[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 OPPOSITION TO THE LOTT-HELMS AMENDMENT

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I just want to take this opportunity this 
morning to address the pending vote on the Lott-Helms amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to reject this amendment, with all due respect to its 
authors. This amendment, as the Presiding Officer is aware, prohibits 
certain types of foreign assistance to any country which has 
consistently voted against the United States at the U.N. General 
Assembly during the most recent session of the General Assembly.
  There is a certain amount of appeal to this amendment at first blush. 
We all know how we feel as legislators when we offer amendments or 
bills and there are certain Members who consistently vote against our 
ideas. We become angry from time to time. We do not understand why they 
vote against us consistently, but we get angry about it.
  I am certain that many Americans feel the same way when countries 
consistently vote against the United States at the United Nations, and 
so the temptation to cut off foreign aid for those countries is strong.
  Having said that, I urge my colleagues to think a little further 
about the implications of this amendment, were it to be adopted. There 
are nations, many around the globe, that for a variety of reasons, 
because they belong to particular blocs and so forth, cast votes at the 
United Nations that are not in the interest of the United States, and 
do so with some regularity. But I think, as the Senator from Maryland 
has pointed out, it is critically important for us to analyze those 
votes.
  There are some votes which are crucially important, critically 
important, to the United States; others are marginally important. Each 
vote does not have the same amount of weight, any more than each vote 
does here. There are matters which are of graver concern than others.
  So I think we ought to be careful about applying just a percentage 
standard or just counting votes without evaluating what those votes 
signify, what those votes mean to our country.
  There are relationships which we have with other countries that vote 
against us that are far more important than a particular vote at United 
Nations. There are nations that vote against us that are also very, 
very helpful to us in intelligence gathering. That intelligence 
gathering is extremely important to us. They may vote against us from 
time to time in the United Nations, but the value to us as a Nation 
because of our relationship with them in an intelligence gathering 
operation is far more important. To cut off aid to a nation which is 
providing that kind of assistance would be foolhardy.
  Second, there are nations that provide assistance to us militarily 
that do not always vote with us. To suggest that we ought to cut off 
foreign aid where we get valued assistance from them in military 
matters again would be foolhardy.
  Third, there are commercial relationships that are very important to 
our country, very important to American industry and business and jobs.
  Again, to apply a rigid standard that says if, in 25 percent of the 
votes, you have voted against the interests of the United States in the 
United Nations, we are going to cut off a portion of your foreign aid, 
despite the fact that you are critically important to us in an economic 
sense, in an intelligence gathering operation, or in matters of 
national security or military matters, I think would be a great 
tragedy, and certainly something that this body ought to be very 
careful about before adopting.
  So, for those reasons, Madam President, I urge the rejection of this 
amendment. Certainly we ought to try to do, as I know, having spoken 
with our distinguished Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine 
Albright, everything possible to win support where we can, but also to 
understand from time to time that there will be nations that, for other 
reasons, will not necessarily support us as consistently as we would 
like. But because of other relationships that we have with those 
countries, because of the importance that we place on other votes that 
only happen maybe two or three times in a session when we win that kind 
of support, this amendment would be tremendously harmful to the United 
States, in my view, were it to be adopted, and I urge my colleagues to 
reject it.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 
10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________