizens of Muslim 
     countries on constructive projects in their home countries.
       (3) The Peace Corps mission as stated by Congress in the 
     Peace Corps Act is to promote world peace and friendship.
       (4) Within that mission, the Peace Corps has three goals:
       (A) To assist the people of interested countries in meeting 
     the need of those countries for trained men and women.
       (B) To assist in promoting a better understanding of 
     Americans on the part of the peoples served.
       (C) To assist in promoting a better understanding of other 
     peoples on the part of Americans.
       (5) The Peace Corps has had significant success in meeting 
     these goals in the countries in which the Peace Corps 
     operates, and has already established mechanisms to put 
     volunteers in place and sustain them abroad.
       (6) The Peace Corps currently operates in very few 
     predominantly Muslim countries.
       (7) An increased number of Peace Corps volunteers in Muslim 
     countries would assist in promoting peace and understanding 
     between Americans and Muslims abroad.
       (b) Study.--The Director of the Peace Corps shall undertake 
     a study to determine--
       (1) the feasibility of increasing the number of Peace Corps 
     volunteers in countries that have a majority Muslim 
     population;
       (2) the manner in which the Peace Corps may target the 
     recruitment of Peace Corps volunteers from among United 
     States citizens who have an interest in those countries or 
     who speak Arabic;
       (3) appropriate mechanisms to ensure the safety of Peace 
     Corps volunteers in countries that have a majority Muslim 
     population; and
       (4) the estimated increase in funding that will be 
     necessary for the Peace Corps to implement any recommendation 
     resulting from the study of the matters described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (3).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Peace Corps shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     containing the findings of the study conducted under 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 
     the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives.


            Vitiation of Vote--Amendments Nos. 1922 and 1923

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the action on 
the Wellstone amendments numbered 1922 and 1923 be vitiated. These 
amendments were modified and accepted as part of the managers' package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Reid for Dodd 
amendment No. 1953.
  Mr. LEAHY. Time has not been divided or anything on that amendment, 
has it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it has not.
  Mr. LEAHY. The reason I ask, Mr. President, is I do not want to cut 
into anybody else's time. But since I do not see anybody else seeking 
recognition, I will continue, as I have throughout consideration of 
this bill, to point out some of the issues we face in our foreign aid 
bill. Maybe one issue is especially good to look at as we look at the 
world's attention focused on Afghanistan.
  I was struck by what I heard over and over again from various 
military analysts and others; that is, there are millions of unexploded 
landmines scattered throughout that mountainous country. It is not 
hyperbole when I say millions of unexploded landmines; there are 
millions. Most of them are plastic Russian mines--those are probably 
the most difficult to detect--but some are Chinese mines, some are 
British mines, some are Italian mines, and some are American mines.
  The reason I mention that is, any one of those mines could kill a 
soldier--ours or theirs--or kill a child. A lot of them are designed to 
injure a combatant, blow a leg off a soldier, the idea being, if the 
soldier is not dead, it might tie up three or four of his comrades to 
take care of him or carry him back to a safe place. But, of course, a 
shiny little mine that might blow a leg off a soldier--it looks like a 
shiny toy to a child--sometimes blows off the hands, arms, or head of a 
child. In fact, the vast majority of those who will be injured by them 
will be noncombatants.
  Because landmines are also weapons of terror, they are routinely used 
to terrorize not combatants but civilian populations. Afghanistan is 
only one example. There are lots of countries--dozens--that are plagued 
by mines.
  Landmines maim and kill innocent people every day in the Balkans, in 
Southeast Asia, Africa, Chechnya, even in Central America. What is as 
tragic is that the killing goes on long after the war that brought the 
mines is over.
  We usually see the newspaper articles or television specials where 
the parties come together and they sign the armistice, they sign a 
peace agreement at the end of the war. They say: OK, it is all over. We 
are now friends again, or at least we are noncombatants. They leave. 
The armies march off, the tanks

[[Page 20593]]

drive away, and so forth, but the mines stay. A child not even born at 
the time the peace agreement is signed is killed when first learning to 
walk.
  We have mines and unexploded munitions from the United States in 
Vietnam and Laos. They were dropped when I first came to the Senate a 
quarter of a century ago. They are still blowing people up. They are 
still killing and wounding people in Vietnam and Laos.
  In Bosnia, most American casualties were from landmines. The same was 
true in Somalia.
  In Afghanistan, we gave mines to the anti-Russian forces, some of 
whom are now the Taliban. You know the phrase: What goes around comes 
around. We gave the Taliban landmines. We also gave them Stinger 
missiles. But landmines, think of that; we gave some of the Taliban 
landmines. When our troops go there--as they already have, according to 
the press accounts, and we assume will continue to go there--one of the 
biggest dangers they will face is some of the landmines we left there 
from the 1980s.
  We and the rest of the international community are going to be paying 
for many years to clean up this deadly legacy. The right thing to do is 
to clean it up. In fact, this bill contains $40 million for demining 
programs and has another $12 million to assist victims of war, 
including mine victims.
  But I think of the $12 million or so that gets spent every year in 
the Leahy War Victims Fund, and the tens of millions of dollars in 
demining, and I think, wouldn't it be wonderful if we did not have to 
spend any of that money because the world stopped the indiscriminate 
use of landmines and we had a chance to clean up what was there.
  A lot of nations already have stopped using them. Every member of 
NATO, with the exception of one, has agreed to stop using them. 
Ironically enough, even though we are spending a lot of money to clean 
up landmines, the one nation in NATO that has not agreed to stop using 
landmines is the United States.
  Every nation in the Western Hemisphere has banned the use of 
landmines except two, the United States and Cuba. Interesting company. 
Cuba should ban them; the United States should ban them. Every other 
country in our Western Hemisphere has.
  Two months ago, terrorism was a foreign concept to so many Americans. 
Anthrax was a foreign concept. But it is not any longer. We have 
experienced the tragedy and fear that people in many countries have 
lived with for years.
  Fortunately, in our Nation, when it comes to landmines, we have not 
used landmines on American soil since the Civil War. I can't help but 
think if landmines were used in this country to terrorize Americans, as 
they are in other countries, then the United States, I am sure, would 
have joined the 142 other nations in banning their use.
  Ask people who have served in combat. Most people who actually served 
in combat tell me that mines are more trouble than they are worth, and 
any enemy worth its salt can breach a minefield in a matter of minutes. 
A child cannot; the enemy can.
  You scatter landmines and then your own troops--who often need to 
maneuver quickly because sometimes the battlefront moves very quickly--
risk triggering their own mines. The battle might be over in a matter 
of hours, but even self-deactivating mines stay longer than that. The 
battle can ebb and flow very quickly.
  Unfortunately, the Pentagon has been bogged down in a costly, poorly 
designed program to find alternatives to mines. Although it might have 
seemed like a good idea when it was proposed 6 years ago, it has been 
managed by people who have no sense of urgency and who never believed 
in the goal anyway. They spent the money, but there is little to show 
for it.
  It makes me think of that PBS program, ``Yes, Minister''--a wonderful 
program. You had a British minister who, while elected, had the head of 
the public service for his ministry who did not agree with anything the 
minister wanted to do; but he was so nice.
  Every time the minister said, we have to go forward with programs 
like this, that, or the other thing, the head of his civil service 
would say: Yes, Minister. Of course, Minister. Wonderful idea, 
Minister. We will do it in the fullness of time. And the minister 
finally realized ``the fullness of time'' was not his lifetime.
  That is what has happened with those who have been tasked with the 
idea of coming up with this alternative to landmines. They do not 
believe in it, so they drag their feet. They know those of us in 
Congress who support it will someday leave; they hope the sooner the 
better. Administrations come and go. But the irony is, we do not need 
to even search for alternatives.
  As many retired and active duty defense officials will say privately, 
we already have suitable alternative weapons technologies. We have 
smart weapons. We have sensor technologies that are a lot more cost-
effective than mines. They are safer for our soldiers, and they don't 
impede their mobility. I hope that the Pentagon, with all the weapons 
in its arsenal, is not going to add to the millions of landmines 
already littering Afghanistan.
  They threaten civilian and humanitarian aid workers. They terrorize 
and kill and maim refugees who are trying to flee. These indiscriminate 
weapons don't belong on today's battlefield no matter who is putting 
them there, no matter how right they think their cause.
  The administration is conducting a review of its landmine policy. We 
can have a mine-free military if we want. Then probably it would not be 
long before Russia would do the same. Wouldn't it be nice if we could 
say that in the western hemisphere, where today every country except 
the United States and Cuba has banned mines, we banned mines as every 
other country except Cuba? Now it is your turn. Wouldn't it be nice 
when we sent our Ambassador to NATO not to have to look away when every 
single NATO ally tells us they have banned their landmines and we 
haven't?
  The Clinton administration took some first steps, but they never 
fully grasped the issue. They didn't understand it. Some did not want 
to. I believe the President did want to but didn't follow through.
  This administration has an opportunity to design a roadmap to finish 
the job. It would increase the effectiveness and mobility and the 
safety of our own troops. This is not something we do just to help 
other countries. It would actually help our own troops. It would take 
White House leadership, but it can be done. The White House lead would 
be strongly supported by the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, 
because so many across the political spectrum have already voted to ban 
landmines.
  One person in this country has done more than any other to bring to 
the world's attention the need to ban landmines. That is Bobby Muller, 
the head of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Bobby Muller is 
known and admired by so many Senators, particularly those who served in 
combat. He is perhaps the most visionary, eloquent, dedicated, and 
inspiring person I have met.
  He enlisted in the Marine Corps. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam. 
He was paralyzed from the waist down from a gunshot wound. Last weekend 
he was honored by Hofstra University, his alma mater, with its lifetime 
achievement award.
  I ask unanimous consent that a Newsday article about this award be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Newsday, Oct. 17, 2001]

                              A Man Reborn

                          (By Marc Siegelaub)

       United States Marine Corps 1st Lt. Robert Olivier Muller 
     will remember the day he died for the rest of his life.
       On April 29, 1969, the 23-year-old infantry officer was 
     standing at the base of a hill in northernmost South Vietnam, 
     10,000 feet below the demilitarized zone and some 10,000 
     miles from his home in Great Neck.
       Lt. Muller was serving in an advisory capacity to 600 South 
     Vietnamese soldiers. They were massing for attack against a

[[Page 20594]]

     handful of dug-in Viet Cong, 15 or so suicidal fanatics 
     bleeding and dazed from the concussive air attacks and 
     ferocious shelling unleashed upon them.
       With soldierly instincts honed from eight months on active 
     duty in a country ravaged by civil war, Muller sensed a big 
     mismatch: He knew his battalion lacked the stomach to take 
     the high ground from an entrenched enemy force bent on 
     defending its turf to the death. Incensed that 15 Viet Cong 
     could keep his 600-man unit at bay, Muller rallied the outfit 
     into formation behind three U.S. Marine tanks and led them up 
     the rise. Foot by foot, they ascended the hill without a 
     misstep until the bullets started to fly. Instantly, the 
     South Vietnamese scattered, turning Muller into a sitting 
     duck.
       And that's when it happened. That's when a bullet ripped 
     through Muller's chest, puncturing both lungs and splintering 
     the fifth thoracic vertebrae of his spine before exiting his 
     broken back. That's when this stranger in a strange land 
     collapsed on the dank dirt and closed his eyes in the 
     midafternoon light.
       Fast forward more than three decades to Hofstra University 
     on Long Island, where homecoming weekend kicks off Friday 
     with a special awards reception. The high point is the honor 
     to be bestowed on one of Hofstra's own for extraordinary 
     lifetime achievement--alumnus of the year.
       The distinction in 2001 goes to a local boy who never made 
     the top half of his class in law school. ``I was the most 
     average student you could have imagined,'' the recipient says 
     matter-of-factly.
       But consider that when Kerry Kennedy Cuomo compiled a short 
     list of ``human-rights defenders who are changing our world'' 
     for inclusion in her book, ``Speak Truth to Power,'' this 
     ``most average student'' made it beside such stalwarts as the 
     Dalai Lama and Elie Wiesel. Or when Bruce Springsteen 
     composed ``Born in the U.S.A.,'' his hard-driving tribute to 
     Vietnam veterans, this ``most average student'' served as a 
     good part of his inspiration. Or when the 1997 Nobel Peace 
     Prize was conferred on the International Campaign to Ban 
     Landmines, this ``most average student'' was the co-founder 
     of the movement.
       Considering all the testimonials heaped on this ``most 
     average student,'' perhaps his greatest act was the act of 
     survival. Hofstra's alumnus of the year, you see, is Robert 
     O. Muller, whose life ended on April 29, 1969, in Vietnam, 
     only to be reborn a short time later, crippled from the chest 
     down and altered forever from the neck up.
       By all accounts, Bobby Muller, now 56, never should have 
     made it to the dawning of a new day, much less to home or to 
     homecoming.
       ``I was conscious long enough after I got hit to feel the 
     life ebbing out of my body,'' Muller recalled. ``I was on my 
     back, looking at the sky and grabbing my gut. I couldn't feel 
     a thing. My last thought on this earth was I'm dying on 
     this--piece of ground.''
       Muller lapsed into a coma. Suddenly, a medevac helicopter 
     hovering overhead swooped down, and medical personnel scooped 
     him up and whisked him off. In no time, he was in surgery on 
     a state-of-the-art hospital ship, the U.S.S. Repose. The 
     vessel just happened to be positioned farther north than it 
     had ever been, mere miles from the stricken Marine.
       ``Despite the instant medevac and great care, it was 
     written on my chart that had I arrived one minute later I 
     would have died,'' said Muller. ``When I came to, there were 
     seven tubes sticking out of me, but I was ecstatic. I 
     couldn't believe my luck--I was alive!''
       Alive but paralyzed, the doctors told him about his 
     condition. ``Don't worry about it, that's OK. I'll handle 
     it,'' Muller shot back without hesitation. ``The fact that I 
     was permanently disabled. the sorrow of being told that I'd 
     be a paraplegic--a word I never heard before--was so lost in 
     the overwhelming joy of realizing I was going to make it.''
       The bullet that stuck Muller cut him off from his past in a 
     flash. One second he had the sinewy limbs of a long-distance 
     runner; the next second he was laid out flat, unable even to 
     wiggle his toes.
       Something else got severed on Muller's tour of duty in 
     Vietnam--his close connection to the country he loved and 
     trusted.
       He as born in Switzerland at the tail end of World War II, 
     and his family moved to New York City while he was still in 
     diapers. The family later settled in Great Neck. Always on 
     the go, Muller played soccer, ran track and wrestled in high 
     school and college.
       In 1965, Muller entered Hofstra. The Vietnam War was 
     raging, as were his red-white-and-blue sensibilities. ``I 
     felt it was my duty as a citizen of the greatest country in 
     the world to join the service . . . I never questioned the 
     war or studied the history of Vietnam. I only knew that my 
     government wanted me there to repeal a massive northern 
     communist invasion threatening the freedom -loving people of 
     South Vietnam.''
       On graduation day in January, 1968, Muller enlisted in the 
     Marines. He underwent 33 weeks of intense training in boot 
     camp and officer's school, after which he was wound as tight 
     as a racehorse at the starting gate. ``I demanded Vietnam, 
     and I demanded front-line infantry.''
       Muller got his wish in September of 1968, but he never got 
     his bearings abroad. ``The South Vietnamese civilians didn't 
     tell us where the booby traps were or the land mines or the 
     trails and supply caches; they harbored the VC, gave them 
     information and plotted against us. And our military allies 
     were nicknamed `The Roadrunners' for hightailing it at the 
     first sign of danger. What the hell were we doing there?
       ``I was bitter because I put my allegiance in my 
     government,'' Muller said. ``I did so with the best, most 
     honest intentions, believing I was doing the right thing. I 
     gave my country 100 percent, and they used me as a pawn in a 
     game.
       ``But I don't feel sorry for myself--I'm here and a lot of 
     my buddies aren't. The real tragedy is that I was totally 
     naive . . . As a college graduate. I was supposed to be 
     educated. I was an idiot. I never asked `Why?' And that is my 
     greatest tragedy--one which was shared by all too many 
     Americans.''
       I Vietnam was Muller's baptism under fire, where the seeds 
     of activism took root, then his rehabilitation in a Veterans 
     Administration hospital in the Bronx was the detonator that 
     launched him on the path of social resistance.
       This was the same rodent-infested, broken-down facility 
     featured in a shocking 1970 Life magazine spread ``My closet 
     pal and eight of my friends with spinal-cord injuries 
     committed suicide in the Bronx VA,'' said Muller. ``I was the 
     quadriplegics, multiple amputees, men who could only move 
     their heads. We were entitled to care second to none. I had 
     to fight against that system for reasons of my own 
     survival.''
       At the ripe young age of 25, Muller ventured into the den 
     of inequity and started his own private war. He showed up in 
     Times Square and blocked traffic on the same afternoon that 
     President Richard Nixon vetoed a veterans' benefits act on 
     the grounds that it was ``fiscally irresponsible and 
     inflationary.''
       ``I said, `Wait a minute, I was a Marine infantry officer, 
     I called in hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to kill 
     people. I got shot and now I come back and you suddenly tell 
     me it's `fiscally irresponsible and inflationary' to provide 
     critical medical care? I don't think so.''
       As an activist he was a natural. ``From the moment a TV 
     crew stuck a microphone under his nose, Muller discovered he 
     had a gift for articulating what was on his mind,'' wrote 
     Gerald Nicrosia in ``Home to War,'' a history of the Vietnam 
     veterans' movement.
       Muller began popping up all over the place-in Hofstra's 
     School of Law, learning how the system works and how to work 
     the system; in Miami Beach, shouting down Nixon during his 
     1972 acceptance speech; in the Academy Award-winning 
     documentary ``Hearts and Minds,'' spitting invectives at how 
     everything went awry in Vietnam; in the vanguard of anti-war 
     protests, riding his photographable wheelchair; in Congress, 
     carrying the burdens of veterans on his broken back.
       Once again, Muller found himself leading the charge up the 
     hill. He arrived in Washington, D.C., in January 1978, as 
     head of the New York-based Council of Vietnam Veterans. ``I 
     figured if somebody went to Washington and simply told the 
     American people what was going on with Vietnam veterans. . . 
     . a compassionate society would have to respond.''
       That February, The Washington Post ran an op-ed piece 
     headlined ``Vietnam Veteran Advocate Arrives.'' It was just 
     the beginning of a yearlong editorial campaign undertaken by 
     the Post on behalf of Vietnam vets. ``The New York Times 
     picked it up, and when that happens, you wind up setting a 
     lot of amplification,'' Muller said.
       Even so, ``not a single thing we were fighting for was 
     enacted into law. That was a lesson: To argue for something 
     simply in terms of justice, fairness, equity doesn't make it 
     in our political process.''
       So Muller switched gears and went grass roots. ``We 
     traveled into the districts that the members of key 
     congressional committees were elected from, and got into 
     their editorial pages and did their radio talk shows and 
     brought pressure from the people in their districts. And 
     finally we started to get the programs we critically needed 
     and deserved.''
       In the summer of 1979, Muller co-founded the Vietnam 
     Veterans of America, a national movement designed to give 
     veterans a voice and vehicle to air their grievances and 
     drive their concerns. The political advocacy group would 
     bring about the passage of landmark legislation to treat and 
     compensate victims of Agent Orange and post-traumatic stress 
     disorder, and to secure the right to judicial review of VA 
     decisions.
       With a measure of progress achieved on the home front, 
     Muller began to cast a wary eye beyond his own borders. In 
     1980, he established the Vietnam Veterans of America 
     Foundation, a nonprofit group that was separate and 
     autonomous from the VVA. Located smack in the lap of 
     government in Washington, D.C.--where Muller still works and 
     resides--the philanthropic organization set out to raise 
     revenue and raise consciousness on mattes of human rights 
     affecting victims of war throughout the world.
       Muller led the first group of American veterans back to 
     Vietnam in 1981. The historic

[[Page 20595]]

     visit was cathartic: They reconciled with their former 
     adversaries, introduced humanitarian assistance programs and 
     laid the groundwork for future economic and diplomatic 
     detente between the two countries.
       Several years later, the VVAF brigade visited Cambodia on a 
     fact-finding mission. ``Cambodia changed my life even more 
     than Vietnam did,'' Muller said. ``What took place on the 
     killing fields was genocide. The horror of seeing 10,000 
     skulls piled up in a ditch and legless kids walking on their 
     hands in the capital city of Phnom Penh was a whole different 
     order of suffering.
       ``And I learned there were more land mines in Cambodia than 
     there were people, and it was considered proportionally the 
     most disabled society of any country on Earth.''
       The VVAF launched a new campaign against the hidden scourge 
     of Southeast Asia--lethal underground bombs meant to wreak 
     havoc on innocent men, women and children.
       ``If you've got a machine gun, a rifle, an artillery piece, 
     a tank, there's a target to fire at and a command-and-control 
     function with directing that fire,'' explained Muller. ``Not 
     so with a land mine. You simply set it, you bury it, you hide 
     it and whoever happens to step on that land mine becomes the 
     victim, long after the other weapons have been put back in 
     the armories.
       What's more, land mines cause inhuman suffering. ``Step on 
     one, and all this crap--dirt, shrapnel, garbage, clothing--
     gets blown up your limb. You go through a whole series of 
     operations when you're treated like a piece of salami and 
     keep getting resected and cut down. Guys on the hospital ship 
     would cry out for their mothers when the dressing was changed 
     on their raw wounds,'' said Muller.
       Beyond the physical pain, psychological torture is 
     inflicted on the peasants who are denied use of the land. 
     ``This stupid $3 weapon winds up being the major 
     destabilizing factor in Third World countries, these 
     agrarian-based societies that are trying to recover,'' Muller 
     said. ``And not just in Cambodia, but in Afghanistan, 
     Kurdistan, Angola, Bosnia, Mozambique.''
       And so the VVAF established a charitable beachhead on 
     foreign soil, setting up rehabilitation clinics in Cambodia. 
     ``By setting up the clinics to fit amputees with prosthetic 
     limbs and orthotic braces, by supplying wheelchairs free of 
     charge, by initiating programs to employ disabled people, we 
     went through a process of emotionally connecting with an 
     issue that we intellectually understood was devastating.''
       Muller and the VVAF co-founded the International Campaign 
     to Ban Landmines in 1991, but they needed to recruit a potent 
     political presence to spearhead the effort in Congress. Enter 
     Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), who controlled the money as 
     chair of the Appropriations Committee on Foreign Operations, 
     and ``who had seen, with his own eyes, what land mines were 
     doing to civilians.''
       In 1992, Leahy procured a one-year moratorium on the 
     trafficking of anti-personnel land mines. Before the ink was 
     dry, he was back on the Senate floor to draft a three-year 
     extension of the act, and his colleagues passed it 
     unanimously. ``I gotta tell you,'' Muller said admiringly, 
     ``the Senate doesn't vote a hundred to nothing that the moon 
     circles the Earth.''
       Leahy, in turn, praised Muller for his pivotal role in the 
     campaign. ``Whenever I needed more votes, whenever I asked 
     him to talk to someone, he never failed me,'' Leahy said.
       Meanwhile, a huge global network of anti-land- mine 
     organizations had begun to germinate, and influential support 
     had started to flourish in high places, most noticeably in 
     the Clinton White House and in the royal realm of Diana, 
     princess of Wales.
       The bow was about to be tied on a comprehensive pact when 
     the coalition began to unravel. First the United States 
     balked at signing, with President Bill Clinton citing the 
     safety of American troops stationed in South Korea, where the 
     U.S. military had planted anti-personnel mines on the North 
     Korean border. Then the UN failed to reconvene the council on 
     conventional weapons. By September 1996, the landmark treaty 
     was in jeopardy of being shelved.
       ``But we had a five-term senator go nuts on this issue and 
     drive it,'' Muller said. ``And the foreign minister of 
     Canada, Lloyd Axworthy, with great personal courage, said, 
     `We're going to do something totally different. We're going 
     to set a standard, and we're going to invite anybody who 
     wants to come and sign this treaty to do so in a year.' ''
       For his part, Muller rounded up a posse of retired military 
     leaders who agreed to put their collective might behind a 
     full-page open letter in The New York Times, urging President 
     Clinton to scrap antipersonnel land mines because ``it was 
     militarily the responsible thing to do.''
       The signatories included Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf and more 
     than a dozen other retired brass of the first rank.
       ``Fact is, anti-personnel land mines were the leading cause 
     of our casualties in Vietnam,'' Muller said, ``and they are 
     the leading cause of casualties for our peacekeepers through 
     NATO and the UN,'' not to mention the peril they now pose to 
     our own foot soldiers in Afghanistan.
       Off the record, officials from the Pentagon told Muller 
     that land mines were ``garbage.'' But if we let you reach 
     into our arsenal and take them out, went their reasoning, 
     then other categories of weapons would be at risk--the domino 
     theory as applied to armaments.
       On Dec. 3, 1997, Axworthy delivered, as promised, an 
     international agreement involving 122 nations to scrap land 
     mines. But the achievement was muted by the refusal of the 
     U.S. government to put its John Hancock on the document.
       Muller has no tolerance for hollow victories. Not when some 
     80 million land mines remain buried in the ground; not when 
     the job of providing assistance in all the countries that 
     need to be cleaned up and put back together lies ahead.
       ``You cannot be looking to stigmatize land mines in the 
     public's thinking if the world's superpower, which has every 
     alternative to meet any possible military requirement, say 
     it's OK to continue to use them,'' Muller said.
       ``If we allow genocide, if we allow innocent people to be 
     slaughtered on the scale that we're witnessing, it sows the 
     seeds of destruction. And one day that degree of madness is 
     gong to walk up the block and come into your neighborhood.''
       It already has. Muller's view of the recent carnage in the 
     United States--the main hit taking place just 25 miles from 
     Hofstra--is colored by his frequent treks to ``ground 
     zeroes'' in Third World nations. He has eyeballed the 
     atrocities wrought by land mines. ``A terrorist is a 
     terrorist is a terrorist,'' said Muller.
       With characteristic energy and purpose, Muller is 
     mobilizing his forces at the VVAF to confront the terrorist 
     threats to domestic safety and security in the wake of Sept. 
     11. The lessons he learned in the land mines campaign apply 
     readily to this grave new world, Muller said. ``Political 
     strength has got to be connected to the righteousness of the 
     argument; multilateral cooperation and agreements have got to 
     be in place; philanthropic funding has got to support global 
     efforts and concerns, and the American people have got to be 
     alert to and engaged in the issues that affect their 
     democratic way of life.''
       Actually, the VVAF had already been hard at work on ``the 
     Justice Project''--an ambitious undertaking that includes 
     educational outreach programs and curriculum guides on 
     terrorism for schoolchildren.
       This weekend, at homecoming, Muller will look upon the 
     youthful revelers and wonder who among them will go out and 
     absorb some hard knocks, ask tough questions, learn how and 
     why things happen, search for the plain truth, undergo vital 
     changes, and--as a result--get involved in trying to correct 
     the injustices they uncover.
       The all-American boy who left the sanctuary of home and 
     Hofstra in 1968 and emerged at the other end of the Earth in 
     a brutal conflict got jolted to the core. ``I'm a better man 
     now than I was before I went to Vietnam,'' Muller said. ``I'm 
     certainly more aware of the sanctity of life.''

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we do good things in this bill to help with 
the scourge of landmines. We do put in tens of millions of dollars to 
remove landmines. That is a credit to this Nation. It took a lot of 
effort and a lot of fighting, bipartisan efforts on the floor of the 
Senate to get the previous administration to do that and the current 
one to continue.
  We do fund every year the Leahy War Victims Fund. I appreciate the 
honor of my Republican colleagues, who were the ones who renamed it the 
Leahy War Victims Fund. I appreciate the bipartisan gesture. Frankly, I 
wish we didn't need the fund. I suspect every Senator wishes we didn't. 
This is money that buys prosthetics for those who have had their arms 
or legs blown off by landmines.
  My wife, who is a registered nurse, and I have gone to hospitals and 
landmine sites around the world and seen what good that does. It does 
help.
  I see the Senator from Illinois on the floor. I don't want to take up 
his time, but I remember very well one day going with our distinguished 
leader Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan, and our former colleague John 
Glenn to one of these war victims sites, run by the Vietnam Veterans of 
America and others. We saw people getting their first artificial limbs 
since the Vietnam War. Some were getting their first wheelchairs. It 
was a hot, muggy day. I was dressed in slacks and an open-neck shirt.
  There was a man who was able to drag himself on pallet things on the 
ground who was finally able to get his first wheelchair. They said, why 
don't you go over and lift him into the wheelchair. He looked like a 
really small man. He had no legs. He was

[[Page 20596]]

probably about my age. He was just looking at me stoically, staring at 
me. I didn't know what to expect, but I went over, picked him up, 
carried him, and put him in the wheelchair.
  The expression never changed. But as I started to go back, he grabbed 
my shirt, pulled me down, and kissed me. He didn't speak the language. 
It was his way of saying thank you.
  John Glenn, who we know is a wonderful man, certainly not an 
emotional man, also carried somebody to a wheelchair. I remember the 
emotion on his face. He said to us afterward, as we were going back on 
the bus to Saigon: If anybody on this trip ever complains about 
anything again, I am throwing you out the door of the bus, after what 
we have just seen.
  The humanitarian part is good, but the injury is bad. We should ban 
these landmines. We are not going to do it on this bill. The Senator 
from Kentucky has worked with me shoulder to shoulder in getting money 
to remove landmines and for the War Victims Fund. In fact, it was his 
amendment I was referring to earlier that I thought was an 
extraordinarily generous act by my Republican colleagues in its 
renaming. We have done a great deal of good with it.
  The United States can do a lot more good by just removing the ban on 
landmines.
  I have imposed on the time of the Senator from Illinois, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say in response to my friend and 
colleague and chairman from the State of Vermont, Senator Patrick Leahy 
has written an amazing record in the Senate. Time after time when I 
would look for those issues that touched my heart or defined it, Pat 
Leahy had arrived there first a long time ago.
  On the issue of landmines, a scourge across the world, Pat Leahy was 
a leader in the United States in defying his own party's administration 
in begging for the United States to join with other civilized nations 
around the world in banning landmines. The Patrick Leahy War Victims 
Fund that is part of this legislation is an effort to say something 
very simple but very true to the rest of the world; that is, that we 
care. It is money that is given in the name of a Senator who has proven 
in his decades of public service that he does care.
  The point I would like to address is part of our debate on this bill. 
I am honored to be part of this committee, to bring this bill forward. 
I am honored to be part of this debate which will result in a vote very 
shortly. I hope we will put this matter in some perspective.
  My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, who took the floor 
early this afternoon, spelled out in some detail the exact dollar 
commitment being made by the United States in foreign assistance. It is 
a substantial sum of money, until you put that sum in comparison to 
expenditures for many other items. Then you find that it is only a very 
small part of our national budget.
  Senator Feinstein made a point made by others, that if you ask the 
average person in California or my State of Illinois what percentage of 
the Federal budget is spent on foreign aid, people guess, oh, 15 
percent, maybe 10 percent. It couldn't be as low as 5 percent. In fact, 
less than 2 percent of our total budget is spent on foreign aid.
  America has learned a lot about itself since September 11. We as 
political figures have learned a lot about ourselves as well. I believe 
the President of the United States has done an extraordinary job in 
leading this country. I told him in a chance meeting we had flying out 
to Chicago just a few weeks ago that although I didn't vote for him, I 
was certainly singing his praises. He said he understood that.
  I do mean it. I believe he has assembled an excellent team: Secretary 
of State Colin Powell, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Don 
Rumsfeld as head of the Department of Defense. What an extraordinary 
grouping of experience that we bring to one of the most important 
battles America has ever faced, the war against terrorism.
  I say in good faith to this administration that I believe it has 
learned since September 11 that certain things that were assumed before 
are not true today.
  For example, there were those who criticized Bill Clinton, the former 
President, for his personal involvement in the peace process in the 
Middle East. I think those critics realize today that our President, 
our leaders, have to be involved in Middle East peace. No other country 
is likely to lead those warring factions to the peace table with any 
meaningful result.
  I am happy we are continuing to work with the leaders in the Middle 
East to calm down tensions, to try to find a road to peace in an area 
that has been wracked with war for almost 60 years. Nation building was 
criticized in the last campaign as something the United States should 
not get into, that we should not be worried about building up another 
nation. That is the U.S. role. We know better now. When we finally have 
our hands on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist organization, 
and the Taliban is long gone, you can bet the United States will be in 
the first row rebuilding the nation of Afghanistan. It will be 
difficult, but we know it has to be done, so that we can leave behind a 
stable government that can shun terrorism when they try to find refuge 
again.
  Of course, in rebuilding that nation of Afghanistan, we will say to 
the Muslim world that what we told you at the beginning of this 
conflict is true at the end of it: This is not a war against Muslims or 
against the Afghan people; this is a war against terrorism and those 
who harbor them. We will invest in Afghanistan, as we will invest in 
Pakistan, to stabilize their leadership and give them an indication of 
the caring of the United States--not just to prove our virtue but 
because it is important for our national interest. A stable world that 
doesn't fall into war or doesn't harbor terrorism is a better world for 
everyone who lives in America.
  We have also come to realize, since September 11, that organizations 
such as the United Nations are absolutely critical. I have been 
embarrassed in the last several years how in the Senate in particular, 
and in Congress in general, we have really made a mockery of our 
commitment to the United Nations. Thank goodness those days have ended. 
The United Nations is important. There are times when the U.N. and the 
Security Council infuriate me because they say and stand for things I 
don't agree with at all. But that is the nature of a true debate. The 
United Nations is a gathering place for every country in the world, and 
it is a good place for that debate. It avoids war in many instances.
  The need for global alliances has become clear. Whether we are 
talking about tracking down financial transactions, fighting terrorism, 
or putting together a military alliance that will root out terrorism 
around the world, we need allies and friends. The United States cannot, 
will not, should not go it alone. We have learned that since September 
11. It has been heartening in our grief and sorrow to see so many 
nations around the world who have shared that grief with us and raised 
their hands and said, we want to join the United Nations in this fight 
against terrorism.
  So we have learned a great deal about ourselves and our role in the 
world because of the tragedy of September 11. I think we have to pause 
and reflect and ask whether we are doing enough and whether there is 
more we should do. I don't believe this Congress has been sparing when 
it comes to any request from this administration to help our military 
or invest in our intelligence. We want to be certain they are the very 
best. We will not cut back or shortchange the men and women in uniform. 
We want them to be well equipped, well funded, well prepared so that 
they can fight these battles successfully and come home safely. I think 
we have seen that time and again, where both Democrats and Republicans 
have said that is our goal.
  But I think we also have to concede the fact that in addition to 
solidarity

[[Page 20597]]

when it comes to the war effort and intelligence gathering, we should 
show solidarity as well in this effort that is reflected in this bill 
on foreign operations because in this bill you will find money that is 
being directed to countries around the world to deal with some of the 
hardships and problems and challenges they face.
  As you go through this bill, you see it is almost a catalog of the 
problems facing the world. There is a section in here about the HIV/
AIDS epidemic in Africa. I went there just last year. It is an 
experience I will never forget. I really salute Senator Leahy for 
helping a mutual friend of ours who is running an orphanage for AIDS 
victims, small children, in Nairobi, Kenya. This Jesuit priest, who is 
a mutual friend of ours, is devoting his life to those children. In 
stories such as that, where a small amount of money from the United 
States is being spent, it is well spent not because it is for a good 
purpose of showing what is in the heart of America, but it is also 
attacking an epidemic which is the scourge of the 21st century.
  If you were to grade the United States in terms of what we have 
achieved, I think you would have to put us No. 1 in the world when it 
comes to the military. There is no one who can rival what we can bring 
to a military undertaking, a military enterprise. I think the United 
States, justifiably, is proud of the men and women in uniform and all 
those who have supported them, which has led to that great reputation 
we do deserve.
  I think if you would grade the United States in terms of other 
foreign operations around the world, we would not be at that high a 
level. In fact, many countries give a higher per capita contribution 
than the United States when it comes to foreign assistance. I want to 
answer them and say: But when you are in trouble and you need someone 
to come in a hurry with the best military in the world, we are there, 
and it costs a lot of money, and we put the lives of our men and women 
on the line.
  So it is not as if we don't care. We support the world in a different 
way. This bill seeks to reach out beyond the military commitment and 
say there are other ways we can create support and stability in this 
world.
  Just a few weeks ago, Newsweek magazine had a cover story I read 
carefully and shared with my family and all my friends entitled bluntly 
``Why They Hate Us.'' It tried to spell out in historic terms and 
political and economic terms why so many people in the Muslim world 
around this globe have such a low opinion of the United States. Some of 
it is undeserved. What has happened to many people of the Islamic faith 
over centuries that led up to this moment is certainly not of our 
creation. Yet we are viewed as ``the West'' and ``the enemy,'' as ``the 
infidels.'' That is a sad commentary.
  We have to search for ways we can reach those around the world who 
will listen to the message of for what America really stands. I commend 
to my colleagues two ideas that are not part of this legislation but I 
hope will be part of our thinking in the future. They come from two 
former colleagues in the Senate. One is a man who is a very close 
friend of mine--one of my closest--former Senator Paul Simon. When he 
was a Senator from Illinois, he identified an issue that I believe is 
critically important today and will become increasingly important 
around the world, particularly in the Islamic world, in the nations 
that are struggling to survive, and that is simply the issue of water, 
the availability of drinking water. We will find, I am sure, that in 
the future there will be wars waged over the rights to water as more 
and more people are born on the Earth and it taxes the resources 
available.
  Senator Simon suggested that the United States be a world and global 
leader when it comes to desalinization of ocean water so people can 
drink it, so that we would provide fresh water, safe water to babies 
around the world--a message the United States could send saying, we 
will bring our best technology, use it in a humane fashion, and your 
life and your family will be benefited by it. What a positive message 
that would be to those who are at least skeptical of us--if not those 
who despise us--that we are a caring people. I hope the idea of moving 
forward with that initiative is one we might be able to pursue.
  The second one is one that also was suggested by two former Senators, 
Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole. It was about a year ago that 
Senator McGovern, from a position in Rome, wrote a guest editorial in 
the Washington Post calling for an international school feeding 
program. I think it is one of the best single ideas I have heard. He 
enlisted in support Senator Bob Dole. A Republican and a Democrat came 
together with the belief that the largess of America's agricultural 
plenty could be used in schools around the world to feed hungry 
children.
  That not only encourages children to go to school, it particularly 
encourages young girls to go to school. Their families see this as a 
nutritious meal. As we educate these children in foreign lands with the 
bounty God has given us, their education helps them understand better 
the world in which they live.
  From what I read about the madaris, the Islamic schools in Pakistan 
where children are sent, they do not learn the basics of reading, 
writing, history, or science, but literally spend every hour of every 
day memorizing every word of the Koran, and after that is done, they 
leave. Meanwhile they are being indoctrinated into political belief. 
That to me is a terrible waste of a mind and intelligence, to limit 
their education to that sole purpose.
  What Senator McGovern, Senator Dole, and many of us who support them 
believe is if we take some of our money and gather with other like-
minded countries, we can provide a nutritious meal at a school so a 
child going to that school will know they will not only get a good 
day's education but perhaps the only nutritious meal of the day.
  We know what is going to happen. The more education we give young 
girls in Third World countries, the less likely they are to have large 
families, the more likely they are to have self-esteem and to have the 
kind of careers and opportunities and a future which we want for all 
children all around the world. Two simple ideas from former Senate 
colleagues addressing the need for water that is safe and sterile, 
addressing the need for food that is associated with education, so that 
the United States can continue to deliver the same message that we have 
for so many years to parts of the world we may have ignored for the 
last few decades.
  I sincerely hope this bill receives a resounding bipartisan vote from 
the Senate because it is part of our strategy to make certain we not 
only defeat terrorism, but that we replace it with more positive values 
around the world and that we replace it with an image of the United 
States that is a true image, an image of a caring people that not only 
cares for its own, but cares for many less fortunate around the world.
  I salute Senator Leahy, and I also salute Senator McConnell and the 
entire committee for their hard work in the preparation of this 
legislation which I hope will receive a sound bipartisan vote of 
support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I spoke a few weeks ago about my belief that 
the United States needs to more actively and constructively involve 
itself in educating the citizens of the Muslim world about our culture, 
values, and everyday life, and that, likewise, Americans need to become 
better educated about Muslim countries and the religion of Islam. As I 
have stated before, it seems to me that the time has come to be honest 
with ourselves about why international terrorism has become such a 
growing threat. Our citizenry does not understand the Muslim world, and 
citizens of Muslim countries do not understand us. I believe that if 
both the East and the West had a true understanding of the similarities 
inherent in our value systems that the world would be a safer place.
  We need only look into the oppressed faces of the citizens of some of 
the governments we have supported over the years, despite their less 
than acceptable treatment of their own citizenry, to see why some of 
the residents of

[[Page 20598]]

these countries continue to cling to misguided perceptions of America's 
vision and values. The young people in many of these countries grow up 
hating their leaders for their oppression and, subsequently, they begin 
to hate our own country for keeping them in power. It is then easy for 
the likes of the Osama bin Ladens of this world to persuade these young 
people to become terrorism's footsoldiers convinced that violence is 
the answer to their grievances.
  I hope that as we analyze what we need to do to protect our country 
at home, we also examine ways that the United States can play a more 
constructive role internationally. We need to come to grips with the 
Muslim faith. That doesn't mean trying to keep secular governments in 
place in countries where the will of the people is otherwise. It means 
beginning to understand the underlying premises of Islam, and conveying 
our respect for a population's right to practice it. In addition, we 
need to reach out to individuals in Muslim countries on a one-on-one 
basis to educate them on what America really stands for. One way to do 
this is to send our citizens to work with citizens of Muslim countries 
on constructive projects in their home countries.
  This type of mutual understanding is what President Kennedy was 
trying to accomplish when he created the Peace Corps 40 years ago. The 
Peace Corps mission as stated by Congress in The Peace Corps Act, P.L. 
87-293, is to promote world peace and friendship. Within that mission, 
the Peace Corps has three goals: to help the people of interested 
countries in meeting their need for trained men and women; to help 
promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples 
served; and to help promote a better understanding of other peoples on 
the part of Americans.
  The Peace Corps has had significant success in meeting these goals in 
the countries in which it operates, and has already established 
mechanisms to put volunteers in place and sustain them abroad. However, 
it has not been as active, in my view, as it could be in Muslim 
countries where the need for mutual understanding, and basic 
infrastructure, may be the greatest.
  It is not an easy task for the Peace Corps to go everywhere, but the 
focus should be on those areas where the need is the greatest--places 
like Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, and others. In addition, the 
Peace Corps should take the time to recruit people with the language 
skills, ability, and knowledge of these cultures. Sending civic-minded 
individuals with these skills as emissaries to Muslim countries could 
do an awful lot to change some of the anti-American attitudes we see 
around the globe, in my view. The Peace Corps should start 
investigating ways to do this now so that in the aftermath of the 
military actions already occurring we will be ready to show a different 
face of our country, one that isn't simply militarily strong, but one 
that is also willing to learn and willing to help. Yes, we need to act 
in the coming days to address the immediate threats and challenges 
confronting our nation. But we have to take a long and hard look at 
ways, at home and abroad, to make ourselves and the world safer for our 
citizens and the citizens of this globe.
  We need to explore ways to reach out to the international community 
and rebuild after the military strikes are over. We also need to begin 
a process of mutual understanding between the United States and the 
Muslim world. In my view, the Peace Corps is best suited to this 
mission. For that reason, I am introducing an amendment to the foreign 
operations appropriations bill today that directs the Peace Corps to 
undertake a study to examine ways it can better serve Muslim countries 
while increasing recruitment efforts of qualified Arab-speaking 
individuals in the United States. This amendment mandates that the 
Peace Corps deliver a report to Congress 6 months after this 
legislation is signed into law, and I hope that this report will 
suggest legislative remedies that will help the Peace Corps undertake 
this important task.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it had been my intention, along with 
Senator Feinstein, to offer to this bill an amendment relating to the 
Palestinian Liberation Organization's adherence to its 1993 commitments 
to renounce terrorism and violence. The intent of the amendment would 
have been similar to the provisions of S. 1409, the Middle East Peace 
Compliance Act of 2001, which my friend from California and I offered 
last month, which today has 31 cosponsors.
  We are, however, refraining from action at the personal request of 
the Secretary of State who believes the amendment may adversely impact 
his ability to form an international coalition against terrorism and 
efforts to bring the peace process in the Middle East back on track.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary relating to 
this request be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, few would disagree that America's top 
foreign policy today is to search out and destroy terrorist networks 
and prevent further incidents from occurring. Secretary Powell and the 
entire administration obviously have all of our support in this 
endeavor.
  Perhaps more than any other democracy, Israel knows well the horror 
of terrorism. The extremists who hijacked American commercial aircraft 
and used them as missiles against the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon on September 11 are cut from the very same cloth as the 
suicide terrorists who slaughter innocent women, children, and men in 
the Israeli pizza parlors, discos, and buses. The loss of life is no 
less tragic, nor the fear any less real, in incidents that occur in the 
streets of Manhattan or Jerusalem. Like America, Israel serves as proof 
that nations founded in freedom and democracy do not crumble when 
attacked by extremists. In fact, the opposite is true. America and 
Israel have become more united as individual nations and as allies 
against a common enemy.
  The events of September 11 have been seared into America's national 
conscience, just as horrific attacks against civilians in Israel are 
felt in the hearts and minds of all of its citizens. While terrorism is 
a grave threat that both nations face, I ask each of my colleagues to 
consider the following:
  The terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks traveled 
thousands of miles to our shores to commit their evil deeds. In Israel, 
terrorists live within an easy bus ride to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and 
other major urban areas. Where satellites beamed pictures of 
Palestinian celebrations for the mass murder of Americans into our 
homes and offices, Israel declared a day of mourning. Israelis need 
only open their front door to encounter openly offensive, aggressive, 
and hostile behavior; and Israel has demonstrated restraint in its 
response to recent attacks against its citizens.
  When 20 Israeli kids were killed by a suicide bomber earlier this 
summer in a Tel Aviv disco, there was no massive Israeli retaliation. 
When Israelis were killed in a Jerusalem pizza parlor, again, there was 
no massive response. I think we can all now better understand the 
incredible restraint Israel has shown in the face of such attacks.
  Criticisms over the use of excessive force by Israeli soldiers in 
targeting and destroying Arab terrorists on the West Bank and in Gaza 
are simply misguided. America is doing similar targeting of terrorist 
cells but on a global scale. Israel's elected leadership, as ours, has 
a duty and responsibility to protect its citizens against foreign and 
domestic threats.
  Let me close with some candid comments. First, I do not believe the 
administration can make the determination that the PLO or the 
Palestinian Authority have lived up to their 1993 commitments to 
renounce terrorism. The proof is admitted into hospitals and morgues or 
buried in cemeteries every single day.
  In attempting to resuscitate the peace process, America must be 
careful

[[Page 20599]]

that it plays no role in recognizing or establishing a Palestinian 
state that is rooted in terrorism.
  Second, I do not believe for one second PLO Chairman Arafat wants to 
end the violence. He allows terrorists to exist on the West Bank and in 
Gaza and spurs them into action through newspapers, textbooks, evening 
prayers, and even children's television programs.
  Finally, America cannot win the war against terrorism without Israel. 
Israel has the experience, dedication, and freedom that is absolutely 
necessary to prevail over these fanatics. We must stand arm in arm with 
our ally. We must help Israel in its battle against terrorism.
  Senator Feinstein and I are not going to offer the amendment we 
planned to offer because of the extraordinary situation in which we 
find ourselves and as a result of the direct request of the Secretary 
of State. Having said that, I do not believe the Palestinian Authority 
has been constructive, nor do I believe they have lived up to their 
agreements signed back in 1993.
  Shifting for a moment to another ally, if you will, of the United 
States--if you can call the Palestinian Authority an ally these days--I 
want to talk for a few moments about Egypt. I had intended to offer an 
amendment restricting assistance to Egypt but have been requested by 
the Secretary of State and the administration to withhold such action, 
again in light of the events of September 11 and our current efforts to 
respond to those events.
  While I continue to have serious concerns with many of Egypt's words 
and deeds toward the Middle East peace process and Israel, and the 
troubling state of democracy and rule of law in that country, I am 
going to honor the administration's request. It is not my intention to 
impede in any way ongoing efforts to identify, track down, and punish 
those individuals and groups responsible for the slaughter of American 
civilians and soldiers.
  While America finds itself at a critical moment in history, so does 
Egypt. A major recipient of United States assistance to the tune of 
nearly $2 billion, stretching back to 1979, Egypt must today 
unequivocally prove it is a full partner in our war against terrorism. 
It is not acceptable for President Mubarak and his Foreign Minister to 
obfuscate the assault against freedom with their not-so-hidden agenda 
to propagate Arab hatred against Israel and to muzzle democracy and 
civil society in Egypt.
  An October 11 editorial in the Washington Post boldly stated what has 
been whispered in the Halls of Congress and in the corridors of the 
State Department. Here is what the editorial said:

       The largest single ``cause'' of Islamic extremism and 
     terrorism is not Israel, nor U.S. policy in Iraq, but the 
     very governments that now purport to support the United 
     States while counseling it to lean on Ariel Sharon and lay 
     off Saddam Hussein.
       Egypt is a leading example. It is an autocratic regime. It 
     is politically exhausted and morally bankrupt. President 
     Mubarak, who checked Islamic extremists in Egypt only by 
     torture and massacre, has no modern program or vision of 
     progress to offer his people as an alternative to Osama bin 
     Laden's Muslim victimology. . . . It also explains why so 
     many of [bin Laden's] recruits are Egyptian.

  Let me be clear that during these dark and troubling times, Egypt 
should prove to the people of the United States and all the world's 
democracies, including Israel, it is indeed an ally in the fight 
against terrorism. The $2 billion question is whether they will succeed 
or fail in this task.
  Secretary Powell knows that at a more appropriate time I may revisit 
this important issue. In the meantime, I urge the Egyptian Government 
to advise its ministers and media to be more responsible and 
constructive and to aggressively encourage its citizenry to understand 
the grave dangers of legitimizing terrorism under the guise of Islamic 
teachings and practices.
  The Egyptian people should understand Americans were horrified and 
angered at news reports of celebrations of the September 11 attacks in 
the streets of Cairo and elsewhere. Sadly, this may be an indication 
the Egyptians do not share the same principles of freedom and tolerance 
we do. If Egypt wants to continue to have United States support, Egypt 
ought to earn it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            The Arab Paradox

                       Thursday, October 11, 2001

       ARAB NATIONS, including those considered allies of the 
     United States, have been struggling with their response to 
     the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. If their 
     contortions were not so familiar they would be hard to 
     understand: After all, Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda 
     organization are sworn enemies of the Egyptian and Saudi 
     governments, which in turn depend on the United States for 
     their security. But it took Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak 
     three days to choke out a statement supporting ``measures 
     taken by the United States to resist terrorism''; and even 
     then he coupled it with a parallel demand that Washington 
     ``take measures to resolve the Palestinian problem.'' 
     Meanwhile, Mr. Mubarak's longtime foreign minister, Amr 
     Moussa, now the secretary general of the Arab League, 
     prompted first Arab states and then the 56-nation Islamic 
     Conference to adopt a resolution yesterday opposing U.S. 
     attacks on any Arab country as part of the anti-terrorism 
     campaign--a position that offers cover to Iraq's Saddam 
     Hussein.
       In effect, Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Moussa are backing both the 
     military action of the U.S. alliance and the political 
     position of Osama bin Laden, who on Sunday claimed that 
     unjust American policies in Israel and Iraq justified his 
     acts of mass murder. The world, Mr. Moussa said, needs to 
     address the ``causes'' of the terrorism, and he suggested 
     that a United Nations conference might be the best forum. 
     There's little doubt what he has in mind: After all, Mr. 
     Moussa only a couple of months ago led the attempt to hijack 
     the U.N. conference on racism and revive the libel that 
     ``Zionism is racism.''
       Behind this contradictory rhetoric lies one of the central 
     problems for U.S. policy in the post-Sept. 11 world: The 
     largest single ``cause'' of Islamic extremism and terrorism 
     is not Israel, nor U.S. policy in Iraq, but the very 
     governments that now purport to support the United States 
     while counseling it to lean on Ariel Sharon and lay off 
     Saddam Hussein. Egypt is the leading example. Its autocratic 
     regime, established a half-century ago under the banner of 
     Arab nationalism and socialism, is politically exhausted and 
     morally bankrupt. Mr. Mubarak, who checked Islamic extremists 
     in Egypt only by torture and massacre, has no modern 
     political program or vision of progress to offer his people 
     as an alternative to Osama bin Laden's Muslim victimology. 
     Those Egyptians who have tried to promote such a program, 
     such as the democratic activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, are 
     unjustly imprisoned. Instead, Mr. Mubarak props himself up 
     with $2 billion a year in U.S. aid, while allowing and even 
     encouraging state-controlled clerics and media to promote the 
     anti-Western, anti-modern and anti-Jewish propaganda of the 
     Islamic extremists. The policy serves his purpose by 
     deflecting popular frustration with the lack of political 
     freedom or economic development in Egypt. It also explains 
     why so many of Osama bin Laden's recruits are Egyptian.
       For years U.S. and other Western governments have been 
     understanding of Mr. Mubarak and other ``moderate'' Arab 
     leaders. They have to be cautious in helping the United 
     States, it is said, because of the pressures of public 
     opinion--the opinion, that is, that their own policies have 
     been decisive in creating. Though the reasoning is circular, 
     the conclusion has been convenient in sustaining 
     relationships that served U.S. interests, especially during 
     the Cold War. But the Middle East is a region where the 
     already overused notion that Sept. 11 ``changed everything'' 
     may just turn out to be true. If the United States succeeds 
     in making support or opposition to terrorism and Islamic 
     extremism the defining test of international politics, as 
     President Bush has repeatedly promised, then the straddle 
     that the ``moderate'' Arabs have practiced for so long could 
     soon become untenable. Much as it has valued its ties with 
     leaders such as Mr. Mubarak, the Bush administration needs to 
     begin preparing for the possibility that, unless they can 
     embrace new policies that offer greater liberty and hope, 
     they will not survive this war.

                               Exhibit 1


                                       the Secretary of State,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2001.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator McConnell: The President and I are working 
     intensively to build an international anti-terrorism 
     coalition to track down the perpetrators of the September 11 
     attacks and put an end to their terror networks. The 
     engagement of the broadest possible coalition, including key 
     Arab and Muslim countries, will be critical to the success of 
     our efforts. At the same time, we cannot shrink from our 
     long-standing role in supporting peace efforts between

[[Page 20600]]

     Israel and its neighbors, and will not stop working with the 
     Israelis and Palestinians to end the violence there, 
     implement the Mitchell Committee recommendations, and return 
     to productive negotiations. I need your help on this.
       The Palestinian compliance legislation you introduced with 
     Senator Feinstein--and which may become an amendment to the 
     Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill--would be 
     counterproductive to our coalition-building and peace process 
     efforts and we would like to see it withdrawn.
       Imposing sanctions, or even waiving sanctions following a 
     mandatory determination that would have triggered sanctions, 
     would undermine our ability to play a role in defusing the 
     crisis and returning the parties to negotiations. Both sides 
     have undertaken specific commitments to each other. We remain 
     engaged with the Palestinians to ensure that the PLO and PA 
     understand exactly what they have to do to meet their 
     commitments. But requiring the President to make formal 
     determinations of the compliance of only one of the parties 
     would undermine our efforts to put an end to the violence and 
     facilitate a resumption of peace efforts. At the same time, 
     it would bolster segments of Arab public opinion that are 
     already very critical of their regimes' relations with the 
     U.S. and Israel, and their support for Middle East peace. In 
     this regard I also urge you to avoid any actions or 
     statements that single out key Arab allies such as Egypt and 
     Jordan.
       The bottom line is that we agree with the need for the 
     Palestinians to comply with their commitments and control the 
     violence and to move toward implementation of the Mitchell 
     Committee recommendations. But in this critical period, I 
     urge you not to tie the President's hands and restrict our 
     ability to engage with both parties to help achieve these 
     goals.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Colin L. Powell.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is No. 1953, Senator 
Reid for Senator Dodd.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to explain why I did not want to 
incorporate that amendment in a series of amendments, a Durbin, user 
fees; a Helms-McConnell, Cambodia; a Leahy-McConnell, excess defense 
articles; Dodd No. 1953, Peace Corps; Byrd, passports; Brownback-Frist, 
Sudan with colloquy; Feingold, fumigation; Brownback colloquy on human 
trafficking, I mention that.


  Amendment Nos. 1951, As Modified, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 
                             1958, En Bloc

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider en 
bloc and agree to en bloc amendment No. 1954, Durbin, user fees; 
amendment No. 1955, Helms-McConnell, Cambodia; amendment No. 1956, 
Leahy-McConnell, excess defense articles; amendment No. 1953, Dodd, 
Peace Corps; amendment No. 1957, Byrd, passports; amendment No. 1958, 
Brownback-Frist, Sudan with colloquy; amendment No. 1951, as modified, 
Feingold, fumigation; and Brownback colloquy on human trafficking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958, en bloc.

  Mr. LEAHY. Including No. 1953, I understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958) were agreed to 
en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1954

       On page 230, line 6, after ``grams'' insert the following: 
     ``, and to oppose the approval or endorsement of such user 
     fees or service charges in connection with any structural 
     adjustment scheme or debt relief action, including any 
     Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1955

   (Purpose: To prohibit funding for any Cambodian genocide tribunal 
                   unless certain conditions are met)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following;


         restriction on funding for Cambodian genocide tribunal

       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide equipment, 
     technical support, consulting services, or any other form of 
     assistance to any tribunal established by the Government of 
     Cambodia pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the 
     United Nations, unless the President determines and certifies 
     to Congress that the tribunal is capable of delivering 
     justice for crimes against humanity and genocide in an 
     impartial and credible manner.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1956

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.  . EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN 
                   EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND CERTAIN OTHER COUNTRIES.

       Notwithstanding section 516(e) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)), during each of the fiscal 
     years 2002 and 2003, funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be expended for crating, packing, handling, and 
     transportation of excess defense articles transferred under 
     the authority of section 516 of such Act to Albania, 
     Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Former Yugoslavia Republic of 
     Macedonia, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Pakistan, Romania, Slovakia, 
     Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan: 
     Provided, That section 105 of Public Law 104-164 is amended 
     by striking ``2000 and 2001'' and inserting ``2002 and 
     2003''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1957

        (Purpose: to prevent abuses in the visa waiver program)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. 417. MACHINE READABLE PASSPORTS.

       (a) Audits.--The Secretary of State shall--
       (1) perform annual audits of the implementation of section 
     217(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1187)(c)(2)(B));
       (2) check for the implementation of precautionary measures 
     to prevent the counterfeiting and theft of passports; and
       (3) ascertain that countries designated under the visa 
     waiver program have established a program to develop tamper-
     resistant passports.
       (b) Periodic Reports.--Beginning one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit a report to Congress setting 
     forth the findings of the most recent audit conducted under 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (c) Advancing Deadline for Satisfaction of Requirement.--
     Section 217(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``2007'' and 
     inserting ``2003''.
       (d) Waiver.--Section 217(a)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``On or after'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     on or after''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Limited waiver authority.--During the period 
     beginning October 1, 2003, and ending September 30, 2007 the 
     Secretary of State may waive the requirement of subparagraph 
     (A) with respect to nationals of a program country (as 
     designated under subsection (c)), if the Secretary of State 
     finds that the program country--
       ``(i) is making progress toward ensuring that passports 
     meeting the requirement of subparagraph (A) are generally 
     available to its nationals; and
       ``(ii) has taken appropriate measures to protect against 
     misuse of passports the country has issued that do not meet 
     the requirement of subparagraph (A).''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1958

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to Sudan)

       On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:


                                 sudan

       Sec. 581. (a) Findings Regarding the Need for Humanitarian 
     Assistance.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The war in Sudan has cost more than 2,000,000 lives and 
     has displaced more than 4,000,000 people.
       (2) The victims of this 18-year war are not confined to one 
     ethnic group or religion as moderate Moslems in eastern and 
     western Sudan suffer greatly, as do Christians and animists 
     in southern Sudan.
       (3) Humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese is a 
     cornerstone of United States foreign assistance policy and 
     efforts to end the war in Sudan.
       (4) The United States Government has been the largest 
     single provider of humanitarian

[[Page 20601]]

     assistance to the Sudanese people, providing $1,200,000,000 
     in humanitarian assistance to war victims during the past 10 
     years, including $161,400,000 during fiscal year 2000 alone.
       (5) Continued strengthening of United States assistance 
     efforts and international humanitarian relief operations in 
     Sudan are essential to bring an end to the war.
       (b) Findings Regarding the NIF Government.--In addition to 
     the findings under subsection (a), the Senate makes the 
     following findings:
       (1) The people of the United States will not abandon the 
     people of Sudan, who have suffered under the National Islamic 
     Front (NIF) government.
       (2) For more than a decade, the NIF government has provided 
     safe haven for well-known terrorist organizations, including 
     to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
       (3) The NIF government has been engaged, and continues to 
     engage, in gross human rights violations against the civilian 
     population of Sudan, including the enslavement of women and 
     children, the bombardment of civilian targets, and the 
     scorched-earth destruction of villages in the oil fields of 
     Sudan.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--In recognition of the sustained 
     struggle for self-determination and dignity by the Sudanese 
     people, as embodied in the IGAD Declaration of Principles, 
     and the statement adopted by the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom on October 2, 2001, it is the 
     sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the National Islamic Front (NIF) government of Sudan 
     should--
       (A) establish an internationally supervised trust fund that 
     will manage and equitably disburse oil revenues;
       (B) remove all bans on relief flights and provide 
     unfettered access to all affected areas, including the Nuba 
     Mountains;
       (C) end slavery and punish those responsible for this crime 
     against humanity;
       (D) end civilian bombing and the destruction of communities 
     in the oil fields;
       (E) honor the universally recognized right of religious 
     freedom, including freedom from coercive religious 
     conversions;
       (F) seriously engage in an internationally sanctioned peace 
     process based on the already adopted Declaration of 
     Principles; and
       (G) commit to a viable cease-fire agreement based on a 
     comprehensive settlement of the political problems; and
       (2) the President should continue to provide generous 
     levels of humanitarian, development, and other assistance in 
     war-affected areas of Sudan, and to refugees in neighboring 
     countries, with an increased emphasis on moderate Moslem 
     populations who have been brutalized by the Sudanese 
     government throughout the 18-year conflict.

                           AMENDMENT NO. 1958

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for almost 20 years, the Government of 
Sudan has prosecuted a war of incredible barbarity against its own 
people, leading to the deaths of over 2 million of its citizens through 
mass starvation, indiscriminate bombing raids, slave raids and other 
outrages.
  I have made medical missionary trips to Sudan for the past three 
years and have witnessed firsthand this human tragedy. I have long 
supported an overhaul of our policy towards Sudan to strengthen and 
expand humanitarian operations in Sudan and to design a framework to 
assist the Administration and our allies in bringing pressure to bear 
on the Government of Sudan and the rebels to resume peace talks.
  Recently, the Administration has taken significant next steps to 
address the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. On September 11, the new 
Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, along with 
OFDA Director Roger Winter and other Administration officials, visited 
Sudan to explore ways to bring added relief to the beleaguered 
population.
  The Nuba Mountains is a region with massive humanitarian needs, where 
access has been nearly impossible. In an unprecedented action, a 
special humanitarian relief flight sponsored by the U.S. and cleared by 
the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and Government of Sudan 
delivered eight metric tons of wheat to this extremely remote area that 
had been cut off from international assistance. The immediate needs 
though are for more than 2,000 tons of food. The Administration is now 
negotiating expanded delivery of food aid through airdrops to the Nuba 
Mountains to be implemented by the World Food Program. These new 
initiatives will not move forward without additional funding.
  In order to start and maintain such aid, $35 million would be 
required beginning in FY 2002 to fund the Administration's critical new 
initiatives.
  These new plans have great potential to move the southern Sudanese in 
the direction of economic self-sufficiency. For example, to spur 
economic development, USAID is planning an agricultural initiative to 
create more entrepreneurs producing honey, vegetable oils, hides and 
skins, and other agricultural products.
  Another important part of USAID's Sudan program is education. One of 
the contributing factors to the instability of Southern Sudan is the 
loss of its educated citizenry. Over two generations of southerners 
have gone without education since the civil war began in 1955. Civil 
government is dependent upon education. The new education initiatives 
would help revitalize education and training in southern Sudan through 
teacher training, scholarships, and other important projects.
  A final aspect of USAID's new initiative focuses on rebuilding 
shattered communities. Through churches and other community groups, the 
people-to-people reconciliation effort has brought peace among tribes 
in Southern Sudan and border communities between the North and South. 
USAID's new Sudan initiatives would build upon these efforts by 
identifying and supporting critical community level rehabilitation 
activities.
  These are just a few of the new programs that are critical to 
bringing relief to Sudan, but current funding levels are not sufficient 
to take advantage of them. Therefore, I urge the appropriators to give 
our government the resources to bring real change to one of the most 
war-torn countries in the world by adding $35 million for new 
initiatives in Sudan.
  I thank the managers of the bill, Senators Leahy and McConnell, for 
working with my colleagues--Senators Brownback, Helms, and Feingold--
and me to accept our amendment to encourage an additional 
appropriations for humanitarian purposes in Sudan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1951, as modified, and amendment 
No. 1953 are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1951, as modified, and 1953) were agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the votes.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield for a 
question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the Senator from Vermont and 
Senator McConnell have worked through most of these amendments. At 20 
minutes to 5, we have Senator Graham coming to speak for 10 minutes. A 
Senator opposed will have 10 minutes. There will be a vote on his 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Or in relation thereto.
  Mr. REID. Or in relation thereto, that is right. It is my 
understanding we made an announcement earlier today--both managers 
did--that we are moving toward final passage. I hope the two managers 
will be able to announce prior to 5 if that, in fact, might be the 
case.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from Nevada, there is one other 
issue related to Armenia Azerbaijan on which we are working. We should 
have a sense in the next 15 to 20 minutes whether we have been able to 
work that out or not. That may require one additional vote.
  Mr. REID. I say to the two managers, I think the work today has been 
exemplary. There have been some very difficult issues. They have been 
discussed. Agreements have been made on a number of the amendments.
  Speaking for Senator Daschle, there has been great movement in moving 
an appropriations bill. It should be an example for those who are going 
to follow.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Nevada, we hope he will still 
be able to say that an hour from now.
  Mr. LEAHY. I certainly hope it is finished an hour from now.
  Mr. President, I also say in response to what the Senator from Nevada 
said, there has been an enormous amount of cooperation from the Senator 
from Kentucky and other Senators from

[[Page 20602]]

both sides of the aisle, and that is what has made it possible for us 
to complete this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kansas, we 
are in the process of getting the colloquy copy. The Senator from 
Kansas and I have come to talk about some legislation we have done 
together that deals with one of the horrible aspects of this global 
economy; namely, the trafficking of women and girls and sometimes boys 
and men for purposes of forcing them into prostitution and some really 
deplorable labor conditions.
  I wonder whether the Senator from Kansas might give us a little bit 
of context, and then we will quickly do this colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have a colloquy we are prepared to 
enter into. In the context of this, last year we passed a bill on the 
issue of sex trafficking. It was ground-breaking legislation for this 
body, ground-breaking legislation for around the world. Its effort and 
focus was to get at the people who are trafficking, generally, young 
women and children for the purposes of prostitution. It is a global 
phenomenon. About 700,000 are trafficked to different places from 
different countries around the world each year, about 50,000 into the 
United States.
  We increased the penalties for people who are involved in 
trafficking. We have an annual report coming out from the Government--
the first one came out this year. It was citing the problems of 
trafficking taking place. The colloquy we are entering into today is to 
get the initial office up and running at the State Department and 
intends for funding in the foreign operations bill.
  Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator 
Wellstone on the topic of appropriations to combat international 
trafficking in human beings.
  I know that Senator Wellstone and other members of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, as well as the Senate Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee, are greatly concerned about human 
trafficking, which impacts approximately 1 million people annually 
worldwide. Last year, this body unanimously passed legislation, the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act which included an authorization of 
over $30 million from the foreign operations budget to address three 
principle components of anti-trafficking: law enforcement, prevention, 
and victim assistance.
  The bill allocates only $10 million for law enforcement related to 
human trafficking, and thus is $20 million shy of the hoped-for 
appropriation of $30 million for Fiscal Year 2002 which was passed by 
the House. Given this shortfall, I hope that the State Department will 
spend more funds than those earmarked in this foreign operations 
appropriations bill. Furthermore, the Congress expects, as expressed 
through the trafficking legislation, that it will be combated worldwide 
through both enforcement and prevention programs; that is, sex 
trafficking could be combated worldwide, and that the trafficking 
victims would be assisted. Is it your understanding, Senator Wellstone, 
that the State Department and other relevant agencies and departments 
would dedicate and spend funds substantially over the $10 million 
presently allocated in this appropriation?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is our intention. Human 
trafficking is a massive and multi-dimensional problem, impacting 
countless victims. The U.S. government is responding, but I am 
concerned that our response though well-intentioned, is both under-
funded and under-coordinated. I believe that approximately $15 million 
is currently being spent to address human trafficking in the overall 
State Department budget, but it is not at all clear to me that 
activities are being coordinated among departments and agencies or that 
the results are being optimized. I believe that the State Department 
should work this year to dedicate not less than the $30 million 
authorized in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and that this 
funding would be distributed to all three prongs including law 
enforcement, victims assistance, and trafficking prevention activities.
  I am very optimistic that the newly established office to combat 
trafficking at the State Department will bring some transparency and 
coordination to these activities. I'm sure that both of us, as well as 
other members, will be watching for this to happen.
  To assist us all in monitoring progress, I will seek to add language 
to the statement of the managers to the conference report asking the 
State Department to report back to us next spring regarding plans and 
funding allocations for trafficking. Again, this is an important issue 
that certainly warrants more than $10 million and I believe there are 
ample funds in this bill to enable the State Department to meet the 
authorized levels.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Senator Wellstone, I agree completely. I would like to 
make one last comment about the fiscal expectations for 2003. We 
understand that the trafficking budget for Fiscal Year 2002 is 
underfunded by at least $20 million in relation to the authorization. 
However, once the office is fully up and running next year, I believe 
that everyone is committed to seeing a full appropriation for Fiscal 
Year 2003 for the activities needed to combat trafficking worldwide. 
This amount should be not less than $33 million for Fiscal Year 2003, 
in addition to the other amounts authorized under HHS, Labor, and CJS 
appropriations legislation. In closing, we expect a full appropriation 
for Fiscal Year 2003, without which, worldwide trafficking cannot be 
effectively challenged.
  Everybody has tried to do everything they could this year to address 
the trafficking and get the office up and going. It is not a full 
appropriation. Next year, we will push for the full appropriation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1950

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at 5 o'clock we are going to vote on an 
amendment which I have offered, which would restore the 22 percent cut 
that is contained in the subcommittee report as it relates to the 
Andean Region Initiative. This is funding which would provide for the 
four countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, with funds 
divided approximately 50 percent to Colombia and 50 percent to the 
other three; 50 percent of the funds for law enforcement and military 
activities, 50 percent for economic and social development programs.
  This is the second chapter of the Plan Colombia which this Congress, 
under the leadership of President Clinton, adopted last year. It is 
also the continuation of the only program that we will have left to 
provide a means by which to suppress the supply of cocaine into the 
United States from its primary sources, which are these four countries 
and today primarily Colombia.
  I have listened to some of the arguments that have been made in 
opposition to this amendment. They raise questions about the 
accountability of this program, raise questions about the efficacy of 
this program, and raise positive comments about the activities that are 
going to be funded with the 22 percent of the fund that is going to be 
taken away from this account.
  This is a program which has only been in effect since October 1 of 
last

[[Page 20603]]

year, for less than 13 months. I believe it has accomplished 
significant good. It has helped professionalize the army of Colombia, 
which has made it more able to launch effective attacks against drug 
dealers. It has begun to show the ability to reduce the amount of coca 
being produced in Colombia. It has stabilized the governments of, 
particularly, Peru and Ecuador.
  But beyond all of those positive benefits, I think the fundamental 
benefit today, on October 24, is that this is the longest running U.S. 
partnership program to attack terrorism in the world. In this case, the 
terrorists happen to also be drug dealers. We are attacking them in 
their uniform as drug dealers, but, in so doing, we are also attacking 
them in their 50-year role as terrorists, formerly ideological 
terrorists, now essentially thugs. They have gone from Che Guevara to 
being Al Capone.
  I believe it would send the worst possible signal to the world that 
we are trying to unite in an effective program against terrorism, to be 
pulling the plug, essentially, on the effort that we have underway 
against one of the most vicious terrorist groups in the world, a group 
which in the year 2000, the last year for which statistics are 
available, committed 44 percent of the all the terrorist assaults 
against U.S. citizens and interests in the world.
  Mr. President, 44 percent of them were committed in Colombia. That is 
an indication of how concentrated, how deep, and how violent the 
terrorist activity is there, directed against U.S. citizens, to say 
nothing of the assaults against Colombian citizens and persons from 
other nations who are in Colombia.
  I hope to reserve a few moments to close, but I urge in the strongest 
terms the adoption of this amendment which will recommit ourselves to a 
strong U.S. partnership with our neighbors in Latin America, a strong 
program of attacking drugs at the source as we build up our capability 
to reduce the demand in the United States and to avoid sending the 
signal that all of our rhetoric about how strongly we are prepared to 
resist terrorism is just that--rhetoric. Because when it comes to 
actual performance, we failed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from 
Florida and how much time to the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 3 minutes and 47 
seconds and the Senator from Vermont has 8 minutes and 10 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reserve myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  I don't want Senators to think we are not putting money in for 
counterdrug programs in this bill. We have included $718 million for 
the Andean Region Initiative. We will have put $2 billion in there in 
just the last 16 months. The administration's own witnesses couldn't 
tell us how much was disbursed, and for what purposes. And they cannot 
show what we have gotten from it. So we have an act of faith here, 
putting in another $718 million.
  What the $164 million cut in other programs the Senator from Florida 
proposes, to add to the $718 million already in the bill--where do we 
cut? This is sort an across-the-board kind of open-ended cut which 
allows cuts to come from military, economic, or other assistance to 
anywhere, including countries such as Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.
  It could be cut from HIV/AIDS, from money the President and others 
have promised to help combat the worst health crisis in half a 
millennium; from money to cure TB and prevent malaria; from military 
assistance, including aid to NATO allies and the former Soviet 
republics. It could cut the Peace Corps. We increased money for the 
Peace Corps, but those increases may be gone if we do this cut.
  Or the Eximbank, when many companies are laying people off today.
  It could cut refugee and disaster relief assistance for places such 
as Sudan and the Caucasus.
  How about programs to stop the spread of biological, nuclear, and 
chemical weapons? This is certainly not a time when we should be 
cutting those programs; or the money we have in here to strengthen 
surveillance and respond to outbreaks of infectious diseases, including 
diseases that may come here in a terrorist attack; or our money for 
UNICEF and peacekeeping operations.
  Do we really want to cut those programs, when we have already put 
$718 million in for the Andean region?
  I don't want to cut the Peace Corps. I don't want to cut funding for 
AIDS. But we will if this passes.
  Obviously, the Senate has to make up its mind about what it wants. 
But even without this amendment, we are going to have $718 million on 
top of billions already in this program, a program that has millions of 
dollars which they have yet to spend.
  I want to help. I set aside my own misgivings about this program by 
putting in the $718 million. But I remind the 81 Senators who have sent 
letters requesting increases in everything from Peace Corps to AIDS 
that this is where this money would come from.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes, thirty-nine seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are obviously choices made all over 
the place in terms of programs being cut. The point of this is that the 
Senator from Florida and I are proposing that we get back to the level 
the President suggested. This is about the Andean region. In the past 
we dealt with Colombia. There were concerns raised by many about that 
program. This deals with the Andean region. It is more than just one 
country. This is a critical issue. I know our attention today is 
focused on Central Asia, as it should be, and Afghanistan and the 
Taliban. But we will have to have a continuing effort in other parts of 
the globe on threats we face.
  Clearly, we will lose thousands of people every year in this country 
in drug-related deaths, and about 98 percent of the product which is 
the source of this devastation in our country comes from the Andean 
region. Our attention today has shifted.
  All we are suggesting is that we get back to the level the President 
suggested, $164 million. It is a cut of 22 percent dealing with several 
countries in the region, not just one. I am sure my friend from Florida 
has gone over the details of this to explain where the resources go and 
how effective we hope it will be. I join with him.
  Obviously, I am not interested in seeing the Peace Corps cut, or 
Eximbank, or other programs, which I know my friend from Vermont cares 
about very much. I understand the difficulty of wrestling with these 
programs. But I believe very strongly that this is an area where we 
have to maintain a level of consistent involvement, or we are going to 
find that the resources we have committed are going to be diluted 
significantly.
  This is a very serious effort. It is not on the front pages today, 
but it will be again, I guarantee you. That is the reason we offered 
this amendment. My hope is that we can reach some agreement so we can 
do more.
  Again, I believe very strongly that this is one of the most critical 
issues--not just for ourselves. It is in the direct interest of people 
who are dying every day in our streets as a result of what happened in 
these countries. Our efforts are to work with friends in the area--
particularly in Colombia--people who have paid an awful price over the 
years, a devastating price. They have attempted to shed this country 
down there of any vestige of its own long historic democratic 
institutions.
  We are under siege in a lot of places around the globe. This is a 
major one. Therefore, the cut that has come here is one we would like 
to see restored. Therefore, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand we are going to vote at 5 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 20604]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
  Does the Senator understand that takes my time?
  Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would not cut off the time of the Senator from Florida. 
That is really not showing very much comity.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it was certainly not my intention to do 
that. In fact, I wanted to use the 39 seconds that were left to me. I 
wanted to use them. And there might be a few more people in the Chamber 
than is the case now. I suggest the absence of a quorum without that 
counting against the time of either the Senator from Vermont or the 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. LEAHY. That would take unanimous consent, and I will not give it. 
We told people we are going to vote at 5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of the Senator 
from Florida, who has spent an enormous amount of time in this area, 
and the Senator from Connecticut. I am sorry the Senator from 
Connecticut would not stay to hear these comments. But we have included 
$718 million for the Andean Regional Initiative. That is for Colombia, 
Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador--$2 billion in just over a year. We have not 
ignored this part of the world.
  As the Senator from Connecticut says, it may not be on the front 
page. The Ebola plague is not on the front page. But we have inadequate 
amounts of money in here to help protect us against such a health 
disaster.
  Can you imagine? Nobody would be wanting to cut money for that if the 
Ebola plague were in the headlines. But this amendment would result in 
a cut of some of that money.
  We have money in here to help put Americans back to work at a time 
when tens of thousands are being laid off daily. It may not be the big 
headline. But this amendment would in effect cut efforts to put these 
people back to work.
  What the Peace Corps has accomplished over the years is not in the 
headlines. But this money would cut some of the increase in funds we 
put in for the Peace Corps.
  There are a lot of things that are not in the headlines. Helping to 
stop the spread of AIDS may not be in the daily headlines. But this 
would cut money for that.
  This is not about whether you are for or against the Andean 
Initiative. We put nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in here 
following well over $1 billion in just the past year. It is not without 
funding.
  His amendment allow cuts to be made in everything from the Middle 
East, refugee aid, basic education, biological, nuclear, and chemical 
weapons non-proliferation programs, anti-terrorism programs, and money 
to clear landmines. We need to strike a balance, which is what this 
bill does.
  What is the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains for my colleague 
from Florida?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator McConnell and I have gone through 
this bill and we have tried to set priorities. We have put considerable 
amounts of money in this bill for counterdrug programs. The House has 
even more. In conference, as a practical matter, the money for the 
Andean Initiative is likely to go up some amount.
  But let us not cut money for bioterrorism, money to stop plagues from 
reaching the United States, money to aid refugees from Afghanistan or 
Africa, money to support the countries which the President has promised 
to help with our campaign against Osama bin Laden--let's not cut those 
funds--and the Peace Corps and the Exim Bank and everything else, to 
add even more funds for counterdrug programs when they have not spent 
what they already have.
  Madam President, I yield back whatever time I have left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 11 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, in my 11 seconds, I want to direct them 
to our friends on the other side of the aisle. Our amendment would 
restore the recommendation which has been made by President Bush of his 
best assessment of what is necessary in order to accomplish the 
purposes. The President challenged us today to answer the question: Is 
America prepared to stay in the war against terrorism? His answer was: 
Absolutely.
  If we want to say, absolutely, we need to vote yes for the amendment 
that will restore the funds to the longest running antiterrorism 
campaign in which the United States is currently engaged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I make a point of order that the Graham 
amendment No. 1950 violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The bill before us is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. 
Therefore, any net increase in budget authority or outlays would 
trigger a 60-vote point of order.
  The Graham amendment does not identify a specific offset for its $164 
million increase in discretionary budget authority for the Andean 
Counterdrug Program, nor does it establish a mechanism to ensure that 
the funds are, in fact, offset. Therefore, if the Graham amendment 
passed, it would cause the Foreign Operations Subcommittee to exceed 
its spending allocation.
  Additionally, even if the administration were to identify offsets for 
the entire $164 million in budget authority, the Congressional Budget 
Office is not confident that cuts would occur to programs with an equal 
or faster outlay rate. A net increase in outlays from the Graham 
amendment would also trigger a violation of the subcommittee's 
allocation and a 60-vote point of order.
  Therefore, I make a point of order that the Graham amendment No. 1950 
violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor to the amendment of the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the request 
by Senator Kyl be modified to also include Senators Grassley and McCain 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I move to waive the Budget Act and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to the Graham amendment No. 1950. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 27, nays 72, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Bayh
     Biden
     Breaux
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson (AR)
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Miller
     Nelson (FL)
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Thompson
     Torricelli

                                NAYS--72

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper

[[Page 20605]]


     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison (TX)
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed (RI)
     Reid (NV)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Frist
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 27, the nays are 
72. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator Reid and Senator Nickles have 
been asking our intent. Senator McConnell and I have been here for a 
couple days and would like to wrap up.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for an announcement while everybody 
is here?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Daschle has asked me to announce 
we have a section-by-section analysis of the antiterrorism bill. Copies 
of the bill and a short summary are available in Senator Daschle's 
office, the Democratic Cloakroom, and Senator Leahy's Russell office. 
They will be there by 5:45 p.m. The same is available in the Republican 
Cloakroom.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 1959

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished 
Senator from Texas, Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchison, I send an amendment to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and 
     Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 1959.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: Amendment to modify the annual drug certification procedures 
    for FY 2002 with respect to countries in the Western Hemisphere)

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.  . During fiscal year 2002 funds in this Act that 
     would otherwise be withheld from obligation or expenditure 
     under Section 490 with respect to countries in the Western 
     Hemisphere may be obligated or expended provided that--
       (a) Not later than November 30 of 2001 the President has 
     submitted to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report identifying each country in the Western Hemisphere 
     determined by the President to be a major drug-transit 
     country or major illicit drug producing country.
       (b) In each report under subsection (a), the President 
     shall also--
       (1) designate each country, if any, identified in such 
     report that has failed demonstrably, during the previous 12 
     months, to make substantial efforts--
       (A) to adhere to its obligations under international 
     counter narcotics agreements; and
       (B) to take the counter narcotics measures set forth in 
     section 489(a)(1); and
       (2) include a justification for each country so designated.
       (c) Limitation on Assistance for Designated Countries.--In 
     the case of a country identified in a report for a fiscal 
     year 2002 under subsection (a) that is also designated under 
     subsection (b) in the report, United States assistance may be 
     provided under this Act to such country in fiscal year 2002 
     only if the President determines and reports to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that--
       (1) provision of such assistance to the country in such 
     fiscal year is vital to the national interests of the United 
     States; or
       (2) commencing at any time after November 30, 2001, the 
     country has made substantial efforts--
       (A) to adhere to its obligations under international 
     counternarcotics agreements; and
       (B) to take the counternarcotics measures set forth in 
     section 489(a)(1).
       (d) International Counternarcotics Agreement Defined.--In 
     this section, the term ``international counternarcotics 
     agreement'' means--
       (1) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic 
     in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; or
       (2) any bilateral or multilateral agreement in force 
     between the United States and another country or countries 
     that addresses issues relating to the control of illicit 
     drugs, such as--
       (A) the production, distribution, and interdiction of 
     illicit drugs,
       (B) demand reduction,
       (C) the activities of criminal organizations,
       (D) international legal cooperation among courts, 
     prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies (including the 
     exchange of information and evidence),
       (E) the extradition of nationals and individuals involved 
     in drug-related criminal activity,
       (F) the temporary transfer for prosecution of nationals and 
     individuals involved in drug-related criminal activity,
       (G) border security,
       (H) money laundering,
       (I) illicit firearms trafficking,
       (J) corruption,
       (K) control of precursor chemicals,
       (L) asset forfeiture, and
       (M) related training and technical assistance;

     and includes, where appropriate, timetables and objective and 
     measurable standards to assess the progress made by 
     participating countries with respect to such issues; and
       (e) Section 490 (b)-(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) shall not apply during FY 2002 with 
     respect to any country in the Western Hemisphere identified 
     in subsection (a) of this section.
       (f) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section 
     supersedes or modifies the requirement in section 489(a) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (with respect to the 
     International Control Strategy Report) for the transmittal of 
     a report not later than March 1 of 2002 under that section.
       (g) Sense of Congress on Enhanced International Narcotics 
     Control.--
       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) many governments are extremely concerned by the 
     national security threat posed by illicit drug production, 
     distribution, and consumption, and crimes related thereto, 
     particularly those in the Western Hemisphere;
       (2) an enhanced multilateral strategy should be developed 
     among drug producing, transit, and consuming nations designed 
     to improve cooperation with respect to the investigation and 
     prosecution of drug related crimes, and to make available 
     information on effective drug education and drug treatment;
       (3) the United States should at the earliest feasible date 
     convene a conference of representatives of major illicit drug 
     producing countries, major drug transit countries, and major 
     money laundering countries to present and review country by 
     country drug reduction and prevention strategies relevant to 
     the specific circumstances of each country, and agree to a 
     program and timetable for implementation of such strategies; 
     and
       (4) not later than one year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the President should transmit to Congress any 
     legislation necessary to implement a proposed multilateral 
     strategy to achieve the goals referred to in paragraph (2), 
     including any amendments to existing law that may be required 
     to implement that strategy.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and 
myself--and I ask my colleague from Texas to make the comments she 
wants to make--this amendment for 1 year would impose a moratorium on 
the drug certification process only for the Western Hemisphere. 
Interested colleagues--Senator Feinstein, Senator Grassley, and Senator 
Helms--have all indicated they support this amendment. Those are the 
Members who have the most interest particularly with regard to the 
larger proposal.
  We believe this is a very important message to be sending. We know 
our colleagues have a deep interest in it. The administration supports 
this amendment, and we urge its adoption.
  As my colleagues know, the issue of how to construct and implement an 
effective international counternarcotics policy has been the subject of 
much debate in Congress over the years. Earlier this year, I introduced 
legislation with the goal of seeing if there is some way to end what 
has become a stale debate that has not brought us any closer to 
mounting a credible effort to eliminate or contain the international 
drug mafia.

[[Page 20606]]

  Thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee we were able to develop an effective alternative to the 
current certification process, and that bill was reported out of the 
committee unanimously.
  We all know that, by and large, the drug cooperation issue has been 
focused on our relations with Mexico. We know as well that it is a new 
day in United States-Mexico relations. President Fox has been 
enormously supportive of the U.S. across the board. He wants very much 
to work cooperatively with the United States in fighting drugs and 
believes that the certification process could get in the way of that 
effort. It is important that we make a change in that process as 
quickly as possible.
  It is not likely that we will get to the free-standing bill this year 
and therefore I have decided to offer the substance of this bill today 
with slight changes to conform to the appropriations requirements.
  First the current certification process will be altered for only 
fiscal year 2002, consistent with the scope of this bill. Second, it 
will be limited to countries in the Western Hemisphere. Other than 
those modest changes the thrust of the amendment is virtually identical 
to the committee bill.
  We can all agree that drugs are a problem--a big problem. We also can 
agree that the international drug trade poses a direct threat to the 
United States and to international efforts to promote democracy, 
economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the 
world, and most specifically, in our hemisphere.
  While the international effects of the drug trade are important, what 
concerns me the most personally is the effect of the drug trade here at 
home.
  Last year, Americans spent more than $60 billion to purchase illegal 
drugs. Nearly 15 million Americans over the age of 12 use illegal 
drugs, including 1.5 million cocaine users, 208,000 heroin addicts, and 
more than 11 million smokers of marijuana. And, the menace of drug 
abuse is not confined to just the inner cities and the poor. Illegal 
drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group 
in the United States.
  The human and economic costs of illegal drug consumption by Americans 
are enormous. More than 16,000 people die annually as a result of drug 
induced deaths. Drug related illness, death, and crime cost the United 
States over $100 billion annually, including costs for lost 
productivity, premature death, and incarceration.
  The drug trade is extremely lucrative, generating estimated revenues 
of $400 billion annually. The United States has spent more than $30 
billion in foreign interdiction and source country counternarcotics 
measures since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the border, on 
the high seas, and in other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and 
more plentiful in the United States today than two decades ago.
  I believe, and I hope that the Senate agrees, that for a variety of 
reasons the time is right to give the incoming Bush administration some 
flexibility with respect to the annual certification process, so that 
it can determine whether this is the best mechanism for producing the 
kind of international cooperation and partnership that is needed to 
contain this transnational menace.
  I believe that government leaders, particularly in this hemisphere, 
have come to recognize that illegal drug production and consumption are 
increasingly threats to political stability within their national 
borders. Clearly President Pastrana of Colombia has acknowledged that 
fact and has sought to work very closely with the United States in 
implementing Plan Colombia. Similarly, President Vicente Fox of Mexico 
has made international counternarcotics cooperation a high priority 
since assuming office last December. These leaders also feel strongly, 
however, that unilateral efforts by the United States to grade their 
governments' performance in this area is a major irritant in the 
bilateral relationship and counterproductive to their efforts to 
instill a cooperative spirit in their own bureaucracies.
  The legislation I introduced recognizes that illicit drug production, 
distribution and consumption are national security threats to many 
governments around the globe, and especially many of those in our own 
hemisphere, including Mexico, Columbia, and other countries in the 
Andean region. It urges the administration to develop an enhanced 
multilateral strategy for addressing these threats from both the supply 
and demand side of the equation. It also recommends that the President 
submit any legislative changes to existing law which he deems necessary 
in order to implement this international program within 1 year from the 
enactment of this legislation.
  In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual 
respect that must be present if the Bush administration's effort is to 
produce results, the bill would also suspend the annual drug 
certification procedure for a period of 3 years, while efforts are 
ongoing to develop and implement this enhanced multilateral strategy. I 
believe it is fair to say that while the certification procedure may 
have had merit when it was enacted into law in 1986, it has now become 
a hurdle to furthering bilateral and multilateral cooperation with 
other governments, particularly those in our own hemisphere such as 
Mexico and Colombia--governments whose cooperation is critical if we 
are to succeed in stemming the flow of drugs across the borders.
  Let me make clear, however, that while we would not be ``grading'' 
other governments on whether they have ``cooperated fully'' during the 
3-year ``suspension'' period, the detailed reporting requirements 
currently required by law concerning what each government has done to 
cooperate in the areas of eradication, extradition, asset seizure, 
money laundering and demand reduction during the previous calendar year 
will remain in force. We will be fully informed as to whether 
governments are falling short of their national and international 
obligations. The annual determination as to which countries are major 
producers or transit sources of illegal drugs will also continue to be 
required by law. The President is also mandated to withhold U.S. 
assistance from any country that has been deemed to have failed to meet 
its international obligations with respect to counter narcotics 
matters, although he may waive that mandate if he deems it will serve 
U.S. interests.
  I believe that we need to reach out to other governments who share 
our concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the fabric of their 
societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we are the only nation 
that cares about such matters. We need to sit down and figure out what 
each of us can do better to make it harder for drug traffickers to ply 
their trade. Together, working collectively, we can defeat the 
traffickers. But if we expend our energies playing the blame game, we 
are certainly not going to effectively address their threat. We are not 
going to stop one additional teenager from becoming hooked on drugs, or 
one more citizen from being mugged outside his home by some drug crazed 
thief.
  During the Clinton administration, Barry McCaffrey, the Director of 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy did a fine job in attempting 
to forge more cooperative relations with Colombia, Mexico, and other 
countries in our own hemisphere. The OAS has also done some important 
work over the last several years in putting in place an institutional 
framework for dealing with the complexities of compiling national 
statistics so that we can better understand what needs to be done. The 
United Nations, through its Office for Drug Control and Crime 
Prevention has also made some important contributions in furthering 
international cooperation in this area. However, still more needs to be 
done. I believe my legislation will build upon that progress.
  It is my hope that a change in the certification process coupled with 
new administrations in the United States and Mexico provide a window of 
opportunity for the United States working with Mexico to spearhead 
international efforts to find better and more effective ways for 
multilateral cooperation.

[[Page 20607]]

That is why I hope my colleagues will support this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be added 
as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, this is something we must do. We 
have been working with Mexico on the drug issue for a long time, and we 
want to put forward a comprehensive program that will be a sharing of 
responsibility. We will do that, but at this time we do not want the 
deadline to come on us and not be able to certify Mexico.
  We are working with Colombia. They are trying very hard to rid 
themselves of their drug problem. We want to help them, not hurt them.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut for taking the lead on this 
issue. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1959.
  The amendment (No. 1959) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I believe we are almost done. Just so 
people will know, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request 
regarding a Hutchison amendment on tuberculosis, a Bingaman amendment 
on Central America drought relief, a Leahy AIDS and malaria funding 
amendment, a Stabenow amendment on the victims of terrorism, a Landrieu 
amendment on child soldiers, and a McConnell technical amendment.


               Amendments Nos. 1960 through 1965, En Bloc

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to bring forward an amendment by Senator Hutchison of Texas, 
Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator 
Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, Senator 
Thompson of Tennessee, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, and Senator 
McConnell of Kentucky, and that they be considered en bloc and agreed 
to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr. 
     McConnell, for themselves and others, proposes amendments 
     numbered 1960 through 1965, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1960

       On page 120, line 3, strike ``$1,455,500,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof: ``$1,465,500,000''.
       On page 121, line 6, after ``diseases'' insert the 
     following: ``,of which not less than $65,000,000 should be 
     made available for the prevention, treatment, and control of, 
     and research on, tuberculosis''.
       On page 142, line 17, strike ``$567,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$557,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1961

       On page 142, line 17, strike ``$567,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$557,000,000''.
       On page 124, line 17, strike ``$1,235,000,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof: ``$1,245,000,000''.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:


                    central america disaster relief

       Sec.  . Of the funds appropriated under the headings 
     ``International Disaster Assistance'', ``Development 
     Assistance'', and ``Economic Support Fund'', not less than 
     $35,000,000 should be made available for relief and 
     reconstruction assistance for victims of earthquakes and 
     drought in El Salvador and elsewhere in Central America.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1962

       On page 116, line 23, delete ``$753,323,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$727,323,000''.
       On page 145, line 17, delete $326,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$318,500,000''.
       On page 157, line 3, strike ``CONTRIBUTION'' and all that 
     follows through the period on line 8.
       On page 136, line 9, delete ``$800,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$795,500,000''.
       On page 128, line 13, delete ``$255,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$245,000,000''.
       On page 133, line 13, delete ``$603,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$615,000,000''.
       On page 121, line 5, delete ``$175,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$185,000,000''.
       On page 121, line 6, after ``diseases'' insert: ``, of 
     which not less than $65,000,000 should be made available to 
     combat malaria''.
       On page 159, line 13, delete ``217,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$218,000,000''.
       On page 160, line 1, delete ``$39,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$40,000,000''.
       On page 120, line 3, delete ``$1,455,500,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof: ``$1,500,500,000''.
       On page 120, line 24, delete ``$415,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$450,000,000''.
       On page 120, line 25, delete ``$40,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$90,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1963

 (Purpose: To make agreed technical amendments by the managers of the 
                                 bill)

       On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:


             projects honoring victims of terrorist attacks

       Sec. 581. The National and Community Service Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.) is amended by inserting before 
     title V the following:

       ``TITLE IV--PROJECTS HONORING VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `Foundation' 
     means the Points of Light Foundation funded under section 
     301, or another nonprofit private organization, that enters 
     into an agreement with the Corporation to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(b) Identification of Projects.--
       ``(1) Estimated number.--Not later than December 1, 2001, 
     the Foundation, after obtaining the guidance of the heads of 
     appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Director of the 
     Office of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall--
       ``(A) make an estimate of the number of victims killed as a 
     result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 
     (referred to in this section as the `estimated number'); and
       ``(B) compile a list that specifies, for each individual 
     that the Foundation determines to be such a victim, the name 
     of the victim and the State in which the victim resided.
       ``(2) Identified projects.--The Foundation shall identify 
     approximately the estimated number of community-based 
     national and community service projects that meet the 
     requirements of subsection (d). The Foundation shall name 
     each identified project in honor of a victim described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A), after obtaining the permission of an 
     appropriate member of the victim's family and the entity 
     carrying out the project.
       (c) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to have a project 
     named under this section, the entity carrying out the project 
     shall be a political subdivision of a State, a business, or a 
     nonprofit organization (which may be a religious 
     organization, such as a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim 
     organization).
       ``(d) Projects.--The Foundation shall name, under this 
     section, projects--
       ``(1) that advance the goals of unity, and improving the 
     quality of life in communities; and
       ``(2) that will be planned, or for which implementation 
     will begin, within a reasonable period after the date of 
     enactment of this section, as determined by the Foundation.
       ``(e) Website and Database.--The Foundation shall create 
     and maintain websites and databases, to describe projects 
     named under this section and serve as appropriate vehicles 
     for recognizing the projects.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1964

      (Purpose: To make available funds for services aimed at the 
           reintegration of war-affected youth in East Asia)

       On page 125, line 16, before the period at the end of the 
     line insert the following: ``: Provided further, That, of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading or under `Child 
     Survival and Health Programs Fund', $5,000,000 should be made 
     available for activities in South and Central Asia aimed at 
     reintegrating `child soldiers' and other war-affected 
     youth''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1965

       On page 137, line 17 through page 138 line 11, strike all 
     after ``(e)'' through ``assistance''.

                                HIV/AIDS

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, HIV/AIDS has become a world-wide 
pandemic. More than 16 million people have died of AIDS. The Joint 
United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the World Health 
Organization, WHO, have estimated that over 32.4 million adults and 1.2 
million children around the world are already living with HIV. Half of 
all people who acquire HIV become infected before they turn 25 and 
typically die of AIDS before their 35th birthday.

[[Page 20608]]

  The overwhelming majority of people with HIV live in the developing 
world, and that proportion is likely to grow even further as infection 
rates continue to rise in countries where poverty, poor health systems, 
and limited resources for prevention and care fuel the spread of the 
virus.
  Sub-Saharan Africa bears the brunt of HIV and AIDS, with close to 70 
percent of the global total of HIV-positive people. Over 14 million 
Africans have already been claimed by the disease, leaving behind 
shattered families and crippled prospects for development. There have 
also been recent reports of growing problems in China, India, and 
elsewhere. Of course, the United States is not immune to this virus, 
and its spread globally only contributes to risks in America.
  It is estimated that approximately 90 percent of people in sub-
Saharan Africa do not know if they are HIV infected or not. They have 
no means of gaining this vital knowledge so that they can protect 
themselves and others. Thus, testing is a critical aspect of the effort 
to stop the further spread of HIV/AIDS. However, one must be careful 
that tests are appropriate to the regions where they are used.
  In developing regions served by USAID, tests should be fast, 
accurate, simple, designed to assist those providing counseling, and 
have no need for labs or refrigeration. The importance of testing 
cannot be overstated. Early detection of HIV/AIDS might enable 
treatment to be more effective. We must do all we can to control and 
stop the spread of this dreaded virus, and I urge USAID to seek to 
develop rapid tests that serve this purpose.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for bringing up 
this important issue. I believe that USAID should be committed to 
furthering the cause of finding a suitable field test for HIV/AIDS. I 
would expect that of the funds appropriated to USAID, the Agency would 
evaluate potential tests for deployment in sub-Saharan Africa.
  Mr. LEAHY. I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and agree with 
him on the importance of testing as an important part of the effort to 
stop the spread of HIV and AIDS. The bill under consideration includes 
$375 million for U.S. Agency for International Development programs to 
combat HIV/AIDS. It is my belief that a portion of these funds should 
be committed to the development of rapid tests.


                           hacia la seguridad

  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I have a question for Senator 
McConnell, distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Subcommittee, regarding an important rule of law project 
currently underway in the Andean region. The project is the Hacia la 
Seguridad project located in Quito, Ecuador.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will be pleased to answer the Senator's question.
  Mr. THOMPSON. The mission of the Hacia la Seguridad project is to 
increase transparency throughout Ecuador's legal system as a means of 
promoting bureaucratic and judicial accountability, effective 
governance and law enforcement, and improved access to justice. The 
project specifically focuses on the identification and elimination of 
invalid regulations and statutes, the design of modern legal codes, 
judicial monitoring, and public education and support for rule of law 
reform. It is my understanding that the Senator supports this project 
and that it is the intention of the committee that it receive support 
from USAID.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct. The project advances the goals set 
forth in the International Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Act of 
2000 and helps promote stability and democracy in the Andean region 
generally. It is the committee's intent that this project receive ESF 
funding in fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator for his clarifying statement and 
ask that the committee seek Statement of Manager's language directing 
USAID to fund the project.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to work with the conferees to try to 
develop Statement of Manager's language advising USAID of this project 
and its importance.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator for his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1960 through 1965) were agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, there is one more amendment which we 
expect will be agreed to by voice vote. We have been working on it all 
day. It is about to miraculously appear from back in the Cloakroom. It 
is related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute.
  I say to my colleagues, we will be able to agree to that shortly, we 
believe on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 1921

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1921.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1921.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1921

   (Purpose: To authorize the President to waive the restriction of 
assistance for Azerbaijan if the President determines that it is in the 
       national security interest of the United States to do so)

       On page 232, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:


           WAIVER OF RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO AZERBAIJAN.

       Sec. 581. Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act (Public 
     Law 102-511; 22 U.S.C. 5812 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``United States'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Restriction.--United States''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Waiver.--The President is authorized to waive the 
     restriction in subsection (a) if the President determines 
     that it is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to do so.''.


                Amendment No. 1966 To Amendment No. 1921

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to 
the Brownback 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 Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1966 to amendment No. 1921.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


              amendment to no. 1966 to amendment no. 1921

       Strike all after the word Sec. and add the following:
       Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply to--
       (A) activities to support democracy or assistance under 
     Title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public 
     Law 104-201 or nonproliferation assistance;
       (B) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development 
     Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421);
       (C) any activity carried out by a member of the United 
     States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his 
     or her official capacity;
       (D) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee or other 
     assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation under title IV of Chapter 2 of part I of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);
       (E) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act 
     of 1945; or
       (F) humanitarian assistance.
       (2) The President may waive section 907 of the FREEDOM 
     Support Act if he determines and certifies to the Committees 
     on Appropriations that to do so:
       (A) is necessary to support United States efforts to 
     counter terrorism; or
       (B) is necessary to support the operational readiness of 
     United States Armed Forces or coalition partners to counter 
     terrorism; or
       (C) is important to Azerbaijan's border security; and
       (D) will not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to 
     negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and 
     Azerbaijan or be used for offensive purposes against Armenia.

[[Page 20609]]

       (3) The authority of paragraph (2) may only be exercised 
     through December 31, 2002.
       (4) The President may extend the waiver authority provided 
     in paragraph (2) on an annual basis on or after December 31, 
     2002 if he determines and certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 
     (2).
       (5) The Committees on Appropriations shall be consulted 
     prior to the provisions of any assistance made available 
     pursuant to paragraph (2).
       (6) Within 60 days of any exercise of the authority under 
     Section (2), the President shall send a report to the 
     appropriate Congressional committees specifying in detail the 
     following:
       (A) The nature and quantity of all training and assistance 
     provided to the government of Azerbaijan pursuant to Section 
     (2);
       (B) the status of the military balance between Azerbaijan 
     and Armenia and the impact of U.S. assistance on that 
     balance; and
       (C) the status of negotiations for a peaceful settlement 
     between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the impact of U.S. 
     assistance on those negotiations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I want to speak in favor of the 
amendment put forward by my colleague from Kentucky. As he mentioned, 
this is a contentious, difficult issue on which people have been 
working all day. We have gotten to an agreement of what we think can 
work.


  Basically, the issue is trying to prosecute the war on terrorism. I 
think we have been able to work some issues out to be able to get that 
done. I am very appreciative of all my colleagues, particularly the 
Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and the Senator from Maryland, 
Mr. Sarbanes, and a number of other people for working aggressively on 
it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of 
support on this issue from the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and 
ask it be printed in the Record along with a letter from three former 
National Security Advisers to Senator Daschle and Senator Lott in 
support of this amendment we are putting forward.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       The Secretary of State,

                                     Washington, October 15, 2001.
     Hon. Jesse A. Helms,
     Committee on Foreign Relations,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Helms: The President has asked me to request 
     your support for providing legislative authority that would 
     allow assistance to the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan 
     has joined the coalition to combat terrorism and has granted 
     the United States overflight rights, the use of its air 
     bases, and has provided critical intelligence cooperation. 
     Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act of 1992, however, 
     severely constrains our ability to provide most support to 
     the Government of Azerbaijan including assistance needed to 
     support our operations in the ongoing war against terrorism.
       In addition to purely military matters, no less urgent is 
     our need to engage and assist Azerbaijan's intelligence and 
     law enforcement agencies. It is also imperative that we 
     assist and work with Azerbaijan's financial authorities to 
     track and disrupt assets of the terror network. The 
     campaign's evolution will probably bring other requirements 
     to the fore that we will need flexibility to address.
       I request your assistance in passing legislation that would 
     provide a national security interest waiver from the 
     restrictions of section 907. Removal of these restrictions 
     will allow the United States to provide necessary military 
     assistance that will enable Azerbaijan to counter terrorist 
     organizations and elements operating within its borders. This 
     type of assistance is a critical element of the United States 
     fight against global terrorism.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Colin L. Powell.
                                                 October 17, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Lott: Now that the United 
     States has been compelled to undertake a comprehensive world 
     war against terrorism, it is imperative that we ensure that 
     our President benefits from the diplomatic flexibility and 
     military capacities necessary to succeed decisively in this 
     war.
       The first front of this war is the Caucasus and Central 
     Asia. Fostering and solidifying enduring partnerships with 
     the countries of this region is a strategic and operational 
     imperative.
       For this reason, we urge you to support the repeal of an 
     archaic sanction against Azerbaijan, a country whose 
     cooperation will be no less vital than any of its neighbors. 
     Azerbaijan was among the first countries to condemn the 
     September 11th attacks. It has offered the United States 
     military overflight rights and the use of its military bases 
     in this war against terrorism.
       However, Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act prohibits 
     the United States from benefitting from this offer. Unless 
     Section 907 is repealed, our military will not be able to 
     cooperate with Azerbaijan's security forces to create 
     capacities that will increase not only our ability to strike 
     against terrorist targets, but also our ability to provide 
     much needed security and logistical support to U.S. forces 
     operating in that region.
       There is not a doubt that Azerbaijan is ready and willing 
     to be a full ally in the war against terrorism. Ironically, 
     it is not Azerbaijan's will, but an archaic legislative 
     provision that precludes the United States from accepting 
     Baku's hand of partnership. This is not only a diplomatic 
     loss, it is strike against our men and women in uniform now 
     conducting a military offensive in Afghanistan against Al 
     Qaeda and the Taliban.
       For these strategic and operational reasons, we urge you to 
     support the repeal of Section 907. Doing so will help to 
     maximize America's ability to wage the war on terrorism.
           Respectfully,
     Zbigniew Brzezinski.
     Brent Scowcroft.
     Anthony Lake.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I don't know if there is further need for us to debate 
on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas for his tenacity in advocating his point of view. He and I 
and the Senator from Maryland have had some great debates on the issue 
of section 907 of the Freedom of Support Act in previous Congresses, 
but I do believe we have been able to work out an approach that both 
allows the administration to engage with these areas in a way that 
facilitates the fighting of the war and also preserves section 907 to 
be dealt with at a later date when the final settlement comes between 
Armenia and Azerbaijan, which will obviously happen on another day. I 
think this is a compromise that is worthwhile, and I am happy to 
support it.
  I yield the floor. I see Senator Kerry here, the original author of 
section 907.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I will be very brief. I thank Senator 
Sarbanes for his strong commitment to trying to balance this properly 
and for his tenacity through the course of the day. His leadership has 
been really superb in helping to try to balance the interests.
  I thank Senator Brownback for understanding what we have been trying 
to achieve. As the original author of 907, obviously I am sensitive to 
the change. But I completely understand the circumstances in which we 
find ourselves. These are changed circumstances. We need to respond, 
and we need to respond thoughtfully.
  My hope is that the amendment we have put in that was just adopted a 
moment ago, which Senator McConnell sponsored on our behalf, adequately 
sets forth the balance we are trying to strike so the long-term 
interests of peace and of the peaceful negotiations, bringing people to 
the table representing all parties' interests, will be respected.
  I hope we have achieved that. Obviously, there is more to play out. 
We will watch this very closely as we go forward.
  I thank Senator McConnell for his efforts today, and Senator 
Sarbanes. Hopefully, the balance we have tried to achieve has been 
achieved.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am confident if the dispute between 
Azerbaijan and Armenia is not settled on some other day that the 
Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Massachusetts and I will be 
allies in this fight on another day. I think for today we have worked 
out a compromise which is acceptable to the administration and which is 
acceptable to Senator Brownback and is the best we can achieve at the 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  There is not a settlement of a longstanding dispute between Armenia 
and

[[Page 20610]]

Azerbaijan. It is really an attempt for us to be able to work to deal 
with terrorism and work with the country we need to work with in this 
case; that is, Azerbaijan.
  The language is being drafted very carefully so that we can work in 
our best interests in the United States fighting terrorism with the 
assistance of being able to land planes and to house planes, and 
personnel being treated in hospitals in Azerbaijan, should we need to. 
Indeed, some of that is taking place now. We have tried carefully to 
pull that together without touching the issue of peace talks which need 
to proceed. I hope we can get a final settlement of that sometime soon.
  Do we have time for a vote? If not, we don't need a recorded vote but 
a voice, I hope.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
in the second degree, No. 1966.
  The amendment (No. 1966) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
in the first degree, as amended, No. 1921.
  The amendment (No. 1921), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam 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. 1967

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have one final amendment related to 
the United States-Armenia relationship that would provide some 
assistance for Armenia. It has been approved on both sides of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1967.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 152 line 10, after the word ``Appropriations'' and 
     before the period insert the following: ``:Provided further, 
     That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, not less 
     than $600,000 shall be made available for assistance for 
     Armenia''
       On page 153 line 7, after the colon insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this 
     paragraph, not less than $4,000,000 shall be made available 
     for assistance for Armenia''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no debate, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1967) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1968

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have another amendment on behalf of 
the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Smith of 
     Oregon, proposes an amendment numbered 1968.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . FEDERAL INVESTIGATION ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Federal Investigation Enhancement Act of 2001.''
       (b) Undercover Investigative Practices Conducted by Federal 
     Attorneys.--Section 530 B (a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after the first sentence, 
     ``Notwithstanding any provision of State law, including 
     disciplinary rules, statutes, regulations, constitutional 
     provisions, or case law, a Government attorney may, for the 
     purpose of enforcing Federal law, provide legal advice, 
     authorization, concurrence, direction, or supervision on 
     conducting undercover activities, and any attorney employed 
     as an investigator or other law enforcement agent by the 
     Department of Justice who is not authorized to represent the 
     United States in criminal or civil law enforcement litigation 
     or to supervise such proceedings may participate in such 
     activities, even though such activities may require the use 
     of deceit or misrepresentation, where such activities are 
     consistent with Federal law.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1968) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.


                      global environment facility

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to address the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations on the subject of the Global 
Environment Facility, an organization which for a number of reasons is 
vital to the restoration and preservation of our earth's environment. 
The GEF channels funding from over 30 nations to help developing 
countries confront the problems within their borders which affect the 
global environment. Traditionally, GEF's focus has been on global 
warming, biodiversity, international waters, and the ozone layer.
  Recently, the GEF was given a critical new assignment. It is now the 
funding mechanism to implement the new international conservation on 
persistent organic pollutants, or POPS, which was signed by the United 
States and other nations in June. Though long banned in the U.S., these 
toxic chemicals continue to be used in the developing world. They 
travel on air and water currents and work their way up the food chain 
into humans, particularly native populations in northern latitudes like 
Alaska. As the funding mechanism for the POPS convention, GEF will have 
a critical role in phasing out their use.
  I greatly appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee chairman to 
provide slightly more than the President's request for the GEF this 
year. However, I had been hopeful that the Congress would be able to 
provide not only the budget request, but significantly more to pay off 
existing arrears. In June I joined Senators Chafee, Biden, Bingaman, 
Collins, Jeffords, Lieberman, Lugar, Murray, and Snowe in writing to 
the subcommittee leadership urging the payment of a substantial amount 
of our arrears.
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the support of the Senator from Massachusetts 
for our proposed increase over the President's budget request for the 
GEF. I agree that this is a vital organization. GEF's work gets at many 
of the international environmental problems which simply cannot be 
fixed by the U.S. or any nation acting alone, such as global warming.
  Poor nations which struggle to feed and clothe their people simply do 
not have the resources to devote to global environmental problems. Yet 
if we do not have a unified global approach to these problems, we have 
little hope of addressing them effectively. The GEF funds worthy 
projects in 160 countries.
  Unfortunately, the United States has lagged behind in meeting our 
obligations to the GEF. Since 1994, twice the U.S. has pledged $107.5 
million a year to GEF. We are now in the final year of the second 
replenishment, and our total arrears stand at $203.9 million. Our 
recommended appropriation this year will make only a small dent in that 
figure, but at least will not add to them.
  Mr. KERRY. I have been a part of international environmental 
discussions for a decade, and attended talks not only in Kyoto but also 
in Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and The Hague. During this time, I have 
watched tensions grow between the developed and developing world, which 
increasingly views Western efforts to convince them to adopt strict 
environmental standards as an effort to hold them down economically. 
This concern is an important factor in the dispute over a new round of 
world trade negotiations. Cooperative efforts between developed nations 
and the developing world through organizations like the Global 
Environmental Facility can bridge this distrust.

[[Page 20611]]


  Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the Senator. I am pleased that the Senate is 
recommending a considerably higher appropriation than the House for the 
GEF, and I intend to work diligently to persuade the House to agree to 
our GEF number in conference. We must get back on track and pay our 
arrears to the GEF.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chairman. This year's appropriations debate 
coincides with new discussions among GEF members for a new 
replenishment, one which must for the first time accommodate the new 
responsibility for implementing POPS. Hence it's critical that the U.S. 
send a strong statement that we remain committed to meeting our 
obligations to the GEF.


             american companies doing business in Colombia

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we often hear from American companies 
whose investments in developing countries have gone sour. That is the 
risk of doing business, and nobody disputes that. But international 
arbitration was created in order to mitigate the risks of overseas 
investments and to avoid depending on shaky legal institutions in those 
countries. Arbitration has been one of the principal building blocks to 
the extraordinary growth in international trade. It has brought 
investments to countries which would have otherwise been considered too 
risky because it gives investors and sovereign nations an agreed-upon 
mechanism to resolve disputes. Key to its success is the agreement by 
all parties that arbitration can only work if it is binding.
  It recently came to Senator McConnell's and my attention that at 
least two American companies, Sithe and Nortel, have participated in 
binding arbitration to resolve disputes with the Colombian Government. 
According to information we have received, Sithe and perhaps Nortel, we 
are told, companies from Mexico and Germany, have won awards through 
binding arbitration, only to have the Colombian Government renege on 
its commitment to honor the arbitration decision.
  We have not had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the 
Colombian Government, but if our information is correct, that American 
companies have agreed to binding arbitration and prevailed, only to 
have the Colombian Government refuse to pay, that is unacceptable. We 
want to help Colombia's economy develop in an environment where the 
rule of law is respected. This is crucial to Colombia's future. If 
Colombia flaunts the rules of the private market, it will have 
increasing difficulty attracting private investment because it cannot 
be trusted.
  Representatives of these companies have urged us to withhold a 
portion of U.S. assistance to Colombia until the Colombian Government 
fulfills its legal obligations to these companies. We considered 
offering such an amendment, because of the importance we give to the 
fair treatment of American companies, respect for the rule of law, and 
the international arbitration process. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of our proposed amendment be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  We decided not to offer the amendment, because of the precedent it 
could set. But we want to emphasize that respecting binding, 
internationally, sanctioned arbitration is essential to the investment 
that will ultimately be the engine for Colombia's economic development. 
No amount of foreign assistance can do that. The pattern of Colombia's 
apparent abuse of the international arbitration process is very 
disturbing, and by conveying our concern about it we mean to strongly 
encourage the Colombian Government to act expeditiously to resolve 
these matters.
  I know that both Senator McConnell and I will be following this issue 
closely, and discussing it with the Colombian Ambassador, the American 
Ambassador to Colombia, and the Department of State, in the coming 
months.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just add a word or two to Senator Leahy's 
comments. Few would disagree that Colombia's long term political and 
economic development resides in its ability to forge a lasting peace, 
establish the rule of law, and attract foreign investment. No service 
is done to the nation or the people of Colombia when the Colombian 
government refuses to recognize the legitimacy of an arbitration award 
to international businesses. The leadership in Bogota should understand 
that such action further erodes confidence in the overall investment 
climate in Colombia within the international business community--and in 
foreign capitals. It is my hope that the Colombian government takes 
note of the amendment Senator Leahy and I contemplated offering and 
initiates corrective action in the very near future.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as the Senate considers the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, I would like to 
take this opportunity to discuss discrepancies between the House and 
Senate versions regarding funding for the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia (FRY).
  I have strong reservations about certain language included by the 
House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying H.R. 2506. In 
its report, the House Committee recommends $145 million in funding for 
the FRY, of which $60 million is to be provided to Montenegro. I 
support at least $145 million for the FRY, which is the amount 
requested by the President. However, if the House funding level stands 
for Montenegro, with a population of just 600,000 people, which is one-
thirteenth the size of Serbia, it would receive more than 40 percent of 
the total assistance package for the FRY.
  I do not believe Montenegro could constructively absorb this much 
assistance, and I am concerned about the impact such a division of 
assistance for the FRY would have on U.S. assistance to Serbia. In my 
conversations with State Department officials, they also expressed 
strong reservations about providing $60 million to Montenegro, as they 
believe it is more than Montenegro can effectively absorb. The State 
Department believes Montenegro should not receive more than the $45 
million recommended by the Senate, and in fact, they believe that $35-
40 million would be an appropriate amount.
  Given disturbing reports of official corruption that have surfaced 
regarding illicit activity in Montenegro, it is particularly important 
that we are able to fully account for the expenditure of U.S. 
assistance there. Moreover, if the House recommendation of $60 million 
prevails, U.S. assistance for the Republic of Serbia could fall to $85 
million, which is significantly below the $100 million we provided to 
Serbia in fiscal year 2001.
  As my colleagues are aware, significant changes have taken place in 
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the past twelve months. On 
Friday October 5, 2001, marked the one-year anniversary of the fall of 
the Milosevic regime and the beginning of a new, democratic government. 
Since then, the new leaders have made significant strides in 
implementing political and economic reforms. While there is still much 
work to be done, it is critical that we recognize the important 
progress that has been made in the past year. A cut in funding for 
Serbia would send precisely the wrong message. We want to support the 
Serb reformers, who took the courageous step of arresting and 
transferring Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague. We want to encourage 
their continued cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal, as well as 
other democratic reforms and respect for the rule of law.
  When the conference committee meets to reconcile the House and Senate 
versions of the foreign operations bill for fiscal year 2002, I urge 
the Senate conferees to support the funding levels for Serbia and 
Montenegro that are recommended in the Senate bill.
  I would appreciate knowing if the chairman and ranking member of the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee agree with me about this.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, for far too long, corruption has been 
allowed to run rampant in Southeastern Europe. Recent events have 
highlighted the citizens of Montenegro as being among the most 
beleaguered by the corruption of its government.

[[Page 20612]]

  Montenegro is the beneficiary of a proud, freedom loving people 
courageously standing against the tyranny of Slobodan Milosevic. 
However, they have not been well served by their government, whose 
actions have undercut United States assistance to Montenegro.
  For example, the President of Montenegro purchases two luxury 
aircrafts, during the Kosovo Crisis! Costing 26 to 30 million dollars 
or more, one plane was a Lear Jet, and the other a Cessna Citation X. 
President Djukanovic has been flown in these planes at the very same 
time the taxpayers of the United States were making emergency cash 
payments to help the Montenegrin Government pay its pensions and energy 
bills.
  The $26 million spent on aircraft would have averted electricity 
power shortages in Montenegro. These purchases, by the way, were not 
reported to the United States Government, the Montenegrin Parliament 
which is now investigating this matter, or, the citizens of Montenegro.
  It is now clear that the Government of Montenegro was keeping two 
budgets: one facilitated the flow of international assistance; the 
second apparently served the personal interests of senior government 
officials.
  Since actions speak louder than words, it is obvious that a premium 
was placed on personal comfort of senior officials over legal reforms 
essential to rebuilding the Montengrin economy.
  Last year the United States earmarked $89 million in foreign 
assistance for fiscal year 2001 for Montenegro; plans are to dedicate 
about half that much in fiscal year 2002.
  Let me be clear, United States assistance must never be permitted to 
be a free ride for such officials. The citizens of Montenegro fought 
Milosevic to the very end. Now develops that, during that time, they, 
and the United States, were cheated by the government in Podgorica.
  The people deserve a responsible governing body that puts foreign 
assistance into its economy not the pockets of corrupt officials. The 
United States deserves assurance that United States assistance dollars 
are used for their intended purpose.
  Not one red cent should go to the government of Montenegro unless and 
until these planes have been fully accounted for--and sold. In 
addition, United States assistance to the Montenegrin government should 
be firmly conditioned upon tangible progress toward rooting out 
corruption and reintroducing the rule of law.
  The people of Montenegro deserve far better than they have received 
from their government and their President Djukanovic.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friends from Ohio and North Carolina for 
bringing to the attention of the Senate the important issue of 
assistance to Serbia and Montenegro. The short answer to Senator 
Voinovich's inquiry is that Senator Leahy and I strongly support the 
funding levels for Serbia and Montenegro that are recommended by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, and that will be our position in the 
Conference.
  Those of us who closely follow developments in the Balkans appreciate 
the many challenges that reformers in Serbia and Montenegro face each 
day, and we note the progress that has been made in the past year 
alone. As Senators Voinovich and Helms have stated, many challenges lie 
ahead, including the need to address the troubling and complex issues 
of corruption and legal reform. I think we all agree that America must 
be clear in our support of these reform efforts. Senator Leahy and I 
believe that the carefully drafted provisions in our bill, and the 
funding levels we recommend, do just that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friends for their comments. This is an issue of 
great importance to the Senate. In crafting this bill, Senator 
McConnell and I had three principal objectives with respect to the FRY. 
First, we want to send a message to Serb reformers that we strongly 
support their efforts. We recommend $115 million for Serbia in fiscal 
year 2002, a $15 million increase in United States assistance above 
last year. We have also provided authority for debt relief for Serbia. 
We were told by Serb finance officials and our Treasury Department that 
this is a top priority if Serbia is to attract new foreign investment, 
which is the key to Serbia's future economic development.
  Second, we want to make clear that we expect to see continued 
cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal and respect for the rule of 
law. While we fully appreciate the courage of Serb officials in 
arresting and transferring Milosevic to The Hague in April, since then 
we have seen little in the way of cooperation with the Tribunal. We are 
also disappointed that political prisoners continue to languish in Serb 
jails, even though Serb officials have acknowledged that they should be 
released. We therefore include language similar to last year, that 
links our assistance to continued progress in these areas.
  Finally, with respect to Montenegro, we want to provide sufficient 
assistance to convey our strong support for Montenegro, and at the same 
time ensure a proper balance within the $115 million available for the 
FRY. Montenegro is making impressive strides in reforming its economy, 
and we should support that. The reports of corruption are disturbing, 
and we need to ensure that our assistance is not misused. 
Unfortunately, corruption is a region-wide phenomenon, and we have 
emphasized to USAID and the State Department that combating corruption 
should be a key component of our assistance relationship. Corruption 
corrodes democracy, and the new leaders of Montenegro and Serbia, and 
indeed throughout the former Yugoslavia, will pay a heavy price in the 
long run if they ignore it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the Record the 
Budget Committee's official scoring for H.R. 2506, the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2002.
  The Senate bill provides $15.524 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $5.580 billion. 
When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary, outlays for the Senate bill total $15.149 billion in 
2002. The Senate bill is at its Section 302(b) allocation for both 
budget authority and outlays. Once again, the committee has met its 
target without the use of any emergency designations.
  We have begun the 2002 fiscal year without the Congress completing a 
single appropriations bill. While extraordinary events have contributed 
greatly to this late start, it is time that the Congress complete its 
work. Earlier this month, the President reached agreement with Senate 
and House appropriators on a revised budget for 2002. The Congress must 
now expeditiously provide funding that complies with that bipartisan 
agreement.
  I ask for unanimous consent that a table diplaying the budget 
committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  H.R. 2506, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
   APPROPRIATION ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE REPORTED BILL
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority...............       15,524           45       15,569
  Outlays........................       15,149           45       15,194
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority...............       15,524           45       15,569
  Outlays........................       15,149           45       15,194
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............       15,167           45       15,212
  Outlays........................       15,080           45       15,125
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............       15,169           45       15,214
  Outlays........................       15,081           45       15,126SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority...............            0            0            0
  Outlays........................            0            0            0
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............          357            0          357
  Outlays........................           69            0           69
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............          355            0          355
  Outlays........................           68            0           68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the Senate-
  reported bill to the Senate 302(b) allocation.Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to take a moment to speak briefly 
about two interconnected issues--

[[Page 20613]]

the destruction of the world's few remaining tropical forests, and the 
pressures of population growth, poverty, and development that is 
causing it.
  The world's few remaining tropical forests, which are located in 
Indonesia, Central Africa, and parts of South America, are being cut 
down at a staggering rate. Whether it is local farmers scratching out a 
living by slash and burn agriculture, or multinational timber or mining 
companies, experts predict that these irreplaceable ecosystems will be 
completely gone in 15 to 20 years.
  The forests are not just trees. They are the habitat for the majority 
of the Earth's endangered species, from great apes to insects, many of 
which we have yet to identify. They are also the source of many of the 
life-saving drugs that are sold in America's pharmacies today, and who 
knows how many future cures wait to be discovered from rainforest 
plants.
  They are home to the few remaining groups of indigenous people who 
continue to live in much the same way as they have for centuries, 
threatening no one.
  Development is widely regarded as synonymous with progress. That is 
why the United States Agency for International Development has its 
name. But it would be unforgivable if a decade or two from now the few 
remaining virgin tropical forests were gone. It is not simply a matter 
of planting new trees. They are a complex web of species.
  There are many private homes in Washington, DC that are worth more 
than what it would cost to protect hundreds of thousands of acres of 
virgin rainforest in some African countries. Yet we have difficulty 
finding a few million dollars to do that.
  Even worse, the United States is a major consumer of timber stolen 
from the forests of Indonesia, Africa and South America. According to a 
recent report, the U.S. imported over $300 million in illegal timber 
from Indonesia alone last year.
  The international trade in illegal timber is out of control. It is 
rampant. It is accelerating, and it is driven by greed, an insatiable 
demand, corruption, and the lack of effective strategies and resources 
to address it. This bill contains funds to increase our efforts, but I 
would be the first to say is not enough.
  There are two ways to protect these forests, and both are essential. 
One is law enforcement. Many countries, like Indonesia and Brazil have 
environmental laws, but they are routinely violated, including by those 
who are responsible for enforcing them.
  In Indonesia, the military is deeply involved in the illegal timber 
trade, and I encouraged the White House to discuss this with President 
Megawati when she was in Washington recently.
  The same is true in Cambodia and the so-called ``Democratic'' 
Republic of the Congo. The military trades protection for illegal 
loggers in exchange for a slice of the profits. So cracking down on 
this corruption is essential.
  What also must be done is to provide the people who live in the 
forests alternative sources of income and access to family planning to 
reduce population pressures on these fragile ecosystems.
  As it is, they have no other way to survive except by cutting the 
trees for fuel or timber and killing the animals for bush meat, which 
has become a high priced delicacy.
  Once the forests are gone, they will have to abandon their homes, 
joining the throngs of other impoverished people migrating to urban 
slums--without housing, without jobs, without health care, without 
hope.
  On the other hand, if they are made to understand that the forest and 
the animals can be a continuing source of tourist income, then they 
become the protectors of the forests.
  We want USAID to expand its support for organizations and individuals 
who have devoted their lives to protecting endangered species and the 
tropical forests where they live.
  In some countries, like Brazil, some of the most courageous advocates 
for the environment have been murdered, presumably by the mining and 
timber interests.
  There is still time to stop this, but only if we make it a priority. 
We have to, because ten years from now will be too late.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as the Senate considers the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, I would like to 
take a few minutes to address U.S. assistance to the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, I have taken a strong interest in 
issues affecting Southeast Europe during my time in the Senate. I have 
made many trips to the region, most recently in December of 2000 with 
my friend from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, and I continue to 
meet with the region's political, spiritual and community leaders both 
in the United States and during time abroad.
  I have long recognized the destabilizing influence that men such as 
Slobodan Milosevic have had on the region and the broader European 
community. The international community witnessed the devastating 
influence of this so-called leader during years of violent conflict in 
the former Yugoslavia, and we continue to see evidence of its affects 
in Kosovo and other parts of the region.
  While the Balkans have not been without recent challenges, as 
demonstrated by the situation in Macedonia and continued violence and 
destruction in Kosovo and parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, significant 
changes have taken place in this part of the world during the past year 
and a half. The death of Franjo Tudjman in Croatia in December of 1999 
and the ouster of the Milosevic regime in October of 2000 have removed 
major obstacles to positive change in the region.
  One year ago this month, I watched with tremendous gratification when 
the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia went to the polls, and 
then to the streets, to demonstrate their support of democracy and 
their denouncement of Milosevic.
  Since my days as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of the State of 
Ohio, I have been an ardent supporter of democratic reformers in 
Serbia. I have long admired the courage and determination of many 
individuals who remained focused on a democratic future for Serbia, 
whatever the odds, such as members of the OTPOR student movement.
  When I met with a group of these young leaders following the election 
of President Vojislav Kostunica and the removal of Milosevic from 
power, they told me that the feat we witnessed last October would not 
have been possible without the support and influence of the United 
States.
  Just a few weeks ago in my office in the Hart building, I met with 
one of the founders of the OPTOR student movement, who is now a member 
of the Serbian Parliament. Once focused on removing Milosevic from 
power, he is now intent on helping the government to strength its 
democratic institutions so that the FRY may better position itself 
among Europe's new democracies. Without a doubt, the Federal Republic 
of Yugoslavia is a different place today than it was one year ago.
  When the Senate considered the foreign operations bill last year, we 
conditioned U.S. assistance to Serbia after March 31, 2001 on three 
conditions. In order to receive continued non-humanitarian assistance, 
the United States had to certify that the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia was doing the following: First, cooperating with the War 
Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; next, taking steps to 
implement the Dayton Accords; and finally, taking steps to implement 
policies reflecting the rule of law and respect for human rights.
  Given the importance of a democratic and stable government in the FRY 
to the broader region and Europe as a whole, I was pleased that the new 
government was, in fact, making significant progress in the areas 
outlined in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2001, thus allowing President Bush and the Secretary of State to grant 
certification and allow non-humanitarian U.S. assistance to the FRY to 
continue following the March 31 deadline.
  Additionally, the FRY's progress facilitated help from the World Bank 
and the International Monetary Fund, and

[[Page 20614]]

the international community pledged more than $1.2 billion for the 
country during a donors' conference sponsored by the World Bank at the 
end of June. Most recently, we have seen positive developments in the 
FRY's negotiations with the Paris Club to reschedule a portion of its 
debt.
  The reforms took important action in each of the three areas. 
Regarding cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former 
Yugoslavia, we all remember the dramatic scenes on television during 
the days before Slobodan Milosevic was transferred to The Hague in the 
middle of the night. It was a courageous and necessary step, and I am 
pleased that the government understood the necessity to doing so.
  In efforts to implement policies reflecting the rule of law and 
respect for human rights, perhaps the most significant accomplishment 
demonstrating the government's actions involved its work with the 
international community to successfully resolve the situation in 
southern Serbia, without significant international incident. In line 
with the Dayton Agreement, the FRY has reduced its military to military 
ties with the Republic Srpska, and it has indicated its commitment to 
eliminate remaining ties and ensure transparency of any dealings it 
might have with the Republic Srpska in the future.
  While we acknowledge the positive things that have taken place during 
the past twelve months, we must also recognize the reality that is 
still work that remain to be done. Of highest priority is the release 
of ethnic Albanian prisoners who continue to remain incarcerated in 
Serbian jails. Moreover, it is critical that the Government further its 
cooperation with The Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Certainly the transfer 
of Milosevic was highly important; at the same time, other indicated 
war criminals remain at large in the FRY, and every effort should be 
made to work with The Hague Tribunal to rid the country of those 
responsible for past atrocities.
  That being said, as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia joins the 
ranks of southeast Europe's new democracies, I believe it is important 
that we begin to look beyond the conditions outlined in the foreign 
operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, and work to create 
an assistance program for the FRY that is in line with our aid programs 
to other countries in the region.
  Last October, when House and Senate conferees considered the final 
version of the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations spending bill. 
Vojislav Kostunica had been in office just a few short weeks. The 
status of Milosevic was widely unknown. Given the nascent state of the 
new government at that time, I believe including language allowing the 
United States flexibility in its assistance program to the FRY, should 
the new government have moved in a direction contrary to U.S. 
interests, was a reasonable thing to do.
  However, in the year following final consideration of last year's 
foreign operations appropriations bill, I believe the reformers in the 
FRY have developed a position--though not perfect--track record. While 
it is clear that additional steps must be taken to further cooperation 
with The Hague and implementation of the rule of law, I believe we have 
solid evidence that the new government is committed to moving forward 
with reforms. If they fail to make the progress they have promised, we 
have many avenues from which to demonstrate our displeasure.
  As my colleagues are aware, the State Department must notify Congress 
before distributing U.S. funds abroad. At that time, our Foreign 
Relations Committee or Foreign Operations Subcommittee can withhold 
assistance to any country abroad. Additionally, we may instruct U.S. 
representatives to international organizations such as the World Bank 
and the International Monetary Fund to withhold their support for 
programs benefitting the FRY. Finally, if the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia does not act in accordance with actions deemed to be in 
their best interests by the United States and other members of the 
international community, there is no doubt in my mind that future U.S. 
support will be terminated.
  I appreciate the work that my colleagues on the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee have done in preparing the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. I recognize their efforts to 
send a positive message to reformers in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia by increasing the level of assistance to Serbia to $115 
million for fiscal year 2002, which is $15 million above the fiscal 
year 2001 level, and providing $45 million for Montenegro.
  Further, the committee has included language in its report applauding 
the work that has been done by reformers in the FRY during the past 
year. I also strongly support my colleagues' decision to provide $28 
million toward debt relief for the FRY, and I was pleased to join 
Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell as a cosponsor of an amendment 
authorizing that authority.
  While I support many provisions in the bill, I am nonetheless 
concerned that the same conditions on U.S. assistance to the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia that were crafted in October 2000, just weeks 
after the change of government, appear in the bill one year later. It 
is my feeling that placing the same conditions on U.S. assistance to 
FRY now may send the wrong message to the country's reformers. While we 
should continue to encourage progress in the FRY, I believe placing the 
same three conditions on U.S. aid to the country year after year could 
be counterproductive.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee and the Foreign Relations Committee during the next year 
regarding developments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as our aid 
program to the country evolves, with the hope that we will be able to 
move beyond conditionality in years to come.
  While it is important for the United States to understand progress 
that is made in the FRY, it is also imperative that the leaders of the 
FRY understand that the actions they take on the three areas outlined 
in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2001 will have a 
dramatic impact on whether or not the conditions are included in next 
year's bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, one of the most important provisions in 
this legislation conditions assistance to the Colombian Armed Forces on 
improvements in human rights.
  It is essential to ensure that U.S. military aid does not contribute 
to human rights abuses in Colombia. Allegations of human rights 
violations by military personnel there have decreased, but the State 
Department's 2000 Country Report on Human Rights Practices concluded 
that the Colombian Government's human rights record ``remained poor'' 
and that ``government security forces continued to commit serious 
abuses, including extrajudicial killings.''
  Many of us are particularly concerned about persistent links between 
the Colombian Armed Forces and illegal paramilitary groups. On 
September 10, Secretary of State Powell included the largest of these 
groups, known by its acronym as the AUC, on the State Department's list 
of terrorist groups. According to the State Department's Human Rights 
report, the Colombian military has repeatedly reassured our government 
``that it would not tolerate collaboration'' with such groups and that 
``the army would combat paramilitary groups.'' However, the report 
concludes that such links persist and that ``actions in the field were 
not always consistent with the leadership's positions.''
  The report says:

       Members of the security forces collaborated with 
     paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances 
     allowing such groups to pass through roadblocks, sharing 
     information, or providing them with supplies or ammunition. 
     Despite increased government efforts to combat and capture 
     members of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed 
     to take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary 
     forces find a ready support base within the military and 
     police, as well as among local civilian elites in many areas.

  A report recently released by Human Rights Watch titled ``The Sixth 
Division: Military-Paramilitary Ties and U.S. Policy in Colombia,'' 
states that the Colombia military and police detachments continue to 
promote, work

[[Page 20615]]

with, support profit from, and tolerate paramilitary groups, treating 
them as a force allied to and compatible with their own.
  Paramilitary groups continue to be linked to most human rights 
violations committed in Colombia, including massacres. The State 
Department's Human Rights report cites a sharp increase in the number 
of victims of paramilitary violence in the last year. Just two weeks 
ago, a new and ruthless massacre was committed by the AUC in Colombia. 
At least twenty-four men were forced to lie on the ground and then were 
executed one by one in cold blood.
  Many of us are deeply concerned that a majority of the armed forces 
personnel who collaborate with the paramilitary organizations and who 
are responsible for human rights abuses are not prosecuted effectively. 
According to the State Department's report, ``impunity for military 
personnel who collaborated with members of paramilitary groups remained 
common.'' Although the Colombian government claims to have dismissed 
more than 500 members of the military, the State Department says that 
it does not know how many were dismissed for collaborating with illegal 
paramilitary groups.
  The conditions included in this legislation are intended to address 
these concerns. They require the Secretary of State to certify that the 
Colombian Armed Forces are suspending members who have been credibly 
alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, including 
extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted paramilitary 
groups, and are providing to civilian prosecutors and judicial 
authorities requested information on the nature and cause of the 
suspension.
  The conditions require the Secretary of State to certify that the 
Colombian Armed Forces are cooperating with civilian prosecutors and 
judicial authorities, including unimpeded access to witnesses and 
relevant military documents and other information, in prosecuting and 
punishing in civilian courts members of the armed forces who have been 
credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, 
including extra-judicial killings, or to have aided or abetted 
paramilitary groups.
  Finally, the conditions require the Secretary of State to certify 
that the Colombian Armed Forces are taking effective steps to sever 
links, including denying access to military intelligence, vehicles, and 
other equipment or supplies, ceasing other forms of active or tacit 
cooperation with paramilitary groups, and carrying out existing arrest 
warrants.
  These conditions will help ensure that U.S. assistance does not 
contribute to human rights violations in Colombia. I urge my colleagues 
to support these important provisions.
  Another important provision is intended to improve the lives of the 
Dalit in India.
  India's 160 million Dalits, who are also known as ``untouchables,'' 
suffer severe hardship and face a unique form of discrimination. As 
victims of economic exploitation rooted in the caste system, they are 
virtually excluded from Indian society and endure some of the worst 
health conditions in the world. Dalits are born poor and landless and 
face discrimination at almost every stage in life. Wages from their 
jobs rarely provide enough income to feed their families or educate 
their children, and so the cycle of poverty and illiteracy continues 
from generation to generation.
  In rural areas, where sewer systems are virtually non-existent, many 
Dalits make their living cleaning human waste. These workers, known as 
scavengers, use little more than a broom, a tin plate and a basket, 
they clear human waste from public and private latrines, and carry the 
waste long distances in porous wicker baskets to disposal sites. In 
urban areas, they often work neck-deep in pits filled with human waste 
and risk asphyxiation in city sewers. Health conditions are appalling. 
Nearly all of these workers are women, and some are children.
  A Dalit in India once described their existence:

       When we are working, they ask us not to come near them. At 
     tea canteens, they have separate tea tumblers and they make 
     us clean them ourselves and make us put the dishes away 
     ourselves. We cannot enter temples. We cannot use upper-caste 
     water taps. We have to go one kilometer away to get water. . 
     . .

  Dalit communities are frequently punished for individual 
transgressions. With little knowledge of their rights, limited access 
to attorneys, and no money for hearings or bail, they are easy targets 
for criminal prosecution. Police single out Dalit activists for 
persecution and frequently abuse and torture Dalit suspects.
  While the Indian Constitution and the 1955 Civil Rights Act abolished 
untouchability, and subsequent laws allow for affirmative action, 
hiring quotas and special training funds, discrimination against Dalits 
continues to flourish in Indian society. As the great author of the 
Indian constitution--and Dalit--statesman Dr. Ambedkar once said: 
``Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas have gone but the Untouchables have 
remained as Untouchables.''
  While there are many people of goodwill in India, discrimination and 
poverty are widespread in the Dalit community. The foreign aid we 
provide to India should contribute to easing the hardship and misery 
suffered by this community and to addressing the disparity between 
Dalits and others in India.
  To advance this objective, a provision in this legislation requires 
the executive director of the World Bank to vote against any water or 
sewage project in India that does not prohibit the use of scavenger 
labor. Precious and limited resources should be used to provide 
incentive to communities in India to abolish this kind of labor and to 
reward those that do so.
  Additionally, the report accompanying the Senate bill highlights the 
important role an organization called the Navsarjan Trust in India is 
building a civil society in India by promoting the rights of the Dalit 
community. The report encourages AID to provide funding for the Trust, 
which is run by Martin Macwan, who received the Robert F. Kennedy Human 
Rights Award in 2000 for his work on behalf of the Dalit.
  Founded in 1989, the Navsarjan Trust seeks to end discrimination 
against the Dalit. Since it was founded, it has become a highly 
respected force that focuses on five issues for the Dalit community: 
bringing about the land reforms promised fifty years ago in the Indian 
Constitution, improving the working conditions and wages of farm 
workers, abolishing scavenger labor, improving educational 
opportunities for children, and reducing violence. The Trust achieves 
its goals through non-violent protest and the judicial process. In 
eleven years, it has grown to 187 full-time organizers and has a 
presence in more than 2,000 villages. It is widely viewed as one of the 
most effective Dalit advocacy groups in India today, and it has filed a 
class action suit to abolish manual scavenging.
  Although our assistance program in India is limited, the Navsarjan 
Trust would be an important ally and a useful way to help the Dalit 
community. Supporting the trust will demonstrate America's commitment 
to ending the discrimination faced by India's Dalits. I urge USAID to 
make funding available for the organization to advance its worthwhile 
objections.
  I commend the subcommittee chairman, Senator Leahy, and the other 
members of the Appropriations Committee for including these important 
provisions to reduce the discrimination faced by the Dalit community in 
India. Senator Leahy is an effective champion of human rights 
throughout the world. I commend his leadership on this issue, and I 
look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress to 
improve the lives of the Dalit community in India.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am an enthusiastic supporter of robust 
American engagement with the world, and I believe current circumstances 
demand such a presence. We must also resolve to back our commitment 
with the financial resources to support the range of our interests 
overseas. For this reason, I am particularly disappointed by the long 
list of unrequested and unnecessary earmarks

[[Page 20616]]

in the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which total 
$186.2 million. This figure represents $30 million more than was 
contained in last year's Foreign Operations bill for programs neither 
requested by the Administration nor authorized by Congress through the 
regular, merit-based process for allocating scarce resources.
  It is the task of America's leaders to make the case for meaningful 
foreign operations funding in the face of public skepticism about the 
flow of American tax dollars overseas. It is incumbent upon those of us 
who serve in elective office to uphold the bipartisan tradition of 
enlightened American leadership around the world. In this era of 
globalization, international affairs touch the lives of average 
Americans in unprecedented ways. And as we wage a global campaign to 
purge from the world the terrorist threat against our very way of life, 
the assistance we provide to friendly governments and impoverished 
peoples across the globe supports our ability to sustain an 
international coalition to fight terror and retain the popular goodwill 
necessary to this task.
  Unfortunately, the excessive and unwarranted earmarks in this bill do 
not inspire confidence that all our tax dollars are being spent in a 
manner most conducive to the advancement of our shared national 
concerns. Indeed, it may shock some Americans to know that parochial 
interests, not the national interest, have driven a disturbing 
proportion of the spending allocations contained in this bill.
  Fragile allies suffering from civil unrest and economic decay will 
not be helped by this bill's provision of $2.3 million in ``core 
support'' for the International Fertilizer Development Center, or the 
report language's recommendation of $4 million for its work. Peanuts, 
orangutans, gorillas, neotropical raptors, tropical fish, and exotic 
plants also receive the committee's attention, although it's unclear 
why any individual making a list of critical international security, 
economic, and humanitarian concerns worth addressing would target these 
otherwise meritorious flora and fauna.
  The committee has disturbingly singled out for funding a laundry list 
of American universities some with multi-billion dollar endowments in 
contravention of the usual merit-based process of allocating scarce 
foreign assistance dollars to the most worthy causes. Although 
disappointing, it is perhaps not surprising that there is a correlation 
between the geographic locations of many of the universities targeted 
for special treatment and the home states of those on the 
Appropriations Committee and members of the Senate leadership. Those 
left out of this correlation predicated on patronage rather than value 
to American national interests are, of course, the very people we would 
like to help overseas, and the programs of liberalization and reform we 
would otherwise use the money to encourage.
  Given the unprecedented war we are in, we should be redoubling our 
efforts to target as many resources as possible to win it. To this end, 
we should all heed the words of Office of Management and Budget 
Director Mitch Daniels, who said, ``Everything ought to be held up to 
scrutiny. Situations like this can have a clarifying benefit. People 
who could not identify a low priority or lousy program before may now 
see the need.''
  America will go on, and we will continue to lead the world as only we 
can. The security and prosperity of our people demand it. Our wish to 
see our values flourish universally requires it. But we are 
handicapping ourselves in refusing, even in these times, to abandon the 
parochialism that infected congressional spending decisions long before 
our compelling international responsibilities provided us with a higher 
calling. Perhaps some of this parochial funding could be spent in a 
better way, helping more people and further advancing the virtuous 
causes we aspire to lead.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
documentation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
                Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002


                             bill language

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

       Development Assistance:
       The International Fertilizer Development Center: provides 
     $2,300,000 for core support.
       The United States Telecommunications Training Institute: 
     provides $500,000 for support.
       The American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program: provides 
     $19,000,000.


                            report language

                TITLE II--BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

       The Gorgas Memorial Institute Initiative for Tuberculosis 
     Control: Committee recommends $2,000,000.
       Iodine Deficiency/Kiwanis: Committee recommends that AID 
     provide at least $2.5 million to Kiwanis International 
     through UNICEF.
       Helen Keller Worldwide, the International Eye Foundation, 
     and others: Committee expects USAID to provide $1.3 million.
       Helen Keller Worldwide-initiated programs to aid the 
     visually impaired in Vietnam and Cambodia: committee urges 
     USAID to expand funding for similar programs.
       Population Media Center: Committee supports.
       International Medical Equipment Collaborative: urges AID to 
     consider for funding.
       Mobility International USA: recommends AID consider support 
     for up to $300,000.
       Women's Campaign International: Committee recommends 
     $600,000.
       Vital Voices Global Partnership: Committee recommends 
     $100,000.
       American Schools and Hospitals Abroad: Committee has 
     provided not less than $19 million and expects USAID to 
     allocate funds for Operating Expenses. The following are 
     specified as deserving further support: Lebanese American 
     University, International College, the Johns Hopkins 
     University's Centers in Nanjing and Bologna, the Center for 
     American Studies at Fudan University, Shanghai, the Hadassah 
     Medical Organization, the American University of Beirut, and 
     the Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann Institute of 
     Science.
       Patrick J. Leahy War Victims Fund: Committee expects $12 
     million be made available to support the fund's work.
       United States Telecommunications Training Institute: 
     Committee has provided not less than $500,000.
       International Executive Service Corps: Committee recommends 
     $5 million to support additional work by the IESC.
       American University of Beirut: Committee urges AID to fund 
     this program.
       Sustainable Harvest International: Committee urges AID to 
     provide $100,000.
       U.S./Israel Cooperative Development Program and Cooperative 
     Development Research Program: Committee supports funding.
       World Council of Credit Unions: Committee recommends up to 
     $2 million.
       Protea Germplasm: requests AID to fund a joint South 
     Africa-U.S. conference on sustaining the protea industries in 
     South Africa and United States.
       International Fertilizer Development Center: Committee 
     recommends $4 million for the core grant and research and 
     development activities.
       Biodiversity Programs: Committee expects AID to provide 
     $100 million to enhance biodiversity in marine environments.
       Pacific International Center for High Technology Research: 
     Committee recommends $500,000 to initiate a demonstration 
     program on sustainable renewable energy systems.
       Tropical Fish and Plant Global Market: Committee urges 
     funding by AID.
       Parks in Peril: Committee continues strong support for the 
     program.
       Foundation for Security and Stability: Committee recommends 
     $2.5 million.
       The Peregrine Fund: Committee recommends $500,000 for the 
     Neotropical Raptor Center.
       Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International: Provides $1.5 
     million to support the fund and the center.
       Orangutan Foundation: Expects provision of $1.5 million to 
     support such organizations.
       International Project WET: encourages AID to support the 
     project's efforts.
       Soils Management Collaborative Research Support Program: 
     Recommends $3 million for ongoing activities and initiate 
     work on carbon storage.
       Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program: Committee 
     recommends that AID increase funding for this program.
       University Programs: Committee recommends AID and/or the 
     Department of State consider proposals for funding by the 
     following organizations: Africa-America Institute, Alliance 
     of Louisiana Universities, Atlanta-Tbilisi Partnership, City 
     University, Columbia University, Connecticut State University 
     System, Dakota Wesleyan University, Dartmouth Medical School, 
     DePaul University College of Law--includes Arab-Israeli 
     discussion on arms control and Inter-American Commission of 
     Women and the Inter-American Children's Institute, EARTH

[[Page 20617]]

     University, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, 
     Florida International University, Green Mountain College, 
     Iowa State University--includes International Women in 
     Science and Engineering Program and support to the 
     International Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics, 
     Historically Black Colleges, John Hopkins University, Kansas 
     State University, La Roche College, Louisiana State 
     University--includes LSU/Latin American Commercial Law 
     project and International Emergency Training Center, Loyola 
     University, Marquette University, Mississippi State 
     University, Montana State University Billings,--includes 
     development of an online Master of Health Administration 
     Degree Program and expanded programs in international 
     business, St. Michael's College, St. Thomas University, South 
     Dakota State University--includes International Arid Lands 
     Consortium and food security in Central Asia, Temple 
     University, Tufts University, University of Alaska, 
     University of Arkansas Medical School, University of Dayton, 
     University of Illinois--Chicago, University of Indianapolis, 
     University of Iowa, University of Kentucky, University of 
     Louisville--includes partnership with Rand Afrikaans 
     University, program in Georgia, and collaborative research 
     program on plant materials in Philippine rain forest, 
     University of Miami, University of Mississippi, University of 
     Nebraska Medical Center, University of New Orleans, 
     University of Notre Dame, University of Northern Iowa--
     includes, Orava Project Global Health Corps program, and 
     Russo-American Institute of Mutual Understanding, University 
     of Rhode Island, University of San Francisco, University of 
     South Alabama, University of Vermont, University of Vermont 
     College of Medicine, Utah State University--includes 
     establishment of a College of Agriculture of Jenin and World 
     Irrigation Applied Research and Training Center, Vermont Law 
     School, Yale University, and Western Kentucky University.
       Bridge Fund in Tibet: Committee supports this project.
       Joslin Diabetes Center: Committee encourages AID to 
     support.
       Galilee Society and Arava Institute for Environmental 
     Studies: urges the Administration to consider funding.
       School for International Training's Conflict Transformation 
     Across Cultures Program: Committee believes funding is 
     needed.
       Care for Children International, Romania: encourages AID to 
     support.
       American Bar Association: Requests AID to consider 
     providing $500,000 to develop international database of 
     ongoing legal reform efforts.
       North Dakota-Turkmenistan Health Partnership and others: 
     Committee supports.
       Eurasian Medical Education Program of the American College 
     of Physicians: Committee requests to be consulted on future 
     funding.
       Primary Health Care Initiative of the World Council of 
     Hellenes: Recommends $2 million.
       United States-Ukraine Foundation: supports funding.
       American Academy in Tbilisi: recommends an increased level 
     of funding.
       Georgia: Provides not less than $3 million for a small 
     business development project.
       Total: $186,200,000.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am heartened by the amount of 
cooperation I have witnessed among my Senate colleagues and the 
expeditious way they have addressed our national security concerns in 
the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11. The passage of the 
Airline Security and Anti-Terrorism bills will give the administration 
necessary tools to combat terrorism here at home. Whether the anthrax 
attacks of last week on our Nation's Capitol prove to be connected to 
Al Qaeda, it is certain that the attempt to bring our government to a 
standstill has failed. To be sure, the quarters here have been cramped 
but our commitment to work together has not been affected. Our thoughts 
and prayers go out to the families of the postal workers who lost their 
lives this week, but this sad chapter only strengthens our resolve to 
find the culprits of these heinous acts and bring them to justice.
  I commend the administration for its success in forming an 
international coalition on such short notice. The President's visit to 
Shanghai last week, and Secretary Powell's visit to India, were 
fruitful in getting us needed support from the two most populous 
countries in the world. I join the President in admonishing all nations 
who want to be a part of the civilized world to either side with us, or 
side with the terrorists. The time to be lukewarm is gone; we need to 
draw a line in the sand. I believe we are entering into a ``New Cold 
War,'' where the stakes are no less grave than they were in the cold 
war of the twentieth century. The fight against radical Islam, like the 
fight against communism, is a fight to preserve the republican ideals 
that made our Nation so great. May we look to President Reagan and the 
example he set for American courage and American resolve to win in this 
``New Cold War''.
  Many of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee know that I am 
not a big fan of foreign aid, particularly when there are many vital 
projects that deserve attention here at home. The Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill has many flaws, the worst of which has incited a 
Presidential veto threat due to provisions that would allow federal 
funding for international family planning organizations that perform 
abortions overseas. American taxpayer dollars should not be used to 
subsidize groups that do not respect the life of the unborn. This sends 
the wrong message to our children and cheapens the value of life. Other 
flaws include the onerous certification requirements that the 
administration must fulfill in order to assist in the rebuilding of 
vital infrastructure that we destroyed in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo 
war. Yugoslavia has made tremendous strides towards democracy, as can 
be witnessed by the free and fair elections that peacefully removed the 
Milosevic regime. Rather than further harm the Yugoslav people who are 
in need of such basic things as clean water, and heating for the coming 
winter months, we should allow the administration to grant assistance 
as it sees fit in this area.
  I also have a problem with a bill that is over a half a billion 
dollars larger than last year, but is over $160 million below the 
funding level requested by the administration for programs to curb 
illicit narcotics trafficking in the Andean region. How can we justify 
a spending increase of this magnitude at the expense of important 
programs that help to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into this 
country? Where is this increase in spending going?
  Despite these flaws, however, the events over the past 6 weeks have 
understandably changed Americans' outlook on international affairs, and 
our need to stay engaged. I recognize the responsibility the United 
States has in leading the fight to defend democracy and Western 
Civilization and, as such, the United States must remain involved in 
the international arena. This is not the time to isolate ourselves. The 
administration must have a complete arsenal at its disposal for the war 
against terrorism, and that includes having the ability to use foreign 
aid as a means to reward and reinvest in those nations who actively 
support us in this fight. Therefore, I will support the passage of this 
bill on condition that its most grave flaws be remedied in conference 
with the House. However, should the conference report be sent to the 
Senate floor ``unremedied,'' I will be forced to consider opposing the 
report and urging my colleagues to do likewise.
  Lastly, as a complement to the ongoing efforts to strengthen our 
national security, I urge the speedy passage of a revamped Intelligence 
Authorization bill that will give our intelligence community the 
capability it needs not to not only streamline the gathering and 
sharing of information among various agencies, but to have the 
discretion to act on that information as well. Our agents in the field 
should not be more worried about getting reprimanded for the methods 
they use in collecting information, than they should about ensuring the 
safety of our Nation.
  I would also like to reiterate the importance to our national 
security of passing an energy bill that will allow us to explore other 
sources of energy domestically. As the prospects of a widened war in 
the Middle East becomes more likely, it is crucial that we take steps 
now to wean ourselves away from foreign sources of oil. We currently 
consume up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq alone. If the 
American people are worried about the state of the economy now, just 
wait until we have a real energy crisis, and we will all see the 
economy go into a tailspin.
  The eyes of the free world look to us for direction. We must not fail 
them.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the ranking member, Senator

[[Page 20618]]

McConnell, for his support and cooperation throughout this process. He 
has been a partner in writing the bill, in resolving the amendments, 
and I value his friendship and his advice.
  I also commend the staff, for all their work. In particular, I 
recognize Paul Grove, who took over as the Republican clerk for the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee earlier this year. Paul has quickly 
learned the appropriations process and has been a pleasure to work 
with.
  In addition, Mark Lippert, the new deputy clerk on the Democratic 
side, has done an outstanding job.
  Jennifer Chartrand, who has been a professional staff member for the 
Appropriations Committee for several years, provided essential advice 
and support to my staff. She was indispensable.
  I thank Tara Magner of my Judiciary Committee staff, and J.P. Dowd, 
my legislative director, for their help during floor consideration of 
this bill.
  I recognize Tim Rieser, the Democratic clerk for the subcommittee, 
for all his help.
  And I thank Dakota Rudesill, staff member for the Budget Committee, 
who provided excellent and very helpful advice during floor 
consideration of this bill.
  Finally, as always, we owe a debt to Billy Piper, on Senator 
McConnell's staff. Billy came in at crucial times to resolve a number 
of important issues.
  That completes action on the Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year 
2002.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know of no other amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.R. 2506, the foreign 
operations appropriations bill, upon the disposition of all amendments, 
the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the 
bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, 
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate, with the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read 
the third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

                     [Roll Call Vote No. 312 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Byrd
     Graham
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kyl
     Landrieu
       
  The bill (H.R. 2506) was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. REID. Madam 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair appoints. Mr. Leahy, 
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. 
Landrieu, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Byrd, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Bond, 
and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity to 
thank the staff of my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, with 
whom we have worked on this bill for these many years. They are Tim 
Rieser, Mark Lippert, and J.P. Dowd. I also extend my thanks to 
Jennifer Chartrand, Billy Piper of my personal staff, and Paul Grove, 
who replaced my long-time staffer, Robert Cleveland of the Foreign 
Operations Subcommittee. He has done a superb job with his first bill. 
I thank them all from the bottom of my heart.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member for their excellent work. This is not an easy bill. 
Oftentimes, it is one that keeps us occupied for days, if not weeks. I 
thank them for their leadership, and I am very grateful for the fact 
that we were able to get this bill done.
  Also, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, 
for his work on the global AIDS matter. Were it not for him, we would 
not have had the additional resources that are so critical right now, 
this year, from this country. He did an outstanding job in that regard, 
too. While he is not on the floor at the moment, I thank him personally 
for all of his work.
  As I announced earlier, it is our intention to take up the 
counterterrorism legislation. It has now passed in the House. We have 
had a good debate in the Senate. I would like to proceed with a 
unanimous consent request that would accommodate a good deal of debate 
again on a bill. I know there may be a colloquy involved. Let me 
proceed with the unanimous consent request, and I ask the cooperation 
of all Senators. I will propound the request now.

                          ____________________