[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]

 
                           AMENDMENT NO. 1315

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I spoke on Monday with regard to the 
amendment I proposed to the State Department authorization bill. I 
passed up the opportunity to speak again yesterday because I thought we 
had made our point sufficiently and thought we would go to a vote. That 
did not occur. We are going to have a vote today on that amendment 
without a second-degree amendment, at 11 o'clock. Since there have been 
speeches made both on Tuesday and again this morning raising questions 
about this amendment, I thought I needed to return to the floor and 
clarify what this amendment is really about.
  My amendment would say very simply that, if a country in the United 
Nations does not support the United States position at least 25 percent 
of the time--I repeat, only 25 percent of the time, not 30, not 40, not 
50, not 60--only 25 percent of the time, then that country's government 
would lose--not humanitarian aid and not developmental assistance, just 
their military assistance grants. The American people would perhaps 
like to see all of these programs cut off. But only military and 
government security aid would be cut off, based on their nation's very 
poor support of the U.S. position. Only military and security aid. 
These grants go directly to these countries' military leaders and their 
governments--not to the people. It affects 43 countries, and it would 
have saved American taxpayers, last year, $190 million--not an 
insignificant amount.
  I want to emphasize, in a reach to be absolutely responsible, I said 
we should have an exemption for the Secretary of State. If the 
Secretary of State says that our national security interests are at 
stake, he could waive the standard. He could say it would not be 
applicable to a particular country, whether it is Morocco, Mexico, any 
of them. He has that waiver authority.
  Yet, to hear the debate yesterday and today, you would have thought I 
was trying to steal the king's jewels. All I am trying to do is have 
some measurement of responsibility. We talk a lot about accountability 
for domestic programs, but never international programs. Interestingly 
enough for welfare reform we are telling welfare recipients, you have 
to be accountable, to be responsible, to work. How about just a little 
of this responsibility and accountability in how our foreign aid money 
is distributed? We are giving away millions of our taxpayers' money in 
foreign aid.
  Ask your constituents what they think of foreign aid in general. Then 
ask them specifically, what would you think of an idea where we give 
military grants to countries that vote against us 80 percent of the 
time in the United Nations? Defend that public policy to your 
constituency. I cannot do it. This is not something I just cooked up 
and plucked out of the air. It is not politically motivated, it is a 
fiscal issue. I am just trying to reflect my constituency who say let 
us have a measure of accountability.
  I got this idea from a very responsible Congressman from Pennsylvania 
named Bill Goodling, who had this amendment added to Mr. Hamilton's 
foreign assistance bill. Neither are irresponsible and insensitive when 
it comes to foreign policy. This amendment is in the House foreign aid 
bill.
  When I was looking over their bill I said, ``Gee, that looks like an 
extremely reasonable idea which is long overdue. I bet we can get that 
accepted by the Senate.'' But, boy, after what I heard yesterday and 
today, apparently people are very worried.
  Yes, they are worried. I will tell you what is interesting. There is 
a press conference going on right about now on the House side, where a 
Congressman is complaining about the tactics being applied against this 
amendment. The Embassies of the countries that might be affected are on 
the phone. They are calling: ``Oh, this might affect us.'' I had 
several of these calls to my Senate office yesterday. ``Oh, you cannot 
do that.''
  Look they have a year to deal with their U.N. voting pattern. Only 
after this entire year's votes are recorded and reported by the State 
Department will the standard take effect. Then, if a country does not 
vote with us at least 25 percent of the time they could lose military 
grants. But these countries are calling now saying, you cannot do that. 
Where are the advocates for the American taxpayers?
  All I am saying to these countries is if you are going to act in an 
irresponsible manner when it comes to key U.N. votes there are 
consequences. I am talking about votes on things like the embargo 
against Cuba. Some of our friends did not vote with us on this issue. 
It involves resolutions on the Golan Heights. This is not insignificant 
stuff. These are key votes.
  You might say, ``Well, there are a lot of these procedural votes. You 
understand because you are in the Senate.'' I also understand in the 
Senate that a lot of the substantive votes are, in fact, these 
procedural votes.
  The average for voting in support of the United States position in 
the United Nations is just 31 percent. So I could have said let us make 
the threshold 31 percent. But I said, no, let us allow for procedural 
votes and misunderstandings. Maybe these nations really vote with us 
when it really counts. Let us ratchet it down to 25 percent. This is a 
good and reasonable threshold--only a quarter of the time.
  I say to my colleagues in the Senate, this is not irresponsible. This 
is highly responsible. Let us demand some accountability for our 
international programs. It is just that simple. If you do not vote with 
us, you do not get the military grants.
  I invite my colleagues in the Senate to think about this amendment. 
How do you defend a lower standard of effectiveness for international 
programs than our domestic programs. You are not going to be able to do 
it.
  Why am I insisting on a recorded vote? I have been asked several 
times to accept a voice vote. No, no. If I did; this amendment would 
not get past that door and it would surely be thrown out in conference. 
The American citizens need a recorded vote. I know how tough it is to 
cut our international programs. I was in the House of Representatives 
for 16 years, and now 5 years in the Senate. And in all of these years, 
I have been trying to make savings. I had an amendment that would have 
saved $1 million in one Embassy operation--based on a request from that 
Ambassador. The State Department fought it for months. So I finally 
said to the Secretary of State, you can waive it if it is in the 
national interests. Guess what happened. Sure, he waived it. This time 
I am talking about $190 million.
  There are a lot of countries that do not vote with us that you would 
expect, but a few that vote against us would clearly surprise you. We 
are going to say, ``Folks, we are going to look at how you vote.'' Our 
constituents look at how we vote in Congress. I think we ought to look 
at how our allies vote in the United Nations.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. If you need more 
information, I have it. I have the list of affected countries. I will 
show you the language in the bill. There is nothing cutesy about it. It 
is very straightforward, with appropriate exemptions if needed.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present and 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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.

                          ____________________