[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5722-S5734]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 903. There will be a vote, under the 
previous order, scheduled for 12 noon. The time between now and then 
will be equally divided between the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. 
Helms, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, and the Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Lugar.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 903) to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies 
     of the United States, to authorize appropriations for the 
     Department of State for the fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and 
     to provide for reform of the United Nations, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Lugar amendment No. 382, relating to the payment of United 
     Nations arrearages without conditions.
       DeWine/Graham Amendment No. 383, to deny entry to the 
     United States to Haitians who have been credibly alleged to 
     have ordered, carried out, or sought to conceal extrajudicial 
     killings.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no amendments 
be in order to either the pending DeWine amendment, No. 383, or the 
Lugar amendment, No. 382.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 382

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Members who have followed this debate will 
recall that yesterday afternoon I offered

[[Page S5723]]

an amendment to the division C of this bill, that portion dealing with 
the United Nations. Essentially, the task before the Senate, and before 
our Government as a whole, is how do we relate the United Nations as an 
organization we have supported, and one important to our foreign 
policy. It is an international organization that has been under attack 
in this country. And, we have not paid our bills.
  As I pointed out yesterday, the legislation before us attempts to 
remedy the situation over a 3-year period of time with 18 pages of very 
substantial conditions that must be met by the United Nations in order 
for the United States debt repayment money to flow to that body.
  Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It substitutes 
for the 18 pages of conditions in the bill my amendment which says 
there are no conditions for our payment and we will, in fact, make the 
payment of $819 million in two installments in 2-years' time. The $819 
million has been a sum the administration and the Foreign Relations 
Committee has agreed that we owe. In addition, we would be receiving 
approximately $107 million back from the United Nations for 
peacekeeping services we have offered.
  The two ideas before the Senate are important because this is a 
turning point of some significance in our foreign policy. In order to 
understand the amendment today and the bill that it amends, I think it 
is necessary to go back to square one and ask, why are we in such a 
predicament? How could the United States fail to pay the United Nations 
over $1 billion over the course of several years?
  I think the answer, quite frankly, is that there has been a pervasive 
feeling in the U.S. Senate which we, as Senators, thought were 
reflecting the country's antipathy to the United Nations, antipathy to 
bureaucracies and organizational inefficiencies. Many Americans have 
been told, at least in our Senate debates, that the United Nations 
preys upon the United States and that we are not in control. But, of 
course, the leadership the United States has exerted to obtain control 
of that body is certainly suspect.
  Mr. President, to set the record straight at the outset, a number of 
national polls have been taken that reflect a 2-to-1 majority of 
Americans believing the United Nations is very important and that we 
ought to pay our bills. The polling data goes for many years, but I 
found especially instructive a poll that indicated on the question: 
``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 it believes are needed?'', 
Americans, in a Wirthlin Group poll in 1989 conducted for the United 
Nations Association, 60% of Americans responded that we should always 
pay the United Nations, pay other countries, whoever. Only 14 percent 
said you ought to hold back.
  In April 1996 jumping about 7 years ahead, 78 percent of Americans 
believe that a nation should always pay; 13 percent believe you ought 
to be able to hold back.
  The American public understands what is fair. They understand what a 
contract is, what our obligations are as a nation.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, they understand the work the United 
Nations does, and by an overwhelming majority, the public believes we 
should not only stay in the United Nations but, as a matter of fact, in 
a polling item of a Times Mirror poll, the question was, ``Do you agree 
or disagree with the following statement: The United States should 
cooperate fully with the United Nations?,'' 65 percent of Americans 
agree, 29 percent disagree--well over two-thirds.
  I make that point because I believe we have come to this particular 
pass because public servants believe somehow it is popular to withhold 
money from the United Nations; to, in essence, say to the United 
Nations, ``Reform, repent or we will not pay our dues.''
  This is understandable, and the amount of reform needed by the United 
Nations is sizable. The new Secretary General Kofi Annan, who has 
supported the United States, who has come to visit with our own Foreign 
Relations Committee, has not only pledged to make reforms, he is doing 
that job. Our Ambassador, Mr. Richardson, will have a full-time job 
working with him to make certain that occurs.
  There are 184 nations involved. We are one of them, ostensibly the 
most powerful of those nations. Essentially, we are going to have to 
work with that bureaucracy to pare it down, to pare the budget down. 
The signs of progress are promising.
  Let me make a major point I hope Members will follow. Of the more 
than $1 billion the United States agrees that we owe, only 5 percent 
has anything to do with the bureaucracy, the Secretariat of the United 
Nations, only 5 percent, some $54 million.

  Now, if Members ask, ``Well, then, what is the argument about?'' The 
argument is about $650 million or so of peacekeeping expenses that were 
assumed by our allies for which the United Nations is simply a 
passthrough for money that we, the United States of America, said we 
would pay and now we owe to friendly countries.
  Let me cite, so it is not obscure, who we owe money to. We owe money 
to France, $60.1 million; we owe Great Britain $41 million; the 
Netherlands $21.3 million; Pakistan $20.1 million; Germany $18.3 
million we owe; Belgium $17.3 million; Italy $17.2 million; India $16.1 
million; Canada our near neighbor, $14.2 million. This is money we owe 
to them, not to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, or the U.N. 
Secretariat or the organization so frequently criticized on the floor 
of this body. We owe more than $650 million to other countries who sent 
their troops out to do work that we wanted them to do. We voted for the 
peacekeeping resolutions. We said we would send money if they would 
send men and if they would take on the fighting obligations, or at 
least the dangers that were involved in often hazardous duty that went 
beyond simple peacekeeping. That is the money, Mr. President, that is 
at risk.
  I am not certain Senators understand that we are, in essence, saying 
to our allies, we will not pay you unless you change the dues structure 
for us, for the United States. In essence, we not only have failed to 
pay our allies, but we have said, as a matter of fact, we are not going 
to pay you. This bill says we won't pay you unless you reduce our U.N. 
dues to only 20 percent of the budget, as opposed to 25 percent, and 
unless you reduce our peacekeeping dues to 25 percent as opposed to 
around 31 percent. Unilaterally, arbitrarily, take it or leave it. That 
is what is proposed in the legislation in front of us.
  In addition, the legislation, Members will note if they read through 
the 18 pages of agate type, has at least 38 conditions and hoops other 
countries and the United Nations must go through in order for us to pay 
our debts.
  Mr. President, it is strange that we came to this situation through, 
I think, a misperception of who ought to be paid. Most Americans who 
understand we owe Great Britain, France, Canada, and Italy, will say, 
``Why haven't we paid?'' And most Americans would understand that our 
failure to pay will have consequences because we are dealing with these 
same nations in NATO reform and NATO expansion in trying to determine 
what the fair shares will be. We are dealing with most of these 
countries every day in terms of agricultural exports which are very 
difficult bread-and-butter issues for America. Yet, we take an 
arbitrary position with regard to the United Nations that we simply 
will not pay until they go through the hoops of implementing the 
reforms we insist upon in this bill.
  Mr. BIDEN. Excuse me. Will the Senator yield for a question on one 
point on my time?
  Mr. LUGAR. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator's amendment calls for the payment of $819 
million over 2 years; is that correct?
  Mr. LUGAR. That's correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. How would the Senator's amendment pay our allies any more 
money than our mark, than this legislation does?
  Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator by pointing out, I 
have doubts under the bill we are about to pass that very much money 
get through the United Nations to our allies. The money will most 
certainly get to our allies through my amendment. I suspect, if the 
other conditions that are in title XXII are imposed, the odds are slim 
that the money will get through.

[[Page S5724]]

  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I am sorry, I 
didn't phrase the question well and clearly enough. Even if the money 
gets through, as the Senator is suggesting his amendment would 
accommodate, how would the Senator's amendment fully fund and pay the 
arrearages the Senator believes we owe our allies? Is there enough 
money in the Senator's amendment to fully pay the money the Senator 
believes that we owe our allies through the United Nations as it 
relates to the United Nations peacekeeping?

  Mr. LUGAR. I will respond to the Senator by saying the money paid to 
our allies is our assumption of how much we owe. It is based upon the 
$1.021 billion that the administration and the Foreign Relations 
Committee has agreed is the sum we owe. Many of our allies believe we 
owe a lot more.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield again, but the Senator's 
amendment only provides $819 million, not $1.021 billion. What I am 
confused about is, how does the Senator's amendment in this regard 
differ from the bill that the chairman and I have brought before the 
Senate?
  We have $819 million in our bill, which you don't like, nor do I, and 
the fact that we make the United Nations meet benchmarks before it is 
released. But assuming it was released, how does the Senator's 
amendment provide any more money to pay the arrearages that the Senator 
believes that we owe?
  Mr. LUGAR. My amendment would not provide more money. It simply 
provides certainty that payment is received at all. Let me just 
continue--
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LUGAR. The distinguished Senator from Delaware yesterday, in 
responding to a similar argument that I have made today, made the point 
that, all things considered, he agrees that we ought to pay our debts, 
that we ought to respond to our contractual obligations, that, in the 
best of all worlds, this is a principled stand, as I recall his 
description of it. But the Senator from Delaware said the trail that I 
am following leads to no payment.
  Now, if I were to ask with some incredulity why a fairly 
straightforward amendment adopted by the Senate--obviously the House 
must act and the President must sign the bill--why my course will lead 
to zero, as the Senator from Delaware characterized it. It is because, 
as the Senator from Delaware pointed out, he has been negotiating with 
the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the committee has 
said, in essence, we are not going anywhere without accommodation of 
these conditions--at least that was the characterization. Essentially, 
he was saying that we have gone nowhere for several years, and that we 
have accumulated debts and will continue to accumulate debts.
  In short, the distinguished Senator from Delaware said, and he 
described, very candidly, the negotiations that he came to the chairman 
suggesting a sum of money the administration felt we owed, and the 
chairman took a very adverse view to that. The Senator from Delaware 
has been negotiating for quite a long while in trying to get that 
figure up.
  The Senator from Delaware finally comes to the body yesterday and 
says essentially, ``This is the best I can do. In essence, hopefully, 
these conditions will be met. Countries, in fact, will meet them and 
the money will flow, $100 million in the first year fairly easily,'' as 
the Senator characterized, ``and it gets tougher in the second and 
third years. But, nevertheless, somehow this is going to occur.'' That 
is the judgment Senators have to make.
  I will just say very frankly, Mr. President, that we ought to face 
the situation in a much more straightforward way, because this debate 
has not occurred in private, nor have our failures to pay our debts 
occurred in private. It is a very public embarrassment in which the 
United States of America is stiff-arming our friends, quite apart from 
whatever damage we are doing to the United Nations. If, in fact, we 
want to get out of the United Nations, withdraw from it, saying 
essentially this is a group of people constantly preying upon us and we 
are tired of that, that is one basic decision Senators might want to 
make. I am suggesting, Mr. President, this bill veers very close to 
making that decision for us.

  What if the rest of the world, 183 nations, decides that our 
arbitrary decision here in the Senate is not really where they want to 
go? What if the United Nations goes bankrupt? What if our allies no 
longer trust us with regard to peacekeeping, fearing they will not be 
paid any more than they have been in the past? What if, as a matter of 
fact, other nations begin to doubt our word and our ability to follow 
through on contractual obligations we undertake? There is a lot at 
stake, Mr. President.
  It could very well be that there are some Senators who would say, 
``We ought to take advantage of our size and weight in the world now. 
There's no point in worrying about the sensitivities of other nations. 
We're paying 25 percent of the dues. Our share of the world's wealth 
right now is about 27 percent, but we don't want to pay that, we want 
to pay 20 percent. We're not going to take any fuss from any other 
nation about that.''
  We're going to pay 20 percent of the U.N. dues arbitrarily. Not only 
that, we are going to take our peacekeeping from 31 percent to 25 
percent of the budget. It is too high to begin with. We are tired of 
paying that. We will pay that, take it or leave it. In essence there 
are two ``take it or leave its,'' Mr. President, as the Senator from 
Delaware characterized the debate yesterday. In essence he has said to 
the Senate that we either take it or leave it or there will not be any 
payment at all. The chairman will not agree to it.
  Second, after we get through this process, we say to the rest of the 
world, ``Take it or leave it, because there won't be any payment unless 
you take our word for what we want to pay and under the conditions that 
we want to pay it.''
  In essence, Mr. President, this is not very good foreign policy. It 
is not really a very good stance for the United States at all. I will 
simply say, what will be the predicaments if we get our way and 
arbitrarily reduce our dues, and countries either get their moneys or 
they don't. I predict, Mr. President, the ramifications of this are 
likely to be very expensive for the United States.
  Not only is it the right thing to do to pay our debts, it is in fact 
the most effective way of being persuasive at the United Nations to 
bring about reforms that we want there.
  Mr. President, I appreciate that not all Senators have followed all 
of the debate as extensively as those who have been debating this 
yesterday and today. But let me say already there is some doubt as to 
precisely what this bill has to say.
  For example, the Washington Post of Saturday, June 14, 1997, 
suggested that Ambassador Richardson and our own colleague, Senator 
Grams of Minnesota, went to the United Nations on Saturday, after our 
markup on Thursday, and, according to John Goshko of the Post: They 
denied that Congress wants to ``micromanage the United Nations,'' and 
they insisted that 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 the conditions or so-called 
benchmarks in the plan are only suggestions ran counter, according to 
the article, and also according to remarks by Chairman Helms on 
Thursday.

  Quoting Senator Helms:

       This bill will 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.

  Then another quote from Senator Helms:

       The message to the U.N. is simple but clear: no reform, no 
     American taxpayer money for arrears.

  Now, Mr. President, in the Washington Times, Senator Grams is quoted 
as saying:

       ``These are broad suggestions,'' said Sen. Rod 
     Grams, Minnesota Republican, architect of the reform 
     package and U.S. delegate to the United Nations. ``We're 
     not going to micromanage the U.N. by any means.''
       At a press conference yesterday, both [Ambassador 
     Richardson and Mr. Grams] took pains to soften the edges of a 
     bill most here see as an imperious ``take it or leave it'' 
     offer. Mr. Grams plans to spend time at the United Nations 
     this summer, selling the package to foreign envoys [according 
     to the Washington Times of June 14, 1997].

  So already, Mr. President, while we are debating the bill, our 
Ambassador

[[Page S5725]]

and a distinguished colleague are at the United Nations saying we are 
making some helpful suggestions that we do not want to micromanage. But 
back here at the Congress, the word is no reform, and according to the 
18 pages of conditions in this legislation, no money.
  Senators will have to make up their minds. The suggestion has been 
two ``take it or leave its,'' in my own view. This is the reason I 
presented the amendment. We have obligations. In a straightforward way 
we ought to meet them.
  As the Senator from Delaware suggested in his question this morning, 
the amounts of money in this bill are clearly in dispute. But I accept 
the fact that the U.S. Government, both in its legislative and 
administrative branches, estimates we owe $1.021 billion. After various 
deductions, $819 million is on the table to be disbursed in both the 
Foreign Relations Committee bill and in my amendment.
  But there is a large difference in how the dispersal occurs, a very 
large difference in our attitude to other countries, our friends in the 
rest of the world, and a very large difference in our presumptions 
about the United Nations and its usefulness to us.
  Finally, Mr. President, word came yesterday in a debate that the 
United States of America has loaned countries a lot of money. We have 
spent a lot of money helping them defend themselves. And indeed we 
have. Our foreign policy frequently--frequently--tries to make sure the 
frontiers of conflict are as far away from our country as possible. We 
have given a lot of military aid to others who we hoped would fight our 
battles as our allies or as front lines for us. And that was prudent 
for us to do.
  But now we come to a situation, Mr. President, in which the United 
States said we do not want to be involved in these front line 
activities, or certain peacekeeping chores that were controversial, but 
which we think ought to be done. We voted for them. We sent others 
forward. We said we would pay. And now we have not paid nor will we pay 
unless the United Nations and the members in it reduce our dues, and 
unless they go through the hoops of even such suggestions that 
international conferences of the United Nations could be held in only 
four cities. We even dictate the cities in which the conference might 
occur.
  Members will be astonished, as they read through all the conditions, 
what is involved. But Members should read soon because we will have a 
vote shortly this afternoon on this amendment. I believe it is a 
critical vote for American foreign policy. I hope the Senators will 
support my amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes?
  Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield such time as I have.
  Mr. SARBANES. How much time does the Senator have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 40 seconds left 
under his time.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield me 2 minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I rise in very strong support of this amendment. The 
Senator from Indiana stated the arguments in a very cogent and, I 
think, persuasive fashion.
  Mr. President, we just celebrated 50 years of the Marshall Plan. A 
couple of years ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 
establishment of the United Nations. If you read that history, what is 
clear is the marked contrast between the United States' attitude at the 
end of World War II, at which time we demonstrated strong leadership, 
and the attitude that is reflected in this legislation.

  This legislation imposes a host of arbitrary and burdensome 
conditions on the United Nations. If the United Nations fails to 
achieve them, I am sure the argument will be made, ``It's too bad they 
didn't accede to the conditions we were imposing, and therefore it's 
their fault that we're not paying these arrears.'' Yet, I remind my 
colleagues, these are arrears which we clearly owe and which we have 
built up over the years.
  This approach goes directly contrary to the one that was reflected in 
the exercise of American leadership in both the United Nations and the 
Marshall plan--an approach which I think ought to characterize our 
policy toward the United Nations today.
  I think the able Senator from Indiana has rendered a distinct service 
by focusing the attention of the Senate on this issue. I very much hope 
my colleagues will support his amendment. It relates solely to payment 
of arrearages, to dues we already owe. We agreed to pay them under the 
Charter of the United Nations. Now we are saying, ``Well, if you want 
us to pay our past dues, you've got to agree to reduce our future 
dues.''
  Now, I support an effort to reduce our future dues, but I do not 
think it ought to simply be imposed through this unilateral action on 
the part of the United States.
  The United Nations serves important interests of ours. I think it is 
critical for the United States to help sustain and preserve a strong 
United Nations. I very much hope that the amendment of the Senator from 
Indiana will be adopted.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield myself as much time as I am able to consume. I 
think I have about 20, 25 minutes left, in that range.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, to state the obvious, there are no two 
Senators of whom I have higher regard than the two Senators who are 
proposing this amendment. We use those kinds of phrases around here, 
but I know they both know that I mean it.
  Now, I have a little difficulty with their approach here, not the 
principle that they are proposing, because, as I said from the outset 
and as the chairman will tell you repeatedly, and I suspect the Senator 
from New Hampshire, who is on the floor, may tell you, and I know our 
new colleague from Nebraska will tell you, I am not one who thinks we 
should be attaching conditions. I am a minority in that view, along 
with my two colleagues, but I am not one who thinks we should be 
attaching conditions. So I agree with them on that.
  But I do think they overplay the point a bit in making it appear as 
though the Senator from North Carolina has in effect co-opted the 
Senator from Delaware into signing on to these conditions and that this 
is something totally new. Let me remind people of a few historical 
facts about conditions.
  I have here--and I will ask in a moment that I be able to submit this 
for the Record--the number of occasions on which the U.S. Congress or 
Republican or Democratic Presidents have withheld the payment of moneys 
to the United Nations that were duly owed because of policy decisions 
made by our Government, notwithstanding the fact that we owed it, that 
we would not pay our dues unless the United Nations changed their 
view--conditions, conditions.
  I will just list them all. The PLO and Palestinian-related condition 
that we withheld funds of $16,556,000 because we voted on this floor--I 
do not know how my colleagues voted, but I bet they voted the same 
way--we voted on this floor to say that as long as the PLO was getting 
a special kind of treatment in the United Nations, which we viewed to 
be unfairly against the interest of our ally Israel, we were going to 
withhold funds. That is $16.556 million. SWAPO. Remember old SWAPO? 
Well, we had that. You know, that was the debate relating to Southern 
Africa, Angola, South Africa, et cetera. We withheld $68 million. The 
Law of the Seas preconference, another policy dispute, we withheld 
$7.56 million. The South African-Israel conference, we withheld 
$200,000. The Kasten amendment, we withheld $1,300,000. The 
appropriations shortfall of fiscal years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 
1996 accounts for $168.64 million, there was those--anyway I will go 
back over this. The deficit-reduction plan withheld $12,860,000. The 
Kassebaum-Solomon amendment withheld $42 million. And it goes on.

  Guess what? We withheld, based on conditions that this body or 
Republican or Democratic Presidents placed on the United Nations, 
$164,111,000. So of the arrearages, this body was complicit in over 
$100 million of those arrearages. Now, all of a sudden they look at the 
Senator from North Carolina and me and say, ``Oh, my lord,

[[Page S5726]]

what are you doing? You're attaching conditions?'' Mea culpa, mea 
culpa, mea maxima culpa.
  I did not think we should attach conditions then or now. But this is 
not anything new. And so of the money that we say is owed--our 
administration says we owe $1.021 billion, and the United Nations says 
we owe $1.361 billion. Of that, $1.021 billion, $164 million of it is 
previously attached conditions.

  Now, I would like my colleagues who think we should not attach 
conditions to look at this list, stand on the floor and acknowledge why 
we should not have done any of this, and how they voted on it. I do not 
know how they voted on it. I do not even know how I voted on every one.
  So, I am a little bit surprised at the manner in which this argument 
is being presented as if oh, my lord, we are about to do this awful 
thing we have never done before, and the United Nations is going to 
crumble when we do it. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, how did I arrive at $819 million, to badger my friend from 
North Carolina to say I would not sign on to this unless it got to $819 
million? The way I arrived at that number--there is nothing original on 
my part--I asked the administration, what do we need to pay our 
friends, and what do we need to meet our obligations?
  Let me tell you, and this gives my friend some ``agitato'' here, as 
they say in the Italian communities in my State, let me tell you what I 
understand the facts to be. Let me point out that my friend from 
Maryland and my friend who is the leader of this effort, Senator Lugar 
from Indiana, are not providing one more penny than I am providing. So 
this is all about principle. You ought to come and ask for all the 
money because you are doing the same thing I am doing, trying to get 
the best deal you can--not that either one of them have suggested that 
what I am doing is unprincipled, I just point out that their approach 
is no more or less principled than what I am suggesting. We are trying 
to get a job done. They do not provide one more penny.
  Now, how did they arrive at my $819 million? Why did they not arrive 
at $1.021 billion like they say we need? Because they know what I know, 
that $819 million will pay our allies. Now, let's go back and talk 
about how it is owed and what is owed. Peacekeeping arrears--that we 
acknowledge, the President acknowledges, and even if we paid more 
money, the President would not pay any more of it--peacekeeping arrears 
amounts to $658 million; regular budget arrears amounts to $54 million; 
arrearages in specialized agencies amounts to $254 million; and arrears 
to international organizations amount to $55 million. Let me repeat 
that now: Peacekeeping $658 million; regular budget, $54 million; 
specialized agencies, $254 million; and international organizations, 
$55 million.
  Now, I share the same concern my friend from Indiana does. However, 
if we appropriate $819 million the way the Senator from North Carolina 
and I are proposing, there are relatively easy conditions that have to 
be met the first 2 years. Let me make sure everybody remembers. The 
first year, we get about $100 million, and the second year we are up to 
$475 million. The United Nations owes us $107 million, and the United 
Nations will pay the United States from a tax equalization fund, $27 
million. Now, you got that? I do not want to turn this into a math 
class but I want to be simple--these numbers are real important. Mr. 
President, $100 million goes out the first fiscal year this takes 
effect; $475 million the second year; the United Nations owes us, we 
say, $107 million for peacekeeping; and $27 million for the tax 
equalization. You add up all that money and it pays virtually every 
single penny that we owe to all of our allies for peacekeeping and the 
only thing it does not do in the first 2 years is it does not pay what 
we are said to owe to an international organization called UNIDO, the 
U.N. Industrial Development Organization, from which we have formally 
withdrawn. The Senator from Maryland, the Senator from Indiana, the 
Senator from Delaware, and the Senator from New Hampshire did not say 
you had to withdraw from it. The President withdrew. Ambassador 
Richardson delivered the papers and said, ``We're out.'' That is the 
only organization we do not have the money to pay but we are already 
out of it.
  So, come on. Come on. I do not like doing it this way either, but it 
doesn't come out the way you all are saying it comes out. Our allies 
have nothing to fear. They reason they are not squawking, the reason 
there are not yelling out there, the reason neither the United Nations 
nor the Secretary-General is holding a protest and jumping up and down 
and screaming, is because they know and we know and the administration 
knows that the money in year 1 and year 2 combined with the money owed 
us will pay the deal, will meet our obligations.

  Now, the last point I will raise, and I will not use all my time 
because others wish to speak, the last point I will raise are these 
conditions. Let me just tick off what the conditions are that the 
chairman has graciously agreed will be the ones required in the first 2 
years to allow all of the money I just mentioned to be released. I may 
lose his vote if I keep pointing this out, but these are the facts.
  First, a very difficult condition in the first year, the United 
Nations has to acknowledge, we have to acknowledge, the President has 
to acknowledge that our sovereignty will not be diminished by 
membership in the United Nations. That is a very difficult condition to 
meet. Come on. Come on. That is the first condition for the first year. 
Then we have to get the United Nations to reduce--and they say they can 
do this--our regular budget assessment from 25 to 22 percent, 25 to 22 
percent in year 2, not year 1, year 2. So, we have 2 years to get that 
done. I might add, it was Ambassador Richardson testifying before our 
committee that said it should be 20 percent, Madeleine Albright said it 
should be 20 percent, the President has said it should be 20 percent. 
We did not pick 20 percent out of the air. Granted, I would rather it 
not be a mandate, but this is not something we are making up out of 
whole cloth. This is what this administration thinks is a fair 
assessment. They do not want us to mandate it, but they acknowledge it 
is fair. Now, roughly $709 million in the first 2 years would be 
available.
  Another condition met which we already have unilaterally done and our 
allies have acknowledged is that we have been assessed 30 percent for 
peacekeeping. We do a whole heck of a lot of peacekeeping around the 
world and no one else chips in on it at all. We say that is too high, 
it should be 25 percent. The administration says that is not a problem, 
we can get it down there. So that is another condition. We only pay 25 
percent, not from this point on, but from 2 years out. From that point 
on, 25 percent for peacekeeping.
  The administration says in testimony that these are easy conditions 
to meet. This is not something we are asking them to jump through some 
hoop they cannot meet. Now, when the condition of sovereignty, which is 
restating the obvious, when the condition of 22 percent for our annual 
dues, and when the condition of 25 percent for peacekeeping are met, 
and they have 2 years in which to meet that, all the money needed to 
pay all our allies, all the money we owe them will be released.
  So what is the deal here? Neither of my colleagues said this, but 
some have written that somehow I have made this pact with the ultimate 
enemy of the United Nations to undermine the United Nations and we are 
just going to rip its throat out and so on and so forth, and we 
compromised. And isn't that a horrible thing? Look, anybody who comes 
over here looking to be bathed in the waters of legislative purity, 
Senator Lugar's amendment does not help you a bit, because he jumps 
right into that swamp with the rest of us. He is not asking for the 
$1.3 billion that the United Nations says we owe. He is not asking for 
$1.021 billion, the amount the administration says we owe. He is asking 
for the same amount of money that the chairman of the committee and I 
are asking for. So much for the notion of paying everything they say we 
owe.
  Now, there is a distinction, you should be aware of when you vote. 
The distinction is that there are mandates in there, all of which can 
be met, and, in my view, reasonably can be met and should be met. I 
would rather not mandate them. That is the matter of principal 
distinction between the Senator and I. I would rather not mandate

[[Page S5727]]

them, but they are mandated. Now, understand what the Senator from 
North Carolina has done here, and again I'm not being facetious when I 
say this, and maybe it is not helpful to point out what he has done, he 
has been eminently reasonable. In the first distribution scheme we had 
for this $819 million, in the first distribution scheme we had, the way 
it was laid down is there would be $100 million, there would have been 
$419 million, and then the remainder in the third year. I went to him 
and said, look, I need $475 million in that second year, and he said 
OK, as the final element of compromise. The reason I needed $475 
million was to do just what I just laid out for you. So there is a 
distinction.

  The Senator from Indiana says it all gets paid out of the $819 
million and paid out in 2 years and he is worried about our allies. I 
am saying we pay out the $710 million if they meet the conditions in 
the first 2 years and all our ally obligations are met. This is a 
distinction without a gigantic difference here. There is, as they might 
say, much ado about something, but it ain't much.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to yield.
  I want to save 4 minutes for my friend from Virginia. I have how much 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Where does the Senator get the $710 million?
  Mr. BIDEN. In three places. I get $100 million the first year, $475 
million the second year on the arrearages.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator said we would have----
  Mr. BIDEN. I am going to explain that, I will tell you where I get 
the rest.
  I get $107 million from the money the United Nations acknowledges 
they owe the United States for peacekeeping, and I get $27 million for 
money that the United Nations owes the United States for tax 
equalization.
  That is how I get it. It is not out of the $819.
  Mr. SARBANES. Where do I find this in the bill?
  Mr. BIDEN. You find it in acknowledgments. It does not have to be in 
the bill. They owe us $107 million for peacekeeping and $27 million for 
tax equalization. That is money the administration has to use to meet 
its obligations.
  Mr. SARBANES. So these figures that are in the bill on page 180--$100 
million, $475 million, and $244 million--are correct?
  Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely correct, but I was making the point in response 
to the question will there be enough money to pay our allies in the 
first 2 years? And the answer is yes because of the $575 million out of 
this bill and roughly $134 million that is owed to us.
  Mr. SARBANES. Well, how does that enable them to pay our allies?
  Mr. BIDEN. It's very simple.
  Mr. SARBANES. They are operating on a deficit now. So if we forgive 
their debt to us, how does that give them money to pay our allies?
  Mr. BIDEN. The reason is because, just like when the bank owes you 
money, they owe you money--the question is how much we owe them. You 
are saying we owe them $1.370 billion. My time is running out. Maybe 
later the Senator from North Carolina might yield me a few minutes.
  I reserve the remainder of my time for my friend from Virginia, 
Senator Robb. I am out of time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. How much time is remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HELMS. I have three Senators on the floor wishing to speak. I ask 
them to stay as close as they can to 5 minutes. If they need to go a 
little over that, fine. First, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, then Senator 
Gregg of New Hampshire, and Senator Grams of Minnesota, all three of 
whom have been so helpful in the creation and production of this bill.
  I yield to Senator Hagel and then automatically the floor is yielded 
to the other two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. I will be brief, Mr. President. I know there are others 
who want to speak on this issue. There is an old North Carolina adage 
that goes like this: Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
  The Senator has heard that, I know. I think that is what we are 
talking about this morning. This is rather remarkable. What has been 
pieced together over 5 months of very diligent effort, leadership, and 
hard work, making something work based on a bipartisan foreign policy 
effort and a commitment made by Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, 
Secretary of State Albright, and the administration, who all have 
worked very hard on this. When you add to that Senator Grams from 
Minnesota, as the subcommittee chairman, who has put his imprimatur and 
worked hard and given his leadership to this effort, this is a 
remarkable effort.
  Mr. President, I don't know about you or other Senators in this body, 
but for years and years, as a private citizen, as a taxpayer, and as a 
businessman, I would hear constantly, and I have heard over the last 2 
years during my campaign: What about the United Nations? What are we 
doing? The United Nations says we owe money. Do we owe money? How much? 
What about the peacekeeping efforts? Are our peacekeeping dollars 
counted? How do we account for that? Isn't it true that we put American 
men and women in harm's way and we paid the bill and we are in Bosnia 
and all over the globe?
  So what is the correct way to assess our dues, our commitment to this 
very important organization? The debate, ladies and gentlemen--don't be 
mistaken here--is not whether the United Nations is good, bad, or 
whether we want to be in it or not. Of course it is good. The world is 
better because of the United Nations. But we need to get this issue 
cleared up. We need to take the negotiations that have been held by the 
leaders in this and hold negotiations. I think it was rather evident in 
our committee hearings and the subsequent markup of this bill last 
week, when it was reported out 14 to 4. It said to me that, in fact, 
bipartisanship is in effect and, in fact, the commitment made by the 
administration and Senators Biden, Helms, and others, will make this 
work. We need to get this behind us and we need to address this issue. 
I think it is a fair resolution to the issue. We can then work on the 
bigger issues that this country and the world must face as we move into 
a bold, new century.
  Big issues. We have trade issues. We have treaty issues. I, for one, 
am not one Senator who wants to go back and replay this. I say this 
with the greatest respect for Senator Lugar and others who have been 
involved in this. Hardly an individual in this body is as aware and 
provided as much leadership on foreign relations as Senator Lugar. But 
I think the time is now to make what we came up with--the good effort 
of bipartisan leadership--the bill that we move forward with and, 
therefore, allowing this body, the committee, and all those responsible 
for policy in this country, as we move into the next century, the 
freedom to focus on that. I rise today in strong support of the Helms-
Biden bill. I hope my colleagues will take what I and my colleagues 
have said this morning into consideration as they vote today.

  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Nebraska and the 
Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Delaware and the 
Senator from Minnesota in endorsing this really excellent effort that 
has been developed through a great deal of negotiation between the 
Senators from North Carolina and Delaware, the Secretary of State, the 
Ambassador to the United Nations, the Senator from Minnesota, and the 
majority leader.
  This effort was not easy. There were a lot of disagreements as to how 
we should address the U.N. arrearages issue. I am speaking from the 
perspective of the Appropriations Committee, where I chair the 
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the funding of the United Nations. 
From my viewpoint, I and I think many of my colleagues were not really 
willing to simply give carte blanche to the United Nations again.
  The fact is that the United Nations has, regrettably, been fiscally 
mismanaged. That mismanagement has meant that American tax dollars have

[[Page S5728]]

been wasted. That is not right. We as a Senate have an obligation to 
make sure that the tax dollars that are sent to us out of the hard 
earnings of our constituents are effectively spent. This proposal 
includes in it conditions that will require the United Nations to 
finally straighten out its fiscal house. Today, you really can't tell 
where a dollar goes that is sent to the United Nations. More 
importantly, there is a distinct sense that when a dollar goes to the 
United Nations today, a great deal is misspent on patronage, on 
promised services that are not delivered, on programs that don't work, 
and on agencies which have an excessive amount of personnel.
  So we are requiring, under this proposal, that the United Nations put 
in very basic accounting procedures, that they actually be able to tell 
us where the dollars go, that they have a personnel policy that is 
accountable, a system of accounting for the programmatic activity they 
undertake.
  More importantly, we are requiring and putting in conditions that 
allow us to determine that their procedures and structures work well, 
from a GAO auditing of their procedures.
  In addition, we have seen the other conditions outlined by the 
Senator from Delaware and, I am sure, will be outlined by other 
Senators here, which will make the United Nations fee system, or 
payment system, or dues system more reflective of the burdens of other 
nations, as well as the United States. We pay a disproportionate amount 
of the cost for peacekeeping and for the fees at the United Nations and 
the dues of the United Nations. We are not talking about dramatic 
reduction in either our commitment to the United Nations, in 
peacekeeping, or in our commitment to the area of dues. But we are 
talking about bringing it more in line with the fact that other 
nations, since the initiation of the United Nations, have risen in 
their economic capability to bear some of this burden. That is 
reflective in this amendment.
  So this is a good amendment. It is an amendment that brought together 
the various parties. And, believe me, when we started the negotiations, 
we were a long way apart. There wasn't much expectation that an 
agreement would be reached. But through the good counsel of the Senator 
from North Carolina, the Senator from Minnesota, the majority leader, 
and through the hard effort of the Secretary of State and the 
Ambassador to the United Nations, we have reached an accommodation and 
agreement. It is a positive one, one that will help the United Nations 
be a stronger institution that people can have confidence in, 
especially as to how and where it spends the dollars sent to it.
  So it is a positive step forward to have these conditions in this 
bill. I, as an appropriator, would have a lot of problems passing any 
appropriation that didn't follow the outline set forth by this 
committee and set forth in the work of Senator Helms and Senator Biden.
  I yield the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the subcommittee chairman with 
jurisdiction over the bill before us today, I worked diligently with 
members on both sides of the aisle, and with the administration, to 
craft legislation which will strengthen America's leadership role in 
the international arena. This package reorganizes our foreign relations 
bureaucracy, establishes benchmarks for the payment of U.N. arrears, 
and prioritizes our international affairs expenditures. We need a more 
effective foreign affairs apparatus, both at home and at the United 
Nations, in order to confront the challenges to peace and security in 
the future.
  This bipartisan agreement is the result of a good-faith effort to 
accommodate conflicting perspectives on how we, as a nation, should 
mobilize our resources. There were tough, lengthy negotiations on this 
package. We had to reconcile competing interests, and as a result, 
nobody is completely satisfied with the final product. I will be the 
first to say that this bill is not perfect. I would have preferred much 
more in the way of reforms and budget discipline. But this is a good 
agreement; and in this case, we should not let the perfect be the enemy 
of the good. I want to reassure my colleagues that I am open to 
oversight hearings that would address their concerns and closely 
examine the implementation of the changes we have made.
  In order to effectively safeguard the national interest, we must 
reorganize our foreign policy apparatus. This nation is saddled with an 
unwieldy Cold War foreign policy bureaucracy in which many of the 
functions of AID, ACDA, USIA and the International Development 
Cooperation Agency could be better handled by the State Department. 
This legislation does not go as far as I would like in consolidating 
our foreign relations bureaucracy. But for now, this package has a 
major advantage over a more complete consolidation--this package is 
achievable. It is a solid first step. Hopefully, these reforms will 
lead to further streamlining in the future--the American people want 
our Government to not only reflect their wishes abroad, but they want 
it to do so coherently. We are more likely to achieve our goals if we 
have a single voice representing the administration's position in the 
conduct of foreign relations, rather than a number of competing 
fiefdoms which undercut the authority of the Secretary of State.

  For example, under the new structure, we no longer should be stymied 
by a good-cop, bad-cop approach to foreign policy, whereby the entities 
who hand out U.S. foreign aid maintain good relations with client 
nations, while the Department of State essentially holds the line in 
protecting U.S. interests. We should not be handing out foreign aid to 
a country at a time when that very country is clearly acting against 
our interests. When we distribute foreign aid, it should be with an 
understanding that the United States entity asking for cooperation from 
a country in one arena is coordinating with the United States entity 
that will be delivering assistance to that country. Under this plan, 
the different parts of our foreign policy apparatus have a structural 
imperative to act in concert.
  Granted, the United States is not alone in the need to downsize its 
bureaucracy and eliminate waste. The United Nations must do the same. 
My visits to the United Nations as the United States Congressional 
Delegate to the U.N. General Assembly served to reinforce my commitment 
to salvage this organization. In this age, any organization burdened 
with a bloated bureaucracy and no mechanisms to control spending, will 
collapse under the weight of its own inefficiency. Most United Nations 
officials recognize the need for reform, and have started to work to 
achieve some of them. Indeed, in her former position as Ambassador to 
the United Nations, Secretary Albright was an outspoken critic of 
waste, fraud, and abuse and was instrumental in initiating an oversight 
process. However, most of her efforts were stymied by an entrenched 
bureaucracy. True reform will only occur when there are tangible 
incentives to change. I believe that the United Nations needs the 
discipline of actual benchmarks tied to the arrears to provide the 
impetus for fundamental change. We have seen how difficult it is to 
streamline our own bureaucracy. It is even more difficult to streamline 
an international organization where each member is involved in these 
decisions. We are not seeking to micro-manage U.N. reforms. We want to 
work with our fellow U.N. members to make the organization the best it 
can be.

  This bill provides a 3-year payment of $819 million in arrears to the 
United Nations in conjunction with the achievement of specific 
benchmarks that will help us enhance the vitality of the United 
Nations. I joined Ambassador Richardson at the United Nations late last 
week to brief Secretary General Kofi Annan and the Permanent 
Representatives of many of our allies' delegations on the details of 
this package. I was repeatedly asked whether the $819 million was a 
firm number. I indicated that it is a carefully negotiated figure that 
I believe will remain firm. I would like to remind my colleagues that 
the House bill contains no provision at all for the payment of arrears. 
The U.N. officials also wanted to know whether the benchmarks were 
conditions or suggestions. The benchmarks are what I call, somewhat 
tongue-in-check, ``mandatory suggestions.'' They are suggestions in the 
sense that the United Nations can

[[Page S5729]]

choose whether or not to adopt them, and mandatory in the sense that if 
the U.N. wants the money it will have to implement the reforms.
  If the United Nations ignores the need for reform, than the United 
Nations will have to forgo the $819 million.
  I regret that a statement I made in New York last week was 
misinterpreted to suggest that somehow benchmarks were negotiable or 
optional.
  My intent was to indicate that the details regarding the 
implementation of certain conditions could be worked out with our 
fellow U.N. members--as long as the benchmark goals are achieved.
  You know, there is a difference here. Many of the benchmarks 
establish broad parameters on the direction we believe the United 
Nations should be going. The final small details and the micromanaging 
of how those are accomplished and reached will be the work of 
negotiations between member states. We are setting out a macropackage 
of reforms that I believe most members at the United Nations recognize 
need to be made. These reforms are heading the United Nations in the 
direction that it needs to go in order to become a very efficient 
organization.
  There is significant interest in the Congress to withhold the payment 
of arrears until there is tangible evidence that reform has occurred. 
After all, this is not the U.S. Government's money, it is the taxpayers 
money. Americans should be able to ensure that their hard earned money 
will not be squandered.
  I was greatly encouraged that the Secretary General remains committed 
to reforms and will work with us to achieve them.
  I strongly believe that the United Nations is an important forum for 
debate between member states and a vehicle for joint action when 
warranted. It is not a world government.
  However, the United Nations must endorse reforms that provide 
transparency and accountability so it is embraced as the former, 
instead of feared as the latter. I firmly believe that this package 
will improve the United Nations to the point where the United Nations 
can win back public support which has eroded over the years.
  These reforms are critical to ensure the United Nations is effective 
and relevant.
  I urge my colleagues to support the entire bipartisan package and, 
especially, to understand how difficult it was to arrive at an 
agreement on the arrears.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee for their diligence and perseverance in effecting 
this compromise, an effort which took many months. I am pleased that 
the Administration has agreed, albeit reluctantly, to this agreement.
  I look forward to the implementation of the measures which will 
enhance America's ability to exert leadership in the international 
arena through the consolidation of our foreign relations apparatus.
  I am hopeful that the United Nations will accept the reforms and in 
doing so, will increase its ability to perform its mission. This 
agreement is in America's best interest, and the best interest of the 
entire international community.
  Thank you, very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, just for the Record, I think I should 
emphasize that Judd Gregg from whom we just heard, the chairman of the 
Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, has worked with us every step of the way in crafting this 
U.N. reform provision.
  Senator Grams, from whom we just heard, is chairman of the 
International Operations Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and is our congressional delegate to the United Nations. He 
has been so instrumental in negotiating the provisions on U.N. reform.
  I believe that Senator Robb is prepared to speak. If he needs an 
extra couple of minutes, I will yield them to him.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. President, it's hard to argue with the spirit of Senator Lugar's 
amendment. And indeed I don't argue with its spirit. We owe the United 
Nations hundreds of millions of dollars. Our deadbeat status is an 
embarrassment for the country and undermines our standing and the vital 
work of this international organization.
  That said, the political reality of the situation we find ourselves 
in is that a majority of this body is prepared only to pay our debts 
conditioned on comprehensive reforms being implemented at the United 
Nations. And I certainly don't disagree with reforming the United 
Nations, and making it more efficient and effective. Still, we are 
holding hostage money already owed to changes being invoked that suit 
our unilateral demands.
  But the will of the majority is clear. While I may disagree with my 
friend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee on the 
unilateral means which he has chosen to affect reform at the United 
Nations, the negotiated package providing $819 million over 3 years I 
believe is the best we can hope for. Half a loaf is better than no loaf 
at all. And that is the alternative. This is a classic example of a 
situation where the perfect can become the enemy of the good.
  Mr. President, I would favor an approach that pays our arrearages in 
full, not in the 2 years proposed by the distinguished Senator from 
Indiana or the 3 years sought by our distinguished chairman while 
conditioning future payments on reform. But that strategy fails the 
political litmus test laid down by the majority. I understand that 
reality, and I want an authorization bill that can become law. Hence, 
the circumstances persuade me that the only approach that can 
accomplish that objective, even though I may substantively disagree 
with part of it--is the one negotiated between and offered by Senator 
Helms and Senator Biden.
  It represents a compromise in good faith on both sides to achieve an 
objective that we have not achieved in this body in some period of 
time. And for that reason, I support the bill and I oppose with regret 
the amendment that is offered by my distinguished friend, the Senator 
from Indiana.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back any time remaining.
  Again, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee for yielding me an additional minute.
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator is quite welcome.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased with the progress that we are making 
today.
  Mr. President, just for the record, in 1985 a very distinguished 
Senator named Nancy Kassebaum, and Mr. Solomon on the House side, 
offered legislation using this very same approach. And it was in 
enacted into to law for the State Department Authorization Act for 
fiscal years 1986 and 1987. Who do you reckon was the chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee at that time? It was my very good 
friend, Senator Lugar of Indiana. If my memory serves me correctly, he 
supported Nancy Kassebaum, I, and all the rest of us who were 
interested in the same thing.
  The Clinton administration never requested some of the larger amounts 
of money involved in the so-called arrearage. Through a normal process 
of budgeting, the Congress overlooked paying this enormous sum for 
peacekeeping, principally to our allies in Europe. In fact, the 
nonpayment of U.N. peacekeeping expenditures in Bosnia was an explicit 
rebuff by the Congress to a policy, and any suggestion to the contrary 
is simply not so. But the Clinton administration never requested most 
of the funds in that budget. It never received congressional approval. 
The Congress to the contrary explicitly opposed these peacekeeping 
expenditures. But through a flawed mechanism at the United Nations the 
Clinton administration at that time could vote for the peacekeeping 
mission and then after the fact demand the Congress meet the so-called 
United States obligation to pay.
  So it is a confusing set of circumstances. But the argument that we 
are somehow being less than honorable in applying some demands is just 
not reasonable.
  Let's look at another thing. Do we really want to start down the path 
of

[[Page S5730]]

who has spent how much on Bosnia? This is an argument which our allies 
are not going to win. Less than 2 years ago two Cabinet-level officials 
from the Clinton administration told the Foreign Relations Committee, 
of which Senator Lugar is a member, and I believe he was present at 
that time, that the cost incurred for the peacekeeping mission in 
Bosnia is ``going to be in excess of $1 billion, probably $1.5 
billion.'' Just for the record, the United States has to date spent--
guess how much on Bosnia? Mr. President, $6.5 billion. Who is going to 
reimburse our military and our taxpayers for this expenditure? So where 
does anybody get off saying we are doing something dishonorable, or 
unwise, or unreasonable if we are protesting a lot of this stuff that 
is going on at the United Nations?
  Over $533 million of the so-called United States arrearages for 
peacekeeping is specifically related to the failed U.N. mission in 
Bosnia. In support of the amendment, it has been said that the United 
States did not have troops in Bosnia and, therefore, the United States 
has an obligation to pay those who did. That argument is not correct 
either.
  During the period of the U.N. effort in Bosnia, the United States 
maintained an aircraft carrier battle group off the coast of the former 
Yugoslavia, a substantial commitment of aircraft to police the no-fly 
zone over Bosnia, and a military hospital unit in Croatia at an 
estimated cost of at least $3 billion. Because the Congress prohibited 
President Clinton from associating our military with the U.N. disaster, 
the United States did not seek reimbursement for our efforts to contain 
hostilities in Bosnia.
  If we are going to start talking about paying bills for Bosnia and 
things like that, we can really, really have a strong argument, and I 
am going to insist that our military and our taxpayers get reimbursed 
as well.

  So, for me the alternative to the payment of these funds with the 
conditions in the reform package will not be the no strings attached 
approach advocated by the Lugar amendment. I will instead oppose any 
amendment for any reimbursement for the failed U.N. peacekeeping effort 
in Bosnia. And that is a debate, Mr. President, if we have it, that 
will be worth having.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask that Senators support my amendment 
because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to pay our 
debts and to meet our contractual obligations in support of the United 
Nations, a vigorous vehicle for the conduct of our foreign policy.
  The dispute that we have today is over two different tacks on which 
the Senators differ in terms of our effectiveness. I believe that the 
Lugar amendment is not only the right thing to do but I believe it is 
the most effective way to bring about reform, and to bring about 
cooperation with our allies, not only at the United Nations but in a 
host of international trade issues, in NATO and NATO-related concerns, 
and all of the planning that is vital to our foreign policy.
  It makes no sense, Mr. President, to deny our allies funds that we 
owe them and to expect that they are going to be generous or thoughtful 
in negotiating settlements with us in a range of agreements around the 
globe.
  So in terms of both the principle as well as its practicality, I 
believe the best course is to pay our debt and to do so promptly in a 
straightforward way and to negotiate firmly for reform of the United 
Nations, as we are doing, and as we will continue to do, after 
recognizing that 183 other countries are involved. There must finally 
be agreement with them, too.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I commend the Senators from North Carolina 
and Delaware for bringing this very important piece of legislation to 
the Senate floor. It has been many years since Congress has passed and 
the President signed a State Department Authorization bill. U.S. 
interests will be very well served if we are able to accomplish this 
very difficult but important task.
  I would like to address a key provision within S. 903, that being the 
U.N. reform plan. I have long had a deep interest in the world body, 
and this legislation offers the Senate an opportunity to better 
understand the many complex issues surrounding U.S. membership in the 
United Nations.
  There have been a number of what I consider to be unfortunate 
misconceptions raised about the United Nations in recent years that, in 
the context of this legislation, ought to be addressed in a forthright 
manner. American taxpayers deserve to know what benefits does the 
United States derives from its participation in the United Nations? A 
misconception one hears repeatedly is that the United States pays 
billions of dollars in U.N. dues, but gets little or nothing to show 
for it in return. I think it is important to rebut this allegation in 
order to more effectively make a case for full payment of our 
arrearages.
  The United Nations advances U.S. foreign policy goals in a number of 
ways, including isolation of nations that support terrorism, conflict 
resolution through diplomacy, the provision of humanitarian aid, and 
the promotion of democracy and human rights. These many successful 
ventures are too often overlooked as the more headline-grabbing 
failures of the U.N. seem to receive more attention by the news media.
  For example, U.N. economic sanctions serve to isolate and weaken 
regimes of nations such as Iraq, Libya, and others that routinely 
challenge United States interests abroad. Although these outlaw regimes 
remain in power, their ability to influence world events and undermine 
our interests are greatly reduced. I note the now-lifted U.N. sanctions 
on Serbia, which were instrumental in bringing that nation to the 
negotiations that eventually resulted in the Dayton peace accords. And 
we should also recall that Operation Desert Storm was conducted under 
the authority of a U.N.-passed resolution.
  The United Nations has also been instrumental in a number of 
peacemaking endeavors, including the brokering and implementation of 
peace agreements in the nearby, formerly war-ravaged nations of El 
Salvador and Guatemala. While I recognize and acknowledge the imperfect 
record of U.N. peacekeeping missions, particularly in Somalia and 
Bosnia, there have been successes in a number of lesser known parts of 
the world that are infrequently publicized. In any event, it should 
also be understood that the number of troops involved in U.N. 
peacekeeping operations has been reduced two-thirds over the past 2 
years.

  What's more, the United Nations has been a forum in which 
international norms and standards of conduct are debated and 
established. These standards put the weight of international unity 
behind efforts to encourage good conduct on the part of all member 
states, particularly those that seek to do otherwise. During the 51st 
U.N. General Assembly alone, a number of important resolutions were 
adopted, with U.S. support, that promoted our national security 
interests. These resolutions sought to combat international crime, 
promote respect for human rights, and deplore the conduct of the 
repressive Burmese Government. I also note the work of the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission in Geneva, an important organization which, among 
other things, puts needed pressure on many nations to fully respect the 
fundamental rights of its citizens.
  Mr. President, these are just some examples of how the United Nations 
and its affiliated organizations serve U.S. national security interests 
around the world. There are many more. It's vitally important that 
every Member of Congress understand exactly what we are receiving in 
return for our substantial investment at the United Nations in order to 
make the best judgment about how to proceed in addressing our unpaid 
dues.
  Another important misconception about the United Nations is the 
characterization of it as a bloated, uncontrolled bureaucracy that is 
unresponsive to calls for restraint. It is true that the United Nations 
and its administrative activities had seen enormous growth during its 
first several decades of existence. This growth and associated 
bureaucracy led to justified calls for reform and reduction.
  We must keep in mind that the United Nations has already undergone 
several reforms in the past decade, often at the urging of the U.S. 
Congress. Well

[[Page S5731]]

before Secretary-General Kofi Annan assumed office, the United Nations 
had established an inspector general, reduced the number of high level 
posts, and cut both its peacekeeping and general budgets. And in the 
relatively short time since Annan has been Secretary-General, he has 
announced additional far-reaching reforms. On March 17, Annan specified 
a series of 10 reform benchmarks involving further budget cuts and 
restructuring. Included among these are a transfer of resources from 
administration to programs, establishment of a code of conduct for U.N. 
staff, and streamlining of his own office. Annan has done a great deal 
with the authority he has, while proposing additional measures that 
must be negotiated with member states.
  So no one should be left with the understanding that the United 
Nations is somehow immune from accountability and unresponsive to 
criticism. The world body, especially through its new Secretary-
General, has heard the call for reform. Its leadership recognizes that 
it must be responsive to the concerns of member states, particularly 
its biggest donor, the United States.

  This brings us to today's debate. It has been my longstanding view 
that the United States absolutely must remain a full and active member 
of the United Nations. The many constructive activities of the United 
Nations. I have discussed, and the many U.S. interests that are served 
by our participation in the world body warrant a continued and 
strengthened U.S. role. Indeed, the 20th century has seen the 
tremendous consequences that result when the United States shrinks from 
its inevitable leading role in world affairs. In fact, I would argue 
that the increasing complexity of the challenges confronting the United 
States today make it more important than ever that we remain engaged 
internationally by, among other things, fully participating in the 
United Nations.
  And we certainly cannot adequately participate in the United Nations 
by continuing to carry an arrearage of around $1 billion. Because of 
this arrearage, our respect and credibility there has diminished, 
thereby limiting United States ability to influence positively the 
United Nations' deliberations and activities. As the sole remaining 
superpower in an increasingly complex world, the United States simply 
must play a leading and unimpeded role at the United Nations.
  While I am extremely pleased about the willingness of the Senator 
from North Carolina to engage in negotiations to clear up our 
arrearage, I believe that paying our back dues in full without the 
onerous conditions of title 22 is the appropriate course of action. It 
appears unlikely that the United Nations will, in fact, agree to this 
package as a whole, particularly given the lukewarm initial reaction of 
its leadership. This reaction is certainly understandable. Could you 
imagine if every member state made demands such as this in return for 
full payment of dues?
  What would best serve U.S. interests is to pay off our arrearage now 
and encourage our diplomats to undertake a very serious effort to 
negotiate further reforms with a Secretary-General who appears strongly 
committed to genuine change. I am greatly concerned that the 
substantial progress we have already made in working with Kofi Annan 
could be jeopardized by enactment of these mandates. It is no surprise 
that many member states of the U.N. have said that these conditions are 
a mere starting point for further negotiations. Such an interpretation, 
if accepted by the body as a whole, would simply put us back at square 
one with a $1 billion arrearage.
  Rather than debating how best to pay our back dues, we should instead 
focus on the more fundamental question of whether or not the United 
States ought to be a member of the United Nations at all. If we do 
decide that it's in our interests to remain there, then we should 
simply pay our dues and move on. It is imperative that the United 
States remain engaged, rather than withdraw, from world affairs and 
institutions such as the United Nations. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Lugar/Sarbanes amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President I rise to express my strong support for 
the amendment introduced by Senator Lugar. The amendment accomplishes a 
number of things, including funding arrears to the United Nations 
within 2 years and fully funding fiscal year 1998 U.S. regular and 
peacekeeping dues to the United Nations. The full funding for fiscal 
year 1998 is important in that it will help ensure that the United 
States does not perpetuate U.S. arrears by not meeting current U.S. 
obligations to the United Nations.
  But as commendable and desirable as these provisions are, what I 
believe is most important is Senator Lugar's proposal to strip from S. 
903 some 38 unilaterally imposed benchmarks or conditions that the 
United Nations would have to meet before we fully pay the debts we 
acknowledge we owe the organization. Included in these benchmarks are a 
permanent cut in our annual dues from 25 percent to 20 percent of the 
regular U.N. budget and from 31 percent to 25 percent of the 
peacekeeping budget.
  When I first joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was 
asked by a ranking State Department official what my position was on 
U.S. arrears to the United Nations. I said my position could be summed 
up in two-words: ``pay up.'' At the time I had no inkling that the 
majority of my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee would 
agree that our decision to finally pay up should be contingent on the 
U.N complying with numerous U.S. conditions. And the conditions 
contained in S. 903 provide for payment of arrears over a 3-year 
period, with new conditions imposed each of the 3 years--conditions 
that the United Nations will have to meet in exchange for U.S. 
payments. To other nations, including some of our allies, this formula 
is likely to be viewed as being tantamount to blackmail on the 
installment plan. Moreover, if implemented there is no question it 
would greatly weaken the United Nations and undermine our leadership 
role in the world body.
  What would happen to the United Nations if other member States were 
to follow suit and impose some of the same provisions contained in this 
bill as conditions for paying their arrears? Thus, they might refuse to 
pay their back dues and assessments until the United Nations agreed to 
make reductions they specify in their assessed rate for the U.N. budget 
and share of contributions to peacekeeping operations. Or they might 
condition repayment to specific reductions in the U.N. staff, reduced 
U.N job vacancy rates, or even providing their national counterparts to 
our GAO with access to U.N. financial data so that they may audit the 
U.N. books.

  Is there any doubt that we would be enraged if the national 
legislature of any other member state were to mandate that the United 
Nations jump through a series of hoops before that state pays its debts 
to the United Nations? And we would have a right to be enraged, not 
only because our own dues and assessments might consequently be 
increased. But also because U.N. compliance with such a unilateral 
diktat could well lead to the organization's collapse. No international 
organization can be viable if its members have the power to 
unilaterally determine what they owe the organization, the conditions 
under which repayment should be made, and what their future financial 
obligations should be.
  As Senator Lugar has pointed out, only 5 percent, some $54 million, 
of the $1.021 billion we acknowledge we owe is actually owed to the 
United Nations. It is important to note that the single largest portion 
of our arrears, almost two-thirds, is owed to countries who contributed 
troops to peacekeeping operations which the U.S. backed in the U.N. 
Security Council. In most cases these were operations in which the 
United States refrained from participating with our own forces. The 
bulk of this peacekeeping debt is owed to our NATO allies, with the 
United Nations merely serving as a conduit to reimburse those countries 
who supported peacekeeping operations with troops and equipment.
  There is no doubt that international peacekeeping eases our burden 
because other nations share the costs and risks. In fact, the United 
States will gain $107 million in reimbursements for U.N. peacekeeping 
costs, which we will credit against our U.N. debt obligations.
  In effect, by withholding our debt payments and making repayment 
contingent on a host of conditions, we've imposed a double whammy on 
some of our closest allies. We have yet to pay

[[Page S5732]]

them what we owe for the costs of peacekeeping operations they carried 
out which we had deemed to be in our national interest. And by 
unilaterally reducing our own future obligations to the United Nations 
as a condition of paying our arrears, our NATO allies will wind up 
paying more for peacekeeping operations and the U.N. budget. To me, 
this seems like a sure-fire formula for undermining our relations with 
our NATO partners.
  Mr. President, I believe it is important to stress that the Lugar 
amendment enjoys strong and broad support. Among the backers is the 
Emergency Coalition for U.S. Financial Support of the United Nations 
which includes all the former Secretaries of State, and over 100 
business, labor, humanitarian, faith-based, and civic organizations. 
Moreover, the premises of the Lugar amendments are consistent with the 
views of the American public. For example, a nationwide poll last year 
found that almost two-thirds of Americans believe the United States 
``should always pay its full dues to the United Nations on schedule.''
  Americans have long believed in having ``a decent respect for the 
opinions of mankind.'' I hope my colleagues will agree with me that 
imposing unilateral, take it-or-leave it conditions on the United 
Nations hardly reflects ``a decent respect for the opinions of 
mankind.'' Therefore, I urge my colleagues to strongly back the Lugar 
amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                     Amendment No. 383, As Modified

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to offer a perfecting amendment to Senator DeWine's amendment 
No. 383. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Dodd. It amends 
the pending amendment to add two additional categories of individuals 
who may be excluded under this amendment: First, members of the Haitian 
high command; and, second, members of the paramilitary organization 
known as FRAPH.
  Both of these organizations were responsible for serious human rights 
abuses during the coup regime from 1991 to 1994.
  I ask unanimous consent that the DeWine amendment be so modified to 
include the amendment which I send to the desk from Senator Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 383), as modified, 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.
       (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.
       (5) Any member of the Haitian High Command during the 
     period 1991-1994, who has been credibly alleged to have 
     planned, ordered, or participated with members of the Haitian 
     Armed Forces in the September 1991 coup against the duly 
     elected government of Haiti (and his family members) or the 
     subsequent murders of as many as three thousand Haitians 
     during that period;
       (6) Any individual who has been credibly alleged to have 
     been a member of the paramilitary organization known as FRAPH 
     who planned, ordered, or participated in acts of violence 
     against the Haitian people;
       (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

[[Page S5733]]

     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope that Senator DeWine would accept my 
perfecting amendment that I offer to his amendment. I understand that 
the managers of the bill are prepared to accept it, if the sponsor of 
the underlying amendment has no problem, which I understand he does 
not.
  I believe that those who use violence as a political tool should not 
be rewarded with a United States visa for those actions. While his 
amendment covers a number of categories of individuals who have been 
involved in political killings and other illegal acts, there would seem 
to be two categories of individuals who played a very prominent role in 
the reign of terror that characterized Haiti between September 1991 and 
October 1994 when the duly elected government was restored to office 
with the assistance of the international community. I am of course 
talking about the High Command of the Haitian Armed Forces and the 
paramilitary organization known as FRAPH.
  Clearly members of the Haitian High Command violated every norm of 
accepted international law with respect to their efforts to overthrow a 
democratically elected government. But more importantly, their 
treatment of the Haitian people during the coup regime was 
reprehensible. Surely granting entry to the United States of such 
individuals would serve no useful private or public purpose.
  Similarly, the paramilitary organization which came to be known as 
FRAPH undertook such heinous acts as kidnaping, rape and murder as a 
concerted effort to intimidate the Haitian people. Individuals who were 
members of this organization should also be excluded from entry into 
the United States.
  Mr. President I believe that this amendment adds the necessary 
balance to the pending amendment and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware and I 
thank Senator Dodd for this effective amendment. It is consistent with 
what we are trying to do and trying to say and are saying in the DeWine 
amendment. That simply is that the United States should not allow 
people who have committed political murders in the country of Haiti 
into the United States and whether these are from the left or the 
right, whether these occurred after Aristide or before Aristide, we 
should be consistent.
  So I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from North Carolina 
has 1 minute remaining.


                           Amendment No. 382

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Lugar has repeatedly said it is the 
right thing to do, to vote for his amendment. It is the right thing to 
do, almost implying that those of us who do not agree with him have, 
indeed, a character defect. Let me tell you about the Lugar amendment. 
The effect of the Lugar amendment would be that the United Nations 
would have absolutely no incentive to reform--none--no incentive to cut 
the burden on the American taxpayers by reducing our regular budget 
assessment to 20 percent; no reduction in our peacekeeping assessment; 
no inspector general in the big three specialized agencies to root out 
waste, fraud, and corruption; no U.S. seat on the U.N. budgetary 
committee; no budgetary reductions in the specialized agencies; no 
sunset provisions for obsolete programs; no GAO access to U.N. 
financial data; no budgetary reform, and so on and on.
  It may be the right thing to do in Senator Lugar's opinion, but I 
expect that it is going to be the wrong thing to do, to vote for the 
Lugar amendment, when the tally is made in just a few minutes.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendments? I believe we 
did that last night.
  I yield the remainder of my time.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 383

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 383, as modified, offered by the Senator from 
Ohio [Mr. DeWine].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] 
and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Daschle
     Harkin
       
  The amendment (No. 383), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. 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.


                           Amendment No. 382

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes for debate equally 
divided on the Lugar amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my amendment calls for payment of our 
obligations to the United Nations to the extent of $819 million over 2 
years without conditions; $658 million of that is owed to our friends 
and our allies for peacekeeping operations and expenses they undertook 
and for which we voted. We have a contractual obligation to pay.
  Our effectiveness in bringing about reforms in dealing with NATO 
expansion, in dealing with a host of international trade issues depends 
upon our credibility with our friends. It is not an argument in favor 
of reform that unilaterally we decide not to pay or send our payments 
to other nations but insist on some with 38 conditions in 18 pages of 
agate type before we allocate the money. We have a straightforward 
vote, Mr. President. I believe it is the right thing to do. I think it 
is the most effective thing to do in terms of American diplomacy.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield? I very strongly support the 
Senator from Indiana, and I very much hope our colleagues will vote in 
favor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has been 
kind enough to give me the minute to respond.
  The Lugar amendment does not have one single penny more in it than 
this bill. We do pay all of our allies the arrearages that we owe them 
with the bill in the way it is drawn up. The administration has 
supported this compromise we have come up with.
  This basically is the way to get the job done. But I emphasize, there 
is not one additional penny in the Lugar amendment. There is no 
distinction in how we get paid. The principle is, should there be any 
conditions placed on the United Nations? This bill does place 
conditions they can meet. The Senator, on principle, says none should

[[Page S5734]]

be there. If you wish to put conditions at all, you should vote with 
us. If you want no conditions, vote with him. But it is the same amount 
of money.
  I urge that you vote ``no'' on the Lugar amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 382 offered by the 
Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] 
and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--73

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Daschle
     Harkin
       
  The amendment (No. 382) was rejected.

                          ____________________