[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10929-S10937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FOREIGN RELATIONS REVITALIZATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 908, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 908) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Department of State, for fiscal years 1996 through 1999 and 
     to abolish the United States Information Agency, the United 
     States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Agency 
     for International Development, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has finally 
proceeded to S. 908, the Foreign Relations Committee's Foreign 
Relations Revitalization Act of 1995.
  This is hallmark legislation, and it represents the first proposal to 
revamp U.S. foreign affairs agencies since the end of the cold war. It 
is forward looking legislation that puts our Nation's interests first 
and instructs the United States to organize and streamline its 
operations for the 21st century, which is just around the corner.
  I wish I had the ability of Abraham Lincoln, who so ringingly 
affirmed the essence of what we are as a nation. And he did it on the 
back of an envelope. There are not many individuals who have Lincoln's 
wisdom, and certainly I do not, but I can say that in drafting this 
bill, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee relied heavily on the 
wisdom of many individuals and on numerous studies made by several 
administrations of both parties. Those studies focused on how the 
United States could better organize its foreign affairs institutions. 
We have received the counsel of five former U.S. Secretaries of State 
whose services spanned the 

[[Page S 10930]]
past two decades. And those five former Secretaries of State have 
endorsed this legislation wholeheartedly.
  After careful review of our proposal, these five former Secretaries 
of State met with us, talked with us, and gave broad support to our 
effort. Of course, that pleased me very much, and I am grateful to 
them. Let me just give a few examples of what they said.
  Former Secretary of State James Baker III asserted that he considers 
our proposal ``breathtaking in its boldness and visionary in its 
sweep.'' Henry Kissinger described S. 908 as ``a bold step in the 
direction of,'' as he put it, ``centralizing authority and 
responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs where it properly 
belongs--in the President's senior foreign affairs adviser, the 
Secretary of State.''
  Former Secretary of State Alexander Haig ``heartily'' endorsed the 
committee's reorganization proposal, and even Mr. Clinton's Secretary 
of State, Secretary Christopher, with whom I worked closely and whom I 
respect greatly, concluded that a plan to abolish the U.S. Information 
Agency, the Agency for International Development, and the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency made sense.
  In November 1994, just after the election, Secretary Christopher 
presented his own reorganization plan to the Vice President's office. 
Now, the Vice President, a former Senator with whom all of us have 
served, or practically all of us, has had much proclamation and 
assertions, declarations that we are going to reinvent Government. That 
is Al Gore's press agent speaking for him.
  Anyway, in November, when Secretary Christopher presented his own 
reorganization plan to Al Gore's office, there was intense interagency 
lobbying at the White House. Boy, they were running around like a bunch 
of road runners. After an intense period of this ferocious lobbying at 
the White House, Secretary Christopher's plan lost out to those whose 
interests appeared to care more about protecting their bureaucratic 
turfs than in the reinvention of Government for the post-cold-war 
world.
  So Mr. Christopher had a proposal, but it was knocked down by the 
very office that was created to reinvent Government. Secretary 
Christopher is a good soldier. He swallowed hard and accepted what had 
happened to him.
  Meanwhile, in its place, Vice President Gore promised the American 
public his own plan. He said it will be delivered--his own plan--to 
keep all of the bureaucratic agencies and cut $5 billion, nonetheless, 
out of the foreign affairs budget for the next 5 years.
  That is sort of like jumping off a 300-foot diving board into a wet 
washcloth. He could not do it. But he said that is good news and I am 
glad to give it to you, and I guess a lot of people accepted it as good 
news. But the bad news is that the Vice President has yet to this very 
minute to release even one detail of his proposal, despite constant 
appeals from Members of Congress, including your humble servant now 
speaking. A lot of people of his own persuasion in the Congress, in 
both the House and Senate, have said, ``Let us have it, let us have 
it.'' Silent in seven languages. There are no details. There are no 
plans from the Vice President's Office.
  In fact, the United States State Department itself has yet to submit 
a formal authorization request for fiscal year 1996.
  So you see the pattern, Mr. President. They promise a lot, they talk 
a lot, they brag on themselves a lot down on Pennsylvania Avenue and in 
Foggy Bottom, but when it comes to producing, nothing happens. It is 
all politics.
  But in the absence of leadership from the executive branch, it was 
left to those of us in Congress to take the lead. On March 15, Senator 
Snowe, the distinguished lady from Maine, and Chairman Ben Gilman of 
the House committee, and I announced publicly a plan to restructure 
U.S. foreign affairs agencies. S. 908--now get that number, S. 908, 
because we are going to be talking about S. 908 a great deal in the 
coming days and weeks. It is the pending business in the Senate and it 
is the legislative realities of the plan that we worked so long and 
hard on with not one bit of cooperation from the administration. Not 
one iota of cooperation. They want to keep the bureaucracy intact. They 
are going to promise to cut spending, but they are not going to 
eliminate any bureaucrats.
  The administration has rejected any attempt to join in helping us 
shape this initiative. Silent in seven languages. ``Don't bother me,'' 
they said. The administration's response has been a confrontational 
one, and here I quote from some internal notes from one of the meetings 
on this legislation conducted in the administration and by the 
administration. Their plan to greet this legislation, and we will watch 
and see what happens, their plan is to ``delay this legislation, to 
derail this legislation, to obfuscate''--and I am quoting from their 
own memorandum, ``to kill the merger.''
  So if we are even going to have an opportunity to vote on this bill, 
we are going to have to have a cloture vote, meaning that we will have 
to get a constitutional three-fifths of the U.S. Senate to vote to let 
us have a vote. Now whether we are going to get any help from the other 
side remains to be seen. It is going to be interesting to watch what 
happens on the other side
  So what I am saying, Mr. President, is that the administration 
obviously, flagrantly has not wanted the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee to produce any legislation that would reduce the bureaucracy 
which would cut down on foreign aid and all of the other things the 
American people have been demanding for so long.
  The administration has refused cooperation at every juncture--every 
juncture, without exception. It has refused even to talk about a 
consolidation. It has refused to provide the Congressional Budget 
Office with the information that the Congressional Budget Office has to 
have in order to compute the billions of dollars the taxpayers will be 
saving by the pending legislation.
  Talk about stonewalling, this is stonewalling to the nth degree. The 
concepts advocated in this bill have the force of history behind them 
and the support of the American people in making all of this become 
law. In other words, the polls show that the American people want this 
legislation. They do not want to keep the fat bureaucracy in place. 
They do not want to continue to spend billions upon billions of dollars 
on foreign aid in corrupt countries.
  The question of why reorganize almost answers itself. Why? Let us say 
a few things about that. We must reorganize because eliminating the 
vast duplication, the incredible waste, the unnecessary bureaucracy 
offers the only--the only--opportunity to maintain U.S. presence 
overseas while out-of-control Federal spending is reined in at home.
  Lacking any substance to their opposition, they began several months 
ago to throw around epithets. One of the administration's officials 
went down to the National Press Club, and he charged the committee, or 
the majority on the committee, and Jesse Helms specifically, with being 
isolationists. This is puzzling, and I have to ask the question: Are 
Secretary Kissinger, Secretary Shultz, Secretary Haig, Secretary Baker, 
Secretary Eagleburger, are all five of them isolationists? Of course 
not. But the epithet works with this administration.
  You can watch on various other things that are front and center on 
the agenda today. You can note what the President of the United States 
himself is saying on these things. They may not be true, but if they 
may persuade some voters, he is going to say it.
  But I say this to the President of the United States, and to you, Mr. 
President, and to the American people: If Congress fails to seize this 
opportunity to consolidate, the international affairs budget will be 
large enough to cover the cost of the Federal employees and overhead 
the mass of bureaucracy now entails. The international affairs budget 
will be large enough to do all of that. There are only two choices--
two, no more, no less:
 First, save smart through consolidation, or Second, eliminate Federal 
programs. I am tempted to say, will the real ``isolationists" please 
stand up. But we cannot see the State Department and Al Gore's office 
from here.

  The administration and its legions of bureaucrats and AID contractors 
have distorted the contents of this measure from the very beginning. I 
have been astonished at some of the things that 

[[Page S 10931]]
have been said and fed to the newspapers, which gleefully publish it 
without checking on the accuracy. I must say that I am appalled by the 
administration's lack of understanding as to the enormous flexibility 
provided in this measure.
  This consolidation plan provides greater flexibility to the executive 
branch than exists in current law. The only hitch is to abolish three 
outdated agencies. That is where the protests have come.
  This bill does not legislate every position and office in the 
Department of State, and anybody who says to the contrary has not even 
read the bill.
  Now, the committee provides guidance for the organizational structure 
of consolidation. S. 908, the pending bill, mandates 5 Under Secretary 
positions--the exact number mandated under current law--and provides 
authority for 20 Assistant Secretary positions, two of which are 
mandated. What do you know, current law mandates three. The bill before 
you allows the President and Secretary of State unparalleled 
flexibility to organize under the five senior positions at State. The 
committee provides $225 million over 2 years for transitional funds 
with extraordinary authorities. This is designed to ease and facilitate 
transition to a reduced Federal bureaucracy.
  Now, for the purpose of emphasis, Mr. President, let me remind the 
Senate that the pending bill, S. 908, is the very first authorization 
bill this Senate has considered since the House and Senate budget 
agreed to achieve a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002. I am 
pleased and grateful that the Foreign Relations Committee has fulfilled 
its duty. We have done the best we can. If sheer, raw politics takes 
over and prevents the approval of this bill, or even a vote on it by 
this Senate, that will not be our fault.
  This bill, S. 908, meets the Budget Committee targets, and it puts 
our international affairs budget on a trajectory to balance the Federal 
budget.
  The Congressional Budget Office, who is pretty good at this thing, 
estimates that S. 908 will save more than $3.5 billion over 4 years--
$3.66 billion to be exact. It will save almost $5 billion over the next 
5 years, and these savings do not result from dramatic cuts in 
international programs. They result in dramatic cuts in the bloated 
Federal bureaucracy.
  Now then, Mr. President, consolidation is the only available option 
to maintain our overseas presence at the budget levels that have been 
agreed to for the next 7-year period. They have been voted on by this 
Senate. If the administration succeeds in its efforts to shoot down 
this bill, the foreign affairs agencies will be in far worse shape than 
ever.
  The House of Representatives, because they have different rules from 
the Senate, passed the companion bill, H.R. 1561, several weeks ago, 
and the House is ready to go to conference with the Senate if, as and 
when we pass this bill.
  The able Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kerry], who has so 
faithfully supported his President, offered an amendment in the Foreign 
Relations Committee to consolidate these agencies. But the Senator's 
amendment provided only half the cost savings of the committee bill 
and, of course, that does not qualify. We have to meet the budget that 
we voted to approve in the U.S. Senate. Senator Kerry knows, 
notwithstanding the administration, that consolidation is the right 
thing to do. I have known John Kerry for a long time, and I know that 
he understands the situation.
  Well, I guess we are in sort of the position that Mark Twain once 
remarked about. He said, Mr. President, ``Always do right. This will 
gratify some people and astonish all the rest.''
  Maybe the administration does not want to astonish anybody. I will 
tell you one thing, the American people expect both the President and 
the U.S. Senate to do the right thing.
  Mr. President, consolidation is the only way to go, and it is the 
right thing to do. Of course, I urge Senators on both sides of the 
aisle to lay politics aside and let us proceed with this bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I now yield to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, 
Senator Pell.
  Mr. PELL. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, the Senate now turns to S. 908, the Foreign Relations 
Revitalization Act of 1995. In prior years this legislation has been 
called the Foreign Relations Authorization Act and has authorized 
funding for the Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency 
[USIA], and international broadcasting activities.
  I want to acknowledge at the outset, Mr. President, the earnestness 
which with the Foreign Relations Committee Republicans--under the 
leadership of Chairman Helms--have tackled this legislative effort. In 
this bill, Senator Helms has made a serious--if controversial--effort 
to examine and adapt the U.S. foreign policy structure to the 
exigencies of the post-cold-war world. I think it is important to note 
the contributions that the senior Senator from North Carolina has made 
in this regard. I also wish to underscore that in this era of budget 
stringency, I well understand the imperative of consolidation and the 
elimination of duplication in the foreign affairs bureaucracy. I 
therefore can appreciate Senator Helms' intent in moving this 
legislation.
  During my tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee, I always have 
tried to work cooperatively and in good faith with Senator Helms. I 
have appreciated his unmistakable candor, as well as the courtesy he 
extended me when I was chairman. When we have disagreed, we both have 
attempted to do so in an agreeable manner. One of my main reasons for 
doing so, above and beyond the regard I have for Senator Helms, is the 
importance that I attach to bipartisanship in foreign policy. I regret 
to note that, for the first time in my memory, this bill was reported 
by the committee on a straight, party-line vote.
  I also must point out the administration's strenuous opposition to 
this bill. Secretary of State Warren Christopher outlined the 
administration's views in a July 25, 1995 letter to me. I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks, and from which I now will quote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. PELL. Christopher writes:

       At a time when our nation's security and prosperity demand 
     sustained American engagement in the world, this bill 
     mandates drastic resource reductions for international 
     affairs and undermines the President's constitutional 
     authority to conduct our foreign policy. If S.908 is 
     presented to the President in its current form, I will have 
     no choice but to recommend a veto.

  In a July 26 statement, the President said that S. 908 would attack 
his constitutional authority to conduct America's foreign policy, and 
that, ``if this legislation comes to my desk in its present form, I 
will veto it.'' I ask unanimous consent that the President's veto 
statement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. PELL. Why, Mr. President, has this bill has become so 
controversial that the Secretary would recommend and the President 
would threaten a veto? The answer lies in the number of proposals that 
collectively would restrict the President's ability to conduct foreign 
policy. The most troublesome of these is the plan, outlined in title I 
of the bill, to reorganize entirely our country's foreign policy 
agencies. Specifically, the proposal mandates the elimination of the 
U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID], the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency [ACDA], and USIA, and transfers some of their 
responsibilities to the State Department. I believe the plan is fraught 
with problems, and I will address these shortly.
  In addition to the reorganization plan, there are a number of other 
disturbing provisions of this bill--particularly with regard to the 
United Nations. Having just returned from the 50th anniversary 
celebration of the founding of the United Nations, I am freshly 
reminded that U.S. interests are well served by our active 
participation in the United Nations. I continue to support a vigorous 
and active U.S. involvement in the U.N. system.
  Titles II and III of this bill, however, contain what might best be 
described as an assault on the U.N. system. Not only does the bill 
authorize drastic 

[[Page S 10932]]
cuts in funding levels for U.S. assessed contributions to the United 
Nations in section 201, it also places extreme new restrictions on U.S. 
participation in and involvement with the United Nations. As Secretary 
Christopher noted in his letter to me, ``the funding cuts this bill 
proposes in U.N. accounts and the onerous restrictions it would place 
on our ability to support U.N. peacekeeping would reduce our ability to 
achieve meaningful reform.'' The President added further that, ``the 
legislation would handcuff our ability to take part in and lead United 
Nations operations, limiting our choice each time a crisis arose to 
acting alone--or not at all.''
  Section 205, for instance, would withhold large percentages of the 
U.S. contributions to the United Nations until an annual certification 
is made regarding the Office of the U.N. Inspector General. The section 
lays out criteria that are arbitrary and impossible to certify, which 
will mean substantial and unnecessary cuts in our contributions to the 
United Nations. This section will, as a result, do little to advance 
U.N. reform and will only undercut U.S. leadership at the United 
Nations. I hope very much it can be modified.
  Other sections pertaining to the United Nations in title II are 
equally problematic. In particular, I am concerned about various 
provisions in sections 203, 217, and 220, as well as other sections, 
and I intend to address these during the course of debate on this bill.
  Moving beyond the U.N. provisions, Mr. President, I want to focus for 
a moment on the reorganization plan and its impact. As many of my 
colleagues know, the plan is largely the result of the efforts of the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms. As I said 
earlier, Chairman Helms has taken a serious initiative, and already he 
has made an important contribution to the debate over the conduct of 
foreign affairs in the post-cold-war era.
  That being said, I am opposed to Congress deciding--on its own--how 
to restructure the way in which the President conducts American foreign 
policy. Moreover, it is far from clear that this plan represents the 
best way to adapt our foreign policy structure to our times. That being 
the case, I do not think it would be prudent for Congress to insist 
that this President--or any President, for that matter--implement the 
plan.
  The proponents of this reorganization plan have emphasized cuts, 
consolidation, and elimination, but in my opinion have not paid 
sufficient attention to the consequences. Nearly everything in this 
plan suggests that the United States should retrench from its global 
commitments and responsibilities. If taken to its logical conclusion, 
the plan could well lead the United States on the path toward 
isolationism and withdrawal.
  As we proceed, I intend to support a Democratic alternative to the 
restructuring plan. The alternative proposal mandates a reduction in 
the number of foreign affairs agencies--USAID, ACDA, and USIA, and in 
fact would allow the elimination of all three of them. Where it differs 
from the Republican plan is in giving the President--in whom the 
Constitution vests primary responsibility for the conduct of foreign 
relations--some flexibility to determine how best to organize the 
foreign affairs agencies. Our proposal leaves it to the President to 
decide which agencies should be eliminated, and how their 
responsibilities should be restructured.
  I hope the Senate will give careful consideration to our proposal, as 
it embraces the goals Chairman Helms has set forth during the 
committee's consideration of the bill, but goes about achieving them in 
what I believe is a more reasonable and practical manner.
  During the Foreign Relations Committee markup of S. 908, a number of 
Democratic amendments were offered to try to improve the reorganization 
plan and other portions of the bill. I offered an amendment to preserve 
an independent ACDA, which regrettably was defeated as were similar 
amendments on USIA and USAID. That being the case, I expect there will 
a great many amendments offered in order to improve this bill, 
including amendments to save each of the independent foreign affairs 
agencies. Senator Hatfield and I, for example, intend to offer an 
amendment on ACDA similar to that offered in committee. In an era when 
threats to U.S. security are becoming more diverse and challenging, it 
defies reason that the Congress would want to dismantle the sole 
independent voice for nonproliferation within the U.S. Government. I 
hope very much that the rest of the Senate will concur.
  Mr. President, as we approach the onset of the 21st century, it is 
evident that the United States must redefine its place in global 
affairs. To do so, our Presidents must have at their disposal the 
proper tools to develop and implement foreign policies that reflect the 
changing nature of American interests. If we adopt this bill in its 
present form, I fear the Congress will--unnecessarily and unwisely--do 
grave damage to our country's future ability to function as a world 
power. To quote once again the Secretary of State, this bill 
``deliberately gouges our resources and micromanages the funds that 
remain. * * * S. 908, as currently drafted, will have a destructive 
effect on the conduct and character of American foreign policy for 
years to come.''
  Mr. President, unless there are dramatic and wholesale changes to 
this bill, I intend to vote against it. If I happen to lose that vote 
and the Congress enacts this bill, it appears that the President will 
veto. It distresses me very much that our foreign policy is being cast 
in such partisan terms. I do not believe such an approach serves the 
interests of our Nation or its people.
                               Exhibit 1


                                       The Secretary of State,

                                        Washington, July 25, 1995.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Committee on Foreign Relations,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Pell: The Senate will soon consider S. 908, 
     the ``Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995.'' At a 
     time when our nation's security and prosperity demand 
     sustained American engagement in the world, this bill 
     mandates drastic resource reductions for international 
     affairs and undermines the President's constitutional 
     authority to conduct our foreign policy. If S. 908 is 
     presented to the President in its current form, I will have 
     no choice but to recommend a veto.
       This bill's attack on Presidential authority is 
     unprecedented in scope and severity. It interferes with the 
     President's responsibility to structure America's foreign 
     policy apparatus by abolishing three agencies of government 
     and merging their functions into the Department of State. And 
     it slashes the numbers of foreign affairs professionals who 
     are so essential to meet the threats and seize the 
     opportunities of the turbulent post-Cold War world.
       This bill takes no account of the serious and successful 
     efforts this Administration is taking to streamline the 
     foreign affairs agencies and to consolidate functions among 
     them. The State Department, ACDA, AID, and USIA are all 
     vigorously cutting costs and employment, realigning resources 
     to better match policy priorities, and modernizing 
     communications and information systems. Eliminating these 
     latter three agencies, as the bill proposes, would undermine 
     our effectiveness--not enhance it.
       While S. 908 contains a number of management authorities 
     sought by the Department of State, the cumulative weight of 
     its restrictions, requirements and prohibitions would 
     obstruct the President's ability to conduct America's foreign 
     policy and cripple America's ability to lead. The bill 
     purports to prohibit any U.S. diplomatic activity in North 
     Korea, thus impeding our ability to implement the North Korea 
     Framework Accord that is helping to put an end to a nuclear 
     crisis on the Korean peninsula. It also interferes with our 
     delicate relations with China, and forces a change in our 
     migration policy that could pose a serious threat to 
     America's borders. We also oppose the provision requiring the 
     Treasury Department to issue licenses permitting letter of 
     credit payments from
      blocked Iraqi funds where no U.S. bank has a payment 
     obligation, thus favoring certain corporate claimants in a 
     manner not compelled by the law of letters of credit, to 
     the detriment of other U.S. claimants against Iraq, 
     including injured U.S. military personnel.
       With respect to the United Nations, we share the Congress' 
     concern about the need for reform. In Halifax and in San 
     Francisco, the President directed the world's attention 
     toward this important issue. There is growing support for our 
     reform agenda and a commitment to follow-up on the progress 
     made in Halifax. However, the funding cuts this bill proposes 
     in UN accounts and the onerous restrictions it would place on 
     our ability to support UN peacekeeping would reduce our 
     ability to achieve meaningful reform. We are especially 
     concerned about restrictions on intelligence sharing, and 
     certification requirements related to UNPROFOR in Bosnia and 
     the oversight function in the UN that will be impossible to 
     meet. As the President 

[[Page S 10933]]
     noted in his speech on the UN's 50th Anniversary, turning our back on 
     the UN would increase the economic, political and military 
     burden on the American people.
       We recognize in this bill the desire of the Congress for a 
     better foreign affairs consultation process, particularly on 
     peacekeeping issues. We believe this can better be achieved 
     through closer cooperation, rather than through legislation 
     that would unduly restrict the ability of this and future 
     Presidents to provide for the nation's security.
       Finally, this bill's overall cuts in the International 
     Affairs (150) function compromise the safety and well-being 
     of our nation. The tiny fraction of federal spending we 
     devote to international affairs--a mere 1.3 percent of the 
     budget, of which only a third is included in this bill--helps 
     us strengthen American security by fighting the spread of 
     nuclear weapons and technology. It helps us protect American 
     lives by combating terrorists, drug traffickers, and 
     international criminals. It helps us create American jobs by 
     opening foreign markets and promoting U.S. exports. And, it 
     gives force to American principles by bolstering peace, human 
     rights and democracy around the world.
       Moreover, the preventive diplomacy that the International 
     Affairs budget funds is our first and least costly line of 
     defense. Compare the cost of arms control and diplomatic 
     action to stem proliferation to the price we would pay if 
     rogue states obtained nuclear weapons. Compare the cost of 
     promoting development to the price of coping with famine and 
     refugees. Compare the cost of successful government-to-
     government and public diplomacy to the cost of military 
     involvement. If we gut our diplomatic activities today, we 
     will face much greater crises with concomitant costs and 
     crises in the future.
       The Administration cannot support a bill that deliberately 
     gouges our resources and micromanages the funds that remain. 
     We oppose this bill and will also oppose any amendments to 
     this bill that further restrict or restrain the President's 
     ability to safeguard America's interests. We will firmly 
     resist efforts that would have America abdicate its 
     leadership role in global affairs. I firmly believe that S. 
     908, as currently drafted, will have a destructive effect on 
     the conduct and character of American foreign policy for 
     years to come.
           Sincerely,
                                               Warren Christopher.
                               Exhibit 2

                                                  The White House,


                                Office of the Press Secretary,

                                                    July 26, 1995.

Statement by the President--The Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 
                             1995 (S. 908)

       Congress is now considering legislation--S. 908, ``The 
     Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995''--that would 
     undermine the President's authority to conduct our nation's 
     foreign policy and deny us the resources we need to lead in 
     the world. If this legislation comes to my desk in its 
     present form, I will veto it.
       S. 908 attacks the President's constitutional authority to 
     conduct America's foreign policy. No President--Democrat or 
     Republican--could accept these restrictions because they 
     threaten the President's ability to protect and promote 
     American interests around the world.
       The legislation would ban or severely restrict diplomatic 
     relations with key countries. Indeed, had it been in effect a 
     few months ago, it would have prevented us from concluding 
     the agreement with North Korea to dismantle its nuclear 
     program. The legislation would handcuff our ability to take 
     part in and lead United Nations operations, limiting our 
     choice each time a crisis arose to acting alone--or not at 
     all. The legislation would abolish three important agencies--
     the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Agency for 
     International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency. 
     Each is already making serious and successful efforts to 
     streamline its operations, as part of my administration's 
     Reinventing Government program. Eliminating them entirely 
     would undermine our effectiveness, not enhance it.
       In short, the legislation would put Congress in the 
     business of micro-managing our nation's foreign policy--a 
     business it should not be in.
       This legislation combined with S. 961, ``the Foreign Aid 
     Reduction Act of 1995'', would also slash our international 
     affairs budget--which already is only a little over 1.3 
     percent of our total federal budget. We use these funds to 
     fight the spread of nuclear weapons and technology, to combat 
     terrorists, drug traffickers and international criminals; to 
     create American jobs by opening new markets for our exports; 
     and to support the forces of peace, democracy and human 
     rights around the world who look to America for leadership.
       The proposed cuts in the international affairs budget are 
     dangerous and shortsighted. We know from experience that it 
     is a lot less costly--in terms of money spent and lives 
     lost--to rely on development aid and diplomacy now than it is 
     to send in our troops later. There is a price to be paid for 
     American leadership. But the return on our investment--in 
     terms of increased security and greater prosperity for the 
     American people--more than makes up for the cost. What 
     America cannot afford are the foreign affairs budget cuts 
     proposed in these bills.
       As I have made clear before, I want to work with Congress 
     to get an international affairs bill I can sign--a bill that 
     protects the President's authority to conduct foreign policy, 
     maintains vital resources and reflects a bipartisan spirit 
     that serves America's interests. The legislation Congress is 
     considering fails each of those tests. If it is sent to me as 
     it now stands, I will veto it.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very pleased today that we are able to 
bring before us the State Department authorization. It is 
revolutionary, refreshing. It is restructuring. It is an historic bill 
that, for the first time in decades, looks upon an entire component of 
our Government in a very different fashion.
  As chair of the International Operations Subcommittee, which has 
jurisdiction over these issues, I am very pleased to play a role in the 
creation and bringing of this legislation before the floor.
  Before I describe some of the issues and the features of this 
legislation, I certainly want to express my commendations and 
appreciation for the cooperation and the leadership provided to me and 
to others on the committee, to Chairman Helms, who has brought this 
legislation to the floor. It is because of his hard work and initiative 
we are considering it here today.
  I also want to say I am very pleased to have worked with Senator 
Pell, because of his contributions to the committee in the foreign 
policy arena over the years, and with Senator Kerry, who is the ranking 
member of the subcommittee.
  I am not new to these issues. I have worked on these issues in the 
House as ranking member of the counterpart subcommittee for more than 
10 years. So many of these issues are very familiar to me. But we have 
now reached a point where we have to decide how we are going to reform 
our foreign policy apparatus and policymaking bureaucracy.
  This bill has two main themes: Agency consolidation and deficit 
reduction. It terminates three independent agencies: The Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency, the Agency for International Development, and 
the U.S. Information Agency. It consolidates arms control, development, 
and public diplomacy within the hierarchy of the State Department. But 
it is far more than just moving bureaucratic boxes around. It 
integrates important aspects of American foreign policy into our basic 
policy formulation process. The purpose of this is to improve our 
overall foreign policy, not to diminish the importance of any of these 
functions.
  For example, currently the independent Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency is primarily responsible for the nonproliferation policy. But 
concerns about nuclear proliferation frames our relations with a range 
of countries around the world, from North Korea to India to Iran. This 
bill will integrate these issues into the policy formulation process at 
the Department of State. They are too important to be considered as an 
afterthought in the interagency process. And by better coordinating 
public diplomacy with policy, we will also directly benefit from the 
conduct of our Nation's foreign policy and foreign relations.
  Public relations plays an increasingly important role in a world that 
is increasingly democratic. Currently, our public diplomacy expertise 
rests in the independent U.S. Information Agency. This bill integrates 
these fields into our basic foreign policymaking institutions.
  The world has changed dramatically in the last decade and, with it, 
the demands on our foreign policy structure. Gone is the cold war and 
the certainty of a single opposing force in our foreign relations. 
Gone, too, is the highly focused foreign policy we once waged against 
an expansionist and authoritarian Soviet Union and its satellites.
  In the 1990's we face a new imperative: To maintain a strong, 
aggressive foreign policy, but to streamline our operations, achieve 
cost savings, and meet the new criteria of a changing world. State 
Department consolidation is an idea whose time has come.
  In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 
reigniting of ethnic strife that has been kept bottled up by the cold 
war, we live in a new world. But it is not necessarily a safer world, 
as a multitude of crises across the world have proven in the last few 
years. Our legislation offers a fast, flexible foreign affairs 
structure that 

[[Page S 10934]]
we require and it also offers the promise of significant long-term cost 
savings.
  This leads me to the second characteristic of this legislation and 
that is, of course, deficit reduction. Not only does this bill 
restructure Government within our foreign policy institutions to make 
it smaller, more efficient, but it also does so at a lesser cost. These 
two themes are very closely related and I believe will improve our 
Nation's ability to conduct a truly coordinated and consistent foreign 
policy.
  But, without agency consolidation, we simply cannot meet our deficit 
reduction requirements without much deeper program cuts in the 
international affairs account. The Congressional Budget Office has 
indicated that the consolidation plan would save $3 billion over the 
next 4 years. And, frankly, Secretary of State Christopher had 
originally proposed this consolidation plan last fall, even though the 
interagency process did not permit the proposal to go forward with the 
administration, and that is regrettable, because I think it did prevent 
a bipartisan discussion of this restructuring proposal.
  Even Vice President Gore had recommended, and said, in fact, the 
administration would come forward with a reinventing Government 
initiative for the State Department and its foreign affairs related 
agencies, with a planned savings of $5 billion over the next 5 years. 
We have yet to see that plan, let alone the administration's 
legislative proposal for the reauthorization of the State Department.
  In all my years having managed this bill for the Republicans in the 
House of Representatives, we have always had an authorization proposal 
from the administration--whether or not they agreed with subsequently 
what the committee might or might not do. So I regret this bill is 
coming forward without bipartisan support. We have tried to be 
receptive to ideas, to incorporate those ideas into this restructuring. 
But we have yet to hear those ideas.
  The fact is, I think this is the kind of legislation that demands 
bipartisan support. We received the unanimous support of the 
Republicans on the committee. It certainly is not too late to be 
engaged in a bipartisan process, but it is important that we understand 
that consolidation is necessary, and it is not because we are saying we 
are going to deemphasize these areas within the State Department. In 
fact, I say we are reemphasizing them in a different fashion as we move 
forward to integrate these functions more efficiently.
  I am also disappointed by the administration's apparent unwillingness 
and its specific policy of not engaging us in the field of ideas with 
respect to this major restructuring of the State Department. Rather, 
their strategy seems to be embodied in the explicit words of an 
internal AID memorandum that was leaked to the press recently.

       The strategy is to delay, postpone, obfuscate, derail--if 
     we derail, we can kill the merger.

  So I think that is an unfortunate approach to one of the most 
significant consolidation issues in recent years. But I would like to 
describe the features of this legislation because I do think it is 
important for the Members of this body to fully understand and 
comprehend what we are attempting to do through this consolidation 
proposal.
  As I said, we are abolishing three agencies and transferring their 
functions within the State Department. I believe the State Department 
itself will be enhanced as well as reorganized in a way that will 
significantly improve the way in which we can develop our foreign 
policy agenda.
  The operations of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the 
USIA, although streamlined, will be directly merged into the State 
Department's policymaking structure. If you have any doubt as to 
whether or not we should have a restructuring consolidation of these 
three agencies within the State Department, only look at this graph, at 
the current structure of our foreign affairs agency. You can see it is 
rather complicated, convoluted. There is duplication. It is much more 
complex, in terms of trying to make decisions; certainly less 
efficient. In today's world, whether it is the public or private 
sector, everyone is looking toward more efficiency for less money and 
making it more effective.
  What we are trying to do through this reoganization is streamlining 
the process so the Secretary of State is better equipped to make those 
decisions more efficiently. It is not to say that arms control is not 
important, or public diplomacy is not important, or development 
assistance is not important. What it is saying is, it is necessary to 
efficiently incorporate it into the structure that gets the Secretary's 
attention.
  As many have said in the past, and before the committee, you do not 
have to have a separate independent agency to make it a priority. I 
think that is important.
  As you can see here, something has to be done. Just looking at this 
chart, it is clear that we have to revise and consolidate and make it 
more efficient in today's post-cold-war world.
  I want to compare it to what we are proposing in this legislation. 
And you can see that we have far fewer boxes, far fewer areas. We are 
making it far more efficient to make those decisions.
  I think that these charts certainly illustrate what we are attempting 
to accomplish through this legislation. It is an idea whose time has 
come. Even Secretary Christopher indicated in a speech before State 
Department employees back in March when they were doing the strategic 
management initiative that this was the 90th report since 1946 aimed at 
a restructuring and improving the State Department. And I am quoting 
now. He said, ``It is there gathering dust in the file cabinets.''
  So a lot of these ideas have been around. But I think that what has 
happened in the post-cold-war period has given us the impetus to begin 
the approach to consolidate. And that is why I think it is also 
essential to have bipartisan input. That is why I regret today that has 
not occurred.
  As the Agency for International Development, this bill will
   more closely tie our foreign assistance programs to policy goals 
intended to directly advance our national interests. This will be 
accomplished by integrating regional foreign aid decisions into the 
State Department's regional policy bureaus.

  Former Under Secretary Bill Schneider--who was responsible for 
coordinating the entire international affairs budget for the Reagan 
administration--testified before my subcommittee. He noted that AID's 
structure, autonomy, and management precludes a sharp focus on using 
our aid resources to support foreign policy functions. By its very 
nature, he argued, AID programs have little behavioral impact on the 
recipient in terms of advancing U.S. foreign policy interests.
  Former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger confirmed this argument, 
by arguing for consolidating AID into State in order that bilateral 
foreign assistance be more closely related to specific, identifiable 
U.S. foreign policy interests.
  Today's AID will be transformed into a leaner State Department 
mechanism for delivering foreign assistance. Today, vast amounts of our 
humanitarian and developmental aid is consumed by AID's huge 
administrative cost structure and field apparatus. For instance, there 
are 690 AID employees stationed at our Embassy in Cairo alone.
  Out of a $2.3 billion developmental aid account, AID spends $600 
million on its formal operating expenses account. This is 25 cents for 
every developmental dollar.
  But in reality, AID's administrative costs are much higher because 
AID's formal operating expenses only count 5,000 out of its 9,000 
employees worldwide. The remaining 4,000 are AID contract employees who 
are paid out of program funds, not operating expenses.
  In looking at the Arms Control Development Agency, we certainly 
should take very seriously the concerns that have been expressed by 
arms control advocates in the administration.
  We should also, however, consider the observations of former ACDA 
Director Fred Ikle who testified before my subcommittee that moving 
forward with a proposal as innovative and necessary as this is opposed 
because it: ``hurts the pride and prestige of the affected officials, 
jeopardizes job security and mobilizes throngs of contractors, captive 
professional organizations, and other beneficiaries.'' 

[[Page S 10935]]

  Director Ikle also noted that people who want to preserve an 
institution long after they have served their purpose believe they do 
so for the noblest of reasons, but at the core of their argument is 
inevitably: ``the tendency of bureaucracies to become more vigorous and 
grow in size as their initial purpose is overtaken by events.''
  Director Ikle noted that ACDA was formed 34 years ago out of the need 
to maintain a tightly focused agency dedicated to continuity and 
competence in negotiations with a single adversary, the Soviet Union. 
Now, he noted, there is no more need for an independent agency working 
only on arms control issues than there would be for a separate U.S. 
agency for counterterrorism, global communications, or international 
crime.
  I guess I could argue that there should be separate agencies even for 
those categories.
  Former NSC Adviser Brent Scowcroft noted at the same hearing, that 
this changed focus of arms control argues against an independent ACDA. 
He observed that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the 
single most important arms control issue today. The full range of 
policy tools needed to addressing proliferation issues simply cannot be 
accomplished out of an isolated, insular ACDA. This, he argued can only 
be pursued through the broader institutions of State and DOD.


                                  usia

  The most logical fit of all is the consolidation of the U.S. 
Information Agency into the State Department. At our overseas posts, 
State Department and USIA operations work together in an almost 
seamless fashion.
  The top USIA officer at post is the public affairs officer, who 
operates as the Ambassador's close media adviser and the Embassy's 
press officer. The USIA operation at post conducts outreach into the 
grassroots organizations and maintains contacts with all those who help 
shape public opinion in the country.
  The purpose of this consolidation would be to bring this same level 
of coordination to Washington. A better understanding of and 
appreciation for the impact of international public opinion can only 
help us to formulate better overall foreign policy.
  Former NSC Adviser Scowcroft and former Secretary Eagleburger made 
this same observation, when they noted that public diplomacy is a 
function with continuing and growing needs. They noted that in the 
world today, individuals, groups, and publics have an increasing affect 
on how the United States is viewed and how our foreign policy is 
received. We need to incorporate this capacity, they said, into our 
core foreign policy institution.
  The logic of combining these two agencies is even recognized by the 
inspector general offices of the State Department and USIA. Over the 
past few years, they have adopted the practice of jointly conducting 
their periodic inspections of diplomatic posts. They do this together, 
because the State Department and USIA functions at post are so closely 
integrated.
  This legislation sets up a 2-year transition period. The three 
agencies would be merged into the State Department by March 1, 1997. 
During this transition period, the bill sets up a mechanism for the 
President to transmit to Congress his own consolidation plan. The 
President would be guaranteed quick action by Congress under expedited 
procedures.
  So the President could in response to this plan offer his own very 
specific plan that would require a resolution of approval. But the fact 
is that this legislation gives the President the opportunity, as well 
as the flexibility, to submit his own plan, or modifications to this 
plan, and it would require a resolution of approval by Congress.
  There are other issues in this legislation that I will not get into 
here today. Some of the issues that I have included, and others have 
included, are very essential to the overall bill.
  I know there is a great deal of anxiety about this legislation among 
the dedicated and hard-working employees of our foreign affairs 
agencies. And I understand that concern. I have worked with them over 
the years, and they have done an admirable, commendable job in 
implementing their responsibilities. But I think we are dealing in a 
different world today. We have to come to recognize that we have to do 
things somewhat differently.
  That is why I certainly would prefer the administration working in 
conjunction with the chairman and myself and other members of committee 
to develop a plan that has a bipartisan consensus because the scope of 
this legislation calls for a more proactive role on the part of this 
administration. In fact, they have an obligation as well as a 
responsibility to do so. But to maintain silence on this issue is 
unacceptable, let alone understandable, given the magnitude of this 
consolidation and given the fact that it is affecting our foreign 
policymaking apparatus.
  I hope that during this process we will hear from them, not simply to 
stonewall, as the chairman said, this process, but to help expedite 
this process of consolidation and integration of our foreign affairs 
agencies.
  This approach should be bipartisan. There is nothing Republican or 
Democratic about this approach. This should be an approach that 
everybody can endorse, and, in fact, Secretary Christopher had even 
recommended this approach last fall only to be rejected by others 
within the administration.
  As the chairman has indicated, five former Secretaries of State have 
supported this initiative. I think that is significant. The time has 
come for this kind of consolidation, and it is not gutting it because 
the issue of restructuring, as even Secretary Christopher indicated, 
has been done over the years, but the changes as a result of the end of 
the cold war has compelled us to look at these issues very 
realistically. We are not saying that this is a perfect plan. But it is 
very difficult to work with the other side when they are unwilling to 
work to make the revisions that they think are necessary to do this 
legislation.
  During one of our subcommittee hearings on this plan, former Bush 
administration official Bob Kimmit, who was Under Secretary of State, 
said that when he was asked to testify, he gave his proposal very 
careful and serious review. The standard he used in deciding his 
position on this was whether he would be as enthusiastic in support if 
it had been proposed by the Clinton administration rather than by the 
Republican Congress,
 or if it had been advanced by a Democratic Congress during a second 
Bush administration.

  Mr. Kimmit, together with a great number of our witnesses, made a 
common observation: To place a priority on the issue does not require a 
separate agency. No one questions the importance of arms control, 
public diplomacy or international development. Imagine if the principle 
of maintaining a separate agency for every important policy issue were 
applied throughout our Federal Government. There would be no end to 
organizational proliferation.
  I think we get some idea just based on the current chart with respect 
to the State Department and its related agencies and the bureaucratic 
confusion that has been created as a result of the multitude of 
agencies that exist within these agencies.
  This is not a Republican plan against a Democratic administration. 
This is an American plan that would benefit all future American 
administrations, both Republican and Democratic.
  So I urge my colleagues to consider it on its own merits, devoid of 
partisan considerations. If considered on this basis, I believe we will 
receive overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle.
  The bill before us is breathtaking, not just in its scope but in the 
quality of the recommendations and gives credit to our chairman, to our 
committee, and to all the Senators who have been involved in its 
creation.
  In the final analysis, whether you are Republican or Democrat, what 
we are doing here today would be arguing for fundamental, positive 
change in our Government. This is a chance to cast a vote for exactly 
the kind of change that the American people want. This is a vote for 
cost savings and efficiencies we will need to advance and if we are 
certainly going to meet our deficit reduction goals required by the 
budget resolution that passed the Congress. But also more importantly 
it is to advance our foreign policy goals. I think in the final 
analysis this is exactly what this legislation would do.
  On a final note, I should say that not only do I commend the 
employees within these various agencies but also 

[[Page S 10936]]
the directors and the administrators because without a doubt they have 
been hard-working, dedicated individuals who are committed to their 
goals. And although we may disagree on this consolidation, I want to 
make sure I give credit to those individuals who currently head these 
agencies because clearly they have worked very hard to try to do what 
they can with the kind of mandates received within current law and with 
the structures that they have had to live with. And I understand their 
commitment to maintaining the current structure. But I think they also 
hopefully understand we have to meet the goals that are required of us 
through not only the budget resolution but also because the climate and 
the circumstances have now changed.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that as we go through this process in the 
final analysis we will be able to get a reorganization of State 
Department agencies necessary to meet the future commitments of this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senate has just heard a remarkable 
discourse by the able Senator from Maine, whom I have long admired. She 
is certainly an addition to the wisdom of the Senate on many matters, 
especially foreign affairs. I wish to thank her for her diligent work 
on this bill, and I thank her for the great statement she just 
delivered.
  Mr. President, another distinguished member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee who has done so well in assisting in the drafting of this 
bill is Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. He is chairman of the East 
Asian Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I hope the 
Chair will recognize him.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  I thank the chairman of the committee for the opportunity to comment 
on this bill. I rise to place my full support behind Chairman Helms and 
the efforts to overhaul and streamline the Department of State.
  These bills are very complicated, of course, and throughout the 
duration of this debate and discussion it will be hard to track. Let me 
read just a couple of paragraphs from a letter the chairman sent to me 
that I think is fairly succinct.

       Six weeks ago, with the support of every Republican Member, 
     the Foreign Relations Committee passed S. 908, the Foreign 
     Relations Revitalization Act. This legislation is the first 
     authorization measure to reach the Senate floor within budget 
     targets, fulfilling the mandate the American people gave us 
     last November. This bill is a promise kept: Money is saved, 
     bureaucracy eliminated, and the ability of our Nation to 
     conduct foreign policy enhanced.
       This reorganization of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus 
     saves $3.66 billion over four years. A similar measure has 
     already passed the House. Three agencies, the Arms Control 
     and Disarmament Agency, the Agency for International 
     Development, and the United States Information Agency are 
     abolished and their functions are rolled into the Department 
     of State.
       The core functions of these agencies are not lost. Despite 
     propagandizing to the contrary, independent broadcasting is 
     protected; arms control and non-proliferation will be 
     strengthened; and the assistance programs which support 
     national interests will be liberated from a convoluted AID 
     bureaucracy. This consolidation plan has been endorsed by 
     five former U.S. Secretaries of State. . . . And as Henry 
     Kissinger recently said, if given a truth serum, Secretary 
     Christopher would endorse it too.

  That summarizes, it seems to me, what it is we are seeking to do 
here. The chairman has spoken at length, and the Senator from Maine in 
her excellent commentary spoke about the need for important 
legislation, so I will not cover that same territory.
  The changes proposed in S. 908 are long overdue. What I will address, 
however, is the way in which AID and this administration has handled 
itself in the face of the chairman's efforts. From the beginning, 
instead of cooperating in a constructive effort to work with the 
Congress in cutting waste, overlapping responsibilities, and outmoded 
and outdated programs, the administration has chosen to ignore and 
stonewall. The word has gone out to the bureaucrats and to the Democrat 
Members of Congress that this is the party line. A memo that was quoted 
earlier indicated that the strategy is to ``delay, postpone, obfuscate, 
derail. If we derail, we can kill the merger,'' it says. ``Official 
word is we don't care if there is a State authorization bill this 
year.''
  As a result, it has been strongly rumored that we will face a flurry 
of amendments to this bill as we have seen in other bills in a veiled 
attempt to filibuster. So much for the administration's dedication to 
reinventing Government.
  Requests for meetings have gone unanswered, as have requests for 
information. Instead of working with Congress, AID has gone out of its 
way to preserve itself by spreading confusion and panic among 
organizations with which it does business, by distorting the purpose 
and the probable impact of S. 908. Many of these practices I believe 
come close to pressing the breaking of the law. For instance, I am 
aware of AID staffers who have contacted several private groups and 
urged them to lobby for the defeat of S. 908. My office has received 
almost weekly information packets from AID including xeroxed copies of 
articles and editorials in opposition to the merger--omitting, of 
course, those that are in favor.
  I find it highly improper that AID is spending taxpayer dollars in 
supplies and employee time lobbying us for their own continuation.
  Mr. President, S. 908 is supported by five former Secretaries of 
State and, until overruled by the White House, Secretary Christopher. 
It is an idea whose time has come. Its time is here. At a time when we 
do not have enough money to take care of our own citizens' fundamental 
needs and are consequently forced to rethink the funding levels in our 
domestic budget, to argue that we cannot make similar difficult cuts in 
the structure of foreign policy is both disingenuous and unrealistic.
  So again, Mr. President, I rise in support of this proposal. I think 
it is one of the things that the voters said to us in 1994. They said 
we need to make some changes in the way the Federal Government 
operates; that the Government is too big, it spends too much, and that 
we should find better ways to deliver services; that we should find 
more efficient ways to use tax dollars.
  Mr. President, this is one of those ways, and I urge support for this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong, enthusiastic support of 
S. 908, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act. As a member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, I am proud to have voted for this 
groudbreaking legislation to fundamentally reform America's foreign 
affairs agencies.
  For much of this year, Congress has responded to the voters' demand 
to shrink the Federal Government and reduce its intrusion in their 
lives. But it is not just our domestic agencies that are in need of an 
overhaul.
  S. 908 fulfills two important goals: First, it will help to reshape 
the State Department so that we can better meet the new challenges of a 
rapidly changing world. And second, it will apply our limited financial 
resources in a more realistic and effective way.
  Unfortunately, the President's proposed budget for 1996 would 
actually increase international affairs spending by $950 million, and 
that is hardly evidence of a strong commitment to balancing the budget.
  Moreover, some administration officials--as well as some Members of 
this body--have thrown around reckless accusations about this bill's 
efforts to reorganize the State Department. They charge that it somehow 
represents a move to withdraw the United States from international 
affairs.
  But make no mistake. It is our desire, and America's responsibility, 
to remain actively and productively engaged around the world that make 
this legislation so necessary.
  While the administration has been busy crying ``isolationism" and 
doing everything in its power to block consideration of S. 908, five 
former Secretaries of State have come forward to ardently endorse it.
  Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former National 
Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft testified on the clear connection 
between the cold war and the expansion of the Federal bureaucracy:


[[Page S 10937]]

       [T]his proliferation of agencies occurred in response to 
     security-related concerns which have since diminished or 
     disappeared. Therefore, we are now encumbered by a plethora 
     of programs which no longer are closely tied to, or clearly 
     serve, U.S. national interests. . . . [The] origins of the 
     agencies being considered for abolition are all rooted in a 
     world which no longer exists.

  And former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger--not known for 
``isolationist'' tendencies--wrote,

       What is needed is steadiness, coherence and precision in 
     the articulation and implementation of policies. . . .

  He went on to say:

       Your proposal to abolish the Agency for International 
     Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the 
     U.S. Information Agency is a bold step in this direction by 
     centralizing authority and responsibility for the conduct of 
     foreign affairs where it properly belongs--in the President's 
     senior foreign affairs advisor, the Secretary of State.

  Even current Secretary of State Warren Christopher reportedly made a 
similar proposal to Vice President Gore's ``Reinventing Government'' 
team. But, unfortunately, the Vice President chose to reject the 
Secretary's plan and, instead, capitulated to the cold war 
reactionaries in the administration who are intent on preserving their 
pet agencies at all costs.
  Therefore, Mr. President, Congress must act responsibly with the 
taxpayers' money and do for the State Department what it could not do 
for itself. Rather than ``micromanage'' State Department reform, S. 908 
preserves substantial flexibility for the President and the Secretary 
of State to determine its new organizational structure.
  Given the complete lack of cooperation Congress has received on this 
issue from the administration, allowing such flexibility may be 
considered a ``leap of faith.'' However, I firmly believe Congress 
should guide and agencies should be expected to perform.
  Above all, Mr. President, the heart of S. 908 must be kept intact. 
The consolidation of AID, ACDA and USIA under the State Department will 
end the current duplication of many functions and personnel.
  As a result, S. 908 will save the taxpayers $4.8 billion over 5 years 
according to the Congressional Budget Office. The international affairs 
budget must take its fair share of reductions to keep us on track to 
balancing the budget in 2002.
  But I want to remind my colleagues that without the efficient and 
prudent savings in the State Department reorganization plan, cuts in 
foreign aid programs will have to be that much deeper.
  Finally, I hope that this bill--combined with S. 961, the Foreign Aid 
Reduction Act--will encourage a comprehensive review of U.S. foreign 
aid.
  We all know that foreign aid is held in low esteem by many Americans. 
Given the track record of AID and the minimal performance of some 
foreign aid programs, this is hardly surprising. We must not abdicate 
our oversight responsibilities. By enacting the legislation before us 
today, we can begin rehabilitating foreign aid in the eyes of the 
American people.
  Mr. President, we must ask ourselves: Do we really need a bureaucracy 
of 9,300 employees and contractors to manage foreign aid programs? 
There are 405 employees at AID's Egypt mission in Cairo alone. And it 
costs the taxpayers $150,000 to $300,000 a year--not counting salary--
to station just one AID employee overseas.
  We must focus our efforts on making sure that foreign aid actually 
reaches people in need rather than getting swallowed up by oversized 
U.S. and foreign bureaucracies.
  I support an approach that conducts more of our foreign aid programs 
through non-governmental organizations and private voluntary 
organizations. These are groups that generally have much lower overhead 
costs than AID.
  As we reevaluate foreign aid and demand that it become more 
accountable, more efficient and more effective, we must also examine 
the actions of those countries which receive taxpayer dollars.
  Foreign aid cannot provide real, sustainable development unless 
recipient countries are dedicated to economic freedom and free-market 
reforms. To renew Americans' faith in foreign aid, we must show them 
proven results.
  We cannot afford to run an international welfare program which 
subsidizes countries that show no progress toward economic self-
sufficiency. Just like our broken welfare system at home, such a 
program will only encourage dependency and continue to burden the 
taxpayers for years to come.
  In closing, Mr. President, S. 908 offers all Senators this 
opportunity: We have all talked a good game about eliminating agencies 
that are outmoded or inefficient. Now the question is can we actually 
do it.
  I urge all Members to vote for S. 908, not just for the sake of 
eliminating three agencies, but because doing so will help ensure that 
America has the foreign policy tools necessary to take us into the 21st 
century.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I want to pay my respects to the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He is one of the newer members on 
the Foreign Relations Committee. He is always there, and he has always 
done his homework. I congratulate him on his statement, and I thank him 
for his participation in the work of the committee.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I intend to speak on the foreign 
relations proposal at a later time, but I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business for 10 minutes in regard to the welfare 
situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________