[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]
Amendment No. 1322
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Israel's
diplomatic status)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have an amendment, which has been cleared
on both sides, to offer on behalf of Senator Hatch. It is a sense-of-
the-Senate that the Secretary of State should make the issue of
Israel----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the Chair
advises the Senator that the amendment of Senator Helms is currently
pending. Without objection, we will set the amendment aside. The
Senator is recognized.
Mr. HELMS. I assumed that that had been done--of Israel's diplomatic
status a priority and urge countries that receive American aid to
immediately establish full diplomatic relations with the State of
Israel. I send this amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for Mr. Hatch,
for himself, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. Pressler, proposes an
amendment numbered 1322.
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:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . The Congress finds that:
1. Israel continues to be a leader in the Middle East peace
process and the only democracy in the region;
2. On May 14, 1948, the United States was the first country
to accord de facto recognition to Israel;
3. After over forty-six years of independence Israel is
recognized only by 132 countries around the world;
4. 49 countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel,
including 32 that collectively receive in FY 94 over $523
million in U.S. foreign assistance;
5. China and India recognized the state of Israel in 1992;
6. Israel is a legitimate state and sovereign entity that
deserves to be accorded full diplomatic recognition by
members of the international community; and
7. The following states will receive direct and indirect
U.S. foreign assistance this year and have failed to
recognize Israel: Afghanistan; Algeria; Bahrain; Bangladesh;
Botswana; Burundi; Cape Verde; Chad; Djibouti; Ghana; Guinea;
Guinea-Bissau; Indonesia; Jordan; Laos; Lebanon; Madagascar;
Maldives; Mauritania; Morocco; Namibia; Niger; Oman;
Pakistan; Rwanda; Senegal; Somalia; Sri Lanka; Tanzania;
Tunisia; Uganda; and Yemen.
Therefore, It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary
of State should make the issue of Israel's diplomatic status
a priority and urge countries that receive American aid to
immediately establish full diplomatic relations with the
state of Israel.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and
straightforward. It urges that the Department of State to request that
recipients of American foreign assistance recognize Israel. I do not
believe that the State Department has done enough to bring down the
diplomatic walls that continue to isolate Israel, and it is my hope
that this amendment serves as a catalyst for action.
Israel has existed since May 1948. Yet, 49 countries have failed to
recognize her legitimate right to exist. Of this number, 32 countries
receive some form of assistance from the United States. These states
are shown on the map. It is imperative that these countries in
particular understand the importance that the United States attaches to
its relationship with Israel.
In fact, it is time that the international community treat Israel
with the respect it deserves. Israel has existed for almost 46 years
and is the most willing partner in the peace process. It should be
commended rather than condemned and ignored by members of the
international community.
In 1992 alone, China and India both recognized Israel. I should point
out that I am pleased that Madagascar, which is on this map, decided to
establish diplomatic ties with Israel beginning yesterday.
Unfortunately, a large number of states have failed to follow their
lead.
During the past 2 years, I have personally sent letters with a number
of my colleagues to the leaders of Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
requesting them to recognize Israel. I have appealed personally to
ambassadors of these countries. It is hard for me to understand how the
PLO can enter into negotiations with Israel and yet these countries
refuse to establish ties with Israel.
I do not understand why Indonesia, the largest Moslem country in the
world, is unable to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. I do
not understand why Pakistan is unable to do so. I do not understand
precisely why Bangladesh, which has received substantial American aid
during a series of natural disasters, denies one of our most important
ally's the most basic and fundamental right accorded to a state.
I do not understand why Kuwait--a country that the United States
helped liberate from Iraqi aggression--has not recognized Israel. While
Kuwait does not receive direct American aid at this point, it was the
most direct beneficiary of the Persian Gulf war.
Most important, I do not understand why the State Department is not
doing more in this area. The United States will provide over $523
million to 32 of these countries that do not recognize Israel. I
believe that every U.S. ambassador in such a country should be required
to raise this issue with the host government.
I believe that only then will these countries get the message that
the United States is serious about this matter.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before we vote on this amendment I wish to
make sure the Record reflects that this amendment is accepted in the
spirit of encouraging further progress with respect to the peace
process in the Middle East. The-sense-of-the-Senate states, in the
amendment, that the Secretary of State should make the issue of
Israel's diplomatic status a priority. I think there should be no
inference that it is not now a priority.
Just over this weekend in Davos, Switzerland, where Foreign Minister
Peres met with Yasser Arafat, there was significant discussion in the
peace process with indications of significant progress being made. But
at that meeting, in Davos, of the world economic community, former
Assistant Secretary Spero said publicly, in the presence of Arafat,
that it is time for the Arab communities to end the economic boycott,
and there was resounding applause from the community, including the
applause, I might add, of Yasser Arafat.
So this is very much on the administration's agenda. The Secretary
himself has been obviously deeply involved in the process.
In the spirit of encouraging future and continued support, we accept
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1322) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Mississippi.
Amendment No. 1315
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I might speak briefly again, with regard to
my amendment that I offered earlier this afternoon, to respond to some
questions that were propounded by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Just so I can bring Members back to the issue being discussed, my
amendment would say that for those countries which do not support the
United States at least 25 percent of the time, they would lose their
military and security assistance. It is not applicable to humanitarian
or developmental aid; it is only applicable to international military,
education and training, foreign military financing and economic support
fund. I think the American people would be truly outraged if they knew
in fact that we were giving military aid--I am not talking about
humanitarian aid; I am talking about military aid--to countries that
vote against us 80 percent of the time. So that is the amendment that
is pending.
It has been suggested that this is not really a good way to do it
because it might include procedural votes. Well, first of all, as
Senators, we all know that sometimes the real vote is the procedural
vote. In fact, more often than not the real vote in the Senate is the
procedural vote. But this amendment sets the threshold low enough to
accommodate votes which have no direct bearing on significant issues
where America has taken a specific position. Members of Congress are
fully aware of how an organization of this type can take selective
votes and make it reflect any position they might want. So by setting
it this low, 25 percent--that is all we ask--I think that takes care of
the argument that it might involve too many procedural votes.
The Senator from Massachusetts said, ``What kind of votes are we
talking about?'' I have here--and this is really the booklet on which
we base this amendment--the voting practices of the United Nations in
the year 1992 as compiled by the U.S. Department of State. This is not
some organization unrelated to the position in the United Nations. This
is our own State Department.
In this booklet they have the list of how countries vote, what
percentage of the time they vote with us, the number of absences, and
everything. But they also went on to select some key issues they
thought were very important. So this is a case where we have countries
voting against our position on such things as the United States embargo
of Cuba--I would say that is pretty important--a number of resolutions
involving Israel, including one on the Middle East and the Golan
Heights; here is one with regard to the situation in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. So these are a lot of very important votes where sometimes
those we thought were our allies were voting against us 80 percent of
the time.
Now, some of these countries, if they will improve their percentage
of voting with us just 5 or 10 percent of the time, they would still be
eligible. This is a very low percentage, but it is very important.
Also, if this had been in place last year, we would have saved $190
million in foreign military assistance.
So I just wanted to respond to that and put that information in the
Record.
These are important votes. There are cases here, countries, that we
have helped for many, many years that are voting against us 75, 76 and
80 percent of the time. I think we should ask that some of our allies
do a little better job, quit voting like they are a part of the Third
World or country bloc, and support the United States. As I have pointed
out, in the last year even Russia voted with us over 59 percent of the
time.
So I do not think it is asking too much for some of our closest
allies to at least vote with us and certainly vote with us on these
very important issues.
We are still working on trying to get an agreement on perhaps a
unanimous-consent request on how this will be structured and on having
a vote. But we have not gotten that worked out yet. I hope we will have
that completed in a few minutes.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Mississippi. I think
that the answers to those questions are helpful. We were just
discussing this a few minutes ago. I think there may still be some
concern in some quarters on our side about some of the countries that
get pulled into this prohibition as a consequence.
I can understand on the surface one would say to oneself, well, if
they are voting with us less than 25 percent of the time, to heck with
them, they should not get the aid. I know there is that sort of quick
and easy take on it.
All I am trying to do is make sure we have looked at it carefully to
understand precisely what the impact might or might not be.
But you would see Cyprus pulled into this. You would see Jordan
pulled into this which might have an impact obviously on the peace
process. You would have the Philippines pulled into it; President Ramos
and others involved in some very tricky balancing of nationalistic
internal politics versus their desire to try to maintain a relationship
with us.
So I just want to understand carefully the implications which is why
we just are going to take a little time here to take a look at it
further.
So if my colleagues will bear with us, I think we will just
temporarily set it aside and maybe deal with it either today or
tomorrow. I believe Senator Sarbanes wanted to speak on this. I had
heard earlier Senator Moynihan might want to speak on it. So if we
could simply reserve judgment on it until that time.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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, let me just bring colleagues up to date on
where we are.
As everybody knows, on Thursday we entered into an agreement with
respect to amendments. We have proceeded through a number of amendments
on the list. But there are still a number outstanding.
We are specifically here today in order to provide people an
opportunity to bring amendments to the floor. We do not want to cut
anybody off or not provide them the opportunity to bring those
amendments.
Obviously, as is the pattern here, tomorrow, Tuesday, we will become
a little busier, and all amendments are frozen in such a way that if
they are not offered fully by 6 o'clock tomorrow evening, they are not
eligible to be offered.
So I ask colleagues if they do have any amendments at this time to
let us know immediately. If they can come to the floor right now, we
would appreciate their doing so. We will shortly propound a unanimous-
consent request with respect to votes tomorrow morning.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 1323
(Purpose: To amend the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 to
facilitate coordination between the executive and legislative branches
of Government regarding U.S. participation in, or the use of U.S. funds
for, U.N. peacekeeping activities)
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr.
Pressler, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
Gorton, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Murkowski, and Mr. Durenberger, proposes an amendment
numbered 1323.
Mr. DOLE. 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:
Beginning on page 74, strike out line 6 and all that
follows through line 18 on page 79.
On page 79, line 19, strike out ``SEC. 170A.'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``SEC. 167.''.
On page 179, after line 6, add the following new title:
TITLE VIII--PEACE POWERS ACT OF 1994
SECTION 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Peace Powers Act of
1994''.
SEC. 802. STATEMENT OF PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are to--
(1) maintain and ensure the primacy of United States
national security interests with respect to United States
participation in and support for United Nations peacekeeping
activities;
(2) strengthen congressional oversight of United Nations
peacekeeping activities and other United Nations activities;
(3) provide for advance notification to the Congress
regarding anticipated United Nations peacekeeping activities;
(4) ensure that the United States contributions to United
Nations peacekeeping activities are fair and equitable; and
(5) otherwise facilitate coordination between the executive
and legislative branches of Government regarding United
States participation in and support for United Nations
peacekeeping activities.
SEC. 803. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Amendment.--The United Nations Participation Act of
1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 10. For purposes of this Act--
``(1) the term `appropriate congressional committees' means
the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives;
``(2) the term `Permanent Representative' means the
Permanent Representative of the United States to the United
Nations appointed by the President pursuant to section 2 of
this Act; and
``(3) the term `United Nations peacekeeping activities'
means any international peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace-
enforcing, or similar activity involving the use of nationals
of member countries of the United Nations that is authorized
by the Security Council under chapter VI or VII of the United
Nations Charter.''.
(b) Applicability to Nonamendatory Provisions.--The
definitions contained in the amendment made by subsection (a)
also apply with respect to the provisions of this title that
do not amend the United Nations Participation Act of 1945.
SEC. 804. NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF PROPOSED UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
Section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287b) is amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence;
(2) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The President''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), at least 15
days before any vote in the Security Council to authorize any
United Nations peacekeeping activity or any other action
under the Charter of the United Nations (including any
extension, modification, suspension, or termination of any
previously authorized United Nations peacekeeping activity or
other action) which would involve the use of United States
Armed Forces or the expenditure of United States funds, the
President shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a notification with respect to the proposed
action. This notification shall include a description of any
anticipated involvement of United States Armed Forces, a cost
assessment of such action (including the total estimated cost
and the United States share of such cost), the mission and
objectives of United States Armed Forces that would
participate in such action, the duration and estimated
termination date of the action, and the source of funding for
the United States share of the costs of the action (whether
in an annual budget request, reprogramming notification, a
budget amendment, or a supplemental budget request).
``(2) If the President determines that an emergency exists
which prevents submission of the 15-day advance notification
specified in paragraph (1) and that the proposed action is in
the national security interests of the United States, the
notification described in paragraph (1) shall be provided in
a timely manner but no later than 48 hours after the vote by
the Security Council.''.
SEC. 805. TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS OF UNITED NATIONS
RESOLUTIONS AND REPORTS.
Section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287b), as amended by section 804 of this title, is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) Not later than 24 hours after adoption by the
Security Council of a resolution authorizing United Nations
peacekeeping activities or any other action under the Charter
of the United Nations (including any extension, modification,
suspension, or termination of any previously authorized
United Nations peacekeeping activity or other action) which
would involve the use of United States Armed Forces or the
expenditure of United States funds, the Permanent
Representative shall transmit the text of such resolution and
any supporting documentation to the appropriate congressional
committees.
``(2) The Permanent Representative shall promptly transmit
to the appropriate congressional committees any report
prepared by the United Nations containing an assessment of
any proposed, ongoing, or concluded United Nations
peacekeeping activity.''.
SEC. 806. NOTICE TO CONGRESS REGARDING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
Section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287b), as amended by sections 804 and 805 of this
title, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Not later than 15 days after the United Nations
submits a billing requesting a payment by the United States
of any contribution for United Nations peacekeeping
activities, the President shall so notify the appropriate
congressional committees.
``(2) The President shall notify the appropriate
congressional committees at least 15 days before the United
States obligates funds for any assessed or voluntary
contribution for United Nations peacekeeping activities,
except that if the President determines that an emergency
exists which prevents compliance with the requirement that
such notification be provided 15 days in advance and that
such contribution is in the national security interests of
the United States, such notification shall be provided in a
timely manner but no later than 48 hours after such
obligation.''.
SEC. 807. NOTICE TO CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES
ASSISTANCE FOR UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING
ACTIVITIES.
Section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287d-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``other than subsection
(e)(1)'' after ``any other law''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), at least 15
days before any agency or entity of the United States
Government makes available to the United Nations any
assistance or facility to support or facilitate United
Nations peacekeeping activities, the President shall so
notify the appropriate congressional committees.
``(2) If the President determines that an emergency exists
which prevents compliance with the requirement that
notification be provided 15 days in advance and that such
contribution is in the national security interests of the
United States, such notification shall be provided in a
timely manner but no later than 48 hours after the assistance
or facility is made available to the United Nations.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term
`assistance'--
``(A) means assistance of any kind, including logistical
support, supplies, goods, or services (including command,
control, communications or intelligence assistance and
training), and the grant of rights of passage; and
``(B) includes assistance provided through in-kind
contributions or through the provision of support, supplies,
goods, or services on any terms, including on a grant, lease,
loan, or reimbursable basis; but
``(C) does not include the payment of assessed or voluntary
contributions.''.
SEC. 808. UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
Section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287b), as amended by section 804, 805, and 806 of
this title, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e)(1) The President shall, at the time of submission of
his annual budget request to the Congress, submit a report to
the Congress on the anticipated budget for the fiscal year
for United States participation in United Nations
peacekeeping activities.
``(2) The report required by paragraph (1) shall state--
``(A) the aggregate amount of funds available to the United
Nations for that fiscal year, including assessed and
voluntary contributions, which may be made available for
United Nations peacekeeping activities; and
``(B) the aggregate amount of funds (from all accounts) and
the aggregate costs of in-kind contributions that the United
States proposes to make available to the United Nations for
that fiscal year for United Nations peacekeeping activities.
``(3) The President shall include in his budget submission
for fiscal year 1996 a projection of all United States costs
for United Nations peacekeeping activities during each of
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, including costs of in-kind
contributions and assessed and voluntary contributions.''.
SEC. 809. ANNUAL REPORTS ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO
UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
Section 4 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287b), as amended by sections 804, 805, 806, and
808 of this title, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(f)(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection and each year thereafter at the time of
the President's budget submission to the Congress, the
Secretary of State, after consultation with the heads of
other relevant Federal agencies (including the Secretary of
Defense), shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on United States contributions to United
Nations peacekeeping activities.
``(2) Each such report shall include the following
information:
``(A) The number and nature of ongoing United Nations
peacekeeping activities.
``(B) The priority accorded to each ongoing United Nations
peacekeeping activity, and the anticipated duration of each
such activity.
``(C) An assessment of the effectiveness of each ongoing
United Nations peacekeeping activity, its relationship to
United States national security interests, and the efforts by
the United Nations to resolve the relevant armed conflicts;
and the projected termination dates for each such activity.
``(D) The total costs of each United Nations peacekeeping
activity, both ongoing and concluded, and the total cost of
all such activities.
``(E) The amount of United States assessed and voluntary
contributions to each such activity, and the total of such
contributions to all such activities.
``(F) The incremental costs incurred by the Department of
Defense for each such activity, and for all such activities.
``(G) Any other assistance (as defined in section 7(e) of
this Act, as added by the Peace Powers Act of 1994) made
available by the United States for United Nations
peacekeeping activities, specifying which assistance was
provided on a reimbursable basis and which was provided on a
non-re-im-bursable basis or on concessional terms.
``(H) An assessment of the United Nations management and
support for United Nations peacekeeping activities, including
all recommendations for improvement made by the United States
and any action to implement such recommendations by the
United Nations.
``(I) A detailed description (including dollar amounts
expended and credited) of efforts by the United States
Government to seek and receive credit toward the United
States assessment for United Nations peacekeeping activities
for all United States assistance provided in support of
United Nations peacekeeping objectives.
``(3) The first report submitted pursuant to this
subsection shall include information with respect to costs
and contributions for all United Nations peacekeeping
activities since October 1945. Subsequent reports shall
include such information for the immediately preceding fiscal
year and (to the extent such information is available) for
the then current fiscal year.''.
SEC. 810. REIMBURSEMENT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR IN-KIND
CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING
ACTIVITIES.
Section 7 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287d-1), as amended by section 807 of this title,
is further amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking all that follows ``: Provided,'' through
``Provided further,'';
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary of
Defense may waive the requirement for such reimbursement if
the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State
and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
determines that an emergency exists which justifies waiver of
that requirement. Any such waiver shall be submitted to the
appropriate congressional committees at least 15 days before
it takes effect, except that if the President determines that
an emergency exists which prevents compliance with the
requirement that the notification be provided 15 days in
advance and that the provision under subsection (a)(1) or (2)
of personnel or assistance on a nonreimbursable basis is in
the national security interests of the United States, such
notification shall be provided in a timely manner but no
later than 48 hours after such waiver takes effect.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(f) In any fiscal year (beginning in fiscal year 1995),
appropriated funds may not be used to pay any United States
assessed or voluntary contribution for United Nations
peacekeeping activities until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to the Congress that the United Nations has
reimbursed the Department of Defense directly for all goods
and services that were provided to the United Nations by the
Department of Defense on a reimbursable basis during the
preceding fiscal year for United Nations peacekeeping
activities, including personnel and assistance provided under
this section (except to the extent that the authority of
subsection (b) to waive the reimbursement requirement was
exercised with respect to such personnel or assistance).
``(g)(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that goods and
services provided on a reimbursable basis by the Department
of Defense to the United Nations for United Nations
peacekeeping operations are reimbursed at the appropriate
value, as determined by the Department of Defense.
``(2) Not later than one year after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Permanent Representative shall submit
a report to the appropriate congressional committees on all
actions taken by the United States mission to the United
Nations to achieve the objective described in paragraph
(1).''.
SEC. 811. LIMITATION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS
FOR UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
Beginning October 1, 1995, funds made available to the
Department of Defense (including funds for ``Operation and
Maintenance'') shall be available for--
(1) United States assessed or voluntary contributions for
United Nations peacekeeping activities, or
(2) the incremental costs associated with the participation
of United States Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping
activities,
only to the extent that the Congress has by law specifically
made those funds available for such purposes.
SEC. 812. ASSESSED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
(a) Reassessment of Contribution Percentages.--The
Permanent Representative should make every effort to ensure
that the United Nations completes an overall review and
reassessment of each nation's assessed contributions for
United Nations peacekeeping activities. As part of the
overall review and assessment, the Permanent Representative
should make every effort to advance the concept that host
governments and other governments in the region where a
United Nations peacekeeping activity is carried out should
bear a greater burden of its financial cost.
(b) United States Contributions.--(1) The Permanent
Representative should make every effort to obtain agreement
by the United Nations to a United States assessed
contribution for United Nations peacekeeping activities that
is no greater a percentage of such contributions by all
countries than the United States percentage share of assessed
contributions for other United Nations activities.
(2) The Congress declares that, effective for fiscal year
1996, it does not intend to make available funds for payment
of United States assessed or voluntary contributions for
United Nations peacekeeping activities that exceed 25 percent
of the total amount of the assessed and voluntary
contributions of all countries for such activities unless,
after the date of enactment of this title, the Congress
enacts a statute specifically authorizing a greater
percentage contribution.
(3) The Permanent Representative shall inform the Secretary
General of the congressional intent expressed in paragraph
(2).
SEC. 813. ``BUY AMERICA'' REQUIREMENT.
No funds may be obligated or expended to pay any United
States assessed or voluntary contribution for United Nations
peacekeeping activities unless the Secretary of State
determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional
committees that United States manufacturers and suppliers are
being given opportunities to provide equipment, services, and
material for such activities equal to those being given to
foreign manufacturers and suppliers.
SEC. 814. UNITED STATES PERSONNEL TAKEN PRISONER WHILE
SERVING IN MULTILATERAL PEACEKEEPING FORCES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) until recent years United States military personnel
rarely served as part of multilateral forces under the United
Nations or regional international organizations;
(2) despite infrequent service as part of multilateral
forces, United States personnel, such as Colonel William
Higgins in Lebanon, have been captured, tortured, and
murdered;
(3) in recent years, United States military personnel have
served much more frequently as part of multilateral forces;
(4) the capture and torture of Chief Warrant Officer
Michael Durant in Somalia in October 1993 was a horrendous
and recent example of the risk to United States personnel in
multilateral forces;
(5) continued multilateral service increases the
probability that United States military personnel will be
captured, and subject to mistreatment;
(6) United States military personnel captured while serving
as part of multilateral forces have not been treated as
prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other
international agreements intended to protect prisoners of
war; and
(7) failure of United States military personnel serving as
part of a multilateral force to receive protection under
international law increases the risk to personnel while
serving in multinational forces.
(b) Policy.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the President should take immediate steps, unilaterally
and in appropriate international bodies, to assure that any
United States military personnel serving as part of a
multilateral force who are captured are accorded the
protection accorded to prisoners of war; and
(2) the President should also take all necessary steps to
bring to justice all individuals responsible for any
mistreatment, torture, or death of United States military
personnel who are captured while serving in a multilateral
force.
(c) Report.--Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(f)
of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (as added by
section 809 of this title), shall include a separate section
setting forth--
(1) the status under international law of members of
multilateral peacekeeping forces, including the legal status
of such personnel if captured, missing, or detained,
(2) the extent of the risk for United States military
personnel who are captured while participating in
multinational peacekeeping forces in cases where their
captors fail to respect the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other
international agreements intended to protect prisoners of
war, and
(3) the specific steps that have been taken to protect
United States military personnel participating in
multinational peacekeeping forces, together (if necessary)
with any recommendations for the enactment of legislation to
achieve that objective.
SEC. 815. PROVISION OF INTELLIGENCE TO THE UNITED NATIONS.
(a) Requirement for Agreements.--The United States may
provide intelligence to the United Nations only pursuant to a
written agreement between the President and the Secretary
General of the United Nations specifying--
(1) the types of intelligence to be provided to the United
Nations;
(2) the circumstances under which intelligence may be
provided to the United Nations; and
(3) the procedures to be observed by the United Nations--
(A) concerning who shall have access to the intelligence
provided; and
(B) to protect the intelligence against disclosure not
authorized by the agreement.
Any such agreement shall be effective for a period not to
exceed one year from the date on which the agreement enters
into force.
(b) Advance Notification to Congress.--An agreement
described in subsection (a) shall be effective only if the
President has transmitted the agreement to the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives not less than 30 days in advance of the entry
into force of the agreement.
(c) Delegation of Authority.--The President may delegate
the authority and assign the duties of the President under
this section only to the Secretary of Defense or the Director
of Central Intelligence.
(d) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
provision of intelligence--
(1) only to and for the use of United States Government
personnel serving with the United Nations; or
(2) essential for the protection of nationals of the United
States, including members of the United States Armed Forces
and civilian personnel of the United States Government.
(e) Existing Law.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to--
(1) impair or otherwise affect the authority of the
Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence
sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure pursuant to
section 103(c)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 403(c)(5)); or
(2) supersede or otherwise affect the provisions of--
(A) title V of the National Security Act of 1947; or
(B) section 112b of title 1, United States Code.
(f) Effective Date.--This section takes effect 60 days
after the date of enactment of this section.
SEC. 816. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING BUDGETARY AND
MANAGEMENT REFORM.
(a) Withholding of Contributions for United Nations
Peacekeeping.--(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year
(beginning with fiscal year 1995), 20 percent of the amounts
of funds made available for United States assessed
contributions for United Nations peacekeeping activities
shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure unless a
certification has been made under subsection (b).
(2) For each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 1995),
the United States may not pay any voluntary contribution for
international peacekeeping activities unless a certification
has been made under subsection (b).
(b) Certification.--The certification referred to in
subsection (a) is a certification by the President to the
Congress that--
(1) the United Nations has established an independent and
objective Office of Inspector General to conduct and
supervise audits, inspections, and investigations relating to
the United Nations peacekeeping activities carried out by the
United Nations;
(2) the Secretary General of the United Nations has
appointed an Inspector General, with the consent of the
General Assembly, solely the basis of integrity and
demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial
analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or
investigations;
(3) the United Nations Office of Inspector General is
authorized to--
(A) make investigations and reports relating to the
administration of the United Nations peacekeeping activities
carried out by the United Nations;
(B) have access to all records and documents or other
material available which relate to those activities; and
(C) have direct and prompt access to relevant officials of
the United Nations, including any official of the United
Nations Secretariat;
(4) the United Nations Office of Inspector General is
keeping the Secretary General and the members of the Security
Council fully informed about problems, deficiencies, and the
necessity for, and progress of, corrective action;
(5) the United Nations has established measures to protect
the identity of, and to prevent reprisals against, any staff
member making a complaint or disclosing information to, or
cooperating in any investigation or inspection by the Office
of the Inspector General; and
(6) the United Nations has enacted procedures to ensure
compliance with Inspector General recommendations.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this amendment is, with two exceptions,
identical to S. 1803, the Peace Powers Act, which I introduced last
week together with 12 cosponsors. Three more Senators have now added
their name as cosponsors of this amendment. The legislation has also
been introduced in the House by Congressman Hyde.
Some may ask why the attention of the Congress has turned to U.N.
peacekeeping. The fact of the matter is that the United Nations is now
engaged in peacekeeping operations in more than 20 countries with some
80,000 personnel. The U.S. taxpayers will be asked to pay $1 billion
more this year for peacekeeping, than the $401 million already
appropriated by Congress for that purpose.
But, we are not just talking about financial obligations. U.S.
military personnel are increasingly involved in U.N. operations. Let us
not forget that 29 Americans lost their lives, and 170 more were
wounded, to carry out a U.N. mission in Somalia that began as feeding
hungry Somalis and evolved into law enforcement and Nation-Building.
Mr. President, substantial financial and military assistance is being
provided to the United Nations, and, in ever more creative ways--to
avoid congressional oversight and to circumvent legislative
restrictions. For example, tanks are being leased to Boutros Boutros-
Ghali to circumvent a congressional prohibition on aid. Votes in the
U.N. Security Council commit United States Forces and United States
dollars to U.N.-initiated operations in places from Georgia to Liberia,
from Mozambique to Western Sahara, yet, these votes to begin new or to
expand existing peacekeeping operations are made in the absence of
consultation with Congress.
In addition, intelligence is being provided on an ad hoc basis--
despite the fact that the United Nations includes such States as Libya,
Iran, and North Korea as members.
Meanwhile, the U.N. Secretary General's position seems to be growing
in authority and shrinking in accountability. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
asserts veto power over the use of NATO air power in the former
Yugoslavia, while thumbing his nose at United States proposals for an
independent inspector general at the United Nations.
The rate of assessment for the U.S. share of peacekeeping keeps
increasing. And, new assessments keep piling up with no discussions
with Congress on how to pay for old ones.
In sum, Mr. President, U.N. peacekeeping--both at headquarters, New
York, and in the field--is out of control.
This amendment seeks to introduce congressional oversight into the
peacekeeping decisionmaking process and place some reasonable limits on
U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping--without restricting the
President's ability to act as Commander in Chief.
(Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
Mr. DOLE. The United Nations Participation Act, passed in 1945, has
only been amended twice--the last time nearly 30 years ago in 1965. My
amendment simply brings the United Nation Participation Act into the
modern world.
While the cosponsors of this legislation to date have all been
Republican, I do not view the U.S. role in United Nations peacekeeping
as a Republican-Democrat issue. This is a matter between the Congress
and the executive--it is not about partisan politics, but about
responsible congressional oversight.
This amendment will put Congress back in the loop. The legislation is
the product of many hours of discussions and incorporates many ideas
from my colleagues, especially Senator Pressler and Senator Domenici.
I have made two changes in offering this amendment. First, I have
changed the withholding percentage of U.S. peacekeeping assessments
until the appointment of an independent inspector general from 50 to 20
percent, to reflect the overwhelming bipartisan support for the
Pressler-Byrd amendment--which passed 93-6 last week.
Second, I have decided to refrain, for the time being, because of
administration concern. They have been up and talked to us. At least
some of the administration representatives have talked to our staff. So
we have refrained for the time being of offering the provision on
foreign command.
While I do not think American servicemen and women should be asked to
risk their lives for the U.N. flag, I do not want debate on the Peace
Powers Act to be sidetracked by the constitutional issues raised by
limiting foreign command. However, I may offer the foreign command
amendment before the end of consideration of this bill, but I know it
is a matter of great concern, probably the hottest button in the
package. The administration is concerned, and we would like to
accommodate the administration if we can in that area.
Madam President, this legislation attempts a balance between a wide
range of views. Some Senators wanted to go much further in various
provisions while others may think certain elements go too far.
Section 804 requires notification to Congress before U.N. Security
Council votes on peacekeeping. It does not, contrary to some media
reports, require congressional authorization before such votes. That is
the view, for example, of my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey,
who wrote last October: ``Every decision to participate in a U.N.
peacekeeping operation should be subject to congressional approval.''
That is precisely what we do. Instead of requiring authorization, the
Peace Powers Act requires advance notification--and contains an
exception for emergency situations. This provision--as well as many
others in the amendment--should be welcomed by the administration as a
way to facilitate consultation and share responsibility with the
Congress. As the experience in Somalia taught us, with Congress in on
the takeoff, the landings will be much easier--even if there is a crash
landing. Sometimes you cannot avoid that. Sometimes things do not work
out quite the way everyone plans.
There may be those who argue that this amendment amounts to massive
new legislation that should be subject to hearings before it is voted
on. I would point out, however, that much of this legislation has
received broad bipartisan support in previous congressional action.
Eight sections of this amendment are already in the underlying
legislation in some form or included in the fiscal year 1994 Commerce,
Justice, State Appropriations Act.
There are new provisions in this bill--on ensuring the safety of
Americans captured in U.N. peacekeeping operations, on providing notice
of U.N. bills submitted to the United States, on transmitting U.N.
resolutions to the Congress--but these are not controversial issues
that require long hearings.
With respect to U.S. funding, section 811 of my amendment will end
the raiding of the Department of Defense budget for U.N. peacekeeping
by requiring that DOD funds for peacekeeping be authorized by Congress.
If the administration wants to ask for Defense Department money and
Congress authorizes and appropriates the funds, that is fine. But it is
high time to end back door assaults on a defense budget that is already
stretched too thin, and there is concern all across America about
stretching defense budget as thin as it is now.
Some may argue that the administration is ready to publicly discuss
its review of peacekeeping--Presidential decision directive 13. Word of
PDD-13 first leaked out last summer, about the time of committee action
on the State Department bill. While there have been some informal
briefings on U.N. peacekeeping, we have not been provided details about
the administration's new policy. It is my understanding that the
document is still classified and unavailable to Congress. The
administration did, however, decide to talk to the news media about
their plans. And I read some story over the weekend I think as a result
in the New York Times so someone got hold of it. They generally get it
before we do in any event.
Despite specific requests, administration officials did not want to
come up and talk about the provisions of my amendment--maybe their
minds are already made up. According to a New York Times story over the
weekend, and I quote, ``Suggestions from lawmakers may be incorporated,
but administration officials said they did not expect to make major
changes.'' I do not know what the amendment looks like. Maybe this
amendment is consistent with their plan--I guess again I would have to
ask the New York Times.
Last fall, the distinguished majority leader asked the Foreign
Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees to review the
war powers issue. Some of my colleagues may argue that action on my
amendment should await that process. Madam President, I stand ready to
talk about war powers--Presidential decisions to use force in defense
of American interests--but today I stand ready to take action on peace
powers. War powers in my view is an entirely different matter. I join
with the majority leader in asking for review and asking those
committees but I think this is entirely separate. I do not think it
should it should be included in that discussion.
Madam President, this amendment updates the United Nations
Participation Act, as I have indicated. During Senate debate in 1945,
Senator Robert Taft offered an amendment which would have required
congressional direction before the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. voted on
peacekeeping issues. That amendment was defeated--41 to 18--in large
part by the argument that close consultation with Congress would occur
before such votes. And of course we know there is not any consultation
at all--maybe with the executive branch--but none with Congress, and we
do have some authority under the Constitution when it comes to
committing American troops and committing American dollars. We have the
right under the Constitution to declare war and to appropriate money,
and I think somehow we sort of loss track of this in all
administrations, not just talking about this administration, but the
past administrations, the past 12 years and prior to that time.
Recent events have demonstrated that such consultation has not
occurred, despite the proliferation of U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Enactment of this legislation will help avoid a repetition of what
happened in Somalia, where missions were changed with little public
awareness, operations conceived with little public understanding, and
costs accrued with little public consensus.
In my view, this amendment strikes the balance between congressional
oversight and Presidential power. This legislation should also help
restore the American people's faith in the United States relationship
with the United Nations.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a
means to strengthen cooperation and consultation between Congress and
the Executive, and between the United Nations and the United States.
Madam President, I will be placing this on everyone's desk, and we
will have it tomorrow. What I might do tonight is make the statement of
the amendment and make another statement on the second-degree
amendment. There is a one-page summary of what the amendment does.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary of Peace Powers Act of 1994--Amendment to S. 1281
Requres congressional notification before U.N. Security
Council votes authorizing, extending or expanding
peacekeeping operations (section 804).
Requires congressional notification of: assistance to the
United Nations (section 807); bills submitted by the United
Nations for assessed contributions; and U.S. payments to the
U.N. for peacekeeping (section 806).
Requires comprehensive annual peacekeeping funding request
and 3 year cost projection (section 808).
Limits ``raiding'' of Defense Department funds for U.N.
peacekeeping (section 811), and requires full reimbursement
for Defense Department ``in-kind'' contributions to the U.N.
(section 810)
Requires reduced U.S. assessment for peacekeeping
equivalent to the assessment for general U.N. budget (25%)
beginning in FY 96 (section 812).
Ensures access for U.S. manufacturers to U.N. peacekeeping
contracts with ``buy America'' provision (section 813).
Requires steps to ensure safety of Americans captured
during U.N. peacekeeping operations (section 814).
Requires intelligence sharing with the United Nations to be
conducted only pursuant to an agreement (section 815).
Requires withholding of U.S. peacekeeping contributions
until appointment of an independent Inspector General with
authority to review U.N. peacekeeping activities (section
816).
Requires comprehensive annual reports on U.S. involvement
in U.N. peacekeeping activities (section 809), and
transmittal of U.N. resolutions and reports to Congress
(section 805).
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I think just to summarize, first of all,
it requires Congressional notification before U.N. Security Council
votes authorizing, extending, or expanding peacekeeping operations.
That is section 804. I talked about that section.
It requires congressional notification of assistance to the United
Nations--section 807--and also bills submitted by the United Nations
for assessed contributions; and U.S. payments to the United Nations for
peacekeeping. That is section 806.
Section 808 requires comprehensive annual peacekeeping funding
requests and 3-year cost projection.
And as I just talked about, section 811 talks about limiting raiding
of Defense Department funds.
Section 812 requires reduced U.S. assessment for peacekeeping
equivalent to the assessment for general U.N. budget, 25 percent
beginning in fiscal year 1996.
Section 813 ensures access for U.S. manufactures to U.N. peacekeeping
contracts with buy American provision.
Section 814 requires steps to ensure safety of Americans captured
during U.N. peacekeeping operations.
Section 815 requires intelligence sharing with the United Nations to
be conducted only pursuant to an agreement.
We understand that there be some objection to that. Senator DeConcini
may have some objection to that.
Section 816 requires withholding of U.S. peacekeeping contributions
until we appoint an independent inspector general. I referred to that
in my statement.
Then the last section 809 requires comprehensive annual reports on
U.S. involvement in U.N. peacekeeping activities. That is section 809;
and certain transmitting of resolutions back to Congress, which is
section 805.
Madam President, since I have priority of recognition, I could now
offer a second-degree amendment but I have an agreement with Senator
Mitchell that we do not have any surprises around this place, and I do
not know if Senator Mitchell is available or not.
So I would just suggest that I have a second-degree amendment. I am
prepared to offer a second-degree amendment. But, based on sort of an
unwritten agreement that the two leaders have with one another, we do
not have surprise parties on the Senate floor.
I would not want to be in the position, in the Senator's absence, to
preempt him, because he has priority recognition over the Republican
leader. So what I would suggest, unless there is some objection from
the distinguished manager of the bill, is that we might have a brief
quorum call where I could have a discussion with the Senator from
Massachusetts and that I be recognized when the quorum call is
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call roll.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on Tuesday of this past week, January 25 in
my opening statement I stressed the enormous importance of the Senate's
support for Senator Dole's Peace Powers Act. I am named to be a
cosponsor of the bill, S. 1803, and Senator Dole's amendment is
designed to bring coordination, responsibility, accountability, and
congressional oversight to United States participation in United
Nations peacekeeping activities.
As I indicated, Senator Pressler and I, and others attempted to bring
accountability with teeth to S. 1281 by offering amendments to
restructure U.S. participation in U.N.-sponsored activities in
committee. For far too long we have turned a blind eye to the conduct
of U.N. affairs.
The other day the Senate adopted the Pressler-Byrd amendment to
withhold United Nations-assessed contributions until the U.N. creates
an inspector general to systematically investigate fraud, waste, and
abuse at the United Nations.
U.N. peacekeeping activities have rapidly become the international
growth industry of the 1990's and the United States has been fanning
these fires with a constant supply of the American taxpayers' money and
resources.
We have followed the dangerously confused policy of a United Nations-
based aggressive multilateralism. To illustrate just how aggressive the
policy has been in the first 40 years of the United Nations existence,
the United Nations approved 16 peacekeeping operations. Since 1988, the
United Nations has approved 21 new peacekeeping missions and is
considering another 5 more peacekeeping activities for approval.
In 1988, the United Nations spent $364 million on peacekeeping costs.
Five years later, in 1993, the United Nations spent $3.6 billion on
assessed peacekeeping activities, and in 1994 that figure will exceed
$4 billion.
Bear in mine, Mr. President, that the United States share of that is
31.7 percent. The United States cannot afford to squander away its
international credibility, not to mention the American tax payers'
dollars, in pursuit of a series of ill-conceived, ill-defined, and
short-sighted U.N. policy objectives. Any administration must realize--
where there exists a policy vacuum, or a lack of well-defined policy
goals and procedures, Congress will, if necessary, impose its will.
This amendment establishes a structure to weigh these competing
interests and strikes a careful balance between executive and
legislative concerns. This amendment does not trample Presidential
prerogatives; it clarifies them.
Over the past 50 years, the United Nations has become a world class
bureaucracy, replete with unique idiosyncracies and organizational
quirks that only a seasoned U.N. watcher can decipher. The United
Nations has become, over the years, a very complicated bureaucratic and
logistically uncoordinated mystery. There are no standards or
definitions for many of the activities undertaken by the United
Nations. Did you know the whole concept of peacekeeping under U.N.
authority is a contrived concept? Secretary General Boutros Boutros-
Ghali has stated ``peacekeeping is a U.N. invention.'' It was not
specifically defended in the charter but was intoned. Chapters VI and
VII of the U.N. Charter are used as the basis for authorizing
peacekeeping missions, although the charter itself does neither refer
to peacekeeping as a U.N. function nor does the charter address the
range of actions for a peacekeeping mission. Over the years the United
Nations has developed its own unique practices which are not completely
compatible with U.S. expectations. I say to my colleagues, if we cannot
make sense out of the U.N. structure, we can at least define the terms
of reference for U.S. participation in peacekeeping operations.
This amendment ensures constructive congressional and executive
involvement in United Nations decision-making, and keeps the executive
branch sensitive to the immediate impact of each decision. The bill
limits the unbridled raiding of Defense Department resources in support
of U.N. activities--requires the administration to notify Congress of
the anticipated costs of peacekeeping--and mandates the creation of an
inspector general to study U.N. fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, the
amendment ensures access of U.S. manufacturing to U.N. contracts and
ensures the safety of Americans captured during U.N. peacekeeping
operations. The bill also recognizes a unique responsibility to protect
the integrity of U.S. intelligence sharing with the United Nations by
providing a mechanism to do so. This legislation also directs the
reduction of our annual assessment for peacekeeping operations from
31.7 percent to 25 percent. This is nothing new--in the 1971 Foreign
Assistance Act--Public Law 92-226--section 410 stated:
Congress strongly urges the President to undertake such
negotiation as may be necessary to implement that position of
the recommendation * * * which proposes that portion of the
regular assessed costs to be paid by the U.S. to the U.N. be
reduced so that the U.S. is assessed in each year not more
than 25 percent of such costs assessed all Members of the
U.N. for that year.
This was the recommendation in the report of the ``President's
Commission for the Observance of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the
U.N.''--the Lodge Commission. Since we are nearing the 50th anniversary
of the United Nations, I think it most appropriate to correct this
discriminatory U.N. practice of charging the United States over 30
percent--31.7 percent to be exact--for U.N. peacekeeping activities. If
the United States is unwilling to say no to new U.N. missions, we
should at least be willing to say enough is enough.
Amendment No. 1324 to Amendment No. 1323
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, on behalf of the majority leader, I send
a second-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] for Mr.
Mitchell, proposes an amendment numbered 1324 to amendment
numbered 1323.
Mr. KERRY. Madam 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:
In the amendment, on page 2, line 4, strike all after
``TITLE'' and insert the following:
SEC. 167. COST ASSESSMENT REPORT REGARDING ANY UNITED STATES
PARTICIPATION IN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 42 OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), at
least 15 days before--
(1) any obligation of funds for United States participation
in international peace operations, or
(2) any vote by the Security Council to take action under
Article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations which would
involve the use of United States Armed Forces,
the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign
Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report
containing a cost assessment of the participation of the
United States Armed Forces in those operations.
(b) Exception.--The period for submission of the report
specified in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President
determines that an emergency exists which prevents submission
of the report in a timely manner.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``United States participation in international peace
operations'' means the use of the United States Armed
Forces--
(1) pursuant to, or consistent with, action taken by the
Security Council under Article 42 of the Chapter of the
United States; or
(2) consistent with the United Nations Participation Act of
1945.
SEC. 168. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION REGARDING ANY UNITED
STATES IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 43 OF THE
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), at
least 15 days before any agency or entity of the United
States Government makes available armed forces, assistance,
or facilities to the United Nations under Article 43 of the
United Nations Charter, the President shall so notify the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Exception.--The period for notifying Congress in
subsection (a) shall not apply if the President determines
that an emergency exists which prevents making a notification
in a timely manner.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``assistance'' means assistance of any kind, including the
provision of logistical support and the grant of rights of
passage.
SEC. 169. REPORT ON UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, and each year thereafter at the time of the President's
budget submission to Congress, the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal
agencies (including the Department of Defense), shall submit
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate a report on United States contributions to United
Nations peacekeeping activities. Such report shall include--
(1) the overall cost of all peacekeeping operations as of
the date of the report;
(2) the costs of each peacekeeping operation;
(3) the amount of United States contributions (assessed and
voluntary) on an operation-by-operation basis; and
(4) an assessment of the effectiveness of ongoing
peacekeeping operations, their relevance to United States
national interests, the efforts by the United Nations to
resolve the relevant armed conflicts, and the projected
termination dates for such operations.
SEC. 170. UNITED STATES PERSONNEL AND MATERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
(a) Personnel.--(1) The United Nations should reimburse the
United States for use of personnel of the Armed Forces of the
United States in United Nations peacekeeping operations. The
amount of the reimbursement should be the full United Nations
reimbursement determined on a per-person-per-month basis.
(2) To the extent that funds are made available under law
to the Department of Defense for peacekeeping activities, the
Secretary of State may accept the United Nations
reimbursement in the form of a credit against the amount of
an assessment by the United Nations against the United
States. If no such funds are available, the Secretary of
State shall accept payment of the United Nations
reimbursement and, out of the amount received, reimburse the
Department of Defense for the incremental costs of use of the
Armed Forces personnel in the United Nations peacekeeping
operation.
(b) Goods and Services.--The United Nations should
reimburse the Department of Defense directly for goods and
services provided to a United Nations peacekeeping operation.
The Secretary of Defense may waive reimbursement for such
goods and services if the Secretary determines that the
waiver is justified by exceptional circumstances.
(c) Value of Goods and Services.--The Permanent
Representative of the United States to the United Nations
should use the voice and vote of the United States to ensure
that goods and services provided by the United States to
United Nations peacekeeping operations are reimbursed at the
appropriate value.
(d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Permanent Representative of the
United States to the United Nations shall submit a report to
the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate
and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on all
actions taken by the United States mission to the United
Nations to ensure that contributions of personnel, goods, and
services to United Nations peacekeeping operations are
reimbursed at their appropriate values.
(e) Review and Reassessment of Assessed Contributions to
United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.--(1) The Permanent
Representative of the United States to the United Nations
should make every effort to ensure the United Nations
completes an overall review and reassessment of each nation's
assessed contribution for international peacekeeping
operations.
(2) As part of the overall review and assessment, the
Permanent Representative should make every effort to advance
the concept that host governments and other governments in
the region where a peacekeeping operation is deployed should
bear a greater burden of its financial cost.
(3) The Permanent Representative should further make every
effort to seek a United States contribution to United Nations
peacekeeping operations that matches the United States share
of assessed contributions.
SEC. . UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN UNITED NATIONS
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) the President of the United States has asserted that
reform of United Nations peacekeeping operations is to be of
the highest national priority in furtherance of United States
national security objectives;
(2) at the direction of the President of the United States
the National Security Council is coordinating a comprehensive
review of United States policy towards United Nations
peacekeeping operations on which the Congress of the United
States is to be consulted;
(3) in cooperation with the Congress of the United States,
the purpose of the National Security Council review is to
reform policies and programs governing United States
participation in United Nations operations;
(4) in conjunction with the President's review, the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate has requested the
Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to
examine thoroughly the proper role of U.S. troops in the
post-Cold War world and the implications for U.S. foreign
policy with the intent of enacting legislation, in
cooperation with the President, regarding U.S. policy toward
post-Cold War conflicts, United States involvement in
peacekeeping operations, and of establishing a process to
ensure proper accommodations of Legislative and Executive
Branch prerogatives in addressing such issues;
(5) such a process will embody sound constitutional
principles and reflect the appropriate roles of the President
and the Congress relating to the use of United States Armed
Forces both in unilateral and multilateral operations in
order for such operations to enjoy the support of both the
Executive and Legislative Branches and the American people;
and
(6) the concerned committees of jurisdiction have initiated
a process of examination of the appropriate use of United
States Forces.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Therefore, it is the Sense of
the Congress that--
(1) the primacy of United States national security
interests with respect to United States participation in and
support for United Nations peacekeeping activities must be
maintained;
(2) congressional oversight of United Nations peacekeeping
activities and other United Nations activities must be
strengthened;
(3) coordination between the executive and legislative
branches of Government regarding United States participation
in and support for United Nations peacekeeping operations
must be improved and communication between the two branches
prompt;
(4) the Congress should be notified in advance of the
intent to approve United Nations peacekeeping operations;
(5) for United Nations peacekeeping operations that would
involve the participation of United States combat forces,
such notification should include detailed information
concerning command and control arrangements for such forces,
their military mission and objectives, and their rules of
engagement, and
(6) United States contributions to United Nations
peacekeeping activities must be fair and equitable.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, first of all, I thank the distinguished
minority leader for indeed protecting the rights of the majority leader
and for not creating surprises. I think the Senate, obviously, works a
lot better when that happens. I respect him for doing so.
The amendment that I have sent to the desk on behalf of the majority
leader essentially asks that the process which he has put in place be
respected. I would say for myself that I have just been skimming the
amendment, now slightly changed from the prior draft, of the
distinguished Senator from Kansas. I think it has an awful lot of good
suggestions in it. This is a matter that has concerned a great many of
us for a long period of time.
We witnessed fairly solid decisions by the Bush administration in the
course of the Kuwait crisis, and there were many people who raised
questions of congressional input at that point in time. So this is
obviously not a new question.
But I would say to my friend from Kansas that there are as many
questions that I can see raised in this as are answered in it--the
period of time; the amount of notice necessary; what is the appropriate
relationship of our input and what degree?
There is no question that the President of the United States himself
consents with the fundamental thrust of this in that he has said very
clearly that before he would ever think of putting troops in a
peacekeeping effort in Bosnia he would want congressional input.
I think one of the great lessons we have learned, from Vietnam on, is
that you do not want to put young Americans into harm's way without
having a broad consensus and without having congressional input, which
is the best way to bring the American people into the process.
I just do not know that every suggestion of the minority is, in fact,
the way to do it. I am not sure all, or at least many, of my colleagues
would be able to make that judgment very quickly. But I do think he
raises a most important subject which we ought to debate in one forum
or another. Obviously, it is here on the floor and there will be time
for Senators to make comments on it tomorrow.
Again, I thank the minority leader for protecting the rights of the
majority leader. I appreciate his forbearance.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. DOLE. I hope there would be some time tomorrow. I know it is
going to be crowded tomorrow. I do not think it would take a great deal
of time to debate. I know others want to speak on this. I know the
majority leader wants to speak on behalf of the second-degree
amendment.
Perhaps, unless there is some objection, we could set this amendment
aside, and then I will confer with the majority leader and we can have
the managers give us some time tomorrow for debate.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Obviously, we will accommodate the majority leader and
minority leader anytime that meets their schedule. We will be having a
vote, at least one and possibly two, in the vicinity of 10 o'clock in
the morning. Subsequent to that, there will be a period both for debate
of amendments yet to come and for this amendment. So we will set aside
some period of time.
I might just say with respect to this amendment--I know the Senator
from South Carolina wants to speak--as we all know, no peacekeeping
effort happens on behalf of the United Nations without the Security
Council voting. So the rights of Congress and the rights of the
American people are, in effect, protected by that vote.
It seems to me that the real issue here is: Does the President feel
constrained, does any President feel constrained, first, to bring the
issue up before Congress before taking the important question and
voting to the Security Council and voting affirmatively in the Security
Council?
Heretofore, obviously, Presidents have seen fit to direct our
representative, the Ambassador to the United Nations, to vote
affirmatively on peacekeeping, and then we have stopped afterward to
try to figure out what the cost is going to be and whether or not it is
something that we really are deeply committed to or are willing to stay
the course in. That is not, particularly in the aftermath of the end of
the cold war, proving to be satisfactory.
So the Senator from Kansas raises a very important question. The
majority leader, recognizing this some months ago, assigned the
chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs in the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Biden; Senator Nunn, the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee; and Senator Pell, the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, all to pull together a task force which is
currently examining this question.
It is not just an examination of the War Powers Act. It is, in fact,
an examination of when the United States ought to commit to using force
of any kind, particularly for peacekeeping and peacemaking, and
particularly what should the process be by which we come to that
particular decision.
So this is on the table now, as I know the majority leader will
describe in greater detail tomorrow. The real question here is whether
or not we ought to just put this out here suddenly with very minimal
debate, because of the timeframe which we are now operating in, and
attach it to this bill, or whether we ought to take a harder look at it
and work with the administration and come up with a reasonable
approach.
That is, obviously, I think the basic framework for the arguments we
will entertain tomorrow. But we will hold off until that time to really
dig into the issues that are raised by the amendment of the Senator.
I believe the Senator from South Carolina wanted to speak to this at
this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, it is gratifying to see that the
Senate has not wasted any time in getting down to business. After
returning from a long winter recess we wasted no time in taking up an
important piece of legislation, the State Department authorization for
fiscal years 1994 and 1995. I intend to reserve judgment regarding
final support of this bill, because my vote will in large measure be
determined by the success of the Dole amendment on U.N. peacekeeping
operations. I wish to commend the able Senator from Kansas, Senator
Dole, for his remarks on this subject.
As ranking Rrepublican on the Armed Services Committee, I have been
troubled over the past few months by fundamental changes in the
direction of U.S. defense and foreign policy. These changes are a
virtual revolution in our national security thinking, and were
highlighted by the controversy over the nomination of Morton Halperin
to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping.
Mr. Halperin has quietly left the scene, for which we can be grateful.
But the ideas and concepts which he represented, and which stirred up
such broad-based opposition to him, remain deeply imbedded in the
national security planning of the administration.
Consequently, the underlying debate of that controversial nomination
is still with us, and that is why I so strongly support the Dole
amendment. Quite simply, that debate is between those who believe that
America's vital national interests should be the paramount
consideration in U.S. defense and foreign policy, and those who are
animated by a different vision.
I believe the Dole amendment addresses this significant but
unresolved issue intelligently and forthrightly. As the distinguished
minority leader has pointed out, his Peace Powers Act would restore the
primacy of American national interests by placing limits on our
involvement in U.N. peace operations abroad. It would mandate a
stronger congressional oversight of U.S. participation in such
operations, and bring about better accountability in how scarce U.S.
defense dollars are spent for U.N. peacekeeping and peace enforcement.
I know some Members will object strenuously to the Dole amendment.
But the burden is on them to explain why the United States should make
the Utopianism of the 1960's and 1970's the foundation of U.S. foreign
policy in the 1990's. They must explain why globalism is preferable to
the primacy of America's national interests.
In making the United Nations and its so-called peace operations a
major element of U.S. foreign policy, the administration inevitably
makes it difficult if not impossible to act unilaterally on our own
behalf when necessary. First, by establishing a different ethic--that
U.S. national interests are subordinate to the nebulous goal of global
peacemaking--we will confuse and divide the American public, whose
support is essential to maintaining a strong defense. Second, by
spreading our troops, logistics, and other scarce resources around the
world with the United Nations, we will become overextended, and may not
have the means to defend our interests quickly and decisively when
threatened. Third, by elevating the United Nations as the main
instrument of peace and security, we compromise our sovereignty and the
authority of the national government, which will further erode our
ability to act decisively when our interests are directly challenged.
The American people are willing to make considerable sacrifices for
national security. They pay the necessary taxes, endure long
separations, and send their loved ones into danger all without
complaint, and all for one primary reason--to safeguard American lives
and vital interests. At the same time, Americans are a compassionate
and generous people, and can be relied upon to help other people in
distress. We show that compassion time and time again whenever there
are disasters--manmade or natural--in the far corners of the globe. We
proved it in Somalia, when United States forces went into a place of
utterly no strategic importance to feed starving men, women, and
children.
The Somalia intervention was an unselfish act of which we can be
proud. But it turned into a national tragedy when the original
humanitarian mission was quietly changed to the vague mission of peace
enforcement and nation building. This ill-conceived new mission did not
have the broad support of the American people or of the military. Our
forces in Somalia were not adequately prepared for the bitter, urban
guerrilla war in which they suddenly found themselves embroiled. The
Somalia experience, and the near debacle in Haiti, speak far more
eloquently than words of the need to include the Dole amendment in this
bill.
Some Senators charge that Senator Dole's amendment represents a swing
toward isolationism. This is not so. There is nothing in his amendment
that would impede U.S. cooperation with our allies, and I know my
colleague from Kansas believes the United States must remain engaged as
a leader in the world. Bt as we continue to play a world leadership
role, our attention and our resources must be devoted to influencing
the factors beyond our borders that most directly affect our economic
and security needs.
Other Senators may also complain that the amendment intrudes on the
executive branch. As a general principle, I do not believe the Congress
should intrude on the foreign policy prerogatives of the Commander in
Chief. But I remind my colleagues--this legislation is not a form of
the War Powers Act. It is appropriately named the ``Peace Powers Act.''
It would not restrain the President from acting promptly and decisively
to defeat a threat to American lives or vital interests, as in Panama
or the gulf war. It would only restrain his ability to use U.S. forces
where the threat to national interests is uncertain. In such cases, the
constitutional role of Congress in providing checks and balances is
appropriate, even necessary. Congressional oversight of the
administration's U.N. policy will do far less damage than the potential
harm from unrestrained and ill-considered global operations under the
flawed leadership of the United Nations.
Some Members have argued that our victory in the cold war requires us
to carry out our global leadership responsibilities through the United
Nations. They say we must replace the doctrine of containment that
undergirded our foreign policy during the long struggle with Soviet
imperialism with a new doctrine of globalism. But I must point out that
it was primarily United States military and economic strength, combined
with political resolve, that contained Soviet aggression until the
Empire collapsed from its own internal contradictions. Although the
United States and our allies won a great victory over Soviet
imperialism, the resulting world of disorder does not mean that
American power should be frittered away for dubious purposes. Today's
world demands more than ever an America whose political, economic, and
military power are focused and dependable. That power must be wielded
for the good of the Nation and the world not by faceless U.N.
bureaucrats, but by democratic leaders accountable to a free and
independent people.
Lest anyone think the cold war has dispensed with future threats, let
me remind my colleagues that it is still a dangerous and uncertain
world. Today we are facing new enemies, ethnic and religious as well as
political, which are extreme in their intensity and essentially
irrational. In many respects, this kind of threat is far more difficult
to deter than a traditional, rational power, and often harder to defeat
if deterrence fails. Irrational or nontraditional threats in this new
age of chaos are also far more difficult to predict. We may not be able
to anticipate where and whom we will have to fight. We will have to be
prepared for the unexpected, for major regional crises that rise
suddenly--in other words, for contingencies.
A case in point is the gulf war. Prior to August 1990, no one
anticipated we would find ourselves in a major war with Saddam Hussein.
Fortunately American and coalition armed forces were more than a match
for Iraq. Moreover, I am glad that the coalition had U.N. sanctions to
repel Iraqi aggression. But would anyone seriously argue that Operation
Desert Storm would have been more successful as a U.N. peace
enforcement operation? The answer is obvious. Without strong,
unequivocal American leadership, Saddam Hussein might still be
occupying Kuwait.
Rather than attempt to meet global challenges under the auspices of
the United Nations, I believe it is the first responsibility of the
executive branch and the Congress to make sure we always have the means
and the will to safeguard American lives and interests. As we reduce
our military capabilities, we still have several responsibilities to
meet. We must maintain existing commitments, for example, in Europe,
South Korea, and the Persian Gulf area. At the same time we must be
able to counter new regional threats to our vital interests such as key
resources or trade routes. Though I am not enthusiastic about the
United Nations, I do acknowledge there are times when we will want to
participate in limited U.N. peacekeeping operations. But if we give the
United Nations a blank check for vast new peacekeeping duties around
the world, a mismatch between our commitments and our resources will be
the inevitable result. This will leave us dangerously overextended and
vulnerable in a future crisis.
This is a prescription for disaster and loss of American lives. This
is why Senator Dole's Peace Powers Act and the primacy of American
interests and responsibilities must be the centerpiece of future U.S.
foreign policy.
I thank the Chair, and ask unanimous consent that I be added as a
cosponsor of the Dole amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, as I said, this will be the subject, I am
sure, of some debate tomorrow. The important thing to remember with
respect to the United Nations is that the United Nations gets no check
at all, no blank check, no paid-amount check unless the President of
the United States directs the Ambassador to the United Nations, whom
the President appoints, to vote for a particular peacekeeping effort.
So we already have a veto. We have to remember that. Nothing that the
United Nations does in terms of peacekeeping or peacemaking happens if
we vote no and unless the other permanent members of the Security
Council, the five powers--China, France, Great Britain, and Russia--
vote yes or abstain. It does not happen without those five votes.
You can look back at the administrations of President Reagan,
President Bush, President Nixon, President Ford, and President
Eisenhower, and you can find involvements of the United Nations
somewhere in the world where we have engaged in some peacekeeping
effort in one form or another. We have not always had our people there,
but we have voted for people to engage in that.
The obvious issue now in the wake of Somalia--where, incidentally, we
lost some soldiers tragically but all of them under American command.
We recall how a lot of people were coming to the floor of the Senate
saying, ``By God, we can't allow our soldiers to be under the command
of foreign leaders.'' They were not, except to the degree that Boutros
Boutros-Ghali and the United Nations had overall command. But in terms
of tactical, strategic, day-to-day command, those folks were under the
command of the Americans.
I think we have to put this in the proper perspective as we come at
this debate. Very legitimate questions are raised which a lot of us
share. We do not want a President all by himself or herself making a
decision that the United States is going to pay the long staying price
of some particular effort, putting our prestige on the line, asking
young Americans to involve themselves somewhere, possibly die, if we
have not been part of the decision--we being the Congress representing
the American people.
Indeed, we want the American people, because everyone, at least of
this generation, has learned that if you do not have the support of the
American people when the shooting starts, you are going to see trouble
if you have not talked about it first. The last thing we can afford is
for defeats to be thrust on us--defeats for the United Nations or for
us individually--by virtue of the lack of staying power. I think
nothing could be worse.
So I am all for bringing the Congress into the process. I think we
are a lot stronger when that happens. I know President Clinton feels
that way. It is absolutely clear that the President would not think of
putting our troops on the ground, I believe, at this point, without the
Congress helping to sign off on it and the American people being part
of the debate.
So the amendment that the Senator brings is good in many respects and
problematical in some that we have not resolved, which is why we need
to really take our time and look at it more carefully than this
particular framework on this bill allows.
Tomorrow I am confident that Senator Mitchell will articulate further
his hopes for the current task force that is working and the reasons
why we would prefer to leave that in place and then come together in a
strong way--all of us; Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and
liberals; whatever spectrum of the parties--and let us send a message
to the United Nations and to the world that adequately defines our
aspirations for future involvement and for the potential
accomplishments of the United Nations.
We will be stronger, the United Nations will be stronger, and our
goals will be better served if we wait and proceed in a nonpartisan
fashion, and in hopefully a broadly arrived at bipartisan fashion. I
think every one of us understands that the foreign policy of this
country is at its strongest when we have a consensus and when it is
bipartisan. That goes back to the great Vandenberg tradition, something
we have learned. Whenever this country has been united with a consensus
and with a bipartisan policy, we have succeeded. It is when we do not
have a consensus and when we lose the bipartisanship consensus that we
have our greatest foreign policy problems.
So I urge Senator Dole and others who are pressing this issue to
press the debate and to present the issue in the fora that are
available over the course of the next months. I think it would be
regrettable if we did it in a very hasty way, in a partisan rather than
bipartisan way. I am not suggesting that is what it is now, but it has
the potential clearly to become that if some Senators feel they just do
not like one provision or another, and they have not had an adequate
chance to work it out.
I think that is a fair feeling on the part of some if they have only
just been presented with this major proposal in the course of today or
in the last few days.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10
o'clock tomorrow morning, Tuesday, February 1, the Senate vote on the
Cohen amendment No. 1318 regarding Germany; that no second-degree
amendments be in order thereto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the
Cohen amendment No. 1318.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires unanimous consent to ask for the
yeas and nays.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to ask for the
yeas and nays on the Cohen amendment No. 1318.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KERRY. 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. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in very strong opposition to
the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi which would
prohibit assistance--not only military assistance but economic
assistance or ESF, as well, as I understand it--to any country whose
U.N. votes corresponded to those of the United States less than 25
percent of the time. I gather there has also been a proposal on the
floor to raise that to 30 percent.
Let me just mention a few countries that would be affected by this.
This is one of those amendments where you really have to think through
the consequences of it. We have to make sure we are not legislating in
the dark. Let me mention a few countries that would be affected by
this: Morocco, Tunisia, the Philippines, and Cyprus.
Correspondence with all U.N. votes, which are a huge number of votes,
is a very poor indicator of a country's relationship with the United
States. There is hardly any developing country above 50 percent. Often
there are votes on economic and social matters that reflect the point
of view of the developing world, which is different from the point of
view of the developed world. Moreover, the way the measurement is done,
countries only get credit from the time they actually vote with the
United States. So if they miss a lot of votes or abstain, they do not
get a good rating.
This is a classic example of not carefully examining exactly what the
consequences of this would be.
First of all, there are many minor, insignificant votes in the United
Nations.
Second, a missed vote or an abstained vote hurts you, even though
there are times when abstentions are actually helpful to us.
This amendment would cut off aid to many of our allies who are
deserving of our support. And I mentioned only four: Tunisia, Morocco,
the Philippines, and Cyprus. Jordan also would be affected, which is of
course a central player now in the effort to get peace in the Middle
East. Mongolia would be affected, a nation that we have been trying to
help in its efforts to move away from communism.
Even if we agreed to use U.N. votes as a standard, this is not the
one to go by. Rather, there is the standard of ``important votes,''
which are defined in law as ``votes on issues which directly affect
important U.S. interests and on which the United States lobbied
extensively.'' A country's record on the important votes may not be
correlated with its record on all votes, which is what this amendment
talks about. Even then one might not want to do this.
After all, you have to judge what the nature of our bilateral
relationship is with a country, how they have helped us in particular
instances. Of course, Tunisia and Morocco have been very helpful to the
United States, particularly in recent times on the Middle East peace
effort. Cyprus was very helpful during the time of the Persian Gulf,
very helpful. They were of great significance to the United States in
that endeavor.
The Philippines of course has been a traditional ally of the United
States, and we have been providing them economic assistance which would
be cut off by this amendment.
Using this rating system is not a fair reflection of our relationship
with a country. We already have provisions in the law to terminate
assistance to a country if it fails to cooperate on human rights, or on
expropriation, or on narcotics, or terrorism, and so forth. But this
amendment, which takes every vote in the U.N., many of which are
procedural, many of which are minor, and then seeks to construct off of
that a standard we use to deny assistance, in a blanket way, it seems
to me is going to get us into a great, great deal of trouble. Countries
which did not vote, missed votes, abstained on votes, are penalized
under this system, even though they may have abstained as a favor to
us.
I understand some of the thinking behind this, but if you go and
start analyzing the countries that are going to be affected and the
nature of our relationship with them, it would seem to me that one
would reach the conclusion that this is an ill-advised measure that is
before us.
If you really want to address the aid to a particular country, you
ought to address that country on its own merits, but not establish a
standard which, as I suggested here today, is an inappropriate and not
a meaningful standard, and then apply that in a way that it has an
impact on countries that have been enormously helpful and cooperative
to the United States.
In other words, their record on the sum total of U.N. votes does not
accurately reflect the nature of their bilateral relationship with the
United States. This simply is not a reasonable or legitimate standard
to apply. I would hope the Members of this body would stop for a moment
and think this through very carefully. This is the kind of an amendment
that springs up on the floor and, on first blush, people see nothing
wrong with it; and then when you look to see what are its consequences
and what will its impact be, you begin to see that it is going to have
an impact that I think thoughtful Members of this body would not want
to see take place.
So I strongly urge my colleagues to consider that. Will there be
debate time tomorrow as well on these amendments, I ask the manager of
the bill?
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I say to the Senator that that is still
open. In fact, I have preserved our right to second degree this
amendment, should that be the course we choose to take. I am not sure
yet how we will proceed.
Mr. SARBANES. I will leave that until tomorrow. I know that others
are waiting to offer an amendment and I will come to a close.
I very much wanted to address this issue this evening in order to get
into the Record, for the benefits of our colleagues and their staffs,
the importance of this issue.
This amendment has consequences that are not apparent upon first
glance. It is not clear when you first look at it that the standard is
really not an appropriate one. These are not just the important votes
on which the United States takes a strong position. Some of these
countries which have low overall scores go well above 50 percent on the
important votes that come before the United Nations. I am not even sure
the important votes are a proper standard, because you are still not
looking at what the bilateral relationship is with these countries.
Even on the important votes, there are a number of instances where the
United States was supported only by two or three other countries, and
two votes where the United States was entirely alone.
Some of the countries that would be affected by this amendment are
extremely critical to initiatives which the United States is taking at
this very moment. Morocco and Tunisia are perfect examples of that
right now. Cyprus was a perfect example of it at the time of the
Persian Gulf war, when their cooperation was extremely important to the
success of United States activities. The Philippines would be affected
here, a country with whom we have had a close historical relationship.
So I would urge my colleagues to examine this amendment very
carefully. Its implications are far beyond what first meets the eye. I
very much hope that this amendment will not be adopted, because if it
were, I think it would have a very deleterious impact on the conduct of
our foreign policy.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments. Before
he got here, I raised a number of questions with the Senator from
Mississippi. And while we have not fully engaged in this issue, it was
pointed out that the Philippines and Cyprus, to mention a couple, and
Morocco, would indeed be affected by this. But what we are still trying
to ascertain, in order to be able to better demonstrate some of the
problems, are some of the votes that we are in fact talking about. Even
if you limit this to the critical votes, you are looking at some votes
that you would hardly find disqualifying, in some senses, because we
may have voted against it or chosen to for a particular reason; but in
a few cases you may have had a 75-3 vote, for instance. The vast
majority of countries saw the issue in different terms, and the fact
that our interests did not meet on that particular critical issue vote
does not mean that they are not helping us in some particular area of
narcotics suppression, or international crime fighting, or other forms
of diplomacy behind the scenes.
So I think the Senator's point is well taken. We are still going to
spend the evening pulling together some of that information, and we
will try to determine where we will come out at that time. There will
be time for further discussion tomorrow.
Mr. SARBANES. You have to look at what these votes are. Morocco, on
important votes, was 54.5 percent; on overall votes, it was 21 percent.
Cyprus was 22 percent on overall votes; on important votes, it was 58
percent. So there is a big gap between where they are on the important
votes and where they are on the overall votes.
Second, many of these plenary issues are not important matters to us.
Of course, if a country abstains or is absent, that counts against
them. This is not a way to do business, and the consequence of doing
business this way, if we pass this amendment, would be to exacerbate
our relationship with some very important countries, who have been very
helpful and cooperative to the United States in trying to reach our
objectives.
Mr. KERRY. I share the Senator's concern and his observations, and I
think over the course of the evening we can demonstrate this to an even
further degree.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bryan). The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendments be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1325
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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 West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes
an amendment numbered 1325.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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:
Amendment No. 1325
SECTION . UNITED STATES CITIZENS HIRED ABROAD
In order to facilitate the hiring of United States citizens
abroad, the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3801 et
seq.) (``the Act''), the State Department Basic Authorities
Act (22 U.S.C. 2669 et seq.), and other provisions are
amended as follows;
(1) In section 309(b) of the Act by deleting ``and'' at the
end of subsection (b)(3); and by deleting the period at the
end of subsection (b)(4) and inserting in lieu thereof ``;
and (5) as a foreign national employee.''.
(2) In section 311 of the Act by striking the section and
inserting the following:
``(a) The Secretary, under section 303, may appoint United
States citizens, who are family members of Government
employees assigned abroad or are hired for service at their
post of residence, for employment in positions customarily
filled by Foreign Service officers, Foreign Service
personnel, and foreign national employees.
``(b) The fact that an applicant for employment in a
position referred to in subsection (a) is a family member of
a Government employee assigned abroad shall be considered an
affirmative factor in employing such person.
``(c)(1) Non-family members employed under this section for
service at their post of residence shall be paid in
accordance with local compensation plans established under
section 408.
``(2) Family members employed under this section shall be
paid in accordance with the Foreign Service Schedule or the
salary rates established under section 407.
``(3) In exceptional circumstances, non-family members may
be paid in accordance with the Foreign Service Schedule or
the salary rates established under section 407, if the
Secretary determines that the national interest would be
served by such payments.
``(d) Citizens employed under this section shall not be
eligible for benefits under Chapter 8 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1980, as amended, or under chapters 83 and 84 of title
5, unless the Secretary states in writing or by regulation
that specific individuals shall remain eligible for benefits
under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5, as appropriate. Each
agency should make efforts to find additional funding for
retirement coverage for family members.''
(3) In section 404(a) of the Act by deleting the phrase
``who are family members of Government employees paid in
accordance with a local compensation plan established
under''.
(4) In section 408 of the Act:
(A) By rewriting the first sentence of subsection 408(a)(1)
to read as follows: ``The Secretary shall establish
compensation (including position classification) plans for
foreign national employees of the Service and United States
citizens employed under section 311(c)(1).'';
(B) in the second sentence of subsection 408(a)(1), by
deleting the phrase ``employed in the Service abroad who were
hired while residing abroad and to those family members of
Government employees who are paid in accordance with such
plans'';
(C) in the third sentence of subsection 408(a)(1), by
deleting the phrase ``foreign national'' each place it
appears; and
(D) by adding a fourth sentence as follows: ``For United
States citizens under a compensation plan, the Secretary
shall also (A) provide these citizens with a total
compensation package (including wages, allowances, benefits,
and other employer payments, such as for social security)
that has the equivalent cost to that received by foreign
national employees occupying a similar position at that post
and, (B) define those allowances and benefits provided under
U.S. law which shall be included as part of this total
compensation package, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, except that this section shall not be used to override
United States minimum wage requirements, or any provision of
the Social Security Act or the Internal Revenue Code.''
(5) In section 504(b) of the Act by inserting ``(other than
those employed in accordance with section 311)'' immediately
after ``citizen of the United States''.
(6) In section 601(b)(2) of the Act by deleting ``and'' the
last time it appears and by inserting ``and other members of
the Service'' immediately after ``categories of career
candidates,''.
(7) In section 611 of the Act by striking all that follows
``Foreign Service Schedule'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``or who is paid in accordance with section 407 or is a U.S.
citizen paid under a compensation plan under section 408.''.
(8) In section 903(a) of the Act by inserting ``(other than
a member employed under section 311)'' immediately after
``member of the Service'' each place it appears.
(9) In section 1002(8)(A) of the Act by inserting ``a
member of the Service who is a United States citizen (other
than a family member) employed under section 311,''
immediately after ``a consular agent,''.
(10) In section 1101(a)(1) of the Act by inserting ``other
than a United States citizen employed under section 311 who
is not a family member)'' immediately after ``citizen of the
United States''.
(11) In section 2(c) of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2669(c)), by inserting the
following before the period: ``; and such contracts are
authorize to be negotiated, the terms of the contracts to be
prescribed, and the work to be performed, where necessary,
without regard to such statutory provisions as relate to the
negotiation, making, and performance of contracts and
performance of work in the United States''.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that is
designed to level the playing field when it comes to employment
opportunities for U.S. citizens living in other countries. This effort
is the result of many months of discussion, debate, and negotiation to
work out a solution to problems that are quite technical and complex.
But my goal has been and remains very simple. It is time to end the
discrimination and inequities that do harm to our citizens when they
need to be gainfully employed abroad by our own State Department. For
the more than 3 million Americans who currently reside outside the
United States, this amendment will grant them a fair shot at obtaining
work and the benefits that should accompany that work.
I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, for
joining me in attaching this amendment to the State Department
authorization bill. We agreed sometime ago to work together on behalf
of important principles that should govern that State Department's
hiring and employment policies in its embassies and outposts around the
world. As a result of good-faith efforts with the agency's new
leadership under the Clinton administration, we finally succeeded in
crafting the new policy and objectives embodied in this amendment. My
original proposal was even more comprehensive, but I concluded it was
best to reach agreement now on the strides forward that this consensus
amendment will put into effect.
Needless to say, the results of this amendment depend on continued
leadership and commitment by the State Department to the purpose of
this amendment. Habits and past practices have to be changed. When this
amendment becomes law, the agency will be expected to start a new era
of fair employment opportunities for our citizens abroad. My hope is
that the State Department will see this as an opportunity to serve the
interests of our citizens and their families.
Mr. President, I want to provide some history on the issues
underlying this amendment, and will then describe the content of the
amendment.
Almost 2\1/2\ years ago, in July 1991, I came to this Chamber to
introduce legislation to eliminate employment discrimination against
Americans by the U.S. Department and the other U.S. foreign affairs
agencies. At that time, Americans--and only Americans, because they
were Americans--were prohibited from applying for nonsensitive, local-
hire positions in U.S. embassies and consulates. It was deplorable that
U.S. Government agencies discriminated against potential employees in
these positions on the basis of nationality. The fact that they
discriminated against only U.S. citizens was simply ridiculous.
The State Department told me 2\1/2\ years ago that the discrimination
existed because the Foreign Service Act of 1980 did not give foreign
affairs agencies the authority to hire Americans residing abroad under
the compensation plans used to pay other employees in local-hire
positions. My July 1991 amendment, which was drafted with the advice
and cooperation of the State Department, was designed to give the
foreign affairs agencies that authority. The amendment was approved by
the Congress and was signed into law in October 1991.
During more than 1\1/2\ years after it became law, I and my staff
have had many exchanges with State Department officials and the other
foreign affairs agencies responsible for implementing that 1991 change
in the law. I must confess that at times during that period I became
frustrated with the repeated assurances that the law's implementation
was imminent, only to witness months and months of further delay.
However, through the efforts of the State Department's leadership
which came into office last year, I was finally ably to get the State
Department to inaugurate an employment program that took into account
at least the spirit of my amendment. In fact, Mr. President, I was so
pleased with getting some progress that I used a Senate floor statement
to announce that the State Department had finally fulfilled its
obligation to carry out the 1991 amendment. Although I was still
troubled by some of the details of the State Department's program, it
did accomplish the principal goal of the 1991 amendment: some 10,000
jobs in American diplomatic and consular missions which had been
unavailable to American citizens were opened to them.
These jobs range from well-paid professional positions, such as
economists, librarians, and computer technicians, to entry-level
support positions such as receptionists, drivers, and building
maintenance personnel. To be hired, Americans living abroad, like other
applicants, will have to meet the qualifications of the positions.
These usually include fluency in the local language as well as in
English, and often include an intimate knowledge of the country
culture, its economy, and its political system.
The agreement I reached with the State Department on that program
came when both sides acknowledged that ambiguities in other sections of
the Foreign Service Act--provisions that I did not propose changing
2\1/2\ years ago--could maintain some elements of employment
discrimination in the hiring of U.S. citizens residing abroad. With
that acknowledgement, both sides pledged to work together to write the
other changes in the Foreign Service Act necessary to eliminate this
remaining potential discrimination. I am happy to announce that our
joint effort has been successful and that I am introducing today those
further, necessary changes to the Foreign Service Act of 1980.
This amendment will give the Secretary of State clear authority to
hire Americans for those 10,000 positions from which they had been
previously excluded and to pay them under the same compensation systems
used to pay others hired for these positions. This provision is
particularly important because under State Department's execution of
the current law U.S. citizens hired locally are not eligible for
standard employee benefits such as retirement and health care programs
that are provided to other locally hired employees. In addition, in
many cases the U.S. pay schedule--the one that the State Department is
now using for these locally hired U.S. citizens--is below the local
salary rates overseas. Thus, in some countries the U.S. State
Department is paying U.S. citizens less than it pays citizens of other
countries in an identical job. This practice certainly does not seem to
me to meet the American fairness standard of equal pay for equal work.
It will be stopped by this legislation.
The amendment I am introducing today provides, moreover, the
flexibility the State Department believes it needs to adjust to the
special employment conditions that exist in the hundreds of different
Foreign Service posts where these new job opportunities for Americans
exist. For example, it provides that embassies can adjust American's
total compensation package to ensure that the total cost of employing
other nationalities in the same position. This flexibility will
maintain the cost competitiveness of American job applicants when other
provisions of U.S. law require payments for Americans, such as Social
Security contributions, that are not required for non-U.S. citizens.
The importance of this flexibility and another way the State Department
will use it were well stated in a letter Under Secretary of State
Richard M. Moose wrote to me last week as we neared final agreement on
the text of the amendment.
Under Secretary Moose wrote,
Because of the varied circumstances at different posts,
however, we are certain to encounter situations when it will
be in the U.S. Government's or the resident American's best
interests to place that individual in an alternative
compensation plan. For example, in order to attract U.S.
citizens resident in many parts of Africa or Central America
who are not family members [of U.S. Government employees
assigned abroad], we may wish to pay those individuals on the
U.S. scale. * * * Our legislative proposal incorporates your
mandatory language on compensation plans, but adds a waiver
which would permit us to compensate non-family members on the
U.S. pay scale in exceptional circumstances, if the Secretary
determines that would be in the national interest.
Today's amendment seeks fair employment standards for another
important group of U.S. citizens employed by our embassies and
consulates overseas. These are the family members who accompany career
U.S. Government employees assigned abroad. Specifically, when these
family members are employees abroad by U.S. foreign affairs agencies,
they will be made eligible for retirement benefits they have been
denied heretofore. Again, in this area as well, I believe that the
State Department will need some flexibility to adjust to a new
situation. This flexibility is provided in the proposal.
As Under Secretary Moose wrote to me,
We agree in principle that family members, except for those
in truly temporary or intermittent positions, should be
eligible for the Federal Employment Retirement System [FERS].
* * * As a matter of fairness, family members who work
regularly should be provided retirement benefits, and we
pledge that we will work to phase in those benefits over the
next several years. Our draft would permit but not require
that these individuals be eligible for retirement benefits
and would direct every agency to make efforts to find the
additional funding necessary to pay for such benefits. The
flexibility provided in our draft would also make it easier
to provide retirement benefits to family members who by their
nature will have discontinuous employment because of frequent
moves.
Mr. President, by creating new jobs and equal employment
opportunities for the more than 3 million Americans who currently
reside outside the United States, this amendment will restore equity
for an important group of citizens we have too often forgotten. These
are people with strong ties in this country, just like the rest of us.
Often they are abroad because members of their family work for American
companies or the U.S. Government. Their presence abroad contributes to
our nation's economic well-being and to our national security. In their
daily lives, they already represent the United States abroad. Now they
can do that also be working for the U.S. Government, which will pay
them fairly.
Mr. President, the amendment I am introducing today would not have
been possible without the cooperation of the State Department's new
leadership and without its commitment to fair employment practices for
U.S. citizens abroad. Likewise, the prompt implementation of the
amendment will not be possible without the continuation of this
cooperation and commitment.
I have a promise from Under Secretary Moose that this cooperation and
commitment will continue. In his letter to me last week, Dick Moose
wrote,
I want to reiterate our full support for the principles
underlying your proposed legislation: no American should be
excluded from employment at our posts abroad because of his
or her citizenship and all of our employees are entitled to
equitable compensation and benefits. We must implement these
principles in a manner that does not increase our costs and
does not tie our hands with inflexible requirements. We
believe that our proposed legislation will allow us to do
that. I pledge to you that, if our proposal is enacted, we
will work diligently and in good faith to keep the
commitments we have made to you to increase the number of
U.S. citizens hired abroad, and to find the funds necessary
to provide meaningful retirement benefits to such employees.
I greatly appreciate this promise and am now confident that if this
amendment is approved by the Congress, the U.S. Government will give
fuller recognition to the rights of American citizens living abroad. I
ask the support of my colleagues here and those in the other body so
that this goal can finally be achieved. And again I want to thank the
floor manager, Senator Kerry, for joining me in sponsoring this
amendment.
Mr. President, for the last 2 or 3 years I and, more important,
members of my staff have been working with the State Department to try
to rectify what seems to be a clearly and obviously outrageous
situation wherein spouses of foreign service officers and certain
foreign service personnel, some 3 million of them, around the world are
not able to be employed by their own Government.
This is a matter of some outrage with them. It is a matter of some
outrage with me. I have worked with the State Department now for about
3 years and have finally gotten them to agree to language which seems
to me to be substantive which allows, and I am not talking about
obviously the spouse of a State Department person being employed as a
foreign service officer--I am talking about an accountant in the office
or driver or a secretary or an administrative position that was not
within the State Department direct purview. But right now the law is
such that some 3 million Americans who are available to be hired around
the world cannot be hired. This strikes me as inane, and my amendment,
which I believe to be acceptable to both sides of those on the State
Department authorization bill and would end that situation, comes to a
sensible agreement with the State Department and I think offers up
enormous opportunities of employment for what is figured to be some
10,000 to 20,000 jobs overseas which could be going to these people
which are not going to these people by unnecessary law or regulation.
So I would ask the distinguished managers of this bill whether or not
this is an amendment which, in fact, is acceptable to them, and if we
could have it accepted by unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me thank and congratulate the Senator
from West Virginia. He is, first of all, as he said, understating it
after working for 3 years to try to get what should be a relatively
simple concept which nevertheless runs into various bureaucratic
problems in trying to implement it.
Americans living abroad or American dependents of Government
employees living abroad ought to be able to work at American
facilities, and heretofore this has been difficult.
The Senator has doggedly pursued this. He has worked at length with
the State Department now to work out a solution. I am delighted not
only to accept it but to cosponsor it with him.
And I thank him for his good work on this and I think thanks to this
more Americans will be able to be working, and that is exactly what we
ought to be doing. It is common sense and it is overdue.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment
offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is agreed to.
So the amendment (No. 1325) was agreed to.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like, No. 1, to thank Senator
John Kerry and also to thank Nancy Stetson for incredible and good work
on his part.
I also thank Senator Jesse Helms for making this an acceptable
amendment, and I am very pleased with the moment.
It is a rather large event in a quiet 6 o'clock moment on a Monday
evening which will affect the lives of a lot of people, and I am really
rather pleased about that.
I thank particularly the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and
make reference further to a situation which I think is not worked out
at this point of a colloquy which potentially we could have tomorrow
after the Senators have had a chance to review that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I hope very much we can proceed to that
tomorrow. I think if the Senator could possibly do it, we might try for
somewhere around 10:30 in that vicinity. It would have to be after the
caucuses if not then.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am very grateful.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Dole amendment
which I believe was set aside.
Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator give an idea of how long he wishes to
speak?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be about 10 minutes.
Mr. HELMS. Very well. I thank the Senator.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark
Nicholson, a Pearson fellow on my staff, be granted privileges of the
floor for the purposes of this procedure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
amendment no. 1323
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Dole for his work
on his amendment which he has put before this body regarding the United
Nations and our work with it. It has helped to begin a debate that is
long overdue. The last 2 years have witnessed a dramatic expansion of
international peacekeeping initiatives extending to nearly every
continent of the globe. We also have seen the United Nations move
beyond peacekeeping to peacemaking operations that carry a greater risk
of combat operations by the participants. The United States, by its
role and the power of its veto in the Security Council, had a decisive
voice in the establishment of every one of these operations. We bear
over 30 percent of the assessed costs of each operation and a
substantial portion of the voluntary contributions to many--at a cost
now running into the billions of dollars. And we have borne a higher
cost, namely we have sent thousands of our sons and daughters in the
Armed Forces to participate in these operations and have lost a number
of them to death or injury in the line of duty.
To date, our Government's decisionmaking on multilateral peacekeeping
has been ad hoc. In the turbulence of a post-cold-war world, rapid
change has outrun considered policy. More importantly, as the debate
last fall over Somalia demonstrated, our participation in U.N.
peacekeeping efforts has outpaced the development of a consensus in the
Congress and, most importantly, among the American people, regarding
our appropriate and proper role. We are badly in need of a broad look
at the when, where, and how we participate in these operations. This
amendment launches that examination in a very substantive way, and for
that I thank the Republican leader.
There is much I agree with in this bill and some points with which I
differ. My broader concern, however, is that while debate on these
issues is certainly timely, it is premature to come to final decisions
on a complex matter which will bear heavily on our involvement in world
affairs for years to come. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has
scheduled hearings on peacekeeping next month precisely to give this
issue the indepth consideration it deserves. I am reluctant to preempt
that process, because it offers precisely what we have lacked to date
in the implementation of U.S. policy in this area: a deliberate,
careful look at the variety of issues and options we confront in moving
from ad hockery to long-term policy. The debate on this amendment will
mark a useful beginning to this process. I do not believe, however,
that it also should bring a premature end to that debate.
Among the issues that must be faced, let me focus on several which
are addressed in this bill. The first has to do with how we finance
peacekeeping. It is time the executive branch confronted honestly the
budgetary consequences of these operations. Administration funding
requests have failed to keep pace with the rapid expansion of U.N.
peacekeeping missions--operations which this and the previous
administration were instrumental in bringing about. In particular, we
have urged forward the United Nations and willingly incurred large
assessments to cover its peacekeeping operations, while failing to make
adequate provision to pay those bills when they come due. In
consequence, we are repeatedly falling well behind in meeting our U.N.
obligations and the United Nations now continually suffers short-term
financial crises whose temporary resolution only delays the day of
reckoning. Absent supplementary appropriations, the United States will
be $1 billion arrears this year on its U.N. assessments--and $1 billion
next year. Virtually all the fiscal year 1994 appropriation for U.N.
peacekeeping assessments has already been spent to get us out of hoc
for arrears which mounted up in 1993.
Regardless of whether one supports an expanded United Nations role in
peacekeeping, I believe all can agree that this kind of fiscal
irresponsibility cannot be allowed to continue. Failure by the United
States to fully consider the costs of a peacekeeping operation up front
in the decision process can have only two results. If we choose to meet
the fiscal obligations which ensue, we will squander limited resources
in a willy nilly scramble after the fact to meet commitments assumed on
a first-come, first-serve basis without due regard for matching finite
means to our real priorities. If, on the other hand, we fail to meet
our United Nations financial commitments, we will erode our credibility
as a responsible nation and sooner or later undermine the financial
capacity of the United Nations to engage in peackeeping at all.
It is obvious that in some circumstances it will be impossible for an
administration to predict the full costs of a peacemaking or
peacekeeping operation, any more than we could predict at the outset
either the duration or the costs of World War II, Korea, or Vietnam.
When one dealing with conflict between ethnic groups or between States,
there is no neat and clean business plan that can be presented. We are
talking about human beings, politics, and--at times--the fortunes of
war--and none of the three lends itself to easy prediction on an
accountant's sheet. Even more difficult is prediction of annual
peacekeeping requirements as a whole, since new operations typically
arise in response to sudden and unforeseeable crises. In that regard,
some of the financial reporting requirements in the amendment--
particularly those which seek out year projections of peacekeeping
budgets--strike me as unlikely to produce answers which either we or
the administration itself can much depend on.
Nonetheless, this or any other administration should be required
before embarking on a peacekeeping operation to do its best in
estimating up front the potential costs and especially the source of
funding before making a final decision on whether to take on that
responsibility. And since the power of the purse ultimately rests with
Congress, this body needs to be brought into those deliberations
before, not after, the fact.
Indeed, the broader role of Congress in peacekeeping needs to be
worked out if U.S. engagement is to be reliable and consistent. To
date, this body has been more of a handmaiden than a partner of the
executive branch. This cannot be allowed to continue. I acknowledge the
need for Presidential latitude in the direction of foreign policy--and
I do not believe the foreign policy process is well served by having
535 Secretaries of State. Nonetheless, if the last 30 years have taught
us anything, it is that any foreign policy initiative that entails the
sizable expenditure of American funds, and above all American lives,
cannot endure or succeed if it does not enjoy the support of the
American people and of Congress. Structuring congressional
participation begins with ensuring that the Congress is duly informed
and consulted in advance on major initiatives, and this amendment is
designed to accomplish that. But it also entails confronting the issue
of war powers--another set of hearings and another debate which I
believe are in order before we move ahead with this or broader
legislation.
Mr. President, I have been concerned for some time about the status
of U.N. peacekeeping operations and our participation in them. The
operation in Somalia brought many of those concerns before the American
public in a forceful way. And as we struggle to redefine what is in our
national interest in the post-cold war world, we find it very difficult
to define our role in Somalia-type operations.
As I have stated before in this Chamber, we must recognize that the
post-Communist world carries dangers as well as opportunities, and that
addressing both requires us to clarify the threats to our national
interest and to develop an adequate response for challenges less
clearcut than those we faced in the past. We must be able to answer the
most pertinent question raised before we send American personnel into
potential hostilities: Why must we place our young people in harm's way
in countries where we have no treaty obligation or immediate and direct
national interest, as conventionally defined.
If the end of the superpower confrontation unleashed pent-up forces
leading to strife in many areas, it also unblocked some of the paths to
multilateral cooperation, particularly through the United Nations, in
dealing with such situations. More than a third of all U.N.
peacekeeping operations mounted over the last 40 years have been put
together in the last 3 years. And these operations, all approved by the
United States in the Security Council, have been called upon the
perform very diverse jobs in many different circumstances, with varying
degrees of success.
We all recognize that the United Nation has fallen woefully short of
the goals that were euphorically set for it in the immediate aftermath
of the cold war. While the successes are impressive--most notably
Cambodia--the failures also have been glaring. Poor fiscal management
and struggling attempts to develop integrated, multilateral operations
in humanitarian and military operations have characterized many U.N.
operations over the last few years.
Because of these frustrations and even failures, many of my
colleagues are ready to pull back on our involvement with the United
Nations. I agree a healthy degree of caution is warranted, but I am not
ready to declare this new experiment in international cooperation a
total failure. Rather, I believe we must take a fresh look at the
speech delivered by President Bush to the U.N. General Assembly just
over a year ago. In his final speech to that body as President, he
outlined to the Security Council a five-point agenda to lay the basis
for more effective cooperation in peacekeeping. President Bush urged
nations to develop and train military units specifically for
peacekeeping and relief operations. I have introduced legislation
directing the Department of Defense to study ways that this could be
done in our Armed Forces.
President Bush also urged nations to provide opportunities for their
military units to train together. Our experience in Somalia provided
how difficult it is to successfully coordinate military units. Some of
the problems we experienced there could be resolved by multinational
training. Adequate logistical support and better planning, crisis
management, and intelligence capabilities were also urged by the
President as critical to quick and effective peacekeeping and
humanitarian operations. And finally, in keeping with Senator Dole's
legislation, President Bush urged adequate and equitable financing of
the U.N. and associated peacekeeping efforts.
While these ideas were not particularly new or radical when the
President proposed them just 16 months ago, they sound more radical
today. In the aftermath of Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti, the focus of
debate has shifted toward how to keep ourselves from becoming further
entangled in multinational operations. However, I urge my colleagues to
step back for a moment and consider what type of international posture
we hope to assume for the next decade. Our budget deficit will continue
to curtail the resources available to us for foreign assistance and the
projection of military power abroad in the defense of our interests. As
I see it, we will want to rely more heavily on regional organizations,
on our allies, and on other nations who may have a particular interest
in or ability to resolve a particular conflict. We cannot and do not
want to finance all peacekeeping operations, much less have to send our
own troops to deal with each situation of instability that threatens
our national interests. It seems to me that we will want to rely more
on our friends and international organizations in the years to come.
So instead of curtailing our involvement with the United Nations, I
urge my colleagues to think in terms of our future needs and be
creative in the way we approach the problems that confront us now.
Therefore, I am very pleased to see that the Republican leader has put
a great deal of effort into clarifying the role of Congress in
authorizing peacekeeping operations and ensuring greater fiscal
responsibility in the funding of U.S. peacekeeping operations. I
believe that this proposal will serve as the point of departure for the
reevaluation that is scheduled in the Foreign Relations Committee and
other relevant committees. I hope that we will be able to put forward a
comprehensive package of reforms in the near future, containing many of
the leader's proposals, and laying down a firm foundation for our
involvement in international peacekeeping and peacemaking operations
for years to come.
Mr. President, I believe this is a critical time in our country to
make sure we get our house in order. I am hopeful that in the near
future we can do that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
amendment no. 1290
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
of Senator Helms, amendment No. 1290, relative to China and coerced
abortion, be the pending business and that it be approved and that the
motion to reconsider be approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection the
request is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1290) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote.
open skies foia standard
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on January 27 during consideration of S.
1281, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] made an inquiry with respect
to the amendment to provide a limited exemption under the Freedom of
Information Act for certain kinds of data collected under the Treaty on
Open Skies. I would like to thank the Senator from Vermont for his
support for the efforts of the Committee on Foreign Relations in
connection with the Open Skies Treaty and this legislation, and for his
inquiry regarding the amendment.
The Senator had asked whether the standard to be applied in
subsection (a)(2) of the exemption was akin to that for the
classification of information as secret. In this regard, I have
verified the administration's understanding of the standard to be
applied. The current standard for classifying information secret is
that it shall be applied to ``information, the unauthorized disclosure
of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the
national security'' of the United States. The administration believes
that the standard to be applied in subsection (a)(20 is a lesser one,
and, while it does not correspond to an established classification
standard, it is more akin to that of ``confidential.'' Further, the
administration understands that the standard for subsection (a)(2)
would certainly not be below that for the classification of information
as ``confidential.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
vitiation of action--amendment no. 1290
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
vitiate the action taken by voice on amendment 1290.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________