Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2005

I call up amendment No. 3671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Absolutely.

Fifteen minutes or less.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Biden, Durbin, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Landrieu, Feingold, and Leahy.

Mr. President, this amendment simply adds $75 million in support of an expanded African union mission in Darfur, Sudan, moneys critically needed to stop the genocide that we all agree, voted on on this floor, is occurring. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake. We have heard estimates north of 300,000 to as many as a million.

Actually, the life of the whole country is at stake. The facts on the ground are well known. There have been 1.2 million people violently displaced. So-called Janjaweed or the militia supported by the government of Sudan have deliberately and systematically destroyed villages, foodstocks, poisoned water supplies, murdered and raped civilians, and an estimated 50,000 civilians have died.

There is no dispute in this country about what is happening. We heard a declaration a week ago from Secretary Powell that the rightful term with regard to what is going on in Darfur is ``genocide.'' The question now is, what do we do about it? Are we responsible to give voice and meaning and money to do something to stop it?

It is terrific and it is very positive how the United States has reacted with regard to humanitarian assistance. It is critical if we hope to save lives, and it has made a huge difference. I know the majority leader, Senator Brownback, myself, and others have visited. The humanitarian aid is making a difference. Is that enough?

The real challenge is to make sure we stop the genocide, not just feed the hungry. We need to do everything we can to bring security to the people of Darfur.

During my 3-day visit, I spoke with an incredible number of displaced people from all over that area of Darfur, which is roughly the size of France, who described rape, murder, starvation, hundreds of thousands of people displaced, families broken up. It is time to act.

Even after people have been able to move into camps, they have described how the Janjaweed will come in after dark and continue harassing, hurting, and challenging the actual viability of the people in the camps.

The camps keep growing. There are more displaced people all the time who are attacked and forced from their homes. International humanitarian organizations are struggling to assist these folks. Our humanitarian aid has made a difference, as a number of us have seen, but it goes on and on. It is estimated that from illnesses, starvation, and other means, somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 people die a month. There is fear that it could accelerate if an epidemic were to take hold in one of these camps or in a number of them.

There is also a security problem. Poor humanitarian conditions within those camps are creating anger among the displaced people, which might be quite obvious to anyone. If my colleagues could have seen one of these places, people are living in hovels and without any kind of quality water considerations, even if they have rations and food. This anger that is building in the camps is fueling this revolution that is going on between the Government of Sudan and the Darfur rebels. It is inciting even more of it.

Given the complete lack of security and stability in the region, a seemingly endless crisis involving displaced people which will go on for years if there is not something done about both the security situation and the political situation, we are going to end up spending $500 million for as far as the eye can see to maintain people staying and living in these camps.

That does not make sense. Remember, if we build up the anger in those camps, what have we created? We have created a breeding ground for further violence and also the fomenting of terrorism. Remember, Sudan 8 years ago was the home to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist groups--al- Qaida.

We can help stop the genocide, bring security to Darfur, start to stabilize the region, and create the conditions for peace. What is more, there is at this brief critical moment a real consensus. You hear it in the Foreign Relations Committee. You read it in the newspapers. You see it from the people who are sponsoring the efforts on genocide. This is something we can deal with today if we are prepared to allow in this bill the resources that will allow the United States to help the African Union fund the kinds of peacekeeping troops on the ground that will make a difference.

Right now there are currently 125 African Union monitors in Darfur and an additional 305 monitors, watchers, protective forces for the monitors who are looking at this area that is the size of France. It is kind of ridiculous on the surface of it, as a peacekeeping force.

There is an opportunity. The African Union wants to provide the troops. It doesn't have the money. It doesn't have the logistical support. But it has the ability to put the troops on the ground.

We should not send American troops. Nobody is asking to send American troops. What we are trying to do is get the resources so we can stop this genocide by putting a legitimate peacekeeping force on the ground.

It is an incredible tradeoff. Are we going to continue to spend $500 million a year on humanitarian aid to keep people in camps or are we going to try to create a secure situation where people can go back to the villages, start their lives, and maintain some safety in their world? To me, this is an easy expenditure. It is a cost-benefit analysis that we should be able to understand. It brings an opportunity for people to have security in the villages, in and around the camps, and change the terms and conditions of security which is the precondition to get on with a political settlement between the Darfurian rebels and the central government--which, by the way, was also locked with the whole issue of how the southern Sudanese rebels and the central government were working together, which we as a nation have put so much effort to bring about. But this is standing in the way of that moving forward.

I do not understand why we would not want to make an investment that will work on the security, that will lay the pathway to have us get to a political settlement that will make a difference and save incredible amounts. This is being supported, endorsed, and embraced by African leaders across the continent. They just don't have the resources to deal with it. It is being led by Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who currently heads the AU. He has done everything he can to get the rebels and the central government to negotiate a political settlement, but as long as there is continuing violence and anger building up in these camps, we are not going to get to that answer. We are not going to get to it, and we need to make sure we invest in something that will bring change, bring security as well as the humanitarian aid so we can get on with that political settlement.

There are very few times when you can say, if we invest $75 million now, over a longer period of time we will save having to bring all this humanitarian aid. People really care deeply about trying to prevent the kind of loss of life that is estimated by officials from all parts of the world. This is something that is clear and present and should be dealt with. This is where the United States ought to show the moral courage to stand up and act because there is something that is going to happen that is very clear in people's eyes if we do not.

I encourage my colleagues to say this is $75 million; it is going to be above

the budget resolution. If I am not mistaken, we just approved $146 billion worth of overage, over-budget resolutions, without any paying for it. Here we are talking about $75 million that can start us on the pathway to peace and protection of as many as 1.2 million individuals.

I hope we will be reasonable, particularly in light of how we dealt with the budget resolution on tax cuts. We ought to think about the cost-benefit that will be very obvious. It will make a real difference in human life and it is something we can all be proud of because we are making a statement that we want to stand with humanity on straightening out a very serious problem.

To reiterate, this amendment would add $75 million to support an expanded African Union mission in Darfur, Sudan. This money is critically needed to stop the genocide that we all agree is occurring there. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake, as is the future of an entire country.

The facts on the ground are now well known. There are 1.2 million people who have been violently displaced. The Janjaweed militia, supported by the Government of Sudan, have deliberately and systematically destroyed villages and food stocks, poisoned water supplies, murdered and raped civilians. An estimated 50,000 civilians have died.

There now is no dispute in this country about what is happening. On July 22, both houses of Congress spoke, calling the atrocities in Darfur by their rightful name: ``genocide.'' On September 9, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same declaration. The question now is what do we do about it?

Humanitarian assistance is critical if we hope to save lives, and I have and will continue to push for the maximum amount of U.S. and international aid. The crisis in Darfur requires more than a half a billion dollars this year, and we are still hundreds of million of dollars short.

But we also must do everything we can to begin to bring security to Darfur. During my recent trip, I spoke with internally displaced people who described for me the attacks that forced them from their villages. I asked one man when he expected to return. He told me, ``maybe 30 years.'' Other displaced people told me how they can't venture outside the camps and how women are at constant risk of rape. They even described how the Janjaweed ride through the camps at night, terrorizing those who recently fled their attacks.

Meanwhile the camps are growing, as more and more displaced people are attacked and forced from their homes. As a result, the international humanitarian organizations are struggling to assist the new displaced people. When I was in Krinding camp, in Geneina, I saw newly arrived displaced people without shelter, huddling under makeshift lean-tos of sticks and pieces of burlap and other materials they had found. These conditions persist in the midst of the rainy season and are fueling the current death toll, which is estimated at between 6,000 and 10,000 a month.

The security problems and the poor humanitarian conditions in the camps are creating increasing anger among the displaced people. This rage risks spinning out of control and fueling the civil war currently being waged between the Government of Sudan and the rebels. Given the complete lack of security and stability in Darfur and the seemingly endless crisis involving displaced people, we can anticipate years of crisis--costing the international community half a billion dollars a year, eliminating any possibility of stability or economic growth in Sudan, and possibly leading to the kind of failed state that breeds chronic violence and terrorism.

We can help stop the genocide, bring security to Darfur, start to stabilize the region and create the conditions for peace. What's more, there is--at this brief and critical moment--real consensus, here in America and among our allies about what to do.

Our option--our only option at this time--is to support the mission of the African Union. There are currently 125 AU monitors in Darfur, sent following the cease fire signed between the Government of Sudan and the rebels on April 8 in Chad. There are also 305 Rwandan and Nigerian troops deployed as protection forces for the monitors. I visited the monitoring teams when I was in Darfur. Their efforts to investigate and document violations of the cease fire are critical to establishing accountability, and their presence and the presence of the troops are the only hope for deterring attacks by the warring parties and the Janjaweed.

But the small AU contingent is, by all accounts, insufficient. Darfur is the size of France, and much of it is not easily accessible. To really address the security crisis in Darfur, we need more monitoring teams, deployed throughout the region. And we need thousands of troops with an expanded mission, to protect civilians and bring security to the region. The monitors and troops need meaningful support--air lift, vehicles, communications equipment, and other resources. This support is not insignificant--the United Nations has estimated that a 4,200- person force will cost $228 million per year. But, when we are considering an indefinite humanitarian crisis costing half a billion a year, how can we fail to spend less than half that amount for the only possibility of stabilizing Darfur and eventually resolving what is, in the end, a political and military crisis.

As for the U.S. contribution, my amendment would make available $75 million for an expanded AU force, one third of the UN estimate. Clearly, we need to engage with the EU and our other allies, with Arab and Muslim countries, and with other member states of the UN so that support for the AU is truly an international endeavor. But we can provide real leadership by demonstrating America's commitment to ending this genocide, not just in words but in a real contribution to peace and security.

This particular moment is made even more critical by the fact that the African Union has stepped up. The AU's leadership, whom I met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, has demonstrated initiative and courage in standing up to the Government of Sudan and insisting on a real and effective mission in Darfur. Almost 2 months ago, on July 27, 2004, the AU Peace and Security Council called for a ``comprehensive plan'' to enhance the effectiveness of the mission, including, ``the possibility of turning the mission into a full-fledged peacekeeping mission, with the requisite mandate and size,'' a mission that would emphasize, ``the disarmament and neutralization of the Janjaweed militia, the protection of the civilian population and the facilitation of the delivery of the humanitarian assistance.'' Then, on August 4, the AU as a whole stated its interest in expanding its force in Darfur to several thousand troops.

This vision has been pushed by visionary African leaders such as Nigerian President Obasanjo who currently heads the AU. President Obasanjo has not only supported an expanded role in Darfur, but pushed in his own country for more troops.

This will not be easy. The AU is a new institution and, despite its strong leadership, does not have meaningful experience, as a bureaucracy, with peacekeeping. Darfur is, in every sense, a real test of the AU. But it is also a test for us. African leaders are taking bold initiatives to confront a crisis on the continent, and we have expressed our support. But they need real help to succeed. If we merely support the AU in theory, but don't put resources where our mouth is, the tragedy will be almost beyond comprehension. Even beyond the genocide in Darfur, we will have set up the AU for failure at precisely the moment when it could really succeed. We will have crippled the AU, when it stands ready to help bring peace to this and other parts of Africa.

An expanded AU mission in Darfur has bipartisan support in Congress. The administration has also said, and begun to do, the right things. On September 9, Secretary Powell said:

The most practical contribution we can make to the security

of Darfur, in the short-term, is to do everything we can to

increase the number of Union monitors.

He also stated that the expansion of the AU force:

Will be first priority for our efforts in the days ahead.

We are currently providing $6.8 million to the tiny AU force now deployed in Darfur, and I was pleased that Secretary Powell came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and identified another $20.5 million. But, as

Secretary Powell acknowledged, the expansion of the African Union force will require money, assets, planes, logistics support and current funding levels are simply not enough.

Finally, a word about the international support for an expanded AU mission. Last Saturday, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1564 which supported:

The intention of the African Union to enhance and augment

its monitoring mission in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The Resolution also urged member states to support the AU by providing all:

Equipment, logistical, financial, material, and other

resources necessary to support the rapid expansion of the

African Union Mission.

This is precisely what this amendment would do--it would support the AU and send a powerful message to the rest of the world that America will provide real, tangible leadership on this issue.

There is one sticking point, and that is the Government of Sudan, whose leadership has stated that it does not oppose the expansion of the AU force, but has hardly been welcoming. The Government of Sudan has also resisted any AU force with an explicit peacekeeping mandate. We must bring the full weight of the international community and use all available leverage, including the explicit threat of sanctions to get this expanded AU force on the ground. The Security Council resolution alluded to this threat, stating that if the Government of Sudan fails to cooperate fully with the expansion and extension of the AU mission, it would, quote, ``consider taking additional measures.''

While the resolution also made reference to Sudan's petroleum sector and measures against the Government of Sudan or individual members of the Government of Sudan, it could have been, and should have been much stronger and more specific. But, last week's Security Council action at least puts the international community on record. Now we need to treat this situation with the urgency it demands. We need to make it perfectly clear to the Government of Sudan that there will be multilateral sanctions if it does not cooperate with an expanded AU mission. This threat must be real. We cannot allow it to be watered down in the Security Council. Khartoum either allows the mission in, or it doesn't. The Council has said there will be consequences for not cooperating. Those consequences should be immediate; there should be no extensions.

And we should signal our seriousness to the Government of Sudan, to our allies and to the AU by putting in place everything that an expanded AU mission in Darfur will need. We have the resources to do this. There are practical ways for us to stop this genocide. We can, if we have the will, do this now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski and my friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, as well, as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, I am not certain but I think Senator DeWine wanted to speak. I don't know how much time we have left.

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, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid of Nevada be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment would increase the funding for economic development assistance aid to Afghanistan by $500 million. The bill before us provides only $225 million in economic development assistance through the Economic Security Fund and then some portion of $172 million identified for development and health.

Last year, in fiscal year 2004, the Congress appropriated $900 million in economic development aid and $172 million for development in health through the regular and the supplemental appropriations bills. Those combined categories in total appropriations under this bill will drop from $1.71 billion from the current fiscal year, to $397 million for 2005. That is a cut in funding of 63 percent from one year to the next.

My amendment will increase next year's Afghanistan development aid to $897 million, which is still 15 percent less than it is in the current fiscal year.

What kind of message does this bill send to Afghanistan President Karzai and to his Government--one of their leaders was almost assassinated last week--and to the people of Afghanistan just before they hold their elections?

This is probably not the intent of the bill, but there was a 60- percent cut in economic development assistance that was too little before.

Afghanistan is not a wealthy country like Iraq. It will be when its oil reserves can be developed. Afghanistan, right now, is poverty and poppies--opium. The more poverty they have, the more poppies they will grow.

Just 3 months ago, President Karzai made a strong appeal to all of us in a joint session of Congress for more aid. That was following the necessary war which this Senate supported unanimously in September of 2001, for which I voted along with all of us who were present at that time. Our courageous Armed Forces succeeded in 10 weeks and accomplished what the former Soviet Union could not achieve in 10 years. Our Armed Forces routed the Taliban and al-Qaida but left political, social, and economic vacuums that have not been filled--at least not by the right elements.

President Karzai stated eloquently and emphatically 3 months ago the need for more aid. He said, and I quote in part:

We must build a partnership that will consolidate our

achievements and enhance stability, prosperity and democracy

in Afghanistan and in the region. This requires sustaining

and accelerating the reconstruction of Afghanistan through

long-term commitments.

That is what President Karzai said to six of us in January of 2002 in Kabul in a bipartisan delegation that was led by our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle.

Yet the Bush response to that plea has been tepid.

The world response has been cold. This bill would ice the effort with a 60-percent economic development aid cut. In fact, the entire bill's total military and nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan combined is less than half of the fiscal 2004 appropriation--less than half.

Mr. President, today's New York Times has an editorial entitled ``A Chance of Success Slips Away,'' by J Alexander Thier, a fellow at the Hoover Institution in California. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I would like to read a few portions of Mr. Thier's analysis:

President Bush describes Afghanistan, the first front on

the war on terrorism, as a success. In comparison to Iraq,

perhaps it is. But if you look at Afghanistan on its own

merits, the lack of progress is disheartening. In 2002,

President Bush promised a ``Marshall Plan'' for the country,

with the goal of turning Afghanistan into a stable,

democratic state. . . .Yet in nearly three years we have

failed to create security, stability, prosperity or the rule

of law in Afghanistan.

. . . .Our efforts in Afghanistan are underfinanced and

undermanned, and our attention is waning.

The root of the problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to

destroy something--the Taliban and Al Qaeda--but we didn't

think much about what would grow in its place. . . .

Afghanistan has become a collection of warlord-run fiefs

fueled by a multibillion-dollar opium economy.

Continuing with Mr. Thier's editorial remarks:

Our Army continues to hunt insurgents in the mountains, but

we have refused to take the steps necessary to secure the

rest of the country, and it shows. More coalition and Afghan

government soldiers and aid workers have died this year than

in each of the previous two. This summer, Doctors Without

Borders, which has worked in the most desperate and dangerous

conditions around the world, pulled out of Afghanistan after

24 years. In other words, the group felt safer in Afghanistan

during the Soviet occupation and the civil war that followed

than it did three years after the United States-led coalition

toppled the Taliban.

He concludes by stating:

Our experience demonstrates that you can't fight wars, or

do nation-building, on the cheap. Afghanistan should be a

critical election issue this year, but Iraq looms much larger

in the public mind. Unless the next administration steps up

to the plate, it may well be an issue in four years, when we

start asking, ``Who lost Afghanistan?''

I submit that tonight is our opportunity in this Senate to step to the plate, not to let this become a failed opportunity, not to allow the blood that has been shed by American soldiers to do what we originally said was the thrust of the war against terrorism--to go after al-Qaida, to drive them out of that country, to deny them safe havens and sanctuaries there, to rout the Taliban government, to install a democracy--and yet we have largely missed that opportunity along with the other wealthy nations of the world.

The failure of an adequate response to assist that country economically and in its rehabilitation has been just astonishing to me. What a missed opportunity. What an opportunity it is to showcase to the world our way of life, our generosity, to transform a country in a short period of time and show the rest of the Islamic world what our way of life, what our economic system can

do, and why it is so vastly superior to anything else, to take the horns of misperception off of the way those people incorrectly perceive this country. But many millions of them do. What an opportunity we have, and here we are cutting economic development aid to Afghanistan in this bill by over 60 percent.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for his cosponsorship. He has been a champion of this concern before I started here tonight. He has brought it up on the floor numerous times. Even though there is not an offset in this amendment, I think it would be penny-wise and pound very, very unwise for us not to raise the level of funding in this bill for Afghanistan for economic development aid to help move that country forward and to save American lives this year and years to come, both here and around the world.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Sept. 23, 2004]

A Chance of Success Slips Away

(By J. Alexander Thier)

Stanford, Calif.--President Bush describes Afghanistan, the

first front on the war on terrorism, as a success. In

comparison to Iraq, perhaps it is. But if you look at

Afghanistan on its own merits, the lack of progress is

disheartening. In 2002, President Bush promised a ``Marshall

Plan'' for the country, with the goal of turning Afghanistan

into a stable, democratic state. On Tuesday, before the

United Nations General Assembly, the president said that

``the Afghan people are on the path to democracy and

freedom.'' Yet in nearly three years we have failed to create

security, stability, prosperity or the rule of law in

Afghanistan.

These failings are not just a reflection of the great

difficulties of nation-building in places like Afghanistan,

they are also the direct result of the Bush administration's

policy decisions. Our efforts in Afghanistan are

underfinanced and undermanned, and our attention is waning.

The root of the problem is that we invaded Afghanistan to

destroy something--the Taliban and Al Qaeda--but we didn't

think much about what would grow in its place. While we

focused on fighting the terrorist (and even there our

effectiveness has been questionable), Afghanistan has become

a collection of warlord-run fiefs fueled by a multibillion-

dollar opium economy. We armed and financed warlord armies

with records of drug-running and human rights abuses

stretching back two decades. Then we blocked the expansion of

an international security force meant to rein in the

militias. These decisions were made for short-term

battlefield gain--with disregard for the long-term

implications for the mission there.

Our Army continues to hunt insurgents in the mountains, but

we have refused to take the steps necessary to secure the

rest of the country, and it shows. More coalition and Afghan

government soldiers and aid workers have died this year than

in each of the previous two. This summer, Doctors Without

Borders, which has worked in the most desperate and dangerous

conditions around the world, pulled out of Afghanistan after

24 years. In other words, the group felt safer in Afghanistan

during the Soviet occupation and the civil war that followed

than it did three years after the United States-led coalition

toppled the Taliban.

Last month, after a United Nations-backed voter

registration office was bombed, the vice president of the

United Nations Staff Union urged Secretary General Kofi Annan

to pull employees out of Afghanistan. The opium trade is also

out of control, fueling lawlessness and financing terrorists.

Last year, the trade brought in $2.3 billion; this year,

opium production is expected to increase 50 to 100 percent.

Amid terrorist attacks and fighting among regional

warlords, the country is preparing for presidential elections

on Oct. 9. A recent United Nations report warned that

warlords were intimidating voters and candidates. This month,

the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,

which has monitored post-conflict elections in trouble spots

like Bosnia and Kosovo, declared that Afghanistan was too

dangerous for its election monitors (it is sending a small

``election support team'' instead). President Hamid Karzai

narrowly escaped assassination last week on his first

campaign trip outside Kabul, and eight other presidential

candidates have called for elections to be delayed, saying

it's been too dangerous for them to campaign.

Many of these problems flow from early mistakes. Rather

than moving quickly to establish security and then gradually

turning over control to a legitimate domestic authority, we

have done the opposite. As fighting among warlord militias in

the countryside intensifies, we are slowly expanding our

presence and being dragged into conflicts. The American

``advisers'' in Afghan Army units, the ubiquitous heavily

armed ``private'' security forces and the fortress-like

American Embassy are garnering comparisons to the day of the

Soviets.

In Kabul, the effort to build a stable, capable government

has also lagged dangerously. President Karzai has begun to

show great fortitude in challenging warlords. But his

factious cabinet, born of political compromise, has collapsed

under the pressure of the country's hurried presidential

elections. Outside Kabul, his control remains tenuous in some

places, nonexistent in others. Kabul's Supreme Court, the

only other branch of government, is controlled by Islamic

fundamentalists unconcerned with the dictates of

Afghanistan's new Constitution. On Sept. 1, without any case

before the court, the chief justice ordered that Latif

Pedram, a presidential candidate, be barred from the

elections and investigated for blasphemy. His crime? Mr.

Pedram had suggested that polygamy was unfair to women. These

clerics are trying to establish a system like that in Iran,

using Islam as a bludgeon against democracy.

It's true that there have been several important

accomplishments in these three years: the Taliban and Al

Qaeda no longer sit in Kabul's Presidential Palace; girls are

back in school in many parts of the country; some roads and

buildings have been rebuilt; and more than 10 million Afghans

have registered to vote for the presidential elections.

Thousands of international aid workers have been working with

the Afghans, often at great risk, to make things better.

Despite the slow progress, most Afghans are more hopeful

about their future than they have been in years.

But many people working there are left with the nagging

feeling that much more could have been done both to help

Afghanistan and fight terrorism over the last three years.

Our experience demonstrates that you can't fight wars, or do

nation-building, on the cheap. Afghanistan should be a

critical election issue this year, but Iraq looms much larger

in the public mind. Unless the next administration steps up

to the plate, it may well be an issue in four years, when we

start asking, ``Who lost Afghanistan?''

Reluctantly so, I say to the Senator, and with the request or plea to those who will take this bill to conference that they seek ways--the House has an increase in funding by $48 million over the administration's request. I plead that the conferees look for ways to increase this funding. It would be money very well spent. But, yes, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, the senior Senator from Kentucky and I have been working very closely for the last week to get rid of as many amendments as we could. I think we have done a lot of that. As I said on the floor earlier this afternoon, if people have amendments, come and let me know. We have one, possibly two, and we are working diligently on those.

I say to the distinguished leaders, the best they can do might be to go forward. I am willing to move quickly. I

would be delighted to go to final passage in the next 5 minutes, but we do not want to preclude Senators from offering amendments. So if Senators are not serious about an amendment, then they should make that clear.

Senator McConnell and I have tried to reflect the interests of both parties. As I recall, we passed this bill out from the Appropriations Committee unanimously. Republicans and Democrats alike strongly supported it. So this is very carefully crafted legislation.

Mr. President, I want to echo what my friend from Kentucky has just said. This is a good bill. Our subcommittee allocation is below the President's request, so we had to make some tough choices, but we did the best we could with what we had.

I want to thank Senator McConnell for working in the best spirit of the Senate to produce a bipartisan bill and accommodate the overwhelming majority of requests from Senators. Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd also deserve a great deal of credit for this year's Foreign Operations bill.

Senator McConnell went over the details of the bill so I will highlight just a few items:

The bill contains much-needed increases in refugee assistance that goes to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

The bill rolls back proposed cuts to the Child Survival and Health and the Development Assistance accounts. This is important because most of the requests we received from Senators on both sides of the aisle were for projects or activities funded in these accounts.

The bill provides a total of $2.4 billion to combat AIDS, TB and Malaria, including $150 million in emergency money for the global fund that we added by Senators Durbin and Brownback during the committee markup.

When combined with the funds in the Labor-HHS bill, this brings the Senate total for AIDS prevention and treatment to $3.1 billion, including $550 million for the global fund.

The bill added $150 million in emergency funds to address the crisis in Darfur. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in additional disaster and food assistance for Sudan in this bill and in the Agriculture appropriations bill.

The bill includes several other important provisions dealing with accountability at the multilateral development banks, human rights in Colombia, corruption in Nicaragua and Guatemala, the interim government in Haiti, environmental conservation, international family planning, and assistance for Afghan women and girls, to name a few.

This is a good, balanced bill. We are on a fast track to get this done, so I hope Senators will come to the floor to offer their amendments. We want to move to third reading as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey to address the crisis in Darfur, Sudan.

This amendment appropriates $95 million to support the African Union mission that will help to provide desperately needed security in Darfur.

We simply must act: What is happening there is genocide. The Congress has said it. The Secretary of State has said it. The world knows it. People are dying at a staggering rate, and it will only get worse.

After we appropriate this money, there is one other important piece of the puzzle--the administration must spend it. I will be working with the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Ohio to ensure that the President does the right thing and spends this money.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his strong leadership on this issue.

I also commend the Senator from Kansas. We have had long discussions on some of these efforts. He knows the Senator from Kentucky and I have been trying to work out as nonpartisan a bill as possible on these issues. His sense of morality and concern--I say it in the best sense of the word--has been very helpful. All 100 of us live a comfortable life. None of us go hungry except by choice. Some of us do that off and on for whatever reason. But it is only by choice. We have people in parts of the world we have been talking about who cannot even be fed by choice. They starve to death. They have no choice.

On these amendments, what the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Kentucky and I, the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Ohio, and others have tried to do is let them know in this country, the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on earth, there are people who know they are starving, they know they are dying, they know this goes beyond a question of politics. This is a question of morality, deepest moral sense of human beings to make sure we feed them. I commend him for his work.

Madam President, there is a rock group that I have been reputed to have spent time with and listened to. One of their songs is ``Keep on Trucking.'' I might say, a long strange trip it has been. But if we keep on trucking, at least those of us with a touch of gray will complete this.

I will at this point, while the distinguished Senator from Kentucky tries to maintain his composure, stop going through the song, the playbook of the Grateful Dead.

Madam President, a lot of people watch and don't fully understand what goes on. We have quorum calls during the day. They are watching on TV. They can see different huddles of Senators. We are oftentimes getting a lot of work done. I once joked that more laws get passed in the Senators' dining room or the Senators' gym than on the floor. That is where Senators get together. The Senator from Kentucky and I, based on our years and years of personal friendship, along with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the chairman, and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member, know how to work these things out. We have done this. We keep our word to each other. We do it the old-fashioned way, sort of the way we called a law being passed when I first came here 30 years ago. That is why we are at this point on a bill that used to take sometimes 2 or 3 weeks.

I like the working relationship with the Senator from Kentucky, and I think we are very close to setting a record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, a number of us during the quorum call were complimenting each other on both sides of the aisle for working through a complex piece of legislation on which we still have some paperwork to do, but it will pass this body unanimously. If any piece of legislation should, it is this one. I alluded to the fact that our responsibility in other parts of the world goes beyond just a sense of altruism. Obviously, to the extent that we alleviate hunger, suffering, and disease in parts of the world, we make those parts of the world able to have stability and become less of a threat to themselves, their neighbors, and also to the United States.

We also have to ask ourselves this question as Americans: When you live in the wealthiest, most powerful Nation history has ever known, with a standard of living for most Americans so substantially above that of billions of other people, when you look at nations where they don't even list the birth of babies until they make sure they survive for a year, or get the kind of normal things my grandchildren get, such as inoculations, vaccinations, and so on, it is almost unheard of-- there is either no money for it or no way to bring it to them. And people starve by the thousands in some countries, every month, suffering genocide, slaughter, and some of the worst conditions that exist.

We have a moral responsibility, to the extent that this country can help. Obviously, I am not suggesting America can solve every problem throughout the world. We cannot. But there are areas where we can help--medical help, fighting AIDS, combating polio, measles, diphtheria, dysentery, diseases that kill thousands of people. If every one of us were handed a picture and it said this child is going to starve or die of an easily preventable disease, would you pay 6 cents, or 7 cents, or a dime, or 20 cents to make sure they don't have those childhood diseases, we would say, of course; in fact, we can do that for hundreds more if it would help.

Basically, that is what we are talking about here. The foreign aid budget is a fraction of 1 percent of our total budget--a fraction of 1 percent. A lot of countries give a much larger percentage of their budget. But in many parts of the world, people say America is their hope because we have helped.

That is why I commend those on both sides of the aisle who have joined us in carrying that out, because it is not a political issue, it is not a military issue, it is not a partisan issue; it is a truly moral issue. If we are truly people of God, if we care, this is what we will do. So I commend those Senators who are making it possible.

I ask my friend from Kentucky, are we close to having the final agreement on the managers' package?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I concur about the seriousness of these locust swarms. Hunger and famine increase the susceptibility to malaria and other dangerous diseases, and we must help our friends in West Africa fight the spread of locusts. I will call on the USAID Administrator to do more to address this crisis.

Mr. President, I concur about the importance of this funding and will try to address these concerns

in our continued deliberation of the Foreign Operations Appropriations legislation.

Madam President, I want to, once again, thank Senator McConnell for his hard work to pass a very good Foreign Operations bill. I also thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd.

I want to thank the staff--Paul Groove and LaShawnda Smith for the Majority. Paul worked countless hours to put this bill together. His patience, high standards, meticulous attention to detail, and unwavering good humor are appreciated by all of us. LaShawnda Smith literally kept the office going.

I want to thank Reb Brownell, a detailee from the State Department, who was extremely helpful at every turn. Reb represents the very best that the State Department has to offer.

And finally, I want to thank Bob Lester of USAID's Office of General Counsel. We literally could not write this bill without Bob. His knowledge of the Foreign Assistance Act and his drafting skills are unequaled. Although Bob talks of retiring, I don't see any way that we can get along without him. None of us are indispensable, but Bob Lester certainly comes as close as humanly possible.

Madam President, I thank both the distinguished Democratic leader, Mr. Reid, and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. McConnell. They were able to finish up the bill. I say again--as I said in my statement complimenting the Senator from Kentucky and his able staff and also my able staff--we have set an all- time record on a very complex piece of legislation in getting it through. I compliment the Senator.

Madam President, I yield such time as he needs to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, who did such a wonderful job this week passing our Homeland Security appropriations bill that is going to fund homeland security for all of our country, after which I would like to reclaim the floor for the Military Construction Subcommittee report.

Madam President, I am very pleased to bring forward for the Senate's consideration the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction appropriations bill. I am also pleased to be joined by the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein from California. We have worked very closely on this bill. That has been our tradition. We have never had a problem with our Military Construction bill. Frankly, we have done some very important work and begun to help the Department of Defense shape the military for the future.

Our bill provides, including $5.3 billion for military construction, $4.2 billion for military family housing; $166 million for NATO infrastructure, and $246 million for base realignment and closure costs.

Although the military construction needs continue to exceed resources available, I am very pleased that the bill provides a significant increase over last year's funding. I believe the bill we have on the floor today attends both to the President's most pressing priorities and to the concerns of Senators.

Since September 11, 2001, we have made great demands on our military personnel as they have waged the global war on terror. The sacrifices have been widely shared, but the demands have been particularly acute for our Reserve components who have faced deployments on a scale and for durations unprecedented in the post-World-War II era. Facilities support for the Guard and Reserve have traditionally failed to keep pace with need.

I am pleased that this year the administration increased the request for Reserve component funding by 68 percent. Even this higher figure, however, is not adequate and the bill adds an additional $194 million or 31 percent more for critically needed projects in the Guard and Reserve. We believe this bill does a very good job of providing the resources needed to accomplish our military mission. But nothing is so critical to the mission as the people who carry it out, particularly in a time in which so much is being asked of them. For that reason, we have paid particular attention to projects that enhance the quality of life of our military members and their families.

The bill provides over $1 billion for construction of new modern barracks, $188 million for design and construction of new hospital and medical facilities, and $11 million for child development centers to serve our military families. It also provides a 9-percent increase over last year for family housing construction operations and maintenance.

Because we are concerned about the quality of life of our military families, I want to comment briefly on a provision that is addressed in our bill and is very important to meeting the needs in the future for military housing. In 1996,

Congress passed legislation to provide the Defense Department with authority to enter into partnerships with private entities for the acquisition and management of military family housing. Because the initiative was unprecedented, the budget authority for the program was capped at $850 million, pending an evaluation of the program's success. The success has been striking.

To date, the Department of Defense has awarded 34 privatization projects comprising 63,200 housing units. Another 63 projects involving 116,000 housing units in 37 States and the District of Columbia are pending. The program has accelerated significantly the elimination of inadequate housing for our Armed Forces and has placed thousands of military families in better housing far sooner than would have been possible otherwise. Customer satisfaction with privatized housing is extremely high, and the Defense Department estimates the program will decrease long-term housing costs by 10 to 15 percent due to more efficient maintenance. The Department expects to reach the statutory cap late this fall, and the cap must be raised or the program would end. However, the Congressional Budget Office has decided to change its methods for scoring the additional authority, counting not just the annual appropriations required to fund the Government's contribution to privatized housing but also all the estimated benefits that accrue to the Government over time.

Effectively, the CBO intends to score the additional authority to enter into partnerships as though there were no partnerships, and the Government was paying for all of the new housing itself and paying for it all this year. That approach, besides seriously overstating the Government's expenditures for housing, negates any advantage of privatized housing over traditional military construction.

Public-private partnerships are relatively new, and we recognize CBO is struggling to account for them properly. We acknowledge the appeal of a theoretically comprehensive accounting of Federal financial activities. But the practical reality of CBO's proposed approach will be prolonged substandard housing for tens of thousands of our military families, with not a dollar difference in the amount of money Government is spending. So we are not going to allow that to stand.

I hope a sensible solution to this issue will prevail. We are going to continue to work with the Budget Committee, CBO, the Armed Services Committee, and in our own Military Construction conference. In the meantime, there is an amendment that is now part of our package that will direct the Defense Department to assess the impact on our military families if we fail to resolve this issue and, by doing so, put a marker down to address the issue in conference if it is not settled elsewhere.

Last year this bill differed from the administration's request in only one significant way, and that was overseas construction. The administration was in the early stages of its global posture review and there were many uncertainties about the future of the U.S. military presence overseas. Today, the Department's vision is clearer. The Department has made significant progress in thinking about the future of our overseas military facilities and, over the recess, began to publicly disclose some of that thinking. They have made a major step in the right direction. The Independent Overseas Basing Commission created by last year's Military Construction Appropriations bill is up and running and has begun its assessment of overseas infrastructure needs. The commission's work will help inform our evaluation of our overseas construction requirements.

I and my colleague, Senator Feinstein, have visited numerous military installations all over the world. I know our colleagues have as well. I am certain they have found the same thing we have--that the needs at these installations almost always outstrip the resources we are able to direct to them. Although most of the needs are eventually addressed, sometimes the urgency of the requirement isn't fully appreciated here in Washington, where the budget requests are being prepared.

This bill provides funding for a number of projects which are badly needed at particular installations and are in the future years defense plan, but which were not included in this year's budget request. All of them have been carefully screened by the military services to ensure that they meet urgent military requirements; all are top priorities for installation commanders, and all have been authorized in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill. A significant percentage of them support our Guard and Reserve forces, and I am pleased we were able to include them in this bill. They are a priority.

The bill before the Senate was approved by the Committee on Appropriations on a unanimous vote of 29-0. I thank my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for her cooperation and counsel throughout this process, and compliment her staff, Christina Evans and B.G. Wright, who have worked so cooperatively with my staff in preparing this bill. My staff, Dennis Ward and Sean Knowles, also have done a terrific job. They have traveled to the bases where we have requests to find out for themselves that these requests are needed and how we can best meet the needs of all of the military installations in our country and where our troops are based overseas. I so appreciate their professionalism and support.

I am pleased to offer the 2005 Military Construction appropriations bill for the Senate's consideration.

I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Feinstein.

Mr. President, this would now be the appropriate time because I know of no speakers.

Mr. President, before Senator Feinstein yields the floor, in case she has anything else to say, I say to the Senator from Delaware that he was very persistent last year. We did everything to try to help him with that last component of the increase in the capacity for Dover. We were not able to do that last year.

Senator Feinstein did make it her highest priority this year. I want the Senators from Delaware to know that. I supported it fully, but we did remember that the Senator had pressed hard.

Every one of us knows the great role that Dover Air Force Base plays in our military. They have one of the hardest jobs in all of our military, and that is the comforting of families when their loved ones are returned home, many times no longer alive in body but certainly in spirit. That is a huge job that is done beautifully at Dover. We appreciate that.

We have added to the capacity of Dover Air Force Base that has such an important place in our military facilities throughout our whole country. We thank the Senator from Delaware for coming to the floor of the Senate to reemphasize that importance. I thank him very much.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for his very kind words. It means a lot to Senator Feinstein and myself that he would come to the floor and recognize the job we are doing. It is very thoughtful and we appreciate it very much.

Once again, I think we have a good bill that has taken into consideration the priorities of our military, our administration, and the Senators who all came together to put a bill on the floor that would address the needs in a fair and balanced way throughout our country, and I thank my colleague from California. We have a great working relationship, which shows in the bill because it passed unanimously out of the committee, and I think it will pass unanimously out of the Senate. Hopefully we can go forward to start the construction projects October 1, the beginning of fiscal year 2005.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

florida national guard hurricane damage

I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Florida.

I thank the Senator from Florida for bringing this issue to the attention of our committee and the Senate. Contingency funds exist to support the requirements of the Florida National Guard and I am confident they will have what they need when they need it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman, Senator Hutchison, in recommending the 2005 Military Construction appropriations bill to the Senate. I thank her because it has been quite wonderful for me to work with her over the years. We have exchanged positions, ranking and chairman, on this subcommittee. I think we have always worked in a collegial and very productive way. Her leadership has been outstanding and I, for one, am very grateful. I also thank Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for their leadership and assistance in guiding this bill through committee and to the floor.

America's men and women in uniform need all the support we can give them, so expeditious consideration of defense bills, such as this one, sends an important signal of support to our troops. I know both Senator Hutchison and I want to send that signal.

The President's budget request for MilCon was $9.55 billion. That was only 2.5 percent over last year's enacted level. But with the support of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, the committee was able to add another $450 million to meet the urgent construction needs of our active and reserve military bases.

As Senator Hutchison indicated, one issue that dominated discussion in the 2005 Military Construction program is the question of how to rescue the military family housing privatization initiative from running out of budget authority. I agree very much with my chairman. By accelerating the pace at which new family housing can be provided, the program has had a tremendous impact on the quality of life for thousands of military families. The question is, what do we do now? This year, the subcommittee was faced with that dilemma because we will shortly be out of money. So as the chairman said, we hope the authorizing committee--the Budget Committee as well as the Armed Services Committee--can find a solution to this problem by the time this bill is in conference.

Again this year, the subcommittee was faced with a still evolving proposal for realigning our overseas military force structure. I want to take a couple of minutes to discuss it because I think it is important. Last year, the Defense Department unveiled a preliminary plan for a major restructuring of forces in Europe and Korea, a plan that has now evolved into a wide-ranging global rebasing plan. The President publicly announced the plan last month, noting that 60,000 to 70,000 troops currently stationed overseas would return home over the next decade. Unfortunately, the administration offered few other details about the plan, and it appears some key basing decisions remain unresolved. This year's budget request included more than $700 million for overseas military construction.

The planning and rebuilding of military facilities is a complicated process, constrained by long lead times, and the

lack of a fully developed basing plan by the Department of Defense has hampered the subcommittee's ability to make prudent and informed decisions about overseas military construction.

For this reason, several proposed overseas construction projects were deleted from the Senate bill pending a clearer understanding of how they might be affected by the global basing plan.

It is clear the Department is continuing to fine-tune and adjust its global realignment plan. Although the President has announced plans to realign and significantly reduce the number of U.S. troops stationed overseas, the committee has received no requests from the Defense Department that would support moving forces back to the United States; nor has the Defense Department provided Congress with any cost estimate or timetable for its global restructuring plan. It is said that ``the devil is in the details'' and we do need those details. Only when the Defense Department provides Congress with a comprehensive, well- reasoned plan will the committee have a sufficient understanding of the associated military construction requirements to proceed with confidence.

Until the Defense Department completes its overseas basing review and presents a plan to Congress, projects supporting activities that may be subject to further change should remain on hold. I think we are both in agreement on that.

The Overseas Basing Commission that Senator Hutchison led, and I supported, was established last year. That, we hope, will provide some valuable insights for Congress regarding this process. We have given this matter great consideration, and I commend Senator Hutchison for laying out the position of the subcommittee so clearly and completely in the report accompanying our bill. I very much agree with that.

I thank Chairman Hutchison and the members of the Appropriations staff, Dennis Ward and Sean Knowles, for their hard work on this bill. I also thank my Appropriations staff, Christina Evans and B. G. Wright, sitting to my left, and my personal staff, Michael Schiffer and Chris Thompson, who does our appropriations, for their contributions.

The work of the Military Construction Subcommittee enhances our Nation's efforts to build quality facilities for our military men and women, and I urge my colleagues to approve this bill.

Mr. President, I want the chairman to know that at the appropriate time, I would like to enter into a colloquy between Senator Nelson and myself, to which the chairman has agreed.

There is one, and I would like to yield a few minutes to the Senator from Delaware, if I may, Senator Carper.

Certainly.

Mr. President, before I yield back the remainder of my time, I would like to thank the Senator from Delaware for his comments. The control tower at Dover Air Force Base, which is I think about a $9 million appropriation, was on their ask list in 2004. Unfortunately, we could not do it, so we made it a high priority this year. I know both Senator Hutchison and I were really pleased to be able to do it.

It is very nice for the Senator from Delaware to come to the floor to say thank you. Very few do that. It is appreciated. I thank the Senator very much.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I believe I can yield back the remainder of our time.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada appeared on the floor and said similar words a year ago. I never expected he would come back a second time and do that again. I had his words printed up and gave a copy to my chairman and put one copy in my memory book. What should not be so rare, but I guess is rare, is the fact that women can do this work, women can participate in the great public policy debates of our day, women can work together, they can be effective and I think the fact that that is now becoming the given is important.

The message Senator Reid sent to young women who may be out there saying, could I do this job some day, is absolutely, yes, if they get an education.

The old proverbial myths that women cannot work together or women are jealous or women are this or women are that are not true. We are living examples of this, both Republican and Democratic women in the Senate. It is one of the great treats of our service that we are able to share, develop collegiality, be real professionals, and care about the people we represent.

It is a great pleasure for me to hear and see the Senator from Nevada saying these things, and also, as I said before, to be able to work with Senator Hutchison. We have become good friends in the process. We do not always agree, but that does not matter. The point is there is a basic integrity and a commitment to do the right thing for the people we represent and the people in the military.

So I thank Senator Reid and my thanks to my chairman. I yield the remainder of my time.

I would also be willing to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Florida.

I also thank the Senator from Florida for bringing this to our attention. I appreciate his sharp attention to the needs of Florida in this time of crisis, his determined efforts on behalf of their relief, and his unwavering support of the Florida National Guard.