[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.

                          ____________________