[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26041-26065]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Leahy asked that I fill in for him 
for the next little bit. We have an amendment to offer. We have no one 
here from the majority, but I am very confident there is no problem 
with the Senator from North Dakota offering an amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so the 
Senator from North Dakota can offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 1994

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

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 1994.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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:

   (Purpose: To urge the President to release information regarding 
           sources of foreign support for the 9-11 hijackers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Sense of the Senate on declassifying portions of 
     the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities 
     Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) The President has prevented the release to the American 
     public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence 
     Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks 
     of September 2001.
       (2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of 
     foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers 
     while they were in the United States.
       (3) The Administration's decision to classify this 
     information prevents the American people from having access 
     to information about the involvement of certain foreign 
     governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
       (4) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested that the 
     President release the 28 pages.
       (5) The Senate respects the need to keep information 
     regarding intelligence sources and methods classified, but 
     the Senate also recognizes that such purposes can be 
     accomplished through careful selective redaction of specific 
     words and passages, rather than effacing the section's 
     contents entirely.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that in light of these findings the President should 
     declassify the 28-page section of the Joint Inquiry into 
     Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the 
     Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 that deals with foreign 
     sources of support for the 9-11 hijackers, and that only 
     those portions of the report that would directly compromise 
     ongoing investigations or reveal intelligence sources and 
     methods should remain classified.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate

[[Page 26042]]

amendment. I note there are other sense-of-the-Senate amendments in 
this legislation. I will at the end of my statement ask consent that we 
consider waiving points of order.
  Let me describe what the amendment is and why I have offered the 
amendment. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator 
Schumer from New York.
  The Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry into the 
intelligence community activities before and after the terrorist 
attacks of September 2001 finished its work. This past summer, when the 
report was finally authorized for release by the administration, we 
discovered that the report, which took 9 months to write and 7 months 
to declassify, contained 28 pages that had been redacted by White House 
lawyers.
  I will quote a couple of people, one who is in the Chamber now. I 
will quote Senator Shelby and Senator Graham, the chair and ranking 
member of the Intelligence Committee while this inquiry was underway. 
As I indicated, 28 pages of this report were redacted by White House 
lawyers. That means the American public cannot see what was in that 
report. We will have no knowledge and no information about what was 
contained in that rather exhaustive report.
  The Bush administration has refused to declassify these pages, citing 
concern for intelligence-gathering ``sources and methods.'' I don't 
think that is an insignificant issue, by the way. I think intelligence 
gathering and the sources and methods for doing so are important. But 
it is also important, it seems to me, to ask the question, Should these 
28 pages have been redacted? Should the 28 pages have been outside the 
view of the American people, given the fact that this report was done 
in order to evaluate what happened leading up to 2001, what was 
happening with respect to our intelligence community, what was 
happening with respect to other countries?
  There has been a great deal of speculation about Saudi Arabia. It is 
assumed that somehow in these pages there is discussion about the 
Saudis. The Saudi Government is implicated by some because 15 of the 19 
hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Even the leaders of the Saudi 
Government, who some have said are the object of the redacted pages, 
want it declassified. They are angry and embarrassed at being singled 
out and want to defend themselves, and therefore they want this 
declassified.
  How much of the 28 pages could be declassified? Senators Graham and 
Shelby, the former chair and cochair of the Intelligence Committee who 
directed the report are quoted saying the following: ``I think they are 
classified for the wrong reason,'' the former vice chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee told NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``I went 
back and read every one of those pages thoroughly. My judgment is 95 
percent of that information should be declassified and become 
uncensored so the American people would know.'' Asked why the section 
was blacked out, Shelby said: ``I think it might be embarrassing to 
international relations.''
  Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who was the chairman of the committee 
investigating this, also called for declassification. He said releasing 
the report would permit ``the Saudi Government to deal with any 
questions which may be raised in the currently censored pages and allow 
the American people to make their own judgment about who are our true 
friends and allies in the war on terrorism.'' Senator Graham made that 
request in a letter to President Bush.
  This is a very important issue and it has gone on for months and 
months and months. This report was developed after an extensive amount 
of study and investigation. The report was then published after being 
edited by the Bush administration and the White House. And a rather 
substantial portion of that report--most speculate dealing with the 
Saudis--was censored, classified, or redacted. That is, the American 
people are not permitted to see that which is included in the report on 
those 28 pages.
  Again, the chairman and vice chairman of the committee that led or 
that directed the preparation of this report say most of that 
information of the 28 pages should be declassified, implying, I 
believe, since they are not quoted directly, that declassifying that 
would not compromise sources and methods and not compromise our 
intelligence community.
  My hope is that the Senate, with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, 
will weigh in on this in a very significant way and say to the 
administration these 28 pages should be made available.
  Now, in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I point out that it is 
the sense of the Senate that in light of the findings--and I have a 
series of findings--the President should declassify the 28-page section 
of the joint inquiry into intelligence community activities before and 
after the terrorist attacks of 2001 that deal with the foreign sources 
of support for the 9/11 hijackers and that only those portions of the 
report that would directly compromise ongoing investigations or reveal 
intelligence sources or methods should remain classified.
  In point of fact, those whose expert opinions I respect have said 
they have read the redacted or the censored or classified portions very 
carefully and believe most of it should not have been classified; most 
of it should have been made available to the American people. If that 
is the case, and if the Saudi Government itself has said this 
information ought to be declassified, let us deal with it on the public 
record. Then I believe the American people ought to expect a right to 
see this information.
  My hope is we will have a vote on this amendment, a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment that will allow the Senate in this forum to send a 
message to the President and to the White House that we believe the 
bulk of this 28-page redaction should be made available to the American 
people posthaste.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the 
Senator from North Dakota, for having offered this sense of the Senate. 
The sense of the Senate has an additional significance as we face some 
fundamental issues in the closing days of this session.
  First, I will talk about the base concerns. As the Senator from North 
Dakota said, the principal purpose of the joint inquiry was to 
determine what had been the role of the intelligence community in the 
events leading up to September 11. In many instances in the course of 
that pursuit, the committee staff came to unearth FBI reports, CIA 
reports, and other intelligence community reports. We were not in a 
position, either in terms of our staff capabilities or our 
jurisdiction, to then go behind those reports to attempt to validate 
them. These were reports written by agents of these appropriate 
intelligence agencies, but we could not, from primary sources, validate 
them. The FBI, primarily--and some other intelligence agencies, as 
well--were tasked to do exactly that, to find out if their own 
documents in many cases could be substantiated.
  Those requests were made approximately a year ago. Still, today, many 
of those requests have not been answered. The administration has said, 
either directly or in some cases through intermediaries, that our 
report is deficient in that there is not second- and third-party 
confirmation of the statements we include. We included exactly what the 
FBI or CIA or other agencies had written. We asked the appropriate 
agencies, primarily FBI, to pursue these to determine if they were 
substantiated, and in many instances that has not occurred.
  There is also an issue not of micro but of macro importance: This 
report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submitted 
by the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government which 
was complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least as 
it relates to some of the terrorists who were present in one part of 
the United States.
  There are two big questions yet to be answered. Why would this 
government

[[Page 26043]]

have provided the level of assistance--financial, logistical, housing, 
support service--to some of the terrorists and not to all of the 
terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no response.
  My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that--is that in fact 
similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of the 
terrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set of 
circumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to have 
an unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similar 
window on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine if 
they were, in fact, receiving that assistance. That effort has, in my 
judgment, been grossly insufficiently pursued.
  An even more serious question is what would lead us to believe that 
if there was this infrastructure of a foreign government supporting 
some of the 19 terrorists, that as soon as September 11 concluded, as 
soon as the last flames were put out at the Pentagon, the World Trade 
Center and on the field in Pennsylvania, all that infrastructure was 
immediately taken down? Again, this is my hypothesis: I don't believe 
it was taken down. I believe that infrastructure is likely to still be 
in place assisting the next generation of terrorists who are in the 
United States.
  Those are very fundamental questions, and if the public had access to 
these 28 pages, they would be demanding answers.
  As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, there is another issue 
which is going to emerge in the next few days. We had a long debate in 
this Chamber on the supplemental appropriations bill, the bill 
providing $87 billion for the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq. We 
had a long debate as to whether some of that reconstruction money 
should be in the form of loans rather than, as the President has 
insisted, all of it being in grants.
  What is one of the practical effects of making all of the U.S. money 
which will go into the reconstruction of Iraq a grant? The answer to 
that question is that one of the consequences, ironically, will be that 
we will make all of the countries which currently have loans to Iraq 
that much more solvent because we will have, without any request for 
repayment, made a significant investment in enhancing the economic 
viability of Iraq and, therefore, the ability of whatever government is 
placed in ultimate control of Iraq more capable of repaying those 
loans.
  There is a further irony that some of those countries, which are 
disclosed in the 28 censored pages as having been complicitous with the 
terrorists, are among the list of those creditors of Iraq that are 
going to get this indirect economic benefit. I believe the Members of 
Congress, who are going to be called upon to vote on whether we should 
grant this indirect benefit to a country that has been less than 
supportive of our Nation's war on terror, ought to know that before we 
vote and then find out later the full consequences of what we have 
done.
  So there was an issue as to why these 28 pages should have been 
released when the report was initially completed in December of 2002. 
Those issues remain today. And there is the additional issue of whether 
we are going to inadvertently grant a significant financial benefit to 
a country that has been to say less than our ally in the war on terror 
would be a gross understatement.
  I commend the Senator from North Dakota for having offered this sense 
of the Senate. It is a very important issue. I hope this Senate will 
adopt the sense of the Senate. If not, if the President continues to 
refuse to allow the American people to have access to this information, 
then I hope the Congress will be willing to use some of the authorities 
that it has to declassify information. Because the higher interest is 
not in placating this administration's unwillingness to be forthcoming 
on the issue. The higher interest in this democracy is that the people 
have access to relevant information which is not an issue of national 
security but which is a significant issue in terms of understanding the 
consequences of decisions that we have and will soon be making.
  I urge adoption of the sense of the Senate and again express my 
admiration to the Senator from North Dakota for having presented it 
this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a few additional comments. My 
colleague from Florida is in a very unique position. Having worked with 
his colleague from Alabama, Senator Graham and Senator Shelby provided 
a great public service as they initiated this inquiry.
  The inquiry, as described by my colleague in part, is an evaluation 
of whether there were other governments that participated in supporting 
groups of terrorists who committed acts of terror against this country. 
The answer to that question is very important. My colleague indicates 
that if such a program were in place or had been in place by another 
government to support groups of terrorists, what leads us to believe 
that parts of that program are not continuing to still operate and, 
therefore, continue to threaten our country?
  The very important question with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
is: Should we not have the ability to know, should full disclosure not 
be the routine rather than the exception? Should the 28 pages that have 
been withheld from the American people be made available to them so we 
all are able to evaluate exactly the same set of information?
  My conclusion is, yes, absolutely. It ought to be done sooner rather 
than later.
  I have been intending to offer two amendments to this appropriations 
bill. One dealt with this sense of the Senate which I have just 
offered. The second dealt with a sense of the Senate with respect to 
the cooperation that is now being received or lack of cooperation by 
the 9/11 Commission, the other commission that is headed by former 
Governor Kean that is looking into 9/11 and the relationship of a 
series of issues, both prior to 9/11 and following, by our intelligence 
community and others.
  One of my great concerns is reading in the newspapers just in recent 
days about the 9/11 Commission. This is a blue-ribbon commission. One 
of our former colleagues, Senator Cleland, is on the Commission. It is 
a commission that has to finish its work by May of next year. It has a 
relatively short timeframe. Now we hear that they have had to issue a 
subpoena to one of the Federal agencies to get them to cooperate giving 
information to them. There were other stories yesterday and the day 
before. They are concerned about not getting information from the White 
House.
  We are not going to be satisfied until we have everything we need to 
do our job. Governor Kean says--he is a former Republican Governor from 
New Jersey--this is not about politics. It is about a blue-ribbon 
commission having access to all of the information so it can do its 
job.
  I find it unbelievable that any agency or crevice or any corner of 
this Government would not open its records and provide full and 
immediate cooperation with the 9/11 Commission. That is the least we 
should expect of every single agency. They have had to subpoena 
information from the FAA and yet they are not getting information from 
the White House that they are requesting. Kean said in an interview 
that he will resume negotiations with the White House this week and 
hopes to reach a resolution one way or the other on documents the panel 
is seeking. The Commission has the power to issue subpoenas and Kean 
says he does not rule out sending one to the White House.
  Why should we read this in the papers? I don't understand it. There 
ought not be any agency, including the White House, that does not fully 
cooperate in every respect immediately with the request for information 
from this 9/11 Commission.
  We have had two studies, one initiated by the Senate Intelligence 
Committee. That is the one that was the focus of my first amendment. 
The second was to have been the focus of the second amendment. Both 
were sense of the Senate--first, to declassify the information so that 
the American people

[[Page 26044]]

will be able to see what was there. Don't censor this material; give 
the American people information. The second is to say to all Federal 
agencies, cooperate with the 9/11 Commission fully, completely, and 
immediately.
  Now, my understanding is, having consulted with the majority, they 
will raise a point of order against the amendment I have offered just 
moments ago because it is ``legislating on an appropriations bill.'' My 
second amendment would be the same. They would make a point of order 
against them, and the point of order would stand, I expect. So when 
such a point of order is made, I will regret it. I understand those are 
the rules of the Senate. But on the very next piece of legislation that 
comes to the floor--and I believe one is coming later this week that is 
an amendable vehicle and is a nonappropriations bill--we will vote on 
both of these sense-of-the-Senate amendments.
  I might also say that while a point of order will be raised on these, 
there are sense-of-the-Senate provisions, I believe, in the underlying 
bill, or sense-of-the-Senate provisions to be added to it. I will not 
raise similar points of order. My hope is that all Senators will join 
me in understanding that this is not partisan or political, it is about 
this country's interests--our interests in preventing future acts of 
terrorism, our interests in finding out what happened, what went wrong, 
and how we can improve the intelligence-gathering system in this 
country. Who did what? Were foreign governments involved? If so, which 
ones and to what extent? These questions need to be answered. Both of 
my resolutions are designed to do one thing--provide more information 
to the American people, No. 1; No. 2, to ask every corner of our 
Government in every official working of this Government to decide that 
they will completely, cooperatively, and immediately work with the 9/11 
Commission to provide the requested information.
  We ought not to have to come to the Senate floor to ask why the White 
House, the FAA, or this or that agency has not already fully cooperated 
with the 9/11 Commission. It is in this country's interest to see that 
happen.
  Mr. President, I ask for consideration of my amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Was consent requested, Mr. President? I am sorry, I 
didn't hear.
  Mr. DORGAN. I asked for consideration of my amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that we waive points of order and have my amendment 
be considered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in accordance with the precedent of May 
17, 2000, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1974

       (Purpose: To authorize appropriations for Foreign Relations 
     and for Foreign Assistance, and to authorize Millennium 
     Challenge Assistance)

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? Without objection, the pending amendment will be set 
aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1974.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment that 
authorizes the spending contained in this appropriations bill. I thank 
Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy specifically for the way in which 
they have worked with me throughout this year on matters pertaining to 
foreign policy. Our staffs have consulted closely for months, and I 
believe that our respective legislative efforts have been enhanced 
greatly by this cooperation.
  My amendment is an up-to-date version of S. 925, the foreign affairs 
authorization bill. It contains all of the amendments included in the 
S. 925 Senate floor action in July. It is truly a bipartisan product. 
On those 3 days in July in which we debated the bill, we considered 
dozens of amendments from both sides of the aisle. The Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee worked with Members on constructive legislative 
language to enhance the bill; various components have received 
unanimous committee support.
  I thank almost every Member of this body who has contributed in one 
way or another to this amendment because the amendments of almost every 
Member of this body are a part of the product we are considering today. 
That is why it not only has enormous bipartisan support, it has pride 
of authorship of virtually every Senator.
  In this amendment, the Senate speaks forthrightly on the foreign 
policy challenges that this appropriations bill addresses by setting 
forth funding levels for specific programs and projects. This amendment 
gives voice to the Senate's views on issues touching every continent, 
from the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to the 
safety of Americans working in our embassies overseas, to the 
President's proposed Millennium Challenge Account, which is designed to 
spur economic growth in the poorest countries.
  My amendment authorizes appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign 
aid workers, our Peace Corps volunteers, many of them in harm's way. 
They are our civilian soldiers in the war on terrorism, and they are 
engaged in a noble battle against disease, poverty, and humanitarian 
disasters. American diplomats and aid workers have become targets in 
most countries and embassies around the world, but there is no shortage 
of recruits who want to be trained and sent abroad to do America's 
work.
  I thank every member of my committee for their hard work during the 
authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle have devoted 
tens of hours to developing constructive approaches to a number of very 
difficult foreign policy questions. The Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee has approached many foreign policy problems in a bipartisan 
spirit; thus, all of our authorizing legislation in S. 925 passed out 
of the committee by a vote of 19 to 0.
  I thank and commend, once again, the distinguished ranking member of 
our committee, Senator Biden, for his abiding cooperation through this 
whole lengthy process of this year. Republicans and Democrats reasoned 
together and made compromises that led to excellent legislation. The 
members of our committee are united in our belief that the 
authorization bill contained in this amendment will enhance U.S. 
national security.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote of confidence in the Senate's 
ability to help shape a world where peace, justice, and prosperity 
might prevail. This is not an academic exercise. Authorization 
legislation is important. If we are to have a foreign policy that has 
the long-term support of the American people, the Congress must be in 
it on the takeoffs as well as the landings. We should not be satisfied 
with appropriating funds after American soldiers are on the ground. 
Congress must be in on the policy formulations and the fulfillment of 
U.S. commitments. Our role is to help make the hard decisions, not just 
to sign the checks after decisions are made.
  Extensive hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have 
formed this amendment. The Senate needs the authorization process to 
project its voice on foreign policy and to have an impact on the 
direction this country takes in the world. I believe this step is 
especially necessary because we are now trying to accomplish our 
legislative work in extraordinary and dangerous times. These times 
demand the Senate do its duty to pass a foreign affairs authorization 
bill.

[[Page 26045]]

  Up to this point, we have not done our duty. We are asking a great 
deal of our diplomats, our military, and the administration; and on a 
daily basis, Senators of both parties can be heard delivering 
commentary on the administration's war effort. Our responsibilities as 
the elected representatives of the people make such commentary relevant 
and expected.
  Even as we perform oversight and function as loyal critics within our 
Government, we cannot forget we have our own responsibilities in 
fighting the war on terrorism. If we function merely as critics and 
commentators without taking the time and effort to authorize the very 
legislation that pertains to our Nation's security, we are failing in 
our duties. This simply cannot continue.
  After September 11, 2001, we know we need a robust civilian foreign 
policy capacity in addition to a strong military if we are going to 
shape a world that embraces democracy, tolerance, open markets, and the 
rule of law. But we find the State Department is stretched thin. Our 
public diplomacy is underfunded and unfocused on many occasions. Our 
foreign assistance faces constant conflicting pressures and we need to 
play catchup just to make sure Americans are as safe as possible in 
their embassy workplaces, and Americans who approach those workplaces 
are as safe as possible.
  We have no civilian surge capacity so our soldiers in Afghanistan and 
Iraq end up doing the nonmilitary tasks that should be done by 
civilians. Our appropriators have been sensitive to foreign policy 
needs. They have carried the burden of keeping vital foreign policy 
programs going, but a few lines in appropriations bills are not 
sufficient to provide the needed direction and framework and the 
sustained oversight this body should be paying to our civilian foreign 
affairs capacity.
  This year the foreign affairs authorization bill has had to overcome 
obstacles that have had little to do with its own merits. This 
authorizing amendment lays out Senate priorities for foreign affairs 
spending. I have resisted adding anything to it that was not approved 
in July in open debate and after the adoption of the dozens of 
amendments I talked about from virtually most, if not all, Senators on 
this floor. The bill exists as it emerged from the Senate floor at that 
time and it puts people first, as well as the safety of Americans who 
work around the world for us. It places a high priority on programs 
that help foreign governments cooperate with us in tracking down 
terrorists. It authorizes additional funds for security upgrades at 
embassies which we know are among the most threatened U.S. targets in 
the world. As we saw in Kenya and Tanzania, Americans serving in 
embassies are on the front line in the war against terrorism.
  The amendment authorized an increase in danger pay for the diplomats 
who serve in high-risk posts. We are in a race to prevent terrorists 
from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the authorization of 
this amendment will increase our capabilities. The amendment authorizes 
a greater American effort to reach out to the Islamic world. Beyond the 
war on terrorism, the amendment places a high priority on recognizing 
the deep reservoir of hope for humanity that resides in the American 
heart. It authorizes the fulfillment of our humanitarian instincts, 
including programs for child survival, nutrition and health, famine 
assistance and the Peace Corps. It authorizes the Millennium Challenge 
Account, President Bush's new program to invest American development 
dollars where they are most likely to spur economic growth.
  A lot of work has gone into the deliberations on the Millennium 
Challenge Account and the final product is supported by Republicans and 
Democrats in the Senate, as well as the President of the United States 
and the Secretary of State. All of us now support the President's 
concept for creating a new means of delivering economic assistance to 
nations that are implementing positive and measurable economic and 
political reforms. We agree with the President that this and our 
development assistance programs are important tools in the war on 
terrorism. They can prevent failed states, improve our relationships 
with developing countries, and reduce impoverished conditions that are 
conducive to terrorist recruitment.
  The Senate has been diligent this year in moving other foreign policy 
items. Among the measures we have passed are the global AIDS bill, the 
Moscow Treaty, NATO expansion, and the Iraq supplemental. The Senate 
has shown a capacity to act decisively on the Nation's foreign policy 
business because we recognize that in these perilous times it is our 
duty to do so. American national security is at risk, and as the 
leaders entrusted with passing legislation to keep America secure, we 
should include the authorization for the civilian foreign affairs 
agencies and their programs among our accomplishments this year.
  I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I apologize because I 
just arrived on the floor--I am sorry. I thought my distinguished 
friend, the senior Senator from Indiana, had propounded a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes. I am prepared to accept the passage of the amendment 
by voice vote if it is the pleasure of both managers of the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say initially that in my experience 
in the Congress I have learned to recognize the quality of the senior 
Senator from Indiana. He is a fine man, an outstanding legislator, and 
his heart is always in the right place.
  I understand the importance of the State Department authorization 
bill. I have understood it for the more than two decades I have been in 
the Congress. It is important legislation. On this side of the aisle, 
we understand that and that is why we have worked so hard over the 
years to try to move forward. As the Senator from Indiana knows, it 
certainly was not his fault, but we had great difficulty moving the 
bill previously as a result of one Senator. On this legislation he now 
wants to make a part of this foreign operations appropriations bill, we 
have spent 2 days on this bill and during that period of time we had 
some good debate. We adopted some amendments. But we on this side feel 
we should move forward as with all legislation and not cut it off. In 
effect, that is what is happening.
  So without belaboring the point more, I raise a point of order that 
this is legislating on an appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I move to suspend rule XVI of the standing rules of the 
Senate during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2800 in order to offer 
amendment 1974 to that bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the question of the two managers of 
the bills: How much time do we need to spend on this? It is my 
understanding the issue that has been raised by the Senator from 
Indiana will take a two-thirds vote to pass the Senate. I am sure there 
are a few people who wish to speak on this, and I am sure on our side 
we could arrive at a reasonable period of time prior to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask the Senator from Indiana how much time he 
desires before proceeding to a vote?
  Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator that I would like 
15 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Are there any requests for time on the other side?
  Mr. LEAHY. Then would the request be a half hour evenly divided? Is 
that what the Senator is suggesting?
  Mr. REID. I think that is totally reasonable, if I could interrupt. 
We need

[[Page 26046]]

to check with the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. 
Senator Harkin has agreed to take 15 minutes. We don't know of anyone 
else who wished to speak on it, other than the manager of the bill.
  I hope, if we can go into an extremely brief quorum call, we can come 
up with a time agreement very quickly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I hope we can move on with this very 
quickly. I think a brief quorum call is a good idea. I therefore 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that there be 30 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, on the Lugar amendment, after which we will 
have a vote on that amendment. Have we had the yeas and nays?
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on Lugar--on the motion to 
waive.
  Mr. REID. No, on the motion to suspend.
  Mr. LEAHY. On the motion to suspend; I am sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes at the outset of 
this debate.
  Mr. President, I regret that objection has been made, although I 
understand the reasoning of those who have made the objection.
  I identified this as the State Department authorization bill, a bill 
that also included authorization for the money in the challenge account 
and, for that matter, a good number of other things that, in this 
particular urgent period of the war on terrorism, attempts to help 
brave Americans who are serving in our embassies, who are serving in 
humanitarian ways abroad. I need not remind the Senate that a number of 
these brave Americans have lost their lives in recent days and weeks. I 
need not remind the Senate we are at war. This is not an incidental 
amendment or a last-minute whim of one Senator.
  Nor, for that matter, is it a particular desire of our committee--
which voted 19 to zero in behalf of some very important principles that 
support Americans on the civilian side of the war against terrorism--to 
impose our will upon the Senate. Obviously, we are not in a position to 
do so. But I pointed out in the days of debate on the amendment that I 
have offered today, there were tens of amendments offered by many 
Senators. A majority, I believe, of the body have tried to perfect this 
bill. It is not a controversial bill. It is, in fact, a statement of 
the best motivation, the idealism of the Senate. It is our best 
collective effort to try to meet an imperative in the war against 
terrorism.
  At this point, a point of order has been raised that this is 
legislation on an appropriations bill. Indeed, it is. I have made a 
motion to waive that requirement, given what I believe is the gravity 
and the importance of the lives of the Americans we are trying to 
serve.
  Members may decide that they wish to debate procedure today. And 
procedure in the Senate and the rules of the Senate are very important. 
But the rules of the Senate also permit, as one rule of the Senate, the 
waiver, so that authorization might occur on an appropriations bill.
  Some Senators have approached me and indicated they think there is a 
lot of merit in the bill. As a matter of fact, some of their own work 
is in this bill, in this amendment I am offering. Yet at the same time, 
they are reluctant to vote for my waiver on this occasion, my desire to 
set aside rule XVI, because they believe there are, after all, many 
considerations the Senate might be taking up today. There is a broad 
gamut of domestic issues, for that matter, discussions of foreign 
policy--various ideas that might come to Senators that might be quite 
welcome to our national debate.
  I do ask for consideration of the whole package of the ideas, 
authorizations, and support that my amendment provides the Senate today 
because I believe it is important to our country. I believe it is 
important, as a statement of who we are, that we are doing business. We 
might make a statement, when we have this vote, that we are prepared, 
really, not to do business, but in our own internal difficulties we are 
prepared to frustrate each other at almost every pass.
  We enjoy the fact that, as a Senate, we are fairly evenly divided. 
Yet I pointed out on this particular bill we are not divided. So there 
almost has to be a very peculiar twist, it seems to me, that finds this 
debate whether or not we should authorize the State Department 
Millennial Challenge.
  Beyond that, there has been perhaps a debate in the Senate throughout 
the year. It is an important one. It is important to be resolved 
constructively. There may be some Senators who would say that, by and 
large, it is probably useful to have authorization bills but some 
Senators almost in the next breath will say it is not very necessary. 
In other words, if in fact programs are not thought through and they 
are not fleshed out and there are not formats for them that, by and 
large, somehow we get along year by year appropriating money and adding 
some verbiage that gives a hint that someone authorized these 
expenditures along the way as well as appropriated them.
  We found in July when Senator Biden and I were attempting to manage 
this bill that there were a lot of Senators who were in favor of what 
we were doing but some Senators said we have not really had our day on 
the floor; we have really not had a chance to offer our agenda; the 
reason we couldn't was because the format of the Senate always seemed 
to be taking up appropriations bills; and rule XVI says you cannot have 
authorization of general legislation. Therefore, we were cut out from 
any consideration of objectives which we thought were very important. 
As a result, we came along with an authorization bill and Senators said 
finally we have an authorization bill. This offers us the opportunity 
to pile in everything that we have.
  The Senators who argued against that point of view said, no, that 
really wasn't what the debate on foreign policy was about. But the 
opposition to that was simply we understand that, but we have not had 
our chance and we don't see that we are going to have our chance. We 
don't see another authorization bill coming along the pike. Therefore, 
although yours will somehow disappear in the midst of all of these 
other discussions, that has happened for years. Very seldom do we pass 
authorization bills, and in the case of foreign relations, as a matter 
of fact, not many for many, many years.
  As a result, our staff found as we approached the State Department 
and foreign assistance and what have you that this year there was a 
need for cleanup of a lot of our case activity, and we hope to do some 
more of that work next year. One reason for that is if you do not have 
authorization bills and force things to happen, no one really examines 
legislative language. There are a whole series of bureaucracies and 
responsibilities from year to year. No one pays attention and, 
legislatively, no one cares.
  Let me say we do care. In fact, a large majority of Senators care 
about the content of this legislation. I believe it is very important 
on this occasion that my proposal to lay aside rule XVI should be 
adopted, and that will be our goal. I encourage an ``aye'' vote not 
only on the rule XVI waiver but a vote on behalf of brave Americans who 
this amendment supports and serves and remembers.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to each side?

[[Page 26047]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes in opposition, and 6 
minutes for the proponents.
  Mr. LEAHY. Obviously, if the distinguished Senator from Indiana needs 
more time, I would not object to a unanimous consent request from him.
  Does the Senator from Iowa wish time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I have an amendment but I am not seeking time on this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, time is running. I ask unanimous consent 
that the time under the quorum call not be charged against the side of 
the distinguished Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, that leaves us how much time on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 11 minutes 12 seconds, and 
the proponents have 6 minutes 12 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't know if we have people coming to 
speak. If no one does, I will soon yield back the time so we can vote. 
I urge, as Senator McConnell has and as the leaders have, those who 
have amendments on which they seek votes to come to the floor and offer 
their amendments. I know that the intent of Senator McConnell and 
myself is if there are no other amendments waiting to be disposed of or 
pending, we plan to go to third reading. Going to the third reading 
could be in a matter of the next couple of hours at that pace.
  Some Senators have said they had a number of amendments. At such 
point that there are no amendments pending, it is our intention to go 
to third reading.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged to my side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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 note the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts has arrived. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those in opposition have 9 minutes and 12 
seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate it. I will be prepared to address the 
Senate in a minute. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, the amendment before the 
Senate is the State Department reauthorization legislation. I commend 
the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Delaware for fashioning 
the reauthorization. It has not been done for a number of years, and I 
am very strong in support of that proposal. If the amendment of the 
Senator from Indiana is effective, we will lose the opportunity to have 
at least considered one of the very important amendments to the State 
Department reauthorization which dealt with hate crimes. I think it is 
entirely appropriate we have an opportunity to address the hate crimes 
issue on the State Department reauthorization because the State 
Department reauthorization obviously is dealing with foreign policy 
issues, and the origin of hate crimes is domestic terrorism. We have 
seen in recent times the growth of hate crimes in the United States. It 
is of significant importance. Hate crimes are not just crimes against 
an individual; they are crimes against a group in our society. They do 
not just do damage to an individual; they do something to our whole 
sense of community. That is why they are so treacherous. That is why 
they are so heinous. That is why they are so wrong.
  We have seen the hate crimes that have taken place on the basis of 
race, and on the basis gender, and the basis of sexual orientation. 
Particularly the time of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death 
of Matthew Shephard, whose death in Wyoming was tragic. He had studied 
overseas and was fluent in Arabic and German before joining the Federal 
service.
  Mr. President, crimes motivated by hate because of the victim's race, 
religion, sex, ethnic background, and disability are not confined to 
geographical boundaries of our great Nation. The current conflicts in 
the Middle East, the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia, Rwanda or 
the Holocaust itself demonstrate that violence motivated by hate is a 
worldwide danger. We have a special responsibility to combat it here at 
home.
  Since the September 11th attacks, we have seen a shameful increase in 
the number of hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans, Sikh 
Americans, and Americans of Middle Eastern descent. Congress has done 
much to respond to the vicious attacks on September 11. We authorized 
the use of force against terrorists and those who harbor them in other 
lands. We have enacted legislation to provide aid to victims and their 
families, to strengthen airport security, to improve security of our 
borders, to strengthen our defenses against bioterrorism, and to give 
law enforcement and intelligence officers enhanced powers to 
investigate and prevent terrorism. But the one thing we have not done 
is to try to deal with the hate crimes issue.
  We are prepared to vote on that. We are interested in half an hour 
time limitation, but we are told people have holds on that legislation. 
Members will refuse to let the Senate consider this legislation. I have 
indicated to the Senator from Indiana that I am prepared to permit and 
support the State Department reauthorization, but at least give us some 
opportunity to vote on hate crimes as a clean bill with a short time 
limit. We will take next week or the week after. We will even take a 
date in January or February of next year, but give us an opportunity to 
vote on hate crimes. The other side says no--not the Senator from 
Indiana--but the other side says no. So we are in a situation that 
says, well, let's circumvent or at least use the rules in such a way 
that will say we have two-thirds of the Senate that will permit him to 
use this reauthorization and effectively deny the Senate the 
opportunity to address the hate crimes issue. I don't fault the Senator 
from Indiana, but if this goes on, I am going to be there on the next 
amendment offering the hate crimes bill. Make no mistake about it. Make 
no mistake about it. We will have the opportunity and the time to take 
this up.
  I might mention there are some other issues as well, including the 
issue of the minimum wage. Here we just increased our own salaries by 
$3,400 and we have not been given an opportunity to increase the 
minimum wage by 75 cents an hour for 2 years. We are denied that 
opportunity. We are excluded from that. We had that as an amendment to 
the State Department authorization and we were told we cannot have an 
hour to debate that.
  Meanwhile, we see what is happening to the people at the lowest end 
of the economic ladder, primarily women.

       Regarding the minimum wage, it is a women's issue because a 
     majority of those receiving the minimum wage are women. It is 
     a children's issue because one-third of the women who receive 
     the minimum wage have children. It is a civil rights issue 
     because a disproportionate number of the men and women who 
     receive the minimum wage are men and women of color. And it 
     is a fairness issue. In this country of ours, people who work 
     40 hours a week, 52 weeks, ought to have a living wage. But 
     we are denied that opportunity. What is it about our 
     Republican friends that they refuse to permit the Senate to 
     go on record on these issues?


[[Page 26048]]


  Now we are asked, let's have an exception. If we have an exception to 
this, we should face up to minimum wage, to hate crimes, and other 
issues. Fair is fair. I am for this legislation. It is up to the 
majority to set the agenda and give us an opportunity to vote on these 
issues and not deny a vote in the Senate in terms of hate crimes and 
minimum wage. They say no, no way, you are not going to get your 
opportunity.
  I hope this amendment will not be accepted. I hope we can work this 
out with the majority leader. We have tried, we have tried, we have 
tried, and we have tried, but to no avail. Since it is of no avail and 
we do not have cooperation, there will be no alternative for me other 
than to offer the amendment.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Let me respond as thoughtfully and calmly as I can because the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has indicated he has been a 
very strong friend of American diplomacy, of our diplomats abroad, of 
those who are at risk presently in the war against terror. I appreciate 
that. I have visited with him about ways in which we could have an 
authorization bill for the State Department, the millennium challenge, 
and the other issues that were in this comprehensive Senate bill, S. 
925, originally, as amended by so many Senators. The Senator's 
statement illustrates precisely the problem on which Senators must now 
vote.
  That is, simply, if we are to have an authorization bill this year 
for the State Department, this is the opportunity. We had an 
opportunity in July. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
points out correctly that he and other distinguished Senators had a 
number of issues that they believed were important. Hate crimes and the 
minimum wage are two of them. And there were additional ideas that 
Senators wanted to present. They made the point at that time that they 
believed that on our side of the aisle, they had not been given an 
opportunity to forward their agenda, to have a time certain for clean 
bills.
  Therefore, although in some cases they said, we regret the fact that 
the State Department authorization bill is likely now to be withdrawn 
and not to happen, essentially it hasn't happened for many years. As a 
matter of fact, very few authorization bills were happening. The only 
reason, I gather, that hate crimes and unemployment compensation came 
up in July was a belief on the part of proponents of those ideas that 
they had no other authorization bill on which to have a debate or to 
attach their amendments, that the appropriations procedure we are under 
today precluded all of that.
  I ask that even those who are strong proponents of legislation 
dealing with the minimum wage and hate crimes support the authorization 
of legislation that helps civilian Americans who are at risk in the war 
against terror now. That is an important objective. It has not been my 
purpose to try to frustrate the aims of any Senator but, rather, simply 
on behalf of a committee that voted 19 to zero and on behalf of a 
Senate that approved tens of constructive amendments, to try to forward 
that work product while there is still an opportunity this year.
  This is the moment in which Senators must make that sort of decision. 
Some may wish to make it on the basis of procedure or the basis of how 
the two parties get along with each other in the Senate. But I would 
plead with Senators that this is important by itself. It is an 
important, relevant vote for American security and American good 
governance.
  I believe the American people respect this effort. They want us to do 
this. They want Senators to vote aye, even though some may say this is 
at least an opportunity to make points on other discussions at the 
expense of the totality of all of it ending up in failure.
  I appreciate very much the cooperation of the managers of the bill. I 
thank, once again, my distinguished ranking member, Joe Biden, who has 
served our committee well as chairman and as a member for three 
decades, for all of the constructive work. I thank especially the 
members of the staffs on both sides of the aisle who have diligently 
devoted hundreds of hours of constructive work trying to reform aspects 
of the State Department, a bureaucracy of our Government that had not 
been observed and touched for a long time and which this bill, an 
authorization bill, has really the unique capacity to do.
  For all these reasons, I ask that Senators vote aye and that we have 
an opportunity for this legislation to proceed.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 20 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the hate 
crimes bill be considered as original text before March 15 on the floor 
of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I make a similar request in terms of the minimum wage 
before March 15 of next year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LUGAR. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 1 minute 15 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me just say, in view of the two 
proposals made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I 
offered objection on both of these counts because I am the only 
Republican Senator in the Chamber. On behalf of the leadership of our 
party, that was my duty, given the fact that our party had not had an 
opportunity to consider those proposals.
  I would just say, personally, I am hopeful that consideration will be 
given to the Senator from Massachusetts and to all Senators for 
proposals that are constructive. Those two have a lot of constructive 
emphasis, and it may well be that before March 15, the Senate will be 
able to entertain those motions. I hope the Senator understands my 
objection today. That is why I stated it as a part of this conclusion.
  Once again, I am hopeful that Senators will vote constructively in 
favor of the foreign relations bill.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to suspend rule XVI with regard to amendment No. 
1974.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 413 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Smith
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran

[[Page 26049]]


     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 
57. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion to suspend rule XVI pursuant to notice 
previously given in writing is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am shortly going to bring up an amendment 
on UNFPA. I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa was here waiting.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will my friend from Vermont yield, just for an 
observation? The Senator from Colorado is here. He has an amendment 
which I believe is acceptable. I wonder if we could go ahead and 
process that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, obviously I will follow the lead of my 
friend from Kentucky. If the Senator from Colorado has one that is 
going to be accepted, let's do that. I ask we do that and then go to 
the Senator from Iowa. I hope he would accept a time agreement just so 
we can get moving because, as I stated earlier, certainly on my side, 
once there are no amendments pending, I am ready to go to third 
reading.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We are looking at the amendment of the Senator from 
Iowa and hope to get back to him shortly as to whether we can support 
it. In the meantime, if it is all right with my colleagues--
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield just for a brief question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd is on a very important 
appropriations conference committee. He is going to recess tonight at 6 
o'clock. Senator Byrd cannot be here until 6 o'clock. On his amendment 
he would like to speak for 20 minutes.
  Senator Landrieu, as I have said before, has an amendment she wishes 
to offer. She said she could speak for 15 minutes on her side on that.
  Senator Harkin has an amendment. If that cannot be worked out, he 
wants 15 or 20 minutes. And there, of course, are a couple of other 
things that need to be resolved. I just indicate that everyone on our 
side, as Senator Leahy has announced, should come over and start 
offering these amendments because I have been told by the two leaders 
they want to finish this bill tonight. If that is the case, the way 
things are moving here--which is not very fast--it would be a long 
night. So I hope they would come over and offer these amendments on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I certainly agree with my friend from 
Nevada. The idea is to finish tonight. In order to facilitate that, we 
have a Senator on the floor ready to offer an amendment. I suggest the 
Senator from Colorado be allowed to send his amendment forward, say a 
few words on its behalf, and let's adopt it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                    Amendment No. 1995, As Modified

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for 
allowing me to offer this amendment at this time.
  There is an amendment I have at the desk, No. 1995. I understand I 
have the right to modify that. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1995, as modified.

  Mr. ALLARD. 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 limit international military education and training funds 
                from being made available for Indonesia)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:


         limitation on the provision of imet funds to indonesia

       Sec. 692. (a) Subject to subsection (c), no funds 
     appropriated by title IV of this Act, under the subheading 
     ``international military education and training'' under the 
     heading ``Funds Appropriated to the President'' shall be made 
     available for military education and training for Indonesia.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the United 
     States Government from continuing to conduct programs or 
     training with the Indonesian Armed Forces, including counter-
     terrorism training, officer visits, port visits, or 
     educational exchanges that are being conducted on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (c) The President may waive the application of subsection 
     (a) if the President--
       (1) determines that the national interests of the United 
     States justify such a waiver; and
       (2) submits notice of such a waiver and a justification for 
     such a waiver to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives in accordance with the regular notification 
     procedures of such Committees.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this amendment, co-sponsored by Senator 
Gordon Smith, would prohibit International Military Education Training 
funds for Indonesia. It also gives the President the authority to waive 
this prohibition for national security reasons. Let me explain why it 
is important for the Senate to consider and approve this amendment.
  Nearly 15 months ago on August 31, 2002, 10 Americans living in 
Indonesia were brutally attacked less than 6 miles from their homes. 
Hundreds of rounds of ammunition were fired at them for 45 minutes, 
leaving two Americans dead and most of the other survivors nursing 
multiple bullet wounds.
  I have had the opportunity to meet with one of the survivors of this 
horrible tragedy, Mrs. Patsy Spiers, who, along with her husband Rick, 
was shot multiple times. While Patsy was fortunate enough to survive 
this ordeal, her husband was not. In January, Mrs. Spiers was brave 
enough to sit down with me and walk through her painful experience. The 
next day I contacted President Bush urging him to press the Indonesian 
government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack.
  Immediately after the ambush, an investigation into the ambush was 
conducted by the Indonesian civil police. The police report implicated 
the Indonesian military in the attack, but indicated that further 
investigation into the ambush needed to be done. Shortly after the 
police report was filed, the Indonesian military exonerated themselves 
from the attack.
  Only after diplomatic pressure from the United States did the 
Indonesian government decide to continue the investigation into the 
ambush. The Indonesian government also promised to permit the full 
participation of the FBI. Despite visiting the country multiple times, 
the FBI has not received the cooperation it needs to determine who was 
responsible for these brutal murders.
  At this juncture, there are indications that Indonesian military may 
have had some involvement in this attack. Yet, despite these continued 
allegations and lack of cooperation, the Indonesian government and its 
military still receives U.S. assistance through the International 
Military Education Training fund. I believe that until a full and open 
investigation has been completed and those responsible are prosecuted, 
IMET funding for the Indonesians should be denied.
  Since my face-to-face meeting with Mrs. Spiers, I have continued to 
work with the administration, FBI investigators, and colleagues here in 
the Senate with two distinct goals in mind. The first is to deny the 
release of funds until the Indonesians have completed the investigation 
into these murders. The second goal is to ensure that an impartial 
investigation, with help from the FBI, is conducted into the brutal

[[Page 26050]]

attack so that those responsible will be brought to justice.
  In no way should the United States government provide military 
assistance to Indonesia until this matter is resolved. What kind of 
message will we be sending to other governments if we provide this 
assistance without first determining who was responsible? Just as 
important, what kind of message do we send to the families of Ted 
Burgon and Rick Spiers who were murdered in the ambush if we continue 
this military assistance. Are not the lives of American citizens more 
important than this military assistance?
  I fear that by our inaction we send the wrong message to the world. 
What kind of precedent will be set for other Americans who travel 
overseas? We cannot allow the murder of our citizens to be ignored and 
the Indonesian government should not let those responsible go 
unpunished.
  I appreciate the efforts by the manager of this bill and his staff 
for their assistance on this amendment. It is my hope that we can 
quickly resolve any concerns with my amendment so it can be accepted. 
These American families deserve a resolution and justice.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member on 
getting agreement on my amendment.
  I need to get the attention of the floor manager, the Senator from 
Kentucky, if I might.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think there 
may be a Senator on this side who has a question. We are not quite 
prepared to accept it yet. I suggest that a way to handle this is to 
set it aside. Of course, it can be brought back at any time. If there 
is a need to have more debate and a vote, we will bring it up for that 
purpose.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from 
Colorado. I misspoke earlier when I thought it was cleared on the other 
side. We are working on that now. Hopefully, we will be able to get it 
cleared. If the Senator from Colorado will agree to temporarily set it 
aside and go back to it before we finish the bill, we hope to get it 
cleared.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky and 
the Senator from Vermont working on this most important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd already has an amendment 
pending and he is here to speak on it. We have been waiting for him. 
His amendment is already here.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he wouldn't mind if 
I presented this for 5 minutes. That is all the time I need.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to that.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. What does this mean with respect to the amendment I have 
pending, which is being set aside by unanimous consent?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is our hope that after the Senator 
from West Virginia speaks--and I have maybe 5 minutes or so to oppose 
the amendment--we vote.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Kentucky that Senator Byrd is here. 
I hope that before we dispose, with a recorded vote, of the Landrieu 
amendment, we will allow Senator Byrd to speak and, if necessary, we 
can have two votes in succession.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We are certainly prepared to vote on the Byrd 
amendment. I will have to get back to the Senator from Louisiana on her 
amendment. I have no problem if she would like to explain it and send 
it to the desk.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for Senator Landrieu to offer her amendment; 
that following the offering and her statement, Senator Byrd obtain the 
floor and be allowed to make a statement. He indicated he would take 
approximately 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object--and I shall not--when would 
the vote on the Byrd amendment occur?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with the other side, 
it is my expectation that, after 5 minutes or less to oppose the Byrd 
amendment, we will move to a vote.
  Mr. REID. That would be appropriate with us on this side.
  Mr. BYRD. The vote on the Byrd amendment would occur, and after how 
many minutes can we vote on the amendment by the Senator from 
Louisiana?
  Mr. REID. The majority has not seen that amendment. They don't know 
what they are going to do with it or whether we can have a vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


                           Amendment No. 1998

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy 
because he was involved in a very important conference earlier today 
and he is anxious to proceed on his amendment.
  I will offer this amendment in the hope that my friends on the other 
side will support it. There is very good support on this side for this 
amendment. It has to do with women and children in armed conflict.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1998.

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

   (Purpose: To ensure that women and children have access to basic 
protection and assistance services in complex humanitarian emergencies)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 692. (a) None of the funds made available by title II 
     under the heading ``international disaster assistance'', 
     ``transition initiatives'', ``migration and refugee 
     assistance'', or ``united states emergency refugee and 
     migration assistance fund'' or made available for such 
     accounts by any other provision of law for fiscal year 2004 
     to provide assistance to refugees or internally displaced 
     persons may be provided to an organization that has failed to 
     adopt a code of conduct consistent with the Inter-Agency 
     Standing Committee Task Force on Protection From Sexual 
     Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crises six core 
     principles for the protection of beneficiaries of 
     humanitarian assistance.
       (b) In administering the amounts made available for the 
     accounts described in subsection (a), the Secretary of State 
     and Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall incorporate specific policies 
     and programs for the purpose of identifying specific needs 
     of, and particular threats to, women and children at the 
     various stages of a complex humanitarian emergency, 
     especially at the onset of such emergency.
       (c) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives a report on activities of the Government of 
     the United States to protect women and children affected by a 
     complex humanitarian emergency. The report shall include--
       (1) an assessment of the specific protection needs of women 
     and children at the various stages of a complex humanitarian 
     emergency;
       (2) a description of which agencies and offices of the 
     United States Government are responsible for addressing each 
     aspect of such needs and threats; and
       (3) guidelines and recommendations for improving United 
     States and international systems for the protection of women 
     and children during a complex humanitarian emergency.
       (d) In this section, the term ``complex humanitarian 
     emergency'' means a situation that--

[[Page 26051]]

       (A) occurs outside the United States and results in a 
     significant number of--
       (i) refugees;
       (ii) internally displaced persons; or
       (iii) other civilians requiring basic humanitarian 
     assistance on an urgent basis; and
       (B) is caused by one or more situations including--
       (i) armed conflict;
       (ii) natural disaster;
       (iii) significant food shortage; or
       (iv) state-sponsored harassment or persecution.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, recent reports indicate that the 
percentage of civilians killed and wounded as a result of armed 
conflict has risen from 5 percent at the turn of the century to almost 
90 percent today, which means that in war it is not just the soldiers 
who are being killed, the men and women in uniform, but also civilians. 
That is a new occurrence in this century. It is something that this 
amendment attempts to address by directing our resources--not adding 
money, not authorizing new language, but simply directing, within the 
context of this bill, some attention to be given to this fact.
  War is not what it used to be. Its horrors are experienced by more 
than just the soldiers fighting on far-off battlefields. It is 
experienced by women and children. It is taking a brutal toll on these 
civilians, most of them women and children.
  Over 30 wars are now being waged around the world. One in four of the 
world's children live in war zones.
  In the past decade, more than 2 million children were killed during 
wartime, more than 4 million were wounded, and 1 million have been 
orphaned or separated from their families as a result of war.
  It is estimated that over 300,000 children have been forced to serve 
as soldiers. These are children as young as 7, 8, and 9 years old 
serving as soldiers, including an alarming number of girls serving as 
combatants, cooks, and, unfortunately, sex slaves.
  In Sierra Leone, 94 percent of displaced families surveyed had 
experienced sexual assaults, including rape, torture, and sexual 
slavery.
  After the genocide in Rwanda, 70 percent of the remaining population 
was female and more than half of the mothers were widows.
  Despite these statistics, a survey of current Government-sponsored 
foreign aid programs reveals that there are but a few coordinated 
programs targeted at the protection of women and children in conflict 
and after.
  Senator Biden and I offered legislation to address the shortfall. S. 
1001 would authorize the new women and children armed conflict fund, 
similar to the displaced children's fund. In addition, it would require 
several other efforts to be undertaken by our Government to make sure 
that this issue was addressed appropriately. It would require that the 
U.S. Government develop and implement a strategy to ensure that its 
humanitarian programs respond to and reduce the risks of exploitation, 
violence and abuse of women and children in places like Uganda, 
Liberia, and Iraq; prevent future crises by creating a list of early 
warning signs to alert policymakers of possible risks to women and 
children; foster stability in conflict-prone environments by focusing 
on reducing threats to innocent civilians in crises around the world.
  What my amendment does is provide a bridge for us to stand on until 
this bill can be passed and this fund can be established. It says: Here 
is what we can do not, within our existing programs with our existing 
funds.
  The Landrieu amendment ensures that organizations and programs 
currently serving refugees and displaced persons incorporate 
protections against violence; encourages the Secretary of State and 
Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda 
specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of, and 
particular threats to, women and children; asks for the Secretary to 
report to Congress on their progress in this area to date and provide 
recommendations for improving U.S. and international systems for the 
protection of women and children.
  Protecting women and children is not only the right thing to do, but 
it is also the smart thing to do. Women are a critical part of 
rebuilding war torn countries.
  In March 2003, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the following 
observation:

       Study after study has shown that there is no effective 
     development strategy in which women do not play a central 
     role. When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen 
     immediately: families are healthier and better fed; their 
     income, savings and reinvestment go up. And what is true of 
     families is also true of communities and, in the long run, of 
     whole countries.

  A focus on safety and protection directly impacts the overall well 
being of women and children. This year's Mothers Index, published by 
Save the Children, reports that there is a direct correlation between 
under education and poor health and conflict. Seven of the bottom ten 
countries in the area of health and education are in conflict and post-
conflict situations.
  This amendment does not call for us to break the budget caps or 
create a new program. It merely ensures that every dollar that we are 
spending to secure the peace is spent in the most effective way 
possible.
  Again, this amendment provides a bridge for us to stand on until the 
bill I just described can be passed in its complete authorized form. So 
this fund can be established, and then the authorizing bill would come 
forward with more of the details.
  But it is important that we take this step today to recognize the 
fact that there are so many women and children brutalized in war. It is 
not just about the soldiers in uniform any longer, unfortunately. This 
amendment asks the Secretary to report to Congress on their progress in 
this area, and it encourages the Secretary of State and the 
Administrator of USAID to incorporate into their current agenda 
specific policies and programs that identify the specific needs of and 
particular threats to women and children.
  In conclusion, I submit that study after study has shown the 
necessity of our effort to direct funds in this way.
  I ask unanimous consent that specific quotes from individual young 
women and girls, particularly, be printed in the Record. The language 
is pretty graphic so I will not read it in the Chamber, but I want it 
printed in the Record to say how serious this issue is in terms of the 
United States and all of the aid we are giving, and directing a portion 
of that, and to be cognizant of the tremendous torture, humiliation, 
and pain inflicted upon innocent women and children.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Protection From Sexual Violence and Physical Harm

       ``From Pweto down near the Zambian border right up to Aru 
     on the Sudan/Uganda border, it's a black hole where no one is 
     safe and where no outsider goes. Women take a risk when they 
     go out to the fields or on a road to a market. Any day they 
     can be stripped naked, humiliated and raped in public. Many, 
     many people no longer sleep at home, though sleeping in the 
     bush is equally unsafe. Every night there is another village 
     attacked, burned and emptied. It could be any group, no one 
     knows, but always they take the women and girls away.''--
     United Nations official in Democratic Republic of the Congo.

              Protection From Trafficking and Prostitution

       ``My mother died when I was very small and my father worked 
     as a laborer on other people's farms. At the age of 16, I was 
     lured by my neighbor into a good job. Feeling the pressure 
     and hard times faced by my family and myself, I was very 
     pleased to receive this opportunity. I didn't realize that my 
     faith would land me into the brothel of Bombay. I spent the 
     hell of my life for one year there. Then I was sold to a 
     brothel in Calcutta. I spent three-and-a-half years there, 
     and it was more bitter than ever. I'm happy that I was 
     rescued, but now I've started thinking who will rescue all 
     those Nepalese who are still in the brothels in many parts of 
     India? I'm worried for those sisters and request the stop of 
     such evil practices in the society.''--Sita, 23-year-old 
     former prostitute from Nepal
       ``I was eleven when the rebels attacked our town in 
     Liberia. I got separated from my parents and was captured. I 
     stayed with the rebels for four years. Seven men raped me at 
     the same time and I was forced to pick up arms. I have one 
     child of the rebels--I don't know exactly which one the 
     father is. I escaped and went to Guinea. I had no caretaker 
     and started to work as a `hotel girl'

[[Page 26052]]

     (prostitute). I thank Save the Children protection workers 
     for having identified me and offering me skill training.''--
     Florence, 18-year-old girl living in a refugee camp in Guinea

            Protection of Children From Military Recruitment

       ``I've seen people's hands get cut off, a 10-year-old girl 
     raped and then die, and many men and women burned alive. So 
     many times I just cried inside, because I didn't dare cry out 
     loud.''--Mariama, 14-year-old girl soldier from Sierra Leone
       ``During the fighting, you don't have time to think. Only 
     shoot. If a bad person gives an order, you have to follow it. 
     If he says burn the village, you have to burn it. If he says 
     kill a person, you have to do it.''--Aung, boy soldier from 
     Myanmar, abducted from school at age 14 and forced into the 
     army

                  Protection From Psychological Trauma

       ``We were living in a small village in Port Loko district 
     when the rebels attacked us in 1998. It was daytime and we 
     tried to run away, but I was unfortunate and was captured. I 
     was holding my 2-year-old baby boy. First they killed him 
     with an axe. I cried out: `Where is my baby, oh my baby.' So 
     they struck me on the head with a machete. There is a deep 
     scar there. After that they ordered me to put my hand on a 
     stick which was on the ground. They chopped and nearly 
     severed my right hand. Then they ran away and left me. My 
     hand hadn't completely severed so the doctor in the next town 
     cut it off. It's hard to find someone who will marry you when 
     your hand has been cut off.''--Adamasay, 16-year-old girl 
     from Sierra Leone

                   Protection From Family Separation

       ``When I lived in Palangkaraya, every day I helped my Dad 
     and Mum sell chicken. When I had to run it felt as if my feet 
     weren't even touching the ground. I followed the other people 
     running, and I wasn't even thinking about where my parents 
     were. The news that my parents were dead, victims of the 
     violence, came from my aunt who was still in Palangkaraya. 
     It's true I cried, I wanted to scream but I tried to be firm 
     and I entrusted my fate to Allah. Now I have to find my own 
     food. I was happy when my parents were still here. There was 
     no need to think about how to eat. If I could go to school 
     again and follow through the exams and gain a diploma, that 
     would be great.''--Rosi, 15-year-old street boy from 
     Indonesia

      Protection of Displaced Women and Children in Camp Settings

       ``When ma asked me to go down to the stream to wash plates, 
     a peacekeeper asked me to take my clothes off so that he can 
     take picture. When I asked him to give me money he told me, 
     no money for children, only biscuit.''--Refugee child in West 
     Africa

  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is the essence of my amendment. I hope it can be 
accepted. I hope there won't be a necessity for a vote on such a 
commonsense and much-needed amendment. I ask for the Senate's 
consideration at the appropriate time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Jeffords and Senator Corzine be added as cosponsors to Byrd amendment 
No. 1969.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is my amendment pending before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not yet pending, but if the Senator 
calls for the regular order it will be.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I call for the regular 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order has been called for. The 
amendment is now pending.


                           Amendment No. 1969

  Mr. BYRD. Does that amendment need to be stated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not necessary.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes 
     amendment numbered 1969. At the appropriate place add the 
     following: Section (a) None of the funds made available by 
     this Act or any other Act may be used by the Coalition 
     Provisional Authority (CPA) unless the Administrator of the 
     Coalition Provisional Authority is an officer of the United 
     States Government appointed by the President by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate. (b) This provision shall be 
     effective March 1, 2004.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the clerk.
  I suggest my statement in support of this amendment be entitled ``Too 
Much Money, Too Little Accountability.'' That would be an appropriate 
title if I were to suggest it.
  This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment to 
ensure that those administration officials charged with spending 
taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their 
representatives in the Congress.
  To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, has not been held 
accountable for the money it spends, and that is your money. That is 
your money, I say to the taxpayers of this great country. Those who 
spend it should be held accountable. That is what you believe, I am 
sure.
  Not until the President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid 
for Iraq did the CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the 
public about the administration's reconstruction plans. Let me say that 
again. This is an amendment about accountability. This is an amendment 
to ensure that those administration officials charged with spending 
taxpayer funds are held accountable to the American people and to their 
representatives in the Congress.
  To date, the Coalition Provisional Authority has not been held 
accountable for the money it spends--your money. Not until the 
President requested $20 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq did the 
CPA make any effort to inform the Congress and the public about the 
administration's reconstruction plans.
  The CPA's access to nonappropriated funds--now get this--has allowed 
it to maintain a low profile, so low that one cannot see it, and to 
operate largely outside the scope of congressional oversight.
  Last fiscal year, the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, in 
Iraq spent $1.7 billion in assets frozen under the Saddam Hussein 
regime. The CPA spent almost $1 billion in assets seized after the war. 
That is your money. The CPA spent $2.5 billion in oil revenues 
collected through the United Nations Food for Oil Program. Altogether, 
it spent $7.5 billion in the fiscal year 2003, including $2.5 billion 
appropriated in the supplemental that was passed and enacted by 
Congress in April of this year.
  This CPA did not appear before the Congress even once to explain how 
those funds would be spent. This year, assuming that the Congress 
appropriates the $20 billion in reconstruction aid requested by the 
President, the CPA's budget will grow to $23 billion, which includes $2 
billion in unappropriated funds left over from last fiscal year and 
almost $1 billion included in the supplemental for the Coalition 
Provisional Authority's administrative expenses.
  At $23 billion, the Coalition Provisional Authority's budget will be 
more than three times what it spent in the last fiscal year. Now, that 
will be more than the Federal budget for seven Cabinets out of the 15 
Cabinet Departments that run the Federal Government. That is a lot of 
money to flow through the hands of the Coalition Provisional Authority 
in Iraq.
  The CPA's budget is four times the budget of the Commerce Department. 
Think of that. Do we demand accountability from the Commerce 
Department? The CPA's budget is twice the size of the entire Interior, 
Labor, and Treasury Departments and it is billions of dollars larger 
than the budgets of the Agriculture Department and the Justice 
Department.
  The Senate gives its advice and consent to Presidential appointments 
to the highest level positions in the Bush administration, or any 
administration. In the Clinton administration, Reagan administration, 
and Carter administration, the Senate gave its advice and consent to 
Presidential appointments to these high-level positions in the 
Departments. Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army--now get this. 
Even a lowly second lieutenant in the Army, who is responsible for the 
two dozen to three dozen soldiers under his command, is subject to the 
confirmation by the Senate. And yet the official who is responsible for 
governing and rebuilding Iraq, a country made up of 23 million, 24 
million people--the official with a budget larger than half the Federal 
departments and responsible for the livelihood of 23 million or 24

[[Page 26053]]

million Iraqis--is not subject to confirmation by the Senate.
  As it stands today, the people's representatives--that is you, 
Senator. That is you, Senator. And that is you, I say to every other 
Senator and I say it to myself as well. As it stands today, the 
people's representatives--that is us. I am talking about us--the 
people's representatives in the Senate have no say in who leads the 
CPA, even though the administration's endeavors in Iraq have drained 
$118 billion from our budget, have seized tens of thousands of National 
Guardsmen from our States, and have so far taken the lives of 351 U.S. 
soldiers in this war. The CPA claims to be vested with all the 
legislative, executive, and judicial authority necessary to achieve the 
administration's objectives in Iraq and yet the Congress has done 
nothing--nothing--to ensure that its administrator is held accountable 
to the American people.
  Beginning March 1, 2004, my amendment would prohibit the Coalition 
Provisional Authority in Iraq from spending any appropriated funds 
until its administrator has been appointed by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate. Is it asking too much, that we ask 
that the person, the one individual, the Coalition Provisional 
Authority's administrator--is it asking too much that he be appointed 
by the President of the United States by and with the consent of the 
Senate? That is not asking too much. That is in defense of the American 
taxpayer. That will make sure, yes, that person will be accountable to 
the American taxpayer, to the American people, to the representatives 
of the American people in Congress.
  The sums of money that are being spent in Iraq are enormous. This is 
not just chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about huge 
amounts of the taxpayers' money. That person should be accountable to 
the taxpayers of the country, accountable to the Congress of the United 
States, made up of the elected representatives of the people. The sums 
of money are enormous--$87 billion we spent, of which $20.3 billion 
would be in that amount. I said a moment ago we have appropriated 
already $118 billion. That includes the April supplemental and includes 
the supplemental we just passed. It was passed by the Senate. This is 
too much money to appropriate without ensuring that the decisionmakers 
in Iraq will be held accountable to the American people. We owe it to 
the taxpayers, don't we? Yes. We owe it to the taxpayers to do better 
than that.
  I urge the adoption of my amendment and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, with all due respect to my good 
friend from West Virginia, who has had many good ideas in his 45 years 
in the Senate, let me suggest this may not be one of them. What the 
Senator from West Virginia is suggesting here is that we change a 
temporary position--a position currently held by Ambassador Bremer, 
which he is trying very hard to work his way out of by having at the 
earliest opportunity a chance to turn Iraq over to Iraqis and come 
home--into a confirmed Senate position. Ambassador Bremer spent a lot 
of time back here testifying, as he should have, on the supplemental. 
But the real job to do is over in Iraq, trying to get this new 
government up and running, trying to get the Iraqi security force to a 
substantial level so we can begin to draw down American troops. I think 
most of us have concluded we have too many positions that need to be 
confirmed.
  In fact, I can recall a meeting in my office earlier this year, right 
before the August recess, a bipartisan meeting discussing the 
possibility of reducing the number of positions which require 
confirmation and having that bill take effect January 20, 2005, for 
whoever the next President is, to try to make it possible for the next 
administration to function more successfully without all of the 
problems that come from an excessive number of confirmations.
  Secretary Rumsfeld is the designated authority for Iraq. Of course, 
he was confirmed by the Senate. Ambassador Bremer, the CPA 
administrator, reports to the Secretary of Defense. During the 
consideration of the supplemental, my good friend from Vermont tried to 
shift the authority from the Defense Department over to the State 
Department. Certainly an argument can be made for that. But that failed 
on a vote of 56 to 42.
  The fact is Ambassador Bremer, as I indicated earlier, is trying very 
hard to work his way out of this job. This is very much a temporary 
position. We didn't go in there to be there a very lengthy period of 
time. This temporary job can end the moment the Iraqis are in a 
position to take over the administration of their own country. We all 
know how lengthy confirmations can be. Do we really want to derail 
reconstruction by having Ambassador Bremer back here for lengthy 
confirmation proceedings? He is already on the job. As I understand the 
amendment, if this were to take effect and he were not to be confirmed 
by March 1 of next year, all the funding would be cut off. So this 
would be an extraordinarily high profile confirmation.
  I know my good friend from West Virginia thought this war was a 
mistake. He has been very clear about that. A Senator would have to be 
extraordinarily inattentive not to get the point that the Senator from 
West Virginia believes the whole thing was a mistake. But I would say 
with the utmost respect for my good friend, we are there. We are there 
now. Regardless of how one felt about the process of getting us there, 
it seems to me we have a lot on the line in having this Iraqi effort be 
successful, regardless of how we felt about going in.
  I venture the opinion that no matter who the next President is, they 
will try to finish the job in Iraq just like this administration is 
still in Bosnia and Kosovo, an administration policy of the previous 
administration.
  This job needs to be finished. I plead with my colleagues. Let us not 
make it any more difficult to wrap up this very tough assignment and 
have Ambassador Bremer come back and do something else for the rest of 
his life.
  I hope the Byrd amendment will not be approved. We have had ample 
opportunity to cross-examine Ambassador Bremer and to question him on 
every conceivable issue related to this, and I am sure we will have 
other opportunities to do it. But I think the confirmation process is 
simply not appropriate for this particular position.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains to the senior 
Senator from West Virginia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 3 minutes, of course with an equal amount of time on the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to have a few minutes myself with an equal amount of time allotted 
to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I have a few words I would 
like to say in attempting to rebut what my friend said.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I really have said all I wish to say. 
I would be happy to yield time, if I have any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit at this point.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thought we had 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from West Virginia 
that I basically have completed my argument and am not interested 
necessarily in having the last word. I would be anxious to move ahead 
with a vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I didn't realize there was no time limit. 
I will be brief.
  I have heard the arguments of my friend from Kentucky: Why stop 
things now ahead of this confirmation? Unfortunately, while a great 
deal of planning went into the war in Iraq--even though there was never 
any question of the outcome, because we are the most powerful nation 
history has ever known, of

[[Page 26054]]

course, and we would succeed against a third-rate or fourth-rate 
military power like Saddam Hussein--it appears that very little 
planning went into what happens after the war. Of course, there have 
been more American casualties since the President said the mission was 
accomplished, the war was over, and as he famously taunted the Iraqis, 
``Bring it on.'' Unfortunately, they did. But we saw first a general 
being placed in there, which didn't work, and we put Paul Bremer in 
there, again without much planning. The distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky said we had debate on the floor about the transfer from the 
Department of Defense to the State Department. That was defeated. I 
remember the debate very well. Interestingly enough, the talking points 
of the administration in opposition were that they are perfectly 
satisfied with having all of this coordinated by the Secretary of 
Defense. There was no need to place it anywhere but the Secretary of 
Defense. That was it, and the White House position carried.
  What the White House talking points didn't say, and we all found out 
about 3 days later, was they had already made the decision to take it 
out of the Department of Defense and put it into Dr. Rice's office. 
Actually, moving it out of the Department of Defense had already been 
decided by the White House. But as often happens when we are told one 
thing and something else is being done, the talking points coming over 
from the White House said they had every intention of leaving it--in 
effect emphatically every intention of leaving it--under the direction 
of the Under Secretary of Defense.
  That probably should have been the tipoff, that they were emphatic 
and intended to leave it there. They had already made up their mind to 
leave it there. Of course, that is not how it turned out. But I worry 
because if you have somebody who is in charge of more foreign 
assistance than the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID 
combined, both of whom require confirmation, if you give all of this 
power to someone who does not require confirmation, what does that say 
about our role in the Senate? What does that say about what we feel 
about transparency and accountability?
  We are appropriating over $20 billion basically to be distributed 
solely as the Administrator feels he should. That is more than the 
Secretary of State and the Administrator of the USAID get to 
distribute, and they have to be confirmed. The answers were not 
forthcoming.
  I think of the plan we were suddenly shown on the Appropriations 
Committee. I recall the distinguished Senator from West Virginia asked 
for more time and, of course, he could not get it. Ambassador Bremer 
came here, and we were given a plan. They had gone out, apparently, for 
a couple of months before saying what they were going to do. Then it 
turned out, amazingly, I know--I am just shocked to find this out--the 
plan was given only to the Republicans, maintaining the same kind of 
partisanship there is on this. We were supposed to ask questions of 
Ambassador Bremer. But only Republicans were allowed to see this plan 
paid for by the taxpayers of this country. When Democrats asked about 
it, he said, Well, I thought that had all been sent to you. Apparently 
the mail only goes to 51 Senators and not to the other 49.
  Be that as it may, the plan was interesting. It did say the United 
States wanted to give the Iraqi people a chance to form a government 
and a country that would fulfill President Bush's vision for them. Some 
thought that was a little bit condescending to a country where 
civilization goes back long before this country's was ever discovered. 
At least we had a chance finally to talk about it.
  The same way in which the White House told us the Secretary of 
Defense was the only one who should be in charge of this--we find they 
had already made the decision; They did not tell us about it--
apparently they didn't tell the Secretary of Defense about it either. 
They were yanking it out from him and putting it with somebody else.
  My point is, if we are going to give somebody $20 billion to buy 
$33,000 pickup trucks and $6,000 telephones for Taj Mahal jail cells 
and have scholarships that are not available to Americans but 
apparently will be to Iraqis, the person ought to be at least confirmed 
so we have a chance to ask questions.
  I think the Senator from West Virginia is right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, my amendment does not cut off funds for 
reconstruction, as I thought I understood the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky to say. If I am incorrect and did not hear him say that 
or indicate that, I certainly would be glad to be corrected.
  My amendment would allow the President to allocate that money to 
other agencies but would not allow the CPA to spend that money until 
the Administrator is confirmed by the Senate. This won't shut down 
funding for the troops. The Senate has until March 1--4 months away--to 
confirm the Administrator of the CPA. After the Homeland Security 
Department was created, for example, the Senate confirmed Governor Tom 
Ridge in just a few short weeks--in just a matter of days. I think it 
would be the same with Ambassador Bremer.
  I certainly have no complaint with respect to Ambassador Bremer. My 
amendment is not about Ambassador Bremer, currently the head of the 
CPA, and all of his potential successors. They will have a great deal 
of authority.
  I say again that a lowly second lieutenant in the Army is subject to 
confirmation by the Senate. Surely the head of CPA should be as well.
  My colleague talks about the desire to bring the situation to a 
conclusion in Iraq as soon as possible.
  I agree with him that the job in Iraq should be finished as soon as 
possible. But it should be carried out with accountability to the 
elected representatives of the American people.
  I also add this postscript: Judging from the events as we have seen 
them transpire going back several months, I don't believe this 
situation in Iraq is going to end very quickly. It shows every 
indication of intensifying. We are in one big mess.
  I remember a time when I believed if the President and the 
administration were to hold out the olive branch and show an indication 
of willingness to share in economic and political responsibility in 
Iraq with major European countries and other countries in Asia and 
elsewhere, if that willingness had been demonstrated some months ago, 
there would be other major countries making large contributions in 
treasure and in manpower in Iraq today. But that olive branch was not 
extended. That willingness to share economic and political 
responsibility in Iraq was not voiced. It was not made manifest.
  Now, I hope that the train has not gone by the station without 
stopping. As we see the horrific events unfolding in Iraq, I am not so 
sure that those major European erstwhile contributors would be so 
willing even to contribute now. The back of the hand was extended to 
them before the war and it has not been otherwise since the war, to any 
extent.
  By virtue of these mistakes that the administration has made, it is 
not my belief that the situation in Iraq is going to end all that 
quickly. I hope it will. But we should not bet on that. Therefore, it 
would be appropriate to require the President appoint an Administrator 
and that the Senate be required to confirm or reject that person. That 
would assure the American people of accountability and of 
responsibility on the part of their elected representatives and on the 
part of the CPA Administrator. It is the right thing to do by the 
American people. It is the right thing to do under the Constitution 
because the power of the purse is vested here, in the Congress, in this 
body and the other body.
  That power of the purse carries with it the duty of oversight. 
Congress cannot properly oversee an administrator who is not 
accountable to the Congress, an administrator who has not been 
confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, Congress is not in a position to

[[Page 26055]]

carry out its responsibility under the Constitution of being 
accountable to the American people and in accordance with the words of 
the Constitution.
  I say that it is time the Senate act. The Senate has been silent too 
long. The Senate was silent before the war. The Senate was silent 
before it voted on October 11 of last year to give the authority to the 
President of the United States to use the military forces of this 
country as he saw fit. The Congress gave the President of the United 
States a blank check, as it were, with respect to authority to take 
this Nation into war and to put these men and women, soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines, in harm's way. It was a most shameful moment when 
Congress washed its hands. One of the most shameful moments in the 
history of the Senate was when it passed the cup and attempted to wash 
its hands of the responsibility of following the Constitution of the 
United States which says that Congress shall have the power to declare 
war.
  That moment has come and gone, but still, as the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky says, our people are there. We are now there. So 
what do we do?
  I say to Senators, put yourselves into these desks, these chairs, 
into these shoes of ours 1 year from today and look back and see if you 
cast the right vote on this amendment. How will it be 1 year from today 
if we find we are in deeper and deeper and deeper and it has become 
another Vietnam--which I supported; I supported the war in Vietnam. I 
was practically the last person out of Vietnam because I supported the 
President. I supported Johnson. I supported Nixon. I supported them all 
the way. But one should learn by his mistakes.
  We were ill advised when it came to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. We 
were ill advised by the administration. I voted for it. Two Senators 
voted against it. Wayne Morse said that the resolution would pass but 
that those who voted for it would be sorry. I voted for it. I was 
sorry. I am sorry. We should learn by our mistakes.
  We were not properly advised by that administration and we were not 
properly advised by this administration. That is why we are in Iraq. I 
will have more to say about that at another time.
  The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is right. We are there. What 
do we do? In this matter, we have a responsibility to hold Ambassador 
Bremer, or whoever is the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional 
Authority, accountable to the Congress.
  It has been said that Mr. Bremer has already testified before the 
Congress in supporting the President's $87 billion request for Iraq. Of 
course he testified. Yes, he testified. He was before the 
Appropriations Committee a short time, a few hours. Ambassador Bremer 
wanted the Congress to give him $20 billion. But how often will he 
testify after he receives the money? How receptive will he be to 
further invitations to testify before congressional committees once he 
has received a blank check, as it were?
  Let's not delude ourselves to the extent which Ambassador Bremer was 
made available to the Congress. He testified only once before the 
Senate Appropriations Committee and he did not have to respond to a 
single outside witness called to challenge the administration's line. 
Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the 
Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, ``I 
don't have time.'' He said that in response to me. I asked Ambassador 
Bremer if he could make himself available and would make himself 
available to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the event the 
chairman asked him to return and he said: I don't have time. I am sorry 
that the transcripts have not been printed--yet--but the transcripts 
are around, the transcripts of the hearings.
  He said: I don't have time. Can you imagine that? He wouldn't say 
that if he had to be confirmed by the Senate. He would have time. He 
would make himself available whether the Senate would be under the 
control of the Republicans or under the control of the Democrats, 
whatever. He would find time. He would be available. Yes, indeed.
  So he said: I don't have time. I am completely booked, and I have to 
get back to Baghdad to my duties.
  What are his duties? If he were required to be confirmed, his duty 
would be to come back before the Senate and to answer questions, and to 
answer questions under oath, if necessary.
  Senators who believe that sufficient action has been taken to ensure 
accountability by the CPA Administrator are kidding themselves. The CPA 
has not been sanctioned by the Congress. And Ambassador Bremer has not 
been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Congress has no legislative ties to 
the CPA or its Administrator. Congress has no strings by which it can 
say to the Administrator: You come before this committee and, if 
necessary, you be prepared to take an oath that what you say is the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
  That is a part of it. That is what we are talking about.
  The secret national security directive that created the CPA dictates 
that Ambassador Bremer shall report to the Secretary of Defense and the 
President. It does not mention the Congress. It does not mention the 
American people.
  When Tom Ridge was appointed Homeland Security Director after the 
September 11 attacks, the White House refused to allow him to testify 
before Congress. The President said: No, he is a member of my staff.
  Well, technically that was correct. The President opted to create a 
new Homeland Security Department and reorganize the Federal Government 
rather than allow an unconfirmed member of his administration to 
testify before the Congress.
  That kind of record should not comfort Members of Congress. We have a 
responsibility to the American people to ensure that the administration 
officials responsible for the lives of their loved ones who are 
fighting in Iraq and for their taxpayer dollars that are being spent in 
Iraq are held accountable for their actions. We must stop just passing 
the buck along to the President.
  With regard to the argument that holding these officials accountable 
will somehow endanger our troops, I urge Senators to reject that flimsy 
scare tactic. What endangers the troops is not having their 
decisionmakers held accountable to the people. When funds are being 
spent on postal ZIP Codes, garbage trucks, and escalator and garage 
beautification projects rather than the necessities of the troops, that 
is when the Congress must be the most vocal in questioning the judgment 
of those in the administration who wield power.
  I urge Senators to focus on the bigger picture. Senators should cast 
their votes not only with the thought of a Republican administration 
directing reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but with an image of a 
Democratic administration directing the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. 
I think I know what the answer would be then.
  We need to look beyond the party label of the current administration. 
I am not talking about Mr. Bremer. I spoke of his saying he didn't have 
time, and he didn't. Those were his words, made of his own free will. 
Milton wrote about man's free will, ``Paradise Lost.'' Those were Mr. 
Bremer's words. I have no reason to find fault with Mr. Bremer at all. 
He is not there without confirmation by virtue of his choice. But that 
is the way it is. As Walter Cronkite used to say, that is the way it 
was.
  We need to look beyond the party label. We need to take a longer term 
view of accountability.
  Let me say in closing, I thank my friend from Kentucky, who has 
always been a gentleman with me, has always been straightforward with 
me, and has conducted himself, on this occasion, as on all others, as a 
gentleman should.
  I thank him for his characteristic courtesy in this instance. I 
respect his argument. I respect his vote. But the record will be made 
and the record will stand.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am aware of no further debate on 
this amendment. I assume the Senator would like a rollcall vote.

[[Page 26056]]


  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, 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 amendment No. 1969. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 414 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 1969) was rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Corzine be added as a cosponsor to the Burma amendment No. 1970.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Feinstein also be 
added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1970, the Burma amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for accepting an amendment for the 
managers' package that deals with making sure we have something in the 
criteria for the Millennium Challenge Account, assistance dealing with 
people with disabilities.
  Basically, the amendment makes a small but significant change to the 
Millennium Challenge Account ensuring that one criteria used in 
determining a country's eligibility for the Millennium Challenge 
Account funds is their commitment to providing opportunities for the 
inclusion of people with disabilities. This account represents one of 
the largest increases in foreign aid spending in half a century, about 
$1 billion this year and an additional $4 billion within the next 3 
years.
  People with disabilities have been left out of our foreign assistance 
programs for too long. This amendment does not require they do anything 
new.
  Since 1996, over 100 countries, including the United States, have 
submitted reports to the United Nations under implementation of 22 
rules to equalize opportunities for people with disabilities. President 
Bush has implemented a new freedom initiative in this country on behalf 
of people with disabilities. In 2001, he charged each agency with 
reviewing their policies to remove barriers that promote inclusion of 
people with disabilities in American society. I commend and I 
compliment President Bush for taking this step. This amendment takes 
this initiative and extends it basically to our foreign assistance 
programs.
  I have a report from the National Council on Disability, dated 
September 9, 2003. It is titled: ``Foreign Policy and Disability: 
Legislative Strategies and Civil Rights Protections To Ensure Inclusion 
of People with Disabilities.''
  In the cover letter from the chairperson of the National Council on 
Disability to President Bush, Mr. Lex Frieden pointed out that in 1996:

       NCD recommended a series of policy changes to ``ensure the 
     inclusion of people with disabilities in all foreign 
     assistance programs. . . .

  He goes on to say:

       Seven years later, NCD has concluded that inclusion of 
     people with disabilities in U.S. foreign policy will be 
     achieved only when specific legislation is enacted to achieve 
     that purpose.

  That is what we have done. We have added specific legislative 
language to ensure in the Millennium Challenge Account one of the 
criteria to be used is whether that country is trying to provide 
opportunities for the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
  In the executive summary of this report filed by the National Council 
on Disability, it says:

       Individuals with disabilities are subject to a broad 
     pattern of discrimination of segregation in almost every part 
     of the world. In most countries, people with disabilities and 
     their families are socially stigmatized, politically 
     materialized and economically disadvantaged. The economic 
     cost to society of excluding people with disabilities is 
     enormous. No nation in the word will achieve its full 
     potential for economic development when it leaves out people 
     with disabilities. No society will be a complete democracy 
     unless people with disabilities can participate in public 
     life. Failure to respond to the concerns of people with 
     disabilities ignores one of the great humanitarian and human 
     rights challenges of the world today.
       The United States is well positioned to lead the world in 
     demonstrating how to build on the tremendous human potential 
     of people with disabilities.
       The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) represents a 
     sweeping commitment on the part of the U.S. government to 
     abolish discrimination against people with disabilities in 
     all walks of life.
       At present, U.S. foreign policy does not reflect the great 
     accomplishments of people with disabilities within the United 
     States. U.S. citizens with disabilities cannot serve in many 
     embassies abroad because these buildings are physically 
     inaccessible. Qualified and talented individuals may be 
     excluded from U.S. government service abroad based on their 
     medical history.
       The U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD) calls on the 
     Executive Branch and Congress to create a new foreign policy 
     that ensures access by people with disabilities to the 
     benefits of democracy and economic development around the 
     world.

  I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the National 
Council on Disability's report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Part I. Executive Summary and Conclusions

       More than 600 million people, almost 10 percent if the 
     world's population, have a disability. This number will rise 
     dramatically in the coming years as the population ages and 
     as more people become disabled by AIDS. Rates of disability 
     are particularly high in post-conflict societies, among 
     refugee populations, and in countries with histories of 
     political violence. Even in stable societies, however, people 
     with disabilities make up the poorest of the poor. In some of 
     the world's poorest countries, according to the United 
     Nations (UN), up to 20 percent of the population has a 
     disability.
       Individuals with disabilities are subject to a broad 
     pattern of discrimination and segregation in almost every 
     part of the world. In most countries, people with 
     disabilities

[[Page 26057]]

     and their families are socially stigmatized, politically 
     marginalized, and economically disadvantaged. The economic 
     cost to society of excluding people with disabilities is 
     enormous. No nation in the world will achieve its full 
     potential for economic development while it leaves out people 
     with disabilities. No society will be a complete democracy 
     unless people with disabilities can participate in public 
     life. Failure to respond to the concerns of people with 
     disabilities ignores one of the great humanitarian and human 
     rights challenges of the world today.
       The United States is well positioned to lead the world in 
     demonstrating how to build on the tremendous human potential 
     of people with disabilities. It is among the world leaders in 
     protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities, with 
     legislation that seeks to ensure their full participation in 
     society, and in supporting their independent living. The 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) represents a sweeping 
     commitment on the part of the U.S. government to abolish 
     discrimination against people with disabilities in all walks 
     of life. Since the adoption of the Rehabilitation Act in 
     1973, U.S. civil rights laws have required all U.S. 
     government programs to be inclusive of and accessible to 
     people with disabilities. As they have exercised their rights 
     over the past 30 years, Americans with disabilities have 
     broken barriers to inclusion, shattered stereotypes about 
     their limitations, and contributed to the economic, cultural, 
     and political life of the nation.
       At present, U.S. foreign policy does not reflect the great 
     accomplishments of people with disabilities within the United 
     States. U.S. citizens with disabilities cannot serve in many 
     embassies abroad because these buildings are physically 
     inaccessible. Qualified and talented individuals may be 
     excluded from U.S. government service abroad based on their 
     medical history. In addition to failing to protect U.S. 
     citizens with disabilities in foreign operations, U.S. 
     foreign policies and programs have generally not been 
     designed to respond to the concerns of individuals with 
     disabilities abroad. While the Foreign Assistance Act has 
     long established that ``a principal goal of the foreign 
     policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased 
     observance of internationally recognized human rights by all 
     countries,'' the rights of people with disabilities have been 
     long ignored.
       The U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD) calls on the 
     Executive Branch and Congress to create a new foreign policy 
     that ensures access by people with disabilities to the 
     benefits of democracy and economic development around the 
     world. All U.S. foreign operations abroad (including foreign 
     assistance efforts) would be greatly improved if the 
     principles established in U.S. civil rights law--under the 
     Rehabilitation Act and the ADA--were applied to U.S. 
     operations abroad. Such a policy would require U.S. foreign 
     assistance funding to be used in a manner that is accessible 
     to people with disabilities. Such protections would also 
     ensure that U.S. citizens and contractors with disabilities 
     would be protected against discrimination in the 
     implementation of U.S. programs abroad. Leadership by U.S. 
     citizens with disabilities in our foreign operations would 
     greatly improve our ability to respond to the concerns of 
     people with disabilities in other countries.

  Mr. HARKIN. I also ask unanimous consent that the cover letter 
preceding that by Mr. Lex Frieden also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Council on Disability,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 2003.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the National Council on 
     Disability (NCD), I am submitting a report entitled Foreign 
     Policy and Disability: Legislative Strategies and Civil 
     Rights Protections To Ensure Inclusion of People with 
     Disabilities. This report is a follow-up to NCD's 1996 
     Foreign Policy and Disability report that found continued 
     barriers to access for people with disabilities in U.S. 
     foreign assistance programs.
       In the 1996 report, NCD recommended a series of policy 
     changes to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities in 
     all foreign assistance programs, including the establishment 
     of specific objectives for inclusion with a timetable for 
     their fulfillment. Seven years later, NCD has concluded that 
     inclusion of people with disabilities in U.S. foreign policy 
     will be achieved only when specific legislation is enacted to 
     achieve that purpose. This report reviews a number of models 
     that Congress has adopted for linking human rights and 
     foreign policy that can be adapted to ensure the inclusion of 
     people with disabilities. This report looks primarily at the 
     U.S. Department of State and the United States Agency for 
     International Development (USAID). Among the various 
     strategies and approaches to improve foreign assistance 
     policies and practices, NCD recommends that Congress amend 
     the Foreign Assistance Act to ensure inclusion of people with 
     disabilities in all U.S. programs by requiring every U.S. 
     agency operating abroad to operate in a manner that is 
     accessible and inclusive of people with disabilities. NCD 
     recommends that this be accomplished by, among other reforms, 
     amending the Foreign Assistance Act to create a Disability 
     Advisor at the State Department and creating an office on 
     Disability and Development at USAID.
       NCD also calls on your Administration to recognize that all 
     U.S. government operations abroad should be brought into 
     compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act.
       The principles of non-discrimination, access, and inclusion 
     of people with disabilities have been established as civil 
     rights. The reforms discussed in this report are needed to 
     ensure that people with disabilities can fully contribute to 
     U.S. foreign policies and programs abroad as they have done 
     so effectively at home.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lex Frieden,
                                                      Chairperson.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the manager and the ranking member for 
working out the language. This may seem like a small thing but, believe 
me, this is big. This is going to say--and we look at other criteria--
but we will look at a country to see what they are doing to provide for 
people with disabilities.
  Quite frankly, this country ought to be taking the lead around the 
world in that area because we have a lot to talk about in what we have 
done in our own country since the Americans with Disabilities Act was 
passed in 1990. What we have done is shown that people with 
disabilities can provide economic stimulus to a country. They can 
provide part of that economic engine that a country needs. We have 
shown conclusively, no matter where you are, no matter what country, 
that if your policy is one of exclusion of people with disabilities, 
keeping them institutionalized, materialized, not fully participating 
in society, it costs that society more to do that than it does to 
include them in education, for example, transportation, employment, and 
cultural affairs.
  My amendment was designed basically to implement what the National 
Council on Disability concluded when they said, ``The inclusion of 
people with disabilities in United States foreign policy will be 
achieved only when specific language is enacted to achieve that 
purpose.'' That is what we have done this evening with the inclusion of 
this amendment.
  I only hope when we go to conference with the House that we can have 
the support of the administration. As I said, President Bush had an 
enlightened policy on people with disabilities when he came in in 2001. 
I hope the White House will take that inclusion policy of theirs and 
make sure we keep it in this foreign operations appropriations bill for 
the next year and that they will use the Millennium Challenge Account 
to promote and to stimulate other countries in thinking about how they 
can provide for the inclusion of people with disabilities.
  I thank Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and their respective staffs 
for working on this issue.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


  Amendments Nos. 2001; 2002; 2003; 1995, As Modified Further; 2004; 
2005; 2006; 1973; 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; 
         1998, As Modified; 2016; 2017; 2018; and 2019; En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have two blocks of amendments that 
have been agreed to on both sides that we are prepared to move at this 
point.
  The first is a series of amendments as follows: Senator Leahy, 
providing funds for U.S. contribution to UNAIDS; Senator Voinovich, 
annual report on antisemitism; Senator Dodd, providing assistance for 
OAS mission in Haiti; Senator Allard, amendment No. 1995 as modified 
further; Senator Feingold, relating to U.S. citizens in Indonesia; 
Senator Lugar, relating to danger pay for USAID; Senator Daschle, sense 
of Congress on delivery of assistance by air; Senator McCain, amendment 
No. 1973 relating to Azerbaijan; Senator

[[Page 26058]]

Feingold, report on Sierra Leone; Senator Biden, technical amendment; 
Senator Feingold, report on Somalia; Senator Lugar, relating to the 
Global Fund; Senator Inouye, related to the guinea worm eradication; 
Senator Harkin, disabilities; Senator Allen, related to intellectual 
property rights; Senator Brownback, providing assistance to promote 
democracy in Iran; Senator Brownback, sense of the Senate on Iran; 
Senator Landrieu, modification to amendment No. 1998; Senator Dodd, 
relating to contracts in Egypt; Senator Lugar, relating to Millennium 
Challenge Account; Senator Ensign, relating to democracy in Cuba; and 
Senator Leahy, relating to HIV/AIDS.
  Mr. President, I send this block of amendments to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to consideration of the 
amendments en bloc? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2001

       On page 23, line 8, before the period, insert the 
     following:
       : Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, not less than $28,000,000 shall be made 
     available for a United States contributions to UNAIDS.


                           amendment no. 2002

   (Purpose: To require the Annual Report on International Religious 
   Freedom to include a section on anti-Semitism and other religious 
                              intolerance)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:


annual report on international religious freedom to include information 
            on anti-semitism and other religious intolerance

       Sec. 692. Section 102(b)(1) of the International Religious 
     Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) Acts of anti-semitism and other religious 
     intolerance.--A description for each foreign country of--
       ``(i) acts of violence against people of the Jewish faith 
     and other faiths that occurred in that country;
       ``(ii) the response of the government of that country to 
     such acts of violence; and
       ``(iii) actions by the government of that country to enact 
     and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to 
     religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith;


                           Amendment No. 2003

(Purpose: To provide assistance for the OAS Special Mission in Haiti to 
  implement OAS Resolution 822 to restore security and hold elections)

       On page 21, line 18, after the comma insert the following:

     ``That of the funds appropriated under this heading, up to 
     $15,000,000 should be made available as a United States 
     contribution to the Organization of American States for 
     expenses related to the OAS Special Mission in Haiti and the 
     implementation of OAS Resolution 822 and subsequent 
     resolutions related to improving security and the holding of 
     elections to resolve the political impasse created by the 
     disputed May 2000 election: Provided further,''


                amendment no. 1995, as further modified

(Purpose: To limit international military education and training funds 
                from being made available for Indonesia)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:


         limitation on the provision of imet funds to indonesia

       Sec. 693. (a) Subject to subsection (c), no funds 
     appropriated by title IV of this Act, under the subheading 
     ``international military education and training'' under the 
     heading ``Funds Appropriated to the President'' shall be made 
     available for military education and training for Indonesia.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the United 
     States Government from continuing to conduct expanded IMET 
     programs, programs or training with the Indonesian Armed 
     Forces, including counter-terrorism training, officer visits, 
     port visits, or educational exchanges that are being 
     conducted on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) The President may waive the application of subsection 
     (a) if the President--
       (1) determines that important national security interests 
     of the United States justify such a waiver; and
       (2) submits notice of such a waiver and a justification for 
     such a waiver to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives in accordance with the regular notification 
     procedures of such Committees.


                           amendment no. 2004

    (Purpose: To encourage the Government of Indonesia to meet the 
 conditions necessary for the normalization of military relations with 
                           the United States)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

                  united states citizens in indonesia

       Sec. 692. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States recognizes the cooperation and 
     solidarity of the Government of Indonesia and the people of 
     Indonesia in the global campaign against terrorism.
       (2) Increased cooperation between the United States and the 
     Indonesia police forces is in the interest of both countries 
     and should continue.
       (3) Normal military relations between Indonesia and the 
     United States are in the interest of both countries.
       (4) The respect of the Indonesia military for human rights 
     and the improvement in relations between the military and the 
     civilian population of Indonesia are extremely important for 
     the future of relations between the United States and 
     Indonesia.
       (b) The normalization of the military relationship between 
     the United States and Indonesia cannot begin until--
       (1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation has received full 
     cooperation from the Government of Indonesia and the 
     Indonesia armed forces with respect to its investigation into 
     the August 31, 2002, murder of 2 American schoolteachers in 
     Timika, Indonesia; and
       (2) the individuals responsible for those murders are 
     brought to justice.
       (c) Congress looks forward to continued and increased 
     cooperation with respect to this investigation and to the 
     resolution of the issue, which will contribute to the 
     normalization of military relations between the United States 
     and Indonesia.


                           amendment no. 2005

(Purpose: To increase the maximum rate of post differentials and danger 
 pay allowances for civilian employees of the United States Agency for 
                       International Development)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

              post differentials and danger pay allowances

       Sec. 692. (a) Section 5925(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended in the third sentence by inserting after 
     ``25 percent of the rate of basic pay'' the following: ``or, 
     in the case of an employee of the United States Agency for 
     International Development, 35 percent of the rate of basic 
     pay''.
       (b) Section 5928 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``25 percent of the basic pay of the 
     employee'' both places it appears the following: ``or 35 
     percent of the basic pay of the employee in the case of an 
     employee of the United States Agency for International 
     Development''.
       (c) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall 
     take effect on October 1, 2003, and shall apply with respect 
     to post differentials and danger pay allowances paid for 
     months beginning on or after that date.


                           amendment no. 2006

 (Purpose: To state the sense of Congress on the use of small, locall-
  owned air transport providers to provide for the delivery by air of 
                       assistance under the bill)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:


   sense of congress on contracting for delivery of assistance by air

       Sec. 692. It is the sense of Congress that the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development should, to the maximum extent practicable and in 
     a manner consistent with the use of full and open competition 
     (as that term is defined in section 4(6) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(6))), contract 
     with small, domestic air transport providers for purposes of 
     the delivery by air of assistance available under this Act.


                           amendment no. 1973

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the October 15, 2003 
  election in Azerbaijan and require a report on an investigation in 
                              Azerbaijan)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 692. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) International organizations and non-governmental 
     observers, including the Organization for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, the National Democratic Institute, and 
     Human Rights Watch documented widespread government 
     manipulation of the electoral process in advance of the 
     Presidential election held in Azerbaijan on October 15, 2003.
       (2) Such organizations and the Department of State reported 
     widespread vote falsification during the election, including 
     ballot stuffing, fraudulent additions to voter lists, and 
     irregularities with vote tallies and found that election 
     commission members from opposition parties were bullied into 
     signing falsified vote tallies.
       (3) The Department of State issued a statement on October 
     21, 2003 concluding that the irregularities that occurred 
     during the elections ``cast doubt on the credibility of the 
     election's results''.

[[Page 26059]]

       (4) Human Rights Watch reported that government forces in 
     Azerbaijan used excessive force against demonstrators 
     protesting election fraud and that such force resulted in at 
     least one death and injuries to more than 300 individuals.
       (5) Following the elections, the Government of Azerbaijan 
     arrested more than 330 individuals, many of whom are leaders 
     and rank-and-file members of opposition parties in 
     Azerbaijan, including individuals who served as observers and 
     polling-station officials who refused to sign vote tallies 
     from polling stations that the individuals believed were 
     fraudulent.
       (6) The national interest of the United States in promoting 
     stability in the Caucasus and Central Asia and in winning the 
     war on terrorism is best protected by maintaining 
     relationships with democracies committed to the rule of law.
       (7) The credible reports of fraud and intimidation cast 
     serious doubt on the legitimacy of the October 15, 2003 
     Presidential election in Azerbaijan and on the victory of 
     Ilham Aliev in such election.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President and the Secretary of State should urge 
     the Government of Azerbaijan to create an independent 
     commission, with participation from the Organization for 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe, 
     to investigate the fraud and intimidation surrounding the 
     October 15, 2003 election in Azerbaijan, and to hold a new 
     election if such a commission finds that a new election is 
     warranted;
       (2) the violence that followed the election should be 
     condemned and should be investigated in a full and impartial 
     investigation;
       (3) the perpetrators of criminal acts related to the 
     election, including Azerbaijani police, should be held 
     accountable; and
       (4) the Government of Azerbaijan should immediately release 
     from detention all members of opposition political parties 
     who were arrested for peacefully expressing political 
     opinions.
       (c) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General, shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee of Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     on the investigation of the murder of United States democracy 
     worker John Alvis. Such report shall include--
       (1) a description of the steps taken by the Government of 
     Azerbaijan to further such investigation and bring to justice 
     those responsible for the murder of John Alvis;
       (2) a description of the actions of the Government of 
     Azerbaijan to cooperate with United States agencies involved 
     in such investigation; and
       (3) any recommendations of the Secretary for furthering 
     progress of such investigation.


                           amendment no. 2007

(Purpose: An amendment requiring a report on a USAID mission in Sierra 
                                 Leone)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:


                         report on sierra leone

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations and Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations and Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives on the feasibility of 
     establishing a United States mission in Sierra Leone.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2008

 (Purpose: To provide a clarification with respect to the availability 
   of funds for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic 
                             Energy Agency)

       On page 40, line 18, insert after ``Commission'' the 
     following: ``and that are not necessary to make the United 
     States contribution to the Commission in the amount assessed 
     for fiscal year 2004''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2009

Purpose: To require a report on a strategy for promoting stability and 
               improving the quality of life in Somalia)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

                           report on somalia

       Sec. 692. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to 
     the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives a report on a 
     strategy for engaging with competent and responsible 
     authorities and organizations within Somalia, including in 
     Somaliland, to strengthen local capacity and establish 
     incentives for communities to seek stability.
       (b) The report shall describe a multi-year strategy for--
       (1) increasing access to primary and secondary education 
     and basic health care services;
       (2) supporting efforts underway to establish clear systems 
     for effective regulation and monitoring of Somali hawala, or 
     informal banking, establishments; and
       (3) supporting initiatives to rehabilitate the livestock 
     export sector in Somalia.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2010

 (Purpose: To provide for the designation of the Global Fund to Fight 
 AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria under the International Organizations 
                            Immunities Act)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

designation of the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria 
          under the international organizations immunities act

       Sec. 692. The International Organizations Immunities Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:
       ``Sec. 16. The provisions of this title may be extended to 
     the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 
     the same manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same 
     conditions, as they may be extended to a public international 
     organization in which the United States participates pursuant 
     to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress 
     authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for 
     such participation.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2011

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the Carter Center's Guinea Worm 
                          Eradication Program)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7 insert the following new 
     section:


                    guinea worm eradication program

       Sec. 692. Of the funds made available in title II under the 
     headings ``child survival and health programs fund'' and 
     ``development assistance'', not less than $5,000,000 may be 
     made available for the Carter Center's Guinea Worm 
     Eradication Program.


                           amendment no. 2012

   (Purpose: To clarify the criteria to be considered in determining 
            eligibility for Millennium Challenge assistance)

       On page 46, line 15, insert after ``resources'' the 
     following: ``and to providing opportunities for the inclusion 
     of persons with disabilities''.


                           Amendment No. 2013

(Purpose: To fund enhanced enforcement of intellectual property rights 
                         in foreign countries)

       On page 32, line 10, before the period insert ``: Provided 
     further, That $5,000,000 of amounts made available under this 
     heading shall be for combating piracy of United States 
     intellectual property''.


                           amendment no. 2014

 (Purpose: To set aside an amount for grants to media organizations to 
 support broadcasting that promotes human rights and democracy in Iran)

       Beginning on page 78, line 25, strike ``funds'' and all 
     that follows through ``Iran:'' on page 79, line 3, and insert 
     the following: ``not to exceed $5,000,000 of such funds may 
     be used in coodination with the Middle East Partnership 
     Initiative for making grants to Educational, Humanitarian and 
     Nongovernmental Organizations and individuals inside Iran to 
     support the advancement of democracy and human rights in 
     Iran.


                           Amendment No. 2015

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the development of 
                           democracy in Iran)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 692. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Islamic Republic of Iran is neither free nor fully 
     democratic, and undemocratic institutions, such as the 
     Guardians Council, thwart the will of the Iranian people.
       (2) There is ongoing repression of journalists, students, 
     and intellectuals in Iran, women in Iran are deprived of 
     their internationally recognized human rights, and religious 
     freedom is not respected under the laws of Iran.
       (3) The Department of State asserted in its ``Patterns of 
     Global Terrorism 2002'' report released on April 30, 2003, 
     that Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism 
     and that Iran continues to provide funding, safe-haven, 
     training, and weapons to known terrorist groups, notably 
     Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the 
     Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
       (4) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found 
     that Iran has failed to accurately disclose all elements of 
     its nuclear program. The IAEA is engaged in efforts to 
     determine the extent, origin and implications of Iranian 
     nuclear activities that were not initially reported to the 
     IAEA.
       (5) There have been credible reports of Iran harboring Al-
     Qaeda fugitives and permitting the passage of terrorist 
     elements into Iraq.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that it should be the 
     policy of the United States to--
       (1) support transparent, full democracy in Iran;
       (2) support the rights of the Iranian people to choose 
     their system of government.
       (3) condemn the brutal treatment and imprisonment and 
     torture of Iranian civilians expressing political dissent;

[[Page 26060]]

       (4) call upon the Government of Iran to comply fully with 
     requests by the International Atomic Energy Agency for 
     information and to immediately suspend all activities related 
     to the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery 
     systems;
       (5) demand that al Qaeda members be immediately turned over 
     to governments requesting their extradition; and
       (6) demand that Iran prohibit and prevent the passage of 
     armed elements into Iraq and cease all activities to 
     undermine the Iraqi Governing Council and the reconstruction 
     of Iraq.


                    Amendment No. 1998, as modified

   (Purpose: To ensure that women and children have access to basic 
protection and assistance services in complex humanitarian emergencies)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . (a) None of the funds made available by title II 
     under the heading ``migration and refugee assistance'', or 
     ``united states emergency refugee and migration assistance 
     fund'' to provide assistance to refugees or internally 
     displaced persons may be provided to an organization that has 
     failed to adopt a code of conduct consistent with the Inter-
     Agency Standing Committee Task Force on Protection From 
     Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crises six core 
     principles for the protection of beneficiaries of 
     humanitarian assistance.
       (b) In administering the amounts made available for the 
     accounts described in subsection (a), the Secretary of State 
     and Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall incorporate specific policies 
     and programs for the purpose of identifying specific needs 
     of, and particular threats to, women and children at the 
     various stages of a complex humanitarian emergency, 
     especially at the onset of such emergency.
       (c) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committees on Appropriations a report on activities 
     of the Government of the United States to protect women and 
     children affected by a complex humanitarian emergency. The 
     report shall include--
       (1) an assessment of the specific protection needs of women 
     and children at the various stages of a complex humanitarian 
     emergency;
       (2) a description of which agencies and offices of the 
     United States Government are responsible for addressing each 
     aspect of such needs and threats; and
       (3) guidelines and recommendations for improving United 
     States and international systems for the protection of women 
     and children during a complex humanitarian emergency.


                           amendment no. 2016

  (Purpose: To obtain assurance and a timetable for payments of U.S. 
                contractors by the Egyptian Government)

       On page 17, line 18 after the first comma add the 
     following:
       ``That the Government of Egypt should promptly provide the 
     United States Embassy in Cairo with assurances that it will 
     honor contracts entered into with United States companies in 
     a timely manner: Provided further,''


                           amendment no. 2017

  (The amendment No. 2017 is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 2018

                 (Purpose: Democracy Building in Cuba)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:


                       Democracy Building In Cuba

       Sec. 692. (a) Of the funds appropriated in Title II, under 
     the heading ``Transition Initiatives'' not more than 
     $5,000,000 shall be available for individuals and independent 
     nongovernmental organizations to support democracy-building 
     efforts for Cuba, including the following:
       (1) Published and informational material, such as books, 
     videos, and cassettes, on transitions to democracy, human 
     rights, and market economics, to be made available to 
     independent democratic groups in Cuba.
       (2) Humanitarian assistance to victims of political 
     repression, and their families.
       (3) Support for democratic and human rights groups in Cuba.
       (4) Support for visits and permanent deployment of 
     independent international human rights monitors in Cuba.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``independent nongovernmental organization'' 
     means an organization that the Secretary of State determines, 
     not less than 15 days before any obligation of funds made 
     available under this section to the organization, is a 
     charitable or nonprofit nongovernmental organization that is 
     not an agency or instrumentality of the Cuban Government.
       (2) The term ``individuals'' means a Cuban national in 
     Cuba, including a political prisoner and the family of such 
     prisoner, who is not an official of the Cuban Government or 
     of the ruling political party in Cuba, as defined in section 
     4(10) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
     (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023(10)).
       (c) The notification requirements of section 634A of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1) shall apply 
     to any allocation or transfer of funds made pursuant to this 
     section.


                           Amendment No. 2019

       On page 23, line 3, before the colon, insert the following:
       : Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading, funds shall be made available to the World 
     Health Organization's HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria 
     Cluster.
       On page 23, line 8, before the period, insert the 
     following:
       : Provided further, That the Coordinator should seek to 
     ensure that an appropriate percent of the budget for 
     prevention and treatment programs of the Global Fund to Fight 
     AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is made available to support 
     technical assistance to ensure the quality of such programs.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 2004

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on August 31, 2002, two American 
schoolteachers and one Indonesian citizen who were working at an 
international school for the children of Freeport McMoRan's mine 
employees were killed, and eight more Americans were wounded, when they 
were ambushed on a mountain road in Indonesia. Indonesian garrisons 
reportedly controlled all access to the remote road where the attack 
occurred. Police reports indicated that the Indonesian military was 
very likely involved in the attack, but the investigation was then 
turned over to that same military, where it has stalled. The Indonesian 
military, to date, has proven unwilling to fully cooperate with the 
FBI.
  The survivors of the attack and the families of the murdered want 
their government to insist that Indonesia cooperate in uncovering the 
truth about the ambush and in bringing those responsible to justice. 
The Senate should support them.
  The House already has. Congressman Hefley of Colorado offered an 
amendment linking resolution of this issue to Indonesia's access to the 
International Military Education and Training program when the House 
considered the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. His amendment 
was accepted by unanimous consent. The Senate should send an equally 
unequivocal signal.
  Today I offered an amendment, with the support of Senators Campbell 
and Wyden, to do just that. I appreciate the support of the managers, 
Senators McConnell and Leahy, who have accepted this amendment into the 
larger bill. I also appreciate the efforts of Senator Allard, who 
shares my interest in this issue.
  My amendment is not out of step with current policy. I would like to 
call my colleagues' attention to an article from the October 23 edition 
of the Australian Financial Review. The article states that, during 
their recent talks in Bali, ``Mr. Bush told Mrs. Megawati military 
relations could not resume until Jakarta had completed a full 
investigation into the killing of two Americans near the Freeport mine 
in Timika in Indonesia's Papua province last year.'' Our President was 
right to make that point. There can be no ``business as usual'' when it 
comes to the murder of American citizens, and there can be no 
``business as usual'' until the FBI has received full cooperation, and 
any perpetrators uncovered by the investigation are held accountable 
for their actions.
  This amendment simply makes it clear that the Senate wholeheartedly 
endorses that policy. It states that the full normalization of the 
military relationship between the United States and Indonesia cannot 
begin until the FBI has received full cooperation, not partial 
cooperation, in its investigation, and individuals found to be 
responsible are brought to justice. I am pleased that the Senate has 
taken action to make certain that our resolve is firm and our signal 
perfectly clear.

[[Page 26061]]




                           Amendment No. 2020

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I also have an amendment by Senator 
Feingold that has been approved on both sides. I send the amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 2020.

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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:

 (Purpose: To provide funds to support the development of responsible 
        justice and reconciliation mechanisms in central Africa)

       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

  responsible justice and reconciliation mechanisms in central africa

       Sec. 692. (a) Of the funds appropriated under title II 
     under the heading ``economic support fund'', $12,000,000 
     should be made available to support the development of 
     responsible justice and reconciliation mechanisms in the 
     Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and 
     Uganda, including programs to increase awareness of gender-
     based violence and improve local capacity to prevent and 
     respond to such violence.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am aware of no opposition to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2020) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gregg 
be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1968 relating to the Leahy 
amendment on war crimes in Africa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are very close to completing the 
bill. We have a couple of problems on this side that are not yet worked 
out. We have a few more amendments we are working on which we are going 
to clear tonight. For the moment, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1966

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few comments 
about the DeWine-Durbin amendment. It is well meaning. It is dealing 
with a critical subject that I am particularly interested in: the 
spread of AIDS in Africa.
  I think we can do better in a lot of ways about how to confront that 
issue. I appreciate Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy today agreeing 
to an amendment that I proposed to deal with the medical transmission 
of AIDS. But I would just say a couple of things here.
  We are moving to a historic increase in the amount of money we are 
spending for AIDS. The $15 billion we have approved is quite a 
significant increase in this important effort throughout the world, 
particularly in Africa.
  If this amendment is passed, it would add another $289 million to the 
$2 billion that was requested by the President. I would like to offer 
into the Record and quote from a letter dated October 16 to Chairman 
Stevens of the Appropriations Committee from Mr. Joseph O'Neill, deputy 
coordinator and chief medical officer, Office of the Global AIDS 
Coordinator.
  As I said, this is in his letter of October 16:

       Dear Chairman Stevens: It is my understanding that an 
     amendment regarding funding for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and 
     malaria may be offered today to the Fiscal Year 2004 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill currently under 
     consideration on the Senate floor.
       I want to reiterate the Administration's strong support for 
     the Fiscal Year 2004 budget request of $2 billion for all 
     international HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria activities, 
     including $200 million for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis and Malaria, as part of the President's larger 
     commitment to spend $15 billion over the next five years 
     through the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. I also want to 
     highlight that it is by careful design that the President's 
     Fiscal Year 2004 budget request is for $2 billion.
       The cornerstone of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS 
     Relief is its focused approach to use $9 billion in new 
     funding over the next five years to bring comprehensive and 
     integrated HIV/AIDS prevention, care and large-scale 
     antiretroviral treatment to 14 countries in Africa and the 
     Caribbean. These countries are home to nearly 70 percent of 
     HIV-infected persons in Africa and the Caribbean and 50 
     percent of the HIV-infected persons in the world. There are 
     considerable challenges inherent in meeting the bold goals 
     the President has set for these 14 countries which must be 
     addressed in the early years of implementation. We believe it 
     is important to ramp up spending on these countries in a 
     focused manner, increasing the amount spent each year to 
     efficiently and effectively create the necessary training, 
     technology, and infrastructure base needed to deliver 
     appropriate long-term medical treatment in a sustainable and 
     accountable way.

  That is a mouthful, but I think it says some valuable things. This 
administration believes we have to effectively utilize the money, and 
it takes some time. It is certainly necessary for training, technology, 
and infrastructure that there be a base of that before we can fully 
implement and spend this extra amount of money we intend to spend.
  It goes on to say:

       Similarly, the U.S. Government support for the Global Fund 
     to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is strong. Currently, 
     the United States is responsible for 40 percent of all 
     contributions made to the Global Fund. We have reached a 
     critical time in the Global Fund's development, and other 
     nations must join the United States in supporting the work of 
     the Global Fund.
       For the reasons stated above, the Administration strongly 
     opposes any efforts to increase funding beyond the $2 billion 
     requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget. I 
     appreciate your support on this issue and look forward to the 
     continued strong bipartisan support of the Senate in ensuring 
     the success of this lifesaving initiative. It is signed: 
     Joseph F. O'Neill, MD, Deputy Coordinator and Chief Medical 
     Officer, Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator.

  One of our Senators, Mr. Alexander, on September 3 made this 
statement. It has a lot of truth to it. He came back from a trip to 
Africa. He wrote an op-ed piece. He gave 10 very wise and practical 
bits of advice to the leadership in this AIDS effort on the Senate 
floor on September 3. This is one of his final bits of advice on how to 
handle the situation.

       Finally, move fast, but do not spend too fast. I imagine we 
     are going to have a pretty good debate about that in the 
     Senate. I have already heard some people say let's spend $2 
     billion and others say let's spend $2.5 and others say let's 
     spend $3 billion. The fact is, we are going to spend $15 
     billion of taxpayers' money in fighting HIV/AIDS in 14 
     countries and the Caribbean. We are going to do it over 5 
     years. We need to keep in mind that the African system cannot 
     absorb too much money too quickly. There are treatment 
     guidelines to prepare and to teach. They are very 
     complicated. There is a staff to recruit. There are patients 
     to find and persuade. There are health care organizations to 
     establish.

  This amendment unfortunately is not offset. I would be very 
interested in seeing if we could fund this or we could utilize this 
money. I am very reluctant to not support an amendment Senator DeWine 
has worked so hard on. He is a person committed to doing the right 
thing. He is a person committed to fighting AIDS. He wants to see us do 
even more than we are doing. I respect that. I admire him terrifically. 
He has been around this world. He has met people who are suffering. He 
wants to help, as we all do.
  But the problem is, we agreed to a budget. I serve on the Budget 
Committee. That budget is a very serious matter. We decided we could 
spend only so much money. This foreign operations bill has a limit on 
the amount of money we have agreed to spend in foreign operations. If 
this amendment were to frame itself in terms of having an offset, that 
it would fund this $289 million out of the billions of dollars in this 
account and would show where we

[[Page 26062]]

could withdraw and reduce some of those other accounts, I would be very 
tempted to support Senator DeWine's amendment. Unfortunately, it does 
not. It spends on top of the budget. It increases and breaks the 
budget. It is $289 million above the amount we have agreed we could 
afford to spend. I can't see us doing that.
  There are so many good ideas here. There are so many things we can do 
in this country and outside of this country. We have another increase 
in spending this year in our Federal appropriations bills. We would all 
like to spend more on projects than we are able to. But we have an 
increase that is not slashing our budget. We are not cutting our 
budget, even though we are going to set a record this year for deficit 
spending. We are going to set a record in deficit spending this year. 
But we can't continue to break the budget we fought so hard to create, 
a budget most of us committed to staying with.
  Maybe somewhere, as this process goes along, there can be some 
offsets that can help increase funding for the Global AIDS Program. I 
hope so. But I have, as so many have, voted against extra spending for 
things I care about--IDEA, kids in school, education, highways, matters 
I believe in and care about, when they exceed our budget. I have not 
been able to support them. I will not be able to support this one.
  I know all of us have priorities, items we care passionately about. I 
certainly do. I know Senators DeWine and Durbin do. I respect their 
concerns and their passion. We are going to have a huge increase in 
spending for HIV/AIDS in Africa. It is the right thing to do. I have 
had two hearings in the HELP Committee on which I am a member on the 
AIDS problem in Africa. I have concluded we can do more for medical 
care. The amendment I crafted deals with rearranging the moneys we plan 
to expend to focus on that problem which can result in the greatest 
immediate decline in infections of any other action we could take. I 
cannot go along with breaking the budget on this matter. I hope we can 
work on it. I will certainly be willing to work with the Senator and we 
will see what we can do to increase this funding as we can.
  The budget is an important matter. We don't need to get in the habit 
of breaking it. I will not vote to break it in this instance.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  reforestation program in afghanistan

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Chairman McConnell for the hard 
work he has put into the Fiscal Year 2004 Foreign Operations and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and 
he has done an excellent job balancing competing interests within the 
confines of a limited budget allocation.
  I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee regarding the development of a reforestation program in 
Afghanistan. In this appropriations bill, with the adoption of an 
amendment the chairman and ranking member and I have worked on, $5 
million is to further a reforestation program in Afghanistan. I 
recently traveled to the Middle East with the chairman and witnessed 
first hand the devastating conditions of the natural landscape in 
Afghanistan.
  As the chairman of Public Lands and Forestry Subcommittee, it saddens 
me to see the degradation that has occurred to the natural landscape of 
this country. Years of war and poverty have put a great strain on the 
ecosystems of this country. It is time to put an end to the denuding of 
the hillsides and turn them back to their brilliant shades of green.
  I would like to see this funding be used to develop a reforestation 
program for the country. I think it is important to cultivate the 
native species to replenish and rejuvenate the area to provide 
additional opportunities for recreation, wildlife, and business 
development. The intent of this provision is that the expertise and 
skill of land grant universities, such as the University of Idaho, 
should be used to assist in developing this program. I also feel that 
this is an area in which the private sector could lend their assistant 
with both the development of the program and the reforestation of the 
country. Again, there are also leading edge forest products companies 
in my State like Potlatch Corporation and Boise Cascade who also have 
expertise of their own and a long time working relationship with the 
university.
  This is an opportunity, through active management, to change the fate 
of the natural landscape of Afghanistan.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I commend the Senator for his interest in this project 
and look forward to the development of the reforestation program.


            Landmine Awareness Programs for Afghan Children

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for over two decades, the Afghan people have 
endured conflict and internal unrest. And although they are now in the 
process of rebuilding their country, for many, safety remains elusive. 
One reason is the continued presence of landmines, which were put into 
use by occupying powers and governments such as the Soviet Union and 
Taliban. Unfortunately, these weapons, whose danger is recognized by 
nations throughout the world, remain a major threat to the safety of 
ordinary Afghans--especially children.
  I know my colleague, Senator Leahy, has been a leader in calling the 
world's attention to the dangers created by land mines and the 
obligation of the United States and other governments to help ensure 
that innocent civilians, especially children, are not killed or 
critically injured by land mines and unexploded ordnance left behind 
after armed conflict ceases.
  There are now over 10 million land mines throughout Afghanistan. This 
number is truly staggering. It is estimated that the process of 
clearing these devices could take up to 25 years--almost three decades. 
These land mines pose a tremendous danger to the children of 
Afghanistan. As my colleagues may be aware, Afghan children often 
perform a variety of chores that entails their passage through mine-
laden fields. In fact, as several types of mines are small and brightly 
colored, children can be tempted to pick them up or to play with them. 
Too often, young Afghans die or lose a limb as a result of landmine-
related incidents. Indeed, every month, 150 Afghans are injured by 
landmines, and many of these are children.
  We need to help these innocent children. We need to protect them not 
only from the horrors of war, but from the dangers that are left 
behind. Let me call to the attention of my colleagues an ideal 
organization to further this effort. Its name is ``No Strings,'' and it 
is a new aid organization that seeks to use theater and puppetry to 
provide life-saving education about landmines to children in 
Afghanistan. ``No Strings'' is composed of two main groups: one with a 
broad background in humanitarian relief organizations, and the other 
with extensive experience in the field of children's educational 
entertainment and puppetry. I believe my colleague, Senator Leahy also 
is aware of this organization.
  I had intended to offer an amendment so that, ``No Strings''--and 
other worthy organizations--would be able to engage Afghan children and 
teach them life saving mine safety lessons. Clearly, we must act in 
order to help to protect a generation of Afghans. However, since 
Senator Leahy has generously offered to join with me in discussing this 
matter with appropriate officials at the State Department to encourage 
the Department to fund innovative programs like ``No Strings,'' I will 
withhold offering the amendment at this time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Connecticut 
that we need to give special attention to children in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere who are being put at risk by landmines and unexploded 
ordnances that are a dangerous byproduct of the civil conflict in that 
country. Creative ways to teach children about the dangers that 
landmines and unexploded ordnances pose is critically needed to prevent 
any more innocent Afghani

[[Page 26063]]

children from being killed or crippled. I believe that organizations, 
such as ``No Strings'' which has been mentioned by Senator Dodd, that 
are prepared to develop novel programs to protect children from the 
dangers of landmines are worthy of US support. I look forward to 
working with Senator Dodd in support of funding for such important 
projects.


                  international water security center

  Mr. LEAHY. I would like to ask the assistant minority leader two or 
three questions about international water security. First, what do we 
mean by water security and what is its relevance to foreign operations?
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the question asked by my friend, the senior 
Senator from Vermont. As you know, water is vital for the life and 
health of people and ecosystems and a basic requirement for the 
development of countries. Yet, around the world, people lack access to 
adequate and safe water to meet their most basic needs. Water resources 
and the related ecosystems that provide and sustain them are under 
threat from pollution, unsustainable use, land-use changes, climate 
change and many other forces. Water shortages and degradation 
disproportionately affect arid regions of the world, many of which lack 
the technical and financial wherewithal to effectively address the 
problems. Water and poverty are closely related. In areas of water 
scarcity, the poor are hit first and hardest. Conversely, water is the 
single factor most limiting economic development in many arid regions. 
There is, of course, a huge diversity of needs and situations around 
the world, but together we have one common goal: to provide water 
security. This means ensuring that freshwater, coastal and related 
ecosystems are protected and improved; that sustainable development and 
political stability are promoted; and that every person has access to 
enough safe water at an affordable cost to lead a healthy and 
productive life.
  Water security is closely linked to national security. As we in the 
west are fond of saying, ``whiskey is for drinking; water is for 
fighting.'' That may sound tongue-in-cheek, but in reality, there 
exists a long history of international tensions and conflicts over 
water resources, the use of water systems as weapons during war, and 
the targeting of water systems during conflicts caused by other 
factors. Strategic areas of the Middle East, South and Central Asia, 
South America and North Africa are plagued by recurring tensions over 
transboundary allocation of scarce water resources.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I understand that over 1 billion people do not have 
access to safe and secure sources of drinking water. Does my friend 
from Nevada have any thoughts on additional actions this subcommittee 
can take to promote international water security?
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the question from my friend, the senior 
Senator from Kentucky. To achieve water security, we face the serious 
challenges of meeting basic needs, securing the food supply, protecting 
ecosystems, sharing water resources, managing risks, valuing water, and 
involving stakeholders in governing water wisely, while maintaining a 
balance between social, political, cultural, environment needs. The 
challenges are formidable, but so are the opportunities.
  There are many experiences around the world that can be built upon. 
For example, through our experiences in managing scarce water resources 
in the desert State of Nevada, we have gained a valuable knowledge base 
upon which other arid and water-starved regions can build. Scientists 
in our university system are recognized among the foremost world 
leaders in water management in these lands. As an important initiative 
to increase water security, they have prepared an impressive proposal 
to launch an International Water Security Center.
  Mr. LEAHY. What do you envision as the role of an International Water 
Security Center?
  Mr. REID. The center would be a clearinghouse for scientific research 
in support of water conflict resolution. As a focal point for advanced 
research and education in water security issues, it would bring 
together scientists, engineers, water managers, and policy makers from 
arid and other water-starved regions worldwide. Through collaborative 
research exchanges, the center would promote long-term capacity 
building in developing countries, which would benefit from our 
leadership in desalinization, water treatment, hydrologic modeling, 
water-use efficiency, and other technical approaches. The center would 
also support education of young Americans in international water policy 
and security, an area of expertise that we will certainly need in the 
future. The wide spectrum of cultures and landscapes would broaden the 
outlook of everyone involved, fostering the multidisciplinary 
approaches needed to ensure project viability and longevity.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Where might the center be based?
  Mr. REID. The University and Community College System of Nevada would 
provide an excellent home for the center. Through the research and 
educational programs undertaken by its major institutions, this 
University System is known throughout the world for its expertise in 
water resource and watershed management. For example, the Desert 
Research Institute, or DRI, is a unique blend of academia and 
entrepreneurship. Grounded in fundamental research, DRI and its Center 
for Watersheds and Environmental Sustainability apply scientific 
understanding to the management of scarce water resources in countries 
around the world while addressing needs for economic diversification 
and science-based education.
  The University of Nevada, Reno, and University of Nevada, Las Vegas 
collaborate with DRI and conduct nationally recognized research and 
educational programs in their own right. The University of Nevada, 
Reno, UNR, has one of the Nation's largest and well-known education 
programs in the study of groundwater. A new international program at 
UNR sends undergraduate and graduate students to work with local 
villagers in some of the world's most impoverished nations. This 
training works both ways, helping the world's poorest people and 
training American students to work safely and effectively overseas. At 
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, UNLV, the interdisciplinary 
educational program in Water Resource Management considers the 
scientific and engineering aspects of the hydrologic sciences within 
the context of policy and management issues related to water and water 
security. The expertise of UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law in the 
field of water rights and water allocations is also a fundamental to 
this program.
  With its strong tradition of fundamental research and collaboration, 
the University and Community College System of Nevada is perfectly 
poised to host an International Water Security Center. The University 
System is overseen by a chancellor and a 13-member Board of Regents.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much funding is requested and how would it be used?
  Mr. REID. I am requesting an annual appropriation of $1.25 million 
dollars each year for the next 3 years. This funding would be used to 
develop an administrative structure, identify potential collaborators 
and projects, initiate ``seed'' projects, educate and train American 
students in water security, launch research initiatives, and develop 
and implement a plan for continued center activities without the need 
for additional Congressional appropriations. The funding would be 
administered by the University of Nevada Chancellor's office, and made 
available to scientists and researchers throughout the University 
System. The Chancellor's office has a long tradition and expertise in 
administering federal, state and non-profit research grants.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, S. 1426, the fiscal year 2004 Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act 
for 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
provides $18.1 billion in discretionary budget authority and $20.3 
billion in discretionary outlays in fiscal year 2004 for Foreign 
Operations appropriations. This bill contains about two-thirds of total 
international affairs spending in the budget. The bill

[[Page 26064]]

funds U.S. Export and Investment Assistance, Bilateral Economic 
Assistance, Military Assistance, and Multilateral Economic Assistance.
  The bill equals the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget 
authority and is $9 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The 
bill provides $796 million less in budget authority and $713 million 
less in outlays than the President's budget request. The bill provides 
$5.6 billion in budget authority less and $148 million in outlays more 
than the 2003 enacted level including 2003 supplemental appropriations. 
Excluding those supplemental appropriations, the bill provides a $1.866 
billion increase over last year, or 11.5 percent.
  I am concerned about a proposed amendment that would add funds for 
Global HIV/AIDs programs without providing an offset within the bill. 
Any amendments that add funding without offsets will have a budget act 
violation and I will not be able to support them.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee 
scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

S. 1426, FOREIGN OPERATIONS APPROPRIATIONS, 2004.--SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                          SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                 [Fiscal year 2004, dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority.............       18,093           44       18,137
    Outlays......................       20,294           44       20,338
Senate Committee allocation:
    Budget authority.............       18,093           44       18,137
    Outlays......................       20,303           44       20,347
2003 level:
    Budget authority.............       23,708           45       23,753
    Outlays......................       20,146           45       20,191
President's request:
    Budget authority.............       18,889           44       18,933
    Outlays......................       21,007           44       21,051
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............       17,119           44       17,163
    Outlays......................       20,182           44       20,226
 
                    Senate-Reported Bill Compared To
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............            0            0            0
    Outlays......................           -9            0           -9
2003 level:
    Budget authority.............       -5,615           -1       -5,616
    Outlays......................          148           -1          147
President's request:
    Budget authority.............         -796            0         -796
    Outlays......................         -713            0         -713
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............          974            0          974
    Outlays......................          112            0          112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I take a brief moment to draw the 
attention of my colleagues to the situation in Cambodia, and in 
particular to the continued courage and determination of the Alliance 
of Democrats.
  The Alliance--which consists of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party and 
the royalist FUNCINPEC party--has taken a bold stand for freedom in 
Cambodia in the wake of flawed parliamentary elections last July. 
Despite intimidation and pressure from the ruling Cambodian People's 
Party, CPP, the Alliance is refusing to enter into a coalition 
government that is led by Prime Minister Hun Sen--himself an enemy of 
democracy and justice.
  Having met with Alliance leaders in Washington not too long ago, and 
having personally traveled to Cambodia in 1998, I can appreciate their 
refusal to allow Hun Sen to continue to mislead that country. In the 
past, senior Alliance leaders have been targets of assassination 
attempts, a bloody coup d'etat staged by the CPP, and imprisonment and 
political exile. Under Hun Sen's misrule, terrorists, criminal triads 
and pederasts find a haven in Cambodia. Corruption is the norm in that 
country, as are politically motivated killings.
  It might interest my colleagues to know that there have been two high 
profile shootings in Phnom Penh over the past several weeks, both 
victims being affiliated with the FUNCINPEC party. Reporter Chour 
Chetharith was murdered outside the Ta Prohm radio station. According 
to press reports, the ``execution-style killing followed a warning by 
Prime Minister Hun Sen . . . that Ta Prohm should stop broadcasting 
programs critical of his speeches.''
  Pop singer Touch Sunnich was shot a few short days ago--her only 
crime apparently being a supporter of non-CPP party. My heart goes out 
to these victims and their families.
  It is not enough for the diplomatic community to condemn this 
killing. It is past time that someone is held accountable for all the 
lawlessness, violence, and corruption that unfortunately has become the 
norm in Cambodia. I offer to my colleagues that the Alliance is trying 
to do just that by holding Hun Sen accountable--and they deserve the 
full backing and support of the international community.
  Let me close by expressing my great disappointment with the U.S. 
Embassy in Phnom Penh. Recently, they issued a visa to travel to the 
United States to a notorious human rights abuser and gangster in 
Cambodia--Chief of the National Police Hok Lundy. Why the Embassy would 
issue a visa to someone considered by many of his own compatriots to be 
a terrorist is beyond me. It is no understatement that Hok Lundy is the 
Li Peng of Cambodia--and should be held accountable for the violence 
following the 1998 elections.


          Amendments Nos. 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there are four remaining amendments 
that have been cleared on both sides: One by Senator Brownback 
providing funds for certain programs in Tibet; Senator Leahy, 
additional funds for the related accounts; Senator Kennedy regarding 
HIV/AIDS; Senator Frist, myself, Senator Leahy, technical 
clarifications on HIV/AIDS. I send these four amendments to the desk 
and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc.
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2021

  (Purpose: To provide for the use of not less than $3,000,000 by the 
               Bridge Fund for certain programs in Tibet)

       On page 77, beginning on line 20, strike ``not to exceed 
     $3,000,000 may be made available to nongovernmental 
     organizations to support activities which preserve cultural 
     traditions and promote sustainable development and 
     environmental conservation in Tibetan communities in the 
     Tibetan Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan communities in 
     China:'' and insert ``not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be 
     provided to nongovernmental organizations to support 
     activities which preserve cultural traditions and promote 
     sustainable development and environmental conservation in 
     Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and in 
     other Tibetan communities in China, of which up to $3,000,000 
     may be made available for the Bridge Fund of the Rockefeller 
     Philanthropic Advisors to support such activities:''.


                           amendment no. 2022

       On page 53, line 21, strike ``$8,898,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following: $898,000
       On page 55, line 26, strike ``$314,550,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following: $322,550,000


                           amendment no. 2023

  (Purpose: To provide for the disclosure of prices paid for HIV/AIDS 
                   medicines in developing countries)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. The Secretary of State should make publicly 
     available prices paid to purchase HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals, 
     antiviral therapies, and other appropriate medicines, 
     including medicines to treat opportunistic infections, for 
     the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS and the prevention of 
     mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS in developing 
     countries--
       (1) through the use of funds appropriated under this Act; 
     and
       (2) to the extent available, by--
       (A) the World Health Organization; and
       (B) the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
     Malaria.


                           amendment no. 2024

     (Purpose: To modify provisions relating to activities for the 
            prevention, treatment, and control of HIV/AIDS)

       On page 22, strike line 3 and insert the following:


              ACTIVITIES TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS GLOBALLY FUND

       On page 22, line 10, insert ``except for the United States 
     Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 
     2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) as amended by 
     section 692 of this Act,'' after ``law,''.
       On page 74, line 22, insert ``except for the United States 
     Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 
     2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) as amended by 
     section 692 of this Act'' before the colon.
       On page 147, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following 
     new section:

[[Page 26065]]




                        assistance for hiv/aids

       Sec. 692. The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (117 Stat. 711; 22 
     U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 202(d)(4)(A), by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(vi) for the purposes of clause (i), `funds contributed 
     to the Global Fund from all sources' means funds contributed 
     to the Global Fund at any time during fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008 that are not contributed to fulfill a commitment 
     made for a fiscal year prior to fiscal year 2004.'';
       (2) in section 202(d)(4)(B), by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iv) Notwithstanding clause (i), after July 1 of each of 
     the fiscal years 2004 through 2008, any amount made available 
     under this subsection that is withheld by reason of 
     subparagraph (A)(i) is authorized to be made available to 
     carry out sections 104A, 104B, and 104C of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by title III of this Act). 
     ''; and
       (3) in section 301(f), by inserting ``, except that this 
     subsection shall not apply to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis and Malaria or to any United Nations voluntary 
     agency'' after ``trafficking''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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.

                          ____________________