[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10938-S10959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN RELATIONS REVITALIZATION ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the pending business is the State Department
revitalization?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 2025
(Purpose: To withhold $3,500,000 from the ``International Conferences
and Contingencies'' Account if the State Department expended funds for
the World Conference on Women while Harry Wu was being detained in
China)
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Lott, and Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 2025.
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:
On page 81, line 3, add the following:
(c) Further Conditional Authority.--
(1) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Fiscal
year 1996, in (a), $3,500,000 shall be withheld from
obligation until the Secretary of State certifies to the
appropriate congressional committees, with respect to the
United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women being held in
Beijing, that no funds available to the Department of State
were obligated or expended for United States participation in
the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women while
Harry Wu, a United States citizen, was detained by the
People's Republic of China.
[[Page S 10939]]
(2) If the Secretary of State cannot make the certification
in Section 301 (c)(1), the withheld funds shall be returned
to the U.S. Treasury.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this is for funding for international
conferences. S. 908 is an important piece of legislation. It provides
for a massive reinvention of our foreign affairs bureaucracies. Because
of this, I am fearful that many of my colleagues on the other side, in
fact, maybe all of my colleagues, will not let us complete action on
this bill.
Chairman Helms and the subcommittee Chairperson Snowe deserves credit
for bringing this landmark bill to the floor. I signed a letter in
support of this earlier today, and ask that it be printed in the Record
at the conclusion my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. DOLE. I signed the letter, along with Senator Helms and Senator
Snowe.
Regardless of what happens on the cloture vote tomorrow, there is an
issue we should address today: The United States plan to attend the
fourth U.N. Conference on Women, scheduled for September in Beijing,
China. My amendment would withhold $3.5 million--50 percent of the
total account--unless the Secretary of State certifies no United States
funds were expended to finance a United States delegation to the
women's conference while Harry Wu is detained in China.
As you know, since June 19, Harry Wu has been detained in China.
Consular access to him, guaranteed under the terms of our 1982
agreement with China, was originally delayed. Last week, a suspicious
tape was released by Beijing with Harry Wu confessing that his past
exposes on human rights abuses in China were untrue. On July 9, Harry
Wu was charged with offenses which could carry the death penalty. In
light of his years of experience in the Chinese gulag, there is ample
reason to fear for Harry Wu's safety.
Our relationship with China is at a crucial crossroads. We have many
disputes with Beijing including trade, proliferation, human rights, and
Taiwan. We must, however, choose our course of action carefully. As Dr.
Henry Kissinger said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
earlier this month. ``The danger of the existing rollercoaster toward
confrontation to the United States and China is incalculable.'' I share
Dr. Kissinger's concern over the dangers of a full-scale confrontation.
However, the most fundamental duty of a government is to protect the
rights of its citizens--and Harry Wu is an American citizen. I urge the
Chinese to release him. No improvement in relations will be possible as
long as he is detained.
Mr. President, there are many problems with the fourth U.N.
Conference on Women. I share the view recently expressed by Senator
Kassebaum and Congressman Hamilton on U.N. conferences:
The United Nations is in Peril of becoming little more than
a road show traveling from conference to conference. If an
issue is serious, a conference will not solve it; if it is
not serious, a conference is a waste of time.
In my view, the United States should stay away from any U.N.
conference with goals and agendas which do nothing to promote American
interests--whether they are held in Beijing, Brusslels, or Boston.
There are many reasons to stay away from the U.N. Women's
Conference--from the systematic exclusion of certain nongovernment
organizations to the irony of holding a human rights conference in a
country with a poor human rights record. The tilt toward anti-
Americanism and radicalism--always present in lowest common denominator
U.N. conferences--was particularly pronounced for the Women's
Conference. There was even a controversy over the definition of gender
in the preparatory meetings of the conference.
There should be no doubt that China will use the Women's Conference
to enhance its prestige and international image. It is our view that
the United States should not be a party to what will surely be a
propaganda exercise as long as Harry Wu is detained. It would be wrong
to attend a human rights conference when an American citizen is
unjustly detained.
We should be realistic. The administration can use already
appropriated funds to go to Beijing. We cannot stop that today.
However, we can make our position clear. For the administration, the
choice in this amendment is simple--stay away from the Women's
Conference while Harry Wu is detained or lose 50 percent of your
ability to fund such conferences in the future. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 26, 1995.
Dear Colleague: 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 relations 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 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 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: Henry Kissinger,
George Shultz, Alexander Haig, James Baker and Lawrence
Eagleburger. And as Henry Kissinger recently said, if given a
truth serum, Secretary Christopher would endorse it too.
There is, however, an alternative to this reorganization
plan. It is called the status quo.
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Christopher suggested
a similar reorganization of the foreign affairs structure of
this country, only to be beaten back by Washington
bureaucrats protecting their fiefdoms. Attempts to engage the
Clinton Administration were rebuffed consistently; repeated
offers to find common ground have been rejected or ignored.
The Administration has offered no alternatives and no
savings.
President Clinton's second budget calls for a 20 percent
cut in all non-defense accounts. S. 908 delivers on that
call. But there is only one way to meet budget targets and
still preserve the core elements of U.S. international
operations: Consolidation of our foreign affairs agencies.
This should not be a partisan battle. A vote to sacrifice
desk jobs for programs that support U.S. national security
and humanitarian goals should be an easy one. But the
Administration and the Democrats cannot accept that
sacrifice, which means partisanship may rule the day. Their
plan, detailed in an AID memo, is to ``derail, delay and
obfuscate'' the process. Let us move this bill quickly,
defeat efforts to preserve the bureaucratic status quo, and
prove that we, at least, are serious about cutting spending.
We need your vote.
Sincerely,
Bob Dole,
Olympia Snowe,
Jesse Helms.
Amendment No. 2026 to Amendment No. 2025
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, of course I support Senator Dole's
amendment. Before I discuss it, I have a second-degree amendment to the
Dole amendment at the desk, which I ask be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], proposes an
amendment numbered 2026 to amendment No. 2025.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the pending amendment, add the following:
SEC. . UNITED NATIONS DIPLOMATIC DEBTS.
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
1996 in section 201 and section 301, not less than
$20,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation until the
Secretary of State reports to the Congress:
(1) the names of diplomatic personnel accredited to the
United Nations or foreign missions to the United Nations,
which have accrued overdue debts to businesses and
individuals in the United States; and
(2) that the United Nations Secretary General is
cooperating fully with the United States or taking effective
steps on his own, including publishing the names of debtors,
to resolve overdue debts owed by diplomats and missions
accredited to the United Nations.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I indicated, I am a cosponsor of Senator
Dole's amendment which is an excellent amendment. It encourages the
administration to do what it already should have done: make a strong
protest to the Chinese over the arrest and
[[Page S 10940]]
detention of the American citizen and friend of many of us in the
Congress, Harry Wu.
Just 2 weeks ago, Mr. President, I met with Harry Wu's wife in my
office. Jing Lee is a lovely person. She said privately, and then again
on the lawn of the White House, the United States should refrain from
sending a delegation to the United Nations Fourth Conference on Women
in Beijing until Harry Wu is released safely. She asked, ever so
insightfully, ``Why would the United States wish to confer
international recognition and legitimacy on the Chinese Government at a
time when it is holding an American citizen in captivity?''
Over the weekend, the newspaper ran articles showing that the
President is considering meeting with the Chinese premier in this area
of detente, as Secretary of State Christopher is now referring to it.
After the President goes through with that meeting, and Harry Wu is not
released, then we absolutely have no business sending any Americans
over to that conference in Beijing.
If the truth be known, the Beijing women's conference is fraught with
problems from top to bottom, starting with the city in which it is
being held. Taking a paltry $3.5 million away from one account in the
State Department is, in the short-term, the best way the Senate has to
send a signal in support for Harry Wu's release.
I might inquire of the majority leader, does the Senator seek the
yeas and nays on his amendment?
Mr. DOLE. I will seek the yeas and nays, and I think the Senator will
seek the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment.
Mr. HELMS. I will seek the yeas and nays after the Senator.
Mr. DOLE. If I could speak to the second-degree amendment. I thank
the Senator from North Carolina. I see on his desk a story that
appeared in the Washington Times, and that is the purpose of the
amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. President, there are many problems in the U.N. system but today's
front page story in the Washington Times is another outrageous example
of the lack of accountability in the United Nations. More than $9
million in overdue debts have been accumulated by foreign diplomats and
foreign missions in New York. Bills for landlords, hospitals, banks,
stores, and restaurants all go unpaid while the diplomats hide behind
the U.N. blue flag.
The U.N. Secretary General issued a report recognizing the problem
was serious. For example, some missions have not paid rent for 2 years;
property owners were in danger of losing properties but diplomatic
tenants cannot be evicted. The Secretary General, however, refused to
name names. Instead, he suggested a working group to study the problem.
I think we all know how to solve the problem. Don't form yet another
layer of bloated bureaucracy--just get the bills paid.
This second-degree amendment offered by Senator Helms is very simple.
It withholds $20 million--roughly double the amount owed by deadbeat
diplomats--until the Secretary of State certifies two things: First,
the identities to the deadbeat diplomats by name; and second, that the
U.N. Secretary General is addressing the problem and getting debts
paid.
The money we appropriate for the United Nations is not an
entitlement. And, yes, the administration may have committed our
Government to more money that we are willing to appropriate. But
Congress does not have to sit by while the United Nations provides
cover for deadbeat diplomats getting special treatment.
I certainly urge my colleagues to support the second-degree amendment
of the Senator from North Carolina.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin by saying to the distinguished
majority leader that I hope it might be possible to set this aside
temporarily, simply because we have a couple of Senators who have
amendments, or at least desire consideration, with respect to Harry Wu.
It may not bear directly on this, but it think it would bear on the
debate.
Mr. DOLE. We could set them aside with the understanding somewhere
around 6 or 6:30 we would have a vote. We would not want to set them
aside and have someone say we will never vote on them.
Mr. KERRY. We will be glad to.
The majority leader is about to leave, I suppose, but let me say that
I think there is not any issue in the U.S. Senate about how we feel
about Harry Wu's detainment. I think there are probably 5 or 6, or, I
do not know, maybe 100 different ideas here about how we might properly
signal our disaffection, anger, frustration over it. I am genuinely not
convinced that the way to do it is deny us participation in a
conference that highlights human rights. It seems to me, when you
measure the U.S. record against every other country in the world, we
are the leader on human rights. It has been the United States, among
all of the industrial countries, that has tried to assert human rights
as a part of our foreign policy and also as a part of our efforts to do
business in other parts of the world.
I think it is fair to say that many of our allies--many of our
closest allies, our best friends in the international arena--have been
very slow to come to the level of international concern for human
rights that we have tried to exhibit in public policy.
For the United States to take an action that willfully deprives us of
our own voice in the international arena, seems to me to be a very
shortsighted, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot, try-to-conduct-diplomacy-
with-one-foot-nailed- to-the-floor approach. It just does not make
sense.
In many ways, I suspect that China is apprehensive about the holding
of this conference in Beijing. This cannot, in the midst of their
transition, be a very stable time for them to have thousands of women
from around the world descending on their capital, with all of the
media from the world attendant, all listening to comparative analyses
of the rights that are afforded to citizens in each of those present
countries. If we just step up and take ourselves out of the picture,
what we are doing is denying ourselves our own role of leadership. We
are denying ourselves a voice at the conference. I suspect we are
playing right into the hands of those who would love to have a low-key,
noncontroversial, nonconfrontational, nonsubstantive
conference. If you want to have that, then let us come to the floor of
the Senate and deny American women, who have been preparing for this
for years--literally--the right to go to Beijing and hold up the record
of the Chinese on human rights for all the world to see.
It just does not make sense. I would be in favor of coming to the
floor and finding a means, as President Clinton has exhibited a
willingness to do, to try to do something that puts teeth in the
policy, and that literally matters more. To pick the women's conference
and suggest that somehow that matters in a major way to the Chinese
leadership is to misread China and, I think, to misread opportunity.
President Clinton, I read today, has already said he is not willing
to sit down and meet with the President of China unless Harry Wu is
free. There are many other ways for us to come to the floor and
leverage Harry Wu's freedom, and we ought to. We ought to do that. But
it seems to me this is one of the weakest and most tangential of the
ways of doing it.
For those who want to read mischief into this amendment, it is not
hard to do that. There are a lot of people who have never approved of
U.S. participation in the women's conference. There are people who
tried to stop participation at the Nairobi conference, if I recall
correctly. There are people who have objected to the notion that we
would get together and talk about family planning and other such issues
important to women or women's rights.
So I rather suspect there is more to this amendment than Harry Wu's
freedom. If Harry Wu's freedom is really what this amendment is about,
then we can find a much more forceful and intelligent way of putting
that issue before the U.S. Senate. But to deny ourselves, as I say, our
own participation as a leader in human rights and an opportunity to go
to Beijing and hold up for all the world to see the degree to which
China is lacking with respect to that, I think is just a very weak and
negligible, unimportant way to approach this particular issue. I hope
colleagues will recognize that there are
[[Page S 10941]]
other amendments which will afford them the opportunity to vote on some
legitimate and important way of signaling our displeasure with the
detention of Harry Wu. I do not think this is the method. I hope there
will be more said on that as we go down the road.
I reserve further time to speak on that as we progress. I see other
colleagues are here on the floor, so I will yield the floor for now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the
amendment that has been offered by the Senate majority leader. I speak
today as one of, I think, the Senate's strongest advocates of the U.N.
Conference on Women. But it is precisely because of the conference's
importance that I support the distinguished majority leader's amendment
to call on the President, really, in essence, not to send an official
delegation to that conference until Harry Wu is released.
Frankly, this is what it is all about. It is about Harry Wu. And it
is also about principle and at what point do we stand up and support
principle.
As we debate this issue, we are really speaking about one of our most
courageous citizens, who continues to be unjustly incarcerated in
China. Today, Chinese authorities are violating his most fundamental
human rights and are threatening his very life with a trumped-up charge
of espionage, which, in China, is a capital crime.
We face a critical juncture in our relations with the People's
Republic of China. Given China's gross violation of Harry Wu's rights
and privileges as an American, I certainly cannot support this
country's participation in the women's human rights conference that is
set to get underway on September 4. What kind of message does it send?
That is exactly what China wants. China wants to have it both ways.
They want to be able to have Harry Wu in prison and, at the same time,
as their backdrop will be this human rights conference. It is a
conference on women and it is a conference on human rights. I have been
very much a supporter of that conference.
So I hope no one will question my motivations as to why I am
supporting this amendment, and I am a cosponsor. Because at some point
I believe you have to support principle. Yes, sometimes this is
discomforting. Some people say this is just what China wants. I hardly
believe that.
China wants to be able to do that in spite of keeping Harry Wu in
prison. They want to be able to have credibility and look at the
international community as having their human rights conference in
China in spite of the fact they have grossly violated Harry Wu's
rights.
That is what this is all about. And what kind of message will we be
sending? I know everybody is in a quandary as to what to do,
understandably so. But sometimes you finally meet the bottom line, and
you say, ``We cannot do it.'' No, the First Lady should not attend the
conference. But we should not send an American delegation. That is what
this amendment is all about.
Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Ms. SNOWE. I would like to finish my statement.
I think that it would be simply wrong because of the issue of Harry
Wu's rights. What he has attempted to do is to have the tragedies
exposed, the gross violations of human rights that have occurred in
China. He has risked his life. I think we ought to learn from that.
I would like to quote for you from his book ``Bitter Wind.'' It was
published in 1994. In discussing his decision to return to China in
1991 to film his famed expose, ``The China Secret Prison Facilities,''
he wrote in 1991:
I married, and for the first time I found deep personal
happiness. But just 4 months later I arranged to travel back
to China. Outside China much was known about the Nazi
concentration camps and about the Soviet gulag, but almost no
information was available about the carefully developed
system of forced labor that had kept millions of Chinese
citizens incarcerated in brutal and dehumanizing conditions,
frequently without sentence or trial. Returning to China
meant risking my own rearrest and reimprisonment.
Perhaps I would once again disappear. Even though I had
wanted to forget the suffering of the past after arriving in
the United States and had wanted to heal the wounds in my
heart, the 19 years of sorrow would not stop returning to my
mind. I could not forget those who still suffer inside the
camps. If I did not undertake this task, I asked, who would?
I felt a responsibility not just to disclose but to publicize
the truth about the Communist Party's mechanism of control.
Whatever the risk to me, whatever the discomfort of telling
my story, each time I revisited my past, I hoped it would be
the last time. But I had decided that my experiences belong
not only to me and not only to China's history, they belonged
to humanity.
Well, Harry Wu is an American. He belongs not only to us, not only
to those he left behind to China's gulag, but he also belongs to
humanity. And that is why we have to take every necessary step possible
to get Harry Wu released.
When it comes to the conference, yes, there are a number of
important issues. I have been a supporter of all the previous
conferences, and I have been engaged in providing input on the
development of the agenda. But I think there is a time that we have to
make certain decisions as a country.
There was great reluctance to have this conference in Beijing because
of obvious reasons--the country's severe restrictions on human rights
and most basic freedoms of speech and press. We also know what China
has done to governmental organizations. They have basically placed
their conference about 75 miles away from Beijing with a great deal of
confusion and restrictions upon accreditation of the various
representatives who are seeking to go to that conference, as well,
which will occur a week before the conference on women.
So there have been a number of attempts to encroach on the ability of
those people who want to attend, and certainly their ability to
participate in the conference, in making it obviously very difficult.
But above and beyond everything else is looking at what Harry Wu
represents and what he has done. Frankly, I just cannot imagine China
as a backdrop for this conference at a time in which Harry Wu is in
prison.
So I think it is important to take this step. It is one that I do
not take lightly. I gave it a great deal of thought. But I think that
we can do no less in making a very strong statement about how we feel
as a nation toward China's treatment toward one of our citizens, but to
anyone.
So that is why I am supporting this amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. SNOWE. Yes. I will be glad to yield for a question.
Mr. KERRY. I wonder why the Senator does not feel that--recognizing
the fact that the United Nations and the United States signed off on
the location, and the location issue is sort of behind us--why the
Senator would not feel that having an American presence there which, on
a daily basis, raised the issue of Harry Wu before the conference,
which required the conference to deal with Harry Wu's detention, which
used this platform as a means of underscoring, would not be stronger
than simply denying ourselves our own presence.
It will not stop the conference. The conference will go on. Everyone
else will be there. And they will not raise this issue necessarily as
vociferously and as passionately as we might.
So why would we not be better off directing our delegation to raise
it on a daily basis and pass a resolution from this conference with
respect to Harry Wu?
Ms. SNOWE. I say to the Senator that I happen to think we have
different opinions on the subject, but I happen to think that this will
enhance China's credibility in the international community to hold this
conference. Frankly, I think China would find it very difficult if the
conference was not held in Beijing. I think that happens to be a
stronger statement, in my opinion, than holding the conference--and
certainly China would view it and interpret it as suggesting that in
spite of what they have done, they are still holding this conference in
this country. Mind you, Beijing was on the list as the next country in
line to hold the conference. There was reluctance even at that point at
the United Nations to hold that conference in Beijing for the reasons
that we all know. Now, this has happened.
I just frankly do not feel that it would be appropriate for this
country to send our delegation there talking
[[Page S 10942]]
about the very important issues but at the same time sending the
message that we are still going to talk about these issues in spite of
the fact that Harry Wu is in prison.
Mr. KERRY. But my question is why not send them there to talk about
Harry Wu?
Ms. SNOWE. They have an agenda. I have a letter here.
Mr. KERRY. They can talk about Harry Wu. The conference is going to
happen. The Senator keeps talking as if we are not participating.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator asked a question. Let the
Senator from Maine respond.
Ms. SNOWE. Harry Wu is an American citizen. So, therefore, we have an
obligation or responsibility to make those determinations as a country.
I agree that is important, too.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. SNOWE. May I finish my statement? It is important for the United
States to make that decision. I think it is that important, frankly, to
say something about human rights. To hold a conference in a country
which has violated in the worst way the human rights of an American
citizen, I think that we have to stand up and be counted. It is not
easy because there are many important issues on that agenda which are
very important to women throughout the country. I have been a leader on
those issues on international human rights for women. I put a number of
provisions in the State Department authorizing bill last year on this
very subject. I feel very strongly about it.
I feel very strongly about it. But I also feel very strongly about
what China has done to Harry Wu.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield further for a question?
Ms. SNOWE. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. I would say to the Senator, Mr. President, there is nobody
here who does not feel strongly about what they have done to Harry Wu.
This is not a debate about whether Harry Wu should be left to be a
prisoner or not. This is a question of what is the most efficient----
Mr. HELMS. The Senator is not asking a question.
Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator from North Carolina want me to stop----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has yielded for a
question.
Mr. KERRY. I was in the midst, I thought, Mr. President, of asking a
question.
I ask the Senator if she does not realize from the writings of Harry
Wu and the risks that Mr. Wu has been willing to take that he would
probably prefer that this conference took place and that it raised the
issues with the United States there to raise them? And I wonder if she
has thought about whether or not Harry Wu would rather have the
delegation be present.
Ms. SNOWE. I think Harry Wu would want the United States to stand up
for him, and I happen to think--again, I cannot say what Harry Wu would
think, but I think that China would feel very much slighted as well as
insulted in the international community if the American delegation did
not go to this conference; in fact, if the conference was not held at
all. I think the international community should make that decision.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Ms. SNOWE. Harry Wu has given his life to expose the unspeakable
crimes that not only he endured in China's prisons but what others are
enduring. I think it is a slap in the face what China has done to the
United States. But it is more than that. It is what they have done to
an individual. And I think that we have to stand up. I would like the
international community to stand up and say, no, we will hold the
conference someplace else. It is inconvenient to change the location of
this conference, but we are going to do it.
What kind of message would that send to China? It is obvious they
want to have it both ways. Look what they did, what they released
recently in a tape with Harry Wu.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. SNOWE. They want to be able to show that they are evenhanded and
fair.
I would be glad to yield to the chairman.
Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Does the Senator remember my mentioning to her the visit I had with
Mrs. Harry Wu, in which she asked that the U.S. delegation not be
present? Does the Senator recall that meeting, that she came to my
office and made that request herself? Does the Senator recall that?
Ms. SNOWE. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
Mr. HELMS. It is made a matter of record at this point.
Ms. SNOWE. I think that that would answer the Senator's question.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my question to the Senator again is, when
the United States takes a step unilaterally, we tend to confuse our
capacity to send a message. And I ask the Senator, would she not think
that if this were, indeed--this Senator would agree that if a
conference as a whole were not held there or were moved, that would,
indeed, be of significant implication, that that would have an impact.
Would we not be better off passing a resolution which sought a
multilateral response rather than one that simply denies ourself our
own voice?
I ask the Senator, would she not then think it a better idea to find
a stronger way to try to send a message?
My point is merely that this really deprives us of something and does
not have the full impact. I would join the Senator if she wanted to try
to change the whole location or if she suggested we should engage in a
multilateral effort to see that the conference did it. That would be a
slap in the face of China.
Ms. SNOWE. I certainly would not be opposed to a multilateral
response, but at the same time it should not preclude our position in
terms of what we think is important for this country in the final
analysis. I do not think that prevents the United States from seeking a
multilateral approach in changing the site of the conference. If the
other countries do not agree, then I do not think that it should
prevent us from doing what we think is right.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, clearly we are not going to be prevented
from what we think is right. The question is whether we can find a
strong and forcible best means of sending this message. I simply ask
the Senator whether or not that or a number of other methods I might
add might not strike more at something meaningful to China than taking
away the single, strongest human rights voice in the world from a
conference that they are trying to frustrate anyway? This plays right
into their hands.
The reason it has been moved, the reason that there are so many
difficulties with accreditation is that the leadership fears this
conference. And here we are coming along and adding to that.
I ask the Senator why we strike in a way that somehow nails our own
foot to the floor rather than theirs?
Ms. SNOWE. I would answer the Senator by saying that it is remarkably
striking that China sought to do what it did in face of the fact it
very much wanted to have the conference. That is why I happen to
believe that precluding our delegation from attending the conference or
even having the conference there, sure, that would be the best of all
worlds, but we cannot depend upon that response in the final analysis.
We certainly should encourage it and prevail upon other countries. And
I do not say that we should take that as a position as well. But I do
not think we should then say we are going to attend the conference if
we cannot change the site of that conference.
I just happen to think it is amazing that China would do this in
light of the fact it very much wanted to have the conference. It was
very eager to host that conference. And there was a question as to
whether or not to even host that conference in Beijing to begin with,
let alone before all this developed. But I think it makes a mockery of
the very purpose of that conference.
That is what I happen to believe. And I feel very strongly about the
issues which are on that agenda to empower women throughout the world
on a host of issues that I have worked on personally. But I also think
we have to stand up and be counted. There is always a reason why we
cannot do something--well, it is better for us. This is what China
wants.
We have heard that before, but it has not stopped China.
Has it stopped China? No. It has not stopped China from doing a
number of
[[Page S 10943]]
things recently that certainly have been an affront to our policies and
what we stand for. And at what point do we demand something in return
when it comes to human rights? I just happen to think the conference
should not go on, no. But I certainly do not think that we should
attend that conference.
That is what I happen to think. That is what I think happens to be
the strongest message and that is why I am supporting this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nickles). The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, changing the venue on the Beijing
conference is an absolute impossibility, and I am sure my well-informed
colleague from Massachusetts knows that. At this point, I agree with
the distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished majority
leader that the strongest means of sending a message from the United
States is to do it unilaterally because we really do not have any other
choice.
Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's second-degree amendment to the
majority leader's underlying amendment.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I will not be long in discussing my amendment. I
thought about it when I read the Washington Times this morning and saw
the headline, ``U.N.'s Deadbeat Diplomats Owe Millions.'' Then the
subhead says, ``African Nations Ring Up Largest Debts to New York
Shops, Banks, and Lenders.''
In that, Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said in a report to
the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, and I quote him:
Non-payment of just debts reflects badly on the entire
diplomatic community and tarnishes the image of the United
Nations itself.
Then the Washington Times went on to say:
The topic is so sensitive around the United Nations that,
until recently, the problem was not publicly mentioned. But
the secrecy and inaction have allowed the debt to grow to $9
million from the previous balance of just $1.1 million in
1990; it swelled by nearly $2 million in the past half-year
alone.
I ask unanimous consent that this entire article be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in general, the pending second-degree
amendment to the Dole amendment addresses the debt owed to the United
States, or to private enterprises of our country, by deadbeat U.N.
diplomats who just do not pay their bills. They owe over $9 million for
late payments or failure to pay at all on rent and everything else
imaginable that these deadbeats have purchased or contracted for.
That reminds me of an amendment that I offered last year that
required diplomats right here in the District of Columbia, as well as
other places, to pay up on the parking fines owed to the District of
Columbia. I am proud to say that it worked because they were in deep,
deep trouble if they did not pay.
This amendment is just about the same. It sheds sunshine on those
diplomats who choose to ignore paying their just debts, as Boutros
Boutros-Ghali described it in his statement as quoted in the newspaper
this morning.
I think that the publicity may embarrass these people into paying
these bills. If not, this second-degree amendment to the Dole amendment
will certainly prompt their attention. Since the Secretary General has
refused to identify any of the diplomats or the missions that owe
money, it is up to the U.S. Congress to urge him to do so in a very
forceful way. If this provision is adopted, as I hope it will be, the
deadbeats in the United Nations will be known by one and all, and they
will be embarrassed into paying their bills.
The yeas and nays have not been obtained on either amendment; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there appears not to be a sufficient second.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dole
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to it being in order to ask
for the yeas and nays on the first-degree amendment? Without objection,
it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Times, July 31, 1995]
U.N.'s Deadbeat Diplomats Owe Millions
african nations ring up largest debts to new york shops, banks,
landlords
(By Catherine Toups)
New York.--If the peace-keeping failures of Bosnia and
Somalia haven't brought enough shame on the United Nations,
U.N. officials fear that deadbeat diplomats will.
Hiding behind the shield of diplomatic immunity, diplomats
and missions posted to the United Nations have accrued more
than $9 million in debts to U.S. banks, landlords, hospitals,
hotels, utility companies and merchants in New York City,
according to a U.N. report.
And while the trickle-down economic boost of housing U.N.
headquarters enriches New York City by about $1 billion each
year, diplomats are finding less of a welcome from landlords,
hospitals and banks that are growing increasingly reluctant
to do business with diplomats, U.N. officials said.
``The problem of diplomatic indebtedness is a matter of
significant concern,'' Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-
Ghali said in a report to the Committee on Relations With the
Host Country.
``Non-payment of just debts reflects badly on the entire
diplomatic community and tarnishes the image of the United
Nations itself.''
The topic is so sensitive around the United Nations that,
until recently, the problem was not publicly mentioned. But
the secrecy and inaction have allowed the debt to grow to $9
million from just $1.1 million in 1990; it swelled by nearly
$2 million in the past half-year alone.
Finally, at the insistence of the U.S. mission and the city
of New York, the size of the debt is now public. But the
names of the offending diplomats and missions are not.
Even in Mr. Boutros-Ghali's smoldering report, in which he
scolds diplomats for not paying their bills and urges a
``working group on indebtedness'' to come up with solutions,
he does not mention a single country or diplomat by name.
Mr. Boutros-Ghali also omitted the name of a prominent bank
that he said will no longer make loans to diplomats or
missions, and he did not identify real estate agents who say
they are reluctant to deal with diplomats.
Mr. Boutros-Ghali's report said 31 mission have contributed
to the debt but five missions alone account for 83 percent of
it. The debts range from $200 to more than $1.9 million, he
said. About 40 percent is owed to banks, 40 percent to
landlords and the rest to merchants.
``Some missions had not paid rent for two years or more,''
Mr. Boutros-Ghali said. ``And a number of residential
landlords had either lost their property or were at risk of
losing it because diplomatic tenants, who could not be
evicted, would neither pay their rent nor leave the
property.''
Sources familiar with the issue say the top debtor missions
are Sierra Leone, Congo, Zaire, Liberia and the Central
African Republic.
``The vast majority of the 184 missions in New York and
their over 1,800 diplomats honor their obligations,'' the
secretary-general said.
Political and economic instability back home is part of the
problem, the U.N. chief said in his report. But he also
blamed some of the debt on bad fiscal management of missions
and individual diplomats.
There is a certain irony to the United Nations scolding
deadbeat diplomats. The world body itself is far from solvent
because of member nations that fail to pay assessments in
full or on time (the United States is first on that list).
The organization already owes more than $800 million to
troop-contributing nations for peacekeeping operations, a
debt that is expected to reach $1 billion by the end of the
year.
The United Nations has also been accused of mismanagement
and waste throughout its history, leading to periodic
reforms, including several in the past year.
Several diplomats on the Committee on Relations With the
Host Country, which handles problems between missions and the
United States, have argued against making a public issue of
diplomatic indebtedness for fear it will spark hostility
against the diplomatic community.
A December 1993 New York Times article about delinquent
parking tickets by diplomats prompted hundreds of complaints
from New York residents who said diplomats don't deserve the
privileges they have.
Russian delegates on the committee lobbied against
publishing the names of deadbeat diplomats and missions,
saying the
[[Page S 10944]]
problem is a private matter between the United States and the debtors.
``It would politicize the problem and would not help to
solve it,'' said Sergei Ordzhonikidze of the Russian mission.
``In diplomacy, it is important to be discreet.''
Mr. Boutros-Ghali has asked the ``working group on
indebtedness'' to look into several options to resolve the
problem.
Ideas included creating an ``emergency'' fund, establishing
group health insurance programs, giving debtors, short-term
jobs at the Secretariat to earn extra money and creating
information programs alerting missions to the high costs of
living in New York.
But giving jobs to diplomats in ``acute distress''
financially was deemed unworkable and the idea of an
emergency fund was also rejected. A representative of France
on the committee suggested that for the cast-strapped United
Nations to create a document publicizing the names of
individual debtors and debt-ridden mission might be too
political and ``should be avoided.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from North Carolina, I
think he is correct to bring this question of debt before the U.S.
Senate. I think it is an important issue. The question is whether we
should not withhold the amount of money commensurate with what the debt
is reported to be rather than more than twice that amount, because we
already have arrearages on peacekeeping, a significant amount of
financial issues.
I respectfully suggest that it may be possible, let us say, with a
$10 million figure, to leverage the same response, which I suspect the
Secretary of State would be willing to try to elicit as rapidly as
possible, rather than withholding twice the amount of money. I wonder
if he would consider modifying it to that effect.
Mr. HELMS. I will say to the Senator, of course I cannot, save by
unanimous consent, modify the amendment, but if he wishes to offer such
an amendment by unanimous consent, I will certainly agree to it.
Mr. KERRY. I think we can amend it by unanimous consent.
Mr. HELMS. Of course. Yes. 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. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment to be proposed under
unanimous consent previously discussed is certainly agreeable with me,
and I hope the Senator will offer it.
Amendment No. 2026, As Modified
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-
degree amendment of the Senator from North Carolina be modified to read
$10 million. I send it to the desk.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before it is reported, this presumes that
the Senator from Massachusetts has agreed that we shall have a vote on
these two amendments this evening.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I cannot personally agree to that at this
point in time.
Mr. HELMS. I am not asking you to agree for the Senate, the Democrats
in the Senate, I am asking if that means that you are in favor of it.
Mr. KERRY. I do not have a problem with a vote, but others do at this
moment. I have to represent them as the manager. I am representing that
I cannot agree at this point in time to have the vote this evening.
Mr. HELMS. May I ask the Senator, is this what we should expect for
important legislation which is before the Senate----
Mr. KERRY. I think the Senator knows----
Mr. HELMS. Let me finish my question. This has been the experience on
every piece of legislation we have had.
Mr. KERRY. Let me interrupt my friend. I may save him----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators please yield? The Senator from
North Carolina has the floor.
Mr. HELMS. All the people all over the country, the American people,
are wondering why the Senate is so far behind the House in the conduct
of legislation. The answer to that is, and somebody needs to say it,
that there is a deliberate determination to forbid, delay, or obfuscate
every piece of legislation that has been brought up. And I want to know
before the clerk reports this modification whether we can expect the
vote this evening on the Dole amendment and the Helms second-degree
amendment as modified? I want an answer to that, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum while the Democrats discuss that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my friend to withhold.
Mr. HELMS. No, I will not. I want to know whether we are going to
have a vote this evening or whether it is going to be held up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. 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, we could have saved this entire exchange
and quorum call if I had been permitted to simply say to my friend 4
minutes ago that the issue is not whether we will have a vote; the only
question, as is normal in the Senate, is the timing. But because I was
precluded from saying that, in order that the country can get a message
about how we can never pass anything here, we get into these tangles. I
wanted to only say to my friend the issue is when, not whether.
I do not know when every Senator will be back. Some are with the
President. Some are with the National Governors Association. As soon as
they get back from a day's work elsewhere in the country, they will be
available to vote. That is normal procedure in the Senate.
My No. 2 response is that this Senator remembers last year very well.
I will never forget it as long as I am in the U.S. Senate and
privileged to be here. Vote after vote, bill after bill was brought
forward in good faith, and it was stopped dead in its tracks by a
conscious gridlock policy. So I am never going to stand here and hear
any colleague on the other side talk about the delay or the problems of
proceeding forward.
Every good-faith effort of Senator Mitchell to move the Senate
forward was frustrated, and everybody knows that. Piece of legislation
after piece of legislation that passed here went over to the House and
came back--dead, dead, dead. So I am not going to hear anybody talk
about a legitimate delay effort in the first 2 hours to legislate on
this bill. If there is, we will sit here in quorum call for several
days. Let us agree to that. That is just unfounded, uncalled for,
unnecessary, and I think, frankly, out of order in the first hour and a
half of this effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification pending
at the desk?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2026), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the pending amendment, add the following:
SEC. . UNITED NATIONS DIPLOMATIC DEBTS.
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
1996 in section 201 and section 301, not less than
$10,000,000 shall be withheld from obligation until the
Secretary of State reports to the Congress:
(1) the names of diplomatic personnel accredited to the
United Nations or foreign missions to the United Nations,
which have accrued overdue debts to businesses and
individuals in the United States; and
(2) that the United Nations Secretary General is
cooperating fully with the United States or taking effective
steps on his own, including publishing the names of debtors,
to resolve overdue debts owed by diplomats and missions
accredited to the United Nations.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. KERRY. 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. JOHNSTON. 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. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, tomorrow in Brunei, the Secretary of
State is going to meet with Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen to
discuss a very serious rift between China and the United States which
has been brewing for some time and which has more
[[Page S 10945]]
recently erupted over the visit of President Lee of Taiwan to the
United States.
My colleagues, I think, are fully aware of the importance of the
China-American relationship. In my view, it is the single most
bilateral relationship the United States has.
Whether that characterization is correct, it is clear, Mr. President,
that China is the key to Asia. It is the largest country, one of the
fastest growing in the world. If our relationship with China and Asia
is secure, then our relationship with Asia, for the most part, is
secure.
If that relationship begins to spiral downward, as it has in recent
months, then it portends terrible things for the United States--
terrible things not only for our bilateral relationship, but for peace
in the world.
Now, Mr. President, the problem with one of these relationships, when
it begins to go sour, as our relationship with the People's Republic of
China has begun to do, it begins to get a momentum of its own; portent
of evil becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, tempers become frayed,
pride gets in the way, insults--whether intended or unintended--are
imagined in every bit of conduct. Sometimes the downward spiral can get
out of control.
Mr. President, this is a very, very serious matter, our relationship
with China. It has been written about by people from both sides of the
aisle, whether in Congress or out of Congress.
This meeting in Brunei is, therefore, a vitally, vitally important
meeting. I have high hopes that from this meeting we can at least begin
a process that will relieve our relationship with the People's Republic
of China. Our relationship with the People's Republic of China is much
broader and much more difficult than the detention of one American
citizen, Harry Wu.
While we all are very concerned about that, Mr. President, the
solution to that problem will not solve the whole relationship. It is a
much, much, by many orders of magnitude, bigger problem than the
problem of Harry Wu, as important as that may be.
Mr. President, I can think of nothing more unwise to do than to start
legislating or making expressions about the Harry Wu situation on the
eve of the meeting between our Secretary of State and the Foreign
Minister of the People's Republic of China.
I believe, Mr. President, that both the United States and the
People's Republic of China are trying to find ways to get this
relationship back on track; trying to find ways, consistent with the
principles of both countries, consistent with our long-held commitment
to human rights, consistent with the importance of this relationship,
consistent with China's determination that its ``one China policy'' be
maintained as it has from the time of the Shanghai communique up to, I
believe, the present day.
I believe both parties, both the United States and the People's
Republic of China, are searching for the way to bring that relationship
back together. To do so takes diplomacy that is most subtle and
requiring the greatest degree of expertise of any kind of relationship
we have. It does, in fact, deal with not only fundamental interests of
both countries, but the pride, the feeling, the emotion contained on
both sides of the Pacific Ocean.
Mr. President, I hope we will let this diplomacy, so vital to the
basic interests of this country, play out and not try to sour the
atmosphere in which that relationship will take place.
I believe that, if we enact this amendment, as easy as it sounds in
its terms, as innocent as it sounds from the way it is written up, I
believe the adoption of this kind of amendment would really sour the
atmosphere, would be poking the People's Republic of China in the eye
to make it much more difficult for our Secretary of State and the
Chinese Foreign Minister to get this relationship back together.
I repeat, Mr. President, I believe this relationship is the most
important bilateral relationship that this country has. China will,
shortly after the turn of the century, be the largest economy in the
world. It is the largest country in the world. Its power, both
economically and in a military way, is growing every day. The latter,
alarmingly so.
If we can just somehow get our relationship back together, reassure
the Chinese that we are not trying to contain them, as some people in
the United States say, if we can reassure them that our relationship
will be one of friendship, consistent with our strong commitment to
human rights, but nevertheless a relationship of friendship, I believe
it is in the vital interests of the United States for that to take
place. I hope, therefor, Mr. President, that we will not adopt the Dole
amendment this evening or at any time until the Brunei conference is
completed.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to support the Senator from
Massachusetts and the Senator from Louisiana. I think that Harry Wu has
been treated in a dreadful manner. We all agree with that.
Of even greater importance is the relationship with China. I am
reminded of the fact that the War of Jenkins' Ear, the 7-year war,
started after such an incident. This could be such an incident.
The important thing is that we get on with our relationship with
China and normalize our relations there.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Foreign
Relations Committee and the Senator from Louisiana for their comments.
Let me clarify to colleagues that this amendment does not, per se,
prohibit the delegation from going. What it does is penalize, to the
tune of $3.5 million, the account from which that conference
participation would be paid, or other conferences would be paid, if, in
fact, the President goes ahead and sends them.
So, in effect, it is a vote by the Senate as to whether or not we
believe we ought to or ought not. There is punishment in it for the
President choosing to exercise his constitutional prerogatives with
respect to this. It does not, per se, prevent the President from doing
so.
That does not mean that we should not, nevertheless, oppose this
amendment by virtue of the fact that there are stronger ways to send
this message.
I think it is very, very important to understand that opposition to
this particular chosen method does not signal any kind of latitude with
respect to Harry Wu. It does not signal anything other than our
disapproval for that situation. In fact, there may, as the Senator from
Louisiana has suggested, be far more effective ways to not only work
his release but to deal with a host of other issues which we share with
China.
In the last few months, we have been going down a road that is
defined largely by our mutual misinterpretation of each other to a
certain degree.
If there is any lesson that we should have learned in the last 20
years, I think it is that we are not going to unilaterally, through
some very public confrontational method, alter an immediate event in
China. It does not work that way. It has not worked that way along the
course.
It is usually when we work a fairly fine-tuned, and over the course
of a longer period of time, strategy that is very much interfaced with
personal relationships and personal respect that we begin to make the
most progress. Every time we step out of that, we seem to take steps
backward. I think there are many ways to affect Harry Wu's status. We
ought to pursue every single one of them.
To suggest that when they have already separated the nongovernmental
organizations from the main U.N. conference in Beijing, and they have
done that specifically to deny the capacity of the nongovernmental
organizations to follow the events closely or have a major impact on
them, it is clear they are already in a damage control mode.
They are trying to manage this conference in a way that minimizes
particularly the capacity of American participation to have an impact.
I respectfully suggest that to have American participation leveraging
Harry Wu's status, as well as the other issues, poses a far greater
challenge to their ability to manage the news and the output and events
than our nonparticipation.
If the conference is going to take place anyway and we are simply
going to say we are not going to do this out of protest, we not only
minimize our voice but we also set into place a series of events that
the Senator from Louisiana has talked to, which will have a whole bunch
of collateral downsides. I do not think it is smart foreign policy. I
do not think it accomplishes the goal we are setting out to accomplish.
[[Page S 10946]]
Mr. President, I ask my friend from North Carolina if we could
temporarily set aside the pending amendment for further business?
Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two
pending amendments be very temporarily laid aside, in order that we can
call up the managers' amendment, which is numbered 1914, as I
understand it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1914
(Purpose: To make the ``manager's'' amendments to the bill)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 1914.
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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I understand it, I say to my colleague,
Senator Kerry, everything has been agreed to except the Jordan
drawdown, is that correct?
I ask that be eliminated from this temporarily--and it may be
reinserted at a later time by unanimous consent.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section 619 be
stricken from the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that modification? The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1914) as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 11, strike line 14 and all that follows
through line 4 on page 12.
On page 13, strike lines 6 through 12 and insert the
following:
SEC. 121. LEASE-PURCHASE OF OVERSEAS PROPERTY.
(a) Authority for Lease-Purchase.--Subject to subsections
(b) and (c), the Secretary is authorized to acquire by lease-
purchase such properties as are described in subsection (b),
if--
(1) the Secretary of State, and
(2) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
certify and notify the appropriate committees of Congress
that the lease-purchase arrangement will result in a net cost
savings to the Federal government when compared to a lease, a
direct purchase, or direct construction of comparable
property.
(b) Locations and Limitations.--The authority granted in
subsection (a) may be exercised only--
(1) to acquire appropriate housing for Department of State
personnel stationed abroad and for the acquisition of other
facilities, in locations in which the United States has a
diplomatic mission; and
(2) during fiscal years 1996 through 1999.
(c) Authorization of Funding.--Funds for lease-purchase
arrangements made pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
available from amounts appropriated under the authority of
section 111(a)(3) (relating to the Acquisition and
Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' account).
Beginning on page 18, strike line 1 and all that follows
through line 2 on page 21 and insert the following:
SEC. ____. DIPLOMATIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROGRAM
OFFICE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Diplomatic Telecommunications Service Program
Office (hereafter in this section referred to as ``DTS-PO'')
has made significant enhancements to upgrade the worldwide
DTS network with high speed, high capacity circuitry as well
as improvements at United States embassies and consulates to
enhance utilization of the network.
(2) Notwithstanding the improvements that the DTS-PO has
made to the DTS network, the current management structure
needs to be strengthened to provide a clearly delineated,
accountable management authority for the DTS-PO and the DTS
network.
(b) Report Required.--No later than three months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the two agencies providing the
greatest funding to DTS-PO shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress--
(1) a DTS-PO management plan--
(A) setting forth the organization, mission and functions
of each major element of the DTS-PO; and
(B) designating an entity at each overseas post, or
providing a mechanism for the designation of such an entity,
which will be responsible for the day-to-day administration
of the DTS-PO operations; and
(2) a DTS-PO strategic plan containing--
(A) future customer requirements, validated by the DTS
customer organizations;
(B) a system configuration for the DTS network which will
meet the future telecommunications needs of the DTS customer
agencies;
(C) a funding profile to achieve the system configuration
for the DTS network;
(D) a transition strategy to move to the system
configuration for the DTS network;
(E) a reimbursement plan to cover the direct and indirect
costs of operating the DTS network; and
(F) an allocation of funds to cover the costs projected to
be incurred by each of the agencies or other entities
utilizing DTS to maintain DTS, to upgrade DTS, and to provide
for future demands for DTS.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the Select
Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the
Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Beginning on page 47, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 49, line 15, and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
``(ii) As used in this subparagraph:
``(I) Confiscated.--The term ``confiscated'' refers to--
``(aa) the nationalization, expropriation, or other seizure
of ownership or control of property, on or after January 1,
1959--
``(AA) without the property having been returned or
adequate and effective compensation provided or in violation
of the law of the place where the property was situated when
the confiscation occurred; or
``(BB) without the claim to the property having been
settled pursuant to an international claims settlement
agreement or other recognized settlement procedure; or
``(bb) the repudiation of, the default on, or the failure
to pay, on or after January 1, 1959--
``(AA) a debt by any enterprise which has been confiscated;
``(BB) a debt which is a charge on property confiscated; or
``(CC) a debt incurred in satisfaction or settlement of a
confiscated property claim.
``(II) Property.--The term ``property'' means any property,
whether real, personal, or mixed, and any present, future, or
contingent right or security of other interest therein,
including any leasehold interest.
``(III) Traffic.--The term ``traffic'' means that a person
knowingly and intentionally--
``(aa) sells, transfers, distributes, dispenses, brokers,
manages, or otherwise disposes of confiscated property, or
purchases, leases, receives, obtains control of, manages,
uses, or otherwise acquires an interest in confiscated
property;
``(bb) engages in a commercial activity using or otherwise
benefitting from a confiscated property; or
``(cc) causes, directs, participates in, or profits from,
activities of another person described in subclause (aa) or
(bb), or otherwise engages in the activities described in
subclause (aa) or (bb)
without the authorization of the national of the United
States who holds a claim to the property.
On page 50, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following
new subsection:
(c) Reporting Requirement.--(1) The United States Embassy
in each country shall provide to the Secretary of State a
report listing those foreign nationals who have confiscated,
converted, or trafficked in property the claim to which is
held by a United States national and in which the
confiscation claim has not been fully resolved.
(2) Beginning six months after the date of enactment of
this Act, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
list of those foreign nationals who--
(A) have confiscated, converted, or trafficked in property
the claim to which is held by a United States national and in
which the confiscation claim has not been fully resolved; and
(B) have been excluded from entry into the United States.
On page 58, line 10, insert ``and'' after ``operations;''.
On page 58, strike lines 13 through 15.
On page 58, line 8, insert ``relevant'' after ``all''.
On page 59, line 9, strike ``has provided, and''.
On page 59, beginning on line 19, strike ``for'' and all
that follows through ``thereafter,'' on line 20 and insert
``under this Act for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999''.
On page 104, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following
new sections:
SEC. 420. MANSFIELD FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
Section 253(4)(B) of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 6102(4)(B)) is
amended by striking ``certain'' and inserting the following:
``, under criteria established by the Mansfield Center for
Pacific Affairs, certain allowances and benefits not to
exceed the amount of equivalent''.
[[Page S 10947]]
SEC. 421. DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF THE UNITED
STATES INFORMATION AGENCY FILM ENTITLED ``THE
FRAGILE RING OF LIFE''.
Notwithstanding section 208 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C.
1461-1(a)) and the second sentence of section 501 of the
United States Information and Education Act of 1948 (22
U.S.C. 1461), the Director of the United States Information
Agency may make available for distribution within the United
States the documentary entitled ``The Fragile Ring of Life'',
a film about coral reefs around the world.
On page 107, strike lines 3 through 6.
On page 107, line 7, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''
On page 107, line 11, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
On page 107, line 15, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 107, line 20, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 107, line 22, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.
On page 112, strike lines 19 through 22.
On page 112, line 23, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 118, strike line 1 and all that follows through
line 11 on page 121.
On page 124, after line 20, insert the following:
SEC. 618. MIDDLE EAST PEACE FACILITATION ACT OF 1995.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Middle
East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995''.
(b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the Palestine Liberation Organization (in this section
referred to as the ``PLO'') has recognized the State of
Israel's right to exist in peace and security; accepted
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338;
committed itself to the peace process and peaceful
coexistence with Israel, free from violence and all other
acts which endanger peace and stability; and assumed
responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order
to assure their compliance, prevent violations, and
discipline violators;
(2) Israel has recognized the PLO as the representative of
the Palestinian people;
(3) Israel and the PLO signed a Declaration of Principles
on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (in this section
referred to as the ``Declaration of Principles'') on
September 13, 1993, at the White House;
(4) Israel and the PLO signed an Agreement on the Gaza
Strip and the Jericho Area (in this section referred to as
the ``Gaza-Jericho Agreement'') on May 4, 1994, which
established a Palestinian Authority for the Gaza and Jericho
areas;
(5) Israel and the PLO signed an Agreement on Preparatory
Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (in this section
referred to as the ``Early Empowerment Agreement'') on August
29, 1994, which provided for the transfer to the Palestinian
Authority of certain powers and responsibilities in the West
Bank outside of the Jericho Area;
(6) under the terms of the Declaration of Principles, the
Gaza-Jericho Agreement and the Early Empowerment Agreement,
the powers and responsibilities of the Palestinian Authority
are to be assumed by an elected Palestinian Council with
jurisdiction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in accordance
with the Interim Agreement to be concluded between Israel and
the PLO;
(7) permanent status negotiations relating to the West Bank
and Gaza Strip are scheduled to begin by May 1996;
(8) the Congress has, since the conclusion of the
Declaration of Principles and the PLO's renunciation of
terrorism, provided authorities to the President to suspend
certain statutory restrictions relating to the PLO, subject
to Presidential certifications that the PLO has continued to
abide by commitments made in and in connection with or
resulting from the good faith implementation of, the
Declaration of Principles;
(9) the PLO commitments relevant to Presidential
certifications have included commitments to renounce and
condemn terrorism, to submit to the Palestinian National
Council for formal approval the necessary changes to those
articles of the Palestinian Covenant which call for Israel's
destruction, and to prevent acts of terrorism and hostilities
against Israel; and
(10) the President, in exercising the authorities described
in paragraph (8), has certified to the Congress on four
occasions that the PLO was abiding by its relevant
commitments.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that although the PLO has recently shown improvement in its
efforts to fulfill its commitments, the PLO must do far more
to demonstrate an irrevocable denunciation of terrorism and
ensure a peaceful settlement of the Middle East dispute, and
in particular the PLO must--
(1) submit to the Palestine National Council for formal
approval the necessary changes to those articles of the
Palestinian National Covenant which call for Israel's
destruction;
(2) make greater efforts to preempt acts of terror, to
discipline violators, and to contribute to stemming the
violence that has resulted in the deaths of 123 Israeli
citizens since the signing of the Declaration of Principles;
(3) prohibit participation in its activities and in the
Palestinian Authority and its successors by any groups or
individuals which continue to promote and commit acts of
terrorism;
(4) cease all anti-Israel rhetoric, which potentially
undermines the peace process;
(5) confiscate all unlicensed weapons and restrict the
issuance of licenses to those with legitimate need;
(6) transfer any person, and cooperate in transfer
proceedings relating to any person, accused by Israel of acts
of terrorism; and
(7) respect civil liberties, human rights and democratic
norms.
(d) Authority To Suspend Certain Provisions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act and for 18 months thereafter
the President may suspend for a period of not more than 6
months at a time any provision of law specified in paragraph
(4). Any such suspension shall cease to be effective after 6
months, or at such earlier date as the President may specify.
(2) Conditions.--
(A) Consultations.--Prior to each exercise of the authority
provided in paragraph (1) or certification pursuant to
paragraph (3), the President shall consult with the relevant
congressional committees. The President may not exercise that
authority to make such certification until 30 days after a
written policy justification is submitted to the relevant
congressional committees.
(B) Presidential certification.--The President may exercise
the authority provided in paragraph (1) only if the President
certifies to the relevant congressional committees each time
he exercises such authority that--
(i) it is in the national interest of the United States to
exercise such authority;
(ii) the PLO continues to comply with all the commitments
described in subparagraph (D); and
(iii) funds provided pursuant to the exercise of this
authority and the authorities under section 583(a) of Public
Law 103-236 and section 3(a) of Public Law 103-125 have been
used for the purposes for which they were intended.
(C) Requirement for continuing plo compliance.--
(i) The President shall ensure that PLO performance is
continuously monitored, and if the President at any time
determines that the PLO has not continued to comply with all
the commitments described in subparagraph (D), he shall so
notify the appropriate congressional committees. Any
suspension under paragraph (1) of a provision of law
specified in paragraph (4) shall cease to be effective.
(ii) Beginning six months after the date of enactment of
this Act, if the President on the basis of the continuous
monitoring of the PLO's performance determines that the PLO
is not complying with the requirements described in paragraph
(3), he shall so notify the appropriate congressional
committees and no assistance shall be provided pursuant to
the exercise by the President of the authority provided by
paragraph (1) until such time as the President makes the
certification provided for in paragraph (3).
(D) PLO commitments described.--The commitments referred to
in subparagraphs (B) and (C)(i) are the commitments made by
the PLO--
(i) in its letter of September 9, 1993, to the Prime
Minister of Israel and in its letter of September 9, 1993, to
the Foreign Minister of Norway to--
(I) recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in
peace and security;
(II) accept United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242
and 338;
(III) renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of
violence;
(IV) assume responsibility over all PLO elements and
personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent
violations, and discipline violators;
(V) call upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the
normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, and
contributing to peace and stability; and
(VI) submit to the Palestine National Council for formal
approval the necessary changes to the Palestinian National
Covenant eliminating calls for Israel's destruction; and
(ii) in, and resulting from, the good faith implementation
of the Declaration of Principles, including good faith
implementation of subsequent agreements with Israel, with
particular attention to the objective of preventing
terrorism, as reflected in the provisions of the Gaza-Jericho
Agreement concerning--
(I) prevention of acts of terrorism and legal measures
against terrorists;
(II) abstention from and prevention of incitement,
including hostile propaganda;
(III) operation of armed forces other than the Palestinian
Police;
(IV) possession, manufacture, sale, acquisition, or
importation of weapons;
(V) employment of police who have been convicted of serious
crimes or have been found to be actively involved in
terrorist activities subsequent to their employment;
(VI) transfers to Israel of individuals suspected of,
charged with, or convicted of an offense that falls within
Israeli criminal jurisdiction;
(VII) cooperation with the Government of Israel in criminal
matters, including cooperation in the conduct of
investigations; and
(VIII) exercise of powers and responsibilities under the
agreement with due regard to internationally accepted norms
and principles of human rights and the rule of law.
[[Page S 10948]]
(E) Policy justification.--As part of the President's
written policy justification to be submitted to the relevant
congressional committees pursuant to subparagraph (A), the
President shall report on--
(i) the manner in which the PLO has complied with the
commitments specified in subparagraph (D), including
responses to individual acts of terrorism and violence,
actions to discipline perpetrators of terror and violence,
and actions to preempt acts of terror and violence;
(ii) the extent to which the PLO has fulfilled the
requirements specified in paragraph (3);
(iii) actions that the PLO has taken with regard to the
Arab League boycott of Israel;
(iv) the status and activities of the PLO office in the
United States; and
(v) the status of United States and international
assistance efforts in the areas subject to jurisdiction of
the Palestinian Authority or its successors.
(3) Requirement for continued provision of assistance.--Six
months after the date of enactment of this Act, no assistance
shall be provided pursuant to the exercise by the President
of the authority provided by paragraph (1), unless and until
the President determines and so certifies to the Congress
that--
(A) if the Palestinian Council has been elected and assumed
its responsibilities, the Council has, within a reasonable
time, effectively disavowed the articles of the Palestine
National Covenant which call for Israel's destruction, unless
the necessary changes to the Covenant have already been
submitted to the Palestine National Council for formal
approval;
(B) the PLO has exercised its authority resolutely to
establish the necessary enforcement institution, including
laws, police, and a judicial system, for apprehending,
prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning terrorists;
(C) the PLO has limited participation in the Palestinian
Authority and its successors to individuals and groups in
accordance with the terms that may be agreed with Israel;
(D) the PLO has not provided any financial or material
assistance or training to any group, whether or not
affiliated with the PLO to carry out actions inconsistent
with the Declaration of Principles, particularly acts of
terrorism against Israel;
(E) the PLO has cooperated in good faith with Israeli
authorities in the preemption of acts of terrorism and in the
apprehension and trial of perpetrators of terrorist acts in
Israel, territories controlled by Israel, and all areas
subject to jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority and its
successors; and
(F) the PLO has exercised its authority resolutely to enact
and implement laws requiring the disarming of civilians not
specifically licensed to possess or carry weapons.
(4) Provisions that may be suspended.--The provisions that
may be suspended under the authority of paragraph (1) are the
following:
(A) Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2227) as it applies with respect to the PLO or
entities associated with it.
(B) Section 114 of the Department of State Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 287e note) as it
applies with respect to the PLO or entities associated with
it.
(C) Section 1003 of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 5202).
(D) Section 37 of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (22
U.S.C. 286W) as it applies to the granting to the PLO of
observer status or other official status at any meeting
sponsored by or associated with International Monetary Fund.
As used in this subparagraph, the term ``other official
status'' does not include membership in the International
Monetary Fund.
(5) Relevant congressional committees defined.--As used in
this subsection, the term ``relevant congressional
committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on International Relations, the Committee
on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
Beginning on page 172, strike line 19 and all that follows
through line 5 on page 173 and insert the following:
SEC. 1110. PROCEDURES FOR COORDINATION OF GOVERNMENT
PERSONNEL AT OVERSEAS POSTS.
(a) Amendment of the Foreign Service Act of 1980.--Section
207 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c)(1) In carrying out subsection (b), the head of each
department, agency, or other entity of the executive branch
of Government shall ensure that, in coordination with the
Department of State, the approval of the chief of mission to
a foreign country is sought on any proposed change in the
size, composition, or mandate of employees of the respective
department, agency, or entity (other than employees under the
command of a United States area military commander) if the
employees are performing duties in that country.
``(2) In seeking the approval of the chief of mission under
paragraph (1), the head of a department, agency, or other
entity of the executive branch of Government shall comply
with the procedures set forth in National Security Decision
Directive Number 38, as in effect on June 2, 1982, and the
implementing guidelines issued thereunder.
``(d) The Secretary of State, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary, may accord diplomatic titles, privileges, and
immunities to employees of the executive branch of Government
who are performing duties in a foreign country.''.
(b) Review of Procedures for Coordination.--(1) The
President shall conduct a review of the procedures contained
in National Security Decision Directive Number 38, as in
effect on June 2, 1982, and the practices in implementation
of those procedures, to determine whether the procedures and
practices have been effective to enhance significantly the
coordination among the several departments, agencies, and
entities of the executive branch of Government represented in
foreign countries.
(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the President shall submit to the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives a
report containing the findings of the review conducted under
paragraph (1), together with any recommendations for
legislation as the President may determine to be necessary.
On page 208, strike lines 8 through 11 and insert the
following:
SEC. 1327. MIKE MANSFIELD FELLOWSHIPS.
Part C of title II of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Director of the United States Information
Agency'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary of
State''; and
(2) by striking ``United States Information Agency'' each
place it appears and inserting ``Department of State''.
Beginning on page 216, strike line 4 and all that follows
through line 22 on page 217 and insert the following:
SEC. 1501. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED NATIONS REFORM.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the 50th anniversary of the United Nations provides an
important opportunity for a comprehensive review of the
strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations and for the
identification and implementation of changes in the United
Nation that would improve its ability to discharge
effectively the objectives of the United Nations set forth in
the United Nations Charter;
(2) the structure of the United Nations system, which has
evolved over 50 years, should be subject to a comprehensive
review in order to identify the changes to the system that
will best serve the interests of the United States and of the
international community;
(3) the United States, as the strongest member state of the
United Nations, should lead this comprehensive review;
(4) reforms that produce a smaller, more focused, more
efficient United Nations with clearly defined missions are in
the interest of the United States and of the United Nations;
(5) the United States should develop a unified position in
support of reforms at the United Nations that are broadly
supported by both the legislative branch and the executive
branch;
(6) the need for reform of the United Nations is urgent;
and
(7) the failure to develop and implement promptly a
strategic reorganization of the United Nations will result in
a continued diminution of the relevance of the United Nations
to United States foreign policy and to international politics
generally.
SEC. 1502. UNITED NATIONS REORGANIZATION PLAN.
(a) Requirement for Plan.--The President shall submit to
Congress, together with the budget submitted pursuant to
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year
1997, a plan recommending a strategic reorganization of the
United Nations.
(b) Requirement Relating to Development.--The President
shall develop the plan in consultation with Congress.
(c) Plan Elements.--The plan should include the elements
described in section 1503 and such other recommendations as
may be necessary to achieve the efficient, cost-effective
conduct of the responsibilities of the United Nations.
SEC. 1503. CONTENTS OF REORGANIZATION PLAN.
It is the sense of the Congress that the reorganization
plan required by section 1502(a) should--
(1) constitute a comprehensive statement of United States
policy toward reform of the United Nations;
(2) set forth an agenda to implement the reforms set forth
in the plan in a timely manner;
(3) include specific proposals to achieve--
(A) a substantial reduction in the number of agencies
within the United Nations system, including proposals to
consolidate, abolish, or restructure mechanisms for financing
agencies of the United Nations that have a low priority;
(B) the identification and strengthening of the core
agencies of the United Nations system that most directly
serve the objectives of the United Nations set forth in the
United Nations Charter;
[[Page S 10949]]
(C) the increased cooperation, and the elimination of
duplication, among United Nations agencies and programs
consistent with the principle of a unitary United Nations;
(D) the consolidation of the United Nations technical
cooperation activities between the United Nations
Headquarters and the offices of the United Nations in Geneva,
Switzerland, including the merger of the technical
cooperation functions of the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),
the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the
United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), and the
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM);
(E) the consolidation of the United Nations emergency
response mechanism by merging the emergency functions of
relevant United Nations agencies, including the United
Nations Children's Fund, the World Food Program, and the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
(F) a substantial reduction in, or elimination of, the cost
and number of international conferences sponsored by the
United Nations;
(G) a significant strengthening of the administrative and
management capabilities of the Secretary General of the
United Nations, including a cessation of the practice of
reserving top Secretariat posts for citizens of particular
countries;
(H) a significant increase in the openness to the public of
the budget decision-making procedures of the United Nations;
and
(I) the establishment of a truly independent inspector
general at the United Nations;
(4) include proposals to coordinate and implement proposals
for reform of the United Nations such as those proposals set
forth in the communique of the 21st annual summit of the
Heads of State and Government of the seven major
industrialized nations and the President of the European
Commission at Halifax, Nova Scotia, dated June 15-17, 1995;
and
(4) include proposals for amendments to the United Nations
Charter that would promote the efficiency, focus, and cost-
effectiveness of the United Nations and the ability of the
United Nations to achieve the objectives of the United
Nations set forth in the United Nations Charter.
On page 218, line 15, ``$30,000,000,000'' and insert
``$3,000,000,000''.
On page 251, below line 22, add the following:
(g) Additional Requirements for Budget Purposes.--(1) In
addition to any other payments which an agency referred to in
subsection (b) is required to make under section 4(a)(1) of
the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-226; 108 Stat. 114; 5 U.S.C. 8331 note), each such agency
shall remit to the Office of Personnel Management for deposit
in the Treasury to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund an amount equal to 9 percent of final
basic pay of each employee of the agency--
(A) who, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act,
retires under section 8336(d)(2) of title 5, United States
Code; and
(B) to whom a voluntary separation incentive payment is
paid under this section by such agency based on that
retirement.
(2) In addition to any other payments which an agency
referred to in subsection (b) is required to make under
section 4(b)(1) of such Act in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998, each such agency shall remit to the Office of Personnel
Management for deposit in the Treasury to the credit of the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal
to 0.5 percent of the basic pay of each employee of the
agency who, as of March 31 of such fiscal year, is subject to
subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United
States Code.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the head of an agency referred to in subsection (b) may not
pay voluntary separation incentive payments under this
section unless sufficient funds are available in the Foreign
Affairs Reorganization Transition Fund to cover the cost of
such payments and the amount of the remittances required of
the agency under paragraphs (1) and (2).
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I want to make the record clear. The Jordan
drawdown was not eliminated even temporarily at my request, but in
order to facilitate the approval of the rest of the amendment 1914. So
the Record will show that--I having said that.
I urge the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment as
modified?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are going to try
to work out the differences that still exist on section 619, and at
some later date we may pull it up.
We are in agreement with respect to the rest of the amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a committee amendment at the desk
referred to as the ``manager's amendment.'' I understand there are no
objections to this amendment and that the modifications are acceptable
to the ranking member of the committee, Senator Pell. This amendment
has several parts and is designed to address three issues:
First, reservations and jurisdictional concerns expressed by other
Senate committees, chairmen, and ranking members;
Second; provisions objectionable to the Administration; and
Third, technical and conforming amendments to the bill, many of which
were ``unofficially'' requested by this administration.
The amendment includes: The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act
extension, a repeal of the two prison labor provisions in the bill that
will satisfy Finance Committee concerns, two changes that will satisfy
the budget scorekeepers on the Budget Committee, and a few other small
provisions.
I urge the amendment be adopted since there are no known objections
to this amendment. I hope there will be additional amendments in
agreement as we proceed on debate of the measure.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1914), as modified, 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.
Amendment No. 1977
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily
set aside the two amendments and to call up the amendment that I have
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened to our colleagues who are
dealing with the measure that is at hand, and I certainly hope we will
have an opportunity to dispose of those amendments in a timely fashion.
I also expect to at least have an opportunity to see a disposition of
the amendment which I am offering this evening on this particular piece
of legislation.
I am aware, very much, that I have offered an amendment in the first-
degree and it can be seconded. I am also aware, as my colleague from
North Carolina was pointing out, that we are very hopeful of being able
to avoid parliamentary gymnastics and to be able to get a vote on
different measures that come before the Senate. I expect he will have
an opportunity to get a vote on his amendment and I certainly hope to
have an opportunity to have a vote on mine as well.
Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that calls for us to debate and vote on raising the minimum
wage sometime before the end of this session of Congress.
It does not endorse any particular outcome. It does not say that we
should pass S. 413, the bill Senator Daschle introduced in behalf of
the President, or vote to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour,
though I strongly believe that we should. Rather, the amendment says
only that the Senate should take up the issue, that we should debate
it, and vote one way or the other rather than sweeping this issue under
the rug and ignoring the 12 million American workers who would get a
raise if the President's bill were enacted.
The appropriate level for the minimum wage is a critical issue both
for the millions of low-wage workers who are directly affected by it
and for the economy as a whole. Income inequality is a growing problem
in the United States, and the declining purchasing power of the minimum
wage is an important factor in this problem.
Mr. President, I will review for the Senate some of the most recent
information that has been developed and reported in our national news
magazines, as well as some of the historic trends that justify action
by this particular amendment, which effectively will do for the Senate
what was done earlier this year on the issue involving the gifts
measure before the Senate where our colleagues got a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that we were going to vote on the gifts issue and on
the lobbying legislation.
Really as a result of a good deal of focus and attention by Members
who
[[Page S 10950]]
are interested in these issues, these measures were brought up and in a
remarkable sense of comity were worked out and action was taken which I
think all of us think was very, very important. And we are very
hopeful--I and the others who will be supporting this measure--that we
will have an opportunity to do what we did some years ago in 1989-1990
when we had a Republican President and two Democratic Congresses and,
initially, reservations by the Republican President. We worked on this
measure. We saw the coming together of a Democratic Congress and a
Republican President. That was signed into law, and was the last
increase in the minimum wage, which took effect in 1991.
Now, with a Republican Senate, a Republican House and a Democratic
President, we are very hopeful that we will be able to take action that
will result in making this minimum wage really an American wage, a
family wage, a living wage.
That is why I am hopeful that this resolution, which says that we
will address this issue prior to the end of the Congress without making
a definition as to what that particular amount would be, nonetheless
would reflect the sense of this body, Republican and Democrat alike,
because Republicans have historically worked with us to get an increase
in the minimum wage.
Historically, increases in the minimum wage were signed by Republican
Presidents and were sometimes supported by the Republican leadership--
and we would certainly hope on an issue of fundamental fairness,
fundamental justice, that we could develop that kind of comity on this
resolution and then ultimately on the matter that comes before us.
Mr. President, the reason for offering this measure now is because
of the scheduling reality. We will be in session two more weeks prior
to the August recess. We will be back. The leader has announced that we
will be addressing the welfare issue in the latter part of this week.
We have a defense authorization, a defense appropriations bill, and
there would not be the opportunity to have a debate and discussion on
this measure, although I think it is an issue that has been addressed
time and time again by the membership. It is not one that the Members
are unfamiliar with. But, nonetheless, I think it is important to take
just a brief period of time, whatever time the membership wants, so
that we can address this issue and give an opportunity for the Members
to go on record about whether we as an institution, as a Congress,
should go back and address this issue as we have done on seven other
occasions when we have seen an increase in the minimum wage, which is
the wage for working families that work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of
the year, and try to provide food for their families, a roof for their
children, to pay the mortgage, and to have some sense of hope and
optimism for the future.
Mr. President, this chart reflects what happened to the incomes of
families in this country from 1950 to 1978. I know that there will be
those who will say, ``Well, there were variations for this period of
time.'' We may have the opportunity to come back and address that
issue. We will address any of the other issues that are brought up in
the course of this debate. But this is a pretty good summation, even
with the rise and the fall of various recessions. And I will have other
charts that will show in more careful, actual detail what happened
during this period of time with the setbacks and the advances in terms
of real family income.
But when you come right down to it, for close to a 30-year period--
and we segment each of the incomes for the different parts of our
society, dividing them into five different segments--what this chart
reflects very clearly is that real family income by quintile, which is
the five different segments, all went up together. The ones on the
bottom, 20 percent of the family income, rose the most, rose 138
percent. Those in the second lowest went up 98 percent; the middle,
some 106 percent; the fourth, 111 percent; and the top 20 percent went
up to close to 100 percent.
This chart says that we developed in this country, and the American
economy responded, in such a way that the income for families during
this period of time, which included the increases in the minimum wage
as well as other economic factors, all went along and grew together. We
all made progress together, and we did it in ways that were pretty
equitable in terms of the distribution of where our families were.
This, I think, is the real indication of where the country was moving
as an economy. It included other forces beyond the minimum wage. But as
my next chart will show, the minimum wage kept pace during this period
of time to be a livable wage. It has only been in the last 10 to 12
years where there has been a serious decline in the purchasing power of
the minimum wage.
Over here, we go now from 1978--this chart over here, 1979 to 1993--
and it is effectively the same chart, divided again by quintile, and
this chart reflects what has been happening from effectively 1979 to
1993, real family income growth by quintile.
Here we see the bottom 20 percent, those at the lower level of the
economic ladder, they are not increasing. There are no blue marks here.
It is increasing red marks. Their purchasing power has declined by some
17 percent during the period where there has been some very important
real growth. The next 20 percent has declined by 8 percent, the middle
some 3 percent, the fourth quarter has gone up 5 percent, and the
largest increase has been with the wealthiest individuals.
This is a profile about what is happening in our country over a
period of time in terms of real economic growth per family income.
Mr. President, it is a reminder about where we are and where we have
been and where we are going.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) proposes an
amendment numbered 1977.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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
new section:
SEC. .
It is the sense of the Senate that:
(1) the current economic recovery has generated record
profits for industry, but hourly wages have grown at a below
average rate;
(2) the minimum wage has not been raised since April 1,
1991, and has lost more than 10% of its purchasing power
since then;
(3) the average minumum wage worker provides 50% of her
family's weekly earnings;
(4) nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults,
and 60% are women;
(5) a full-time, year-round worker who is paid the minumum
wage earns $8,500 a year, less than a poverty level income
for a family of two;
(6) there are 4.7 million Americans who usually work full-
time but who are, nevertheless, in poverty, and 4.2 million
families live in poverty despite having one or more members
in the labor force for at least half the year;
(7) the 30% decline in the value of the minimum wage since
1979 has contributed to Americans' growing income inequality
and to the fact that 97% of the growth in household income
has accrued to the wealthiest 20%;
(8) legislation to raise the minumum wage to $5.15 an hour
was introduced on February 14, 1995, but has not been debated
by the Senate; and
(9) the Senate should debate and vote on whether to raise
the minumum wage before the end of the first session of the
104th Congress.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I indicated on the previous chart, we
saw what was happening for the 30 years between 1950 and effectively
1980, and then in the last 13 years, about how we as a country in terms
of our economy are effectively growing apart. Now we see the minimum
wage no longer lifts families out of poverty.
Take that, and you go right back to 1960 and see what has happened
now from the 1980's, which is effectively this chart over here, what
has been going on up to 1995. This is effectively the red line, the
minimum wage line, and the darker line is the poverty line that goes
right across here on constant dollars.
Here you find that during the period of the 1960's, the 1970's, the
minimum wage was just above what the poverty wage was; that is, it was
a livable wage. One family could receive the minimum wage and also have
a sense of respect and dignity and know that they
[[Page S 10951]]
could effectively make it in America without being in poverty, and
without being, as I will mention, a recipient of many of what we call
the support systems, the safety net programs. That is an interesting
sidebar to this whole issue and I will come back to that in just a
minute.
Then we saw how the minimum wage effectively stayed even in the
1970's and 1980's and then gradually declined and continued to decline
all the way to 1990. And this blip here was the increase in the minimum
wage when President Bush in a bipartisan effort signed the minimum
wage. And now we have sunk right back to where we were in 1990.
We have to ask ourselves, what is it about these working families, 12
million of whom would be affected by the increase in the minimum wage
that had been supported by the President and introduced in legislation
by Senator Daschle? What is it we are saying to them? We are saying
that we effectively do not value their work; we do not respect the fact
that you are prepared to go out and work 40 hours a week to try to
raise your children, to try to have a sense of dignity at the time we
have been seeing the expansion and the explosion in terms of the profit
in our economy.
Mr. President, I have in my hand Business Week of July 10. This is
not the product of someone who has been a long-time fighter for the
working poor, although I take great pride in the fact that I have been
for the increased minimum wage. This is Business Week magazine. This
parallels two other studies, which I will refer to. This is Business
Week. I will include the relevant parts in the Record.
This is what the cover story of Business Week, July 17, points out:
``Productivity and profits are up a lot. Paychecks aren't. Is the
economy changing?''
It goes on:
Four years into a recovery, companies are flourishing and
joblessness is low, yet pay is inching up more slowly than
the prior four recoveries.
Then it continues:
Four years into a recovery, profits are at a 45-year high
A 45-year high in terms of profits for American companies and
corporations, 45-year high.
Unemployment remains relatively low, and the weak dollar
has put foreign rivals on the defensive.
The fact is since this President has been elected, there has been a
creation of some 8 million jobs in the period of the last 2 to 3 years,
but those have not been the high-paying, good-wage, good-benefit jobs
that I think most of us have associated with employment in terms of the
strongest industrial country and strongest economy in the world.
This is how Business Week continues in its article:
Yet U.S. companies continue to drive down costs as if the
economy still were in a tailspin. Many are tearing up pay
systems and job structures, replacing them with new ones that
slice wage rates, slice raises and subcontract work to lower-
paying suppliers. The result seems to defy the law of supply
and demand. While companies prosper, inflation-adjusted wages
and benefits are climbing at less than half the pace of the
previous expansion.
Then it continues:
Today even the incomes of many white collar employees are
sliding and labor's share has slumped to levels last seen 30
years ago despite substantial productivity growth. These
trends have been dragging down the economy through the
recovery.
Then it continues:
But how long must we wait for productivity gains to boost
living standards?
What we are talking about here are living standards. We are talking
about families being able to educate their children. We are talking
about families being able to try to meet some of the needs of their
parents, who are going to feel the pressures in terms of the Medicare
cuts. We are talking about families being able to afford the mortgage
and to be able to enjoy their own future with some degree of security.
Now, this is what is happening.
But how long must we wait for productivity gains to boost
living standards? At this point in previous business cycles
gains from increased efficiencies would already have started
to wind their way through the economy. But after closely
tracking each other for decades, wage gains are now lagging
behind productivity growth.
We might have to talk about that in the Chamber, but all you have to
do is ask any working family what has been happening to their real
income over the period of the last 15 years. Dramatic change, and it
has been a downward one.
The combination of subpar pay gains and fewer wage earners
has already bitten deeply into pocketbooks. Per capita
disposable personal income has crawled along at 1.5 percent a
year over inflation in this recovery, half the average of
prior ones.
What this article is pointing out is generally we have had recessions
in other periods of time in the last 40 or 50 years, but what is
happening now is even though there is the creation of additional jobs,
the income is not there for those new workers. And one of the principal
reasons for the fact it is not there is because we have not met our
responsibilities of trying to make sure that work pays in our country,
that men and women who are prepared to work, will work, are able to
receive that livable wage.
``Sooner or later,'' the article continues, ``the promise of this
economic strategy has to be fulfilled for the majority of Americans.
The sight of bulging corporate coffers coexisting with continuous
stagnation in American's living standards could become politically
untenable.''
Mr. President, as we have seen in other parts of the magazine, we can
say, well, what is happening to the stock market? That has been going
up. But we know who participates in the stock markets--certainly not
those who for the most part are in middle incomes. Once again, here it
is going up through the roof. So corporate profits and CEO salaries
have been going up through the roof, the stock markets are going up
through the roof, and the minimum wage has been in a continuing and
constant decline.
Mr. President, all we are saying is that we are entitled to try to
bring that minimum wage back on up to make sure that American families
who want to work and can work are going to be able to provide for
themselves.
Mr. President, I will take just a moment or two of the Senate's time
to review with the Senate an historical analysis of what has happened
when we have had an increase in the minimum wage, because we are going
to hear a lot of voices out here about we cannot afford an increase in
the minimum wage because it is going to cost jobs; we cannot afford to
raise the minimum wage because there is going to be inflation.
Well, the fact is that is great rhetoric. I took the time, after the
last debate we had in the late 1980's, and just reread the debate
during the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, and you could just
substitute the names because the speeches were virtually identical,
with everyone saying we just cannot afford to do it; we are just
beginning to make the economy go and here you are going to go out there
and try to undermine our economy with an increase in the minimum wage.
They said it last time. We increased it in 1990, and we have seen since
1992 the growth of 8 million jobs.
Mr. President, I will take just a few more moments. I see my
colleagues waiting. I would just like to point out what has happened
historically with the minimum wage because we will have study after
study after study after study out here. And I will include some of the
most recent studies that I think have been so compelling. There will be
others who will try to flyspeck those studies, the study particularly
with regard to New Jersey, which is a very interesting and a very
positive one. But the one thing you have to recognize is the historical
analysis of the increase in the minimum wage. This is history. This is
what has happened. This is not some study by one of these organizations
for the various industries that have been historically opposed to any
increase in the minimum wage. This is the historical analysis of what
has happened to our economy on the issue of employment when we have
seen the increase in the minimum wage. This is what we have seen. It
goes back to 1949 when the minimum wage rose from 40 cents to 75 cents;
unemployment decreased.
In 1955, unemployment decreased from 4.4 to 4.1 percent.
From 1961 to 1963, from $1 to $1.25; unemployment decreased from 6.7
to 5.5 percent.
[[Page S 10952]]
From 1967 to 1968, $1.25 to $1.60; unemployment decreased from 3.8
percent to 3.5 percent.
During the seventies, 1974 to 1976, 655,000 new jobs, despite the
recession; retail employment increased 5.2 percent. They are the
principal ones opposed to any kind of increases.
From 1978 to 1981, employment increased by 8 million jobs, including
1.4 million retail jobs. You go from $2.30 to $3.35 in 1990, $3.35 to
$4.25, despite the severe recession from 1988 to 1992.
We had it up in my part of the country, New England. With 4 percent
of the Nation's population, we lost 20 percent of the Nation's jobs; 20
percent of the Nation's jobs we lost. We are beginning to come back.
The tragedy is, those are not nearly as good jobs as they should be.
But despite the severe recessions that we had, we have seen the
dramatic growth of these jobs.
Mr. President, this is the record. Not only on the question of the
minimum wage and what has happened to employment, but also with respect
to inflation--these are the two arguments that they use.
We will hear later on how it is going to be harmful to black
teenagers. We are about a couple hours away until somebody brings that
argument out. These are the standard arguments.
I see my two colleagues. Go back and read the history on these
things. You see the same old arguments that come up.
What has happened on the question of inflation is that we have seen,
with the increase of 1949, an increase of 1 percent; in the sixties,
less than .3 of 1 percent; stability here; from 1974 to 1976 inflation
actually decreased; then it increased marginally and then decreased;
and then from 1990 to 1991, it decreased from 5.4 to 4.2 percent.
So, Mr. President, I know that there are those who are going to come
out here and argue with the Business Week analysis in terms of what has
been happening in America: Companies and corporations where the profits
are going up, the stock market is going up, their productivity
increasing. The one thing they ought to recognize, which in Business
Week is clear as can be, and is something every worker understands, is
that real purchasing power for workers is going down.
I hope that our colleagues will not use those worn-out old arguments
about the problems that we are facing in inflation and the problems
that we are going to be facing in terms of unemployment, because the
record, which is the most important record--and that is the historic
record--just does not justify it. We have demonstrated and seen this,
Mr. President, and we believe that now is the time to make sure that
men and women who are out there working, and working hard, trying to
make ends meet, trying to bring up a family are going to be able to
experience some hope and opportunity.
Finally, Mr. President, one point that I want to mention on this
chart for all of our Members--and we do not come to this consideration
very frequently--if you start paying the American people a livable
wage, do you know what happens? They lose their eligibility for support
systems. Do you know what that means? That means the general taxpayer
pays less, that they do not have to support the various support
programs, which are the WIC Program, Aid to Families with Dependent
Children, fuel oil programs, other kinds of support programs. You pay
the American workers, who are working and trying to pay for their own
living, and they lose their eligibility for those support programs and
that saves billions of dollars--billions of dollars.
Who pays for those billions of dollars? It is the workers. This makes
sense if you are for deficit reduction, if you want to lower the tax
program on workers because if they pay the minimum wage, they lose
their eligibility and you begin to save the billions of dollars.
This makes sense. It makes sense as a matter of decency and fairness,
as part of our commitment that has been there for some 50 years, where
we are going to honor work and say to men and women who want to work,
can work, and will work that they ought to have an American wage that
says that they can provide for their family and for their future, that
they are going to be able to educate their children.
That has been true all the way through the forties, fifties, sixties,
all the way through the seventies, and it has only been in the recent
years that we have seen this abdication of responsibility to working
families.
Right in the face of this, Mr. President, are the various reports--I
have colleagues on the floor now--but I will review the Bureau of Labor
Statistics report from just last week, and another very, very important
study that reaches this very same conclusion.
These workers are entitled to be a part of the American system. They
have been left out and left behind. We have to ask ourselves who will
speak for them. At other times, we have come together, Democrats and
Republicans alike, in order to make sure that those families that want
to work can work, are proud to work, are playing by the rules, trying
to bring up their children, are going to be able to live in some
dignity. That is what the increase in the minimum wage is about.
We invite our colleagues to support this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution so that families will know that we are serious in making
sure that for working families, work pays in America and that we honor
work.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may follow immediately on what Senator
Kennedy just talked about, this Friday we are going to be taking up
welfare reform. Ninety-five percent of what we hear about as welfare
reform is not welfare reform. It is just moving the boxes around,
shifting responsibility to States and doing some things like that. Real
welfare reform has to deal with the problem of jobs and the problem of
poverty, and this is an issue that deals with the problem of poverty.
Why do we have this distribution problem in our society today? I
think there are three basic reasons. One is people are not as well
prepared as they should be. As Secretary of Labor Bob Reich says over
and over--and he is right on this--if you are well prepared, technology
is your friend; if you are not well prepared, technology is your enemy.
A second reason we do not have the distribution factor that we should
have in our society today is that labor union membership is
dramatically lower in our country than any other Western industrialized
democracy. George Shultz, former Secretary of State and former
Secretary of Labor under Republican administrations, made a speech in
which he said all of us, management and labor and everybody, ought to
be concerned about the low percentage of workers belonging to labor
unions. It is not a healthy thing for our society. If you exclude the
governmental unions, it is down to 11.8 percent. That is a factor.
But a third factor in the distribution matter is the minimum wage. We
simply have not kept up with the inflation factor, and it is a problem.
In addition to the factors that Senator Kennedy mentioned, where we
save money in terms of AFDC and that sort of thing, the earned income
tax credit, we have 11 million Americans who will benefit from
increasing the minimum wage 45 cents a year for 2 years, a total of 90
cents,
and many of them will not get as much money on the earned income tax
credit. So there will be a dollar savings, in very real terms, for the
Federal Government.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield to my colleague.
Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friend from Minnesota here, as well. Does the
Senator understand what it is about the institution, the Congress, that
says that we are going to refuse to have any increase in the minimum
wage or even to consider it, and we are cutting back on the earned-
income tax credit that benefits only the individual workers that make
some $26,000 a year or less?
What is it about this institution that says that workers who are
making less than $26,000, including the earned-income tax credit, ought
to have their taxes increased, and yet we refuse to grant an increase
in the minimum wage when we have a historic low, and at the same time
we are talking about tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals, who are
at the top levels of our economy, who are right up here and giving
them, for the most part, a $245 billion tax reduction? Does the Senator
find
[[Page S 10953]]
some difficulty in understanding why that series of policy decisions
would make sense for working families in this country?
Mr. SIMON. Well, in response to that question, which is an extremely
important question for the American people, obviously it does not make
sense. It is a response that grows out of something--and I
know the Senator from Massachusetts feels very strong about this--it
grows out of something that we ought to deal with, but we duck in
Congress--that is, our system of financing campaigns. I join the
Senator from Minnesota, and I applaud him for his leadership on what we
did on gifts and limiting on the lobbyists. But, frankly, that is 1
percent of the reform we need. Ninety-nine percent of the reform is on
our system of financing campaigns.
If you have 20 individuals who are very wealthy in this country, who
wanted some modest change in the law, who sent a $1,000 campaign
contribution to every Member of the U.S. Senate, I have an idea--unless
it was an egregious request--that request would receive very
sympathetic attention. We have 11 million people who will benefit by an
increase in the minimum wage, who, because of their situation, cannot
give a campaign contribution to anyone, and we are reluctant to
respond. I hope we will.
Let me just add for the benefit of the Presiding Officer--and I see
my friend from Kansas on the floor here, too--the last time we
increased the minimum wage, it passed 89-8 in the Senate, with 36
Republicans voting for it. This should not be a partisan thing. We
ought to improve the lot of people who are really struggling. Are we
going to be sensitive to that? I think that is the fundamental
question. Are we going to be sensitive to people who really are
struggling in our society? I hope we come up with the right answer.
I am pleased to have the Senator from Massachusetts offering this
amendment, and what he is really calling on us to do is prod our
consciences a little bit, do what we ought to do for the people in
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, who are
just eking out an existence, who do not know how they are going to make
the next rental payment, or how they are going to feed their family,
until they get paid on Friday. These are people we have to be concerned
about. They do not make big campaign contributions to us. But that is
what we ought to be here for. Those are the people we ought to be here
for.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for
his remarks. I have said it to him many times, I am going to really
miss him. I think he has been a real conscience of the Senate, and I
think people admire the Senator from Illinois not only because of his
integrity but because of the way he treats each and every Senator with
real respect and sensitivity. He cares a lot about people, and that is
what this debate is really about. I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts.
I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an original cosponsor
of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I understand this amendment, it
simply urges the Senate, asks the Senate to take the position that we
will indeed take up and debate legislation to raise the Federal minimum
wage, at least by the end of the Congress. Am I correct, I ask the
Senator from Massachusetts? Is that essentially it?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, it seems to me that this is a
most reasonable and important amendment. Despite the increases that
went into effect in 1990 and 1991, the current minimum wage is not a
working wage. It is still a poverty wage. At $4.25 an hour, a person
working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage earns just $170 a week.
That is before taxes and Social Security are deducted.
Mr. President, in Minnesota when you talk to people in cafes, I think
really probably more than any other single issue, or set of issues, the
focus is on what I would call basic economic justice questions. People
really feel the squeeze that the Senator from Massachusetts has talked
about. And really since the decade of the seventies, the bottom 70
percent has lost ground. When you talk to people and you ask people
what are the issues you care most about, what people say over and over
again is, ``I care about being able to have a decent job that I can
support myself and my family on.'' Mr. President, that is what we are
talking about. Right now, at $4.25 an hour, you can work 40 hours a
week, 52 weeks a year, and you still are not even up to the poverty
level.
So there are many, many people--we are talking about 11 million
people-plus who would benefit from this. I think it is a fundamental
economic justice issue.
Mr. President, one popular misconception--and the Senator from
Massachusetts may have covered this earlier, but I want to in my brief
time--and I will only speak for about 5 minutes, I say to my colleague
from Kansas--a popular misconception is that the minimum wage is
basically paid to teenagers who flip burgers in their spare time. But
less than one in three minimum wage workers are teenagers. In fact,
nearly 50 percent of those who receive minimum wage are adults that are
25 years of age or older.
It is simply impossible to support yourself or to support your
family. The minimum wage is not a working wage. We had a bipartisan
consensus, at least up until recent history, that we would make a
minimum wage a working wage. But when you look at this, if there ever
was some action that we should take as a Senate in this Congress, it
would be action to raise this minimum wage so that people can make a
decent living, so that people could support themselves, so that people
can support their families.
Mr. President, if the truism--and I know the chair has been involved
in welfare reform--is that the best welfare program is a job, and what
we want to do is move from welfare to workfare, I would argue that the
best welfare reform is a job that pays a living wage. That means a
minimum wage that can lift families out of poverty and thereby make a
huge difference.
Right now, if we are going to go to welfare reform--because I think
it could be reformatory if we stay on the present course, just
punishing children and single parents, mainly women. But if we are
going to move toward real welfare reform, the problem we all have--and
we all know about this--is all too often by the time a mother--because
it is usually the mother, and I wish more fathers would accept
responsibility for taking care of children when marriages do not work
out well.
All too often what happens for that welfare mother is that by the
time she takes a job, and now has to pay for child care--and, like any
parent, she wants this not to be custodial but good child-developmental
child care--by the time she loses Medicaid assistance and has a job
that does not pay but $4.25 an hour or $5 an hour, she is worse off.
The Washington Post had a really splendid series of articles about
this very problem.
It seems to me on matters of basic economic justice, on what it is
that people care the most about, the Senator from Massachusetts is
absolutely on the mark. We ought to make a commitment. I think that is
all he is asking for Members to do. As I understand the amendment, we
do not even have a specific wage. It is not a specific proposal, but an
amendment that says that this Senate goes on record, making a
commitment that by the end of this Congress, we will at least take up
and debate a minimum wage bill.
I ask the Senator, is that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
If the Senator would yield for a moment, I listened with interest to
his statistics. He is providing a real service to the Senate in
outlining the actual income and age of minimum wage earners in 1993.
I am wondering if the Senator's figures are basically in agreement
with this chart, the source of which is the Economic Policy Institute,
that says 57.6 percent of the minimum wage earners in 1993 were below-
average-income adults; then there is below-average-income teens,
effectively 14 percent; above average income, 11 percent for teens; 17
percent for above-average-income adults.
The idea, as I understood the Senator, was that this increase really
reaches the working families who are
[[Page S 10954]]
trying to make ends meet and the ones that are prepared to work the
long and hard hours. If it does reach some teenagers, it is basically
reaching teenagers who are from families with family incomes which are
lower than the poverty line as well. Actually, it is a pretty targeted
program.
I think the Senator might agree with me that the minimum wage has a
greater elevating effect on the incomes with single individuals or
married couples, but the earned income tax credit has the greatest
impact on families with a number of children.
I ask the Senator, as a professor of economy, whether he would agree
that, therefore, doing something about both is really reaching, in many
respects, our fellow Americans who are trying to make ends meet--some
with larger families, some of them either individuals or just a couple
maybe with one child, I think that is the breaking point--but are
trying to make ends meet and they are at the lower rung of the economic
ladder and have been ones that have seen their real income decline most
dramatically in recent times.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator and then
yield the floor to my colleague from Kansas who is anxious to speak.
I respond to the Senator from Massachusetts in two different ways.
First of all, I say to my colleague, as a strategy of welfare reform or
as a targeted strategy to reduce poverty and have more economic
opportunity, and for that matter, as a targeted strategy to move toward
a middle class or as a targeted strategy to reduce violence, I do not
think there is any question that it is the key. That is what we have to
focus on.
I say to my colleague, my understanding is that, roughly speaking, in
poll after poll, 70 to 75 percent of the population agree. When we have
a broad consensus in our country that we ought to raise the minimum
wage, we ought to make it a working wage, it is all a part of economic
opportunity, it is extremely important to this country, then it seems
to me the Senator from Massachusetts does everyone a real service by
saying, ``Let's go on record making it clear that indeed we will
address this problem. We will have some positive legislative
initiatives in this area.''
Again, I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I hope that this
amendment receives widespread support. It should. I yield the floor.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I agree that Congress should increase
the minimum wage standard. I have voted for minimum wage increases in
the past and I will vote for reasonable minimum wage increases in the
future.
The minimum wage, established in 1938 by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, has been raised 17 times. From 1938 to 1974, the wage was raised
from 25 cents to $2 per hour. The last two increases took place in 1990
when the wage level was set at $3.80 and then again in 1991 when it was
raised to its current level. I voted both for final passage and the
conference report of the wage increases of 1990 and 1991. If the
minimum wage had kept pace with the Consumer Price Index, the current
level would be $6.85 today.
I want to work in a bipartisan fashion with the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts in passing the minimum wage, but I feel the schedule
of the Senate is best left in the care of the majority leader in his
preparation of the schedule of the Senate.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment
offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, and to support efforts to
raise the minimum wage.
In recent weeks I have read articles and newspaper editorials
concerned about wage stagnation. While profits are up, wages are down.
Raising the minimum wage represents the least this Congress can do. Our
failure to act to raise the minimum wage will only add to the problem
of stagnant wages. No excuse about not being able to fit this issue in
our agenda will satisfy workers who are just looking for a break.
The bill that is being proposed will raise the minimum wage from its
current rate of $4.25 per hour to $4.75 next year and $5.15 per hour in
the second year. If we fail to raise the minimum wage beyond the
current $4.25 an hour, the buying power of workers earning the minimum
will be at its lowest level since 1955--1955. How many people here
would be satisfied with 1955 wages?
There are those who will argue that the minimum wage doesn't really
help families or adult workers, but that is not what the facts tell us.
The facts are that over 60 percent of workers receiving the minimum
wage are adults. And over one-third of minimum wage earners are the
only wage earners in their families.
Mr. President, far too many workers are losing ground. Far too many
people are working longer and working harder, but their checks are
getting smaller. Far too many of our actions this year have ignored the
average wage earner. How can we justify keeping the minimum wage at
$4.25 an hour in the same year we decide to cut the earned income tax
credit? If Congress opposes an increase in the minimum wage and votes
to cut this tax credit how can we expect people to get ahead? How can
we expect some of these struggling families to stay off the very public
assistance programs, which ironically, some Members are trying to cut
or eliminate?
It is time we returned to the bipartisan support this issue once had.
It is time we returned to the spirit of 1989 when only eight Members of
the Senate voted against increasing the minimum wage. Let's make a
commitment to working men and women all across the country and tell
them that hard work will be rewarded and that they can get ahead.
Making $5.15 an hour won't make anyone rich, but it may give some
people a fair shake.
Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Kansas has been waiting. And I just need
60 seconds. I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for once
again raising for the Senate an important issue.
I simply underscore--I think I am correct, and the Senator may be
able to confirm this--in the 1960's and 1970's, the minimum wage
permitted people in this country to be able to earn just at poverty
level; but because of the diminishment of earnings in the United States
over the course of the last 13 years particularly, minimum wage now
produces only 70 percent of the poverty level in income.
So the country traditionally has paid a minimum wage that at least
promised to keep people at poverty level. Today, it is at 70 percent of
poverty level, at a time when we all know it is an awful lot harder
without the sufficient skills to be able to break out.
Not only do we have the same kinds of antipoverty or rising tide jobs
that lift you, you have a much greater difficulty, but you are much
lower in the purchasing power that you have from whatever the minimum
wage gives you.
I think it underscores the purpose.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could take a moment of time, the Senator is quite
correct.
I want to just point out what we have not gotten into in the debate,
and that is what is happening to the chief executives of major
corporations.
More than 500 were paid over $1 million, according to a Business Week
survey of 742 companies. Chief executives have been getting substantial
pay in recent years. Mr. President, in 1994 executive salaries
increased 10 percent, while workers' wages rose 2.6 percent.
In many cases, the total pay went down because they did not cash in
their stock options since the stock market was not at its peak. The
$2.9 million average pay of 1994 was 54 percent higher than the $1.9
million average they received 5 years ago. The executives' pay has been
skyrocketing, yet the workers' pay is down.
I am not interested, in this debate, to try and take away from those
that are trying to expand and make a great success in terms of
companies or corporations, but it seems to me to be relevant, in terms
of a society, about people working. Those in the white collar are
working hard but the blue collar are working hard, too, and they are
the ones that are left out and left behind.
We are not making this point just with regard to blue-collar workers.
The same thing has happened to the white collar. That is quite a
different story. It is worth considering in the total context of
debate.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Kansas for her forbearance.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise not to debate the pros and cons
about whether we should increase the
[[Page S 10955]]
minimum wage. The bill currently before the Senate is the State
Department reorganization bill of 1995, a very important piece of
legislation.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts is a sense of
the Senate that we should debate and vote on whether to raise the
minimum wage before the end of the first session of the 104th Congress.
I would like to point out, Mr. President, that minimum wage
legislation comes under the jurisdiction of the Labor and Human
Resources Committee, of which I am chairman and the Senator from
Massachusetts is ranking member.
I believe it is important to hold hearings on this issue in our
committee. The minimum wage is just one part of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. That Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation which
covers everything from child labor laws to overtime laws. I think it is
one that needs extensive and thorough review and hearings. It is a very
important piece of legislation. The minimum wage is just one part of
that.
Congress has not conducted a serious oversight of the entire statute
for several decades. I believe it is of fundamental importance and the
responsibility of our committee to do so. Clearly, the law needs to be
brought up to date to reflect significant changes in the workplace over
the last 50 years.
I am committed to holding hearings in the Labor Committee to review
all aspects of the FLSA, including the minimum wage. I think it is
premature, however, to be bound by this sense-of-the-Senate amendment
and have it viewed as a debate on whether one is for or against an
increase in the minimum wage.
That is not what this debate is about.
I think the Senator from Massachusetts, as the ranking member, knows
that our committee has had a very full agenda. There are a number of
important issues we have been working on, including health care, job
training, FDA and OSHA reform, and several reauthorization bills which
have to be completed this year.
Unfortunately, I think, despite the importance of FLSA reform, the
schedule has just not permitted us to hold hearings yet. Hearings that
I think we need to have and should have and, as I have said before and
I will say again, I am committed to holding.
I would remind my colleagues that the Senator from Massachusetts, now
the ranking member, was chairman of the Labor and Human Resources
Committee for the last 2 years. There was no real sense of urgency at
that time, when my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle
were in the majority, to address this issue. I really have to wonder
why, all of a sudden, on this State Department reorganization
legislation, the Senator has offered a sense of the Senate which could
be interpreted, I think wrongly, as a vote for or against an increase
in the minimum wage.
For that reason I think this is not the time or the place to have
this type of debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 2029 to Amendment No. 1977
Mr. NICKLES. 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself and
Mrs. Kassebaum, proposes an amendment numbered 2029 to
amendment No. 1977.
Strike all after the word ``that'' and insert in lieu
thereof the following: ``that the Senate should debate and
vote on comprehensive welfare reform before the end of the
first session of the 104th Congress.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment my friend and
colleague, Senator Kassebaum, the chairman of the Labor Committee, for
her statement. I hope people heard her statement.
Also, I will mention the reason why I offered this second-degree
amendment. The second-degree amendment says Congress should take up and
consider and vote on comprehensive welfare reform before the end of
this year. I think that is a very high priority. Maybe I think it is a
higher priority than increasing the minimum wage, because I happen to
believe increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs.
The Senator from Kansas, as chairman of the Labor Committee, said she
will have a hearing on minimum wage. I might mention, that is more than
our friends on the other side did. The sponsor of this amendment, when
he was chairman of the Labor Committee for the last 2 years, I do not
believe they had hearings on increasing the minimum wage. I know, if my
memory serves me correctly, Senator Mitchell, when he was majority
leader the last 2 years, they did not pull up legislation on the floor
of the Senate to increase the minimum wage.
Now they offer an amendment to this bill, the State Department
authorization bill, and the amendment says we should consider and take
up and vote on increasing the minimum wage.
No. 1, that is an amendment that has nothing to do with the State
Department authorization. It is kind of saying: We were running the
Senate for a number of years and it was not a high enough priority for
us to do it then, but now we want to do it while Republicans are
controlling the Senate. I disagree. Senator Dole is the majority
leader. He is the one who sets up the agenda of the Senate, not the
Senator from Massachusetts.
So I have offered an amendment in the second degree. It says Congress
should take up welfare reform. I think that is important. I know the
majority leader thinks that is important. I think the majority leader
should set the agenda of the Senate.
So I compliment my friend from Kansas. I appreciate her cosponsoring
this amendment. I hope people will place this amendment as a higher
priority.
I will mention, actually, probably neither amendment should be on
this bill. We should be considering the amendment of the Senator from
North Carolina. We ought to be voting on it. I will say we ought to be
voting on it in 15 minutes, because this entire body, by the majority
leader, was told we will have votes not before 6 o'clock. For us to
take up nongermane amendments, for us to debate a lot of things and not
take up the legislation pending, I think is irresponsible. We have a
lot of work to do. A lot of us would like to keep most of the August
recess. We would like to spend a little time in our States and with our
families.
So I think it is important for us to pass this bill. I know the
Senator from North Carolina urges us to do so. We have a couple of
amendments that are pending. There are a couple of amendments we have
the yeas and nays ordered on. I hope we will vote on those. I hope we
will vote on those tonight.
We have a lot of other amendments, very, very important amendments,
that we may be dealing with, talking about reorganizing the State
Department, abolishing agencies, restructuring--I compliment the
sponsors of the bill before us. It is very substantive legislation.
We have also heard some in the administration say, ``Let's not let
this pass. Let's allow it to be slowed down.'' I regret that. But I
think we should take up the legislation. I think the amendment of the
Senator from Massachusetts needed to be amended, so I have offered an
amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it.
Again, I repeat, what this amendment is, it says Congress should take
up before the end of this year comprehensive welfare reform. I know the
President of the United States spoke to the Governors and he urged we
have welfare reform. I know the Senate majority leader spoke to the
Governors today and he said we should have welfare reform. So,
hopefully, Congress will work out its difference and we will pass a
bipartisan welfare reform bill this year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I guess I am somewhat amused by the notion
that the way to solve the problem of an amendment that is somehow not
appropriate on this bill is to amend that amendment with an amendment
that is not appropriate to this bill. The logic of that does not quite
sit. But, on the other hand, we all want welfare reform. So I think it
is perfectly appropriate, now that the precedent is set, for us to
follow suit with other amendments.
[[Page S 10956]]
We will be happy to accept the amendment of the Senator from
Oklahoma. I do not think there is any further debate on it, so we could
proceed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2029) was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2030 to Amendment No. 1977
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the
amendment of Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an
amendment numbered 2030 to amendment No. 1977.
Mr. KERRY. 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:
SEC. .
It is the sense of the Senate that:
(1) the current economic recovery has generated record
profits for industry, but hourly wages have grown at a below
average rate;
(2) the minimum wage has not been raised since April 1,
1991, and has lost more than 10% of its purchasing power
since then;
(3) the average minimum wage worker provides 50% of her
family's weekly earnings;
(4) nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults,
and 60% are women;
(5) a full-time, year-round worker who is paid the minimum
wage earns $8,500 a year, less than a poverty level income
for a family of two;
(6) there are 4.7 million Americans who usually work full-
time but who are, nevertheless, in poverty, and 4.2 million
families live in poverty despite having one or more members
in the labor force for at least half the year;
(7) the 30% decline in the value of the minimum wage since
1979 has contributed to Americans' growing income inequality
and to the fact that 97% of the growth in household income
has accrued to the wealthiest 20%;
(8) legislation to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour
was introduced on February 14, 1995, but has not been debated
by the Senate; and
(9) the Senate should debate and vote on whether to raise
the minimum wage before the end of the first session of the
104th Congress.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this simply puts us back in the
parliamentary position we were in. We have now agreed we ought to have
welfare debated before the end of the session. The issue before us is
still whether or not we ought to have the minimum wage debated before
the end of the session.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague. I will
be glad to be a cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator, but I am not
going to make that request at the present time.
I just say, Mr. President, as the Senator from Kansas knows very
well, this legislation for the increase in the minimum wage was
introduced in February. There has been a very full agenda for the
committee. I have enjoyed very much the opportunity to work closely
with Senator Kassebaum and our Republican colleagues. But it is a
reflection of priorities. It has been the judgment of that committee to
set other matters as priorities. I think at some time this should have
had a hearing and we have an opportunity to address this issue at this
time.
Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that calls for us to debate and vote on raising the minimum
wage some time before the end of this session of Congress. It does not
endorse any particular outcome; it does not say we should pass S. 413,
the bill Senator Daschle introduced on behalf of the President, or vote
to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour--though I strongly believe
we should.
Rather, the amendment says only that the Senate should take up the
issue, debate it, and vote one way or the other, rather than sweeping
this issue under the rug and ignoring the 12 million American workers
who would get a raise if the President's bill were enacted.
The appropriate level for the minimum wage is a critical issue, both
for the millions of low-wage workers who are directly affected by it
and for the economy as a whole. Income inequality is a growing problem
in the United States, and the declining purchasing power of the minimum
wage is an important factor in the problem.
Since 1979, 97 percent of the growth in real household income has
gone to the wealthiest 20 percent, while the remaining 3 percent of the
growth in household income has been shared by the other 80 percent of
Americans. The real family income of the bottom 60 percent of Americans
has declined since 1979, while the real income of the top 20 percent of
families grew 18 percent.
Part of the decline in income for the middle and lower middle class
has been caused by the decline in the purchasing power of the minimum
wage, which has fallen almost 30 percent since 1979, and more than 10
percent since it was last raised in 1991. As a nation, we are getting
farther and farther away from the concept that work should pay, that a
full-time, year-round worker should be able to keep her family out of
poverty.
Today, a nurse's aide, janitor, or child care worker who makes the
minimum wage earns just $8,500 for 50 weeks of work at 40 hours a
week--falling more than $6,000 short of the poverty threshold for a
family of four.
There is an old saying that, ``the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer.'' But that should not be our national economic policy. The
Senate should vote on raising the minimum wage because it is immoral
and destructive to have one out of every nine families with a full-time
worker living under the poverty line--without enough money to feed and
clothe their children and keep a roof over their heads.
The rich in America are getting richer: the value of the stock market
has increased more than 400 percent since 1982. But almost everyone
else, and the working poor especially, are getting poorer. Real wages
have declined, on average, 15 percent since 1982.
Business Week magazine, in a recent cover story called, ``The Wage
Squeeze,'' argues that ``weak wage growth is sapping demand'' and
``dragging down the economy throughout the recovery.'' Even though
corporate profits are at record highs and unemployment has been falling
steadily for three years, hourly pay and per capita income have lagged
far behind the average recovery.
Raising the minimum wage will not, by itself, reverse the growing
income inequality that threatens our economic future. But it would be a
step in the right direction. If we increased the minimum wage to $5.15
an hour, 11 million hard working people would get a raise.
I have heard all of the arguments against the minimum wage, and none
of them has any merit. For years, it was argued that raising the
minimum wage was bad for the people who got the raise because a
significant number of them would lose their jobs.
Well, year after year, we had minimum wage increases, and the economy
continued to add jobs by the millions.
Then it was claimed that teenagers would lose their jobs if the
minimum wage went up. But when economists stopped quoting from their
textbooks and studied the actual, real world data, they found that
their theories were wrong--even teenage unemployment is not
significantly affected by raising the minimum wage.
First, Princeton's David Card and Alan Krueger, then Harvard's Larry
Katz and Bill Spriggs of the Joint Economic Committee, found that
businesses adjusted to minimum wage increases in various ways, such as
increasing prices, but they did not respond by cutting their workforce.
In some cases, they
actually added workers.
How is this possible? Why did demand for these workers not go down as
their cost went up? The obvious answer is that their work was so
undervalued at the minimum wage that their employment was still a major
benefit for employers after the minimum wage was raised. And that is
the situation today. The minimum wage is so low that the work done by
the employees who earn the minimum wage is undervalued and underpriced.
Raising the minimum wage is no likelier to cause job losses today
than
[[Page S 10957]]
it was when the last increase was made in 1991. We have added more than
7 million net new jobs since then, and the minimum wage is a smaller
fraction of the national average wage, and lower in real terms, than it
was in 1991. In other words, the minimum wage is even more underpriced
now than it was in 1991, and the employment effects of raising it
should be even less.
Now that the old argument about job losses has been disproved, the
Republicans have come up with a new argument, the exact opposite of the
old one: raising the minimum wage is wrong, because it leads teenagers
to drop out of school and go to work. The research supporting this new
theory is flawed. The data does not support it so opponents of the
minimum wage will be forced to stretch their imaginations to come up
with new arguments.
For years, Republicans have claimed that the minimum wage is really
no help to poor families because only teenagers work for the minimum
wage. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 63 percent of
minimum wage earners are adults over the age of 20.
Republicans have also argued that there are better ways to help the
poor, such as the earned income tax credit. Now, however, Republican
support for the EITC has begun to erode. They voted overwhelmingly for
a budget plan that assumes a $21 billion cut in the EITC over 7 years,
which will raise taxes on 14 million low income workers.
They oppose helping the working poor with a minimum wage increase;
they vote to cut back the EITC; but they are rushing ahead with plans
to give the wealthiest people in our society a lavish tax cut. It is no
wonder we are growing apart as a nation when so much energy is expended
to help those who do not need it, while pushing down the families at
the bottom of the economic ladder.
The growing Republican opposition to the earned income tax credit is
based on its budget impact--its cost to the Federal Government. The
same concerns should lead them to support a minimum wage increase,
since it will save the Federal Government more than a billion dollars
over 5 years.
By moving millions of workers out of poverty, an increase in the
minimum wage to $5.15 an hour would save more than $600 million in AFDC
expenditures, more than $350 million in Medicaid costs, and almost $300
million in food stamps, over five years. Raising the minimum wage is
the fair thing to do. It is also the cost-effective thing to do.
Three out of five minimum wage workers are women, and most of them
make important contributions to their families' income, while they also
shoulder the responsibility for cooking meals, cleaning the house, and
getting their kids to day care. The average minimum wage worker brings
home 51 percent of her family's weekly earnings.
The Senate should debate and vote on raising the minimum wage because
it is a way to help make life a little brighter for the people who
struggle to make ends meet, who believe in the American dream of
working hard in order to get ahead, but who have been finding
themselves slipping behind no matter how much harder they try.
I have met with many people who work for the minimum wage--especially
young adults with families to raise--and their lives are hard.
Typically, the husband works 30 to 35 hours a week at $4.25 an hour for
a pizza chain, including split shifts and evenings. His wife works 40
hours a week at similar wages. She staggers her work hours, so that
either she or her husband can always be at home to take care of their
two infants. Neither has health care coverage, and they cannot afford
child care.
So, between the two of them, they work all day long, rarely able to
spend time together. They despair about saving to send their children
to college because both of them are still paying off the loans they
took out for the 1 year of college they attended. These bright, hard-
working young Americans with high school educations and dreams of
higher education and attainment. But they are barely scraping by
because the law allows their work to be undervalued and underpaid.
Senator Daschle introduced the President's bill on February 16, more
than 5 months ago. Yet the bill has not had a hearing and is not on the
calendar for floor consideration. With each additional month that
passes, the value and purchasing power of the minimum wage declines
still more, and the lives of those who earn it are made harder.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment and commit
itself to voting on legislation to raise the minimum wage before the
end of this session of Congress.
I want to just reiterate a few items I think have made this matter
more timely. One is the various conclusions that are being reached now
in Business Week magazine on the issue of wages. I will also have
printed in the Record the very significant June 25 story in the New
York Times. It starts out: ``Productivity Is All, But It Doesn't Pay
Well.'' This is by Keith Bradsher. It points out:
It is a principle as old as capitalism and the antithesis
of Marxism: workers should reap according to their labors.
Yet over the last six years, compensation for American
workers seems to have stagnated even as they have worked ever
more efficiently and produced ever more goods.
The trend is especially striking because it breaks one of
the most enduring patterns in American economic history.
Workers have fairly consistently collected about two-thirds
of the nation's economic output in the form of wages,
salaries and benefits. Owners of capital, like stocks or
bonds or small businesses, have collected the other third, in
the form of dividends, profits and investment gains.
``It is remarkable how constant labor's share has been over
the last 150 years,'' said Lawrence Katz, a former chief
economist at the Labor Department. ``This is one of the
strongest regularities of advanced economies.''
Wages and salaries and benefits actually climbed slightly
faster than productivity for a while in the late 1960's and
early 1970's. Productivity moved ahead a little faster than
compensation during the late 1970's, and through much of the
1980's. But it seems the real gap opened after that.
The strongest evidence so far that the workers are
receiving less of the fruits of their labors came last week,
when the Labor Department revised its estimate of wage and
compensation growth. After adjusting for inflation, average
wages and salaries apparently fell 2.3 percent over the 12-
month period that ended in March. Productivity rose 2.1
percent during the same period.
That is what happened in June. This is what is happening in July.
Talking about the timeliness of this particular measure, now is the
time. Now is the time.
Then the story goes on.
Include fringe benefits, and the current numbers look even
worse for wage-earners. Overall compensation fell 3 percent
in the 12-month period through March, as companies and State
and local governments provided fewer health benefits.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the whole article be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, June 25, 1995]
Productivity Is All, But It Doesn't Pay Well
(By Keith Bradsher)
It is a principle as old as capitalism and the antithesis
of Marxism: workers should reap according to their labors.
Yet over the last six years, compensation for American
workers seems to have stagnated even as they have worked ever
more efficiently and produced ever more goods.
The trend is especially striking because it breaks one of
the most enduring patterns in American economic history.
Workers have fairly consistently collected about two-thirds
of the nation's economic output in the form of wages,
salaries and benefits. Owners of capital, like stocks or
bonds or small businesses, have collected the other third, in
the form of dividends, profits and investment gains.
``It is remarkable how constant labor's share has been over
the last 150 years,'' said Lawrence Katz, a former chief
economist at the Labor Department. ``This is one of the
strongest regularities of advanced economies.''
Wages and salaries and benefits actually climbed slightly
faster than productivity for a while in the late 1960's and
early 1970's. Productivity moved ahead a little faster than
compensation during the late 1970's and through much of the
1980's. But it seems that the real gap opened after that.
The strongest evidence so far that workers are receiving
less of the fruits of their labors came last week, when the
Labor Department revised its estimates of wage and
compensation growth. After adjusting for inflation, average
wages and salaries apparently fell 2.3 percent over the 12-
month period that ended in March. Productivity rose 2.1
percent during the same period.
Include fringe benefits, and the current numbers look even
worse for the wage-earners. Overall compensation fell 3
percent in
[[Page S 10958]]
the 12-month period through March, as companies and state and local
governments provided fewer health care benefits.
The drop has provoked a profusion of historical
comparisons. ``A high-capital income society is no longer a
middle-income society but something reminiscent of the Gilded
Age,'' said Bradford DeLong, a former deputy assistant
secretary of the Treasury * * *.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be glad to entertain a consent
request. Is that the desire of the Senator from North Carolina?
Mr. HELMS. I want to get back to what we were talking about, the
bill, if the Senator will allow us. I think he has made his point about
what he thinks we ought to do. I thought that was the majority leader's
responsibility.
Will the Senator yield the floor?
Mr. KENNEDY. No. I was informed that the Senator was prepared to make
a consent request and I was prepared to have that consideration. But I
will not take much more time. I will make some brief comments. I was
attempting to try and accommodate the Senator.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a moment just
for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving my right, Mr. President, I yield for a consent
request.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur
on amendment No. 2026, the Helms amendment, at 6:45 this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.
Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I put in the Record the New York Times
article.
I want to just mention another article that was in the Washington
Post of today, ``U.S. Finds Productivity, but Not Pay, Is Rising.''
The government yesterday confirmed what most workers
already knew: In terms of their pay, Americans are just
treading water.
The Labor Department reported that wages and benefits in
private industry increased 2.8 percent over the last year. It
was the smallest advance since the department began
calculating its employment cost index in 1981 and reflected
the low level of inflation and the inability of workers to
wrest pay raises from employers in an increasingly
competitive economy.
Adjusted for inflation, the compensation measure shows a
slight 0.2 percent decline over the past 12 months in spite
of robust gains in worker productivity and record levels of
corporate profits.
All of these studies are showing--Business Week, the Washington Post,
the New York Times, all within the past several weeks making the point
that we are experiencing record profits in the stock market, record
profits in corporations, declining wages in terms of workers in the
minimum wage, and the family wage, which is now down to where it was in
1989 which is the last time it was increased.
We were talking briefly out here with our friend and colleague from
Kansas saying, ``Why now?'' The interesting point about ``Why now?'' is
we have finally gotten to the bottom of where we were in 1989. We have
gotten to that point in the last several weeks. At that time, a
Republican President said enough is enough. At that time, the President
and a broad bipartisan group said that workers that were receiving only
about 70 percent of the real purchasing power of the minimum wage
should at least get some bump. They got some bump during the 1989-1991
period. But we have no recognition from the other side that there is a
problem. We do not hear our colleagues on the other side saying, let us
get about the business and let us try to find some common ground, let
us try to see if we cannot make a difference on it.
So, Mr. President, we believe that this is a timely matter, that the
Senate should go on record as our friends from Minnesota and Illinois
pointed out. All this is saying is that we will go on record before the
end of the session in terms of the increase in the minimum wage.
Really the proposal that Senator Daschle had was a bare bones program
which would not even move back up, barely move us back up to where
increases were in 1990. The Daschle program brings up back here, not
where it was in the period for some 15 years but only brings us back to
where it was under a Republican President; not asking an awful lot. We
are not out here demanding that we get a vote to bring it all the way
back up here, although I believe that is justified. The Daschle
proposal would move this red line right back up to where it was when it
was signed by a Republican.
This does not seem to me to be such a radical proposal to demand to
say, ``Oh, my goodness, we cannot possibly gain the time, have an
opportunity to debate those issues out on the floor of the Senate.
There are too many other matters.'' I think we could get some time to
debate the importance of that particular measure that makes a
difference to 12 million of our fellow citizens.
We did not spend a lot of time when we were taking away some of the
OSHA protection for those workers. We did not take a lot of time when
we were taking away the mine safety protection for those workers. We
did not even have the hearings over there in the Human Resources
Committee. We did not take much time on that when we were talking about
safety. Now we hear, ``Oh, my goodness.'' If we are going to just bring
back the minimum wage to some extent to make it a little more
respectable for working families to have children, and 60 percent to 65
percent of the minimum wage workers are women in our society and are
having difficulty making ends meet, we are suddenly saying, ``Oh, no.
We cannot be prepared to support this resolution that will just say
that by the end of this Congress we will consider it on the floor of
the U.S. Senate.''
That is what effectively we are hearing from the other side, that we
have too many other matters. I would be glad to be a cosponsor of
Senator Nickles' amendment dealing with welfare reform. But what is so
difficult about working on the income too for working families? We did
not spend much time when the budget came back. When they had the
reductions in the earned income tax credit for working families in that
budget proposal that is $4 trillion in terms of tax expenditures and
they put $21 billion in additional taxes on working families making
less than $26,000. They were raising the taxes on these working
families.
All we are saying here is, ``Can we not find between now and the time
that we close down this business maybe a day, maybe a few hours, maybe
on a Friday afternoon, maybe on a Saturday, on something that will make
a difference to those 12 million Americans?'' We are prepared to stay
here and debate this on a Friday afternoon or a Saturday and set the
time for a vote. What do you think those families are thinking tonight?
``We do not have the time to debate this issue. We do not have the time
in August, in September, in October to spend a few hours and consider
this on the basis of the merit. We do not have time for that.''
Mr. President, I think they understand about who has time for them
and who does not have time for them. I know Mr. Armey on the other side
said, ``We will not have an increase in the minimum wage. We do not
care. It will just not pass.''
All we are saying is in the next 3 months give us a few hours to
debate it. If you are so sure of your side over there, if you are so
sure of your facts, if you are so sure that there is going to be
inflation and lost jobs, why not agree to debate it? Why not agree to
it? Why not say, OK. Just let us go ahead and give us a time to vote?
We did it on the question of gifts. We did it on lobbying. We got votes
on those. Those were important measures. But somehow when it comes down
to paying working families a livable wage, we will not do it.
Mr. President, we will have an opportunity to do it because this
issue is not going to go away. We will hear people moaning and groaning
about, as I have heard for years and years and years, about, Oh, well,
we did not go through the committee of jurisdiction. That is always
such a wonderful argument to use when you differ with something. But
then you come right out here at any other time, if you have the votes
you can get these matters up. Well, we may not have the votes to carry
this resolution, but we are going to keep after it. I know that this
institution over a period of time will have the votes because it is
right, it is fair, and it is the decent thing to do. It rewards
[[Page S 10959]]
work, and it is a responsibility I think that we have to our fellow
citizens.
So if they say, no, we are too busy doing other matters; we are too
busy, we cannot find the time to do this, that is a message to the
American people. I do not think it will stand because it is wrong.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________