[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 74-83]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   TRIPS MADE OVER THE RECESS PERIOD

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I will comment briefly about two trips 
I made over the recess.
  On December 17, 18, and 19, I traveled to Key West, FL, to observe 
Coast Guard operations and drug interdiction, and then on to Panama to 
see the immediate impact of the turnover of the canal to the Panamanian 
Government, and then on to Colombia, where I had an opportunity to 
visit with President Pastrana. President Pastrana, coincidentally, was 
in Washington today and met with members of the Appropriations 
Committee. The text that I will submit contains a number of comments 
about the trip to both Key West and Panama.
  I did want to make a comment or two about the pending request by the 
Government of Colombia for funding in excess of $1 billion to fight the 
narcotics dealers in Colombia. I am sympathetic with their problems and 
with the grave difficulties they have encountered. I have seen these 
difficulties firsthand on three visits to Colombia, the first back in 
1988.
  I have substantial reservations about a U.S. expenditure in excess of 
$1 billion to reduce the supply of narcotics into the United States. I 
filed a resolution years ago calling for the use of the military in 
drug curtailment and narcotic interdiction--but as successful as we 
have been in interdicting narcotics from Latin America and as 
successful as we have been in having hectares in Peru, Colombia or 
Bolivia replaced with other crops, the great demand in the United 
States and worldwide continues, and thus the supply comes back.
  The U.S. Government spends approximately $18 billion a year on drug 
control. Two-thirds of that, or about $12 billion, is directed to 
activities such as interdiction and to fighting street crime in the 
United States. I do believe that our effort against drug selling on the 
streets of American cities and America's farms and rural areas has to 
continue, as I did when I was district attorney of Philadelphia. But 
the regrettable fact is that as long as the demand for drugs exists, 
the supply will continue, and if not from Colombia, from somewhere 
else. Even as many drug dealers are put in jail, as long as it is 
profitable, more drug dealers come to the street corners to sell drugs. 
So I make this cautionary comment about additional heavy investments in 
trying to stop the supply of drugs until we spend more money on 
education and more money on rehabilitation.
  From January 4 until January 13, in the company of six other 
Senators, I traveled to Morocco, and then on to Naples, and then to 
Kosovo, and five Senators continued on to Tunisia and then on to 
Israel. That trip was very significant in finding very strong support 
and allies from the Governments of Morocco and Tunisia and seeing the 
operation of the NATO Southern Command and our strong 6th Fleet. In 
Kosovo, we saw the superb performance of our American military, where 
they have moved into a land and have constructed a military base 
overnight and are doing so much to try to maintain the peace in that 
very troubled country. My floor statement will recite in detail the 
findings in Kosovo, Morocco, Tunisia, and Italy.
  A word or two about our trip to Israel where we visited the Golan 
Heights. We had an opportunity to visit with Israeli officials--with 
Prime Minister Barak, and with Ariel Sharon who leads the Likud and the 
opposition.
  I compliment both the Israelis and the Syrians for moving ahead on 
the peace process. It is my hope the process will reach fruition.
  My own view, after having visited Syria on a number of occasions 
since 1984, and having seen a decisive shift in the attitude of the 
leadership of the Government of Syria in the intervening 15-16 years, 
the prospects for an agreement are reasonably good. We heard a great 
deal of talk about very substantial funding by the United States. I 
think it is important where an agreement is reached, which is a costly 
agreement, that the expenses be shared by the western European nations, 
by Japan, and by the oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf, and that 
the astronomical figures not be cited broadly, which makes it more 
complex when the matters reach the Congress for consideration of these 
important funding matters.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment further about a recent visit I 
made to Key West, FL, Panama, and Colombia from December 17-19, 1999, 
in order to gain a firsthand view on matters of concern to both my 
constituents in Pennsylvania and all citizens of the United States.
  I departed Andrews Air Force Base on the morning of December 17, 
1999, and arrived at Key West Naval Air Station where I proceeded to 
the Coast Guard Group Key West. I was met by Captain Rudolph, the 
commanding officer of Group Key West and was given an operations 
briefing from Lieutenant Commander Woodring. The briefing detailed the 
mission of Group Key West in such activities as drug interdiction, 
migrant operations, and search and rescue. Following the briefing, I 
boarded the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGS) Monhegan where the 
Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Benjamin A. Cooper, and his crew, gave 
me a briefing of their mission. They discussed how their ability to 
apprehend drug smugglers could be enhanced by virtue of the Coast 
Guard's new use of armed helicopters, which the Coast Guard considers 
to be their most potent aid in capturing drug traffickers.
  I informed the crew of the Monhegan that I had been one of the 
original cosponsors of S. 2728 in 1990, a measure which clarified and 
expanded the authority of the armed forces to provide support for 
civilian law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, this legislation 
authorized the use of military aircraft for transportation of, and 
flight training for, civilian law enforcement personnel and for aerial 
surveillance. According to the crew, the speed of the drug traffickers 
boats, known as ``go fast boats,'' has hampered their ability to get 
near the smugglers. The armed helicopters are one of their best weapons 
in chasing ``go-fast boats,'' in their drug interdiction mission. 
Following my review of the Monhegan, I was given a tour of the USCG 
Cutter Thetis by Commander Finch. I found Commander Finch to be an 
impressive officer who was forthright in this opinions of the military 
and its various functions. The role of the USCG Cutter Thetis is 
maritime law enforcement and search and rescue that uses electronic 
sensors and computerized command and control systems. The crew of the 
cutter Thetis was warm and friendly and we engaged in conversation over 
such issues as the role of gays in the Coast Guard, integrated gender 
training, and women's service aboard ships. I was pleased by the open 
exchange among the crew, and I was gratified to find that several of 
them were Pennsylvanians.
  Upon leaving the cutter Thetis, I proceeded to the Joint Interagency 
Task Force (JIATF)-East which was formed as the umbrella organization 
to coordinate interdiction of illicit drugs in the Caribbean Basin. I 
was met by Rear Admiral Edward J. Barrett, Director of JIATF-East, who 
gave me a tour and introduced me to his staff who provided me a 
classified briefing on the threats faced by JIATF-East. Following the 
briefing, I was accompanied by Admiral Barrett and Captain Frank Klein, 
Director of Operations, on a tour of the classified Joint Operations 
Command Center (JOCC).
  The following day, December 18, 1999, I traveled to Colombia. I 
arrived in Bogota in the early afternoon and was

[[Page 75]]

met by the Deputy Chief of Mission, Barbara Moore and immediately 
proceeded to the United States Embassy in Bogota for a classified 
country team briefing on the current political situation in the 
country. The briefing focused on narcotics trafficking, violence among 
the FARC and ELN and the current discussions between the Colombian 
Government and the guerrilla groups. We also discussed Colombia's 
extradition of narcotic traffickers and the resulting violence from 
such action. I asked the group about the cultivation of cocoa and poppy 
crops and the forcible eradication of the supply of narcotics. I was 
informed that the decreased percentages in cultivation of narcotic 
crops in Bolivia and Peru were offset by an increase in Colombia. I was 
told that Bolivia had decreased 28 percent in narcotic crop production 
and Peru had seen an average decrease of 50 percent in cultivation. I 
inquired about the current Colombian economy and was told that the 
economy was at rock bottom and that Colombia was currently enduring the 
highest unemployment rate in Latin America. However, those present felt 
that the current policies of President Pastrana were good and sound. I 
then inquired about the Colombian military and its need for United 
States assistance. The group felt that the lack of a military dictator 
in Colombia, unlike other Latin American countries, has a positive 
effect on the military, which currently consist of 120,000 soldiers. 
Furthermore, I asked about the United States involvement in training of 
the Colombian military and I was assured that United States soldiers 
were not involved in any level of combat between the Colombian 
guerrilla groups.
  Following this briefing, I proceeded with Deputy Chief Moore to the 
Presidential Palace to meet with President Pastrana. I was welcomed 
into the President's private office. He had just arrived at the palace 
from his son's 17th birthday party. President Pastrana is an impressive 
individual with an initial career as a journalist and his service as 
the mayor of Bogota. He was elected president in March 1998. I informed 
the President that I had watched his interview on the television show 
``60 Minutes'' with Mike Wallace and was impressed with the way he 
handled himself. I informed him that Mike Wallace had done a ``60 
Minutes'' report on prisons in the city of Philadelphia while I served 
as the city's district attorney. He mentioned that his interview with 
Mike Wallace was broadcast over C-SPAN and was seen by 60 million 
people. I commented on how far Mike Wallace and ``60 Minutes'' had come 
since then. We discussed his statements on his ``60 Minutes'' interview 
about the U.S. demand for drugs, which I agreed with. President 
Pastrana stated that while the supply of narcotics from Colombia may 
decrease the total supply from elsewhere will remain the same if the 
United States demand remains the same. He felt that the United States 
has not done enough to decrease the demand for illicit drugs and I 
agreed with him. I assured him that I was committed to searching for 
ways through legislation to curb the demand for drugs in the United 
States.
  Our conversation moved on to the peace process between the Colombian 
Government and the guerilla group known as the Fuerzas Armadas 
Revolucionarias de Colombian (FARC). According to President Pastrana, 
he recently introduced the idea of a peace process as a form of 
dialogue between both the government and the FARC because he firmly 
believes that people of Colombia want peace. President Pastrana assured 
me that both he and the FARC were committed to peace in Colombia but it 
will take time and compromise. I also inquired about the Colombian 
Judiciary system and the bombing of the Colombian Supreme Court. 
President Pastrana explained the problems associated with a judiciary 
that fears violence after extraditing a drug lord. However, the 
President explained that he has conveyed to his people and the 
guerrilla groups that he will continue to extradite convicted drug 
lords regardless of the threats of violence.
  President Pastrana and I discussed the situation regarding the ``New 
Tribes Mission''. He explained that while the government has 
aggressively searched and investigated this kidnaping, he has been 
unable to locate the missionaries. The only lead in the case was from a 
source who told the investigators that he knew that the Americans had 
been killed, who did it, and that he knew where they were buried. I 
explained to President Pastrana the great importance of this case, not 
only to myself, but to the people of Pennsylvania and of course to the 
families of those kidnaped. President Pastrana assured me that he would 
do everything in his power to bring these criminals to justice and to 
bring a conclusion to this case.
  After the meeting I departed for the Bogota air terminal where I was 
met by Agent Jose Rodriguez and Manuel ``Cookie'' Aponte, both FBI 
Special Agents stationed in Colombia. The Special Agents are both 
currently working on the New Tribes Mission cases and they explained 
that the source that had been referred to by President Pastrana had 
indeed come forward in October of this year and was considered to be a 
FARC defector. Special agent Rodriguez explained that the source had 
stated that he knew where the Americans were buried and could identify 
the exact location. When the source was taken by investigators to the 
area that he had earlier identified, he informed them it was the wrong 
location. However, he was able to lead the team to another location 
down river. When the investigative team located the place he described, 
no bodies were recovered, Special Agent Rodriguez explained that the 
bodies could have been washed away because of the proximity to the 
river. I asked the Special Agents what was currently being done and how 
close they felt they were to a resolution to this case. Special Agent 
Rodriguez said that they needed to give a polygraph to the source in 
order to ascertain if he knows who kidnaped the Americans, if they were 
alive or have been killed, and if so, who is responsible. According to 
the agents, they were waiting for a response from the source and they 
will continue to work to bring about a resolution to this case.
  When I arrived in Panama in the evening of the December 18, 1999, I 
was met by Mr. Robert J. Bolhm and Mr. Frederick A. Becker, the 
Minister Consejero for the United States Embassy to Panama. I then 
attend a country team meeting with representatives of the Department of 
Defense. I asked this group several questions in regard to the 
transition of the Panama Canal and national security. I expressed my 
concern, and that of my constituents in Pennsylvania, about the use of 
ports along the Panama Canal that are operated by a Chinese owned 
company, Hutchison Whampoa. I was informed that the operation of a port 
area by one of its companies does not present a national security risk, 
and assured me that our national security interests were fully 
protected. I then inquired about the drug issue and asked if there was 
any light at the end of the tunnel. Representatives from DEA shared my 
concerns about drug trafficking and agreed with my previous statements 
about the need to stem the U.S. demand for narcotics. Finally, I asked 
the group about the structure of the Panama Canal Authority, Panama 
Canal Commission, The Maritime Authority, and the Port Authority and 
their effects on the United States. Mr. Becker felt that the two 
biggest problems facing the management structure of the canal were 
possible corruption within the leadership and general maintenance of 
the canal.
  On the morning of December 19, 1999, I visited the Panama Canal and 
was met by Joseph W. Cornelison, the Deputy Administrator of the Panama 
Canal Commission. I was given a briefing and posed several questions to 
him. I first asked about the involvement of the Chinese company of 
Hutchison International Port Holdings, which operates two ports in the 
region, I relayed the concerns that my constituents in Pennsylvania 
have about U.S. national security and was assured by the Deputy 
Administrator that these ports operate similarly to warehouses and are 
merely for loading and unloading cargo. Furthermore, he explained

[[Page 76]]

that of the six ports which existed along the canal, only two were 
operated by Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong based company. I then asked 
the Deputy Administrator what guidelines are being used in regards to 
U.S. involvement in the protection of the canal. He explained that 
under the scope of the neutrality treaty, there would be joint U.S. and 
Panamanian involvement in order to allow the United States to protect 
its national security interests. I then asked if there were ever talks 
in the 1970's of the United States selling the Panama Canal to Panama. 
The Deputy Administrator said that he was not aware of any such 
discussions. I also inquired about the structure of the canal and its 
governing body. The Deputy Administrator confirmed that there were 11 
members of the Panama Canal Commission and that they served in 
staggered terms. However, the Panama Canal Authority replaced the 
Commission on January 1, 2000; its members were appointed by the 
President of Panama and confirmed by the legislature. My questions then 
moved to that of finances and economic competition for the canal. The 
Deputy Administrator explained that the canal was profit driven from 
fees that are charged for usage based on weight of cargo. The Deputy 
Administrator explained that in FY99 the canal broke even financially. 
Finally, I was given a tour of the Panama Canal and shown some of the 
lock systems. The Deputy Administrator showed me examples of the older 
functioning system and their newer system. He further explained that 
the canal would use $200 million in maintenance and modernization in 
the future.
  Mr. President this concludes the summary of my trip to Key West 
Florida, Colombia, and Panama.
  Mr. President, over the recess, from January 4 through January 13, I 
accompanied Senator Stevens and several other of my colleagues on an 
overseas trip with our primary focus on matters relating to 
appropriations.
  Our first stop was Rabat, Morocco. Morocco is one of the United 
States' oldest allies, first recognizing our fledgling nation in 1787 
by entering into a treaty of friendship. Initially we received a 
country team briefing from our very capable Ambassador Ed Gabriel and 
his staff. Ambassador Gabriel showed us a copy of a letter he has in 
his office from George Washington, thanking the King of Morocco for his 
support of our nascent American nation. President Washington's letter 
stated that although the United States was still struggling and had 
little to offer to the great Kingdom of Morocco, he hoped that in the 
future America would grow and prosper so that some day the United 
States could assist Morocco. Following the country team briefing, we 
met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Mohamed Benaissa.
  Prior to his appointment as Foreign Minister, Mr. Benaissa was posted 
in Washington, DC, as the Moroccan Ambassador. The Foreign Minister 
stated that the only problem with United States-Moroccan relations was 
that there was no problem. The Foreign Minister was enthusiastic about 
the Eizenstat Initiative named for Undersecretary of State Stuart 
Eizenstat. This initiative, proposed in 1998, is intended to support 
sustainable economic growth and development in North Africa by 
encouraging investment and trade with the United States and by reducing 
internal barriers to trade in the region.
  The primary internal obstacle Morocco must address before the country 
can make any serious economic progress is illiteracy. It was reported 
that roughly 50 percent of Moroccans are illiterate. My colleague, 
Senator Hollings, stated that when he visited Morocco in 1972 with 
Senator Mansfield he was quoted the same statistic by the government. 
Mr. President, it has been said that ``knowledge is power.'' Since a 
large segment of the Moroccan population cannot read they subsequently 
cannot access any basic, let alone, advanced, education or training. In 
a world that is increasingly shrinking because of the advent of 
electronic commerce and the Internet, Moroccan's must improve on one of 
the most basic of skills--the ability to read--before they are further 
eclipsed by others in the fast paced global economy.
  After our meeting with the Foreign Minister, we visited the mausoleum 
of Mohamed V and Hassan II and honored the memory of those kings by 
placing a wreath at their tombs. Later that evening we dined at the 
Ambassador's home with the Foreign Minister, as well as Mr. Jalal 
Essaid, President of the Chamber of Councilors, the upper body of the 
Moroccan Parliament and Mr. Abdelwahad Radi, President of the Chamber 
of Representatives, the lower body in the Parliament.
  The next day we visited with Morocco's King Mohamed VI who ascended 
to the throne recently with the passing of his father Hassan II. Over 
the course of his life, King Hassan II had established himself as a 
moderate leader who was willing to work for peace in the region. King 
Hassan II played a key role in fostering the Egyptian-Israel contacts 
that led to President Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem in 1977. In 
1993, after the signing of the Declaration of Principles between Israel 
and the Palestinians here in Washington, King Hassan hosted Prime 
Minister Rabin in Morocco as a demonstration of support for the 
agreement.
  The next morning we traveled from Morocco to Naples, Italy. NATO is 
divided into two commands and our initial stop was at one of those 
commands, NATO's AFSOUTH Headquarters, where we received a current 
operations overview. We were hosted at AFSOUTH by Lieutenant General 
Efthymios Petinis of the Greek Army, Deputy Commander-in-Chief for NATO 
Southern Command, by Lieutenant General Carlo Cabigiosu of the Italian 
Army, Chief of Staff NATO Southern Command, and Lieutenant General Mike 
Short of the United States Air Force, Commander Air Forces for NATO 
Southern Command. General Short's briefing was of specific interest to 
our group as he reviewed with us the decreased level of U.S. air assets 
committed to NATO which are engaged in the ongoing situation in Kosovo. 
General Short informed us that during the height of the air war in 
Kosovo hundreds of U.S. aircraft were on station flying missions, and 
now only 6 U.S. Air Force F-16 fighters, which were permanently 
stationed in Italy, were supporting the current NATO mission over 
Kosovo.
  For our next meeting we traveled by helicopter to Gaeta, home of the 
U.S. Navy's Sixth Fleet. We were met by Vice Admiral Murphy, Commander 
U.S. Sixth Fleet who gave us a brief tour of the naval facilities at 
Gaeta and then provided a demonstration of a Tomahawk Land Attack 
Missile (T-LAM) target work-up and strike. Admiral Murphy briefed us on 
the wide range of missions the 16 ships and 7,200 sailors and marines 
are called upon to undertake in the region from a Tomahawk strike in 
Kosovo to an Ambassadorial evacuation and Embassy protection in Albania 
and Macedonia. We discussed the situation regarding Vieques Island with 
Admiral Murphy. He told our group that the lack of training was having 
a deleterious affect on combat readiness and that the current battle 
group deployed in the Mediterranean had to get under way without the 
traditional combined arms live fire exercises and gunnery. We discussed 
possible alternatives to Vieques. However, Admiral Murphy stated that 
none of the current options satisfy the Navy's critical need to live 
fire and conduct operations like the Vieques range does. Admiral Murphy 
also discussed the proposed International Criminal Court and the impact 
it would have on the Sailors and Marines under his charge. Both Admiral 
Murphy and his aide, Captain Jan Colin, responded negatively. Admiral 
Murphy recounted a recent situation which such a body might be called 
to act upon. He explained that after ordering a carefully planned and 
executed Tomahawk strike of the Serbian MUP police headquarters, the 
initial reconnaissance photographs pictures burning civilian homes and 
stores around the MUP building but no damage to the MUP building 
itself. Admiral Murphy stated that at that point, despite meticulous 
target planning and diligent execution to insure no collateral damage, 
he believed something had gone awry. He stated that he

[[Page 77]]

feared the missile somehow missed the target and that he would now have 
to answer for the errant missile despite everyone's best efforts to 
minimize collateral damage. A short time later however, additional 
reconnaissance photographs became available which showed the MUP police 
themselves actually setting fire to the civilian buildings around their 
headquarters. Subsequent photos then confirmed that the MUP building 
had been destroyed by the Tomahawk.
  Captain Jan Colin, a Navy pilot, recounted his experience flying a 
bombing mission into Libya in 1986 to strike suspected international 
terrorist training camps. Captain Colin said that the Chief of Naval 
Operations at the time, Admiral Kelso, had subsequently been indicted 
for war crimes by the Libyan government for ordering the strike. The 
handful of military officers assembled for our briefing said that in 
their opinions the United States, as the only remaining military 
superpower operating in the world, was resented around the globe. They 
said that even if the resentment was not overt, it was lurking just 
below the surface. They felt that the International Criminal Court 
would be too willing to participate in second guessing American 
military decisions abroad and the rest of the world might too readily 
accept charges of American wrongdoing, justified or not, as a result of 
the perceived American arrogance.
  The next morning we departed for Skopje, Macedonia. We were met at 
the Skopje airport by General Montgomery Meigs, Commanding General, 
U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army and Brigadier General Ricardo 
Sanchez, Commander U.S. Task Force Falcon headquartered at Camp 
Bondsteel, Kosovo. We were scheduled to travel by helicopter to camp 
Bondsteel however, because of the snow and fog, we could not fly and 
instead traveled by vehicle for roughly two hours to reach our 
destination. I had previously visited Camp Bondsteel this past August 
and the physical transformation was impressive. Hundreds of tents had 
been replaced by buildings and the soldiers now had barracks, a mess 
hall, a phone center and physical fitness facility.
  General Sanchez presented our group with an operational overview of 
the responsibilities of the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division 
(Mechanized) in the Multinational Brigade East area of operations, 
which is roughly 19 miles wide by 50 miles long. General Sanchez told 
us that his unit's mission was to provide and maintain a safe and 
secure environment and to assist in the responsible transition to 
appropriate civil organizations enabling KFOR forces to withdraw from 
Kosovo. He told us that soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division perform 
roughly 1700 security patrols in the area during a typical week, staff 
48 checkpoints and guard 62 key facilities 24 hours a day 7 days a 
week. Approximately 5,430 soldiers of the 8,240 total KFOR soldiers in 
Kosovo are Americans, and many of those outstanding young men and woman 
are from Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, on December 16, 1999, a few weeks 
before our arrival, one of those young soldiers from Pennsylvania made 
the ultimate sacrifice giving his life in the line of duty.
  Staff Sergeant Joe Suponcic of Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, one of 
America's famous Green Beret's, was stationed at Camp Bondsteel. 
Sergeant Suponcic was on a reconnaissance patrol in the Russian sector 
of Kosovo when his HUMVEE struck a land mine resulting in his death. I 
spoke with his Commander, Major Jim McAllister, a fellow Green Beret 
who asked me to share with you what kind of soldier Sergeant Suponcic 
was. Major McAllister told me that Sergeant Suponcic was a great young 
American, who was ``motivated, he loved life, his family and the 
Army.'' His fellow soldiers called him ``Super'', not just as an 
abbreviated version of his name Suponcic, but because he was a 
``Super'' soldier who was ``ecstatic'' to be a Sergeant in the elite 
special forces. Major McAllister told me the local villagers in and 
around Kamonica and Kololec, the area in which Sergeant Suponcic 
worked, loved him and had nick-named him ``Joey Blue Eyes.'' When they 
heard of his death, they brought flowers, gifts and condolences to the 
camp. After we returned to America, I spoke with his mother to give my 
condolences to the Suponcics personally and to share with them what I 
had learned in Kosovo. Mrs. Suponcic was gracious and told me of her 
son's burial at Arlington National Cemetery on December 29, 1999. 
America owes the Suponcics a great debt. His Mother Patricia and Father 
Edmund, his brother Brian and his sister Andrea should be proud of 
their son and brother. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln's words to a widow 
who was believed to have lost five sons in the Civil War: How weak and 
fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile the 
Suponcics from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot 
refrain from tendering to them the consolation that may be found in the 
thanks of the Republic.
  During my visit to Camp Bondsteel I also had the opportunity to have 
lunch and visit with some of the troops from Pennsylvania who currently 
call Kosovo home: Second Lieutenant Amanda Belfron from Philadelphia; 
Sergeant Glen Fryer of Jersey Shore, who was a high school classmate of 
Staff Sergeant Suponcic; Warrant Officer Christopher Frey of 
Pittsburgh; Sergeant Keith Faust of Nazbrath; Warrant Officer Andrea 
Carlesi Ellonsburg of Ford City; Major McGinley of Conshohocken; 
Lieutenant Colonel Duane Gapinski of Bernsville; and Lieutenant Colonel 
Kevin Stramara of Schulykill Haven. All of those soldiers impressed me 
with their dedication to duty and positive outlook on the tough mission 
they perform. It is refreshing to be reminded of the high caliber of 
individuals serving on the vanguard of freedom in our Armed Forces and 
I salute their service to our nation.
  We departed Camp Bondsteel and headed to the former Serb town of 
Urosevac where we were met by Lieutenant Colonel Mike Ellerbe, the 
Battalion Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division's, 3rd Battalion, 
504th Parachute Infantry Regiment--The Blue Devils. Colonel Ellerbe's 
unit was assigned to provide security for the remaining Serbian 
population in this now Albanian dominated town. Prior to the conflict, 
Urosevac, a town of some 60,000, had a Serbian population of roughly 
6,000. Now there are 24 Serbians living in 9 homes being protected 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week by roughly 1,000 Paratroopers from the 82nd 
Airborne Division. Our stated objective in the town, I am told, is to 
insure the safety of the few remaining Serbs and protect their property 
so that other former Serbian villagers will return. They are provided 
an armed escort by U.S. soldiers to the Serbian border so that they can 
shop and, upon completion, are escorted back home. Their homes are 
protected around the clock by U.S. soldiers from being set ablaze by 
local Albanians. While there are many issues that can be debated 
regarding our presence in Kosovo, I do not believe anyone would argue 
with me if I say that based upon what I saw in Kosovo the United States 
will not be leaving anytime soon.
  The next day we traveled to Tunisia which, like Morocco, is a long 
standing ally of the United States signing it's first treaty in 1789. 
Our first stop in Tunisia was the U.S. North African Cemetery and 
Memorial in Carthage. The American military forces led by then-General 
Eisenhower played a critical role in Operation Torch, the campaign that 
succeeded in evicting General Rommel from Tunisia in May of 1943 and 
ending the German occupation of North Africa. At the Cemetery there is 
a very large mosaic map of the region depicting the major battles that 
took place in North Africa. Senators Fritz Hollings and Ted Stevens, 
both World War II veterans of North Africa, used the map to share with 
our group their stories of service in uniform on the continent. The 
Cemetery is the final resting place for 2,841 of our country's military 
dead. At the Cemetery there is also a beautiful memorial commemorating 
the 3,724 soldiers, sailors and airmen who gave their lives in Africa 
during World War II but whose remains were never recovered. My 
colleagues and I placed a wreath at the

[[Page 78]]

cemetery in honor of all those memorialized there. The inscription at 
the cemetery entrance eloquently echoes my feelings on my visit that 
morning: ``Here we and all who shall hereafter live in freedom will be 
reminded that to these men and their comrades we owe a debt to be paid 
with grateful remembrance of their sacrifice and with the high resolve 
that the cause for which they died shall live.''
  After paying our respects at the cemetery, we had a working lunch and 
country team brief where we discussed the current economic, educational 
and political state in Tunisia. Ambassador Robin Raphael and I 
discussed the political situation in Libya. It was the Ambassador's 
impression that U.S. policy regarding the Khadafi Regime was in fact 
working, albeit slowly, and that she believed that if things continued 
to progress, Libya may well again join the community of nations. Later 
that evening Ambassador Raphael hosted a reception at her home where we 
met with various representatives from Tunisian business and government.
  Our second day in Tunisia started by meeting with the Minister of 
Foreign Affairs Habib Ben Yahia who is the former Tunisian Ambassador 
to the United States. The Foreign Minister, a very capable 
representative of the Tunisian Government, discussed with us Tunisia's 
upcoming assignment on the United Nations Security Council. The Foreign 
Minister shared with us his recent discussion with Saddam Hussein where 
he encouraged Saddam to cooperate more fully with the United Nations 
and it's weapons inspections program. The Foreign Minister recounted 
that Saddam's future cooperation was doubtful as Saddam was convinced 
that the West, via the U.N., was determined to destabilize and 
``Balkanize'' the nation of Iraq.
  Following our meeting with the Foreign Minister we boarded Tunisian 
Air Force helicopters and were transported to the Tunisian air base of 
Sidi Ahmed at Bizerte where we received briefings and demonstrations of 
the operational capabilities of the 15th Air Groups F-5's. Following 
the visit to the air base we moved to the nearby naval base where we 
toured and were briefed aboard a naval oceanographic vessel that had 
been transferred by the U.S. to the Tunisian Navy. The military 
personnel at both the air and naval facilities we visited demonstrated 
a high degree of professionalism and competence. At the conclusion of 
our visit to Bizerte, we once again boarded Tunisian Air Force 
helicopters and returned to Tunis to meet with the Minister of Defense. 
Mr. Mohamed Jegham, the Minister of Defense, told us that while Tunisia 
had good relations with the other countries in the region, the 
continuing regional problems in Algeria and the Western Sahara were 
cause for some concern. The Defense Minister told us that Libya was not 
a problem for Tunisia because of Tunisias' long relationship with the 
country and with Colonel Khadafi.
  Following our meeting at the Defense Ministry we met with Tunisian 
President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The President told us how he would 
like to attract more investors and business from the United States. As 
in Morocco, the Eizenstat Initiative was a point for discussion and 
because of his country's stability, security and educational 
achievements, the President contended that Tunisia was the perfect 
location for foreign businesses looking to locate in Africa. On the 
topic of Middle East peace, President Ben Ali concluded it was his 
sense that all parties to the negotiations were hopeful. President Ben 
Ali, who has close ties to PLO Chairman Arafat because of Arafat's 
residence in Tunis for 12 years, was of the opinion that the peace 
process needed to conclude soon as the aging Arafat and Syrian 
President Assad were perhaps the primary forces uniting and solidifying 
both their peoples resolve in this matter. Following our meeting with 
the President we met with Tunisian Parliamentarians at the Chamber of 
Deputies after which, the Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted us for a 
working dinner.
  The next morning we departed for Incirlik Air Base, Turkey to discuss 
the situation in Turkey and to review to U.S. participation in 
Operation Northern Watch. Incirlik is home to the U.S. Air Force's 39th 
Wing, which is comprised of roughly 1400 U.S. Air Force personnel. We 
were met at the airfield by Brigadier General Bob Dulaney, U.S. Air 
Force Commander of the Combined Air Forces at Incirlik. General Dulaney 
and his staff provided us with an overview of the types of missions 
that our outstanding pilots and aircrews were flying during Operation 
Northern Watch. We were able to get a close look at the British Jaguar, 
a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, as well as an American EA-6B, an 
electronic warefare aircraft and an American F-16, an aircraft used in 
an air-to-air and air-ground combat role.
  The allied pilots of Operation Northern Watch fly in the no-fly zone 
which was created in 1991 after the Gulf War to protect Iraqi Kurds. 
Iraq has never accepted the validity of either the Northern no-fly zone 
or of the Southern no-fly zone, which was designed to protect Shiite 
Muslims in the South. Allied jets patrolled the zones virtually 
unmolested by Iraqi defenses for more than seven years. However, that 
soon ended after the four day air offensive of Operation Desert Fox in 
December 1998, which was designed to punish the Iraqi government for 
refusing to allow continued U.N. inspections of the Iraqi nuclear, 
biological and chemical weapons programs. Iraq thereafter declared the 
flights of Northern and Southern Watch as violations of its sovereign 
air space. Now, virtually every patrol flown by allied pilots is 
challenged by Iraqi anti aircraft artillery or surface-to-air missile 
fire.
  Our next stop after Incirlik was Israel. When we left the U.S., Prime 
Minister Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister were in Shepardstown, West 
Virginia, discussing possible peace in the region. Upon our arrival in 
Jerusalem we attended a working dinner hosted by Mr. Dan Meridor, a 
member of the Knesset and the Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs 
and Defense Committee. The next morning we had a working breakfast with 
Aaron Miller, deputy to Ambassador Dennis Ross, who provided us with an 
update on the discussions in Shepardstown between Israel and Syria. 
After breakfast we boarded an Israeli Air Force helicopter at the 
Knesset and flew to Palmachim Air Base to review the progress of the 
Israeli Arrow Missile Project which is designed to combat theater 
ballistic missiles, such as the Scuds fired at Israel by Iraq during 
Operation Desert Storm.
  We were joined by Major General Uzi Dayan, the Israeli Defense Force 
Deputy Chief of Staff and cousin of late Moshe Dayan, and once again 
boarded the helicopter for a flight to the Ben Tal overlook in the 
Golan Heights. At the Ben Tal overlook, General Dayan pointed out the 
places and towns in the valleys below where he fought the Syrians in 
1973 and explained to us the obvious strategic importance of the Golan. 
Our second stop in the Golan found us at Nimrod's Castle, where we were 
able to get a better view of the Jordan, Ammund, Wabadai and Haman 
Rivers the four tributaries which flow into the Sea of Galilee and 
supply Israel with 40% of it's water. Our final stop in the Golan was 
Carlucci Point named for former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci. We 
were met and briefed by the Commander of the Northern Command, Major 
General Gaby Ashkenazi. From our vantage point General Ashkenzai 
pointed out Southern Lebanon and a nearby Israeli town, which, because 
it's large size and close proximity to the Lebanese border, is the 
frequent target of Hezbollah Katyusha rocket attacks.
  We departed the Golan via helicopter and headed back to Jerusalem for 
a meeting with Prime Minister Barak. The Prime Minister was in good 
spirits. He had just returned from Washington and the negotiations with 
the Syrians only the night before. Prime Minister Barak reported that 
the negotiations with the Syrians were progressing slowly. The primary 
concerns of Israel during these talks, he explained, were security, 
early warning, normalization of relations with Syria and water. Prime 
Minister Barak shared that the United States had prepared a document 
which outlined the concerns of both

[[Page 79]]

Syria and Israel. He told us the document was a useful tool as it put 
the otherwise abstract negotiations in concrete terms. The Prime 
Minister thought that while there was some movement in certain areas of 
the Syrian position, as nothing was final until the whole process was 
final, the movement may have been simply a negotiating tactic. Prime 
Minister Barak was hopeful that there would soon be peace discussions 
with Lebanon. He felt that such talks would encourage the people of 
Israel concerning Syria's position and allow them to hope for a 
comprehensive regional peace.
  As members of the Appropriations Committee, we discussed the cost of 
peace with Syria with the Prime Minister. My colleagues and I cautioned 
him that the media was questioning us regarding the reports that the 
price for such peace was going to be in the $10-60 billion range. We 
discussed the difficulty of finding consensus in Congress to fund the 
Wye River Agreement and advised the Prime Minister to keep the Congress 
informed as the process progressed. Prime Minister Barak told our group 
that it was his hope that other countries, such as Japan and various 
other G-7 nations, would contribute to whatever sum eventually emerged. 
The Prime Minister said that the Camp David Accord laid the cornerstone 
for peace in the region, the Wye River Agreements built upon that 
foundation, and he was now hopeful that the discussions with Syria 
would produce the keystone which could be put in place to allow the 
full weight of regional peace to come to rest.
  Discussing other security issues in the region, the Prime Minister 
told us that he is ``deeply disturbed'' by both Iran and Iraq's drive 
to acquire nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Barak told us that he 
believed that unless UNSCOM inspections begin again, Iraq would have 
nuclear weapons within 5-7 years and that Iran was similarly 
positioned.
  The next morning our delegation had a working breakfast with Mr. 
Avraham Shohat, the Minister of Finance. Our discussion once again 
focused on the cost of any peace with Syria. The Finance Minister, like 
Prime Minister Barak, was hopeful that other countries would contribute 
in addition to the United States. We departed later that morning from 
Israel and returned to Andrews Air Force Base later that evening after 
nine long, but informative days abroad.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleague from Iowa for 
yielding the time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      VISIT TO THE UNITED NATIONS

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senators for 
their indulgence in permitting me to make this statement. I feel very 
strongly about what I am about to say, and I wish to share some views 
with my colleagues.
  Last Friday, I had the opportunity to participate in a historic 
mission to the United Nations. It embraced a series of events, led by 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
On Friday, I was privileged to join the chairman and, the distinguished 
ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and other members of 
the committee for this historic occasion. I appreciated very much the 
opportunity to join the Foreign Relations Committee. For it was the 
first time in history that the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee 
conducted a hearing out of Washington, DC. I think it was most 
appropriate that the hearing was conducted under the auspices of the 
United Nations. Our distinguished Ambassador to the United Nations, 
Ambassador Holbrooke, facilitated these series of meetings. I commend 
him highly for his participation.
  The Foreign Relations Committee events at the United Nations began on 
Thursday afternoon when Chairman Helms became the first Member--very 
interesting, Madam President--the first Member of the Congress of the 
United States to address the U.N. Security Council.
  The chairman's statement to the Security Council was tough, but those 
of us who have known Senator Helms and who have had the privilege of 
working with him through these many years know him to be a very tough 
and resolute and forthright man. He spoke with candor, but, in my view, 
his statement was carefully measured. His objectives were constructive. 
In my view, he accurately portrayed the concerns of many Americans with 
regard to the United Nations--an important organization.
  As I said last Friday, to the Secretary General at lunch--I spoke 
again to a large group of Ambassadors--and then in the course of the 
hearing, the world is dependent upon the existence of the United 
Nations to bring member nations together, and to try to work on a 
variety of problems throughout the world.
  One of those problems of great concern to me is peacekeeping, which 
is becoming a greater and greater challenge. I do not in any way 
disparage the U.N. We came as a group to constructively give our 
viewpoints and to indicate the willingness of those of us who came and 
others to try to make the U.N. work more efficiently in the cause of 
world peace and to lessen human suffering throughout the globe. But 
that organization is in need of reform.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms' statement to the U.N. 
Security Council be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks, as well as a brief description of the events at the United 
Nations that the committee attended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I urge all of my colleagues to take a 
look at this statement of the distinguished chairman. I will address 
momentarily some troublesome criticism directed at Senator Helms. I put 
his statement in the Record so all Americans can read it. Make up your 
mind for yourself with regard to the contents of his statement and the 
statements of others at that historic meeting, because I think we have 
to join together to try to help the U.N. become a more efficient, 
constructive organization.
  I would like to also call the attention of my colleagues to the 
statement made on Monday by the Secretary of State, Mrs. Albright. I 
quote that statement because I find it very troubling, and it prompts 
me to come to the floor today.
  Secretary Albright said:

       Let me be clear. Only the President and the executive 
     branch can speak for the United States.

  I say to the Secretary, for whom I have a high, professional regard, 
and out of respect for the very important office which she holds: Madam 
Secretary, you are mistaken.
  I will not deliver a speech on the formation of our Government, but 
it is so basic that the Founding Fathers created three independent 
branches of government, coequal--I repeat: coequal--in authority. The 
President does not have sole authority in the area of foreign affairs.
  I could go into detail regarding the checks and balances in the 
Constitution and specific reference to the responsibility of the 
Congress and those of the President, but clearly Congress, through its 
advice and consent role, deals with treaties. A treaty cannot go 
forward without the advice and consent of the Senate. We have seen this 
most recently with the comprehensive test ban treaty, a highly 
controversial treaty. No Ambassador can go forth from this land to 
represent this Nation without the advice and consent of the Senate, and 
no program initiated by a President requiring funding of taxpayer 
dollars can be implemented without the authorization of those funds by 
the Congress of the United States.
  Madam Secretary, I say to you most respectfully: Reconsider that 
statement. I urge you to revise, as we say in the Congress, that 
statement in the context of the exact authority given by the 
Constitution to the Congress, and out of respect for the Members of the 
Congress who, Madam Secretary Albright, have respect for you and

[[Page 80]]

want to work with you, but not in the face of such a defiant 
proclamation as that.
  My primary purpose in attending the hearing at the United Nations 
last Friday was to give my views on what I view as the tragic situation 
developing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Together with my senior staff on the 
committee, Colonel Brownlee, Mrs. Ansley, and in the company of General 
Clark, commander in chief of our forces in NATO, commander in chief of 
U.S. forces in Europe, and his deputy, Admiral Abbot, I toured both 
Kosovo, Bosnia, and, indeed, spent time in Macedonia.
  I am gravely concerned. I have had a long association, as have many 
Members of this Chamber, with the conflicts in that troubled region. I 
was the first Senator to go to Bosnia, in September of 1992, in the 
middle of the war, arriving in the historic city of Sarajevo and seeing 
for myself the tragedy of war unfolding right before my eyes in the 
shelling of that city and the killing of innocent civilians. It was a 
very dramatic experience for me.
  It motivated me to dedicate much of my time since then to that 
conflict and to try to do what I could, together with others, to 
alleviate the human suffering. I am concerned that not enough is being 
done in either Bosnia or Kosovo.
  Let's look at a little history. Since NATO troops were first deployed 
to Bosnia in December of 1995, the United States has spent almost $10 
billion to support our military commitment of troops to that nation. We 
are but one of many nations committing troops and funds to Bosnia. In 
addition, we have spent an additional $5 billion in Kosovo for the air 
campaign and the deployment of United States KFOR troops. Again, we are 
one nation, with more than 30 other nations, contributing military 
forces. The price tag for these military commitments of U.S. troops is 
roughly $1.5 billion each year for Bosnia and $2 billion a year 
projected for Kosovo. Those are very significant sums of money.
  Apart from the significant sums of money is my concern for the safety 
and the welfare of the young men and women of the United States Armed 
Forces and, indeed, those of other nations who every single day march 
through the frozen streets of Bosnia and Kosovo, subjecting themselves 
to risk. The fighting still goes on in small, largely ethnic, 
conflict--particularly in Kosovo. Our military personnel could be 
caught in the crossfire tomorrow.
  We experienced a tragic loss in Somalia--again, when the world had 
taken its attention away from Somalia. We had the best of intentions 
when we went in to relieve the human suffering in that nation. Then we 
drifted into nation building, and tragedy befell our Armed Forces in 
Somalia. A comparable tragedy could befall the Armed Forces of our 
country and those of other nations in either Bosnia or Kosovo tomorrow.
  Why are our troops still in Bosnia over four years after they were 
first deployed? Why is no end in sight in Kosovo? The reason for that 
is that the United Nations, together with other international 
organizations, are not doing their job.
  We went into these military operations in both Bosnia and Kosovo with 
a clear understanding that if the troops performed their mission, which 
they have done in both countries, then the United Nations and other 
organizations would take the necessary steps to rebuild Bosnia and 
Kosovo--which is still not a sovereign nation, with no plans to make it 
a sovereign nation at this time; it is part of Serbia. Nevertheless, 
they would restore law and order and enable the people to live their 
lives in peace. The military has done their mission. The United Nations 
is failing.
  In the course of the hearing we had in New York City, Ambassador 
Holbrooke, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, recounted how the 
United Nations had failed in its peacekeeping operations in Somalia, in 
Rwanda, and other areas. He said we cannot fail again. The Presiding 
Officer in the Chamber at this time was present during that hearing. He 
will remember I said that the United Nations is on the brink of failure 
in both Bosnia and Kosovo unless the U.N. steps up the pace of the 
fulfillment of its obligations, together with organizations that 
likewise have a commitment to provide an infrastructure of government 
and a rebuilding of the economy.
  There have been positive actions; for instance, the recent elections 
in Croatia. Still, we are so far behind in the fulfillment of 
commitments to rebuild civilian administrations in both Bosnia and 
Kosovo. We have to move with swiftness. Otherwise, we are guilty of 
letting the men and women of our Armed Forces and other armed forces 
take on jobs for which they were never trained but which they are 
carrying out--jobs of being policemen, jobs of trying to bring some 
civil structure of life to these little villages, all kinds of jobs for 
which they are not trained as military people, but to their credit they 
are carrying out well.
  We have to keep the pressure on the U.N. and the other organizations 
to do their job. There has been much discussion that the U.N. should 
take on enlarged obligations in Africa. We all recognize Africa is 
crying out for help. It has a measure of human suffering almost beyond 
comprehension. It has a measure of disease--primarily AIDS--beyond 
human comprehension. However, the problem is that until the U.N. can 
first fulfill its missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, I caution them not to 
take on additional peacekeeping actions of the magnitude of those 
contemplated for Africa. We have all been taught: Finish what you start 
before you take on a new task. I made those remarks, and I stand by 
them.
  In consultation with the members of the Armed Services Committee, I 
will initiate a series of hearings to provide this Senate and others 
with an up-to-date report on the situations in Bosnia and Kosovo. 
Proudly, the first part of that report is that the military has done 
its job--the militaries of our Nation and other nations. Sadly, our 
report will show that the United Nations is falling behind daily in 
fulfilling its commitments, together with other international 
organizations.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit I

  Address by Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations, before the United Nations Security Council, January 
                                20, 2000

       Mr. President, Distinguished Ambassadors, Ladies and 
     Gentlemen.
       Thank you for your welcome this morning. It is an honor to 
     be here today, and to meet with you here in the Security 
     Council.
       I understand that you have interpreters who translate the 
     proceedings of this body into a half dozen different 
     languages. It may be that they have an interesting challenge 
     today. As some of you may have detected, I don't have a 
     Yankee accent. I hope you have a translator here who can 
     speak Southern, someone who can translate words like 
     ``y'all'' and ``I do declare.''
       It may be that one other language barrier will need to be 
     overcome this morning. I am not a diplomat, and as such, I am 
     not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language 
     of the diplomatic trade. I am an elected official, with 
     something of a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning 
     what I say. So I trust you will forgive me if I come across 
     as a bit more blunt than those you are accustomed to hearing 
     in this chamber.
       I am told that this is the first time that a United States 
     Senator has addressed the United Nations Security Council. I 
     sincerely hope it will not be the last. It is important that 
     this body have greater contact with the elected 
     representatives of the American people, and that we have 
     greater contact with you.
       In this spirit, tomorrow I will be joined here at the U.N. 
     by several other members of the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee. Together, we will meet with U.N. officials and 
     representatives of some of your governments, and will hold a 
     Committee ``Field Hearing'' to discuss U.N. reform and the 
     prospects for improved U.S.-U.N. relations.
       This will mark another first. Never before has the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee ventured as a group from 
     Washington to visit an international institution. I hope it 
     will be an enlightening experience for all of us, and that 
     you will accept this visit as a sign of our desire for a new 
     beginning in the U.S.-U.N. relationship.
       I hope--I intend--that my presence here today will presage 
     future visits by designated spokesmen of the Security 
     Council, who will come to Washington as official guests of 
     the United States Senate and the Senate's Foreign Relations 
     Committee which I chair. I trust that your representatives 
     will feel free to be as candid in Washington as I will try to 
     be here today so that

[[Page 81]]

     there will be hands of friendship extended in an atmosphere 
     of understanding.
       If we are to have such a new beginning, we must endeavor to 
     understand each other better. And that is why I will share 
     with you some of what I am hearing from the American people 
     about the United Nations.
       Now I am confident you have seen the public opinion polls, 
     commissioned by U.N. supporters, suggesting that the U.N. 
     enjoys the support of the American public. I would caution 
     that you not put so much confidence in those polls. Since I 
     was first elected to the Senate in 1972, I have run for 
     reelection four times. Each time, the pollsters have 
     confidently predicted my defeat. Each time, I am happy to 
     confide, they have been wrong. I am pleased that, thus far, I 
     have never won a poll or lost an election.
       So, as those of you who represent democratic nations well 
     know, public opinion polls can be constructed to tell you 
     anything the poll takers want you to hear. Let me share with 
     you what the American people tell me. Since I became chairman 
     of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have received literally 
     thousands of letters from Americans all across the country 
     expressing their deep frustration with this institution.
       They know instinctively that the U.N. lives and breathes on 
     the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. And yet they 
     have heard comments here in New York constantly calling the 
     United States a ``deadbeat.'' They have heard U.N. officials 
     declaring absurdly that countries like Fiji and Bangladesh 
     are carrying America's burden in peacekeeping.
       They see the majority of the U.N. members routinely voting 
     against America in the General Assembly. They have read the 
     reports of the raucous cheering of the U.N. delegates in 
     Rome, when U.S. efforts to amend the International Criminal 
     Court treaty to protect American soldiers were defeated. They 
     read in the newspapers that, despite all the human rights 
     abuses taking place in dictatorships across the globe, a U.N. 
     ``Special Rapporteur'' decided his most pressing task was to 
     investigate human rights violations in the U.S.--and found 
     our human rights record wanting.
       The American people hear all this; they resent it, and they 
     have grown increasingly frustrated with what they feel is a 
     lack of gratitude.
       Now I won't delve into every point of frustration, but 
     let's touch for just a moment on one--the ``deadbeat'' 
     charge. Before coming here, I asked the United States General 
     Accounting Office to assess just how much the American 
     taxpayers contributed to the United Nations in 1999. Here is 
     what the GAO reported to me:
       Last year, the American people contributed a total of more 
     than $2.5 billion dollars to the U.N. system in assessments 
     and voluntary contributions. That's pretty generous, but it's 
     only the tip of the iceberg. The American taxpayers also 
     spent an additional eight billion, seven hundred and seventy 
     nine million dollars from the United States' military budget 
     to support various U.N. resolutions and peacekeeping 
     operations around the world. Let me repeat that figure: eight 
     billion, seven hundred and seventy nine million dollars.
       That means that last year (1999) alone the American people 
     have furnished precisely eleven billion, two hundred and 
     seventy nine million dollars to support the work of the 
     United Nations. No other nation on earth comes even close to 
     matching that singular investment.
       So you can see why many Americans reject the suggestion 
     that theirs is a ``deadbeat'' nation.
       Now, I grant you, the money we spend on the U.N. is not 
     charity. To the contrary, it is an investment--an investment 
     from which the American people rightly expect a return. They 
     expect a reformed U.N. that works more efficiently, and which 
     respects the sovereignty of the United States.
       That is why in the 1980s, Congress began withholding a 
     fraction of our arrears as pressure for reform. And 
     Congressional pressure resulted in some worthwhile reforms, 
     such as the creation of an independent U.N. Inspector General 
     and the adoption of consensus budgeting practices. But still, 
     the arrears accumulated as the U.N. resisted more 
     comprehensive reforms.
       When the distinguished Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was 
     elected, some of us in the Senate decided to try to establish 
     a working relationship. The result is the Helms-Biden law, 
     which President Clinton finally signed into law this past 
     November. The product of three years of arduous negotiations 
     and hard-fought compromises, it was approved by the U.S. 
     Senate by an overwhelming 98-1 margin. You should read that 
     vote as a virtually unanimous mandate for a new relationship 
     with a reformed United Nations.
       Now I am aware that this law does not sit well with some 
     here at the U.N. Some do not like to have reforms dictated by 
     the U.S. Congress. Some have even suggested that the U.N. 
     should reject these reforms. But let me suggest a few things 
     to consider: First, as the figures I have cited clearly 
     demonstrate, the United States is the single largest investor 
     in the United Nations. Under the U.S. Constitution, we in 
     Congress are the sole guardians of the American taxpayers' 
     money. (It is our solemn duty to see that it is wisely 
     invested.) So as the representatives of the U.N.'s largest 
     investors--the American people--we have not only a right, but 
     a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange 
     for their investment.
       Second, I ask you to consider the alternative. The 
     alternative would have been to continue to let the U.S.-U.N. 
     relationship spiral out of control. You would have taken 
     retaliatory measures, such as revoking America's vote in the 
     General Assembly. Congress would likely have responded with 
     retaliatory measures against the U.N. And the end result, I 
     believe, would have been a breach in U.S.-U.N. relations that 
     would have served the interests of no one.
       Now some here may contend that the Clinton Administration 
     should have fought to pay the arrears without conditions. I 
     assure you, had they done so, they would have lost. Eighty 
     years ago, Woodrow Wilson failed to secure Congressional 
     support for U.S. entry into the League of Nations. This 
     administration obviously learned from President Wilson's 
     mistakes. Wilson probably could have achieved ratification of 
     the League of Nations if he had worked with Congress. One of 
     my predecessors as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee, Henry Cabot Lodge, asked for 14 conditions to the 
     treaty establishing the League of Nations, few of which would 
     have raised an eyebrow today. These included language to 
     insure that the United States remain the sole judge of its 
     own internal affairs; that the League not restrict any 
     individual rights of U.S. citizens; that the Congress retain 
     sole authority for the deployment of U.S. forces through the 
     league, and so on.
       But President Wilson indignantly refused to compromise with 
     Senator Lodge. He shouted, ``Never, never!'', adding, ``I'll 
     never consent to adopting any policy with which that 
     impossible man is so prominently identified!'' What happened? 
     President Wilson lost. The final vote in the Senate was 38 to 
     53, and League of Nations withered on the vine.
       Ambassador Holbrooke and Secretary of State Albright 
     understood from the beginning that the United Nations could 
     not long survive without the support of the American people--
     and their elected representatives in Congress. Thanks to the 
     efforts of leaders like Ambassador Holbrooke and Secretary 
     Albright, the present Administration in Washington did not 
     repeat President Wilson's fatal mistakes.
       In any event, Congress has written a check to the United 
     Nations for $926 million, payable upon the implementation of 
     previously agreed-upon common-sense reforms. Now the choice 
     is up to the U.N. I suggest that if the U.N. were to reject 
     this compromise, it would mark the beginning of the end of 
     U.S. support for the United Nations.
       I don't want that to happen. I want the American people to 
     value a United Nations that recognizes and respects their 
     interests, and for the United Nations to value the 
     significant contributions of the American people.
       Let's be crystal clear and totally honest with each other: 
     all of us want a more effective United Nations. But if the 
     United Nations is to be ``effective'' it must be an 
     institution that is needed by the great democratic powers of 
     the world.
       Most Americans do not regard the United Nations as an end 
     in and of itself--they see it as just one tool in America's 
     diplomatic arsenal. To the extent that the U.N. is an 
     effective tool, the American people will support it. To the 
     extent that it becomes an ineffective tool--or worse, a 
     burden--the American people will cast it aside.
       The American people want the U.N. to serve the purpose for 
     which it was designed: they want it to help sovereign states 
     coordinate collective action by ``coalitions of the 
     willing,'' (where the political will for such action exists); 
     they want it to provide a forum where diplomats can meet and 
     keep open channels of communication in times of crisis; they 
     want it to provide to the peoples of the world important 
     services, such as peacekeeping, weapons inspections and 
     humanitarian relief.
       This is important work. It is the core of what the U.N. can 
     offer to the United States and the world. If, in the coming 
     century, the U.N. focuses on doing these core tasks well, it 
     can thrive and will earn and deserve the support of the 
     American people. But if the U.N. seeks to move beyond these 
     core tasks, if it seeks to impose the U.N.'s power and 
     authority over nation-states, I guarantee that the United 
     Nations will meet stiff resistance from the American people.
       As matters now stand, many Americans sense that the U.N. 
     has greater ambitions than simply being an efficient 
     deliverer of humanitarian aid, a more effective peacekeeper, 
     a better weapons inspector, and a more effective tool of 
     great power diplomacy. They see the U.N. aspiring to 
     establish itself as the central authority of a new 
     international order of global laws and global governance. 
     This is an international order the American people will not 
     countenance.
       The U.N. must respect national sovereignty. The U.N. serves 
     nation-states, not the other way around. This principle is 
     central to the legitimacy and ultimate survival of the United 
     Nations, and it is a principle

[[Page 82]]

     that must be protected. The Secretary General recently 
     delivered an address on sovereignty to the General Assembly, 
     in which he declared that ``the last right of states cannot 
     and must not be the right to enslave, persecute or torture 
     their own citizens.'' The peoples of the world, he said, have 
     ``rights beyond borders.'' I wholeheartedly agree.
       What the Secretary General calls ``rights beyond borders,'' 
     we in America we call ``inalienable rights.'' We are endowed 
     with those ``inalienable rights,'' as Thomas Jefferson 
     proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, not by kings 
     or despots, but by our Creator.
       The sovereignty of nations must be respected. But nations 
     derive their sovereignty--their legitimacy--from the consent 
     of the governed. Thus, it follows, that nations can lose 
     their legitimacy when they rule without the consent of the 
     governed; they deservedly discard their sovereignty by 
     brutally oppressing their people.
       Slobodan Milosevic cannot claim sovereignty over Kosovo 
     when he has murdered Kosovars and piled their bodies into 
     mass graves. Neither can Fidel Castro claim that it is his 
     sovereign right to oppress his people. Nor can Saddam Hussein 
     defend his oppression of the Iraqi people by hiding behind 
     phony claims of sovereignty.
       And when the oppressed peoples of the world cry out for 
     help, the free peoples of the world have a fundamental right 
     to respond.
       As we watch the U.N. struggle with this question at the 
     turn of the millennium, many Americans are left exceedingly 
     puzzled. Intervening in cases of widespread oppression and 
     massive human rights abuses is not a new concept for the 
     United States. The American people have a long history of 
     coming to the aid of those struggling for freedom. In the 
     United States, during the 1980s, we called this policy the 
     ``Reagan Doctrine.
       In some cases, America has assisted freedom fighters around 
     the world who were seeking to overthrow corrupt regimes. We 
     have provided weaponry, training, and intelligence. In other 
     cases, the United States has intervened directly. In still 
     other cases, such as in Central and Eastern Europe, we 
     supported peaceful opposition movements with moral, financial 
     and covert forms of support. In each case, however, it was 
     America's clear intention to help bring down Communist 
     regimes that were oppressing their peoples,--and thereby 
     replace dictators with democratic governments.
       The dramatic expansion of freedom in the last decade of the 
     20th century is a direct result of these policies. In none of 
     these cases, however, did the United States ask for, or 
     receive, the approval of the United Nations to ``legitimize'' 
     its actions. It is a fanciful notion that free peoples need 
     to seek the approval of an international body (many of whose 
     members are totalitarian dictatorships) to lend support to 
     nations struggling to break the chains of tyranny and claim 
     their inalienable, God-given rights.
       The United Nations has no power to grant or decline 
     legitimacy to such actions. They are inherently legitimate. 
     What the United Nations can do is help. The Security Council 
     can, where appropriate, be an instrument to facilitate action 
     by ``coalitions of the willing,'' implement sanctions 
     regimes, and provide logistical support to states undertaking 
     collective action.
       But complete candor is imperative: The Security Council has 
     an exceedingly mixed record in being such a facilitator. In 
     the case of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in the early 
     1990s, it performed admirably; in the more recent case of 
     Kosovo, it was paralyzed. The U.N. peacekeeping mission in 
     Bosnia was a disaster, and its failure to protect the Bosnian 
     people from Serb genocide is well documented in a recent U.N. 
     report.
       And, despite its initial success in repelling Iraqi 
     aggression, in the years since the Gulf War, the Security 
     Council has utterly failed to stop Saddam Hussein's drive to 
     build instruments of mass murder. It has allowed him to play 
     a repeated game of expelling UNSCOM inspection teams which 
     included Americans, and has left Saddam completely free for 
     the past year to fashion nuclear and chemical weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       I am here to plead that from now on we all must work 
     together, to learn from past mistakes, and to make the 
     Security Council a more efficient and effective tool for 
     international peace and security. But candor compels that I 
     reiterate this warning: the American people will never accept 
     the claims of the United Nations to be the ``sole source of 
     legitimacy on the use of force'' in the world.
       But, some may respond, the U.S. Senate ratified the U.N. 
     Charter fifty years ago. Yes, but in doing so we did not cede 
     one syllable of American sovereignty to the United Nations. 
     Under our system, when international treaties are ratified 
     they simply become domestic U.S. law. As such, they carry no 
     greater or less weight than any other domestic U.S. law. 
     Treaty obligations can be superceded by a simple act of 
     Congress. This was the intentional design of our founding 
     fathers, who cautioned against entering into ``entangling 
     alliances.''
       Thus, when the United States joins a treaty organization, 
     it holds no legal authority over us. We abide by our treaty 
     obligations because they are the domestic law of our land, 
     and because our elected leaders have judged that the 
     agreement serves our national interest. But no treaty or law 
     can ever supercede the one document that all Americans hold 
     sacred: The U.S. Constitution.
       The American people do not want the United Nations to 
     become a ``entangling alliance.'' That is why Americans look 
     with alarm at U.N. claims to a monopoly on international 
     moral legitimacy. They see this as a threat to the God-given 
     freedoms of the American people, a claim of political 
     authority over America and its elected leaders without their 
     consent.
       The effort to establish a United Nations International 
     Criminal Court is a case-in-point. Consider: the Rome Treaty 
     purports to hold American citizens under its jurisdiction--
     even when the United States has neither signed nor ratified 
     the treaty. In other words, it claims sovereign authority 
     over American citizens without their consent. How can the 
     nations of the world imagine for one instant that Americans 
     will stand by and allow such a power-grab to take place?
       The Court's supporters argue that Americans should be 
     willing to sacrifice some of their sovereignty for the noble 
     cause of international justice. International law did not 
     defeat Hitler, nor did it win the Cold War. What stopped the 
     Nazi march across Europe, and the Communist march across the 
     world, was the principled projection of power by the world's 
     great democracies. And that principled projection of force is 
     the only thing that will ensure the peace and security of the 
     world in the future.
       More often than not, ``international law'' has been used as 
     a make-believe justification for hindering the march of 
     freedom. When Ronald Reagan sent American servicemen into 
     harm's way to liberate Grenada from the hands of communist 
     dictatorship, the U.N. General Assembly responded by voting 
     to condemn the action of the elected President of the United 
     States as a violation of international law--and, I am obliged 
     to add, they did so by a larger majority than when Soviet 
     invasion of Afghanistan was condemned by the same General 
     Assembly!
       Similarly, the U.S. effort to overthrow Nicaragua's 
     Communist dictatorship (by supporting Nicaragua's freedom 
     fighters and mining Nicaragua's harbors) was declared by the 
     World Court as a violation of international law.
       Most recently, we learn that the chief prosecutor of the 
     Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal has compiled a report on 
     possible NATO war crimes during the Kosovo campaign. At 
     first, the prosecutor declared that it is fully within the 
     scope of her authority to indict NATO pilots and commanders. 
     When news of her report leaked, she backpedaled.
       She realized, I am sure, that any attempt to indict NATO 
     commanders would be the death knell for the International 
     Criminal Court. But the very fact that she explored this 
     possibility at all brings to light all that is wrong with 
     this brave new world of global justice, which proposes a 
     system in which independent prosecutors and judges, 
     answerable to no state or institution, have unfettered power 
     to sit in judgment of the foreign policy decisions of Western 
     democracies.
       No U.N. institution--not the Security Council, not the 
     Yugoslav tribunal, not a future ICC--is competent to judge 
     the foreign policy and national security decisions of the 
     United States. American courts routinely refuse cases where 
     they are asked to sit in judgment of our government's 
     national security decisions, stating that they are not 
     competent to judge such decisions. If we do not submit our 
     national security decisions to the judgment of a Court of the 
     United States, why would Americans submit them to the 
     judgment of an International Criminal Court, a continent 
     away, comprised of mostly foreign judges elected by an 
     international body made up the membership of the U.N. General 
     Assembly?
       Americans distrust concepts like the International Criminal 
     Court, and claims by the U.N. to be the sole source of 
     legitimacy'' for the use of force, because Americans have a 
     profound distrust of accumulated power. Our founding fathers 
     created a government founded on a system of checks and 
     balances, and dispersal of power.
       In his 1962 classic, Capitalism and Freedom, the Nobel-
     prize winning economist Milton Friedman rightly declared: 
     ``[G]overnment power must be dispersed. If government is to 
     exercise power, better in the county than in the state, 
     better in the state than in Washington. [Because] if I do not 
     like what my local community does, I can move to another 
     local community . . . [and] if I do not like what my state 
     does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what 
     Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of 
     jealous nations.''
       Forty years later, as the U.N. seeks to impose its utopian 
     vision of ``international law'' on Americans, we can add this 
     question: Where do we go when we don't like the ``laws'' of 
     the world? Today, while our friends in Europe concede more 
     and more power upwards to supra-national institutions like 
     the European Union, Americans are heading in precisely the 
     opposite direction. America is in a process of reducing 
     centralized power by taking more and more authority that had 
     been amassed by the Federal

[[Page 83]]

     government in Washington and referring it to the individual 
     states where it rightly belongs.
       This is why Americans reject the idea of a sovereign United 
     Nations that presumes to be the source of legitimacy for the 
     United States Government's policies, foreign or domestic. 
     There is only one source of legitimacy of the American 
     government's policies--and that is the consent of the 
     American people.
       If the United Nations is to survive into the 21st century, 
     it must recognize its limitations. The demands of the United 
     States have not changed much since Henry Cabot Lodge laid out 
     his conditions for joining the League of Nations 80 years 
     ago: Americans want to ensure that the United States of 
     America remains the sole judge of its own internal affairs, 
     that the United Nations is not allowed to restrict the 
     individual rights of U.S. citizens, and that the United 
     States retains sole authority over the deployment of United 
     States forces around the world.
       This is what Americans ask of the United Nations; it is 
     what Americans expect of the United Nations. A United Nations 
     that focuses on helping sovereign states work together is 
     worth keeping; a United Nations that insists on trying to 
     impose a utopian vision on America and the world will 
     collapse under its own weight.
       If the United Nations respects the sovereign rights of the 
     American people, and serves them as an effective tool of 
     diplomacy, it will earn and deserve their respect and 
     support. But a United Nations that seeks to impose its 
     presumed authority on the American people without their 
     consent begs for confrontation and, I want to be candid, 
     eventual U.S. withdrawal.
       Thank you very much.
                                  ____


        Foreign Relations Committee Events at the United Nations

       Senator Helms scheduled two days of events at the United 
     Nations in New York. On Thursday, January 20, 2000, Senator 
     Helms met with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the United 
     States' Permanent Representative to the United Nations. This 
     meeting was followed by a private discussion with United 
     Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. At the conclusion of 
     the Kofi Annan meeting Senator Helms proceeded to the chamber 
     of the United Nations Security Council where he delivered a 
     speech to the members of the Security Council. In addition to 
     the fifteen members of the Security Council, the speech was 
     attended by representatives of most countries in the United 
     Nations. Senator Helms was later the guest of honor at a 
     luncheon hosted by Ambassador Holbrooke at which Senator 
     Helms and several U.N. ambassadors continued the discussion 
     on United Nations reform and the future of U.S.-U.N. 
     relations.
       On Friday, January 21, Senator Helms was joined by four 
     other Senate Foreign Relations Committee members (Senators 
     Biden, Hagel, Grams, and Feingold) and Chairman of the Armed 
     Services Committee, Senator John Warner, for another full day 
     of meetings on U.S.-U.N. relations. The schedule started with 
     a meeting between the Senators and Ambassador Holbrooke. This 
     was followed by a meeting with the Secretary General of the 
     United Nations. The Secretary General was joined by his top 
     deputies responsible for U.N. management and peacekeeping. At 
     the conclusion of the meeting, the Senators attended a 
     luncheon at the United Nations hosted by Ambassador 
     Holbrooke. Representatives of nearly every one of the 188 
     nations represented at the United Nations were invited, and 
     it appeared that most showed up. The day concluded with an 
     afternoon hearing at which three panels of witnesses spoke on 
     a wide range of issues related to the United Nations 
     including the state of reforms, peacekeeping in the Balkans 
     and Africa, efforts to inspect WMD programs in Iraq, and the 
     U.S.-U.N. relationship.
       On Friday evening, a dinner hosted by Mr. Erwin Belk, a 
     U.S. Public Delegate to the United Nations, was held in honor 
     of the U.S. Presidency of the U.N. Security Council during 
     the month of January. The dinner was attended by Senators and 
     many United Nations representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________