[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.

                          ____________________