Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on amendment No. 2026, the Helms amendment, at 6:45 this evening.

Mr. HELMS. I want to get back to what we were talking about, the bill, if the Senator will allow us. I think he has made his point about what he thinks we ought to do. I thought that was the majority leader's responsibility. Will the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a committee amendment at the desk referred to as the ``manager's amendment.'' I understand there are no objections to this amendment and that the modifications are acceptable to the ranking member of the committee, Senator Pell. This amendment has several parts and is designed to address three issues: First, reservations and jurisdictional concerns expressed by other Senate committees, chairmen, and ranking members; Second; provisions objectionable to the Administration; and Third, technical and conforming amendments to the bill, many of which were ``unofficially'' requested by this administration. The amendment includes: The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act extension, a repeal of the two prison labor provisions in the bill that will satisfy Finance Committee concerns, two changes that will satisfy the budget scorekeepers on the Budget Committee, and a few other small provisions. I urge the amendment be adopted since there are no known objections to this amendment. I hope there will be additional amendments in agreement as we proceed on debate of the measure. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I will say to the Senator, of course I cannot, save by unanimous consent, modify the amendment, but if he wishes to offer such an amendment by unanimous consent, I will certainly agree to it.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, July 31, 1995] U.N.'s Deadbeat Diplomats Owe Millions african nations ring up largest debts to new york shops, banks, landlords (By Catherine Toups) New York.--If the peace-keeping failures of Bosnia and Somalia haven't brought enough shame on the United Nations, U.N. officials fear that deadbeat diplomats will. Hiding behind the shield of diplomatic immunity, diplomats and missions posted to the United Nations have accrued more than $9 million in debts to U.S. banks, landlords, hospitals, hotels, utility companies and merchants in New York City, according to a U.N. report. And while the trickle-down economic boost of housing U.N. headquarters enriches New York City by about $1 billion each year, diplomats are finding less of a welcome from landlords, hospitals and banks that are growing increasingly reluctant to do business with diplomats, U.N. officials said. ``The problem of diplomatic indebtedness is a matter of significant concern,'' Secretary-General Boutros Boutros- Ghali said in a report to the Committee on Relations With the Host Country. ``Non-payment of just debts reflects badly on the entire diplomatic community and tarnishes the image of the United Nations itself.'' The topic is so sensitive around the United Nations that, until recently, the problem was not publicly mentioned. But the secrecy and inaction have allowed the debt to grow to $9 million from just $1.1 million in 1990; it swelled by nearly $2 million in the past half-year alone. Finally, at the insistence of the U.S. mission and the city of New York, the size of the debt is now public. But the names of the offending diplomats and missions are not. Even in Mr. Boutros-Ghali's smoldering report, in which he scolds diplomats for not paying their bills and urges a ``working group on indebtedness'' to come up with solutions, he does not mention a single country or diplomat by name. Mr. Boutros-Ghali also omitted the name of a prominent bank that he said will no longer make loans to diplomats or missions, and he did not identify real estate agents who say they are reluctant to deal with diplomats. Mr. Boutros-Ghali's report said 31 mission have contributed to the debt but five missions alone account for 83 percent of it. The debts range from $200 to more than $1.9 million, he said. About 40 percent is owed to banks, 40 percent to landlords and the rest to merchants. ``Some missions had not paid rent for two years or more,'' Mr. Boutros-Ghali said. ``And a number of residential landlords had either lost their property or were at risk of losing it because diplomatic tenants, who could not be evicted, would neither pay their rent nor leave the property.'' Sources familiar with the issue say the top debtor missions are Sierra Leone, Congo, Zaire, Liberia and the Central African Republic. ``The vast majority of the 184 missions in New York and their over 1,800 diplomats honor their obligations,'' the secretary-general said. Political and economic instability back home is part of the problem, the U.N. chief said in his report. But he also blamed some of the debt on bad fiscal management of missions and individual diplomats. There is a certain irony to the United Nations scolding deadbeat diplomats. The world body itself is far from solvent because of member nations that fail to pay assessments in full or on time (the United States is first on that list). The organization already owes more than $800 million to troop-contributing nations for peacekeeping operations, a debt that is expected to reach $1 billion by the end of the year. The United Nations has also been accused of mismanagement and waste throughout its history, leading to periodic reforms, including several in the past year. Several diplomats on the Committee on Relations With the Host Country, which handles problems between missions and the United States, have argued against making a public issue of diplomatic indebtedness for fear it will spark hostility against the diplomatic community. A December 1993 New York Times article about delinquent parking tickets by diplomats prompted hundreds of complaints from New York residents who said diplomats don't deserve the privileges they have. Russian delegates on the committee lobbied against publishing the names of deadbeat diplomats and missions, saying the [[Page S 10944]] problem is a private matter between the United States and the debtors. ``It would politicize the problem and would not help to solve it,'' said Sergei Ordzhonikidze of the Russian mission. ``In diplomacy, it is important to be discreet.'' Mr. Boutros-Ghali has asked the ``working group on indebtedness'' to look into several options to resolve the problem. Ideas included creating an ``emergency'' fund, establishing group health insurance programs, giving debtors, short-term jobs at the Secretariat to earn extra money and creating information programs alerting missions to the high costs of living in New York. But giving jobs to diplomats in ``acute distress'' financially was deemed unworkable and the idea of an emergency fund was also rejected. A representative of France on the committee suggested that for the cast-strapped United Nations to create a document publicizing the names of individual debtors and debt-ridden mission might be too political and ``should be avoided.''

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

Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in general, the pending second-degree amendment to the Dole amendment addresses the debt owed to the United States, or to private enterprises of our country, by deadbeat U.N. diplomats who just do not pay their bills. They owe over $9 million for late payments or failure to pay at all on rent and everything else imaginable that these deadbeats have purchased or contracted for. That reminds me of an amendment that I offered last year that required diplomats right here in the District of Columbia, as well as other places, to pay up on the parking fines owed to the District of Columbia. I am proud to say that it worked because they were in deep, deep trouble if they did not pay. This amendment is just about the same. It sheds sunshine on those diplomats who choose to ignore paying their just debts, as Boutros Boutros-Ghali described it in his statement as quoted in the newspaper this morning. I think that the publicity may embarrass these people into paying these bills. If not, this second-degree amendment to the Dole amendment will certainly prompt their attention. Since the Secretary General has refused to identify any of the diplomats or the missions that owe money, it is up to the U.S. Congress to urge him to do so in a very forceful way. If this provision is adopted, as I hope it will be, the deadbeats in the United Nations will be known by one and all, and they will be embarrassed into paying their bills. The yeas and nays have not been obtained on either amendment; is that correct?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will not be long in discussing my amendment. I thought about it when I read the Washington Times this morning and saw the headline, ``U.N.'s Deadbeat Diplomats Owe Millions.'' Then the subhead says, ``African Nations Ring Up Largest Debts to New York Shops, Banks, and Lenders.'' In that, Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said in a report to the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, and I quote him: Non-payment of just debts reflects badly on the entire diplomatic community and tarnishes the image of the United Nations itself. Then the Washington Times went on to say: The topic is so sensitive around the United Nations that, until recently, the problem was not publicly mentioned. But the secrecy and inaction have allowed the debt to grow to $9 million from the previous balance of just $1.1 million in 1990; it swelled by nearly $2 million in the past half-year alone. I ask unanimous consent that this entire article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, changing the venue on the Beijing conference is an absolute impossibility, and I am sure my well-informed colleague from Massachusetts knows that. At this point, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine and the distinguished majority leader that the strongest means of sending a message from the United States is to do it unilaterally because we really do not have any other choice. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator asked a question. Let the Senator from Maine respond.

Mr. HELMS. I will seek the yeas and nays after the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I indicated, I am a cosponsor of Senator Dole's amendment which is an excellent amendment. It encourages the administration to do what it already should have done: make a strong protest to the Chinese over the arrest and [[Page S 10940]] detention of the American citizen and friend of many of us in the Congress, Harry Wu. Just 2 weeks ago, Mr. President, I met with Harry Wu's wife in my office. Jing Lee is a lovely person. She said privately, and then again on the lawn of the White House, the United States should refrain from sending a delegation to the United Nations Fourth Conference on Women in Beijing until Harry Wu is released safely. She asked, ever so insightfully, ``Why would the United States wish to confer international recognition and legitimacy on the Chinese Government at a time when it is holding an American citizen in captivity?'' Over the weekend, the newspaper ran articles showing that the President is considering meeting with the Chinese premier in this area of detente, as Secretary of State Christopher is now referring to it. After the President goes through with that meeting, and Harry Wu is not released, then we absolutely have no business sending any Americans over to that conference in Beijing. If the truth be known, the Beijing women's conference is fraught with problems from top to bottom, starting with the city in which it is being held. Taking a paltry $3.5 million away from one account in the State Department is, in the short-term, the best way the Senate has to send a signal in support for Harry Wu's release. I might inquire of the majority leader, does the Senator seek the yeas and nays on his amendment?

Mr. HELMS. It is made a matter of record at this point.

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator remember my mentioning to her the visit I had with Mrs. Harry Wu, in which she asked that the U.S. delegation not be present? Does the Senator recall that meeting, that she came to my office and made that request herself? Does the Senator recall that?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I want to make the record clear. The Jordan drawdown was not eliminated even temporarily at my request, but in order to facilitate the approval of the rest of the amendment 1914. So the Record will show that--I having said that. I urge the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I understand it, I say to my colleague, Senator Kerry, everything has been agreed to except the Jordan drawdown, is that correct? I ask that be eliminated from this temporarily--and it may be reinserted at a later time by unanimous consent.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it does not take a rocket scientist to be aware that the U.S. Constitution forbids that any President spend even a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress--both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when a politician or an editor or a commentator pops off that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies, made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty of Congress--a duty Congress cannot escape--to control Federal spending. Thus, is it not the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress that has created the incredible Federal debt which stood at $4,948,204,552,522.39 as of the close of business Friday, July 28? This outrageous debt--which will be passed on to our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,783.46 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, an effort is underway to demand that Congress enact legislation to grant rights to homosexuals that other Americans do not have. I cannot believe that such legislation will be approved by either the Senate or the House, but there's no way to be certain that either or both [[Page S 10923]] bodies won't cave in to political pressures being exerted. One thing appears certain: The liberal media will likely get behind such an effort. In any event, Mr. President, the Kinston, NC, Daily Free Press published an excellent article on July 16 written by a gentleman who knows whereof he speaks--Dr. Richard G. McDonald of Kinston who for more than 50 years has been working with homosexuals. Dr. McDonald has a clear understanding of what is going on even if the vast majority of U.S. Senators do not. In any event, Mr. President, I want Dr. McDonald's observations to be made available to Senators and others who may have concerns about the obvious powerplay going on among U.S. homosexuals. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the published comments of Dr. McDonald be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.