[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________