Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, September 21, the Federal debt stood at $4,948,376,970,884.70. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,784.12 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. I send an amendment to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the managers of the bill. I shall be as brief as possible. This amendment, as I understand it, has been cleared on both sides. I hope that is correct. Mr. President, Senator Pell, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I and the several other cosponsors of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 introduced our bill, S. 1064, on July 21, with the now-obvious overly-optimistic assumption that it could and would be incorporated into the State Department authorization bill. I shall not recount the well-known reasons why the Foreign Relations Committee's State Department authorization bill was given such scant consideration by the minority of the Senate, except to say that it ran into bureaucratic bombardment from the State Department, the White House, and a coterie of independent agency bureaucrats who were tormented by the very idea that their multibillion dollar playpens might be broken up, which, I might add, was precisely the intent of my piece of legislation. In any case, here we are with the Foreign Relations Committee's authorization bill now in part tacked onto the appropriations bill. I certainly find no joy in that set of circumstances. The authorization bill, S. 1964, had bipartisan support, in part because there was a fairly explicit presumption that Chairman Gilman, the distinguished gentleman over in the House, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and I would be able to act on our respective reservations about the authorization bill when it went to conference. Now all of that is out the window--at least for the time being. So, as it turned out, Ben Gilman and I never got the chance. There are a number of improvements that can and should be made to this legislation. But let me offer some purely personal and fundamental problems that I have with the so-called Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, which is now pending. If you wonder if I trust Yasser Arafat, the answer is ``no.'' His hands are bloody; his career is smeared with unspeakable acts of terrorism. I will never fully understand how the leaders of Israel could reach the decision to turn over land to Arafat, a man whose creed calls for the destruction of the nation of Israel, and whose co- conspirators have referred to Israel as the ``eternal enemy.'' Will this peace process convince Arafat that he cannot promote peace while he is winking at gun-toting terrorists in Hamas? I do not know, but I frankly doubt it. Will it matter to Arafat that the Congress of the United States regards Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and that this Congress has not the slightest predisposition or intent to help finance PLO offices in Jerusalem? I think not. One thing is certain about the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995, the pending amendment. One thing or the other is going to happen. Yasser Arafat will have a final opportunity to demonstrate that for once a leopard can change its spots. He will have an opportunity to astonish everybody by demonstrating that he does indeed wish to join the ranks of the decent and honorable in this violent and troubled world. He may astonish me, and I pray that he can and that he will. All around are leaders willing to risk giving Yasser Arafat one last chance. I fear that I know what is going to happen down the road, and not very far down the road. As is so often said, ``let's give peace a chance,'' even if it proves to be one last exercise in futility. I have several amendments to offer, none of which will kill the peace process, and the PLO can comply with each and every one of them if Yasser Arafat has even a spark of genuineness in him. First, although Senators may not be aware of it, the PLO has at least 10 offices operating within the city limits of Jerusalem. The PLO does not belong in Jerusalem. If those offices are not shut down within 6 months, then under this amendment, all U.S. aid to the PLO would be cut off. Second, 2 years ago Yasser Arafat pledged he would cooperate in providing information regarding the fate of [[Page S 14036]] an Israeli-American soldier captured by a PLO faction. To the best of anybody's knowledge, he has not done that. No doubt there is information in Mr. Arafat's hands about other Americans held by the PLO and those affiliated with the PLO. The President of the United States, under this amendment, must certify that Yasser Arafat is being specifically helpful in the search by the United States for information regarding victims of terrorism. Surely this is a small request in return for assistance that the United States provides. Third, this Middle East Peace Facilitation Act is to be 18 months in duration. Several Members of the House of Representatives have argued for a 12-month bill. I happen to believe they are right. The situation in the Middle East is so fluid that 12 months will serve everyone better, in my judgment. Then I have two technical amendments which will follow shortly to clean up some unclear language regarding the Palestinian covenant and the participation of active terrorist groups in Palestinian elections. I doubt that anybody in this Chamber will find either of these objectionable. In summary, there has been a great deal of discontent and doubt about this peace process. I hope we can relieve some of that. I do hope that all Senators who have suggested alternatives or amendments to MEPFA, I hope they will offer them for an open discussion that will, of course, benefit all of us. Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. In any case, if the Senator will yield, I do have a statement which would take 5, 10 minutes in connection with the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, while the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was busy approving legislation abolishing the Agency for International Development, the entrenched bureaucracy at AID has been preparing to spend $40 million to move its offices into some of the most expensive real estate in the entire Washington area. Apparently, AID officials think they are playing with monopoly money and that AID has just landed on Boardwalk. The building, known as the Federal Triangle and dubbed by the Washington Times a ``Blueprint for a Boondoggle,'' was originally supposed to cost $362 million but its cost has soared to $700 million. Tom Sherman, former assistant administrator of GSA called it the project from Hell. Yet, despite congressional efforts to abolish AID, they intend to burrow-in at this plush, [[Page S 14034]] new Taj Mahal on Pennsylvania Avenue, further isolating AID from the Department of State. According to AID, its proposed move has already cost taxpayers $13.6 million in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and will cost at least an additional $27 million in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Now, when a Federal agency contemplates a move, it usually does so with the goal of saving taxpayers money. But AID intends to do just the opposite. Right now, AID pays $20 million annually for its leases in the D.C. area. After the move, AID plans to spend more than $32 million a year in rent--so this move would actually increase AID's annual rent by more than one-third. The pending amendment would save at least $16 million next year by prohibiting AID from spending any money to facilitate its move out of the State Department. Let me attempt to explain why this move will be so costly to the taxpayers. The chart next to me illustrates how much AID intends to spend per square foot for this new lease as compared to lease costs elsewhere in the Washington area. The chart clearly shows that the average cost to lease space in Washington is less than $29 per square foot. Even in central Washington, the going rate for lease space is only $37 per square foot. But right now, under the terms negotiated between AID and the General Services Administration [GSA], AID intends to lease space in the Federal Triangle building for a minimum of $55 per square foot--far more than any private business in Washington would agree to pay. It does not take a mathematician to know that the folks at AID have been snookered on this deal. More shocking, AID intends to lease a substantial amount of what it calls structurally changed space for more than $97 per square foot-- triple the fairmarket value of this space. So, while Congress is working to abolish AID, AID is busy figuring out ways to spend more Federal money with this move to the high-rent district. Mr. President, let us give the taxpayers a break. AID does not need a new Taj Mahal. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. All of them.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, maybe we are getting somewhere. I think before this exchange with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts began, he said something to the effect, ``perhaps we can get together.'' Is that what the Senator said?

Mr. HELMS. All right. Let us see how far the Senator is willing to go. May I ask the Senator if he is suggesting a reduction in the $3 billion savings as required in the amendment?

Mr. HELMS. I did not understand the response.

Mr. HELMS. Let me tell you the position the Democrats are in and the administration is in. They moan and groan about the Ambassadors being held up. They remind me of the fellow who shot his mother and father and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan. They have deliberately blocked consideration of the original State Department reorganization bill, beginning on the first day of debate. Who was the Senator whom they brought in for 2 hours 12 minutes? The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, who wanted to talk about the minimum wage. For the past 2 years, during his chairmanship of the relevant Senate committee, the senior Senator from Massachusetts did not even mention minimum wage. So, obviously, a filibuster began at the beginning. The instructions had been handed down. And, yes, I am perfectly willing to clear the deck and clear all of the Ambassadors and all the rest of it to the extent I am able to. But I cannot speak for the majority leader, Bob Dole, and I will not, or for the minority leader, to work out to their satisfaction. Let me state a few things that I will be willing to do. If the Senator from Massachusetts wants to present, representing the majority of his side, a reduction in the $3 billion savings required in the amendment, we will talk about it. I want to know how much reduction they want in the savings. But I [[Page S 14024]] will tell you one thing, Mr. President; the American people want at least $3 billion saved in the foreign aid giveaway. That is the meat of the coconut. That is what the Democrats oppose. That is what Brian Atwood is opposing. Somewhere in these discussions, I am going to bring up the arrangement by the Agency for International Development to move into a sort of Taj Mahal, at $55 per square foot. It is going to cost--in the bill there is about $40 million just for moving expenses for the Agency for International Development--the foreign aid giveaway program which, by the way, began as one of those Federal temporary programs. Mr. President, there is nothing so close to eternal life as a temporary Federal bureaucracy. This is a demonstration of it. That is the reason they are fighting so hard. I have never seen such lobbying. Wendy Sherman, a nice lady, has absolutely reached the ultimate in ferocity in campaigning against this legislation from the very beginning. She is good at what she does. I acknowledge that. I have told her so. The fight is about whether the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress is going to do what the people demanded in last year's election, and that is to cut Federal spending. One of the top things on the minds of 80 percent of the American people is cutting foreign aid. That is the problem with this bill. That is the reason we keep getting this stone stew sort of a thing. I see the distinguished Chaplain of the U.S. Senate sitting there, our good friend, Dr. Ogilvie. I related to him the story about the farmer who had a visitor one day who claimed he could make a delicious stew out of a stone, water, and nothing more. His friend said, ``I want to see you do it.'' So he got a stone, put it in a pot of water. He said to his friend, ``This would be a better stew if you had a few carrots in it.'' So his friend got a few carrots. ``And it would be better if it had a few beans, beef,'' and added various other ingredients. In the end, his stone stew was tasty. That is the way our dear friend from Massachusetts negotiates. He comes and says, ``We will do this but it needs more of that. How about more of something else?'' I agree but it doesn't come to an end. This happened in committee, as well as here on the floor yesterday. Then he said, ``Well, you have to do this, too.'' I have tried to be accommodating. From three agencies to two agencies to one agency. See? Then Senator Kerry comes back and he ends up requesting the great big piece of roast beef, that is something that he knows I cannot do. That is to guarantee when the START treaty is going to be considered by the Senate. That is his coup de'tat, the way to kill any hope of any negotiation. Now, I will accept the Senator's statement as his word. His word is his bond. If he wants to sit down in good faith and specify what he is willing to do, I am willing to work with him. Now, I have been provided with some figures. The moving of the quarters of the Agency for International Development for fiscal year 1994 and 1995 at a cost to the taxpayers of $14 million. That is just the move. In fiscal year 1996 it will cost another $17 million. For fiscal year 1997, another $9 million. This little temporary agency that started way back yonder is going to take 3 years to move, one bureaucratic mess to the Taj Mahal at $55 a square foot. Anyway, let me say again for the Record, I will not debate further with the Senator from Massachusetts, if he decides to sit down and negotiate in good faith, and specify what he is willing to do and stick by it, he has a deal. I will either accept it or reject it in equally good faith. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. I have the floor, do I not?

Mr. HELMS. Well, yes, but agreements involving the scheduling of treaties has happened on either side. The Senator knows what he is doing when, at the last minute, as another feature of his compromise, he wants to stipulate when the START Treaty will start. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Well, there is only one figure. There is only one figure in the amendment. Do you want to go to $2.7 million in savings as a compromise?

Mr. HELMS. If I know the answer, I will, yes.

Mr. HELMS. The Senator from Massachusetts knows as well as anybody that neither of us can set the date for a START Treaty in this bill or in this amendment. The leadership will set that date, not Senator Kerry, not Jesse Helms, not in this legislation and not in the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I cannot allow my friend to take off on a rhetorical gambit. I did not mention the START Treaty.

Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. I have not yielded the floor. I am perfectly willing, for my part, to offer my amendment as a second degree to the otherwise pending Dole amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, by the way. But I think I ought to do him the courtesy of asking if he has any objection to that. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. I am not going to do that.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that evening in 1972 when I first was elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It has proved enormously beneficial to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate. Most of them have been concerned about the enormity of the Federal debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. The young people and I almost always discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 22, 1992. I wanted to make a matter of daily record of the precise size of the Federal debt which as of yesterday, Wednesday, September 20, stood at $4,967,473,200,287.86 or $18,856.61 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.