Benefits for Victims of International Terrorism Act of 2003

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Daschle.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The amendment offered on my behalf and that of the Democratic leader concerns a country, regrettably, that does not get a lot of attention in the Senate. In recent months--and rightfully so--we have focused intently on Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Colombia, Pakistan, and many other countries scattered around the globe. Our close neighbor and critical friend to the south, Mexico, too often receives little, if any, attention.

In some respects, the lack of attention may be a good thing. Last Sunday, for example, Mexico held midterm elections that resulted in President Fox's party losing 40 seats in the Mexican Congress in an election that was uniformly recognized as free and fair. It was not too long ago that elections in Mexico would have been front-page news in the United States, and the news would have not been good. In all likelihood, the reports would have told of rigged elections and another power grab by the long-ruling PRI.

So the lack of attention to our friend Mexico is in one sense good news, but in a much larger sense it is a serious problem. The legislation we consider today will authorize billions of dollars for countries, regions, and programs around the world. But we will do very little for the country with whom we share a 2,000-mile border--Mexico.

That is a disappointment, especially in light of that hopeful South Lawn ceremony with President Fox less than 2 years ago with our President. This amendment makes one simple thing very clear: what happens in Mexico is in the national security interests of our country. We should be doing more to help Mexicans who are working hard to help themselves. I believe President Bush summed it up very well last year when he said: ``The United States has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico. Good neighbors work together and benefit from each other's successes.'' I agree with our President. It is a special relationship with great economic importance to both nations. But I am disappointed that the President has not backed up his words with action.

Mexico is now the second largest trading partner we have. It is among the top 10 export markets for 43 of our States. It is the ninth largest economy in the world. But this special relationship we share with Mexico is in desperate need of repair. As we have turned our attention away from Mexico in recent years, economic troubles within the country have grown increasingly serious.

A few years ago, Mexico seemed on the verge of an economic breakthrough. Today, however, Mexico's growth rate is half of what it was in the mid-1990s. This has hurt both their nation and our Nation. Mexico has a poverty rate of almost 40 percent. There are a little over 100 million people in Mexico. That means almost 40 million Mexicans live in poverty. Fifty-three percent of all Mexicans--more than 50 million people--have an annual income of less than $1,400. Twenty-three percent of all Mexicans have an annual income of less than $720. That is less than $2 a day. Income distribution within the country remains especially unequal, and unemployment and underemployment continue to hamper our southern neighbor.

The problems are especially acute in rural areas of Mexico, which have been chronically underdeveloped and underfunded. Rural poverty remains one of the most persistent and serious economic problems facing Mexico. This rural economic crisis threatens the health and well-being of people in Mexico and puts our own economy and security in jeopardy.

Take, for example, coffee growing. Coffee growers in Mexico thrived just a short time ago. They became an indispensable component of Mexico's rural economy. But they have seen the price of their crop drop by 70 percent in just 5 years. These failing commodity prices have led many of these farmers to seek another crop to feed their families. What is that crop? Opium poppies, which are used to make heroin that ultimately makes its way into our country.

I understand that when people have no money, when their families are hungry, and when their livelihood is vanishing before their eyes--think of

Mexico's coffee growers--they look for other ways to survive. Some grow poppies, but others take unbelievable risks to come to America.

Now, I am opposed to illegal immigration. I think everyone should comply with the law. But it has to tear at your heartstrings to see people who are so desperate that they risk their lives to come across the Rio Grande River. They freeze to death in the mountain passes; they die in the deserts of Arizona, New Mexico, and California trying to come to America. They pay what little money they have to demons who tell these people, ``We have a way for you to get to America.'' They cram innocent Mexicans in boxcars and trucks, and subject them to inhumane conditions. This is an all-to-familiar scene that takes the lives of too many innocent human beings.

So while I am opposed to illegal immigration, I understand why desperate people do everything in their power to try to come to America. They risk their lives to cross our border illegally. This places additional strains on our border security officers, who are already overextended. Those who manage to sneak past the Border Patrol and survive the desert and the mountain passes arrive here with few, if any, job skills, so they take any job they can find. They compete for jobs with those who are here legally and tax our social services.

Clearly, this crisis in rural Mexico is not only the business of Mexico; it is our business, too. Should we be concerned about what has gone on in Iraq? Of course we should. Should we be concerned about what is going on in Afghanistan? Of course we should. Should we be concerned about what is going on in Pakistan today? Bangladesh? India? Of course we should. Should the President of the United States be in Africa today? Of course he should.

I traveled to Africa last August. It is an eye opener. As the world's only superpower, we have tremendous obligations. The President is going to commit this Congress to new obligations as he makes his trip around Africa. We have an obligation to do our best to live up to the commitments our President makes as he travels throughout the world.

I do not in any way denigrate what we have done and what we are doing around the rest of the world. I am criticizing what we have failed to do. We have ignored Mexico, and that is wrong. We must remember that what goes on in Mexico concerns our Nation, because in today's world, problems like drugs and poverty do not grind to a halt at our borders. The Rio Grande River is not sufficient to stop the flow of illegal drugs into our country. The Rio Grande River is not sufficient to stop the poverty that comes across our borders in the form of illegal immigration that taxes our social services, our law enforcement officers and our educational system.

But we also share many positive things with Mexico. We have a shared history, a shared culture, even a shared language--I have three sons who speak fluent Spanish. Mexican Americans have helped shape our great Nation. Twenty million people of Mexican ancestry live in the United States today, an increase of 53 percent from ten years ago.

Mr. President, if you still doubt that we have a shared culture with Mexico, look at Nevada. What does the word ``Nevada'' mean? In Spanish it means ``snowcapped.'' ``Las Vegas,'' what does that mean? In Spanish it means ``the meadows.''

In the State of Nevada, which is the fastest growing State in our Nation, Mexican Americans now account for more than 15 percent of the population. That is a 300 percent increase since the early 1990s. Overall, we have seen a 53 percent increase in our country's Mexican American population, but in Nevada it has been 300 percent. That doesn't take into consideration the approximately 5 percent of the population in our state who came from Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, and other places in Central and South America. So as you can see, Mr. President, the connections between our two nations are real.

But I want to do more than talk about this relationship. Actions speak louder than words. It is time this Congress acted. I want to follow through on President Bush's promise to work, and work together with Mexico. I want to address the very real crisis affecting Mexico's rural communities.

Some of my colleagues have said: Your amendment has some merit, but won't it cost too much money? Well, this legislation we are dealing with here in the Senate today is worth billions of dollars. I think our neighbor to the south deserves part of that largesse.

In recent years we have helped many countries around the world in their hour of need, whether through economic or military assistance. The American people have responded time and time again to crises in far corners of the world. Surely we can answer the call to help our largest trading partner and close ally. I don't think we have a choice. That is why I am proposing this plan to help Mexico lift herself up.

This amendment will not drop money on Mexico's doorstep and hope it gets spent wisely. No, we are not doing that. Any expert who is familiar with what is going on in Mexico will tell you one thing--that the way to stop illegal immigration from that country is to give Mexicans an opportunity to succeed in their own economy. That is what this amendment is all about. And so we are proposing a plan to help Mexico lift herself up by providing the resources for a program to spark redevelopment in rural areas. This amendment would authorize $100 million for microcredit lending, small business entrepreneurial development, aid to small farmers who have been affected by the collapse of prices, and support for Mexico's private property ownership system, which is in bad need of repair.

President Fox is confronted with problems all over Mexico, but none are more difficult than those of rural Mexico. Commodity prices have fallen through the floor--not only coffee, but others, as well. Mexico's young people are fleeing its historic farming areas for Mexico City.

Mexico City is the largest city in the world, with 21 million people at last count. It is also the most polluted city in the world. I went there and met with State Department officials. Our State Department officials receive hazard pay for living in Mexico City, but not because anybody is shooting at them. They receive it because the city's air is so detrimental to their health. And each day, more desperate people come to this overcrowded, polluted city from rural Mexico. The country is trading its rural future for increased unemployment in Mexico City. That is a bad switch.

Let me talk briefly about each of the provisions of this amendment. First, microcredit lending programs have been enormously successful throughout the world. The goals of these programs are to provide small loans to nontraditional sectors of the economy that would ordinarily not be supported by the main financial institutions of the country. Flexible repayment procedures and low interest rates are hallmarks of microcredit enterprises.

Our distinguished chairman of this committee has had such a significant impact on the world as a result of his involvement in this committee on which he serves, the Foreign Relations Committee. There are programs that have his name attached to them. The first one that comes to almost everyone's mind, of course, is Nunn-Lugar, which was a program that was introduced by two great statesmen--Nunn from Georgia, Lugar from Indiana--to work on a problem in the former Soviet Union that seemed to be unsolvable. Nunn-Lugar made tremendous strides in the direction of solving the problems we had with nuclear programs in the former Soviet Union.

So I say to my distinguished Chair of this committee, I know the Senator from Indiana understands and has seen examples of how a few dollars, with our microlending programs in other countries, have been magnified and have helped individuals and regions and entire countries.

That is what we are trying to do here.

The evidence of microcredit lending clearly suggests that a small amount of money can have a huge impact on an economy by helping significantly in villages and rural communities and with small businesses. These programs ought to be rolled out to rural parts of Mexico, as they have been in other parts of the world where the need for such innovative lending was clear. My amendment would start this process.

Second, there is a lot of business activity just above the microenterprise

level which large banks and financial institutions simply won't support because of lack of collateral or creditworthiness. These are typically small businesses and entrepreneurs who are trying to get started and who many times do not even have money for further training. This amendment supports efforts to boost programs directed at small businesses and entrepreneurial development, which is critical for maintaining a diversified and balanced rural economy. When small businesses and entrepreneurs leave the rural communities for larger Mexican cities or even the United States, that spells the beginning of the end for parts of rural Mexico.

The third part of this amendment would implement programs to help the Mexican farmers who have been hurt by the falling prices of coffee and other commodities. On average, Mexican coffee farmers are being paid 70 percent less than they were just 5 years ago. As a result, these once thriving farmers and farmhands are seeking work in larger cities.

But when they come to these larger cities, they do not check into an apartment with air-conditioning or inside toilets. They cannot stop at the 7-Eleven and buy something for dinner. They live in shantytowns-- homes made of cardboard. We all have seen shantytowns. It is disgraceful that people have to live that way. But many of the 21 million people living in Mexico City live in shantytowns. Agencies should be helping rural farmers to keep cultivating their usual crops, so they don't turn to illegal crop production or become desperate and abandon rural Mexico entirely.

Finally, the fourth component of this amendment--and I believe it is an important part--is to support private property ownership in rural communities, and to do it through increased mortgage financing.

If you want to sell your home in this country, it is very simple. If someone wants to buy it, they go to a title company. They go to somebody who has abstract deeds, and they run that through the legal process to find out if you really own that home, and if you do, whether there are any liens against your property in the way of debt which you haven't paid. By the time that person sells that home, the person who buys it knows everything about that real estate he wants to buy from you. You can't do that in most places in Mexico. They have no legal system to do that.

If you live in rural Mexico and you own a home, you live in that home for the rest of your life. You can't borrow money to fix it up. It is worth nothing because you can't sell it. It is, in effect, debt capital in more ways than one.

Sound and secure property rights are a fundamental part of any market economy. But the framework of property rights in Mexico is in a state of disrepair. The lack of security in property transactions has resulted in a substantial decrease in the availability of credit.

For example, mortgage financing funds only about 40 percent of new households in Mexico. Why? No one will lend money to people who do not own homes or have liens against a home. Families do not have equity in their homes, and the homes can't easily be sold unless cash is paid upfront. The impact of all this is particularly severe in rural communities, where the only alternative to living in the same dilapidated home for the rest of your life is to flee to a big city. The United States should act expeditiously in this area to help Mexico get its property rights back on track. We can do that today by passing this amendment.

So to summarize, Mr. President, the four components of this amendment are microcredit lending, small business and entrepreneurial development, assisting small farms, and supporting an enhanced system of private property ownership.

As I indicated earlier, some of my colleagues have already said this will cost too much money. I agree that it will cost a lot of money, even by Washington standards. But I also recognize that Mexico is in a dire crisis. Mexico is our friend, and it is in our interest to help Mexico. By doing this, we will help Americans as well as Mexicans.

I recognize that immigration and drug trafficking from Mexico present a real problem for the United States. I have talked about that. Especially for States, such as Nevada, that are on the front line of this battle, it is a very difficult problem.

I don't think this is a typical aid package. As I mentioned earlier, it is no handout. It is a commitment to free-market-based programs that will spur long-term development and growth in rural areas of Mexico. It is not only the right thing to do, but it also will have a positive impact on the United States by reducing the strain upon our society caused by illegal immigration and the deadly flow of drugs. Furthermore, a stronger and more economically sound Mexico will be a better trading partner for the United States. The better off Mexico is economically, the better off we are, because we will have a greater opportunity to sell them products we develop here.

I have always supported aid to Mexico. Others have objected to it and said it is not necessary, but I have always supported it. It was necessary then, and it is necessary now. It is in our humanitarian interests, our economic interests and our security interests. That is why I say we have to make these investments in Mexico today. If we can afford to help so many other countries in the world, we ought to be able to help our friend with whom we share so much and with whom we share a 2,000-mile border.

As President George W. Bush said:

We have no more important relationship in the world than

the one we have with Mexico.

This amendment will prove whether the United States will do more than just talk about our relationship with Mexico. As I said earlier, are we going to talk, or are we going to act? Actions speak louder than words.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is so important for our country and for the country of Mexico.

I yield the floor.

I am. I would like 5 minutes more in which to speak.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, let me just say that I have already stated in my remarks the great admiration I have for the distinguished chair of this committee. He is a good man, a good Senator, but I certainly disagree with the statements he made that this matter was not brought before the committee in the form of an amendment. I have not been here as long as the Senator from Indiana but I have been here quite a while, and I understand that not all Senators have the opportunity, if they do not serve on a committee, to offer amendments.

I know Senator Biden and Senator Lugar do the best they can to bring a bill they think is responsible before the Senate. But had I been on the committee--which I am not--I would have offered an amendment such as this. I do not think there is a higher priority we have, not only from our security interests but from the simple merit of any proposal, than this one right here. I think it is very important that we recognize Mexico.

I am now one of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee, and I do not quite understand why we are being so frugal with Mexico. We are not so frugal with other countries. I think Mexico deserves this. I ask Members of the Senate to understand there is no budget point of order against what I am doing. If this were an appropriations bill or had some budget implications other than that, that might be the case, but Senators can vote for this amendment. If the appropriators can't find enough money, then fine, that is the appropriators' problem.

This body has a leading role to play in foreign affairs. We cannot be dictated to by the administration. President George Bush is President George Bush; he is not King George Bush. We have three separate but equal branches of Government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive; and we are equal. I have a different philosophy than the President about what we should do for Mexico. He believes we should talk about it and not do a great deal about it. I believe actions speak louder than words. Now, maybe I am wrong but that is how I feel, and I have a right to feel that way.

I am 1 of 100 Senators. If the Senators want to walk in here and say thumbs down to Mexico, I think it is too bad for this Senate but they are going to have an opportunity to vote to help our neighbor.

Congress has a leading role to play in foreign affairs. We cannot defer to what the State Department wants to do. The State Department, directed by this administration, has not done a good job in taking care of Mexico. It has been all talk. There are some who have written, since the elections in Mexico a few days ago, that the reason President Fox took a drubbing in the elections is because the United States has not done anything to help Mexico.

Maybe, when this bill goes to conference, there should be some rearranging. If this amendment is adopted, maybe the people who serve on these committees in the House and the Senate will have to do some rearranging of priorities but that is what we do in conference all the time.

I think anything we can do to help the Mexican people is a direct help for us. Anything we can do to stop people from being forced to leave--Mr. President, people do not suddenly say in Mexico: Well, I guess I'm going to head for the United States. I haven't anything better to do. They are driven to the United States out of poverty, out of desperation. This amendment will allow these people to stay home. It will help Mexico City. It will help stop the tremendous flow of people into that city, the largest city in the world.

This is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do morally. It is the right thing to do for the security of the Nation--I mean the security of this Nation. It means more than just less crime, less burden on our education system, our health services, but it is economic security in many other ways. This is good for both countries.

I respect my friend from Indiana, the distinguished chairman of the committee. I can't believe that in his heart he believes there is anything wrong with this amendment. I ask my friends to support it.

I have nothing more to say.

I would be happy to enter an agreement with the Senator that at 11:30 today the Reid-Daschle amendment would be voted on. I would like an up-or-down vote on the amendment, and there would be no second-degree amendments in order. I so ask unanimous consent.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has offered this very timely amendment. We have spoken to the two managers of the bill. We are awaiting instructions from the leadership as to whether we would have a vote following the amendment that is pending, the Reid-Daschle amendment.

In the meantime, Senator Allen and Senator Harkin wish to offer an amendment, and Senator Clinton and Senator Wyden. Senator Allen wishes to speak, he said, for 5 minutes; is that correct?

And Senator Wyden and Senator Clinton wish to speak for 5 minutes. We could do that and make that just right for about an 11:30 vote.

Let's get this resolved first.

Mr. President, that would put us to 5 after. Senator Murray asks for 5 minutes to respond. We have Senator Allen who wishes to speak for 10 minutes, Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, and then we have Senator Clinton for 5 minutes and Senator Wyden for 5 minutes, and that puts us at 25 to the hour. Then I am sure we can have the vote at 11:35 a.m. or 11:40 a.m. and get everyone in to speak.

I ask that the Senator from Washington be given the opportunity to have her amendment seconded so she can have a vote on it; Otherwise, we will just go into a quorum call. I have the floor. We ought to vote on her amendment at some time agreed to by the leadership.

We understand that. We understand it will be on or in relation to the Murray amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that when we go to the Allen-Harkin amendment, the Murray amendment be set aside temporarily and that he be allowed to speak for 10 minutes and Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, and that following his remarks, as in morning business, the Senators from Oregon and New York be recognized for 5 minutes each; that we then go to Senator Nickles and Senator Murray and finish debate on her amendment.

I ask sometime that Senator Harkin be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak on the amendment. He is in the Chamber, and that is fine. I ask if Senator Harkin would have any objection to our passing the amendment and then he be recognized to speak on the amendment that is approved. We have a UC we are trying to get through.

Reserving the right to object.

I remind everyone that Senators Clinton and Wyden have already been recognized in a previous order to speak for up to 10 minutes. They will each take 5 minutes. I also ask that the Senator from Maryland be recognized for 5 minutes. He has called and wishes to speak. I also ask that there be no second-degree amendment in order prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. Part of this consent, if everyone uses their time, would bump up the vote for a few minutes but not much.

We would accept that.

Mr. President, since 9/11 we have had to refocus on the issue of national security. The amendment before the Senate deals with our national security in a very direct way. This amendment deals directly with our neighbor with whom we share a 2,000-mile border, Mexico. This amendment would help the poorest of the poor in rural Mexico. The four components of the amendment are, No. 1, it would establish a microcredit lending program; No. 2, it would establish programs to assist rural Mexican small businesses; No. 3, it would assist small rural farmers; No. 4, it would establish a system of private property ownership. This is not a typical aid package, not a handout, but a commitment to a free market society to spur economic development. This is $1 for every Mexican. It doesn't sound like too much to me. Mexico is our friend, our neighbor. They deserve our support. Anyone who votes against this amendment should never ever again complain about illegal immigration.

Irresponsibility is not helping our neighbor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye''.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.

Reserving the right to object, Senator Biden is not on the floor. His staff has said Senator Biden has not had a chance to look all these over.

Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

The Senator indicated we have spent basically a day, a half day yesterday and so far today, on the State Department authorization. All Democrats want to finish this bill. I think the leader would acknowledge that. We had our policy meeting today and our caucus luncheon Tuesday. I remind the leader--the majority leader is in the Chamber also--we spent 2 days this week on a bill that everyone knew, when it came up, was going nowhere. We all believe this bill is going somewhere--has the opportunity to go somewhere. I hope the two leaders would work to move it forward.

I know the Democratic leader feels that way. I think it would be a shame, for lack of a better description, after all the work we have done on this--as the Democratic leader has announced, we have a list that is a good list, nearly complete. We could complete this legislation. We can't complete it in a matter of hours, but I think we could complete it in a matter of a day or so.

Mr. President, we on this side have worked with the ranking member of the committee, and we have a list of Democratic amendments we want to go in order.

I would like to announce those for the benefit of the Senate.

I apologize. I thought that had been done.

Mr. President, the amendments offered on this side are amendments by Senator Biden, Senator Schumer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Stabenow, Senator Dorgan, Senator Harkin, and Senator Dodd, in that order. So everyone understands--we have a lot of people shuffling around--that will be the order of amendments by Democratic Senators.

It is Clinton and Schumer. I apologize for that.

Following the Biden amendment?

Right now?

Mr. President, I send to the desk a packet of agreed-upon amendments. I will enumerate those amendments and after enumerating them ask that they be adopted en bloc to Amendment No. 1136.

I so ask that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, the package of amendments that I have sent to the desk has received consideration by the staffs of myself and Senator Biden throughout last evening. They include an amendment by Mr. Biden expressing the sense of Congress relating to violence against women; secondly, an amendment by Mr. Breaux to authorize transportation for the Chief of Protocol; third, an amendment by Mr. Coleman to authorize a comprehensive program of support for victims of torture and for other purposes; fourth, an amendment by Mr. Daschle to require an annual report on Saudi Arabia's cooperation in the war on terrorism; fifth, an amendment by Senator Feinstein to require a report on states that have not cooperated in small arms programs; sixth, an amendment by Mr. Biden to require the reporting of certain information relating to proposed exports and transfers of firearms; seventh, an amendment by Mr. Leahy to provide a report on a strategy to deal with the international coffee crisis; eighth, a chairman's amendment to strike section 2512 relating to amendments to the Arms Control and Disarmament Act; ninth, a chairman's amendment to provide an exception to requirements with respect to bilateral agreements for exemption from certain licensing requirements; tenth, a chairman's amendment to improve provisions on global pathogen surveillance; eleventh, a chairman's amendment to strike section 205 relating to the State Department authorization bill; twelfth, a chairman's amendment to clarify Foreign Service grievance board procedures; thirteenth, a chairman's amendment to modify reporting requirements on U.S. personnel involved in the antinarcotics campaign in Colombia; and finally, fourteenth, a chairman's amendment to strike section 2239 relating to the sense of Congress relating to

exports of defense items to the United Kingdom.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to update the Senate on where we stand on the State Department authorization bill. We were successful in working through many issues yesterday. In fact, we came to a conclusion on three of the most difficult issues that we expected in the bill, the structure of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, support for Iranian democracy, and the Mexico City policy. This morning, by action of the Senate, we have cleared and passed 14 amendments. We have passed about 20 amendments in less than 24 hours. In addition, 15 to 20 amendments that were mentioned as possibilities will either not be offered or will be worked out. This leaves a declining list of foreign policy amendments that we believe we can resolve today.

I want to encourage Members to come to the floor to offer their relevant amendments. We are in range of finishing the bill. I thank Senator Biden again for all he has done to advance the Senate's foreign policy agenda. I likewise thank the majority and minority leaders, and Senator Reid especially for his cooperation.

Yesterday, it was announced that State Department authorization bills have traditionally taken much longer than 2 days. While that may be true, it does not have to be the case this time. The two bills that comprise most of the substitute amendment were passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 19 to 0. Republicans and Democrats have worked together closely on these issues. While we have some differences, the members of our committee are united in our belief that the substitute before us will enhance U.S. national security and is vital to our national interests.

The Senate's record this year in moving foreign policy items has been excellent. We have passed a global AIDS bill, the Moscow Treaty, NATO expansion, and other items. The Senate has moved decisively on the Nation's foreign policy business because we recognize as a body that in these perilous times it was our duty to do so. America's national security is at risk and its leaders, entrusted with passing legislation to keep America secure, must continue to do our duty.

Today Senators have an opportunity, as always, to be senatorial. I am hopeful that all Senators with an amendment will come to the floor and help us pass this bill quickly and provide our diplomats the tools they need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator for his analysis of Mexico. Certainly we ought to underline the importance of the relationship. I believe it is deeply felt by most Americans who are interested in our neighbors to the south and to the north.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, we have been trading a great deal more, much to the benefit of both of our countries. There is increased wealth in Mexico; likewise, its distribution and whether it is getting to the rural people the Senator from Nevada has discussed.

I would say, first, in perspective, in the fiscal year 2003 budget of the United States, about $43 million was allocated in foreign assistance to Mexico. The President has requested that for fiscal year 2004--the one we are now discussing--that be increased now to a total of $67.5 million. So the United States, in its foreign assistance, recognizes a number of ways in which our country can work with the people of Mexico for the betterment of people on both sides.

But let me say generally about all of this that the analysis that the Senator has given would be important as testimony in our committee process, as dialog with our Department of State, to try to think through the priorities of how U.S. assistance to Mexico should best be spent.

The Senator has offered some excellent items in terms of microloans, rural development prospects. There are numerous areas in Mexico that require our retention and our cooperation. I would say, once again very generally, committing $100 million to any country in addition to that which we are now expending is a matter of no small moment. It is worthy of the attention of the committee and the proper procedures of consultation with our diplomats and with those in the State Department who have responsibility for that country and that portfolio.

Furthermore, we face an important point as Senators in looking at this amendment. As I commenced the debate on the State Department authorization bill and foreign assistance authorization bill, we pointed out we have been careful to observe the budget agreement, the budget we all came to in the Senate. Clearly, the $100 million that would be authorized by this amendment is not a part of that budget. It was not requested by the President. It clearly would be money that

would have to be subtracted from other programs for other countries or from American diplomacy generally. In essence, it is not money that can be added on at this particular juncture.

There was a point in which we were having the budget debate in which Senators could have indicated more money for foreign assistance, more money for the State Department or American diplomacy. As I have reviewed the bidding from that procedure, I pointed out and commended all of the Senators who worked with me to restore in the budget $1.15 billion that the President asked for to begin with. So at least we began the procedure with the moneys the President requested.

The $100 million committed to authorization in this amendment is clearly not a part of that process. Therefore, I am going to oppose the amendment on the basis that I think the worthy objectives of the amendment require discussion through the committee system and in consultation with the State Department and with the administration.

Secondly, I think there is a budget problem Senators have to look at squarely. I appreciate in the past it may have been the habit of the Senate, during these authorization processes, to simply authorize money with the hopes that somehow or other appropriators, at the next stage, would either find the money, subtract it from somebody else's program, or generally ignore the request.

Authorization, as we know, is not appropriations, not expenditures; therefore, sometimes Senators, from time to time, have offered an authorization with the hope that somehow in the process the money might be forthcoming or a portion of it. I understand that.

But I would say, in view of the fact that our country is committing in this budget process $67.5 million to Mexico, we are already taking note of obligations and opportunities that we have. The authorization of an additional $100 million in the Reid amendment, without the committee process, and in negotiation with the State Department, in my judgment, is inadvisable. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Nevada in a short colloquy.

May I ask the Senator if he is prepared to proceed to a vote on his amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I would like to suggest to him that in view of testimony occurring before the committees presently, the Senator might consider laying the amendment aside temporarily and that it might be voted upon perhaps at 11:30 this morning. Would the Senator be amenable to that idea?

I agree that it is an up-or-down vote at 11:30.

I object for the moment. I want to respond.

I object temporarily to the request for the yeas and nays. I will go along with that shortly. I am just trying to work with the distinguished leader on procedure.

Senator Nickles requires 10 minutes for debate on the Murray amendment.

I agree the distinguished Senator should have a rollcall vote on the amendment. I will probably make a motion to table at the appropriate time.

We on our side are trying to work out an agreement. Presently it is being drafted. Both sides are attempting to work out voting arrangements. It might be available. It might be useful to set aside the Murray amendment temporarily to listen to Senator Allen.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for offering his amendment. As the Senator from Oklahoma has said, his has been persistent on behalf of the victims.

The administration has proposed a comprehensive program for addressing compensation for all U.S. victims of terrorism. I have introduced that proposal, by their request, as S. 1275. The Committee on Foreign Relations will hold hearings on the proposal on July 17. I hope our committee will have the benefit of considering the proposal, deliberating on it, and offering its best advice to the Senate.

Senator Biden and I are prepared to accept the amendment. We would like to do so at this stage as opposed to having a rollcall vote, or a voice vote for that matter.

If the Chair would proceed to the question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak prior to the sequence of votes: Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, Senator Nickles for 10 minutes, Senator Murray for 5 minutes, Senator Kennedy for 5 minutes,

and that following the debate the Senate proceed to the vote on the Reid amendment to be followed by a vote in relation to the Murray amendment No. 1170; provided that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form for debate prior to each of the two votes.

Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments, one by Senator Leahy and one by Senator Biden, that have been agreed to by both sides, and I ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania by saying, we will have a hearing on Syria in the Foreign Relations Committee. We take the issue seriously, as the Senator does, and Senator Boxer, who is a member of our committee. We look forward to that hearing.

Mr. President, I oppose the Reid amendment. I ask Members to vote no. I do so mindful of the fact that Mexico is our friend and that we are going to have $67.5 million of foreign assistance in the budget as we now have it that may be of assistance to our friends. The ideas presented by the distinguished Senator from Nevada are good ones, but they are ones that I believe require further discussion either in committee or on the floor. Clearly, $100 million, which is the request for authorization in his amendment, is well outside the budget we have adopted. That $100 million must be subtracted from some other part of State Department foreign assistance at some other point. The Senator has made the point the appropriators might very well do that. Indeed, they might. But I believe it is irresponsible to push that responsibility onward knowing the $100 million is not there, is not a part of the parameters of our foreign assistance. Therefore, I ask Senators to oppose the Reid amendment.

Is the order now to have a rollcall vote on the Murray amendment?

I yield to Senator Nickles.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the amendment requires a report on the role of North Korea in trafficking of illegal narcotics. It has the support of both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer an amendment related to AIDS, provided that Senator Bingaman be in control of 40 minutes and Senator Lugar be in control of 20 minutes and, following that debate, Senator Reid be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business; finally, I ask that following that, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I will give a short speech as part of the 20 minutes allocated to me at this time.

My understanding is, my colleague Senator Bingaman will speak on the AIDS legislation that he has proposed with many cosponsors, and then we will proceed to a rollcall vote on the Bingaman amendment.

Let me say at the outset that during our debate today on these authorization bills, we have heard from Senators on very important foreign policy issues. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, who just spoke on Liberia, is an excellent example of one who has spent time and effort in analyzing that issue.

We heard from the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, earlier on with regard to his apprehensions on Iraq. Other Senators likewise have taken this forum.

Although that means perhaps our debate has been more extended on the authorization bills, this is a good time for Senators who are focusing on foreign affairs to speak and to enlighten their colleagues and the public in this important body.

On the AIDS question, let me simply say that I indicated early on to Senator Bingaman and the sponsors that we would be prepared to accept that amendment. I did so simply because I think it is important, with the President in Africa, that there be clarification, in a bipartisan way, that we support the initiative he has given to the world. It is an extraordinary initiative. It has large impact. Hopefully, it will have good results on the ground with medical services, pharmaceutical products, other practices that are initiated by the various states that may be recipients as well as individual persons.

I come to the floor simply to say I hope Senators will support the amendment, that we understand the President has made a very large offer. Now, authorizers and appropriators are going to have to work their way through that situation, along with the White House, in responsible ways for the next 5 years or so. That will take some doing, as most speakers today have pointed out.

There has been, at least with some of those who have spoken on the issue, some skepticism about whether the President either understood the enormity of the task, whether he or his staff have in fact asked for the amounts of money that are required to get the job done, to follow the plan. And, in fact, some have suggested even a photo op followed by a lack of activity and followthrough that would be disastrous both to the credibility of the proposal as well as to the recipients.

My own view is that our President, George Bush, is very sincere about this project. I say that from personal conversations with the President and the opportunity to work with him. The occupant of the Chair, as a distinguished member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is well aware that our committee took up the AIDS legislation issue. Senator Biden and I, in a bipartisan way, formulated, with the aid of many Senators on both sides of the aisle on our committee, an initiative that we believed was most appropriate in following through on that.

In due course, colleagues in the House of Representatives, led by Henry Hyde of Illinois and others, formulated a piece of legislation that was a strong piece of legislation, in our judgment. It was the hope of the President and the leadership of the Senate that we could all turn to, in unity with our colleagues in the House, and pass an AIDS bill prior to the President going to the G-8 to lay before the European states and Japan and others the full benefits that would come to the world if they were willing to sign up likewise and work with us and follow our leadership.

And in a very late night session, the Chair will recall, we did pass that legislation. The President promptly signed it in the early days of the following week, as soon as it reached his desk, and proceeded to Europe with that initiative. He proceeds to Africa with that initiative now.

It is very meaningful, as he visits in countries, even as we speak, that have a very high incidence of AIDS. It is important with the President in Africa on the ground speaking to this issue that we speak in one voice likewise. This is why I will propose to Senators that we in fact support the amendment.

I am advised my colleague from Pennsylvania would like to have a few minutes. I am prepared to yield to him. I have 20 minutes. How much time would the Senator desire?

I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time that I have, and I commend the amendment to Senators. I hope there will be strong support.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, at this point I wish to send to the desk a packet of agreed-upon amendments and ask for their consideration.

These amendments include a chairman's amendment regarding Pakistani debt reduction; a chairman's amendment that will provide technical fixes of the State Department's Fellowship of Hope Program; an amendment by Senator Frist to authorize the United States-Russian Interparliamentary Group; an amendment by Senator Frist to authorize the United States-China Interparliamentary Group; an amendment by Senator Warner to strike section 206 of the pending State Department authorization bill relating to security capital cost sharing; an amendment by Senator Ensign regarding the level of U.S. funding for the United Nations peacekeeping operations; an amendment by Senator Voinovich to require the Annual Report on Religious Freedom to include a section on anti-Semitism; an amendment by Senators

Inouye and Akaka to authorize additional appropriations for the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West.

I ask unanimous consent these amendments be agreed to en bloc.

Very well, I will withdraw my motion. I will attempt to consult with the Senator.

That is correct. I would like to amend my proposal to eliminate an amendment by Senator Warner to strike section 206, and an amendment by Senator Ensign regarding the level of U.S. funding. I had listed eight of these. These two should be omitted from that list.

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for just a moment, if I could complete the action with regard to the six amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those six amendments be agreed to en bloc.

I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, over the past few weeks the entire world has witnessed the images emanating from Liberia of chaos and carnage and a people who are bedeviled by a civil war that has lasted too long. This is a country that is in turmoil, a country with which we have a deep historic relationship. It is a country I do believe we must assist.

The trouble in Liberia is not of the last few days or few months. It has extended at least for a decade. But at this time we have the opportunity, and I believe also the responsibility, to assist the people of Liberia to find a better way, a way without violence, a way that will guarantee a democracy that works and an economy that provides for the people of Liberia.

Liberia has a special relationship to the United States. In 1822, a group of freed slaves from America began to settle the west coast of Africa. They were provided assistance by private philanthropists but at the insistence and encouragement of the U.S. Government. This was, at that time, a response to the prevailing system of slavery in the United States, a humanitarian approach.

By 1847, these settlers had established the Republic of Liberia, the first independent country in Africa. It was modeled after the United States. In fact, even today, 5 percent of the population trace their heritage directly back to these American slaves who were freed and repatriated to Liberia.

The Liberians modeled their Constitution on the United States Constitution. The Liberian flag closely resembles the United States flag. The capital of Liberia is named Monrovia, after President James Monroe.

Before 1990, before the beginning of this civil war, Liberia's leading trading partner was the United States, and the United States was a major source of assistance to the country of Liberia.

Our histories have been inextricably linked since 1822. Without the attempt of the United States in a small way to work its way through the problem of slavery and the creation in this country of private philanthropy, Liberia would not exist.

I argue that these close historical ties are very important influences that should govern our decision today as we seek to help the people of Liberia.

At the core of the problem today in Liberia is the behavior and the conduct of the President of Liberia, Charles Taylor. Taylor is 55 years old. He is the son of an American father and a Liberian mother who was a direct descendent of American slaves.

During the 1970s, he worked in Boston, MA, while earning an economics degree at a Massachusetts college. He returned to Liberia in 1979, having spent a significant part of his life here in the United States. In 1979, the Government of Liberia was at that time taken over by Samuel Doe. President Taylor worked briefly for Samuel Doe. When he was accused of embezzling over $1 million from that Government, he left Liberia. He fled to some place with which he was very familar, Massachusetts. He was arrested there but he managed to escape from jail and made his way to Libya where he trained at a camp run by Qadhafi, a guerrilla training camp.

In 1989, he led a small band of irregular forces that overthrew the Samuel Doe government, and he effectively became leader. Then, through an election, he became the President.

But his Presidency has been marred not only by the decline of Liberia but by the instability throughout west Africa, spawned by his policies and his practices. Between 150,000 and 200,000 people have been killed and over 1 million people have been dispossessed in Liberia during the Taylor reign.

Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, a city of more than 1 million people, is the only African capital that has no electricity, no running water, and no telephone service. Tens of thousands of people live in the ruins of bombed-out buildings. There are only two functioning hospitals in the entire country. Only a handful of flights each week leave Monrovia in small planes and go to adjacent west African countries. There is no direct connection between this country and the capitals of the world.

In the past decade, in response to this violence, this chaos, and this collapse, the United Nations has passed seven resolutions seeking to halt the destabilizing force of the Liberian Government--seeking to halt it from its policies of encouraging rebel groups in adjacent countries and trying to induce it to fully abide by numerous Security Council resolutions to end the internal conflict in Liberia.

The United Nations-backed Special Court in Sierra Leone is investigating war crimes that have taken place in Sierra Leone. These crimes include mass rapes, kidnapping, murder, amputation of limbs of civilians, and recruitment and use of child soldiers.

Last month, the Court unsealed an indictment against Charles Taylor for ``bearing the greatest responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of Sierra Leone since November 30, 1996.''

Taylor has deliberately assisted rebel forces in Sierra Leone and has provided resources for and is a willing party to the atrocities which I mentioned--the atrocities which have led to his indictment by the Court in Sierra Leone. He did it for diamonds. He did it for power. But the results have been devastating to that country.

It is quite clear that Taylor has not only destroyed his own country but he has also helped to undermine and destabilize adjacent countries, such as the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone.

One of the problems with countries such as Liberia and adjacent countries is when there is a government that

does not work or simply works for the benefit of the party in power or the person in power, those countries are likely breeding grounds for terrorist activity and terrorism that will spread beyond their borders. In fact, in today's world, it could spread worldwide.

As a CRS report noted, ``For more than a decade, cycles of conflict in Liberia have generated a range of effects that have undermined the national security, political stability, and economic prosperity of its neighbors, and had secondary negative repercussions in the wider sub- region. Among the most serious of such effects are the spread of small arms; the diffusion of violence-based social norms, often with commercial underpinnings; and increasing amounts of mercenary activity in the region; the deployment of diverse, often state-assisted rebel groups along regional borders; rampant human rights abuses; and the creation of aggrieved refugees and internally displaced populations.''

That has been the record of Charles Taylor.

I believe the United States has an obligation to Liberia based on history, based upon the chaos that is obvious in the country, based upon the policies and practices of President Taylor that has ruined his own country and harmed his neighbors. We must act for the security of west Africa and possibly even for the security of the United States.

I should also point out that our British allies intervened in Sierra Leone to ensure stability because of their historic ties with Sierra Leone. The French have intervened in the Ivory Coast. In fact, a month ago it was the French forces that evacuated Americans who were in danger in Liberia itself.

I believe we have to take several steps. First, the United States should organize a robust multinational force endorsed by the United Nations Security Council to support the cease-fire and to restore order in Liberia.

We all recognize that this is a decision for the President of the United States. But the Department of Defense must give the President of the United States all the options he needs and which he requires for the movement of troops--troops that could, with the President's order, intervene in Liberia. Without timely orders and giving troops notice of movement and beginning the movement process, we could find ourselves with other ugly episodes of violence in Liberia in the next few days, or weeks, or months. Finding the President being moved to act, it could take days to put our forces in place to operate.

With respect to not only organizing our response, we also should seriously begin marshaling the forces necessary to intervene if and when the President of the United States gives such an order.

Our involvement should not be contingent on Charles Taylor's decision to leave.

I have already described the record of Mr. Taylor. It is a record that lacks credibility. And his decision should not represent a veto of our policy. The President has said that he would consider the use of force or international forces if Taylor left. I think we should make it quite clear that if the situation deteriorates sufficiently and there is a prospect of using force for positive change for the Liberian people, then Charles Taylor should not decide by his presence or his absence whether we commit forces or assist with these international forces.

The United States should also seek Security Council approval of chapter VII authority to further support the Sierra Leone Special Court and its indictment of Taylor for crimes against humanity.

Presently, although the Special Court is backed by the United Nations, only Sierra Leone is bound by its decision. We should use our diplomatic influence to ensure that Taylor answers the indictment, in the event he does leave Liberia, or in the event that he comes into international custody in Liberia.

Finally, we should support a U.N. mission for Liberia, in consultation with the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, and the International Contact Group for Liberia, to provide for an interim government and ultimately a democratic transition.

The world, and particularly the people of Liberia, are waiting for our leadership. We should provide it.

There is another aspect of the issue of Liberia that is important to consider. It is not with respect to those Liberians who are in that country but actually with respect to Liberians who are here in the United States and who have been here in the United States for more than a decade.

When the Liberian civil war broke out, many Liberians began to flee to the United States. The chaos began to be obvious to our political leaders and in March of 1991, the then-Attorney General recognized their plight, and granted to these people temporary protective status, or TPS. This was back under the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush.

Under TPS, nationals of a country may stay in the United States without fear of deportation because armed conflict or extraordinary conditions make it unsafe for these people to return home.

To obtain TPS, persons must register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services--formerly known as INS, before its reorganization--pay a processing fee, and apply for an authorization to work. They must have a passport from the country from which they have fled. And they cannot be granted TPS if they have any criminal convictions.

Persons with TPS in the United States must pay taxes, but they do not qualify for benefits such as welfare or food stamps, and not a single day spent in this country under TPS counts toward the residency requirement for permanent residency.

As required by statute, the Attorney General reviews the situation in the country each year and then decides whether to extend TPS.

In the case of Liberia, the civil war has raged on and on for more than a decade, prompting Attorneys General of the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the present Bush administration to annually review the status of Liberians in the United States.

In 1996, 1998, and again in 2002--this time under the present Bush administration--the Attorney General found that the situation in Liberia had deteriorated to such an extent that TPS was not only granted but there was a ``redesignation.''

What does that mean? It means that people who had fled the country after 1991, or who had returned to Liberia and then returned to the United States, were also included in the protected category of TPS. So we have had a situation going over a decade in which annually Attorneys General have looked at the issue and have granted protective status to these people.

There was one brief period, from 1999 to 2001, where the conflict seemed to be ebbing. In that period, TPS was not granted. However, the Attorney General and the administration determined that it was still inappropriate to return these people to Liberia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

During this period of time, the Attorney General, therefore, granted a different form of relief known as deferred enforced departure, which was used to shelter the population of Liberians in the United States from immediate deportation.

But I think the point is, it is quite clear we have recognized the legal right of these people to stay in the United States because of the turmoil in Liberia for more than a decade.

That turmoil today is even worse. It is reaching a crisis proportion, so much so that the President of the United States is actually contemplating the use of American forces or certainly American support for an international peacekeeping mission.

Now, I have given this long and complicated history to suggest that we have a population that each year waits anxiously for a decision by the Attorney General whether to be sent back to a very difficult environment.

We are talking about 15,000 people in the United States. There is a human

face to this. They cannot tell an employer they can take a job for 2 years. They do not know if their children can go off to college for 2 or 3 years because you cannot give those assurances. They pay taxes, but they do not qualify for benefits. And many of these Liberians have lived in the country longer than the 5 years of residency required for citizenship.

What I have done for several years is introduce legislation to allow these individuals to become permanent residents as a step towards citizenship. I have been supported by my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Corzine, Durbin, and Hagel because we believe--and particularly at this moment we believe--it is appropriate to give these Liberians in America a sense of permanency.

Let me say, this would not be a unique occasion. We have, in many other instances, extended coverage like this to other nationals. We have had situations in which we have allowed people staying in our country to adjust to permanent residency status.

For example, in 1998 Congress passed a law allowing four national groups, who were in similar situations, staying in the United States at the discretion of the Attorney General to adjust to permanent residency status: 4,996 Poles, 387 Ugandans, 565 Afghanis, and 1,180 Ethiopians.

In the 102nd Congress, we passed a law that allowed 52,968 Chinese nationals with deferred enforced departure to apply for permanent residency and then citizenship because they were victims of Tiananmen Square.

In the 105th Congress, we passed the NACARA legislation. Under this law, 150,000 Nicaraguans, 5,000 Cubans, 200,000 El Salvadorans, and 50,000 Guatemalans were given the chance to reach permanent residency status.

In 1999, we passed a bill allowing 2,000 Syrian Jews to accede to permanent residency en route to citizenship.

My legislation would not set a precedent, but it would provide support and comfort, and I think long overdue justice, to 15,000 Liberians in this country.

Mr. President, I hope we can work together in the near future to make this legislation law.

I thank my colleagues for listening to this speech about Liberia. We have two functions: One, to provide assistance internationally to help the people struggling there; and then to provide a sense of permanency to those Liberians who are here.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield briefly for an inquiry?

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the remarks by Mr. Leahy I be recognized out of order, without the time being charged against either side, on another matter.

Not to exceed 20 minutes.

I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, on August 22, 1920, an article written by former LTC Thomas Edward Lawrence appeared in one of the great newspapers of London, the Sunday Times. This legendary British military officer--better known as Lawrence of Arabia--began his commentary with a sharp warning about his country's occupation of ancient lands in the Middle East:

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a

trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and

honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding

of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated,

insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we

have been told, our administration more bloody and

inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our

imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any

ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.

Colonel Lawrence concluded with an equally sharp question:

How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of

Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be

sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can

benefit nobody but its administrators?

Mr. President, it seems that history does have a way of repeating itself. These were the observations some 83 years ago of a British soldier who had studied the history of the Middle East, fought alongside Arabs in the Great War, and understood the anger of those who lived under the administration of a distant power. How prescient were those words--then and now.

His observations, which might have been considered academic in the months before U.S. and British troops began their recent advance into Iraq, now appear, as I say, prescient. As violence in the streets of Baghdad increases, as our troops are being killed and wounded by guerrilla attacks, as progress toward creating a new Iraqi Government stagnates, the American public is only just now beginning to come to grips with the enormity of the task that we have before us in Iraq.

A clear picture had never been painted for the American public by the ``powers that be.'' Oh, we heard rosy scenarios about instant liberty and flowers to the troops. The Vice President talked about flowers that would be bestowed upon our troops by those people in Iraq who would be liberated by us, the liberators. That was the talk of the day.

But now reality has emerged and it is harsh. And seeing the enormity--the enormity, I say--of the task before us and the increasing dangers to the loved ones who serve in uniform, the American people out there who are watching this Senate forum are beginning to ask, How long must our troops remain in those distant hot sands? How long? They are asking that in the mail I receive from the people back home. How long must they patrol the dangerous streets of Najaf and Fallujah? When will our troops be coming home?

Weeks ago, the President gave vague assurances about the timely withdrawal of our troops. He said:

We will stay as long as necessary to get the job done, and

then we will leave.

Those were his remarks at Santa Clara, CA, on May 2 of this year. But I say, Mr. President, such words are without substance; they are ``doublespeak.'' They do nothing but feed the hopes of the American people, as well as the people of Iraq, that our troops will soon return from Iraq,

while avoiding any real indication of when that might happen.

The fact is, the Bush administration has carefully avoided telling the American people when it expects our occupation of Iraq to conclude. So far, this administration has yet to even estimate how soon it will be able to hand over Iraq to the Iraqi people. In short, it appears that we have no exit strategy, and we have had none from the beginning.

The word ``quagmire'' is starting to be used by the media. Clearly, many people are very worried about our situation in Iraq. The death toll keeps mounting.

Last week, the President actually taunted those forces who are murdering our troops in the streets of Iraq. He dared the violent militants by saying: ``Bring 'em on.'' One can hardly think of a more inappropriate comment for a President to make when Americans are under siege in Iraq and being asked to deal with the treacheries of urban guerrilla warfare with no end in sight. Chest thumping should have no place in such a situation.

This was the same President who went to the trouble to put on a flight suit, land on an aircraft carrier, and with great fanfare tell the American people that major combat operations in Iraq have ended, while overhead there was a banner stream which said: ``Mission accomplished.'' But British and American soldiers are still dying in Iraq. Now the President is saying: ``Bring 'em on.'' What are we to believe?

The President has backed away from earlier suggestions of a foreseeable end to U.S. peacekeeping efforts in Iraq. He warns of the return of tyranny if our troops begin returning home.

Judging by the President's statements, our armed forces have become the thumb in the dike--the only obstacle that prevents the return of a repressive dictatorship in Iraq.

How did it come to this? Members of Congress were told that our forces would be greeted as liberators. We will be going in not as occupiers but as liberators. Iraqi citizens were supposed to eagerly embrace democracy and serve up Saddam Hussein on a silver platter the moment they sipped from the cup of freedom. We should have known that the burden of democratizing Iraq would be no easy task. The Administration should have been more forthcoming about the difficulty of that task, about the time it would take to execute it, and about the cost to the taxpayer.

To be sure, the Defense Department is now scrambling to scrape up as many as 20,000 foreign troops to join our forces in occupying Iraq by the end of September. I applaud these efforts. But it would be folly to believe that a deployment of 10,000, 20,000, or even 30,000 foreign troops would significantly reduce the dangers to the scores of thousands of Americans who are now in Iraq.

The failure of this Administration to adequately plan for postwar Iraq has become painfully evident. Before the war, I said: Where is the plan? What is the plan? At yesterday's Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said he did not know if the United States had made any formal request for assistance from NATO or the United Nations since the beginning of the war in Iraq. The deployment of experienced peacekeepers from our friends and allies would go a long way to relieving the strain on our troops. And, Mr. President, it is simply shocking that our Secretary of Defense would be unaware of efforts by the administration, if there are any, to make a formal request to NATO and the United Nations to provide these troops.

The tragic failure of the Administration's efforts to build international support before launching its impatient rush towards war against Iraq is now bearing its bitter, bitter fruit.

The Secretary of Defense tells the Senate Armed Services Committee to be patient. Well, the administration was not all that patient before launching its rush toward war against Iraq.

The difficulty in finding just 20,000 peacekeepers to patrol Iraq is evidence that White House efforts to assemble 49 nations into a ``coalition of the willing'' was merely an exercise in rhetoric, meant to cover the lack of significant military or financial contributions from dozens of nations, save for those of Britain, Australia, and Poland.

Has the lack of a plan for postwar Iraq needlessly cost American lives? If we had not been so convinced that Iraqis would greet our armies with flowers and smiles, could we have better anticipated the chaos and lawlessness that broke out in the days after the war?

If we had not been so cocksure about our ability to neatly decapitate the leadership of the Iraqi regime, could we have fashioned a better plan to deal with the collapse of civil order as our tanks rolled into Baghdad?

Perhaps this White House should have listened to the advice of some senior military leaders who foresaw the need for several hundred thousand troops to stabilize postwar Iraq. Perhaps it should have contemplated the consequences of a Saddam Hussein driven into hiding but still potent and dangerous. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

The Administration appears quite ready now to dedicate our military to a long-term occupation of Iraq. War-weary soldiers will continue to patrol the areas around Baghdad. The citizen-soldiers of the National Guard and the Reserves will be kept from returning to their homes, their jobs, and their families.

Senators, read your correspondence from back home. See what those families of guardsmen are saying. Read your letters. You are receiving them. My office is not unique in that respect.

The citizen-soldiers of the National Guard and the Reserves will be kept from returning to their homes, their jobs, and their families. Thousands of American families will continue to worry about the fate of their loved ones.

Ah, the sleepless nights that are spent by mothers, by wives, by husbands of guardsmen who have already been in Iraq for weeks and weeks and who are not told when they will be coming home but were told we will be there for a long time. Think of the tears that are spilled by mothers and wives and children for the husbands, the sons, the fathers who are away and who are not told when they will be coming home.

And in spite of the heavy commitment that this Administration has made to the most ambitious policy of nation-building in more than half a century, it appears to be on the verge of sending unknown numbers of U.S. troops to yet another peacekeeping mission in Liberia.

In my home state, there is a growing sense of disenchantment with these foreign adventures. Every day, more letters come to my office from West Virginians asking when their family members will be coming home. How long will it be? How long must we wait? When will they be coming home? My letters contain details about National Guard and Army Reserve units with unclear missions and open-ended deployments. I have received word that some units are without mail service--we are not told that by this administration--others must wait weeks between phone calls home to their families. One unit had to ration water to just 20 ounces per day because of supply shortages. I suspect that other Senators are experiencing a similar phenomenon in the content of their mail from families of the Guard and Reserve.

These part-time soldiers are proud to serve in our nation's military, but they know that they are also full-time members of their communities. Our nation's reservists have important duties in their civilian lives, serving their cities and towns as police officers, business men and women, doctors, teachers, and laborers. Members of the Guard and Reserves proudly joined to serve their country in times of crisis, and they have demonstrated that pride and done well, but not to be a permanent constabulary force in the Middle East. Nobody told them that.

Our brave and professional fighting men and women are awesome on the battlefield, but they must not be expected to carry out the role of peacekeepers or nation-builders in an open-ended mission, whether it take place in Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Liberia, or Iraq. Our American soldiers are not Iraqi bureaucrats. Our Armed Forces are trained to win wars, not run countries. Putting our men and women in such an untenable situation is a misuse of our military and a disservice to our military personnel.

This Administration should think hard about whether we have the manpower--do we?--to sustain a large commitment of troops in Iraq for the long term. They better think about it. We currently have overseas commitments in South Korea, Japan, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. I have heard we have our military forces spread so thinly around the world, in 136 countries, I recently saw. Keeping tens or hundred of thousands of troops in Iraq for as many as ten years may demand more troops than our voluntary armed forces can muster. Think about it.

This Administration should think hard about whether we have the money to single-handedly pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. The Department of Defense has reported that we are spending $3.9 billion each month to occupy Iraq. That is a billion dollars a week. How much is a billion dollars? A billion dollars is $1 for every minute that has passed since Jesus Christ turned the water into wine in the city of Caanan.

So the Department of Defense has reported that we are spending $3.9 billion a week. They had not said that until yesterday. Pulling that information from the Secretary of Defense was like pulling teeth. It was hard to do.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

My time has expired.

Mr. President, my thanks to the senior Senator from Illinois who has added his voice and his vote in support of his conscience on this matter.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader.

Amendment No. 1174

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, in May, after weeks of Democratic efforts, Congress extended unemployment benefits for the 2\1/2\ million Americans who have been laid off due to the economic downturn in this country. So far, our Republican colleagues have refused to include assistance for the 1.1 million Americans who have been hit hardest by this economic crisis--those long-term unemployed who have already run out of their unemployment benefits.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer this amendment before the Senate. The amendment will provide additional unemployment insurance compensation to more than 1 million Americans who have exhausted all of their unemployment insurance benefits.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Daschle, Sarbanes, Clinton, and Reed as cosponsors of my amendment.

The Murray amendment provides an additional 13 weeks of benefits for unemployed Americans who have exhausted all of their Federal unemployment benefits. That means we will be giving additional assistance to American workers who have been out of work for 9 months or more.

My amendment provides 7 additional weeks of benefits for unemployed Americans who have already received 26 weeks of benefits because they live in a State hit hardest by the ongoing recession.

Finally, my amendment provides parity to railroad workers currently ineligible for extended benefits.

The amendment before us would cost $2.5 billion, but it would help more than a million American workers and their families.

Mr. President, we are talking about the people in this country who have been hit hardest by this recession. We are talking about workers who have run out of options but still have to pay their mortgage; they still have to pay their medical bills; they still have college tuition to pay.

One recent study concluded that unemployed workers do not have significant savings to carry their families through an extended period of unemployment. Unemployment rates normally replace less than half--50 percent--of lost wages. What this means is unemployed workers are draining their savings accounts just to survive. The problem is even more acute for the long-term unemployed. Many of those have drained their savings entirely. They have nothing left.

Last week's June 2003 unemployment report clearly demonstrates the need for this amendment at this time: 30,000 jobs were lost in the month of June; jobs have been lost for the last 5 consecutive months in this country; more than 394,000 jobs have been lost since January of this year; 9.4 million Americans are now unemployed; 3.4 million Americans have lost their jobs just since President Bush took office.

Mr. President, we will soon be in the longest job recession since the 1930s and the Great Depression. My State of Washington has the second highest unemployment rate in the Nation. The unemployment rate in my State is 7.3 percent, and that is just the official unemployment rate.

One recent business columnist suggested the actual unemployment rate for the State of Washington could be as high as 11.8 percent if you count all of Washington's unemployed workers.

All across Washington--in every sector and every region--we are continuing to see job losses. One recent economic report predicted it would be 2005 before any real job creation occurs in Washington State. That is a long time for people who have been out of work for 9 months or more.

My colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, is in the Chamber. He and I share the distinction of being in States with the highest unemployment for the last number of years.

We know when we go home that we are going to be faced by neighbors, by friends in every community across our State who will have been on unemployment, through no fault of their own. They want to be at work. They want to support their families. They want to send their kids to college. They want to pay their mortgages. They want to pay for health care. They do not have jobs. They do not have opportunities. And we have a responsibility to make sure they do not lose everything because of a recession that has been no fault of their own.

Despite the rosy projections of economic growth and recovery that we keep hearing from this administration, we have to tell you there are many real Americans who are suffering through this economy every day.

In my State, there are about 20,000 workers who would benefit from the amendment that is now before the Senate. I have met with these workers who are struggling today. We have lost 35,000 Boeing manufacturing jobs in the last 2 years alone. On an almost daily basis, my office gets calls from workers who are desperate, who have lost their benefits or who will soon lose their unemployment insurance compensation. In fact, yesterday I received a phone call from a gentleman named Richard, and I want to read the message he left my office: He said:

I live on Camino Island. I'm a laid off Boeing worker. I

got laid off a year and a half ago. And I'm in school right

now. My unemployment insurance just ran out. I have 8 months

left of school. . . .I'm really concerned right now. . .

.That money would have been a godsend. I worked for Boeing

for over 12 years.

This could be anyone working hard, raising their family, working for Boeing for 12 years and, through no fault of their own, through an economic recession in this country, through September 11, through a downturn in our airline industry, this gentleman was laid off. He is now trying to get his life back together. He is going to school. He does not want to lose everything. He wants to contribute back to this economy and to this country. He needs us to extend unemployment insurance to give him that kind of assurance that this country is there for him in the good times and in the tough times.

There are a lot of workers, such as Richard from Camino Island, in my State who are losing their benefits. Many of these workers are losing hope in this current economy. This amendment gives more than 1 million American workers and their families new hope, new assurance that their country is there for them.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge its adoption this morning on this bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Reserving the right to object, is the Senator speaking against the Murray amendment?

The Senator is correct.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the agreement before the vote?

How much time does the other side have?

Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Oklahoma if he intends to use all his time.

Mr. President, I know many Senators are waiting to vote. I will just make a few more comments. I know Senator Nickles intends to raise a budget point of order.

Let me say in response to the comments made in opposition to the Murray amendment that we will be voting on shortly, that we on this side, Democrats, have brought this issue up time and again.

That is because our economy is struggling. That is because we have families at home who have been laid off, who have run out of unemployment insurance. We would love to have a debate on how to increase jobs. Democrats believe investing in transportation that provides infrastructure and new jobs is critical. Democrats believe investing in education, getting our economy going again is an important way to provide jobs for people. And there are other investments we believe would be helpful in providing jobs. We have not had the debates. We have been thwarted at every turn.

As a result, we have people at home who have been laid off. In the last 5 consecutive months we have lost jobs. We cannot continue to ignore those people at home who are out of work, who have run out of unemployment insurance, who cannot pay their mortgage, put food on the table, are becoming even more of a drag on our economy because they can't contribute back. We believe by extending unemployment benefits we will at least help them in the temporary.

We welcome a debate on getting jobs and the economy going again. We have been waiting for that discussion. We have had time to have a tax cut debate. We have seen that has not produced the kinds of jobs we need. In fact, 3.5 million Americans have lost their jobs since this President took office. We want to have a jobs program. But at this point that has not occurred.

What we now have is more than 1 million Americans who have run out of their unemployment insurance. The time is right. We hear this violates the Budget Act. I welcome my colleagues to go home and say to a young family whose father or mother has lost their job, who are struggling every single day with tears in their eyes, that this violates the Budget Act or this is not the right time or the right bill. We can do this, and we can do it now.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I tell our colleagues on the other side as long as this economy struggles, as long as people are losing unemployment insurance benefits, we are going to continue to bring this issue back to the floor. We would like to have a jobs program. We would like to see jobs increased. We want to have the debate. Right now we need to deal with the immediate.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cantwell and Dayton be listed as cosponsors of the Murray amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, 30,000 jobs were lost in the month of June alone. We have lost jobs in the last 5 consecutive months. A million people have now lost additional compensation under UI. This amendment is extremely important.

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.