The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:30 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S. 1281, which the clerk will report. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell]. Mr. President, we all welcome my colleagues back to Washington and to this, the second session of the 103d Congress. I am only hopeful that we can get the year off to a fast and productive start with consideration of S. 1281, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1993 and 1994. This legislation authorizes appropriations for the Department of State, the USIA, and the Board for International Broadcasting. Although this may sound rather prosaic, in fact what the Senate is about to debate is legislation that will shape key instruments of American foreign policy into the 21st century. In no small measure, our Nation's success and prominence in world affairs is the result of these institutions' effectiveness. The legislation before the Senate makes changes in these structures to meet the new challenges to U.S. foreign policy such as: Enhancement of trade opportunities for U.S. businesses, protection of the global environment, and prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Our success in this effort will have a very direct and tangible impact on the lives of U.S. citizens for years to come. For example, the legislation incorporates and endorses the administration's restructuring of the Department of State, particularly the attempt to reduce bureaucratic layering and make Assistant Secretaries more effective in the policy process. Further, it creates a new under secretary for global affairs to oversee policy on many of the issues that transcend national borders. In addition, the legislation as reported by the committee will implement the administration's proposal for the consolidation of United States international broadcasting. As many of my colleagues know, this has been a contentious issue. Later in this debate, the Senate can expect an amendment by Senators Biden and Feingold aimed at resolving their differences over the treatment of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia under the consolidation proposal. It preserves the cost savings envisioned in the administration and committee-reported proposal, which I know is very important to Senator Feingold, and provides for grantee status for both radios which I know Senator Biden believes is essential to their effective operation. I very much appreciate the two Senators' efforts to work out their differences. Mr. President, there are a number of provisions that I have either authored or cosponsored in this legislation. I would like to highlight just two. In particular, I would draw our attention to a provision which requires USIA to open an office in Lhasa, Tibet. In my view, the establishment of such an office will provide the United States with an important on-the-ground presence in Tibet, enabling better understanding of the situation there and promoting more open contacts between the United States and Tibet. As the United States and China seek to improve their relations, this office would be a key outpost in an area of mutual concern. Later in this debate, I will also be offering an amendment to strengthen the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In conjunction with the administration's own efforts, I think this legislation will significantly enhance our Nation's efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, the legislation contains a number of other provisions, but I will leave a more detailed discussion of the bill to my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. It is his subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this legislation and I want to congratulate him on the fine work that he has done in bringing the bill to the floor. The Senate has and will benefit from his able leadership on this issue. I will conclude with one general observation. As we all know, we are operating in a time of budgetary stringency. Each part of the Government must bear its share of budget cuts. That includes the Department of State and the USIA. This necessity is reflected in S. 1281. The Foreign Relations Committee cut roughly $500 million out of the administration's request of $6.4 billion for the Department of State, USIA, and the Board for International Broadcasting. I supported that cut, but with some reluctance. I am concerned that if this cutting trend continues, our Nation's long-term security interests will be undercut. In my view, prudent spending on the Department and its related agencies is a tremendously cost-effective way to promote the well-being of our Nation and its citizens. Indeed, although it may not be realistic in the near time, I hope that at some point we will be able to increase our support for the Department of State and our other foreign policy agencies. Mr. President, to conclude I want to thank the majority leader and the Republican leader for their assistance in bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I also want to thank the ranking member on the committee, Senator Helms, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Senator Kerry, and the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Pressler, for their fine work in helping to get S. 1281 reported from the committee and up onto the Senate floor. I now turn to my colleague from North Carolina for his opening statement. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms]. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I, of course, thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It has always been a pleasure to work with him. He and I have managed a number of bills in the years that we have been here. He has been here longer than I have, and he has managed more bills. But I have to say, Mr. President, that none of the pieces of legislation with which I have dealt in my 21 years in the Senate have met with the cooperation and the effective working together by all Senators and all staff members to produce this bill that we call the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The short form on that is, of course, the State Department authorization bill. I say to my friend from Rhode Island, it is a pleasure to work with him always. Mr. President, every committee has to make some tough choices in an effort to save the taxpayers money at a time when this Congress has run up a total of nearly $4.5 trillion in debt. I am pleased that the Foreign Relations Committee did an adequate job in connection with this bill in that respect. In committee, I offered an 8.5 percent budget reduction amendment designed to require the State Department to review its organizational and operational requirements seriously. You know how bureaucrats in this town operate. They hear a mandate or presumed mandate of Congress and then they go about doing what they want to do instead of what Congress has asked them to do. My amendment, as perfected by Senator Kerry and Senator Pressler, cut the administration's fiscal year 1994 request by $504 million, out of a $6.4 billion request. It cut it down to about $5.9 billion in terms of an authorization bill. And it reduced the administration's fiscal year 1995 budget authority by almost $450 million. That is a $950 million reduction over 2 years. As the saying goes, that is not exactly chopped liver. The authorized levels in this bill are $253 million below last year's actual level for the State Department, the USIA, and related agencies. S. 1281 -- this bill -- also includes authorization for the Peace Corps at virtually no-growth levels in terms of expenditures. Ordinarily, the Peace Corps is authorized as a separate bill or included in the foreign aid authorization bill. It is a little bit different this year. In addition to the budget reduction, there are some positive legislative provisions in this bill. For the first time, this bill caps -- puts a cap on -- the end strength of the Foreign Service officers who can be hired. I intend to offer a technical amendment giving the Secretary of State authority to RIF -- that means reduction in force -- the Foreign Service office employees if he finds it necessary to do so. The bill eliminates Foreign Service performance pay. It ensures adherence to statutory pay ceilings so that nobody can make more than the Secretary of State. And it provides mandatory reassignment or retirement of Presidential appointees within 90 days. I am going to seek to eliminate the "hall walkers" at the State Department, that is to say, those Foreign Service employees who refuse to accept new assignments to meet urgent personnel needs. If they are offered an assignment they do not want, they turn it down and they walk the corridors of the State Department still being paid by the taxpayers, and I think that is an outrage. I wish to stop that. The bill creates a capital investment fund, a much needed management tool, to encourage investment in information technologies to improve and modernize the State Department's functions. This bill promotes cost-effective property management techniques. It proposes to ensure that rewards may be provided for information about acts of terrorism, and it proposes to reduce the number of mandated reports, which nobody reads in the first place. The Foreign Relations Committee also agreed to direct the President of the United States to conduct a Government-wide review of all Government-sponsored international educational and cultural exchange programs. This year the American taxpayers will spend, or be forced to furnish more than $800 million in exchange programs managed by 22 different Federal agencies. That, too, is an outrage. These programs have been expanded and enlarged by 45 percent in just the past 3 years and have doubled since 1980. Nobody even knows how many programs there are. Nobody knows how much money is being spent. You try to get the information from anybody in this Government, and they say, "Well, we don't know. We will look it up." And you never get a return telephone call. Now, Mr. President, the point is this. We cannot tolerate and the American taxpayers ought not to be required to finance such unbridled growth. I suggest that anybody who may doubt what I am saying should look at the figures. I cannot justify to my constituents -- and no other Senator can really -- the spending of almost $1 billion of the taxpayers' money to educate foreign students when we have such tight budget constraints here at home. So there are many, many things that we need to look at, and this bill addresses most of what I had in mind. The rest of them I am going to try to do by amendment. Now, title III authorizes the international broadcasting activities of VOA, RFE/RL, TV and Radio Marti, Radio Free Asia, and other broadcasting elements under the new International Broadcasting Bureau to be guided and directed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. This kind of broadcasting effort has been fraught with great controversy, and I intend to listen carefully to the debate on all the provisions. My mind is pretty well made up, but I wish to hear both sides of the argument. In June of last year, the administration contended that the only way to save $250 million over the next 4 years was to consolidate VOA and RFE/RL. And today, January 1994, the administration contends that it can accede to the Senate -- what do you know -- and permit there to be true surrogate broadcasting, that is to say, keep RFE/RL and Radio Free Asia and still save $250 million. So you might say that saving $250 million in a budget like ours is not a giant step, but it is a step in the right direction. Either Mr. Duffey was wrong in June or he is wrong now, and I look forward to the debate on this issue. We will have friendly debate, and I hope that the Senate will carefully measure the information on both sides. Now, Mr. President, I do not think I have ever been more disappointed in the good-intentioned efforts announced at the beginning of this administration a year ago to restructure the State Department. Oh, I had bureaucrat after bureaucrat come up to see me saying, "Senator, you are going to love this." And I did like what they were saying. But nothing happened. Nothing happened. The administration and Congress deserve a D minus on this matter. When the Foreign Relations Committee heard from Secretary-designate Christopher on January 13-14 last year, 1993, the Secretary-to-be said: "We need to do more with less." I am sitting there applauding, saying, "Praise the Lord." But subsequently, his Deputy Secretary, Cliff Wharton, and his Under Secretary for Management, Brian Atwood -- two nice fellows -- appeared before the committee and -- I am quoting them exactly -- they promised to "streamline the bureaucracy, consolidate responsibilities, reduce personnel, and reinvigorate management." What happened? They were off in the stratosphere, wild blue yonder, or whatever you want to call it. Now, we heard the Secretary and Deputy Secretary announce with great fanfare a broad-based reorganization to, guess what, reduce excessive layering, that is, bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy. The State Department would, according to the Secretary a year ago, "do its fair share" to participate in, guess what, "reductions and cutbacks that President Clinton would impose on the entire Federal Government." Promises, promises. But I could not believe my ears when I heard all that good news a year ago. I remember pulling out my hearing aid to see if it was working right. I thought finally somebody had acknowledged that the State Department was a topheavy, bloated, inefficient bureaucracy in need of massive reorganization and reductions. No wonder I said, "Glory, glory, hallelujah," because that had been something on my agenda for a long time, at least 21 years or more. But what happens? Mr. President, as we have seen in endless and countless instances over the years, the State Department's rhetoric far exceeded its actions. One year later Secretary Atwood with his good intentions to reorganize the State Department -- and I have no doubt about his good intentions. I believe that he meant what he said a year ago. Anyway, Secretary Atwood is gone -- promoted, I guess you might call it, to AID, the Agency for International Development, to tackle that behemoth of a mess. Dr. Wharton may be a good and decent man, praised for his organizational abilities a year ago to spend substantial efforts on reorganizing and restructuring the State Department. But to the dismay of a lot of us, we waited a much "ballyhooed" reorganization report which was delayed, rewritten, scrubbed, and never materialized beyond another document that was leaked to the press. A year later, here we are. We find Dr. Wharton in a caretaker status dismissed supposedly because of a lack of attention to policy matters. One of the only substantive records we have of the administration's reorganization effort is the administration request for a 33 percent increase in the number of Assistant Secretaries, from 18 to 24 in number, and an increase in the number of Executive Level IV positions in the State Department. Mr. President, what an incredible response to the promise last year to streamline the bureaucracy. Maybe all of this has been reported in the media, but I have not seen it. They are too busy with other things. Bureaucratic costs associated with such needless additional jobs, if you want to call them jobs, is astounding. The cost of the salaries for these 12 additional political appointee positions is more than $1.2 million a year -- a small amount. It depends on where you are from. To the taxpayer down there in Chinquapin, NC, it is not a small amount of money, and I certainly do not think it is small. Every new bureau at the U.S. State Department will mean at least $2 million per year in additional costs, and support costs. You have to have secretaries, and you have to have all of the rest that goes with it -- more people to sit around and say, "Oh, I have to clip this fingernail before I do anything else." The administration request is antithetical I think to our purpose in being here today. Mr. President, in committee I offered an amendment to remove all statutory requirements for the creation of Assistant Secretaries. We have enough of them. They fall all over each other. The most important thing they do, most of them, in today's time, is arrange where they are going to have lunch. Over time Congress has mandated six such positions. And my amendment authorizes the Secretary of State to organize as may be necessary within the ceiling of 16 Assistant Secretaries. Lord knows that ought to be enough. It is the same number Mr. Christopher had when he was with the State Department in the Carter administration. The committee rejected my amendment, and further rejected the administration's request to repeal the six mandatory positions. But not a word of that was in the paper. Nobody on television mentioned it. The committee's majority told Secretary Christopher, "We don't trust your promise to keep our favorite Assistant Secretary positions, but we will give you two more Assistant Secretary bureaucracies to grow on." That is what the committee did with the vote that defeated my proposal. The other body, the House of Representatives, did the administration one better. The House guys provided three new bureaucracies which is totally unacceptable. And during consideration of this bill I intend to offer an amendment and have the Senate vote on it to rectify the Foreign Relations Committee's judgment on this matter, and thereby prevent the further bloating of the Federal bureaucracy. I do hope that Senators will support that. One other area that deserves our closest attention is the funding level reporting requirements and approval for U.S. participation in the United Nations and other international organizations. Sometimes, Mr. President, I wonder if the U.S. Government has the slightest idea what goes on in the United Nations and the other international organizations. The United States voted in the U.N. Economic and Social Council Organization to grant consultative status to self-proclaimed homosexual pedophiles. How about that? I do not recall anything in the Washington Post about that, or even in the Washington Times, as far as I know. This group, a known homosexual pedophile organization, was elevated to consultative status by the United Nations and the State Department as well. What is new? I intend to offer an amendment to correct this grotesque embarrassment to the United States, and particularly the people back home. But we tried to encourage reform in the U.N. budget process and mandate timely reports to Congress when this administration uses U.S. funds for international peacekeeping activities. My intent is, as a manager of this bill, to strongly support Senator Dole and Senator Pressler when they offer major amendments to restructure the U.S. participation in the U.N.-sponsored activities and require withholding of U.N. assessments until an inspector general is appointed at the United Nations. Mr. President, Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti are all disasters, every one of them, disasters that must not be repeated. The answer is not in rewriting the War Powers Resolution. Forget that. The answer is better decisionmaking, a much closer scrutiny of U.N. actions, and a more thoughtful understanding of the practical consequences of pursuing a policy of what they call aggressive multilateralism. The same people who throughout the 1980's wanted to blame America first have now written a new draft of a Presidential decision, Directive PD-13, that is intended, and I quote, "sacrifice Americans first." This new invented game of surrender your sovereignty is to be played out in the United Nations by the nonelected officials committing the U.S. Treasury and the troops of the United States to U.N. objectives without congressional approval. They just go ahead and do what they want to do. I do not know about other Senators. But this Senator says no, not with my vote would it happen. In some respects, the authorized levels for the U.N. peacekeeping operations in this bill are nothing short of disingenuous. The Department of State, the U.S. Mission of the United Nations and OMB have known for just about a year now that U.S. peacekeeping assessments in 1994 will be $1 billion more than Congress has authorized and appropriated, and there will be $1 billion more than authorized for next year, fiscal year 1995. In fact, the U.S. State Department has already spent all of the fiscal year 1994 funds that were appropriated, and we are only 3 months into the fiscal year. As they say in North Carolina, "How do you like them apples?" If the American people had a vote on it, we would find out pretty quickly. This administration continues to write the United Nations blank checks every time we vote in the U.N. Security Council to approve another peacekeeping mission. Thus far, the State Department has been sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from the Department of Defense every year to support U.N. peacekeeping operations. Mr. President, the money is drying up. We the people -- and I consider myself one of the people -- of the United States populace have spent in excess of $2 billion in Somalia, over $800 million in direct support to the U.N. mission. And when the United States pulls out, watch it; the United Nations is going to send the American taxpayers a bill for over $500 million more to pay the 31.7 percent assessed cost for U.N. peacekeeping in Somalia. How dumb can we get? This cannot continue, and it must not continue, and will not continue after Senator Dole's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, is enacted. It is an amendment to the U.N. Participation Act. Again, I hope all Senators and their staffs will take note of the Dole amendment and what it means and stands for and what it calls for. There is one provision in this bill that every Senator should know something about. Senators should familiarize themselves with the dangerous impact of section 170(a) relating to the creation of an international criminal court. I remember Sam Ervin sitting over there warning us about this. He was disturbed about the so-called genocide treaty, and I tried to pick up when he departed and do the best I could. We finally defanged the genocide treaty so that it amounted to nothing. But here they go again. Efforts to establish such an international criminal court drives right to the core of our basic constitutional liberties and guarantees. But you will not read that in the press. They will say, "What is that fellow talking about?" If they say anything at all. Well, the constitutional lawyers know what I am talking about, and you watched Sam Ervin talk about it. This court, Mr. President, has the potential of sitting in judgment of American citizens, U.S. corporations, the U.S. Government, and, yes, even the legislative acts of Members of Congress. So it does matter. It does need and deserve and cry out for consideration of the implications of such a court. This provision should not be included in this bill in any shape, fashion, or form -- not one. I wish Sam Ervin were back here. The committee reported a freestanding resolution some months ago to find its way to the other committees' jurisdictions. I hope the Senate anticipates that the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct a thorough, careful review of the impact that this proposal threatens to our constitutional prerogatives. We will ignore this issue at our own peril, and worse, at the peril of the governance of the American people. The Armed Services Committee may wish to explore the legal advisers' concerns that the draft of the international criminal court statute pending before the sixth committee of the United Nations could impact in an extremely negative way upon "the status of forces' agreements or the prosecution of war crimes." These are not just words, they have meaning and they have implications, a constitutional question. The Finance and Energy and Commerce Committees may be interested in the potentially devastating impact that this proposal may have on the cost to U.S. companies doing business overseas. The jurisdictional authority of such a court is expansive and its impact is unknown. We are flying blind by the seat of our britches. It should be excluded from this bill. It is totally unwise. It is dangerous to act precipitously on this provision, and I hope that my efforts to strike this provision will be supported by a majority of the Senate. I hope the public will require their Senators to explain why they oppose it or not. Mr. President, before I conclude, I feel obliged to comment briefly on two amendments that I intend to offer, designed to assist U.S. citizens who have had their property confiscated -- that is to say illegally stolen -- by foreign governments receiving foreign aid from the taxpayers of the United States. The Senate passed one of these amendments 96 to 4. I stood down there during the vote and Senators came in and said, "good amendment" and all of the rest of it. The State Department, however, and other U.S. officials turned a deaf ear to U.S. citizens whose property had been unlawfully taken from them. Unfortunately, the Senate must again send a wakeup call to the U.S. State Department. That message must go to the countries abusing the rights of U.S. citizens, and those countries ought to be denied even one dime of foreign aid money until they cut this out. In closing, I reiterate my appreciation to Senator Pell and Senator Kerry and Senator Pressler and their respective staffs for their stewardship in guiding this legislation through subcommittee and to floor debate. I say again, as I have said so many times publicly, I am most grateful for the consideration and cooperation of Claiborne Pell for his efforts to accommodate the concerns of Senators on this side of the aisle. I do hope we can move this legislation on to conference in an expeditious fashion. That concludes my statement, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, is recognized. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Pell, the chairman of the committee, both for his summary of the bill today, but more particularly for his assistance and trust in the process as we have moved along here, and for his leadership of the committee. I also thank the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. He and I have worked together all of the time I have been here, going way back to the initial efforts we made on the Philippines and other areas, and I have enjoyed that collaboration. We disagree sometimes, but we have never found any disagreeableness in our disagreeing. I look forward to working with him in continuing to move this particular bill through the process. I might point out to colleagues that this bill was reported unanimously by the committee. It reflected a lot of consensus work in the early stages, bringing together, first, the subcommittee and then, subsequently, the full committee. The 19-to-0 vote by which the full committee reported it to the floor reflects that, despite the fact that there are today, as there always are, issues that the ranking member of the full committee disagrees with or other members may disagree with, we have basically put together an important statement on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee's attitude about the agencies that are involved here -- the State Department, the U.S. Information Agency, the Peace Corps, and the broadcasting entities. I think this reflects a well-formulated, strongly supported approach to those issues. The bill authorizes almost $6 billion, and I will not go into all of the breakdowns. I do not think it is necessary. I think the chairman has adequately pointed out what is basically covered in the bill. But I do want to underscore the fact that this reflects real cuts during difficult times. This bill -- and I think the reason for the bipartisan support for it -- represents a serious effort by the committee to bring to the floor something that really reflected a real effort to be responsible in the field of foreign policy about the expenses of this country at a time when everybody is trying to pay a price in restraining the cost of government. So I think we have demonstrated our serious approach in this bill. The 1994 authorization for the State Department, the USIA, and broadcasting entities represents, as the Senator from North Carolina said, a half billion dollars of real reductions. And that is, when you look at the total budget of $6 billion, a very significant cut. It is underscored by the fact that the President's request to us, which we went under, was already at a freeze level for 1993. The committee achieved the cuts that we made by reducing the State Department budget by some $333 million and the USIA budget by about $179.5 million. I might also point out that the authorization levels in this bill for fiscal year 1995 are a straight line of the 1994 levels in the bill, so there is not a large outyear increase or some hidden amount of money on the back end of this bill. This bill will require the State Department to make reductions, and we have specified where some of those reductions ought to be. The Senator from North Carolina has raised the issue of the United Nations. We will undoubtedly debate that at some point in the course of this legislative effort. But I would just like to point out very quickly that we considered restraints on the expenditures pending certain reforms within the United Nations. I have joined with the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, in I think a serious message to the United Nations. The entire committee has been very clear that we are not sanguine about the rate of change or the implementation of an Inspector General process, and so forth. But we did, a majority of the members of the committee, come to the conclusion that it is not serving the best interests of the United States at this juncture to place a formal restraint on the expenditure of our moneys to the United Nations because of the fact that we have spent a large part of the last decade at war with the process of withholding money, and indeed creating an awfully lot of a credibility gap between our intentions and desires at the United Nations and our position here in Washington. We think we are on the right course. The Ambassador to the United Nations has testified before the committee. We think we are achieving a certain amount of the reform that we need, and we are not convinced that there is a need to move forward on any further restraints at this time. I might simply add, before opening the bill up to amendment, that this is basically a nuts-and-bolts bill that faces questions of the administration and management and organizational needs of the agencies involved of our foreign policy sector. The bill implements key aspects of the administration's reorganization plan for the State Department, including the creation of a fifth Under Secretary position for global affairs, as well as revisions in structure and duties of various bureaus. The bill does mandate a reduction in the size of the senior Foreign Service, and I think that is very important. My colleague from North Carolina points out that there are a couple of additional Assistant Secretary positions. Indeed, there are, and I have just articulated a fifth Under Secretary position. The reason for this is that we are living in a very different world today, with enormous demands on the upper level decisionmaking of the State Department. So we have done a tradeoff. We have permitted the Secretary to organize at the upper level in a way that streamlines decisionmaking, that augments the ability of the Department to face up to larger responsibilities and more diverse, complex responsibilities in the world, while simultaneously mandating reductions in so-called bureaucracy. And so I think we are serving some of the complaints of the Senator from North Carolina, and I think we are being responsible. We have also prohibited performance pay awards for both fiscal years of 1994 and 1995. We have mandated an annual report on the financial aspects of the United Nations peacekeeping operations. Now, a final comment I would make is that this bill incorporates, with a few modifications, the administration's plan to consolidate the international broadcasting activities of the U.S. Information Agency and the Board for International Broadcasting. As colleagues know, we have spent a lot of money over the years, and I think to great success, in bringing information to people behind the former Iron Curtain and in helping people who live in totalitarian countries to learn something both about democracy and our world, as well as about the reality of what is happening in their world. And that is a very important function. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, with the emerging, hopefully sustained, democratic states of Eastern Europe, those demands have changed, and it is simply not sensible for the United States to be spending the kind of money or to be supporting the kind of overhead and bureaucracy in order to achieve those goals. The goals have not departed. As my colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Biden, will discuss no doubt, the goals are still very real. We want to guarantee the integrity of the broadcasting capacity of the United States, while simultaneously maximizing our ability to be able to restrain the costs and overhead. I think, thanks to the good efforts of the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, who have cooperated together with the administration and Joe Duffey of USIA, we now have the compromise that preserves integrity and independence, while simultaneously permitting consolidation to take place. I would thank both of those Senators for their significant contributions to this legislation and, frankly, for having brought the process to a head and created the dynamics which have brought us to the point of having, I think, a very significant reduction. We are saving some $240 million on this broadcasting effort in real money in the short term. I suggest that that represents an intelligent and strong way of approaching the changes that we face in the international community. I might also add that I think there is a unanimity within the United States Senate -- certainly within the Foreign Relations Committee, but almost within the Senate -- on the value of exchange programs. We are consistently hearing the success stories of students who have come to this country from various parts of the world, learned something about America -- pursued their studies here, learned something about democracy, the free world, the free enterprise system -- and gone back to their countries as new practitioners of many of those ideals, or lived at least with their eyes open. There are many who feel this is perhaps one of the strongest things we can do in the market place of foreign ideas. Indeed, in keeping with that unanimity of approach, there is an addition, a small addition which is mostly symbolic -- we would like to have done more but it is what we can do within the limits of the budget now -- an increase of some $11 million for international exchanges. I add, this increase was offset by other cuts within our own budget in this bill. I think it does provide for important new scholarship programs, particularly in Southeast Asia, East Timor, and Cambodia -- among others. So, finally, I would echo the statement of the Senator from North Carolina. There really should not be a lot that is overly contentious here. We hope we will be able to move this bill, and I look forward to cooperating with colleagues in an effort to try to bring those amendments to the floor as rapidly as possible, and do so. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting Senator Kerry, the floor manager of the authorization bill, along with the ranking member of the full committee, as well as the subject jurisdiction subcommittee. It is not always the most fun to handle this bill. But it is very, very important. And I want to compliment Senator Kerry on the skill with which he has dealt with the issues contained in this legislation, particularly with regard to a couple of the more contentious aspects of it. I am pleased today to join my colleagues, the chairman of the full committee, Senator Pell, and the distinguished -- and a Senator who is not only bright but extremely tenacious -- the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Feingold], in presenting a substitute amendment for title III of the bill. On behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Pell, and Senator Wofford, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under "Amendments Submitted.") Mr. President, the amendment I sent to the desk is a product of a compromise, a genuine hard-fought compromise, after months of deliberation and debate, not only in the Foreign Relations Committee but also within the executive branch and between the two branches. The debate has been arduous. It has not always been harmonious. But we have found a way forward that I believe all interested parties can agree on. This proposal literally reinvents an important instrumentality of U.S. foreign policy: International broadcasting. When I say "reinvent," I mean that literally. We are fundamentally changing the way in which we organize our international broadcasting. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, and soon-to- be-established Radio Free Asia are not merely the names of radio services for millions of listeners around the globe. For those people, they represent a lifeline of news and information about their own countries and about the United States. I will not take the time of the Presiding Officer or my colleagues on the floor today to recite numerous examples where Central and Eastern European leaders who were behind the Iron Curtain as the curtain fell and the Berlin Wall came down credited -- literally credited -- Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and other broadcasting services with playing a major role in bringing an end to the Soviet domination of Eastern and Central Europe. They have a very, very proud past. Last summer, President Clinton -- coming to office committed to the notion of reinventing Government and saving taxpayers' money and consolidating where that can be done -- proposed an ambitious plan to consolidate these services; that is, all the radios under one roof, merging the administrative and technical staffs of the radios under an umbrella of the U.S. Information Agency. And I might say that a new and young Senator from Wisconsin, who campaigned on the same principles of cutting costs and waste in Government, came to this Senate and to the Foreign Relations Committee and was truly the engine behind which this entire process was pulled through the Senate. I must say very bluntly that I have never stated as strongly my firmly held conviction about how something should turn out as it relates to legislation. But I cannot, nor do I, claim credit for the savings that appear in this bill. The savings are a consequence of the initiative of the President of the United States and the Senator from Wisconsin, with the able leadership of the Senator from Massachusetts. I support the savings, but it was the Senator from Wisconsin who drove us toward these savings. So I want to be clear about that. I want to give credit where it belongs. It belongs with the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kerry, and the Senator from Wisconsin, who has been absolutely, as I said, relentless on this issue, to the credit of the people of his State and the country. Finally, credit belongs to the President of the United States. The President's plan is a farsighted proposal that preserves the best elements of the various radio services, and achieves important savings by consolidating the administrative and technical staffs where appropriate. This transformation will provide a firm foundation for the long-term post-cold-war effort to promote democracy and U.S. interests around the world. I might add, by the way, I, and I suspect my friend from Wisconsin and others, and my friend from North Carolina -- whom I might also thank for weighing in on the same side of this issue as the Senator from Delaware when we had to work out a compromise here -- would all state that there is as much need for the radios today as there was before the Berlin Wall came down. It is not the case that all of a sudden, as the Berlin Wall came down and the cold war has dissolved, that peace and tranquility reign and democracy is the watchword around the world. This is a case, for the next decade at least, where the Central and Eastern European countries will struggle, along with the former Soviet Union and the only gigantic totalitarian regime left in the world -- that is, China -- until their people enjoy access to information and a free and independent media. It is as important today as it was in 1948 or 1955 or 1967. Equally important, the plan will achieve cost savings of over $250 million over the next 4 years, and more, depending how you calculate this, over the next 10-year period. For all these months, the participants in this debate have been divided only about the details of the proposal. Never once did we disagree about the basic framework of the consolidation or the cost savings that had to be met. What divided us was the organizational question, one that I believe is critical to the independence of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and the newly established Radio Free Asia, which is established by this legislation. We have now resolved this issue to the satisfaction of all the interested parties, and I want to take a moment now to summarize the agreement as I see it. The overall purpose of the provision is the same as the original committee bill: To consolidate the international broadcasting services of the U.S. Government for the purpose of saving money and eliminating duplication. This amendment differs from the committee bill only insofar as it permits the so-called surrogate radios, meaning Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia, to be established as "grantees" -- a term of art -- of the U.S. Government, supported by Federal dollars but operationally independent of the Government. I believe, as my colleagues have come to learn, I think to their surprise, how strongly I believe in the notion of what I believe to be the credibility and independence of these radios, for that has been the reason for their effectiveness for over four decades. Under the committee bill, the broadcasters of RFE/RL and the new Radio Free Asia would have become direct employees of the United States Government, leading to the creation of a heretofore unknown breed, a "U.S. Government journalist." I "ain't" never heard of such a thing as a "U.S. Government journalist." I think if one were teaching a high school course and you wanted a definition of an oxymoron, you would say "U.S. Government journalist." It was a staple of the cold war that Americans mocked countries that deployed journalists in the employ of the governments. It would have been nice but an unpleasant irony were we to mark the end of the cold war by adopting this practice ourselves. Had we done so, the radios would have had neither the appearance nor the reality of journalistic independence. I might add, I do not think many of my colleagues felt as strongly as I did that, in fact, the provision under the original legislation would have done that, but that was my view. This amendment contains another important provision: The budget ceilings on the amount to be expended by RFE and RL and Radio Free Asia; a study of the effectiveness of Radio Free Asia after 3 years; and a sunset provision requiring a reauthorization of Radio Free Asia by the end of the decade. I would note parenthetically that I have long supported the concept of sunsetting -- I introduced legislation in 1974 when I was a young Senator on this subject and I still think the principle holds true, as strongly as I feel the need for Radio Free Asia. I think we should look at it at the end of the decade and see whether or not it is still needed. Third, numerous provisions to strengthen the oversight by Congress and the executive branch to ensure that the radios are operating consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives and within budgetary constraints. My distinguished friend from Wisconsin, I am sure, will point out to us, as he should, some of the outrageous spending practices that did take place over the past several decades, and this will bring this to an end. At this point, I would like to express my appreciation to the administration, particularly to Joseph Duffey, Director of the USIA and an old friend for 20 years now, and our former colleague, Congressman Dan Mica, now chairman of the Board for International Broadcasting, with whom we have worked closely. Both men came to see me more times than they probably care to remember. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee, Senator Pell and Senator Helms, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Kerry and Senator Pressler. Finally, Senator Feingold, who joined our committee last year and jumped in with both feet on this broadcasting issue, to his great credit. We started out on opposite sides of the fence, but we now have a meeting of the minds. My hat is off to him for his persistence, his insight, and for his insistence on the amount of money being saved the American taxpayer. Mr. President, the proposal before the Senate represents what I believe to be -- and I think few would argue with it -- a carefully crafted compromise that balances two important interests: Maintaining effective international broadcasting, as well as independence, and ensuring fiscal responsibility. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Gerber, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1281 and all rollcall votes thereto. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, I rise to speak as one of the principal cosponsors of the amendment being offered to consolidate and update U.S. overseas broadcasting operations. Let me begin by offering my thanks and gratitude to the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator John Kerry, who was enormously helpful to me in understanding all the intricacies of the overseas broadcasting system and to get this matter through committee. Of course, also to the Senator from Delaware. I appreciate his kind words. It was my first good, tough year-long battle as a Senator. I enjoyed it, and I think we have come up with something that does actually meet the deficit reduction goals and also, at the same time, shows some consideration for the journalistic independence issue that he obviously identified many years ago as something that was very important for the people of Eastern Europe to achieve freedom. This consolidation has been a long time in the making and is the culmination of many discussions. I have been an active player in the debates since a year ago January when I introduced my first bill in the U.S. Senate, Senate bill 51. The Overseas Consolidation and Deficit Reduction Act was intended to reduce Federal expenditures for overseas broadcasting. The whole purpose in introducing it was to reduce the Federal deficit. I had no particular animus or concern about Radio Free Europe or Radio Liberty or anything that had been done with those organizations. It just appeared that it was time, given our deficit, to cut back. That remains the primary reason why I think we ought to do this amendment today. But I must say, Mr. President, that as I investigated the issue further and after I had introduced the bill, I found something that troubled me a little bit more. I found extensive fiscal abuses in the current system which also demanded reform. The legislation that we hopefully will adopt today or sometime this week will not only achieve deficit reduction but will also address some of these concerns about abuses that have occurred with regard to the Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty operation in Munich. Mr. President, Senate bill 51 was based upon proposals made by the Congressional Budget Office which estimated that the changes that we were going to make would save roughly $1 billion over 5 years, a solid step toward reducing the Federal deficit and toward restructuring our foreign policy tools in the post-cold war era. It was very helpful when the President gave his State of the Union Address last year and focused on the economy and focused on the budget and the deficit. In his 150 proposed cuts, he included the issue of combining, consolidating overseas broadcasting and, in particular, the two surrogate radio services, RFE and RL. Mr. President, RFE and RL were established more than 40 years ago as a covert operation by the CIA that, in addition to the VOA, was to broadcast behind the Iron Curtain. All three of these entities -- RFE, RL, and VOA -- played a tremendous role in bringing news and information to people in Communist countries. I certainly would be one of the first ones to say they did help set in motion the forces that brought an end to the cold war. But it is very difficult today in 1994 to justify the American taxpayers continuing to spend literally over $200 million a year to operate these radio services in Europe in addition to the VOA, and then to throw on top of that another $2 million for the administrative costs of maintaining the Board for International Broadasting, an agency whose sole function has been to administer funding for these radio services. It is a task they have not done in a very effective manner. The administration's original budget proposal assumed deficit savings of $263 million over the next 4 years. The President's February proposal, however, created a deep controversy in foreign policy circles. By June, the administration had restructured its proposal for the consolidation of overseas broadcasting. To oversee all the broadcasting functions, USIA was to create a Broadcasting Board of Governors which would allocate resources to four broadcasting bureaus. RFE and RL and Radio Free Asia were to be included as programs within this new office of surrogate broadcasting. This would have meant private grantee status would have been abolished. The administration contended the same savings in January would have been achieved; that is, the $263 million. Recognizing even though this was not exactly the bill I had introduced, that these were real savings, I became one of the leading proponents of the new plan, although my insistence has been, and the insistence of the Senator from Massachusetts has been that the savings be locked into law by placing a 4-year ceiling on spending for international broadcasting. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked up the bill in July, we did adopt the administration's position by a strong 15-to-4 vote. However, as the Senator from Delaware has indicated, he had grave reservations about the so-called federalization of RFE, RL, and Radio Free Asia. While I believe that continuing private status for RFE/RL and creation of a private RFA would cut into political savings, Senator Biden was most concerned about the issue of journalistic independence which he talked about. After months of discussion, the administration again changed its position and recently announced that it now supports continuing grantee status for these radio services and the creation of a private grantee status for Radio Free Asia. The grants would still be made by the so- called BBG which would also serve as the board for the private entities. The administration however -- and this is the important item for me -- indicated it would support several very important conditions relating to fiscal constraints. In the past month Senator Biden and I have been working together to develop an amendment which addresses each of our concerns. Mr. President, one of the reasons I believe the Senator from Delaware and I were able to reach an agreement regarding this amendment is that we have had different priorities. As he said, the Senator from Delaware has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to the concept of journalistic independence as being critical to the functioning of the radios and stated that very forcefully. I want to say here because this issue can obviously come back over the over the years, I have some difficulty appreciating that argument about the independence. First, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were established by the CIA, a fact that is widely known. Second, they have been funded by U.S. taxpayers since their inception, a fact that is also widely known. Third, the Board of Directors of the RFE/RL, Inc., is required, by law, to consist solely of individuals appointed by the President of the United States. These individuals also serve as members of the Board for International Broadcasting. Under the new legislation, this interlocking Board of Directors will continue, with the Broadcasting Board of Governors appointed by the President of the United States serving as the Board of Directors of RFE/RL, Incorporated. Fourth, each year, Congress debates and appropriates funds for the operation of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and a number of congressional committees as well as the General Accounting Office conduct oversight of their activities on a regular basis. Fifth, the rest of the world views these Radios as belonging to the United States. Earlier this month, when the President of the United States was in Prague, the Government of the Czech Republic offered to President Clinton, not to some private organization, facilities within Prague to house the headquarters of RFE/RL, underscoring the fact that the entire world recognizing that these Radios are funded by the United States and operate under the policy directives of the Government of the United States. That will be true with respect to the new Radio Free Asia which President Clinton has asked be established under the same grantee status. The Governments of Asia, including China, view this new entity as an instrument of United States foreign policy. It is being established by the Government of the United States, it will be funded by the United States, and it is being, and will be used, by the United States to achieve certain foreign policy goals. The fact that we are debating its creation on the floor of the United States Senate before the entire world makes that inevitable. Nevertheless, I recognize that the Senator from Delaware believes that the current structure provides for at least the fiction of independence and that is important to supporters of the surrogate broadcasting. My concern in this area from the beginning has been quite different and unrelated to the issue of journalistic independence. My interest is in deficit reduction, eliminating duplication and waste and curbing the kinds of fiscal abuses that have plagued this program, not just in the past few years, but apparently from the inception of this program under the auspices of the CIA. As I will describe in a little bit of detail in a few moments, the fiscal abuses by the management of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are not new. The record stretches back over 20 years. During my research into these issues, I found headlines in the New York Times, and statements in the Senate, dating back to 1976 decrying the lavish spending and salaries provided to RFE/RL employees. The reports by the General Accounting Office over the past two decades have documented over and over problems with the management and fiscal controls over Federal funds by RFE/RL. The amendment that we are offering today contains approximately 20 different fiscal restrictions that we have proposed, aimed at finally bringing this program under control. I intend to describe briefly some of these restrictions and the abuses which generated my concern because it is important that the Members of the Senate and the public have a clear picture regarding the fiscal problems in this program. Now, I know the time of the Senate is precious, and I know that the supporters of the Radios hope that because an agreement had been reached, I would not make a lengthy statement which might tarnish the reputations of the Radios. I believe, however, that this is an issue that has to be publicly discussed. As I have indicated before, many of these problems are not new. Excessive salaries and compensation for the higher level executives have been challenged in the past. Earlier this year, when I released a chart showing really the outrageous compensation and benefit packages provided to the top 15 executives, the biggest uproar apparently came from the RFE/RL headquarters in Munich where the employees for the first time learned what kind of benefits their top executives had been providing for themselves. Suppressing this kind of information does not serve the interests of the Radios, or the interests of open Government, or the interests of the Federal taxpayers who are paying the bills for this program. The information I have gathered during the past year about the fiscal abuses represents apparently only the tip of the iceberg. I have been informed that the compensation and benefit data I released last June did not include the special benefits provided to the top executives since that time, and I have learned a great deal more about these special benefits, particularly the benefits provided to Mr. Eugene Pell, who served as the president to RFE/RL, Inc. for a decade. Mr. President, I will begin addressing fiscal constraints contained in the amendment by talking about the one that is probably the most egregious, and that is the excessive compensation and benefits provided to RFE/RL employees. Mr. President, the amendment contains three provisions relating to salaries and compensation payable to employees of the grantees. First, it places a limit on salary and other compensation which can be paid to employees funded by these grants. These employees cannot be provided salary or other compensation which exceeds that payable to Federal employees under title V and title XXII of the United States Code. Second, it contains a definition of salary and compensation which makes it clear that we intend to cover a range of fringe benefits and special benefits provided to RFE/RL employees. In the past, it appears that the management of the Radios have used a variety of techniques to provide additional compensation beyond basic salaries. The amendment makes it clear that this practice cannot continue and that employees of these grantees cannot receive benefits in excess of those available to regular Federal employees. Third, it requires a review of the system of job classification by the Office of Personnel Management to determine if there are disparities in terms of classifications used by RFE/RL compared to those employed by the Voice of America. Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget prepared an analysis of the salary costs of VOA employees and RFE/RL employees which found that RFE/RL employees are paid significantly higher than VOA employees performing comparable functions. For example, OMB found that the average annual salary and benefits for VOA employees in one representative Eastern European language service was approximately $54,000 compared to $89,000 for the same RFE language service. I also asked GAO to provide me with an analysis of the disparities in compensation provided to RFE/RL employees in contrast to VOA employees. I ask unanimous consent that a chart containing this information be printed in the Record. As this chart demonstrates, in virtually every category and level, RFE/RL provides benefits and compensation for its employees at levels that significantly exceed the benefits and compensation provided to VOA employees at comparable levels. For example, at the GS-9 level, GAO found that RFE/RL employees were receiving an average of $13,000 more than VOA employees. At the GS-12 level, the difference was close to $15,000; At the GM-15 level, the difference grows to $31,000; At the SES-4 level, the difference is $44,000. So, Mr. President, I ask now unanimous consent that a chart containing this information be printed in the Record. Mr. President, the BAO data indicate that these disparities exist at every pay level, but what is readily apparent is that disparity becomes far greater at the highest levels. It is at the executive levels, and particularly, the compensation provided to the President, where the greatest problems arise. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met to consider this legislation, I released a chart based upon information I had obtained the night before the committee meeting which indicate that the top 15 executives at RFE/RL were receiving compensation and benefit packages that totaled $3.6 million, with an average salary and benefit package of over $240,000 per executive. I ask unanimous consent that a chart containing this information be printed in the Record. What I then learned subsequently, after already having the opportunity to reveal this information about the salaries, was that I really did not have all the information. In fact, the benefit packages may even be higher. That is certainly true with regard to the president of RFE/RL. GAO issued an opinion on September 9, 1993 -- and this is after our committee work -- regarding the illegality of an additional benefit provided the president of the RFE/RL, and this benefit has been provided to him since 1985. In addition to the salary he received listed on this chart, Mr. Pell also received a yearly allowance of $15,000 which he was not required to account for and payments to a special supplemental retirement plan. GAO determined that the Federal Government has paid $126,000 into this special fund in Mr. Pell's behalf and that the total value of this supplemental retirement plan has risen to over $200,000 today. Again, the American taxpayers are paying for this outrageous compensation package. When Mr. Pell voluntarily resigned last fall, he was also paid $137,000 in severance benefits for what was a voluntary resignation. It was not even a termination. Both the BIB inspector general and GAO have determined that the payments to the special retirement plan were deferred compensation and actually violated the explicit provisions of the authorizing statute. Indeed, when the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1983 placed a ceiling on the president's salary, in this case the RFE/RL president, they specifically pointed to an annuity plan established for Mr. Pell's predecessor as being a concern to the committee in terms of excessive compensation provided to the president of this organization. This is over 11 years ago. Nevertheless, Mr. President, the RFE/RL management used these 10 years to establish an even more generous plan for the president of RFE/ RL. Perhaps even more disturbing than the revelation of the additional $200,000 in special pension and the $137,000 in severance pay is the latest information, the latest wave of concern about this operation, and that information is contained in the most recent report of the inspector general. The report was dated October 21, 1993 regarding the other perks that the taxpayers have been providing the president of the RFE/RL. Regarding other personal perks that the taxpayers have been providing the president of the RFE/RL, we as Members of Congress know how concerned, upset or even violently angry constituents can become about perks that Congress has. I suggest people listen to these that are even more hidden than the ones that Congress has benefited from in the past. This report indicates that in addition to the salary and the benefits which I have already described, grant funds have been used to pay for a twice weekly maid service in Mr. Pell's personal residence amounting to $750 per month, and not only that, weekly gardening services amounting to $1,000 per month. That is on top of the lavish salary and the other benefits that the Federal taxpayers have been paying, $1,750 a month for maid and gardening services for Mr. Pell. Mr. President, I see no justification for these kinds of benefits being provided to any employee on top of a very generous salary. The amendment makes it clear that this type of payment is considered an additional compensation and must be included in the descriptions on salary and other benefits. I am sorry to say the report goes on and it identifies a number of other abuses. The report indicates that $237,000 in Federal dollars was spent over a 2-year period on fixing up and decorating two apartments for Mr. Pell. The inspector general's report provides details on this spending, including decorating costs that exceeded even RFE/RL policy for imported wallpaper, and a new kitchen with a solid oak floor that costs three times the allowable allowance for other RFE/RL executives. Mr. President, also purchased with Federal funds, four hand-woven Afghan rugs costing $6,230, and three brass lanterns imported from London, totaling $2,100, which he subsequently took with him when he resigned last fall and reimbursed the corporation only at 50 percent value. In addition, the report reveals that $25,000 of grant funds were used to rent a guest apartment for 14 months for the personal use of the RFE/RL president because his own apartment, which contained a piano room, a library, and a changing room, was allegedly too small to accommodate his personal guests. The inspector general, Mr. President, noted that the previous tenants of that apartment had included a larger family with two children. I assume that means more people rather than larger individuals. But it is clear that RFE/RL knew that this apartment was additional compensation being provided to their president because the inspector general report notes they reported the cost for the guest apartment to the German Government as taxable income of Mr. Pell, not an official expense of the corporation. Finally, and perhaps this is the smallest amount that will stick out in our minds, the inspector general's report notes that Mr. Pell also charged the United States taxpayers $100 to tune his piano after his move. Mr. President, I could continue reading into the Record quotes of the reports of the inspector general regarding the various abuses. It includes such things as unauthorized first-class travel for Mr. Pell and his spouse, but I believe it is unnecessary to continue with this already lengthy list of abuses. But I hope, Mr. President, that the picture now is very, very clear. This is an agency which has been milking the Federal taxpayers for decades for lavish salaries and benefits for top executives. It is very important to understand that this is not some new problem of RFE/RL that we assume they will fix up because we have had a chance to expose some of it. The lavish salaries and benefits did not begin with Mr. Pell's appointment in 1985. In 1976, GAO released a report noting that RFE/RL employees, which were funded almost 100 percent by U.S. taxpayers, were provided compensation and benefits in excess of that provided to other U.S. Government employees, including the Voice of America employees. When the details of the salaries provided to RFE/RL employees leaked to the news media, the New York Times ran a story headlined, "2 U.S. Run Radios Chided on Salary: Report Finds Excessively High Pay Scale in Stations Beamed to Soviet Bloc." The article describes a letter written by former Senator John Pastore to the head of the Board for International Broadcasting, citing the GAO report, which described the RFE/RL salaries as shocking. At that time, RFE/RL employees in Munich were receiving an average salary and extra allowances which were approximately $15,000 above a comparable VOA employee in Munich. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article, dated July 2, 1976 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. President, the Senate majority leader at that time, Mike Mansfield, discussed this problem on the Senate floor on July 2, 1976, with Senator Pastore and they both agreed that RFE/RL needed to be brought under control. Senator Pastore stated: It reminds me very much of what happened when we proposed some of these cuts earlier this year. In 1983, there was another attempt by Members of Congress to exert some control over the lavish salaries paid to RFE/RL employees. The House Foreign Affairs Committee in the 1983 reauthorization placed a ceiling on the salary that could be paid to the president of RFE/RL. The committee report described that provision as being necessary because of "The substantial increase in salary and benefits granted to the President of the radios". The report stated, "At a time of severe budgetary constraints and personnel cutbacks the committee believes that RFE/RL, Inc., should also exercise restraint." Mr. President, what Senator Pastore said almost two decades ago on the Senate floor could be said in exactly the same terms today. It continues to be true that any attempt to rein in RFE/RL creates a virtual international diplomatic crisis. The slightest suggestion that funds could be reduced or that closer oversight should be imposed produces a chorus of outrage from the defenders of the radios. I frankly do not believe it is necessary for the U.S. taxpayers to pay these lavish salaries and benefits to the executives and employees of RFE/RL in order to accomplish the goals of these grants. Mr. President, this amendment makes it very clear that this misuse of Federal funds has to end now. I hope that the management and supporters of RFE/RL and the administration get the message we are trying to send: It is real simple. This is Federal money, taken from taxpayers who live in Wisconsin, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and across this Nation -- taxpayers who work hard every day and don't want to see their money going into lavish salaries, handwoven afghan rugs, or maid service for the executives who are running RFE/RL. If this raiding of the Federal Treasury for personal benefits does not end, this program will not survive. I hope that those who believe that RFE/RL continues to be essential -- I think that is open to question -- will work as hard as I will to clean up this mess and put an end to these abuses. Mr. President, I have discussed the $137,000 severance payment that was provided to the president of RFE/RL when he voluntarily resigned last fall. GAO has not ruled on the legality of that payment although the inspector general has raised questions about the severance payment as well as the pension program and $15,000 annual allowance provided to the president. The inspector general also previously reported on the unauthorized practice of RFE/RL making these payments to employees who voluntarily resign or retire. The March 1991 inspector general report concluded that the corporation's practice of paying severance benefits to these employees violated existing OMB regulations. The corporation agreed to change its policy for all new employees not covered by legal agreements. This language flatly prohibits them from entering into any new contracts or obligations for any such payments beyond the amount required by U.S. law or the law of the country where the employee resides. According to the inspector general report, these payments have grown in recent years and were being used by the corporation as an incentive to hire and retain employees. This is clearly another backdoor method of providing additional compensation and benefits to RFE/RL executives and employees that cannot continue. Mr. President, the amendment provides that the grantee may not enter into freelance contracts without the specific approval of the Director of the International Bureau for Broadcasting. This provision is designed to address yet another abuse that has persisted throughout RFE/RL's lifetime. In 1985, GAO issued a report on the freelance contracting practices at RFE/RL and found widespread abuses and lack of controls. In numerous cases, GAO found that RFE/RL entered into freelance contracts with its own full-time employees, in violation of general Federal agency prohibitions against such practices. The GAO audit found that RFE/RL managers were not required to demonstrate that their needs could not be otherwise met. In certain cases, RFE/RL employees were given contracts to perform work that was within the scope of their regular duties. There was little verification that the contract work was not being performed during the regular work day. The GAO report also noted that the radios had concealed their extensive use of freelance contractors in their budget justifications to OMB and Congress. Last July, the inspector general of BIB issued a report criticizing the freelance contracting practices of RFE/RL, and raised numerous questions about the inadequacy of the agency's control over the selection, use, and payment of freelancers. Repeatedly, in his semi-annual audit reports, the inspector general has cited specific cases of abuse, including hiring back retirees on a full-time basis through contracts, the size of payments made, and the lack of documentation of work performed. Nine years after the first GAO report focusing on this issue and after repeated reports from the inspector general, the abuse of freelance contracts has continued. Our amendment would attempt to put some restraints upon this practice by requiring specific approval by the Director of the Bureau for Broadcasting. Having these contracts approved by an outside individual will hopefully provide some restraint upon their misuse. Clearly, there are instances where it is necessary to have a freelance contractor perform work. But in the past, these contracts have been used for things like providing secretarial support and performing work within the scope of the employees own duties. The amendment also prohibits the use of grant funds for lobbying activities. In the past year, it is clear that a number of RFE/RL employees and executives have engaged in efforts to dissuade Congress from instituting any changes in the operations of RFE/RL. Obviously, they are free to lobby on their own time and at their own expense. The Federal taxpayers, however, should not have to foot the bill for this type of activity. One of the top executives whose lobbying efforts in Washington, DC have been fairly visible made five trips to Washington in a 6-month period during the last year, billing the taxpayers almost $10,000 for these trips. We do not allow other Federal grantees to use grant funds to pay for trips to Washington, DC to lobby Congress and this grantee should be subject to similar prohibitions. The rules for other programs are quite clear -- grant funds cannot be used to support lobbying activities in any way or for developing grass roots campaigns to attempt to influence Congress. Mr. President, there are several conditions which are being placed upon the grant itself that I will describe together. First, the grant to RFE/RL is limited to $75 million beginning in fiscal year 1996. The current funding level is approximately $210 million. The corporation has already begun the necessary steps to bring its operations down to the level required to operate on an annual bases below $75 million and I congratulate them for taking these painful, but necessary steps. Under the plan, the number of RFE/RL employees will be reduced from the fiscal year 1993 level of approximately 1,600 to 900. In the past several months, termination notices have gone to several hundred employees in Munich and there appears to be a clear understanding that the size of this grant is being significantly reduced. These changes will require termination of certain language services and elimination of overlap and duplication with the Voice of America in certain areas. The legislation requires that the grant agreement contain the conditions which the Board determines are necessary to reduce overlap and duplication. It also requires that the grant agreement contain specific and detailed provisions relating to the purposes for which the grant funds will be expended and prohibitions against using the grant funds for other purposes without prior approval. Additionally, the legislation provides that the Board may terminate RFE/RL, Inc. as the grantee and award the grant to another entity if it determines that RFE/RL, Inc. is not carrying out the terms of the grant in a cost effective manner. This provision is intended to send a very strong signal that this is not an entitlement program; RFE/RL, Inc. can lose this grant if they continue to operate in the fiscal manner which I have outlined. In the past year, other proposals have been advanced to have the surrogate broadcasting provided through entities such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the Voice of America. If RFE/RL, Inc. fails to meet the challenge to clean up its fiscal operations, another entity can be selected to carry out the grant activities. Mr. President, two issues are addressed in this legislation relating to the location of the activities of RFE/RL. First, the legislation requires that the senior administrative and managerial personnel be relocated within the geographic area of Washington, DC. For years, the General Accounting Office has been recommending that the headquarters of RFE/RL be moved to Washington, DC, a move which is feasible both from a technical and cost-effective perspective. Several years ago, the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], authored an amendment requiring RFE/RL to develop a plan for movement of portions of their activities to the United States in order to reduce the incredible high cost of operations in Munich. The RFE/RL management has strenuously resisted any such move. This legislation would mandate that a portion of the senior management do so immediately. Obviously, if this corporation is to assume responsibility for both the broadcasting activities in Europe and the former Soviet Union and Asia, it should be located in the United States. This provision does not require movement of the operational components of the radios, simply the top management. It requires a report to Congress within 90 days on the number of administrative, managerial, and technical personnel who will be relocated to the United States. My staff has already had informal discussions with GAO on the number of administrative and managerial personnel who could be relocated back to the United States and we will be working closely to monitor implementation of this provision. Second, the legislation requires a detailed plan be submitted to Congress and GAO regarding the proposed move from Munich to Prague. We need to know precisely the cost implications of this move. The legislation requires specific congressional approval before funds can be utilized to facilitate such a move. The amendment also requires certain management audits and reviews of the grantees activities. It requires that the inspector general's office in the U.S. Information Agency maintain a special unit to audit and monitor the activities of the grantee. The inspector general for the Board for International Broadcasting was established under the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General Act that created inspectors general at a number of small Federal agencies. Since the Inspector General at BIB began his reports on RFE/RL in 1989, he was provided invaluable oversight and information about the fiscal and management problems within the grantee. Under the proposed legislation, these functions would be assumed by the inspector general at USIA, who already has a broad area of responsibility for USIA activities. In order to assure that RFE/RL continues to be subjected to the same level of inspector general scrutiny that has taken place over the past 4 years, the legislation mandates the creation of a special unit to continue these activities after the consolidation. Mr. President, it is clear that BIB has provided little, if any, effective managerial oversight of the activities of RFE/RL in the past. hopefully, under the new structure, greater efforts will be made by the Bureau of Broadcasting to do some effective oversight and corrections of the management weaknesses in RFE/RL. It is unfortunate that we have been forced to rely solely upon the inspector general's office to bring to light the fiscal abuse that BIB's staff should have been monitoring and correcting. (Mr. MATHEWS assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, I think it is also important to spend a moment or two on the issue of privatization. What happens at the end of this process? The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Delaware have already talked about the significant dollar savings involved. If we get this done today, get it to the House and through conference, this could be a $1 billion savings item. My goal at end of this process, by 1999 is that we no longer have American taxpayers paying for any of this operation. We can achieve that. This legislation includes a declaration by Congress that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty's activities should be transferred to the private sector no later than 1999 and that the Research Institute should be transferred at the earliest possible time. In other words, when we say privatization, we do not mean privatization using Federal taxpayer dollars; we mean privatization. If somebody wants to continue it, go ahead and raise the money, but do not take it from American taxpayers. This provision recognizes that it is neither feasible nor appropriate for the U.S. Government to continue to maintain these radios in perpetuity. These were established for the purpose of undermining Communist governments. As the media develops in Eastern Europe, there is less and less reason to have a U.S. Government-funded surrogate radio service. I, frankly, think that we can cut back a lot farther, a lot sooner in Eastern Europe than the agreement contemplates. The justification for Radio Liberty on the other hand, is a little stronger than the other justification, given the situation we are all aware of in the former Soviet Republics. There is agreement nevertheless that the end goal here should be to transfer these radios to the private sector no later than 1999, no more taxpayer dollars after that point. The administration, in this amendment, is directed not just to look at this, but to provide annual reports on the steps that it is taking to facilitate the complete transfer of this cold war relic from taxpayer-funded entities to entities provided for by any private organization that may want to do it. I have almost reached the conclusion of these rather lengthy remarks, but I feel the need to spend a minute or two on something else that is being accomplished through this legislation, something that I am not sure about, something that I am not enthusiastic about at this point, but something that I think we can also limit and make sure that it does not get into the kind of situation that RFE/RL has gotten into. The amendment also provides for a new surrogate broadcasting service, Radio Free Asia, to be established as a private grantee. The legislation provides for the grant to be administered by RFE/RL, incorporated, under the terms and conditions applicable to the grants for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, as well as a number of other conditions which I have proposed. I am concerned, given the history we have just outlined of the private grantee arrangement, that unless there are very stringent fiscal controls applied to Radio Free Asia, we may well see the development of the same types of problems that have plagued the management of RFE/RL for decades. The amendments I have provided for RFA seek to prevent these problems in the future. First, the amendment provides that the administration must provide a detailed plan before it can commit funds for the establishment of this new broadcasting service. In authorizing Radio Free Asia, we are not giving the administration a blank check. OMB has provided members of the committee with a budget estimate that assumes that the new service can be operated at an annual cost of $22 million, with one-time capital expenditures of $8 million. This budget assumes that the new service will be able to utilize existing transmitters, either VOA transmitters or other existing transmitters. The amendment requires that the administration certifies that they have acquired access to utilize those transmitters before moving forward with establishing the new service. This provision is designed to prevent a situation where we are told by OMB that this service will cost less than $22 million and once commitments are made, Congress receives a much bigger bill because the existing transmitters are either not accessible to Radio Free Asia or don't meet its technical needs. This provision is intended to prevent a situation where the administration comes back in a year or two and says they need another $50 or $60 million to build new transmitters. If the administration cannot put together a detailed plan to operate this service with the budget constraints imposed in the legislation, they are directed to propose a different plan, which might well include simply increasing VOA broadcasting in the region. The legislation also requires GAO to review the administration's budget projections and advise Congress as to whether the fiscal assumptions are adequate and whether the plan can be implemented within the budget limitations. Second, the legislation requires an effectiveness study of Radio Free Asia after 3 years to determine whether it is technically sound and cost-effective, is received by a sufficient audience to warrant its continuation, the extent to which the targeted audiences are receiving similar broadcasts from other credible sources, and the extent to which the interests of the United States are being served by continued broadcasting. The legislation also contains a sunset provision, terminating authority to continue grants to operate RFA after September 30, 1998, with a 1-year extension if the President of the United States determines continuation is in the national interest. The effectiveness study and sunset provision are designated to prevent a situation developing where the United States continues to fund RFA, regardless of whether it is still relevant. Many people believe that shortwave radio broadcasting may soon be obsolete. It is important that we are not locked into continuing this service when it is no longer needed or effective. The amendment also requires that any contracts which the grantee enters into regarding RFA clearly specify all obligations are assumed by the grantee, not the United States and that funding for RFA may not be available after 1999. In attempting to reduce RFE/RL activities, we have repeatedly been told that the cost of terminating various contracts will be enormous and that the U.S. Government, not the grantee, will be held liable for RFE/RL's debts. In the case of RFA, we are asking that they notify employees and others in advance of the limitations, under which this program is being established. Finally, the amendment requires that to the maximum extent possible any lease agreements entered into should be assignable to the United States. Again, in the case of RFE/RL, we have been told that a full merger with VOA is not possible because some of the lease agreements are not assignable. That situation should be avoided in the future. Fourth, the legislation requires that the principal place of business of RFA shall be located within the United States, in the Washington area, unless the board determines that another location within the United States would be necessary to carry out the functions of RFA effectively and in a cost effective manner. As GAO has reported over the years, there is technically no reason why any of the radios cannot be operated out of the United States. If the new service is located in Washington, DC, it can pool resources and administrative functions with existing broadcasting services and achieve greater savings. The lower the overhead, the more funds can go into broadcasting, rather than administrative costs. Fifth, the legislation requires notification and consultation regarding displacement of Voice of America broadcasting in order to accommodate the broadcasting activities of Radio Free Asia. The legislation contemplates that the new service will utilize at least a portion of the VOA transmitters, but it is not contemplated that the very well regarded Asian broadcasting activities of VOA be reduced in order to accommodate this new service. Millions of people in Asia now listen to VOA and many use the English-language transmissions to learn English. In addition, VOA this year enhanced its operation in Hong Kong to include a bureau broadcasting Chinese domestic news in Mandarin. The new bureau includes four full-time journalists who travel regularly into China to report news and feature stories. The China Focus Program, already off to a strong start, currently broadcasts 1 hour a day, and plans are underway to expand it to 3 hours. It is very important that we do not fail to recognize the importance of the Voice of America in reaching out to all of the people of Asia, not simply the Communist countries. If the administration's plan for the new service requires a significant reduction in broadcasting activities of VOA, Congress should be notified and consulted before such a plan is put into operation. The purpose of establishing RFA is to enhance U.S. broadcasting in Asia, not diminish the effective work in this region of VOA. To conclude my statement, on this issue that we have been working on pretty hard for over a year, enactment of this amendment represents a major step forward in our efforts to reorganize and reorder our spending priorities in light of the end of the cold war. It has not been an easy task. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have many supporters, and they have made important contributions to U.S. foreign policy interests over the last four decades. It is totally understandable that there would be strong resistance to any change in the status quo. But this, we hope, Mr. President, is really a new era of fiscal constraints. We have to focus upon places in the Federal budget where savings can be achieved and the kinds of consolidations and downsizing that this amendment achieves. This amendment would eliminate one Federal agency, the Board For International Broadcasting. It would achieve important administrative savings by consolidating overseas broadcasting within USIA. It would make substantial reductions in the funding level for RFE/RL, cutting it by 64 percent -- this is a significant number -- as of 1996, and the budget would not be $210 million a year but only $75 million a year, with the expectation and hope that by 1999 it can be eliminated altogether from the point of view of Federal funding. The 4-year savings from our changes in overseas broadcasting will be approximately $400 million. That includes $162 million for the termination of the Israeli transmitter, which we have approved. Each year thereafter, the savings from reduced funding for RFE/RL will amount to $135 million per year. In other words, instead of like everything else we do, where we spend and forget about how much it is going to cost every year, this item will cause our Federal budget to go down $135 million every year as time goes on. It has been a long and challenging process to reach this agreement, but it was well worth the effort. The task is not finished, and we still have to complete a conference with the House of Representatives. Moreover, implementation of this legislation after it is signed into law will involve a lot of oversight and monitoring to help make sure that the goals Congress intended are actually achieved. That did not always happen in the past, as I have indicated. Today marks a significant milestone in our efforts to achieve spending reductions, especially in the foreign relations area, and to reorganize Federal efforts in the area of international broadcasting to reflect the end of the cold war. I conclude by thanking and congratulating all of the individuals and Members of the Senate who played important roles in achieving these changes. Again, I thank Senator Kerry, chairman of the subcommittee, who helped enormously; Senator Pell, the chairman of the committee and his staff; also, of course, Senator Kerry's staff, who were incredibly patient and supportive as we wrangled through this process; the members of the Foreign Relations Committee on both sides of the aisle, who lent me their strong support on this first initiative in foreign relations; and finally, of course, Senator Biden and his staff, who, although we approached this issue from very different perspectives, were gracious and forthcoming with regard to our areas of disagreement, and we did work hard to achieve an agreement. Finally, to the members of my own staff, Susanne Martinez and Robyn Lieberman, who I know spent almost an outrageous amount of hours to get this thing done. Mr. President, I apologize for the length of my remarks. I believe this is a rare instance where we are actually cutting back on a Federal program -- not just cutting the increase, but actually bringing the spending down -- and I wanted the Senate and the people of the country to know the details of it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Wisconsin and express my appreciation to him for his efforts in this. This has been a first-class and very significant effort, his first, as he described it, within the Foreign Relations Committee. But the Senator has really raised some extremely important questions about the administrative process, about management decisions, about the overall structure. He really has been the most important push, if you will, or force asking the committee and the Senate as a whole to really take a hard look at this and do what is correct. I thank him also not only for his initial effort but also for the work he did in reaching what I think is a very sensible compromise with the Senator from Delaware. I also express my appreciation to the Senator from Delaware. He and I did not agree at the outset on this. We had a vote in the committee and the outcome was adverse to the Senator from Delaware. But the Senator also persevered and continued to make his point and I think persuaded a number of people that his commitment on this was steadfast and that he saw a different vision of how this should and could work. I think what we have had in the final analysis is an amalgamation of the best of both of those views in a way that addresses the concerns of both Senators, but at the same time provides the savings that we need. It may be that down the road we are going to have to review this more. It may be that there will be adjusting yet to be done. But, for the moment, I think this gets us off the dime and provides an important service to the country and particularly to the goals of the foreign policy information promulgation effort. So I really tip my hat to the Senator. I think he has done a terrific job here. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Mr. President, I certainly join the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts in his praise of the Senator from Wisconsin and Senator Biden. For a year or more, they have been pushing a subject which is of great interest and concern to me. I just want you to know, I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, that I appreciate your efforts and you have been successful. Now, the Senator from Wisconsin has made clear the outcome of the negotiations for the establishment of a new Radio Free Asia patterned after a Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Broadcasting to Tibet and to the Communist countries of Asia, North Korea, Burma, Communist China, Laos, and Vietnam, must, Mr. President, remain a high priority in order to encourage fledgling democracy movements in those countries. When the administration first presented its consolidation proposal to Congress last June 15, as I recall, the administration stated vigorously that the only way to save $243 million over the next 4 years was to consolidate all broadcasting functions under the U.S. Information Agency umbrella. Today, just about 6 months later, give or take, the administration has been promising that these same savings can be achieved under the new and improved consolidation plan which allows Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty to stand as private grantees. Either somebody was misinformed then or they have seen the light or whatever. But that is not the important issue. What is important is that the U.S. Information Agency, Mr. Duffey, Director of USIA, and Mr. Mica, who is Chairman of the Board of International Broadcasting, have made a significant positive decision in accepting the terms of the Biden- Feingold amendment. Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of this amendment, as modified. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, I will explain the modification in just a moment. This policy ensures that the U.S. Government will continue broadcasting Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. All will maintain their independent grantee status. It does all of that and so forth. In all candor, I am not persuaded that this bill gives this new creation the resources it will need to please everybody and still save the money that everybody talks about. So I hope that Mr. Duffey and his associates in the White House have thought through that issue. This point is important and that is the reason I am stressing it. USIA should be prepared to provide those resources out of its own budget, if necessary, to fulfill the broadcasting priorities that are being defined here today. So, again, I express my gratitude to the able Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, and the equally able Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for accepting a modification that I proposed, that will ensure that this will happen. I commend them for their efforts, because the American taxpayer will not be willing to spend more money on these projects than is currently authorized in this bill. So, in committing to this course of action, I hope that the administration is prepared to use its energy and resources to see these projects through to their completion. Now, to make legislative history and have it in the Congressional Record, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that lines 6-17 on page 24 of the bill, be printed in the Record at this point. Then, Mr. President, immediately following that, I desire to have printed in the Record the modification that I proposed to Senators Biden and Feingold and which they graciously accepted. And I want it to follow immediately after the preceding insert. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Reading the modification: