[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.
____________________