Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. The distinguished Senator from Delaware will have to be on the floor in order to get them, but we will get the yeas and nays and have a rollcall vote, probably an early vote tomorrow morning. I thank the Senator. I have received no further information from the leaders about how late we should go, so I think it is time to hear from the distinguished Senator from Indiana again, Mr. Lugar. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Certainly, as long as the Senator from Indiana wishes to stay. But I did not recognize the very distinguished remarks of the Senator to be pro or con on his amendment, at least as they were written. But to respond to the Senator's question, I will stay here as long as he will.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what does constitute a sufficient second? I am carrying Senator Biden's proxy. Could we just have a gentleman's agreement on that?

Mr. HELMS. How long does the Senator wish?

Mr. HELMS. I understand that. But I respect the Senator from Maryland. I want him to have his say. Certainly, Mr. President, I am not going to criticize Senator Lugar. I think and hope we have been friends ever since he came here. I have made several statements publicly in his advocacy. I think he will acknowledge that. But he is not in a position in which he has to make judgments that will lead to either a successful piece of legislation or an unsuccessful one, depending on which decision is made. Senator Biden has very eloquently and accurately described the process by which the committee brought in a lot of views and a lot of people, including the distinguished majority leader, Trent Lott, and the relevant appropriations subcommittee chair Judd Gregg. As I said in my statement earlier, this bill will not represent every provision that I want, but I think it is the best legislation for the American people. I do not need any pollster to tell me that; in fact, I have found out that the results often depend on who the pollster is taking a poll for and what the people who paid for the poll want to accomplish with the poll. That certainly is a game that is played in politics constantly. But let me say that speaking, I think, for a sizable percentage of the American people--and not having a poll except the ringing of the telephone in my office and the fax machine grinding constantly and the mail by the sackfuls--we do not owe it to the rest of the world to pay the so-called arrearages to the United Nations for peacekeeping, and we certainly do not owe these nickel and dime amounts to our allies or to anyone else, for that matter. Let me set the record straight just a bit. I do not say this with any hostility, but if you think the American people have not been socked with enough taxes to support whatever project or institution that is supported at the moment, let's look at the facts. Since 1950 the United States--that means the American taxpayers--has given other countries (free of charge) $120 billion in military assistance through grants and loans. In just the past 10 years, the United States paid $40.4 billion in military assistance to another set of countries. I have heard no moaning and groaning on this floor about what we owe, but nothing about all of the support the U.S. has given. When you add up the low-cost and no-cost loans to the total assistance that the American taxpayers have been forced by their Government--by this Senate, by the House of Representatives, by the President sitting in the Oval Office on Pennsylvania Avenue --the total assistance that the American taxpayers have given out since 1950 amounts to at least $161 billion--and mind you, that does not include interest that has been forgiven when we didn't seek repayment of loans. In addition, every dime of this has been given away in years when we did not balance the budget. These costs are part of the reason that we have a $5.400 trillion federal debt today. So let me be clear--we long have bankrolled the world, and I will cry tomorrow for those ambassadors from France and Germany, and even Poland, who say that they do not like what Jesse Helms is doing in the Senate. Well, Jesse Helms does not like to have to do it, but some of us have reached the point that we have to hold hands tight and work out a deal that will achieve long overdue reforms. Now, this pending bill is the proposition that has been agreed to by the President of the United States, by the Secretary of State, by Joe Biden--who is the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee-- and by countless other distinguished Americans whom we have consulted and with whom we have worked. Now, let me tell you something. It is easy to sit back and say, ``Well, we have got to pay our debts.'' With what and on what schedule? Are you going to add it to the federal debt? What are you going to cut out of the budget which we have been unable, thus far, to get balanced in this body and in the House of Representatives and then signed by the President? We all hear that there is a coalition of interests, but my primary interest happens to be the people who pick up their lunch pail and go to work every morning, who do not know much about Congress. They are trusting us to protect their future and the futures of their children and grandchildren. Now, every campaign they are celebrated as the reason Joe Candidate and Mary Candidate are running for office, looking for votes. But as soon as the election is over, you do not hear much more except a political speech now and then. Now, I have been on the Foreign Relations Committee quite a while. Joe Biden and I held up our hands to take the oath of office on the same day--January 3, 1973, right over in that corner. We have been in the Senate the same length of time. I have enjoyed serving with Senator Biden because although he and I seldom agree on fundamental issues, he always shoots straight with me--and I think that he will say that I have shot straight with him. I am a conservative and I am unabashed about it. And Joe, no doubt about it, is a liberal. That is the way it goes in this body. But also on the Foreign Relations Committee some years ago, I think in the mid-1980s, one of the bad ladies who served on the committee-- now, I am not even going to joke about it. She is one of the sweetest ladies I have ever known, one of the brightest ladies I have ever known, and one of the most unyielding ladies I have ever known-- and her name was Nancy Kassebaum. It is now Nancy Kassebaum Baker because she is the bride of Howard Baker, the former majority leader of this Senate. Now, it was, I believe, 1986 an amendment was enacted into law in the State Department Authorization Act. And by the way how many authorization bills have been passed since that year? Not many, not many. So the affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. President, have been handled by the Appropriations Committee until this year and we are endeavoring to have the Foreign Relations Committee resume its rightful place in the conduct of foreign affairs. I do not think it ought to be conducted by the Appropriations Committee. But in any case, our former colleague from Kansas, the then Nancy Kassebaum, used a very interesting approach more than a decade ago in trying to get a budget reform at the United Nations. She was so disappointed and so was I with the way the United Nations was being operated. Her amendment was enacted into law for the authorization act for fiscal years 1986 and 1987. It explicitly and unilaterally withheld 20 percent of the U.S. contribution to the United Nations and its specialized agency until voting reforms took place at the U.N. Now, I must ask, what is so unusual about this bill? We are including provisions that require reforms in the same way--by withholding U.S. contributions. I do not know whether Senator Lugar was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at that time. If he was, I doubt that he very strongly opposed Senator Kassebaum. But the point is we have so many people who have responsible roles to play in this matter. We are hearing from the President and former Presidents, we are hearing from Secretaries of State and former Secretaries of State, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, as Yul Brenner said in ``The King and I.'' I have a letter from Bob Dole supporting this plan. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I suggest we await the arrival of Senator Gorton so we can see the whole picture at one time, if that suits the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Since the Senator sought the floor----

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

Mr. HELMS. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, now I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Durbin an amendment on the same subject.

Mr. HELMS. Did the Chair understand that the Durbin amendment is being withdrawn? Perhaps I didn't make it clear. I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment No. 377 be withdrawn.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Durbin. This amendment modifies the amendment relating to the one filed earlier by him.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I inquire, is Senator Durbin's amendment No. 377 still pending?

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

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator D'Amato be added as a cosponsor to the amendment which was just approved.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 16, 1997 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on: ``State- Sanctioned Discrimination in America.''

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on June 16, 1997 at 2 p.m. for the purpose of a hearing.

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, the bill is open for amendment. This is a good time for Senators who have amendments--and I hope only a few, if any, do, but I expect there will be some--this would be a good time for them to come over. We will accord them as much time as they need. But I say with all the earnestness that I have, it would be helpful if Senators will come and offer their amendments because the bill is open to amendment at this time. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee, both majority and minority, be given the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Senate's consideration of S. 903, the pending legislation.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Biden is on his way to the Senate floor. While we await the arrival of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the day and the time have arrived. The pending business, as the distinguished clerk has just indicated, is the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997, legislation which was reported from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this past Thursday, June 12, by a vote of 14 to 4. This legislation provides sweeping and long overdue reforms in America's foreign affairs agencies. It also mandates tough reforms at the United Nations. As I have tried to emphasize from the beginning, it has been my hope that the effort to produce this legislation would be a bipartisan one, dedicated to reorganization and revitalization of our foreign policy institutions. That is what this legislation is, and that is what has brought this bill to its present pendency in the Senate. It has been bipartisanship in the Senate, the same kind of honest give and take that led to some of the truly great decisions by this Senate in years past and in past decades. There is no point now in rehashing past difficulties or actions either by the Senate or by the President of the United States. The important point is that this time around there has been a remarkable degree of working together, of give and take, and a determination by almost everybody involved that this time a piece of legislation will be enacted by the Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States. I would be remiss if I did not mention the distinguished Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who has made very clear and voluntary public assurances about this legislation. And that lady, Mr. President, has as always stood by her word. While all of that is obviously personally meaningful to me, it is no more so than the splendid cooperation and genuine interest of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, who not only has made clear his bipartisan support, he has worked tirelessly to make sure that he would be on this Senate floor this afternoon to demonstrate his genuine support for a bill which hereinafter should be and will be known as the Helms-Biden Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997. I suspect that Senator Biden is aware of how grateful I am to him. He is an able colleague for whom I have enormous respect. That said, Mr. President, both President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright came forward with recommendations addressing many, though not all, of my key concerns, and in the ensuing months Senator Biden and I, along with our respective and competent staffs, devoted countless hours putting together this final package which so overwhelmingly was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee this past Thursday. None of us got everything we wanted, but we worked together, and the legislation before us today is a bipartisan bill that will abolish two of those temporary Federal agencies that were created a half-century ago--the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S. Information Agency. Moreover, this bill will move some of the functions of a third such ``temporary'' Federal agency known as the Agency for International Development. These functions will move to a position within the State Department under the direct control and supervision of the Secretary of State. I must be candid. If I had my way, and many other Senators feel precisely the same way, the so-called Agency for International Development would be abolished entirely. But that is going to take a little time. So, instead, this bill is the first of many steps in a perhaps lengthy process of reinventing the foreign affairs apparatus of the U.S. Government. But, have no doubt about it, further reforms will happen a little further down the legislative line in the years ahead. The ball has begun to roll. But, for now, the pending legislation wipes away the Agency for International Development's often arrogant independence from the Department of State by transferring many of the functions of that independent 50-odd-year-old temporary agency to the State Department, and to assure that the allocation of foreign aid will soon be controlled by the Secretary of State, who will at long last have policy control over our foreign aid program. I have thought many times, during the lengthy hours that we have worked on this particular piece of legislation, of what Ronald Reagan once said about temporary Federal agencies. He said, ``There is nothing so near eternal life as a temporary Federal agency.'' I think the three agencies that we are working on today are an illustration of that. In any event, the pending bill will also contain U.N. reform benchmarks that we have been negotiating with the administration for the past 4 months. I think it is fair to say that this bill represents the most comprehensive and most far-reaching U.N. reform package ever considered by this Congress. Indeed, the Washington Post, which is no fan of anybody who wants to reform the United Nations--the Washington Post referred to the plan before the Senate today, and I quote the Washington Post, ``* * * as one which would mark the most fundamental shift in relations between the United States and the United Nations since the United Nations was established after World War II.'' Let's look at a few details a little more closely. Among other reforms, the pending bill will require the United Nations to reduce the amount of money the American taxpayers are now required to contribute to the United Nations, reduce it from the present 25 percent of the total operations cost to 20 percent of the total U.N. operating costs. If you do not think that is much, I will discuss that with you in just a minute. This reduction is going to be in effect, by the way, no later than fiscal year 2000. That one, single reform, two or three lines in this bill, had it been enacted 5 years ago, would have saved the American taxpayers more than $500 million. The bill looks a little bit better as you talk about it and examine it. What else is in this bill? This bill requires the United Nations to adopt a real negative growth budget, one that will eliminate at least 1,000 bureaucratic U.N. posts, so that the American taxpayers in the future will pay a smaller percentage of a smaller budget. It will forbid future U.N. global conferences, for example the Beijing women's summit that caused such a stir in this country and elsewhere, and the Rio Earth summit, meaning that the American taxpayers will never, never again be forced to pay the exorbitant costs of such boondoggles as those two that I mentioned. The pending bill will require the United Nations to reimburse the American taxpayers for U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations. And that means that the U.S. defense budget will no longer be raided to support U.N. experimentation with peacekeeping operations. Most important, this bill provides a very significant aspect. It forbids requiring the American taxpayers to furnish the money to pay any so-called U.N. arrearages unless and until the requirements in this bill have been met by the United Nations. A lot of crabbing is going on about it, and a lot of speculation about whether they will like it or not up there. They don't like it. You know who doesn't care one whit whether they like it or not? You are looking at him, Mr. President. My message to the United Nations is simple but clear: No reform, no American taxpayers' money for arrearages. Last, and certainly not least, this legislation imposes very strict and very specific disciplines on spending and authorizing funding for the Department of State and other related agencies. Let me repeat for the purpose of emphasis. This legislation is bipartisan. It does not contain everything that I wanted. Senator Biden is a tough and fair negotiator. Nor does it reflect everything that the other side--Joe Biden and the Democrats--not everything that they wanted is in here. But, in the end, at the end of the day, as is so often said these days, I believe it is evident that the Foreign Relations Committee is proposing important reforms that will be highly beneficial to this country and to the American taxpayers. So I say again, it is truly a team effort by both sides, and I hasten to mention that it would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of the chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, Senator Rod Grams, who devoted so many hours presiding over oversight hearings on important aspects of this bill. Senator Grams worked with us every step of the way in crafting the legislation which I have just described in some detail. Moreover, Senator Grams' special expertise, gained by his having served as the U.S. Congressional Delegate to the United Nations, has been enormously helpful in the crafting of this comprehensive U.N. reform proposal. And then the committee has also worked closely with Senator Judd Gregg, the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee which has the responsibility, don't you know, for the Departments of Commerce, State, and Justice. Senator Gregg's support for this bill, this pending bill, sent a message to the administration early on that the appropriators as well as the authorizers of the U.S. Senate would be standing together, united in support of this pending bill. Needless to say, I sincerely hope that the spirit of bipartisanship will continue and that the Senate will expeditiously complete action on it. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. HELMS

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