Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have no objection on this side.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1990

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection. These are all cleared on our side of the aisle.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand I am a cosponsor of Senator Brownback's refugee amendment. If not, I should be.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California. I am very strongly supportive of the points she has made. I see the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the senior Senator from Kentucky. I think he and I totally agree that if Members have amendments, they should get them to the floor and then we can begin voting on them. Traditionally, we break at 12:30 for the Republican and Democratic caucuses. I would like to get a vote before then. I do not know what the situation is on the Feinstein amendment. I ask my friend from Kentucky whether that is something on which we might vote. There has not been a chance for someone on the other side to speak as of yet. I think what we need to do, if we can, and before I yield the floor, is make this plea on our side of the aisle--and I suspect the same one will be made on the other side--that if Members have amendments, bring them and see either Senator McConnell or myself. If they are going to require a rollcall, we can enter into some time agreements. Senator McConnell and I have some housekeeping amendments which we can dispose of by voice vote, but let's get these others with a time agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are now about a month behind time in getting a number of the appropriations bills through. Senator McConnell and I worked very hard on this bill. I think we have crafted good, bipartisan legislation. Unlike some of the things that happen around here, this has had strong input from both sides of the aisle. It would be a shame if there were so many delays it became part of an omnibus-- or, as some more accurately describe, an ``ominous''--appropriations bill. This bill, as much as anything, can reflect the real nature of America. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. There are so many things we can do and should do even better. It requires pennies per person, for example, to remove the threat of measles, diphtheria, and other diseases in Africa and elsewhere, diseases that kill millions of children. I do not doubt that if anybody in this body were told, ``Look at these 20 children; if they will give us $2 or $3, we will save their lives; if they do not, the children are going to die,'' of course we would reach in our pocket and say: ``How about some money for others?'' We do have some money for that. It is nowhere near as much as a wealthy nation such as ours should have, but it is a start. That is just one of the things that is in the bill on which we should move forward. There will be those who will try to bring the amount on AIDS prevention up to the amount the President of the United States has promised over and over again in speeches. We will be supportive and try to bring it up to that amount. I hope the administration will support us as we try to support what the President has said he wants. There are so many other areas. There is money in there to help the victims of landmines. There are still millions of landmines in the ground all over the world. The Leahy War Victims Fund that is in here is designed to help them. That is a bipartisan effort. I say that, not to go down through a litany of everything that is in this piece of legislation, because I would much prefer people come forward and raise their amendments and have them voted on. We, as Senator McConnell said, can finish this bill today. We can finish by early evening with cooperation. After 29 years here, I know what happens to a bill such as this. It is almost like pulling teeth to get people to the floor now. At about 5 or 6 at night, people are here saying, My gosh, I have to go to this; I have to go to that; can't you put this over to tomorrow? I know we have time agreements. Now is the time to do it. The McConnell-Leahy store is open. Come by and do your shopping. Let us talk. Let us reason together. Let us seek prayerful guidance under the benevolent tutelage of the distinguished Presiding Officer, and let us get this bill off and get it voted through. The final package is going to pass overwhelmingly. Let's get the amendments done. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I didn't realize there was no time limit. I will be brief. I have heard the arguments of my friend from Kentucky: Why stop things now ahead of this confirmation? Unfortunately, while a great deal of planning went into the war in Iraq--even though there was never any question of the outcome, because we are the most powerful nation history has ever known, of course, and we would succeed against a third-rate or fourth-rate military power like Saddam Hussein--it appears that very little planning went into what happens after the war. Of course, there have been more American casualties since the President said the mission was accomplished, the war was over, and as he famously taunted the Iraqis, ``Bring it on.'' Unfortunately, they did. But we saw first a general being placed in there, which didn't work, and we put Paul Bremer in there, again without much planning. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky said we had debate on the floor about the transfer from the Department of Defense to the State Department. That was defeated. I remember the debate very well. Interestingly enough, the talking points of the administration in opposition were that they are perfectly satisfied with having all of this coordinated by the Secretary of Defense. There was no need to place it anywhere but the Secretary of Defense. That was it, and the White House position carried. What the White House talking points didn't say, and we all found out about 3 days later, was they had already made the decision to take it out of the Department of Defense and put it into Dr. Rice's office. Actually, moving it out of the Department of Defense had already been decided by the White House. But as often happens when we are told one thing and something else is being done, the talking points coming over from the White House said they had every intention of leaving it--in effect emphatically every intention of leaving it--under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense. That probably should have been the tipoff, that they were emphatic and intended to leave it there. They had already made up their mind to leave it there. Of course, that is not how it turned out. But I worry because if you have somebody who is in charge of more foreign assistance than the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID combined, both of whom require confirmation, if you give all of this power to someone who does not require confirmation, what does that say about our role in the Senate? What does that say about what we feel about transparency and accountability? We are appropriating over $20 billion basically to be distributed solely as the Administrator feels he should. That is more than the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the USAID get to distribute, and they have to be confirmed. The answers were not forthcoming. I think of the plan we were suddenly shown on the Appropriations Committee. I recall the distinguished Senator from West Virginia asked for more time and, of course, he could not get it. Ambassador Bremer came here, and we were given a plan. They had gone out, apparently, for a couple of months before saying what they were going to do. Then it turned out, amazingly, I know--I am just shocked to find this out--the plan was given only to the Republicans, maintaining the same kind of partisanship there is on this. We were supposed to ask questions of Ambassador Bremer. But only Republicans were allowed to see this plan paid for by the taxpayers of this country. When Democrats asked about it, he said, Well, I thought that had all been sent to you. Apparently the mail only goes to 51 Senators and not to the other 49. Be that as it may, the plan was interesting. It did say the United States wanted to give the Iraqi people a chance to form a government and a country that would fulfill President Bush's vision for them. Some thought that was a little bit condescending to a country where civilization goes back long before this country's was ever discovered. At least we had a chance finally to talk about it. The same way in which the White House told us the Secretary of Defense was the only one who should be in charge of this--we find they had already made the decision; They did not tell us about it-- apparently they didn't tell the Secretary of Defense about it either. They were yanking it out from him and putting it with somebody else. My point is, if we are going to give somebody $20 billion to buy $33,000 pickup trucks and $6,000 telephones for Taj Mahal jail cells and have scholarships that are not available to Americans but apparently will be to Iraqis, the person ought to be at least confirmed so we have a chance to ask questions. I think the Senator from West Virginia is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I thought we had 20 minutes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think there may be a Senator on this side who has a question. We are not quite prepared to accept it yet. I suggest that a way to handle this is to set it aside. Of course, it can be brought back at any time. If there is a need to have more debate and a vote, we will bring it up for that purpose. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. How much funding is requested and how would it be used?

Mr. LEAHY. What do you envision as the role of an International Water Security Center?

Mr. LEAHY. I would like to ask the assistant minority leader two or three questions about international water security. First, what do we mean by water security and what is its relevance to foreign operations?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Connecticut that we need to give special attention to children in Afghanistan and elsewhere who are being put at risk by landmines and unexploded ordnances that are a dangerous byproduct of the civil conflict in that country. Creative ways to teach children about the dangers that landmines and unexploded ordnances pose is critically needed to prevent any more innocent Afghani children from being killed or crippled. I believe that organizations, such as ``No Strings'' which has been mentioned by Senator Dodd, that are prepared to develop novel programs to protect children from the dangers of landmines are worthy of US support. I look forward to working with Senator Dodd in support of funding for such important projects. international water security center

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act is a good bipartisan bill that would help State and local governments deal effectively with a serious law enforcement and mental health problem--the extent to which mentally ill individuals commit crimes and recidivate without ever receiving appropriate attention from the mental health, law enforcement, or corrections systems. I am pleased that the bill passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously last week, and the Senate unanimously last night. I have enjoyed working on this bill with Senator DeWine, who has shown commitment and leadership on this issue. I am also pleased that Senators Cantwell, Domenici, Durbin, Grassley, and Hatch have joined Senator DeWine and I as cosponsors of this bill. The issues this bill addresses have received increasing attention of late. For example, Human Rights Watch released a report just last week discussing the fact ``that jails and prisons have become the Nation's default mental health system.'' The first recommendation in the report was for Congress to enact this bill. All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. The ever scarcer time of our law enforcement officers is being occupied by these offenders who divert them from more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill gives State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public safety, and mentally ill offenders themselves. I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All of our witnesses agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons, and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. We know that more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, that about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and that up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. We know these things, but we have not done enough about them at the Federal level, and our State and local officials need our help. The bill does not mandate a ``one size fits all'' approach to addressing this issue. Rather, it allows grantees to use the funding authorized under the bill for mental health courts or other court-based programs, for training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel, and for better mental health treatment in our communities and within the corrections system. The funding is also generous enough to make a real difference, with $100 million authorized for each of the next two fiscal years. This is an area where government spending can not only do good but can also save money in the long run--a dollar spent today to get mentally ill offenders effective medical care can save many dollars in law enforcement costs in the long run. This bill has brought law enforcement officers and mental health professionals together, as we have seen at both of the hearings the committee has held on this issue. Now that we have passed this bill, I would hope the Senate could turn its attention to S. 486, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. Senators Domenici and Kennedy introduced this bill in February and it has 66 cosponsors. It would provide for equal insurance coverage for mental health benefits, and would do a great deal to accomplish some of the same objectives we seek to achieve through this bill. I would hope that we could find an hour in the time we have remaining in this session to debate and pass this bipartisan and broadly supported bill.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, I ask unanimous consent that Lesley Werthamer, a State Department fellow in her office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the foreign operations bill, H.R. 2800.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues of the vital importance of developing, and then maintaining, effective cybersecurity systems in our workplaces, our government offices, and our homes. We have all become acutely aware, as we confront the many possible threats to our national security, that much of our critical infrastructure is now run by computer networks. Illegal access to these networks can compromise the provision of power, telecommunications, and water in an instant. In the private sector, whole industries now rely on information technology in order to function. In addition, millions of Americans depend on their computers to explore the Internet, to access information and entertainment, and to preserve their personal records. At the same time they must protect their most significant, and often intimate, data--such as medical records and credit card information. With all this at risk, effective cybersecurity should be paramount in every corporation, government agency, and personal home. This past weekend marked National Cybersecurity Day. With the strong efforts of the Federal Trade Commission and the Congressional Internet Caucus, we have come a long way in raising awareness about cybersecurity. The FTC has made a great deal of important information available on their website, and I encourage people to visit that website, at www.ftc.gov. I am proud to be a Senate cochair of the Internet Caucus, along with Senator Burns, Congressman Goodlatte, and Congressman Boucher. In addition to an impressive array of speakers on all aspects of the Internet, the caucus has begun a series of constituent education seminars, targeted at helping all of us provide better information, assistance, and support to the people in our home states as they grapple with the dizzying possibilities and pitfalls of the Internet. Our efforts have not been limited to just one day. Last week this body passed important anti-spam legislation that will help to keep unwanted--often illicit--e-mail off the Internet, and off our computer screens. In the Judiciary Committee, we have held hearings recently on the dangers of peer-to-peer technology. This technology has the potential to revolutionize the way people share all sorts of information. But as with any technology, it can be abused. Peer-to-peer networks can be used to distribute child pornography and to expose our children to a host of obscene materials. It can also be used to delve into people's private records or illegally to share copyrighted material. Pornography, and child pornography in particular, is prevalent on peer-to-peer networks. According to recent reports, as much as 42 percent of peer-to-peer requests are for pornography. What is more, at a recent committee hearing we learned that at least one popular peer- to-peer network does not identify its pornographic material in any way. Thus, advertisements on its network appear just as regularly with child pornography and other obscene content as with scientific reviews and scholarly papers. Some of the danger of using peer-to-peer networks can be alleviated with good cybersecurity. Reading privacy statements, taking the time to understand the software you are using, as well as keeping filters and antivirus software turned on and up to date, all help. Knowing what your children are doing online is also important. In addition, we have given prosecutors powerful tools to go after the people who threaten our security. Our efforts must continue. The very nature of cyberspace means that the threat to security is always changing. Our responses must evolve as well, both as individuals and as legislators. I am pleased to be continuing to work with Chairman Hatch as we investigate, not just the peer-to-peer situation, but the larger set of circumstances that may threaten our cybersecurity. As we identify those threats, our primary goal will be to raise awareness about those dangers, and to give citizens and law enforcement the tools they need to protect our rights, to improve our security, and to redress wrongdoing as we continue to develop ever-better cybersecurity systems.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the judicial confirmation today, in less than 3 years' time, President George W. Bush has exceeded the number of judicial nominees confirmed for President Reagan in all 4 years of his first term in office. Senate Democrats have cooperated so that this President has now exceeded that record. Republicans acknowledge to be the ``all-time champ'' at appointing Federal judges. Since July 2001, despite the fact that the Senate majority has shifted twice, a total of 167 judicial nominations have been confirmed, including 29 circuit court appointments. One hundred judges were confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority and now 67 have been confirmed during the comparative time of the Republican majority. One would think that the White House and the Republicans in the Senate would be heralding this landmark. One would think they would be congratulating themselves for putting more lifetime appointed judges on the Federal bench than President Reagan did in his entire first term and doing it in three-quarters of the time. But Republicans have a different partisan message and this truth is not consistent with their efforts to mislead the American people into thinking that Democrats have obstructed judicial nominations. Not only has President Bush been accorded more confirmations than President Reagan achieved during his entire first term, but he has also achieved more confirmations this year than in any of the 6 years that Republicans controlled the Senate when President Clinton was in office. Not once was President Clinton allowed 67 confirmations in a year when Republicans controlled the pace of confirmations. Despite the high numbers of vacancies and availability of highly qualified nominees, Republicans never cooperated with President Clinton to the extent Senate Democrats have. President Bush has appointed more lifetime circuit and district court judges in 10 months this year than President Clinton was allowed in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, or 2000. Last year, the Democratic majority in the Senate proceeded to confirm 72 of President Bush's judicial nominees and was savagely attacked nonetheless. Likewise, in 1992, the last previous full year in which a Democratic Senate majority considered the nominees of a Republican President, 66 circuit and district court judges were confirmed. Historically, in the last year of an administration, consideration of nominations slows, the ``Thurmond rule'' is invoked and vacancies are left to the winner of the Presidential election. In 1992, Democrats proceeded to confirm 66 of President Bush's judicial nominees even though it was a Presidential election year. By contrast, in 1996, when Republicans controlled the pace for consideration of President Clinton's judicial nominees, only 17 judges were confirmed and not a single one of them was to a circuit court. In fact, President Bush has now already appointed more judges in his third year in office than in the third year of the last five Presidential terms, including the most recent term when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton was leading the country to historic economic achievements. That year, in 1999, Republicans allowed only 34 judicial nominees of President Clinton to be confirmed all year, including only 7 circuit court nominees. Those are close to the average totals for the 6 years 1995-2000 when a Republican Senate majority was determining how quickly to consider the judicial nominees of a Democratic President. By contrast, with today's confirmation, the Senate this year will have confirmed 67 judicial nominees, including 12 circuit court nominees, almost double the totals for 1999. These facts stand in stark contrast to the false partisan rhetoric that demonize the Senate for having blocked all of this President's judicial nominations. The reality is that the Senate is proceeding at a record pace and achieving record numbers. We have worked hard to balance the need to fill judicial vacancies with the imperative that Federal judges need to be fair. In so doing, we have reduced the number of judicial vacancies to 41. More than 95 percent of the Federal judgeships are filled. After inheriting 110 vacancies when the Senate Judiciary Committee reorganized under Democratic control in 2001, I helped move through and confirm 100 of the President's judicial nominees in just 17 months. With the additional 67 confirmations this year, we have reached the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. There are more Federal judges on the bench today than at any time in American history. The nominee we vote on today is particularly suited to being the 167th judicial nominee confirmed, for Judge Dale Fischer was nominated after recommendation from a bipartisan selection commission in California. When we can work together on consensus nominations, they move quickly and successfully to confirmation. The nominee has the support of both home-State Senators, both Democrats, and has earned the unanimous support of all 19 Senators who are members of the Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats. She has significant judicial experience and received the highest peer review rating available. I am happy to support this nomination and congratulate the nominee and her family on her confirmation. I also comment Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer on maintaining a bipartisan selection process.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill includes $15,004,000 for a U.S. contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD. Congress has been a strong supporter for IFAD since its inception, and these funds will enable IFAD to continue to expand its programs in the poorest countries. Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee report accompanying the bill neglected to address a concern which I suspect is shared by Senators on both sides of the aisle who support IFAD. IFAD is the seventh largest multilateral contributor to the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Debt Initiative, HIPC DI. However, IFAD still does not have access to the core resources of the companion HIPC DI Trust Fund. Currently, IFAD has to absorb 87.2 percent of the cost for participating in HIPC DI, while other multilateral development banks with full access absorb much smaller percentages. For this reason, I urge the administration to work with other donors to enable IFAD to gain access to the core resources of the HIPC Trust Fund. Rule of Law and Human Rights Programs in Russia

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, page 16 of the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill, Senate Report 108-106, discusses the Collaborative Research Support Programs. These programs, which involve 52 U.S. universities, have made immeasurable contributions in developing countries on a wide range of agriculture, environment, nutrition and development issues. USAID funds are leveraged with contributions from the universities and recipient countries. For fiscal year 2003, the committee recommended funding for the CRSPs at a higher level than in fiscal year 2002. However, despite that recommendation, funding was essentially flat lined. For fiscal year 2004, the committee expresses its strong support for the CRSPs and recommends continued funding. I want to emphasize the importance of the CRSPs to the Congress, to the universities that participate, to the countries that benefit, and to U.S. foreign policy. We want USAID to expand its collaboration with U.S. universities that have research expertise on these issues. By that I mean that funding for the CRSPs should be increasing. An appropriate level for the CRSPs in fiscal year 2004 would be $25 million. I also urge USAID to seriously consider allocating up to $2 million to fund and establish a CRSP focused on water security. American Universities in the Middle East

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, page 45 of the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill, Senate Report 108-106, discusses rule of law and human rights programs in Russia. The report mentions the Russian American Judicial Partnership and the Russian American Rule of Law Consortium. The report failed to mention another important program, the American Bar Association's Central and East European Law Initiative, CEELI, which is involved in training Russian lawyers in the adversary system, law school curriculum development, and improvement of gender equity in the legal system. Each of these organizations is doing important work, and we want to be sure that despite the decline in our assistance program in Russia that funding for these types of programs are continued. There is no more effective way for the United States to contribute to the political and economic development of Russia than by strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights. Collaborative Research Support Programs

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to clarify a sentence in the committee report, Report 108-106, accompanying S. 1426, the fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill. On page 38 of the report, under the heading ``Middle East Partnership Initiative,'' the committee expresses support for using a portion of MEPI funds ``for scholarships for needy Muslim students at the American University of Beirut.'' We do support that, but we intended to also mention the American University in Cairo and the Lebanese American University. Their omission was purely an oversight. I ask my friend from Kentucky, the subcommittee chairman, Senator McConnell, if he agrees with me about this.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, for his comments. I agree with him; I hope if people have amendments they will let us know right away. We will, of course, have the usual managers' package. Like most appropriations bills, this is a work of compromise. My friend from Kentucky and I have worked together for many years. Sometimes he is the chairman, and sometimes I am. We find common ground and we write bipartisan bills, which is the tradition of the Appropriations Committee. I thank Chairman McConnell and his staff for working so cooperatively with me and my staff on this bill, and I urge all Members to support it. I also thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd for the allocation that was given to us. While it falls short of the President's budget request, I know they did well by us under the circumstances. Since the Senator from Kentucky has done a good job in summarizing the bill, I want to mention a few highlights. First, it adds $23 million for child survival and health programs. These are the programs that provide lifesaving vaccines for diseases like polio and measles--diseases that we hardly ever see in this country but which kill or cripple millions overseas. These programs help stop the spread of viruses like Ebola and SARS, reduce needless pregnancy-related deaths, and provide aid to blind children and orphans. Second, the bill increases funding for development assistance by $78 million. These funds pay for everything from education, to agriculture research, to democracy building. This is the core of our foreign aid budget. The bill adds $20 million for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Both Senator McConnell and I feel strongly that the administration is reducing assistance to these regions too quickly. The bill includes a very important provision to ensure greater transparency and accountability at the multilateral development banks. As in the past, there are provisions which seek to promote human rights and the rule of law in Serbia, Central Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere. I am concerned that much of the good work that Senator McConnell has done on this bill could be undone by our conference allocation. Even a split with the House allocation, which is $17.1 billion, would lead to deep cuts in many programs that are important to the President and important to Senators. Earlier this week, the memo from Secretary Rumsfeld reminded us all of the importance of foreign aid in combating terrorism. In that memo he wrote: Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? I suspect the answer to that question is no, and that should deeply concern each one of us. Let me mention one example. In this bill we fund children's basic education. We use these funds to build schools and train teachers in countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia, to counter the influence of the madrassas. One would think that a wealthy Nation like ours would spend billions on education, especially in Muslim countries. It is in our self- interest. But we could only provide $220 million in this bill for education, which is a mere $2 million above last year's level. It is also far less than most U.S. States spend, yet it is what we spend for the whole world. There are many other examples of how this budget falls far short of what we should be doing to combat poverty and counter the influence of anti-American extremism. Last wee, we passed a supplemental appropriations for Iraq. It included more than $20 billion for reconstruction in that one country. That is more than this entire foreign operations bill provides for the rest of the world. If we are serious about building better relations with the Muslim world, and overcoming the hatred that is growing among the masses of impoverished people in those countries, we need to put our money where our mouths are. The President's budget request for foreign operation is $18.8 billion. This bill contains $18.2 billion. We have heard that our conference allocation may require us to cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of this bill. If the President cares about this budget, he need to act now to protect it in conference. He needs to pick up the phone and call the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Without his help, deep cuts will be made to these programs. These cuts will not just hurt people overseas. They will hurt the United States. I want to briefly mention the issue of AIDS. Chairman McConnell and I did the best we could to increase funding for HIV/AIDS in this bill, but we simply did not have enough to get to the level that many Senators wanted. We have to do more. This is the worst public health crisis in history. There will be an amendment on this issue later, and I will have more to say on it then. Again, I wish all my jobs and assignments in the Senate were as easy as working with the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky who is a close personal friend. While we come from different political philosophies, we join together in what we believe is in the best interests of the United States in this area. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend my friend from North Dakota and my friend from Idaho for their amendments to prohibit the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control from wasting taxpayer funds to enforce the ban on travel by American citizens to Cuba. Today, any American who wants to travel to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam, to just about anywhere, can do so as long as that country gives them a visa. As far as the U.S. Government is concerned, Americans can visit any of those countries. Cuba, on the other hand, a country that poses about as much threat to the United States as a flea does to a buffalo, is off limits. Of all the ridiculous, anachronistic, and self-defeating policies, this has got to be near the top of the list. OFAC is spending scarce funds to prosecute harmless, law-abiding, upstanding American citizens who want nothing more than to experience another culture, and in doing so, leave a bit of America behind. For 40 years, administration after administration, and Congress after Congress, has stuck by this failed policy. Yet Fidel Castro is as firmly in control today as he was half a century ago. The Dorgan and Craig amendments would inject some sense into our policy toward Cuba, and they would protect one of the most fundamental rights that most Americans take for granted--the right to travel freely. A few years ago, I traveled to Cuba with Senator Jack Reed. We were able to go there because we are Members of Congress. I came face to face with the absurdity of the current policy because I wanted my wife Marcelle to accompany me. A few days before we were to leave, I got a call from the State Department saying that they were not sure they could approve her travel to Cuba. I cannot speak for other Senators, but I suspect that like me, they would not react too kindly to a policy that gives the Government the authority to prevent their wife, or other members of their family, from traveling with them to a country with which we are not at war and which, according to the Defense Department and the vast majority of the American public, poses no threat to our security. I wonder how many Senators realize that if they wanted to take a family member with them to Cuba, they would probably be prohibited from doing so. Over a decade has passed since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The Russians long ago cut their $3 billion subsidy to Cuba. We now give millions of dollars in aid to Russia. Americans can travel to North Korea. There are no restrictions on the right of Americans to travel there. Which country poses a greater threat to the United States? The answer is obvious. Americans can travel to Iran, and they can spend money there. The same goes for Syria. Our policy is hypocritical, inconsistent, and contrary to our values as a nation that believes in the free flow of people and ideas. It is beneath us. It is impossible for anyone to make a rationale argument that an American should be able to travel freely to North Korea, or Iran, but not to Cuba. It can't be done. We have been stuck with this misguided policy for years, even though virtually everyone knows, and says privately, that it makes absolutely no sense and is beneath the dignity of a great country. It not only helps strengthen Fidel Castro's grip on Cuba, it hands a huge advantage to our European competitors who are building relationships and establishing future investments in a post-Castro Cuba. When that will happen is anybody's guess. President Castro is no democrat, and he is not going to become one. Human rights are systematically denied in Cuba. That is beyond dispute. But it is time we pursued a policy that is in our national interest, that helps pave the way for the day when Castro is gone, and which stops punishing American citizens. Those who want to prevent Americans from traveling to Cuba, who oppose this bill, will argue that spending U.S. dollars there helps prop up the Castro government. To some extent that is true. The same can be said of spending dollars in Sudan, Syria, or any country. The Cuban Government does control the formal economy. It also runs schools and hospitals, maintains roads, and, like the U.S. Government, is responsible for a whole range of social services. Any money that goes into the Cuban economy also supports those programs, which benefit ordinary Cubans. There is also an informal economy in Cuba, because few Cubans can survive on their meager salaries. So the income from tourism also fuels that informal sector, and it goes into the pockets of ordinary Cubans. As much as we want to see a democratic Cuba, President Castro's grip on power is not going to be weakened by keeping Americans from traveling to Cuba. History has proven that. Let's inject some maturity into our relations with Cuba. Let's have a little more faith in the power of our ideas. Let's have the courage to admit that the cold war is over. Let's get the Government out of the business of telling our wives, our children, and our constituents where they can travel and spend their own money in a country that poses no threat to us.