Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

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

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

Mr. LUGAR. 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.

Mr. LUGAR

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

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

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. 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.

Mr. LUGAR. 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.

Mr. LUGAR. 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?

Mr. LUGAR. I yield the floor.

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR. 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.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR. 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.

Mr. LUGAR. 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.

Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. 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.