Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Let me ask a parliamentary question of the Chair. I know the answer before I ask. Suppose I should call for regular order?

Mr. HELMS. I think what he objected to--but I will not contest the issue--was my sending the amendment to the desk. If that is the Chair's ruling, fine. But, Madam President----

Mr. HELMS. It was set aside, I inform the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Now, you will recall, Madam President, that early on I referred to the fact that five former Secretaries of State have endorsed--and now Senator Dole has joined in sponsorship--my plan was to reorganize the State Department and to abolish three independent Federal agencies. When I say independent, I mean independent. All three of these agencies were established as temporary Federal agencies. As I said earlier today, there is nothing so near eternal life as a temporary Federal agency. The Agency for International Development is one of the three agencies that would be abolished under my plan to reorganize the [[Page S 14030]] State Department. And AID itself says its proposed move has already cost the 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. When a Federal agency contemplates such a move, it usually does so with the goal of saving taxpayers' money. But that is not the goal of the Agency for International Development. AID, obviously, intends to go in exactly the opposite direction. Right now, AID pays $20 million for its leases in the DC area, but after the move, AID will spend more than $32 million a year in rent. So this move would, in fact, increase the Agency for International Development's annual rent by more than a third. The pending amendment, which I shall send to the desk momentarily, would save at least $16 million next year alone by prohibiting AID from spending any money to facilitate its move out of the State Department. So let me explain why this move will be so costly to the American taxpayers, 80 percent of whom do not like the foreign aid program anyhow. On the chart next to me is the cost of USAID's luxury offices. The average cost of office space, per square foot, is $37 in DC, $23 in Northern Virginia, and $20 in suburban Maryland. Had the Agency for International Development chosen one of those sites. But, oh, no, AID chose the luxury building. Look at the cost--$55 per square foot. You can see what that is. The chart clearly shows that the average cost to lease space in either Virginia or Maryland is less than $29 per square foot. Even in central Washington the going rate for leasing space is $37 per square foot. But, at this moment, under the terms negotiated by the Agency for International Development and the General Services Administration, AID intends to lease space in the Federal Triangle building for a minimum--that is a minimum--of $55 per square foot, which is far more than any private business in Washington would agree to pay. It does not take a rocket scientist to perceive that the people at the Agency for International Development have been snookered in this deal--whether they knew it or not is yet to be determined. More shocking, I suppose, is that the Agency for International Development intends to lease a substantial amount of what it calls structurally-changed space for more than $97 per square foot, and that is three times the fair market value of this space. So, Madam President, while some of us in Congress are working to abolish the Agency for International Development, the Agency for International Development, itself, has been busily figuring out ways to spend even more Federal Government money--meaning the taxpayers' money--with this new move to this high-rent district. So I say, Madam President, I hope the Senate will vote to give the taxpayers a break for a change. The Agency for International Development neither needs, nor deserves, to be an occupant of a Taj Mahal. This facility, by the way, is the second largest in the District of Columbia, the Pentagon being the largest. Now then, Madam President, I send my amendment----

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me read the text of the amendment that I shall offer presently. It is entitled, ``Prohibition on use of funds for relocating Agency for International Development to Federal Triangle Building.'' Section 577. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be used to relocate the Agency for International Development, or any part of that agency, to the Federal Triangle Building in Washington, District of Columbia. When I send this amendment to the desk and it is stated, the Senate will have before it a rather interesting set of circumstances. While the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was busy approving legislation to abolish the Agency for International Development, this very same entrenched bureaucracy at AID was 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 must believe they are playing with Monopoly money, and that the Agency for International Development has just landed on Boardwalk. In any case, the building known as the Federal Triangle and dubbed by one of the Washington newspapers as ``a blueprint for a boondoggle,'' was originally supposed to cost $362 million. But its cost ended up being in the neighborhood of $700 million. Tom Sherman, former Assistant Administrator at the General Services Administration called it ``the project from hell.'' Yet, despite congressional efforts to abolish the Agency for International Development, that agency now intends to burrow in at this plush, new Taj Mahal on Pennsylvania Avenue, further isolating itself from the Department of State. (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when we agreed to move it to one agency--I will ask the Senator what he recalls he said yesterday about the amount of money?

Mr. HELMS. Yes, briefly.

Mr. HELMS. All right, I accept that. I understood it the other way. But if the Senator remembers it that way, that is fine. I have no quarrel with Senator Pell. He is a thoroughbred gentleman. Always has been, always will be. The moment that we began discussion of the State Department reorganization bill, which by the way, Mr. President, let me reiterate, five former Secretaries of State came before the committee or wrote to the committee, or both, and say, in effect, this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it needs to be done. As soon as the markup, as we call it, began, there was one protest, one suggestion after another. I do not know how many times the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and I went to the back room. We recessed the committee; he would make a proposition, and I would agree to it. Then someone would insist on another concession, and another and there would always be something else, another suggested concession. And that is the way it has been on this floor each time legislation comes up regarding State Department reorganization. The truth of the matter is, Mr. President, the State Department does not like this bill--well, half of the State Department. You would be surprised, Mr. President, at how many State Department people tell us privately that they want this bill. The opposition from the bureaucrats has been vociferous because they do not want to lose their well-paying positions. Here you have, for example, the Agency for International Development, [[Page S 14023]] the foreign aid giveaway program, if you please, which has lobbied everybody in sight. They had a session down at the National Press Club where they engaged in personal ridicule. Brian Atwood for example said, ``Well, Helms drew up his reorganization plan on the back of an envelop.'' Immediately the media came to me: ``Did you hear what Brian Atwood said?'' ``Well, yes, I did,'' I acknowledged. ``What is your response?'' I said, ``Abraham Lincoln did pretty well on the back of an envelope. I hope I do one-tenth as well.'' That is the way it has been. The Vice President is in charge of reinventing Government and has done so with much fanfare. He pledged that ``we are going to do this, and we are going to do that.'' I myself talked with the Vice President on the telephone and said, ``Mr. Vice President, let's work together on this thing.'' All we got was a little bit of doubletalk and to this day--to this day--not one scintilla has come from the reinventing office. I will tell you what they reinvented up there, or down there. They have reinvented a horse and buggy, and that is about all. Senator Kerry came on the floor back in July--July 31. There was a concerted effort from the Democrats: ``Don't vote for cloture,'' they intoned, including the three Senators--four Senators actually--who told me what a great bill it was. But not one Democrat, except the distinguished ranking member of the committee, voted for cloture. And I do not want to speak for Senator Pell, I believe I am correct in my understanding that he has never voted for cloture. There was a phalanx of opposition. They were not going to allow it to be voted on because they do not want to trim down the bureaucracy, they do not want to cut foreign aid, and I would not yield to demands that we bring down our bill to the point that it was absolutely meaningless. Now, we have moved from abolishing three agencies to abolishing two agencies to abolishing one. I believe Senator Kerry has already acknowledged that this is the case. My recollection is that he accepted the $3 billion savings provision when I offered my proposition--one agency abolition.

Mr. HELMS. Certainly.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the exchanges on this floor sometimes may sound a little more heated than they really are. My reaction to some of the things that have been said is more amusement than anything else. It is a fact that Senator Pell did not want to manage the State Department reorganization bill offered by the Senator from North Carolina and approved by every Republican Senator. It is also true that three Senators on the Democrat side came to me and told me what a great bill this was. In addition to that, I do not think the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], will object to my mentioning the conversation we had at a dinner sponsored by the Senate wives. He came over to the table where Dorothy Helms and I were seated with others, and said, ``That's a great bill. I want to help you with it any way I can.'' I did not realize, until Senator Pell, my good friend, one of the kindest, most gentle men I have ever known, advised me that Senator Kerry was his designee to oppose my bill, and I think Senator Pell will verify what I have just said.

Mr. HELMS. But the amount in question depends on which of the conversations the Senator is referring to.

Mr. HELMS. That is correct. That part of it is correct, yes.

Mr. HELMS. No. I thank the Senator for his generosity, but I want the floor in my own right before I begin to discuss what the real facts are. When the Senator is ready to yield the floor, I want the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I object to the thrust of the Senator's comments.

Mr. HELMS. Please, Senator. There is no money in this amendment, none. So on what does the Senator base his conversation about that?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I cannot yield for the Senator to make a speech.

Mr. HELMS. Middle East peace, yes.

Mr. HELMS. The Senator has been a moving target from the very beginning.

Mr. HELMS. That is precisely what it is, a moving target.

Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will withhold. Would the Senator like to set aside the pending amendment so I can call up another amendment?

Mr. HELMS. May I ask the manager of the bill, do they intend to accept the amendment? Does the Senator from New Mexico intend to ask for the yeas and nays on his amendment?

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, oh, about 30, 40 minutes ago I was delayed in having my amendment, which is now at the desk, stated. When I asked unanimous consent to have all amendments laid aside, except the committee amendment, there was an objection. Now there is no objection, as I understand it. So I now ask that the amendment be stated.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2727 to Committee Amendment on Page 2, Line 25 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for relocating the Agency for International Development to the Federal Triangle Building, Washington, District of Columbia)

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. Fine.