[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16565-16592]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3057, which the clerk will report.
  The journal clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3057) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Landrieu amendment No. 1245, to express the sense of 
     Congress regarding the use of funds for orphans, and 
     displaced and abandoned children.
       Chambliss amendment No. 1271, to prevent funds from being 
     made available to provide assistance to a country which has 
     refused to extradite certain individuals to the United 
     States.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me point out to all Members of the 
Senate that in spite of our best efforts to finish the State-Foreign 
Operations bill last night, right at the end, the amendments began to 
multiply. That is the bad news. But the good news is I can report that 
on the Republican side, shortly, we will be down to two amendments, one 
of which may--I repeat, may--require a rollcall vote. And I hope my 
friend and colleague Senator Leahy is trying to narrow down amendments 
likewise on the Democratic side.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lugar be added as cosponsor to amendment 1299, which the Senate adopted 
last night.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1293

  Mr. McCONNELL. I call up amendment No. 1293 and ask for its immediate 
consideration. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Lugar, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1293.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To promote reform of the multilateral development banks)

       On page 326, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

            TITLE VII--MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANK REFORM

     SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Multilateral development bank.--The term ``multilateral 
     development bank'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1622 of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 
     U.S.C. 262p-5).

     SEC. 7002. ANTICORRUPTION PROPOSALS AND REPORT.

       (a) Proposals.--Not later than September 1, 2006, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall develop proposals, including 
     establishing one or more trusts and a set-aside of loans or 
     grants, to establish a mechanism to assist poor countries in 
     investigations, prosecutions, prevention of fraud and 
     corruption, and other actions regarding fraud and corruption 
     related to a project or program funded by a multilateral 
     development bank.
       (b) Report.--Not later than September 1, 2006, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the proposals required by subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 7003. PROMOTION OF POLICY GOALS AT MULTILATERAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT BANKS.

       Title XV of the International Financial Institutions Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 262o et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1505. PROMOTION OF POLICY GOALS.

       ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
     States Executive Director at each multilateral development 
     bank to use the voice and vote of the United States to inform 
     each such bank and the executive directors of each such bank 
     of the goals of the United States and to ensure that each 
     such bank accomplishes the goals set out in section 1504 of 
     this Act and the following:
       ``(1) Requires the bank's employees, officers, and 
     consultants to make an annual disclosure of financial 
     interests and income of any such person and any other 
     potential source of conflicts of interest.
       ``(2) Links project and program design and results to staff 
     performance appraisals, salaries, and bonuses.
       ``(3) Implements whistleblower and witness protection 
     matching that afforded by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 
     U.S.C. 7201 et seq.), the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App.), and the best practices promoted or required by 
     all international conventions against corruption for internal 
     and lawful public disclosures by the bank's employees and 
     others affected by such bank's operations of misconduct that 
     undermines the bank's mission, and for retaliation in 
     connection with such disclosures.
       ``(4) Implements disclosure programs for firms and 
     individuals participating in projects financed by such bank 
     that are consistent with such programs of the Department of 
     Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(5) Ensures that all loan, credit, guarantee, and grant 
     documents and other agreements with borrowers include 
     provisions for the financial resources and conditionality 
     necessary to ensure that a person or country that obtains 
     financial support from a bank complies with applicable bank 
     policies and national and international laws in carrying out 
     the terms and conditions of such documents and agreements, 
     including bank policies and national and international laws 
     pertaining to the comprehensive assessment and transparency 
     of the activities related to access to information, public 
     health, safety, and environmental protection.
       ``(6) Implements clear procedures setting forth the 
     circumstances under which a person will be barred from 
     receiving a loan, contract, grant, or credit from such bank, 
     shall make such procedures available to the public, and makes 
     the identity of such person available to the public.
       ``(7) Coordinates policies across international 
     institutions on issues including debarment, cross-debarment, 
     procurement, and consultant guidelines, and fiduciary 
     standards so that a person that is debarred by one such bank 
     is subject to a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility to 
     conduct business with any other such bank during the 
     specified ineligibility period.
       ``(8) Requires each borrower, grantee, or contractor, and 
     subsidiaries thereof, to sign a contract to comply with a 
     code of conduct that embodies the relevant standards of 
     section 104 of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (15 
     U.S.C. 78dd-2) and the international conventions against 
     bribery and corruption.
       ``(9) Maintains independent offices of Inspector and 
     Auditor General which report directly to such bank's board of 
     directors and an audit committee with its own additional 
     experts who are independent of management, or access to such 
     experts, to assist it in ensuring quality control.
       ``(10) Implements an internationally recognized internal 
     controls framework supported by adequate staffing, 
     supervision, and technical systems, and subject to external 
     auditor attestations of internal controls, meeting 
     operational objectives, and complying with bank policies.
       ``(11) Ensures independent forensic audits where fraud or 
     other corruption in such bank or its operations, projects, or 
     programs is suspected.
       ``(12) Evaluates publicly, in cooperation with other 
     development bodies, the interim and final results of project 
     and non-project lending and grants on the basis of Millennium 
     Development Goals, the goals of the Organisation for Economic 
     Co-operation and

[[Page 16566]]

     Development related to development, and other established 
     international development goals.
       ``(13) Requires that each candidate for adjustment or 
     budget support loans demonstrate transparent budgetary and 
     procurement processes including legislative and public 
     scrutiny prior to loan or contract agreement.
       ``(14) Requires that before approving any natural resource 
     extraction proposal the affected countries disclose 
     accurately and audit independently all payments and revenues 
     in connection with such extraction or derived from such 
     extraction.
       ``(15) Requires each project where compensation is to be 
     provided to persons adversely impacted by the project include 
     impartial and responsive mechanism to receive and resolve 
     complaints.''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no debate, without objection, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1293) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider and table that motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, we will be voting on final passage 
on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. I want to take this 
opportunity to thank my colleagues for their tremendous work and, in 
particular, Senator McConnell for his stewardship of this bill.
  Diplomacy and foreign policy are the essential pillars of our 
national security. They reflect the values, principles, views, and 
interests of the people we represent, the American people. They are 
central to advancing the U.S. role and our place, our stature, in the 
world.
  America's national security depends on our ability to integrate and 
coordinate all of the elements of our national power. It includes 
diplomacy, intelligence, economic strength, and military might.
  The Foreign Operations bill advances those efforts and demonstrates 
our generosity and our priorities. The legislation provides $9.7 
billion to ensure that the Department of State and other related 
agencies and our personnel serving overseas have the tools, the 
equipment they need to advance America's security.
  In the past year, freedom movements have swept the globe--in Ukraine, 
in Georgia, the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, Lebanon, and the 
Palestinian territories--and have inspired literally millions around 
the world. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt have also taken demonstrable 
steps toward democracy. Having visited most of those countries, and 
having had the opportunity to speak directly to senior officials in 
each, I have seen real changes, impressive changes.
  The spread of democracy unifies our values, unifies our national 
interests. As Americans, we believe every person has the right to live 
in a free society where they can choose their own leaders, have a hand 
in their own destiny, and secure a bright future for their children. 
And democracy, along with all the hope and progress it brings, creates 
peace and stability between the United States and our friends and 
allies.
  The Foreign Operations bill provides $120 million for the Middle East 
Partnership Initiative to help spread democracy among the Arab people. 
By promoting economic, educational, and political reform in the Middle 
East, we marginalize our terrorist enemies. They lose their state-
sponsored safe havens, they lose potential recruits, and they lose the 
ability to exploit political grievances for terrorist gain.
  Democracy provides an engine for the people, not the terrorists, to 
win, to take responsible and peaceful action to better their lives, 
their countries, and hold their leaders accountable. The United States 
must continue to provide support to the activists and reformers in the 
Middle East. These heroes make great sacrifices for the cause of 
freedom, and they are critical allies in our fight against terrorism.
  We must also continue to support our work providing aid and 
humanitarian relief. America leads the world in providing international 
aid. But too often international aid money never reaches the very 
people it is intended to help. It is stolen or wasted by corrupt or 
inefficient governments. That is why this bill strengthens 
accountability requirements. The Millennium Challenge Corporation 
requires recipient governments to take clear steps, verifiable steps, 
to govern justly in an open, transparent democratic way, to invest in 
people by improving education and health care, to promote economic 
freedom so their economies can grow and provide jobs. Against this 
backdrop, aid money can do the most good.
  Today, many throughout the developing world--particularly in Africa, 
where I was 2 weeks ago--suffer from devastating diseases. We know 
them: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria. These deadly diseases have the 
potential to decimate entire populations and to prevent those nations 
from ever becoming modern, prosperous countries.
  The legislation before us allocates $2.9 billion for the President's 
initiative against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Two billion of 
that total is directed to the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative, $400 million 
covers our contribution to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, 
and malaria. In total, the bill allocates $203 million above the budget 
request for this coming fiscal year. These funds are targeted to help 
where it is needed most. They zero in on the 15 countries in Africa, 
Asia, and the Caribbean.
  I again thank my colleagues and the President of the United States 
and the American people for their generosity and for their leadership 
in this great humanitarian effort.
  A number of other health-related programs are also incorporated into 
the foreign operations bill--$1.6 billion has been allocated for the 
Child Survival and Health Programs Fund. This includes $375 million for 
child survival and maternal health, which is an increase of $49 million 
above last year's level. In addition, this funding includes $30 million 
for vulnerable children and an additional $285 million for infectious 
diseases.
  Today, around the world, there are more than 600,000 pregnancy-
related deaths and more than 4 million deaths among newborn babies per 
year. Most of these tragedies are preventable. The Foreign Operations 
bill provides $375 million to prevent these deaths.
  Many of these problems we see around the world stem from the lack of 
available clean drinking water and proper sanitation in many regions of 
the world. Water-related illnesses pose fatal threats to vulnerable 
populations, especially children.
  Every 15 seconds a child dies from a disease contracted from unclean 
water. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 1.1 
billion around the world lack access to clean, safe water sources; 2.6 
billion people lack access to basic sanitation.
  As a result, approximately 1.8 million people die very year from 
diarrheal disease. Ninety percent of those deaths occur in children 
under the age of 5.
  And if we do nothing, with an increasing world population and further 
constraints on our world's water resources, the problem is only 
expected to get worse.
  I commend the assistant majority leader, Senator McConnell, the 
chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, for 
providing $200 million to the U.S. Agency for International Development 
for safe water programs in his bill. Fifty million dollars of that 
amount is targeted to programs in Africa where the need is great.
  Private, nonprofit sector programs are also working hard, including 
the Millennium Water Alliance, Water for People, Water Leaders 
Foundation, and Living Water International. These groups are dedicated 
to delivering comprehensive, safe water technologies throughout the 
globe.

[[Page 16567]]

  Some are building major infrastructures. Some are digging wells and 
providing hand pumps to villages. Others are developing lightweight, 
low-cost, low-energy water purification systems that could be available 
to distribute to communities, schools, and orphanages for combating 
water-related diseases in Africa.
  I commend all of these organizations for their dedication and 
compassion. Together we are working to make this an International 
Decade for Action known. In 10 years, we intend to cut in half the 
number of people around the globe who lack access to safe, clean water.
  Another demonstration of America's compassion is our work with the 
effects of civil strife, especially war and violence. This 
appropriations bill will provide $74 million for the Conflict Response 
Fund to assist in stabilizing and reconstructing countries impacted by 
conflict or civil strife.
  In addition, $900 million is allocated for Migration and Refugee 
Assistance and $40 million for the Emergency Refugee and Migration 
Assistance Fund.
  Unlike many donor countries, the United States strives to ensure that 
foreign assistance is effective, that it is distributed to those who 
need it the most, and that it gets measurable results.
  In addition to foreign aid, the foreign operations bill also 
addresses the most dangerous threats we face today--the spread of 
weapons of mass destruction and the global war on terrorism. This bill 
provides $440 million for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and other 
related programs.
  We are working closely with our friends and allies to secure 
stockpiles of WMD-related materials and technology, and make sure that 
they have the capability to protect these sensitive materials.
  The bill also provides funding and assistance for our coalition 
partners in the global war terrorism. The legislation includes $4.6 
billion for foreign military financing.
  This funding, along with other national resources committed by our 
coalition partners, is essential for improving the capabilities of our 
coalition allies so that they can continue to make their vital 
contributions to this global effort.
  The $86 million allotted for the international military education and 
training programs will ensure that our allies maintain the ability to 
work closely with American forces on the battlefield and take 
independent initiative to the fight against terrorism.
  The United Nations also has an important role to play in the advance 
of democracy and the fight against terror. The world organization 
provides a medium for nations to discuss and resolve differences 
peacefully through dialogue and diplomacy.
  It also monitors particular international agreements to ensure that 
nations are fulfilling their obligations and commitments. The U.N. is 
also critical to organizing and providing humanitarian and other 
assistance to the world's most desperate regions.
  In order to carry out these functions effectively, however, the U.N. 
must undergo serious reform.
  The United Nations needs to take action against its officials who are 
guilty of waste, fraud, and abuse. And it must also take steps to make 
the organization as a whole ore accountable, transparent, and 
efficient.
  The United Nations has many positive contributions yet to make. But, 
in order to fulfill its mission, it must do more to clean house.
  America's foreign policy reflects the values, beliefs and culture of 
the American people and the history of our great Nation. By advancing 
our values abroad, the United States not only makes the world a better 
place, it makes it a safer place, too.
  As a free people, we are duty bound to share the blessings of liberty 
with citizens around the globe.
  Our generation, no less than the one before, is compelled to confront 
the challenges of our times--and to fulfill America's destiny, in the 
words of the Great Emancipator, as mankind's last, best hope.


                                 sudan

  Last night, the Senate passed a resolution to support the fragile 
peace process between the government in Khartoum and the southern 
Sudanese. I applaud my colleagues for their compassion and concern for 
this troubled region of the world.
  The resolution calls upon the U.S. Government to closely monitor the 
peace process now underway. It also focuses our attention to the 
continuing crisis in Darfur, and calls for continued pressure on 
Khartoum to end its genocidal campaign and bring justice to the 
criminals who have ravaged the people and the land of Darfur.
  Eleven days ago, the leaders of Sudan took an historic step.
  John Garang, leader of the Sudanese Liberation Army, returned to the 
capitol of Khartoum for the first time in 21 years to be sworn in as 
Sudan's vice president. Dr. Garang told the cheering crowd over a 
million strong, ``My presence here today in Khartoum is a true signal 
that the war is over.''
  Together, he and President Bashir signed a new interim constitution 
officially forming the National Unity Government of Sudan. Under this 
agreement, Sudan will enter a 6-year interim period. At the 4-year 
mark, nationwide elections will be held at the provincial level, as 
well as for the national legislature. The interim period will culminate 
with a vote by the people of southern Sudan deciding their political 
future.
  After two decades of brutal civil war that has killed 2 million 
people and displaced over 4 million more, north and south are finally 
on the verge of genuine peace.
  It is a fragile moment, but one for celebration.
  Last month, I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Garang in my 
office here in Washington. During our meeting, he emphasized to me that 
for the peace to hold, both parties must fulfill their obligations 
under the peace agreement signed last January.
  He also stressed that pressure from the United States is critical. 
The civil war and its aftermath have created a staggering humanitarian 
crisis. And he is not confident the government in Khartoum will fulfill 
all of its obligations under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Dr. 
Garang firmly believes that U.S. and international sanctions are 
necessary to keep the process moving forward.
  During our meeting, he also told me that we can help him sell the 
peace to the Sudanese people. Our assistance in education, health care, 
and roads, for example, can help show a traumatized Nation the benefits 
of peace over continued violence.
  The road forward will not be easy. Millions have lost their lives in 
20 years of struggle. But the days, weeks and months ahead hold great 
promise not only for the north and south, but for the entire country.
  Nowhere is that hope more needed than in the western region of Darfur
  For 2 years, the Sudanese Government has waged a brutal genocide 
against the Darfur people. Despite United Nations Security Council 
resolutions, and pressure from the international community and 
neighboring countries, the Government of Khartoum continues to kill and 
maim.
  Up to 180,000 innocent victims have died as a result of the 
government-sponsored violence. Two million more have been displaced. 
Entire villages have been burned to the ground.
  Last November, the Khartoum Government agreed to halt the attacks. 
But within hours of the agreement, Sudanese police raided a camp in 
southern Darfur, destroying homes and driving out civilians.
  I have visited the region and have heard the stories first hand.
  Last August, I visited a refugee camp called Touloum in Chad. 
Thousands of refugees are housed in dust-covered tents. Many more live 
in make-shift shelters of gathered wood and plastic sheeting.
  I met with refugees and community leaders. Their testimonials were 
searing.
  I heard the story of a mentally disabled 15-year-old boy being thrown 
into a burning house, and of an old, paralyzed man burned alive in his 
hut.
  I heard stories of women raped in front of their own children, and 
male villagers being summarily executed.

[[Page 16568]]

  I asked one refugee in Touloum what it would take for him to go home. 
He said, ``I'll go if you come with me and stay with me.''
  Last week, the Government of Sudan and the rebels in Darfur signed a 
Declaration of Principles for the Resolution of the Sudanese Conflict 
in Darfur. This agreement provides a framework for negotiations.
  In order for it to work, however, all parties must stop the violence 
now. The conflict will only be resolved through peaceful negotiations 
and dialogue.
  The United Nations has taken limited steps to punish those 
responsible for the atrocities. In March, the U.N. Security Council 
voted to freeze the assets of individuals deemed guilty of committing 
war crimes or breaking cease-fire agreements. It also voted to ban 
these individuals from traveling.
  In addition, the Security Council voted to forbid the Sudanese 
Government from carrying out offensive military flights over Darfur, 
and from sending military equipment into the region without first 
notifying the Council.
  The introduction of troops into Darfur from the African Union is a 
positive development. There are currently 2,400 African Union troops in 
Darfur. By August, that number should go up to 7,700 and by next spring 
12,300. NATO has also agreed to provide logistical support to the 
African Union peacekeepers in Darfur.
  These are hopeful and helpful measures. But more must be done. The 
violence will continue to escalate and the death toll will rise unless, 
and until, the international community takes stronger action against 
Khartoum.
  The world's leaders need to impose more comprehensive sanctions on 
the Sudanese Government, including on its oil industry. Tough and 
intense pressure must be brought to bear.
  The progress between the south of Sudan and Khartoum is promising and 
should guide the way forward in Darfur.
  But time is running out. We cannot ``wait and see.'' The Darfur 
people need our help. They are crying out for support. We must act, 
now, before it is too late and their voices fade to silence.


                                  cuba

  Today, we have an opportunity to assist the Cuban people in their 
struggle for liberty. The Foreign Operations bill under consideration 
provides funding for an airplane to transmit Radio Marti, around the 
clock, providing constant support to those on the island fighting for 
freedom.
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort. Radio Marti has been 
critical in promoting the cause of Cuban liberty.
  Since its inception 20 years ago, Radio Marti has brought news to and 
from the isolated country in defiance of Castro's censors.
  On May 20, 1985, at 5:30 in the morning, Radio Marti launched its 
first broadcast to the Cuban people. Fourteen and a half hours of 
uncensored news reached Cuba from a studio here in Washington, DC, via 
transmitters in Marathon Key.
  Named after the Cuban intellectual and patriot, Jose Marti, the 
station broke through Castro's propaganda machine and offered the Cuban 
people news, entertainment and discussion with Cuban journalists, 
thinkers, writers and entertainers.
  In just a few short years, Radio Marti became the most listened to 
station in Cuba.
  Many Cuban reporters now send their stories to the U.S.-based station 
to bypass the government and beam directly into Cuban homes. Over the 
years, dissidents and human rights advocates have come to rely on these 
transmissions for strength and hope.
  As President Reagan told an audience back in 1983 while Congress was 
debating the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, ``there is no more 
important foreign policy initiative in this administration, and none 
that frightens our adversaries more, than our attempts through our 
international radios to build constituencies for peace in nations 
dominated by totalitarian, militaristic regimes.''
  In 1990, TV Marti was launched, bringing in a new wave of free media. 
Within 23 minutes of its first broadcast, Castro jammed the airwaves, 
but his success was only temporary.
  Like its radio companion, TV Marti offers political news and debate. 
It also airs soap operas and sports.
  Whether as news or entertainment, these broadcasts help to spark the 
imaginations and aspirations of the Cuban people. They pierce the 
regime's imposed isolation and bring the Cuban people into the world 
community, and the world community to the Cuban people.
  To this day, the Communist party controls all formal means of mass 
communication on the island. It has constructed a complicated apparatus 
of censors and technology to air its propaganda and smother divergent 
views. All print and electronic media are considered state property 
under the control of the party. Foreign magazines and newspapers are 
outlawed as subversive material.
  That is why Radio and TV Marti are so critical. And that is why I 
urge my colleagues to amplify our efforts now.
  Jose Marti once said that, ``Others looked at radio and saw a gadget; 
his genius lay in his capacity to look at the same thing, but to see 
far more.''
  I urge my colleagues to share the vision held by our former president 
Ronald Reagan when he first proposed Radio Marti. The Wall had not yet 
fallen, and millions of people still lived under the boot of the brutal 
Communist empire.
  But he knew that Radio Free Europe was reaching and inspiring 
millions of men and women trapped behind the Iron Curtain, in bleak 
Communist towns and in dark Communist prisons. And like Radio Free 
Europe, he knew that Radio Marti would reach and lift up those living 
in the Communist island just 90 miles from our southern shores.
  So, today, I urge my colleagues to continue our support for the 
aspirations of the Cuban people.
  With just one plane and one radio station, we can broadcast the call 
of freedom to millions.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 1245

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1245. I 
understand there will be a request to set the vote at 2 o'clock on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, amendment 1245 is offered on behalf of 
myself, Senator Craig, and others to focus some time and discussion on 
the issue of family, of stability, of permanency for children around 
the world. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Tennessee when 
he says this underlying bill, the bill that funds all of our foreign 
operations, assistance to many countries throughout the world, 
countries that are developing, countries that are well established, 
that share our values, that one of the most critical components of this 
underlying bill is to advance American values around the world.
  We know not every action we take is perfect. We know not every 
thought we have is exactly right. But Americans believe we work hard at 
establishing good values. We know we are not perfect, but we try to get 
better and better each decade and each century. I could not agree more 
with the Senator from Tennessee when he says this bill in particular is 
a bill that helps us to advance our values around the world.
  One of the values all Americans believe in is the value of family, 
the importance of family, the importance of the principle that children 
should in fact be raised in families. Children don't raise themselves. 
Governments don't raise children; parents raise children. And sometimes 
one responsible parent raises a child. That is the way it has been. 
That is the way we like to see it. It is the way we want to promote it 
here at home and abroad.
  Senator Craig and I offer this amendment with others to express the 
sense

[[Page 16569]]

of Congress regarding the use of the funds in this bill, which are 
substantial in section 3, for orphans and displaced and abandoned 
children. This amendment simply says our money in this bill should be 
laid down by USAID. We are not earmarking any money. We are not adding 
any money. We are not spending any additional money, just the money 
that is in this bill, that Members have said we want to send out to 
countries, should recognize the principles of The Hague Convention on 
Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry 
Adoption, should recognize the principle that children should stay with 
the families to which they are born. Our aid, whether it is for 
economic development or for education or health, should recognize the 
dignity and respect of each individual family unit. Try to keep 
children who are born to a family connected to that family.
  Sometimes we know that doesn't happen or, unfortunately, it can't 
happen. War, disease, famine, violence separate children from their 
natural parents. When that happens, it is the principles of the United 
States, the values of the United States that we proudly share with the 
world to say that child who is orphaned should not be left alone to 
raise themselves. That child should be placed with a loving, caring, 
responsible relative as quickly as possible, someone in the extended 
family. It could be the grandmother, grandfather, responsible aunt or 
uncle, perhaps an older sibling, not 12 years old, not 13 years old, 
but a 20-year-old or a 30-year-old, to raise that child and then that 
family unit continues.
  When there is no a responsible adult in that family, then our 
principles say we should then look for some other family, perhaps a 
neighbor, another family in the community, a friend of the family to 
take that child or those children in and raise them and try to instill 
good values and security and happiness for that child's harmonious 
development.
  If there is no family to be found within the neighborhood, the 
village, the community, then we should, as a human family, find some 
family in the world to take in that child. It is the miracle of 
adoption that is occurring all over this country and all over the 
world.
  My husband and I have adopted children. We are very proud of our 
wonderful children. Many Members of Congress have added to their 
families or created their families through adoption. It is becoming 
something that Americans understand and believe to be important. There 
should not be any orphaned children, any waiting children. They are 
just unfound families, and we need to do a better job of connecting 
children who need homes with loving parents who will give them that 
support.
  I come to this issue not just from a personal perspective but even 
before we went through this miracle of adoption ourselves, I understood 
this to be the truth. Children can't raise themselves. I was raised in 
a home, the eldest of nine children, with two loving parents. Many of 
us had wonderful experiences as we were growing up. We understand the 
value of keeping children protected and nurtured in the family setting. 
We come to this floor all the time trying to stop child trafficking, 
stop child abuse, mental illness, promote special education. The best 
way to stop some of that is to connect children with responsible adults 
who will raise them. It saves the taxpayers a lot of money, saves a lot 
of pain, saves a lot of anguish. That is what Americans, whether they 
are Republican, Independent, or Democrat, believe in. That is one thing 
I am confident of and need no poll to tell me.
  I am a little surprised that when we laid down this amendment, we 
thought it would be accepted without any discussion, but there 
evidently is some hesitation. There is some sense that USAID doesn't 
agree with that. I am interested. If some Senator would like to explain 
USAID's position that they don't think families are important, I think 
the Congress would love to hear that. It would be quite a surprise to 
those of us who are appropriators who fund USAID and actually believe 
in so much of what they are doing, that they have a problem with an 
amendment that simply says children belong in families. That is all 
this amendment says.
  Last year Americans adopted 120,000 children. Twenty thousand 
children came from many countries around the world to find a happy home 
here in America. One hundred thousand children were adopted, half of 
them out of our own foster care system which we recognize has some 
strengths but some weaknesses. We are working on that. We admit our 
long-term foster care has kept children in limbo for far too long. It 
has been a barrier, sometimes, to appropriate reunification. It most 
certainly has been a barrier to adoption.
  Senators such as Senators Rockefeller, DeWine, Clinton, and others 
have spent many years working to reform that system. We are making a 
lot of headway. We are proud of it. But we had over 50,000 children 
adopted out of foster care.
  Two children visited my office yesterday. They were 12 and 10, 
precious little boys from Louisiana. They said: Senator, we want you to 
meet our new mom. We were just adopted.
  I asked the mom: Could I please speak to the children privately for a 
few moments?
  She said: Fine.
  So I had the little children in my office. I said: You don't have to 
tell me any of the details. I know it has been difficult. I just want 
to know, are you OK, are you happy?
  They said: Senator, we are very happy with our new mom. She was our 
foster mom for a number of years. She is doing her best. Our parents 
just haven't been around.
  I didn't want to go into too much detail with the children. But their 
little eyes were so hopeful. I walked out and I said: Congratulations. 
These two children now have a loving adult mother who is going to raise 
them and give them a future that they didn't have in the first years of 
their life.
  I thank the Senators for all of their work and what they have done in 
that regard. We are making a lot of progress in our Nation. So this 
amendment basically recognizes that and says that we believe we should 
do everything we can to keep children in the family to which they are 
born. But when that separation happens, through all the things that I 
said about what can cause it, we need then to establish a permanent 
plan for children that tries to place them in another family as quickly 
as possible. Domestic adoption first. But if there are no families 
willing to adopt in that community or country, then intercountry 
adoption into the human family becomes very important before 
orphanages, institutions, et cetera.
  So that is what this amendment does. It lifts our values that the 
Senator from Tennessee spoke about, lifts language from laws we have 
already passed in overwhelming numbers on this Senate floor, and it 
says in this amendment that all of the money in section 3 should 
recognize these principles.
  There are over 54 countries in the world that have basically signed 
and ratified and are in the process of implementing these principles 
that are in the Landrieu-Craig amendment. This amendment says that 
sometimes temporary refugee camps are necessary, where children are 
temporarily separated because of war. But when the permanency plans 
begin to be made, let's make sure we put domestic adoption and 
intercountry adoption before long-term institutional care or, for that 
matter, letting children out on the streets to raise themselves. It is 
very clear.
  So I say, again, that I hope we can get a strong, bipartisan vote on 
this amendment. I am sorry that there has been any difficulty. It was 
not meant to be that way. But I felt this issue had to be clarified in 
the bill because I was hearing too much at hearings, seeing too many 
things in letters that were passed on some of these issues that it gave 
me pause to think, I wonder if the USAID position is truly reflecting 
the position of the Congress, of the current Bush administration, of 
the State Department, which is the stated policy in support of the idea 
that children belong in families.

[[Page 16570]]

  So I am hoping that with the cosponsors we have on this amendment we 
will get a strong vote affirming that intercountry adoption may offer 
advantages of a permanent family to a child or children for whom a 
family cannot be found in the child's home country. Let me state again:

       Affirms that intercountry adoption may offer advantages of 
     a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be 
     found in the child's state of origin.

  That seems to be controversial language. I cannot see it.
  No. 4:

       Affirms that long-term foster care or institutionalization 
     are not permanent options and should, therefore, only be used 
     when no other permanent option is available.

  That is clear. We want to try to find a child a home, a real family. 
And there are 40 million orphans in the world, so this is not an easy 
task. But it is doable if we all work at it. If we cannot find children 
a home, if we have worked hard to look for a home for somebody that 
would take them in their own country, and we look internationally and 
try to find a family that would take them in, and we cannot find that, 
then, of course, we can have long-term institutions and foster care as 
the last and final option.
  Please, let's give children a chance. In New Orleans right now--I had 
pictures sent to me--14 little orphans from Russia, between the ages of 
5 and 12, through a program that many of us support, came over to the 
United States and spent 6 weeks in New Orleans. You know what the great 
news is? Yesterday, 12 of those 14 children are going to find permanent 
homes here. These children are older, but they are not damaged goods. 
Just because they are not little 3-month-old infants or 6- month-old 
infants, they have a bright future. God gave them a lot of talent. They 
are stuck in an orphanage, where they have very little hope and 
opportunity. At the age of 15, they will be turned out on the street to 
fend for themselves.
  If you want to talk about child prostitution or trafficking or what 
happens to children when they leave an orphanage at age 15, with no 
parents, no means of support, and no education--this amendment cuts 
down on child trafficking. This amendment cuts down on child 
exploitation. This amendment cuts down on child prostitution. If you 
can connect a child to an adult that will protect a child, that is the 
parents' primary job, protecting our children, and most parents do that 
very well.
  For me to stand on the Senate floor and have to argue this to the 
agency that is sending out money around the world because they think 
this is not what other cultures are about--I am not an expert. I am a 
sociology major, but I never read where a family is not the primary 
building block of the community. If anybody knows of any other culture 
that doesn't recognize the family, let me know because in all of my 
reading, I have never read that anywhere. In every culture, family is 
important. We might describe it a little differently, and we may have 
different views about what a family looks like, which is not the 
subject of this amendment, but I don't know any culture anywhere in the 
world that doesn't think family is important.
  So when USAID stands there and tells me something such as, it is not 
really in other cultures that this is important, I say, hogwash. 
Families are important. We define them differently. We respect the 
different views of how families come together. But in every culture 
adults raise children, and that is all this amendment says. It says, as 
a last resort, when you cannot find a family for a child--when you have 
tried and cannot find a family--then go ahead and build your 
orphanages, your institutions, and I hope that they will build them in 
a way and staff them in a way that these children know that, despite 
the fact they don't have a mother, father or someone to love them, they 
can be raised with a skill so that they can find their way. It is 
difficult when you are on your own. Children have done it before, and 
they will do it again. But for heaven's sake, can we try to find them a 
family?
  Senator Craig and I offered this amendment. We cochair the commission 
on adoption. We have 180 Members of Congress who feel very strongly 
about this issue. I don't think we should be debating it, but for some 
reason we are. Our Members are Republicans and Democrats. None of our 
Members can understand why we are having this discussion, but here we 
are.
  So this amendment simply, again, reaffirms its commitment to the 
founding principles of the Hague convention on the protection of 
children, recognizing that each country should take, as a matter of 
priority, every appropriate measure to enable a child to remain in the 
care of the child's family of origin. But when that is not possible, 
they should strive to place the child in a permanent and loving home 
through adoption. It affirms that intercountry adoption may offer the 
advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a family cannot be 
found in the child's country. It affirms that long-term foster care or 
institutionalization are not permanent options and should, therefore, 
only be used when no other permanent option is available. It recognizes 
that programs that protect and support families can reduce the 
abandonment and exploitation of children.
  I congratulate President Bush and his administration for agreeing to 
a breakthrough amendment with the country of Vietnam recently to open 
up again international adoption. There were some corruption issues. 
There was some lack of transparency in the process. There was some 
concern that this was not operating as smoothly as it should. So it was 
temporarily suspended. But because of the good work of the President 
and the President's administration, that was basically recreated. I 
have a copy of the agreement.
  When an agency such as USAID tells me; ``We like what you are saying, 
but it is not our policy,'' I am confused because the President of the 
United States signed an agreement with Vietnam that has the same 
language of The Hague, in the first paragraph of this document: 
Agreement between the United States and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam. Clause 1, clause 2, and clause 3 are exactly this amendment. 
Forty-one Members of the Senate and the Congress signed a letter to the 
President of Romania outlining this exact principle. So the 41 Members 
who signed this letter, and myself, are very confused as to why this 
amendment is a problem. Again, I offered it to clarify.
  This will be a great clarification to USAID that, unequivocally, the 
Members of this body and the House of Representatives, when this is 
passed, say that we value families; we think children should be in 
families; we want to do everything we can to connect children to 
families; we think they should stay in the families to which they are 
were born but, if not, find one close to home and, if not, someplace in 
the human family for them. End of story.
  If that all fails, go ahead and build your orphanages and 
institutions. I don't know of anybody who grew up in an orphanage that 
liked it--not one person. I don't know anybody alive that ever told me 
that they had a happy time growing up in an orphanage. That is not a 
value that Americans believe in. I have had lots of people tell me they 
were so happy to grow up in a loving family. I have had people cry to 
me and say: I spent time in an orphanage my whole life. Nobody ever 
came for me, Senator. I have had people tell me that. I have never had 
anybody say to me how happy they were to grow up in a refugee camp or 
an orphanage.
  I am not spending a penny in this bill to promote the idea that 
children could be happy being raised in an orphanage when one caregiver 
comes in for 300 children. I have been in a lot of these orphanages. 
Some of our other members have been also. I have traveled all over the 
world to some of these orphanage. I cannot describe the horrors of what 
I have seen. I cannot sit here on the floor of the Senate and let this 
go through being a little unclear. This is very clear to me, and it 
should be very clear to the Members of this body.
  I know we are going to vote at 2 o'clock. I appreciate my colleagues 
giving me this time to express myself. I obviously feel strongly about 
it. Many Senators and House Members feel

[[Page 16571]]

strongly about this. We are doing this here in the United States. This 
is our policy. So we need to promote, as Senator Frist said, our 
values--not force them, but promote them. Nothing is being forced here. 
We are promoting and saying, these are our values. We believe family is 
important. We are giving plenty of room in this amendment. We 
understand that there might be some contingency plans that have to be 
made, but let's try to connect children to families. I think it is the 
least we can do. I wanted to clarify that this is a value of the people 
of the United States of America.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 would like to take this opportunity to 
add just a few more items for the record on the subject about which I 
was just speaking, which is the Landrieu-Craig amendment on 
international adoption, domestic adoption, and family preservation.
  One of the items that got my attention which prompted the offering of 
this amendment was a National Public Radio commentary, which I want to 
submit for the Record, after the tsunami disaster. I had the 
opportunity to visit the region affected with the Senator from 
Tennessee. I spent 3 days on the ground reviewing the damage in Sri 
Lanka and all over the devastated area.
  This is what prompted this amendment, when we were focused on the 
issue of these children having been displaced. Of course, we remember 
the devastation that occurred. Children were tragically separated from 
their families. There was great interest in the children who might have 
been orphaned in that disaster and whether they could find a home 
elsewhere.
  There was a great coalition of people in the United States and around 
the world who felt strongly about that. We began working on it and 
encouraging that children who had been orphaned, whose parents had been 
swept out to sea, the children who survived, of trying to place them 
with relatives, along the lines of what I have been speaking.
  Then there was this NPR commentary, and I would like to read a 
paragraph of it into the Record:

       Jaco spends his days--

This is a UNICEF worker funded in part by USAID--

     walking through refugee camps, trying to find orphans. He's 
     not from Aceh; he's a social worker from nearby Medan who 
     came here as part of--

  The Government's efforts at a child welfare program that is working 
with UNICEF to care for children who have lost their parents.
  This worker is walking through this refugee camp, and he finds an 
orphan, according to NPR, and he finds the orphan's aunt. He says to 
the aunt: We would like to take this child to one of the Islamic 
boarding schools.
  The aunt says: No, I would like to help raise this child.
  The worker then is in a discussion trying to convince the aunt to let 
the orphan be raised in a boarding school.
  This is what started this whole amendment. I know one cannot believe 
everything one reads in the newspapers, and one cannot believe 
everything one hears on the radio, but when we investigated this and 
looked into it, we found that this, in fact, was a pattern that was 
occurring; that our money was being used to fund workers who, instead 
of being so happy that they found an aunt for this child and saying, 
``We have a program that can help; we know it is difficult; you are 
probably raising three or four other children; we are appreciative that 
you are taking in this orphan,'' our money was being used to promote 
something completely contrary to our views and policies, which is: Oh, 
don't worry, let the government take this child and raise it in a 
boarding school.
  Whether it was a Christian boarding school, Islamic boarding school, 
Muslim boarding school, the Christian, Muslim, or Islamic boarding 
schools are not the same as being raised in a Christian, Muslim, 
Islamic family. That is the point.
  What happens is, if we don't make this clear, it will end up that 
money is going to support orphanages and discouraging the reunification 
of orphans with their families.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this commentary by 
National Public Radio which has prompted this whole initiative, if 
anyone has questions about it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Analysis: Indonesian Government Bans Adoptions of Tsunami Orphans

       Steve Inskeep, host: Indonesian authorities are trying to 
     provide security to some of the most vulnerable victims of 
     last month's tsunami. In the province of Aceh, an estimated 
     35,000 children were orphaned or separated from their 
     parents. The government has temporarily outlawed adoption in 
     that province. Its plan is to send the orphans to Islamic 
     boarding schools instead, but the schools are not ready and 
     it's hard just to identify the kids who need help. NPR's Adam 
     Davidson reports from Banda Aceh.
       Adam Davidson, reporting: Jaco(ph) spends his days walking 
     through refugee camps, trying to find orphans. He's not from 
     Aceh; he's a social worker from nearby Medan who came here as 
     part of Pusaka Indonesia, a child welfare group that is 
     working with UNICEF to care for children who have lost their 
     parents.
       Jaco (Social Worker): (Foreign language spoken)
       Davidson: Today he's in Berwang Hitan(ph), an Indonesian 
     army base that has been transformed into a refugee camp. It's 
     right under the flight path of US Navy helicopters. He lifts 
     the flap of a thick canvas tent, walks in and asks the dozen 
     or so people sitting on mats if there are any orphans here. 
     At the first tent, they say no. There was one, but some 
     cousins came by the other day and took her away.
       Davidson: At the second tent, he finds Suryani(ph), a five-
     year-old girl, standing in a pretty green dress. She's been 
     watched over by a cousin, Harati(ph), who is also caring for 
     her own infant son.
       Harati (Tsunami Survivor): (Through Translator) I found her 
     when we were running from the tsunami.
       Davidson: Harati says she watched Suryani's parents drown 
     when the tsunami struck their village, Lampung. She grabbed 
     the little girl and now considers her her own daughter. Jaco 
     writes down Suryani's information--name, age, parents' name, 
     home village--and then tells Harati that it will be very 
     difficult for her to care for Suryani, since they no longer 
     have a house or any possessions.
       Jaco: (Foreign language spoken)
       Davidson: He says she should send Suryani to one of the new 
     Islamic boarding schools that will open soon. The girl will 
     be well cared for, and the family can visit on weekends. 
     Harati thanks Jaco and smiles. When Jaco leaves, she says 
     that she's not sending Suryani anywhere. She'll take care of 
     the girl on her own. Jaco is sympathetic, but thinks Harati 
     is wrong.
       Jaco: (Through Translator) If we think psychologically it's 
     normal if their family would like to take the orphans then, 
     but if we think logically, right now they don't need only 
     being with the family but they need food, they need 
     education, they need therapy from the psychologists to make 
     their life normal again.
       Davidson: Jaco and his small team have identified 56 
     orphans so far, 20 in this camp alone. There are dozens of 
     children here, most of them with their parents. Pusaka 
     Indonesia, the child advocacy group, has set up a special 
     children's area in the corner of the camp. There's a host of 
     teachers and social workers who watch over the kids. Vivi 
     Sofianti is a child psychologist. She leads them in games and 
     songs.
       Davidson: She says they stop being depressed when they 
     sing.
       Ms. Vivi Sofianti (Child Psychologist): (Through 
     Translator) What I've learned from them right now, they 
     really need entertainment to forget their--what will happen 
     to them.
       Lucman(ph) (Tsunami Survivor): (Foreign language spoken)
       Davidson: Lucman, 45, walks up to a table under a canopy 
     next to the children's area. He's looking for his 15-year-old 
     son, Maludin(ph), and his nine-year-old daughter, 
     Safrida(ph). He hasn't seen them since the tsunami destroyed 
     their neighborhood, Pulanga Han(ph), in downtown Banda Aceh. 
     Lucman spent the last two weeks searching for them in dozens 
     of refugee camps. A Pusaka Indonesia worker takes down the 
     children's information. All the data is entered into a 
     database in two computers next to the desk. There's a list of 
     hundreds of parents and dozens of children. The goal is to 
     link the children Jaco and his team find with the parents who 
     are searching for their own. Deni Purba runs the operation.

[[Page 16572]]

       Mr. Deni Purba (Aid Worker): I believe half of them will 
     find their relatives. That's why we are here.
       Davidson: There are similar programs all over Aceh 
     province. But in the end, Purba believes, thousands of 
     children will be left with no relatives at all. He says it 
     will be up to the Indonesian government to decide what to do 
     with those who are alone. But, Purba says, the best solution 
     is the one the government is planning, to send all the 
     orphans to boarding schools.
       Davidson: Adoption wouldn't work.
       Mr. Purba: No, we don't support adoption, because is not 
     Acehenese culture.
       Davidson: There are rumors of child sex traffickers 
     prowling for orphans. There are stories of foreigners buying 
     Acehenese children. Purba says the children have suffered 
     enough trauma and should be kept here, where people speak 
     their language and know their culture, and where the orphans 
     can help each other adjust to a new kind of life.


                           Amendment No. 1242

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, yesterday, there were several amendments 
voted on and, unfortunately, I was not here yesterday. I was attending 
a funeral of one of our State officials who unexpectedly passed away. 
Had I been here, I would have voted with my colleagues in rejecting the 
Coburn-Boxer amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State and Foreign 
Operations appropriations bill, which is the bill about which I am 
speaking.
  Mr. President, while the vote on this amendment was taking place, as 
I said, I was returning from the funeral of my dear friend and 
Louisiana Secretary of State, the Honorable Fox McKeithen. Had I been 
here, I would have voted with my colleagues in rejecting the Coburn-
Boxer amendment to the fiscal year 2006 State and Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill.
  In preparation for this vote, I cosigned a letter, along with my 
colleagues Senators Feinstein, Santorum, and Specter requesting that 
Senators vote against the amendment. I have concluded this amendment 
would derail something that would benefit both China and the United 
States at a critical time in our two nations' history.
  In this, the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st 
century, it is crucial that both countries continue to work in 
cooperation with one another.
  The Shaw Group-Westinghouse consortium is the only American team 
bidding on a contract to construct four advanced-designed nuclear 
powerplants in China.
  This deal has the full support of the U.S. Department of Energy which 
has authorized that the Shaw Group and Westinghouse Consortium work in 
the People's Republic of China, PRC. The National Nuclear Security 
Administration, NNSA, has thoroughly reviewed the proposal and 
determined that concerns over national security are negligible.
  Nuclear safety and technology transfer are key national security 
issues that nobody takes lightly. After much deliberation and 
consideration of these sensitive issues, it is clear that this deal is 
good for both the United States and China.
  The AP1000 advanced design nuclear reactor is one of the safest 
nuclear reactors in the world and is on the cutting edge of nuclear 
technological innovation. This innovation will yield significant 
economic and environmental benefits.
  This proposal would support a significant number of high value U.S. 
export oriented jobs in the manufacturing and engineering services 
areas.
  At a time when Americans are concerned about their jobs, we should 
demonstrate through initiatives such as this that we have their 
economic best interests at heart.
  The Shaw-Westinghouse Consortium benefits small businesses by virtue 
of the many U.S. subcontractors that will be used during the 
implementation phase of this contract.
  The Consortium's bid would create or sustain more than 5,000 high-
tech U.S. jobs, and provide ongoing jobs for many years to come, not 
just for the China project, but for sales in the United States and 
other global markets
  This proposal seeks to address not only jobs, but the tremendous 
trade imbalance between the United States and China.
  The U.S. Export-Import Bank exists to provide financing of last 
resort to assist exporters in order to create jobs and export growth 
for the U.S. economy.
  This deal would be consistent with the 1985 Agreement for Cooperation 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the People's Republic of China Concerning Peaceful Uses 
of Nuclear Energy.
  To limit the purchasing of U.S. civilian nuclear energy technology to 
the Chinese would be disastrous to our bilateral relations at a time 
when we must engage the Chinese and to cloak this proposal in anti-
Chinese rhetoric is doing a disservice to the American people.
  These exports to China will most assuredly yield significant benefits 
to companies and workers in the United States and assist in the 
promotion of the safe, reliable, and efficient growth of nuclear power 
in China, something which will be essential to both countries.
  The chief competitor is AREVA, a French company. AREVA will have the 
full support of the French equivalent of the Export-Import Bank, 
COFACE.
  If this amendment is passed it will not punish China, but reward the 
French and other European economies and exporters who will clearly 
prevail should the Shaw/Westinghouse consortium be denied competitive 
financing.
  This is precisely the sort of investment our country should make to 
ensure that we continue to create and sustain high-tech industrial jobs 
in the United States and the continued growth of the nuclear power 
industry, which will assist as we seek more self-reliance in the energy 
sector of the economy.
  In no way will the taxpayers be fleeced by this project. The loans 
associated with the Chinese nuclear power project are made to Chinese 
customers and are guaranteed by the Government of China.
  The taxpayers are not subsidizing these loans and are not at risk 
according to major credit agencies who evaluate sovereign risk. In 
addition, the Export-Import Bank of the United States charges an 
exposure fee commensurate to the credit risk being taken. For over a 
half century the Ex-Im Bank has supported equipment and services for 
nuclear power projects in China.
  If we do not proceed with caution, the threats of anti-Chinese 
sentiment will tarnish a productive bilateral dialog for every issue 
that emerges with China.
  The Shaw Group-Westinghouse Consortium has a sterling reputation and 
a distinct advantage with its cutting edge technology. If this deal 
would have been thwarted in the Senate, it is the United States that 
would have been punished, not the Chinese.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, while Senator Landrieu is still on 
the Senate floor, Senator Leahy and I were just discussing the 
following unanimous-consent request which will get her vote at 2:30 
p.m. Let me say before propounding this unanimous-consent request, 
Senator Leahy and I are working on trying to get all the remaining 
amendments and final passage dealt with at the same time around 2:30 
p.m. We are not there yet. But I will start by asking unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment 
No. 1245 regarding orphans at 2:30 p.m. today, with no second-degree 
amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am just wondering if perhaps the 
Senator from Kentucky, who has dual responsibilities as chairman of 
this subcommittee and as the Republican whip--maybe we should talk in 
our respective cloakrooms--we have a number of people we know who want 
to

[[Page 16573]]

offer amendments--that we get perhaps a unanimous consent agreement, 
and the time we can work out, sequencing each of those amendments. I 
don't know about time at the moment. I am trying to think of some way--
we have been on this bill since Friday. A lot of us have other matters 
to attend to, including meetings with the President's nominee to the 
Supreme Court. Senator McConnell and I have sat here through hours of 
quorum calls. I think it is time to fish or cut bait. I say this to our 
cloakrooms, this may soon turn into a unanimous consent agreement and 
will require each of these amendments to come up and either be voted on 
or withdrawn.
  I don't know how else we get it done. We have been several hours in 
quorum calls so far, and some of us have other things to do. I have no 
problem with somebody getting a vote. Vote for it or against it, but 
let's get it done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am checking right now on the 
possibility of adding to the 2:30 p.m. vote the one amendment left on 
this side that might require a vote. I will know shortly. We should be 
able to add that to the queue at 2:30 p.m. That will give us two votes 
at 2:30. Senator Leahy indicated he is working on trying to get 
additional votes so we can wrap this bill up later this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                    Amendment No. 1245, as Modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I have a modification to my amendment. 
It is at the desk. It is a technical modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1245), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


               ORPHANS, DISPLACED AND ABANDONED CHILDREN

       Sec. 6113. (a) The Senate--
       (1) reaffirms its commitment to the founding principle of 
     the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-
     Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, that a child, 
     for the full and harmonious development of the child's 
     personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an 
     atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding;
       (2) recognizes that each State should take, as a matter of 
     priority, every appropriate measure to enable a child to 
     remain in the care of the child's family of origin, but when 
     not possible should strive to place the child in a permanent 
     and loving home through adoption;
       (3) affirms that intercountry adoption may offer the 
     advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a family 
     cannot be found in the child's State of origin;
       (4) affirms that long-term foster care or 
     institutionalization are not permanent options and should 
     therefore only be used when no other permanent options are 
     available; and
       (5) recognizes that programs that protect and support 
     families can reduce the abandonment and exploitation of 
     children.
       (b) The funds appropriated under title III of this Act 
     shall be made available in a manner consistent with the 
     principles described in subsection (a).

  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of John Roberts

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we all know, last night the President 
of the United States announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts to 
the U.S. Supreme Court. The President noted in his remarks that one of 
the most consequential decisions a President makes is his nomination of 
a Justice to our Nation's highest Court. By nominating Judge Roberts, I 
believe the President has met the challenge. I commend him for choosing 
a thoroughly accomplished jurist and attorney to rise to this country's 
highest Court.
  I point out that the selection process the White House and the 
President went through was thorough and, indeed, viewed as 
satisfactory--in fact, praised significantly by Members on both sides 
of the aisle. The President and his staff consulted with more than 70 
Members of the Senate. The President reviewed the credentials of many 
well-qualified candidates, and the President also met with a number of 
potential nominees.
  I believe the consultation part of the advise and consent process we 
go through was more than met by the President and his staff. The 
process has resulted in a nominee who truly stands on his achievement.
  Presidents can and sometimes have nominated Justices for political 
reasons alone. However, this President has done something truly 
praiseworthy in nominating Judge Roberts. He focused on the merits and 
picked a distinguished attorney with a keen legal mind and an 
impressive record of accomplishment.
  I think all of us are aware of Judge Roberts' academic background. We 
are aware of his clerking for Justice William Rehnquist, his service in 
the Department of Justice and, very importantly, being a member of the 
small group of lawyers who have practiced before the Supreme Court. In 
fact, Judge Roberts has appeared before and argued cases before the 
U.S. Supreme Court some 39 times. The process has been followed and has 
resulted in an outstanding nominee.
  There are questions about whether Judge Roberts will answer questions 
concerning specific issues. I think that issue was put to rest in the 
Breyer and Ginsburg nominations where, appropriately, they did not 
answer questions that would relate to cases that would be argued before 
the U.S. Supreme Court.
  There may be some question about whether Judge Roberts is 
conservative. I think the President of the United States made it very 
clear in the last campaign, and I personally heard him state on 
numerous occasions, that he would appoint as a Supreme Court Justice, 
in the event of a vacancy, a person who strictly interpreted the 
Constitution of the United States. So just as in the previous 
administration President Clinton appointed judges such as Justices 
Breyer and Ginsburg who would be viewed by some as liberal, so I think 
it is entirely appropriate that Justice Roberts be viewed as 
``conservative,'' if conservative means someone who strictly interprets 
the Constitution of the United States in making these incredibly 
important decisions that are made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  As is well known, I am a card-carrying member of the Gang of 14. One 
of the criteria of the Gang of 14 is that we would not filibuster a 
nominee to a court or the Supreme Court unless it was under 
``extraordinary circumstances.'' I do not speak for the other Members. 
Each of those Members speaks for himself or herself. I do believe--at 
least in my opinion, I am convinced--that even though various Members 
of the Senate on the other side of the aisle may oppose and vote 
against Justice Roberts' nomination, and perhaps for well-founded 
reasons, that by no means, by any stretch of the imagination, would 
Justice Roberts, because of his credentials, because of his service, 
because of his extraordinary qualifications, meet the extraordinary 
circumstances criteria.
  Again, I only speak for myself, but having been in on those 
negotiations about extraordinary circumstances for hundreds of hours, I 
believe Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope the other 
members of that group would also agree with me.
  So I think this is a good day for America. We start a process which 
we should complete by the first week in October so that Justice Roberts 
can sit in the fall session of the U.S. Supreme Court. I think many of 
us watching him on television last night as he stated his profound 
appreciation for the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in our 
constitutional democracy, as well as his deep regard for the Court as 
an institution--this is without a doubt a man who is not only fit to 
face the magnitude of the task before him but who has the temperament 
and the judgment to understand the seriousness of his possible service 
as a member of our Nation's highest Court.

[[Page 16574]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Chambliss amendment No. 
1271 following the vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment with no 
second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. What that means is that at the moment, there are two 
stacked votes at 2:30, the Landrieu amendment and the Chambliss 
amendment.
  I see that the Senator from Texas is in the Chamber and would like to 
address the Senate, I believe as in morning business, on another issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I add my voice of support to the 
President's decision to nominate Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. The process of selecting the next Associate Justice 
should reflect the best of the American judiciary and not the worst of 
American politics. From the President, the American people deserve a 
Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law. From the Senate, the 
American people deserve a confirmation process that is civil, 
dignified, respectful, and one that does its dead level best to keep 
politics out of the process.
  Yesterday, President Bush did his part by announcing the nomination 
of Judge Roberts, and now it is up to us in the Senate to do our part 
to ensure that the process for confirming this nomination does honor to 
the Supreme Court, to the Senate, and to the Nation.
  The Supreme Court of the United States is one of our Nation's most 
cherished institutions. It is also our Nation's most powerful symbol of 
our commitment to constitutional democracy and the rule of law. We need 
men and women who serve on that Court who meet the highest standards of 
integrity, intellect, and character. Most important, we need men and 
women who are committed to the principle that the duty of unelected 
judges in a democracy is to apply the law as written by the people's 
representatives and not to make the law up as they go along.
  By every indication, Judge Roberts fits this description of what I 
would consider to be an ideal nominee. Judge Roberts was educated at 
Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Before he became a judge on the 
District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2003, he was widely regarded 
as one of the most outstanding advocates practicing before the U.S. 
Supreme Court. He has argued dozens of cases before the Court, both as 
a lawyer in private practice in Washington and as a public servant.
  Over the years, he has held a wide variety of positions with the 
Department of Justice, including Principal Deputy Solicitor General, 
the Federal Government's second highest ranking lawyer before the U.S. 
Supreme Court. With these credentials, it is not surprising that we 
confirmed this nominee to the Court of Appeals by unanimous consent 
just 2 years ago.
  Although Judge Roberts has been on the bench only since 2003, his 
distinguished legal career leaves no doubt that he is extraordinarily 
well qualified for the Supreme Court. It bears remembering that Chief 
Justice Rehnquist had never served as a judge before he was nominated 
to the Court. Similarly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who Justice 
Roberts will be succeeding if confirmed, had served only briefly as a 
State court judge before she was elevated to the Supreme Court. As 
Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
said at her confirmation hearing, although:

      . . . her tenure on the appellate bench has not been long in 
     years . . . we should realize that only 60 of the 101 
     Justices sitting now or in the past have had any prior 
     judicial experience. Only 41 of these have had more than 5 
     years of service when confirmed, and among those who had no 
     prior experience when confirmed to the United States Supreme 
     Court were included John Marshall and Joseph Story.

  As you know, Justices Marshall and Story were two of the most 
distinguished Justices who ever served on the Supreme Court and, 
indeed, in our Nation's history. Although the number cited by Senator 
Leahy has changed some over the years since Justice O'Connor was 
confirmed, his point still stands. One does not need to be a career 
jurist to serve this Nation with distinction as a Justice of the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  I believe the President has made a commendable decision, nominating 
Judge Roberts. As I stated earlier, the American people deserve from 
the President a Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law. From all 
reports, that is exactly what the American people received yesterday. 
From the Senate, the American people deserve a confirmation process 
that is civil, dignified, and respectful, and one that keeps politics 
out of the judiciary as much as is humanly possible.
  One of the challenges we face when considering a nominee, and 
particularly one such as Judge Roberts who has had such a long and 
distinguished career serving clients, is to understand that his work on 
behalf of his clients does not necessarily reflect his personal views 
that may appear on a variety of legal documents likely to come before 
the Senate. As all of us who have practiced law know, the duty of the 
lawyer is to make sure to make the very best possible argument on 
behalf of his or her client, regardless of whether the lawyer would 
agree with those arguments in the first instance. Litigants in our 
adversarial system of justice are supposed to be judged by a jury of 
their peers, not by their lawyers.
  I think it very important that we keep this in mind. Just as we would 
not judge Judge Roberts nor should we judge Judge Roberts by the 
positions he has taken on behalf of clients he has represented, we 
would not judge a prospective nominee should he or she have practiced, 
let's say, in the area of criminal law, and have defended people who 
have been accused of crimes. We would not impute those crimes or that 
position to the lawyer who is representing them, providing them the 
legal defense to which they are entitled under our constitutional 
system. My argument is we should simply apply that same standard to 
Judge Roberts and any other nominee as well.
  I think it is also important that we remain aware there are those 
outside of this Chamber who will try to taint this process. Already we 
have seen those who seem to have had a ``fill in the blank'' press 
releases, waiting only for the name of the prospective nominee before 
they send them out into cyberspace and across America and indeed around 
the world. We know there are those outside these Chambers who will try 
to vilify any nominee in order to exploit this process for political 
gain, including raising money. I can only hope we will not, in this 
body, the 100 Senators who work here and represent our constituents, be 
tempted by the outside interest groups to engage in the same sort of 
irresponsible rhetoric that is used by too many of them.
  Let us behave as Senators. Let us do our human best to uphold the 
dignity of this great body. And let us try to uphold the dignity of the 
U.S. Supreme Court and conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the 
American people. History affords some benchmarks to the Senate for 
determining whether the Senate has undertaken a confirmation process 
worthy of the Court and of the American people. There is a right way 
and, unfortunately, a wrong way to debate the merits of a Supreme Court 
nominee.
  In 1993, as I have observed previously on this floor, President 
Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a distinguished jurist but one 
with an extensive record of activism in a variety of liberal causes 
outside of the judiciary. The Senate looked past all of that and

[[Page 16575]]

voted to confirm Justice Ginsburg by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. 
The Senate did so because we understood our proper role in the 
confirmation process should embody three principles: First, that we 
should focus our attention on judicial qualifications, not personal 
political preferences; second, we should engage in respectful and 
honest inquiry, not partisan personal attacks; and third, we should 
apply the same fair process, confirmation or rejection by majority 
vote, that has existed for more than 214 years of our Nation's history.
  Yes, this is an important moment for our country. The nomination of 
any person to the U.S. Supreme Court is a celebration of our 
Constitution and our Nation's commitment to the rule of law. The 
President has nominated an impressive individual to serve on our 
Nation's highest Court and I look forward, as just one Member of this 
body, to a dignified, civil, and respectful confirmation process in the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask to be recognized to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am glad I am following the comments of 
my colleague Senator Cornyn because we are both privileged to serve on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will be the first line of inquiry 
in relation to Judge John Roberts, who has been nominated by President 
Bush to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I have been in public life for over 20 years and cast over 10,000 
votes on so many different topics. If you had asked me what is the most 
important vote you have ever cast, it is easy; the most important vote 
you are ever called on to cast is whether America goes to war, because 
you know as a result of that vote, if the answer is affirmative, that 
Americans will lose their lives. You will ask families to give up their 
sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, in the 
name of defending America. So there is nothing more important than that 
vote. It is one of the few times--and I faced it three or four times in 
my congressional career--when you really do lose sleep. You toss in bed 
at night thinking, What is the right thing to do?
  I would say that after a vote on war, the second most challenging 
vote is the one we will face in a few weeks right here in the Senate, 
the selection of an individual to serve on the Supreme Court. Why is it 
so important? I think it is important because we know, America knows, 
the Supreme Court is a very special institution in our democratic form 
of Government. It may be--in fact I would argue that it is--the single 
most important institution when it comes to protecting our rights and 
liberties. Across that street--we can see it through the glass door 
here--is the Supreme Court, with nine individuals who will make 
decisions on a regular basis that will change the face of America, 
change the lives of American people. Think about the power you give to 
that person who serves in the Supreme Court: a lifetime appointment to 
stand in judgment not only of individuals and their causes, but to 
stand in judgment of laws that have been written by past generations 
and to stand in judgment of new laws that come before them with 
constitutional questions and policy questions. It is a momentous 
responsibility.
  Rarely does the Senate have an opportunity to consider a vacancy on 
the Supreme Court. I have served now for 9 years in the Senate and 
never cast a vote on a Supreme Court nominee. This is the longest 
period of time since 1823 when we have not had a vacancy on the Supreme 
Court. Now we do. With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor we 
have an opportunity to fill this vacancy with a person of quality, 
someone who will serve our Nation.
  President Bush has nominated Judge John Roberts of the District Court 
of Appeals. I am familiar with him to a limited extent because he came 
before our Senate Judiciary Committee several years ago. I think I 
would concede, and most would concede, the obvious: He is a very well 
qualified person. This man was summa cum laude at Harvard, editor of 
the Harvard Law Review, and has had some of the most important 
responsibilities as Principal Deputy Solicitor General speaking on 
behalf of the Government of the United States of America. He has worked 
at one of the most prestigious law firms in our country. There is no 
question about this man's legal skill--none at all.
  Nor has there been any serious question of any kind raised about his 
integrity, his honesty. I have not heard a single word suggesting he 
does not have the temperament to be a Federal judge. After all, it is a 
lifetime appointment and those of us who practiced law before Federal 
judges know that sometimes lifetime appointments can go to their heads 
and they become somewhat imperial. That has never been suggested when 
it comes to Judge Roberts.
  So you say: Senator, if his legal skills are accepted, if he is an 
honest man, if his temperament is good, why not approve him and get on 
with it? Because this is the Supreme Court. And because the American 
people expect us to go through the regular process of asking important 
questions. What are those questions? I think they come down to these: 
We need to know whether a nominee such as Judge Roberts is in the 
mainstream of American values; whether he is coming to this position on 
the Supreme Court with a balanced view, an open mind, the kind of 
judicial outlook on the challenges he faces which will do the Court 
proud and do the Nation proud.
  What kinds of issues will we talk about? When we come to the 
Judiciary Committee I am sure there will be questions of civil rights. 
In my lifetime, America has changed dramatically in the field of civil 
rights. I can recall as a youngster seeing evidence of segregation, 
even growing up in East St. Louis, IL--segregated schools, segregated 
swimming pools--in my lifetime. But that changed in the 1960s and we 
decided as a Nation that it diminished us to discriminate against 
people because of their race.
  We have decided since that the same rules should apply in many ways 
to questions of gender equity, whether women should have the same 
opportunity as men. So this whole body of law, this whole movement in 
the United States on civil rights is a movement we have come to accept 
as part of America. There are some who still resist it, but most 
Americans believe we are a stronger and better nation when we celebrate 
our diversity. The Supreme Court is the place where key decisions on 
civil rights will be decided. The rights of minorities, the rights of 
women, the rights of those with minority religious beliefs, the rights 
of the disabled--that Court will make those decisions.
  Isn't it important to know whether Judge Roberts stands in the 
mainstream of values when it comes to our civil rights? I think it is 
essential. It is one of the most important questions.
  What about the rights of women? They have been debated quite a bit on 
the floor of the Senate and the House, certainly before the Supreme 
Court. People point to the case of Roe v. Wade. That is the litmus test 
case for so many people. But I think it goes much deeper. It isn't just 
the question of abortion--which is controversial, and many people in 
good faith feel strongly for and against a woman's right to make that 
decision. But at the heart of that debate is something even more 
fundamental, the right of privacy. What is it that I should expect as 
an American citizen, that I should guard as my individual right of 
privacy? What right of privacy does my family have? Where can I draw 
the line and say the Government cannot cross this line?
  There have been cases before the Supreme Court that decided that, 
made those decisions and decided where that line would be drawn. Let me 
tell you of one, because when I tell youngsters--I just had a group of 
college students I spoke to here on the Hill. When I tell them the 
story, I can see they are absolutely amazed, but this is something that 
happened in recent memory for some. Just a few weeks ago was the 40th 
anniversary of a Supreme Court

[[Page 16576]]

decision called Griswold v. Connecticut. It was a landmark decision. 
The nine Justices found in our Constitution--which I keep in my desk 
and Senator Byrd carries with him at every waking moment--a concept 
that is not written in the Constitution. Search this Constitution with 
Robert C. Byrd at your side and you will never find the word privacy, 
but the Supreme Court found the concept of privacy in this Constitution 
when they considered the case of Griswold v. Connecticut.
  What was that case all about? A little history is worth repeating. At 
the turn of the last century, the 19th century, there was a man named 
Anthony Comstock. Mr. Comstock came from the State of New York. He had 
passionate convictions when it came to morality. He believed it was 
wrong to have any form of pornography, any form of abortion, and any 
form of birth control. After passing a State law in New York, he was 
elected to Congress, which enacted the Comstock law that said basically 
we prohibit the dissemination of information even about birth control, 
and then Congress did something more. They gave Anthony Comstock of New 
York extraordinary powers that no American has today. They made him an 
agent of the U.S. Post Office and gave him the power to investigate and 
arrest people who violated the law that was passed in his name.
  He spent his adult life traveling across the United States trying to 
find those who were giving people counseling on birth control or 
abortions, and so forth, and prosecuting them under the law in his 
name. Before he died, he said he had filled up 61 different passenger 
train cars with all the people he had arrested in the name of his law, 
and it was in that Anthony Comstock tradition that States such as 
Connecticut enacted laws which said no married person can legally go to 
a pharmacy and have a prescription filled for birth control pills. In 
1965, no doctor in Connecticut could legally prescribe birth control 
pills, and no pharmacist could legally fill the prescription for a 
married person. This was the law in Connecticut in 1965. When I tell 
that to young people today, they say: you have to be kidding. No. That 
was the law in Connecticut and other States.
  When the law was challenged, the Supreme Court across the street 
said: that is wrong. That is such an intimate, personal, private 
decision, the Government should stay away from it. And in this 
Constitution, without the express words, they found the concept of 
privacy, and that concept of privacy 8 years later was part of the 
rationale for Roe v. Wade, that that decision on terminating a 
pregnancy was a personal, private family decision and that except under 
extraordinary circumstances the Government should not get involved.
  So when Judge Roberts comes before us, some have argued that it is 
out of line for us to ask him: what is your position when it comes to 
the Government and the right of privacy? I think it is fundamental. I 
want to know what is in his heart and what is in his mind.
  Does he believe in this concept we have seen enshrined in Supreme 
Court decisions, or does he believe the Government should infringe on 
privacy rights?
  You say, well, Senator, you are pointing to cases that are 40 years 
old, 30 years old. How is that relevant today? Consider the matter of 
Terri Schiavo, the tragedy involving this poor young woman who for 15 
years was in this--I do not know if vegetative state is the proper 
word, or comatose state, kept alive by a feeding tube, case after case 
in court as to whether her husband, who said he expressed her will that 
she didn't want to live under these circumstances, had the right to end 
this feeding tube, case after case, court after court, squabbles and 
arguments within the family--good faith, genuine arguments. And then 
finally the day came when all these legal appeals had been exhausted. 
There was a movement in Congress to step in, to have the Federal courts 
and the Federal Government step into that hospital room, the room where 
that tragic story of Terri Schiavo was taking place. The argument was 
made in this Chamber and on the floor of the House that the privacy of 
that family, this intimate personal decision, should take a back seat 
to the right of the Federal court to insert itself into that room.
  Think about it. Hundreds and thousands of American families every 
single day make that hard decision. They do it hoping they have done 
the right thing for the poor person who is suffering and for the family 
that survives. And some argued at that moment, when that doctor and 
that family has to sit down and make that heart-breaking decision, it 
is time for the Federal court to step in. The right of privacy, a right 
still unresolved and that will be resolved many times over by the 
person we put on the Supreme Court.
  Workers' rights, the right to work in a safe workplace, the right to 
be paid a fair wage, the right to make certain that if you have paid a 
lifetime into a retirement system and someone tries to take it away, 
you have a moment in court to stand up for what you have worked for. 
Those decisions course through the Federal courts all the way to the 
Supreme Court, and this nominee and others who are the deciding votes 
make those decisions.
  I could go on with all of the agenda the new Supreme Court Justice 
might face, but I hope in these few moments that I have spoken, you 
understand the gravity of this decision.
  Judge Roberts is 50 years old. If he is a healthy person with a good 
lifespan, he may sit on that Court for a quarter of a century. He may 
be there 25 or 30 years. We have one chance, only one, to ask questions 
of him, to ask what is in his heart, what are his values, does he 
reflect the mainstream of America.
  Sandra Day O'Connor, when she came to the Court, was befriended and 
sponsored by one of the greats who served in the Senate, Barry 
Goldwater of Arizona. I can remember as a college student, Barry 
Goldwater's race for President of the United States in 1964. He was 
running as a genuine conservative and he lost. LBJ beat him handily. 
But he came back to the Senate, retired, and always maintained his 
dignity and interest in public service. When you look back at his 
career, he was more a libertarian than conservative, but he surely 
inspired a lot of people. He wanted Sandra Day O'Connor to serve on the 
Supreme Court. He liked the fact she was so talented. She graduated No. 
3 in her class at Stanford Law School, had a tough time finding a job 
because she was a woman, and was elected to the State senate. Senator 
Barry Goldwater thought running for public office was a good thing. I 
do, too. I think running for public office humbles the exalted and it 
is a good thing when people have that experience. And she became the 
first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Most people said she would 
follow in the Barry Goldwater conservative tradition, and she did, but 
it was mainstream conservatism. It was the kind of conservatism that 
many in the Republican Party and even some in the Democratic Party are 
very comfortable with.
  Later in her career of 24 years of service you saw the libertarian 
streak coming out in her opinions. She started standing up for a 
woman's right to choose. She did not want to eliminate Roe v. Wade. She 
stood up when it came to affirmative action at the University of 
Michigan. She stood up when it came to the rights of prisoners and 
detainees even in this war on terrorism--sort of unpredictable, but 
clearly demonstrating that she had an open mind even as a mainstream 
conservative.
  Now, I am resigned to the fact that when President Bush nominates 
someone to the Supreme Court, it won't be my choice. I am resigned to 
the fact that person will be a conservative. But what I am looking for 
and many Democrats are looking for is someone who is a mainstream 
conservative. I want them to hold the basic conservative values but not 
come to the Court with some movement on their mind, some political 
agenda on their mind. I want them to look at things honestly, with an 
open mind.
  I sincerely hope Judge Roberts ends up being one of those people as 
we consider his nomination. We need to find out basic things about him, 
questions

[[Page 16577]]

that were not answered when he stood for confirmation to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has the 
intelligence for the job. We will ask him whether he has the 
independence for the job. He has the credentials for the job. But we 
need to ask questions about his commitment to the basic freedoms and 
liberties in America. The Senate must determine through this 
confirmation process whether Judge Roberts is entitled to a lifetime 
position on the highest Court of the land. I know he avoided some 
answers in an earlier hearing. I hope he will be open and candid and 
honest at his next hearing. I do not insist that he agree with me on 
every issue, but I insist that he be open and honest in his answers so 
we can understand where he is coming from. The Senate and the American 
people have a right to know where he stands.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield? I 
ask unanimous consent that I can follow the Senator from Texas and seek 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think President Bush has hit a 
home run. Because I was with the Baylor Lady Bears this morning 
congratulating them on winning the national NCAA women's basketball 
championship, I would say he hit a three-pointer from midcourt. I think 
John Roberts is exactly what our country expects in quality and 
demeanor for a person to be elevated to the highest court in our land. 
The Supreme Court is such an important part of our Constitution, 
unique, really, in the world, that we have a judicial branch with such 
stature as the coequal branch of government along with the President 
and the Congress. For someone to be able to sit on the Supreme Court, 
you look for a John Roberts, someone who has integrity, temperament for 
the Court, and you have to have judicial temperament because you are an 
arbiter who is going to affect people's lives.
  Academic achievement. We want our Supreme Court Justices to have the 
finest legal mind possible, and John Roberts fits that description--
Harvard, summa cum laude graduate; Harvard Law School, graduated with 
honors, and respect of his peers. When you have someone such as Walter 
Dellinger, who served as Solicitor General under President Bill 
Clinton, who told the Judiciary Committee at one point, ``In my view, 
there is no better appellate advocate than John Roberts,'' I think that 
shows the range of support and respect from his peers John Roberts has. 
He has experience in a variety of legal fields including, of course, 
serving on the Circuit Court of Appeals, second only to the Supreme 
Court. But he is also young enough that he will be able to make a 
lasting impression on the Supreme Court. At the age of 50, we know he 
has many years to serve.
  Some people have asked me, well, didn't you want a woman? Well, yes, 
of course, I did. Of course, I think diversity is important on the 
Supreme Court. I would like to see another woman. I would like to see a 
Hispanic American on the Supreme Court. But I believe first and 
foremost what we want is the very best person, and for this time the 
President has chosen John Roberts. I think we should give him our full 
support.
  Yes, the Senate is going to do its due diligence. Yes, we are going 
to meet our responsibilities. We are going to ask questions. We are 
going to examine his background. Of course, we are going to look at his 
record as an attorney, as a judge. But we also are going to do it with 
integrity and with a respect for the process. I think Justice 
Ginsburg's confirmation process is an example. In fact, President 
Clinton's two nominees for the Court took an average of 58 days from 
nomination to confirmation. I think 2 months is an acceptable amount of 
time to be able to delve into someone's background and career, to be 
able to ask the questions you would expect from the Senate, and I 
thought that in President Clinton's nominations we gave him deference. 
As Senator Durbin said, just before me, President Bush is not going to 
appoint someone Dick Durbin would appoint. Well, certainly President 
Clinton isn't going to appoint someone that I would also nominate. But 
that wasn't the question. The people of America elected President 
Clinton, just as they elected President Bush. So we now need to look at 
their nominee, knowing that perhaps the philosophy may not be the same 
on the other side of the aisle as it is going to be for President 
Bush's nominee. But I want the same deference given to John Roberts I 
gave to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I looked at her record of integrity, I 
listened to the people who were for her and against her, and I 
determined that for President Clinton this was a nominee who should be 
supported. She would not meet my litmus test of issues, but she is an 
academically qualified person of integrity with judicial temperament.
  I hope Judge Roberts receives the same level of support and respect 
that has been given to Justice Ginsburg by this Senate.
  President Bush and the White House staff have demonstrated an 
unprecedented level of consultation with Senators. I don't think any 
President and his staff have consulted with as many Senators as 
President Bush has on this, his first nominee. I was very pleased to be 
called and to be able to give names.
  I admit that John Roberts was one of the names I mentioned in my 
consultation call as the example of the very great legal mind and 
opportunity he would bring to the Court. He is the kind of person we 
expect to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Everything I have heard so far, both from Democrats and Republicans--
Republicans being supportive, Democrats being wait and see, let's look 
at the record, but not negative--is a good thing. John Roberts is going 
to meet every test. He showed when he was at his Senate confirmation 
hearing for his circuit court of appeals appointment that he is really 
good. He had tough questions. You could see the intelligence coming 
through.
  I know he is a family man. He was with his wife and two precious 
children at the hearing he had a couple of years ago and then again 
last night. He is a family man who will be a role model for children, 
for our country, and a patriot, a person who wants to be a public 
servant, someone who believes in our country and the role of the 
Supreme Court in our country.
  This is a man who is going to be confirmed very easily. I hope that 
is the case. I hope the Senate will show how the Senate ought to 
operate with due diligence and, yes, asking questions in a respectful 
way for this very esteemed judge who is being proposed for the Supreme 
Court by our President.
  I am proud of our President. He has done a terrific job of looking at 
all of the options and saying he wants one of his legacies to be the 
selection of a great Supreme Court Justice who will serve for a long 
time. He has made the right choice.
  I support this nomination. I support the right of the Senate to do 
our responsibility under the Constitution for advice and consent. That 
is going to happen from the early indications I have seen, in the talk 
shows, in the questioning by the media, and also in the Senate. I look 
forward to the next 2 months and seeing this institution do what we 
ought to be doing in the right way.
  I am very proud today to support the nomination of John Roberts to 
the Supreme Court of the United States.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 16578]]




                           Amendment No. 1304

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment that has 
not yet been filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1304.

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 require a report to Congress on mergers of certain United 
                     States and foreign companies)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                         REPORT ON RECIPROCITY

       Sec. 6113. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     no agency or department of the United States may approve a 
     merger between a United States company and a foreign-owned 
     company or an acquisition of a United State company by a 
     foreign-owned company prior to 30 days after the date on 
     which the Secretary of State submits to Congress the report 
     required by subsection (c).
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
     the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, the Committee on Financial Services, and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The term ``foreign-owned company'' means an entity that 
     is owned or controlled by the government of a foreign 
     country.
       (3) The term ``entity'' means a partnership, association, 
     trust, joint venture, corporation, or other organization.
       (4) The term ``owned or controlled'' means--
       (A) in the case of a corporation, the holding of at least 
     50 percent (by vote or value) of the capital structure of the 
     corporation; and
       (B) in the case of any other kind of legal entity, the 
     holding of interests representing at least 50 percent of the 
     capital structure of the entity.
       (5) The term ``United States company'' means an entity that 
     has its primary place of business in the United States and 
     that is publicly traded on a United States based stock 
     exchange.
       (c) The report referred to in subsection (a) is a report 
     submitted to the appropriate congressional committees by the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, on a proposed merger between a United States 
     company and a foreign-owned company or an acquisition of a 
     United State company by a foreign-owned company. Such report 
     shall include an assessment of whether the law and 
     regulations of the government that owns or controls the 
     foreign-owned company would generally permit a United States 
     company in the same industry as the foreign-owned company to 
     purchase, acquire, merge, or otherwise establish a joint 
     relationship with an entity whose primary place of business 
     is located in such foreign country.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have had some discussion floating 
around this Foreign Operations appropriations bill about the proposed 
CNOOC-Unocal merger. As I understand it, amendments that directly 
affect that merger have been withdrawn. That is not a problem, as far 
as I am concerned, if the sponsors of those amendments on both sides of 
the aisle wish to delay offering the amendments, to do it on a 
different appropriations bill.
  My amendment is different. Let me explain.
  My basic problem with the CNOOC-Unocal merger is not the same as that 
of many of my colleagues.
  I am not sure it meets the strategic test, and I am willing to leave 
that to the body that judges that strategic test. I have a different 
problem. It is a problem that the Senator from South Carolina and I 
have talked about in terms of currency and other issues; that is, China 
doesn't play fair. What China thinks is good for China, they don't 
think is good for American companies. That is true here in terms of 
mergers. CNOOC wishes to buy Unocal, an important company in the United 
States dealing with a very important commodity--oil--whether it meets 
the strategic test or not. But if you look at the ability of American 
companies to buy Chinese companies in industries that China considers 
strategic, you will find barriers along the way. At least that is what 
I have found.
  What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We ought to have 
some degree of reciprocity. If the Chinese--in this case, the Chinese 
Government, since they own 70 percent of CNOOC--wish to buy an American 
company, why should they be allowed to block American companies that 
wish to buy similarly situated Chinese companies, the American 
automobile industry, the American construction industry, the American 
financial services industry? I will be issuing a report shortly which 
shows that in these strategic industries, American firms have barriers 
placed in their way. All of them meet approval. Yet in instance after 
instance, the American company cannot buy a majority share. The 
barriers are different for different industries, but they exist. In 
fact, foreign investment in China is divided into four categories--
encouraged, permitted, restricted, and prohibited. Even in the 
nonprohibited categories, all foreign investment must be approved by 
the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation called MFTEC.
  The United States has a policy of being open to foreign direct 
investment in nearly every case, and strict levels of Government 
approval are only reserved for the most sensitive transactions 
involving national security. Of the 1,525 cases that have been filed 
with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States since 
1988, only 25 have warranted investigation; 12 have been reported to 
the President, and only one has been denied. In the converse situation, 
where American firms seek to buy Chinese companies, the devil is often 
in the details. The Chinese Government creates de facto barriers that 
almost always require Western companies to give up some degree of 
control over its enterprise that would be highly irregular in any truly 
free market.
  What is more, it is nearly impossible to gain an accurate picture of 
which investments, mergers, and joint ventures are rejected by the 
Chinese Government because companies' investors don't publicly want to 
admit it. The Chinese will say to General Motors or General Electric or 
scores of smaller companies: We will let you do it, but only under 
these circumstances. And the company, not wanting to offend the 
Chinese, doesn't fight the circumstances. All too often these large 
companies have an interest to their shareholders--they are supposed 
to--but not to the United States. If it serves their interest to send 
the technology to China, even though it will create many jobs in China 
and hurt jobs here in the United States, so be it. It is good for 
General Motors. So it is hard to figure this out. As I said, we have 
begun to do it, and we will be issuing a report shortly about it.
  There are additional complications when a U.S. company wants to merge 
or acquire a Chinese state-owned enterprise such as a CNOOC, which is a 
state-owned enterprise, because any merger with an SOE requires 
additional approval of many state agencies, and so in instance after 
instance, which we will highlight in our report, the Chinese do not 
play the same way with our companies that they want us to play with 
their companies.
  What our amendment does is very simple. It does not prohibit a merger 
from taking place. It simply requires a report be submitted to the 
Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to 
assess whether that country will allow a similar transaction to occur 
in the opposite direction. The aim is not building barriers but simple 
reciprocity--fair, part of free trade, and better for everybody.
  I hope my colleagues will accept this amendment. It doesn't go to the 
heart of this merger--that is a different issue which we will delay and 
do on a different bill--but, rather, goes to the point that the Chinese 
should treat our companies the way they want us to treat theirs.
  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.

[[Page 16579]]


  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of John Roberts

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
prospective member of the Supreme Court. The nomination of Judge John 
Roberts has been transmitted to the Senate by President Bush. I express 
my very strong support, based on the facts as we now know them, for 
this outstanding individual.
  I wish to commend the President of the United States on his 
selection, and particularly commend him with regard to the procedures 
he followed pursuant to the constitutional clause of advice and 
consent. He consulted a number of the Members of the Senate in the 
context of this nomination of Judge Roberts and, indeed, the process 
that will soon be undertaken by the Senate.
  Also, I wish to speak to the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of 14 
individuals, 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats, of which I have been 
privileged to have been a member of from the very beginning, and I wish 
to speak to the work the group performed on behalf of the leadership 
and the Members of this body.
  In the course of drawing up the memorandum of understanding between 
members of the Gang of 14, I was privileged to work with my good friend 
of so many years and, indeed, a former leader of the Senate, Robert 
Byrd of West Virginia. We devised the portion of our memorandum of 
understanding as it relates to advice and consent. Speaking for myself, 
I believe the President lived up to, in every respect, what our 
expectations and desires were in putting in that clause. I thank my 
friend from West Virginia, as I have often done on the floor of the 
Senate, for his advice, and sometimes consent, to my own views.
  Mr. President, that group of 14 did provide the foundation for our 
leaders--Republican and Democrat--to bring forth the nominations of six 
Federal circuit judges, each of whom received the advice and consent of 
the Senate, and now serve as federal judges. I think that is an 
important point that should be brought up in the context of this 
nomination.
  Also, the question is sometimes asked about another clause of our 
memorandum of understanding, extraordinary circumstances. I feel as 
follows:
  By way of background, I was privileged to introduce the then-lawyer 
John Roberts to the Senate Judiciary Committee on two occasions. The 
Judiciary Committee had two hearings and asked him to appear in both 
instances.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the remarks I 
made at those hearings, which detail extensively his biography and the 
like.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Statement and Submitted Remarks of Senator John Warner Before the 
              Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2003

       Mr. WARNER. Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, and members of 
     the committee, I will ask to submit my statement for the 
     record----
       The Chairman. Without objection, all statements will be put 
     in the record.
       Senator Warner [continuing]. For 3 reasons: First, as a 
     courtesy to the committee and to our guests who have been 
     very patient; secondly, this nominee, John Roberts, is indeed 
     one of the most outstanding that I have ever had the 
     privilege of presenting on behalf of a President in my 25 
     years in the U.S. Senate. His record needs no enhancement by 
     this humble Senator, I assure you.
       So I ask that the committee receive this nomination. He is 
     accompanied by his wife Jane, his children Josephine and 
     John, who have been unusually quiet, and we thank you very 
     much and patient, his parents and his sisters.
       If I may indulge a personal observation, Mr. Roberts is 
     designated to serve on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia.
       Exactly one-half century ago, 50 years, I was a clerk on 
     that court, and so I take a particular interest in presenting 
     this nominee.
       Also, the nominee is a member of the firm of Hogan & 
     Hartson, one of the leading firms in the Nation's capital. 
     Fifty years ago, I was a member of that firm. And I just 
     reminisced with the nominee. I was the 34th lawyer in that 
     firm, which was one of the largest in the Nation's capital. 
     Today, there are 1,000 members of that law firm, to show you 
     the change in the practice of law in the half-century that I 
     have been a witness to this.
       Mr. Chairman, you covered in your opening remarks every 
     single fact that I had hopefully desired to inform the 
     committee. So, again, for that reason you have, most 
     courteously, Mr. Chairman, stated all of the pertinent facts 
     about this extraordinary man, having graduated from Harvard, 
     summa cum laude, in 1976. Three years later, he graduated 
     from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, where he served as 
     managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Those of us who 
     have pursued the practice of law know that few of us could 
     have ever attained that status. Even if I went back and 
     started all over again, I could not do it. He served as law 
     clerk to Judge Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     Second Circuit and worked as a law clerk to the current Chief 
     Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Rehnquist--Justice 
     Rehnquist.
       So I commend the President, I commend this nominee. I am 
     hopeful that the committee will judiciously and fairly 
     consider this nomination and that the Senate will give its 
     advice and consent for this distinguished American to serve 
     as a part of our Judicial Branch.
                                  ____


Statement to the Judiciary Committee on the Nomination of John Roberts 
  To Serve as a Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the 
             District of Columbia Circuit, January 29, 2003

       Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, and my other distinguished 
     colleagues on the Senate's Judiciary Committee, I am pleased 
     to be here today to introduce Mr. John Roberts, an imminently 
     qualified nominee for a federal judgeship.
       While Mr. Roberts now lives in Maryland, he is a former 
     resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a member of 
     Hogan & Hartson, a firm that I had the pleasure of being 
     affiliated with some years ago.
       Joining Mr. Roberts today are many members of his family: 
     his wife Jane, his children Josephine and John, his parents, 
     and his sisters.
       Mr. Roberts has been nominated for a judgeship on the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit. This is a court that I am most familiar with.
       Following my graduation from the University of Virginia Law 
     School in 1953, I was privileged to serve as a law clerk to 
     Judge E. Barrett Prettyman, on the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Prettyman later became 
     Chief Judge of this important court.
       As a result of the profound respect so many people, 
     including myself, had for Judge Prettyman, I had the honor 
     several years ago of sponsoring, and with the help of others, 
     passing legislation to name the federal courthouse in DC 
     after Judge Prettyman.
       Now, almost 48 years after having served as a law clerk for 
     Judge Prettyman on this federal appeals court, I am pleased 
     to be here today to support the nomination of John Roberts to 
     the same court on which Judge Prettyman once served.
       John Roberts has had a distinguished legal career. And, in 
     my view, his record indicates that he will serve as an 
     excellent jurist.
       Mr. Roberts' resume is an impressive one. He graduated from 
     Harvard College, Summa Cum Laude, in 1976. Three years later, 
     he graduated from Harvard Law School, Magna Cum Laude, where 
     he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.
       He has served as a law clerk to Judge Friendly on the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and 
     worked as a law clerk to the current chief justice of the 
     Supreme Court of the United States--Judge Rehnquist.
       Mr. Roberts has also practiced law for over twenty years in 
     the public and private sectors. He has served as Associate 
     Counsel to President Reagan, worked as the Principal Deputy 
     Solicitor General of the United States, and worked as a civil 
     litigator at Hogan & Hartson, where he currently serves as 
     head of the firm's Appellate Practice Group.
       Mr. Roberts has presented oral argument before the U.S. 
     Supreme Court in 39 cases covering an expansive list of legal 
     issues.
       Without a doubt, Mr. Roberts' legal credentials make him 
     well qualified for the position to which he has been 
     nominated. I am thankful for his willingness to resume his 
     public service, and I am confident that he would serve as an 
     excellent jurist.
       I urge my colleagues on the Committee to support his 
     nomination.
                                  ____


   Statement and Submitted Remarks of Senator John Warner Before the 
Senate Judiciary Commitee on April 30, 2003, During the Presentation of 
   William Emil Moschella, Nominee to Be Assistant Attorney General, 
Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, and John G. 
 Roberts, Jr., Nominee to Be Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia

       Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
       Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on 
     behalf of Mr. Roberts. This is my second appearance on behalf 
     of this distinguished individual, and I must say in my

[[Page 16580]]

     25 years in the Senate, I do not believe I have ever done 
     this before. But at the invitation of the Chair, I will 
     appear over and over again, be it necessary, on behalf of 
     this individual because I personally and, if I may say, 
     professionally feel very strongly about this nominee.
       He has been nominated for a position on the United States 
     Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. If I 
     may say, following my graduation from the University of 
     Virginia Law School in 1953, I return this weekend for my 
     50th reunion, where I am privileged to address my class. But 
     following that, I was privileged to be a law clerk to Judge 
     E. Barrett Prettyman on the United States Circuit Court of 
     Appeals, the very circuit to which this nominee has been 
     appointed by the President of the United States.
       I have a strong knowledge of this circuit, having started 
     my career there 48 years ago, and I feel that this candidate 
     will measure up in every respect to the distinguished members 
     of the circuit that have served in the past and who are 
     serving today. And I urge in the strongest of terms that he 
     be given fair consideration by this Committee and that he 
     will be voted out favorably.
       Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy, we start with he graduated 
     from Harvard College summa cum laude in 1976. Three years 
     later, he graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, 
     where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. 
     He served as law clerk to Judge Friendly on the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and worked as law 
     clerk to the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
     the United States, the Honorable Judge Rehnquist.
       Also, he has practiced law for over 20 years. He served as 
     associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, worked as the 
     Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, and 
     has worked as a civil litigator in the firm of Hogan and 
     Hartson, which, I must say, I also served in following my 
     clerkship with Judge Prettyman.
       So I do urge upon this Committee, Mr. Chairman, and all 
     members, that the fair consideration that is the duty of the 
     United States Senate under the Constitution under the advise 
     and consent provisions be exercised on behalf of this 
     distinguished nominee.
       I thank you for the attention of the Committee, and I wish 
     you well.
                                  ____


Statement to the Judiciary Committee on the Nomination of John Roberts 
  To Serve as a Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the 
              District of Columbia Circuit, April 30, 2003

       Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, and my other distinguished 
     colleagues on the Senate's Judiciary Committee, I am pleased 
     to be here for a second time to introduce Mr. John Roberts, 
     an imminently qualified nominee for a federal judgeship. It 
     is my hope that after a second hearing on this important 
     nominee, this committee will recognize that this nominee is 
     eminently qualified for this judgeship.
       While Mr. Roberts now lives in Maryland, he is a former 
     resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a member of 
     Hogan & Hartson, a firm that I had the pleasure of being 
     affiliated with some years ago.
       Mr. Roberts has been nominated for a judgeship on the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit. This is a court that I am most familiar with.
       Following my graduation from the University of Virginia Law 
     School in 1953, I was privileged to serve as a law clerk to 
     Judge E. Barrett Prettyman, on the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Prettyman later became 
     Chief Judge of this important court.
       As a result of the profound respect so many people, 
     including myself, had for Judge Prettyman, I had the honor 
     several years ago of sponsoring, and with the help of others, 
     passing legislation to name the federal courthouse in DC 
     after Judge Prettyman.
       Now, almost 48 years after having served as a law clerk for 
     Judge Prettyman on this federal appeals court, I am pleased 
     to be here today to support the nomination of John Roberts to 
     the same court on which Judge Prettyman once served.
       John Roberts has had a distinguished legal career. And, in 
     my view, his record indicates that he will serve as an 
     excellent jurist.
       Mr. Roberts' resume is an impressive one. He graduated from 
     Harvard College, Summa Cum Laude, in 1976. Three years later, 
     he graduated from Harvard Law School, Magna Cum Laude, where 
     he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.
       He has served as a law clerk to Judge Friendly on the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and 
     worked as a law clerk to the current chief justice of the 
     Supreme Court of the United States--Judge Rehnquist.
       Mr. Roberts has also practiced law for over twenty years in 
     the public and private sectors. He has served as Associate 
     Counsel to President Reagan, worked as the Principal Deputy 
     Solicitor General of the United States, and worked as a civil 
     litigator at Hogan & Hartson, where he currently serves as 
     head of the firm's Appellate Practice Group.
       Mr. Roberts has presented oral argument before the U.S. 
     Supreme Court in 39 cases covering an expansive list of legal 
     issues.
       Without a doubt, Mr. Roberts' legal credentials make him 
     well qualified for the position to which he has been 
     nominated. I am thankful for his willingness to resume his 
     public service, and I am confident that he would serve as an 
     excellent jurist.
       I urge my colleagues on the Committee to support his 
     nomination.

  Mr. WARNER. So I was privileged to have that opportunity. In the 
context of performing that task before the Judiciary Committee, I made 
an independent assessment for myself of his credentials to be a Federal 
judge. Indeed, I talked to a number of friends who knew him very well.
  I point out that I was privileged to serve as a law clerk on the 
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where he 
is currently serving. In addition, I had the great opportunity to be 
associated with the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, eventually becoming a 
partner. Justice Roberts, of course, in his distinguished career, 
likewise was a member of the firm of Hogan & Hartson before going into 
various responsible positions in the executive branch, which are 
enumerated in my detailed biographical sketch of him.
  I bring that up because I have a very strong feeling about the firm 
of Hogan & Hartson. I had the opportunity while there to be closely 
affiliated with senior partner Nelson T. Hartson. I was a junior lawyer 
and he was then general counsel to Riggs National Bank and other 
financial institutions here in the Nation's Capital. I had the 
privilege of carrying his briefcase, as a young lawyer often did, and 
preparing his memorandum and briefs and the like during my own work for 
those clients. He was a magnificent man of the old school and of the 
law firms of this Nation.
  Hogan & Hartson stands out second to none as a law firm in this 
Nation. I remember so well that Nelson T. Hartson had ethical standards 
second to none. His leadership permeated down through that firm, 
certainly in those early days when I was privileged to be there. The 
firm is much larger now, but it still has a profound reverence for its 
founder, its leader and former senior partner Hartson, and the 
principles for which he stood, primarily in the area of ethics.
  As to my independent examination, I certainly believe John Roberts 
brings to this Senate a clear record of extraordinary public service 
and achievements. But the question is sometimes asked about the issue 
of extraordinary circumstances in reference to the memorandum of 
understanding among the Gang of 14. I can only express my own opinion, 
but I do so very carefully.
  I am respectful of the process by which the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate's Judiciary committee will examine this nominee. 
They both are dear and valued friends whom I have known over the course 
of the 27 years I have served in the Senate. They have an important 
function to perform in the Judiciary Committee. In no way do I want to 
get out ahead of their examination of the record. Therefore, based on 
what I know today regarding John Roberts and my own independent 
investigation at the time I was privileged to introduce him, I can only 
opine as this process evolves that there will not be, in my judgment, a 
body of fact that would give rise in any way to invoking the 
extraordinary circumstances provision of the Gang of 14's memorandum of 
understanding.
  Again, I carefully couch that, reserving my respect, as we all do, 
for the work to be done by the Judiciary Committee. But in the end, I 
repeat, I do not think there will be any body of fact that will give 
rise to invoking the extraordinary circumstances clause.
  I had the pleasure this morning to call quite a few friends all 
across the Commonwealth of Virginia, on both sides of the spectrum, to 
listen to their views about this nominee. I regard those conversations 
as private, certainly in terms of the names of the individuals. But I 
was given the liberty to say two individuals, whom I have known for my 
entire 27 years plus--I will add 1 year, 28 years, 1 year campaigning 
for the Senate when I knew them both--two of the most extraordinary and 
nationally and internationally known religious leaders shared

[[Page 16581]]

with me their strong approval and appreciation to the President for the 
nomination of this distinguished gentleman.
  Likewise, I talked with a number of friends on the other side of the 
spectrum, two of whom are acknowledged liberals whom I have known for 
decades and whose opinions I value from time to time. These individuals 
with whom I spoke this morning have known Judge Roberts, and they 
likewise recognize the extraordinary credentials of this fine 
individual, and I think in their own ways expressed strong support.
  I mention that because I think it is important for all of us to reach 
out and seek the views of those who feel, as I do, that this nomination 
is one of the most important contemporary chapters of American history.
  Also, this morning, in response to several press inquiries about the 
Senate, I have stated that I unequivocally believe that this 
institution will proceed with its responsibilities under the 
Constitution, under the advice and consent clause, in a manner that 
reflects credit on the Senate itself and in a manner that reflects 
fairness and dignity towards the nominee. I believe that the Senate 
will proceed in the finest traditions of its over 200 years of 
experience in terms of its duties of advice and consent, and I think 
our Nation, and indeed, much of the world, will concur when the process 
is finally complete.
  I conclude by moving into that terrain that is always a bit 
dangerous--listening to good friends who have known John Roberts for 
many years talk about him. I met with him briefly this morning. We 
joked together about this. He said: Now, I am a little apprehensive, 
John, about some of the persons with whom you talked. But in any event, 
just the warmest accolades were extended by old friends who mentioned 
the fact that John Roberts had been very active in what we call pro 
bono cases.
  When I was an assistant U.S. attorney in the District for years, I 
saw the abuses of the system where those apprehended under the law for 
alleged criminal violations did not receive the quality of legal 
representation to which they were entitled. I participated with a 
number of my friends in establishing at Georgetown University the 
Prettyman Institute, which trains young lawyers in how to deal with pro 
bono cases. I remember Judge Oliver Gasch, now the late Judge Gasch, 
who was very active in working with me, as we worked with the 
Georgetown University Law School and established that institute. It has 
been very successful.
  I mention that because John Roberts has had quite a record, as has 
Hogan & Hartson, in pro bono representation of those whose economic 
circumstances are so much less fortunate than ours, but nevertheless 
are entitled to first-class representation, and this fine lawyer and 
jurist has given that in years past.
  In addition, in the firm of Hogan & Hartson, John Roberts was also 
often sought out by the young lawyers to counsel with them on how best 
to do his expertise, that is appellate court work. That is always 
magnificent in a firm when there is an individual to whom the young 
lawyers can go, perhaps those outside of the firm too, and get advice.
  Also, there is a small lunchroom in the firm now and there is a table 
there. It is interesting, the table is dedicated to William Fulbright, 
a distinguished Member of the Senate who later worked with Hogan & 
Hartson. Around that table some great conversations occurred. Often, 
when John Roberts was at the table with his other partners and fellow 
lawyers in the firm, they recognized that he could be engaged in almost 
any subject and have a serious contribution. For example, he loves 
sports. Like so many of us, given the opportunity, when he gets up in 
the morning, he kind of looks at the sports page before he goes to all 
of the news on the other pages. Certainly I do, and I think a lot of 
Americans do that. He can give you statistics about the Redskins and 
the baseball teams and others. It is extraordinary.
  When I look at the entirety of this individual and look at the 
American public--I am not talking just about the interest groups who 
will take a role in this one way or another, as they should and are 
entitled to, but I am talking about those citizens who watch our 
government perform its duties--I believe the American public will judge 
this individual as the facts come out. For those who will follow it, it 
will be quite an education with regard to not only the institution of 
the Senate and its constitutional responsibilities of advice and 
consent, but the law of the land and the very large number of issues 
that face this Nation today, issues that may well come before the 
Supreme Court someday.
  So there is an educational process for all of us to be had. But I 
think in the final analysis, the American public will say to itself: 
This man has the right stuff and will do the right thing for America 
and for us as individuals.
  Mr. President, I have already placed in the Record my introduction of 
then-lawyer Roberts, now Judge Roberts, at two previous hearings. I 
have an extraordinary letter written by, I think, about 150 lawyers, 
many of whom I know because so many of them I have had associations 
with through the years. It is addressed to the leadership of the 
Judiciary Committee. It says:

       The undersigned are all members of the Bar of the District 
     of Columbia and we are writing in support of the nomination 
     of John G. Roberts, Jr., to serve as a federal court of 
     appeals judge. . . .

  It is extraordinary. It is Democrats on one side, Republicans on the 
right, and a mixture in the center. I cannot recall in my years here 
ever seeing a document of such import as this in the context of a 
judicial nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                December 18, 2002.
     Re Judicial nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the United 
         States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
         Circuit

     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Daschle, Hatch, Leahy, and Lott: The 
     undersigned are all members of the Bar of the District of 
     Columbia and are writing in support of the nomination of John 
     G. Roberts, Jr., to serve as a federal court of appeals judge 
     on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit. Although, as individuals, we reflect a wide 
     spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are 
     united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding 
     federal court of appeals judge and should be confirmed by the 
     United States Senate. He is one of the very best and most 
     highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a 
     deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. 
     He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of 
     his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity 
     and fair-mindedness. In short, John Roberts represents the 
     best of the bar and, we have no doubt, would be a superb 
     federal court of appeals judge.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
         Donald B. Ayer, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Louis R. 
           Cohen, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Lloyd N. Cutler, 
           Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, C. Boyden Gray, Wilmer, 
           Cutler & Pickering, Maureen Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, 
           Carter Phillips, Sidley, Austin. Brown & Wood, E. 
           Barrett Prettyman, Jr., Hogan & Hartson, George J, 
           Terwilliger III, White and Case, E. Edward Bruce, 
           Covington & Burling, William Coleman, O'Melveny & 
           Myers, Kenneth Geller, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Mark 
           Levy, Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, John E. Nolan, 
           Steptoe & Johnson, John H. Pickering, Wilmer, Cutler & 
           Pickering, Allen R. Snyder, Hogan & Hartson, Seth 
           Waxman, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering,
         Jeanne S. Archibald, Hogan & Hartson; Jeannette L. 
           Austin, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Mawt; James C. Bailey, 
           Steptoe & Johnson; Stewart Baker, Steptoe & Johnson; 
           James T. Banks, Hogan & Hartson; Amy Coney Barrett, 
           Notre Dame Law School; Michael J. Barta, Baker, Botts; 
           Kenneth C. Bass III, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox; 
           Richard K. A. Becker, Hogan & Hartson; Joseph C. Bell, 
           Hogan & Hartson; Brigida Benitez, Wilmer, Cutler & 
           Pickering; Douglas L. Beresford, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Edward Berlin, Swidler, Bertin, Shereff, Friedman; 
           Elizabeth Beske (Member, Bar of the

[[Page 16582]]

           State of California); Patricia A. Brannan, Hogan & 
           Hartson; Don O. Burley, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 
           Garrett & Dunner; Raymond S. Calamaro, Hogan & Hartson; 
           George U. Carneal, Hogan & Hartson; Michael Carvin, 
           Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue; Richard W. Cass, Wilmer, 
           Cutler & Pickering.
         Gregory A. Castanias, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue; Ty 
           Cobb, Hogan & Hartson; Charles G. Cole, Steptoe & 
           Johnson; Robert Corn-Revere, Hogan & Hartson; Charles 
           Davidow, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Grant Dixon, 
           Kirkland & Ellis; Edward C. DuMont, Wilmer, Cutler & 
           Pickering; Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, 
           Farabow, Garrett & Dunner; Thomas J. Eastment, Baker 
           Botts; Claude S. Eley, Hogan & Hartson; E. Tazewell 
           Ellett, Hogan & Hartson; Roy T. Englert, Jr., Robbins, 
           Rullell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner; Mark L. Evans, 
           Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans; Frank Fahrenkopf, 
           Hogan & Hartson; Michele C. Farquhar, Hogan & Hartson; 
           H. Bartow Farr, Farr & Taranto; Jonathan J. Frankel, 
           Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Jonathan S. Franklin, Hogan 
           & Hartson; David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, 
           Todd & Evans; Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law 
           School.
         H.P. Goldfield. Vice Chairman, Stonebridge International; 
           Tom Goldstein, Goldstein & Howe; Griffith L. Green, 
           Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood; Jonathan Hacker, 
           O'Melveny & Myers; Martin J. Hahn, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Joseph M. Hassett, Hogan & Hartson; Kenneth Hautman, 
           Hogan & Hartson; David J. Hensler, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Patrick F. Hofer. Hogan & Hartson; William Michael 
           House, Hogan & Hartson; Janet Holt, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Robert Hoyt, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; A. Stephen 
           Hut, Jr., Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Lester S. Hyman, 
           Swidler & Berlin; Sten A. Jensen, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Erika Z. Jones, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw; Jay T. 
           Jorgensen, Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood; John C. 
           Keeney, Jr., Hogan & Hartson; Michael K. Kellogg, 
           Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans; Nevin J. Kelly, 
           Hogan & Hartson; J. Hovey Kemp, Hogan & Hartson; David 
           A. Kikel, Hogan & Hartson; R. Scott Kilgore, Wilmer, 
           Cutler & Pickering; Michael L. Kidney. Hogan & Hartson; 
           Duncan S. Klinedinst, Hogan & Hartson; Robert Klonoff, 
           Jones, Day Reavis & Pogue; Jody Manier Kris, Wilmer, 
           Cutler & Pickering; Chris Landau, Kirkland & Ellis; 
           Philip C. Larson, Hogan & Hartson; Richard J. Lazarus, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; Thomas B. Leary, 
           Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission; Darryl S. Lew, 
           White & Case; Lewis E. Leibowitz, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Kevin J. Lipson, Hogan & Hartson; Robert A. Long, 
           Covington & Burling; C. Kevin Marshall, Sidley, Austin, 
           Brown & Wood; Stephanie A. Martz, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & 
           Maw; Warren Maruyama, Hogan & Hartson; George W. Mayo, 
           Jr., Hogan & Hartson; Mark E. Maze, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson; Janet L. McDavid, 
           Hogan & Hartson.
         Thomas L. McGovern III, Hogan & Hartson; A. Douglas 
           Melamed, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Martin Michaelson, 
           Hogan & Hartson; Evan Miller, Hogan & Hartson; George 
           W. Miller, Hogan & Hartson; William L Monts III. Hogan 
           & Hartson; Stanley J. Brown, Hogan & Hartson; Jeff 
           Munk, Hogan & Hartson; Glen D. Nager, Jones Day Reavis 
           & Pogue; William L. Neff, Hogan & Hartson; J. Patrick 
           Nevins, Hogan & Hartson; David Newmann, Hogan & 
           Hartson; Karol Lyn Newman, Hogan & Hartson; Keith A. 
           Noreika, Covington & Burling; William D. Nussbaum, 
           Hogan & Hartson; Bob Glen Odle, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Jeffrey Pariser, Hogan & Hartson; Bruce Parmly, Hogan & 
           Hartson; George T. Patton. Jr., Bose, McKinney & Evans; 
           Robert B. Pender, Hogan & Hartson.
         John Edward Porter, Hogan & Hartson (former Member of 
           Congress); Philip D. Porter, Hogan & Hartson; Patrick 
           M. Raher, Hogan & Hartson; Laurence Robbins, Robbins, 
           Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner; Peter A. 
           Rohrbach, Hogan & Hartson; James J. Rosenhauer, Hogan & 
           Hartson; Richard T. Rossier, McLeod, Watkinson & 
           Miller; Charles Rothfeld, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw; 
           David J. Saylor, Hogan & Hartson; Patrick J. Schiltz, 
           Associate Dean and St. Thomas More Chair in Law 
           University of St. Thomas School of Law; Jay Alan 
           Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law & 
           Justice; Kannon K. Shanmugam, Kirkland & Ellis; Jeffrey 
           K. Shapiro. Hogan & Hartson; Richard S. Silverman, 
           Hogan & Hartson; Samuel M. Sipe, Jr., Steptoe & 
           Johnson; Luke Sobota, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Peler 
           Spivak, Hogan & Hartson; Jolanta Sterbenz, Hogan & 
           Hartson; Kara F. Stoll, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 
           Garren & Dunner; Silvija A. Strikis, Kellogg, Huber, 
           Hansen, Todd & Evans; Clifford D. Stromberg, Hogan & 
           Hartson.
         Mary Anne Sullivan, Hogan & Hartson; Richard G. Taranto, 
           Farr & Taranto; John Thorne, Deputy General Council, 
           Verizon Communications Inc., & Lecturer, Columbia Law 
           School; Helen Trilling, Hogan & Hartson; Rebecca K. 
           Troth, Washington College of Law, American University; 
           Eric Von Salzen, Hogan & Hartson; Christine Varney, 
           Hogan & Hartson; Ann Morgan Vickery, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Donald B. Verrilli. Jr., Jenner & Block; J. Warren 
           Gorrell, Jr., Chairman, Hogan & Hartson; John B. 
           Watkins, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Robert N. Weiner, 
           Arnold & Porter; Robert A. Welp, Hogan & Hartson; 
           Douglas P. Wheeler, Duke University School of Law; 
           Christopher J. Wright; Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; 
           Clayton Yeutter, Hogan & Hartson (former Secretary of 
           Agriculture); and Paul J. Zidlicky, Sidley Austin Brown 
           & Wood.

  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1305

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1305.

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

(Purpose: To Require the Secretary of State to Report to Congress on a 
         Plan for Holding Elections in Haiti in 2005 and 2006)

       On page 259, at the end of the page add the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(c) Funds made available for assistance for Haiti shall 
     be made available to support elections in Haiti after the 
     Secretary of State submits a written report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations, the House International Relations 
     Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee setting 
     forth a detailed plan, in consultation with the Haitian 
     Transitional Government and the United Nations Stabilization 
     Mission (MINUSTAH), which includes an integrated public 
     security strategy to strengthen the rule of law, ensure that 
     acceptable security conditions exist to permit an electoral 
     process with broad based participation by all the political 
     parties, and provide a timetable for the demobilization, 
     disarmament and reintegration of armed groups: Provided, That 
     following the receipt of such report, up to $3,000,000 of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a)(3) should be made 
     available for the demobilization, disarmament, and 
     reintegration of armed groups in Haiti.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inform my colleagues that this 
amendment is acceptable to the managers of the underlying bill, Senator 
McConnell and Senator Leahy. I thank them for their work on behalf of 
this particular effort.
  At the conclusion of my remarks, I will not ask that the amendment be 
adopted at this juncture. Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy prefer 
that occur at a later time. I wish to take the opportunity to address 
the amendment and the rationale for it.
  I again thank my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member, for 
accepting the amendment to the Foreign Operations bill.
  The amendment I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Nelson of 
Florida, and Senator Reed, relates to the situation in the Republic of 
Haiti. The island nation shares the island of Hispaniola with the 
Dominican Republic in the Caribbean. The situation there cries out, as 
any other place in the world, to this body. I have spoken about my 
concerns with respect to the ongoing crisis in Haiti many times on this 
floor, as have some of my colleagues.
  I commend particularly Senator DeWine of Ohio who has not only spoken 
about this issue on numerous occasions but, as a result of the efforts 
he and his family have made, has a very

[[Page 16583]]

direct involvement in trying to improve the lives of the people in 
Haiti and has visited the country many times. Those concerns, 
unfortunately, no matter how often expressed by myself, Senator DeWine, 
and others, have fallen on deaf ears, unfortunately, in the Bush 
administration. Apparently, no one in the current administration has 
made Haiti a priority, and it shows.
  I support providing assistance to Haiti, but I do not believe in 
throwing good money after bad in that situation. Frankly, moneys in 
this appropriations bill in support of the current election schedule in 
Haiti are moneys that, in my view, will be totally wasted unless and 
until the Bush administration gets serious about addressing the 
foundations of that insecurity--the absence of the rule of law and the 
presence of armed groups who today terrorize Haiti's cities and towns.
  That is why I offer this amendment today to insist that prior to one 
penny of this money being spent on the election process in Haiti that 
we in Congress be informed about the administration's game plan for 
Haiti, if it has one; and if one does not exist, that they develop such 
a plan so that the U.S. taxpayers' dollars are not wasted on elections 
that would be deemed illegitimate at best.
  I don't think that elections are the be-all and end-all for solving 
Haiti's problems. Frankly, I am increasingly of the view that more 
international involvement is needed in Haiti over an extended period of 
time before any Haitian government has a chance of successfully 
governing a country which at this juncture is virtually ungovernable. 
Increased international involvement is unthinkable without U.S. 
leadership.
  The political, economic, and social chaos that exists in Haiti today 
has created one of the most serious humanitarian crises confronting the 
international community. More than a year after the ouster of former 
President Aristide, most Haitians today have abysmal living conditions 
and they are getting worse by the day.
  According to U.S. officials in Haiti, most Haitians, most of the 8 
million people on the one-third of that island of Hispaniola, live on a 
dollar or less a day. More than 40 percent of the children are 
malnourished, and childbirth is the second leading cause of death among 
women.
  Haiti's AIDS infection rate is the highest outside of sub-Saharan 
Africa, and an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 Haitian children are born with 
the virus each year. The average Haitian has a life expectancy of 51 
years. That is 20 years short of the Latin American/Caribbean average 
of 71 years.
  Haiti's economy is also in a total shambles. Gross domestic product 
has been negative in that country for two decades running. Profits from 
traditional exports of coffee, rice, rum, and other agricultural 
products of the formal economy are less than half of what they were 20 
years ago. Now, remittances from Haitians living abroad are one of the 
main sources of income. In fact, these remittances account for almost 
one-third of Haiti's gross domestic product.
  What has been the Bush administration's response to the Haitian 
crisis? Frankly, the administration has been AWOL on Haiti. While they 
were quick to seize the opportunity to facilitate the removal of the 
democratically elected President from office, since then there has been 
a decided disinterest on the part of the administration with respect to 
the fate of the Haitian people.
  Last July, the United States pledged approximately $230 million in 
aid for fiscal year 2004-2005. This past April, the Senate passed the 
DeWine-Bingaman amendment, of which I was a cosponsor, providing $20 
million for election assistance, employment, and public works. But all 
of the assistance in the world is not going to solve Haiti's problems 
until we begin to address the levels of insecurity that exist in that 
country.
  Haiti borders on being a completely failed state if it is not one 
already. Yet, this administration continues to suggest that elections 
should go forward later this year so the Haitian people can replace the 
interim government. Last month, Assistant Secretary of State Roger 
Noriega and special envoys from France, Canada, and Brazil visited 
Port-au-Prince and said that Haiti's political transition was on 
target. They said the date for the Presidential and legislative 
elections, November 13, should remain fixed. I wonder how anyone could 
visit Haiti and come to that conclusion.
  Last December, Senator DeWine and I were told we could not visit 
Port-au-Prince because the security situation was far too dangerous. In 
late May of this year, the State Department issued the following travel 
warning on Haiti:

       Due to the volatile security situation, the Department has 
     ordered the departure of nonemergency personnel and all 
     family members of U.S. Embassy personnel. The Department of 
     State warns U.S. citizens to defer travel to Haiti and urges 
     American citizens to depart the country if they can do so 
     safely.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entire travel warning issued by the 
Department of State be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Travel Warning

   (Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Washington, DC)

       May 26, 2005.--This Travel Warning is being issued to warn 
     American citizens of the continued dangers of travel to 
     Haiti. Due to the volatile security situation, the Department 
     has ordered the departure of non-emergency personnel and all 
     family members of U.S. Embassy personnel. The Department of 
     State warns U.S. citizens to defer travel to Haiti and urges 
     American citizens to depart the country if they can do so 
     safely. This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning 
     issued March 11, 2005.
       Americans are reminded of the potential for spontaneous 
     demonstrations and violent confrontations between armed 
     groups. Visitors and residents must remain vigilant due to 
     the absence of an effective force in much of Haiti; the 
     potential for looting; the presence of intermittent 
     roadblocks set by armed gangs or by the police; and the 
     possibility of random violent crime, including kidnapping, 
     carjacking, and assault. Due to concerns for the safety of 
     its personnel, the Department has ordered the departure from 
     Haiti of all U.S. Embassy non-emergency employees and all 
     family members of American embassy personnel. American 
     citizens who remain in Haiti despite this warning are urged 
     to consider departing.
       Travel can be hazardous within Port-au-Prince. Some areas 
     are off-limits to embassy staff, including downtown Port-au-
     Prince after dark. The embassy has imposed a curfew from 9:00 
     p.m. to 5:00 a.m., which could change periodically. Staff 
     members must remain in their homes or in U.S. government 
     facilities during the hours covered by the curfew. The 
     embassy has limited travel by its staff outside of Port-au-
     Prince and the ability to provide emergency services to U.S. 
     citizens outside of Port-au-Prince remains extremely limited. 
     U.S. businesses continue to operate in Haiti, but take 
     special precautions to protect their facilities and 
     personnel. The U.N. stabilization force (MINUSTAH) is fully 
     deployed and is assisting the government of Haiti in 
     providing security. They have challenged violent gangs and 
     have moved into some gang enclaves.
       U.S. citizens who travel to or remain in Haiti despite this 
     Travel Warning must remain vigilant with regard to their 
     personal security and are strongly advised to
     register either online at https://
travelregistration.state.gov/ibrs/ or contact the Consular 
     Section of the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince and enroll in 
     the warden system (emergency alert network) to obtain updated 
     information on travel and security in Haiti. The Consular 
     Section of the U.S. Embassy can be reached at (509) 223-7011, 
     the fax number is (509) 223-9665 and the e-mail address is 
     [email protected]. Travelers should also consult the 
     Department of State's latest Consular Information Sheet for 
     Haiti and Worldwide Caution Public Announcement at http://
travel.state.gov. American citizens may also obtain up-to-
     date information on security conditions by calling 1-888-407-
     4747 toll free in the United States or Canada or 1-202-501-
     4444 from overseas. In Haiti citizens can call 509/222-0200, 
     ext. 2000.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, that travel warning remains in effect today. 
Yet, the administration would have us believe that things are on track 
for holding elections as currently scheduled. Unless there is dramatic 
action, the likelihood of fair elections in Haiti with widespread voter 
participation in the near future is remote, at best, and I would argue 
virtually impossible.
  Currently, fewer than 100,000 of the 4 million potential voters have 
been registered and fewer than a quarter of the necessary registration 
centers are even

[[Page 16584]]

open at all. As important, the role of all parties in the elections 
needs to be protected.
  All parties must have a fair and equal chance if these elections are 
to be legitimate. Ultimately, what should matter most to the United 
States is that institutionally these elections are legitimate and fair. 
Whoever wins must make reforms, purge corrupt officials, and work to 
improve security.
  In my view, United States engagement on the security situation is 
just the first step in what will be a very long, uphill battle if we 
are going to get the situation right in Haiti. Holding elections for 
the sake of holding elections on some rigid schedule makes no sense at 
all. Elections, particularly elections with little or no credibility, 
are not going to solve Haiti's problems. It is simply going to compound 
them.
  Haiti is in a humanitarian crisis. For that reason alone, the United 
States should be far more engaged than we are. Frankly, after sending 
troops to Haiti 4 times in the past 90 years, it is also in our 
economic interest to address the problem resolutely. We should start by 
reviving Senator DeWine's HERO Act, as it is called, which would help 
reinvigorate the Haitian economy by granting preferential trade 
agreements to certain Haitian textile products.
  A year ago, the Senate passed the HERO bill, offered by Senator 
DeWine, unanimously in this body. There was not a single vote in 
opposition to Senator DeWine's proposal. The other body, the House of 
Representatives, unfortunately would not even consider the legislation. 
If the HERO Act were passed, as it should be, it could help to 
strengthen Haiti's economy and jump-start real employment in that 
little island nation. Especially now that the Senate has passed and the 
House will soon act on the Dominican Republic-Central American Free 
Trade Agreement, this is doubly important. After all, it simply does 
not make any sense to help the Dominican Republic on two-thirds of the 
island and leave Haiti a completely failed state on the other one-third 
of that island.
  As it stands now, the options for honest employment are slim to none 
in the Haitian city centers, particularly the slums of the capital, 
Port-au-Prince. The major employers in that country are warring gangs, 
many of them involved in trafficking cocaine.
  Indeed, Haiti today is the major transit point for cocaine coming in 
from South American countries such as Colombia. From the year 2000 to 
2004, approximately 8 percent of all the cocaine coming to the United 
States passed through Haiti. Entire neighborhoods of that country are 
under the control of these criminal gangs which are responsible for 
killings, robberies and, increasingly, kidnappings. Authorities in the 
interim government estimate that each day there are 6 to 12 kidnappings 
in Port-au-Prince alone.
  In total, more than 700 people, including 7 peacekeepers for the 
United Nations, have been killed in Haiti in the last 8 months. The 
U.N. forces have tried to respond to the security threats, but frankly 
the U.N. force is not in a position to quell the violence in Haiti's 
major cities or to secure many of Haiti's major roads, both of which 
are now under the control of these criminal gangs.
  For one, they are trying to protect a population roughly equal to 
that of New York City, roughly 8 million people. New York City has 
40,000 well-trained and equipped police officers. Haiti has a tiny 
fraction of that number of U.N. peacekeepers. I would hope the recent 
U.N. Security Council authorization for an additional 1,000 troops and 
police will help the U.N. force wrest control from these criminals, but 
I doubt it.
  Secondly, and perhaps even more important than sheer numbers, the 
United Nations mandate does not give the U.N. forces real authority 
over the Haitian national police, a force that is in severe disarray.
  The national police are good people in many cases, but there are many 
bad ones indeed who need to be removed. If the U.N. force wants the 
trust of civilians, they need to make sure the Haitian national police 
do not ignore human rights or violations in the face of high 
insecurity, which only fuels the cycle of violence.
  Simply put, the credibility of the U.N. force is directly tied to its 
ability to bring some calm and to prevent abuses. To that end, 
civilians should be able to contact U.N. forces directly about the 
abuses by the national police. That does not happen.
  I am also troubled by the interim government, led by President 
Boniface Alexandre and Prime Minister Gerard Latortue. They have 
delayed justice for thousands of prisoners. Roughly 20 of the more than 
7,000 prisoners at the federal penitentiary have been convicted of 
crimes. Many of them have spent years awaiting trial.
  I am particularly concerned about the treatment of former Prime 
Minister Yvon Neptune who has been held without formal charges for over 
a year and is near death after a series of off-and-on hunger strikes 
which he began in February. Now in the sixth month of his protest, I am 
told his rib cage is sticking out of his skin and he is maybe near 
death.
  On May 25, Prime Minister Neptune was carried to his first hearing on 
a stretcher where he testified for several hours. He denied the 
accusations that he masterminded the killings of 25 Haitians in the 
town of St. Marc and has refused to leave Haiti, despite that offer, 
until his name is cleared.
  The basic point is when it comes to legal issues, it is imperative 
that the interim government set the tone that the rule of law matters. 
If they do not set the example at the top, lawlessness will not improve 
at the bottom. The amendment I am offering is meant to serve as a small 
wake-up call to the administration and to the Congress that we are 
watching what is happening. It is meant to send the message that Haiti 
is only going to have a future if we are prepared to extend a helping 
hand. What we need now is resolve and a serious commitment from the 
highest levels of our Government to bring peace, security, and 
stability to the people of this small island nation.
  We have lost interest before. The result is clear. We cannot afford 
to do it again. The United States should help the Haitian people create 
an honest government committed to justice, committed to combating 
poverty, committed to democracy, and to a better Haiti. I hope the Bush 
administration will make that commitment. I hope forcing them to take a 
serious look at conditions on the ground and responding accordingly 
will produce results.
  Again, one does not need to have a Ph.D. in political science to know 
what the net effect will be if we do not get more serious about Haiti. 
Haitians will do what they have done, as other peoples have done in 
other nations who have been confronted by similar fact situations. 
Haiti is only a few miles off our coast, roughly about 110, 120 miles. 
Haitians will do what they have done historically. They will leave in 
droves and they will seek safe refuge wherever they can achieve it. 
Obviously we do not want that situation to occur again.
  So the modest proposal to try and inject some sanity into our policy 
we hope will stem that tide. I think even more serious measures need to 
be taken by the international community such as a protectorate of some 
kind to create some stability there over the coming 10 or 15 years to 
give any hope to the Haitian people to regain control of their own 
society.
  Words that I can't even conjure up cannot describe the situation in 
this country. It is getting worse by the hour. Every day we delay, 
every time we refuse to do what needs to be done, we contribute in our 
own way to neglect, to a deteriorating situation in that country.
  I again want to thank my colleagues Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, 
Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Reed, for their support of this 
amendment. Again, it is not going to solve all the problems, but it may 
serve to get some attention.
  I understand the focus on Iraq and the focus on Afghanistan. We 
cannot neglect the Caribbean. We cannot neglect Haiti. This amendment 
is designed to try and reawaken some attention to this problem.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 16585]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator Dodd for his leadership on 
this issue, not just today but for many days, along with Senator DeWine 
and others, and to say how precisely, accurately, and eloquently he has 
characterized the terrible situation in Haiti. It is one that requires 
a plan, requires purpose, and requires commitment by the United States. 
I hope we can carry this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 1301

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1301.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr. 
     Lugar, proposes an amendment numbered 1301.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide support to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 
        Treaty Preparatory Commission and to provide an offset)

       On page 169, line 4, strike ``$3,036,375,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,031,375,000''.
       On page 190, line 5, strike ``$440,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$445,100,000''.
       On page 190, line 19, insert ``that should be not less than 
     $19,350,000'' after ``Commission''.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know we are about to vote at 2:30 on two 
amendments. I wanted this to be the pending business. I will lay this 
aside until after the successive votes we are about to have. I thank 
the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy 
of Vermont and Senator Biden be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                    Amendment No. 1245, as Modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, under the previous order, we are now 
about ready to have the vote on the Landrieu amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent for 2 minutes to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, 2 minutes will be allocated 
to each side prior to the vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine, Senator Inhofe, and Senator 
Craig. It is an amendment we feel very strongly about and are proud to 
offer to the Senate this afternoon to clarify a very important 
principle as we give out billions of dollars in aid to other countries. 
That principal is very simple and straightforward: Families matter; 
families should be respected; children belong in families.
  As we give out billions of dollars that would hopefully reflect our 
values, as the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader said, that 
would reflect and advance our values, this amendment becomes very clear 
and very important, and I hope it will receive an overwhelming vote.
  To clear up some misperceptions that are out there about this issue, 
again the Landrieu amendment is not a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It 
is a directive. It is a directive to USAID to say that as you are 
giving out this money, keep in mind that children belong in families. 
Try to allocate money in a way that keeps them with the families to 
which they were born, their families of origin. But if they become 
orphaned, let's work as hard as possible to reconnect those children to 
other families, preferably to relatives through domestic adoption, 
long-term permanency, long-term care; not long-term foster care, but 
through the permanency of a real new family. If that family is not 
available in that country, then to look within the human family to 
place those children, keeping sibling groups together as much as 
possible.
  That is our policy in the United States. It is what our law is. It is 
a value that Americans hold dear. That is what this amendment does, and 
I offer it in a bipartisan spirit of cooperation.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), are 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 1245), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                           Amendment No. 1271

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes equally 
divided on the Chambliss amendment. Obviously, Senator Chambliss will 
speak in support of his amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. 
It simply says that none of the funds made available under this act may 
be used to provide assistance to any country whose government has 
notified the Department of State of its refusal to extradict to the 
United States an individual who is charged with a crime in the United 
States of America, where the penalty is life in prison without parole 
or less.
  A young man from Georgia was killed on the streets of Washington, DC, 
in 2002. He was a young Marine Corps officer. He was a member of the 
White House guard. A Nicaraguan, after he was charged with the offense, 
went back to Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan Government now refuses to 
extradict this individual to the United States to be charged with this 
crime he committed while he was here.
  What we are doing today is taking tax funds from the mother and the 
father of this young man who was killed and sending them to Nicaragua. 
That is wrong.
  This amendment will not allow that to happen. It is a great 
amendment. I urge agreement of the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I certainly want to extradict or bring back 
to America people who have committed crimes here. But I understand and 
I agree with the Bush administration, which is strongly opposed to this 
amendment. The administration letter says, in part, for example, 
Israel, in some cases, has refused to extradict its nationals. Jordan, 
with whom we have a treaty, has a court ruling that the treaty is not 
in force. The amendment does not take into account that the Government 
does not have treaties in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the former 
Soviet Union, and elsewhere.
  Under this amendment, for example, a few years ago when a young man 
committed a heinous murder in Maryland--he had dual citizenship with

[[Page 16586]]

Israel and fled to Israel--Israel would not send him back; in that 
case, we would have had to cut off all aid to Israel.
  That may be what Senators want to do. I point that out. That is why 
the administration so strongly opposes the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--12

     Akaka
     Dayton
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Rockefeller
       


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on record vote 
No. 196 regarding the Chambliss amendment, that I be recorded as having 
voted ``aye'' instead of my previous vote against the amendment. I 
understand this change will not affect the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The amendment (No. 1271) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                  Unanimous-Consent Agreement--S. 1042

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, 
the Senate turn to the immediate consideration of S. 1042, the Defense 
authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 1304

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and that my amendment be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know we have agreement to accept this 
amendment, so I will not speak for very long. I know people want to 
vote on final passage.
  Two quick points: This amendment does not block or change in any way 
the CNOOC-Unocal merger. It simply says, after any merger where a 
corporation that is owned by a foreign government seeks to buy an 
American company, that our Government, particularly MFTEC in the 
Treasury Department, issue a report that shows whether that country is 
treating our companies reciprocally and fairly. In other words, would 
an American company that wished to buy a Chinese company in a similar 
position be allowed to do so? I would argue that the Chinese do not. If 
you believe in free trade, it has to be a two-way street.
  This amendment at least gives us a report and some knowledge of that 
condition. That is all I am asking.
  With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


               Liability Protections To The Gun Industry

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I note the majority leader indicated we will 
move to the Defense authorization bill. I think that is an appropriate 
legislative initiative to take up. We are in war. We have troops who 
are being threatened every day. We have the need to move to this bill. 
We concluded the committee deliberations weeks ago, and we are ready to 
move to the bill.
  But I am concerned because there has been a suggestion that in the 
middle of that process, we might take up a bill to grant liability 
protections to the gun industry. Stopping the Defense authorization 
bill to take up a special interest bill would be inappropriate. Moving 
from the national interest to a very special interest is the wrong 
thing to do.
  If we do proceed to a bill to give liability protection to the gun 
industry, it would require full and intensive debate within the 
confines of the rules of the Senate. I would hope that we could offer 
amendments, which we didn't last time, because there are important 
issues that touch upon the issue of guns in this society that should be 
debated also. I would hope, once we get on to the Defense authorization 
bill, we would be able to pursue that until we conclude it. We owe it 
to the troops in the field who are defending us today. We owe them much 
more than the special interest lobbies in this country.


                           Amendment No. 1304

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Schumer amendment has been cleared 
on both sides. I recommend we move forward with it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1304) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1255, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1255 and send a 
modification to the desk. This too has been agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1255, as modified.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


                    OVERSIGHT OF IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

       Sec. __. (a) Subsection (o) of section 3001 of the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for 
     the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 
     108-106; 117 Stat. 1234; 5 U.S.C. App. 3 section 8G note), as 
     amended by section 1203(j) of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 
     108-375; 118 Stat. 2081), is amended by striking 
     ``obligated'' and inserting ``expended''.
       (b) Of the amount appropriated in chapter 2 of title II of 
     the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and 
     for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public 
     Law 108-106; 117 Stat. 1224) under the heading ``OTHER 
     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE'' and under the subheading 
     ``iraq relief and reconstruction fund'', $30,000,000 of 
     unobligated funds should be made available during fiscal year 
     2006 only to carry out section 3001 of the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the 
     Reconstruction of Iraq and

[[Page 16587]]

     Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106; 117 Stat. 1234), as 
     amended by section 1203 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 
     108-375; 118 Stat. 2081); Provided, That such amount is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am happy to join with my colleague, 
Senator Feingold, in offering an amendment extending the mandate of the 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR. The Special 
Inspector General serves as a watchdog over the billions of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars allocated for Iraq reconstruction. It has been 
effective in its role, uncovering and exposing a wide range of problems 
with the use of taxpayer funds in Iraq. For example, in reports 
released on May 4, the SIGIR documented instances of files that could 
not be located by contract managers, contract funds that no one could 
account for, and failures by U.S. officials to live up to commitments 
made to Iraqi authorities regarding the management of funds slated to 
rebuild Iraq. The SIGIR also found indications of potential criminal 
activity in the case of the South-Central Iraq audit, where managers 
could not account for what happened to $96.6 million of $119.9 million 
that was disbursed in South-Central Iraq.
  The SIGIR's tenure is currently 10 months after 80 percent of Iraqi 
relief and reconstruction funds are obligated, rather than expended. As 
a result, his term could expire well before all of the work that has 
been contracted has been performed and payments have been made. Current 
estimates are that Iraq reconstruction fund obligations could meet the 
80 percent threshold very soon. The Feingold-Collins amendment would 
extend the SIGIR's tenure by changing the termination date to 10 months 
after 80 percent of the funds are expended.
  As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees government contracting, 
I meet with and receive briefings regularly from the Inspector General 
on the office's ongoing work and findings. He conducts needed, on-the-
ground oversight of contracts in Iraq. His audit and investigative work 
provides much needed transparency of these operations and demonstrates 
to the new Iraqi government the importance of openness and oversight to 
a democratic society.
  Despite its effectiveness, the SIGIR office is set to begin closing 
down before the majority of reconstruction funds for Iraq have even 
been expended. We need to extend the mandate of this office to help 
make sure that American tax dollars are being used effectively and 
efficiently, and to help our reconstruction effort succeed.
  Without the SIGIR's experienced oversight, I fear that we may 
encounter an increase in fraud, waste, and abuse in the management and 
administration of Iraq reconstruction contracts.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, without objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1255), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1305

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1305. It has 
been agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1305) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1301

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1301. It has 
been cleared on both sides as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1301) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1252, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1252 and send a 
modification to the desk. It has been agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Biden, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1252, as modified.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


     REPORT ON ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF CRIMES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

       Sec. 6113. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     services provided to United States citizens who are victims 
     of violent crime while outside the United States. The report 
     shall include--
       (1) the total number of United States citizens who reported 
     to a United States embassy or consulate that such citizen was 
     a victim of violent crime during fiscal year 2005;
       (2) a summary of the funding available during fiscal year 
     2006 through the Department of State to assist United States 
     citizens who are victims of violent crime while outside the 
     United States;
       (3) the expenditures made during fiscal year 2005 by the 
     United States to assist such United States citizens;
       (4) a proposal for providing services to such United States 
     citizens who have no other source of funds to obtain such 
     services, including any necessary organizational changes 
     needed to provide such services; and
       (5) proposals for funding and administering emergency 
     assistance to such United States citizens who have no other 
     source of funds.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations 
     and the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The term ``violent crime'' means murder, non-negligent 
     manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, or aggravated assault.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, an important part of U.S. nuclear 
nonproliferation policy is the continuing effort to deter other 
countries from testing a nuclear weapon. It is often said that a 
country could build a relatively simple nuclear weapon, like the bomb 
exploded at Hiroshima, and use it with confidence even though it has 
not tested the device. That does not hold true, however, for more 
complex designs; and military commanders are loath to rely upon any 
weapon that has not been tested.
  One major way to deter countries from conducting nuclear weapons 
tests is to ensure that such a test would be detected. That's because 
most countries, as signers of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban 
Treaty, the CTBT, are bound to refrain from acts that would undermine 
the object and purpose of that treaty, even though it has yet to enter 
into force. In addition, nearly all nuclear weapons states, including 
some that are not parties to the CTBT, have proclaimed unilateral 
moratoria on nuclear weapons tests. Thus, there are both legal and 
political barriers to openly testing nuclear weapons.
  How can we make it more likely that a covert nuclear weapons test 
would be detected and identified? One way is through U.S. and allied 
data collection, including the fine seismic network put together by the 
Air Force Technical Applications Center, or AFTAC. I support and 
applaud the work of AFTAC, which is truly a center of excellence. But 
AFTAC cannot and does not do everything; not every country will 
cooperate with the United States in the nuclear detection mission; and 
when we use AFTAC, we pay the full bill.

[[Page 16588]]

  AFTAC's work is supplemented importantly by the International 
Monitoring System, or IMS, that is being set up by the Preparatory 
Commission for the CTBT Organization, the CTBTO PrepCom. The worldwide 
seismic network of the IMS will include sites in Russia, China, Iran 
and elsewhere that cannot be duplicated through U.S. or bilateral 
arrangements. It will also combine long-distance, low-frequency, or 
teleseismic, coverage with high-frequency, regional seismic data that 
many experts believe will do a better job of detecting a ``decoupled'' 
explosion that uses an existing cavity to resist detection.
  The IMS will marshal four different types of data--not only seismic, 
but also hydroacoustic, infrasound, and airborne radionuclide 
emissions--collected at 321 sites, mostly seismic arrays. The use of 
multiple methodologies will make it more difficult for a country to 
evade detection, as it gets very difficult to design a test that avoids 
detection by all four means. And the rest of the world is paying more 
than three quarters of the cost of this robust monitoring system.
  Finally, while national technical means may include very sensitive 
intelligence information, the IMS will provide data that can be used 
openly for diplomatic or enforcement purposes. That will greatly ease 
the pressure on U.S. intelligence to expose sensitive sources or 
methods in order to further U.S. foreign policy objectives.
  The administration rightly supports the IMS and has funded the U.S. 
share of IMS expenses for several years. Secretary of State Rice 
confirmed the administration's support for this program earlier this 
year, in response to a question for the record that I asked after she 
testified on the foreign affairs budget.
  In addition, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security, Mr. Joseph, has assured the Foreign Relations 
Committee that funding the IMS is fully consistent with the 
administration's position on the CTBT, which it has said that the 
United States will not join, even though it is a signatory to the 
treaty. While I wish that the administration were of a different mind 
on the CTBT itself, I think they are absolutely correct in their view 
that the IMS serves our national security interests even if this 
country never ratifies the CTBT.
  Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget imposed a severe 
cut on this budget item, reducing the State Department's request from 
$22,000,000 to $14,350,000. The Secretary of State assured the Foreign 
Relations Committee that the State Department is committed to finding 
the extra funds, even if they have to be obtained in the fiscal year 
2007 budget. That's no way to run a railroad, however, and it could be 
difficult to get over $30 million next year to make up for the 
shortfall. It would be far better to find some of that extra money now 
and not put the United States so far in arrears.
  I propose, therefore, that an extra $5 million be made available for 
the U.S. contribution to the CTBTO PrepCom. I am joined in this 
amendment by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, my good 
friend Senator Lugar of Indiana, which I very much appreciate. The 
additional funds will make it much more likely that the United States 
will find the money to pay its full assessment for IMS and will help 
keep the world from becoming a much more dangerous place.
  Staff to Senators McConnell and Leahy have kindly worked with us on 
this amendment and identified the budget for economic support funds as 
an area in which a $5 million cut could be absorbed with less harm to 
our national security than we would risk by failing to fund the IMS in 
a timely manner. I understand that the managers of this bill are 
prepared to accept our amendment and can cover the difference in first-
year outlays that will result. I am most grateful for their 
cooperation.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following question 
and answer.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Questions for the Record Submitted to Secretary of State Condoleezza 
Rice by Senator Joseph Biden (No. 12), Committee on Foreign Relations, 
                           February 16, 2005.

       Question: Why is the Administration proposing a cut in the 
     U.S. contribution to the International Monitoring System 
     being established by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
     Organization Preparatory Commission?
       Answer: The $7.65 million cut in funding for the 
     International Monitoring System (IMS) does not signal a 
     change in U.S. policy toward the Comprehensive Nuclear Test 
     Ban Treaty (CTBT). The U.S. continues to support and 
     participate in those activities of the Preparatory Commission 
     for the CTBT Organization (CTBTO PrepCom) in Vienna that 
     pertain to the IMS, and the U.S. has no plans to press the 
     PrepCom to lower its budget to a level commensurate with the 
     $14.35 million that the Administration has allocated for it 
     in FY06.
       Unfortunately, budgets are very tight and cuts had to be 
     made, even among programs supported by the Administration. A 
     number of other cuts were made in the Department's program 
     requests, including in the areas of non-proliferation and 
     counter-terrorism. The level of funding for a program in any 
     given year's budget does not necessarily have a bearing on 
     the funding level for that program in the succeeding years.
       It is important to note that the U.S. continues to observe 
     a nuclear testing moratorium and encourages other states not 
     to test. While the U.S. does not support the CTBT and will 
     not become a party to it, the U.S. has gone to great expense 
     to develop a Stockpile Stewardship Program to help ensure the 
     safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile 
     without testing.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1252), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 1306 through 1308, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk a managers' package 
on behalf of Senator Byrd, regarding the United States-China Economic 
and Security Review Commission; on behalf of Senators Leahy, Chafee, 
Mikulski, and Corzine regarding women's health; and Senator Frist 
regarding the use of funds for nonproliferation purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 1306 through 1308 en bloc.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments? If 
not, without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1306

(Purpose: To modify the responsibilities and authorities applicable to 
    the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES OF UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND 
                       SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION

       Sec.   . (a) Modification of Responsibilities.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of section 1238 of the Floyd D. 
     Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2001 (22 U.S.C. 7002), or any other provision of law, the 
     United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission 
     established by subsection (b) of that section should 
     investigate and report exclusively on each of the following 
     areas:
       (1) Proliferation practices.--The role of the People's 
     Republic of China in the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction and other weapons (including dual use 
     technologies), including actions the United States might take 
     to encourage the People's Republic of China to cease such 
     practices.
       (2) Economic transfers.--The qualitative and quantitative 
     nature of the transfer of United States production activities 
     to the People's Republic of China, including the relocation 
     of high technology, manufacturing, and research and 
     development facilities, the impact of such transfers on 
     United States national security, the adequacy of United 
     States export control laws, and the effect of such transfers 
     on United States economic security and employment.
       (3) Energy.--The effect of the large and growing economy of 
     the People's Republic of China on world energy supplies and 
     the role the United States can play (including through joint 
     research and development efforts and technological 
     assistance) in influencing the energy policy of the People's 
     Republic of China.

[[Page 16589]]

       (4) Access to united states capital markets.--The extent of 
     access to and use of United States capital markets by the 
     People's Republic of China, including whether or not existing 
     disclosure and transparency rules are adequate to identify 
     People's Republic of China companies engaged in harmful 
     activities.
       (5) Regional economic and security impacts.--The triangular 
     economic and security relationship among the United States, 
     Taipei, and the People's Republic of China (including the 
     military modernization and force deployments of the People's 
     Republic of China aimed at Taipei), the national budget of 
     the People's Republic of China, and the fiscal strength of 
     the People's Republic of China in relation to internal 
     instability in the People's Republic of China and the 
     likelihood of the externalization of problems arising from 
     such internal instability.
       (6) United states-china bilateral programs.--Science and 
     technology programs, the degree of non-compliance by the 
     People's Republic of China with agreements between the United 
     States and the People's Republic of China on prison labor 
     imports and intellectual property rights, and United States 
     enforcement policies with respect to such agreements.
       (7) World trade organization compliance.--The compliance of 
     the People's Republic of China with its accession agreement 
     to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
       (b) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
     Subsection (g) of section 1238 of the Floyd D. Spence 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Applicability of FACA.--The provisions of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the 
     activities of the Commission.''


                           amendment no. 1307

 (Purpose: To require that funds made available for the United Nations 
             Population Fund be used for certain purposes)

       On page 274, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following 
     new subsection:
       (e) Use of Funds.--None of the funds made available for the 
     UNFPA in this section may be used for any purpose except--
       (1) to provide and distribute equipment, medicine, and 
     supplies, including safe delivery kits and hygiene kits, to 
     ensure safe childbirth and emergency obstetric care;
       (2) to prevent and treat cases of obstetric fistula;
       (3) to make available supplies of contraceptives for the 
     prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, 
     including HIV/AIDS;
       (4) to reestablish maternal health services in areas where 
     medical infrastructure and such services have been destroyed 
     by natural disasters;
       (5) to eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation; 
     or
       (6) to promote the access of unaccompanied women and other 
     vulnerable people to vital services, including access to 
     water, sanitation facilities, food, and health care.


                           amendment no. 1308

  (Purpose: To provide that funds appropriated for nonproliferation, 
 anti-terrorism, demining and related programs and made available for 
 the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty International Monitoring System may 
be made available for the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security for use in certain nonproliferation efforts and 
                     counterproliferation efforts)

       On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:


           NONPROLIFERATION AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION EFFORTS

       Sec. 6113. Funds appropriated under title III under the 
     heading ``nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and 
     related programs'' may be made available to the Under 
     Secretary of State for Arms Control and International 
     Security for use in certain nonproliferation efforts and 
     counterproliferation efforts such as increased voluntary dues 
     to the International Atomic Energy Agency, activities under 
     the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Cooperative 
     Threat Reduction program, and in support of the National 
     Counter Proliferation Center and its activities.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                                Romania

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, my colleague from New Hampshire, 
Congressman Jeb Bradley, successfully offered an amendment in the House 
of Representatives to this year's Foreign Operations appropriations 
bill as part of an effort to encourage the Romanian Government to act 
on an extremely important issue. I had originally intended to offer the 
same amendment here in the Senate, however, the Senator from Kentucky, 
the chairman of the subcommittee, has graciously offered to work with 
me on the issue.
  While the amendment would have specifically limited assistance to 
Romania provided under the Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic 
States, SEED, account, the real problem we are trying to address is the 
plight of over 100 American families and almost 200 Romanian orphans 
these families have agreed to adopt. Despite the fact that the 
adoptions have been approved by Romania, these young orphans and their 
new American families have been waiting in limbo--for years in some 
instances.
  After approving these adoptions, Romania changed its adoption laws in 
order to comply with the European Union's legal standards as a 
condition of admittance into the European Union. However, since 
changing their law, Romanian officials have yet to clarify the status 
of these adoptions or act in any manner to fulfill the commitments that 
were made to these caring and compassionate Americans--or to fulfill 
the hopes of their own orphans.
  This past March, Romanian President Basescu indicated to Members of 
Congress, representatives from the State Department, and several of the 
affected families that as soon as the European Union voted to admit 
Romania, his government would then move expeditiously to resolve the 
previously approved adoption cases. While the European Union voted to 
admit Romania in April, Mr. Basescu's pledge has yet to be honored by 
his government.
  Romania became a good ally of the United States almost immediately 
after the breakup of the Soviet Union and indeed played a pivotal role 
leading to the breakup. It is out of respect for the generally good 
relations between our countries--and with the hope that Romania will 
reciprocate in equal good faith--that I have decided not to offer the 
amendment in the Senate as I originally planned to do. Instead, I will 
work during the conference on the bill to come up with a solution to 
this issue which is in the best interests not only of our two 
countries, but those of the families and orphans who have unnecessarily 
been kept apart too long as well.
  I hope that the Romanian Government will seize this opportunity 
afforded to them and take appropriate and expeditious action--
posthaste--to allow these children to join their new families here in 
America.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I appreciate the comments made by the senior Senator 
from New Hampshire and I strongly encourage the Romanian Government--
and the State Department--to address this important issue 
expeditiously. The committee recommends $20 million for assistance for 
Romania under the SEED account, which is equivalent to the budget 
request. It is my hope and expectation that this matter be successfully 
resolved prior to the conferencing of this bill.


                    Afghan Medical Relief Foundation

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your 
attention the important work of the Afghan Medical Relief Foundation, 
AMRF, which was formed in 2004 to promote the prevention, awareness, 
training, and treatment of life-threatening diseases. They are focused 
in particular on diabetes, delivering insulin and providing treatment 
for 15,000 to 20,000 diabetic children, young people, and adults in 
Afghanistan. This organization opened four new centers in Kabul in 
April and May 2005. Nearly 2,000 new diabetic patients a month are 
visiting the centers.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Lautenberg for 
bringing this project to the attention of the chairman and ranking 
member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. 
Approximately 900,000 Afghans suffer from diabetes and the subsequent 
complications that forever change an individual's life. Through the 
good work of the AMRF, the Ministry of Public Health has improved the 
quality of life for thousands of Afghanis by making diabetes education, 
prevention, and treatment a national priority.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also thank my colleagues for bringing the 
important work of the Afghan Medical Relief Foundation to the attention 
of the chairman. The AMRF has successfully trained 16 health care 
professionals to diagnose and treat diabetes,

[[Page 16590]]

developed a uniform patient management model, and increased knowledge 
of diabetes among the diabetic and general population.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for 
bringing this project to the attention of the chairman and ranking 
member as well. AMRF has worked closely with the Afghan Minister of 
Health and has made sure that diabetes is included in the basic 
national health care package in Afghanistan. As the people of 
Afghanistan continue the hard work of building a strong democracy, it 
is important they have access to essential resources, such as medicines 
and care, which are vital in creating a peaceful and secure society.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from the State of New 
Jersey, the Senators from the State of North Carolina, and the Senator 
from Nebraska. This program sounds important. Unfortunately, the 
subcommittee does not earmark funds for specific organizations.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, It is unfortunate that the 
subcommittee is not able to support the work of the Afghan Medical 
Relief Foundation, but it is understandable why the subcommittee cannot 
do so.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from New Jersey, 
North Carolina, and Nebraska, and I thank them for bringing this 
project to my attention. This sounds like a worthwhile project for 
USAID to consider.


                        Rwanda HIV/AIDS Program

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as my colleague, Senator Coleman knows, 
halting the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa is an issue of paramount 
importance. The international community is at a crucial crossroads in 
the effort to treat and more importantly, stop the spread of this 
disease.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, yes, the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska is correct in his statement that this is an issue at a crisis 
point in Africa, and one that the United States has rightly committed 
ourselves to fighting. I have a particular interest in an innovative 
proposal by the University of Minnesota to partner with the government 
of Rwanda to institute a comprehensive training and support program 
that would provide HIV care to every HIV-infected Rwandan eligible for 
treatment within 18 months of implementation.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Coleman recently brought the University of 
Minnesota's program to my attention. It is of particular interest to me 
because it provides for training and development of nurses and HIV care 
practitioners, as part of a program that will be self sustaining within 
5 years of implementation.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, as my colleague mentions, this program seeks to 
address the health care infrastructure by training nurse practitioners 
through the University of Minnesota's excellent distance learning 
program for nurse practitioners. This program will dramatically 
increase the capacity of Rwandan medical and nursing schools, creating 
new physicians and nurses with a high standard of training for a 
permanent, skilled, and sustainable force of health care professionals 
in Rwanda.
  Mr. STEVENS. The success of this program could eventually be a 
template to spread out into the rest of Africa. I hope to work with my 
distinguished colleague and the State Department on implementation of 
this important program.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, I will work with my colleague to gain funding for 
this important program.


                          Safe Drinking Water

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, safe drinking water is one of the biggest 
health challenges facing the developing world. According to the World 
Health Organization, approximately 1.1 billion people around the world 
lack access to clean water sources and 2.6 billion lack access to basic 
sanitation. As a result, approximately 1.8 million people die every 
year from diarrheal disease, and sadly, 90 percent of those deaths 
occur in children under the age of 5.
  With an increasing world population and further constraints on our 
world's water resources, the problem is expected to worsen 
significantly before it begins to improve.
  I commend the assistant majority leader, Senator McConnell, the 
chairman of the foreign operations appropriations subcommittee, for 
providing $200 million to the U.S. Agency for International Development 
for safe water programs in his bill. Further, the chairman has 
allocated not less than $50 million of that amount for programs in 
Africa, where the need is significant.
  In addition to Government aid, there is a growing effort in the 
private, nonprofit sector to address this problem as well. 
Organizations such as Millennium Water Alliance, Water Missions 
International, Living Water International, Water for People, The Nature 
Conservancy, Winrock International, The Aspen Institute, and many 
others are working to address global water issues. Also, the 
WaterLeaders Foundation is an organization dedicated to delivering 
comprehensive, safe water technologies throughout the globe, one 
village at a time. They are developing lightweight, low-cost, low-
energy water purification systems that will soon be available to 
distribute to communities, schools, and orphanages to help turn back 
the tide on water-related diseases in Africa.
  I would like to ask Senator McConnell, the chairman of this 
subcommittee, if anything in this bill precludes any portion of USAID 
funds from matching private donations to assist these types of 
organizations from helping to provide safe drinking water for these 
types of activities?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I appreciate the comments from my colleague, and 
commend him for his leadership on the issue of safe water. I am proud 
of the commitment we have made in this bill to safe water programs, 
particularly with regard to Africa, and I agree that nothing in this 
bill would preclude USAID funds from matching the good work of these 
dedicated private, nonprofit organizations. In fact, it is my 
understanding that USAID has provided $1.1 billion these last 2 years 
to leverage over $3.7 billion in private funds for a variety of 
projects including safe water.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, earlier today I had to miss a 
rollcall vote on the Landrieu-Craig amendment because of a family 
commitment. I would have voted for the sense-of-the-Senate amendment to 
urge USAID to follow the principles of the Hague Convention on the 
Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry 
Adoption.
  Senators Landrieu and Craig have been extraordinary leaders on the 
issue of adoption, and their work on the Congressional Adoption Caucus 
has been very important in our country and throughout the world in 
promoting the fundamental concept that every child deserves a safe, 
permanent home. This is a basic goal that we should strive for at every 
opportunity.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3057 
yesterday, which was accepted as part of a managers' package to 
increase economic support fund monies for Lebanon from $35 million to 
$40 million, and to increase the support of the American educational 
institutions in Lebanon out of those monies from $4 million to $6 
million. I very much appreciate the assistance of Senator McConnell and 
Senator Leahy in that regard.
  The Cedar Revolution, in which the people of Lebanon have expressed 
their frustration with outside interference in their internal affairs 
and with a sectarian brand of politics that has produced corruption, 
undemocratic practices, and a faltering economy, has inspired hope for 
major political transformation not only in Lebanon, but in other 
countries of the Middle East as well. It is important to express our 
support for the people of Lebanon, both symbolically and in concrete 
terms that will assist them in reviving their economy and in carrying 
forward a process of reform that still requires much effort and 
determination.
  Fortunately, the Agency for International development has for some 
years run a small but effective assistance program in the country, 
relying

[[Page 16591]]

largely on American nongovernmental organizations and education 
institutions which operate in Lebanon. USAID therefore has the 
experience and the partners to efficiently put additional assistance to 
good use. The priorities should continue to be fostering fundamental 
democratic principles and economic recovery.
  My amendment recognizes, as has the Appropriations Committee in its 
bill, the special role of the American educational institutions in 
achieving these goals. The American schools in Lebanon, through 
scholarships that these funds make possible, prepare the next 
generation of leaders by graduating young men and women who have a 
solid understanding of the forces of globalization, are committed to 
democratic values, and have the skills to reform their societies and 
bridge the differences between those societies and the West. Young 
leaders such as these will assure the future not just of Lebanon, but 
of the region as a whole. Lebanon benefits when such men and women from 
throughout the Middle East are educated at the renowned American 
schools in the country, as does the United States. It is therefore my 
intention that scholarship funds made available for these schools can 
be provided for students from any country within the region.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 30 years ago, Egypt and the United States 
developed what has become a strong partnership, dedicated to a stable 
and peaceful Middle East.
  Egypt is a strong ally to the United States and is actively 
supporting the peace process in Israel and Palestine, Iraq, and the 
Sudan.
  It has also made many democratic reforms in recent years. Women now 
hold a number of important political positions such as cabinet 
ministers, members of parliament, ambassadors, and judges.
  The amended Egyptian constitution allows for multi-candidate 
presidential elections, and provides for equal access to publically 
owned media.
  And a number of privately owned and managed television networks have 
been established.
  It is important that we continue to support the positive changes 
taking place in Egypt, and encourage further democratic and human 
rights reforms.
  I am concerned that conditions and limitations placed on the 
government of Egypt's ability to receive and spend funds will send a 
negative message to the people of Egypt.
  The administration has expressed concerns about these legislative 
restrictions, which it believes could harm the relationship between our 
respective governments.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a significant amount of time and effort 
goes into preparing this bill every year. I want to take a moment to 
recognize some of the dedicated staff involved in putting it together.
  First, I thank my good friend from Vermont, with whom I have enjoyed 
working on this issue over the last decade, who is ably served by Tim 
Rieser and Kate Eltrich. Over the past few months, they have worked 
alongside my staff helping to draft a bill and report. They have my 
special thanks for a job well done.
  Recognition also goes to LaShawnda Smith, Tom Hawkins, Harry Christy, 
and Paul Grove of my staff. I thank LaShawnda for keeping the 
subcommittee running. She does a terrific job.
  Since coming to State-Foreign Operations 9 months ago, Tom has proven 
an invaluable member of our team. His oversight of the security and 
counternarcotics programs is outstanding. Thank you, Tom.
  Instead of protecting the President, Harry, a detailee from the 
Secret Service, has assumed his temporary duties as an appropriator in 
a professional manner. His work on State Department accounts has been 
invaluable, particularly given the most recent expansion of the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  Finally, I certainly want to thank Paul Grove, staff director, for 
his many years of great service with me on this assignment and other 
assignments in the past. There are many other people without whose help 
we would literally have no bill to report at all. I thank Bob Putnam, 
Jack Conway and, of course, Keith Kennedy. They should know that our 
staff greatly appreciates their patience, guidance and, when required, 
good humor.
  For words, the editorial and printing shop is top-notch. Richard 
Larson is a consummate professional, nothing less than a committee 
treasure. He has my thanks, as do Wayne Hosier, Doris Jackson, and 
Heather Crowell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would concur completely with the Senator 
from Kentucky on the people he has praised. He has left out one, 
himself. I praise the work he has done. We worked very closely together 
on this. I know that Tim Rieser on my side worked so closely with Paul 
Grove, and I appreciate the bipartisan nature of that. I thank Kate 
Eltrich; the newest member on our side, Jennifer Park; of course, Paul 
Grove, Tom Hawkins, Harry Christy, and LaShawnda Smith on the 
chairman's side. It has been very good. I think we could probably go on 
to final passage.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me reiterate what a pleasure it is to work with 
Senator Leahy. I have enjoyed our relationship over the years.
  There is a request for a vote on final passage. I believe we are 
ready for that. I assume the yeas and nays need to be required.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill, as 
amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Inhofe
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The bill (H.R. 3057), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The title amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.

[[Page 16592]]




                    Amendment No. 1263, as Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask 
unanimous consent that notwithstanding passage of H.R. 3057, Salazar 
amendment No. 1263, as modified, which is at the desk, be agreed to and 
that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1263), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

         On page 326, between lines 10 and 11, insert the 
     following:


                     INTERNATIONAL POLICE TRAINING

         Sec. _. (a) Requirements for Instructors.--Prior to 
     carrying out any program of training for police or security 
     forces through the Bureau that begins after the date that is 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of State shall ensure that--
         (1) such training is provided by instructors who have 
     proven records of experience in training law enforcement or 
     security personnel;
         (2) the Bureau has established procedures to ensure that 
     the individuals who receive such training--
         (A) do not have a criminal background;
         (B) are not connected to any criminal or terrorist 
     organization;
         (C) are not connected to drug traffickers; and
         (D) meet the minimum age and experience standards set out 
     in appropriate international agreements; and
         (3) the Bureau has established procedures that--
         (A) clearly establish the standards an individual who 
     will receive such training must meet;
         (B) clearly establish the training courses that will 
     permit the individual to meet such standards; and
         (C) provide for certification of an individual who meets 
     such standards after receiving such training.
         (b) Advisory Board.--The Secretary of State shall seek 
     the advice of 10 experts to advise the Bureau on issues 
     related to cost efficiency and professional efficacy of 
     police and security training programs, including experts who 
     are experienced United States law enforcement personnel.
         (c) Bureau Defined.--In this section, the term ``Bureau'' 
     means the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
     Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State.
         (d) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report 
     describing the implementation of this section during fiscal 
     year 2006. Such report shall also include the attrition rates 
     of the instructors of such training and an assessment of job 
     performance of such instructors.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. McConnell, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Gregg, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Brownback, 
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part 
of the Senate.

                          ____________________