[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 83 (Monday, June 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5666-S5688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are considering
the foreign affairs bill. I have several amendments to offer in
reference to that legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate is on S.
903.
Amendment No. 377
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding United States
citizens imprisoned in Peru)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment for consideration by
the Senate which I have discussed with Senator Biden's staff as well as
Senator Helms' staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 377:
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title XVI, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES CITIZENS
HELD IN PRISONS IN PERU.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Government of Peru has made substantial progress in
the effort to restrict the flow of illicit drugs from Peru to
the United States.
(2) The Government of Peru has cooperated greatly with the
United States Government to stop individuals and
organizations seeking to transport illicit drugs from Peru to
the United States and to jail such drug exporters.
(3) Any individual engaging in such exporting of illicit
drugs and convicted in a court of law should face stiff
penalties.
(4) Any such individual should also have a right to timely
legal procedures.
(5) Two United States citizens, Jennifer Davis and Krista
Barnes, were arrested in Peru on September 25, 1996, for
attempting to transport illicit drugs from Peru to the United
States.
(6) Ms. Davis and Ms. Barnes have admitted their guilt upon
arrest and to an investigative judge.
(7) Ms. Davis and Ms. Barnes have volunteered to cooperate
fully with Peruvian judicial authorities in naming
individuals responsible for drug trafficking and several have
been arrested.
(8) More than 7 months after their arrest, Ms. Davis and
Ms. Barnes have not been formally changed with a crime.
[[Page S5667]]
(9) Peruvian domestic law mandates that formal charges be
brought within 4 to 6 months after arrest.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Government of Peru should respect the rights of prisoners
to timely legal procedures, including the rights of all
United States citizens held in prisons in Peru.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
involving a very sad situation. This amendment expresses the sense-of-
the-Senate that the Government of Peru should respect the rights of
prisoners to timely legal procedures, including the rights of all
United States citizens currently being held in prison in Peru.
This amendment was included in the State Department authorization
bill that has been enacted by the House of Representatives. It was
offered in that Chamber by my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Tom
Ewing. It was accepted as part of the chairman's en bloc amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to encourage the Government of Peru
to bring to trial two young Americans who have been held in prison in
Peru for more than 7 months without being formally charged or brought
to trial. These two young Americans have received a lot of publicity in
the United States. One from the State of Illinois, Jennifer Davis, and
another, Krista Barnes of California, have admitted their guilt to a
serious crime. They were arrested in Peru when they were 19- and 20-
year-olds, respectively, after being recruited by drug smugglers in
attempting to carry powdered cocaine out of Peru.
These two teenagers made a tragic mistake. They are prepared to
accept the legal penalties for their actions. And it will be a harsh
penalty. They and their parents are only asking that they be brought to
trial by Peruvian authorities and convicted so that they can be
extradited to the United States to serve their sentences.
The physical conditions under which Jennifer and Krista are being
held are in violation of the basic spirit and letter of international
human rights agreements, to which Peru is a signatory. I have spoken to
their parents. The prison where they are being held is extremely
overcrowded. Basic health care is not provided. Nourishment is
inadequate. There is sexual and other violence taking place. The shared
bathroom facilities have no running water and are extremely filthy, and
disease is rampant.
The amendment specifically states that any individual engaged in the
export of illicit drugs and convicted in a court of law should face
stiff penalties. But the amendment also states that individuals
engaging in the export of illicit drugs should have the right to a
timely trial.
I know this is an important matter to many families in Illinois who
are friends of Jennifer Davis. They understand the serious mistake she
has made. They understand that she will pay a price for it that she
will never, ever forget. All they are asking for is humane treatment,
that she be brought to trial and, if convicted, we can then apply for
extradition to the United States.
What we are asking of Peru is nothing new. The government of that
country has already signed international agreements saying that they
will treat all prisoners in a humane way, and that they will bring
prisoners to trial. So I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me
in the approval of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution as an amendment
to the Foreign Affairs bill which is presently under consideration.
At this point, I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, does the Senator have a second amendment?
Mr. DURBIN. I have another amendment, and Senator Gorton of
Washington has a companion. If we can deal with the Peruvian amendment
first, and hope he comes to the floor momentarily?
Mr. BIDEN. With the permission of the chairman, I think we can deal
with this. There is no real objection to what the Senator is
suggesting. It makes sense.
There is another one of our colleagues who wishes to deal with a
similar circumstance in Peru. Maybe the Senator could withhold seeking
action on this and see if we can accommodate this all in one amendment,
and possibly move to a second amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I am learning in the Senate that accommodation is a good
idea if your amendment is well received. I sense the amendment is well
received.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, that is the case. The
question is whether or not we can accommodate another one of our
colleagues as well. It is always better than to have a rollcall vote.
If the Senator will seek to lay aside this amendment temporarily and
possibly proceed to his next amendment, maybe we can accommodate both
at the same time.
Mr. DURBIN. Yes. I would be happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COLLINS). Without objection, the amendment
is set aside.
Amendment No. 378
(Purpose: To designate additional countries as eligible for NATO
enlargement assistance)
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have a second amendment that I would
like to present for consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr.
Gorton, proposes an amendment numbered 378.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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, insert the following:
SEC. . DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR
NATO ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
(a) Designation of Additional Countries.--Effective 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, Lithuania,
Latvia, Estonia, and Romania are each designated as eligible
to receive assistance under the program established under
section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 and
shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to
section 203(d)(1) of such Act, except that any such country
shall not be so designated if, prior to such effective date,
the President certifies to the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate that the country fails to
meet the criteria under section 203(d)(3) of the NATO
Participation Act of 1994.
(b) Rule of Construction.--The designation of countries
pursuant to subsection (a) as eligible to receive assistance
under the program established under section 203(a) of the
NATO Participation Act of 1994--
(1) is in addition to the designation of other countries by
law or pursuant to section 203(d)(2) of such Act as eligible
to receive assistance under the program established under
section 203(a) of such Act; and
(2) shall not preclude the designation by the President of
other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe
pursuant to section 203(d)(2) of such Act as eligible to
receive assistance under the program established under
section 203(a) of such Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I hope in designating this amendment, it
will designate as my cosponsor Senator Gorton of Washington. He and I
are cosponsoring similar amendments, and I think he will be on the
floor momentarily to discuss his amendment, but I would like to discuss
this amendment directly.
This amendment designates Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania as
eligible to receive assistance to prepare for future NATO membership.
This amendment does not require that any nation be invited to join
NATO. It simply makes Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania eligible
to receive assistance to prepare for NATO membership in the future. A
similar amendment was in the House-passed version of the State
Department authorization bill.
I say to my colleagues, this last February, I visited Lithuania, the
homeland of my mother, for my fourth visit. I found, much to my
amazement, that no matter where I traveled in this small country, no
matter what official I sat down to meet with, people had on their mind
one thing and one thing only: NATO membership.
The Baltic States, particularly Lithuania and Latvia, believe that
NATO membership is crucial to their survival. They are surrounded, in
many instances, by questionable circumstances, Russian troops and a lot
of question marks that leave them uncertain about their future.
I said to them at that point that when I returned to the Senate, I
would do everything in my power to inform
[[Page S5668]]
and educate my colleagues about this deep, heartfelt feeling in the
Baltics, that their membership in NATO is where they want to be in this
next century, looking to the West, looking to democracy, being part of
our security alliance which was so crucial for half a century in
Western Europe.
This amendment is consistent with current laws and programs to assist
the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe to prepare for future
NATO membership. It includes, obviously, the Baltics States and
Romania. The NATO Participation Act of 1994 authorized the President to
establish a program to assist emerging democracies in Central and
Eastern Europe to prepare for future NATO membership. The NATO
Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 designated Poland, Hungary, the
Czech Republic and Slovenia to receive assistance to prepare for future
NATO membership, and the act directed the President to designate
additional democracies in Central and Eastern Europe if they met
certain criteria.
It is clearly in the interest of the United States to support
democracy, free-market reform and security in the Baltics and Romania.
There is no better way to do this than to help them prepare for NATO
membership. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Romania are doing everything
asked of them--and more--to prepare for future NATO membership. They
should be designated as eligible to receive assistance under the NATO
Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996.
Examples of how the Baltics and Romania are meeting the criteria
established by this act for assistance to prepare for NATO membership:
They have made courageous choices and painful sacrifices to
reestablish their freedom and rebuild their democracies and free-market
economies. It is hard to imagine, the Baltic States and other Eastern
European countries, once members of the Warsaw Pact, which were
subjugated to Soviet rule for 50 years, this blanket of Soviet hegemony
virtually snuffed out the initiative, creativity and energy of these
great nations, but they survived. And not just survived, they came out
of it determined to rebuild, rebuild with a face to the West.
All of these nations have applied for NATO membership.
They have made significant progress toward establishing civilian
control of their militaries, police and intelligence services.
They are adhering to the rule of law.
They are respecting the values and interests shared by other NATO
members.
They are accepting the obligations, responsibilities and costs of
NATO membership.
Their parliaments are making financial commitments, many times at
great sacrifice, to prepare for NATO membership, significantly
increasing their support for national defense and Partnership for Peace
activities.
My vision, and I hope one shared by my colleagues, is that an
enlarged NATO will put Europe in a position to deal with its own
problems in a better fashion. We are now deeply committed in Bosnia, as
we should be, to bring peace to that region. But if there were a strong
NATO encompassing so many more countries in Europe, I think we can
envision a day when that sort of a dispute and that sort of a problem
will be dealt with primarily, if not exclusively, by NATO members in
European States.
This suggestion of enlarging NATO eligibility is a step on a path
that could lead us to that favorable conclusion.
These countries have demonstrated they are fully committed to sharing
the responsibilities of NATO membership.
They are building their defense forces in accordance with NATO
planning standards.
They are improving their communication and information systems,
command and control, and English training.
They are active participants in the Partnership for Peace Program.
They have participated in joint exercises, training programs, and
peacekeeping operations led by NATO and the United States.
It was, I guess, incredible to me to consider that a tiny country
like Lithuania would send a small group to IFOR in Bosnia to
participate in peacekeeping. Tragically, one of the Lithuanian soldiers
was one of the early casualties because of the detonation of a mine.
The Lithuanian Parliament might, at that point, have had a vigorous
debate and decided they made a mistake, that they were not ready to get
involved. They decided just the opposite. Even having lost a Lithuanian
soldier in a joint effort with the United States and other NATO
countries to bring peace to Bosnia, the Lithuanian Parliament voted
overwhelmingly to commit even more troops in their peacekeeping effort
to demonstrate to Europe, to the world, and all the NATO members they
are serious about making this kind of a participation a reality.
I learned last week from the Prime Minister of Latvia that the same
type of commitment was made. They have participated in NATO's
peacekeeping mission. They have increased their troop commitments, and
it is clear that they are sincere. They are strategically significant
to an effective NATO defense, and they are likely to be in a position
to further the membership of NATO and contribute to the security of the
North Atlantic area in the near future.
I have nothing further on this amendment. I defer to the chairman or
minority spokesman as to whether they would like to consider the
amendment at this point or wait for Senator Gorton to come to the floor
with his companion amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I suggest we await the arrival of Senator
Gorton so we can see the whole picture at one time, if that suits the
Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. That is fine.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I agree, but if he will yield for me to
make a comment, if I may, to my friend. The Senator has made the case
for the Baltics and for Romania. As to the Baltics, it seems to me, the
case is obvious. With regard to Romania, that important country has
made significant strides in the last 6 months.
I want to make clear so that we all know, what we are talking about
is the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act, which was passed in 1996.
Basically, what the act does, Madam President, as you well know, is
that it says there are newly independent states, which formerly were
satellite states of the Soviet Union, who are seeking membership or may
seek membership in NATO. It is kind of a two-stage process. We did the
same thing for Hungary, we did the same thing for Poland, we did the
same thing for the Czech Republic, and last year we added Slovenia. We
basically said, look, we, the Congress and the President, will come up
with some money to help you begin to organize yourself to meet the
criteria for admission into NATO. This is not a club that you join
because you like it, or join because you simply want to join. This is a
deal where everybody has to carry their own weight proportionately
within the club, and we are not going to admit anybody who cannot do
that. But it requires some expenditure of money on the part of these
countries to essentially do the political, economic, and military
inventory they need to be able to determine whether or not they can
meet the criteria. This is what it is. This is prep money to get them
up and running to make their case.
So, we are going to be doing here for the Baltics--and I share my
friend's view--and for Romania, what we did for Slovenia, for Hungary,
for the Czech Republic, and for Poland.
I respectfully suggest, now that our friend from Washington is on the
floor as well, that there be consideration of amending their amendment
to add Bulgaria. Let me explain why.
I stated earlier on this floor that I was pleased that the Clinton
administration decided to support the first three countries mentioned
in the first round. In our meetings we had an opportunity to make our
case to the President as to who we thought should be invited to final
accession negotiations at Madrid next month. I was disappointed, quite
frankly, that the administration decided not to push Slovenia in the
first round. After discussion with the President and his advisers,
however, I am absolutely confident that Slovenia will make it in the
second round, and I am confident that Romania will too.
For everybody to understand, we are not just talking about a one-time
[[Page S5669]]
event. NATO enlargement is an evolving process. Every European
democracy, theoretically, is eligible. Probably the Baltics elicit more
support than any other area of Europe, for the reasons stated by my
friend.
With that in mind, the Senator's amendment designates Lithuania,
Latvia, Estonia, and Romania to join Poland, the Czech Republic,
Hungary, and Slovenia to be eligible for receiving assistance to prep
them for future membership in NATO. They have established democracies,
made courageous reforms to create free-market economies, are putting
their armies under civilian control, and deserve our support.
Another Eastern European country that deserves inclusion in this
amendment to let them get prepped and make their case is Bulgaria.
After having gotten off to a very slow start toward democracy after the
Wall came down, it has now voted the post-Communists out of office. The
new Bulgarian administration has begun free-market economic reforms,
and recently the Bulgarian Parliament went on record as naming NATO
membership as its primary foreign policy goal.
Madam President, over the centuries, Bulgaria has been the most pro-
Russian country in Europe. So these changes are truly noteworthy.
Bulgaria is not as far along the path to NATO membership as the other
four countries named in Senator Durbin's amendment, but they have made
a definitive break with the past, and the democrats in Sofia, I think,
deserve our support and encouragement to move further.
I will not push my second-degree amendment now. Before we vote on
this, however, or before the chairman makes a decision, I would like
them seriously to consider, while the Senator from Washington is making
his case, whether or not we should include Bulgaria.
As the Senator found in traveling to the Baltics, what I found,
whether I was in the Balkans or whether I was in Central or Eastern
Europe, that the prospect of becoming a member of NATO has a
significant positive impact on whether they establish a market economy,
whether they move away from the Communist-controlled apparatchiks who
are left over, and whether or not they embrace a foreign policy that
looks to the West rather than to the East.
So I would ask for his consideration.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. There was a Senator from Illinois many years ago named
Everett Dirksen who said on another totally unrelated issue that
``There is nothing more pregnant than an idea whose time has come.''
The idea of NATO expansion, the idea of involving former Soviet
clients, allies and republics into a new peace-seeking alliance is an
idea whose time has come.
I would certainly defer to the Senator's request and be happy to add
an amendment in the second degree and hold my amendment at the desk
until we accomplish that. The inclusion of Bulgaria would be a very
positive addition.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
I will check with my chairman to see if he agrees with that.
In the meantime, I see our friend from the State of Washington is
here, so I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. What is the question before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Senate is the Durbin amendment No.
378.
Amendment No. 379
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania should be integrated into the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization)
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, with the indulgence of the Senator from
Illinois and the two managers of the bill, I should like to ask
unanimous consent to set that amendment aside and send up another
amendment sponsored jointly by the Senator from Illinois and myself,
simply in order to broaden the discussion of this present subject as it
is on the present subject with the hope of eventually following the
suggestion of the Senator from Delaware and perhaps consolidating this
set of ideas into a single amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GORTON. With that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the present amendment be set aside and that the amendment I send to the
desk be immediately considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mr.
Durbin, and Mr. D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 379.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title XVI, insert following:
SEC. . ADMISSION OF ESTONIA, LATVIA, AND LITHUANIA INTO
NATO.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
are undergoing a historic process of democratic and free
market transformation after emerging from decades of brutal
Soviet occupation.
(2) Each of the Baltic countries has conducted peaceful
transfers of political power since 1991.
(3) The governments of the Baltic countries have been
exemplary in their respect for human rights and civil
liberties and have made great strides toward establishing the
rule of law.
(4) The governments of the Baltic countries have made
consistent progress toward establishing civilian control of
their military forces and, through active participation in
the Partnership for Peace and the peace support operations of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (in this resolution
referred to as ``NATO''), have clearly demonstrated their
ability and willingness to operate with the forces of NATO
nations and under NATO standards.
(5) Each of the Baltic countries has made progress toward
implementing a free market system which has and will continue
to foster the economic advancement of the people of the
Baltic region.
(6) The Baltic region has often been a battleground for the
competing territorial designs of nearby imperial powers
which, along with other factors, has contributed to a history
of insecurity and instability in the region.
(7) NATO has been a force for stability, freedom, and peace
in Europe since 1949.
(8) NATO has indicated it will begin to invite new members
in 1997.
(9) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, exercising their
inherent right as participating states in the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, have voluntarily
applied for membership in NATO.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are to be commended for
their progress toward political and economic liberty and
meeting the guidelines for prospective NATO members set out
in chapter 5 of the September 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement;
(2) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would make an
outstanding contribution to NATO if they become members;
(3) eventual extension of full NATO membership to Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania would make a singular and lasting
contribution toward stability, freedom, and peace in the
Baltic region.
(4) upon satisfying the criteria for NATO membership,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should be invited to become
full members of NATO at the earliest possible date; and
(5) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should be invited to
attend the NATO summit in Madrid on July 8 and 9, 1997.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, the thrust of this amendment is to
encourage the inclusion of the three Baltic Republics, Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at the
earliest practicable date. It is similar to the proposal already made
by the Senator from Illinois, which is directed more at the time of
preparation; this one, with that ultimate goal.
I think that, in the most profound sense, this is not a highly
controversial matter. The President has stated that the goal of the
United States in the present round is to admit three highly qualified
nations, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, to NATO. I want
simply to say at this point that I enthusiastically support that policy
on the part of the President and will certainly vote to ratify any
treaty to that effect.
I share some of the disappointment of the Senator from Delaware, with
whom I previously discussed this subject in private, that the first
round is not more expansive than it seems likely to
[[Page S5670]]
be. I tend to fall on the side of those European allies of ours who
would admit Slovenia at the very least and perhaps Romania as well.
Nevertheless, any step forward in bringing thoroughly into the fold of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and therefore into first class
membership in the basically Western European and North Atlantic
community is a consummation that is devoutly to be sought by all of us.
My particular amendment, and that of the Senator from Illinois, is
focused on three nations collectively, not as large in population as
the smallest of the three nations that are about to be admitted to
NATO.
The three Baltic nations have a unique role in European history, in
some respects a uniquely tragic role in that each of them in modern
times stood as an independent nation only for roughly 20 years. Between
the end of World War II, 1939, 1940, they lost their independence until
each of them regained that independence in the early 1990's.
They are unique as well, madam President, in the sense that it is
greatly to the credit of the United States of America that this Nation
almost alone of all of the nations of the world never formally
recognized the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the
Soviet Union. For the better part of half a century, there were tiny
embassies here in Washington, DC, representing what seemed, I suspect,
to most the vain hope that at some distant future day those nations
would once again meet their own aspirations and become independent.
I always agreed with this policy. It was policy that was followed by
President Franklin Roosevelt, by President Truman, by President
Eisenhower, by President Kennedy, by President Johnson, by President
Nixon, by President Ford, by President Carter, by President Reagan,
into the administration of President Bush, at which point that
independence and freedom became a reality.
I had the great honor, Madam President, a number of years ago of
having been invited to address the Congress of Estonia, the first, and
illegal under Soviet law, calling together a group of people in Estonia
to begin that process of independence. It is a mark of the opposition
in the then Soviet Union to that independence that I was not granted a
visa and was unable to make that speech in Tallinn. I made the speech,
however, from the floor of this United States Senate, Madam President,
and sent the videotape to Estonia. As I was told afterward, it made a
greater splash, greater showing than if I had actually been able to be
there in person.
So I have this particularly close feeling for the people of Estonia
and for its independence. It was several years later that I was first
able to visit that country. But I know what each of these other
Senators on the floor knows, that the people of those tiny nations
regard themselves as integral parts of our Western European North
Atlantic civilization.
Their foreign policy can be summed up in a desire to join the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. Yes, a major part of this is a feeling
that their physical security will be enhanced by being a part of NATO.
And, yes, in some sense it will be. But I believe more than that, the
psychological value felt by the people of those nations, freed after
almost half a century of being occupied, frozen in place by a Soviet
dictatorship, is equal to whatever the formal security arrangements
will be.
I believe that nothing could be more in the tradition of the United
States of America, that from 1940 until early in the 1990's never
recognized that these nations had lost their independence, than to
invite these three small nations as quickly as possible to be a part of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Obviously, they are not on this list for the first round. If in fact
a second round is limited to, say, Slovenia and Romania, they will not
be a part of the second round either. I do believe, however, Madam
President, that it is important for us here in the U.S. Senate to
recognize that these aspirations take place because of the tremendous
admiration the people of those countries have for the United States and
for all we have stood for during their long decades of darkness.
So I hope, and I hope fervently, that in the course of the next 24
hours the group of Senators here on the floor can reach an
accommodation pursuant to which that aspiration on the part of the
people of these three small nations will be recognized in this bill by
the time that we have passed this bill. The House of Representatives
has already done so in slightly different language than my amendment or
the amendment from the Senator from Illinois.
One of my suggestions might be that we try to create parallel
language so that each of the Houses of Congress has passed exactly the
same thought.
I am, however, quite flexible on how we go about granting this degree
of recognition and support. But I do think that for the future of
democracy, for the future of small countries who so long aspired to be
free, and now with our help are free, that this recognition should be
granted.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GORTON. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I am a cosponsor of the Senator's amendment. I spoke to
this issue before his arrival on the floor, and I will not belabor the
point. I will say, for colleagues who are wondering what role the
smaller states play, Senator Gorton and I coauthored two amendments. My
amendment asks that the Baltic States and Romania be considered in
terms of funds for preparation to be part of NATO. The amendment then,
coauthored by the Senator and myself and presently pending before the
Senate, says--and I think this is important--``upon satisfying the
criteria for NATO membership, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should be
invited to become full members . . .'' So it is a two-step process.
I think both amendments are consistent, coauthored by the same two
Senators, because we believe that given the funds, given the
opportunity, the Baltic States, Romania, and perhaps Bulgaria added by
amendment, could certainly then apply as eligible for membership.
I join with my colleague from Washington in saying that at this
moment I hope the United States will lead the way in saying that the
Baltic States, subjugated to Soviet tyranny for half a century, would
have that moment they are praying for, full membership in NATO.
I thank the Senator for yielding and including me in this important
amendment.
Mr. GORTON. I thank my friend from Illinois. He has put this case
extremely eloquently both in private and in public. I am delighted to
be joined with him.
I hope that the two managers of this bill will be in some form able
to accommodate the thought that I believe is very widely held in this
body and throughout the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SARBANES. I understand there are amendments pending. I ask
unanimous consent the pending amendments be laid aside so it will be in
order for me to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 380
(Purpose: To delete section 1145, which limits the remedial authority
of the Foreign Service Grievance Board)
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] proposes an
amendment numbered 380.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 96, delete lines 1 through 12.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, this amendment would delete section
1145 in the bill, the section which purports to clarify the remedial
authority of the Foreign Service Grievance Board, but which in effect
limits the remedial authority of the Foreign
[[Page S5671]]
Service Grievance Board. I am frank to say I hope we will not do that.
The section in question would expressly limit the remedial authority
of the Foreign Service Grievance Board to those actions specified in
section 1107(b) of the Foreign Service Act.
Now, as I understand the Department's thinking in this matter, they
believe it is necessary to prevent the Board from relying on other
statutes as authority for directing remedies that are not contained
within section 1107(b) of the act. Those would include the award of
liquidated damages in cases that fall under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and compensatory damages in discrimination cases.
Section 1101(a) of the Foreign Service Act provides the Grievance
Board with jurisdiction in cases alleging the violation,
misinterpretation, or misapplication of applicable law. Thus Congress
has given the Foreign Service Grievance Board the authority to decide
grievances under other laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the equal employment opportunity laws.
It would seem to me that if we have given them the authority to
decide grievances under these other laws, that it was our intention
that the Board would have the authority to provide the remedies
available under those laws. And those remedies, in particular, are the
liquidated damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
compensatory damages under the EEO laws.
In other words, the Grievance Board ought to retain the authority to
provide remedies under the laws over which it has jurisdiction.
Of course, first a grievant must be successful in pressing a claim.
The question is, having won the grievance, what remedies are available?
Now, the Foreign Service Grievance Board's own regulations provide
broad remedial authority. If the Board finds that a grievance is
meritorious, the Board is authorized to ``take any corrective action''
it deems appropriate that is not contrary to law or the applicable
collective bargaining agreement.
Furthermore, the act requires the Foreign Service Grievance Board to
apply the substantive law that would be applied by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission for all grievances alleging a violation of the
equal employment opportunity laws.
If the Grievance Board is directed to apply the substantive law that
would be applied by the EEOC, I see no reason in the world why it would
not be able to apply the remedy that would be available to an EEO
action. In other words, I am just trying to ensure that the Grievance
Board is able to provide appropriate remedies.
These remedies, liquidated damages and compensatory damages, are
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the EEO laws, and
those laws have no exemption in them for the Department of State or
other foreign affairs agencies. Nor do they provide any rationale for
excluding the foreign affairs agencies from laws with which that every
other Federal agency must comply.
I am fearful that by denying or limiting the remedial authority of
the Foreign Service Grievance Board, the effect of section 1145 would
be to require those with grievances to go into court, or through the
EEOC, rather than through the grievance procedure, because the
grievance procedure would not be able to provide them full relief. I
can't believe that this is the kind of arrangement we want to have.
It seems to me that it makes eminent good sense that the Grievance
Board, which has the authority to apply these other statutes in its
substantive determinations, ought to have the authority to provide
remedies to correct violations. The limitation that is sought to be
placed on the remedial authority of the Board would unfairly
disadvantage foreign service officers with grievances, whose cases may
be quite legitimate.
This is an important issue for people with grievances, and I think we
must be careful in working out the statutory arrangements by which they
have their grievances resolved. For the life of me, I don't understand
why we would deny to the Board the remedial authorities that I have
outlined here. I hope that the managers of the bill will find this
amendment acceptable.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I apologize to my colleague. I was on the
phone. If he could give me a second to catch up with my staff on what
the Senator just had to say before I attempt to answer him. I apologize
for not being here while he spoke. If he has a second amendment, he can
go ahead and we may be able to work this out. Let me check.
Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate the response of one of the managers of the
bill.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, rather than take the time of the Senate,
I think the suggestions made by the Senator are appropriate, and I
would be happy to--and my colleague from North Carolina indicates he
would also--accept the Senator's amendment.
Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 380) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask again that the pending
amendments be set aside in order to be able to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 381
(Purpose: To clarify which management officials are prohibited from
participating in collective bargaining)
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] proposes an
amendment numbered 381.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Add at an appropriate point in the bill a new section as
follows:
SEC. . LIMITATIONS ON MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS.
Section 1017(E)(2) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22
U.S.C. 4117(e)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(ii) and
paragraph (1)(B), the term `management official' does not
include chiefs of mission, principal officers or their
deputies, administrative and personnel officers abroad, or
individuals described in section 1002(12) (B), (C), and (D)
who are not involved in the administration of this chapter or
in the formulation of the personnel policies and programs of
the Department.''.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment would add a section to
the bill to clarify a previous action taken by the Congress, which, in
effect, was too broad, too expansive, and caused unnecessary
difficulties. I support the general purpose of the existing law, which
was to prevent conflicts of interest in negotiating management-labor
disputes. I am in favor of trying to deal with that problem. But it now
appears that we went too far in trying to do so.
The amendment I am now offering would narrow the definition of
``management official'' to a more appropriate group. A similar
provision, I believe, was included in the companion to this bill
recently adopted by the House of Representatives.
Let me briefly try to outline the situation. In the early 1990s, the
Congress amended the 1980 Foreign Service Act, placing restrictions on
the movement of foreign service personnel between certain positions in
the American Foreign Service Association, which is the organization
that represents foreign service employees, and management jobs in the
foreign affairs agencies. The Act was amended to prohibit any
individual who served as an agency management official or confidential
employee during the preceding 2 years from participating in the
management of the American Foreign Service Association for the purposes
of collective bargaining or representing them in such bargaining. And,
conversely, any individual who had participated in AFSA management for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or who represented AFSA at the
bargaining table,
[[Page S5672]]
is precluded, for 2 years, from serving as a management official or
confidential employee. So for 2 years, such officials could not move in
either direction.
I have no quarrel with the purpose of that amendment, which was to
prohibit a foreign service employee from moving from one side of the
table to the other in labor-management negotiations. However, I think
the definition of ``management,'' as we try to deal with this problem
that is currently in the law, is too broad because it can encompass
officials who play no role in labor-management relations or the
formation of personnel policy.
This broad definition creates an obvious problem for people who might
otherwise want to participate in the American Foreign Service
Association and hold responsible positions in that organization. If
they become officers in AFSA, and then in that capacity participate in
labor-management relations--which in many instances is part of the
job--they would be precluded from a whole range of potential posts
within the agencies.
The amendment I am offering would narrow the definition of
``management official'' by exempting chiefs of mission, principal
officers or their deputies, administrative and personnel officers
abroad, who are not involved--I emphasize ``not involved''--in the
formulation of the personnel policies and programs of the Department.
In other words, we would continue the protection against conflicts of
interest by covering only those officials who are involved in labor-
management relations or personnel policies and programs. And so a
foreign service officer who is in any way involved with those issues on
behalf of the Department may not move into an AFSA position involving
those issues for 2 years.
Likewise, someone who has served in an AFSA position that involves
labor-management relations may not take a management position in a
foreign affairs agency for 2 years that would involve these issues. But
this amendment would not prohibit, for instance, someone who was an
officer in AFSA from becoming a Deputy Assistant Secretary in a
regional bureau that has nothing to do with developing personnel
policies or programs.
At the moment, the broad limitation has a rather chilling effect on
people who are willing to assume a responsible role in AFSA. They say
to themselves, ``If I do that, for 2 years I am blocked out of taking a
whole host of positions in the foreign affairs agencies.'' Of course,
AFSA represents the employees in all of the foreign affairs agencies.
Its officers are being prevented from taking a wide range of subsequent
assignments.
I don't think this was the intent of the statute. I agree with the
basic effort to preclude any conflict of interest, and this amendment
in fact accepts the proposition that you ought not to be able to go
from one side of the bargaining table to the other. But my amendment
seeks to limit the current provision's coverage so that it does not
exclude former AFSA officers from responsible positions in the foreign
affairs agencies that really don't involve the bargaining table. That
is the amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think the point my friend makes is a
valid one. I don't think it was our intention to have this blanket
exemption. As I understand the Senator's amendment--and, obviously, the
chairman is checking this out himself for his position--from my
perspective, it seems to make sense.
I want to ask a question. Where there is the potential for a direct
conflict--that is, if I were representing the employees on one side of
the table, then I were to shift to a policy position or a management
position that had jurisdiction over the very issues I was negotiating,
I would still be precluded from taking that management position; but if
I were to go off to be the economic counselor to the Embassy in Paris,
or in Beijing, I would not be precluded, is that right?
Mr. SARBANES. That's right. You would be prohibited, for 2 years,
from shifting over into a position that involved labor-management
relations or developing personnel policy. So you could not just go over
to the other side.
Mr. BIDEN. What is happening now, as I understand what the Senator is
saying, is a very talented, hopefully ambitious, Foreign Service
officer who may very well want the opportunity to have those positions
filled--for example, the economic consular in the Embassy in Beijing--
may not take the time to fill the position representing the union; that
he or she would be precluded from any reasonable prospect for
advancement for 2 years after they leave that position for a practical
matter.
Mr. SARBANES. That is the basic thrust of it. I am not sure the
economic counselor is the right example because I don't think that is
covered right now. But currently, as I understand it, you couldn't
become a chief of mission or deputy chief of mission.
Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. Which is, of course, a very important stepping stone on
the career of a Foreign Service officer. I take it that currently, the
DCM is regarded as a ``management official.'' Even though the deputy
chief of mission is not involved in labor-management negotiations, or
in developing department-wide personnel policies, he or she does
administer an Embassy.
So the question then is, should you keep someone who has been an
officer in the Foreign Service Association from being able to accept
such a position? I don't think we should. I do think they should be
prohibited from becoming involved with labor-management negotiations.
Mr. BIDEN. Based on what I understand the amendment intends to do, as
the staff informs me, I personally don't have any objection, nor I am
told does the chairman.
So I urge that we accept the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 381) was agreed to.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the manager of the bill for his courtesy.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 382
(Purpose: To provide a substitute for title XXII relating to United
Nations arrears payments)
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside, and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) proposes an amendment
numbered 382.
Mr. LUGAR. 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:
Beginning on page 180, line 1, strike all through page 198,
line 20, and insert the following:
TITLE XXII--ARREARS PAYMENTS AND REFORM
CHAPTER 1--ARREARAGES TO THE UNITED NATIONS
SEC. 2211. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of State for payment of arrearages owed by the
United States to the United Nations and its specialized
agencies as of September 30, 1997--
(1) $409,500,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
(2) $409,500,000 for fiscal year 1999.
(b) Limitations.--Amounts made available under subsection
(a) are authorized to be available only--
(1) to pay the United States share of assessments for the
regular budget of the United Nations (excluding the budgets
of the United Nations specialized agencies);
(2) to pay the United States share of United Nations peace
operations; and
(3) to pay the United States share of United Nations
specialized agencies.
(c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until
expended.
(d) Congressional Notification.--Before the disbursement of
funds under this section, the Secretary of State shall notify
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least 15 days in
advance in accordance with the procedures applicable to
reprogramming notifications under section 634A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered strikes
Title XXII, which is the portion of the
[[Page S5673]]
legislation that deals with payments of arrears to the United Nations
and reform of the United Nations.
I offer this amendment fully respectful and cognizant of the
remarkable work achieved by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator
Helms, and the Ranking Member, Senator Biden, in negotiating on behalf
of members of the committee a comprehensive bill with regard to the
organization in the State Department and other foreign affairs
agencies, in addition to the matters relating to the United Nations
that are the subject of my amendment.
Mr. President, I want to discuss very broadly today why I take this
occasion to offer this amendment because the timeframe for
consideration is necessarily very short. The markup in our committee
occurred just last Thursday. The debate today on the floor is occurring
on Monday, and presumably we will have votes on these and other issues
on Tuesday, tomorrow. Therefore, Senators and their staff will need to
understand issues quickly in order to make a judgment on what I believe
is a monumental turning point in American foreign policy, and perhaps
one of the most serious foreign policy debates that we will have this
year.
I ask, first of all: Why have we come to such a point? By that, I
mean why and how could the United States have come to owe hundreds of
millions of dollars to the United Nations? It did not occur overnight.
As I will illustrate in the course of my remarks, the amounts we owe
are, in most respects, not to the United Nations organization per se.
Indeed, again and again I will reiterate that only about 5 percent of
our arrears are actually owed to the United Nations. Well over $650
million of the money is owed to other countries in which the United
Nations is merely a passthrough largely to these countries for
reimbursement of past peacekeeping expenses.
So the debts that we owe are to Great Britain, to France, to Germany,
to Italy, and to a host of friends and allies of the United States. We
have accumulated debts to them largely because of their peacekeeping
activities that we voted for. Our country frequently took the position
that we were not in a position nor did we wish to send Armed Forces to
various areas in which the United Nations, with our votes, decided to
try to keep the peace. Therefore, our agreement in these cases was to
pay money while other nations sent their forces, and on some occasions
contributed money also.
I mention this point because for several years there has been an
assumption on the part of many Members of this body and of the House--
perhaps even of the Presidential administration--that the U.N. had very
great problems. As a matter of fact, many Members from time to time
have suggested a lack of general support for the United Nations,
suggesting that it impinged on our sovereignty, and on our ability to
conduct foreign policy in a straightforward way. In fact, Mr.
President, I submit that a great number of Americans not confined to
this Chamber have come to a psychology that the United Nations has been
preying upon us; that somehow an organization located in our country,
in New York City, has been imposing insuperable demands upon us and
they resent that. And, because of our resentment, so this argument
goes, we ought to reform the U.N; we ought to teach it a lesson; we
ought to deprive it of money; we ought to make editorial views of those
activities we think are not very good, even those that we have voted
for; and that by depriving the United Nations of money change its
course, we indicate that we really do not wish to participate at all.
Mr. President, I think we are coming to a much more crucial point in
this debate than simply whether we will pay the arrears--the money that
we owe. I think Senators will fundamentally have to determine: Should
we continue to be a part of the United Nations? Because, if in fact the
United Nations is deprived of the funds that we owe and other nations
take our lead and are not prepared to pay either for diverse reasons of
foreign policy it is apparent that the United Nations will be severely
weakened. As a matter of fact, it will be less and less effective, if
effective at all.
So, Mr. President and Members, I think at the outset as we come to an
understanding of how we got to this point, we have to decide: Do we
really want the United Nations to be a forceful advocate for peace, for
justice, an instrument of our foreign policy, and a group of nations in
which we play a vital role as members of the Security Council with veto
power from the beginning of the San Francisco Charter? Do we want this?
If we do, we are going to have to not only try to shape up the United
Nations but shape up our own views and our own activities as a member
State--our own leadership, as a matter of fact--if the United Nations
is to be effective.
I come out on the side of one who believes that we ought to be active
and vital in the United Nations; that, as a matter of fact, the United
Nations plays an important part in our foreign policy; that it is
extremely important to our overall security in the world; and, that it
is an organization in which we play a leading role which ought to be
supported by us as opposed to constricted by us, demeaned by us, and
criticized by us. Given an opportunity, it seems, that the Congress has
again and again not only tried to inhibit the United Nations but, as a
matter of fact, may finally succeed in killing it off, if we are not
thoughtful.
Mr. President, if Members believe that these are the views of their
constituents in a representative democracy, eventually the U.N. will
receive the brunt of those attacks. But I would suggest that the
American people have different views. As a matter of fact, Members will
be interested in polls taken by the Wirthlin group and other polling
groups for the United Nations Association. And one question that I
found relevant was this one:
Considering the problems we are likely to face in the coming years,
how important is it for America to be an active part of the United
Nations--an active part--very important, somewhat important, or not
important that America be an active member?
Fifty-four percent of Americans said it is very important that we be
an active member. Another 28 percent said it is somewhat important that
we be an active member. Only 12 percent said it is not important, and 6
percent had no answer.
That is a rather extraordinary breakdown.
Mr. President, of 82 percent of Americans, 54 percent are saying it
is very important to be very active in the United Nations.
Then in a Times Mirror poll, they asked: Do you agree or disagree
with the following statement: The United States should cooperate fully
with the United Nations?
On that kind of a question, 65 percent say we should cooperate fully.
Twenty-nine percent disagree with that proposition.
Another question asked: Do you favor or oppose legislation that would
have the United States withdraw completely from the United Nations? The
Wirthlin group found again: 22 percent favor withdrawal, 71 percent
oppose withdrawal, and 7 percent had no answer.
On still another quesiton, overall, do you think that in the long run
efforts to strengthen the U.N. would be a good investment or not a good
investment? This is the program on international policy attitudes poll.
Sixty-eight percent of Americans said good investment, and 28
percent, not a good investment.
Now we come to the crux of our issue today, Mr. President.
The question posd was: Do you favor or oppose the United States
paying its U.N. dues in full? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat
strongly?
Thirty percent favor strongly our paying our dues in full. Twenty-
eight percent favor somewhat. Thirteen percent oppose somewhat, and 16
percent oppose strongly.
Adding together those figures, Mr. President, you once again get
about the same 2-to-1 ratio. Fifty-eight percent believe that we ought
to pay in full, and 29 percent do not.
By 2 to 1 the American public believe that we ought to be paying our
fair share and our full share.
Interestingly enough, another qustion asked: Do you believe that U.N.
member states should always pay their full dues to the U.N. on
schedule, or should a state hold back its dues to pressure other
members to agree to changes that it believes are needed? Again, the
Wirthlin poll. Mr. President,
[[Page S5674]]
in 1989, 60 percent of Americans said we should always pay. In April
1996, 78 percent said members should always pay.
I find that interesting, Mr. President.
The evolution of the American people with regard to the United States
meeting its obligations has led to a much higher percentage of
Americans saying that member states should always pay.
Honor U.N. peacekeeping--the basic reason that we are here today, as
a general rule, when it is necessary to use military force to deal with
trouble spots in the world--Do you feel more comfortable having the
United States contribute to a U.N. military action or for the United
States to take military action by itself?
Sixty-nine percent said U.N. military action while 24 percent said
U.S. action alone.
Do you think peacekeeping should be a high priority of the United
Nations' system; somewhat of a priority; or not a priority? The
Wirthlin group poll again: 75 percent of Americans in April 1996 said a
high priority, somewhat of a priority said 17 percent, and not a
priority, only 6 percent.
Mr. President, I shall not recite further polling data except to make
the observation that by fairly large ratios of about 2 to 1, or larger
than that, Americans believe that we ought to participate in the U.N.;
that we ought to pay our dues on time; that all nations should pay
their dues on time; that peacekeeping operations are very important for
the United Nations to conduct.
I mention that because it appears to me that most Members may not be
aware to whom we owe the money.
I would just simply point out, Mr. President, and I take this
opportunity to cite precisely the countries to whom we believe we owe
money. They may have different views as to how much we owe, but there
is general agreement between the administration and the Foreign
Relations Committee to have come up with the figure of $819 million to
be authorized and appropriated in one form or another. We have agreed
that the U.S. portion of that debt is more than one-third.
Using that ratio, France is owed by the United States $60.1 million;
Great Britain is owed $41 million; the Netherlands, $21.3 million;
Pakistan, $20.1 million; Germany, $18.3 million; Belgium, $17.3
million; Italy, $17.2 million, $16.1 million to India; $14.2 million to
our neighbor Canada, and a long list of countries with smaller sums
than that, all owed by the United States, with the United Nations
merely a passthrough to them.
Mr. President, it is clear, at least in my judgment, that we owe the
money, that it is clear to whom we owe the money, but it is not at all
clear whether the money is likely to be repaid.
Now, I mention this because we had a debate in the Foreign Relations
Committee markup on Thursday and the assertion was made essentially,
and the press has picked up this story largely intact, that however you
look at this, this provision entails a significant change in the course
of American foreign policy. Essentially there is now agreement on the
part of the United States to pay a part of the money we owe.
Following the Foreign Relations Committee meeting, Nick Burns, on
behalf of the administration, was asked: ``What are you saying to
Senator Lugar who says that the arrears are contractual obligations of
the United States and should not be the subject of conditions?'' Mr.
Burns punts the issue, in my judgment. He says:
Well, I think President Clinton and Secretary Albright have
been very clear for as long as they have been in office that
we do not like being the largest donor--that is, debtor--to
the United Nations. In fact--
Mr. Burns says, and I am quoting--
we have called ourselves publicly the largest deadbeat debtor
to the United Nations. We don't like that. The American
people don't want their Government to be in arrears to any
institution, much less the United Nations, but we have an
opportunity here to make sure that while we take steps that
are costly for us to pay off our arrears, we send forward a
very strong signal that reform is important and the reform
ought to be followed through.
Mr. Burns continues.
We have taken the opportunity and we have not been met with
a fundamental objection by Secretary General of the United
Nations, Kofi Annan. He has welcomed the progress that has
been made this week. He has put forward his own reform
proposal. So we don't have a problem with the Secretary
General and we certainly would look forward to the continued
support of Senator Lugar in this effort.
Mr. President, I am not certain what that means. Clearly Mr. Burns
does reflect the thought of the administration and most Americans. We
do not like to be thought of as a deadbeat country, but he is
suggesting, I suppose, that somehow all of that has been finessed this
week--a certain amount of reform, a certain amount of payment, the
Secretary General not giving fundamental objections and a hope that
somehow I might be pacified.
I was even more intrigued by reports on Saturday in the Washington
Post and the Washington Times after our Ambassador to the United
Nations, Bill Richardson, was accompanied by the distinguished Senator
from Minnesota, Rod Grams, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee
and chairman of the subcommittee dealing with international
organizations. Senator Grams and Ambassador Richardson went to New York
and had a press conference. I quote from the story by John Goshko in
the Saturday, June 14, issue of the Washington Post.
John Goshko said:
They denied Congress wants to micromanage the United
Nations and they insisted the plan is not a take-it-or-leave-
it proposition. Instead, they said, it is a set of
suggestions aimed at helping the United Nations become, as
Grams said, the best United Nations it can be.
The two officials' assertions that conditions or so-called
benchmarks in the plan are only suggestions ran counter to
remarks by Senator Helms on Thursday.
Senator Helms is quoted in the story.
``This bill will prohibit the payment--prohibit the
payment--``by the American taxpayers of any so-called U.N.
arrears until these congressionally mandated benchmarks have
been met by the U.N.,'' Helms said.
Quote again.
The message to the U.N. is simple but clear: no reform, no
American money for arrears.
On another key point, Mr. Goshko says:
Washington desires to cut the U.S. share of the U.N.
operating budget from 25 percent to 20 percent. Richardson
said it would be his job to negotiate with the other members
to win such a change. But----
Says Mr. Goshko--
Helms used language implying that attainment of that goal
is not subject for negotiation.
Mr. President, let me just say that clearly at some point or other in
this debate or on some other occasion, we will have to make up our
minds. It will be impossible for Ambassador Richardson or my
distinguished friend, Senator Grams, to go to New York and indicate, as
the Washington Times said, and they quote Senator Grams:
``These are broad suggestions.'' At a press conference both
men took pains to soften the edges of a bill most here see as
a nefarious ``take it or leave it'' offer. Mr. Grams said he
plans to spend time at the United Nations this summer selling
the package to foreign envoys.
But at this stage, whether one has the hard version or the soft
version, my basic question is: is it likely the money will be repaid at
all? And that is fundamental. If you buy my premise the United Nations
is important, that it is important for us to make sure it is beefed up,
is stronger, is viable as a part of our foreign policy, then, at a
minimum, this means we must pay our arrears. And those arrears are only
slightly owed to the U.N. superstructure. Most is owed to our allies
with whom we have dealings in many other fora.
If, in fact, we pass legislation--and I believe the legislation that
came out with regard to Title XXII, the arrears section we are
discussing, leads to so many stipulations, not only micromanagement but
conditions to a fault, that the likelihood of very much money passing
to our allies or to the U.N. is very small.
The Washington Times article and writer counted as many as 20
conditions that would be required. My staff, in analyzing title XXII,
has found at least 38. I have discussed briefly some of the major
conditions, and these are major decisions for the United Nations must
make to get its money and to make possible our payment of the arrears
to our allies. But it is quite a change from dues in which we pay 25
percent of the U.N. budget to 20 percent and is quite a move for us to
get 31 percent dues for peacekeeping down to 25.
[[Page S5675]]
There are many Americans, not simply Senators in this Chamber, who
would rather pay less. So I suspect there will not be an argument that,
given your druthers, it would have been fine if our statesmen
negotiated a long time ago a U.N. debt for dues for us of 20 percent as
opposed to 25, or for 25 percent for peacekeeping as opposed to 31.
Mr. President, I think we have to recognize that we are saying in
this legislation is that unless the rest of the world, the other 183
countries, acquiesce to the United States and arbitrarily lower our
dues, we will not pay. There may be a suggestion somehow that money is
going to come forward, but unless those two requirements are met, it
does not appear to me possible that payment is likely to occur.
Now, we add on a number of other conditions such as the fact that
U.N. conferences can occur in only four cities in the world and the
rest of the world will have to accept that because we put it in this
bill and we have said, in essence, we are not going to pay unless each
of these conditions is met. Perhaps Ambassador Richardson and Senator
Grams read this legislation in a different way and saw all of this
legislation as merely suggestions, sort of ideas that might be kicked
around up there at the U.N. with our friends. That is not the way the
bill reads. It says you meet our requirements or there is no money to
pay our past dues. And the distinguished chairman of the committee has
underlined that view in his own remarks last Thursday.
So, Mr. President, is the money likely to be paid? Probably not. And
that means that the debate we are having today is likely to linger. The
problem is there will not be as good a time to finally take care of
this problem than there is presently. The Budget Committee, those who
have been working on the overall reduction to zero deficit in 5 years,
set aside the money and their plan is for us to pay off. If we do not
authorize the money to do that, then it disappears from the table. It
is unlikely to appear again. I do not suspect that the Congress will be
involved in another 5-year plan for deficit reduction soon. We will
have adopted one. We will be in the plan. We can choose to authorize
the money and appropriators can finally decide whether to appropriate
it. But at this point we come up with an option, under 20 conditions or
38 conditions, or however many you may be able to derive from Title
XXII, that if we decide not to pay any money, we are going to have a
problem, and that is what I want to discuss.
Now, what are the problems if we don't pay? I think the problems are
not only the inevitable weakness of the U.N., but the quality of our
relationships with our allies in the world. Americans may not realize
that is the problem we are talking about, our relations with Germany,
Great Britain, Italy, with our NATO allies. At other times in other
fora we are discussing NATO expansion, we are discussing new
obligations, and arguing how extensive those will be. And most
Americans, including myself, who have argued for NATO expansion have
pointed out that we anticipate our obligations will be relatively
small. I accept the estimate of the President of the United States in
his London press conference with Prime Minister Blair that we will be
paying $150 million to $200 million a year. But this implies that our
European allies will be paying a lot more. The countries coming in will
have to pay a great deal to bring their infrastructure up to speed to
meet the common defense principles. Essentially, the United States will
take the position with regard to NATO expansion that burdensharing
means a very large burden taken on by our European allies for their
defense, for the defense of Europe, and we will argue that that is
perfectly logical; they are the countries most in harm's way and that
we already have provided substantial infrastructure in Europe. But the
stakes are very high and the money sums are very large that we are
going to ask of European allies. Now, what if, in the midst of that
argument, we still have the U.N. arrears situation? There are Members
of the Senate arguing: We don't like the United Nations. We think it's
top heavy with bureaucrats, that these people are inefficient, that too
many come from countries other than our own, that essentially they hold
too many conferences in strange cities all over the world, and we will
not pay either the United Nations or our European allies until all of
this is terminated--ad seriatim, as you go through and read Title XXII.
Those negotiations for NATO expansion might be very difficult. I
suggest a whole set of other negotiations may be very difficult. I had
in my office this afternoon a distinguished Austrian statesman. We have
a lot at stake in negotiating on agriculture with Europe, enormous
sums, in terms of whether we come to agreement on technology, science
and on export subsidies and export taxes. There is a lot at stake for a
lot of Americans. Those negotiations are very tough. We are coming up
to another GATT round in 1999 on agriculture. It is not at all certain
how much headway we shall make. But it makes an enormous difference, in
billions of dollars of exports, that we make a lot of headway and that
we be negotiating with friends in good faith.
How in the world can we anticipate useful negotiations on NATO or the
European agriculture plan or the GATT situation with the very same
countries to whom we are, in essence, saying: Sorry, we are not going
to pay because a number of Senators don't like the United Nations? They
still have a billboard mentality which says, ``Get us out of the United
Nations.''
Some of us are going to have to say on this floor, ``Not only keep us
in, but make the U.N. work.'' I certainly subscribe to every reform
proposal that makes sense at the United Nations, and the Secretary
General, who is a friend of the United States, subscribes to much of
that. I have no doubt if we are a vigorous player in the United
Nations, as opposed to taking the thought that we are being preyed upon
by a group of nations over whom we have no control. If we are a
vigorous player, we are going to be able to negotiate changes that are
substantial, and we are going to have to do that in the European
Community with the agricultural plan and with NATO. There is no free
lunch in this business. The idea that we can, with an ultimatum, say,
``Take it or leave it,'' and that somehow the United Nations will make
these changes to accommodate us, I believe is unrealistic.
Mr. President, let us take, hypothetically, one more situation
suggested by the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts,
Senator Kerry, during the markup in the Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Kerry said, from his experience in dealing with U.N. reform,
and he has had substantial experience on this topic, he thinks there is
a possibility that all the other 183 countries will acquiesce. They
will finally read Title XXII as the Foreign Relations Committee adopts
it and grudgingly, and with great passion and recrimination and so
forth, understand that it's lights out for the United Nations if they
don't acquiesce to the United States, which they will describe as a
bully, as a country operating totally outside international norms, as a
country that did not recognize its obligations.
That is still another scenario. I gather proponents of the bill think
that is the best scenario. The United States wins. We reduce our dues
unilaterally and our peacekeeping moneys. We managed to bully every
other nation on Earth into acquiescence on the basis that a United
Nations without us would be unthinkable. I would say, under those
circumstances, we still have ahead some mighty rough sledding with
regard to any other international organizations or negotiations on
trade, or NATO, or whatever.
The amendment I have offered is a simple solution. It says, in
essence, that we owe $819 million. We ought to pay it in 2 years, two
equal installments with no conditions, because we owe it to other
countries, essentially. We owe it to some international organizations
such as the Food and Agricultural Organizations, the FAO. We are about
$100 million behind in our dues payment to them. We are about to lose
our seat and our vote, even while those of us in agriculture feel it is
very important we be at the table. There are consequences for being a
deadbeat, for trying to stiff other countries. We ought not do it. We
ought to affirm that the United Nations is important, that we are a
leading player, that we are the leading player in terms of confidence
building in international diplomacy, in security arrangements which the
United Nations represents.
[[Page S5676]]
I have offered this amendment as a substitute for the entirety of 18
pages that contain all of these conditions, an extraordinary array of
pages and language. I am hopeful Members and their staffs will read
this before they commit themselves to a vote in favor of this
provision.
I rise today simply to offer Members an alternative. The
distinguished Senator from Delaware, the ranking member of the
committee, has argued with a great deal of skill in the Foreign
Relations Committee markup, that even if my position is right, even if
there is some logic to what I have to say, the fact is the alternative
was never my position. The fact is, the very best situation that he was
able to negotiate with the distinguished chairman of our committee was
for 18 pages of title XXII as they now exist. In essence, we are faced
with the situation, as I read the logic of the distinguished Senator
from Delaware, of a take it or leave it with the Senate, quite apart
from a take it or leave it with the rest of the world. The implication
is, if we do not adopt title XXII as negotiated, there is likely to be
no money, zero money, for the United Nations.
But I am suggesting that the outcome of adopting title XXII may very
well be zero money for the United Nations, that you get to zero either
way, that we have not solved the arrears problem, that the headlines
that somehow or another the United Nations is about to be revived are
premature. Or, to state Senator Kerry's position, as I have already:
Somehow, the United Nations gets the money, they go through all the
hoops and with all of the resentments, recriminations, and difficulties
we have around the world, we pay dearly, a multiple of whatever has
been squeezed out of this process.
It is not an easy choice for Senators to make. But that is why I pose
it in these terms and why I believe it is fundamentally one of the most
important debates that we shall have about foreign policy. It gets to
the heart of our relationship with our friends, with the rest of the
world, and with the United Nations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I, myself, am in the strangest position I
have found myself in, probably, in the 25 years I have been here. I
don't disagree with a single thing that my friend from Indiana has
stated.
Let me review the bidding, as I understand it, very, very quickly.
No. 1, we have to decide, is the United Nations useful? Is the United
Nations an important instrument in dealing with crises and conflicts in
the world? Should we be a part of it? Does it augment our foreign
policy? Is it important? Is it vital?
In my view, the answer to every one of those questions is a
resounding yes. As a matter of fact, I went so far, as the fellow with
whom I engaged in a political campaign last year repeatedly pointed
out--I wrote a very long paper, not too long ago, about 4 years ago,
where I wrote that I believed we missed an opportunity for making the
United Nations the centerpiece for the architecture of peace well into
the next century. I think it has a capacity far beyond that which we
are asking of it, and I think it has a capacity that is unparalleled by
any other potential organization existing or one that I can
contemplate.
I think we do not spend nearly enough time pointing out what my
friend from Indiana has, that 80 percent of the U.N.'s work is helping
developing countries help themselves. The fact of the matter is, their
work includes promoting and protecting democracy and human rights,
developing effective food distribution and food cultivation strategies,
assisting disaster victims, helping nations avert military threats by
providing a diplomatic floor for dispute resolution. Who else does that
besides the United Nations? Where else in the world--where in the world
can we possibly go to have any of those functions undertaken?
Some would say the United States should do that. The very people who
say the United States should do that are the very people who, when the
rubber meets the road, say, ``No, no, no, no, we should not be
involved. We, the United States, should not be involved. We can't be
the world's policemen. We can't be expected to do everything.'' I find
it ironic, the same people say the United Nations isn't worth the
powder to you know what.
So much--all of what the United Nations does, frankly, even though it
is exasperating and time consuming and frustrating sometimes, is
clearly in our interest. We rely on the United Nations to provide
humanitarian assistance to millions who otherwise would have no source
of food or shelter. We rely on the United Nations to eradicate disease
and improve health around the world. And particularly, it is the United
Nations that leads the world in helping children by providing food and
shelter and by protecting them from the scourge of disease that
threatens their health in many parts of the world.
We, the United States, rely on the United Nations to handle the
increasing flow of refugees across borders and to prevent refugees from
devastating and destroying neighboring economies, security, and the
environment. We rely upon the United Nations to counter global crimes.
The United Nations coordinates the international cooperation to fight
terrorism, to counter drug trafficking. We rely on the United Nations
to facilitate and maintain peace. In short, we rely on the United
Nations in a way that we rely on no other organization. It is
indispensable.
So, that is the place from which we both start. I think it is fair to
say our voting records for the last 20 years or so have been almost
identical relative to the United Nations. I have not been one who has
voted to cut the United Nations.
The point that the Senator has made repeatedly and I have made
repeatedly is the average American thinks, when we talk about
arrearages we owe the United Nations, they think we owe money to a
bloated bureaucracy out there that is wasting our money with all of
these ghost employees who are doing nothing but subsidizing the economy
back home and wasting our money and then voting against our interests,
and that is where the money goes.
Hardly any of the money that we owe goes to the Secretariat, goes to
pay salaries at the United Nations, or goes to turn the heat and light
on. The bulk of the money we owe, we owe to our friends for the reason
my friend said. We said: Hey, we ain't sending GI Joe. You send your
guys. You send your guys. We can't be expected to be everywhere. And we
vote. We have a vote in the U.N. Security Council. If we don't want to
vote to send anybody there, we can say no, and they don't go. But we
vote yes because we view it to be in our policy interests, our foreign
policy interests. So, who do we owe? We owe France, we owe England, we
owe Belgium. I have a list right here. I will repeat it. It bears
repeating: France, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Pakistan, Germany,
Belgium, Italy, India, Canada. That is where the bulk of the money is
we owe--for peacekeeping.
I say to my friend from Indiana, one of the things I tried to note in
negotiating this is: I'll tell you what, why don't we just pay all the
peacekeeping stuff up front? We can sell that to the folks here. Even
the those that don't like the United Nations, they like Great Britain,
they like Germany. Even the folks that don't like the United Nations
acknowledge France is an ally. Why don't we just pay them, no strings,
nothing, pay what we owe, bingo.
I even tried to put in an amendment. The Senator used the phrase,
``pass through.'' In a sense, the United Nations is passing through
that money to them. I even came up with language--I should say this
young man on my staff came up with language--to say: Guarantee that the
money just passes through, cannot be diverted to go anyplace else: Pass
through, pay France; pass through, pay Belgium, pass through--et
cetera.
Tried that route. As was pointed out accurately by my friends with
whom I was negotiating, ``Hey, look, we realize if you pay our friends,
then the pressure is relieved. The pressure is relieved. We're not
likely to get these changes we want in the United Nations.''
So you are right, this is pressure; you are right. We finally, after
all these negotiations, which included the administration, said, ``OK,
what do we do? Do we end up essentially emasculating the United
Nations, causing its further''--talk about resentment--``further
resentment?''
[[Page S5677]]
Let me back up. I apologize to my friend for him having to hear this
for the third time from me. I have heard from him as well three times,
and I welcome hearing 10 more times, because he is right on the merits.
I was asked if I would have a meeting with the President of the General
Assembly. I forget how many people he brought along with him, three or
four folks representing their countries in the United Nations, their
Ambassadors.
They came down to see me--I am paraphrasing as was stated by the
spokesperson for the President--as a friend of the United Nations
seeking my help. We sat around the conference table in my office for, I
don't know, an hour, hour and a half. I listened to what they had to
say.
I said, basically, ``You're right.'' I said, ``Let me get this
straight now. You are saying three things to me: One, you acknowledge
the United Nations needs some reform and you want that reform to take
place anyway and you're going to initiate it. But if we even request,
if Senator Helms' benchmark includes any of the reforms you have
already contemplated you want to do, if it did, then it would make it
harder for you to do them because people would resent the fact that we
were telling you you had to do them.'' I said, ``Do I have that
straight?''
They said, ``Yes, that's right.''
I said, ``Let me get the second point. The second point is you
desperately need a demonstration of the board of findings of the United
States that we're going to pay our debt, and that you can't wait
another year on promises. It is no longer good enough you have a
President who says he is with you and you have a minority of Senators
who say they are with you, you need something tangible right now.''
``Yes, that's my second message, Senator.''
``But your third message is: Give us the money with no strings now,
even if it is not all of it, in order for us to be able to get things
underway to demonstrate we will reform in order for you then to have
enough votes to produce the rest of the money.'' I said, ``So you
acknowledge it is going to have to be staged, right?''
``Yes.''
I said, ``I agree with you, but before you leave, let me ask you a
question. Given your choice, no money and no conditions this year or
conditions that are consistent with the things you say you want to do
anyway and you are willing to attempt to do, and significant money this
year with a significant commitment for the bulk of the money the next
year and the remainder the third year, which do you pick?''
They said, ``We pick the conditions and money rather than no money,
no conditions.''
So I sat down with the administration and I said, ``OK, folks, you
sent up here a proposal for over a billion dollars in 1 year. Got
anybody to support it besides me?''
``Yeah, we got some other people to support it,'' and named, I
believe your name was taken in vain, I say to Senator Lugar, and a few
others.
I said, ``Do you think you have enough votes to get that done?''
They said, ``No, we don't think so.''
``What do you want me to do? Well, let's see what we can get done.''
So I met with the Secretary, and I met with our U.N. Ambassador, our
former colleague from the House. I said, ``You have to tell us your
drop-dead number''--excuse the expression. ``What is the bottom line on
this? If I can't get all you need, what is the bottom line on all this?
And I want to tell you what the conditions are here that Senator Helms
wants. I don't want any of those conditions, but what ones can you live
with and what can't you live with?'' And we began a long, long process
of negotiating.
The end result is what you see here. The end result is the
administration, whether they are right, wrong or indifferent, told me
on this part of the U.N., they want more. They don't like the
conditions. They believe the minimum number should be $1.21 billion.
They don't believe we owe, by the way, 1 billion 4. They don't agree
with that. They don't think we owe that, which is the number everybody
uses. They say we don't owe that.
When the day was done, the Senator from North Carolina made some
significant concessions. That left the Senator from Delaware in a
position to say, ``OK, the U.N. says, bottom line, they would rather
run the risk of not risking another year of nothing,'' notwithstanding
the fact it will cause them serious problems. In turn, I think the
Senator is right; it is going to cause us additional problems. The
administration says we can do it on this amount of money and we can
make those conditions work if you stagger the conditions to the end.
``Give us the bulk of the money upfront and make the hard conditions at
the end.'' That is what they said.
So we go back to the threshold question: Is the United Nations in our
interest? I believe deeply that it is essential--essential--to the
ability to carry a sound foreign policy for this country into the next
decade and beyond. OK.
Now, what is the best chance of the U.N. continuing to be viable?
Take a chance on something that the President of the General Assembly
doesn't like but acknowledges, given two bad choices, would rather
have, take the position the President does not like, our U.N.
Ambassador does not like but believes can get the job done if that is
what it has to be, or go back to square one, which is debate this on
principle--and I am not belittling and I am not being a smart guy
saying that--debate the principle of this for another 4 months or 2
months or 6 months or a year and leave Ambassador Richardson totally
empty-handed, with no money, not give the Secretary General anything to
demonstrate that we have other than a minority of us and the President
saying we will pay, the check is in the mail, or go ahead and do what
is proposed in this legislation?
I honestly believe, unless the administration is fundamentally wrong
in their calculation, this is in the absolute best interest of the
United States of America and has the greatest prospect of continuing to
have the United States viable than any other alternative I can come up
with.
The next question, it seems to me, is reasonable to ask: OK, Biden,
geez, you agree with Senator Lugar, he is your ally, you are in the
same boat on this thing, you agree with the principle he is saying, you
got this much, why not go along with him and raise it? Maybe if you
speak up now, you may get enough votes to get 51 people in this body to
vote up that number.
There is a simple answer to that. It may not be a good answer in the
minds of most people. The editorial boards of the New York Times and
others won't like it, but if I do that, there is no deal. Then we go
back, not negotiating between 819 and 1 billion 21 or whatever the
Senator's amendment is going to say precisely, or saying we pay all the
819 without any conditions and whether we pay the 819 with conditions,
we go back to zero versus 1.021, or zero versus 819 and no conditions.
I don't suggest that I know any more than my friend from Maryland,
Senator Sarbanes, and my friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, but I do
suggest I don't know any less about how this place works. I do suggest
that paying this over 2 years will be better than over 3, but the issue
is whether it is over 5 or none when we started this. I do suggest it
is better to have no conditions than the conditions we have in here,
but I suggest it is much worse to have the original conditions than the
conditions that are in this bill.
I have a vast amount of respect for both my colleagues. As my friend
from Indiana will tell you, when I thought that the Senator from North
Carolina was unwilling to raise the level to the amount that the
administration said they needed, I picked up the phone and I called the
Senator from Indiana, and I called two other of my Republican
colleagues on the committee, and I said, ``If I offer an amendment to
fully fund this,'' or if we offer it, ``can we get it adopted?''
In the case of two other Republican Senators, I said, ``If I offer
it, will you vote for it?''
In the case of the Senator from Indiana, I said, ``If we offer it,
what do you think our chances are?''
In the meantime, the Senator from North Carolina, the chairman of the
committee, said, ``All right, I will go to the minimum number that the
administration says they need, but I won't go any further.''
In addition to that, we also were able to get the number up for the
international organization account for this year's State Department
authorization
[[Page S5678]]
and a lot of other things that the administration wanted.
So here we are. I will end where I began, where the Senator from
Indiana began. This is one of the most important decisions we are going
to make. The viability of the United Nations and our influence on that
organization is critical to American foreign policy interests, to the
interests of the United States over the next several decades.
Strategically, we have not one bit of difference. Tactically, is it
better to get what the administration says they can make work, what the
Secretary General says he appreciates--the attempt we are making and
doesn't know if he will get funding from, but thanks for the effort,
and what the President of the General Assembly says he would rather
have, given two bad choices. Is it tactically better to go that route,
to ``save the U.N.'' and us in it, or is it tactically better to not go
this route, go the route of the amendment of my friend from Indiana,
and if we win, hope that my friend from North Carolina says, ``Well, I
lost here on the floor, that's OK by me''? I choose the first tactical
option for the same strategic reason the Senator from Indiana chooses
the second.
I had one of my colleagues say, ``You know, you got the chairman to
go up to 819. The trouble with you is you just didn't have a tough
enough bargain. You could have gotten him to go higher. If you just
held faster, he would have gone higher.''
I respectfully suggest, name me someone else who got the chairman up
to 819 or even remotely close.
There is one other provision I am almost reluctant to raise here, but
one of the provisions the chairman has in this mark is that we get paid
money for our peacekeeping.
The administration believes there are moneys owed us as well and
believes the U.N. owes us about $107 million. That is not part of this
legislation, but it is part of the calculus. It may end up being a
fight between OMB and the administration--I mean, within the
administration. It may be a fight in some other place if the
administration really cares about this. Do not come to me and tell me
it is easier to get another $107 million from my good friend here and a
majority of his colleagues, our colleagues who are his allies, if they
cannot work out an internal problem within the administration.
So we are at least theoretically talking about $925 million versus
$1.021 billion. We have all been in this business long enough. If, in
fact, our Ambassador to the United Nations--probably the most skilled
negotiator we have ever had in that spot in the history of the United
Nations--if he cannot figure out the difference over 3 years for
roughly $90 million, then he is not the fellow I worked with in the
last decade and a half.
Like I said, as one of my colleagues said to me, ``Joe, I've been
here too long. I'm not doing this on anything other than on pure
principle anymore.'' Well, that is great. That is great. My honest
opinion--and that was not said by my friend from Indiana, although he
is an incredibly principled guy--in my view, tactically, this is the
single best thing that can happen to enhance and give the greatest
prospect for the outcome that I desire occurring, and that is, a viable
United Nations, with the United States playing a vital role and the
United Nations playing a vital role.
Again, every argument made by my friend from Maryland in the
committee and my friend from Indiana in the committee, and here, is
accurate as it relates to whether or not we are imposing on the United
Nations. We are. I might add, I do not know how they voted, but we
voted on legislation that imposed on the United Nations an IG, an
inspector general. We imposed that on them. I did not hear anybody
standing on the floor then saying, ``We are imposing on the United
Nations.'' Maybe somebody did. It sure did not reach this level. It is
not new.
Some may recall in a previous Republican administration, the
Secretary General discussed with us reducing our share to 20 percent--
actually, below 20 percent, between 10 and 15 percent --and the then
Republican Secretary of State said, ``No, we don't want to go that low.
It will diminish our influence.'' So it is not like we are coming out
of the blue with a number that cannot possibly be met.
Agreed, I do not like doing business this way. If I sign on to a
contract, even though the terms turn against me, I stick with the
contract until--as our friend from Mississippi, Senator Stennis, used
to say every time you would look at him--I have one of his letters he
sent me. He said, ``You got to plow the field to the last furrow, to
the end of the road.'' Well, that is how I think contracts work. You
plow the field to the last furrow, to the end of the road, then
negotiate next year's crop, then negotiate how many furrows next year.
That is the better way to do it. That is how I am used to doing
business.
Personally, as a Senator, as a legislator, as a man--as a man--this
field is not going to have any crops. It is not going to grow anything
because there is no plow in the field right now. We may not have enough
of a plow to plow the field to the last row, to the last furrow at the
end of the row, but, boy, we have 99 percent of the field covered.
Then, as I said earlier--and I will yield the floor with this--in a
slightly different context today I said, you know, I am a Senator. That
means I am an optimist. To be a Senator, it seems to me, you have to be
an optimist. You would not choose this job knowingly if you thought
things were not going to turn out.
Well, look, 3 years is a long time. Kofi Annan, the Secretary
General, called me on Friday. I realize that is nothing unique. I am
not the only guy that has spoken to him. But he called me. I happened
to have known him in his former incarnation in the United Nations. He
is one heck of a guy. And he called and said, ``Joe, I want to thank
you for the try.'' He did not say, ``I called and said I think it is a
good deal.'' He said, ``I want to thank you.'' I do not recall whether
he said it or I said it, but he will hear it, so he will correct me if
I am wrong. My recollection was that one of us said off the other's
sentence, ``Three years is a long time.'' And then he said, ``I hope by
the end of this year many of the very proposals and reforms you're
asking for will already be done and maybe that will change some
people's minds.''
The administration only asks for $100 million in fiscal year 1998,
and this gives them $100 million in fiscal year 1998. The conditions
they have to meet are basically zero. They have to promise our
sovereignty is not in jeopardy, essentially. The second year, the $400
million and some, the conditions get a little tougher--not very tough.
The third year, the last $244 million, that is where the rubber meets
the road.
The Senator did not want to do it that way. The Senator wanted the
rubber to meet the road the first date.
Is that a fair statement, I say to my friend from North Carolina?
He has actually made some genuine, serious concessions. I said, let
us keep this ball in play. That is my plea. Let us keep the U.N. in
play. Get them money now. Start to pay back our debts now. Get it
underway now. As I am one of those guys that thinks once you put the
ball in play, we win--we will reach the appropriate outcome.
My concern with the approach taken by my friend from Indiana--and he,
as I said, has been here almost as long as I have; he is a skilled
politician in the best sense of the word, as well as a principled,
knowledgeable legislator--he could be right that the route I am taking
you down tactically will not get us to the strategic objective, and
maybe the way to do this is call the bluff, call the bluff. But I doubt
whether or not even he believes that if we were to prevail, or if I
were to abandon this fairly reached deal, that we would likely, at the
end of the process, be any further along than we were the end of last
year.
Keep in mind--I want to say it again because I have been absolutely,
completely straight with my friend from North Carolina--if we go to
conference and they have no money--by the way, unless something
happened in the last couple days, they have zero, nothing, for the
U.N., zero--if this means we go to conference and Biden is expected to
go from $819 million to $408,500,000, they have the wrong guy. My
bottom line is $819 million.
So we may not get to there from here even if we do it my way--not my
way, the way suggested in this legislation. But I respectfully suggest
no one has laid out for me, and I am anxious to hear it, how we get
from here to there.
[[Page S5679]]
And the ``there'' is preserving the United Nations, our position within
it, its viability, credibility, and ours as well.
I cannot believe, if the Senator from Indiana were President--and he
would have made a good one--and I were the Secretary of State--I doubt
he would have picked me--I cannot believe, if he said, ``Joe, you go
see Chirac, you go see Blair, you go see Kohl, you work out something
on this arrearages deal with them.'' I cannot believe I could not get
that done for him without damaging my relationship with them and
figuring out a way at the end of the day--the end of the day, whether
that means 3 years or 5 years or 7 years--to pay what we owe.
But I do not know how to get from here to there. Were he President
and I Secretary of State, and he said, ``Joe, go work out a deal with
those guys. And, by the way, you have no money. We can't come up with a
nickel. You go work it out.'' I do not know, folks--I do not know. I
think I have a little bit of a greater faith in this administration
than my colleagues do, and a little greater faith in the ability of our
Ambassador to the United Nations to make this work without suffering
the consequences that could and may be suffered if this were to pass.
But like I said, I have not heard any other idea. And I have been
working with this too long to fall on my sword.
I again close where I opened. I think on the merits--my friend from
North Carolina knows how I feel--I think on the merits my friend from
Indiana is correct. But I think the merits and the friendship of the
Senator from Indiana may get me into the girls State championship
basketball game in Indiana, maybe, but it will not get me much
further--probably will not even get me there.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Since the Senator sought the floor----
Mr. SARBANES. Go ahead.
Mr. HELMS. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. No.
Mr. HELMS. How long does the Senator wish?
Mr. SARBANES. I will yield to the chairman, obviously.
Mr. HELMS. I understand that. But I respect the Senator from
Maryland. I want him to have his say.
Certainly, Mr. President, I am not going to criticize Senator Lugar.
I think and hope we have been friends ever since he came here. I have
made several statements publicly in his advocacy. I think he will
acknowledge that. But he is not in a position in which he has to make
judgments that will lead to either a successful piece of legislation or
an unsuccessful one, depending on which decision is made.
Senator Biden has very eloquently and accurately described the
process by which the committee brought in a lot of views and a lot of
people, including the distinguished majority leader, Trent Lott, and
the relevant appropriations subcommittee chair Judd Gregg. As I said in
my statement earlier, this bill will not represent every provision that
I want, but I think it is the best legislation for the American people.
I do not need any pollster to tell me that; in fact, I have found out
that the results often depend on who the pollster is taking a poll for
and what the people who paid for the poll want to accomplish with the
poll. That certainly is a game that is played in politics constantly.
But let me say that speaking, I think, for a sizable percentage of
the American people--and not having a poll except the ringing of the
telephone in my office and the fax machine grinding constantly and the
mail by the sackfuls--we do not owe it to the rest of the world to pay
the so-called arrearages to the United Nations for peacekeeping, and we
certainly do not owe these nickel and dime amounts to our allies or to
anyone else, for that matter.
Let me set the record straight just a bit. I do not say this with any
hostility, but if you think the American people have not been socked
with enough taxes to support whatever project or institution that is
supported at the moment, let's look at the facts. Since 1950 the United
States--that means the American taxpayers--has given other countries
(free of charge) $120 billion in military assistance through grants and
loans. In just the past 10 years, the United States paid $40.4 billion
in military assistance to another set of countries. I have heard no
moaning and groaning on this floor about what we owe, but nothing about
all of the support the U.S. has given.
When you add up the low-cost and no-cost loans to the total
assistance that the American taxpayers have been forced by their
Government--by this Senate, by the House of Representatives, by the
President sitting in the Oval Office on Pennsylvania Avenue --the total
assistance that the American taxpayers have given out since 1950
amounts to at least $161 billion--and mind you, that does not include
interest that has been forgiven when we didn't seek repayment of loans.
In addition, every dime of this has been given away in years when we
did not balance the budget. These costs are part of the reason that we
have a $5.400 trillion federal debt today. So let me be clear--we long
have bankrolled the world, and I will cry tomorrow for those
ambassadors from France and Germany, and even Poland, who say that they
do not like what Jesse Helms is doing in the Senate. Well, Jesse Helms
does not like to have to do it, but some of us have reached the point
that we have to hold hands tight and work out a deal that will achieve
long overdue reforms.
Now, this pending bill is the proposition that has been agreed to by
the President of the United States, by the Secretary of State, by Joe
Biden--who is the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee--
and by countless other distinguished Americans whom we have consulted
and with whom we have worked.
Now, let me tell you something. It is easy to sit back and say,
``Well, we have got to pay our debts.'' With what and on what schedule?
Are you going to add it to the federal debt? What are you going to cut
out of the budget which we have been unable, thus far, to get balanced
in this body and in the House of Representatives and then signed by the
President?
We all hear that there is a coalition of interests, but my primary
interest happens to be the people who pick up their lunch pail and go
to work every morning, who do not know much about Congress. They are
trusting us to protect their future and the futures of their children
and grandchildren. Now, every campaign they are celebrated as the
reason Joe Candidate and Mary Candidate are running for office, looking
for votes. But as soon as the election is over, you do not hear much
more except a political speech now and then.
Now, I have been on the Foreign Relations Committee quite a while.
Joe Biden and I held up our hands to take the oath of office on the
same day--January 3, 1973, right over in that corner. We have been in
the Senate the same length of time. I have enjoyed serving with Senator
Biden because although he and I seldom agree on fundamental issues, he
always shoots straight with me--and I think that he will say that I
have shot straight with him. I am a conservative and I am unabashed
about it. And Joe, no doubt about it, is a liberal. That is the way it
goes in this body.
But also on the Foreign Relations Committee some years ago, I think
in the mid-1980s, one of the bad ladies who served on the committee--
now, I am not even going to joke about it. She is one of the sweetest
ladies I have ever known, one of the brightest ladies I have ever
known, and one of the most unyielding ladies I have ever known-- and
her name was Nancy Kassebaum. It is now Nancy Kassebaum Baker because
she is the bride of Howard Baker, the former majority leader of this
Senate.
Now, it was, I believe, 1986 an amendment was enacted into law in the
State Department Authorization Act. And by the way how many
authorization bills have been passed since that year? Not many, not
many. So the affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr.
President, have been handled by the Appropriations Committee until this
year and we are endeavoring to have the Foreign Relations Committee
resume its rightful place in the conduct of foreign affairs. I do not
think it ought to be conducted by the Appropriations Committee.
[[Page S5680]]
But in any case, our former colleague from Kansas, the then Nancy
Kassebaum, used a very interesting approach more than a decade ago in
trying to get a budget reform at the United Nations. She was so
disappointed and so was I with the way the United Nations was being
operated. Her amendment was enacted into law for the authorization act
for fiscal years 1986 and 1987. It explicitly and unilaterally withheld
20 percent of the U.S. contribution to the United Nations and its
specialized agency until voting reforms took place at the U.N. Now, I
must ask, what is so unusual about this bill? We are including
provisions that require reforms in the same way--by withholding U.S.
contributions. I do not know whether Senator Lugar was chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee at that time. If he was, I doubt that he
very strongly opposed Senator Kassebaum.
But the point is we have so many people who have responsible roles to
play in this matter. We are hearing from the President and former
Presidents, we are hearing from Secretaries of State and former
Secretaries of State, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, as Yul Brenner
said in ``The King and I.''
I have a letter from Bob Dole supporting this plan. I ask unanimous
consent it 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. I appreciate the remarks that Senator Lugar has made. But
I just wish there would be some understanding of what our options are.
Sure, we could watch Senator Lugar talk about it, but we will end up
with the Appropriations Committee running for the Senate our role in
the foreign policy apparatus.
I admire Senator Lugar, always have, always will, and I refuse to get
in a fuss with him. His amendment is dictating to all those who have
worked for months to arrive at a consensus piece of legislation how to
do things when he does not have any workable alternative. I will still
respect him, but I say that the Foreign Relations Committee, and the
Senate, has for the first time in a long time the opportunity to take
its rightful place in the procedure of determining the foreign policy
apparatus of this country.
I will have more to say, if necessary, as time goes by, but I hope
the Senator will not press his amendment.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
June 12, 1997.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Senate
Dirksen Office Building Washington, DC.
Dear Jesse: I want to take this opportunity to commend you
for a job well done on your United Nations reform
legislation. I know you have spent many hours ensuring that
our national interests--and the interests of American
taxpayers--are better protected at the United Nations.
As you know, I have long supported efforts to achieve
reforms in United Nations peacekeeping and in the other areas
of U.N. operations. The personnel, budgetary and organization
reforms your legislation requires before additional U.S.
funds go to the U.N. are comprehensive and long-overdue. I am
pleased to see your legislation effectively precludes U.N.
efforts to create a standing army, impose taxation or control
U.S. property. I am particularly supportive of the provision
which requires U.N. reimbursement for all costs associated
with U.S. support for U.N. peacekeeping, and the provision
which lowers the U.S. annual assessment for the U.N. budget.
If such provisions had been in place in 1993, U.S. taxpayers
would have saved literally billions of dollars.
You have put together an impressive piece of legislation. I
congratulate you for leading a difficult effort that will
result in a more efficient and more limited United Nations,
and help ensure that American interests come first in our
policy toward the United Nations.
I am writing this letter solely on my own behalf and the
opinions expressed herein are my own.
Sincerely,
Bob Dole.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. I commend the very able Senator from Indiana for
offering this amendment and for, in effect, crystallizing this issue on
the floor of the U.S. Senate.
I share his view that this is an extremely serious matter and that
the American commitment to the United Nations, despite various
assertions we are hearing to the contrary, in fact may be in the
process of being seriously eroded. This is a very important amendment.
It is my own strongly held view that the interests of the United
States have been served by our Nation's active participation in the
United Nations and the U.N. system. Over the years, since the end of
World War II, the U.N. often has been an effective means of promoting
U.S. foreign policy interests. When we work with and through the United
Nations, we can leverage our resources and our influence in order to
achieve a much greater impact than we could unilaterally.
Why do we go to the U.N. and seek these resolutions to sanction
various actions we take around the world to serve and protect our
national security interests? Because it gives us an international
mandate to pursue a course of action, and frequently elicits
contributions from other countries. Sometimes, in fact, the other
countries are the ones who put their troops on the line, not the United
States, in order to accomplish objectives that we regard as important.
Now, in the last decade, our status as the U.N.'s biggest debtor has
affected our credibility and undermined our leadership with our allies
and within the international community. The United States owes over $1
billion to the U.N. for regular activities and peacekeeping, more by
far than any other country. Our arrearages are nearly two-thirds of the
total amount owed by all countries to the United Nations.
There has been a misperception that the U.N. can somehow dictate
policies to the United States and force us to undertake actions that do
not serve American interests.
This is simply not the case. Nothing could be further from the truth.
U.N. peacekeeping operations cannot be established without the
concurrence of the United States. Of all of these various peacekeeping
operations, none of them could have happened without American
concurrence in their going forward.
As a key member of the Security Council, we are one of five countries
with veto power over all resolutions that are considered by the
council. We have a veto power that, in effect, can prevent any action
of which we disapprove from taking place.
As a country, we pride ourselves for following the rule of law and
holding our citizens responsible for meeting various legal obligations.
In fact, we try to get other countries to follow our example and live
up to those standards, both domestically and internationally. It is
frequently a tremendous challenge to get countries to respect the basic
rights of their citizens and to act in accordance with international
law.
We ourselves are not now meeting those high standards, as they relate
to the United Nations. We undertook commitments under the U.N. Charter,
and we have a responsibility to make good on them. The starting point
here must be a recognition that this is an obligation that we freely
undertook, upon which we have defaulted. We have not met our
responsibilities.
Now, this legislation, first of all, does not provide money to meet
all of our arrears. There has been a negotiating process between
Members of the Congress and the administration. The United Nations
says, well, this is what we think the United States owes--$1.3 billion
and some. The administration says, no, we think we owe just over $1.0
billion. This legislation has in it just over $800 million. It does not
even have the figure which the administration states is what we owe to
the United Nations, let alone the figure which the United Nations
asserts that we owe.
The gap between the United Nation's assertion and the
administration's position is largely the consequence of a unilateral
action by the United States lowering its peacekeeping assessment from
31 percent to 25 percent. We just came along and said to the
organization, well, we are going to cut it, just like we are doing here
now on regular assessments. This is an organization with clear
procedures for working out these responsibilities, and we are simply
telling them what the situation is going to be.
Now, I have no doubt that if some other country, delinquent in
meeting its obligations, showed up with the demands that we have put in
this legislation, we would be absolutely outraged. We would say, who do
they think they are and what do they think they are doing? They had
these obligations and now they are coming in and rewriting
[[Page S5681]]
them unilaterally and imposing these conditions.
These are conditions on past obligations. This is not looking to the
future. This isn't saying, well, we rethought the matter and we don't
really want to be part of this organization, unless it does such and
such and so and so in the future.
These are past obligations. These are instances in which many
countries have gone out and have put their people at risk, at our
encouragement as a matter of fact, and now we come along and we refuse
to pay the bill. We are refusing, in effect, to reimburse other
countries for sending their troops on peacekeeping missions that we
have voted for. Many countries have done that. They have gone and sent
their troops, put their troops' lives on the line in order to
accomplish these objectives. Our responsibility in most of those
instances was to provide the money to cover the activities, activities
they were performing for us and for the entire world. Those missions
have been accomplished. The bill has not been paid.
The approach taken by Senator Lugar would seek to address our
previous obligations in a very straightforward manner, and he also, as
I understand it, has a proposal to fully meet current obligations,
thereby enabling us to break out of the cycle of growing debts and
waning influence.
Now, it is asserted here that we are not trying to micromanage the
United Nations. We just went through this tremendous struggle at the
United Nations to get a new Secretary General. The United States was a
moving force in that effort and, from all indications, was happy with
the change that took place. Now we are throwing a burden on the new
Secretary General which I have serious concerns that he can sustain.
I want to go through just a few of the kinds of conditions that are
going to be imposed here. I urge my colleagues to take a copy of S. 903
and go through it to see the kind of regime it establishes. Ask
yourselves whether this is consistent with our Nation's participation
in the U.N. for over 50 years now, as governed by the charter.
First of all, we say that $80 million can only be made available
semiannually every year on a certification that the United Nations
hasn't taken any actions that raise their budget over what had been
projected. What happens if we get a new peacekeeping responsibility?
What happens if there is an outbreak of hostilities somewhere, and
finally to help bring it under control the United Nations takes action,
as it has done in other places, and there are costs associated with
that action? Well, I take it, if they do that without finding an
offset--even with our support--we must withhold the money.
Twenty percent of the funds made available each fiscal year are going
to be withheld to comply with a certification that is contained on
pages 158 and 159; $50 million is going to be withheld from
disbursement until the Secretary of State certifies that they have cut
a thousand posts from the United Nations--995 won't do it; you have to
have 1,000. Then the following fiscal year we will withhold $50 million
from disbursement until there is a certification that the United
Nations is running a vacancy rate of not less than 5 percent.
Now, this isn't negotiated with the United Nations. This is not the
outcome of extended discussions as to what the United Nations is going
to do. This is the Congress telling the United Nations that this is
what it must do. So, in effect, we are saying that we are going to run
your organization and all you other countries who pay the bulk of the
cost will have to live with it. I would note that even with our large
assessments, we are still a minority payor in the U.N. overall.
Then there is a provision, which I hope to address later, that
provides for our withdrawal from the United Nations. We have finally
come to the point in this legislation where there is a serious
proposition for withdrawal of the United States from the United
Nations--not an argument about how much we ought to pay, not an
argument about how fast we pay the arrearages, but provisions that set
out a process for withdrawal. I am frank to tell you that I never
thought I would see the day we would be facing this. We ought to
confront this challenge head on. If that is the agenda that is behind
all of this, we ought to fight it out on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
There are additional conditions that appear in different places
throughout this legislation. It is not until you identify them all and
look at them all--they are not all in one place--and go through them
that you begin to appreciate how heavy a burden is being created here.
This bill provides, as the newspaper stories explain today, that if the
U.N. does not meet all the benchmarks, they don't get the money.
There was a press conference up in New York where some suggested that
these ``benchmarks'' were only guidelines. But, clearly, they are not
simply guidelines. In fact, they are written as binding conditions
which, if adopted by the full Congress, will become U.S. law. So this
legislation moves beyond suggestions, recommendations, or proposals.
These conditions would be mandatory elements of U.S. law, and would
have to be carried out.
Now, there is another provision here that, in the next fiscal year,
in order to release the money, there has to be a certification by the
Secretary of State that the assessed contributions of the United States
for the regular budget of the United Nations have been cut from 25 to
22 percent and the following year from 22 to 20 percent. Now, I think
trying to negotiate such a reduction is acceptable as a goal or an
objective of U.S. policy. But this isn't negotiating a reduction, this
is a unilateral condition on which the payment of our arrearages
depends.
Here is what we are doing. We are coming along and we are saying we
are not going to pay all of our arrearages. We are not even going to
pay the amount that our own Government has said we owe. We are going to
fall short on that score. Moreover, we are going to create new
arrearages. So it is not as though we come in and say, yes, we are
going to pay all of our arrearages, we will pay our current assessment
in full. We do neither of those two things.
Then we provide those partial repayments under a whole set of
conditions, including that the United Nations reduces our assessment--a
matter which, under the U.N. process, needs to be negotiated and
arrived at by consensus.
I ask Members again to stop and think what their reaction would be if
another country showed up in this heavy-handed way and started
insisting that this is what would have to be done in order for them to
pay up the obligations which they owe. I daresay we would not give them
the time of day. So we fall short on meeting the arrearages, we fall
short on the current payment, and then we tie these payments to a whole
set of conditions. In effect, we say to the United Nations: Well, if
you want to get any of this money, you have to do all of this.
Now, I think we must proceed on the basis of careful consideration of
the United Nations and its role and its importance. If there are those
who don't think we ought to stay in the United Nations, we ought to
have that debate. As I have indicated, I think the United Nations
overall has served our interests. That doesn't mean we agree with every
single thing they have done or we necessarily think that it has been
run in an exemplary fashion. It has had its ups and downs, no question
about it.
But the real question is: How did the United States approach the
U.N.? How is the United States going to exercise its international
leadership in the post-cold war-period? Is the United States simply
going to dictate, to simply throw its weight around, and say, ``Well,
we are going to make these unilateral judgments. Congress discussed
this; now we are going to bring it to the United Nations, and you had
better take it, or else?''
They held a press conference in New York the other day. Our
Ambassador and one of our colleagues at the outset of this press
conference tried in effect to portray the benchmarks as mere
suggestions. But that portrayal comes at odds with what Senator Helms
said in introducing the bill. He said, and I quote from his statement,
``Most importantly, this bill would prohibit the payment by the
American taxpayers of any so-called U.N. arrears until''-- with the
``until'' underlined--``these congressionally mandated benchmarks have
been met by the U.N.''
He continues, ``The message to the United Nations is simple but
clear: no reform, no American taxpayer money
[[Page S5682]]
for arrears.'' That doesn't sound like a suggestion.
So that is where we find ourselves. I mean we are now at the point
where we are going to dictate these conditions. I think it is going to
cause us great difficulty at the United Nations. In fact, I think the
committee's approach of seeking unilaterally to impose an American
position on the United Nations may well alter the very nature of our
relationship with the U.N. to our own detriment, let alone to our
relationship with some of the major actors at the U.N. Many of them are
our closest allies over the years and are very much interested in how
the United States revolves this matter.
So I commend the Senator from Indiana for bringing this issue
forward.
The U.N. has been a favorite target of criticism and abuse. But it
has done good work over the years, and I think we certainly need it. We
need it to continue to function, hopefully in a strengthened position.
The benchmarks or preconditions in this legislation--there are close to
40 of them of one sort or another in this legislation, not all in the
same place--will not accomplish that.
The decision to join the United Nations made at the end of World War
II was one of the most significant and momentous decisions made in this
century. It came on the basis of a great deal of history which had
concluded that the American failure to participate in the League of
Nations was a very serious error, and that World War II might have been
prevented had the United States undertaken an active international
role.
The effective workings of the United Nations, as it was envisioned by
those who planned it during World War II and in the immediate
aftermath, were in effect brought to a standstill by the cold war and
the consistent exercise by the Soviet Union of its veto at the security
council. The veto, of course, as I have indicated, the United States
also has, and has had from the very inception of the United Nations.
With the implosion of the Soviet Union and a change in the whole
nature of the international arena, the opportunities for the United
Nations to carry forward and carry out many of the responsibilities
which had been envisioned for it at the time of its founding reemerged
in this decade.
It is difficult because many of the problems they try to contend with
are extremely complex involving enmities and hostilities of long
standing. Neither the U.N. nor anyone else has a magic wand they can
wave over those conflicts. But there is an opportunity for the United
States, working through the United Nations and with the United Nations,
to make a major contribution to world peace and to world prosperity.
But to do that we need to be full members of the organization. And we
need to step up and assume our responsibilities. We are not doing that
in this legislation.
I am very concerned at what the reaction will be over time. Will they
simply swallow it with great resentment? Will they feel when all the
certifications can't be made that they really have not been dealt with
fairly? Will we be up there managing it in a very detailed way because
condition 21 or condition 32 has not been complied with? What do we do
when we try to get nations to work with us in a particular direction?
We can't compel them to do it.
We exercise our leadership in a sense by developing a consensus to
support our position because we think it is the right position. And
here we are taking a position which is the wrong position because we
are failing to do a very basic thing, and that is simply meet our
obligations. These are past responsibilities--not future
responsibilities. We are using the fact that we failed to meet past
responsibilities, and now are talking about meeting some but not all of
them to impose a whole string of conditions and requirements on the
United Nations. Otherwise you say, ``Well, we simply won't abide by
what our obligations were.''
I am frank to tell you that I don't think that is the way a great
power ought to behave. The United States is a great power. The United
States is the great power in the world today. And with that role come
important responsibilities in how we exercise that power. In my
judgment, we are failing here to exercise those responsibilities in a
manner that will strengthen our posture in the international community.
I hope but I fear we may find that this effort has in the end altered
the nature of our relationship with the U.N. to the detriment of the
United States.
Mr. President, I yield the the floor.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have had several inquiries about how late
we are going. My response has been, of course, that that is up to the
leadership of the Senate. For the time being, I hope that the
distinguished Senator from Ohio would be recognized to offer an
amendment, and that the pending amendments be laid aside temporarily,
at the conclusion of which I would appreciate the Chair recognizing me
for any further comment that I may have received from the majority
leader in regard to how late we will stay here tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, is it the
intent of the distinguished chairman to continue debate on my
amendment? The request has been made to lay the amendment aside.
Mr. HELMS. Certainly, as long as the Senator from Indiana wishes to
stay. But I did not recognize the very distinguished remarks of the
Senator to be pro or con on his amendment, at least as they were
written. But to respond to the Senator's question, I will stay here as
long as he will.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator. I would like to be heard again on my
amendment.
Mr. HELMS. Very well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Carolina,
and I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 383
(Purpose: To exclude from the United States aliens who have been
involved in extrajudicial and political killings in Haiti)
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my distinguished
colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, I send an amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio (Mr. DeWine), for himself, and Mr.
Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 383.
Mr. DeWINE. 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 end of title XVI of division B of the bill, insert
the following new section:
SEC. . EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF ALIENS WHO HAVE
BEEN INVOLVED IN EXTRAJUDICIAL AND POLITICAL
KILLINGS IN HAITI.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) At the time of the enactment of this Act, there have
been over eighty extrajudicial and political killing cases
assigned to the Haitian Special Investigative Unit (SIU) by
the Government of Haiti. Furthermore, the government has
requested that the SIU investigate on a ``priority basis''
close to two dozen cases relating to extrajudicial and
political killings.
(2) President Jean-Bertrand Aristide lived in exile in the
United States after he was overthrown by a military coup on
September 30, 1991. During his exile, political and
extrajudicial killings occurred in Haiti including Aristide
financial supporter Antoine Izmery, who was killed on
September 11, 1993; Guy Malary, Aristide's Minister of
Justice, who was killed on October 14, 1993; and Father Jean-
Marie Vincent, a supporter of Aristide, was killed on August
28, 1992.
(3) President Aristide returned to Haiti on October 15,
1994, after some 20,000 United States troops, under the code
name Operation Uphold Democracy, entered Haiti as the lead
force in a multi-national force with the objective of
restoring democratic rule.
(4) From June 25, 1995, through October 1995, elections
were held where pro-Aristide candidates won a large share of
the parliamentary and local government seats.
(5) On March 28, 1995, a leading opposition leader to
Aristide, Attorney Mireille Durocher Bertin, and a client,
Eugene Baillergeau, were gunned down in Ms. Bertin's car.
(6) On May 22, 1995, Michel Gonzalez, Haitian businessman
and Aristide's next door neighbor, was killed in a drive-by
shooting after alleged attempts by Aristide to acquire his
property.
[[Page S5683]]
(7) After Aristide regained power, three former top Army
officers were assassinated: Colonel Max Mayard on March 10,
1995; Colonel Michelange Hermann on May 24, 1995; and
Brigadier General Romulus Dumarsais was killed on June 27,
1995.
(8) Presidential elections were held on December 17, 1995.
Rene Preval, an Aristide supporter, won, with 89 percent of
the votes cast, but with a low voter turnout of only 28
percent, and with many parties allegedly boycotting the
election. Preval took office on February 7, 1996.
(9) On March 6, 1996, police and ministerial security
guards killed at least six men during a raid in Cite Soleil,
a Port-au-Prince slum.
(10) On August 20, 1996, two opposition politicians,
Jacques Fleurival and Baptist Pastor Antoine Leroy were
gunned down outside Fleurival's home.
(11) Other alleged extrajudicial and political killings
include the deaths of Claude Yves Marie, Mario Beaubrun,
Leslie Grimar, Joseph Chilove, and Jean-Hubert Feuille.
(12) Although the Haitian Government claims to have
terminated from employment several suspects in the killings,
some whom have received training from United States advisors,
there has been no substantial progress made in the
investigation that has led to the prosecution of any of the
above-referenced extrajudicial and political killings.
(13) The expiration of the mandate of the United Nations
Support Mission in Haiti has been extended three times, the
last to July 31, 1997. The Administration has indicated that
a fourth extension through November 1997, may be necessary to
ensure the transition to a democratic government.
(b) Grounds for Exclusion.--The Secretary of State shall
deny a visa to, and the Attorney General shall exclude from
the United States, any alien who the Secretary of State has
reason to believe is a person who--
(1) has been credibly alleged to have ordered, carried out,
or materially assisted, in the extrajudicial and political
killings of Antoine Izmery, Guy Malary, Father Jean-Marie
Vincent, Pastor Antoine Leroy, Jacques Fleurival, Mireille
Durocher Bertin, Eugene Baillergeau, Michelange Hermann, Max
Mayard, Romulus Dumarsais, Claude Yves Marie, Mario Beaubrun,
Leslie Grimar, Joseph Chilove, Michel Gonzalez, and Jean-
Hubert Feuille;
(2) has been included in the list presented to former
president Jean-Bertrand Aristide by former National Security
Council Advisor Anthony Lake in December 1995, and acted upon
by President Rene Preval;
(3) was a member of the Haitian presidential security unit
who has been credibly alleged to have ordered, carried out,
or materially assisted, in the extrajudicial and political
killings of Pastor Antoine Leroy and Jacques Fleurival, or
who was suspended by President Preval for his involvement in
or knowledge of the Leroy and Fleurival killings on August
20, 1996; or
(4) was sought for an interview by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation as part of its inquiry into the March 28, 1995,
murder of Mireille Durocher Bertin and Eugene Baillergeau,
Jr., and were credibly alleged to have ordered, carried out,
or materially assisted, in those murders, per a June 28,
1995, letter to the then Minister of Justice of the
Government of Haiti, Jean-Joseph Exume.
(c) Exemption.--This section shall not apply where the
Secretary of State finds, on a case by case basis, that the
entry into the United States of the person who would
otherwise be excluded under this section is necessary for
medical reasons, or such person has cooperated fully with the
investigation of these political murders. If the Secretary of
State exempts such a person, the Secretary shall notify the
appropriate congressional committees in writing.
(d) Reporting Requirement.--(1) The United States chief of
mission in Haiti shall provide the Secretary of State a list
of those who have been credibly alleged to have ordered or
carried out the extrajudicial and political killings
mentioned in paragraph (1) of subsection (b).
(2) The Secretary of State shall submit the list provided
under paragraph (1) to the appropriate congressional
committees not later than three months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a list of aliens denied visas, and
the Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a list of aliens refused entry to
the United States as a result of this provision.
(4) The Secretary shall submit a report under this
subsection not later than six months after the date of
enactment of this Act and not later than March 1 of each year
thereafter as long as the Government of Haiti has not
completed the investigation of the extrajudicial and
political killings and has not prosecuted those implicated
for the killings specified in paragraph (1) of subsection
(b).
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my amendment really is a very simple
amendment. The amendment that Senator Graham and I have offered would
deny entry into the United States to anyone who has been credibly
alleged to have ordered or carried out extrajudicial and political
killings in the country of Haiti.
Mr. President, to an extent almost unimaginable to us who live in the
United States, the history of Haiti has been a sad chronicle of brutal
and repeated acts of political violence. Some of these extrajudicial
killings occurred while former President Aristide was in exile. Some of
these killings occurred after he returned to power. And tragically they
have continued to occur after Mr. Aristide left office and President
Preval became President.
During Mr. Aristide's exile, the victims included Mr. Aristide's
financial support, Antoine Izmery, who was killed on September 11,
1993; Guy Malary, Mr. Aristide's Minister of Justice, who was killed on
October 14, 1993, and Father Jean-Marie Vincent, an Aristide supporter
who was killed on August 28, 1992.
Mr. President, after President Aristide regained power, it was the
other side's turn.
On March 28, 1995, a leader of the opposition to Mr. Aristide,
attorney Mireille Durocher Bertin, was gunned down in her car. One of
her clients, Eugene Baillergeau, was also killed in the shooting.
On May 22, 1995, Michel Gonzalez was killed in a drive-by shooting--
after alleged attempts by Mr. Aristide to acquire his property.
Three former top army officers were assassinated: Col. Max Mayard,
killed on October 3, 1995. Col. Michelange Hermann, killed on May 24,
1995. And Brig. Gen. Romulus Dumarsais, killed on June 27, 1995.
Since the inauguration of President Preval, further killings have
taken place.
On March 6, 1996, police and ministerial security guards killed at
least six men during a raid in Cite Soleil in Port-au-Prince.
On August 20, 1996, two opposition politicians--Jacques Fleurival and
Pastor Antoine Leroy--were gunned down outside Mr. Fleurival's
home. And the death toll goes on and on: Claude Yves Marie. Mario
Beaubrun. Leslie Grimar. Joseph Chilove. Jean-Hurbert Feuille.
The Haitian Government has assigned over 80 extrajudicial and
political killing cases to the so-called Special Investigative Unit,
the SIU. The Haitian Government says that they have fired several
government employees who are suspects in these killings. But the sad
fact remains that there has been no substantial progress made in these
investigations. With the exception of one case that did go to trial
where there was an acquittal, no one else has been tried. No one else
has been convicted and no one has been punished for any of these
assassinations.
Clearly, Mr. President, we need to do everything in our power to
encourage the Haitians to bring the killers to justice. We as a nation
have made a substantial investment in the building of Haitian
democracy. And the plight of Haitian boat people demonstrates very
clearly and dramatically that moving Haiti into some level of stability
is clearly in our national interest.
But peace, democracy, and stability will not set down firm roots in
Haiti unless and until the Haitian people themselves finally believe
that power in their country can no longer be won at gunpoint.
The days when political murders can be carried out with impunity must
be brought to an end. This amendment that my colleague, Senator Graham,
and I are now offering tells the Haitian people that political murder
is no longer business as usual as far as the U.S. Government is
concerned. In our view, it is time to stop adding names to the death
toll of Haitian politics.
The premise behind this amendment is that visiting the United States
is a privilege, one that should not be taken for granted. By not
allowing these Haitian political murderers into our country, we send a
strong message to them and to all people that political violence in
Haiti will not be ignored by the United States.
This amendment does exempt persons on a case-by-case basis for
medical reasons and cases in which the person has cooperated fully with
the investigation of these political murders. This amendment also
includes a reporting requirement. Our administration would be directed
to submit to the appropriate
[[Page S5684]]
congressional committees:) a list of those who have been credibly
alleged to have ordered or carried out the extrajudicial and political
killings;) a list of those who have been refused entry to the United
States as a result of this provision; and a report on this matter to be
submitted once each year until such time as the Government of Haiti has
completed the investigation of the extrajudicial and political killings
and has prosecuted those implicated in the killings.
This amendment really is a very practical expression of our
solidarity with the Haitian people, our solidarity with the Haitian
people, as they aspire to real and true democracy and as they aspire to
a peaceful civil society based on the rule of law instead of brutal
violence.
For too long, for tragically too long, violence, political violence
has been the way of life in Haiti. Whether the government is led by
General Cedras or President Aristide or President Preval, one sad truth
remains: Too many Haitians die, too many Haitians die due to political
violence.
In past remarks on this Senate floor, I have outlined some of the
measures the United States has taken and is taking to help the Haitian
people break the cycle of violence. We are helping to train and provide
resources for the SIU detectives who I talked about a moment ago, and
we have sent experienced U.S. police officers to help mentor the young
civilian police.
As I have said on this floor on several occasions, one of most
heartening things as I have visited Haiti now four times in the last
several years is to see the young American, big-city police officers,
Creole-speaking, Haitian born but United States citizens who are down
there, trying to make a difference with this young police force. So
there are things that are happening. Progress is being made. There is
some good news. Haitians are making progress in a very tough, uphill
battle.
The adoption of this amendment will not solve their problems. It
certainly will not solve their problems overnight, but I believe it
will help. It will tell the Haitian people that we in the United States
are on the side of everyone in that country who wants to create jobs,
who wants to create hope; we are on the side of everyone in Haiti who
wants a peaceful life, and we are on the side of everyone in Haiti who
wants justice.
When a country tries to move to democracy, we always look to see
whether there is peaceful transition of power. We look to see whether
or not there are elections and whether they are free and fair
elections. We sometimes forget that that is not the only indicator of
democracy and certainly is not the only indicator of whether or not
that country will be able to preserve a fragile democracy.
The other thing we have to look at is whether or not people feel they
can have redress in the courts and whether or not, if someone,
tragically, is murdered, or someone is injured, they have the
opportunity or there will be the opportunity for their assailants to be
brought to justice. This amendment deals with that and I believe will
help the Government of Haiti and help the people of Haiti continue to
progress towards the democracy that we want them to have and that they
want. And the understanding must be that democracy is not just about
elections, however important they are, but it is also about redress in
courts. It is also about justice. It is also about a judicial system in
which the general population can have confidence and faith. The solving
of some of these high-profile political murders will go a long way to
bringing about that type of confidence for the people of Haiti and will
go a long way to creating the climate that we know must exist in Haiti
if democracy is, in fact, to flourish and to survive.
I ask, as I conclude my remarks, unanimous consent to insert at this
point in the Record a letter which is referenced in this amendment. It
is a letter bearing the date of June 28, 1995, from the Justice
Department of the United States to the Minister of Justice of Haiti. I
ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Industrial Park, Haiti, June 28, 1995.
Jean Joseph Exume,
Minister of Justice, Government of Haiti,
Port-Au-Prince, Haiti.
Dear Minister Exume: Following is a list of individuals the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intends to interview in
the immediate future as part of its ongoing investigation of
the assassination of Mireille Durocher Bertin and Eugene
Baillergeau, Jr., on 3/28/95.
A. From the IPSF:
Maj. Dany Toussaint
Capt. Mendes Lesly Petion
Lt. Youri Latortue
Lt. Mignard Jean-Pierre
Lt. Ruguins Andre
Sgt. Fabien Lucien
Joel Jean (GTMO)
Leslie Sainton (GTMO)
B. From the National Palace:
Maj. Joseph Medard
Cpt. Richard Salomon
Col. Pierre Cherubin II
Lt. Col. Jean Marie Celestin
In addition to the interviews stated above, the following
officers have agreed to take a polygraph examination as
indicated below:
Lt. Pierre-Onil Lubin, 7/4/95, 1000 HRS.
Lt. Richard Cadet, 7/5/95, 1000 HRS.
Lt. Raynald St. Pierre 7/6/95, 1000 HRS.
The polygraph examinations will be conducted at the Light
Industrial Couplex (LIC).
All appointments will be made by interviewing agents with
Maj. James Jean-Baptiste for IPSF personnel and with Me.
Francois Dormevil for those working at the palace. Thank you
for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Giannotti,
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair. I thank again my distinguished
colleague, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Helms from North
Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I support this amendment and I have a hunch
that most Senators will. I will be surprised if there are many Senators
who will not support the amendment.
Since the United States returned Aristide to power in Haiti, there
have been dozens upon dozens of politically motivated assassinations
carried out by Haitian security forces trained by the United States.
These people who have been assassinated in almost all cases, as I
understand it, have been opponents of Mr. Aristide. Does the Senator
agree with that?
Mr. DeWINE. If I could respond to my colleague, tragically, political
murders have continued. We saw them before Aristide came to power, we
saw them during the time he was in power, and we have continued to see
them with the current President, President Preval. I believe it is very
important that the people of Haiti must see that no matter who is in
power, no one is above the law and supporters of someone in power are
not above the law.
Mr. HELMS. Right. In any case, Mr. President, despite the American
taxpayers being required to put up the money to prop up the Haitian
Government with U.S. troops, and the expenditure of something like $2
billion, the Haitian Government has rebuffed all of the attempts by our
Government to investigate these murders. The human rights situation has
disintegrated to such a point that last year President Clinton had to
rush diplomatic security officers to Haiti to protect Aristide's
replacement, President Preval, from his own palace security guards whom
the United States had trained and equipped.
Here is one example of so-called justice in Haiti today. Michel
Gonzalez lived next door to Mr. Aristide. Mr. Gonzalez was gunned down
in May of 1995 outside of his home after refusing to sell his property
to Mr. Aristide. The Haitian Government claims that the autopsy report
was lost and the Haitian Government refuses to turn over critical
evidence to the U.S. Government.
One of those implicated in orchestrating the assassination is Dany
Toussaint, who got a U.S. green card as an ``agricultural worker''--and
I wish I knew how to put oral quotation marks around agricultural
worker. In any case, he has been allowed to roam free in the United
States, and in Haiti. It seems to me that spending $2 billion on a
regime that protects murderers is bad enough, but allowing these
assassins to come into the United States is quite another thing. It is
not only asinine; it is breathtaking in its stupidity.
In 1993 and 1994, I took some flak as a Senator because I warned that
when Aristide and his cronies were fully disclosed, the record would be
clear that
[[Page S5685]]
they are or were anti-American thugs. There is no other way to put it.
Aristide himself rose to prominence making hate-filled diatribes
against the United States of America. He accused the United States of
having some strange diabolic design on Haiti.
Now, I noticed in yesterday's Washington Post a report that Mr.
Aristide is engineering a bid to resume power in Haiti even though it
is against Haiti's Constitution for him to be President again.
According to this article, and I quote from the Washington Post:
``Arrested is rallying his militants by blaming U.S. imperialism for
the woes of Haiti's poor.'' That is some thanks, I guess, for the
billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money spent in Haiti or on
behalf of Haiti.
There is no getting around the fact that the lives of American
servicemen and women were put at risk and billions of taxpayer dollars
have been wasted to prop up a government run by corrupt cronies of
Arrested--people who hate America and who sanction assassinations
against political opponents.
Mr. President, it boils down to this: If the Haitian Government will
not prosecute these assassins, the least we can do is deny them U.S.
visas.
I wonder if Senator Biden is available. I would like to get the yeas
and nays. I presume the Senator wants the yeas and nays?
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. I would like a rollcall vote, if we could.
Mr. HELMS. The distinguished Senator from Delaware will have to be on
the floor in order to get them, but we will get the yeas and nays and
have a rollcall vote, probably an early vote tomorrow morning.
I thank the Senator. I have received no further information from the
leaders about how late we should go, so I think it is time to hear from
the distinguished Senator from Indiana again, Mr. Lugar.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Amendment No. 382
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman and the Chair. Let me
summarize. Earlier in the afternoon I offered an amendment to strike
Title XXII from the legislation dealing with the United Nations.
Essentially, I call for payment of our debt in 2 years, without
conditions.
Title XXII, as we observe, contains 18 pages of conditions. That is
the issue. Senator Biden, the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, argued that he believed in principle that my arguments were
correct. He argued that pragmatically, in the negotiation that he had
encountered with the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, the
chairman led him to believe that the amounts of money, $819 million,
and the conditions that are imposed by Title XXII were the best
arrangement that was possible under these circumstances.
The distinguished Chairman, Senator Helms, has argued that the
Foreign Relations Committee ought to take action, as opposed to
allowing the appropriators to take action, as so often has been the
case with matters before our committee in recent years. I certainly
subscribe to that thought, that we ought to take action. Clearly this
bill as a whole is an attempt to do so in a very comprehensive and
positive way. But it is important that Members realize the gravity of
the debate that we are having on the United Nations.
Senator Sarbanes, I think correctly, in his remarks, mentioned that
the very thought of withdrawal, which appears in this bill, is a very
serious business. Earlier I suggested that it is not at all beyond
conjecture that there will be no money paid to the United Nations given
the severity and the number of conditions that are required; that
Members, in casting a vote on this, have to consider that casting that
vote imperils the United Nations, quite apart from our reputation for
paying our debts to our allies who have been involved in peacekeeping
operations which we supported.
These are serious matters. A basic dilemma is that the language is
very complex. Many Senators may not have had an opportunity to read
what the conditions are and all the reasons why this Senator argues it
will be very difficult for the payments to be made. Senators may not
have realized the implications of nonpayment, noncooperation, and
nonleadership on our part could imperil the United Nations. If Senators
are, in fact, of a mind that they really do not care or if they believe
the United Nations has served its time and that this is an unusual
back-door way of finalizing the problem, that is one point. But if
Senators believe, as do two-thirds of the American people, that the
United Nations is important, that we ought to be taking leadership,
that we ought to be paying our debts, then Senators will vote to do so.
They will support my amendment.
It is not inconceivable that my amendment should pass and that we
should proceed along this course of action. What has been argued this
afternoon by the distinguished Ranking Member of the committee is that
the distinguished Chairman disagreed with payment of very much money,
and the distinguished Chairman insisted upon a large number of
conditions. Apparently, he acquiesced and finally allowed some of the
funds to be stricken from the legislation. That is the argument we are
having. I would simply say that Senators must consider this, I believe
quickly, because the timeframe of all this debate is very rapid. If
there were more time, my guess is that around the Nation, members of
the general public, editorial writers in newspapers, opinion leaders in
foreign policy would agree, this is very serious. This is a moment of
truth for the Senate with regard to the United Nations. There would be
time for many people to reflect upon this, including Senators who must
vote. And it is very possible that Senators would decide we really want
to take leadership and we want to affirm the ties that we have with our
allies to whom we owe the money.
As we have pointed out again and again, $658 million is owed to
countries such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and other
friends and allies--not to the Secretariat of the United Nations or the
structure that has been described as overblown. That is a red herring;
just 5 percent of the money is owed to the United Nations per se. The
real issue is whether we will meet our obligations to our friends,
whether we will take leadership at the United Nations, whether we will
assert that the United Nations should continue as an important part of
our foreign policy.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I will be pleased to respond.
Mr. SARBANES. Are these obligations to our friends, to which the
Senator has referred, those instances in which our allies undertook
actions under the umbrella authority of the United Nations, often with
the use of their own troops, to carry out activities which the United
States supported, which the United States made the judgment served our
own national security interests? Would that be correct?
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is absolutely correct, that our interests were
served. We voted for peacekeeping operations. Other nations stepped
forward, and we agreed to pay our fair share of the money and not to
send our troops.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further, in fact, in some of
those instances, while we wanted the activity done, we were unwilling
to commit our own forces directly in order to do it, and the problem
was then resolved by the willingness of other countries to commit their
forces in order to carry out these important activities; was that not
the case?
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. Of course, one of the most vivid
and recent experiences was that in Bosnia, to which our country for
some time did not wish to commit forces, did not wish to commit NATO or
get a vote of our NATO allies. So, as a result, other nations attempted
to bring about peace in Bosnia largely because our Nation stood aside
but indicated to them they ought to carry on.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield further, in fact, if we
cannot continue to work this way, I take it that if confronted with a
crisis abroad, our choices would either be to do nothing or to become
involved unilaterally and directly, by ourselves. We would lose what,
it seems to me, has been a very
[[Page S5686]]
effective weapon for serving U.S. interests without necessarily
committing the United States directly in the activity. Would that be
correct?
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator has stated the options all too vividly;
namely, we respond to security crises by ourselves or we say nothing is
going to happen in the world. And worse still, we lose the option, if
we do not have the United Nations, of going as we did to the Security
Council, at the time the United States presided, during Desert Storm
when we obtained a Security Council resolution that brought a number of
nations to our side in a very, very important endeavor.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield on that very point, it was my
very strongly held impression that obtaining the resolution of the
Security Council, in effect, gave legitimacy to the strongly driven
U.S. action, in terms of international approval that otherwise would
have been lacking or missing in the situation.
We treat these U.N. participations as though they don't count for
very much. Yet, around the world, the fact that the United States has
gone to the United Nations and gotten the United Nations to approve it,
gives a legitimacy to the activity that might not be there, at least in
the eyes of some countries, if the United States were simply to
undertake it directly, without this approbation from the international
community.
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. As the Senator will recall, we
took this international legitimacy as a basis for our literally asking
other nations all around the globe to pay the bulk of the moneys for
Desert Storm. As I recall, over $50 billion was collected from Japan,
from Germany, and from many of the nations that are being cited now as
countries to whom we owe money in other peacekeeping endeavors.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for his questions.
Mr. President, during this debate, strangely enough, we have really
not argued about the text of the 18 pages that I wish to eliminate with
my substitute amendment. No Senator has risen to defend that language
and the labyrinth of the conditions that are involved in it. Rather, we
have had a suggestion that this was the best that could occur, given
the players in the legislative drama. I say it is not good enough. As a
matter of fact, I believe that very drastic circumstances not in our
interest are liable to arise from this language. This is why I make a
point of it.
I have not generally not offered amendments to this legislation. I
believe the reorganization efforts and a good number of reforms that
the committee has brought about in this legislation are important. But
I believe the particular item we are talking about now with regard to
continuation of the United Nations is a critical item and deserves
underlining. It deserves attention, it deserves careful reading by all
Senators prior to vote on my amendment or on final passage of
legislation that will contain this arrears provision.
I conclude simply by saying that I believe the United Nations is
important for our foreign policy. I believe we ought to be vigorous in
taking international leadership, in making certain that the United
Nations fulfills our aspirations in working constructively with other
nations. I believe we ought to pay our obligations to other nations. I
believe, as a matter of fact, if we do so, we are likely to be more
effective in our negotiation with many of the same nations in other
vital international negotiations that will continue on the expansion of
NATO, on freer and fairer trade around the globe, and on a number of
things that are very important to our security and bread-and-butter
interests.
Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and
nays. As neither the Chairman nor Ranking Member are on the floor, I
suspect the Chair may or may not be in a position to grant that.
I will ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what does constitute a sufficient second? I
am carrying Senator Biden's proxy. Could we just have a gentleman's
agreement on that?
Mr. LUGAR. I renew my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There now appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Maryland yield to the
Senator from North Carolina?
Mr. HELMS. We have just one thing we would like to do----
Mr. SARBANES. Can I make a 30-second statement, and then I will yield
the floor.
Mr. President, I simply commend the Senator from Indiana for sounding
the alarm in the night, and I very much hope that Members will
carefully read through the actual provisions of this legislation. It is
very important that they do that. This is a very important issue. I
thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 383
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on the same basis that we granted the yeas
and nays on the question on Senator Lugar's amendment, I ask for the
yeas and nays on Senator DeWine's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator. We have one more thing that we need
to do on Senator Gorton's amendment, which we will approve on a voice
vote.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment Nos. 378 and 379, Withdrawn
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
myself, Senator Durbin and Senator Biden, that amendments Nos. 378 and
379 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 378 and 379) were withdrawn.
Amendment No. 384
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Durbin, myself, Senator Helms, Senator Roth, Senator
Brownback, and Senator Biden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Helms, Mr. Biden, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Brownback,
proposes an amendment numbered 384.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title XVI, add the following:
SEC. . DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR
NATO ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
(1) Designation of Additional Countries.--Effective 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, Romania,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria are each designated
as eligible to receive assistance under the program
established under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation
Act of 1994 and shall be deemed to have been so designated
pursuant to section 203(d)(1) of such Act, except that any
such country shall not be so designated if, prior to such
effective date, the President certifies to the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that the
country fails to meet the criteria under section 203(d)(3) of
the NATO Participation Act of 1994.
(2) Rule of Construction.--The designation of countries
pursuant to paragraph (1) as eligible to receive assistance
under the program established under section 203(a) of the
NATO Participation Act of 1994--
(A) is in addition to the designation of other countries by
law or pursuant to section 203(d)(2) of such Act as eligible
to receive assistance under the program established under
section 203(a) of such Act; and
(B) shall not preclude the designation by the President of
other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe
pursuant to section 203(d)(2) of such Act as eligible to
receive assistance under the program established under
section 203(a) of such Act.
(3) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria--
(A) are to be commended for their progress toward political
and economic reform and
[[Page S5687]]
meeting the guidelines for prospective NATO members;
(B) would make an outstanding contribution to furthering
the goals of NATO and enhancing stability, freedom, and peace
in Europe should they become NATO members; and
(C) upon complete satisfaction of all relevant criteria
should be invited to become full NATO members at the earliest
possible date.
Mr. GORTON. This amendment, Mr. President, merges together two
amendments related to NATO enlargement offered earlier by Senator
Durbin in the case of amendment No. 378, and myself and others in
connection with amendment No. 379.
I understand, through the graciousness and thoughtfulness of the
senior Senator from North Carolina and Senator Biden from Delaware,
that this amendment has now been agreed to. It does express United
States support for working toward the qualification of five nations for
NATO--the three Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, together
with Romania and Bulgaria. The latter was suggested by Senator Biden
and expresses the view of the Senate that when each of those nations
has become qualified for that membership, that that membership ought to
be granted.
I spoke earlier about my strong feelings, strong feelings with which
I know Senator Durbin particularly concurs, in favor of the Baltics
after their long struggle through half a century of darkness to their
independence and their growing democracies.
Romania, of course, has been suggested by a number of European
countries for membership at the current time. It has had dramatic
changes toward democracy and responsibility in recent years. Bulgaria,
just in the last few months, now seems to be moving in that direction.
We all feel that as they qualify, they ought to be welcomed into this
united group of Western European and North Atlantic nations into the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Each of them will contribute to it,
each of them will be strengthened by it, not just from the point of
view of their physical security, but I might put it their moral
security as well, their desire to be a part of the world from which
they were excluded for so long by the Soviet Union.
This amendment is identical, with one exception, to an amendment
already passed in the House of Representatives. The wording is
precisely the same. Bulgaria, at the suggestion of Senator Biden, has
been added.
With that, Mr. President, I think I speak for each of the sponsors
and I thank Senator Helms for his understanding and support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 384) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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 Senator
D'Amato be added as a cosponsor to the amendment which was just
approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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, may I inquire, is Senator Durbin's
amendment No. 377 still pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Amendment No. 377, Withdrawn
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Durbin. This amendment modifies the amendment relating to
the one filed earlier by him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
Mr. HELMS. Did the Chair understand that the Durbin amendment is
being withdrawn? Perhaps I didn't make it clear.
I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment No. 377 be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 377) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 385
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, now I send to the desk on behalf of Senator
Durbin an amendment on the same subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for Mr.
Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 385.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title XVI, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. . SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING UNITED STATES CITIZENS HELD
IN PRISONS IN PERU.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) as a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the Government of Peru is obligated to
grant prisoners timely legal proceedings pursuant to Article
9 of the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights
which requires that ``anyone arrested or detained on a
criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or
other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power
and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to
release;'' and that ``anyone who is deprived of his liberty
by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings
before a court, in order that that court may decide without
delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his
release if the detention is not lawful;'' and
(2) the Government of Peru should take all necessary steps
to ensure that any U.S. citizen charged with committing a
crime in that country is accorded open and fair proceedings
in a civilian court.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Durbin for calling
attention to the problems with the judicial system in Peru. He has laid
out some very specific cases of two United States citizens who are
residents of his State of Illinois.
I would also like to call to the attention of my colleagues the case
of Ms. Lori Berenson of New York. Ms. Berenson was convicted of treason
by a secret military tribunal in January 1996. Since then she has been
serving a very tough sentence under exceeding harsh conditions in the
Yamamayo prison.
Mr. President, I do not know about the innocence or guilt of Ms.
Berenson with respect to the crimes with which she has been charged.
What I do know is that she was not accorded a fair and open trial which
is a hallmark of any democratic legal system. On August 6, 1996, I
joined with 19 other Senators in a letter to the President of Peru
calling upon him to take all necessary steps to provide an open and
fair proceeding in civilian court to Ms. Berenson. I ask unanimous
consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the President of Peru, Alberto Fujimori
never responded to that letter.
The pending amendment would once again call upon the Government of
Peru to take all necessary steps to provide her with such a trial. I
would hope that President Fujimori would take note of this amendment
and act in this case and the others that Senator Durbin has mentioned.
I commend the Senator from Illinois for his very thoughtful and
timely amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, August 6, 1996.
President Alberto Kenyo Fujimori Fugimori,
Palacio de Gobierno, Plaza de Armas s/n, Lima 1-Peru.
Dear President Fujimori: We write to express our deep
concern that Ms. Lori H. Berenson, a United States citizen,
has not been afforded her rights of due process of
[[Page S5688]]
law. Ms. Berenson was recently convicted of treason by a
military tribunal in Peru and is currently imprisoned in
Yanamayo prison. The lack of due process at her trial leaves
the question of her involvement in illegal activity
unanswered.
We are particularly concerned that Ms. Berenson did not
have an open trial; was not allowed to cross-examine
witnesses or challenge evidence; and was tried in a military
court by judges whose identities were concealed. Such
practices preclude a fair trial. We urge you to take steps to
ensure that she is retried before a civilian court which
upholds internationally recognized rights of due process.
We note that Article 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Peru on April 28,
1978, stipulates that:
``Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing
by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
established by law. . . .
``[and is entitled] to examine, or have examined, the
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and
examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same
conditions as witnesses against him.''
In addition, it appears inappropriate to try civilians in a
military court. We are aware that the Peruvian Government
gave assurances to Assistant Secretary of State Alexander
Watson over two years ago that civilians would no longer be
tried in military courts.
We find it troubling that during the trial of Ms. Berenson,
the Peruvian judicial system failed to uphold these and other
international standards. The Constitution of the Republic of
Peru states that:
``It is the duty of the President of the Republic to obey
and ensure obedience to the Constitution and all treaties,
laws, and other legal provisions. (Article 118)''
While we make no claims concerning Ms. Berenson's alleged
guilt, we ask that you take the necessary steps to provide an
open and fair proceeding in a civilian court. Indeed, the
entire Peruvian judicial system should be brought in line
with the solemn international commitments made by the
Peruvian Government.
We thank you for your attention to our request.
Sincerely,
James M. Jeffords, Alfonse M. D'Amato, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, Christopher J. Dodd, Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Carl Levin, Paul Simon, John D. Rockefeller IV,
Claiborne Pell, Carol Moseley-Braun, Dianne Feinsein,
Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Patrick J. Leahy, Dale
Bumpers, Daniel K. Inouye, Barbara A. Mikulski, David
Pryor, Wendell H. Ford, John F. Kerry.
Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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, inasmuch as the amendment now pending by
Senator Durbin has been approved by both sides, the pending amendment
modifies the amendment relating to Peru. There being no objection to
that amendment, I propose that it be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 385) was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________