[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13512-13518]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001

  The Senate continued the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I know it must appear to the Chair and 
others that this is sort of a disjointed way to begin consideration of 
a major bill, but we are trying to work out time agreements. Senators 
are being very cooperative. I think we are approaching some 
reconciliation on it; I am not sure.

[[Page 13513]]

  In the meantime, Senator Sarbanes needs to get away for an important 
appointment. How much time will the Senator need?
  Mr. SARBANES. This is the amendment I indicated I could do in 40 
minutes. Once the amendment is explained, I hope that the committee 
will accept it. I would be prepared to offer it now. I have another 
amendment which will take longer.
  I am prepared to go ahead and offer it now if the chairman wishes.
  Mr. HELMS. Why don't we do that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Carolina, we 
are working on a unanimous consent request. Would the Senator allow us 
to interrupt his statement if necessary?
  Mr. SARBANES. Yes, absolutely.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may interrupt for a moment on a 
matter of procedure, I recognize the difficulty the leader has in 
trying to orchestrate things in the body. I know he is working very 
diligently to try to come up with time agreements and the possibility 
of stacking votes and holding them over until Monday. I remember that 
former Senator Jake Garn sort of had an affinity for a family-friendly 
process, and I want to commend the leadership for trying to follow 
that.
  I want to point out that I happen, by coincidence, to live very far 
away. For me to make a Monday vote, I have to leave Sunday night and 
fly all night to get here. If I leave on the very first flight from 
Fairbanks, AK, on Monday and leave at 8 o'clock, I get arrive in 
Washington in the evening. Ordinarily, I don't go back to my State on a 
weekend; I stay here. But Father's Day and Mother's Day are fairly 
important, so I intend to go to Alaska today.
  Unfortunately, I will miss the stacked votes that are proposed on 
Monday. I was inclined to object to the unanimous-consent agreement, 
but in the spirit of cordiality, which I have pretty much maintained 
around here in the last 19 years, I will defer to the leadership. I 
wanted to explain this uniqueness to those who live in Chicago or for 
those who can take the train next door. I wish I could. It is a little 
different set of circumstances.
  I have made my concerns known. As we plan events, I think we should 
recognize there are a couple of special days, and Father's Day is one 
of them. I have 11 grandchildren who are coming, so sayonara.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I certainly wish the Senator from Alaska a 
wonderful trip. I know how important his family is to him. I also want 
to thank him for his magnanimous decision not to object to the stacked 
votes. I know it is important to him to be here and participate in 
recorded votes. I also know his family is very important and Father's 
Day is very important. He could have objected, but he decided not to. I 
hope other Senators will follow that example. I try very hard to 
accommodate every Senator on both sides of the aisle.
  I fear that the problem in the Senate now is that I have been too 
accommodating, because we try to work votes around every Senator's 
schedule, and it is absolutely out of control. I have Senators come in 
here and say: Oh, please, please, please, don't have another vote after 
9:30 on Friday. And other Senators say: You mean we are going to vote 
Monday afternoon?
  I realize voting is a problem, but it is required to move bills 
along. So I ask my colleagues to not get mad at me for trying to get 
our work done.
  This week has been unusually productive. With this bill, if we could 
have finished it today, we would have completed seven bills this week. 
Senator Reid and Senator Daschle share my frustration at what we go 
through. You would not believe the kinds of requests we get from 
Senators not to have votes during the middle of the day on Tuesday, or 
in the morning on Wednesday, or on Thursday afternoon. My colleagues, 
it is just out of control.
  We try to say on Mondays or Fridays, for good and valid reasons, we 
will not have votes on occasion. We try to tell Members in advance. 
Because of a number of problems, we have notified both sides of the 
aisle that there won't be votes next Friday, the 25th. But there is a 
limit as to how much we can do. I was always used to working Monday 
through Friday. I realize that when we go home, we are still working. 
When we tell Senators we are not going to have votes before 5 on Monday 
or after 12 on Friday, we still have difficulty.
  I thank Senator Murkowski for his attitude. I must say to all the 
Senators that we just have to be prepared to be here and vote.
  Here is another thing. Senators have now gotten to where, when there 
is a death in the family, they don't even want to miss a vote. That is 
a terrible and difficult time, but your constituents will understand. 
You can't ask 99 Senators not to have a recorded vote because you have 
had a death in the family. Sometimes it is an in-law. People understand 
if you can't be here. Meanwhile, back in the jungle, we have to get our 
work done. So I ask for your indulgence.
  I yield to Senator Murkowski.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My only frustration, I share with the leader, is that 
the assumption today was that we were going to have some votes. As a 
consequence, I made my plans accordingly for a 2 o'clock airplane. I 
could have gotten a 10:30 airplane. After 2 o'clock, there are no more 
airplanes. I share the frustration of the leader who, obviously, is 
today accommodating a number of Senators who want to get out of here 
early, even though the leader said today we are going to vote in the 
morning at least. We did vote in the morning. It works both ways, Mr. 
President. When the leader says so, the consistency of that statement, 
I think, should be followed through, if I can make an appropriate 
suggestion.
  Mr. LOTT. I must say, if I may respond, it was our intent to have 
more votes, but obstructionists can quite often prevail in the Senate. 
If somebody objects, it is pretty hard to force a vote. On Monday, I 
could call up Executive Calendar items. I can force votes, but I prefer 
not to do that. I have never liked the so-called ``bed check'' votes. I 
try to have votes on substance. That is the problem. Today, we had a 
blowup here at 9:45, and all kinds of efforts to be reasonable and get 
agreements came apart. I believe maybe by 11 o'clock, if enough people 
are gone, we can get this thing worked out.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I appreciate the frustrations the 
majority leader has to work under. But he has just had a very 
productive week. We passed half a dozen bills of consequence here in 
the Senate this week. So I guess I would better understand this 
reaction if we hadn't done anything all week. I thought we had a 
productive week. I am right next door here, so it is easy for me. 
Sometimes you get more with a carrot than you do with a stick.
  Mr. LOTT. I don't believe there has been a majority leader since 
Mansfield who has used a carrot as much as this majority leader. We 
don't go late on Mondays or Fridays.
  Mr. SARBANES. I acknowledge that the majority leader worked hard to 
try to make the calendar more family friendly.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you for doing that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader and the others 
assembled here, not only have we done a good job this week on those 
things we voted upon--major appropriations bills--but also there are a 
lot of things that have gotten a lot of attention that are completed 
and passed in this body, not the least of which is the resolution 
sponsored by the four leaders and everybody else in the Senate, and 
basically a vast majority here, dealing with commending the troops and 
all those who were involved in the Kosovo war. That took some work 
between the two sides, and we worked that out. It is a beautiful 
resolution. It is passed. If we had more time today, we would talk 
about that.
  Lots of things occurred here. There, of course, is some question as 
to whether there are other things we would like to do. We have talked 
about the Patients' Bill of Rights. But we have to say that we have 
accomplished a great deal this week, and I think we should feel good 
about that.

[[Page 13514]]

  Having served in the other body and this body, I think every Senator 
who has served here for a matter of years appreciates the work of the 
leader in making this body one where we have certainty as to our 
schedule. That has been a big help.
  We had a vote this morning. We didn't have as many people as we 
thought, but we had a vote. Our time wasn't wasted this morning. The 
progress made on this State Department bill, I think, is terrific. I 
have been involved in this bill when we have taken more than a week to 
deal with this bill. We will resolve this in a matter of a few hours.
  I appreciate the anxiety and frustration of the leader, but we want 
to work with the leader and make sure we get more done. I speak for 
everyone on this side.
  Mr. LOTT. I will use leader time to respond briefly. I thank Senator 
Reid for his comments. I note the fact he was willing to work with us. 
We had the resolution worked out over a period of several days, 
commending our troops and commending the President and others for their 
work in Kosovo. That could have been difficult, could have caused 
amendments, and there could have been requests for recorded votes.
  That was one of several things we have done this week. I note the 
Senator from Nevada in his new role as the whip on the Democratic side 
has really made a difference. We appreciate his cooperation. Quite 
often, it takes a lot of time to work through the pending amendments. 
He has been very helpful.
  I am glad we had a good week. I am hoping every week will be similar 
to this week. I will keep working in that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 689

  (Purpose: To revise the deadlines with respect to the retention of 
records of disciplinary actions and the filing of grievances within the 
                            Foreign Service)

  Mr. SARBANES. I have an amendment at the desk which I ask be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 689.

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

       On page 39, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the 
     following: ``for a period commensurate with the seriousness 
     of the offense, as determined by Director General of the 
     Foreign Service, except that the personnel records shall 
     retain any record with respect to a reprimand for not less 
     than one year and any record with respect to a suspension for 
     not less than two years.'.''.
       On page 41, line 16, strike ``one year'' and all that 
     follows through the end of line 22 and insert the following: 
     ``two years after the occurrence giving rise to the grievance 
     or, in the case of a grievance with respect to the grievant's 
     rater or reviewer, one year after the date on which the 
     grievant ceased to be subject to rating or review by that 
     person, but in no case less than two years after the 
     occurrence giving rise to the grievance.'.''.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I hope the committee will find it 
possible to accept this amendment. I will very briefly describe it.
  This amendment seeks to address two provisions in the bill which 
affect the rights of those who serve in the Foreign Service. The first 
problem deals with the time period given in order to file a grievance. 
Under the current system, employees have a period of 3 years to file a 
grievance; that is the current law, 3 years. The bill does two things: 
It reduces that period to 1 year. It will take away the employee's 
right, which was upheld by a 1989 decision by the Foreign Service Labor 
Relations Board, to challenge an old evaluation that has been used 
against them.
  It does two things. The amendment addresses those issues. It extends 
the period for filing a grievance to 2 years. In other words, the 
committee bill brings it down from 3 years to 1 year. We put it back up 
to 2 years.
  Let me explain why I think this is important. Members of the Foreign 
Service have limited access to lawyers and personnel files while they 
are overseas. This amendment, moving the period back up to 2 years, 
gives them time to return to the United States on home leave, which 
they are entitled to only after they have been at their post for 18 
months. They can come back on home leave in order to research and file 
their case.
  If the grievance is against an employee's supervisor, the employee 
would have 1 year after he or she ceased to be supervised by that 
individual to file the grievance. I think the fairness of that is 
obvious on its face.
  In addition--and this is a complicated, but I think important point--
the amendment deletes the sentence that would preclude employees from 
grieving old evaluations used against them. Currently, promotion panels 
can reinterpret old reports to select out Foreign Service personnel 
using report statements which did not seem and were not intended at the 
time to be negative. The promotion panels can go back to these old 
reports and reinterpret them.
  The bill, as it is written, eliminates the ability to challenge an 
old evaluation on the part of the employee. Civil service employees 
have this protection now. They can contest all bases cited for their 
termination, regardless of when the matter occurred. A Foreign Service 
employee should have the same due process rights.
  In fact, following this 1989 decision to which I referred, the 
Foreign Service Association and the five foreign affairs agencies in 
the Government reached an agreement under which employees may contest 
records to the extent they are used as a basis for grievable actions 
taken against them.
  Denying employees the ability to do that, among other things, would 
lead to filing unnecessary preemptive grievances for fear they would be 
used against them in the future. In other words, if you are going to 
say these old evaluations can't be ``grievanced,'' then it will serve 
as an incentive to contest more evaluations earlier.
  This amendment restores the limited right, if an old evaluation is 
used to challenge it, and it would preclude the need for such 
preemptive grievances.
  That is the first part of the amendment. It seems to me to make 
eminent good sense to do this. I have tried to take into account some 
of what the committee was seeking to accomplish. As I have indicated, 
we accept bringing the 3 years down, but we think it should come down 
to 2. I think taking it to 1 is going too far. The employees overseas 
would have a difficult time because they don't get the home leave for 
18 months.
  The second part of the amendment relates to the length of time a 
disciplinary action stays in an employee's personnel file. Under the 
current system, a reprimand stays in the employee's file for 1 year and 
a suspension for 2 years. The bill would extend that period in all 
cases until the employee is tenured as a career member of the service 
or next promoted. In effect, you may significantly lengthen the time in 
which these disciplinary actions stay in the employee's file.
  There is a balancing to be done because under the current system 
disciplinary records are removed from the file after 1 or 2 years, no 
matter how serious. Therefore, they are not always available to 
reviewers when a Foreign Service employee is considered for promotion. 
That is something we need to look at. I understand the committee was 
focused on that.
  The bill attempts to rectify this problem by requiring all records of 
disciplinary action to remain in the employee's file until the employee 
is tenured or next promoted. The proposed change makes no distinction 
between a suspension of 1 day or 1 month, between a minor infraction or 
a major violation. By failing to differentiate between minor and major 
violations, this change could have the unintended effect either of 
extending the length of punishment beyond a reasonable time period or 
reducing the likelihood that appropriate disciplinary actions will be

[[Page 13515]]

imposed in the first place. The disciplining authorities may forego 
imposing these actions in the more minor cases because they know these 
things will remain in the file perhaps for a long period--until tenure 
or the next promotion.
  This part of the amendment requires the Director General of the 
Foreign Service to decide when taking a disciplinary action what length 
of time it should remain in the employee's record based on the 
seriousness of the violation. In no case, however, would the letter 
remain in the file less than 1 year for a reprimand or 2 years for a 
suspension.
  So we set, as it were, a minimum requirement of 1 year for a 
reprimand and 2 years for a suspension. Beyond that, the Director 
General, at the time of the disciplinary action, could indicate the 
additional length of time, as it were, that the disciplinary action 
would remain in the employee's file. I think this accomplishes the 
purpose of distinguishing between major and minor infractions, in a 
sense. It does not put the minor infractions in there indefinitely or 
until tenure or promotion is reached, but it does permit the Director 
General, on the major infractions, to extend them beyond the minimum of 
1 year for a reprimand or 2 years for a suspension.
  In both instances here I have tried to take into account what I have 
perceived to be the concerns of the committee in including these 
provisions. Neither proposal, in effect, eliminates the committee 
provisions. It only seeks to modify them or to adjust them, and I think 
would make for a more equitable system. I very much hope the committee 
will find it possible to accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I had a very brief discussion with the 
chairman of the committee about the second part of the Senator's 
amendment, which I happen to support fully; that is, instead of going 
from 3 years down to 1 year. All the reasons the Senator stated seem 
valid to me. A 2-year time period, it seems to me, is more reasonable. 
I suspect the chairman may be inclined to agree with that.
  With regard to the first part of the amendment of the Senator 
relating to this issue of the seriousness of the offense, right now it 
is 1 year and 2 years. This would allow the State Department to make an 
independent judgment as to whether or not a reprimand or suspension 
should stay in the file beyond the time period here.
  I raise the question whether or not we may be able to work something 
out. I have not had a chance to talk to the chairman about this to see 
whether it makes sense to him, but it seems to me the greatest 
difficulty with the first part of the amendment of the Senator, as it 
relates to the reforms we are trying to implement, is leaving open-
ended this notion of who determines the seriousness of the offense. 
Having the Director General of the Foreign Service determine the 
seriousness of the offense without us, the committee, knowing how he or 
she will go about making that determination, in effect leaves a hole 
wide enough to eliminate the reform. I am not asking my colleague from 
North Carolina to respond to this yet.
  I raised a moment ago in private with the Senator from Maryland 
whether or not he would be agreeable to amend the first part of his 
amendment to suggest the Director General had to submit to the Congress 
and the committee a set of regulations about how he or she would 
determine what constitutes the seriousness of the offense; in other 
words, how that would be determined. We would put the burden on them to 
come back to us to tell us, so we had some faith it would not be an ad 
hoc way of approaching this and we would have some sense of how to 
proceed.
  I do not know whether or not that is amenable. It obviously needs to 
be fleshed out more than I have just outlined it, whether or not that 
is amenable to the chairman. But I suggest there is a possibility that 
the Senator, if he is willing, could work with us to see if we could 
work out some procedure that may enable the chairman to agree, for his 
part, to accept the amendment. Is the Senator amenable to that 
approach, I ask the Senator from Maryland?
  Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to my distinguished colleague, I think we 
could work something out. I am not trying to create a situation in 
which the Director General can simply end up retaining the current 
system. Because, as I understand it, the committee's concern was that 
these disciplinary records were taken out of the file after 1 or 2 
years, no matter how serious, and therefore they were not always 
available for review when a Foreign Service employee was considered for 
promotion. So the committee said, all right, we are going to keep it in 
the record until you are tenured or you are next promoted.
  I think that is reasonable to do for serious violations, but I think 
we need to create a differentiation between serious violations and what 
would be minor infractions. But I think if we require regulations be 
proposed that would define that difference and that would be submitted 
to the committee, it seems to me maybe that would work it out in a way 
that is amenable to everyone.
  Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from Maryland, I appreciate his 
willingness to try to work this out. I think we can work out the issue 
of the nature of the seriousness of the offense through regs being 
submitted.
  I am told there is one other concern that is being suggested now. 
Right now there is a floor of 2 years for suspension.
  Mr. SARBANES. We keep that floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Pardon me?
  Mr. SARBANES. We keep that floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. I understand it, but rather than do this negotiation, 
probably on the floor, that is another part Senator Helms wants to take 
a look at.
  What I suggest is I think we are very close to being able to work 
this out. I commit to the Senator we will attempt to do that. 
Obviously, if we do not, he is entitled to a vote on this, but I am 
inclined to believe we can do this and accept it to his satisfaction in 
the managers' amendment. But we will have between now and Monday 
evening to try to work that out, if he is willing to do that?
  Mr. SARBANES. Yes. I will be happy to work with the committee 
members. I am trying to recognize the committee's concerns and, in a 
sense, simply fine-tune the language. I am not contending in either 
instance that there is no validity in the committee concerns. I concede 
the validity of the committee concerns. But I am trying to fine-tune 
this thing so I think it works in a better fashion.
  Does the Senator want me to request it be temporarily laid aside so 
others can offer amendments?
  Mr. BIDEN. I suggest that, if the Senator is willing to do that.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this amendment 
be temporarily set aside, thereby opening the way for other Members to 
offer amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of the State 
Department Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and 2001, which was 
reported out of the committee 17-1.
  Mr. President, as I said, today the Senate begins consideration of 
the State Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. 
The bill was reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 21 
by an overwhelming vote of 17 to 1.
  The bill contains several titles, which Chairman Helms has just 
summarize. Let me just take a few minutes to highlight the major 
provisions of the bill.
  First the bill revives the so-called Helms-Biden legislation on 
paying our overdue bills to the United Nations.
  This proposal, I remind my colleagues, was approved by the Senate in 
June 1997 by a 90 to 5 vote. Unfortunately, it was ultimately 
sidetracked by the other body in the last Congress.
  The version in this bill contains several changes from the bill 
approved in

[[Page 13516]]

1997--changes that were made to reflect the time that has passed since 
the deal was devised in the 105th Congress.
  This package meets the central objective that I have--to pay back 
most of our back dues, or arrears--to the United Nations. It provides 
for the payment of $926 million in arrears, nearly all that we owe to 
the United Nations, over the course of three years, with the amount of 
funding released in each year contingent on the achievement of specific 
reforms in the United Nations.
  Significant changes have been made to the final plan that we passed 
in the last Congress:
  First, the bill provides a waiver for the two toughest provisions in 
the package--the requirement to achieve a reduction to 20 percent in 
our regular budget assessment rate, and a requirement to establish a 
``contested arrears'' account for those arrears that are in dispute 
between the United States and the United Nations.
  Seocnd, the bill provides more money upfront. A provision permitting 
the President to waive $107 million in reimbursements owed by the 
United Nations to the United States has been moved from ``year three'' 
to ``year two'' of the bill. This will allow $682 million to be paid to 
the United Nations as soon as the ``year one'' and ``year two'' 
conditions are met.
  That is enough to cover most of our $712 million debt to the regular 
and peacekeeping budgets, which together constitute the bulk of our 
arrears. I should emphasize here that a significant amount of this 
funding--$575 million--has already been appropriated in the last two 
fiscal years.
  I expect that the third year of funding will be appropriated this 
year--because this money is exempt from the limits imposed by the 1997 
Balanced Budget Act. So once we pass this bill, and the Secretary of 
State makes the necessary certifications, the money can begin to flow.
  This package is the product of lengthy negotiations that began over 
two years ago.
  The final details of this revised package were negotiated earlier 
this year between the chairman, the Secretary of State, and me. It is 
supported by the Clinton administration.
  I think we have a good deal here. It is not everything that I wanted. 
It is not everything that the Secretary of State wanted. And it is not 
everything the chairman wanted. That is the essence of compromise. And 
this is a solid compromise that I hope our colleagues will support.
  Let me briefly discuss a few other provisions in the bill.
  First, we fully funded the President's budget request for most of the 
bill, including the operating accounts of the Department of State, 
international and cultural exchanges, and international broadcasting 
operations such as the Voice of America.
  Second, we developed bipartisan legislation to improve security at 
our embassies. The tragic bombings of our embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania last August underscored the vulnerability of our diplomatic 
posts. Some 80 percent of our embassies do not meet government security 
standards for setback from the street.
  An official review chaired by retired Admiral William Crowe concluded 
that there had been a ``collective failure'' in the U.S. Government in 
failing to address security at our embassies overseas, and called on 
the government to devote $1.4 billion a year over each of the next ten 
years to strengthen security.
  The bill before the Senate authorizes $3 billion over the next five 
years for construction of more secure facilities.
  This meets the President's requested funding level, and accelerates 
it by a year. Even though it is the amount that the President sought, 
we must recognize that it is just the beginning of what must be a 
sustained program of enhancing security.
  Working overseas is dangerous. We can never make our embassies bomb-
proof or risk-free. But we owe it to our dedicated employees who work 
overseas to provide the resources necessary to minimize known risks.
  Third, the bill provides for the establishment of a new Assistant 
Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, which will carry 
out a function that was handled at an equivalent level in the former 
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
  The verification function has long been headed by a Senate-confirmed 
official, and for good reason. Once a treaty is signed, we don't want 
its enforcement to be lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. Moreover, the 
existence this office will be of considerable importance in obtaining 
Senate approval of future arms control treaties.
  Fourth, the bill reauthorizes Radio Free Asia, which began 
broadcasting in 1996 pursuant to legislation that I introduced.
  Although it has been on the air less than three years, Radio Free 
Asia already plays an important role in providing news and information 
to the people living under dictatorial rule in East Asia, particularly 
the People's Republic of China, where freedom of the press remains a 
distant dream.
  I am pleased that we are giving our stamp of approval to continue the 
radio at an increased level of funding.
  This bill is a solid piece of legislation which enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support in the Foreign Relations Committee--as was reflected 
in the strong vote of 17 to 1 in the committee.
  I want to join the chairman in putting the Senate on notice in two 
respects.
  First, we will oppose any amendments that address foreign assistance 
or security assistance. Those measures do not belong on the State 
Department authorization bill.
  Second, we will oppose any measures dealing with ``sanctions reform'' 
or imposing new sanctions.
  The chairman has scheduled hearings for next month to consider the 
various bills on sanctions reforms that are pending in the committee; 
therefore, it would be premature to consider amendments on that subject 
at this time.
  I pay public tribute to the chairman. Quite frankly, his leadership 
and the consensus which he has built in the committee in the last 18 
months has been remarkable. This bill is a product of Jesse Helms.
  There are some serious, significant changes we make--one of which I 
will speak to in a moment--with the United Nations. That is through the 
persistence of my friend from North Carolina. As my mom might say, 
everyone is capable of redemption, and of late, the State Department 
has finally redeemed itself on this one. I am confident--the Senator is 
correct--if and when Mr. Holbrooke is confirmed, we will have an 
advocate for the Senator's position at the United Nations.
  This bill contains several titles which the chairman has summarized. 
I will take a few minutes to highlight the major provisions of the bill 
from my perspective.
  First, the bill revives the so-called Helms-Biden legislation on 
paying our overdue bills at the United Nations. The Senator from North 
Carolina and I have always been friends. We have become very close 
friends, and we suffer from the same problem: Our friends get very 
angry with us when we compromise.
  I am sure the friends of the Senator from North Carolina are very 
angry that he has worked out a solution to the so-called arrearages to 
get this moving, and Senator Biden's friends, on my side of the aisle, 
are very angry that I have agreed to it because they think it should be 
more.
  The bottom line is, we have done some good work. The Senate acted on 
what we did once before. It was the herculean efforts of the Senator 
from North Carolina, taking on folks on his side of the aisle, which 
came to naught, and the not so herculean efforts on my part to take on 
folks on my side of the aisle who did not think this was enough. We are 
back.
  Hopefully, a little reason has permeated the environment and the 
purists on both sides will understand that what we have done is 
necessary in the national interest, very much in the interest of the 
American taxpayers, and is coupled to genuine reforms with which, when 
one thinks about it, nobody really disagrees.
  The argument on my side of the aisle is: We should not make them 
agree to the reforms by holding dues over their

[[Page 13517]]

heads and holding arrearages over their heads. Nobody I have spoken 
with says what Chairman Helms wants is unreasonable.
  I do not hear anybody coming to the floor saying there is no bloated 
bureaucracy at the United Nations. I do not hear anyone coming to the 
floor saying that the United States should pay more. Everybody says we 
should pay less as a percentage. I do not hear anyone arguing about the 
substance the chairman has been insisting on for years.
  We are down to: Are we doing it the right way? It reminds me of an 
expression--I will probably get myself in trouble with the French 
Government--which I think is classic. I was meeting with a State 
Department person, who will remain nameless, in a very significant 
position, negotiating a very significant agreement with the French 
relative to NATO. That is as much as I will say about it.
  I asked this fellow: Are the French going to agree with this?
  He said: Yes, I think they will, but it is kind of difficult.
  I said: What do you mean?
  He said: My friend's counterpart duly said to me last night, ``Yes, 
yes, yes, this will work in practice, but will it work in principle?''
  That is what we are hung up on here. What the Senator has suggested 
in these reforms is practically what everyone has acknowledged is 
needed. What we have been hung up on is the principle of whether or not 
it should be done the way in which we are doing it.
  On the other side of the equation, nobody argues that if we do not 
come up with this $926 million we are going to badly hurt the United 
Nations. We are hurting our allies, we are hurting England, we are 
hurting the Germans, we are hurting others, because over $700 million 
of this money is for peacekeeping accounts that we agreed to sign on to 
with the Brits, with the French, with the Germans, and with our NATO 
allies.
  I think and I hope, I say to the chairman, a little bit of reason is 
seeping into this debate--I hope.
  I guess I am preaching to the choir here, but hopefully some of the 
congregation on the House side will hear what the choir is saying, 
because it is very important that we finally settle this issue and put 
it to bed.
  The version in this bill contains several changes from the bill 
approved in 1997, changes that were made to reflect the time that has 
passed since the deal we put together--the chairman actually put 
together--devised in the 105th Congress which made sense. Time has 
passed. We have had to make some adjustments. I compliment and thank 
the chairman, as well as the Secretary of State, who was not 
overwhelmingly enthused about this approach.
  We finally, through the leadership of the chairman actually, are all 
singing from the same hymnal, as they say up my way. The State 
Department is on the same page now, the Senator is on the same page, I 
am on the same page, hopefully, the House will get on the same page, 
and we can go on to the next hymn.
  I think this package meets the central objectives that we have, at 
least the ones I have--to pay back most of our so-called arrears to the 
United Nations. It provides for a payment of $926 million in arrears--
nearly all of that we owe to the United Nations--over the course of 3 
years, with the amount of funding released in each year contingent on 
achievement of specific reforms in the United Nations.
  This package is a product of very lengthy negotiations begun over 2 
years ago. The details of this revised package were negotiated earlier 
this year between the chairman, the Secretary of State, and me. It is 
now supported by the Clinton administration. I think we have a good 
deal. It is not everything I wanted, and it is not everything the 
Secretary wanted, and it is clearly not everything the chairman wanted, 
but that is the essence of compromise. This is a solid compromise. I 
hope our colleagues will support it.
  Let me briefly discuss a few other provisions of the bill.
  First, we fully funded the President's budget request for most of the 
bill, including the operations account in the State Department, 
international and cultural exchanges, and the international 
broadcasting operations, such as the Voice of America.
  Second, we developed a bipartisan legislative approach to improve the 
security of our embassies. The tragic bombings of our embassies in 
Kenya and Tanzania last August underscored the vulnerability of our 
diplomatic posts. Some 80 percent of our embassies do not meet 
Government security standards for setbacks from the streets, just to 
state one aspect of the problem.
  The official review, chaired by retired Admiral William Crowe, 
concluded that there had been a ``collective failure'' in the U.S. 
Government in failing to address the security of our embassies overseas 
and called on the Government to devote $1.4 billion a year over each of 
the next 10 years to strengthen security.
  The bill before the Senate authorizes $3 billion over the next 5 
years for the construction of more secure facilities. This meets the 
President's requested funding level and accelerates it by a year. Even 
though it is the amount that the President sought, we must recognize 
that it is just the beginning of what must be a sustained program of 
enhancing security.
  I know my colleague in the Chair knows better than anybody in this 
building what it is like to have a Government building vulnerable to 
and subject to terrorist attacks. No one knows the tragedy that flows 
from that better than the Presiding Officer.
  We are as exposed in our foreign embassies around the world as 
buildings are in this town. We cannot and we should not become 
``Fortress America'' internally. But we must do the reasonable things 
that can be done outside of the country in hostile environments or 
environments where we have less control over the protection of our 
citizens.
  Working overseas is dangerous. We can never make our embassies 
bombproof or risk-free. But we owe it to our dedicated employees who 
work overseas to provide resources necessary to minimize the known 
risk.
  Third, the bill provides for the establishment of a new Assistant 
Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, who will carry out 
a function that was handled at the equivalent level in the former Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency.
  I might add, all we are doing now is putting in place what the 
distinguished chairman is the father of, and that is a significant 
reorganization of the State Department apparatus. When people ask me, 
why was this so important to Senator Helms and why did he work so hard 
to get it done, I analogize it to what our former colleague, Barry 
Goldwater, did in terms of the reorganization of the Defense 
Department. It is as consequential, it is as significant, and I believe 
it will be remembered as successful as Senator Goldwater's initiatives 
were with regard to the Defense Department.
  It basically takes us into the 21st century and recognizes how 
fundamentally changed the world is. I think he is to be complimented 
for it. I plan, as long as I am here, that every time we implement a 
new aspect of his reorganization plan, to remind our colleagues why it 
is occurring. It is occurring because the Senator from North Carolina 
was as persistent as he was, and as consistent as he is, in making sure 
this organization is modernized.
  The verification function had long been headed by a Senate confirmed 
official, and for a good reason. Once a treaty was signed, we did not 
want its enforcement to be lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. Moreover, 
the existence of this office will be of considerable importance to 
obtaining Senate approval of future treaties.
  Fourth, the bill reauthorizes Radio Free Asia, which began 
broadcasting in 1996 pursuant to legislation I introduced.
  I must tell you that we all have our pet initiatives that we care a 
great deal about because we think they have a significant impact on our 
security and our interests. I have been ferocious, and some suggest too 
vocal, in my support of the radios.
  But I want to again publicly thank the chairman, who maybe disagreed

[[Page 13518]]

with me in some aspects of this, but was willing to go along with my 
basic approach on how to deal with the radios. I know, from his many 
years during the cold war, of his devotion to Radio Free Europe and 
Voice of America. I appreciate his lending his considerable support and 
weight to the way in which we are approaching, under the 
reorganization, the so-called radios.
  Although it has been on the air less than 3 years, by the way, Radio 
Free Asia already plays an important role in providing news and 
information for people living under the dictatorial rule in East Asia, 
particularly the People's Republic of China, where freedom of the press 
remains a distant dream. I am pleased that we are giving our stamp of 
approval to continue the radio at increased levels of funding to make 
it workable.
  There is much more to say, but I will stop at this point in the 
interest of accommodating my colleagues. But this bill is a solid piece 
of legislation which enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Foreign 
Relations Committee. Again, I want to remind everybody, this, as the 
defense authorization bill, usually attracts every contentious issue 
that is out there. It is because of the leadership of the chairman that 
we came out of the committee with a 17-1 vote.
  My colleagues should understand--it is presumptuous for me to say 
this--that this is a reflection of the fact that what is in this bill 
is solid. It is a solid, solid bill. We would not have gotten this kind 
of consensus out of an ideologically divided committee but a committee 
where we are totally committed to making sure we have the strongest 
ability, the greatest ability, to project our foreign policy around the 
world.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership. I still think people 
are probably scratching their heads: How do Biden and Helms get along 
so well and produce such bipartisan approaches? Because I think we both 
respect each other, but also because I understand that the chairman's 
motivation here is to make this committee's work a product that can 
pass the bipartisan muster of the Senate and the Congress. I compliment 
him again for his leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, the ranking 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden, is far too 
generous. Several times in the past year or two, former Secretaries of 
State, and other past foreign policy officials of this Government, have 
said that the Foreign Relations Committee is now relevant. I think that 
is a high compliment to the committee.
  But it would not have happened if it had not been for Joe Biden. When 
Joe Biden became--by his choice--the ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, when I became chairman, we made a pact that we 
would work together. I have not enjoyed any other of my services in the 
Senate more than the cooperation with him.
  I have just been amazed at how much he has learned about foreign 
policy since we have been on opposite sides of the committee. I have 
gotten to know Joe Biden well. He is a good partner, a good Senator, 
and an expert on foreign policy. And I compliment him.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask the chairman to yield so that I may 
enter this unanimous consent agreement.
  I join in that exchange of compliments to each Senator. I commend the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member on the Democratic 
side, Senator Biden. Senator Helms, you have done a great job. I know 
you have put a lot of time and energy into this particular bill, and we 
would not be here without your persistence and without the cooperation 
of Senator Biden.
  It is an important bill. When you showed up in my office a week or so 
ago and said we are ready to go, we need to do this, I was determined 
we would find a place to do it. I think you have now worked through an 
agreement that will allow us to get it completed and final passage, 
hopefully, Monday afternoon. I would like to enter into this unanimous 
consent request and thank both of you for the outstanding work that you 
are doing.
  I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the State Department 
authorization bill, all amendments must be filed by 11:45 today, with 
the exception of the managers' amendment and any second-degree 
amendments.
  I further ask that any votes ordered with respect to amendments be 
stacked at a time to be determined by the majority leader and the 
Democratic leader, and the following amendments limited to the 
following times, to be equally divided in the usual form.
  The amendments are as follows: Dodd amendment regarding the inspector 
general, 30 minutes; Sarbanes amendment No. 689; Wellstone amendment 
regarding child soldiers, 90 minutes; Wellstone-Harkin, ILO convention 
amendment, 30 minutes; Wellstone, women and children amendment, 90 
minutes; Feingold, war crimes in Rwanda, 30 minutes; Sarbanes amendment 
with regard to the U.N., 2 hours; Feingold amendment regarding NED, 40 
minutes; the Leahy amendment regarding East Timor, 20 minutes; the 
Helms-Biden managers' amendment; the Feinstein arms trafficking 
amendment, 30 minutes; and a relevant amendment by the majority leader 
and the Democratic leader.
  Before the Chair rules, let me say again, the managers' packet will 
include the following: Amendments offered by Senators Abraham, 
Ashcroft, Kennedy, Dodd, Durbin, Moynihan, Reid of Nevada, Bingaman, 
Thomas, Biden, Lugar, Grams, another one by Lugar, and others that have 
been cleared by the two managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. In light of the agreement, there will be no further votes 
today, and the next votes will occur at 5:30 on Monday.

                          ____________________