Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, before the distinguished Senator from Missouri leaves for the policy luncheon, I want to say that he has made an extraordinarily brilliant speech. He has said it all, and he said it well. If I may reminisce just one moment, one of the first people I met in another State after I came to the Senate was a young man in Missouri named John Ashcroft. I went to Missouri to work with him on a little matter. I have admired him ever since. He has had a distinguished career, and he has already begun a distinguished career in the U.S. Senate. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. That is a call of the Chair. We have two Senators seeking recognition. I will leave that to the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Hutchison's amendment providing guidance to the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing is important for the signal it sends to the administration--and to the United Nations. The upcoming Beijing Conference offers a smorgasbord for radicals who are constantly fighting against traditional family values--paid for, in part, by American taxpayers. Organizers of this U.N. Women's Conference are determined to peddle their bizarre views of the family and the role of women. There is already too much kowtowing to fringe elements at the United Nations in New York and that is why this amendment is necessary. The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Indiana clearly explained the amendment yesterday. It simply urges the U.S. delegation to the Beijing Conference to promote genuine women's rights and traditional family values, and not the agenda of a few activists who have captured the hearts and minds of U.N. bureaucrats. In all honesty, Mr. President, it is astounding that an amendment even needs to be offered to protect the institutions of motherhood and the family. But, experience has shown that if Congress ignores the Beijing Conference, the United Nations will soon be pushing every country in the world to accept the United Nations strange notion of motherhood and family and even gender. Some ideas promoted in the Beijing Conference ``Platform for Action'' are too bizarre to be believed, as I will explain in a moment. But, the American people know exactly what is going on, thanks to a multitude of news stories in the Christian and secular media. You may remember, Mr. President, that some folks--but not this Senator--were sold a worthless bill of goods before last year's U.N. Conference on Population Control in Cairo. Senators and Congressmen were assured, promised, and guaranteed that Cairo Conference organizers and the U.S. delegation would not promote abortion-on-demand as a so- called international ``reproductive right.'' But that is exactly what happened thanks to Tim Wirth, who was being advised by former Congresswoman Bela Abzug. Senator Hutchison's amendment does not address this issue. But, it should come as no surprise that organizers of the Beijing Conference are determined to repeat what happened at the Cairo Conference--that is, they will attempt to coerce prolife foreign governments into creating a so-called ``right'' to abortion-on-demand. Making matters worse, Mr. President, is the fact that this conference on women's issues is to take place in China of all places, where women are routinely forced to undergo abortions and sterilizations against their will, in the name of population control. Holding the Conference in China is nothing less than a slap in the face to women everywhere. It sends the clear signal that the United Nations finds China's grotesque behavior acceptable. Lest anyone think that I have exaggerated the extent to which the United Nations has pandered to extremists, ask yourself why the word ``mother'' is virtually nonexistent in the Conference ``Platform for Action'' document. This is a conference on women, after all. Conference organizers prefer ``caretaker.'' The reason: because they dare not condemn--indeed they probably endorse--so-called homosexual marriages. Ask yourself, Mr. President, why Beijing Conference organizers refuse to agree to a definition of the word ``gende'' as meaning only male and female. The United Nations apparently has decided that the world is made up of five genders: male, female, homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual--whatever that is. The U.N. Conference Secretariat stated that, ``gender is relative.'' What in the world does that mean? This administration is also on record stating that ``gender differences'' are ``cultural--changeable, variable.'' [AID ``Gender Analysis Tool Kit'']. And what is worse, Mr. President, they arrogantly want to shove this nonsense down the throats of American taxpayers, and ask them to pay for it. It is obvious what is going on. These strange ideas and values may be acceptable to U.N. bureaucrats or even to some in this administration, but they are not acceptable to the American people, and that is why this amendment is important. I urge Senators to support Senator Hutchison's amendment. It is my understanding that the distinguished Senator, the manager on the other side, is willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be stated. It is already at the desk. I ask that the clerk read it slowly because the amendment speaks for itself.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if ever an amendment submitted in this Senate spoke for itself, this one does. That is why I asked the able clerk to read it in its entirety. And if there is a Senator who can offer an equivalent savings while preserving foreign affairs programs, I ask that Senator, whomever he or she may be, to do so. The point is, and the fact is, they cannot do it. It cannot be done. So we are playing games with this business of not voting cloture and proceeding on this bill in concert with the administration, which has set out at the outset to say we will delay, we will obfuscate, we will do everything to block this bill. That is what is going on. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. We do not need anybody except the two managers.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Kerry is one of the most articulate human beings I have ever heard. I wish that he had somehow recognized in his eloquent comments the many efforts that we made--when I say ``we,'' I mean the Foreign Relations Committee majority--to work with the administration. I myself pleaded with the Vice President of the United States to let us get together, as the Senator has recommended. The bureaucracy prevailed in the Vice President's office. I am not being personally critical of the Vice President. He has many things on his plate. But, in this case, the ball got away from him, and the heads of three agencies, which were going to be rolled into the State Department where they belong, prevailed. Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State, went through the same agony last fall after the election when he recommended the sort of reorganization that the pending legislation represents. Secretary Christopher got his comeuppance, and he took it like a man. He is a faithful, loyal member of the administration. He wrote a letter the other day to Senator Dole, which was amazing to me. Sometime during this debate, I am going to put his letter in the Record and my response to it. I wish we could get together, but at this moment, the White House is calling the tune. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the way the administration works. But they cannot have it both ways, that we want to do this and that, when in fact they have done everything in this world, including personal invective, to undermine the pending legislation. There were news conferences at the National Press Club downtown. One of the bureaucrats made all sorts of remarks, including one that I had written this bill on the back of an envelope. The press came to me and said, ``What do you think about that?'' I said, ``Well, Abraham Lincoln did pretty well on the back of an envelope. I hope I have done fairly well.'' But it has been a personal affront to these people that anybody could suggest that their bureaucracies be trimmed. Let me tell you something about the U.S. Information Agency. There is a great push to keep it like it is. But let me tell you, Mr. President, if you retain the U.S. Information Agency as it is, it will cost $320 million over the next 2 years and $600 million during the 7-year effort to balance the budget. Now, all the people who have been lobbied to keep the USIA just like it is better bear in mind what the Budget Committee is going to say about that. And all sorts of suggestions have been made that, well, we are doing well, we just need to do better. Well, tell me about the 600 people, Federal employees, in the U.S. Embassy at Cairo, whose sole responsibility is to give away the American taxpayers' money. What sense does that make? It costs $200,000 a year to post one Federal employee overseas. They have 600 of them at Cairo alone. Mr. President, I have several dear friends among the heads of State of other countries who come to Washington, and they come to see me in my capacity with the Foreign Relations Committee. If I had to pick a favorite, I guess it would be Eugenia Charles, who is the former Prime Minister of Dominica. I am sad to say that the Prime Minister is not running for reelection. She is a pleasant, down-to-earth lady. She always comes in my office with a smile on her face. The last time she was here, which was about 3 or 4 weeks ago, give or take, she walked in and said, ``Well, Senator, I see you are trying to do something about your foreign aid program.'' I said, ``Yes, ma'am, I am.'' She said, ``Well, it is none of my business, but something ought to be done. Do you realize, Senator, that it costs you more money to give away money than you give away?'' And that is it. It is the bureaucracy that just grows and grows and grows, and these efforts with the pending legislation, from the administration that has not cooperated with the committee at all--John Kerry tried to. I do not know what sort of instructions he got from the people downtown to the contrary. But I wish we could sit down and work out the difficulties. I am not going to give away the store. I am not going to change this bill so that it does not meet the budget resolution which was adopted by this Senate and the House of Representatives. No, sir, I am not going to do that. But if we can have an understanding that we are working on the same team, being the Senate of the United States, trying to get a job that needs to be done and needs badly to be done, then we can pull this bill down and we can operate in good faith. But I cannot have Bill Clinton's people looking over somebody's shoulder, because Bill Clinton already said he is going to veto it, and he does not even know what is in the bill. He wants to keep the status quo. He does not want to save any money on foreign aid. Otherwise, he would have sent somebody in good faith up here to work with the committee, which we urged him to do, which we urged his Vice President to do. But we were stonewalled. So do not give me all this stuff about the administration has not been consulted. Later on in the debate, we will talk about this business of micromanagement. There has been plenty of what some would call micromanagement in the past. Amendment No. 2042 to Amendment No. 2041

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk to amendment No. 2041.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me get back to one of the most heavily lobbied portions of the pending bill. I said a while ago that keeping the U.S. Information Agency as it is will cost $320 million over the next 2 years, and $600 million during our 7-year effort to balance the budget. Those who do not care whether the budget is balanced or not in 7 years, do not care very much one way or another. The effort to keep the U.S. Information Agency independent of the Department of State is misguided and it is out of step. The time has come to recognize the problem and to reorganize our entire foreign relations apparatus. As John Kerry has said with his customary eloquence, public diplomacy is an extremely important part of the way this country conducts business with other countries. It is, after all, the way we convey American values and interests, and the way that we communicate the American dream to the people around the world. Accordingly, Mr. President, it ought to be part and parcel of the larger foreign policy effort, not shunted away out of sight, out of mind. As the single agency charged with the conduct of U.S. foreign relations, the Department of State must be given a clear mandate and must be provided with all the tools of the trade. Diplomacy can be a most effective tool, but its effectiveness can be truly realized only when it is synchronized with all the rest of the diplomatic initiatives. That is just not the opinion of Jesse Helms, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Five Secretaries of State have said the same thing. They have endorsed this bill which President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and now poor Warren Christopher, who is caught in a bind, say they oppose. Now, S. 908 acknowledges what has to be the centrality of public diplomacy of foreign affairs, by putting public diplomacy at the center of the foreign affairs apparatus. I ask, what is a better way to make sure that this tool gets used frequently, than to provide it to those who need it and to those who will use it, by creating an Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy within the Department of State, as this bill proposes? We will strengthen our core foreign policy apparatus, and 5 former Secretaries of State have testified and written letters of endorsement of this very proposal that is the pending business in the U.S. Senate. As for the U.S. Information Agency, its consolidation into the State Department will allow us to stretch our dollars devoted to foreign policy. It will cut out the waste. It will cut down on the bureaucracy. It will cut out functions that really are not essential to our foreign policy. They may be desirable, but they are not essential. Now, in the case of international broadcasting, the irony is that S. 908, the pending bill, is the best deal in town. They will not find a better one--not from Bill Clinton, not from Al Gore, not from anybody else. Right here, it is pending before the U.S. Senate. S. 908, Mr. President, assures the continuation of the restructuring, the reduction, and the consolidation of broadcasting elements that began last fall. This bill will ensure that the Congress and the administration keep their commitment to support broadcasting around the world. Some of the people--lobbyists--who are opposing S. 908 would have you believe otherwise. Broadcasting, under this bill, will remain independent and will be operated by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is a nonpartisan board that sets the broadcasting policy. In a very real way, S. 908, despite the protests of people who will save it, passes the litmus test of USIA itself. It strengthens the role of public diplomacy in our foreign policy apparatus by integrating it with larger foreign policy concerns. As has been shown, S. 908 in no way eliminates or reduces the capabilities needed to convey the American message to foreign populations. That is the job it was created to do in the first place. It preserves those capabilities, but it also makes a strong move to abolish waste and needless bureaucratic duplication. That is where some nerves have been rubbed raw. Make no mistake, the amendment to retain USIA, any effort to retain USIA independently, is a proposal to retain wastefulness and inefficiency. It is a tired old litany. I hope the Senate, if and when we are given an opportunity to vote on the matter, will understand what it is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Of course you do. But I thought you wanted a remedy.

Mr. HELMS. Well, I say to the Senator, I have a corrected amendment here, and to call for the regular order on amendment 2031, I will send a second-degree amendment----

Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will yield, why do you not put in a quorum call, we will discuss it, and I think he will agree to the modification.

Mr. HELMS. I will answer that in due time, I say to the distinguished Senator. If he yields the floor, I will do it right this minute.

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

Mr. HELMS. Yes, I yield the floor, of course.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Monday, July 31, the Federal debt stood at $4,960,151,653,142.55. On a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,828.82 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am going to give President Clinton an opportunity to micromanage the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When he is in the mood to have some ambassadors confirmed or some treaties considered, and that sort of thing, all he has to do is send word that he no longer believes in that memorandum that was circulated by the Agency for International Development, the memorandum that said the way the administration is going to beat this bill is to ``delay, postpone, obfuscate, derail.'' Well, his minions have done that in denying an opportunity to have cloture on this bill. Invariably, as the Senators know, and as one of the reporters said, the shoe is on the other foot--and that is correct. But this is an important bill, and the budget requirements of the Foreign Relations Committee cannot be met without this bill, or some bill very close to it. The point is that there has been no cooperation extended. There has been a lot of rhetoric, and that is the end of it. Mrs. Helms raised a dumb son, maybe, but she did not raise a stupid one. I understand the name of the game. The administration and its supporters have wanted this bill to die a quiet death. It is not going to die. It is going back on the calendar, but it will return. Just as MacArthur said, I will return, the administration can count on this bill's return. I will enjoy the Tuesdays and Thursdays when we normally have business sessions of the Foreign Relations Committee. The bill will not be killed with the administration's tactic. It is going to keep coming back and back and back until we get a vote. If the Senate votes down the bill, fine. That is fair enough. Or, if there is a move by Members of the Senate on the other side who want to present a concrete alternative, that will be fine. Or, if we can get now what we did not get before, a commitment from the Vice President of the United States-- you know, the fellow who is in charge of reinvention of Government-- that he and his associates will work with us, that will be fine. If the President of the United States indicates that he wants some ambassadors cleared and he wants his representatives in the Senate to cooperate in jointly producing a bill, that will be fine. But I appreciate the Senators on the Republican side, and I appreciate my good friend, Senator Pell, for having voted for cloture in both instances today. At a later time, I will have more to say, and I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Trade of the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Tuesday, August 1, 1995, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on Cambodia and Bulgaria most- favored-nation status, the renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences Program, and Trade Agency Budgets for fiscal year 1996.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 1995 at 9:00 a.m., to hold a hearing on H.R. 660, Older Americans Act.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Very well. And that is now the pending business?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call for regular order. That will do it.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in less than a month, ceremonies in Hawaii will commemorate the United States victory over Japan and the end of World War II. The American people were devastated by the December 7, 1941, Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor--undoubtedly, one of the most disastrous defeats in United States history. Victory at the Battle of Midway was a key element to the recovery of the United States Armed Forces and the ultimate victory on Japan. Historians rank Midway as one of the most decisive naval battles of all time. It is only fitting, in my judgment, that American heroes of the Battle of Midway be given due recognition, and that is why the Battle of Midway National Memorial Act is so important. Mr. President, if approved, this bill will: First, establish the Midway Islands as a National War Memorial; second, protect the historic structures associated with the Battle of Midway; and three, protect the surrounding environs, without cost to the taxpayers. The bill provides that the memorial be funded from revenues earned from private sector entities currently operating at the airstrip and the port facilities on Midway. Historic victories such as Midway, Gettysburg, Yorktown, and Normandy are remembered by memorializing the hallowed ground upon which American blood was shed. The Midway Islands, and the surrounding seas where so many American lives were sacrificed, deserve to be memorialized as well. Mr. President, during the month of June 1942, a badly outnumbered American naval force, consisting of 29 ships and other units of the Armed Forces, under the overall command of Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, outmaneuvered and out-fought 350 ships of the combined Japanese Imperial Fleet. The objectives of the Japanese high command were to occupy the Midway Islands and destroy the United States Pacific Fleet, but the forces under the command of Admiral Nimitz completely thwarted Japanese strategy. Victory at Midway was the turning point in the Pacific Theater. The outcome of the conflict, Mr. President, was remarkable given the fact that U.S. Forces were so badly outnumbered. The United States lost 163 aircraft compared to 286 Japanese aircraft lost. One American aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Yorktown, and one destroyer, the U.S.S. Humman were destroyed. On the other hand, the Japanese Imperial Navy lost five ships, four of the ships being the Imperial Navy's main aircraft carriers. Almost as devastating was the loss of most of the experienced Japanese pilots. At the end [[Page S 10971]] of the day, 307 Americans had lost their lives. The Japanese navy lost 2,500 men. So severe was the damage inflicted on the Imperial Japanese Navy by American airmen and sailors, that Japan never again was able to take the offensive against the United States or Allied forces. Mr. President, victory over the Japanese was achieved, of course, by men and women from all the United States Armed Forces. Certainly at Midway, elements of each services--Navy, Marines, and U.S. Army Air Corps--were heavily engaged, closely coordinated, and paid a high price for their bravery. The Midway Islands should be memorialized to honor the courageous efforts of all the services when they were called upon to defend our Nation and its interests. The heroism of many of American servicemen at Midway often required the ultimate sacrifice. Many of the Marine pilots, flying worn out and inferior planes, did not live to celebrate the victory at Midway. All but five torpedo-plane pilots who attacked the Japanese aircraft carrier task force--without protective air cover--were shot down. These pilots undoubtedly knew they were flying to an all but certain death. But the sacrifice of these brave Americans was not in vain, Mr. President. When the battle ended, four Japanese aircraft carriers were sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and their highly experienced pilots were lost. Japanese naval aviation never recovered from this crippling blow, and the rest, as they say, is history. Mr. President, the sacrifice and heroism of these men should never be forgotten--it is vital that our sons and daughters never forget what their fathers and grandfathers sacrificed for freedom. The Battle of Midway should be memorialized for all time, on the Midway Islands, on behalf of a grateful Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from four gallant Americans, each of whom was a hero of the Battle of Midway--Lt. Com. Richard H. Best, Capt. Robert M. Elder, Cap. Jack H. Reid, and Maj. J. Douglas Rollow--regarding the Midway Islands National Memorial Act, be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I am grateful to these fine Americans for their service at the Battle of Midway and for their diligence in putting together this bill. I certainly commend other distinguished Americans for their contributions to this effort, including Dr. James D'Angelo, Adm. Tom Moorer, Adm. Whitey Feightner, Capt. Gordon Murray, Vice Adm. James Flatley III, Vice Adm. William Houser, William Rollow, and Anthony Harrigan.

Mr. HELMS

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