[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.
____________________