[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1110-S1118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING ASSESSMENT ADJUSTMENT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consideration of S. 248 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 248) to amend the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg 
     Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 
     2000 and 2001, to adjust a condition on the payment of 
     arrearages to the United Nations that sets the maximum share 
     of any United Nations peacekeeping operation's budget that 
     may be assessed of any country.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending legislation makes a small 
revision in the United Nations reform legislation approved by Congress 
in 1999 known as the ``Helms-Biden'' law.
  This legislation justifiably used the leverage of the United States 
to press for reforms, by linking payment of the United States' so-
called ``U.N. arrears'' to specific U.N. reforms. And it was the 
product of bipartisan cooperation in the Congress, cooperation between 
the Executive Branch and the Congress, and cooperation between the 
United States and the United Nations. And it worked, thereby producing 
millions of dollars in savings to the American people.
  The Helms-Biden law gave the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 
Richard Holbrooke, the tools he needed to negotiate much-needed 
reforms, ranging from restoring the membership of the United States to 
the U.N.'s administrative and finance committee, known in the rarified 
language of the U.N. as the ``A-C-A-B-Q'', to the adoption of results-
based budgeting.
  But the most important reforms restore an equitable burden-sharing 
for the enormous cost of operating the United Nations.
  This was achieved by reducing the U.S. share of the U.N.'s general 
budget and its peacekeeping budget. In painstaking negotiations, the 
U.S. faced opposition not merely from increasingly affluent non-Western 
nations, which were clinging to their cut-rate U.N. assessment rates, 
but from our rich NATO allies as well.
  Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in persuading the United Nations 
member countries to reduce the U.S. share of the general U.N. budget to 
22 percent, which was specified by Helms-Biden. This was the first 
reduction, in more than 28 years, in the American taxpayers' bloated 
share of the U.N.'s budget.
  Similarly, Ambassador Holbrooke persuaded U.N. member states to agree 
to a new scale for assessments for U.N. peacekeeping.
  This was an even more complicated undertaking because it required 
convincing several nations to give up the big discounts they had 
enjoyed for the better part of thirty years, when they were regarded as 
so-called ``developing'' countries.
  Our friends Israel, South Korea, Hungary, Estonia, and Slovenia were 
among those who gave up those discounts. We should be grateful to 
them--I certainly am--for their willingness to do that.
  On the other hand, some other nations in the Middle East and East 
Asia--which have become rich in recent years--dragged their feet--and 
shame on them.
  But when all is said and done, the U.N. put in place a six-year plan 
to reduce what the U.N. now says the U.S. owes for peacekeeping.
  Here's how it will work. The U.S. share of peacekeeping costs will 
drop: from 31 percent to about 28 percent in the first six months of 
2001; and then, Mr. President, to about 27\1/2\ percent in the second 
half of 2001; and then, Mr. President, to about 26\1/2\ percent in 
2002; and then, Mr. President, down to approximately the 25 percent 
benchmark specified in the Helms-Biden law.

  Now then, Mr. President, when all this is fully implemented it will 
eliminate at least $170 million each year from the amount that the 
United Nations had billed the American taxpayers.
  While this does not quite meet the Helms-Biden specification of a 25 
percent peacekeeping dues rate, not yet, at least, it comes close.

  That is why Senator Biden, Senator Warner and I have offered this 
legislation to propose making a relatively small change in the 
arithmetic of the original Helms-Biden law.
  Based on the clear prospect of U.S. peacekeeping dues moving down to 
25 percent in the coming years, we propose to agree to releasing the 
Year 2 dues payment of $582 million to the United Nations immediately--
in recognition of the savings already achieved for the American 
taxpayers.
  This $582 million payment is the largest of the three phases of 
arrears attached to reform conditions in the Helms-Biden law--and for 
good reason: the toughest conditions imposed upon the United Nations by 
the Helms-Biden law were included. These conditions have already been 
met largely, and I believe, in response, that the Senate should now 
reward the enormous

[[Page S1111]]

progress made in New York last December when the U.N. adopted most of 
the Helms-Biden benchmarks agreed to when I met with Secretary-General 
Kofi Annan when we met shortly after he took office at the U.N.
  I emphasize that the United States does not owe the United Nations 
one dime more than 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget.
  In fact, in 1994, Senator Bob Dole led a bipartisan effort to 
institute a cap on how much the U.S. would pay to the U.N. for 
peacekeeping. That year, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed, and 
President Clinton signed, a 25 percent cap on the U.S. share of the 
U.N. peacekeeping assessment.
  I see no reason to abandon that bipartisan policy. Some may argue 
that, in addition to releasing the Year 2 arrears, we should remove 
that cap as well. I cannot and will not agree to that, though there may 
be a way that Senator Biden and I can work out to do something.
  We are already taking an important step by releasing $582 million in 
arrears.
  But we must not (and will not if I have anything to do with it) 
concede that the United States expects, in the coming years that the 
U.N. will ultimately reach the 25 percent rate mandated by Congress in 
two separate pieces of legislation.
  In any event, the Helms-Biden reform benchmarks are working, which 
brings us to the issue of: what next? What are principal remaining 
agenda items for the Congress regarding the U.N.?
  First, the Congress must continue to take public note of the size of 
the U.N. budget.
  There will of course be a major campaign in the U.N., and even by 
some in the American foreign policy establishment, to allow the U.N. to 
increase its budget.
  Congress must make sure that those seeking another explosion of 
budgetary growth at the U.N. are stopped dead in their tracks. It is 
one thing to allow adjustments in the U.N. budget for inflation and 
currency fluctuations. But Congress must not allow the floodgates for 
rampant bureaucratic spending to be opened. Fiscal discipline at the 
U.N. will remain a priority for Congress.
  Specifically, we need to focus on the biggest outrage in the U.N.--
the bloated public information bureaucracy. The U.N.'s ``PR 
bureaucracy'' is, quite simply, out of control. I agree completely with 
Ambassador Holbrooke's assessment made to the Foreign Relations 
Committee this past January 9, when he declared (and I quote):

       The Office of Public Information must be cut. It still has 
     over 800 people. And I believe that is inappropriate. . . . 
     And that should be one of the next major campaigns. . . . We 
     need to attack the Office of Public Information and its over-
     padded structure.

  I say again, I wholeheartedly agree.
  Finally, Congress must keep a vigilant eye on plans to remodel and 
expand the U.N. headquarters in New York. The so-called ``U.N. Capital 
Plan'' estimates that it will cost more than $1 billion. The United 
States--the American taxpayers--will be asked to pay for at least 25 
percent of that.
  I've asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a thorough study 
of the U.N.'s plans for the renovation. GAO's initial judgment is that 
the project will end up with major cost overruns well beyond the 
billion dollars estimated in the ``U.N. Capital Plan.''
  And that U.N. plan calls for interest-free loans from the American 
taxpayers. New York City will be called upon to transfer even more land 
to the U.N. as a gift.
  Before building plush new offices for U.N. bureaucrats, let's first 
make sure that all of the reforms called for in the Helms-Biden law are 
completed first.
  For the moment, Mr. President, we are at an encouraging stage in 
U.S.-U.N. relations. The exchange of visits between the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and ambassadors on the U.N. Security Council last 
year in New York and Washington had a positive impact.
  I believe this exchange gave the U.N. Ambassadors a greater 
appreciation of the role of the U.S. Congress in shaping our nation's 
foreign policy. It certainly gave Senators a better understanding of 
views held at the U.N.
  I'm told that the exchange of visits helped bring about the 
diplomatic achievements of December of 2000 to reform the U.N.'s 
assessment scales. That kind of cooperation is certainly welcome.
  Mr. President, I must conclude. But before I do, I must note that any 
worthwhile and meaningful cooperation with the U.N. depends upon firm 
leadership by the United States--and particularly the United States 
Congress. Almost every reform that has been enacted by the U.N. in 
recent years was mandated by the Congress of the United States.
  Some at the U.N. will always object to so-called Congressional 
``micro management'' of the U.N., and will chafe at the United States 
Government seeking to ``dictate'' reforms. But, Ambassador Holbrooke 
put it aptly in his final appearance before the Foreign Relations 
Committee:

       What I discovered was that since people assume the United 
     States is overbearing and arrogant anyway, it is better to 
     say what the U.S. view is. . . . America should be unafraid 
     to say its views. . . . We were persistent. And sometimes to 
     the point of being regarded as a little bit obnoxious, but 
     not arrogant. And we got the job done. And I think that can 
     be a model.

  Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee and I believe, the 
American taxpayers, are grateful to Ambassador Holbrooke for a job well 
done. Needless to say, Mr. President, I hope the Senate will support 
the pending legislation.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been asked to make this unanimous 
consent request. I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today the bill 
be advanced to third reading and final passage occur at 3 p.m., with no 
intervening action, motion, or debate; the time between now and 3 p.m. 
be equally divided between the two managers; and paragraph 4 of rule 
XII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before I begin, let me, as we say in the 
Senate, be afforded a personal privilege. I want my colleagues to know 
and the American people to know that this was accomplished not merely 
because of the hard, industrious, and imaginative efforts of Ambassador 
Holbrooke, but this was accomplished primarily because of the Senator 
from North Carolina. He has been resolute in his commitment to saving 
the American taxpayers' money. He has been resolute in his commitment 
to preventing waste, and he has been forthright in his assertion that 
when U.S. interests are at stake, we should speak up. That is precisely 
what he did here with regard to the United Nations.
  As a consequence of his insistence, although this is called Helms-
Biden--and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it and am proud to have 
worked all along with the Senator from North Carolina--but it was his 
insistence that we condition our commitment to pay what we agree were 
the arrears, not what the U.N. asserted was the amount of the arrears, 
upon some serious and genuine reform at the United Nations. Again, it 
was his insistence on saving the American taxpayers' money if it didn't 
have to be spent.
  The result that no one anticipated from his efforts--maybe he did; 
most didn't; and I was not certain it would turn out this way--has been 
that not only are the very folks upon whom conditions were forced not 
angry but they are probably happier with U.S. participation in the 
United Nations today than at any time in the last probably 15 years--at 
least the last decade.
  Senator Helms demonstrated that there was nothing venal, nor was it 
an attempt at retribution, nor an ideological assault upon the United 
Nations when he opened this gambit by introducing the legislation and 
immediately inviting the members of the United Nations to come to 
Washington, DC, to speak before and meet with the Foreign Relations 
Committee. I may be mistaken, but I don't think this was ever done 
before. I don't think at any time in the existence of the United 
Nations was there a wholesale invitation to the Security Council to 
come to the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee.
  The amazing thing is, they all came. They came gleefully. They were 
slightly skeptical. This was as a consequence of the Senator from North 
Carolina having first spoken to the Security Council.

[[Page S1112]]

  Again, I don't know how many Senators have addressed the Security 
Council in the Senate, and I don't know if he was the first, but I know 
he preceded me, and I can't think of anyone else in my memory who has 
done that. He went to the United Nations and in his typical southern 
gentlemanly fashion was bluntly forthright about his objectives.
  I remember at the time reading in the press some fairly harsh 
criticism of his assertions, assertions made in his gentlemanly manner 
in New York. Again, almost everyone was wrong because they anticipated 
the response would be a further freezing, rather than thawing, of the 
relationship between the United States and the United Nations. A vast 
majority thought the U.N. would deny us the right to vote because we 
were not paying our dues.
  My colleague, although we arrived the same year, arrived with more 
wisdom than I did. My colleague, once again, demonstrated that he knew 
what he was doing. A very close friend of his and a man who actually 
was a former Democratic State senator, I am told, worked with Senator 
Helms in years gone by. This man was a public delegate to the United 
Nations and from North Carolina at the time.
  I will never forget, and I don't think anyone ever anticipated they 
would see, a dinner in New York, organized by our Ambassador, to honor 
Senator Helms. If I am not mistaken, originally something on the order 
of 100 invitations were sent out, and yet close to 140 Ambassadors of 
the 180 nations showed up in the large ballroom of a large hotel in New 
York City to honor the man many in the press and other places wanted to 
vilify.
  I never thought I would live to see the day when I saw Senator Jesse 
Helms, Henry Kissinger, Ambassador Holbrooke, Mr. Belk, the public 
delegate from North Carolina, and the U.N. brass have their picture 
taken in the middle of that ballroom wearing blue U.N. caps. That was a 
bit of an epiphany for me.
  I was sitting at the table with the German Ambassador. My table had 
at least three members of the Security Council sitting there. I was 
amazed to watch what happened. Everyone looked somewhat bemused and 
amused, and then I noticed all these very dignified diplomats, among 
the highest ranking persons in their governments, lining up very 
tactfully, as if they really weren't wanting a picture, to have their 
picture taken with Senator Jesse Helms.
  Now, I don't know if Senator Helms expected that--I don't think he 
did, knowing him. I cite it not to be humorous, not to say this was 
sort of interesting simply because it happened, but to point out that 
because of Senator Helms, for the first time in the 28 years I have 
been here, there is a genuine sense of warmth, there is a degree of 
trust, there is a greater openness that has occurred between the U.S. 
and the U.N. as a consequence of his insistence in saving the American 
taxpayers money.
  I reluctantly went along with the conditions, as my friend from North 
Carolina knows. I had no doubt the reforms were needed. I thought we 
should pay the back dues and then prospectively insist on conditions in 
the future. It was a distinction with some difference.
  However, I expect we will have people come to the floor and say the 
way we finally went was the wrong way to go about it. I point out when 
we were debating this, and I ask my friend from North Carolina to 
correct me if I am wrong, I don't remember anybody else who supported 
the U.N. that garnered one single penny in back dues.
  I remember saying to a very significant former Member of the House 
who was upset with the Helms-Biden approach: I will withhold pushing 
this. I will give you a week if you can come back to me and tell me you 
are able to raise one single cent in the House of Representatives to 
pay the back dues; I'll withdraw.
  The point was, everyone talked about the pure game, the purity of 
doing it the ``right way,'' which leads to the second point. I have 
served with my friend too long not to understand he has a very healthy 
skepticism of international organizations. Not a hostility, skepticism. 
I have served with him too long not to know that he has a skepticism 
for international agreements made with people who have histories of not 
keeping international agreements. And I have served with him too long 
to underestimate his ability to know how to get things done. He knew 
better than most of us that even if he thought there should be no 
conditions--which he thought there should be--that you weren't going to 
get anything done here. You had to bring along a significant portion of 
the House and a significant minority in the Senate who didn't even want 
to pay the back dues; didn't want to pay anything, conditions or not.
  So as the old saw goes over the last 30 years, anyway, just as only 
Nixon could go to China, only Helms can fix the U.N. That is true. That 
is absolutely, positively true. I am sure he has taken some heat from 
his historically loyal and traditional friends on the center right for 
doing this, I have no doubt he has taken some heat, but, as usual, 
being a man who sticks to his principles, he took the heat but in the 
process of doing so he put the argument against U.S. participation in 
the U.N. in a position where it had no credibility. How could anyone 
from the center right challenge the Senator from North Carolina? Nobody 
doubts his convictions and principle. He is too darned conservative for 
me. I love him, but he is too darned conservative for me. But if Joe 
Biden had come along and done this, if Trent Lott had come along and 
done this, if Dick Lugar and other respected Members did this, and it 
had been Lott-Biden, anybody on the Republican side, Biden and not 
Helms, this would not have gotten done.
  I pay tribute not only to the substantive changes he has wrought, but 
pay tribute to his tactical genius and how to get it done. It would not 
have gotten done, without him and we would be standing here today in 
semicrisis about whether or not we stay in the U.N., whether or not our 
vote had been taken from us, whether or not it was any longer relevant. 
We would have had some bitter ideological debates on this floor had he 
not gotten us to this place.
  I, for one, think the United Nations is an incredibly valuable 
institution that, on balance, overwhelmingly benefits the American 
people. But, I say to my colleagues, don't do what some of us who have 
served with Senator Helms sometimes do--don't underestimate what this 
fellow did and does, and don't underestimate how knowledgeable he is 
about getting something done. I am just glad we were not only in the 
same hymnal on this one, but on the same page on this one.
  So I want to personally thank him. He did more than save the American 
taxpayers $170 million and more to come. He did more than set an 
atmosphere and tone where now in the United Nations, because of what he 
did, there is open discussion and debate among the members, not 
including us, about the need to reform. He was sort of the fellow who 
came along and said: Hey, but the emperor has no clothes.
  Everybody sitting there knew the emperor had no clothes on, but 
Senator Helms said, ``The emperor has no clothes and until he starts 
getting dressed I am not playing.'' Now I ask a rhetorical question. 
Did my friend ever think he would hear a debate with everyone from the 
Chinese Ambassador to the Russian Ambassador to the German Ambassador 
to the French Ambassador talking about the need for further reform? And 
going back to their constituents and saying: We need Reform. They want 
to save taxpayers money as well.
  So that is a big deal. But the bigger deal, in my view, is there is a 
new sense of legitimacy and vitality in this Chamber, in this 
Government, in this country, for the United Nations.
  I am not Pollyannaish about this. I don't think the United Nations is 
a one-world government leading to nirvana. That is the farthest from 
what it is. But it is a practical tool in a number of circumstances, 
and an increasingly necessary forum for the one superpower in the world 
to be able to make her views known and garner the support of--or at 
least prick the conscience of--the rest of the world. We do not want to 
constantly be put in the position of being that great nation imposing 
her view on all the rest of the world.
  What most of our foreign colleagues do not understand is we Americans 
are uncomfortable being the sole superpower. I often tell our European

[[Page S1113]]

friends--my colleague knows, I am, as is he, deeply involved with NATO 
and Europe--I often tell them when they complain about us being the 
only superpower: You don't understand. Americans were not looking or 
seeking this title. We don't want to be the superpower. If there has to 
be one it will be us, but that is not our goal. We have no countries to 
conquer. We have no desire to impose our will. Americans would just as 
soon tend to their business and be home.
  But that is how we are cast today. That is how we are cast by our 
friends as well as by our foes. I think in that context the United 
Nations takes on a different and dynamic role with the possibility that 
we can use it to further our interests.
  So what my friend from North Carolina did is make that possible. 
Whether the U.N. meets those expectations, whether it continues down 
the road of reform, whether it does what it has the potential to do, 
remains to be seen. But we would not even be in this position today, 
February 7, 2001, talking about this possibility were it not for his 
insistence.
  As I said, only Nixon could go to China. Only Helms could make the 
U.N. relevant at the end of this century and the beginning of the next.
  I know he understands, but knowing how he is, he probably refuses to 
believe how big a role that he played. It is literally that big. That 
is the deal. That is why this is so consequential. This legislation 
before us is, in a sense, inconsequential. We are changing one number 
in a piece of legislation to accommodate what we believe to be the 
good-faith serious effort to have embarked upon and stay embarked upon 
making an institution of the 20th century relevant in the 21st century.
  As my friend and I have pointed out, we have both spoken at the 
Security Council. We have both had private meetings, and jointly, with 
I think literally almost every single delegate to the United Nations. 
The luncheon he and I did up there, there were 160-some U.N. 
ambassadors. I doubt whether there is a single U.N. representative--
there may be one; I will be dumbfounded if there are more than 20--who 
has not personally met Senator Helms and personally interfaced with 
him.
  You know, it is an interesting phenomenon. When they looked him in 
the eye, when they heard him talk and saw him, and kind of touched him, 
they realized this is the real deal. This isn't about bashing the 
United Nations for hometown political consumption. And it has had a 
dramatic impact on the attitude that institution has about itself, the 
attitude of the American people have about it, the attitude of this 
body has about it, and the potential utility of that institution to 
work the way we hoped it would work.
  As the chairman has explained, this legislation was reported by the 
Committee on Foreign Relations earlier today by a vote of 18-0.
  This bill is neither long nor complicated. Let me explain it briefly.
  In late 1999, Congress passed legislation--the so-called ``Helms-
Biden'' law--which authorizes payment of $926 million owed to the 
United Nations in back dues, conditioned on certain reforms in the 
United Nations.
  The bill provided for payment of the funds in three installments. 
Each installment was linked to a set of reforms in the United Nations.
  The first installment of $100 million was paid in December 1999.
  The second installment authorized is $582 million.
  The key reform linked to this installment is a requirement that the 
amount of money the United States pays for U.N. operations be reduced.
  We believed such reductions were important because the United Nations 
had become overly dependent on the United States for its funding.
  Also, the economies of many other nations had grown considerably 
since the rates were last reviewed seriously in the early 1970s, and we 
believed it only fair that a greater share of the budget burden be 
assumed by those countries.
  I am pleased to report that there has been remarkable progress, not 
only in the reduction of the U.S. assessment rates, but in U.N. 
institutional reform in general. Let me talk about the budget 
reductions.
  The United Nations has two budgets. The first budget is the so-called 
regular budget, which pays for the day-to-day operations of the U.N. 
Secretariat in New York.
  The law that Congress enacted in 1999 required that the rate we are 
charged for this budget be reduced from 25 percent to 22 percent of the 
total budget.
  Our previous Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, 
achieved this objective. Effective January 1, our assessment for this 
budget is 22 percent.
  The second budget is for U.N. peacekeeping operations--for the 
soldiers in blue helmets around the world. The Helms-Biden law required 
that our assessment be cut from a rate of just over 30 percent to 25 
percent.
  Here, as some in the new administration who come from Texas might 
say, we did not get the whole enchilada--Ambassador Holbrooke did not 
get our rate down to 25 percent, but Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in 
reducing our peacekeeping assessment substantially.
  Effective January 1, our peacekeeping rate has been cut to just over 
28 percent. It will continue to go down gradually to 26.5 percent by 
2003, and possibly lower after that.
  It is not everything we wanted, but Senator Helms and I believe that 
the United Nations has met us more than halfway--and that we should 
respond.
  Accordingly, the bill before the Senate amends the original Helms-
Biden legislation to change the one legislative provision that was not 
completely satisfied.
  Taking that step will release the second installment of $582 million 
.
  The bill was approved unanimously by the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, and I hope the vote in the Senate will also be unanimous.
  So let me reiterate. Dick Holbrooke took us a long way.
  Mr. HELMS. You bet.
  Mr. BIDEN. My grandfather Abrose's name was Abrose Finnigan. He used 
to say: Remember, God protects two groups of people: well-intended 
Irishmen who are drunk, and the United States of America. And then he 
would joke and say: You know, in our history where there are big and 
large issues, it always seems to be the right person comes along at the 
right moment to tackle the big issues. Dick Holbrooke, in another 
generation, maybe would not have been as consequential, but what did we 
need? We needed a man who was--remember when our friend from Texas won 
his first Senate race? He beat an incumbent, an appointed Democrat who 
was a good guy. They asked the Democrat about how he felt the night of 
the election when he lost. He said: There are two things you should 
know about Phil Gramm: One, he is meaner than a junk yard dog, and, 
two, he is smarter than you.
  There are two things you should know about Dick Holbrooke: One, he is 
more persistent than Strom Thurmond, which is almost impossible, and he 
is likely to be smarter than you.
  He kept his commitment to Senator Helms.
  Mr. HELMS. He did.
  Mr. BIDEN. He kept his commitment. Senator Helms was wary at the 
front end of this when he was named, whether or not he really was going 
to do it. He held up his nomination until he came before the committee 
to say: I will commit to Helms-Biden. Once he did that, it was home 
free and he headed to work. But he did a remarkable job.
  So I do not, in my praise for Senator Helms, mean to in any way 
suggest that at the end of the day this could have been done without 
the ingenuity, intelligence, and dedication of Ambassador Holbrooke and 
his staff, who, as the chairman has pointed out, many nights toward the 
end stayed up close to around the clock getting this locked down.
  So I think we are at a good place. I have been with my friend from 
North Carolina too long not to think I understand what is behind his 
reluctance to lift a cap that locked into law the amount we would pay 
for peacekeeping. In 1994, out of frustration with the United Nations 
and its waste and failure to modernize, the U.S. Congress passed a 
piece of legislation that said starting October 1, 1996 we will not pay 
any more than 25 percent of the peacekeeping assessment. Then we were 
being charged about 31 percent, as the Senator said.
  Now this may confuse people. Although the Helms-Biden change we are

[[Page S1114]]

making today will allow over half a billion dollars to go to settle our 
accounts, if we do not do something about that 25 percent cap--because 
in spite of everything Ambassador Holbrooke, did our peacekeeping rate 
is not going to go down to 25 percent this year--we will, by the end of 
the year, accrue another roughly $70 million in debt. We will be behind 
the 8-ball another $70 million in terms of what we ``owe'' the U.N.
  If I did not know better, I would say, as the old saying goes, my 
friend from North Carolina is from Missouri because he is a show-me 
guy. I am hopeful I can convince him or he can become convinced--not 
that I can convince him--but he will become convinced before the 
legislative year is over hopefully that these changes are real and 
maybe we should lift that 25- percent cap. Knowing him, he may toy with 
the idea of either not doing it at all, doing it temporarily, doing it 
conditionally--I do not know what. I know he will come up with 
something.
  I say to him and my colleagues, I for one feel very strongly--we have 
gone this far--we should not now undo the good will and circumstance we 
have created, primarily through his leadership.
  Again, not lifting the 25 percent cap now does not do any damage, any 
injustice, or any harm to the good that has been done, but if we do not 
by the end of the year deal with this--and he is committed we will deal 
with it; not how, not what the result will be, what his position will 
be, but we will deal with it--if we do not deal with it, I fear we will 
have begun to undo some of the significant good that we did by changing 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, I thank former President Clinton and former Secretary 
Albright who were also instrumental in lobbying world leaders to have 
their countries accommodate this change, which is overdue.
  I note parenthetically, when we signed on to these commitments, it 
was a different world. We were the only game in town economically. The 
combined GDP of Europe eclipses ours. Thank God, through the good works 
of a lot of people, including the generosity of the American people, 
the rest of the world is doing pretty well in many places, and they can 
afford to pay more. But it still took a lot of cajoling, it took a lot 
of nursing, it took a lot of diplomatic skill to get it done.
  I say to my friend from North Carolina, I look forward to, before the 
summer passes, being back on the floor, hopefully with an agreement on 
what to do about the 25-percent cap set in 1994, but at least here to 
ventilate it, debate it, and let the Senate work its will on what we 
should do about it.
  I note parenthetically that Secretary of State Powell supports such 
an amendment to the 1994 law. I received a letter from him 2 days ago 
on this subject.
  I have no doubt the Senator has thought about it a lot and will think 
about it, and I have no doubt that whatever decision he comes to on the 
25-percent cap, it will be viewed through the prism of making sure the 
American people are not paying more than they should and that the 
American taxpayers catch a break.
  It has been an honor working with Senator Helms. As I said, he and I 
came the same year, 1972. We have both been here 28 years, going on 29. 
We have, as the old saying goes, been together and we have been agin 
one another. For me, it is always more comfortable when we are 
together. It has never, never been anything other than a pleasure, 
since I shifted my responsibilities as top Democrat on the Judiciary 
Committee to Foreign Relations, working with Senator Helms.
  I am told there are some of our colleagues who wish to speak to this. 
I, quite frankly, would be surprised if there is a controversial aspect 
to this. It passed out of our committee this morning 18-0, unanimously, 
with very little debate and with some considerable enthusiasm.
  I hope there will be bipartisan support for these objectives. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter from 
Secretary Powell.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Secretary of State,

                                 Washington, DC, February 5, 2001.
     Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
     Committee on Foreign Relations,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Biden: Thank you for your January 23 letter 
     regarding the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's plans, at 
     next week's business meeting, to take up the question of 
     revising Helms-Biden legislation to allow a second tranche of 
     payments of UN arrears to go forward. I appreciate the 
     Committee's willingness to move forward so quickly with this 
     needed step.
       In your letter, you asked for my views as to whether a 1994 
     State Authorization Bill provision that places a 25 percent 
     cap on our contribution to UN peacekeeping should also be 
     revised, so that we can pay at the new assessment rate we 
     negotiated in December. My staff have informed me that, 
     unless this cap is revised, we will accrue new arrears of 
     around $77 million in this fiscal year alone. Clearly, this 
     needs to be taken care of to avoid falling into new arrears; 
     my preference would be to move on it now, so that we can put 
     this behind us quickly and focus together on further steps 
     toward UN reform. I hope that the Committee will take the 
     necessary steps to amend the 1994 provision as rapidly as 
     possible.
       Again, thank you for your letter. I welcome your 
     partnership on this and other matters as we seek to advance 
     America's foreign policy interests in the months ahead.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Colin L. Powell.

  Mr. BIDEN. I know we do not have a vote until 3 o'clock. That is when 
it has been set. I am not sure who is going to be here to speak when, 
but I am not going to trespass on the Senate's time anymore. I am going 
to shortly yield the floor, and I look to my colleague to ask whether I 
should suggest the absence of a quorum or does he wish to speak?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent for such time that I may require.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the work 
that has been done by our distinguished chairman, the senior Senator 
from North Carolina, and indeed the ranking member, the senior Senator 
from Delaware. I have had the privilege of working with them on this 
issue including traveling to New York City with them while we were 
working with the distinguished Ambassador, Mr. Holbrooke, on this 
issue. I also traveled a second time to New York City at the invitation 
of then-Ambassador Holbrooke to work on this issue.
  These three, the great triumvirate, have brought this about. It is a 
remarkable feat for freedom. This institution, the U.N., through the 
years has collected a good deal of disparaging comment, but it is an 
essential institution. Despite the disparaging references in years 
past, it is a stronger institution today under the current leadership 
of the distinguished Kofi Annan, and it is performing tasks that, 
frankly, I would not want to see our Government out in front on. Better 
we take second place and work with other nations through the U.N. to 
achieve certain objectives, rather than the unilateral intervention or, 
indeed, the unilateral participation by the United States.
  This funding issue has been a cloud that has hung over the 
institution of the Congress and the U.N. for many years. Through the 
able leadership of Chairman Helms and the ranking member, Mr. Biden, 
that cloud is now in a large measure dispelled. It is a job that should 
receive the commendation and support of all in this Chamber.
  I see the Presiding Officer is a distinguished Senator from the great 
State of New York which provides a home for the United Nations. The 
United Nations is an institution that hopefully will live long and will 
benefit from the strong support expressed by this vote in the Senate 
today.
  I rise today as an original cosponsor of this very important 
legislation on the payment of United States arrearages to the United 
Nations. We are at this crucial point due to the determined efforts of 
the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee

[[Page S1115]]

and our former Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke.
  The United Nations Reform Act of 1999, known as Helms-Biden, provided 
for the payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the United Nations 
in return for a series of United Nations reforms, including a reduction 
in the U.S. assessment for the regular and peacekeeping budgets. The 
United States made its first payment under Helms-Biden, which totaled 
$100 million, in December of 1999. Under Helms-Biden, however, the 
second installment, totaling $582 million, could only be paid once the 
Secretary of State certifies that the ceiling for the U.N.'s regular 
budget scale of assessment for the U.S. is set at 22 percent, and that 
there is a ceiling set at 25 percent for the U.S. assessment for the 
U.N.'s peacekeeping budget.
  After a lengthy and substantive debate, in late December 2000 the 
United Nation's General Assembly agreed to reduce U.S. dues to the 
United Nations. The General Assembly voted to set the ceiling for the 
regular budget scale of assessment for the U.S. at 22 percent--down 
from 25 percent--and set the ceiling for the peacekeeping scale of 
assessment for the U.S. at 28.15 percent--previously there was no 
ceiling and the U.S. was assessed approximately 31 percent. While the 
new scale of assessment ceiling for the U.N. regular budget meets the 
requirements of Helms-Biden, the new scale of assessment ceiling for 
the U.N. peacekeeping budget falls just short of what is required under 
Helms-Biden.
  This legislation we are considering today will amend Helms-Biden so 
as to allow the U.S. to make its second payment of arrears to the U.N. 
Specifically, the requirement that the U.N.'s peacekeeping scale of 
assessment ceiling for the U.S. must be set at 25 percent is amended to 
the U.N. agreed upon number of 28.15 percent.
  Although we all wish that the U.N. would have agreed to the 25 
percent ceiling for the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget, the 
agreement that was reached is significant and deserves our wholehearted 
support. By passing this legislation, we can move forward with the 
implementation of the goals of Helms-Biden and continue to strengthen 
our relationship with the United Nations.
  At this point I want to recognize three individuals whose heroic 
efforts made this landmark agreement possible. Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee Chairman Helms and Ranking Member Biden spent years crafting 
the Helms-Biden legislation. Without their tireless efforts and the 
bipartisanship with which they tackled a task which many felt was 
unachievable, we would not be where we are today. Their commitment and 
total devotion to strengthening and reforming the United Nations 
deserves our highest praise.
  Likewise, the unflagging efforts of former U.S. Ambassador to the 
United Nations Richard Holbrooke must be recognized. Ambassador 
Holbrooke spent his 17 months at the U.N. working incessantly to see 
that the reforms contained in Helms-Biden were implemented. To achieve 
this goal, he traveled repeatedly to Washington to consult with Members 
of Congress, invited numerous Members, including myself, to New York 
for meetings with U.N. ambassadors and spent uncountable hours on the 
telephone promoting these reforms. In fact, during Ambassador 
Holbrooke's tenure I visited the U.N. twice to meet with numerous U.N. 
ambassadors and Secretary-General Kofi Annan in order to discuss U.N. 
reform issues. Without Ambassador Holbrooke's efforts, it is unlikely, 
in my view, that the U.N. General Assembly would have agreed to reform 
the U.N.'s regular and peacekeeping budgets.
  The United Nations, under the strong leadership of Secretary-General 
Kofi Annan, plays a crucial role in global affairs. It is in our 
national interests to continue to work with the United Nations to 
ensure that it is strong and effective.
  In light of that, I reiterate my strong support for the rapid passage 
of this legislation which will keep reforms at the U.N. on schedule and 
allow for the continued payment of U.S. arrearages.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator from New Hampshire?
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator may 
need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair and congratulate the Senator from North 
Carolina for his efforts in bringing a resolution to the U.N. arrearage 
issue. This is an issue in which I have had a fair amount of 
involvement, as I chair the appropriations subcommittee which is 
responsible for actually paying the bills.
  It was a pleasure to work with the Senator from North Carolina and 
the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, and 
Senator Hollings, my ranking member, as we worked with the prior 
administration, especially the Secretary of State, to try to bring a 
resolution to this very intricate and difficult issue--very touchy 
issue in many ways--which had hung over the U.N. and America's 
relationship with the U.N. for far too long.
  There were very significant issues, however, that had to be addressed 
and which, as a result of the efforts of Senator Helms and Senator 
Biden and the working group which I had a pleasure to work with, were 
addressed.
  Two of the ones that have gotten the most visibility, of course, are 
our contribution levels to the U.N. operation accounts, which were 
excessive, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Senate and the 
Congress, and also the contributions to the peacekeeping accounts, 
which were equally excessive.
  So the adjustments in the contribution levels, although not 
everything we desire, are a significant step in the right direction. 
But I think we need to remember as we proceed, especially in the area 
of peacekeeping, that basically the United States is, no matter what 
the assessment level, giving the U.N. what amounts to essentially a 
blank check.
  The tremendous expansion in peacekeeping activity which the U.N. has 
undertaken over the last few years--much of it, quite honestly, not 
consistent with American policy--for example, what is happening today 
in Sierra Leone, where the U.N. has one of its major peacekeeping 
initiatives--is not consistent with the present American policy on how 
to handle that situation. In fact, the British, who are physically on 
the ground there, and whose position we do agree with, are taking the 
brunt of the legitimate effort in that country; whereas the U.N. 
peacekeepers, regrettably, are not contributing to the process of 
resolving the Sierra Leone situation but are actually, well, at best, 
on site but not a positive force. Yet we are paying for that. American 
taxpayers are paying for that.
  It is inconsistent with the policy as laid out in a letter from the 
then-Ambassador to the U.N., Mr. Holbrooke, to the Congress relative to 
what the American policy was to be in Sierra Leone. That letter, which 
was very specific and quite appropriate and on point, unfortunately, is 
not the U.N. policy.
  So as we move down the road, this whole issue of peacekeeping is 
going to be a continuing concern to us, as the payers of the bills, 
because I am not much interested, quite honestly, in sending a large 
amount of tax dollars, in what amounts to an open check, to the U.N. on 
the matter of peacekeeping, if the policies of the U.N. are going to 
be--in those areas where we are actually paying for the peacekeeping--
180 degrees at odds with American policy.

  I do not understand why we should be paying to underwrite policies 
which are inconsistent and, in some instances, actually at odds with 
what our policies are as a nation. So this issue of an open check for 
U.N. peacekeeping is one which will require more attention.
  But as to the question of arrearages, we have at least settled the 
matter of what the percentage should be in those instances where U.N. 
obligations are due relative to peacekeeping. For that reason, we are 
able to release the $582 million which was held up relative to that 
issue. There remains, however, one more payment, one more tranche 
here--$244 million--which needs to be made and which we have 
appropriated.
  By the way, all this money was always appropriated. We, in our 
committee, put it on the table, signed the

[[Page S1116]]

check, but we did not send the check. It was a letter of credit. We 
said: When you meet the conditions of the letter of credit, which were 
basically the Helms-Biden proposal, then we will release the funds. 
But, again, the $244 million, which is available to the U.N., and which 
is the third payment, is still conditioned on what I would call 
structural reforms within the U.N. which are very important, structural 
reforms which go to the operation of the U.N., specifically, stronger 
Inspector General activities, stronger evaluation of the effectiveness 
and the relevance of U.N. programs, a termination of programs that are 
no longer needed, establishment of clearer budget priorities and, of 
course, an accounting office similar to the General Accounting Office 
we have here in the U.S. which can actually go in and audit what goes 
on in the U.N.
  One of the big problems we have had in the U.N. was that for many 
years, regrettably, it was essentially, for lack of a better word, a 
patronage stop for a lot of folks from other countries who found it was 
a place where they could basically place friends and relatives, and, as 
a result, end up with the United States paying the cost of the salaries 
of those friends and relatives. It had a huge inefficiency. It also had 
programmatic activity which simply was inconsistent with what you would 
call good fiscal policy.
  I understand it is not something you can change overnight because, to 
some degree, it is an institutional issue, but the U.N. is moving 
towards trying to address this. And that is positive. We look forward 
to these management systems being put in place which can show the 
American people that their tax dollars are not being wasted when they 
are sent to the U.N.
  The U.N. is a very important institution. It is important that the 
American people have confidence in it. This is an institution which can 
play a huge and positive role as we, as a nation, engage the world. 
Since we are paying a quarter of the costs of the institution, American 
taxpayers have to know that when they send the tax dollar up there, it 
is going to be used effectively and efficiently. It is not because they 
oppose, at least in my State--there is some opposition, but there is 
general support for the U.N. funding. It is not because they oppose 
funding per se for the U.N; it is because they oppose the concept that 
money isn't being used efficiently and effectively. In fact, for a 
number of years it was being used inefficiently and ineffectively and 
in some cases just plain in a poor way.

  So putting these systems in place--a strong Inspector General 
approach, general accounting rules along the lines of what we use in 
the U.S. General Accounting Office, financial data procedures which 
allow us to track the dollars, where they go, who is using them, and 
actual personnel tracking procedures which allow us to make sure the 
personnel that claims to be doing things is actually doing them, and 
that we are not ending up paying no-show employees--is very important 
in running a fiscal house effectively.
  They are the basic elements of good governance. If you are expecting 
taxpayers to support an undertaking, then you must expect that the 
taxpayers will demand that there be an accounting as to how their 
dollars are being used. That is all we have asked for here. We have not 
asked for anything outrageous or unreasonable, in my opinion. We have 
just asked for reasonable accounting procedures.
  The U.N., to their credit, especially the present Secretary General, 
has made an extra effort to try to address these concerns. I 
congratulate the Secretary General for doing that. I especially 
congratulate Ambassador Holbrooke because really he has been a fierce 
force for bringing responsibilities to the U.N. in the way they have 
dealt with American tax dollars over his tenure there. He has been a 
conscientious protector of the American tax dollar. I think he has done 
it because he understands that support for the U.N. is critical, and 
support is tied to American taxpayers having confidence in their 
dollars being used effectively.
  The agreement which has been reached--I again congratulate the 
Senator from North Carolina for his extraordinary effort, the Senator 
from Delaware, and all those who played a role in it--is a very 
positive step forward in putting in place the systems that are 
necessary to give American taxpayers confidence in the U.N. When we 
give that confidence to the American taxpayer, we will in turn give the 
U.N. strength. When we give the U.N. strength, in the end it will 
benefit us as a nation and obviously the world. It is a plus for us. It 
is a plus for the U.N.
  I am very happy to be here today to support this initiative and look 
forward, as chairman of the appropriating committee, to their 
completion of the additional issues that are to be addressed and the 
release of the additional $244 million as a result of successful 
completion of those initiatives.
  I yield the floor and 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. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I also rise to voice support for S. 248, 
a bill to release $582 million in U.S. dues to the United Nations. 
Payment of our dues is long overdue, and I am glad to see this 
bipartisan bill come before the Senate.
  We know the United Nations is not a perfect organization. No 
organization made up of 189 countries could possibly satisfy everyone. 
In that sense, it is sort of like a country composed of 50 States. But 
just as the States rely on the Federal Government to address problems 
that affect each of us collectively, the United States relies on the 
collective diplomacy and security that only the United Nations can 
provide.
  Every day the U.N. is fighting critical battles to resolve conflicts, 
contain the spread of infectious diseases, stop environmental 
pollution, protect human rights, strengthen democracy, and prevent 
starvation, to mention just some of its roles. U.N. peacekeepers are 
deployed around the world--from East Timor to Cyprus to the Sinai--to 
help prevent violence and restore stability where it is badly needed. 
Of the tens of thousands of U.N. peacekeepers deployed, only a tiny 
fraction are Americans. These missions help to avoid U.S. military 
intervention and far more costly humanitarian relief operations.
  We are the world's only superpower, and we have a wide range of 
interests on every continent. We need to send a strong message that the 
United States supports the United Nations but that other nations need 
to contribute their share as well. This legislation is a clear step in 
that direction.
  Getting here has not been easy, and I want to commend four 
individuals who deserve special credit. First and foremost, it was the 
determination of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who led us to this 
breakthrough that few thought was possible. In January, he received a 
standing ovation from both Republicans and Democrats on the Foreign 
Relations Committee. It was well deserved.
  We also had the bipartisan vision and leadership of Senator Jesse 
Helms and Senator Joe Biden. They established a framework for this deal 
with the Helms-Biden legislation, and both deserve a great deal of 
credit.
  Finally, we should recognize Ted Turner. It was his gift of $34 
million that was the final piece of the puzzle. We should all be 
grateful for his generosity and foresight, although it is somewhat 
embarrassing that the government of the wealthiest, most powerful 
nation in history had to rely on the personal donation of a private 
citizen to help meet its obligations to the international community.
  While I am very pleased with this legislation, more still needs to be 
done to address weaknesses in United Nations peacekeeping missions. We 
have seen poorly conceived missions, serious logistical delays, ill-
equipped and undertrained troops, and instances of misconduct. While 
these were exceptions rather than the rule and were largely the fault 
of the U.N.'s member states, I was encouraged by two developments early 
this fall that began to address some of these problems.
  First, the U.N. issued a report, produced by an outside panel of 
experts, that included some common-sense recommendations for improving 
the effectiveness of U.N. peacekeeping. This was followed by a serious 
discussion of

[[Page S1117]]

peacekeeping reform by the heads of state of several key countries at 
the Millennium Summit.
  These two events triggered widespread praise from the international 
community and a number of supportive editorials in the U.S. press. The 
Bush administration and Congress need to take a close look at these 
developments and determine what the U.S. can do to further efforts to 
improve U.N. peacekeeping.
  The administration and Congress should also consider lifting the 25 
percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping contributions. During the campaign, 
President Bush called for the U.S. to act in a more ``humble'' manner 
in the international arena. This may be a good place to start. The 
European Union, whose GDP is roughly equivalent our own, pays over 39 
percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs, while the U.S. contribution will 
fall to 26.5 percent. Moreover, the agreement that was reached in 
December requires 29 nations to accept increases in their assessment 
rates, ranging from 50 percent to 500 percent. Yet, we still maintain 
the 25 percent cap, and continue to accumulate arrears--hardly a 
statement of humility. The time may now be right to remove the cap, 
especially if the administration concludes that U.S. interests are 
better served without it.
  Mr. President, we all want to see reform to continue at the U.N. 
However, refusing to pay our dues has irritated our friends and allies, 
who were legitimately concerned that we wanted a continued veto over 
U.N. decisions, without meeting our treaty obligations. It hurt our 
credibility, and it weakened our influence.
  So I am pleased that we are finally acting to remedy this problem by 
passing this legislation today.
  I see the Senator from Florida, and I yield the floor to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are located in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 269 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CLELAND. I yield the floor. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
S. 248, a bill to amend the Helms-Biden agreement on United Nations 
arrears payments.
  I have long supported the goals of the United Nations as it works to 
promote peace, to protect human rights, and to improve economic and 
social development throughout the world. Participation in the UN acts 
as an incentive to promote peace and provides a forum for negotiations 
and international action which can avert the need for more expensive 
unilateral or bilateral military interventions in the future.
  I believe repaying United States arrears to the UN is crucial to 
ensure that the organization can continue to be a force for peace and 
security in the 21st Century.
  As you know, significant steps have been undertaken in the last 
several years by the UN to reform their administrative structure and to 
reduce costs as called for by the Helms-Biden agreement. Among other 
things, the UN has reduced its budget and staffing levels, and has 
strengthened its Office of Internal Oversight.
  In addition, the UN has agreed to reduce the US assessment for the UN 
regular budget from 25 percent to 22 percent, and the peacekeeping 
assessment from more than 30 percent. I congratulate Senator Helms, 
Senator Biden, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Secretary-General Kofi 
Annan for their efforts and hard work on these issues.
  It is my hope that the UN will continue in this direction and enact 
further reforms designed to save costs and to make the UN a more 
effective and efficient organization. This bill recognizes that efforts 
have been made and will continue to be made towards achieving this 
goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my strong 
support for S. 248, the U.N. dues bill. This is a straightforward bill 
that continues our efforts to set right U.S. accounts at the United 
Nations. Those efforts are not yet complete, but in passing this bill 
today we take a big step in the right direction.
  This bill--and the $582 million in U.S. arrears it will allow us to 
pay--will go a long way to improving our relations at the United 
Nations. The importance of a solid relationship with a capable UN 
should not be underestimated. In the last year alone, we have worked 
with the UN to bolster U.S. interests, including: Containing Saddam 
Hussein; combating the debilitating effects of the AIDS pandemic; 
confronting--and detaining--war criminals in the Balkans; and 
controlling the potentially destabilizing conflicts in East Timor and 
East Africa.
  Two years ago the outlook was much different. At that time, 
skepticism about the effectiveness of the UN prevailed, and Congress 
outlined an aggressive agenda for reform at the United Nations. Behind 
the leadership of Senators Biden and Helms, Congress outlined a series 
of conditions before we would pay the nearly $1 billion in debts.
  Passing that bill was difficult here, including months of debate, 
deliberation and negotiation. But it turns out that we in Congress had 
the easy part. The heavy lifting was done by Ambassador Richard 
Holbrooke and his team at the United States Mission to the United 
Nations, who took the demands we made here in Congress and came back 
from New York with a solid deal.
  Let's take a quick look at what Ambassador Holbrooke and his team 
delivered:
  A reduction in the U.S. assessed costs for the UN regular budget: 
That reduction--from 25 percent to 22 percent--is the first rate drop 
for the United States in the regular budget account since 1972.
  A reduction in the U.S. assessed costs for the UN peacekeeping 
budget: That reduction--from 31 percent to 27 percent--is the first 
rate drop for the United States in the peacekeeping account since 1973.
  A combined savings for the U.S. from these reductions is in excess of 
$100 million annually; and, perhaps most importantly, rejuvenated 
Congressional support for the United Nations.
  Yet the agreement that Ambassador Holbrooke delivered does not spell 
the end of reform at the United Nations.
  Last year saw the release of the so-called Brahimi Report, a series 
of common sense improvements to the way the United Nations handles 
peacekeeping operations. The report gives cause for optimism, but 
aggressive implementation of the report's recommendations is crucial to 
ensure success. Those recommendations will go a long way to burying the 
peacekeeping failures of Srebrenica and Sierra Leone and developing a 
Department of Peacekeeping Operations that can successfully plan, 
deploy and manage complex peacekeeping operations.

  We will also watch the implementation of a series of accountability, 
oversight and planning measures created in the last year. Secretary 
General Annan is demanding a high level of excellence from his team in 
New York, and we join him in expecting efficiency and results.
  Work here in Washington is not done yet. Nor is our work in Congress 
done yet. Continued reform at the United Nations demands U.S. 
leadership and involvement--and approving this bill today is only the 
first step in convincing the international community that we are 
serious about reform.
  As it stands right now, the United States will continue to accrue 
arrears at the United Nations. A law we passed in 1994 that caps U.S. 
payments to the UN peacekeeping budget at 25 percent, but we will 
continue to be billed by the UN for between 26 percent and 28 percent 
of that budget, generating arrears and engendering criticism of the 
U.S.--particularly from our European allies whose combined assessments 
account for well over a third of UN peacekeeping operations.
  If Congress does not make this fix this year, we risk worsening U.S. 
relations with the UN and its member

[[Page S1118]]

states, limiting our ability to use the United Nations to advance vital 
U.S. interests, and setting back the efforts or reform that Ambassador 
Holbrooke did so much to move forward.
  It is my hope that, before the end of this fiscal year, Congress will 
lift the cap on U.S. assessed contributions to international 
peacekeeping efforts. Doing otherwise will be a lost opportunity.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will vote today to 
release $582 million in U.S. arrearages to the United Nations. In 1999, 
Congress mandated a series of reform benchmarks for the United Nations 
to meet in order for the United States to release funds we were 
withholding. One requirement related to reform of the scales for 
peacekeeping assessments by member nations, which were created in 1973 
to fund the Sinai mission and have been in place ever since. As we move 
today to release the so-called Tranche II funds for the U.N. under the 
terms of the Helms-Biden law, I commend my colleagues for their work on 
this issue and note the efforts of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and the 
American mission to the United Nations that made this progress 
possible.
  Over the years, the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies have 
supported U.S. humanitarian interests in a number of ways, performed 
peacekeeping missions important to the security of our nation and our 
allies, and provided a useful forum for developing consensus among 
nations, as demonstrated by former President Bush's extraordinarily 
successful coalition-building to repel Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion 
of Kuwait. But U.N. accomplishments cannot hide the fact that the U.N. 
bureaucracy must be totally reformed from top to bottom.
  As Ambassador Holbrooke recently told the Foreign Relations 
Committee, ``I leave my position as confident as ever that the United 
Nations remains absolutely indispensable to American foreign policy. . 
. . But at the same time, I am even more convinced that the U.N. is 
deeply flawed, and that we must fix it to save it.'' Our vote today to 
pay $582 million in U.S. arrearages reflects this philosophy. I expect 
close Congressional scrutiny of United Nations operations and 
administration to spur additional and much-needed reforms. And I look 
forward to a continuing debate in this body over the level of U.S. 
contributions for U.N. peacekeeping, which requires additional review 
and may call for further Congressional action.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage 
of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third 
time.
  The bill (S. 248) was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. Announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee, L
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The bill (S. 248) was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 248

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON THE PER COUNTRY SHARE OF ASSESSMENTS 
                   FOR UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 931(b)(2) of the Admiral James W. 
     Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) 
     of Public Law 106-113 and contained in appendix G of that 
     Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-480) is amended by striking ``25 
     percent'' and inserting ``28.15 percent''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The undesignated paragraph under 
     the heading ``arrearage payments'' in title IV of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained 
     in section 101(b) of division A of the Omnibus Consolidated 
     and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; 112 
     Stat. 2681-96) is amended by striking ``25 percent'' and 
     inserting ``28.15 percent''.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________