[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5630-5636]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN AFFAIRS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007--
                               Continued


                           Amendment No. 278

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes evenly divided relating to a vote on amendment No. 278, the 
Boxer amendment. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the 
Boxer-Snowe amendment. It is very important to make sure women around 
the world are given the health care they deserve. Since 1973, the Helms 
amendment has been in place. That means no American funds can ever be 
used for anything to do with abortion. But the global gag rule which we 
are trying to overturn goes much further. It says nonprofit 
organizations overseas cannot use their own money to help a woman by 
giving her options, by giving her a referral. It even says a 
nongovernmental organization would lose all their USAID funding if they 
advocated to change a very restrictive law in their own country. This 
is clearly unconstitutional if it were applied here in America.
  With our men and women dying around the world for freedom, I do not 
think we should say there should be no freedom of speech in these 
countries. We overturned this law many times. I hope we will do it 
again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. This is well-
plowed ground. We have been around this issue since 1984, with Ronald

[[Page 5631]]

Reagan putting this policy in place. The Boxer amendment overturns that 
policy. This is about taxpayer funding of abortion overseas.
  We can separate the issue of abortion here altogether and say we are 
not going to talk about that, but this is taxpayer dollars used to 
support organizations supporting abortion overseas. We talk about 
different semantics. That is what it does. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment. Clearly, 70-plus percent of the American public 
would be against that. Let's work on foreign policy issues and funding 
of things on which we have great unity, not ones on which we are 
divided.
  I respectfully urge a vote against the amendment of my colleague, 
Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Allard
     Kennedy
      
  The amendment (No. 278) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 283

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

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 283.

  Mr. DODD. 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 Express the Sense of the Senate concerning recent 
  provocation actions by the Peoples Republic of China and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  .

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) During most of last four years relations between the 
     United States and the People's Republic of China have been 
     relatively stable;
       (2) The recently released 2004 State Department Country 
     Report on Human Rights continues to characterize China's 
     human rights as poor;
       (3) Bilateral economic and trade relations are important 
     components of the United States/Chinese relationship,
       (4) China's growing international economic and political 
     influence has implications for the United States competitive 
     position and for maintaining a strong domestic industrial 
     base;
       (5) Taiwan remains an extremely sensitive and complex 
     bilateral issue between the U.S. and the Peoples Republic of 
     China;
       (6) The U.S. decision to establish diplomatic relations 
     with the People's Republic of China in 1979 was based upon 
     the premise that the future of Taiwan would be determined 
     solely by peaceful means and in a manner that was mutually 
     satisfactory;
       (7) The Taiwan Relations Act makes clear that peace and 
     stability in the region are in the political, security and 
     economic interests of the United States;
       (8) The United States has consistently urged restraint by 
     both China and Taiwan with respect to their actions and 
     declarations; and
       (9) The anti-succession law adopted by the Chinese National 
     People's Congress on March 14, 2005 targeted at Taiwan's 
     independence advocates was a provocative action which has 
     altered the status quo in the region.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       1. China's anti-succession law is destabilizing to regional 
     peace and stability, and is therefore of grave concern to the 
     United States;
       2. The United States Government should employ all 
     diplomatic means to encourage the repeal of that law so the 
     regional stability can be restored;
       3. The United States Government should continue to speak 
     out with respect to China's human rights practices and 
     advocate the release from detention of all political and 
     human rights activists;
       4. The United States Government should more effectively 
     promote United States economic and trade interests by 
     insisting that the People's Republic of China lives up to its 
     international trade obligations to respect and safeguard U.S. 
     intellectual property rights and cease artificially pegging 
     its currency exchange rates; and
       5. The United States Government should undertake a 
     comprehensive review of the implications of China's growing 
     international economic and political influence that are 
     byproducts of its expanding network of trade agreements, its 
     aggressive shipbuilding programs, its efforts to cement 
     scientific and technological cooperation arrangements, and 
     secure additional oil and gas contracts; and should determine 
     what steps should be taken to safeguard the U.S. industrial 
     base and maintain and enhance United States economic 
     competitiveness and political interests.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is not my intention to debate the 
amendment at this moment, but I wanted to get in the queue. I will 
defer any debate on the amendment until a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we have been attempting to arrange for a 
vote on the Lugar amendment. Senator Biden would like to debate that 
amendment, as I understand it. It may be that an arrangement can be 
made for a conclusion of debate tonight and a vote certain tomorrow 
morning. But for the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. 284

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Wyden and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 284.


[[Page 5632]]

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

(Purpose: To prohibit funds from being used for television broadcasting 
                                to Cuba)

       On page 16, strike lines 13 through 21 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) International broadcasting operations.--For 
     ``International Broadcasting Operations,'' $620,050,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be necessary for 
     the fiscal year 2007.
       (2) Broadcasting capital improvements.--For ``Broadcasting 
     Capital Improvements,'' $10,893,000 for the fiscal year 2006 
     and such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal year 2007.
       (3) Prohibition on television broadcasting to cuba.--None 
     of the amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in paragraph (1) or (2) may be used to provide 
     television broadcasting to Cuba.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I visited with Senator Lugar and Senator 
Biden and indicated, on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden, I would 
offer the amendment. We would be prepared to discuss it in the morning, 
but we will be happy to have it set aside for other business on this 
legislation. I want to say also it is not our intention in any way to 
delay this legislation. It is a very important amendment to us and I 
think to the Senate. But when we come back tomorrow to spend some time 
talking about it, we will not necessarily take very much time, and we 
will hope for favorable consideration by the full Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, I thank Senator Lugar and 
Senator Biden, in particular, for working this arrangement out with 
Senator Dorgan and me. We think this is a waste of money. We are 
anxious to talk about it tomorrow after folks have had a chance, 
overnight, to look at it.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the chance to make these brief 
remarks.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, it appears there are a couple of minutes 
before we move on. I will debate the amendment, along with my 
colleague, Senator Wyden, more extensively in the morning. I will not 
take a lot of time. But as long as the floor was available, I wanted to 
indicate that the amendment we just laid down deals with TV Marti.
  We fund broadcasts into Cuba on something called Radio Marti which 
are very effective. The Cuban people listen to Radio Marti. Of course, 
they can listen to Miami radio stations as well. But we also fund 
something called TV Marti, and we have done it for years. The 
Government of Cuba, of Fidel Castro, jams the signals. We have Fat 
Albert, an aerostat balloon up there thousands of feet in the air, and 
the American taxpayer is paying for a fancy studio down on the ground. 
And up through this cable to Fat Albert we actually send signals into 
Cuba, television signals that the Cuban people can't see. 
Traditionally, they have been broadcast from 3 to 8 in the morning, and 
they are systematically jammed.
  We have been spending about $10 to $12 million a year, and we have 
been doing it for years. We have spent almost $200 million doing it. 
Now the President wants to double the funding. There is something 
called waste, fraud, and abuse. I am not exactly sure where this fits, 
but it is one of the three. It fits with something else called 
stupidity.
  We ought not continue to pay to send television signals to a country 
that can't receive them or television signals to people who can't see 
them because the Government is jamming them. Let me say that the Acting 
Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, Mr. Brian Coniff, 
testified before the House Subcommittee on International Operations and 
Human Rights.
  He said: Transmission to Cuba has been consistently jammed by the 
Cuban Government. The American official said that. This transmission of 
television signals has been systematically jammed by the Cuban 
Government. We don't have any official evidence that the audience has 
increased due to broadcast schedule change. They did have some 
anecdotal evidence that just a smattering of Cubans would be able to 
spot the signal that we broadcast into Cuba. Before the Castro 
government caught the signal and jammed it, they would get a minute or 
two. So that is a sighting. That is a Cuban who was able to see the 
signal of TV Marti. They finally stopped measuring that because the 
audience was so miniscule as to be almost zero.
  Finally their argument was, the same official says: TV Marti, though 
jammed, is well positioned to be an important instrument of U.S. 
foreign policy should a crisis occur on the island.
  So there we are. We have big, old Fat Albert up there, an aerostat 
balloon sending signals to the Cuban people they can't see. We spend 
$10, $12 million a year on something we don't have. And now the 
President says we should double that. And do you know how we are going 
to do it? A balloon isn't enough and a balloon causes problems because 
the balloon got off of its aerostat mooring and went over the 
Everglades, and we had people on grappling hooks and ladders trying to 
tame the balloon that was broadcasting signals into Cuba. So now they 
want to buy an airplane.
  If this were a television show, it would be a comedy. Now they want 
to buy an airplane for $8 million to send signals into Cuba that they 
can't receive. All of this would be funny were it not for the fact that 
this is paid for by American taxpayers. If ever there was a case of 
waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending, it is this.
  It is not partisan. There is no Democratic waste or Republican waste. 
There is just plain old waste. It seems to me when you see something 
that doesn't work, isn't needed, shouldn't be done and doesn't function 
at all, maybe it is time for all of us to say: This we can get rid of.
  This is not the largest amendment offered this year. It is roughly 
$20, $21 million. But it saves money; $21 million is a lot of money in 
my hometown. It saves the taxpayers money and stops doing something 
that has always been completely ineffective.
  We broadcast in Radio Marti. That is effective. The Cubans listen to 
it. They can listen to commercial stations from Miami for that matter. 
But Television Marti has never worked because the Castro government 
systematically jams it. So we send signals no one can receive.
  This amendment, I hope, should be simple enough. I know there will be 
some who may have an apoplectic seizure about my offering this 
amendment because there are a couple of States where the Cuban vote is 
very important and there are some in the Cuban community who think we 
are doing something very important and very worthy if we send signals 
from this country that can't be seen by the Cuban people. That escapes 
some notion of mine that would represent logical thinking. But 
nonetheless there may be some who will feel that way.
  We will have a broader discussion of this tomorrow. I support many of 
the broadcasting programs we have. Many have been very effective. But 
this is pure, solid, thoughtless waste. It is time for this Congress to 
take a stand to shut this spending down.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden 
be recognized in order to offer a substitute amendment to the language 
proposed to be stricken; provided further that there be 30 minutes 
equally

[[Page 5633]]

divided for debate this evening; provided further that at 10 a.m. 
tomorrow, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Biden 
amendment, with no amendments in order to the Biden amendment prior to 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 286

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

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 286 in lieu of the language proposed to be stricken 
     by amendment No. 266.

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

 (Purpose: To provide a second degree amendment related to the United 
 States share of assessment for United Nations Peacekeeping operations)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken, insert the 
     following:
       ``Section 404(b)(2)(B) of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (P.L. 103-236) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) For assessments made during calendar years 2005, 
     2006, and 2007, 27.1 percent.''

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. The amendment I have 
sent to the desk does a simple thing. It maintains the current cap on 
the amount that the United States contributes to the United Nations 
peacekeeping missions. It keeps it at 27.1 percent for the next 2 
years.
  For those who may be watching, they may wonder what that is all 
about. When a peacekeeping mission gets sent overseas, authorized by 
the United Nations, the countries in question have a prior assessment 
as to how much they are going to pay, usually based on the size of 
their countries and the size of their economies, and it has been agreed 
to by us that the appropriate figure for the United States to chip in 
is 27.1 percent. So if it costs $1 million for peacekeeping, our share 
would be $271,000, and so on.
  Let me briefly explain the history of the law and what this does to 
the Lugar amendment.
  In 1994, Congress unilaterally limited what we would pay for the 
peacekeeping endeavors of the United Nations. We said we will no longer 
pay any more than 25 percent. I believe at the time we were paying 31 
percent. That is what the previous administrations had agreed to. That 
is what the U.N. was assessing us, 31 percent. We said in 1994: No, no, 
we are not going to pay any more than 25 percent.
  What happened was, we never negotiated that rate with the United 
Nations. We unilaterally stated that. We did not go back to the U.N. 
and say: Look, we want to reconfigure how much we are paying. We want 
to go down from 31 percent, which we had been paying, to 25 percent. It 
never occurred, and the U.N. continued to bill us at 31 percent. So if 
a peacekeeping mission was $1 million--and none are as cheap as $1 
million--we were getting billed $310,000 and we only agreed to pay 
$250,000. So we were in arrears of $60,000.
  The bill that my former colleague Jesse Helms and I did in the late 
1990s to clear up what the United States allegedly owed--everybody used 
to call it dues, but it was more than dues. This peacekeeping is part 
of what people euphemistically refer to as dues. The accumulated 
obligation that we owed to the United Nations, although somewhat in 
dispute, was a little over $1 billion.
  Senator Helms, and many others, when he was chairman of the 
committee, argued that we should not be paying any of this; we did not 
owe any of these arrears. Senator Helms, after conferring with his 
trusted aide who has passed away, the Staff Director for the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Admiral Bud Nance, when he realized a lot of this 
was owed to some of our friends such as Great Britain, Europe, and 
others, he said I did not realize that; OK, we should pay that amount 
we owe. But in the process Senator Helms, Senator Lugar, myself, and 
many others also thought there should be reforms that should take place 
in the United Nations. In addition to settling this arrears question, 
we wrote a much larger bill that required some changes and commitments 
on the part of the United Nations as well. In the process of doing 
that, Senator Helms agreed and the Helms-Biden legislation said we 
would only pay at 25 percent.
  The Ambassador to the United Nations at the time was Richard Hol-
brooke. Richard Holbrooke, who was in negotiation with the United 
Nations to try to get them to agree that we would only pay 25 percent 
and that they would agree with that beyond us unilaterally asserting 
it, worked out an agreement that said the United Nations agreed we 
would only pay 27 percent. I know what I am talking about sounds 
arcane, but it is real money. Senator Helms and I said: OK, close 
enough. And we agreed to amend the Helms-Biden law to let these 
arrearage payments flow.
  What we never did was repeal the underlying law that was passed in 
the Congress, signed by the President in 1994, that said we would pay 
no more than 25 percent. The underlying law in 1994 was never repealed.
  In 2002, because these arrearages are running up again, the 
difference between 25 percent and what the U.N. thought we owed and 
what we had been paying at the 27 percent, we put in a provision in the 
law, a 3-year amendment that amended the 1994 law putting a ceiling on 
our payments at 27, not 25, percent through the year 2004.
  Last year, we came up against this issue again, and the 
Appropriations Committee, because we were unable to get our bill 
passed, extended the 27-percent number through calendar year 2005. So 
if nothing else is done now, the 1994 law kicks back in, and our 
maximum payment drops from 27 percent to 25 percent, and we are back in 
the same old tangle of building up arrearages of whatever the 2-percent 
difference would be every year that we thought we solved initially. So 
we need to address this issue. We do not want to get into this fight 
again.
  The U.N. peacekeepers perform critical functions in the area of 
conflict and instability around the world. They monitor cease-fires, 
human rights conditions, clearing minefields, disarming combatants, 
providing humanitarian assistance, and organizing and observing 
elections, which all costs money.
  The U.N. peacekeeping missions have become increasingly critical in 
the past year as authorizing missions that support U.S. policy 
objectives for stabilization in Burundi, Haiti, and other places, as 
well as an operation to Sudan which will begin to deploy in the 
upcoming weeks.
  Through missions such as these, the United States contributes to 
international peace and stability while sharing the cost of doing so 
with other nations. Therefore, it is my view that we need to continue 
to pay our U.N. peacekeeping bill, the one negotiated by Holbrooke, 
particularly at this point in time when we are asking for and need U.N. 
cooperation on issues such as democracy building in Iraq, post-tsunami 
disaster relief in Indonesia, and other areas.
  I remind my colleagues, and I am in no way being critical of my 
chairman, the bill we reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee 
corrected the problem. It said we are lifting the 25-percent cap passed 
in 1994, and we are doing it permanently. What the chairman of the 
committee is doing is introducing an amendment saying: I guess, on 
second thought, I do not like that idea very much. I want to now go 
back and amend what passed 18 to 0 and say we are going back to the 25-
percent level.
  I know that is complicated for all the Members, but the bottom line 
is my amendment does what the President's budget request proposed. I 
want to do it permanently, but the President said keep it at 27 percent 
for another 2 years. That is what the President requested. That is what 
I am attempting to amend the Lugar amendment with. If I prevail, the 
President's position

[[Page 5634]]

prevails. We no longer go in arrearages, and we put off another 2 years 
reckoning with the underlying problem.
  I see my colleague from Maryland is in the Chamber. With the 
permission of the Senator from Indiana, I would be happy to yield to 
him on this point. There is a time agreement. I do not know how much of 
my time I have used, but I am sure we could accommodate the Senator for 
the time he wants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I will be brief. I rise in very strong 
support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware. I do it out of respect for his past efforts in addressing 
this issue, along with Senator Helms. I have to confess that, at the 
time, I thought we should pay all of our arrearages without those 
conditions. We had a very difficult situation in the U.N., but in the 
end, the situation was negotiated out and an agreement was reached on 
the 27 percent. So as long as we pay that amount, we are not falling 
into arrears.
  If we drop the 27 percent down to 25 percent, as I understand the 
amendment of the chairman of the committee would do, we immediately 
throw ourselves back into a situation where we start building up 
arrears. In effect, we end up going back on an agreement that was 
reached after very intense negotiations with the U.N., as I recall, led 
by Ambassador Holbrooke at the time.
  Interestingly enough, the current administration, the Bush 
administration, as I understand it, is supportive of the position that 
the Senator from Delaware is offering with this amendment. This 
amendment is consistent with what the administration has sought in 
terms of extending the 27-percent cap.
  Now, the bill as it came out of the committee extended that cap 
permanently. This amendment would extend it for 2 years. I understand 
that is the administration's position. Given all of that and the 
importance of this, I would hope that the chairman of the committee 
would find it within his reasonable judgment to accept this amendment. 
I do not think we ought to be having an intense division over this 
because it seems to me it makes extraordinarily good sense to do this 
amendment. Earlier, we imposed a unilateral cap. It did not work. We 
had very complicated relationships. We were able to work that out. We 
were able to pay off our arrears.
  Our influence is going to be diminished in any international body if 
we are sitting at the table and our representative is in a position 
where the United States is in arrears to these very institutions that 
we helped to found and establish and to make a success over the years.
  In fact, we are going to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the 
founding of the United Nations this year. So it seems to me that is a 
very sensible amendment. It does pull back a bit from what was in the 
committee-reported bill, from a permanent 27 percent cap to a 2-year 
extension, which conforms to the administration's position. But to go 
down to 25 percent, as the underlying amendment proposes, would simply 
recreate all of the difficulties we previously encountered and 
previously went through.
  In a sense, I appeal to the chairman of the committee to see the 
wisdom in the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware as a very 
reasonable, positive, and constructive way in which to address this 
issue.
  So I very much hope he will find it possible to accept the amendment 
of the Senator from Delaware as we proceed in trying to move this bill 
through the Senate.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield briefly?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The time of the Senator from 
Delaware has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senators from Delaware 
and Maryland pointed out, and certainly Senator Biden was very heavily 
involved in the Helms-Biden legislation of 1999, that legislation which 
came after considerable argument in the committee and in the Senate, 
perhaps in the country, about what our fair share ought to be, the 
Helms-Biden decision was that the U.S. share of peacekeeping duties 
would decline to 25 percent of the world total. That still remains the 
law and important goal of U.S. policy toward the United Nations, at 
least for many Senators.
  Expression has been made tonight that perhaps our Nation ought to be 
more generous, and that could very well be the result of negotiations 
with the United Nations, but the intent, at least, of the amendment 
that I offered earlier in the day would strike section 401, which 
established a permanent cap of 27.1 percent. Senator Biden's substitute 
changes that permanent idea to a 2-year cap of 27.1 so that perhaps 
pragmatically there is some room and time to come to some agreement 
either up or down from that point.
  I simply observe that this issue, long before Senator Helms and 
Senator Biden reached a bipartisan compromise in 1999, exercised strong 
feelings on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate very much the 
sentiment of the Senators who wish to preserve the 27.1 cap. As I 
pointed out earlier in the day, I believe that we ought to pay our 
dues.
  Furthermore, I believe the United States has obligations of a 
humanitarian sort, quite apart from the pragmatic aspects of 
peacekeeping, which are important. Nevertheless, my hope had been that 
by in essence setting aside the issue out of this bill that we would 
give the U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to obtain whatever 
our goals and objectives may be. I think there may be some ambivalence 
as to what those goals are. It may be ambivalence of a generous sort; 
namely, given all of the problems occurring in the world, we may wish 
to take on more. On the other hand, I would observe, as certain other 
Senators have, that the United Nations is in the process now of a great 
deal of reform thinking.
  The Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has suggested very substantial 
reforms. We are about to have a hearing on the nominee for our 
country's representative at the United Nations, John Bolton. I am 
certain many Senators on the committee will question Secretary Bolton 
on his ideas about reform and how he could be effective in bringing 
about a stronger United Nations and what the correct presence ought to 
be and what the correct leadership ought to be. Peacekeeping ought to 
be a part of that negotiation.
  I would further observe that in the coming weeks Congress will have 
further opportunities to work with President Bush and his 
administration to craft the most effective means of reducing the U.S. 
share of assessments or increasing them, as may be our preference. I 
believe this is an issue in which further consultation with the 
executive branch is desirable.
  For the moment, I appreciate that Senators will continue to have 
strong feelings about the United Nations generally, as well as our 
degree of participation financially and otherwise. That has been the 
nature of several debates over the years, and each time one of our 
authorization bills comes to the floor, this issue arises in one form 
or another. Nevertheless, I will oppose the Biden amendment with the 
recognition that, as a substitute, if it is adopted, it will be 
language that I hope at least goes to final passage of this 
legislation.
  If the Senator's substitute is not adopted, then he has assured me 
that by voice vote we will adopt the amendment I offered earlier on and 
proceed on to other considerations.
  I hope the Senate will adopt my point of view because I believe it 
offers more latitude for our administration and offers, perhaps, a more 
constructive avenue for reform of the United Nations and perhaps some 
leverage for both. In any event, I appreciate the sincerity of the 
debate, the importance of the issue, the recognition of the history of 
this debate over several years of time, and at least the resolve that 
tonight is the point at which I think we must make a decision.
  Mr. BIDEN. I realize I have no more time. I ask unanimous consent for 
2 additional minutes off the time of the Senator from Indiana.

[[Page 5635]]


  Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield the Senator 2 minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, necessarily, the 
administration has not asked for any latitude. The administration is 
quite clear. They came up and said there is nothing we are trying to 
negotiate on 27 percent for dues. They didn't ask for that. Speaking to 
the Secretary of State, I asked her about Assistant Secretary Bolton, 
nominee for the United Nations post. She assured me he shares the 
administration's view. The administration's view was sent to me in 
writing. It said we ask you to extend for 2 more years at the 27-
percent number. There may be negotiation in the future. But as recently 
as an hour ago--although this was not the subject matter, in my 
discussions with the Secretary of State--no reference was made by me to 
anyone in the administration that they were desirous of having a 
stronger negotiation in hand by keeping this at 25 percent.
  So it may turn out to be that. The administration's statement says--
this is Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget, date April 5, 2005:

       Section 401 makes permanent the 27.1 percent United Nations 
     peacekeeping rate, which is not consistent with the 
     Administration's request for a two year extension.

  So they are asking for a 2-year extension. They didn't want to make 
it permanent, but they asked for 2 years. That is the only point I want 
to make.
  Mr. SARBANES. What does the Senator's amendment do?
  Mr. BIDEN. My amendment does exactly what the administration asks. I 
thank the Senator for the additional 2 minutes.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Tomorrow the vote is set for 10, and I believe 
the Senator from Delaware will have 2 or 3 minutes before the vote?
  I thank my colleague. I yield the floor. I see our friends are on the 
floor to debate another substantive issue, and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I will conclude at least my portion of the debate by 
saying I recognize the Senator from Delaware does visit and works 
carefully with our administration. I appreciate that. I think it is 
important that America present as united a voice and face to the world 
as we can. I would just observe, pragmatically, that the administration 
in my judgment would like to have some latitude on an issue that has 
divided the Senate as well as the country for some time.
  I don't think this is a monumental subject. I think it is one that, 
clearly, constructive people can resolve. My hope is we can simply 
strike the peacekeeping issue from the bill so that latitude is 
available for whatever reform, reconstruction, and debate the 
administration reformers may wish to have at the U.N. in the coming 
months.
  Having said this, I appreciate Senators staying with this debate. We 
understand another will be on the way and there will be a short debate 
on this issue at 10 o'clock or thereabouts tomorrow, and then a vote on 
that issue before we retire to see the distinguished leader from 
Ukraine.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for S. 600, 
the State Department and Foreign Assistance Authorization bill. I 
commend Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden for their efforts to make the 
authorizing role of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee real again, 
and to thank all of my colleagues on the committee for their hard work 
on this bill, which represents a strong bipartisan consensus in favor 
of energetic, engaged diplomacy.
  I am especially pleased that this bill contains a number of 
provisions that I authored, including a provision emphasizing the 
importance of supporting press freedom in Ethiopia. Many of my 
colleagues may be aware of the Government of Ethiopia's recent 
troubling decision to expel representatives of the National Democratic 
Institute, the International Republican Institute, and the 
International Foundation for Election Systems from the country in the 
lead-up to the May elections. But I suspect fewer people know about the 
Ethiopian Government's well-established pattern of suppressing the 
independent press. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 
``in the run-up to 2005 elections, the ruling Ethiopian People's 
Revolutionary Democratic Front came under increasing criticism from 
local journalists and international media organizations for its 
antagonism toward the country's private press. Authorities continued to 
imprison journalists for their reporting and to intimidate others into 
silence on sensitive issues, such as government infighting and 
Ethiopia's tense relations with its neighbors. Throughout 2004, local 
journalists and international press freedom groups petitioned the 
Ethiopian government to revise a repressive press bill, with little 
success.'' The United States-Ethiopian relationship is an important and 
complex one. American support for a truly free press should be a part 
of it.
  This bill also contains a provision I authored encouraging a more 
focused effort to combat impunity and build judicial capacity in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda. In the 
eastern part of the DRC, government troops and rebel fighters have 
raped tens of thousands of women and girls, but fewer than a dozen 
perpetrators have been prosecuted. The brutality of these crimes and 
the staggering scale of the problem, which has gripped the region for 
years without attracting adequate international attention, demand 
justice. Similarly, impunity for brutal crimes against civilians is the 
norm in Burundi. But if Burundi's peace process is to deliver lasting 
stability and bring an end to the horrifying violence that keeps 
families afraid to sleep in their homes at night, the international 
community must work to help create a strong and independent judiciary 
in the country. Rwanda continues to struggle with the backlog of 
serious cases relating to the 2004 genocide, and in Northern Uganda, 
civilians are too often trapped between the thugs of the Lords 
Resistance Army and a military presence that has not proven able or 
willing to provide security or justice. These problems are moral 
outrages, but they are also destabilizing factors. Over the long run, 
reasserting the rule of law in Central Africa must be a part of ending 
the cycle of conflict in the region, and creating space for peaceful 
development.
  This bill also contains authorizing language for the administration's 
Global Peace Operations Initiative based on language that I authored 
for the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance program, 
or ACOTA, which is subsumed in the Global Peace Operations Initiative. 
This language will ensure that Congress and the administration have a 
shared set of understandings about the nature of this program and about 
criteria for participation as we move forward with this effort to 
strengthen global capacity to share the burden of difficult 
peacekeeping missions. By clearly stating that human rights standards 
and democratic governance are important factors in determining 
eligibility for participation, and by explicitly calling for outreach 
to civil society in participating countries, this language can help 
build confidence in this important program and avoid the mistakes of 
past military assistance initiatives.
  I know that the administration and colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle share my conviction that the global fight against HIV/AIDS is one 
of the most important and urgent issues of our time. This bill contains 
an amendment that I offered that supports efforts to provide treatment 
to the millions infected with HIV, by requiring full transparency 
regarding the price of the HIV/AIDS drugs being purchased with U.S. 
assistance under the auspices of the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. Last year, the GAO found that PEPFAR is 
purchasing antiretroviral drugs that differ in price by as much as $328 
per person per year from corresponding generic drugs. Shining a light 
on what is being accomplished with US taxpayer dollars will help us all 
to determine if there are responsible ways to stretch those

[[Page 5636]]

dollars further to save more lives. My provision does not require that 
any specific drugs--be they generic or brand name--be purchased. It 
simply requires reporting on what is purchased and on how much it 
costs. I have asked Ambassador Tobias in the past directly about his 
support for this kind of transparency, and he has assured me that he 
absolutely supports transparency. I firmly believe that this kind of 
transparency is in everyone's interest, protecting taxpayers and 
supporting AIDS relief efforts.
  The bill also contains a provision I authored related to Indonesia. 
This provision simply requires the administration to report to Congress 
on the status of the ongoing investigation of the murder of American 
citizens that occurred on August 31, 2002 in Timika, Indonesia, before 
releasing funds for certain military assistance programs for Indonesia 
in 2006. As my colleagues know, for the past two years Congress has 
supported language restricting Indonesia's access to certain, very 
narrowly defined types of military assistance, pending a determination 
that the Indonesian Government and military are fully cooperating with 
the FBI in the investigation of the murder of American citizens that 
occurred on August 31, 2002 in Timika, Indonesia. Secretary Rice has 
made such a determination for the current fiscal year, but this issue 
is by no means resolved. The FBI considers this an ongoing 
investigation, and the FBI has not exonerated anyone. A number of 
questions remain unanswered, and clearly other conspirators were 
involved.
  Most importantly, I believe that resolution of this case means that 
efforts are made to hold those responsible for the ambush accountable 
for their actions in a court of law. But even the one individual 
indicted by the U.S. remains at large, and has been neither indicted 
nor arrested by Indonesian authorities. It is important to keep 
Congress apprised of ongoing cooperation in this ongoing investigation, 
as this case tells us a great deal about the context in which our 
bilateral relationship is moving forward. I look forward to receiving 
this report, and I certainly hope that it will contain positive news 
that will reinforce the United States-Indonesian bilateral 
relationship.
  This bill also contains the text of several important measures that I 
have cosponsored and strongly support. The Global Pathogen Surveillance 
Act, which will help strengthen international capacity to cope with the 
threats of biological terrorism and infectious disease, has been turned 
into a title in this bill, and I commend Senator Biden for his 
excellent work on this issue. Similarly, the Protection of Vulnerable 
Populations during Humanitarian Emergencies Act is also reflected in 
this larger authorization bill. This provision will help place the U.S. 
Government on a firmer footing to address the special vulnerabilities 
of women and children confronted by humanitarian crisis. Once again, I 
commend Senators Biden and Lugar for their efforts on this issue.
  This bill is not perfect. Reflecting the administration's budget 
request, this bill cuts the Development Assistance, Child Survival, and 
International Organizations and Programs accounts in order to 
dramatically increase the budget of the Office of Transition 
Initiatives. But the administration acknowledges that OTI will not 
actually administer this new money. The reasoning behind this request 
is to give the administration more flexibility with four very different 
countries--Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia. While I am 
sympathetic to the need for flexibility in these important countries, I 
am also alarmed at essentially putting the entire foreign aid budget 
for these countries in an account that does not operate under the rules 
and restrictions that apply to other types of foreign assistance. I am 
also concerned about the likely consequences for OTI itself, which has 
never handled a budget of more than $50 million and was always intended 
to be a small, highly flexible, very special entity. I urge my 
colleagues to consider these provisions carefully and to oppose this 
blank check approach to foreign assistance.
  Overall this bill is a vitally important step toward placing the 
congressional role in foreign policy on a more serious footing. When we 
consider the stakes in world affairs; when we consider the potential 
for the developing world's vast youthful populations to grow into 
allies rather than resentful enemies, when we consider the potential 
for increased international cooperation in fighting terrorism, we can 
see that our constituents and future generations stand to gain a great 
deal from getting foreign policy right. At the very least, we need to 
start by taking these issues seriously, authorizing important 
activities and programs, and giving important initiatives the support 
they deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________