[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8756-8757]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              SIERRA LEONE

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wanted to speak about Sierra Leone and 
especially about the attempts I have made to address this issue as 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State, and the Judiciary.
  The New York Times and a number of other daily papers have reported 
that I have limited the ability of the State Department to spend money 
on behalf of the United Nations, or send money to the U.N. for the 
purpose of peacekeeping in Sierra Leone, and that is correct. However, 
the numbers that the New York Times, at least, used were incorrect.
  I think the record needs to be corrected. I presume this story came 
from a momentum within the U.N. to try to put pressure on the Congress 
to spend money on U.N. initiatives. Obviously, the U.N. feels that by 
using our media sources in this country, they can influence the 
activity of the Congress, specifically of the Senate. However, I would 
have hoped that the New York Times reporter would have reviewed the 
actual facts and determined the facts before reporting them as facts. 
Obviously, this reporter got his information from somebody, I presume, 
at the U.N., or maybe the State Department, and did not bother to check 
the facts.
  It was represented in the story, for example, that the amount of 
money that was owed to the U.N. in the area of peacekeeping was 
somewhere in the vicinity of $1.7 billion. This number is inaccurate 
and the story was, therefore, inaccurate.
  Let me review the numbers specifically. In accounting for the amount 
of money that the U.N. is owed, there is a regular budget assessment of 
approximately $300 million. This is included in the $1.7 billion, which 
I presume they got from the U.N., or they could not have gotten to that 
number. However, that $300 million is not owed. We paid that money on a 
9-month delay. We have always paid it on a 9-month delay because of the 
budgeting process of the Federal Government. So you can reduce that 
number by the $300 million figure because that money will be paid on 
October 1, as it always is.
  Second, the Times must have been counting as a U.N. assessment the 
peacekeeping moneys of $500 million. Well, the $500 million is the 
amount we have allocated for peacekeeping in our budgets for the 
benefit of the U.N. But that $500 million has not yet been called upon 
by the U.N. In fact, of that $500 million, we have received requests 
for approximately $300 million. We have not received requests for the 
full $500 million. We have received requests for about $300 million. We 
have paid--of that $300 million requested--approximately $55 million. 
The balance is in issue, but it is being worked out. So that number is 
inaccurate, and you can reduce that $1.7 billion by at least $200 
million that we have not received a request for, and the $55 million we 
have paid and, in my opinion, by significant other numbers also.
  Third, the Times must have been counting the $926 million which is an 
arrearage payment. The arrearage issue was settled last year. It had 
been

[[Page 8757]]

delayed for 3 years because of the Mexico City language, which did not 
need to be delayed. But the administration put such a hard line on 
obscure language dealing with Mexico City Planned Parenthood that they 
ended up tying up the arrears that we as the Senate were willing to 
pay. We appropriated that money every year, by the way. There was an 
agreement reached between ourselves and the State Department and the 
White House, known as the Helms-Biden agreement, which said we would 
pay that money. So that money is in the pipeline to be paid, subject to 
the U.N. meeting certain conditions. That is not in issue.
  So when you take all the numbers, there is no $1.7 billion at issue. 
Actually, it is closer to $100 million than $1.7 billion. So the 
exaggeration in the story was inaccurate. It reflects, I think, shoddy 
journalism.
  Secondly, the story implied that my position was basically an 
isolationist position and that I am opposing peacekeeping everywhere in 
the world.
  No, I am not. In fact, we have approved peacekeeping in my committee 
in a number of areas. We have approved peacekeeping in the Golan 
Heights for $4 million, Lebanon for $15 million, Cyprus for $3 million, 
Georgia for over $3 million, in Tajikistan for $2 million, and the 
Yugoslavia and Rwanda War Crime Tribunal for $22 million. The list goes 
on and on.
  So we have approved a significant amount of peacekeeping dollars for 
a variety of different missions that have been undertaken by the U.N. 
However, the problem I have is that in Sierra Leone, what we ended up 
doing was endorsing a policy that brought into power parties who had 
committed rape, murder, and atrocities against the people of Sierra 
Leone. And instead of having these people brought to justice under the 
War Crimes Tribunal, as they should have been, what we have done is 
endorsed these people in the Lome Accord and said they should be 
brought into the Government. That policy makes no sense.
  We are seeing a deterioration of that policy by what is happening to 
the peacekeepers in Sierra Leone today. Instead of taking weapons from 
the rebels who are basically killing people arbitrarily and, as part of 
the policy, hacking limbs off of people--instead of taking their 
weapons, the U.N. has given up more weapons than it has taken in Sierra 
Leone.
  Right now, we still have actually hundreds of U.N. peacekeepers who 
have been taken hostage over there. Why? Because the policy being 
pursued in Sierra Leone was misdirected from the start. We should not 
have been making peace. We should not have been bringing into the 
Government people who acted in such a barbaric way toward their own 
people. We should have been taking a harder line. We should have been 
sending in U.N. peacekeepers--in Sierra Leone honoraria we may not want 
to--people who had the capacity and the equipment to defend themselves, 
and had the portfolio and the directions so they could defend 
themselves and use force.
  Unfortunately, we didn't send those types of troops in there--or the 
U.N. didn't. America is complicit in this. American taxpayers have to 
ask themselves, why are we spending this money? Why would we want to 
spend money to support, encourage, and endorse people who are 
essentially criminals and moving those criminals into the Government of 
Sierra Leone and giving them the authority to act? Well, that was my 
reason for putting a hold, as we call it, on this. It was actually a 
denial of the funds for Sierra Leone.
  It appears, having said that, I guess, that suddenly people have 
awakened and are saying, hey, maybe that is right. In fact, as of 
yesterday, the State Department changed its position as to the rebel 
leader over there. Instead of him being a conciliatory, positive force 
for the basis on which they might base the peace accord over there, 
this person--or people--should be brought before an international 
tribunal when they have committed crimes against humanity, which this 
individual clearly has. Maybe there is a shift of attitude occurring 
within the State Department. I hope there is because that would move us 
down the road towards resolving this issue. But the representation that 
the committee I chair, and in which the ranking member, Senator 
Hollings, participates in very aggressively, has in some way opposed 
peacekeeping is inaccurate. The numbers used in the article are 
inaccurate. The fact is, we have raised legitimate concerns to protect 
the taxpayers of this country, which is our job. I believe we are doing 
it effectively.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, time 
until 10:05 a.m. is under the control of the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I understand Senator 
Thomas is to control the time from 10 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. He will not 
be to the floor right away. I ask unanimous consent to have 15 minutes 
of additional time from Senator Thomas' time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________