[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7382-S7391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what is the current situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is to be recognized on his 
amendment at this point.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in order to save time, let me speak to 
these amendments and then I will send up a modification.
  For just one minute, I do want to respond to my colleague from Texas 
and say that I think this vote today around noon on cloture on the 
Rockefeller amendment is a test of economic literacy. But I have a 
different definition of that than my colleague from Texas. One more 
time, I want to make about two or three points. The first point is that 
our administration has no problem when it comes to tariffs, or when it 
comes to imposing tariffs on European imports in support of Chiquita 
Bananas in Central America. But now when it comes to the steelworkers, 
there is opposition.
  My second point is that in many ways what happened with the Asian 
crisis was you had hot capital going in and out of those countries with 
no kind of regulatory framework that made sense. George Soros, a 
financier who knows something about this, is saying we have to have a 
different kind of framework for the global economy. Some of the 
financial interests that benefited most from financial liberalization 
and then were hurt the most from the Asian crisis were able to get some 
public money and public assistance through IMF bailouts. But again, 
when our steelworkers ask for some support under existing trade 
statutes, we don't get it.
  Finally, let it be clear that this is not all about whether we have 
free trade. This is about fair trade. That is what I think matters the 
most. Our workers can compete with workers anywhere. But when you see 
the dumping of steel below the cost of production in our markets and 
saturating our markets and prices going down and people losing their 
jobs, of course, working people stand up and fight back. That makes all 
the sense in the world.
  Finally, I want to argue a little bit of economics focusing on how we 
can help countries going through these crises --countries such as 
Thailand, Indonesia, Russia, and Mexico--how we can help those 
countries help their working class people consume more. Right now we 
are emphasizing that those countries should try to export their way out 
of their crises instead of relying on domestic demand, which does not 
make a lot of sense. We ought to be focused on how people in these 
countries can earn a decent living so they can, in fact, buy some of 
what they produce in their countries--some of their own products.
  I say to my colleague from Texas that economic analysis is a little 
bit different than his but one which I think makes more sense.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I want to 
talk about today.
  The first amendment deals with one of the most alarming human rights 
abuses in the world today. It is the growing use of child soldiers.
  Today, in 25 countries there are a quarter of a million, or more, 
children being used in government armies and rebel groups. Some of 
these children--if you are ready for this--are as young as 8 years old.
  Children are recruited in a variety of different ways. Some are 
conscripted. Some are forcibly recruited or kidnapped and literally 
dragged from their homes, schools, and villages. In some instances, 
children are recruited based solely on whether or not they are big 
enough to hold a gun.
  I think I need to repeat that.
  In some cases these children are recruited, abducted, or kidnapped on 
the basis of whether or not they are big enough to hold a gun.
  These young combatants are not only subject to grave physical risk 
but are all too often encouraged, or even forced themselves, to commit 
barbaric acts. Children are forced to do this. They are considered 
dispensable. Child soldiers are often sent to the front lines of 
combat, or sent into mine fields ahead of other troops. Children who 
protest or who cannot keep up with the march or attempt to escape are 
killed often by other child captives who are forced to participate in 
the killings as a means of breaking their wills and their spirits.
  Those who survive these experiences are frequently physically and 
emotionally scarred. In addition to dealing with severe emotional and 
psychological trauma, malnourishment, disease, and physical injury 
suffered while in captivity, many children worry about their basic 
survival--how they will feed, clothe, and shelter themselves.
  For example, in northern Uganda, the Lord's Resistance Army, an 
opposition group, has abducted some 10,000 children. Children as young 
as 8 years old have been taken from their schools and homes and forced 
to march to rebel-based camps in southern Sudan. They are made to carry 
heavy loads, without rest, and with very little food and water.
  Accounts of the use of these children as soldiers by the Lord's 
Resistance Army in Uganda and in the devastating Sierra Leone conflict 
make clear that child combatants may suffer not only physical injury or 
disability but also psychological damage or rejection by their home 
communities.
  Last year, I met with Ms. Angelina Atyam, the mother of one such 
child. Angelina's 14-year-old daughter, Charlotte--Charlotte is the 
first name of Charlotte Oldham-Moore, who is with me on human rights 
issues--was abducted from her school dormitory over a year and a half 
ago by rebels from the Lord's Resistance Army. Angelina described to me 
that fateful October morning when she arrived at her daughter's school 
to find all the windows broken, the girls' clothes scattered 
everywhere, and her daughter missing. The rebels had arrived at St. 
Mary's girls school the previous night, tied up the girls, beat them if 
they cried, and then took them away into unspeakable horrors. One 
hundred and thirty-nine students were abducted at gunpoint.
  That is why this amendment is a very important amendment.
  Thankfully, many of them have been rescued or escaped or their 
freedom has been purchased. But many others, such as Charlotte, have 
not returned. Charlotte turned 15 in the captivity of the Lord's 
Resistance Army. In Angelina's own words:

       Until peace comes, the kidnaping will continue. My daughter 
     Charlotte turned 15 in Sudan. Like other parents in the 
     Concerned Parents Association, my husband and I can only rely 
     on those few children who manage to escape from captivity for 
     news of our daughter. Two weeks ago, I spoke with a girl who 
     had just escaped. She said the rebels are now intentionally 
     impregnating the girls, to make them too ashamed to go back 
     to their parents. She mentioned that one of the pregnant 
     girls is a St. Mary's student named Charlotte.
       I pray that one day my daughter will come home, and my 
     family can become whole again. Uganda's future depends on how 
     the government acts to end this tragedy and how quickly 
     society reintegrates the children. No nation can have a valid 
     strategic interest in prolonging the captivity and abuse of 
     children. President Clinton has a unique opportunity to help 
     start this healing process.

  Important efforts are being made to address this moral outrage. Graca 
Machel, the former U.N. expert on the impact of armed conflict on 
children, has recommended that governments immediately demobilize all 
child soldiers.
  I believe the United States must do more to end this grave human 
rights

[[Page S7383]]

abuse and assist its victims. Rehabilitation and social reintegration 
programs are essential to help former child soldiers regain a place in 
civilian society and help prevent their re-recruitment into subsequent 
conflicts. I believe strongly that the need for demobilization, 
rehabilitation, and reintegration programs of former child soldiers in 
conflict areas must be incorporated into U.S. policy.
  The United States must take a leadership role in demobilizing and 
reintegrating these children back into their communities.
  That is why this is a resolution that directs the State Department to 
study the issue of rehabilitation of former child soldiers, the 
positive role the United States can play in this effort, and to submit 
a report to the Congress on how we should address it.
  Armed conflict has already taken the lives of 2 million children in 
the last decade. Three times as many have been injured or disabled. 
With the continued use of child soldiers, those numbers will only rise.
  Our country must be a champion for children and their welfare. 
Consequently, the United States should be making the strongest possible 
effort to protect children of combat and to assist them in reentering 
their societies. It is the very least that we can do.
  This amendment represents a continuation of some work that the 
Senator and I have been doing in this area. Today we focus on the need 
to provide the support services for these children.
  Today we focus on the need to get a report from our State Department 
as to how we can play as positive a role as possible.
  In the past, I have talked about these abuses on the floor. I 
certainly hope that we will continue to be very active and play a 
positive role in efforts to have some kind of international protocol 
agreement to protect these children.
  I can't think, quite frankly, of a more important issue.
  I have talked with some parents. As a parent, I find it unbelievable 
that this happens to so many children in so many countries. It would 
seem to me that we really ought to, as a country, as a government, take 
the lead and play as positive a role as possible.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting this modification of this 
amendment.
  When Senator Helms comes to the floor, we will go ahead and do that.
  Mr. President, also in order to move forward, let me go on and speak 
about another amendment that I was going to introduce to this bill--the 
State Department authorization bill, which I will now hold off on for a 
little bit longer period of time as we continue to build support.
  This amendment also deals with another horrendous human rights 
violation in our time--the trafficking in human beings, particularly 
the trafficking of women and children for the purposes of sexual 
exploitation and forced labor.
  Earlier this year, I introduced a bill called the International 
Trafficking of Women and Children Victim Protection Act of 1999, which 
addresses this issue and is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Boxer, 
Snowe, Murray, and Torricelli.
  If passed, this bill will put the Senate on record--or this 
amendment, which we will be introducing shortly. We are going to 
continue to work with people and work with the State Department and 
with other Senators and build the support. But we want to go on record 
in the Senate, the U.S. Congress, as opposing trafficking for forced 
prostitution and domestic servitude, and acting to check it before the 
lives of more women and more girls are shattered.

  One of the fastest growing international trafficking businesses is 
the trade in women. Women and girls seeking a better life, a good 
marriage, or a lucrative job abroad, unexpectedly find themselves 
forced to work as prostitutes or in sweatshops. Seeking this better 
life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs in foreign 
countries--including our country--at wages they could never imagine at 
home. Every year, the trafficking of human beings for the sex trade 
affects hundreds of thousands of women throughout the world.
  The U.S. Government estimates that between 1 and 2 million women and 
girls are trafficked annually around the world. According to experts, 
somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 women are trafficked each year 
into the United States alone. They come from Thailand, they come from 
Russia, they come from the Ukraine, they come from other countries in 
Asia, and they come from other countries from the former Soviet Union.
  Upon arrival in countries far from their homes, these women are often 
stripped of their passports, held against their will in slave-like 
conditions, and sexually abused. Rape, intimidation, and violence are 
commonly employed by traffickers to control their victims and to 
prevent them from seeking help.
  Through physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and 
brothel owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual 
exploitation that imposes a constant fear of arrest and deportation, as 
well as of violent reprisals by traffickers themselves, to whom the 
women must pay off ever-growing debts. Many brothel owners actually 
prefer foreign women--women who are far from home, far from help, don't 
speak the language--because it is so easy to control them. Most of 
these women never imagine the life in hell they would encounter, having 
traveled abroad to find better jobs or to see the world. Many believe 
that nothing would happen to them in rich countries like Switzerland, 
Germany or the United States. However, many of them now are put in a 
living hell.
  Last year, First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke powerfully of this human 
tragedy. She said,
       I have spoken to young girls in northern Thailand whose 
     parents were persuaded to sell them as prostitutes, and they 
     received a great deal of money by their standards. You could 
     often tell the homes of where the girls had been sold because 
     they might even have a satellite dish or an addition built on 
     their house. But I met girls who had come home after they had 
     been used up, after they had contracted HIV or AIDS. If 
     you've ever held the hand of a 13-year-old girl dying of 
     AIDS, you can understand how critical it is that we take 
     every step possible to prevent this happening to any other 
     girl anywhere in the world. I also, in the Ukraine, heard of 
     women who told me with tears running down their faces that 
     young women in their communities were disappearing. They 
     answered ads that promised a much better future in another 
     place and they were never heard from again.

  Lest you think this is just in other countries, and this only happens 
in far off lands, let me talk about the United States. Earlier this 
spring, six men admitted in a Florida court to forcing 17 women and 
girls--some as young as 14--into a prostitution slavery ring. The 
victims were smuggled into the United States from Mexico with a promise 
of steady work, but instead they were forced into prostitution. The 
ring was uncovered when two 15-year-old girls escaped and went to the 
Mexican consulate in Miami.
  According to recent reports by the Justice Department, teenage 
Mexican girls were also held in slavery in the Carolinas and forced to 
submit to prostitution. In addition, Russian and Latvian women were 
forced into nightclub work in Chicago. According to charges filed 
against the traffickers, the traffickers picked up the women upon their 
arrival at the airport, seized their documents and return tickets, 
locked them in hotels and beat them up. The women were told that if 
they didn't dance nude in nightclubs, the Russian mafia would kill 
their families. Further, over 3 years, hundreds of women from the Czech 
Republic who answered advertisements in Czech newspapers for modeling 
were ensnared in an illegal prostitution ring.
  These victims are unfamiliar with the laws, they are unfamiliar with 
the language, they are unfamiliar with the customs, and quite often 
they don't know what to do. They are completely helpless. They are 
completely hopeless.
  Trafficking in women and girls is a human rights problem that 
requires a human rights response. Trafficking is condemned by human 
rights treaties as a violation of basic human rights, and it is a 
slavery-like practice. Women who are trafficked are subjected to other 
abuses--rape, beatings, physical confinement--squarely prohibited by 
human rights law. The human abuses continue in the workplace, in the 
forms of physical and sexual abuse, debt bondage, and illegal 
confinement, and all are prohibited.

  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to be 
free from slavery and involuntary servitude, arbitrary detention, 
degrading or inhuman treatment, as well as to

[[Page S7384]]

the right to protection by law against these abuses.
  The United Nations General Assembly has passed three resolutions 
during the last three years recognizing that international traffic in 
women and girls is an issue of pressing international concern involving 
numerous violations of fundamental human rights. The United Nations 
General Assembly is calling upon all governments to criminalize 
trafficking, to punish its offenders, while not penalizing it's 
victims.
  Fortunately, the global trade in women and children is receiving 
greater attention by governments and NGOs following the U.N. World 
Conference on Women in Beijing. The President's Interagency Council on 
Women is working hard to mobilize a response to this problem. Churches, 
synagogues, and NGOs are fighting this battle daily. But, much, much 
more must be done.
  My bill provides a human rights response to the problem. It has a 
comprehensive and integrated approach focused on prevention, protection 
and assistance for victims, and prosecution of traffickers.
  I will highlight a few of its provisions now:
  It sets an international standard for governments to meet in their 
efforts to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human rights 
abuse. It calls on the State Department and Justice Department to 
investigate and take action against international trafficking. In 
addition, it creates an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat 
Trafficking in the Office of the Secretary of State and directs the 
Secretary to submit an annual report to Congress on international 
trafficking.
  The annual report would, among other things, identify states engaged 
in trafficking, the efforts of these states to combat trafficking, and 
whether their government officials are complicit in the practice. 
Corrupt government or law enforcement officials sometimes directly 
participate and benefit in the trade of women and girls. And, 
corruption also prevents prosecution of traffickers. U.S. police 
assistance would be barred to countries found not to have taken 
effective action in ending the participation of their officials in 
trafficking, and in investigating and prosecuting meaningfully their 
officials involved in trafficking. A waiver is provided for the 
President if he finds that provision of such assistance is in the 
national interest. This is a modest enforcement provision that will 
encourage governments to take seriously this extremely serious human 
rights violation.
  On a national level, it ensures that our immigration laws do not 
encourage rapid deportation of trafficked women, a practice which 
effectively insulates traffickers from ever being prosecuted for their 
crimes. Trafficking victims are eligible for a nonimmigrant status 
valid for three months. If the victim pursues criminal or civil actions 
against her trafficker, or if she pursues an asylum claim, she is 
provided with an extension of time. Further, it provides that 
trafficked women should not be detained, but instead receive needed 
services, safe shelter, and the opportunity to seek justice against 
their abusers. Finally, my bill provides much needed resources to 
programs assisting trafficking victims here at home and abroad.
  We must commit ourselves to ending the trafficking of women and girls 
and to building a world in which women and children are no longer 
subjected to such horrendous abuses.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I say to the chair of the committee, I will not introduce the 
amendment to today's bill. What we want to do is have an amendment, and 
I hope to get the support of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs 
Committee, which will set an international standard for governments to 
meet in their effort to fight trafficking and assist victims of human 
rights abuse. It will call on the State Department and Justice 
Department to investigate and take action against international 
trafficking. It will create an interagency traffic force to monitor and 
combat trafficking in the Office of the Secretary of State. It will 
direct the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Congress on 
international trafficking.
  We will also take a look at what different governments are doing and 
which countries are involved in this illegal practice, what police 
forces are involved, and whether or not we ought to be taking action 
with a clear message that we, as a government, will not tolerate that.
  On a national level, it will ensure that our immigration laws don't 
encourage the rapid deportation of women, that insulates the 
traffickers from being prosecuted. Women are terrified; they have no 
protection, and therefore, they can't even testify against what is 
happening to them. We want to make sure they are provided with some 
protection.
  We want to commit ourselves to ending the trafficking of women and 
girls and to building a world in which women and children are no longer 
subjected to this horrendous abuse.
  We don't agree on all issues, I say to the chairman of the committee, 
but I know him and I know he finds this practice abhorrent. Out of 
respect for him, I will not introduce this amendment to this bill 
because I know he wants to move the bill forward. There are a couple of 
issues we are trying to resolve in terms of getting support. I had a 
commitment from the chairman we will go forward with hearings. This 
will not be delayed.
  Perhaps even more importantly, I say to the chairman, because he has 
had nothing to do with delaying this, I have been waiting for the State 
Department to come forward with their modifications. I have asked for 
quite some period of time. My hope is within the next week we will be 
doing this work together. I will work with the chairman; I will work 
with Senator Biden; I will work with the State Department. We will come 
to some agreement on our language, which surely we can do. When the 
foreign operations bill comes to the floor, my hope is we will be ready 
with this amendment. If at that point in time I can't get the State 
Department to come forward and give me their suggestions and talk about 
their approach and have us work together, I will just bring the 
amendment to that bill and we will have an all out debate and a vote up 
or down and see where people stand.
  I am convinced with a little bit more time--not too much more time 
but a little bit more time--I will get to work with the chairman and I 
will be able to get the support of the chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Affairs Committee and Senator Biden and other Senators and we can move 
this forward.
  My goal is to get this passed. Members don't come to the floor to 
give a speech for the sake of giving a speech. Quite often, we don't 
even get to see, Senator Helms, the results of our work in a concrete 
way. But we do know if we can pass something like this and get it in a 
bill, it can help a lot of people around the world, and we have done 
something good. I want to do something good, do something positive.
  I will wait a little while longer. I do want the State Department to 
know I will not wait much longer. Let's go forward in the spirit of 
working together. This will not be something that we will delay and 
delay. We will pass this. Some good work is being done in the State 
Department. There is no reason we can't do this together. There is no 
reason this can't be a bipartisan bill. There is no reason why our 
government, our country, can't take the lead in trying to put an end to 
this abhorrent, unconscionable, vicious practice. This is a huge civil 
rights issue. As a Senator, I intend to address this with some good 
legislation.

  I say to the Chair, I have already had a chance to speak on the 
amendment dealing with child soldiers. We have a modification.
  What I would like to do now is call up amendment No. 697 and ask 
unanimous consent it be in order for me to modify the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 697, As Modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the global use of child 
 soldiers is unacceptable and that the international community should 
                  find remedies to end this practice)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S7385]]


       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 697, as modified.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 115, after line 18, add the following new section:

     SEC. 730. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE USE OF CHILDREN AS 
                   SOLDIERS OR OTHER COMBATANTS IN FOREIGN ARMED 
                   FORCES.  

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There are at least 300,000 children who are involved in 
     armed conflict in at least 25 countries around the world. 
     This is an escalating international humanitarian crisis which 
     must be addressed promptly.
       (2) Children are uniquely vulnerable to military 
     recruitment because of their emotional and physical 
     immaturity, are easily manipulated, and can be drawn into 
     violence that they are too young to resist or understand.
       (3) Children are most likely to become child soldiers if 
     they are orphans, refugees, poor, separated from their 
     families, displaced from their homes, living in a combat 
     zone, or have limited access to education.
       (4) Child soldiers, besides being exposed to the normal 
     hazards of combat, are also afflicted with other injuries due 
     to their lives in the military. Young children may have 
     sexually related illnesses, suffer from malnutrition, have 
     deformed backs and shoulders which are the result of carrying 
     loads too heavy for them, as well as respiratory and skin 
     infections.
       (5) One of the most egregious examples of the use of child 
     soldiers is the abduction thousands of children, some as 
     young as 8 years of age, by the Lord's Resistance Army (in 
     this section referred to as the ``LRA") in northern Uganda.
       (6) The Department of State's Country Reports on Human 
     Rights Practices For 1999 reports that in Uganda the LRA 
     abducted children ``to be guerillas and tortured them by 
     beating them, raping them, forcing them to march until 
     collapse, and denying them adequate food, water, or 
     shelter''.
       (7) Children who manage to escape from LRA captivity have 
     little access to trauma care and rehabilitation programs, and 
     many find their families displaced, missing, dead, or fearful 
     of having their children return home.
       (8) A large number of children have participated and been 
     killed in the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, and the use of 
     children as soldiers has led to a breakdown in law and order 
     in Sierra Leone.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--
       (1) Condemnation.--Congress hereby joins the international 
     community in condemning the use of children as soldiers and 
     other combatants by governmental and non-governmental armed 
     forces.
       (2) Further sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that--
       (A) the Secretary of State should--
       (i) study the issue of the rehabilitation of former child 
     soldiers, the manner in which their suffering can be 
     alleviated, and the positive role that the United States can 
     play in such an effort; and
       (ii) submit a report to Congress on the issue of 
     rehabilitation of child soldiers and their families.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, we certainly accept this amendment, 
amendment No. 697, as modified. We have discussed it on both sides.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 697), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his help and his 
support.
  Mr. HELMS. To the contrary, I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I commend the Senator from Minnesota for working with us 
on his amendments. The issues he raised are--``significant'' is not 
strong enough. They are grave issues that ought to be considered, and I 
commend him for it. I assure the Senator the committee will continue to 
work with him to address his concerns.
  Mr. President, we have made significant progress in the State 
Department authorization bill. We have now completed debate on the 
Feingold amendment, and we have just, obviously, accepted the modified 
Wellstone amendment. We are making progress on the Sarbanes amendment, 
which is the only remaining amendment to be debated. I understand some 
Senators wish to come to the floor and speak on the bill in general, 
and I encourage them to do that now. This afternoon we will vote on the 
Feingold amendment and possibly the Sarbanes amendment, and then we 
will move to final passage.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Kathleen 
O'Brien, a fellow, and Meagan Fitzsimmons, who is an intern, be granted 
the privilege of the floor today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SARBANES. 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. 695

    (Purpose: To increase the authorizations of appropriations for 
 ``Contributions for International Organizations'' and ``Contributions 
              for International Peacekeeping Activities'')

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I believe I have an amendment at the 
desk. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 695.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 116, strike ``$940,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 
     and $940,000,000'' and insert ``$963,308,000 for the fiscal 
     year 2000 and $963,308,000''.
       On page 121, line 6, strike ``$215,000,000 for the fiscal 
     year 2000 and $215,000,000'' and insert ``$235,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2000 and $235,000,000''.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I have been in discussions with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee. The committee is prepared to 
take the latter part of this amendment. I am prepared to withdraw the 
first part of the amendment, therefore obviating the need for a vote, 
although I would then like to speak about the bill and my general 
attitude toward it.
  I make a parliamentary inquiry. If I were to ask for a division of 
the amendment and withdraw the first part of it, on page 116, would the 
next order then be to go to the second part of the amendment on page 
121?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be the order.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask for a division on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so divided.
  The amendment (No. 695), as divided, is as follows:

                               Division I

       On page 116, strike ``$940,000,000 for the fiscal year 2000 
     and $940,000,000'' and insert ``$963,308,000 for the fiscal 
     year 2000 and $963,308,000''.

                              Division II

       On page 121, line 6, strike ``$215,000,000 for the fiscal 
     year 2000 and $215,000,000'' and insert ``$235,000,000 for 
     the fiscal year 2000 and $235,000,000''.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I withdraw the first part of the 
amendment, lines 1, 2, and 3, that read, ``on page 116'' down and 
through ``$963,308,000.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand that now before us is the 
second part of the amendment, lines 4 and 5 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 
on page 2; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. There was originally a two-hour time agreement on the 
amendment, equally divided. I will cut my time back to half an hour, 
but I thought we would go ahead and adopt it, if that is acceptable to 
the chairman.
  Mr. HELMS. I think that is what we should do, and I hope we will.

[[Page S7386]]

  Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of 
the amendment I have 30 minutes to speak on the bill, and that will be 
in lieu of the 1 hour that had been reserved for proponents of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. I urge the adoption of the second part of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 695), as divided, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  I now will speak on the bill, which presents some difficult issues. 
Despite the chairman's accommodation--which is a step forward that I 
appreciate--I still plan to vote against the bill, as I did in the 
committee. I say to the chairman that this decision has been made more 
difficult for me because this bill is now being named after Admiral 
Nance.
  I wish the substance of the bill were such that I could feel free to 
vote for it. Unfortunately, I do not. But I want to make it very clear 
that if I could have improved the substance enough, the fact that 
Admiral Nance's name is on this bill would have clearly moved me in the 
direction of voting for it. Hopefully, it will come back from 
conference in a somewhat better state, and I might be able to vote for 
it then.
  I wanted to say this at the outset because I, like so many Members of 
this body, had enormous respect and affection for Admiral Bud Nance and 
for his commitment to our Nation, both in war and in peace. I saw that 
commitment every day after he joined the chairman in the workings of 
our committee. His contributions were widely recognized and he will be 
greatly missed.
  This amendment, which we have now adjusted, was an effort to keep us 
from going further into arrears to the United Nations in the current 
year. Under the compromise, we will authorize the full amount this year 
for peacekeeping, but we still fall behind on the contributions to 
international organizations.
  The bigger problem connected with the legislation is the proposed 
package to settle our past arrears to the United Nations, which 
unfortunately, has two major shortcomings. First of all, the total 
figure does not reach the level which our Government admits we owe, 
missing it by a little under $100 million if one includes debt relief. 
My second objection is that the money we do authorize has been heavily 
conditioned.
  Let me just say at the outset that I believe important U.S. national 
interests are undermined by our continued failure to pay what we owe to 
the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. I know the chairman and 
the ranking member are trying to search for a solution to this problem. 
I respect their efforts. I just do not think they have gone far enough 
along this important path.
  By refusing to meet our legal obligations while continually issuing 
new demands, we are wasting our own influence, damaging our credibility 
and international respect, engendering resistance to the reforms we 
seek, and complicating the U.N.'s ability to perform its duties in a 
timely and effective manner. In my view, we should pay our arrears 
promptly, in full, and without additional conditions.
  Unfortunately, this legislation does not accomplish that objective. 
The United States acknowledges we owe $1.021 billion to the U.N. The 
U.N. says we owe $1.5 billion. This bill authorizes $819 million over 3 
years, plus an additional $107 million in credit. Even the $819 million 
which is authorized will not be paid promptly and at once; it will be 
paid over a 3-year period. So we will still be almost $100 million 
short of our acknowledged obligations, far short of the U.N. figure, 
with no promise of ever paying it back.
  Unfortunately, that puts us in the position of a permanent default, 
particularly when one realizes that the authorization for the current 
year falls short. The amendment we just adopted helps to correct that 
on the peacekeeping side, but it still leaves us $23 million short on 
regular dues to the United Nations.
  Furthermore, the bill imposes a long list of arbitrary and burdensome 
conditions for paying even the reduced amount, to which I have just 
made reference. These conditions have not been negotiated with or 
agreed to by the United Nations. They are, in effect, unilaterally 
imposed by the United States. They are being imposed on past 
obligations, on money we had agreed to provide without such 
stipulations.

  The consequence of these arrears is that the U.N. has been unable to 
reimburse other countries for sending their troops on peacekeeping 
missions that the United States encouraged and endorsed. Other 
countries have put the lives of their own citizens on the line in order 
to accomplish mutually agreed objectives. The U.S. responsibility in 
most of those instances was to provide money to cover the missions they 
were performing for us and the entire world. Those missions have been 
accomplished. The bill has not been paid.
  In addition, despite my amendment, this legislation creates new 
arrearages to the U.N., so not only do we fail to pay all the money we 
owe in arrears, not only do we establish preconditions for this partial 
payment, but we begin to build up new debts by authorizing less than is 
needed.
  The agreement that was reached on the amendment addressed this in 
part. It provided the $235 million needed for assessed peacekeeping 
operations. The bill had $215 million. It still does not provide the 
full amount needed for assessed U.N. dues, falling short by $23 
million.
  I must say, if any other country delinquent in its obligations showed 
up with the demands we have placed in this legislation, lacking the 
intention of paying its debts in full and short of its current dues, we 
would be extremely upset at what we would regard as its audacity. 
Surely our friends and allies will have the same reaction to our 
conduct.
  This approach runs counter to that reflected in the exercise of 
American leadership at the end of World War II, an approach that I 
think should characterize our policy toward the United Nations today.
  It is my strongly held view that the interests of the United States 
have been served by our Nation's active participation in the United 
Nations and the U.N. system. Especially now, with the end of the cold 
war, the U.N. has a genuine opportunity to function as it was intended 
at the end of World War II, without the constant Soviet veto in the 
Security Council that effectively neutralized it for so many years.
  The task facing us today is to assist the United Nations to adapt to 
the end of the cold war and the challenges of the new century. The need 
for the United Nations remains clear, for as then-Ambassador to the 
U.N. Madeleine Albright commented:

       The battle-hardened generation of Roosevelt, Churchill and 
     de Gaulle viewed the U.N. as a practical response to an 
     inherently contentious world; a necessity not because 
     relations among States could ever be brought into perfect 
     harmony, but because they cannot.

  This sense of realism seems absent from many of the current 
discussions of the United Nations. There has been a misperception that 
the U.N. can somehow dictate policies to the United States and force us 
to undertake actions that do not serve U.S. interests. This is simply 
not the case. Those who labored in San Francisco and elsewhere to 
create the United Nations some half a century ago insisted that the 
United Nations organization recognize the reality of great powers by 
granting significant authority to the Security Council.
  In the Council, the United States and other major powers were given 
the veto power, thereby ensuring that the U.N. could not undertake 
operations which the United States opposed. Every U.N. peacekeeping 
operation requires prior approval by the United States.
  Actually, by failing to meet our financial obligations, we are 
abdicating the powers available to us within the U.N. system.
  We are, for example, in danger of losing our vote in the General 
Assembly, a status generally reserved for the world's lawless and 
pariah states. Since the General Assembly works on the basis of 
consensus, we are depriving

[[Page S7387]]

ourselves of the ability to press for needed reforms.
  The influence we held in the past by our leadership, reflected in the 
large number of senior posts awarded to U.S. nationals, is being eroded 
and subjected to challenge.
  As Ambassador Richardson explained in the course of his confirmation 
hearings to go to the U.N.--he, of course, is now Secretary of Energy--
I quote him:

       Growing resentment over our failure to pay our assessed 
     dues and arrears has put our continued leadership and 
     influence at risk. . . . [A]mong the members of the Geneva 
     Group, composed of the U.N.'s largest contributors and a 
     crucial source of support for U.N. reform, there is virtually 
     no willingness to consider reductions in our dues for 
     peacekeeping or the regular budget until we pay our arrears. 
     If the United States fails to meet its financial commitments 
     to the U.N. system, it will become increasingly difficult to 
     set the U.N. priorities for the future and to ensure that 
     qualified Americans serve in important U.N. posts.

  Let me just talk a bit about how an effective U.N. serves U.S. 
interests. I believe, of course, that U.S. leadership is essential to 
an effective U.N.
  Over the years, the U.N. has negotiated over 170 peaceful settlements 
across the globe--helping to end wars, uphold cease-fires, protect 
civilians, reintegrate refugees, oversee the conduct of free and fair 
elections, monitor troop withdrawals, and deter intercommunal violence.
  From Iraq to Bosnia and Kosovo, assembling coalitions to repel 
aggression and keep peace would have been impossible without assistance 
and support from the United Nations.
  In Haiti, the introduction of U.N. peacekeepers meant that U.S. 
troops could be extracted without condemning the country to chaos, 
while in Cyprus, the U.N. prevents an outbreak of hostilities that 
could lead to conflict between two NATO allies.
  The U.N. has not been able to handle every situation. Unfortunately, 
it has attracted the most attention in those instances when it has not 
able to provide a resolution. People then conclude that it is totally 
ineffective. I beg very strongly to disagree with that conclusion.
  As I have indicated, there have been numerous instances in which the 
U.N. has negotiated peaceful settlements. As a matter of fact, the 
Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded five times to the United Nations and 
its organizations.
  U.N. operations further serve U.S. interests by leveraging our 
resources and influence in order to achieve a much greater impact at 
lesser cost than we could unilaterally.
  I think those who constantly talk about the burdensharing theme--and 
I think it is an important theme; I have talked about it myself--need 
to recognize the U.N. has been, and can be, an even more important 
mechanism for burdensharing.
  One of the things that needs to be understood is that by working 
through the United Nations, we can often gain international endorsement 
for an American position. The U.S. position is then seen as 
representing the judgment of the entire international community and not 
solely the judgment of the United States. The mandate becomes a 
response by the entire international community and cannot be portrayed 
as the United States trying to impose its own point of view in the 
particular situation.
  There are many examples of how the U.N. serves U.S. interests at a 
reduced cost and with great effectiveness. The International Atomic 
Energy Agency, with our small annual contribution, has helped prevent 
nuclear proliferation by inspecting and monitoring nuclear reactors in 
facilities in 90 countries, many of which would not allow access to the 
United States alone. The World Health Organization, working in concert 
with USAID and other bilateral agencies, led a 13-year effort resulting 
in the complete eradication of smallpox, saving an estimated $1 billion 
a year in vaccination and monitoring, and helped to wipe out polio from 
the Western Hemisphere.

  Through its High Commissioner for Refugees, its Children's Fund, the 
Development Programme, the International Fund for Agricultural 
Development, and the World Food Programme, the U.N. has saved millions 
from famine and provided food, shelter, medical aid, education, and 
repatriation assistance to refugees around the world.
  The U.N. Environment Programme and the World Meteorological 
Organization have brought countries together to begin to address 
important environmental matters, to develop regional efforts to clean 
up pollution, and to predict and respond effectively to natural and 
manmade disasters.
  Thanks to organizations such as the Universal Postal Union, the 
International Telecommunications Union, the International Civil 
Aviation Organization, and the International Maritime Organization--all 
agencies of the United Nations--there are procedures to ensure the 
safety and reliability of worldwide travel and communications.
  By coordinating international sanctions against the apartheid regime 
in South Africa, the U.N. was instrumental in bringing an end to the 
apartheid system.
  Through the efforts of the United Nations, over 300 international 
treaties have been enacted which set standards of conduct and enable 
cooperation in areas ranging from arms control to human rights and 
civil liberties, protection of copyrights and trademarks, determining 
maritime jurisdiction and navigation on the high seas, preventing 
discrimination against women, conserving biological diversity, and 
combating desertification.
  Because of U.N. agencies, such as the International Labor 
Organization, and U.N.-brokered agreements, such as the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights, the American ideals of freedom, democracy, 
equality before the law, and the dignity of the individual have become 
internationally accepted, and the rights and protections that U.S. 
workers enjoy are being aggressively pursued in other countries.
  International trade and commerce would be hamstrung without the World 
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, 
and the regional development banks, not to mention the many agreements 
negotiated under their auspices. All of these grew from the U.N. 
system.
  I went on at some length about these matters because we do not often 
focus on them. A lot of the very positive work done by the U.N. is 
simply taken for granted, falling below the ``radar screen'' for most 
people. Many do not appreciate that it is the U.N. that is conducting 
all of these important activities, and they fail to understand how 
discomforted they would be in their lives if these activities were not 
carried out, which the United Nations has been doing, year in and year 
out.
  The U.N. has been a favorite target of criticism. Certainly there are 
activities and practices of the U.N. that have been wasteful or 
ineffective and that require reform. But I think the strategy of 
unilaterally withholding funds until all our demands are met is 
counterproductive, particularly in the current circumstance.
  Since his election in 1997, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan--whose 
candidacy, of course, was strongly supported by the United States--has 
instituted a number of significant reforms, including a zero-growth 
budget, the cutting of administrative costs, the elimination of almost 
1,000 positions, the creation of an independent inspector general, the 
consolidation of overlapping agencies, the establishment of more budget 
oversight, and tighter budget discipline.
  I know some think he has not gone as far as he should go, that he has 
not fully implemented all of these reforms, and there is some truth to 
that. But the fact remains, he is trying to run an organization that 
operates by consensus. He has set out the proper direction and the 
proper goals. He is doing his very best to move the agency along the 
right path.
  Frankly, I think the United States can be more helpful in the reform 
effort. We do this not by being the biggest delinquent in dues paying, 
which only brings resentment against our calls for change; we should 
pay our obligations in full so we can regain the credibility and 
respect needed to push for further reforms.
  It is both ironic and unfortunate that a nation that holds itself and 
its citizens to the highest standards of law should find itself in 
default of its international obligations. Our democracy is founded on 
the primacy of respect for the rule of law. We urge other nations to 
follow our example.
  It is often a tremendous challenge to get countries to respect the 
basic

[[Page S7388]]

rights of their citizens and to act in accordance with international 
law. Yet we ourselves are not meeting those high standards as they 
relate to the United Nations. We undertook commitments under the U.N. 
Charter. We have a responsibility to make good on them if we want other 
countries to uphold their international agreements.
  The United States is the great power in the world today, and with 
that role come important responsibilities in how we exercise that 
power. I think we are failing here, with respect to our commitments to 
the U.N., to exercise those responsibilities in a manner that will 
strengthen our position and serve our Nation in the international 
community. We have not only a legal and moral obligation to pay our 
dues, but a practical interest in doing so as well.
  So while I respect the efforts that have been made in the committee, 
and while I recognize that I was a lonely voice for this position in 
the committee, I think that offering only a partial and a heavily 
conditioned repayment of the U.S. debt to the United Nations will not 
meet our obligations and will not enhance our interests.
  Seven former Secretaries of State have written an open letter to the 
Congress urging the United States to honor its international 
commitments and pay its debt to the United Nations. I think their 
letter is a powerful statement about the importance of U.S. leadership 
and the risk that nonpayment of our debt to the U.N. will pose for U.S. 
security and international influence. That letter was signed by former 
Secretaries Kissinger, Haig, Baker, Christopher, Vance, Shultz, and 
Eagleburger--Democrats and Republicans alike.
  I ask unanimous consent that their letter, which was sent to the 
Speaker of the House, the House minority leader, the Senate majority 
leader, and the Senate minority leader, be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the arrears package in this bill is a 
significant step toward meeting our international obligations. But I am 
deeply troubled by its failure to authorize the full amount that United 
States itself admits we owe, let alone what the U.N. claims we owe.
  Secondly, even making that money available, or any part of it, is 
very heavily conditioned in this legislation. In other words, we are 
saying to the U.N.: Yes, we are willing to pay some of what we owe, but 
in order to get any of this money, you will have to comply with a long 
list of conditions--several of which I think will be extremely 
difficult for them to meet. In any event, it is sort of a ``take it or 
leave it'' approach. This was not part of a negotiated agreement. We 
are going to approve the package and then present it to them. I think 
we may encounter a difficult reaction to this and see a continuing 
problem.
  Third, as I indicated, even with the accommodation made on the 
amendment earlier, we still create new arrears. So it is not as though 
we are able to say to the U.N. that this is the package we propose for 
arrears and, in the future, we are not going to let this situation 
arise again. In other words, we aren't really on board here to meet our 
continuing obligations to the organization, which in substantial 
measure has been responsive to American interests. Instead, we are 
going to continue to go into arrears, extending the problem which has 
brought us to the impasse we now confront.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

   U.S. Secretaries of State to Congress: U.S. Leadership Is at Risk

     Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
     Speaker of the House.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader.
     Hon. Richard J. Gephardt,
     House Minority Leader.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Senate Minority Leader.
                                                   March 16, 1999.
       Dear Congressional Leaders: As America's financial debt to 
     the United Nations persists, we are deeply concerned that our 
     great nation is squandering its moral authority, leadership, 
     and influence in the world. It's simply unacceptable that the 
     richest nation on earth is also the biggest debtor to the 
     United Nations.
       We are writing to urge all Members of Congress to support 
     full funding of the outstanding and current U.S. legal 
     obligations to the United Nations and to alert Congress to 
     the serious consequences if we fail to do so. U.S. leadership 
     is at risk. Our ability to achieve vital foreign policy and 
     security objectives is compromised. Our priceless reputation 
     as the pre-eminent country committed to the rule of law is 
     compromised. And, the critical work of the United Nations is 
     threatened.
       As former Secretaries of State, we know first hand the 
     importance of the United Nations and its agencies in securing 
     global peace, stability and prosperity. And we appreciate 
     that now more than ever, the U.S. must lead in the community 
     of nations to turn back threats to peace and freedom, whether 
     from war or hunger, terrorism or disease. We cannot lead if 
     we ignore our basic international responsibilities.
       There are historic consequences to our continued failure to 
     meet our obligations. The United States, one of the founding 
     members of the United Nations could lose its vote in the UN 
     General Assembly.
       Important reforms have occurred at the United Nations, many 
     at America's urging: a no-growth budget from 1994-98 and an 
     actual reduction of $123 million for 1998-99, creation of an 
     office of inspector general which has identified more than 
     $80 million in savings, more than 1,000 positions cut, and 
     other cost-saving measures. Payment of U.S. arrears is 
     critical to continuing this reform.
       We urge you: honor our international commitments and pay 
     America's debt to the United Nations. Great nations pay their 
     bills.
           Sincerely,
     Henry A. Kissinger.
     Alexander M. Haig, Jr.
     James A. Baker, III.
     Warren M. Christopher.
     Cyrus R. Vance.
     George P. Shultz.
     Lawrence S. Eagleburger.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the pending bill fails to authorize the 
Administration's full request for funding for U.S. contributions to 
international organizations and for U.S. contributions to international 
peacekeeping activities. I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment 
offered by my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, because it at least 
partially rectifies this situation by bringing the authorization for 
one of these two accounts up to the Administration's full request for 
Fiscal year 2000.
  The bill before us today makes significant strides in the on-going 
efforts of the Congress and the Administration to pay U.S. arrears to 
the United Nations and achieve much-needed reforms in that 
organization. I commend both the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Helms, and the ranking Democrat, Senator Biden, for 
this important accomplishment. Working closely together and working 
closely with the Administration, they have reached an agreement that 
will allow the United States to begin restoring its status as a member-
in-good standing of the UN.
  I believe many of my colleagues share my profound relief that, with 
this bill, the United States will take an important step toward paying 
what we owe to the United Nations. For the United States to fail to 
meet its treaty obligations as a founding member of the United Nations 
is, in my opinion, conduct unworthy of this great nation.
  In our increasingly interconnected world, even a great nation--even 
the sole remaining superpower--can not protect and advance its national 
interests alone. We need not look any further than the last few weeks, 
as the United States and our NATO allies have worked to bring an end to 
the conflict in Kosovo, to see just how important the UN is to our 
ability to exert positive international leadership. For every day we 
have allowed U.S. dues to go unpaid and U.S. arrears to mount, our 
leadership in the UN has been subtly, but surely undermined. As we take 
the important step today of authorizing the payment of most of what we 
owe to the UN, we just as surely take a step toward reinforcing U.S. 
leadership around the world.
  This bill does not, unfortunately, authorize payment of the full 
amount the State Department says we owe the UN. Of the $1.021 billion 
we acknowledge that we owe, this bill only authorizes payment of $819 
million in direct payments and $107 million in debt forgiveness. We 
still fall $95 million short. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on the Committee to ensure that the full amount of U.S. 
arrears to the UN are paid.
  The amendment offered by Senator Sarbanes, by ensuring the 
authorization of full-funding for what the U.S. currently owes for 
peacekeeping is

[[Page S7389]]

critical to continuing the hard-fought effort to restore U.S. standing 
in the United Nations. By cutting the level of our current 
contributions to the UN's regular budget and peacekeeping activities as 
this bill does, we run the risk of increasing our arrears in the very 
same bill where we are paying them down. The amendment offered by 
Senator Sarbanes would ensure that we do not take one step forward and 
two steps back on paying what we owe to the United Nations. I strongly 
support this amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for his 
statement and cooperation. I thank the chairman for working out a 
compromise with the Senator on his amendment.
  I must say, I would be more comfortable if I could be pure on this, 
because I happen to agree with the Senator from Maryland. I think we 
owe a total amount of probably $1.021. The U.N. says we owe $1.509. We 
do not, in my view. I would be more comfortable if we could have gotten 
all of that. Quite frankly, I would be more comfortable, as a matter of 
principle, if there were no conditions.
  So I began this process 6 years ago exactly where the Senator is. The 
arrearages began to mount in larger numbers, really with UNPROFOR in 
Bosnia. I know the Senator knows that a significant amount of what the 
United States ``owes'' is for peacekeeping missions. It is owed to 
France, the U.K., Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, India, Pakistan, 
Russia, and Germany. It is not dues in the sense that we belong to a 
club, or a country club, and you have yearly dues. This is more like at 
the end of the year when they say we ran over X amount of dollars and 
you assess the members beyond their dues. That is what we owe, in large 
part.
  I know the Senator knows this, and I thank him for his acknowledgment 
of our attempt to do the best we could. But I think, as I said, on 
principle, we should pay our obligations in full with no conditions.
  We should negotiate conditions from this point on, if we want to, 
because I think the Senator would agree with me that the U.N. is a 
badly run outfit in terms of its management skill.
  It has been the employer of first resort for a significant number of 
countries, understandably. It is a bloated bureaucracy, which has been 
worked upon positively by Kofi Annan, and there has been progress made. 
But it is not an institution that we had in mind when we signed on in 
San Francisco. We didn't expect it to turn out to be as inefficient as 
it has, understandably.
  It has also done an incredible amount of very good work. I believe, 
as the President said with regard to the United States, the United 
States is the ``essential nation.'' I believe it is the essential 
international organization. I am committed to it.
  But, a friend of mine, when I used to serve on the county council in 
New Castle County, DE, a Republican named Henry Folsom came down to 
Washington--by the way, in the Reagan administration. Henry used to 
say, God bless his soul, ``Joe, remember. Politics is the art of the 
practical.''
  Practically speaking, my pure stand of saying ``no conditions and all 
the money'' was rhetorically very appealing. But it didn't do a thing.
  It was only, quite frankly, when the Senator from North Carolina--who 
has been a critic over the years of the United Nations--decided we had 
to fix this somehow; that we ended up over a period, I would say to the 
chairman, of probably 2 years of talk, negotiating, arguing, and 
compromising that we ended up where we are today. Where we are today is 
four-fifths or more of the way home.
  Still, I for one do not like the conditions that precede us paying. I 
would rather say that these are conditions that we hope would be met, 
notwithstanding whether or not we would pay. But we are where we are.
  So this is a process. This is a process.
  I have spoken with all but two of the former Secretaries of State on 
this matter. When I put the question to them, as I did to Kofi Annan--
All right, do you want this or do you want nothing? --every single 
person involved with the United Nations to whom I have posed that 
question said: No. No we will take this. We will take this.
  The truth of the matter is there are choices. Our choices are this or 
nothing. All of us who are devoted to the United Nations, in terms of 
thinking it an essential body, have been unable to get a penny--a 
penny--toward these arrears. We have been noble, myself included, in 
our efforts. But we haven't gotten a penny for those ``arrears.''
  Where we are today is with a decision. That is, is it partial, more 
than partial, is it the bulk of the arrearages to be paid, conditioned 
upon things which this Secretary of State says--by the way, the last 
piece of this was negotiated not by the Senator from Delaware and the 
Senator from North Carolina but by the Secretary of State speaking for 
the President of the United States and the chairman of the committee.
  The administration has been candid. They said they are not sure they 
can get all of it done. They think they can. They are going to fight 
for it. But they think it is worth the fight--that it is worth the 
candlestick.
  We are seized with a decision that I think is going to overwhelmingly 
pass, which is, do we keep these conditions that have been altered in 
light of the passage of 2 years of time to make them more likely to be 
able to be met, coupled with the $926 million paid out, as the bill 
calls for, much of it front-end loaded, or do we step back and say no, 
we are not going to?
  I know the Senator from Maryland isn't suggesting this. But the other 
alternative is to step back and say unless we get it all, no 
conditions, all the arrears, we are not going to do anything, we will 
not be creating new arrears with this deal.

  By the way, even though we are authorizing less than the 
administration requested for contributions to international 
organizations, we are about $43 million above what is needed in the 
first place.
  I understand the State Department will soon announce a $28 million 
surplus in the fiscal year 1999 international organizations account. 
This would be applied to reduce the amount requested for fiscal 2000.
  Also, because of exchange rate gains, the request is $20 million too 
high, as of April 30. $7 million is requested for war crimes 
commissions in Iraq and Cambodia. As much as I would like to see the 
commissions, neither looks likely in the very near future.
  Finally, there is $8 million in the budget request to cover exchange 
rate fluctuations, but the committee bill already contains language 
that guards against adverse exchange rate variations. Section 801(f)(1) 
states:

       . . .there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 
     to offset adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange 
     rates.

  I am confident we have authorized enough funds to meet our current 
obligations to international organizations. I understand the Senator's 
concern and fear. But I do not believe when we pass this authorization 
bill, if it were appropriated as we suggest, that we are going to be 
further and further behind in this process.
  It is true that we have not fully funded the administration's request 
for arrears payments to the United Nations and other international 
organizations. We are $95 million short of our request.
  As I have said, in an ideal world I would like to pay our arrears to 
the United Nations in full, immediately, and without condition. But I 
have made a judgment, and I believe the correct one, a pragmatic 
judgment, because I know that such a proposal has no chance of 
passing--``no conditions, all the money.''
  In the last Congress, I asked the administration to give me a bottom 
line figure for arrears to the United Nations with which they could 
live. The administration responded with a memorandum to me which stated 
they were willing not to pay $68 million in arrears to UNIDO, an 
organization that we withdrew our membership from earlier in this 
decade.
  Their judgment is that a total of $68 million in arrears is owed to 
an organization in which we are not a member, and to which we have no 
intention of paying membership dues.
  They also told me they would apply an expected refund of $27 million 
from the U.N. to reduce our arrears. Unfortunately, that $27 million 
was used to

[[Page S7390]]

reduce the fiscal year 1998 contributions because our bill got stalled 
in the House. Otherwise, we would have been in pretty good shape.
  For those who are wondering how we came up with $926 million, if we 
added $68 million to the $27 million and subtract that from the total 
of $1.021 billion we owed, then we would arrive at our figure.
  What we did was essentially pay the entirety of the arrearages that 
we thought were owed absent the $68 million they said they didn't want 
to pay to an organization we weren't a member of, and not contemplating 
the fact they have to use the $27 million because this bill got slowed 
up. It is true that $27 million U.N. refund has already been used and, 
thus, is not available for arrears. But I would note that this sum can 
be easily subtracted from arrears owed to the specialized U.N. 
agencies. Even with the $926 million provided in our plan, many of the 
specialized agencies will have to create or expand programs to absorb 
the arrears payments they are going to receive.
  It sounds a bit counterintuitive that a plan which is supposed to 
control the size of the U.N. could actually end up expanding it 
temporarily. That will be the short-term effect for many of the 
specialized agencies, if they decide to devise ways to spend the extra 
money that is going to be flowing in.
  Again, I personally would like to fully fund the administration 
request. I think I have outlined a solid political and substantive 
rationalization for providing the lower figure.
  Finally, I emphasize again that there is $8 million in the budget 
request to cover exchange rate fluctuations. The committee bill, as I 
said, already contains language to guard against an adverse exchange 
rate. It is section 801(F)1. It states:

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary in each fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to offset the 
     adverse fluctuations of foreign exchange currency rates.

  I still agree with my friend from Maryland. That is, I believe the 
real hangup is the conditions. The truth of the matter is, we have 
basically paid all the arrears that we owe, that we say we owe. If you 
accept the administration's position that the $68 million owed to an 
organization we have been fighting with for 10 years, and we have been 
out of it for 3 or 4 years, that if we do not pay the $68 million 
owed--and had we not had the House stall with what Senator Helms and I 
put together 2 years ago, we would be at the $1.021 billion. Again, it 
would be better if even that were done. I am not arguing that.
  I almost hesitate to make the point, to be honest with my friend from 
Maryland, this is a fragile coalition we put together. I am not sure we 
would get all the Republican votes we need if we thought we were paying 
everything we owed. I don't want to go around making a big deal of the 
fact we are paying everything we think we owe, short of those two 
accounts, to be very blunt. I guess I shouldn't be so blunt. That is 
the truth of the matter, from my perspective, politically.
  We have done a heck of a job. I don't know whether to praise my 
friend or not, because my praise on this issue is probably not very 
helpful to him, so I won't. But let me say there has been a very good-
faith effort on the part of my friend from North Carolina. This is not 
nearly as draconian as it sounds.
  Again, the single most significant thing my friend from North 
Carolina extracted in return for essentially paying off our arrears 
were the conditions that exist. The essence of the deal is, we 
basically paid all the arrears we say we owe, if this becomes law, if 
this is appropriated, in return for conditions to do things I don't 
disagree with my friend on, but I don't think we should have done it 
the way we did. I think we should have said, pay the arrears, and, by 
the way, from this point on, we are not going to unless these 
conditions persist.
  However, politics is the art of compromise. The Senator from North 
Carolina has made a significant compromise here to get us to this 
point. Because of his standing on his side of the aisle and, quite 
frankly, his standing nationally, as one who is not about to be viewed 
as easily taken over by the U.N., I think the mere fact that he has 
done this adds a credibility to the process that exceeds by far and 
away the dollar value that would have been accomplished, had we gotten 
another $95 million or thereabouts in the account.
  This is only the beginning of the fight. The Senator put his 
credibility on the line to get this done one time before. The House 
concluded that for reasons I will not take the time to go into now, 
that it would not do this.
  The House committee, our comparable committee, has been good on this 
issue. But it is a different thing when it gets to the House floor. 
Although we are technically halfway there, if we pass this bill today, 
the truth of the matter is, we are probably only about 30 percent of 
the way there because there are other hurdles on the House side we have 
to overcome.
  I truly appreciate the views of the Senator from Maryland, with whom 
I agree 100 percent. I also truly appreciate the statesmanship of my 
friend from North Carolina who has brought us to this point. Without 
him, quite frankly, this couldn't be done. That old expression we have 
overused, ``Only Nixon can go to China,'' only Helms could take us this 
far.
  That is literally true. That is not an exaggeration. I thank him for 
that.
  Hopefully, this is the beginning of a process that puts us in good 
stead, strengthens the United Nations, and makes it a more viable and 
tightly run organization.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, listening to my dear friend from Delaware, 
Joe Biden, I harken back to the days when there was very little working 
relationship between the two parties on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. Today, I think the working relationship is very good. That 
is due to the efforts of Senator Biden and his desire to make things 
work.
  Let me be candid. I am not in the mood to give away the store, and I 
haven't given it away regarding the United Nations yet. It remains to 
be seen whether the reforms both of us have been demanding will be in 
place early enough for this proposition, which I will discuss in just a 
minute, to take place. We will see.
  I can't tell the Senate how many times my best friend--next to Dot 
Helms--Admiral Nance and I have talked about this very issue. Bud Nance 
is gone now, but I remember his counsel on this bill.
  This measure is important to me because it bears the name of the 
Admiral James Wilson ``Bud'' Nance State Department Authorization bill. 
Bud is gone; he is at the Arlington National Cemetery, after a 
distinguished career. I miss him.
  However, both Senator Biden and I are blessed with excellent staffs. 
I thank staff on both sides. For the minority, the Democrats, I 
especially thank the inimitable Ed Hall, Brian McKeon, Runeet Talwar, 
Diana Ohlbaum, Janice O'Connell, and Joan Woodward.
  I am especially grateful to the Senate's legislative counsel, Art 
Rynearson, and, of course, the best part for me, the majority staff of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The staff was put together by 
Admiral Nance and me, but he became the chief of staff of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. Steve Biegun has succeeded Bud Nance. He has been 
very artful in his contribution to this measure. Patti McNerney, 
Garrett Grigsby, Marshall Billingslea, Michael Westphal, Beth Stewart, 
Roger Noriega--this Noriega was born in Kansas, by the way--Kirsten 
Madison, Marc Thiessen, Sherry Grandjean, Dany Pletka, who has just 
given birth to her second little girl--Richard Fontaine, Jim Doran, 
Natasha Watson, Christa Muratore, Laura Parker, Christa Bailey, Andrew 
Anderson and Susan Oursler. All of these young people on both sides 
have made a mighty contribution not only to the composition of the bill 
but the fact we were able to compose it at all.
  We are working together now. I want to say to my friend, Senator 
Biden, I appreciate his friendship and his cooperation. I extend my 
congratulations to him.
  Now then, this bill addresses several significant oversight and 
authorization issues that ought to be at least mentioned before we go 
to a vote.
  No. 1, it proposes to strengthen and preserve the arms control 
verification functions of the U.S. Government while

[[Page S7391]]

addressing other nonproliferation matters as well.
  No. 2, the bill authorizes a 5-year construction blueprint for 
upgrading U.S. embassies around the world to provide secure 
environments for America's personnel overseas. Unlike the funds 
provided more than a decade ago in the wake of a report by Admiral 
Inman calling for improved security of U.S. embassies, this bill would 
create a firewall for funding of other State Department expenditures. 
This, of course, would ensure that embassy funds are not raided again 
to pay for other State Department pet projects. I am just not going to 
stand for it, and this bill makes that very clear.
  This bill makes some reforms to strengthen the Foreign Service and 
significantly, as Senator Biden has discussed at some length, the bill 
includes the United Nations reform package. This is not something we 
are going to lay on the table and say we are going to do someday. It is 
going to be done now. The United Nations is going to be reformed now or 
there is going to be trouble ahead. The reform agenda required by this 
bill, prior to payment of any U.S. taxpayers' dollars, has the full 
support of the Secretary of State and Senator Biden and me. These 
reforms were approved by the Senate during the 105th Congress by a vote 
of 90 to 5, with 5 Senators absent. But, of course, those reforms were 
vetoed by the President of the United States.
  In conclusion, I want to pay my respects to all who have participated 
in the building of this legislation, those with whom I have disagreed 
as well as those with whom I have agreed. All in all, I think it is a 
very fine bill and I am glad to have had a very small part in it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we are going to debate H.R. 975. I ask 
unanimous consent I be allowed to perhaps speak for 5 minutes on this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________