[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 5 (Monday, January 31, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 31, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1281, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1281) to authorize appropriations for the 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 resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Helms Amendment No. 1290, to give fullest possible 
     consideration to asylum applications from Chinese nationals 
     fleeing coercive population control policies.
       (2) Helms Amendment No. 1291, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that certain conditions should be met before the 
     People's Republic of China is accorded nondiscriminatory 
     most-favored-nation treatment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Lott] is recognized to offer his listed amendment.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that Carl 
Biersack be granted floor privileges for the duration of Senate 
consideration of S. 1281, the State Department authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1315

    (Purpose: Prohibition on security assistance for countries that 
 consistently oppose the United States position in the United Nations 
                           General Assembly)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, 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 Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for himself and 
     Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 1315.
       On page 82, after line 23, add the following new section:

     SEC. 170B. PROHIBITION ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES 
                   THAT CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE THE UNITED STATES 
                   POSITION IN THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL 
                   ASSEMBLY.

       (a) Prohibition.--Security assistance may not be provided 
     to a country that consistently opposed the United States 
     position in the United Nations General Assembly during the 
     most recent session of the General Assembly.
       (b) Change in Government.--If--
       (1) the Secretary of State determines that, since the 
     beginning of the most recent session of the General Assembly, 
     there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and 
     policies of the government of a country to which the 
     prohibition in subsection (a) applies, and
       (2) the Secretary believes that because of that change the 
     government of that country will no longer consistently oppose 
     the United States position in the General Assembly,

     the Secretary may submit to the Congress a request that the 
     Congress enact an exemption from that prohibition for that 
     country. Any such exemption shall be effective only until 
     submission of the next report under section 406 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 
     1991. Any request for such an exemption shall be accompanied 
     by a discussion of the basis for the Secretary's 
     determination and belief.
       (c) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
     requirement of subsection (a) if the Secretary determines and 
     reports to the Congress that despite the United Nations 
     voting pattern of a particular country, the provision of 
     security assistance to that country is necessary to promote 
     United States foreign policy objectives.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``consistently opposed the United States 
     position'' means that the country's votes in the United 
     Nations General Assembly coincided with the United States 
     position less than 25 percent of the time, using for this 
     purpose the overall percentage-of-voting coincidences set 
     forth in the annual report submitted to the Congress pursuant 
     to section 406 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991;
       (2) the term ``most recent session of the General 
     Assembly'' means the most recently completed plenary session 
     of the General Assembly for which overall percentage-of-
     voting coincidences is set forth in the most recent report 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 406 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 
     1991; and
       (3) the term ``security assistance'' means assistance 
     under--
       (A) chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (relating to the economic support fund),
       (B) chapter 5 of part II of that Act (relating to 
     internationally military education and training), or
       (C) the ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' account 
     under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act,

     except that the term does not include narcotics-related 
     assistance.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect upon 
     submission to the Congress of the report pursuant to section 
     406 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
     1990 and 1991, that is required to be submitted by March 31, 
     1994.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms 
be added as an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                amendment no. 1316 to amendment no. 1315

    (Purpose: Prohibition on security assistance for countries that 
 consistently oppose the United States position in the United Nations 
                           General Assembly)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1316 to amendment No. 1315.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word, and insert:

     SEC. 170B. PROHIBITION ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES 
                   THAT CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE THE UNITED STATES 
                   POSITION IN THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL 
                   ASSEMBLY.

       (a) Prohibition.--Security assistance may not be provided 
     to a country that consistently opposed the United States 
     position in the United Nations General Assembly during the 
     most recent session of the General Assembly.
       (b) Change in Government.--If--
       (1) the Secretary of State determines that, since the 
     beginning of the most recent session of the General Assembly, 
     there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and 
     policies of the government of a country to which the 
     prohibition in subsection (a) applies, and
       (2) the Secretary believes that because of that change the 
     government of that country will no longer consistently oppose 
     the United States position in the General Assembly,

     the Secretary may submit to the Congress a request that the 
     Congress enact an exemption from that prohibition for that 
     country. Any such exemption shall be effective only until 
     submission of the next report under section 406 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 
     1991. Any request for such an exemption shall be accompanied 
     by a discussion of the basis for the Secretary's 
     determination and belief.
       (c) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
     requirement of subsection (a) if the Secretary determines and 
     reports to the Congress that despite the United Nations 
     voting pattern of a particular country, the provision of 
     security assistance to that country is necessary to promote 
     United States foreign policy objectives.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``consistently opposed the United States 
     position'' means that the country's votes in the United 
     Nations General Assembly coincided with the United States 
     position less than 30 percent of the time, using for this 
     purpose the overall percentage-of-voting coincidences set 
     forth in the annual report submitted to the Congress pursuant 
     to section 406 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991;
       (2) the term ``most recent session of the General 
     Assembly'' means the most recently completed plenary session 
     of the General Assembly for which overall percentage-of-
     voting coincidences is set forth in the most recent report 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 406 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 
     1991; and
       (3) the term ``security assistance'' means assistance 
     under--
       (A) chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (relating to the economic support fund),
       (B) chapter 5 of part II of that Act (relating to 
     internartional military education and training), or
       (C) the ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' account 
     under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act,

     except that the term does not include narcotics-related 
     assistance.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section takes effect upon 
     submission to the Congress of the report pursuant to section 
     406 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
     1990 and 1991, that is required to be submitted by March 31, 
     1994.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to say to the distinguished 
manager of the bill, I believe they both have a copy of this amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. That is right.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in these tight budgetary times, we have all 
been asked to examine the Federal Government and its programs to see if 
we can do a better job of controlling the funding and make sure that 
once they are funded they run properly.
  I believe that foreign policy authorizations should not be exempt 
from the same fiscal scrutiny that our domestic programs are now 
undergoing. Having said that, I find it difficult to defend spending 
American tax dollars on nations that block our initiatives and vote to 
oppose our values in the United Nations.
  I ask my colleagues to just think about this when you go home to your 
respective States--in Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and 
Mississippi. People always ask questions about our foreign policy and 
about foreign aid. We all know foreign aid is not very popular, and we 
all know that some of it is constructive and has been helpful in 
promoting freedom and democracy around the world. But if people really 
knew that we were giving their taxpayer dollars to nations that 
consistently, regularly, aggressively oppose the United States in the 
United Nations on positions that are important to our country, they 
would not believe it.
  This amendment would say if a country does not vote with us at least 
25 percent of the time, that they would not get military assistance--
and I will give the details of this later--not 100 percent, not 80 
percent, not 50 percent, not even 40 percent, but at least 25 percent 
of the time. There are 43 countries that vote against us 75 percent of 
the time or more and still get military assistance grants. That does 
not include countries like North Korea and Vietnam. Forty-three nations 
consistently oppose the U.S. position and still get military assistance 
grants.
  So there should be some reasonable standard criteria before we 
provide security assistance to a nation. A threshold of 25 percent 
voting coincidence with the United States during the most recent United 
Nations General Assembly is an excellent yardstick. In other words, let 
us look at how much they voted with us in the previous year. The State 
Department is required to keep a compilation of this list.
  Failing to support America at least a fourth of the time will affect 
grants a nation receives from the following accounts: International 
Military Education and Training [IMET]; Foreign Military Financing 
[FMF]; and Economic Support Fund [ESF].
  The amendment exempts humanitarian aid and developmental assistance 
from this criteria. Now, think about that. We are talking about the 
money that goes for military training--grant money from the United 
States taxpayers--to a country that votes with us less than 25 percent. 
We are giving them military aid.
  Some people would say: ``But what about the people?'' I thought about 
that, and I exempted certain programs. Let us not punish the people for 
the bad actions of their government. Let us, frankly get at the 
governments. Why should we be aiding them militarily while they are 
voting against us, consistently, at the United Nations? So humanitarian 
and developmental assistance are specifically exempted.
  Let me tell you, the people back home would want that to be cut, 
also. They do not think we ought to even be giving humanitarian or 
developmental assistance to a country if they are consistently opposing 
our positions in the United Nations. The rationale is clear. Assistance 
which goes directly to the government would be stopped, but economic 
assistance which supports their needy citizens would not be impacted.
  I emphasize that this is not something that has not been considered 
before either; it has been. In fact, this amendment, or language like 
this, was offered by Congressman Goodling of Pennsylvania in the House 
and is included in Chairman Hamilton's foreign assistance bill, H.R. 
2404. There are some differences, but fundamentally the principle is 
the same. It sets a minimum percentage of support in the United Nations 
in order to get this military assistance.
  We are under no moral obligation--in fact the reverse is true--to 
give U.S. taxpayer dollars to enhance a nation's security when that 
same nation mocks our own security efforts and ideals. However, I have 
provided a waiver provision if it is requested by the Secretary of 
State. I have learned from past experience on amendments to State 
Department bills and authorizations for foreign aid, if you give the 
Secretary of State, whether it is this administration or previous 
administrations, this wavier, quite often, unfortunately, they will 
come in and say: ``This is in our national interest.''
  I do not like that, but we wanted to give that leverage. If there 
were overriding national security interests, for us, then the Secretary 
of State would be able to request this exception.
  Foreign aid as a handout is over. We all know that. And the committee 
is trying to tighten up on it in a number of ways. But there are some 
questions I think we have to ask. Why aid the security of another 
nation when they subsequently vote against our security at the United 
Nations? Why spend taxpayer dollars on nations that block our 
initiatives and vote to oppose our values at the United Nations?
  There are too many nations who clearly do not see things our way, the 
way we do things, and they disagree with us. That is OK. They have a 
right to make a decision of what they want to do or how they want to 
vote at the United Nations. But it is not OK to subsidize that attitude 
and behavior and that opposition with our taxpayer dollars.
  It is both ineffective and counterproductive to provide security 
assistance to countries who clearly do not share America's security 
interests.
  The amendment is not coercing nations to vote with us. No, the 
standard is not coercive. It is not 100 percent or 80 percent; it is 
only 25 percent. It is not a congressional mandate prescribing how the 
money will be spent, nor does it usurp the President's power to direct 
foreign policy. You have the waiver that can be made by the Secretary 
of State. This amendment just says nations will not get military grants 
if they do not vote with us. Only the actions of each individual nation 
will negatively affect its own security assistance. It is their choice. 
They can make that decision. But they need to know we are not going to 
subsidize that decision.
  If this language had been in the law last year, it would have saved 
$190 million. I have the list of support right down the line of 
countries that vote with our position: Israel, 92.3 percent; Croatia, 
78.9; United Kingdom, 73.6; Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Russia. 
Russia has been voting with us 59.6 percent of the time. Canada, Japan, 
Greece, Turkey, all vote with us overwhelmingly on key issues. But 
there are 43 nations on this list that get this foreign security 
assistance and vote against us 75 percent of the time or more. I have 
the list if any Senators would like to look at it. It might surprise 
people. The list includes Algeria, Angola, Belize, Ethiopia, India, 
Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, and 33 more. If they 
change their voting pattern, they would not be affected.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It makes good 
common sense. Clearly, the people would support it.
  The House has language in its foreign assistance bill, and I think 
that it is long overdue that we at least take a look at how nations 
vote at the U.N. and how much military foreign assistance they receive.
  Mr. President, before I yield I would like to request the yeas and 
nays.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to withhold at this point, and for the sake of 
facilitating debate I would be glad to yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for withholding, and I 
asked him to withhold because I want to discuss with him the potential 
of the modification on his own behalf.
  This amendment raises very legitimate important questions. I think 
there are many of us who are apprehensive about a policy of a rigid, if 
you will, formula by which you begin to make a determination about who 
gets what. It is never that easy in foreign policy, as I know my friend 
from Mississippi understands.
  On the other hand, he has tried to be sensitive to that and I think 
has been sensitive to that with a very fair provision here, very broad 
discretionary provision for the Secretary to make determinations.
  So what the Senator is really doing is raising a very important 
question and laying it upon the table as strongly as possible without 
clashing with that fundamental distinction between Presidential 
prerogative on foreign policy and congressional oversight. I think we 
all appreciate that tension.
  I would like to ask the Senator if he might not consider, first of 
all, a modification which might exempt IMET. There are three types of 
assistance which the Senator has included. The economic support fund, 
the foreign military financing, which used to be foreign military 
sales, and IMET, the international military education training.
  The reason I suggest that is that IMET of the three functions is 
perhaps the one most directed towards trying to prevent people from 
behaving in ways that we find abhorrent, and it is, in fact, that 
specific training that tries to reduce the potential for abuse among 
militaries, tries to maximize legal systems within their structure, 
with some process of responsibility. I am not sure that we are well-
serving our own best intentions by reducing that very tool.
  On the other hand, obviously you do not want military weapons, you do 
not want undue economic assistance. And so I simply raise this issue 
with my colleague as to whether or not that might or might not be worth 
considering.
  But apart from that, I would say to the Senator that I think this is 
an amendment that we could accept. As he says, it is in the House aid 
bill, and I think it is something that can be adhered to.
  I would ask my colleague a couple of questions, if I might. Would he 
share with other colleagues in the Senate perhaps a few examples of 
some of the issues that have fallen into that 25 percent level or 30 
percent level where countries whom we are giving assistance to have 
not, in fact, seen fit to be supportive and how it has made a 
difference to us? I think this would simply help to articulate why this 
is important.
  Mr. LOTT. First, if the Senator will yield, let me respond to his 
earlier suggestion. IMET is the smallest piece of the three military 
assistance funding areas. I believe actually of the $190 million that 
would have been affected only $17.28 million come under the category of 
the IMET, International Military Education and Training.
  I understand what the Senator is saying, but I still think that it is 
pretty hard to explain to the people or justify that we are providing 
funds for military education and training to countries that vote 
against us 75 percent of the time or more.
  I realize some of it may be used in good ways. I can understand that. 
But I am hesitant to take that feature out. I recognize that it is for 
education and training. But when you are talking about providing our 
taxpayers' dollars to those nations who oppose us and give them even 
more military training, I think Americans would be very, very hesitant 
to feel like that would be a wise and proper investment.
  In direct answer to the Senator's request of examples of how they 
vote against us, again I point out that these 43 nations voted against 
us 75 percent of the time.
  Some argument might be made that many of these votes are just 
procedural in nature and they really do not matter. Well, all votes 
count. Look. They vote against us on an entire range of matters that 
are very important.
  Because all votes are considered, I picked this relatively low 
threshold. I did not want it to drive or unduly influence procedural or 
unimportant issues. The bottom line is that these countries are voting 
against America on important world issues.
  If you like during the process of this debate, I will find a couple 
of examples that help our argument.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend, that I do not ask the question by 
means of suggesting that the answer would not help. I know it will. I 
simply thought that the Record ought to reflect the rationale for this 
so that we have a full understanding of the types of situations so 
people can have a better understanding of why it is important. I think 
it could be good if we could put that in the Record.
  I might say to my friend, also, that the type of training in military 
education, it is really command and control, justice-oriented, systems-
oriented in the context of accountability, and not the kind of training 
that teaches them how to go out in the field and shoot other people. 
Training to our advantage is fundamentally what I am suggesting, 
something we tried to do, for instance, in the military in El Salvador. 
I could run through a number of the countries where it has been 
important. But, at any rate, I would just like to pursue that a little 
bit further with you.
  I see the Senator from North Carolina is on his feet. Why do we not 
pursue it later? If the Senator wants to address this issue, I will 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second for the yeas and 
nays on the second-degree amendment?
  At the present time there does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, subject to 
the request of the managers to recall the amendments, the amendment of 
the Senator from Mississippi and the second-degree amendment of the 
Senator from North Carolina be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Maine has an 
amendment which we will proceed to; again, subject to the call of the 
managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

                          ____________________