[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16450-S16451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          OBSTRUCTION OF FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE BUSINESS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to elaborate on some remarks I 
made yesterday about the objection pending against the short-term 
extension of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act.
  Yesterday, the distinguished majority leader came to the Senate floor 
and said that although he would like to pass the extension, it is being 
blocked by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The 
majority leader went on to say that the Senator from North Carolina is 
within his rights to block this legislation, and indeed he is because 
every Senator has that right.
  I want this morning to ask the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee to consider changing his mind about holding up the 
Middle East Peace Facilitation Act.
  I spoke yesterday and indicated that in July a group of Members of 
this body joined together, Republican and Democrat, in cosponsoring a 
bill which would extend the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act for 18 
months, and virtually every Member joined in expressing support for 
that course.
  Here we are in November, and the act has been suspended as of last 
night, which means that economic aid to the Palestinians committed to 
by this Nation has stopped. The PLO office in Washington will be forced 
to close its doors. And as my colleagues know, this is because of an 
unrelated issue that is going on. That unrelated issue is the dispute 
over the State Department authorization bill.
  Negotiations have been ongoing on that bill between Senator Kerry and 
Senator Helms. It is my understanding that at present they are 
stalemated, but because of failure to reach an agreement, the Foreign 
Relations Committee has been virtually shut down. I think this is wrong 
in the interest of U.S. foreign policy and of the Senate weighing in on 
these issues.
  We have been unable to take up any ambassadorial nominations in 
business meetings for a period of weeks, to report them out to the full 
Senate for confirmation. At the present time, there are at least 18 
ambassadorial nominees waiting to have their nominations considered by 
the committee. They include nominees to serve in some of the most 
important countries in the world.
  The nominee for China has had a hearing, but is pending action in the 
committee; the same is true for the nominees for Pakistan and 
Indonesia. These include Jim Sasser, Tom Simons and Stapleton Roy. 
Nominees for other countries are waiting. South Africa: James Joseph is 
waiting. Sri Lanka: Peter Burleigh is waiting. Thailand: 

[[Page S 16451]]

 William Itoh is waiting. Cambodia: Kenneth Quinn is waiting. Malaysia: 
John Malott is waiting. Oman: Frances Cook is waiting. Lebanon: Richard 
Jones is waiting. The Cameroons: Carl Twining is waiting. The Marshall 
Islands: Joan Plaisted is waiting. Fiji: Don Gevirtz is waiting.
  Also on hold are nominations for special adviser on the New 
Independent States, James Collins, and United States coordinator for 
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Sandra Kristoff.
  In addition, 273 Foreign Service officers who have been nominated for 
standard promotions are on hold. So we have 273 Foreign Service 
officers on hold. We have 18 ambassadorial appointments on hold, at 
least 5 of them considered to be critical, like those for Pakistan or 
China.
  Now, when we do not have an Ambassador in the country, U.S. interests 
do not receive the attention that they deserve. In some countries, this 
is more critical than others. Probably the most critical at this time 
is China. And Senator Sasser, who could have been in New York this past 
week to participate in the summit between President Clinton and 
President Jiang Zemin of China--could have been--was not.
  I think the American people deserve to have their interests 
represented abroad. So by failing to confirm Ambassadors, the Senate is 
not doing its job to help protect U.S. interests abroad. Not only do 
our interests suffer, but I think the lives of a number of hard-working 
and dedicated Americans are put on hold. These are people who, often at 
considerable personal risk, serve the American people with pride and 
distinction overseas.
  Last night I had a phone call from one of them. He said, ``Can you 
just tell me when I might be confirmed?'' And I had to say, ``No, I'm 
sorry. I can't tell you.''
  Earlier, I had another call from a nominee who had his house on the 
market and had received an offer on the home. Does he sell it or does 
he not sell it? ``Sorry. I can't help there.''
  Mr. President, this is no way to run a railroad, let alone the 
Government of the most powerful country in the world.
  There are also two extremely important arms control treaties that are 
awaiting Foreign Relations Committee action: The START II Treaty and 
the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  Let me mention what Start II does. The START II Treaty, signed by the 
Bush administration and not yet ratified by this Congress, is the 
farthest reaching arms reduction treaty ever signed in the history of 
this Nation. It will require the United States and Russia to eliminate 
literally thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles, including 
those which carry multiple warheads. The treaty would also eliminate 
missile silos and testing and training launchers.
  The Foreign Relations Committee held extensive hearings on the START 
II Treaty both in this Congress and during the 103d Congress. We have 
heard from the administration, from military officers and from outside 
experts, virtually all urging that we ratify this treaty.
  I know of no significant opposition to the ratification of the START 
II Treaty. Nevertheless, the committee is unable to begin consideration 
of it. This is wrong.
  The same is true of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Let me tell you 
what the Chemical Weapons Convention does. The convention, also signed 
by the Bush administration, will ban an entire class of weapons of mass 
destruction. It will make it harder and more costly for proliferators 
and terrorists to acquire chemical weapons. It will create an intrusive 
monitoring regime that will make it very difficult for signatories to 
conceal violations of the convention.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed by 159 countries and 
ratified by 38 to date, yet the U.S. Senate has still not had the 
opportunity to consider the treaty. The Foreign Relations Committee has 
had hearings on the convention, and it can be considered at any time. 
But, once again, the committee has been prevented from carrying out its 
duty.
  Should this happen? As I said earlier, it is any Member's right to 
stop a piece of legislation, but when you have hundreds of Foreign 
Service officers, 18 Ambassadors, and two treaties held hostage to a 
piece of legislation that is not related, one has to begin to consider 
what effects this has.
  Mr. President, one of the things that I learned in my brief stay here 
is that what goes around, comes around, and that it does not make good, 
logical, long-term sense to engage in holds when this can easily be 
replicated at another time but in the same place by the opposition 
party.
  This committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, has been through 
some of the most painful and hotly contested foreign policy issues of 
our time: the Vietnam war, aid to Central American rebels and sanctions 
against South Africa. But never during all that time, to the best of my 
knowledge, has the committee been shut down and ceased to function. 
Now, on the basis of a dispute about the bureaucratic reorganization of 
our foreign policy institutions, the conduct of the U.S. foreign policy 
is being put on hold.
  I believe this is wrong. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it 
is a dereliction of our duties as U.S. Senators. There simply is no 
justification for curtailing the entire role of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy over one 
single reorganizational issue.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of September 29, Senator 
Helms and Senator Kerry have been engaging in serious negotiations to 
try to reach an agreement. Their staffs have met repeatedly over the 
last month. I am hopeful that progress can be made.
  So at this time I would like, respectfully, and with a great deal of 
friendship, to call upon the chairman of the committee to withdraw his 
objection to consideration of a short-term extension of the Middle East 
Peace Facilitation Act, to allow the committee to take action on START 
II and the Chemical Weapons Convention, to report out the 18 
ambassadorial nominations and 273 Foreign Service promotions, and to 
continue negotiating toward an agreement on the State Department 
authorization bill.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________