Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Time has not been divided or anything on that amendment, has it?

Mr. LEAHY. The reason I ask, Mr. President, is I do not want to cut into anybody else's time. But since I do not see anybody else seeking recognition, I will continue, as I have throughout consideration of this bill, to point out some of the issues we face in our foreign aid bill. Maybe one issue is especially good to look at as we look at the world's attention focused on Afghanistan. I was struck by what I heard over and over again from various military analysts and others; that is, there are millions of unexploded landmines scattered throughout that mountainous country. It is not hyperbole when I say millions of unexploded landmines; there are millions. Most of them are plastic Russian mines--those are probably the most difficult to detect--but some are Chinese mines, some are British mines, some are Italian mines, and some are American mines. The reason I mention that is, any one of those mines could kill a soldier--ours or theirs--or kill a child. A lot of them are designed to injure a combatant, blow a leg off a soldier, the idea being, if the soldier is not dead, it might tie up three or four of his comrades to take care of him or carry him back to a safe place. But, of course, a shiny little mine that might blow a leg off a soldier--it looks like a shiny toy to a child--sometimes blows off the hands, arms, or head of a child. In fact, the vast majority of those who will be injured by them will be noncombatants. Because landmines are also weapons of terror, they are routinely used to terrorize not combatants but civilian populations. Afghanistan is only one example. There are lots of countries--dozens--that are plagued by mines. Landmines maim and kill innocent people every day in the Balkans, in Southeast Asia, Africa, Chechnya, even in Central America. What is as tragic is that the killing goes on long after the war that brought the mines is over. We usually see the newspaper articles or television specials where the parties come together and they sign the armistice, they sign a peace agreement at the end of the war. They say: OK, it is all over. We are now friends again, or at least we are noncombatants. They leave. The armies march off, the tanks drive away, and so forth, but the mines stay. A child not even born at the time the peace agreement is signed is killed when first learning to walk. We have mines and unexploded munitions from the United States in Vietnam and Laos. They were dropped when I first came to the Senate a quarter of a century ago. They are still blowing people up. They are still killing and wounding people in Vietnam and Laos. In Bosnia, most American casualties were from landmines. The same was true in Somalia. In Afghanistan, we gave mines to the anti-Russian forces, some of whom are now the Taliban. You know the phrase: What goes around comes around. We gave the Taliban landmines. We also gave them Stinger missiles. But landmines, think of that; we gave some of the Taliban landmines. When our troops go there--as they already have, according to the press accounts, and we assume will continue to go there--one of the biggest dangers they will face is some of the landmines we left there from the 1980s. We and the rest of the international community are going to be paying for many years to clean up this deadly legacy. The right thing to do is to clean it up. In fact, this bill contains $40 million for demining programs and has another $12 million to assist victims of war, including mine victims. But I think of the $12 million or so that gets spent every year in the Leahy War Victims Fund, and the tens of millions of dollars in demining, and I think, wouldn't it be wonderful if we did not have to spend any of that money because the world stopped the indiscriminate use of landmines and we had a chance to clean up what was there. A lot of nations already have stopped using them. Every member of NATO, with the exception of one, has agreed to stop using them. Ironically enough, even though we are spending a lot of money to clean up landmines, the one nation in NATO that has not agreed to stop using landmines is the United States. Every nation in the Western Hemisphere has banned the use of landmines except two, the United States and Cuba. Interesting company. Cuba should ban them; the United States should ban them. Every other country in our Western Hemisphere has. Two months ago, terrorism was a foreign concept to so many Americans. Anthrax was a foreign concept. But it is not any longer. We have experienced the tragedy and fear that people in many countries have lived with for years. Fortunately, in our Nation, when it comes to landmines, we have not used landmines on American soil since the Civil War. I can't help but think if landmines were used in this country to terrorize Americans, as they are in other countries, then the United States, I am sure, would have joined the 142 other nations in banning their use. Ask people who have served in combat. Most people who actually served in combat tell me that mines are more trouble than they are worth, and any enemy worth its salt can breach a minefield in a matter of minutes. A child cannot; the enemy can. You scatter landmines and then your own troops--who often need to maneuver quickly because sometimes the battlefront moves very quickly-- risk triggering their own mines. The battle might be over in a matter of hours, but even self-deactivating mines stay longer than that. The battle can ebb and flow very quickly. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has been bogged down in a costly, poorly designed program to find alternatives to mines. Although it might have seemed like a good idea when it was proposed 6 years ago, it has been managed by people who have no sense of urgency and who never believed in the goal anyway. They spent the money, but there is little to show for it. It makes me think of that PBS program, ``Yes, Minister''--a wonderful program. You had a British minister who, while elected, had the head of the public service for his ministry who did not agree with anything the minister wanted to do; but he was so nice. Every time the minister said, we have to go forward with programs like this, that, or the other thing, the head of his civil service would say: Yes, Minister. Of course, Minister. Wonderful idea, Minister. We will do it in the fullness of time. And the minister finally realized ``the fullness of time'' was not his lifetime. That is what has happened with those who have been tasked with the idea of coming up with this alternative to landmines. They do not believe in it, so they drag their feet. They know those of us in Congress who support it will someday leave; they hope the sooner the better. Administrations come and go. But the irony is, we do not need to even search for alternatives. As many retired and active duty defense officials will say privately, we already have suitable alternative weapons technologies. We have smart weapons. We have sensor technologies that are a lot more cost- effective than mines. They are safer for our soldiers, and they don't impede their mobility. I hope that the Pentagon, with all the weapons in its arsenal, is not going to add to the millions of landmines already littering Afghanistan. They threaten civilian and humanitarian aid workers. They terrorize and kill and maim refugees who are trying to flee. These indiscriminate weapons don't belong on today's battlefield no matter who is putting them there, no matter how right they think their cause. The administration is conducting a review of its landmine policy. We can have a mine-free military if we want. Then probably it would not be long before Russia would do the same. Wouldn't it be nice if we could say that in the western hemisphere, where today every country except the United States and Cuba has banned mines, we banned mines as every other country except Cuba? Now it is your turn. Wouldn't it be nice when we sent our Ambassador to NATO not to have to look away when every single NATO ally tells us they have banned their landmines and we haven't? The Clinton administration took some first steps, but they never fully grasped the issue. They didn't understand it. Some did not want to. I believe the President did want to but didn't follow through. This administration has an opportunity to design a roadmap to finish the job. It would increase the effectiveness and mobility and the safety of our own troops. This is not something we do just to help other countries. It would actually help our own troops. It would take White House leadership, but it can be done. The White House lead would be strongly supported by the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, because so many across the political spectrum have already voted to ban landmines. One person in this country has done more than any other to bring to the world's attention the need to ban landmines. That is Bobby Muller, the head of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Bobby Muller is known and admired by so many Senators, particularly those who served in combat. He is perhaps the most visionary, eloquent, dedicated, and inspiring person I have met. He enlisted in the Marine Corps. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam. He was paralyzed from the waist down from a gunshot wound. Last weekend he was honored by Hofstra University, his alma mater, with its lifetime achievement award. I ask unanimous consent that a Newsday article about this award be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we do good things in this bill to help with the scourge of landmines. We do put in tens of millions of dollars to remove landmines. That is a credit to this Nation. It took a lot of effort and a lot of fighting, bipartisan efforts on the floor of the Senate to get the previous administration to do that and the current one to continue. We do fund every year the Leahy War Victims Fund. I appreciate the honor of my Republican colleagues, who were the ones who renamed it the Leahy War Victims Fund. I appreciate the bipartisan gesture. Frankly, I wish we didn't need the fund. I suspect every Senator wishes we didn't. This is money that buys prosthetics for those who have had their arms or legs blown off by landmines. My wife, who is a registered nurse, and I have gone to hospitals and landmine sites around the world and seen what good that does. It does help. I see the Senator from Illinois on the floor. I don't want to take up his time, but I remember very well one day going with our distinguished leader Senator Daschle, Senator Dorgan, and our former colleague John Glenn to one of these war victims sites, run by the Vietnam Veterans of America and others. We saw people getting their first artificial limbs since the Vietnam War. Some were getting their first wheelchairs. It was a hot, muggy day. I was dressed in slacks and an open-neck shirt. There was a man who was able to drag himself on pallet things on the ground who was finally able to get his first wheelchair. They said, why don't you go over and lift him into the wheelchair. He looked like a really small man. He had no legs. He was probably about my age. He was just looking at me stoically, staring at me. I didn't know what to expect, but I went over, picked him up, carried him, and put him in the wheelchair. The expression never changed. But as I started to go back, he grabbed my shirt, pulled me down, and kissed me. He didn't speak the language. It was his way of saying thank you. John Glenn, who we know is a wonderful man, certainly not an emotional man, also carried somebody to a wheelchair. I remember the emotion on his face. He said to us afterward, as we were going back on the bus to Saigon: If anybody on this trip ever complains about anything again, I am throwing you out the door of the bus, after what we have just seen. The humanitarian part is good, but the injury is bad. We should ban these landmines. We are not going to do it on this bill. The Senator from Kentucky has worked with me shoulder to shoulder in getting money to remove landmines and for the War Victims Fund. In fact, it was his amendment I was referring to earlier that I thought was an extraordinarily generous act by my Republican colleagues in its renaming. We have done a great deal of good with it. The United States can do a lot more good by just removing the ban on landmines. I have imposed on the time of the Senator from Illinois, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to explain why I did not want to incorporate that amendment in a series of amendments, a Durbin, user fees; a Helms-McConnell, Cambodia; a Leahy-McConnell, excess defense articles; Dodd No. 1953, Peace Corps; Byrd, passports; Brownback-Frist, Sudan with colloquy; Feingold, fumigation; Brownback colloquy on human trafficking, I mention that. Amendment Nos. 1951, As Modified, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958, En Bloc

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider en bloc and agree to en bloc amendment No. 1954, Durbin, user fees; amendment No. 1955, Helms-McConnell, Cambodia; amendment No. 1956, Leahy-McConnell, excess defense articles; amendment No. 1953, Dodd, Peace Corps; amendment No. 1957, Byrd, passports; amendment No. 1958, Brownback-Frist, Sudan with colloquy; amendment No. 1951, as modified, Feingold, fumigation; and Brownback colloquy on human trafficking.

Mr. LEAHY. Including No. 1953, I understand.

Mr. LEAHY. I certainly hope it is finished an hour from now. Mr. President, I also say in response to what the Senator from Nevada said, there has been an enormous amount of cooperation from the Senator from Kentucky and other Senators from both sides of the aisle, and that is what has made it possible for us to complete this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Florida and how much time to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. That would take unanimous consent, and I will not give it. We told people we are going to vote at 5 o'clock.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Senator Reid and Senator Nickles have been asking our intent. Senator McConnell and I have been here for a couple days and would like to wrap up.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I believe we are almost done. Just so people will know, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request regarding a Hutchison amendment on tuberculosis, a Bingaman amendment on Central America drought relief, a Leahy AIDS and malaria funding amendment, a Stabenow amendment on the victims of terrorism, a Landrieu amendment on child soldiers, and a McConnell technical amendment. Amendments Nos. 1960 through 1965, En Bloc

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to bring forward an amendment by Senator Hutchison of Texas, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, Senator Thompson of Tennessee, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, and Senator McConnell of Kentucky, and that they be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have another amendment on behalf of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the support of the Senator from Massachusetts for our proposed increase over the President's budget request for the GEF. I agree that this is a vital organization. GEF's work gets at many of the international environmental problems which simply cannot be fixed by the U.S. or any nation acting alone, such as global warming. Poor nations which struggle to feed and clothe their people simply do not have the resources to devote to global environmental problems. Yet if we do not have a unified global approach to these problems, we have little hope of addressing them effectively. The GEF funds worthy projects in 160 countries. Unfortunately, the United States has lagged behind in meeting our obligations to the GEF. Since 1994, twice the U.S. has pledged $107.5 million a year to GEF. We are now in the final year of the second replenishment, and our total arrears stand at $203.9 million. Our recommended appropriation this year will make only a small dent in that figure, but at least will not add to them.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the Senator. I am pleased that the Senate is recommending a considerably higher appropriation than the House for the GEF, and I intend to work diligently to persuade the House to agree to our GEF number in conference. We must get back on track and pay our arrears to the GEF.