Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my sad duty today to inform the Senate that the State of Indiana has lost its beloved Governor, Frank O'Bannon. He passed away on Saturday at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, where he was being treated for a massive stroke suffered five days earlier. He was 73 years old.

All of us in Indiana mourn the loss of this fine man, whose kind and gentle nature had won the hearts of so many Hoosiers over the years. Frank O'Bannon will always be remembered for the warmth and friendliness that were essential elements of his character. He was a true Hoosier.

He and his wife, Judy, had been married 46 years and were part of a close-knit family that includes their three children and five grandchildren. Judy was at his side at the hospital when he passed away. I extend my deepest condolences to Judy, and I know she will draw strength and support from her family and many dear friends.

I consider it a privilege to have known Frank O'Bannon. He grew up in Southern Indiana in the town of Corydon during the 1940s, where he experienced first-hand the special charm of that era captured so wonderfully in the movie Hoosiers. After graduating from Indiana University in 1952, he served in the Air Force, went to law school and then came home to settle down and work as a lawyer and publisher of weekly newspapers.

He was first elected to the Indiana State Senate in 1970 and went on to serve 18 years there--much of it as the Democratic floor leader. He was Lieutenant Governor for 8 years before being elected Governor in 1996 and then re-elected by a wide margin in 2000. He was an optimist by nature, a consensus builder and a man of absolute integrity. I always looked forward to my visits with him. I will miss him greatly.

On Saturday, our Lieutenant Governor, Joe Kernan, was sworn in as Indiana's 48th Governor. He will serve the remainder of Governor O'Bannon's term, until January 2005.

Frank O'Bannon's remains will be buried near other family members in a small cemetery in Corydon. He touched many people in his life. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, it is my sad duty today to inform the Senate that our distinguished Governor of Indiana, Frank O'Bannon, has been incapacitated by what his doctors describe as a massive stroke. Governor O'Bannon is currently at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago where-- thankfully--he is showing some small but encouraging signs of improvement.

This has been a heartbreaking moment for all of us in Indiana. Frank O'Bannon is not only one of the State's most dedicated public servants--he is also one of the most respected and loved. I have joined with all my fellow Hoosiers in praying for his recovery. His wife, Judy, has been at his side at the hospital since Monday, and I hope she knows that she has our unwavering support.

Governor O'Bannon has a record of public service that goes back more than 30 years. He was first elected to the Indiana State Senate where he served 18 years--much of it as the Democratic floor leader. He was Lieutenant Governor for 8 years before being elected Governor in 1996 and then re-elected by a wide margin in 2000.

I have known Frank O'Bannon many years and consider him my friend. He is a good man with a good heart--and that is why we are all so saddened by this sudden turn of events.

On Wednesday, the Indiana Supreme Court reluctantly issued an order transferring the authority and responsibilities of the Office of Governor to our Lieutenant Governor, Joe Kernan. This transfer of power, done in full compliance with the Indiana State Constitution, ensures that state government will continue to provide all its services without interruption or delay.

I ask my colleagues to join my prayers that Frank O'Bannon is able to recover from this sudden affliction and resume his responsibilities as Governor of Indiana.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize a fine public servant who just retired this past August from the Congressional Research Service. David Ackerman is a sterling example of the expertise we in the Congress can call upon to assist us in our legislative responsibilities. I know Senator Biden joins me recognizing Mr. Ackerman for his splendid accomplishments during his career at CRS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of Mr. Ackerman's career be included in the record as part of my remarks. Mr. Ackerman devoted nearly 30 years to supporting Congress in his role as legislative attorney for the American Law Division of CRS. His areas of expertise were international law, foreign affairs and first amendment church-state issues and he applied a keen legal mind and sensitivity for balance and nonpartisanship in providing Congress with the informed and objective analysis we need. Dave Ackerman joined CRS in 1974 after graduating with distinction from Georgetown University Law School. Prior to his legal career, after graduating magna cum laude from Knox College, he worked on Capitol Hill in the Washington office of the National Council of Churches. At CRS, Dave quickly established himself as an attorney with the legal analytical skills necessary to provide Members and committees of Congress with high level support on some of the most complex questions facing them in their legislative and oversight roles. He did this with the professionalism, objectivity, and devotion to client support that we in the Congress value in CRS. Dave's career saw numerous awards and recognition for outstanding performance by CRS as well as expressions of commendation by congressional clients. His work was referred to and reprinted widely during congressional deliberations and in a variety of congressional publications. Among the most notable of the latter, are his contributions over the years to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Print, ``Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate,'' a seminal work and invaluable reference resource on this important topic. Mr. Ackerman's work ranged over many of the controversial issues faced by the Congress and the country over the last 30 years. In the international/foreign affairs law area, Dave wrote extensively on the respective roles of Congress and the executive in waging war and conducting foreign affairs. Both Gulf wars and the Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan conflicts raised their own issues of presidential power and congressional prerogatives and Dave was an invaluable source of legal analysis for the Congress, assisting it in understanding this complex interplay. Mr. Ackerman also provided Congress with sophisticated analyses of such issues as the legal implications for treaties of the break-up of the Soviet Union, the termination of the ABM treaty, NATO enlargement, the Kyoto protocol and the International Criminal Court. Recently, Mr. Ackerman has written extensively on the legally--and politically--complex issue of suits over terrorist acts in United States courts. Both the courts and Congress have struggled to develop solutions to this problem, balancing justice for victims with delicate foreign policy concerns. A remarkable aspect of Mr. Ackerman's career with CRS was his ability to range over a number of areas of law. Dave was also a recognized expert on the separation of church and state. The first amendment's commands regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise of religion have produced some of the most heated debates in the courts and Congress, whether it be prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance in the schools or government aid to religious institutions. Dave was able to write on these issues with a clarity and acumen that enabled Congress to understand the ever-changing law of church and state in its legislative deliberations. In the finest traditions of CRS, Mr. Ackerman brought objectivity and even-handedness to an area that invariably elicited strong emotions and heated argument. Congress and CRS will miss the expertise of David Ackerman. He represented the best of what we have come to expect from CRS. Fortunately, a body of work remains that will inform the Congress for years to come. We wish Dave and his family all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, recent developments in Iraq have given Americans cause for renewed confidence in our efforts there, as our soldiers systematically track down, capture, or eliminate the remaining fugitives on the most-wanted list. The cowardly hit-and-run attacks and ambushes on our troops have claimed American lives, but they have not deterred our troops from their task of ridding Iraq of every vestige of the brutal regime that ruled for so long.

I rise today to pay tribute to those service members who have fallen in this noble effort. As a nation, we must always keep in mind that our military successes come at a high cost in the loss of promising young human lives. My State of Indiana has paid a very high price indeed. As of this date, 13 Indiana families have suffered the loss of a loved one taking part in Operation Iraqi freedom. Seven of our losses were the result of combat action. Four Indiana soldiers have died from injuries not related to combat, and two have died of illnesses. I pray that there will be no more, but I know the danger still exists.

Army Specialist Chad L. Keith of Batesville, IN, died on July 7 in Baghdad when his motorized patrol was ambushed. He was riding in the lead vehicle when it was struck by the detonation of a mine hidden along the roadway.

Specialist Keith was 21 years old. He had joined the Army immediately after graduating from Batesville High School in 2000. He went through paratrooper training and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. A week before he died, he talked to his mother by telephone from Baghdad and spoke enthusiastically about wanting to get the job done in Iraq.

Chad Keith was an outstanding soldier. He will be missed.

Army Private Robert L. McKinley of Peru, IN, died on July 8 in a hospital in Homburg, Germany, where he had been taken for treatment of severe heat injuries suffered in the Iraqi desert. Private McKinley was 23 years old. He had enlisted just 8 months ago and was very proud to be serving with the fabled 101st Airborne Division.

Private McKinley, a 1998 graduate of Peru High school, was raised by his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Feller, who loved him as if he were their own son. At his funeral, Private McKinley was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal.

Robert McKinley was an outstanding soldier. He will be missed.

Sergeant First Class Craig A. Boling of Elkhart, IN, died on July 8 at Camp Wolf in Kuwait after being stricken by a sudden illness. Sergeant Boling was a member of the 1st Battalion, 152nd Infantry, one of two Indiana National Guard battalions mobilized to provide robust force protection to key bases and supply lines in Kuwait and Iraq. These units have done an extraordinary job.

The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign

Relations I report favorably the following nomination list

which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and

ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on

the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the

Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

*Foreign Service nominations beginning James M. Cunningham

and ending Howard M. Krawitz, which nominations were received

by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on

June 25, 203.

I support Senator Voinovich's efforts to promote normal trade relations with Serbia and Montenegro. Serbia and Montenegro is one of only a handful of countries that do not have normal trade relations with the United States, and the lack of normal trade relations subjects Serbia and Montenegro to high tariff rates, making it difficult for them to grow their economy.

While I do not believe that the State Department authorization bill is the appropriate vehicle for this important legislation, I share the concern of Senator Voinovich and so many other members that the miscellaneous tariff reduction legislation, which includes the provision granting normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro, move forward expeditiously.

This legislation has been held up for six months for reasons unrelated to any of the provisions in the legislation. In addition to the provision for Serbia and Montenegro, the legislation contains a number of tariff eliminations that help U.S. companies and workers, as well as three provisions that are important for economic development in Africa.

Recently I joined 65 of my colleagues in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Frist urging him to bring the legislation up under normal Senate procedures. It is my hope that this legislation will pass the Senate soon.

I thank my colleague for raising this important issue, and I pledge to work with him on its passage.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business until 12:45 with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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, I thank the Senator for his generous comments. I thank him for his amendment and for his cooperation in working to strengthen the MCA, and likewise at the same time indicate our concern about loss of jobs in this country and the environmental damage by the modifiers of ``substantial loss of U.S. jobs,'' and the language already, ``unreasonable or major environmental health, or safety hazard.''

The Senator has made a very good contribution.

Mr. President, could I inquire of the Senator if he would be prepared to modify his amendment in two ways? In the-sense-of- Congress section, the second sentence, ``the President should request formally and expeditiously,'' would the Senator use the word ``consider,'' ``the President should consider formally and expeditiously,'' and in the second one, ``the President should consider calling on the United Nations''? I modify it in that way in that the Senator has suggested the President is weighing these options. We have offered at least some ideas as to what he ought to weigh, clearly for the reasons stated earlier.

My own view is if the Senator would be prepared to modify his sentences in that way, to use the word ``consider'' rather than ``request,'' I would be prepared to accept the amendment and proceed with the Senator at least in a bipartisan statement with which I generally agree.

In response to the Senator, my preference would be that we would not have a rollcall vote; that it could proceed by voice vote. I say this advisedly, but I presume many Members on both sides will generally agree with this. This is very complex language and analysis. I think there is general feeling that the chairman and ranking member have been through this experience, have gone through this together, and our opinions are fairly well understood. I do not want to see a result in which there are a fair number of people who feel constrained because it is requesting the President to consider these things that it might be considered criticism of him or undermining in any way his consideration of this amendment.

That would be appropriate. I respond further, part of my thought, likewise, is the hope we might finish the bill.

But, at the same time, the additional debate and the vote will be time consuming.

I am hopeful we will be able to proceed.

Mr. President, before a quorum call is placed, let me ask that the amendment be temporarily laid aside in order that I propose an amendment on behalf of Senator Ensign on which there has been agreement on both sides.

I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table is agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, is there an order for a rollcall vote at this time?

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 send to the desk a packet of agreed-on amendments.

These include 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 Frist to commend the people of Colombia on the third anniversary of Plan Colombia; an amendment by Senator Schumer to express the sense of the Senate regarding reports to Congress on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States; and an amendment by Senators Durbin, Mikulski, and Landrieu regarding the Millennium Challenge Act.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1185 which establishes a parliamentary exchange program with the People's Republic of China.

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

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

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that it be passed.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of Senator Dorgan to the desk.

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

The amendment has been agreed to on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I submit to the desk a list of pending amendments.

I am asking that this be the finite list of amendments. I understand that clerical work is being done as I speak. For the moment----

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

I ask unanimous consent to make a modification to a previously agreed to amendment that I offered, amendment No. 1158. I send the modification to the desk.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to and be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Yes.

That is my understanding.

Mr. President, it is clear, especially in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, that we have to redouble our efforts to improve perceptions about America in the Islamic world. Addressing this urgent priority should be high on the State Department's public diplomacy agenda.

We have heard reports that the program is off to an excellent start. Despite the many cultural and political obstacles, recruiting for the first year has proceeded successfully. Substantial applicant pools appeared even in countries where difficulty in attracting applicants was expected. Students are currently being recruited in 12 countries: Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, Nigeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Syria, and in West Bank/Gaza as well. Six additional countries--Algeria, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia--will be added to the program next year. From an applicant pool of 3,000 in Indonesia, 20 have been selected. In Turkey, 200 students applied and 20 were chosen. Over 300 applications have been received in Jordan. Gender distribution varies by country, but we expected that as many as 40 percent of the program participants will be female.

Absolutely. It is vital that once this program gets underway, it proceed with adequate funding to continue its outreach and education efforts. This funding will allow for program growth by expanding participation to other priority countries and by increasing access from the large applicant pools we expect from countries who are already participating. Most importantly, sustainable funding will allow the program to set realistic growth benchmarks, conduct meaningful evaluation of outcomes, and add program improvements.

There are no better representatives of American values than Americans themselves, and student exchange programs are no effective means of reaching out of the next generation of leaders. I look forward to working with the Administration to ensure that this program will receive strong continued support.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Thomas W. O'Connell to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for special operations and low intensity conflict; and Paul M. Longsworth to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Accuracy of Credit Report Information and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the reasons behind the high price of natural gas, its affect on the economy and to consider potential solutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 2 p.m., to review and make recommendations on proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judicary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in SDG 226.

I. Continuation of S. 1125, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003 (``The FAIR Act'') markup.

II. Nominations: William H. Pryor, Jr., to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit; Allyson K. Duncan to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Robert C. Brack to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico; Samuel Der- Yeghiayan to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Louise W. Flanagan to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina; Lonny R. Suko to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington; Earl Leroy Yeakel III to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas; Karen P. Tandy to be Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice; Christopher A. Wray to be Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice; Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; and Jack Landman Goldsmith III to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice.

III. Bills: S.J. Res. 1, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims [Kyl, Chambliss, Cornyn, Craig, DeWine, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley]; S. 1280, A bill to amend the Protect Act to clarify the liability of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [Hatch, Biden]; S. Res. 140, A resolution designating the week of August 10, 2003, as ``National Health Center Week'' [Campbell, Biden, Durbin, Grassley]; S. 764, The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2003; Proposed Free Trade Agreement with Chile; Proposed Free Trade Agreements with Singapore.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a Markup of the SBA Reauthorization Bill on Thursday, July 10, 2003, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, for a hearing to consider pending legislation regarding VA-provided benefits programs. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Bills Relating to Veterans' Disability Compensation Benefits: S. 257, the proposed ``Veterans Benefits and Pensions

Protection Act of 2003''; S. 517, the proposed ``Francis W. Agnes Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2003''; S. 1131, the proposed ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2003''. S. 1133, the proposed ``Veterans Programs Improvement Act of 2003''; S. 1188, the proposed ``Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act of 2003''; S. 1213, the proposed ``Filipino Veterans' Benefits Act of 2003''; S. 1239, the proposed ``Former Prisoners of War Special Compensation Act of 2003''; and S. 1281, the proposed ``Veterans Information and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2003''.

Bills Relating to Veterans' Benefits: S. 249, to provide that remarriage of the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran after age 55 shall not result in termination of dependency and indemnity compensation otherwise payable to that surviving spouse; S. 938, to provide for the payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who die after that date; and S. 1132, the proposed ``Veterans' Survivors Benefits Enhancements Act of 2003''.

Bill Proposing to Amend The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act; S. 792, the proposed ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''; S. 806, the proposed ``Deployed Service Members Financial Security and Education Act of 2003''; and S. 1136, the proposed ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act''.

Bills Relating to Other Matters: S. 978, the proposed ``Veterans Housing Fairness Act of 2003''; S. 1124, the proposed ``Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act of 2003''; S. 1199, the proposed ``Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2003''; S. 1282, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish national cemeteries for geographically underserved populations of veterans; and S. 1630, to amend section 7105 of title 38, United States Code, to clarify the requirements for notices of disagreement for appellate review of Department of Veterans Affairs activities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families be authorized to meet for a hearing on CSBG Reauthorization during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 3 p.m.

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

Madam President, I send a substitute amendment to S. 925 to the desk.

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

Madam President, today the Senate will be considering S. 925, the State Department authorization bill. During the last 4 months, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been working hard on issues related to the funding and operations of the State Department. We have held hearings on public diplomacy, embassy security, the role of the State Department in the war on terrorism, the nonproliferation programs overseen by the State Department, and the overall State Department budget. In numerous other hearings and briefings covering such issues as Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, and NATO, we have reviewed the vital role of diplomacy at this stage of our United States history.

In our hearings and through our daily contacts with the State Department, the Foreign Relations Committee has witnessed the commitment and the skill of departmental personnel as they work to improve national security and our prosperity in increasingly difficult and often very dangerous circumstances.

We have seen both the benefits of our successes and the consequences of our failures. We cannot expect diplomacy to succeed 100 percent of the time, but it is vital that our diplomats have the resources and the capabilities that will maximize their chances of success. That is the job of the Senate today. We must make certain that Secretary Powell and this Department have the tools they need to make our case convincingly.

I wish to thank especially the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden, for his strong support of this process and his leadership in foreign policy matters. We have agreed on the vast majority of provisions in this bill, and when we have disagreed, we have worked hard to bridge our differences and find bipartisan solutions with our colleagues.

We have always shared the common goal of bringing good legislation to the floor for the Senate's judgment. Senator Biden's commitment to this process and his innumerable contributions to the substance of this bill have been indispensable.

After consultations with Senator Biden and the majority leader, we determined the Senate would best be served by adding the foreign assistance authorization bill, passed by the Foreign Relations Committee in May, to the State Department bill.

Consequently, the substitute amendment that is the pending business contains the language of both S. 925 and S. 1161. Both bills passed in committee by votes of 19-0. I believe that this combination will give us a chance for a meaningful debate on foreign policy, while expediting the work of the Senate.

At this time in our history we are experiencing a confluence of foreign policy crises that is unparalleled in the post-cold war era. Our Nation has lived through the September 11 tragedy, and we have responded with a worldwide war against terrorism. We have fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are likely to be engaged in security and reconstruction efforts for years to come. We have been confronted by a nuclear crisis in North Korea that threatens U.S. national security and that could destabilize the entire northeast Asian region. We are continuing efforts to safeguard Russia's massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and to prevent proliferation throughout the world. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic Alliance, even as we plan for its expansion. We are trying to respond to the AIDS pandemic in Africa and elsewhere, as well as help stabilize Colombia and preserve democracy in Venezuela.

Despite these extraordinary international conditions that demand the constant attention of our Government, the State Department and our foreign assistance programs are still underfunded. Although President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have supported important funding increases for our foreign policy accounts during the last 2 years, we dug a deep hole for ourselves during the 1990s, when diplomatic capabilities were placed at the bottom of our spending priorities.

From 1994 through 1997, for example, the Function 150 account, which funds State Department operations and foreign assistance, sustained consecutive annual real decreases of 3.6 percent, 5.6 percent, 11.4 percent, and 1.5 percent. This slide occurred even as the State Department was incurring the heavy added costs of establishing new missions in the 15 states of the former Soviet Union. Relative to other spending priorities, we continue to disadvantage our diplomatic capabilities. As a percentage of discretionary spending, the international affairs account stands at about 3.4 percent in fiscal year 2003. This is the lowest percentage of discretionary funding devoted to international affairs in the past 2 decades. We are still conducting diplomacy on a shoestring in an era when embassies are prime terrorist targets and we depend on diplomats to build alliances; work with foreign governments to apprehend terrorists before they reach U.S. soil; and explain U.S. principles, values, and policies worldwide.

In April, with the assistance of Senators Feinstein, Biden, DeWine, Hagel, Sarbanes, Chafee, Smith, Jeffords, Kennedy, and others, I offered an amendment to the Senate budget resolution that restored $1.15 billion to the 150 account. The amendment brought the 150 account up to the level requested by the President. The success of the amendment on this Senate floor, during a process when few amendments received favorable votes, illustrates the growing appreciation for and understanding of the role of Secretary Powell and the State Department. But we need to go further. We need to commit to a long-term course that assigns U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities.

There is a tendency in the media and sometimes in this body to see diplomatic activities as the rival of military solutions to problems. We have to get beyond this simplistic formulation. We have to understand that our military and our diplomats are both instruments of national power that depend on one another. They both help shape the international environment and influence the attitudes of governments and peoples. They both gather information and provide expertise that is vital to the war on terrorism. And they both must be unsurpassed in their capabilities, if the United States is going to survive and prosper.

Americans rightly demand that U.S. military capabilities by unrivaled in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet the same test? If a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon, or the spiral into chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.

Both the State Department authorization bill and the foreign assistance authorization bill for 1-year authorizations. Given that the Foreign Relations Committee has many new members, the State Department's responsibilities are expanding, and world events are unpredictable, we decided that it would be wise to retain the opportunity for the committee and the Senate to revisit these bills next year after we have had some time to perform oversight.

The State Department portion of this bill contains funding that covers the operating expenses for the department, embassy construction and security, education and cultural exchange programs, as well as other programs and activities. It also includes funding for: assessed contributions to international organizations required by treaty; international commissions and such centers as the Asia Foundation and the East-West Center; international broadcasting activities; refugee and migration assistance; and Peace Corps funding for 2004 through 2007.

The committee is recommending increases to the administration's request for the State Department of about $400 million, or roughly 4 percent. These increases address needs that the Foreign Relations Committee identified as keys to U.S. success in this dangerous new century. They include: an additional $312 million for embassy construction that will allow groundbreaking this

year for three new embassy compounds; approximately $8 million to increase the cap on hardship pay and danger pay for State Department employees; an increase of $8.9 million to restore cuts in international broadcasting to Eastern and Central European nations; the restoration of $25 million that was cut for SEED and Freedom Support Act funding to Central Europe and the Balkans; and an additional $30 million to strengthen public diplomacy and international exchanges with the Islamic world.

In addition, in committee, individual members offered amendments on such important issues as international support for a successor regime in Iraq, U.S. policy toward Haiti, and U.S. policy regarding recognition of a Palestinian state. A detailed listing of other issues covered and policy recommendations made by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in this bill are contained in the committee report.

As our committee undertook an in-depth study of State Department needs, we simultaneously examined our foreign assistance programs and their evolving role in U.S. humanitarian and national security efforts. As I indicated, in May, we passed a foreign assistance authorization bill by a 19 -0 vote.

The committee held hearings on U.S. foreign assistance in six strategic regions of the world: the Near East, South Asia, East Asia, Eurasia, the Western Hemisphere, and Africa. In other hearings we explored numerous topics related to foreign assistance, including global hunger, reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Bush's vision for a new Millennium Challenge Corporation.

In the hearings, we learned how the administration's 2004 budget request would support U.S. foreign policy interests. Those hearings were very informative, and I again want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee chairs and ranking members who conducted them, as well as to all Senators who participated.

This was only a first step. Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibilityb to pass an Omnibus Foreign Assistance Act. Several discrete measures, such as the Global AIDS bill, the Freedom Support Act, and the Support for Eastern European Democracy, SEED, have been enacted.

But in the absence of a comprehensive authorization, much of the responsibility for providing guidance for foreign assistance policy has fallen to the Appropriations Committees. The appropriators have kept our foreign assistance programs going, but in many cases, they have had to do so without proper authorization. In most years, the Foreign Relations Committee did pass a State Department authorization bill, but that bill only authorizes about 35 percent of the function 150 account. To fund the remaining accounts, appropriators frequently had to waive the legal requirement to appropriate funds only following the passage of an authorization bill.

There is no single reason why the Congress has failed to pass a comprehensive foreign assistance authorization bill for so long. But we all recognize the difficult legislative task involved. As a general spending item, foreign assistance rarely is high on the list of constituent priorities. Yet specific provisions in foreign assistance bills have often raised political emotions. Thus, comprehensive foreign assistance bills have contended with the most difficult of legislative circumstances--they have generated seemingly intractable political disputes, while lacking an overriding legislative payoff.

We must stop thinking in conventional political terms. Passing a comprehensive foreign assistance bill is good politics, as well as good policy. It is good politics because it underscores the leadership of this Senate at a time when our country is in great peril. It is good politics because foreign assistance is an instrument of national power in the war on terrorism. It is good politics because it recognizes that our standard of living, the retirements of our parents, our children's educations, advancements in our health care, and the security of Americans depend on winning the war on terrorism.

With this in mind, Senator Biden and I, with the support of the majority leader, bring the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act to the floor in tandem with the State Department authorization bill.

The Foreign Assistance bill before you authorizes funding levels for most of the foreign operations accounts within function 150 for fiscal year 2004. The committee took as a starting point the request submitted by the President last February. The executive branch has been working with our embassies around the world for many months to develop accurate budget numbers.

As I previously mentioned, the Foreign Relations Committee worked closely with the Budget Committee on maintaining the President's requests for the 150 account. I note this to highlight the fact that we have sought to work within the rules to achieve the overall funding levels that are before us today. Many members of the committee, including myself, would like to have more funding available. But I am hopeful that members will respect the budget process and the decisions that were made earlier in the year.

With respect to the foreign assistance authorization, the committee made relatively few changes to the dollar amounts requested by the President. We provided a $70 million increase for the Freedom Support Act, a $40 million increase for the Support for Eastern European Democracy Act, a $15 million increase for development assistance, a $6 million increase for peacekeeping operations, and a $100 million increase for the Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs account. The additional funds in the Account would be used to safeguard and hasten the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. They also would provide $15 million for a new initiative, The Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act of 2003, contained in title IV of the bill. This legislation authorizes the State Department to provide contributions and technical assistance to the IAEA to deal with the dirty bomb threat. The bill is the result of a cooperative effort between Senator Biden and myself, as well as Senator Domenici. I want to thank Senator Biden for his leadership, going all the way back to the hearings he held in 2002 on this issue.

On the other side of the ledger, we have reduced funding for two of the President's requested programs. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has been reduced from $1.3 billion to $1 billion. This is not an expression of doubt about the MCC concept. Rather, the reduction is based on the judgment that the MCC will require time to become established and may not be able to efficiently distribute the entire $1.3 billion request in the first fiscal year. The $300 million has been deferred until the next fiscal year when the MCC would be in a better position to spend it. We also have made a small cut in the Andean counter-drug initiative. It has been reduced from $731 million to $700 million--the amount appropriated in the previous fiscal year. In addition, we have authorized 2 new contingency funds at the request of the President--the Complex Foreign Crises Fund and the Famine Fund. But we have not authorized specific amounts for these Funds.

Finally, I would like to address the Millennium Challenge Corporation. For those Senators who have not studied this concept, it is a bold proposal by President Bush to provide a new model for U.S. foreign assistance programs. A compromise version of the Millennium Challenge Corporation bill is included in the substitute before us.

Our foreign assistance must be aimed at both humanitarian objectives and goals that aid in the fight against terrorism over the long run. These include strengthening democracy, building free markets, and encouraging civil society in nations that otherwise might become havens or breeding grounds for terrorists. We must seek to encourage societies that can fulfill the aspirations of their citizens and deny terrorists the uncontrolled territory and abject poverty that the terrorists use to their advantage. To do this, all of us should begin to think about foreign assistance as a critical asset in the long-term war on terrorism.

This process will require us to ask how nations develop political stability and economic momentum and how they become good international citizens that contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world community. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has

been proposed on the assumption that we do know some of the answers. We believe that successful societies cannot be built without good leadership, economies based on sound market principles, and significant investments in health and education. By establishing firm criteria to measure and reward the progress of low-income nations in these areas, the MCC can provide a powerful incentive to foreign governments to embrace and sustain reform.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee strongly supported the basic premise of the MCC and applauded the President's personal commitment to the concept. However, members came forward with differing proposals on the organization and bureaucratic status of the MCC. The committee passed a version of the MCC that differed substantially from the President's initial vision.

Since that time, Senator Hagel, Senator Biden, and myself have sought to construct an efficient format for this concept that would be supported by the White House while meeting the concerns of our committee. These talks were difficult, but they also were a positive indication of the interest in the ultimate success of the MCC. I believe that we have succeeded in constructing a good compromise. Everyone gave up something to move the bill forward. Senator Biden and Senator Hagel will be addressing the Senate on their views toward the MCC, and I am sure that they will outline some concerns and reservations. I want to thank both of them for their willingness to be flexible and their contributions during this process.

I would note that the White House also was instrumental in concluding this compromise. The administration has endorsed Senate passage of the the Lugar-Hagel version of the MCC.

Our MCC compromise creates the needed ingredients for inter-agency coordination, a top priority among a majority on the committee. It puts the MCC under the authority of the Secretary of State and has the chief executive officer report to the Secretary. But it does not determine the integrity of the President's concept. It gives the MCC the same autonomous status as the US Agency for International Development with the right to manage itself, hire staff, and create its own new culture. It mandates coordination between the MCC and USAID in the field and gives USAID the primary role in preparing countries for MCC eligibility.

I believe our MCC approach is the right plan at the right time. It provides a way to focus single-mindedly on economic development that is results-based and meets clear benchmarks of success. We can have the coordination we seek while also insulating it from short-term political considerations so that it can focus on the long-term benefits of widening the universe of countries that live in peace and look to a prosperous and stable future.

I would like to notify members that I will be offering a managers' package of amendments and will be asking unanimous consent that it be adopted. As part of that package, Section 204 of S. 925 will be deleted from our bill because it has been included in the defense authorition bill. I would like to express appreciation to Senator Warner, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for his help on that matter.

The other amendments in the managers' package are technical in nature, clarifying original intention, or correcting errors.

I am looking forward to the debate on this bill and the constructive contributions of our Members at this important time in our Nation's history.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his extraordinary leadership as subcommittee chairman and ranking member over a number of years and his eloquent and important statement on Africa today.

In a moment, the majority leader will be on the floor, and Members will want to take note that a rollcall vote is likely to occur sometime around 2 p.m. The leader will explain the situation. In the meanwhile, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in the absence of the Senator from Delaware, I congratulated and commended him earlier on for his work as former chairman of the committee and one who has worked so closely with the chair and with myself on the MCA and so many other issues. I deeply appreciate that. That is the reason we are at this point.

Amendment No. 1139 to Amendment No. 1136

Mr. President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk, and

I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

I thank the Chair. Senator Brownback is in the Chamber, and he has amendments to offer. I am hopeful he might be recognized.

Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. Some may suggest this legislation is unnecessary, that any legal right to citizenship that North Koreans may have in South Korea would not necessarily bar them from eligibility for refugee or asylum status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

However, with enactment of this legislation, certainty is provided on this issue. And I believe we must do more. It is important that we continue to press China toward better treatment of North Korean refugees, and I support efforts by the Administration in providing greater emphasis on supporting non-government organizations assisting North Korean refugees.

Mr. President, very shortly we are going to have a rollcall vote. I am hopeful we might take action before that point. So I will make just a brief statement of support for the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. He is a dedicated member of our committee, has traveled to Korea as he mentioned in his statement, as well as other parts of Asia that are relevant to this amendment.

Some suggest the legislation is not necessary, that the legal right to citizenship North Koreans may have in South Korea would not necessarily bar them from eligibility of refugee or asylum status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, with enactment of this legislation, certainty is provided on this issue.

I believe we must do more. It is imperative that we continue to press China toward better treatment of North Korean refugees and support efforts by the administration in providing greater emphasis on supporting nongovernmental organizations assisting North Korean refugees.

Both managers of the bill, Senator Biden and I, are prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from California, a member of our committee, is prepared to offer an amendment, and we are eager to have that debate.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California has presented her case, as always, with eloquence. Let me ask the distinguished Senator, I understand Senator Brownback may wish to speak on this issue, I want to speak for a short while on the issue, and the Senator from California perhaps wants some time.

What I would like to propose is we plan to vote at 5 o'clock and have 40 minutes more debate evenly divided, 20 minutes to a side. That would be my hope.

Very well. I will proceed, and then if the Senator can inform me, that will be helpful.

Mr. President, when the Mexico City policy, which is our discussion today, was restored by President Bush in 2001 when he came into office, he stated once again the conviction that the U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or for the advocacy, for those who actively promote abortions as a means of family planning.

The fact that this President has taken this position, as have other Presidents before him, does not lessen his commitment or our commitment to strong international family planning programs. Indeed, President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget requests $425 million for population assistance, the same funding level appropriated during fiscal year 2001, President Clinton's final year in office.

President Bush has confirmed his commitment to maintaining these funding levels for population assistance because he knows one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing voluntary family planning services. That is a policy of our Government now. It is a policy that our President advocates for the future.

We are all aware of the numerous attempts to reach compromise language that would satisfy all sides on this very important issue but no acceptable accommodation has been found to date. Perhaps in recognition of this state of affairs, the President has advised that any legislation that seeks to override the Mexico City language will be vetoed.

Let me make clear that the restrictions in the Mexico City policy do not prevent organizations from performing abortions if the life of the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, or abortions following rape or incest. Similarly, health care facilities may treat injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions.

I wish to make that point because the distinguished Senator from California has told the story, and it is a tragic one, of a 13-year-old girl. I simply want to clear up the point that the Mexico City policy has not prevented organizations from performing abortions if the life of the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, or abortions following rape or incest.

The issue comes in whether taxpayer funds of the United States should be utilized by organizations in the internal debates within countries. That clearly is an issue upon which Senators will differ, but it is a different issue than the issue of whether, in fact, funds might have been utilized in this particular tragedy.

There are many foreign nongovernmental organizations through which

USAID can provide and does provide family planning information and services to people in developing countries. The President has decided that assistance for family planning will be provided to those foreign grantees whose family planning programs are consistent with the values and the principles of his administration. And every President since 1984 has exercised his right in that regard.

I wish to make clear, and the Senator from California is correct in this assumption, the administration's statement of policy with regard to legislation that we now are engaged in states with regard to the amendment on Mexico City policy:

The administration would strongly oppose any amendment that

would overturn the administration's family planning policy,

commonly known as the Mexico City policy, and allow U.S.

taxpayer funds to go to international organizations which

perform abortions and engage in abortion advocacy. The

President would veto the bill if it were presented to him

with such a provision.

Mr. President, as manager of this bill, I have to take that statement seriously, as does every Senator. The distinguished Senator from California has indicated perhaps the President might be persuaded to change his mind, and perhaps that is the case. But this President has been very clear and I think the directives with regard to policy on this legislation are very clear in the language I have just read.

I appeal to Senators that there are so many important provisions in this legislation with regard to our national security, the importance of our diplomacy, humanitarian concerns to international organizations, the dues that are paid--a whole host of issues. I think Senators are aware of that. I hope we will not jeopardize all of this progress. I hope we will continue to have honest debate on the Mexico City policy in other fora, and there are opportunities for Senators, simply with bills that are directed to this issue, as opposed to amendments added to legislation in which we have put together the State Department authorization, the foreign assistance authorization, the Millennium Challenge Account, and a number of issues which are very important to the future of our country.

I will oppose the amendment. I ask other Senators to do so for the reasons I have given.

If I may engage in colloquy with the distinguished Senator from California, is there disposition that we may be able to proceed to an agreement on time for a vote?

I yield the floor.

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

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

Madam President, just for the sake of explanation to Senators of what is about to transpire, I am going to move to table the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished Senator from California. Senators will have a chance to vote. I will call for the yeas and nays, so it will be a recorded vote. In the event that Senator Boxer's amendment is not tabled, then I will move that we adopt the amendment by voice vote.

I thank all Senators for their assistance in this procedure.

I move to table the Boxer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, we have made progress on our bill. There are three amendments that will require some debate--but that will inevitably be accepted--still lined up for this evening.

I encourage--and I am certain the distinguished ranking member would join me--all Members who want to resolve their amendments to please do so this evening. We will be here. We have a good opportunity to work through almost all of the known amendments this evening.

Having said that, the leader has told me there will be no more rollcall votes and authorized me to make that announcement once again, We will proceed on this bill as long as it is productive. We hope Senators will come to the floor, offer their amendments, and have them resolved.

I will assist the Senator by indicating I suggest an order of Senator Brownback offering his amendment, then Senator Lautenberg, and then Senator Allen so the Senators would have some idea of the batting order. Senator Brownback, I understand, is prepared to go with an amendment on Iran that Senator Biden and I have studied. Then we would have Senator Lautenberg immediately following.

I thank the distinguished Senator for mentioning Senator Lautenberg and for obtaining his attention so he will be back and we can proceed.

I am prepared to yield the floor, and I understand Senator Brownback is prepared to offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 1145 to Amendment No. 1136

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his research, for his leadership on this issue, and for the amendment he has offered.

On our side, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Let me inquire of the distinguished ranking member of the committee if he is prepared to accept it on the Democratic side.

Thank you very much.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. What is the desire of the Senator? Does he desire to proceed to a vote on his amendment?

Mr. President, I appreciate that thought of the Senator. I indicate the amendment still needs to be discussed by some Members who have asked for an opportunity to speak; therefore, I am not prepared to accept it on our side at this point. So I am hopeful the Senator will allow us to lay the amendment aside temporarily for action tomorrow morning when others will be present to speak, and then we

would progress in the normal order to resolution.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment be temporarily laid aside and that Senator Allen be recognized.

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

Mr. President, we commend the distinguished Senators who have offered this amendment and worked carefully through the text of it to an amendment that is acceptable to both sides. I indicate my support and we are prepared to accept the amendment. My understanding is that the distinguished Senator from Delaware,

the ranking member, is prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent the following persons and fellows detailed to the Foreign Relations Committee be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 925: Paul Foldi, Michael Mattler, Jason Hamm, and Peter Gadzinski.