Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield? I very strongly support the Senator from Indiana, and I very much hope our colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Where do I find this in the bill?

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield me 2 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. How much time does the Senator have?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. Where does the Senator get the $710 million?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I rise in very strong support of this amendment. The Senator from Indiana stated the arguments in a very cogent and, I think, persuasive fashion. Mr. President, we just celebrated 50 years of the Marshall Plan. A couple of years ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations. If you read that history, what is clear is the marked contrast between the United States' attitude at the end of World War II, at which time we demonstrated strong leadership, and the attitude that is reflected in this legislation. This legislation imposes a host of arbitrary and burdensome conditions on the United Nations. If the United Nations fails to achieve them, I am sure the argument will be made, ``It's too bad they didn't accede to the conditions we were imposing, and therefore it's their fault that we're not paying these arrears.'' Yet, I remind my colleagues, these are arrears which we clearly owe and which we have built up over the years. This approach goes directly contrary to the one that was reflected in the exercise of American leadership in both the United Nations and the Marshall plan--an approach which I think ought to characterize our policy toward the United Nations today. I think the able Senator from Indiana has rendered a distinct service by focusing the attention of the Senate on this issue. I very much hope my colleagues will support his amendment. It relates solely to payment of arrearages, to dues we already owe. We agreed to pay them under the Charter of the United Nations. Now we are saying, ``Well, if you want us to pay our past dues, you've got to agree to reduce our future dues.'' Now, I support an effort to reduce our future dues, but I do not think it ought to simply be imposed through this unilateral action on the part of the United States. The United Nations serves important interests of ours. I think it is critical for the United States to help sustain and preserve a strong United Nations. I very much hope that the amendment of the Senator from Indiana will be adopted. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I simply say to the chairman, I am quite happy to cooperate with the committee in setting aside the amendments, but I ask the chairman if I can have the courtesy of being given a little bit of notice--not much--just in order to get here when the chairman thinks he may go back to considering my amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object. Can I ask the parliamentary situation? I take it the Bennett amendment was offered and set aside, and then I offered an amendment and that was set aside. Is there another amendment pending?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment, referring to pages 160 to 162 of the bill, takes out subsection (g), which is a subsection that puts forward the possibility that the United States might withdraw from the United Nations. I am very frank to tell you that I don't think the prospect of that eventuality ought to be raised in this legislation. This legislation, in effect, says that if the amount of funds made available for U.S. membership exceed a certain figure, then withdrawal is required. Of course, we determine the amount of funds that are made available. In any event, even if the figure is exceeded, I don't think a withdrawal sanction ought to be incorporated in this legislation. If you stop and think about it, that is quite a sweeping proposition. Let me quote from paragraph (2) of that subsection: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States shall withdraw from an international organization. . . . It then goes on to set out the procedures for doing so, and the deadline for doing so. Let me read for a second. Unless otherwise provided for in the instrument concerned, a withdrawal under this subsection shall be completed within one year in which the withdrawal is required. Then it requires the President to submit a report on the withdrawal. I hope that the managers of the bill, upon reflection, will agree with me that we ought not to be including in the legislation any provisions that carry with them the implication of withdrawal from the United Nations. The United Nations is too important an organization, and our participation in it is too critical a matter to include in this legislation a provision of this sort. The provision on which I am focusing runs from pages 160 to 162, providing for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. My amendment is focused on a limited part of this bill. I have a lot of differences with other parts of this bill, as Members well know. I supported the effort earlier in the day to take out the conditionality of the payment of our arrearages, which did not prove successful. But I am very frank to tell you that I find it a matter of very deep concern--even of dismay--that this legislation should even include within it the possibility for the consideration of the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. To suggest that we are thinking of withdrawal, or that withdrawal would be required under certain circumstances, in my judgment is very detrimental to our international leadership. It affects our credibility at the United Nations, and around the world. What is sought in this bill, to stay within certain funding limitations, is within the control of the Congress in any event. So there would be other ways for the Congress, in making its decision on resources to be provided, to adhere to that standard. But I do not think we should put it in this legislation. If we are going to withdraw from the United Nations, we ought to have a full-scale debate about withdrawing from the United Nations. Withdrawal from the United Nations is not some minor course of action to be taken lightly, not some form of discipline to address a problem that can be addressed in other ways. It is a very serious matter. I think even raising the prospect of withdrawal from the United Nations is harmful to American interests. I very much hope the managers of the bill will find it possible to accept this amendment. I do not understand why we are, in effect, bringing in the most extreme remedy one could imagine, the one that most sharply affects our international leadership and our position in the United Nations, namely the remedy of withdrawal. I do not think this legislation ought to have any mention of withdrawal from the United Nations and I very much hope we will be able to take this particular section out of this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. I have no objection.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SARBANES. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. This modification has been worked out with the managers of the bill. I appreciate their accommodation on this.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sadness at learning of the passing of Barry Sklar, a long-time staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who died unexpectedly on Sunday. Barry was well known to a number of Members and staff who had occasion to work with him during the more than a decade he served on the professional staff of the Committee, as an able advisor on Latin American and Caribbean affairs. In a recommendation for Barry just a few short months ago, I wrote that he ``demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the issues and great professionalism and integrity in his work.'' But that only describes the qualities that led to his intellectual accomplishments and career success. It does not begin to tell why Barry won the personal admiration, friendship and esteem of all who came to know him. Barry Sklar was a warm, gentle, kind and unassuming man who was devoted to upholding moral principles in his work and his personal life. Despite his involvement in issues and policies that made frequent headlines, Barry maintained a sense of modesty and great humility. He never forgot that his family came first. Throughout the turbulent decade of the 1980's for Latin America, Barry worked for peace and conflict resolution through international cooperation. Due to his work on human rights, as was noted at his funeral, many children today have mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers who might otherwise have been forgotten by the world when they disappeared from their villages. Barry's life reveals his commitment to keeping families safe and together, in his own case and around the world. Mr. President, I would like to extend to Barry's wife, Judith, and his sons Joel Mark and Adam Benjamin my deepest condolences. I am sure I speak for my colleagues in expressing these sentiments. He will be greatly missed by all of us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, actually I was going to seek a unanimous-consent request in order to continue the work on the bill and offer another amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 5 minutes to speak as if in morning business, and that when the Senator from Alabama completes his 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside and that I be recognized to offer an amendment to the bill at that time.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, has the Senator from Utah concluded his explanation of his amendment?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask again that the pending amendments be set aside in order to be able to offer an amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate the response of one of the managers of the bill.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment would add a section to the bill to clarify a previous action taken by the Congress, which, in effect, was too broad, too expansive, and caused unnecessary difficulties. I support the general purpose of the existing law, which was to prevent conflicts of interest in negotiating management-labor disputes. I am in favor of trying to deal with that problem. But it now appears that we went too far in trying to do so. The amendment I am now offering would narrow the definition of ``management official'' to a more appropriate group. A similar provision, I believe, was included in the companion to this bill recently adopted by the House of Representatives. Let me briefly try to outline the situation. In the early 1990s, the Congress amended the 1980 Foreign Service Act, placing restrictions on the movement of foreign service personnel between certain positions in the American Foreign Service Association, which is the organization that represents foreign service employees, and management jobs in the foreign affairs agencies. The Act was amended to prohibit any individual who served as an agency management official or confidential employee during the preceding 2 years from participating in the management of the American Foreign Service Association for the purposes of collective bargaining or representing them in such bargaining. And, conversely, any individual who had participated in AFSA management for the purposes of collective bargaining, or who represented AFSA at the bargaining table, is precluded, for 2 years, from serving as a management official or confidential employee. So for 2 years, such officials could not move in either direction. I have no quarrel with the purpose of that amendment, which was to prohibit a foreign service employee from moving from one side of the table to the other in labor-management negotiations. However, I think the definition of ``management,'' as we try to deal with this problem that is currently in the law, is too broad because it can encompass officials who play no role in labor-management relations or the formation of personnel policy. This broad definition creates an obvious problem for people who might otherwise want to participate in the American Foreign Service Association and hold responsible positions in that organization. If they become officers in AFSA, and then in that capacity participate in labor-management relations--which in many instances is part of the job--they would be precluded from a whole range of potential posts within the agencies. The amendment I am offering would narrow the definition of ``management official'' by exempting chiefs of mission, principal officers or their deputies, administrative and personnel officers abroad, who are not involved--I emphasize ``not involved''--in the formulation of the personnel policies and programs of the Department. In other words, we would continue the protection against conflicts of interest by covering only those officials who are involved in labor- management relations or personnel policies and programs. And so a foreign service officer who is in any way involved with those issues on behalf of the Department may not move into an AFSA position involving those issues for 2 years. Likewise, someone who has served in an AFSA position that involves labor-management relations may not take a management position in a foreign affairs agency for 2 years that would involve these issues. But this amendment would not prohibit, for instance, someone who was an officer in AFSA from becoming a Deputy Assistant Secretary in a regional bureau that has nothing to do with developing personnel policies or programs. At the moment, the broad limitation has a rather chilling effect on people who are willing to assume a responsible role in AFSA. They say to themselves, ``If I do that, for 2 years I am blocked out of taking a whole host of positions in the foreign affairs agencies.'' Of course, AFSA represents the employees in all of the foreign affairs agencies. Its officers are being prevented from taking a wide range of subsequent assignments. I don't think this was the intent of the statute. I agree with the basic effort to preclude any conflict of interest, and this amendment in fact accepts the proposition that you ought not to be able to go from one side of the bargaining table to the other. But my amendment seeks to limit the current provision's coverage so that it does not exclude former AFSA officers from responsible positions in the foreign affairs agencies that really don't involve the bargaining table. That is the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SARBANES. That's right. You would be prohibited, for 2 years, from shifting over into a position that involved labor-management relations or developing personnel policy. So you could not just go over to the other side.