[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: January 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AUTHORIZATION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:30
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration
of S. 1281, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1281) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1994 and 1995 for the Department of State, the United
States Information Agency, and related agencies, to provide
for the consolidation of international broadcasting
activities, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. Pell].
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, we all welcome my colleagues back to
Washington and to this, the second session of the 103d Congress. I am
only hopeful that we can get the year off to a fast and productive
start with consideration of S. 1281, the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for fiscal years 1993 and 1994. This legislation
authorizes appropriations for the Department of State, the USIA, and
the Board for International Broadcasting.
Although this may sound rather prosaic, in fact what the Senate is
about to debate is legislation that will shape key instruments of
American foreign policy into the 21st century. In no small measure, our
Nation's success and prominence in world affairs is the result of these
institutions' effectiveness.
The legislation before the Senate makes changes in these structures
to meet the new challenges to U.S. foreign policy such as: Enhancement
of trade opportunities for U.S. businesses, protection of the global
environment, and prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Our success in this effort will have a very direct and
tangible impact on the lives of U.S. citizens for years to come.
For example, the legislation incorporates and endorses the
administration's restructuring of the Department of State, particularly
the attempt to reduce bureaucratic layering and make Assistant
Secretaries more effective in the policy process. Further, it creates a
new under secretary for global affairs to oversee policy on many of the
issues that transcend national borders.
In addition, the legislation as reported by the committee will
implement the administration's proposal for the consolidation of United
States international broadcasting. As many of my colleagues know, this
has been a contentious issue. Later in this debate, the Senate can
expect an amendment by Senators Biden and Feingold aimed at resolving
their differences over the treatment of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
and Radio Free Asia under the consolidation proposal. It preserves the
cost savings envisioned in the administration and committee-reported
proposal, which I know is very important to Senator Feingold, and
provides for grantee status for both radios which I know Senator Biden
believes is essential to their effective operation. I very much
appreciate the two Senators' efforts to work out their differences.
Mr. President, there are a number of provisions that I have either
authored or cosponsored in this legislation. I would like to highlight
just two. In particular, I would draw our attention to a provision
which requires USIA to open an office in Lhasa, Tibet. In my view, the
establishment of such an office will provide the United States with an
important on-the-ground presence in Tibet, enabling better
understanding of the situation there and promoting more open contacts
between the United States and Tibet. As the United States and China
seek to improve their relations, this office would be a key outpost in
an area of mutual concern.
Later in this debate, I will also be offering an amendment to
strengthen the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In conjunction with
the administration's own efforts, I think this legislation will
significantly enhance our Nation's efforts to combat the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. President, the legislation contains a number of other provisions,
but I will leave a more detailed discussion of the bill to my colleague
from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, who is the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. It
is his subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this legislation and I
want to congratulate him on the fine work that he has done in bringing
the bill to the floor. The Senate has and will benefit from his able
leadership on this issue.
I will conclude with one general observation. As we all know, we are
operating in a time of budgetary stringency. Each part of the
Government must bear its share of budget cuts. That includes the
Department of State and the USIA. This necessity is reflected in S.
1281. The Foreign Relations Committee cut roughly $500 million out of
the administration's request of $6.4 billion for the Department of
State, USIA, and the Board for International Broadcasting. I supported
that cut, but with some reluctance. I am concerned that if this cutting
trend continues, our Nation's long-term security interests will be
undercut.
In my view, prudent spending on the Department and its related
agencies is a tremendously cost-effective way to promote the well-being
of our Nation and its citizens. Indeed, although it may not be
realistic in the near time, I hope that at some point we will be able
to increase our support for the Department of State and our other
foreign policy agencies.
Mr. President, to conclude I want to thank the majority leader and
the Republican leader for their assistance in bringing this important
piece of legislation to the floor. I also want to thank the ranking
member on the committee, Senator Helms, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations,
Senator Kerry, and the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator
Pressler, for their fine work in helping to get S. 1281 reported from
the committee and up onto the Senate floor.
I now turn to my colleague from North Carolina for his opening
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Helms].
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I, of course, thank my
friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations. It has always been a pleasure to work with him. He and I
have managed a number of bills in the years that we have been here. He
has been here longer than I have, and he has managed more bills. But I
have to say, Mr. President, that none of the pieces of legislation with
which I have dealt in my 21 years in the Senate have met with the
cooperation and the effective working together by all Senators and all
staff members to produce this bill that we call the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The short form on
that is, of course, the State Department authorization bill. I say to
my friend from Rhode Island, it is a pleasure to work with him always.
Mr. President, every committee has to make some tough choices in an
effort to save the taxpayers money at a time when this Congress has run
up a total of nearly $4.5 trillion in debt. I am pleased that the
Foreign Relations Committee did an adequate job in connection with this
bill in that respect.
In committee, I offered an 8.5 percent budget reduction amendment
designed to require the State Department to review its organizational
and operational requirements seriously. You know how bureaucrats in
this town operate. They hear a mandate or presumed mandate of Congress
and then they go about doing what they want to do instead of what
Congress has asked them to do. My amendment, as perfected by Senator
Kerry and Senator Pressler, cut the administration's fiscal year 1994
request by $504 million, out of a $6.4 billion request. It cut it down
to about $5.9 billion in terms of an authorization bill. And it reduced
the administration's fiscal year 1995 budget authority by almost $450
million. That is a $950 million reduction over 2 years. As the saying
goes, that is not exactly chopped liver.
The authorized levels in this bill are $253 million below last year's
actual level for the State Department, the USIA, and related agencies.
S. 1281--this bill--also includes authorization for the Peace Corps at
virtually no-growth levels in terms of expenditures. Ordinarily, the
Peace Corps is authorized as a separate bill or included in the foreign
aid authorization bill.
It is a little bit different this year. In addition to the budget
reduction, there are some positive legislative provisions in this bill.
For the first time, this bill caps--puts a cap on--the end strength of
the Foreign Service officers who can be hired. I intend to offer a
technical amendment giving the Secretary of State authority to RIF--
that means reduction in force--the Foreign Service office employees if
he finds it necessary to do so. The bill eliminates Foreign Service
performance pay. It ensures adherence to statutory pay ceilings so that
nobody can make more than the Secretary of State. And it provides
mandatory reassignment or retirement of Presidential appointees within
90 days.
I am going to seek to eliminate the ``hall walkers'' at the State
Department, that is to say, those Foreign Service employees who refuse
to accept new assignments to meet urgent personnel needs. If they are
offered an assignment they do not want, they turn it down and they walk
the corridors of the State Department still being paid by the
taxpayers, and I think that is an outrage. I wish to stop that.
The bill creates a capital investment fund, a much needed management
tool, to encourage investment in information technologies to improve
and modernize the State Department's functions. This bill promotes
cost-effective property management techniques. It proposes to ensure
that rewards may be provided for information about acts of terrorism,
and it proposes to reduce the number of mandated reports, which nobody
reads in the first place.
The Foreign Relations Committee also agreed to direct the President
of the United States to conduct a Government-wide review of all
Government-sponsored international educational and cultural exchange
programs. This year the American taxpayers will spend, or be forced to
furnish more than $800 million in exchange programs managed by 22
different Federal agencies. That, too, is an outrage. These programs
have been expanded and enlarged by 45 percent in just the past 3 years
and have doubled since 1980. Nobody even knows how many programs there
are. Nobody knows how much money is being spent. You try to get the
information from anybody in this Government, and they say, ``Well, we
don't know. We will look it up.'' And you never get a return telephone
call.
Now, Mr. President, the point is this. We cannot tolerate and the
American taxpayers ought not to be required to finance such unbridled
growth. I suggest that anybody who may doubt what I am saying should
look at the figures. I cannot justify to my constituents--and no other
Senator can really--the spending of almost $1 billion of the taxpayers'
money to educate foreign students when we have such tight budget
constraints here at home. So there are many, many things that we need
to look at, and this bill addresses most of what I had in mind. The
rest of them I am going to try to do by amendment.
Now, title III authorizes the international broadcasting activities
of VOA, RFE/RL, TV and Radio Marti, Radio Free Asia, and other
broadcasting elements under the new International Broadcasting Bureau
to be guided and directed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. This
kind of broadcasting effort has been fraught with great controversy,
and I intend to listen carefully to the debate on all the provisions.
My mind is pretty well made up, but I wish to hear both sides of the
argument.
In June of last year, the administration contended that the only way
to save $250 million over the next 4 years was to consolidate VOA and
RFE/RL. And today, January 1994, the administration contends that it
can accede to the Senate--what do you know--and permit there to be true
surrogate broadcasting, that is to say, keep RFE/RL and Radio Free Asia
and still save $250 million. So you might say that saving $250 million
in a budget like ours is not a giant step, but it is a step in the
right direction.
Either Mr. Duffey was wrong in June or he is wrong now, and I look
forward to the debate on this issue. We will have friendly debate, and
I hope that the Senate will carefully measure the information on both
sides.
Now, Mr. President, I do not think I have ever been more disappointed
in the good-intentioned efforts announced at the beginning of this
administration a year ago to restructure the State Department.
Oh, I had bureaucrat after bureaucrat come up to see me saying,
``Senator, you are going to love this.'' And I did like what they were
saying. But nothing happened. Nothing happened. The administration and
Congress deserve a D minus on this matter.
When the Foreign Relations Committee heard from Secretary-designate
Christopher on January 13-14 last year, 1993, the Secretary-to-be said:
``We need to do more with less.''
I am sitting there applauding, saying, ``Praise the Lord.'' But
subsequently, his Deputy Secretary, Cliff Wharton, and his Under
Secretary for Management, Brian Atwood--two nice fellows--appeared
before the committee and--I am quoting them exactly--they promised to
``streamline the bureaucracy, consolidate responsibilities, reduce
personnel, and reinvigorate management.''
What happened? They were off in the stratosphere, wild blue yonder,
or whatever you want to call it.
Now, we heard the Secretary and Deputy Secretary announce with great
fanfare a broad-based reorganization to, guess what, reduce excessive
layering, that is, bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy on top of
bureaucracy. The State Department would, according to the Secretary a
year ago, ``do its fair share'' to participate in, guess what,
``reductions and cutbacks that President Clinton would impose on the
entire Federal Government.'' Promises, promises.
But I could not believe my ears when I heard all that good news a
year ago. I remember pulling out my hearing aid to see if it was
working right. I thought finally somebody had acknowledged that the
State Department was a topheavy, bloated, inefficient bureaucracy in
need of massive reorganization and reductions. No wonder I said,
``Glory, glory, hallelujah,'' because that had been something on my
agenda for a long time, at least 21 years or more.
But what happens? Mr. President, as we have seen in endless and
countless instances over the years, the State Department's rhetoric far
exceeded its actions.
One year later Secretary Atwood with his good intentions to
reorganize the State Department--and I have no doubt about his good
intentions. I believe that he meant what he said a year ago. Anyway,
Secretary Atwood is gone--promoted, I guess you might call it, to AID,
the Agency for International Development, to tackle that behemoth of a
mess.
Dr. Wharton may be a good and decent man, praised for his
organizational abilities a year ago to spend substantial efforts on
reorganizing and restructuring the State Department. But to the dismay
of a lot of us, we waited a much ``ballyhooed'' reorganization report
which was delayed, rewritten, scrubbed, and never materialized beyond
another document that was leaked to the press.
A year later, here we are. We find Dr. Wharton in a caretaker status
dismissed supposedly because of a lack of attention to policy matters.
One of the only substantive records we have of the administration's
reorganization effort is the administration request for a 33 percent
increase in the number of Assistant Secretaries, from 18 to 24 in
number, and an increase in the number of Executive Level IV positions
in the State Department.
Mr. President, what an incredible response to the promise last year
to streamline the bureaucracy. Maybe all of this has been reported in
the media, but I have not seen it. They are too busy with other things.
Bureaucratic costs associated with such needless additional jobs, if
you want to call them jobs, is astounding. The cost of the salaries for
these 12 additional political appointee positions is more than $1.2
million a year--a small amount. It depends on where you are from. To
the taxpayer down there in Chinquapin, NC, it is not a small amount of
money, and I certainly do not think it is small.
Every new bureau at the U.S. State Department will mean at least $2
million per year in additional costs, and support costs. You have to
have secretaries, and you have to have all of the rest that goes with
it--more people to sit around and say, ``Oh, I have to clip this
fingernail before I do anything else.'' The administration request is
antithetical I think to our purpose in being here today.
Mr. President, in committee I offered an amendment to remove all
statutory requirements for the creation of Assistant Secretaries. We
have enough of them. They fall all over each other. The most important
thing they do, most of them, in today's time, is arrange where they are
going to have lunch. Over time Congress has mandated six such
positions. And my amendment authorizes the Secretary of State to
organize as may be necessary within the ceiling of 16 Assistant
Secretaries. Lord knows that ought to be enough. It is the same number
Mr. Christopher had when he was with the State Department in the Carter
administration.
The committee rejected my amendment, and further rejected the
administration's request to repeal the six mandatory positions. But not
a word of that was in the paper. Nobody on television mentioned it. The
committee's majority told Secretary Christopher, ``We don't trust your
promise to keep our favorite Assistant Secretary positions, but we will
give you two more Assistant Secretary bureaucracies to grow on.'' That
is what the committee did with the vote that defeated my proposal.
The other body, the House of Representatives, did the administration
one better. The House guys provided three new bureaucracies which is
totally unacceptable. And during consideration of this bill I intend to
offer an amendment and have the Senate vote on it to rectify the
Foreign Relations Committee's judgment on this matter, and thereby
prevent the further bloating of the Federal bureaucracy.
I do hope that Senators will support that.
One other area that deserves our closest attention is the funding
level reporting requirements and approval for U.S. participation in the
United Nations and other international organizations. Sometimes, Mr.
President, I wonder if the U.S. Government has the slightest idea what
goes on in the United Nations and the other international
organizations. The United States voted in the U.N. Economic and Social
Council Organization to grant consultative status to self-proclaimed
homosexual pedophiles. How about that? I do not recall anything in the
Washington Post about that, or even in the Washington Times, as far as
I know.
This group, a known homosexual pedophile organization, was elevated
to consultative status by the United Nations and the State Department
as well. What is new?
I intend to offer an amendment to correct this grotesque
embarrassment to the United States, and particularly the people back
home. But we tried to encourage reform in the U.N. budget process and
mandate timely reports to Congress when this administration uses U.S.
funds for international peacekeeping activities.
My intent is, as a manager of this bill, to strongly support Senator
Dole and Senator Pressler when they offer major amendments to
restructure the U.S. participation in the U.N.-sponsored activities and
require withholding of U.N. assessments until an inspector general is
appointed at the United Nations.
Mr. President, Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti are all disasters, every
one of them, disasters that must not be repeated. The answer is not in
rewriting the War Powers Resolution. Forget that. The answer is better
decisionmaking, a much closer scrutiny of U.N. actions, and a more
thoughtful understanding of the practical consequences of pursuing a
policy of what they call aggressive multilateralism.
The same people who throughout the 1980's wanted to blame America
first have now written a new draft of a Presidential decision,
Directive PD-13, that is intended, and I quote, ``sacrifice Americans
first.'' This new invented game of surrender your sovereignty is to be
played out in the United Nations by the nonelected officials committing
the U.S. Treasury and the troops of the United States to U.N.
objectives without congressional approval. They just go ahead and do
what they want to do.
I do not know about other Senators. But this Senator says no, not
with my vote would it happen.
In some respects, the authorized levels for the U.N. peacekeeping
operations in this bill are nothing short of disingenuous. The
Department of State, the U.S. Mission of the United Nations and OMB
have known for just about a year now that U.S. peacekeeping assessments
in 1994 will be $1 billion more than Congress has authorized and
appropriated, and there will be $1 billion more than authorized for
next year, fiscal year 1995. In fact, the U.S. State Department has
already spent all of the fiscal year 1994 funds that were appropriated,
and we are only 3 months into the fiscal year. As they say in North
Carolina, ``How do you like them apples?'' If the American people had a
vote on it, we would find out pretty quickly.
This administration continues to write the United Nations blank
checks every time we vote in the U.N. Security Council to approve
another peacekeeping mission. Thus far, the State Department has been
sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from the Department of Defense
every year to support U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Mr. President, the money is drying up. We the people--and I consider
myself one of the people--of the United States populace have spent in
excess of $2 billion in Somalia, over $800 million in direct support to
the U.N. mission. And when the United States pulls out, watch it; the
United Nations is going to send the American taxpayers a bill for over
$500 million more to pay the 31.7 percent assessed cost for U.N.
peacekeeping in Somalia. How dumb can we get?
This cannot continue, and it must not continue, and will not continue
after Senator Dole's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, is enacted.
It is an amendment to the U.N. Participation Act. Again, I hope all
Senators and their staffs will take note of the Dole amendment and what
it means and stands for and what it calls for.
There is one provision in this bill that every Senator should know
something about. Senators should familiarize themselves with the
dangerous impact of section 170(a) relating to the creation of an
international criminal court. I remember Sam Ervin sitting over there
warning us about this. He was disturbed about the so-called genocide
treaty, and I tried to pick up when he departed and do the best I
could. We finally defanged the genocide treaty so that it amounted to
nothing. But here they go again.
Efforts to establish such an international criminal court drives
right to the core of our basic constitutional liberties and guarantees.
But you will not read that in the press. They will say, ``What is that
fellow talking about?'' If they say anything at all. Well, the
constitutional lawyers know what I am talking about, and you watched
Sam Ervin talk about it. This court, Mr. President, has the potential
of sitting in judgment of American citizens, U.S. corporations, the
U.S. Government, and, yes, even the legislative acts of Members of
Congress. So it does matter. It does need and deserve and cry out for
consideration of the implications of such a court.
This provision should not be included in this bill in any shape,
fashion, or form--not one. I wish Sam Ervin were back here. The
committee reported a freestanding resolution some months ago to find
its way to the other committees' jurisdictions. I hope the Senate
anticipates that the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct a
thorough, careful review of the impact that this proposal threatens to
our constitutional prerogatives. We will ignore this issue at our own
peril, and worse, at the peril of the governance of the American
people.
The Armed Services Committee may wish to explore the legal advisers'
concerns that the draft of the international criminal court statute
pending before the sixth committee of the United Nations could impact
in an extremely negative way upon ``the status of forces' agreements or
the prosecution of war crimes.'' These are not just words, they have
meaning and they have implications, a constitutional question.
The Finance and Energy and Commerce Committees may be interested in
the potentially devastating impact that this proposal may have on the
cost to U.S. companies doing business overseas. The jurisdictional
authority of such a court is expansive and its impact is unknown. We
are flying blind by the seat of our britches. It should be excluded
from this bill. It is totally unwise. It is dangerous to act
precipitously on this provision, and I hope that my efforts to strike
this provision will be supported by a majority of the Senate. I hope
the public will require their Senators to explain why they oppose it or
not.
Mr. President, before I conclude, I feel obliged to comment briefly
on two amendments that I intend to offer, designed to assist U.S.
citizens who have had their property confiscated--that is to say
illegally stolen--by foreign governments receiving foreign aid from the
taxpayers of the United States. The Senate passed one of these
amendments 96 to 4. I stood down there during the vote and Senators
came in and said, ``good amendment'' and all of the rest of it. The
State Department, however, and other U.S. officials turned a deaf ear
to U.S. citizens whose property had been unlawfully taken from them.
Unfortunately, the Senate must again send a wakeup call to the U.S.
State Department. That message must go to the countries abusing the
rights of U.S. citizens, and those countries ought to be denied even
one dime of foreign aid money until they cut this out.
In closing, I reiterate my appreciation to Senator Pell and Senator
Kerry and Senator Pressler and their respective staffs for their
stewardship in guiding this legislation through subcommittee and to
floor debate. I say again, as I have said so many times publicly, I am
most grateful for the consideration and cooperation of Claiborne Pell
for his efforts to accommodate the concerns of Senators on this side of
the aisle. I do hope we can move this legislation on to conference in
an expeditious fashion.
That concludes my statement, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Pell, the chairman of the committee,
both for his summary of the bill today, but more particularly for his
assistance and trust in the process as we have moved along here, and
for his leadership of the committee. I also thank the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina. He and I have worked together all of the
time I have been here, going way back to the initial efforts we made on
the Philippines and other areas, and I have enjoyed that collaboration.
We disagree sometimes, but we have never found any disagreeableness in
our disagreeing. I look forward to working with him in continuing to
move this particular bill through the process.
I might point out to colleagues that this bill was reported
unanimously by the committee. It reflected a lot of consensus work in
the early stages, bringing together, first, the subcommittee and then,
subsequently, the full committee.
The 19-to-0 vote by which the full committee reported it to the floor
reflects that, despite the fact that there are today, as there always
are, issues that the ranking member of the full committee disagrees
with or other members may disagree with, we have basically put together
an important statement on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee's
attitude about the agencies that are involved here--the State
Department, the U.S. Information Agency, the Peace Corps, and the
broadcasting entities. I think this reflects a well-formulated,
strongly supported approach to those issues.
The bill authorizes almost $6 billion, and I will not go into all of
the breakdowns. I do not think it is necessary. I think the chairman
has adequately pointed out what is basically covered in the bill.
But I do want to underscore the fact that this reflects real cuts
during difficult times. This bill--and I think the reason for the
bipartisan support for it--represents a serious effort by the committee
to bring to the floor something that really reflected a real effort to
be responsible in the field of foreign policy about the expenses of
this country at a time when everybody is trying to pay a price in
restraining the cost of government. So I think we have demonstrated our
serious approach in this bill.
The 1994 authorization for the State Department, the USIA, and
broadcasting entities represents, as the Senator from North Carolina
said, a half billion dollars of real reductions. And that is, when you
look at the total budget of $6 billion, a very significant cut.
It is underscored by the fact that the President's request to us,
which we went under, was already at a freeze level for 1993. The
committee achieved the cuts that we made by reducing the State
Department budget by some $333 million and the USIA budget by about
$179.5 million.
I might also point out that the authorization levels in this bill for
fiscal year 1995 are a straight line of the 1994 levels in the bill, so
there is not a large outyear increase or some hidden amount of money on
the back end of this bill.
This bill will require the State Department to make reductions, and
we have specified where some of those reductions ought to be.
The Senator from North Carolina has raised the issue of the United
Nations. We will undoubtedly debate that at some point in the course of
this legislative effort. But I would just like to point out very
quickly that we considered restraints on the expenditures pending
certain reforms within the United Nations.
I have joined with the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler,
in I think a serious message to the United Nations. The entire
committee has been very clear that we are not sanguine about the rate
of change or the implementation of an Inspector General process, and so
forth.
But we did, a majority of the members of the committee, come to the
conclusion that it is not serving the best interests of the United
States at this juncture to place a formal restraint on the expenditure
of our moneys to the United Nations because of the fact that we have
spent a large part of the last decade at war with the process of
withholding money, and indeed creating an awfully lot of a credibility
gap between our intentions and desires at the United Nations and our
position here in Washington. We think we are on the right course.
The Ambassador to the United Nations has testified before the
committee. We think we are achieving a certain amount of the reform
that we need, and we are not convinced that there is a need to move
forward on any further restraints at this time.
I might simply add, before opening the bill up to amendment, that
this is basically a nuts-and-bolts bill that faces questions of the
administration and management and organizational needs of the agencies
involved of our foreign policy sector.
The bill implements key aspects of the administration's
reorganization plan for the State Department, including the creation of
a fifth Under Secretary position for global affairs, as well as
revisions in structure and duties of various bureaus. The bill does
mandate a reduction in the size of the senior Foreign Service, and I
think that is very important.
My colleague from North Carolina points out that there are a couple
of additional Assistant Secretary positions. Indeed, there are, and I
have just articulated a fifth Under Secretary position. The reason for
this is that we are living in a very different world today, with
enormous demands on the upper level decisionmaking of the State
Department.
So we have done a tradeoff. We have permitted the Secretary to
organize at the upper level in a way that streamlines decisionmaking,
that augments the ability of the Department to face up to larger
responsibilities and more diverse, complex responsibilities in the
world, while simultaneously mandating reductions in so-called
bureaucracy.
And so I think we are serving some of the complaints of the Senator
from North Carolina, and I think we are being responsible.
We have also prohibited performance pay awards for both fiscal years
of 1994 and 1995. We have mandated an annual report on the financial
aspects of the United Nations peacekeeping operations.
Now, a final comment I would make is that this bill incorporates,
with a few modifications, the administration's plan to consolidate the
international broadcasting activities of the U.S. Information Agency
and the Board for International Broadcasting. As colleagues know, we
have spent a lot of money over the years, and I think to great success,
in bringing information to people behind the former Iron Curtain and in
helping people who live in totalitarian countries to learn something
both about democracy and our world, as well as about the reality of
what is happening in their world. And that is a very important
function.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall, with the emerging, hopefully
sustained, democratic states of Eastern Europe, those demands have
changed, and it is simply not sensible for the United States to be
spending the kind of money or to be supporting the kind of overhead and
bureaucracy in order to achieve those goals. The goals have not
departed. As my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Biden, will
discuss no doubt, the goals are still very real. We want to guarantee
the integrity of the broadcasting capacity of the United States, while
simultaneously maximizing our ability to be able to restrain the costs
and overhead.
I think, thanks to the good efforts of the Senator from Wisconsin,
Senator Feingold, and the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, who
have cooperated together with the administration and Joe Duffey of
USIA, we now have the compromise that preserves integrity and
independence, while simultaneously permitting consolidation to take
place. I would thank both of those Senators for their significant
contributions to this legislation and, frankly, for having brought the
process to a head and created the dynamics which have brought us to the
point of having, I think, a very significant reduction.
We are saving some $240 million on this broadcasting effort in real
money in the short term. I suggest that that represents an intelligent
and strong way of approaching the changes that we face in the
international community.
I might also add that I think there is a unanimity within the United
States Senate--certainly within the Foreign Relations Committee, but
almost within the Senate--on the value of exchange programs.
We are consistently hearing the success stories of students who have
come to this country from various parts of the world, learned something
about America--pursued their studies here, learned something about
democracy, the free world, the free enterprise system--and gone back to
their countries as new practitioners of many of those ideals, or lived
at least with their eyes open.
There are many who feel this is perhaps one of the strongest things
we can do in the market place of foreign ideas. Indeed, in keeping with
that unanimity of approach, there is an addition, a small addition
which is mostly symbolic--we would like to have done more but it is
what we can do within the limits of the budget now--an increase of some
$11 million for international exchanges.
I add, this increase was offset by other cuts within our own budget
in this bill. I think it does provide for important new scholarship
programs, particularly in Southeast Asia, East Timor, and Cambodia--
among others.
So, finally, I would echo the statement of the Senator from North
Carolina. There really should not be a lot that is overly contentious
here. We hope we will be able to move this bill, and I look forward to
cooperating with colleagues in an effort to try to bring those
amendments to the floor as rapidly as possible, and do so.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting Senator
Kerry, the floor manager of the authorization bill, along with the
ranking member of the full committee, as well as the subject
jurisdiction subcommittee. It is not always the most fun to handle this
bill. But it is very, very important. And I want to compliment Senator
Kerry on the skill with which he has dealt with the issues contained in
this legislation, particularly with regard to a couple of the more
contentious aspects of it.
I am pleased today to join my colleagues, the chairman of the full
committee, Senator Pell, and the distinguished--and a Senator who is
not only bright but extremely tenacious--the Senator from Wisconsin,
[Mr. Feingold], in presenting a substitute amendment for title III of
the bill.
Amendment No. 1246
(Purpose: To provide for the consolidation of international
broadcasting activities)
Mr. BIDEN. On behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Pell, and
Senator Wofford, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Pell, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Helms,
proposes an amendment numbered 1246.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the amendment I sent to the desk is a
product of a compromise, a genuine hard-fought compromise, after months
of deliberation and debate, not only in the Foreign Relations Committee
but also within the executive branch and between the two branches. The
debate has been arduous. It has not always been harmonious. But we have
found a way forward that I believe all interested parties can agree on.
This proposal literally reinvents an important instrumentality of
U.S. foreign policy: International broadcasting. When I say
``reinvent,'' I mean that literally. We are fundamentally changing the
way in which we organize our international broadcasting.
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, and soon-to-
be-established Radio Free Asia are not merely the names of radio
services for millions of listeners around the globe. For those people,
they represent a lifeline of news and information about their own
countries and about the United States. I will not take the time of the
Presiding Officer or my colleagues on the floor today to recite
numerous examples where Central and Eastern European leaders who were
behind the Iron Curtain as the curtain fell and the Berlin Wall came
down credited--literally credited--Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and
other broadcasting services with playing a major role in bringing an
end to the Soviet domination of Eastern and Central Europe. They have a
very, very proud past.
Last summer, President Clinton--coming to office committed to the
notion of reinventing Government and saving taxpayers' money and
consolidating where that can be done--proposed an ambitious plan to
consolidate these services; that is, all the radios under one roof,
merging the administrative and technical staffs of the radios under an
umbrella of the U.S. Information Agency. And I might say that a new and
young Senator from Wisconsin, who campaigned on the same principles of
cutting costs and waste in Government, came to this Senate and to the
Foreign Relations Committee and was truly the engine behind which this
entire process was pulled through the Senate. I must say very bluntly
that I have never stated as strongly my firmly held conviction about
how something should turn out as it relates to legislation.
But I cannot, nor do I, claim credit for the savings that appear in
this bill. The savings are a consequence of the initiative of the
President of the United States and the Senator from Wisconsin, with the
able leadership of the Senator from Massachusetts. I support the
savings, but it was the Senator from Wisconsin who drove us toward
these savings. So I want to be clear about that. I want to give credit
where it belongs. It belongs with the chairman of the subcommittee,
Senator Kerry, and the Senator from Wisconsin, who has been absolutely,
as I said, relentless on this issue, to the credit of the people of his
State and the country. Finally, credit belongs to the President of the
United States.
The President's plan is a farsighted proposal that preserves the best
elements of the various radio services, and achieves important savings
by consolidating the administrative and technical staffs where
appropriate. This transformation will provide a firm foundation for the
long-term post-cold-war effort to promote democracy and U.S. interests
around the world.
I might add, by the way, I, and I suspect my friend from Wisconsin
and others, and my friend from North Carolina--whom I might also thank
for weighing in on the same side of this issue as the Senator from
Delaware when we had to work out a compromise here--would all state
that there is as much need for the radios today as there was before the
Berlin Wall came down. It is not the case that all of a sudden, as the
Berlin Wall came down and the cold war has dissolved, that peace and
tranquility reign and democracy is the watchword around the world. This
is a case, for the next decade at least, where the Central and Eastern
European countries will struggle, along with the former Soviet Union
and the only gigantic totalitarian regime left in the world--that is,
China--until their people enjoy access to information and a free and
independent media. It is as important today as it was in 1948 or 1955
or 1967.
Equally important, the plan will achieve cost savings of over $250
million over the next 4 years, and more, depending how you calculate
this, over the next 10-year period.
For all these months, the participants in this debate have been
divided only about the details of the proposal. Never once did we
disagree about the basic framework of the consolidation or the cost
savings that had to be met.
What divided us was the organizational question, one that I believe
is critical to the independence of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty,
and the newly established Radio Free Asia, which is established by this
legislation.
We have now resolved this issue to the satisfaction of all the
interested parties, and I want to take a moment now to summarize the
agreement as I see it.
The overall purpose of the provision is the same as the original
committee bill: To consolidate the international broadcasting services
of the U.S. Government for the purpose of saving money and eliminating
duplication. This amendment differs from the committee bill only
insofar as it permits the so-called surrogate radios, meaning Radio
Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia, to be established as
``grantees''--a term of art--of the U.S. Government, supported by
Federal dollars but operationally independent of the Government.
I believe, as my colleagues have come to learn, I think to their
surprise, how strongly I believe in the notion of what I believe to be
the credibility and independence of these radios, for that has been the
reason for their effectiveness for over four decades.
Under the committee bill, the broadcasters of RFE/RL and the new
Radio Free Asia would have become direct employees of the United States
Government, leading to the creation of a heretofore unknown breed, a
``U.S. Government journalist.'' I ``ain't'' never heard of such a thing
as a ``U.S. Government journalist.'' I think if one were teaching a
high school course and you wanted a definition of an oxymoron, you
would say ``U.S. Government journalist.''
It was a staple of the cold war that Americans mocked countries that
deployed journalists in the employ of the governments. It would have
been nice but an unpleasant irony were we to mark the end of the cold
war by adopting this practice ourselves. Had we done so, the radios
would have had neither the appearance nor the reality of journalistic
independence.
I might add, I do not think many of my colleagues felt as strongly as
I did that, in fact, the provision under the original legislation would
have done that, but that was my view.
This amendment contains another important provision: The budget
ceilings on the amount to be expended by RFE and RL and Radio Free
Asia; a study of the effectiveness of Radio Free Asia after 3 years;
and a sunset provision requiring a reauthorization of Radio Free Asia
by the end of the decade. I would note parenthetically that I have long
supported the concept of sunsetting--I introduced legislation in 1974
when I was a young Senator on this subject and I still think the
principle holds true, as strongly as I feel the need for Radio Free
Asia. I think we should look at it at the end of the decade and see
whether or not it is still needed.
Third, numerous provisions to strengthen the oversight by Congress
and the executive branch to ensure that the radios are operating
consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives and within budgetary
constraints. My distinguished friend from Wisconsin, I am sure, will
point out to us, as he should, some of the outrageous spending
practices that did take place over the past several decades, and this
will bring this to an end.
At this point, I would like to express my appreciation to the
administration, particularly to Joseph Duffey, Director of the USIA and
an old friend for 20 years now, and our former colleague, Congressman
Dan Mica, now chairman of the Board for International Broadcasting,
with whom we have worked closely. Both men came to see me more times
than they probably care to remember.
I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the
committee, Senator Pell and Senator Helms, as well as the chairman and
ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Kerry and Senator Pressler.
Finally, Senator Feingold, who joined our committee last year and
jumped in with both feet on this broadcasting issue, to his great
credit. We started out on opposite sides of the fence, but we now have
a meeting of the minds. My hat is off to him for his persistence, his
insight, and for his insistence on the amount of money being saved the
American taxpayer.
Mr. President, the proposal before the Senate represents what I
believe to be--and I think few would argue with it--a carefully crafted
compromise that balances two important interests: Maintaining effective
international broadcasting, as well as independence, and ensuring
fiscal responsibility. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Gerber,
a congressional fellow in my office, be granted privilege of the floor
during consideration of S. 1281 and all rollcall votes thereto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak as one of the principal
cosponsors of the amendment being offered to consolidate and update
U.S. overseas broadcasting operations.
Let me begin by offering my thanks and gratitude to the chairman of
the subcommittee, Senator John Kerry, who was enormously helpful to me
in understanding all the intricacies of the overseas broadcasting
system and to get this matter through committee. Of course, also to the
Senator from Delaware. I appreciate his kind words. It was my first
good, tough year-long battle as a Senator. I enjoyed it, and I think we
have come up with something that does actually meet the deficit
reduction goals and also, at the same time, shows some consideration
for the journalistic independence issue that he obviously identified
many years ago as something that was very important for the people of
Eastern Europe to achieve freedom.
This consolidation has been a long time in the making and is the
culmination of many discussions. I have been an active player in the
debates since a year ago January when I introduced my first bill in the
U.S. Senate, Senate bill 51. The Overseas Consolidation and Deficit
Reduction Act was intended to reduce Federal expenditures for overseas
broadcasting. The whole purpose in introducing it was to reduce the
Federal deficit. I had no particular animus or concern about Radio Free
Europe or Radio Liberty or anything that had been done with those
organizations. It just appeared that it was time, given our deficit, to
cut back. That remains the primary reason why I think we ought to do
this amendment today.
But I must say, Mr. President, that as I investigated the issue
further and after I had introduced the bill, I found something that
troubled me a little bit more. I found extensive fiscal abuses in the
current system which also demanded reform. The legislation that we
hopefully will adopt today or sometime this week will not only achieve
deficit reduction but will also address some of these concerns about
abuses that have occurred with regard to the Radio Free Europe and
Radio Liberty operation in Munich.
Mr. President, Senate bill 51 was based upon proposals made by the
Congressional Budget Office which estimated that the changes that we
were going to make would save roughly $1 billion over 5 years, a solid
step toward reducing the Federal deficit and toward restructuring our
foreign policy tools in the post-cold war era.
It was very helpful when the President gave his State of the Union
Address last year and focused on the economy and focused on the budget
and the deficit. In his 150 proposed cuts, he included the issue of
combining, consolidating overseas broadcasting and, in particular, the
two surrogate radio services, RFE and RL.
Mr. President, RFE and RL were established more than 40 years ago as
a covert operation by the CIA that, in addition to the VOA, was to
broadcast behind the Iron Curtain. All three of these entities--RFE,
RL, and VOA--played a tremendous role in bringing news and information
to people in Communist countries. I certainly would be one of the first
ones to say they did help set in motion the forces that brought an end
to the cold war. But it is very difficult today in 1994 to justify the
American taxpayers continuing to spend literally over $200 million a
year to operate these radio services in Europe in addition to the VOA,
and then to throw on top of that another $2 million for the
administrative costs of maintaining the Board for International
Broadasting, an agency whose sole function has been to administer
funding for these radio services. It is a task they have not done in a
very effective manner.
The administration's original budget proposal assumed deficit savings
of $263 million over the next 4 years. The President's February
proposal, however, created a deep controversy in foreign policy
circles. By June, the administration had restructured its proposal for
the consolidation of overseas broadcasting. To oversee all the
broadcasting functions, USIA was to create a Broadcasting Board of
Governors which would allocate resources to four broadcasting bureaus.
RFE and RL and Radio Free Asia were to be included as programs within
this new office of surrogate broadcasting. This would have meant
private grantee status would have been abolished. The administration
contended the same savings in January would have been achieved; that
is, the $263 million.
Recognizing even though this was not exactly the bill I had
introduced, that these were real savings, I became one of the leading
proponents of the new plan, although my insistence has been, and the
insistence of the Senator from Massachusetts has been that the savings
be locked into law by placing a 4-year ceiling on spending for
international broadcasting.
When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked up the bill in
July, we did adopt the administration's position by a strong 15-to-4
vote. However, as the Senator from Delaware has indicated, he had grave
reservations about the so-called federalization of RFE, RL, and Radio
Free Asia. While I believe that continuing private status for RFE/RL
and creation of a private RFA would cut into political savings, Senator
Biden was most concerned about the issue of journalistic independence
which he talked about.
After months of discussion, the administration again changed its
position and recently announced that it now supports continuing grantee
status for these radio services and the creation of a private grantee
status for Radio Free Asia. The grants would still be made by the so-
called BBG which would also serve as the board for the private
entities. The administration however--and this is the important item
for me--indicated it would support several very important conditions
relating to fiscal constraints. In the past month Senator Biden and I
have been working together to develop an amendment which addresses each
of our concerns.
Mr. President, one of the reasons I believe the Senator from Delaware
and I were able to reach an agreement regarding this amendment is that
we have had different priorities. As he said, the Senator from Delaware
has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to the concept of
journalistic independence as being critical to the functioning of the
radios and stated that very forcefully. I want to say here because this
issue can obviously come back over the over the years, I have some
difficulty appreciating that argument about the independence.
First, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were established by the
CIA, a fact that is widely known.
Second, they have been funded by U.S. taxpayers since their
inception, a fact that is also widely known.
Third, the Board of Directors of the RFE/RL, Inc., is required, by
law, to consist solely of individuals appointed by the President of the
United States. These individuals also serve as members of the Board for
International Broadcasting. Under the new legislation, this
interlocking Board of Directors will continue, with the Broadcasting
Board of Governors appointed by the President of the United States
serving as the Board of Directors of RFE/RL, Incorporated.
Fourth, each year, Congress debates and appropriates funds for the
operation of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and a number of
congressional committees as well as the General Accounting Office
conduct oversight of their activities on a regular basis.
Fifth, the rest of the world views these Radios as belonging to the
United States.
Earlier this month, when the President of the United States was in
Prague, the Government of the Czech Republic offered to President
Clinton, not to some private organization, facilities within Prague to
house the headquarters of RFE/RL, underscoring the fact that the entire
world recognizing that these Radios are funded by the United States and
operate under the policy directives of the Government of the United
States.
That will be true with respect to the new Radio Free Asia which
President Clinton has asked be established under the same grantee
status.
The Governments of Asia, including China, view this new entity as an
instrument of United States foreign policy.
It is being established by the Government of the United States, it
will be funded by the United States, and it is being, and will be used,
by the United States to achieve certain foreign policy goals.
The fact that we are debating its creation on the floor of the United
States Senate before the entire world makes that inevitable.
Nevertheless, I recognize that the Senator from Delaware believes
that the current structure provides for at least the fiction of
independence and that is important to supporters of the surrogate
broadcasting.
My concern in this area from the beginning has been quite different
and unrelated to the issue of journalistic independence.
My interest is in deficit reduction, eliminating duplication and
waste and curbing the kinds of fiscal abuses that have plagued this
program, not just in the past few years, but apparently from the
inception of this program under the auspices of the CIA.
As I will describe in a little bit of detail in a few moments, the
fiscal abuses by the management of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty
are not new. The record stretches back over 20 years.
During my research into these issues, I found headlines in the New
York Times, and statements in the Senate, dating back to 1976 decrying
the lavish spending and salaries provided to RFE/RL employees. The
reports by the General Accounting Office over the past two decades have
documented over and over problems with the management and fiscal
controls over Federal funds by RFE/RL.
The amendment that we are offering today contains approximately 20
different fiscal restrictions that we have proposed, aimed at finally
bringing this program under control.
I intend to describe briefly some of these restrictions and the
abuses which generated my concern because it is important that the
Members of the Senate and the public have a clear picture regarding the
fiscal problems in this program.
Now, I know the time of the Senate is precious, and I know that the
supporters of the Radios hope that because an agreement had been
reached, I would not make a lengthy statement which might tarnish the
reputations of the Radios. I believe, however, that this is an issue
that has to be publicly discussed.
As I have indicated before, many of these problems are not new.
Excessive salaries and compensation for the higher level executives
have been challenged in the past. Earlier this year, when I released a
chart showing really the outrageous compensation and benefit packages
provided to the top 15 executives, the biggest uproar apparently came
from the RFE/RL headquarters in Munich where the employees for the
first time learned what kind of benefits their top executives had been
providing for themselves. Suppressing this kind of information does not
serve the interests of the Radios, or the interests of open Government,
or the interests of the Federal taxpayers who are paying the bills for
this program.
The information I have gathered during the past year about the fiscal
abuses represents apparently only the tip of the iceberg.
I have been informed that the compensation and benefit data I
released last June did not include the special benefits provided to the
top executives since that time, and I have learned a great deal more
about these special benefits, particularly the benefits provided to Mr.
Eugene Pell, who served as the president to RFE/RL, Inc. for a decade.
Mr. President, I will begin addressing fiscal constraints contained
in the amendment by talking about the one that is probably the most
egregious, and that is the excessive compensation and benefits provided
to RFE/RL employees.
Mr. President, the amendment contains three provisions relating to
salaries and compensation payable to employees of the grantees.
First, it places a limit on salary and other compensation which can
be paid to employees funded by these grants.
These employees cannot be provided salary or other compensation which
exceeds that payable to Federal employees under title V and title XXII
of the United States Code.
Second, it contains a definition of salary and compensation which
makes it clear that we intend to cover a range of fringe benefits and
special benefits provided to RFE/RL employees.
In the past, it appears that the management of the Radios have used a
variety of techniques to provide additional compensation beyond basic
salaries.
The amendment makes it clear that this practice cannot continue and
that employees of these grantees cannot receive benefits in excess of
those available to regular Federal employees.
Third, it requires a review of the system of job classification by
the Office of Personnel Management to determine if there are
disparities in terms of classifications used by RFE/RL compared to
those employed by the Voice of America.
Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget prepared an
analysis of the salary costs of VOA employees and RFE/RL employees
which found that RFE/RL employees are paid significantly higher than
VOA employees performing comparable functions.
For example, OMB found that the average annual salary and benefits
for VOA employees in one representative Eastern European language
service was approximately $54,000 compared to $89,000 for the same RFE
language service.
I also asked GAO to provide me with an analysis of the disparities in
compensation provided to RFE/RL employees in contrast to VOA employees.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart containing this information be
printed in the Record.
As this chart demonstrates, in virtually every category and level,
RFE/RL provides benefits and compensation for its employees at levels
that significantly exceed the benefits and compensation provided to VOA
employees at comparable levels.
For example, at the GS-9 level, GAO found that RFE/RL employees were
receiving an average of $13,000 more than VOA employees.
At the GS-12 level, the difference was close to $15,000;
At the GM-15 level, the difference grows to $31,000;
At the SES-4 level, the difference is $44,000.
So, Mr. President, I ask now unanimous consent that a chart
containing this information be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
COMPARISON OF SELECTED RFE/RL AND VOA SALARIES AND BENEFITS
[Based on single employee with no dependents]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity RFE/RL VOA RFE/RL VOA RFE/RL VOA RFE/RL VOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade................................... GS 9 GS 9 GS 12 GS 12 GM 15 GM 15 SES 4 SES 4.
Hours worked............................ 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40.
Salary\1\............................... $45,759 $30,567 $63,159 $44,327 $77,559 $73,269 $107,300 $107,300.
Annual leave............................ 26-30 days 12-26 days 26-30 days 12-26 days 26-30 days 12-26 days 26-30 days 12-26 days.
Post allowance.......................... None $1,560 None $1,820 $27,146 $2,500 $37,500 $3,000.
Housing allowance....................... $7,920 $15,400 $9,324 $17,900 $16,776 $17,800 $24,216 $17,800.
Benefits\2\............................. $8,861 $3,499 $9,627 $5,073 $11,663 $7,416 $12,708 $9,205.
Pension................................. $6,406 $4,860 $8,842 $7,048 $10,858 $11,649 $15,022 $17,061.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. $68,946 $55,886 $90,952 $76,068 $144,002 $112,634 $198,801 $154,366.
Difference.............................. $13,060 $14,884 $31,368 $44,435.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\RFE/RL has a tax protection plan for Executive employees at the SES 1-6 levels, located outside the United States. This plan compensates employees for the higher German taxes they incur as
a result of living overseas. SES 5-6 level employees receive 100 percent compensation for the difference between their hypothetical German and United States income tax obligation. SES 1-4
level employees are compensated at 50 percent of the difference between their hypothetical German and United States tax obligation. The hypothetical taxes are then reconciled against actual
taxes at the year's end. The dollar value of tax protection for the SES 4 position is not included in this table.
\2\Benefits for both RFE/RL and VOA employees consist of health and life insurance. Social security costs are also included in this category.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the BAO data indicate that these
disparities exist at every pay level, but what is readily apparent is
that disparity becomes far greater at the highest levels.
It is at the executive levels, and particularly, the compensation
provided to the President, where the greatest problems arise.
When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met to consider this
legislation, I released a chart based upon information I had obtained
the night before the committee meeting which indicate that the top 15
executives at RFE/RL were receiving compensation and benefit packages
that totaled $3.6 million, with an average salary and benefit package
of over $240,000 per executive. I ask unanimous consent that a chart
containing this information be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
COMPENSATION--RFE/RL EXECUTIVE SERVICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly tax
Monthly Monthly protection Monthly
Position and SES level base post payments--we housing Other Annual total--
salary allowance pay taxes allowance benefits rounded
for them
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President--6.......................... $9,641.67 $4,338.75 $6,651 $3,169 $31,236 $317,000
Exec. VP--6........................... 9,641.67 4,338.75 5,587 3,115 31,236 303,000
VP, finance, in D.C--5................ 9,316.67 N/A N/A N/A 30,180 142,000
VP, engineering--5.................... 9,316.67 4,192.50 5,421 3,163 30,180 195,000
RFE director--5....................... 9,316.67 4,192.50 7,313 3,167 30,180 318,000
RL director--5........................ 9,316.67 4,192.50 4,345 1,479 30,180 262,000
Res, inst. director--5................ 9,316.67 4,192.50 5,415 2,609 30,180 289,000
ISD director--3....................... 8,483.33 3,817.50 1,996 1,595 27,480 218,000
NCA director--3....................... 8,483.33 3,817.50 3,047 1,627 27,480 231,000
Personnel director--3................. 8,483.33 3,817.50 2,360 2,442 27,480 233,000
Corp. affairs in D.C--2............... 8,116.67 NA NA NA 26,292 124,000
RFE dep. director--2.................. 8,116.67 3,652.50 2,694 2,652 26,292 232,000
RI dep. director--2................... 8,116.67 3,652.50 2,307 2,532 26,292 225,000
Admin. director--2.................... 8,116.67 3,652.50 2,334 2,754 26,292 229,000
Int. auditor--1....................... 7,741.67 3,483.75 2,143 2,286 25,080 213,000
---------------
Annual Total for 15 people........ ......... 3,630,588
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FEINGOLD. What I then learned subsequently, after already having
the opportunity to reveal this information about the salaries, was that
I really did not have all the information. In fact, the benefit
packages may even be higher. That is certainly true with regard to the
president of RFE/RL.
GAO issued an opinion on September 9, 1993--and this is after our
committee work--regarding the illegality of an additional benefit
provided the president of the RFE/RL, and this benefit has been
provided to him since 1985.
In addition to the salary he received listed on this chart, Mr. Pell
also received a yearly allowance of $15,000 which he was not required
to account for and payments to a special supplemental retirement plan.
GAO determined that the Federal Government has paid $126,000 into this
special fund in Mr. Pell's behalf and that the total value of this
supplemental retirement plan has risen to over $200,000 today. Again,
the American taxpayers are paying for this outrageous compensation
package.
When Mr. Pell voluntarily resigned last fall, he was also paid
$137,000 in severance benefits for what was a voluntary resignation. It
was not even a termination.
Both the BIB inspector general and GAO have determined that the
payments to the special retirement plan were deferred compensation and
actually violated the explicit provisions of the authorizing statute.
Indeed, when the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1983 placed a
ceiling on the president's salary, in this case the RFE/RL president,
they specifically pointed to an annuity plan established for Mr. Pell's
predecessor as being a concern to the committee in terms of excessive
compensation provided to the president of this organization. This is
over 11 years ago.
Nevertheless, Mr. President, the RFE/RL management used these 10
years to establish an even more generous plan for the president of RFE/
RL. Perhaps even more disturbing than the revelation of the additional
$200,000 in special pension and the $137,000 in severance pay is the
latest information, the latest wave of concern about this operation,
and that information is contained in the most recent report of the
inspector general. The report was dated October 21, 1993 regarding the
other perks that the taxpayers have been providing the president of the
RFE/RL.
Regarding other personal perks that the taxpayers have been providing
the president of the RFE/RL, we as Members of Congress know how
concerned, upset or even violently angry constituents can become about
perks that Congress has. I suggest people listen to these that are even
more hidden than the ones that Congress has benefited from in the past.
This report indicates that in addition to the salary and the benefits
which I have already described, grant funds have been used to pay for a
twice weekly maid service in Mr. Pell's personal residence amounting to
$750 per month, and not only that, weekly gardening services amounting
to $1,000 per month. That is on top of the lavish salary and the other
benefits that the Federal taxpayers have been paying, $1,750 a month
for maid and gardening services for Mr. Pell.
Mr. President, I see no justification for these kinds of benefits
being provided to any employee on top of a very generous salary. The
amendment makes it clear that this type of payment is considered an
additional compensation and must be included in the descriptions on
salary and other benefits.
I am sorry to say the report goes on and it identifies a number of
other abuses. The report indicates that $237,000 in Federal dollars was
spent over a 2-year period on fixing up and decorating two apartments
for Mr. Pell. The inspector general's report provides details on this
spending, including decorating costs that exceeded even RFE/RL policy
for imported wallpaper, and a new kitchen with a solid oak floor that
costs three times the allowable allowance for other RFE/RL executives.
Mr. President, also purchased with Federal funds, four hand-woven
Afghan rugs costing $6,230, and three brass lanterns imported from
London, totaling $2,100, which he subsequently took with him when he
resigned last fall and reimbursed the corporation only at 50 percent
value.
In addition, the report reveals that $25,000 of grant funds were used
to rent a guest apartment for 14 months for the personal use of the
RFE/RL president because his own apartment, which contained a piano
room, a library, and a changing room, was allegedly too small to
accommodate his personal guests.
The inspector general, Mr. President, noted that the previous tenants
of that apartment had included a larger family with two children. I
assume that means more people rather than larger individuals. But it is
clear that RFE/RL knew that this apartment was additional compensation
being provided to their president because the inspector general report
notes they reported the cost for the guest apartment to the German
Government as taxable income of Mr. Pell, not an official expense of
the corporation.
Finally, and perhaps this is the smallest amount that will stick out
in our minds, the inspector general's report notes that Mr. Pell also
charged the United States taxpayers $100 to tune his piano after his
move.
Mr. President, I could continue reading into the Record quotes of the
reports of the inspector general regarding the various abuses. It
includes such things as unauthorized first-class travel for Mr. Pell
and his spouse, but I believe it is unnecessary to continue with this
already lengthy list of abuses. But I hope, Mr. President, that the
picture now is very, very clear. This is an agency which has been
milking the Federal taxpayers for decades for lavish salaries and
benefits for top executives. It is very important to understand that
this is not some new problem of RFE/RL that we assume they will fix up
because we have had a chance to expose some of it. The lavish salaries
and benefits did not begin with Mr. Pell's appointment in 1985.
In 1976, GAO released a report noting that RFE/RL employees, which
were funded almost 100 percent by U.S. taxpayers, were provided
compensation and benefits in excess of that provided to other U.S.
Government employees, including the Voice of America employees.
When the details of the salaries provided to RFE/RL employees leaked
to the news media, the New York Times ran a story headlined, ``2 U.S.
Run Radios Chided on Salary: Report Finds Excessively High Pay Scale in
Stations Beamed to Soviet Bloc.''
The article describes a letter written by former Senator John Pastore
to the head of the Board for International Broadcasting, citing the GAO
report, which described the RFE/RL salaries as shocking.
At that time, RFE/RL employees in Munich were receiving an average
salary and extra allowances which were approximately $15,000 above a
comparable VOA employee in Munich. I ask unanimous consent that a copy
of this article, dated July 2, 1976 be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate majority leader at that time,
Mike Mansfield, discussed this problem on the Senate floor on July 2,
1976, with Senator Pastore and they both agreed that RFE/RL needed to
be brought under control.
Senator Pastore stated:
The abuse has reached the point of becoming almost
scandalous: The salaries that are being paid; the fact that
most of the employees are not Americans; that every time we
say that we would like to either limit it, cut it down or
move it we have almost an international diplomatic situation.
It reminds me very much of what happened when we proposed some of
these cuts earlier this year.
In 1983, there was another attempt by Members of Congress to exert
some control over the lavish salaries paid to RFE/RL employees.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee in the 1983 reauthorization
placed a ceiling on the salary that could be paid to the president of
RFE/RL.
The committee report described that provision as being necessary
because of ``The substantial increase in salary and benefits granted to
the President of the radios''.
The report stated, ``At a time of severe budgetary constraints and
personnel cutbacks the committee believes that RFE/RL, Inc., should
also exercise restraint.''
Mr. President, what Senator Pastore said almost two decades ago on
the Senate floor could be said in exactly the same terms today.
It continues to be true that any attempt to rein in RFE/RL creates a
virtual international diplomatic crisis.
The slightest suggestion that funds could be reduced or that closer
oversight should be imposed produces a chorus of outrage from the
defenders of the radios.
I frankly do not believe it is necessary for the U.S. taxpayers to
pay these lavish salaries and benefits to the executives and employees
of RFE/RL in order to accomplish the goals of these grants.
Mr. President, this amendment makes it very clear that this misuse of
Federal funds has to end now. I hope that the management and supporters
of RFE/RL and the administration get the message we are trying to send:
It is real simple. This is Federal money, taken from taxpayers who live
in Wisconsin, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and across this
Nation--taxpayers who work hard every day and don't want to see their
money going into lavish salaries, handwoven afghan rugs, or maid
service for the executives who are running RFE/RL.
If this raiding of the Federal Treasury for personal benefits does
not end, this program will not survive. I hope that those who believe
that RFE/RL continues to be essential--I think that is open to
question--will work as hard as I will to clean up this mess and put an
end to these abuses.
Mr. President, I have discussed the $137,000 severance payment that
was provided to the president of RFE/RL when he voluntarily resigned
last fall.
GAO has not ruled on the legality of that payment although the
inspector general has raised questions about the severance payment as
well as the pension program and $15,000 annual allowance provided to
the president.
The inspector general also previously reported on the unauthorized
practice of RFE/RL making these payments to employees who voluntarily
resign or retire.
The March 1991 inspector general report concluded that the
corporation's practice of paying severance benefits to these employees
violated existing OMB regulations.
The corporation agreed to change its policy for all new employees not
covered by legal agreements. This language flatly prohibits them from
entering into any new contracts or obligations for any such payments
beyond the amount required by U.S. law or the law of the country where
the employee resides. According to the inspector general report, these
payments have grown in recent years and were being used by the
corporation as an incentive to hire and retain employees. This is
clearly another backdoor method of providing additional compensation
and benefits to RFE/RL executives and employees that cannot continue.
Mr. President, the amendment provides that the grantee may not enter
into freelance contracts without the specific approval of the Director
of the International Bureau for Broadcasting.
This provision is designed to address yet another abuse that has
persisted throughout RFE/RL's lifetime.
In 1985, GAO issued a report on the freelance contracting practices
at RFE/RL and found widespread abuses and lack of controls. In numerous
cases, GAO found that RFE/RL entered into freelance contracts with its
own full-time employees, in violation of general Federal agency
prohibitions against such practices.
The GAO audit found that RFE/RL managers were not required to
demonstrate that their needs could not be otherwise met.
In certain cases, RFE/RL employees were given contracts to perform
work that was within the scope of their regular duties.
There was little verification that the contract work was not being
performed during the regular work day. The GAO report also noted that
the radios had concealed their extensive use of freelance contractors
in their budget justifications to OMB and Congress.
Last July, the inspector general of BIB issued a report criticizing
the freelance contracting practices of RFE/RL, and raised numerous
questions about the inadequacy of the agency's control over the
selection, use, and payment of freelancers.
Repeatedly, in his semi-annual audit reports, the inspector general
has cited specific cases of abuse, including hiring back retirees on a
full-time basis through contracts, the size of payments made, and the
lack of documentation of work performed.
Nine years after the first GAO report focusing on this issue and
after repeated reports from the inspector general, the abuse of
freelance contracts has continued.
Our amendment would attempt to put some restraints upon this practice
by requiring specific approval by the Director of the Bureau for
Broadcasting.
Having these contracts approved by an outside individual will
hopefully provide some restraint upon their misuse.
Clearly, there are instances where it is necessary to have a
freelance contractor perform work. But in the past, these contracts
have been used for things like providing secretarial support and
performing work within the scope of the employees own duties.
The amendment also prohibits the use of grant funds for lobbying
activities. In the past year, it is clear that a number of RFE/RL
employees and executives have engaged in efforts to dissuade Congress
from instituting any changes in the operations of RFE/RL.
Obviously, they are free to lobby on their own time and at their own
expense. The Federal taxpayers, however, should not have to foot the
bill for this type of activity.
One of the top executives whose lobbying efforts in Washington, DC
have been fairly visible made five trips to Washington in a 6-month
period during the last year, billing the taxpayers almost $10,000 for
these trips.
We do not allow other Federal grantees to use grant funds to pay for
trips to Washington, DC to lobby Congress and this grantee should be
subject to similar prohibitions.
The rules for other programs are quite clear--grant funds cannot be
used to support lobbying activities in any way or for developing grass
roots campaigns to attempt to influence Congress.
Mr. President, there are several conditions which are being placed
upon the grant itself that I will describe together.
First, the grant to RFE/RL is limited to $75 million beginning in
fiscal year 1996.
The current funding level is approximately $210 million.
The corporation has already begun the necessary steps to bring its
operations down to the level required to operate on an annual bases
below $75 million and I congratulate them for taking these painful, but
necessary steps.
Under the plan, the number of RFE/RL employees will be reduced from
the fiscal year 1993 level of approximately 1,600 to 900.
In the past several months, termination notices have gone to several
hundred employees in Munich and there appears to be a clear
understanding that the size of this grant is being significantly
reduced.
These changes will require termination of certain language services
and elimination of overlap and duplication with the Voice of America in
certain areas.
The legislation requires that the grant agreement contain the
conditions which the Board determines are necessary to reduce overlap
and duplication.
It also requires that the grant agreement contain specific and
detailed provisions relating to the purposes for which the grant funds
will be expended and prohibitions against using the grant funds for
other purposes without prior approval.
Additionally, the legislation provides that the Board may terminate
RFE/RL, Inc. as the grantee and award the grant to another entity if it
determines that RFE/RL, Inc. is not carrying out the terms of the grant
in a cost effective manner.
This provision is intended to send a very strong signal that this is
not an entitlement program; RFE/RL, Inc. can lose this grant if they
continue to operate in the fiscal manner which I have outlined.
In the past year, other proposals have been advanced to have the
surrogate broadcasting provided through entities such as the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the Voice of America.
If RFE/RL, Inc. fails to meet the challenge to clean up its fiscal
operations, another entity can be selected to carry out the grant
activities.
Mr. President, two issues are addressed in this legislation relating
to the location of the activities of RFE/RL.
First, the legislation requires that the senior administrative and
managerial personnel be relocated within the geographic area of
Washington, DC.
For years, the General Accounting Office has been recommending that
the headquarters of RFE/RL be moved to Washington, DC, a move which is
feasible both from a technical and cost-effective perspective. Several
years ago, the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], authored an
amendment requiring RFE/RL to develop a plan for movement of portions
of their activities to the United States in order to reduce the
incredible high cost of operations in Munich.
The RFE/RL management has strenuously resisted any such move.
This legislation would mandate that a portion of the senior
management do so immediately.
Obviously, if this corporation is to assume responsibility for both
the broadcasting activities in Europe and the former Soviet Union and
Asia, it should be located in the United States.
This provision does not require movement of the operational
components of the radios, simply the top management.
It requires a report to Congress within 90 days on the number of
administrative, managerial, and technical personnel who will be
relocated to the United States.
My staff has already had informal discussions with GAO on the number
of administrative and managerial personnel who could be relocated
back to the United States and we will be working closely to monitor
implementation of this provision.
Second, the legislation requires a detailed plan be submitted to
Congress and GAO regarding the proposed move from Munich to Prague.
We need to know precisely the cost implications of this move.
The legislation requires specific congressional approval before funds
can be utilized to facilitate such a move.
The amendment also requires certain management audits and reviews of
the grantees activities.
It requires that the inspector general's office in the U.S.
Information Agency maintain a special unit to audit and monitor the
activities of the grantee.
The inspector general for the Board for International Broadcasting
was established under the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General Act
that created inspectors general at a number of small Federal agencies.
Since the Inspector General at BIB began his reports on RFE/RL in 1989,
he was provided invaluable oversight and information about the fiscal
and management problems within the grantee. Under the proposed
legislation, these functions would be assumed by the inspector general
at USIA, who already has a broad area of responsibility for USIA
activities. In order to assure that RFE/RL continues to be subjected to
the same level of inspector general scrutiny that has taken place over
the past 4 years, the legislation mandates the creation of a special
unit to continue these activities after the consolidation.
Mr. President, it is clear that BIB has provided little, if any,
effective managerial oversight of the activities of RFE/RL in the past.
hopefully, under the new structure, greater efforts will be made by
the Bureau of Broadcasting to do some effective oversight and
corrections of the management weaknesses in RFE/RL.
It is unfortunate that we have been forced to rely solely upon the
inspector general's office to bring to light the fiscal abuse that
BIB's staff should have been monitoring and correcting.
(Mr. MATHEWS assumed the Chair.)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I think it is also important to spend a
moment or two on the issue of privatization. What happens at the end of
this process? The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from
Delaware have already talked about the significant dollar savings
involved. If we get this done today, get it to the House and through
conference, this could be a $1 billion savings item. My goal at end of
this process, by 1999 is that we no longer have American taxpayers
paying for any of this operation. We can achieve that.
This legislation includes a declaration by Congress that Radio Free
Europe and Radio Liberty's activities should be transferred to the
private sector no later than 1999 and that the Research Institute
should be transferred at the earliest possible time. In other words,
when we say privatization, we do not mean privatization using Federal
taxpayer dollars; we mean privatization. If somebody wants to continue
it, go ahead and raise the money, but do not take it from American
taxpayers.
This provision recognizes that it is neither feasible nor appropriate
for the U.S. Government to continue to maintain these radios in
perpetuity. These were established for the purpose of undermining
Communist governments.
As the media develops in Eastern Europe, there is less and less
reason to have a U.S. Government-funded surrogate radio service. I,
frankly, think that we can cut back a lot farther, a lot sooner in
Eastern Europe than the agreement contemplates.
The justification for Radio Liberty on the other hand, is a little
stronger than the other justification, given the situation we are all
aware of in the former Soviet Republics. There is agreement
nevertheless that the end goal here should be to transfer these radios
to the private sector no later than 1999, no more taxpayer dollars
after that point.
The administration, in this amendment, is directed not just to look
at this, but to provide annual reports on the steps that it is taking
to facilitate the complete transfer of this cold war relic from
taxpayer-funded entities to entities provided for by any private
organization that may want to do it.
I have almost reached the conclusion of these rather lengthy remarks,
but I feel the need to spend a minute or two on something else that is
being accomplished through this legislation, something that I am not
sure about, something that I am not enthusiastic about at this point,
but something that I think we can also limit and make sure that it does
not get into the kind of situation that RFE/RL has gotten into. The
amendment also provides for a new surrogate broadcasting service, Radio
Free Asia, to be established as a private grantee.
The legislation provides for the grant to be administered by RFE/RL,
incorporated, under the terms and conditions applicable to the grants
for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, as well as a number of other
conditions which I have proposed.
I am concerned, given the history we have just outlined of the
private grantee arrangement, that unless there are very stringent
fiscal controls applied to Radio Free Asia, we may well see the
development of the same types of problems that have plagued the
management of RFE/RL for decades.
The amendments I have provided for RFA seek to prevent these problems
in the future.
First, the amendment provides that the administration must provide a
detailed plan before it can commit funds for the establishment of this
new broadcasting service.
In authorizing Radio Free Asia, we are not giving the administration
a blank check.
OMB has provided members of the committee with a budget estimate that
assumes that the new service can be operated at an annual cost of $22
million, with one-time capital expenditures of $8 million.
This budget assumes that the new service will be able to utilize
existing transmitters, either VOA transmitters or other existing
transmitters.
The amendment requires that the administration certifies that they
have acquired access to utilize those transmitters before moving
forward with establishing the new service.
This provision is designed to prevent a situation where we are told
by OMB that this service will cost less than $22 million and once
commitments are made, Congress receives a much bigger bill because the
existing transmitters are either not accessible to Radio Free Asia or
don't meet its technical needs.
This provision is intended to prevent a situation where the
administration comes back in a year or two and says they need another
$50 or $60 million to build new transmitters.
If the administration cannot put together a detailed plan to operate
this service with the budget constraints imposed in the legislation,
they are directed to propose a different plan, which might well include
simply increasing VOA broadcasting in the region.
The legislation also requires GAO to review the administration's
budget projections and advise Congress as to whether the fiscal
assumptions are adequate and whether the plan can be implemented within
the budget limitations.
Second, the legislation requires an effectiveness study of Radio Free
Asia after 3 years to determine whether it is technically sound and
cost-effective, is received by a sufficient audience to warrant its
continuation, the extent to which the targeted audiences are receiving
similar broadcasts from other credible sources, and the extent to which
the interests of the United States are being served by continued
broadcasting.
The legislation also contains a sunset provision, terminating
authority to continue grants to operate RFA after September 30, 1998,
with a 1-year extension if the President of the United States
determines continuation is in the national interest.
The effectiveness study and sunset provision are designated to
prevent a situation developing where the United States continues to
fund RFA, regardless of whether it is still relevant. Many people
believe that shortwave radio broadcasting may soon be obsolete.
It is important that we are not locked into continuing this service
when it is no longer needed or effective.
The amendment also requires that any contracts which the grantee
enters into regarding RFA clearly specify all obligations are assumed
by the grantee, not the United States and that funding for RFA may not
be available after 1999.
In attempting to reduce RFE/RL activities, we have repeatedly been
told that the cost of terminating various contracts will be enormous
and that the U.S. Government, not the grantee, will be held liable for
RFE/RL's debts.
In the case of RFA, we are asking that they notify employees and
others in advance of the limitations, under which this program is being
established. Finally, the amendment requires that to the maximum extent
possible any lease agreements entered into should be assignable to the
United States. Again, in the case of RFE/RL, we have been told that a
full merger with VOA is not possible because some of the lease
agreements are not assignable. That situation should be avoided in the
future.
Fourth, the legislation requires that the principal place of business
of RFA shall be located within the United States, in the Washington
area, unless the board determines that another location within the
United States would be necessary to carry out the functions of RFA
effectively and in a cost effective manner.
As GAO has reported over the years, there is technically no reason
why any of the radios cannot be operated out of the United States.
If the new service is located in Washington, DC, it can pool
resources and administrative functions with existing broadcasting
services and achieve greater savings.
The lower the overhead, the more funds can go into broadcasting,
rather than administrative costs.
Fifth, the legislation requires notification and consultation
regarding displacement of Voice of America broadcasting in order to
accommodate the broadcasting activities of Radio Free Asia.
The legislation contemplates that the new service will utilize at
least a portion of the VOA transmitters, but it is not contemplated
that the very well regarded Asian broadcasting activities of VOA be
reduced in order to accommodate this new service.
Millions of people in Asia now listen to VOA and many use the
English-language transmissions to learn English.
In addition, VOA this year enhanced its operation in Hong Kong to
include a bureau broadcasting Chinese domestic news in Mandarin.
The new bureau includes four full-time journalists who travel
regularly into China to report news and feature stories. The China
Focus Program, already off to a strong start, currently broadcasts 1
hour a day, and plans are underway to expand it to 3 hours.
It is very important that we do not fail to recognize the importance
of the Voice of America in reaching out to all of the people of Asia,
not simply the Communist countries.
If the administration's plan for the new service requires a
significant reduction in broadcasting activities of VOA, Congress
should be notified and consulted before such a plan is put into
operation.
The purpose of establishing RFA is to enhance U.S. broadcasting in
Asia, not diminish the effective work in this region of VOA.
To conclude my statement, on this issue that we have been working on
pretty hard for over a year, enactment of this amendment represents a
major step forward in our efforts to reorganize and reorder our
spending priorities in light of the end of the cold war. It has not
been an easy task. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have many
supporters, and they have made important contributions to U.S. foreign
policy interests over the last four decades. It is totally
understandable that there would be strong resistance to any change in
the status quo. But this, we hope, Mr. President, is really a new era
of fiscal constraints. We have to focus upon places in the Federal
budget where savings can be achieved and the kinds of consolidations
and downsizing that this amendment achieves.
This amendment would eliminate one Federal agency, the Board For
International Broadcasting. It would achieve important administrative
savings by consolidating overseas broadcasting within USIA.
It would make substantial reductions in the funding level for RFE/RL,
cutting it by 64 percent--this is a significant number--as of 1996, and
the budget would not be $210 million a year but only $75 million a
year, with the expectation and hope that by 1999 it can be eliminated
altogether from the point of view of Federal funding.
The 4-year savings from our changes in overseas broadcasting will be
approximately $400 million. That includes $162 million for the
termination of the Israeli transmitter, which we have approved.
Each year thereafter, the savings from reduced funding for RFE/RL
will amount to $135 million per year. In other words, instead of like
everything else we do, where we spend and forget about how much it is
going to cost every year, this item will cause our Federal budget to go
down $135 million every year as time goes on.
It has been a long and challenging process to reach this agreement,
but it was well worth the effort. The task is not finished, and we
still have to complete a conference with the House of Representatives.
Moreover, implementation of this legislation after it is signed into
law will involve a lot of oversight and monitoring to help make sure
that the goals Congress intended are actually achieved. That did not
always happen in the past, as I have indicated.
Today marks a significant milestone in our efforts to achieve
spending reductions, especially in the foreign relations area, and to
reorganize Federal efforts in the area of international broadcasting to
reflect the end of the cold war.
I conclude by thanking and congratulating all of the individuals and
Members of the Senate who played important roles in achieving these
changes. Again, I thank Senator Kerry, chairman of the subcommittee,
who helped enormously; Senator Pell, the chairman of the committee and
his staff; also, of course, Senator Kerry's staff, who were incredibly
patient and supportive as we wrangled through this process; the members
of the Foreign Relations Committee on both sides of the aisle, who lent
me their strong support on this first initiative in foreign relations;
and finally, of course, Senator Biden and his staff, who, although we
approached this issue from very different perspectives, were gracious
and forthcoming with regard to our areas of disagreement, and we did
work hard to achieve an agreement.
Finally, to the members of my own staff, Susanne Martinez and Robyn
Lieberman, who I know spent almost an outrageous amount of hours to get
this thing done.
Mr. President, I apologize for the length of my remarks. I believe
this is a rare instance where we are actually cutting back on a Federal
program--not just cutting the increase, but actually bringing the
spending down--and I wanted the Senate and the people of the country to
know the details of it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times, July 2, 1976]
Two U.S.-Run Radios Chided on Salary--Report Finds Excessively High Pay
Scale in Stations Beamed to Soviet Bloc
(By David Binder)
Washington, July 1.--A General Accounting Office study of
the United States-operated Radio Free Europe and Radio
Liberty has disclosed cases of office secretaries receiving
annual salaries of over $36,000 and middle-rank executives
$67,000, amounts far in excess of regular government pay
scales.
The report made public earlier this week has drawn
criticism from Congress and a promise by the Ford
Administration to review pay scales of the two Munich-based
stations that broadcast to Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union.
In a letter to David M. Abshire, chairman of the Board for
International Broadcasting, which supervised the stations,
Senator John O. Pastore, Democratic of Rhode Island, cited
the pay scales and said: ``These are shocking figures.''
By way of comparison, the study showed that a regular
Government employee posted in Munich, with a base salary of
$23,670 received extra allowances raising income to $31,870.
A Radio Free Europe employee with the same base pay received
the equivalent of $45,603.
high conversion rate
The difference was made up almost entirely by the favorable
conversion rate from dollars to West German marks accorded
Radio Free Europe employees. The favorable rate, as in the
early days of allied occupation of West Germany, is 4 marks
to the dollar.
But following a series of revaluations since 1971, the mark
is now officially pegged at about 2.50 to the dollar.
The accounting study showed that almost 70 percent of the
total cost of the radio stations, or $39.2 million, was
attributable to personnel compensation and benefit practices,
including $3 million in housing allowances for 600 employees.
Senator Charles H. Percy, Republican of Illinois, declared
in response to the report: ``It is just intolerable to
continue these practices.''
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were founded and
secretly financed by the Central Intelligence Agency in the
early 1950's to provide news and analysis for Soviet and East
European audiences in 25 languages. They have been under
Congressional funding authority since 1971.
to revise pay scales
The General Accounting Office study concluded that the best
way to deal with ``inequities'' and ``duplication'' it found
in the Munich operations was to move the major part of the
stations to the United States.
At a meeting in mid-April with the directors of the Board
for International Broadcasting, Sig-Michelson, president of
the two radio stations for the last year, said he agreed with
the general thrust of the accounting recommendations and was
moving to carry them out, including a revision of the pay
scales.
The housing and other special compensations for the radio
station employees were an outgrowth of the early occupation
practices in what was then the American zone of Germany.
An official familiar with the special benefits said that 80
percent of the two station's 1,786 employees were probably
being fairly compensated, but that ``top executives are
getting indefensibly high salaries.'' These executives are
almost all American citizens.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Wisconsin
and express my appreciation to him for his efforts in this. This has
been a first-class and very significant effort, his first, as he
described it, within the Foreign Relations Committee.
But the Senator has really raised some extremely important questions
about the administrative process, about management decisions, about the
overall structure. He really has been the most important push, if you
will, or force asking the committee and the Senate as a whole to really
take a hard look at this and do what is correct.
I thank him also not only for his initial effort but also for the
work he did in reaching what I think is a very sensible compromise with
the Senator from Delaware.
I also express my appreciation to the Senator from Delaware. He and I
did not agree at the outset on this. We had a vote in the committee and
the outcome was adverse to the Senator from Delaware. But the Senator
also persevered and continued to make his point and I think persuaded a
number of people that his commitment on this was steadfast and that he
saw a different vision of how this should and could work.
I think what we have had in the final analysis is an amalgamation of
the best of both of those views in a way that addresses the concerns of
both Senators, but at the same time provides the savings that we need.
It may be that down the road we are going to have to review this
more. It may be that there will be adjusting yet to be done. But, for
the moment, I think this gets us off the dime and provides an important
service to the country and particularly to the goals of the foreign
policy information promulgation effort.
So I really tip my hat to the Senator. I think he has done a terrific
job here.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I certainly join the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts in his praise of the Senator from Wisconsin and
Senator Biden. For a year or more, they have been pushing a subject
which is of great interest and concern to me. I just want you to know,
I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, that I appreciate your efforts and
you have been successful.
Now, the Senator from Wisconsin has made clear the outcome of the
negotiations for the establishment of a new Radio Free Asia patterned
after a Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Broadcasting to Tibet and
to the Communist countries of Asia, North Korea, Burma, Communist
China, Laos, and Vietnam, must, Mr. President, remain a high priority
in order to encourage fledgling democracy movements in those countries.
When the administration first presented its consolidation proposal to
Congress last June 15, as I recall, the administration stated
vigorously that the only way to save $243 million over the next 4 years
was to consolidate all broadcasting functions under the U.S.
Information Agency umbrella. Today, just about 6 months later, give or
take, the administration has been promising that these same savings can
be achieved under the new and improved consolidation plan which allows
Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty to stand as
private grantees. Either somebody was misinformed then or they have
seen the light or whatever.
But that is not the important issue. What is important is that the
U.S. Information Agency, Mr. Duffey, Director of USIA, and Mr. Mica,
who is Chairman of the Board of International Broadcasting, have made a
significant positive decision in accepting the terms of the Biden-
Feingold amendment.
Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor
of this amendment, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will explain the modification in just a
moment.
This policy ensures that the U.S. Government will continue
broadcasting Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. All
will maintain their independent grantee status. It does all of that and
so forth.
In all candor, I am not persuaded that this bill gives this new
creation the resources it will need to please everybody and still save
the money that everybody talks about. So I hope that Mr. Duffey and his
associates in the White House have thought through that issue. This
point is important and that is the reason I am stressing it.
USIA should be prepared to provide those resources out of its own
budget, if necessary, to fulfill the broadcasting priorities that are
being defined here today.
So, again, I express my gratitude to the able Senator from Delaware,
Mr. Biden, and the equally able Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold,
for accepting a modification that I proposed, that will ensure that
this will happen. I commend them for their efforts, because the
American taxpayer will not be willing to spend more money on these
projects than is currently authorized in this bill. So, in committing
to this course of action, I hope that the administration is prepared to
use its energy and resources to see these projects through to their
completion.
Now, to make legislative history and have it in the Congressional
Record, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that lines 6-17 on page
24 of the bill, be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
SEC. 310. TRANSITION.
(a) Authorization.--(1) The President is authorized to
direct the transfer of all functions and authorities from the
Board for International Broadcasting to the United States
Information Agency, the Board, or the Bureau as may be
necessary to implement this title.
(2)(A) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Director of the United States Information
Agency and the Chairman of the Board for International
Broadcasting shall jointly prepare and submit to the
President for approval and implementation a plan to implement
the provisions of this title. Such report shall include at a
minimum a detailed cost analysis to implement fully the
recommendations of such plan. Additionally, such plan shall
identify all costs in excess of those authorized for such
purposes and shall provide that any excess cost to implement
such plan shall be derived only from funds authorized in
title II, part A, section 201(a)(1) of this Act.
Mr. HELMS. Then, Mr. President, immediately following that, I desire
to have printed in the Record the modification that I proposed to
Senators Biden and Feingold and which they graciously accepted. And I
want it to follow immediately after the preceding insert.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Reading the modification:
Such report shall include at a minimum a detailed cost
analysis to implement fully the recommendations of such plan.
Additionally, such plan. Additionally, such plan shall
identify all costs in excess of those authorized for such
purposes and shall provide that any excess cost to implement
such plan shall be derived only from funds authorized in
title II, part A, section 201(a)1 of this act.
____________________