[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16401-S16403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S16401]]


 MIDDLE EAST PEACE FACILITATION ACT AND STATE DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, during the interval, I had an opportunity 
to visit with the majority leader, and I think that we have agreed to 
try to find a way to resolve some of the impasse here. But I would just 
like to say for the Record, and I think it is a very important 
principle that we need to try to set out on the Senate floor at this 
time with the hopes that it will enable us to depart from a new point 
tomorrow with respect to the issue of the State Department 
reorganization and the reauthorization bill, S. 908.
  There is currently a direct linkage, regrettably, between the passage 
of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act and the arrival at an 
agreement by the managers of S. 908. I would simply like to say for the 
Record, and I do not intend to go on at great length about this or to 
try to create a firestorm of any kind, but I do want to say for the 
Record that there are many, many Members on the Democratic side, and 
particularly all of the members on the Democratic side of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, who feel very, very strongly that it is 
inappropriate to link the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act to a 
reorganization, an internal reorganization of departments of foreign 
policy in this country.
  One represents an internal bureaucratic decision; the other 
represents an agreement by the United States of America, signed by the 
President of the United States, to engage in a certain set of actions 
with respect to a very volatile issue universally accepted to be one of 
the most complicated and important to the United States and to other 
countries in the world.
  Our ally, Israel, does not deserve to have the peace process made 
hostage to a bureaucratic decisionmaking process in this country. My 
hope is that in order to permit us to go forward, we can be told that 
that linkage will not exist; that that linkage is inappropriate. I 
think the time is of the essence here, because this facilitation act 
will expire within hours--the next 24 hours--and we have a small window 
of opportunity here to try to correct this situation.
  I might also add, Mr. President, and I say this purely for the 
purposes of making the Record clear as to where we stand, that there 
are now 18 nominations being held up within the Foreign Relations 
Committee; the START treaty is being held up within the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and the chemical weapons treaty is also being held 
up. Clearly, there is a lot of hostage-taking here, and while I 
understand completely the desire of the chairman to move in a certain 
direction, I think it is equally important that we try to do so with 
comity, within a collegiate atmosphere and with bipartisanship, because 
foreign policy has always been stronger when we are bipartisan.
  Let me also say for the Record, I heard the majority leader--and I 
had a chance to talk with him briefly now--earlier today express his 
concern that somehow additional requests were made of Senator Helms at 
a sort of subsequent, post-meeting time that somehow upset the 
negotiating process. And I simply want to clarify, for the Record, that 
we have had a series of meetings with Senator Helms. In fact, on 
September 29, late in the evening, we entered into a unanimous-consent 
agreement which said that after the managers of the bill have agreed on 
a managers' amendment, S. 908 would come back to the floor. 
Subsequently, we went to work trying to reach some kind of an 
agreement.

  We had a series of meetings over a period of weeks, and during the 
course of those meetings, we managed to pull together a certain number 
of proposals that we made to Senator Helms, including a specific figure 
of reductions. During the course of the meeting with Senator Helms, he 
indicated that the offering of reductions was not sufficient and that, 
therefore, there was really no room for further discussion at that 
time. And so the meeting, Mr. President, really terminated prior to our 
having completed all of the issues.
  Subsequent to that meeting, as progress was made in an offering on 
the numbers and other issues, it became apparent that there might then 
be more room for discussion, and so those items that were simply never 
reached during the course of that meeting were put on the table, as 
they had been, I might add, in previous discussions.
  I have secured from the administration a finite list of items. I have 
indicated to Senator Helms that that list will not change, and it has 
not changed. I have indicated to Senator Helms that we have even 
screened out a number of issues from the list that we gave him, which 
the administration gave us, that we thought were important, but which 
members of the committee felt strongly that they did not want to 
delete. So it is already a reduced list.
  There is one final issue that the majority leader referred to which 
we think is a fair issue for concern. As we currently stand today in 
the Senate, a united Democratic caucus is unwilling to allow this bill 
to move for the simple reason that the caucus objects to having a one-
sided process foisted on it, where there is not some kind of give in 
the legislative process. And so we are concerned that, without some 
agreement about a Senate position, a Senate consensus, if you will, 
that we arrive at to go to a conference without some assurance that the 
Senate position is the position we will try to achieve out of the 
conference, to effectively do nothing now, because it means that 
whatever we pass here, without some assurances about where we will go 
with respect to the Senate position in the conference, would simply 
open the bill up to be completely rewritten in the conference. So we 
would simply be back where we are, in a position of not having really 
furthered the legislative process whatsoever and having forced the 
Democratic caucus to then come back and filibuster the conference 
report, which takes none of us anywhere.
  So the purpose of the agreement we reached on September 29, where we 
released the Middle East peace facilitation program in order to arrive 
at the agreement of the managers' amendment, we said the following: We 
entered into a unanimous-consent agreement that we would turn to S. 908 
after the managers of the bill have agreed on a managers' amendment.
  Now, if we have agreed on a managers' amendment, and that is the 
reason we allowed the bill to come to the floor, what would the purpose 
be of taking that position and simply throwing it out the window as we 
go to the conference? So we have simply asked that as we go into the 
conference, there be some agreement. We are not unwilling to change 
what we do; we are not unwilling to suggest that the House might not 
have a better proposal, or that some other proposal might not be put in 
front of us at a later time; but we believe that there ought to be a de 
minimis position that the Senate has arrived at and that, by consensus, 
we would agree on further changes, not that changes could not be made.
  That is not an uncommon position for the U.S. Senate to take. We 
often instruct our conferees that the position taken in the Senate will 
be the position. We have instructed conferees that we will not recede 
from a certain position. Indeed, when we have had 87 or 90 votes on a 
particular issue in the Senate, that has almost automatically dictated 
that was the consensus position of the Senate--that we would not recede 
from it.
  So we do not think we are asking for anything unreasonable, Mr. 
President. One of the great difficulties here is that, in the 
unanimous-consent agreement we came to with the chairman of the 
committee, there are only 4 hours of debate and only one amendment. If 
we are to come to the floor with a managers' amendment and only one 
amendment, and that amendment is to contemplate a full reorganization 
structure with major reductions which would affect salaries, posts, 
post closings, and administrative capacity, we have to make sure that 
it is correct. That is not easy. We have to make sure that we have 
really crossed the t's and dotted the i's and come to an agreement that 
we can all understand.
  So I say again to my friend, the chairman from North Carolina, that 
we are prepared to sit tomorrow, but we are not prepared to sit in a 
hostage situation. We need to know that the committee business can move 
forward, and we need especially to know that this particular peace 
initiative, which is so vital to our ability to move forward in 

[[Page S16402]]

the Middle East, will not be linked to this particular effort.
  I cannot emphasize that enough. We are at a critical point in the 
Middle East peace process. Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank town 
of Janin has just begun. The Secretary has just arrived back from Oman, 
from the economic summit, where the United States and Japan and Europe 
are working with countries of the Middle East to finalize the 
initiatives for the development of the West Bank and Gaza economy. And 
with the passage, only a week ago, of the Jerusalem initiative in the 
Senate, it is really even more important that the U.S. Senate fulfill 
its role, together with the administration, in representing the United 
States, that we fulfill our role as a facilitator and an honest broker 
in the peace process.
  Our policy in the Middle East has always been bipartisan, and we 
believe that some things should be above politics. And peace in the 
Middle East is clearly one of them. So the delinkage, we believe, is 
extremely important, and holding a critical piece of legislation 
hostage to a proposal about how the foreign affairs bureaucracy in this 
country is organized, I think, undoes some of that facilitation 
capacity and honest broker perception.
  So it is my profound hope that tomorrow we will all make wise 
decisions dealing with these two items and come to an agreement on a 
managers' amendment, which I believe is possible. I hope we will do 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I question this whole idea of linkage. 
I do not think it has legitimacy. I have never seen it used to this 
degree, or in this manner, in the 19 years that I have been in the 
Senate, and I think it is very harmful to the national interests of the 
United States.
  Now all of us have bills we would like to see get enacted. There is a 
process one goes through in order for that to be accomplished. Senators 
can oppose that, and of course under the rules of the Senate, if enough 
Members are in opposition you may be required to gain 60 votes in order 
to limit debate, in order to get to the consideration of the 
legislation.
  Now, the reorganization plan for the foreign policy agencies of the 
Government is highly controversial. It has very severe and significant 
foreign policy implications. Some support it, some oppose it, some are 
in between. They support some parts of it, oppose other parts of it.
  Many objective outside groups who deal in the foreign policy field 
are critical of one or another aspect of the proposal embraced in the 
plan put forward by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
  Now, that bill was not a bipartisan product out of the Foreign 
Relations Committee--just to the contrary. It has been highly 
controversial ever since it has been brought out of the committee, in 
my judgment.
  Now, that is one problem: what is to be done on the reorganization.
  A different problem has been raised by the linkage of the 
reorganization with every other matter in the foreign policy field. 
Now, it is graphically demonstrated at this particular time because we 
have the situation of holding up the Middle East Peace Facilitation 
Act, which expires at midnight tonight and needs to be extended.
  Of course, failure to extend the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act 
could cause serious harm to U.S. national interests and to the cause of 
peace in the Middle East more generally. I will not go into all the 
provisions of the MEPFA because it is a matter that has been considered 
here before.
  It has been moved through by overwhelming support in the Congress. If 
the United States fails to play its role in that process, other nations 
will cease to play their part. Of course, the efforts to move towards 
peace will be severely hampered. It is clearly a matter of vital 
national interest and it ought not to be held hostage.
  Now, this is not the only hostage that is being held. In fact, the 
list is very, very long indeed. I do not intend tonight to address all 
aspects of that. I do want to make the point that in effect everything 
on the Foreign Relations Committee agenda is being held hostage in the 
insistence that capitulation be made in order to gain their way on a 
substantive piece of legislation.
  The ambassadors are being held up, the START II treaty is being held 
up, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Convention on Biological 
Diversity, the Law of the Sea Treaty, more than a dozen bilateral 
investment treaties, mutual legal assistance treaties and extradition 
treaties are being held up.
  Some of these treaties may well turn out to be controversial. Others 
are not. In any event, we ought to be able to deal with them. We ought 
to have a business meeting of the committee and address them, report 
them out, amend them, turn them down--whatever the will of the Members 
may be on the substance of the matters that are before the Senate.
  Now, I have seen ambassadors held up on occasion--usually one or two 
of them--but I have never seen this unprecedented situation. There are 
currently 18 ambassadorial nominees in the committee who have had their 
hearings and are waiting to be reported. Some have had their hearings 
as far back as early and midsummer. They have been waiting for months 
now for movement on their confirmation. Others have their files 
completed and are awaiting hearings. There is also a large number of 
Foreign Service officers whose promotions are being held up.
  This situation is very disturbing for three related reasons. First, 
it is unfair to the individual nominees and their families who have 
absolutely nothing to do with this consolidation proposal. The play of 
the game is that the chairman and others support a certain 
consolidation proposal, and they in effect say if we do not get our way 
on it we are not going to allow any other business to be transacted. We 
will not act on these ambassadors. We are not going to act on these 
treaties. We are not going to act on any other matter before the 
committee.
  It has been highlighted here of course because we have this pressing 
issue of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act which expires at 
midnight tonight.
  These nominees that are being held hostage--our Foreign Service 
officers--are not being held hostage by foreigners; they are being held 
hostage right here in the U.S. Senate. It is very unfair to the 
individual nominees and their families. They are being punished for 
reasons completely unrelated to their nominations.
  Secondly, I think it is symptomatic of a very disturbing trend 
towards disparaging and undermining the professionals in the Foreign 
Service.
  Finally, I think it is clearly contrary to the national interests of 
the United States.
  Now, many of these nominees have families. They have children who 
should have started school in the places to which they are expecting to 
be sent. They have made arrangements in their personal lives to 
undertake this responsibility and they are being taken hostage not for 
an issue that involves their nomination--that is a different matter.
  None of this involves the nominee or the nominee's record. It is an 
issue totally unrelated to the nominee. They are being used as hostages 
in order for people to gain their way on a completely unrelated issue.
  Now, U.S. interests also suffer, and I think suffer severely by our 
failure to send these ambassadors out to assume their jobs. I do not 
know that I need remind my colleagues about the danger connected with 
this line of work.
  The fact of the matter is in the last 25 years more ambassadors have 
lost their lives in service to their country than have generals in the 
armed services. There is an honor roll in the State Department of the 
men and women who have lost their lives serving the Nation.
  Not having these ambassadors out there at their posts only can hurt 
the United States. They are not there promoting U.S. interests such as 
human rights, conflict resolution, antiterrorism, counternarcotics 
cooperation, encouraging U.S. exports. They are not there to assist 
U.S. tourists or business people. They are not there to deal with 
sensitive situations. They are not there to promote U.S. good will and 
to represent American values and ideals. Some of these are countries 
like Malaysia, South Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, China, Lebanon. 

[[Page S16403]]

 Let me just quote from a letter that was sent by the American Academy 
of Diplomacy. The American Academy of Diplomacy is chaired by the 
former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger. Lawrence Eagleburger 
is cited by the chairman of the committee in support of his 
reorganization proposals. In fact, he testified in front of our 
committee in support of certain aspects of the reorganization proposal 
which the chairman now is trying to leverage through. He will not take 
it on its own and deal with it through the regular process. He wants to 
hold all these other things hostage to it.
  Let me quote from the letter the Academy sent on this very issue:

       The Academy has taken no position on the authorization bill 
     which is currently in contention. But it does not believe the 
     country's larger interests are served by linking action on 
     that bill to the ambassadorial nomination process. Doing so 
     would leave the United States without appropriate 
     representation in these countries at a time of dramatic, 
     historical, global change. We believe that decisions on 
     America's diplomatic representation abroad, including both 
     the timing of such action and the qualifications of those 
     nominated, should be made strictly on the basis of our 
     interests in the country involved.
  I think that is very well put. I commend the entire letter to my 
colleagues.
  I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of these remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. In addition to holding these Ambassadors hostage, the 
chairman is refusing to take action on a number of other very important 
matters before the committee, a number of very significant treaties. We 
have completed hearings on the START II treaty. Agreement has been 
reached on all the substantive issues relating to that treaty, but no 
business meeting has been scheduled to consider it. We have not moved 
on the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Convention on Biological 
Diversity, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. More than a dozen bilateral 
investment treaties, mutual legal assistance treaties and extradition 
treaties are being held.
  So, Madam President, I will not go on at greater length. It is late 
into the evening. There are a number of other observations I would like 
to make on this ambassadorial issue because I think we are being 
terribly unfair to a lot of people, people who really put their lives 
on the line and are disparaged, often, here in the Congress in the 
course of debate, in a very unfair way.
  These attacks on these professionals are extremely unfair. They are 
losing their lives. Then we are told that they wear long coats and high 
hats and live in marble palaces.
  Ambassador Robert Frasure lost his life in Bosnia. He was not wearing 
a long coat and high hat. In fact, as State Department spokesman 
Nicholas Burns put it, ``he was riding in an armored personnel carrier 
and wearing a flak jacket, not striped pants.'' His wife recently wrote 
a very moving letter to the editor of the Washington Post, in the 
course of which she said, in defense--it should never have been 
necessary for her to have to defend--but she said:

       Our diplomats are some of the finest, bravest, most 
     courageous people I have ever met. In the past 10 years 
     alone, my husband and I mourned the death of seven of our 
     friends and embassy colleagues.

  She then goes on to list them.
  She says, commenting about these remarks that have been made, about 
the long coats and the high hats and the marble palaces:

       I am outraged also because I remember the dangers as well 
     as the many hardships our family endured in Bob's 20-year 
     career.

  So, Madam President, I just took the floor to challenge the 
fundamental premise of the legitimacy of this linkage. I have never 
seen it done in this manner or to anything approximating this degree. 
It is my strongly held view that very important national interests of 
the United States are being sacrificed.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                            The American Academy of Diplomacy,

                                   Washington, DC, August 9, 1995.
     Hon. Jesse A. Helms,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Academy has noted, according to 
     press reports of August 2, that following a deadlock in the 
     Senate on the State Department authorization bill, a hold 
     would be placed on 17 ambassadorial nominations and that 
     committee action was being canceled or postponed on 22 other 
     nominations subject to Senate confirmation.
       The Academy has taken no position on the authorization bill 
     which is currently in contention. But it does not believe the 
     country's larger interests are served by linking action on 
     that bill to the ambassadorial nomination process. Doing so 
     would have the United States without appropriate 
     representation in these countries at a time of dramatic, 
     historic global change.
       We believe that decisions on America's diplomatic 
     representation abroad, including both the riming of such 
     action and the qualifications of those nominated, should be 
     made strictly on the basis of our interest in the country 
     involved.
           Sincerely,
                                                 L. Bruce Laingen,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, 
[Mr. Kerry], and the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. Sarbanes], for their 
remarks and their thoughts. I absolutely agree it is inappropriate to 
link MEPFA to the State Department legislation. I do not recall in the 
years I have been in the Senate, 35, or as chairman of the committee, 
any similar action being taken.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the chairman yield on that point? When did the 
former chairman, if I may say, the very distinguished former chairman, 
go on the Foreign Relations Committee?
  Mr. PELL. I think it was 1964.
  Mr. SARBANES. So the Senator has been on it more than three decades?
  Mr. PELL. Correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. Has my colleague ever seen anything comparable to what 
is now taking place?
  Mr. PELL. No, and that is the point that bothers me.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. PELL. I think we should deal with the question of the extension 
of MEPFA on its merits and the merits clearly lie with the quick 
passage of the short-term extension. We should not, as Senator Kerry 
noted, trifle with the peace process for the sake of reorganizing our 
bureaucracy. We should pass MEPFA now with no linkage.
  In this regard, I am particularly struck by the words of the Senator 
from Maryland. I know I am correct in saying I am the only former 
Foreign Service officer in the Senate. Because the Foreign Service was 
only created in 1926 under the Rogers Act, I think I am the only 
Foreign Service officer ever to have served in the Senate. I would also 
point out this linkage that is being created by the chairman of the 
committee not only sets a bad precedent, but is a linkage that should 
never have been made in the first instance. It has not been done in the 
past and it would be a great sin to move this way now.
  I also congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts on his handling of 
this debate on this matter. As chairman, and now ranking member, of the 
International Operations Subcommittee, he has done an outstanding job.
  I promised to limit myself to 4 minutes, and I think I have complied.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________