Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand that now before us is the second part of the amendment, lines 4 and 5 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. There was originally a two-hour time agreement on the amendment, equally divided. I will cut my time back to half an hour, but I thought we would go ahead and adopt it, if that is acceptable to the chairman.

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of the amendment I have 30 minutes to speak on the bill, and that will be in lieu of the 1 hour that had been reserved for proponents of the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I urge the adoption of the second part of the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I now will speak on the bill, which presents some difficult issues. Despite the chairman's accommodation--which is a step forward that I appreciate--I still plan to vote against the bill, as I did in the committee. I say to the chairman that this decision has been made more difficult for me because this bill is now being named after Admiral Nance. I wish the substance of the bill were such that I could feel free to vote for it. Unfortunately, I do not. But I want to make it very clear that if I could have improved the substance enough, the fact that Admiral Nance's name is on this bill would have clearly moved me in the direction of voting for it. Hopefully, it will come back from conference in a somewhat better state, and I might be able to vote for it then. I wanted to say this at the outset because I, like so many Members of this body, had enormous respect and affection for Admiral Bud Nance and for his commitment to our Nation, both in war and in peace. I saw that commitment every day after he joined the chairman in the workings of our committee. His contributions were widely recognized and he will be greatly missed. This amendment, which we have now adjusted, was an effort to keep us from going further into arrears to the United Nations in the current year. Under the compromise, we will authorize the full amount this year for peacekeeping, but we still fall behind on the contributions to international organizations. The bigger problem connected with the legislation is the proposed package to settle our past arrears to the United Nations, which unfortunately, has two major shortcomings. First of all, the total figure does not reach the level which our Government admits we owe, missing it by a little under $100 million if one includes debt relief. My second objection is that the money we do authorize has been heavily conditioned. Let me just say at the outset that I believe important U.S. national interests are undermined by our continued failure to pay what we owe to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. I know the chairman and the ranking member are trying to search for a solution to this problem. I respect their efforts. I just do not think they have gone far enough along this important path. By refusing to meet our legal obligations while continually issuing new demands, we are wasting our own influence, damaging our credibility and international respect, engendering resistance to the reforms we seek, and complicating the U.N.'s ability to perform its duties in a timely and effective manner. In my view, we should pay our arrears promptly, in full, and without additional conditions. Unfortunately, this legislation does not accomplish that objective. The United States acknowledges we owe $1.021 billion to the U.N. The U.N. says we owe $1.5 billion. This bill authorizes $819 million over 3 years, plus an additional $107 million in credit. Even the $819 million which is authorized will not be paid promptly and at once; it will be paid over a 3-year period. So we will still be almost $100 million short of our acknowledged obligations, far short of the U.N. figure, with no promise of ever paying it back. Unfortunately, that puts us in the position of a permanent default, particularly when one realizes that the authorization for the current year falls short. The amendment we just adopted helps to correct that on the peacekeeping side, but it still leaves us $23 million short on regular dues to the United Nations. Furthermore, the bill imposes a long list of arbitrary and burdensome conditions for paying even the reduced amount, to which I have just made reference. These conditions have not been negotiated with or agreed to by the United Nations. They are, in effect, unilaterally imposed by the United States. They are being imposed on past obligations, on money we had agreed to provide without such stipulations. The consequence of these arrears is that the U.N. has been unable to reimburse other countries for sending their troops on peacekeeping missions that the United States encouraged and endorsed. Other countries have put the lives of their own citizens on the line in order to accomplish mutually agreed objectives. The U.S. responsibility in most of those instances was to provide money to cover the missions they were performing for us and the entire world. Those missions have been accomplished. The bill has not been paid. In addition, despite my amendment, this legislation creates new arrearages to the U.N., so not only do we fail to pay all the money we owe in arrears, not only do we establish preconditions for this partial payment, but we begin to build up new debts by authorizing less than is needed. The agreement that was reached on the amendment addressed this in part. It provided the $235 million needed for assessed peacekeeping operations. The bill had $215 million. It still does not provide the full amount needed for assessed U.N. dues, falling short by $23 million. I must say, if any other country delinquent in its obligations showed up with the demands we have placed in this legislation, lacking the intention of paying its debts in full and short of its current dues, we would be extremely upset at what we would regard as its audacity. Surely our friends and allies will have the same reaction to our conduct. This approach runs counter to that reflected in the exercise of American leadership at the end of World War II, an approach that I think should characterize our policy toward the United Nations today. It is my strongly held view that the interests of the United States have been served by our Nation's active participation in the United Nations and the U.N. system. Especially now, with the end of the cold war, the U.N. has a genuine opportunity to function as it was intended at the end of World War II, without the constant Soviet veto in the Security Council that effectively neutralized it for so many years. The task facing us today is to assist the United Nations to adapt to the end of the cold war and the challenges of the new century. The need for the United Nations remains clear, for as then-Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright commented: The battle-hardened generation of Roosevelt, Churchill and de Gaulle viewed the U.N. as a practical response to an inherently contentious world; a necessity not because relations among States could ever be brought into perfect harmony, but because they cannot. This sense of realism seems absent from many of the current discussions of the United Nations. There has been a misperception that the U.N. can somehow dictate policies to the United States and force us to undertake actions that do not serve U.S. interests. This is simply not the case. Those who labored in San Francisco and elsewhere to create the United Nations some half a century ago insisted that the United Nations organization recognize the reality of great powers by granting significant authority to the Security Council. In the Council, the United States and other major powers were given the veto power, thereby ensuring that the U.N. could not undertake operations which the United States opposed. Every U.N. peacekeeping operation requires prior approval by the United States. Actually, by failing to meet our financial obligations, we are abdicating the powers available to us within the U.N. system. We are, for example, in danger of losing our vote in the General Assembly, a status generally reserved for the world's lawless and pariah states. Since the General Assembly works on the basis of consensus, we are depriving ourselves of the ability to press for needed reforms. The influence we held in the past by our leadership, reflected in the large number of senior posts awarded to U.S. nationals, is being eroded and subjected to challenge. As Ambassador Richardson explained in the course of his confirmation hearings to go to the U.N.--he, of course, is now Secretary of Energy-- I quote him: Growing resentment over our failure to pay our assessed dues and arrears has put our continued leadership and influence at risk. . . . [A]mong the members of the Geneva Group, composed of the U.N.'s largest contributors and a crucial source of support for U.N. reform, there is virtually no willingness to consider reductions in our dues for peacekeeping or the regular budget until we pay our arrears. If the United States fails to meet its financial commitments to the U.N. system, it will become increasingly difficult to set the U.N. priorities for the future and to ensure that qualified Americans serve in important U.N. posts. Let me just talk a bit about how an effective U.N. serves U.S. interests. I believe, of course, that U.S. leadership is essential to an effective U.N. Over the years, the U.N. has negotiated over 170 peaceful settlements across the globe--helping to end wars, uphold cease-fires, protect civilians, reintegrate refugees, oversee the conduct of free and fair elections, monitor troop withdrawals, and deter intercommunal violence. From Iraq to Bosnia and Kosovo, assembling coalitions to repel aggression and keep peace would have been impossible without assistance and support from the United Nations. In Haiti, the introduction of U.N. peacekeepers meant that U.S. troops could be extracted without condemning the country to chaos, while in Cyprus, the U.N. prevents an outbreak of hostilities that could lead to conflict between two NATO allies. The U.N. has not been able to handle every situation. Unfortunately, it has attracted the most attention in those instances when it has not able to provide a resolution. People then conclude that it is totally ineffective. I beg very strongly to disagree with that conclusion. As I have indicated, there have been numerous instances in which the U.N. has negotiated peaceful settlements. As a matter of fact, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded five times to the United Nations and its organizations. U.N. operations further serve U.S. interests by leveraging our resources and influence in order to achieve a much greater impact at lesser cost than we could unilaterally. I think those who constantly talk about the burdensharing theme--and I think it is an important theme; I have talked about it myself--need to recognize the U.N. has been, and can be, an even more important mechanism for burdensharing. One of the things that needs to be understood is that by working through the United Nations, we can often gain international endorsement for an American position. The U.S. position is then seen as representing the judgment of the entire international community and not solely the judgment of the United States. The mandate becomes a response by the entire international community and cannot be portrayed as the United States trying to impose its own point of view in the particular situation. There are many examples of how the U.N. serves U.S. interests at a reduced cost and with great effectiveness. The International Atomic Energy Agency, with our small annual contribution, has helped prevent nuclear proliferation by inspecting and monitoring nuclear reactors in facilities in 90 countries, many of which would not allow access to the United States alone. The World Health Organization, working in concert with USAID and other bilateral agencies, led a 13-year effort resulting in the complete eradication of smallpox, saving an estimated $1 billion a year in vaccination and monitoring, and helped to wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere. Through its High Commissioner for Refugees, its Children's Fund, the Development Programme, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the World Food Programme, the U.N. has saved millions from famine and provided food, shelter, medical aid, education, and repatriation assistance to refugees around the world. The U.N. Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization have brought countries together to begin to address important environmental matters, to develop regional efforts to clean up pollution, and to predict and respond effectively to natural and manmade disasters. Thanks to organizations such as the Universal Postal Union, the International Telecommunications Union, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the International Maritime Organization--all agencies of the United Nations--there are procedures to ensure the safety and reliability of worldwide travel and communications. By coordinating international sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the U.N. was instrumental in bringing an end to the apartheid system. Through the efforts of the United Nations, over 300 international treaties have been enacted which set standards of conduct and enable cooperation in areas ranging from arms control to human rights and civil liberties, protection of copyrights and trademarks, determining maritime jurisdiction and navigation on the high seas, preventing discrimination against women, conserving biological diversity, and combating desertification. Because of U.N. agencies, such as the International Labor Organization, and U.N.-brokered agreements, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American ideals of freedom, democracy, equality before the law, and the dignity of the individual have become internationally accepted, and the rights and protections that U.S. workers enjoy are being aggressively pursued in other countries. International trade and commerce would be hamstrung without the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the regional development banks, not to mention the many agreements negotiated under their auspices. All of these grew from the U.N. system. I went on at some length about these matters because we do not often focus on them. A lot of the very positive work done by the U.N. is simply taken for granted, falling below the ``radar screen'' for most people. Many do not appreciate that it is the U.N. that is conducting all of these important activities, and they fail to understand how discomforted they would be in their lives if these activities were not carried out, which the United Nations has been doing, year in and year out. The U.N. has been a favorite target of criticism. Certainly there are activities and practices of the U.N. that have been wasteful or ineffective and that require reform. But I think the strategy of unilaterally withholding funds until all our demands are met is counterproductive, particularly in the current circumstance. Since his election in 1997, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan--whose candidacy, of course, was strongly supported by the United States--has instituted a number of significant reforms, including a zero-growth budget, the cutting of administrative costs, the elimination of almost 1,000 positions, the creation of an independent inspector general, the consolidation of overlapping agencies, the establishment of more budget oversight, and tighter budget discipline. I know some think he has not gone as far as he should go, that he has not fully implemented all of these reforms, and there is some truth to that. But the fact remains, he is trying to run an organization that operates by consensus. He has set out the proper direction and the proper goals. He is doing his very best to move the agency along the right path. Frankly, I think the United States can be more helpful in the reform effort. We do this not by being the biggest delinquent in dues paying, which only brings resentment against our calls for change; we should pay our obligations in full so we can regain the credibility and respect needed to push for further reforms. It is both ironic and unfortunate that a nation that holds itself and its citizens to the highest standards of law should find itself in default of its international obligations. Our democracy is founded on the primacy of respect for the rule of law. We urge other nations to follow our example. It is often a tremendous challenge to get countries to respect the basic rights of their citizens and to act in accordance with international law. Yet we ourselves are not meeting those high standards as they relate to the United Nations. We undertook commitments under the U.N. Charter. We have a responsibility to make good on them if we want other countries to uphold their international agreements. The United States is the great power in the world today, and with that role come important responsibilities in how we exercise that power. I think we are failing here, with respect to our commitments to the U.N., to exercise those responsibilities in a manner that will strengthen our position and serve our Nation in the international community. We have not only a legal and moral obligation to pay our dues, but a practical interest in doing so as well. So while I respect the efforts that have been made in the committee, and while I recognize that I was a lonely voice for this position in the committee, I think that offering only a partial and a heavily conditioned repayment of the U.S. debt to the United Nations will not meet our obligations and will not enhance our interests. Seven former Secretaries of State have written an open letter to the Congress urging the United States to honor its international commitments and pay its debt to the United Nations. I think their letter is a powerful statement about the importance of U.S. leadership and the risk that nonpayment of our debt to the U.N. will pose for U.S. security and international influence. That letter was signed by former Secretaries Kissinger, Haig, Baker, Christopher, Vance, Shultz, and Eagleburger--Democrats and Republicans alike. I ask unanimous consent that their letter, which was sent to the Speaker of the House, the House minority leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the arrears package in this bill is a significant step toward meeting our international obligations. But I am deeply troubled by its failure to authorize the full amount that United States itself admits we owe, let alone what the U.N. claims we owe. Secondly, even making that money available, or any part of it, is very heavily conditioned in this legislation. In other words, we are saying to the U.N.: Yes, we are willing to pay some of what we owe, but in order to get any of this money, you will have to comply with a long list of conditions--several of which I think will be extremely difficult for them to meet. In any event, it is sort of a ``take it or leave it'' approach. This was not part of a negotiated agreement. We are going to approve the package and then present it to them. I think we may encounter a difficult reaction to this and see a continuing problem. Third, as I indicated, even with the accommodation made on the amendment earlier, we still create new arrears. So it is not as though we are able to say to the U.N. that this is the package we propose for arrears and, in the future, we are not going to let this situation arise again. In other words, we aren't really on board here to meet our continuing obligations to the organization, which in substantial measure has been responsive to American interests. Instead, we are going to continue to go into arrears, extending the problem which has brought us to the impasse we now confront. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Secretaries of State to Congress: U.S. Leadership Is at Risk Hon. Dennis J. Hastert, Speaker of the House. Hon. Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader. Hon. Richard J. Gephardt, House Minority Leader. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, Senate Minority Leader. March 16, 1999. Dear Congressional Leaders: As America's financial debt to the United Nations persists, we are deeply concerned that our great nation is squandering its moral authority, leadership, and influence in the world. It's simply unacceptable that the richest nation on earth is also the biggest debtor to the United Nations. We are writing to urge all Members of Congress to support full funding of the outstanding and current U.S. legal obligations to the United Nations and to alert Congress to the serious consequences if we fail to do so. U.S. leadership is at risk. Our ability to achieve vital foreign policy and security objectives is compromised. Our priceless reputation as the pre-eminent country committed to the rule of law is compromised. And, the critical work of the United Nations is threatened. As former Secretaries of State, we know first hand the importance of the United Nations and its agencies in securing global peace, stability and prosperity. And we appreciate that now more than ever, the U.S. must lead in the community of nations to turn back threats to peace and freedom, whether from war or hunger, terrorism or disease. We cannot lead if we ignore our basic international responsibilities. There are historic consequences to our continued failure to meet our obligations. The United States, one of the founding members of the United Nations could lose its vote in the UN General Assembly. Important reforms have occurred at the United Nations, many at America's urging: a no-growth budget from 1994-98 and an actual reduction of $123 million for 1998-99, creation of an office of inspector general which has identified more than $80 million in savings, more than 1,000 positions cut, and other cost-saving measures. Payment of U.S. arrears is critical to continuing this reform. We urge you: honor our international commitments and pay America's debt to the United Nations. Great nations pay their bills. Sincerely, Henry A. Kissinger. Alexander M. Haig, Jr. James A. Baker, III. Warren M. Christopher. Cyrus R. Vance. George P. Shultz. Lawrence S. Eagleburger.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, we will be voting, as I understand it, on the amendment which I offered on Friday. The chairman at that time asked if I could go ahead, and I indicated I could to try to move the bill along. We have worked over the weekend. Staff has worked on this amendment and some modification was made in it which was earlier sent to the desk by the chairman of the committee. I thank the chairman and his staff and the ranking member and his staff for working on this. Actually, the chairman and his people were reasonably trying to get at a problem. We have made an adjustment that makes it work. If a Foreign Service officer receives a suspension of more than 5 days, that fact will stay in his or her file until they next come up for promotion and for tenure. There would still be a minimum period when any suspension will be in the file, but beyond that period, the minor suspensions will drop out of the file. Any one that has been for more than 5 days will remain in the file. That is to get at a problem. Staff said to me, on occasion we get reports on these people, and when we look into it, we discover there was a major suspension but this suspension dropped out of the person's record before they came up before a promotion board. People believe, in a case of something of more than 5 days, which obviously would be of some consequence, that it ought to remain in and not be excised from the record. We have made that adjustment. I thank the chairman and his people for their responsiveness. The other amendment I believe was agreeable on Friday. That was on a grievance, where we took it back up from 1 year to 2 years. The committee had dropped it from 3 to 1 in terms of the period when an employee has to file a grievance. One year is tough, particularly if that person is overseas, because they do not get home leave except every 18 months. We took it back up to 2 years and made some other minor changes, and that is acceptable to the committee. I very much appreciate that.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, as I understand it now, with these changes the chairman has suggested, the amendment is acceptable to the committee.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. We keep that floor.

Mr. SARBANES. I acknowledge that the majority leader worked hard to try to make the calendar more family friendly.

Mr. SARBANES. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. SARBANES. This is the amendment I indicated I could do in 40 minutes. Once the amendment is explained, I hope that the committee will accept it. I would be prepared to offer it now. I have another amendment which will take longer. I am prepared to go ahead and offer it now if the chairman wishes.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I appreciate the frustrations the majority leader has to work under. But he has just had a very productive week. We passed half a dozen bills of consequence here in the Senate this week. So I guess I would better understand this reaction if we hadn't done anything all week. I thought we had a productive week. I am right next door here, so it is easy for me. Sometimes you get more with a carrot than you do with a stick.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this amendment be temporarily set aside, thereby opening the way for other Members to offer amendments.

Mr. SARBANES. Yes. I will be happy to work with the committee members. I am trying to recognize the committee's concerns and, in a sense, simply fine-tune the language. I am not contending in either instance that there is no validity in the committee concerns. I concede the validity of the committee concerns. But I am trying to fine-tune this thing so I think it works in a better fashion. Does the Senator want me to request it be temporarily laid aside so others can offer amendments?

Mr. SARBANES. We keep that floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I hope the committee will find it possible to accept this amendment. I will very briefly describe it. This amendment seeks to address two provisions in the bill which affect the rights of those who serve in the Foreign Service. The first problem deals with the time period given in order to file a grievance. Under the current system, employees have a period of 3 years to file a grievance; that is the current law, 3 years. The bill does two things: It reduces that period to 1 year. It will take away the employee's right, which was upheld by a 1989 decision by the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board, to challenge an old evaluation that has been used against them. It does two things. The amendment addresses those issues. It extends the period for filing a grievance to 2 years. In other words, the committee bill brings it down from 3 years to 1 year. We put it back up to 2 years. Let me explain why I think this is important. Members of the Foreign Service have limited access to lawyers and personnel files while they are overseas. This amendment, moving the period back up to 2 years, gives them time to return to the United States on home leave, which they are entitled to only after they have been at their post for 18 months. They can come back on home leave in order to research and file their case. If the grievance is against an employee's supervisor, the employee would have 1 year after he or she ceased to be supervised by that individual to file the grievance. I think the fairness of that is obvious on its face. In addition--and this is a complicated, but I think important point-- the amendment deletes the sentence that would preclude employees from grieving old evaluations used against them. Currently, promotion panels can reinterpret old reports to select out Foreign Service personnel using report statements which did not seem and were not intended at the time to be negative. The promotion panels can go back to these old reports and reinterpret them. The bill, as it is written, eliminates the ability to challenge an old evaluation on the part of the employee. Civil service employees have this protection now. They can contest all bases cited for their termination, regardless of when the matter occurred. A Foreign Service employee should have the same due process rights. In fact, following this 1989 decision to which I referred, the Foreign Service Association and the five foreign affairs agencies in the Government reached an agreement under which employees may contest records to the extent they are used as a basis for grievable actions taken against them. Denying employees the ability to do that, among other things, would lead to filing unnecessary preemptive grievances for fear they would be used against them in the future. In other words, if you are going to say these old evaluations can't be ``grievanced,'' then it will serve as an incentive to contest more evaluations earlier. This amendment restores the limited right, if an old evaluation is used to challenge it, and it would preclude the need for such preemptive grievances. That is the first part of the amendment. It seems to me to make eminent good sense to do this. I have tried to take into account some of what the committee was seeking to accomplish. As I have indicated, we accept bringing the 3 years down, but we think it should come down to 2. I think taking it to 1 is going too far. The employees overseas would have a difficult time because they don't get the home leave for 18 months. The second part of the amendment relates to the length of time a disciplinary action stays in an employee's personnel file. Under the current system, a reprimand stays in the employee's file for 1 year and a suspension for 2 years. The bill would extend that period in all cases until the employee is tenured as a career member of the service or next promoted. In effect, you may significantly lengthen the time in which these disciplinary actions stay in the employee's file. There is a balancing to be done because under the current system disciplinary records are removed from the file after 1 or 2 years, no matter how serious. Therefore, they are not always available to reviewers when a Foreign Service employee is considered for promotion. That is something we need to look at. I understand the committee was focused on that. The bill attempts to rectify this problem by requiring all records of disciplinary action to remain in the employee's file until the employee is tenured or next promoted. The proposed change makes no distinction between a suspension of 1 day or 1 month, between a minor infraction or a major violation. By failing to differentiate between minor and major violations, this change could have the unintended effect either of extending the length of punishment beyond a reasonable time period or reducing the likelihood that appropriate disciplinary actions will be imposed in the first place. The disciplining authorities may forego imposing these actions in the more minor cases because they know these things will remain in the file perhaps for a long period--until tenure or the next promotion. This part of the amendment requires the Director General of the Foreign Service to decide when taking a disciplinary action what length of time it should remain in the employee's record based on the seriousness of the violation. In no case, however, would the letter remain in the file less than 1 year for a reprimand or 2 years for a suspension. So we set, as it were, a minimum requirement of 1 year for a reprimand and 2 years for a suspension. Beyond that, the Director General, at the time of the disciplinary action, could indicate the additional length of time, as it were, that the disciplinary action would remain in the employee's file. I think this accomplishes the purpose of distinguishing between major and minor infractions, in a sense. It does not put the minor infractions in there indefinitely or until tenure or promotion is reached, but it does permit the Director General, on the major infractions, to extend them beyond the minimum of 1 year for a reprimand or 2 years for a suspension. In both instances here I have tried to take into account what I have perceived to be the concerns of the committee in including these provisions. Neither proposal, in effect, eliminates the committee provisions. It only seeks to modify them or to adjust them, and I think would make for a more equitable system. I very much hope the committee will find it possible to accept this amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Let me say to my distinguished colleague, I think we could work something out. I am not trying to create a situation in which the Director General can simply end up retaining the current system. Because, as I understand it, the committee's concern was that these disciplinary records were taken out of the file after 1 or 2 years, no matter how serious, and therefore they were not always available for review when a Foreign Service employee was considered for promotion. So the committee said, all right, we are going to keep it in the record until you are tenured or you are next promoted. I think that is reasonable to do for serious violations, but I think we need to create a differentiation between serious violations and what would be minor infractions. But I think if we require regulations be proposed that would define that difference and that would be submitted to the committee, it seems to me maybe that would work it out in a way that is amenable to everyone.

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

Mr. SARBANES. I have an amendment at the desk which I ask be called up.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, recently the Washington Post contained an article recognizing an innovative and successful approach to public housing in Baltimore, MD. Pleasant View Gardens, a new housing development, holds great promise as a new approach to public housing in the Nation. The birth of this new project began in 1994, when the City of Baltimore in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the State of Maryland, made funds available for the demolition of Lafayette Courts and began the process of replacing it with the new Pleasant View Gardens. As the Washington Post reported, high rise buildings in the ``densest tract of poverty and crime in [Baltimore] city'' have been replaced by low-rise, low density public housing where in the evenings you hear ``the murmur of children playing on the jungle gym at sunset,. . .police officers [chat] with residents..[and] the street corners [are] empty.'' Residents who once referred to their housing as a ``cage,'' now allow their children to play outside. Pleasant View offers homeownership opportunities and affordable rental housing to its residents as well as a medical clinic, a gymnasium, a job training center, an auditorium and includes a 110-bed housing complex for senior citizens. Pleasant View is part of a plan to replace more than 11,000 high-rise units in Baltimore with approximately 6,700 low-rise units to be completed by 2002, with remaining residents to be relocated throughout the city. I believe that the Pleasant View initiative offers a new path for public housing in the future and demonstrates that working with the community, the government can help to make an important difference. I ask that the full text of this article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [Washington Post, April 26, 1999.] Pleasant View Lives Up to Name--New Public Housing Has Less Crime (By Raja Mishra) BALTIMORE.--On a recent April evening in the Pleasant View public housing development here, the ordinary was the extraordinary. The only sound was the murmur of children playing on a jungle gym at sunset. Police officers chatted with residents on the sidewalk. Street corners were empty. Just over three years ago, Lafayette Towers stood on this spot five blocks northeast of the Inner Harbor. The half-dozen 11-story high- rise buildings were the densest tract of poverty and crime in the city. Public planners trace the lineage of Lafayette Towers--and hundreds of high-rise buildings like them in other cities--to modernist European architects and planners of the post-World War II era. When the need for urban housing gave birth to such places, the term ``projects'' was viewed with favor. Plasant View residents who once lived in Lafayette Towers had their own term for the buildings: cages. Life in the project remains seared in their memories. ``I had to lug groceries up to the 10th floor because the elevator was always broke,'' said Dolores Martin, 68. ``But you're afraid to go up the steps because you don't know who's lurking there.'' Eva Riley, 32, spent the first 18 years of her life in Lafayette Towers. ``It gives you a feeling of despair,'' she recalled. ``You're locked up in a cage with a fence around you and everything stinks.'' In Pleasant View, the federal government's more recent theories of public housing--which stress low-rise, lower density public housing rather than concentrations of massive high-rises--have been put to the test. The physical layout of Pleasant View is the heart of the new approach. Each family has space: large apartments, a yard and a door of their own. There are no elevators or staircases to navigate. Playgrounds and landscaping fill the space between town houses. There is a new community center. One year into the life of the new development, the results present a striking contrast to life in the old high-rise complex: Crime has plummeted. Drugs and homicide have all but disappeared. Employment is up. ``Folks are revitalized. The old is but, the new is in. And the new is much better,'' said Twyla Owens, 41, who lived in Lafayette Towers for six years and moved into Pleasant View last year. ``People who live here care about how it looks and keeping it safe,'' said Thomas Dennis, 63, who heads a group of volunteers that patrols Pleasant View. ``We all pull together. There was nothing like that at Lafayette.'' ``Federal housing officials say they view Pleasant View as their first large-scale success in rectifying a disastrous decision half a century ago to build high-rise public housing. ``It's an acknowledgment that what existed before was not the right answer,'' said Deborah Vincent, deputy assistant secretary for public housing at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The about-face is a welcome change for longtime critics of high-rise projects. ``I don't hold any real animosity to the people who sat down in the 1940s and planned Lafayette Towers,'' said Baltimore City Housing commissioner Daniel P. Henson III. ``But, boy, were they short-sighted.'' In retrospect, it seems as if the idea of the urban apartment project was destined to lead to problems, several housing experts said. It concentrated the poorest of the poor in small spaces set apart from the rest of the city. The idea is thought to have originated with Le Corbusier, considered one of the giants of 20th century architecture. Le Corbusier was grappling with the problem of crowding in big cities in France as populations swelled at the beginning of the century. Slums were rapidly expanding in urban areas. Rather than move housing outward, Le Corbusier thought it would be better to move it upward: high-rises. He conceived of them as little towns unto themselves, with commerce, recreation and limited self-government. As hundreds of thousands of young Americans returned from World War II, eager to find transitional housing for their young families, and a mass migration began from the rural South to the urban North, Le Corbusier's thinking influenced a generation of U.S. policymakers. In this country, cost became a central issue. The new projects were designed to house as many people as possible for as little money as possible. ``Who wanted to put poor people in lavish housing? So they used shoddy materials and were built poorly,'' said Marie Howland, head of the Urban Studies and Planning Department at the University of Maryland at College Park. The tall high-rises soon because symbols of blight. ``Then the sigma of public housing increased because everyone could just point to the housing high-rises,'' said Sandra Neuman, interim director of the Institute for Policy Studies at Johns Hopkins University. As the ex-servicemen departed for new suburban developments, many of the projects took on the appearance of segregated housing, particularly in cities south of the Mason-Dixon line. Baltimore housing department officials unearthed official city documents from the 1940s that refer to the planned high-rises as ``Negro housing.'' The most public initial concession that high-rise public housing had failed came on July 15, 1972, when the notorious Pruitt-Igoe projects of St. Louis were demolished with explosives. High-rise projects have been crashing down across the country with increasing frequency in recent years. They have been replaced with low-rise, low-density public housing in 22 cities, including Alexandria, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Atlanta. The $3 billion effort there aims to replace more than 11,000 high-rise units. HUD hopes to have all the construction done by 2002. Most of the new units will be town houses. There will be a few low-rise apartments and some stand-alone homes as well. Those who do not get space in the new units will be relocated in other, existing low-rise apartments. The facilities reflect other shifts in public housing philosophy; social needs must also be addressed and a positive environment must be created. Twenty-seven of the 228 homes in Pleasant View are owned by their occupants. The city is trying to coax some of the renters, as well as others, to buy. The idea is to have a mixed-income population with long-term responsibilities. All residents are required to have a job or be enrolled in job training. ``Before, you had too many people with too many social problems concentrated in one area. Here you have a mix of incomes,'' said U-Md.'s Howland. Pleasant View has a new medical clinic, a gymnasium, a 110- bed housing complex for senior citizens, a job training center and an auditorium, where President Clinton recently delivered a speech on homelessness. Pleasant View also has its own police force, a small cadre of officers from the Baltimore City Housing Authority police unit. From a small station in the community center, officers monitor the community using cameras that are mounted throughout the neighborhood. In 1994, the last year Lafayette was fully operative, there were 39 robberies. In Pleasant View, there have been three. In 1994, there were 108 assaults; Pleasant View had seven. Lafayette had nine rapes, Pleasant View none. Four hundred of the 500 people who lived in Lafayette Towers have returned to live in Pleasant View, among them Eva Riley. After a childhood in the high rises, she left as soon as she could afford subsidized housing in another part of the city, vowing never to raise her children in a place like Lafayette Towers. But when she visited Pleasant View shortly after its construction, she decided to return to her old neighborhood with her children, Jerod, 13, and Lakeisha, 11. ``It's much safer,'' she said. ``I don't mind my kids playing outside in the evening.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, on May 24, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Rogers Act, establishing a unified corps of career diplomats to represent the United States abroad. Based on the principles of professionalism, non-partisanship and merit-based promotion, thus was born the modern foreign service. This year we join in commemorating the 75th anniversary of the foreign service. Over the years there have been many changes: it has become more diverse, more specialized, and has been called to deal with an ever-expanding list of issues. While this milestone is an occasion for celebration and congratulations, there are some sobering reminders of the task that still awaits us. 1998 saw the worst attack on American diplomats in history, with two tragic bombings that resulted in the deaths of over 220 persons, twelve of them Americans. Here in Washington, we continue to contend with budget cuts that handicap the ability of our foreign service officers to perform their duties safely and effectively. On the occasion of this anniversary, Secretary Albright hosted a dinner at the State Department as a tribute to the efforts of the brave men and women who have served over the past three-quarters of a century. In her speech, she challenged the unfortunate and inaccurate stereotypes of the foreign service and emphasized the urgency of providing adequate resources to promote U.S. interests abroad. I strongly agree with the thrust of her remarks, and I ask that the full text of her statement be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Remarks by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, 75th Anniversary Dinner of the United States Foreign Service, May 24, 1999 Secretary Albright: It is indeed a pleasure to be able to first congratulate Nicholas (Bombay) for winning the essay contest. It's never too early in life to learn the value of strong diplomatic leadership, and although I didn't meet you until tonight, I already like the sound of the name Bombay preceded by the term ``Ambassador'' or ``Secretary of State.'' (Laughter.) Congratulations, once again. Thank you, Cokie, and good evening to all of you. It's a great pleasure to be able to spend the evening here with you, and I must say that a special pleasure for me to have had George Kennan on my right and Paul Sarbanes on my left--can't ask for much more. It has been a great evening to be able to exchange views. Members of Congress and distinguished colleagues and friends, and so many of you who have contributed to the rich legacy of the modern US Foreign Service, as we mark our 75th anniversary, I want to begin by thanking Under Secretary Pickering for his remarks. There is really no better advertisement for what can be achieved in the Foreign Service than the career of Tom Pickering. From 1959 to 1999, as Cokie explained, he has served everywhere and done everything; and he's still doing it. Tom, the Foreign Service doesn't have a Hall of Fame, but it should, and you and others here tonight belong in it. I also want to congratulate Ambassador Brandon Grove and Dan Geisler and Louise Eaton and our Director General, Skip Gnehm, our generous sponsors and everyone who helped to organize this magnificent event. It was a big job and everybody's done it terrifically well. I especially endorse the conception of this anniversary as a challenge to look forward. Your goal of outreach through this essay contest and other initiatives is right on target, for if we are to match or surpass the accomplishments of the past 75 years, we must have the understanding and support of the American people. This requires that we tell the story of U.S. diplomacy clearly and well. It is to that purpose that I will attempt a modest contribution in my remarks here tonight. Thank God I don't have to win any contests. [Laughter.] I start with a simple request. Let us take the old, but persistent, stereotype of the diplomat as dilettante and do to it what one Presidential candidate wanted us to do to the tax code: let us drive a stake through it, kill it, bury it and make sure that it never rises again. The job of the Foreign Service today is done with hands on and sleeves rolled up. It is rarely glamorous, often dangerous and always vital. In my travels, I have seen our people at work not only in conference rooms, but in visits to refugee camps, AIDS clinics and mass grave sites. I have seen them share their knowledge and enthusiasm for democracy with those striving to build a better life in larger freedom. I have seen them and their families give freely of their energy and time to comfort the ill and aid the impoverished. I have seen them provide incredible administrative support despite antiquated equipment, crowded workspace and impossible time constraints. And I've stood with head bowed at memorial services for heroes struck down while representing America or helping others to achieve peace. In the past 35 years, the number of names listed on the AFSA plaque has grown from 77 to 186. And the memory of those most recently inscribed, as Tom Pickering's toast reflected, is fresh and painful in our hearts. So let us not be shy about proclaiming this truth. In a turbulent and perilous world, the men and women of the Foreign Service are on the front lines every day, on every continent for us. Like the men and women of our armed forces--no more, but no less--they deserve, for they have earned, the gratitude and full backing of the American people. Now, having impaled that stereotype, let's proceed to the second challenge. Let us make clear to our citizens the connection between what we do and the quality of life they enjoy; let us demonstrate that there's nothing foreign about foreign policy any more. Consult any poll, visit any community hall, listen to any radio talk show; it's no secret what Americans care about, fear and hope for the most. Certainly, foreign policy isn't everything. We cannot tell any American that our diplomacy will guarantee safe schools, clean up the Internet or pay for long term health care. But we can say to every American that foreign policy may well help you to land a good job; protect your environment; safeguard your neighborhood from drugs; shield your family from a terrorist attack; and spare your children the nightmare of nuclear, chemical or biological war. Our Foreign Service, Foreign Service National and Civil Service personnel contribute every day to America through the dangers they help contain, the crimes they help prevent, the deals they help close, the rights they help ensure and the travelers they just plain help. Right, Cokie? There is much more we could say and 100 different ways to say it, but the bottom line is clear. The success or failure of U.S. foreign policy will be a major factor in the lives of all Americans. It will make the difference between a 21st Century characterized by peace, rising prosperity and law, and a more uncertain future in which our economy and security are always at risk; our values always under attack; and our peace of mind never assured. To convince the public of this, we must erase another myth, which is that technology and the end of the Cold War have made diplomacy obsolete. Some argue that Americans concluded after Vietnam that there was nothing we could do in the world; after the Berlin Wall fell, that there was nothing we could not do; and after the Gulf War, that there was nothing left to do. Others suggest that whatever we want to do, there is no need to be diplomatic about it. Our military is the best, our economy the biggest; so what's left to negotiate? But as Walter Lippmann once wrote, ``Without diplomacy to prepare the way, soften the impact, reduce the friction and allay the tension, money and military power are double-edged instruments. Used without diplomacy, they may, and usually do, augment the difficulties they are employed to overcome. Then more power and money are needed.'' So spake Walter Lippmann. The United States emerged from the Cold War with unequaled might. On every continent, when problems arise, countries turn to us. Few major international initiatives can succeed without our support. But with these truths comes a paradox: In this new global era, there are few goals vital to America that we can achieve through our actions alone. In most situations, for most purposes, we need the cooperation of others; and diplomacy is about understanding others and explaining ourselves. It is about building and nourishing partnerships for common action toward shared goals. It's about listening and persuading, analyzing and moving in at the right time. And certainly, at this time, there is no shortage of important diplomatic work to be done. As I speak, we are using diplomacy in support of force to bring the confrontation in Kosovo to an end on NATO's terms. We are launching a strategy for drawing the entire Balkans region into the mainstream of a democratic Europe. We are preparing for a new push on all tracks of the Middle East peace process. We have a high-level team in Pyongyang to explore options for enhancing stability on the Korean Peninsula. And we're working hard to help democracy take a firmer hold in capitals such as Jakarta and Lagos, Bogota and Phnom Penh. Around Africa, we are supporting African efforts to end conflicts and promote new opportunities for growth. And around the world, we are striving to prevent the spread of advanced technologies, so that the new century does not end up even bloodier than the old one. Certainly, the diplomatic pace has quickened since 1924, when the Rogers Act was signed, Calvin Coolidge was President, the State Department's entire budget was $2 million and the Secretary of State had a beard. (Laughter.) In that time, the door of the Foreign Service has opened further to minorities and women, although not far and fast enough. America's overseas presence has grown several fold, as has the demand for our consular services. Public diplomacy has become an integral part of our work. And we've learned that, merely to keep pace, we must constantly manage smarter, recruit better, adjust quicker and look ahead further. That is why we are modernizing our technology, training in 21st Century skills and implementing a historic restructure of our foreign policy institutions. And it's why we know that the Foreign Service of 75 years from now--or even ten years from now--will look far different than the Foreign Service of today. What has not and will not change are the fundamentals: the professionalism; the pride; the patriotism; the tradition of excellence reflected here tonight by the wondrous George Kennan and other giants of the Foreign Service. And what has not changed, as well, is the need for resources. The problem of finding adequate resources for American foreign policy has been with us ever since the Continental Congress sent Ben Franklin to Paris. But it has reached a new stage. Today, we allocate less than one-tenth of the portion of our wealth that we did a generation ago to support democracy and growth overseas. In this respect, we rank dead last among industrialized nations. For years, we have been cutting positions, shutting AID missions and eliminating USIS posts. And now, under the year 2000 budget allocations that Congress is considering, we may be asked to go beyond absorbing cuts to the guillotine. We face overall reductions of 14 percent to 29 percent from the President's foreign operations request and 20 percent for State Department operations and programs. Yes, members of Congress, this is a commercial. This will undermine our efforts to protect our borders, help Americans overseas and make urgently needed improvements in embassy security. And it could translate into cuts of 50 percent or more in key programs from fighting drugs to promoting democracy to helping UNICEF. Now, I'm not here to assign blame. We have gotten bipartisan support from those in Congress--including those with us tonight--who know the most about foreign policy. And Congress did approve the President's request for supplemental funds for Central America, Jordan and the Balkans. But this is madness. America is the world's wealthiest and most powerful country. Our economy is the envy of the globe. We have important interests, face threats to them, and nearly everywhere. And I hope you agree. Military readiness is vital, but so is diplomatic effectiveness. When negotiations break down, we don't send our soldiers without weapons to fight. Why, then, do we so often send our diplomats to negotiate without the leverage that resources provide? The savings yielded by successful diplomacy are incalculable. So are the costs of failed diplomacy--not only in hard cash, but in human lives. Tonight, I say to all our friends on Capitol Hill, act in the spirit of Arthur Vandenberg and Everett Dirksen and Scoop Jackson and Ed Muskie: help us to help America. Provide us the funds we need to protect our people and to do our jobs. Let America lead! As we look around this room, we see depictions of liberty's birth and America's transformation from wilderness to greatness. From the adjoining balcony, we can see the memorials to Lincoln and Jefferson, the Washington Monument, the Roosevelt Bridge, the white stone markets of Arlington and the silent, etched, cloquent black wall of the Vietnam Wall. It is said there is nothing that time does not conquer. But the principles celebrated here have neither withered nor worn. Through Depression and war, controversy and conflict, they continue to unite and inspire us and to identify America to the world. From the Treaty of Paris to the round-the-clock deliberations of our own era, the story of US diplomacy is the story of a unique and free society emerging from isolation to cross vast oceans and to assume its rightful role on the world stage. It is the story of America first learning, then accepting and then acting on its responsibility. Above all, it is the story of individuals, from Franklin onwards, who answered the call of their country and who have given their life and labor in service to its citizens. As Secretary of State, the greatest privilege I have had has been to work with you, the members of the Foreign Service and others on America's team. Together, tonight, let us vow to continue to do our jobs to the absolute best of our abilities, and to tell our stories in language and at a volume all can understand. By so doing, we will keep faith with those who came before us, and we will preserve the legacy of liberty that was our most precious inheritance and must become our untarnished bequest. To the men and women of the Foreign Service who are here this evening or at outposts around the world or enjoying their retirement, I wish you a happy 75th anniversary; and I pledge my best efforts for as long as I have breath, to see that you get the support and respect you deserve. Thank you and happy birthday. (Applause.)