Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is incredible.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, ironically title III, which has been so fiercely defended by its sponsors, is not going to do much to harm Fidel Castro either. He is not likely to make himself available, as I point out, as a defendant in our courts coming down the road. Mr. President, this legislation will have serious implications on our Federal court system, on the value of claims of certified U.S. claimants and on our relations with our close trading partners who will feel much of the brunt of these lawsuits. If this new approach to resolving expropriated claims is so good, why do a number of the largest U.S. certified claimants continue to oppose the legislation? I believe that many of my colleagues in the Senate had come to share my view that title III was not in the interest of the United States and, for that reason, they joined in opposing its inclusion in the Senate-passed version of the bill. While the events of a week ago Saturday were tragic and senseless, Mr. President, they do not in any way change the fact that title III is contrary to the interests of our country, of the United States, and inconsistent, as I have tried to point out, with international law. To disregard, without even a markup in our committee, 46 years of international law and practice in the handling of expropriation issues, as this title does clearly, is foolhardy, in my view. There is also a question of whether title III is constitutional because of the equal protection provisions of law. But even if on narrow legal grounds this bill stands the constitutional test, on political grounds it is indefensible, Mr. President. As I said earlier, why should not Polish-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, Arab-Americans--the list of 38 countries where we have claims outstanding--be granted similar access to our United States courts? Will they not come forward tomorrow, or the next day, and demand equal treatment as we are giving in this particular case? Why not? Is this somehow different than the horrors that went on in Poland, or Vietnam, or China? Is anyone going to stand up on this floor and suggest to me that they are somehow different, were not quite as bad as what goes on in Cuba when we lose four citizens in a tragic act of shooting these people down, as horrible as it is? What about the young people on the Pan Am flight that we now know Libya was involved with? What about claims there? They have a case to make? I do not see them included in this bill. What happened under the Communist regimes before? Where are they here? They had their property expropriated and taken from them. Why are they not included in this bill? If I were they, I would be angry. This is special-interest legislation carving out extraordinary treatment for a special group. By the way, in order to exercise the provisions of title III with respect to the right of private action you will have to have a claim worth more than $50,000--I will get to that in a minute--so your average poor Cuban is not included in this. Out of 5,911 U.S. certified claims, only slightly more than 800 will benefit from title III. The rest of them are excluded. Pay attention, Cuban-Americans. Pay attention to what this bill does or doesn't do for most of you. You are not going to get any benefit. It is the fat cats who are going to benefit. The tobacco and the rum interests are going to be the beneficiaries of this. Read carefully how the law is written here. So, Mr. President, to all of those who say they support title III of this bill, I would say that I hope they have had an opportunity to study the final version and understand the implications. I suspect, for example, that when the more than 85 percent of the 5,911 U.S. certified claimants discover that they are precluded by provisions in this title from availing themselves of this new private right of action, they are going to be doubly opposed to this bill. Unfortunately, they will not find out until it is passed. In the final conference report, the sponsors sought to address a significant criticism leveled against this title--that it would cause an avalanche of lawsuits in our courts. They have responded to that by putting a floor on the value of the claims that will be admissible in U.S. court in adjudication. Putting aside my underlying objection to that, the floor in the bill is $50,000. The problem with their efforts to limit lawsuits is that only suits that are really excluded by this floor are those by U.S. certified claimants whose property has already been valued at $50,000 or less. Can you imagine, in 1959, $50,000 of value of United States citizen property in Cuba? It has to be valued at the time of the taking, by the way. As a result of that, you are seeing here a situation where 85 percent of the 5,911 certified claimants get excluded. They cannot go to court here--just the 800 or so people that have claims in excess of that can. I presume that Cuban/ Americans who were ineligible to submit their claims to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and who therefore have no particular value associated with their claim will start alleging claims in excess of $50,000 so that they can get access to the courts. On the other hand, of course, the $50,000 floor is not likely, as I said, to limit filing of lawsuits by Cuban-American claimants. They are obviously going to allege more than $50,000. You can argue $50,001 and you get into court. That is available to them. But our people, U.S. citizens, who have already been certified by the commission as having a property value of $50,000 or less can't try the same thing. These U.S. citizens are out of luck. Again, let us remind ourselves why we are here, who we represent, to whom is our first obligation. Last time I looked it was to U.S. citizens--U.S. citizens. That is my first obligation, U.S. citizens. They get taken to the cleaners on this; 85 percent of them do not get any advantage under this. And for the bulk of people who have claims of less than $50,000 who were not United States citizens when their property was taken, they will allege more and they get to access to our courts. So U.S. citizens lose. U.S. citizens lose. Clearly, these small claimants would be foolish, as I said earlier, not to avail themselves of this relief by alleging a claim in excess of $50,000. They can claim that their property falls above the threshold value, file suit and attempt to convince the courts that they qualify for a positive judgment. At the very least, this will put them in a position to perhaps negotiate a side deal with the alleged offending party, clearly permissible under this law, negotiation of a deal. I predict that even in this latest version there will be a flood of lawsuits in our courts. What is most troubling about putting our courts at the centerpiece of this legislation is that it transforms our judicial system, the principal duty of which is to adjudicate legal disputes, into an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, something we have always tried to avoid in this body, always tried to avoid. Do not turn your courts into an instrument of foreign policy. And yet this provision of this bill not only vaguely requires that; it insists upon it. So all of a sudden we say to the Federal courts now, with all the complaints we get from our States about the overload of work, here comes another load of work in your lap. When people start complaining about handling criminal cases in the United States and drug cases, consider the fact you are going to be inundated now with a bunch of claims matters, that we have all of a sudden involved you in a foreign policy matter with Cuba. The inclusion of periodic Presidential waiver authority in this title, in my view, does not change that conclusion at all--this is bad law. There are also serious problems with other parts of the legislation, Mr. President, provisions that restrict our ability to provide assistance to Russian and other New Independent States countries. As angry as we are at Cuba and what the Cuban authorities have done, why are we going to jeopardize our relationship with Russia and the New Independent States. That is what the bill does. Read it. I understand the anger. I understand the frustration. But why would we jeopardize the delicate relationship we are trying to build in Russia and the New Independent States and have those relationships hang on legislation here dealing with Cuba? That is not smart. That is dangerous, in my view. Provisions in this bill also impact on our adherence to provisions of GATT and NAFTA, provisions that seek to micromanage our relationships with future Cuban Governments--post-Castro governments. Let me predict right now our allies' response to title IV of the bill. Let me spend a minute or so talking about this part of the bill. And people ought to pay attention to this so-called exclusion of certain aliens title of the bill. It is going to make foreign commerce and travel a nightmare, in my view, for our business community. Title IV calls upon the Secretary of State--listen to this--calls upon the Secretary of State to deny entry into the United States to any alien whose been involved in the confiscation or trafficked in Cuban property formerly owned by a United States national. The actions called for by title IV, require that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General deny entry into the United States by any foreign business person, foreign official and their family members for an activity which is lawful in the country where that person is a citizen and consistent with international law. This action flies in the face of international commitments we have made. We talking about potentially a great many countries being effected here. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DODD. On this list are roughly 26 countries and nearly 200 foreign companies doing business in Cuba today. And so under this provision of title IV of the bill, as you go through the list now, we are going to have to go and I guess do a fact finding of some kind or another and determine whether or not--I presume that a lot of this may in some way touch on confiscated property in Cuba. Obviously, we have seen that happen--they were involved in confiscation. All these companies are going to have to go through it. And then, of course, we will have to let our consular service know because any one of the people involved in these companies or family members who seek to come to the United States can be stopped from coming. It is going to put us in a difficult situation in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, and so on. Read the language. If you do not think we are going to get reprisals from this nightmare, this quagmire, let us see what happens when an Israeli is denied a visa because some of their people are doing business in Cuba or what happens when Canadians try to come to this country. Do not think we are not going to feel the brunt of it. Again, I ask my colleagues to read this legislation. This is unwise. This is unwise. Why are we not doing this in China? My Lord, there are human rights problems there. Imagine if you tried to do that here. You would be laughed off the floor if you tried it here, or Vietnam or other places. And yet are they any less guilty in a sense. And so here are 26 countries, most of them allies, where we are now going to have our immigration service at the gates denying entry to members of families of people who are doing business on property that may have been confiscated without compensation in Cuba. Again, I urge my colleagues just look at what we are doing here; we are about to run through and adopt this legislation probably on an overwhelming vote, without for a moment considering and the consequences of it. I know in some quarters it is considered good form to say the United States is prepared to renounce our trade agreements. I listened to the Presidential debate going on and certainly there are those who are against NAFTA and against GATT, well, we are about to do it here. You do not have to wait for Buchanan to become President of the United States. We are about to do it. I do not think those of our citizens who count on the integrity of these agreements to protect the sanctity of their international business transactions find this acceptable. I for one take these national commitments seriously. When I vote on them here, I vote on them seriously because I think they are right and the right direction to go. I think most Americans do, and I think most of our colleagues do. Overall, this bill is bad for U.S. business. It will undercut efforts by the United States to ensure that U.S. investors face a stable and predictable environment when they do business abroad. We can hardly insist that our trading partners respect international law in the areas of trade and investment when we ourselves are prepared to violate it. Where is our moral high ground when we give these speeches around the world about the sanctity of the efforts to try and get the world to live by the rules we adopt. Here we are about to go in and just blow that apart on our own, and then presumably give a lecture to the rest of the world about how they ought to live up to these agreements. I wonder what our response is going to be when other governments whose citizens are adversely affected by this legislation decide to enact some special interest legislation of their own directed at our people, our country, our citizens and their properties abroad. We are hardly going to be in any position to object or to assert some provision of international law in that situation. This legislation, Mr. President, has a great deal of hortatory language. Much of it I agree with. For example, section 201 sets forth U.S. policy toward a transition and a democratic government in Cuba. It is good language. Among other things, it states that it is the policy of the United States to ``support the self-determination of the Cuban people and to recognize that the self-determination of the Cuban people is a sovereign and national right of the citizens of Cuba which must be exercised free of interference by the government of any other country.'' Exercising their right, the right of the citizens of Cuba which must be exercised free of interference by the Government of any other country in that transition. Who can disagree with that? I could not have written it better myself. I love it. I think it is wonderful. However, the operative provisions of the bill are totally at odds with what we state is our policy in section 201. There are 19 criteria in this bill that the future Cuban government must meet--a future government, not the Castro government in order for the United States to engage in any significant way with that government. Nineteen criteria they have to meet, 19 of them, before we deem it to be in transition to democracy including when it should hold its elections--within 18 months, how and who must not be at the head of State. Does this really constitute respect for self-determination? Can you imagine if we had these criteria with the New Independent States or in Russia? Do you know how difficult their transition has been, as they have wrestled with trying to form their own notion of democracy. When you want to help that process, nurture it, provide aid and assistance that would be impossible if this legislation governed our relations with those countries. We would be prohibited from doing it in this bill. Similarly even if Castro goes and the Cuban Government is in transition, we cannot do anything meaningful to assist until the requirements of the bill have been met. That is foolhardy--foolhardy-- to do that. Mr. President, I have said on numerous occasions, when we consider foreign policy legislation of this nature--and I said at the outset--we have to ask ourselves two very basic questions: Is what is being proposed in the best interest of our own country, and is it likely to achieve the stated goals in the country to which it is directed? Two basic questions: Is it good for my country, and is it likely to achieve the stated goals in the country that may be the target of the legislation? In the case of the pending legislation, I think the answer to both of these questions is a resounding no. I regretfully say that I think this is a bad bill, and for that reason, I strongly oppose it. I also realize that I may be in the minority, a small minority, but I could not stand here and watch this go by today and not point out the fundamental flaws in the whole approach. I will point out again that I think it is dreadful what happened a week ago Saturday--dreadful what happened. There is no excuse for it. But if we rush to legislate a bill that has been around a year or so, and it has been around because, frankly, people had serious problems with it. The problems are not any less because of what happened last Saturday. This bill would have passed a long time ago if it had intelligent provisions in it dealing with how might effectively we deal with Castro. The only reason it is up today is because of the tragedy a week ago. In fact, I argue the bill is worse today than before. There are a lot of provisions, as part of this conference report, that none of us ever voted on. I realize this may be a futile effort on my behalf to urge my colleagues in the next few hours to do something, which I guess none of us do with great frequency. And that is to just read this conference report, in particular read title III and read title IV. Consider what we are about to do. I believe if you sit back objectively and look at this and see how we are changing so many things in this bill, carving out unique exceptions that, I think, are going to cause us serious problems, you will come to the same conclusions I have. This does not diminish our determination to see change occur in Cuba, to see democracy and freedom come to the Cuban people; that Fidel Castro leave or that we find ways in which to effectively make our case that what happened there not only should not happen but must not happen again. We will not forget what happened in the Straits of Florida, and we will not forget who is responsible. Let us not, in the emotion of the moment in dealing with that particular issue, do damage to ourselves. My sole point is this bill does damage to our country. It does damage to our citizens. It does damage to our ability as the leading superpower in the world today to negotiate and to conduct its foreign policy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of editorials and articles in opposition to this bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank my colleagues, Senator Pell of Rhode Island, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, and my colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, for their statements here this morning. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to this legislation. This piece of legislation before us is truly just a bad proposal, Mr. President. The unfortunate part of it is that it comes in the wake of a tragedy of significant proportions in the Straits of Florida. That is what makes it so difficult to act sensibly. Obviously, the authors of the legislation had a difficult time, over a year or so, moving this bill forward for the obvious reasons that the bill is so flawed substantively that many Members were reluctant to sign on to it. However, in the wake of what I call a terrorist act in the straits of Florida by a rogue government attacking innocent pilots and unarmed planes, it is virtually impossible at this point to have an intelligent discussion about the specifics of this bill. I suspect that today this measure will pass overwhelmingly, and I feel that is a great tragedy. I think it will come back to haunt us terribly. With the provisions of this bill--we are carving out exceptions that will create a nightmare for us in our Federal courts, in our consular offices, in our relations with our friends and allies-- I will go through the reasons why here this morning. I certainly want to begin my remarks, Mr. President, by saying to my colleagues and others, and particularly to the families of these young men who lost their lives at the hands of an armed MiG attacking single- engine planes, Piper-Cubs how much I regret that violent act. To me it does not matter whether they were flying over Havana. It is inexcusable for a heavily armed plane to attack unarmed commercial private planes under any circumstances. The debate ought not be about whether or not we are all horrified and angry over what happened a week ago Saturday in the straits of Florida. That is not the debate. I think people agree with the President's actions--he spoke out clearly on this issue immediately. I want to applaud Madeleine Albright, our Ambassador at the United Nations, who did a remarkable job. Getting the People's Republic of China to agree to a statement of condemnation was no small feat considering the relationship that exists between Cuba and the PRC. The fact she was able to do that speaks volumes about her ability as our Ambassador. I regret we did not build on that particular momentum and seek to expand the support within the United Nations for other joint initiatives which might have had even a greater effect on Cuban behavior. As we all know, every time there has been an issue in the United Nations on the Cuban embargo, we get two or three votes in support of our policy and that is it. We get clobbered on this issue. I suspect as a result of the legislation we are about to adopt here today that will be the case once again. Instead of building on Ambassador Albright's efforts, the Security Council will now squander that particular achievement. Mr. President, again, I do not take a back seat to anybody when it comes to condemnation of this act. I do not take a back seat to anyone in my desire to see change in Cuba. It is a dictatorship. No other way to describe it. That is what it is. Our hope is that democracy will come to this island as the last nation in this hemisphere to be denied the opportunity of its own people to choose its own leadership. In the strongest of possible terms, Mr. President, I would say to my colleagues that I carry no brief for the Cuban Government--none whatsoever. Nor do any of my colleagues who join me in opposition to this bill. Our opposition to this legislation is rooted in something that each and every one of us ought to ask ourselves when we consider any bill that comes before the Congress, particularly one involving international relations: Is it good for my country first and foremost? It is not about Cuba, not about Castro, not about others. It is strictly is it good for us? What does it do to my country? I am a U.S. Senator; I am not a Senator for any particular group. I am not a Senator for any particular nation except my own. So the first, threshold question is: What does this bill do to my people, to my country, to my interests? I will make the case here this morning that this bill is devastating to my people and to my country. It is foolish. Despite the obvious emotion surrounding what happened last week, we ought to be looking carefully at the contents of this measure. There is a reason why the Senate is a deliberate body--why we follow a process here. The consideration of this bill has been anything but deliberative. We had no markup of this bill in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not a markup of this bill. We held a hearing on a very early version of the bill and no followup hearings once the legislation had been significantly altered. The bill itself came directly to the Senate floor without any vote to report it from the committee of jurisdiction. Normally, on a bill of this significance, this magnitude, considering what an exception we are creating in law, you would have thought we would have had extensive hearings and a markup in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That was not the case. The conference was similarly conducted with the proponents of the bill working behind closed doors to produce yet another version of the bill. By the way, the bill has been changed at least four times on the Senate side alone. Similarly the final conference agreement is decidedly different than either the House or Senate passed bills I am sure my colleagues have not read all the details of it. I do not expect them to; they are busy. Nonetheless, we are about to vote on something here that is just bad law. There is a reason why we take our time in the U.S. Senate. It is because we do not want to react to the emotion of the moment. We have seen too many occasions, historically, when this body, because of the emotions of the moment, has passed legislation and looked back only weeks later and wondered what it was doing at the time. If this is a good bill, it will be a good bill a week from now, a month from now, 6 months from now. If it is a bad piece of legislation, it does not change. Taking a few days, which we are not going to have, to analyze the implications of enacting this measure into law, how it will affect our country, is the least we ought to be able to do. I will make a case here--by the way, for the many people who showed up in the Orange Bowl the other day who may have claims, against the Cuban Government who think that they are going to be able to seek compensation once this bill becomes law. They may not know it, but many of them are excluded from exercising the right of private action included in this bill. Pay attention, Cuban-Americans, pay attention. The majority of you are probably not going to be benefit from this legislation. It is the fat cats who are going to get the money, not you. Pay attention to this bill and pay attention to those who would seek to have this legislation passed and what their interests are. So, again, I regret we are moving as quickly here as we are, carving out unique and special pieces of legislation that I think will come back to haunt us very, very quickly. Mr. President, let me take some time here, if I can, just to go over some of the provisions contained in the conference agreement. I probably have had more time than some of my colleagues to follow the changes that have been made in this legislation. In my view, the fundamental premises of this legislation remain fatally flawed; namely, that it will strangle Fidel Castro, causing him to scream ``uncle'' and step down; that our allies will be bludgeoned--we are going to beat up our allies--into going along with this approach; and that there will be no negative consequences to the United States, to the American people, or to the myriad other outstanding foreign policy concerns that we have in common with our allies around the globe. It may seem trite to say this, Mr. President, but I believe, as I said a moment ago, that our legislative process as it has evolved with experience exists to protect citizens from bad laws. There is a reason that we normally hold hearings on legislative proposals and conduct markups to examine highly complex issues. There is a reason we seek to take testimony from recognized experts on the implications of a measure, intended or unintended. There is a reason that our Founding Fathers provided for the possibility of extended debate in the U.S. Senate. We all know why. It is to try to at least protect against the passage of bad laws. In the case of this legislation, we have short-circuited that process, particularly in the U.S. Senate. Most Members of this body, let alone the general public, do not have the vaguest idea what is in this legislation before us. The conference report was only available yesterday--and on a very limited basis, I might point out. Suffice it to say, the final version of the Helms-Burton bill is worse than the previous versions that passed either body of this Congress last year. I fear many of us are going to be in for a surprise once legal experts and others have an opportunity to review this bill. Unfortunately, that will not happen until it has already become law. As I said on numerous occasions, the stated purposes of the legislation are laudable. I do not have any debate with what the purposes are: to assist the Cuban people in regaining their freedom and prosperity, to encourage the holding of free and fair elections, and to protect American nationals' property against confiscatory takings by the Castro regime. We all agree on that. That is not what is at issue. Unfortunately, the conferees on this measure adopted legislation that will not make any of this achievable. We only have a couple of hours to make the case against this bill. I will attempt to do that this morning. I would say that I believe we would all have been better served had outside analysts had an opportunity to review and comment on this measure before we vote. That isn't going to be possible. Let me begin by highlighting some of the more problematic provisions in the final conference agreement that were in neither the House bill nor the Senate-passed bill as it came out of conference. First among these is codification in law of all current embargo regulations. Let me point out here, this is unique, what we are about to do here and pass here. To the best of my knowledge we have never codified in law outstanding regulations and executive orders targeted at Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Vietnam, North Korea--none of these countries. We are now going to say, with regard to Cuba, that all of the sanctions and regulations are now going to be codified into law. Senator Simon of Illinois was making this point. Any effort on the part of this President or future Presidents to in any way modify what are normally executive branch decisions when it comes to economic sanctions can occur only once we enact a law to change them until democracy has come to Cuba. We have never taken such a draconian action anyplace else in the world. This is really going far beyond anything we have ever done. As angry as we were about what happened to our hostages in Iran, as angry as we were about what happened in Iraq, as angry as we are about what could happen in North Korea, or as we watch the human rights abuses in China, yet Presidents have had the flexibility to deal with those situations through executive orders and the promulgation of regulations. In the case of Cuba that isn't tough enough. Read the bill; we codify these sanctions. That is unwise foreign policy. It is unwise. Yet the emotions of the moment are carrying us along here. We are going to be looking back in a matter of days and saying, ``My Lord, what did we do here by doing that?'' So that is my first concern. I urge my colleagues to look at section 102(h) of the conference agreement. We have never, in my view, done that before. We have imposed a lot of sanctions and done a lot of things, but codifying them all into law is, I think, very dangerous. With the codification of the embargo regulations we have tied the hands of this and future Presidents, as I said a moment ago, in their efforts to respond flexibly to changes that we hope will occur in Havana. None of us knows for sure if they will. They may not. But if they do, Presidents ought to have the ability to respond to that. Make no mistake about what this codification does. It sidelines, our Government as a participant in facilitating positive change in Cuba for the foreseeable future. Let me turn to what I believe is the most troublesome provision in this conference report, and that is title III. This title, which was deleted from the Senate-passed version, grants a private right of action to some individuals who have had property expropriated by Fidel Castro. While the sponsors have tinkered with this title continuously in response to criticisms leveled against it, the essence of this title remains fundamentally the same and, therefore, continues to be objectionable. Instead of the United States utilizing the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to validate the claims of American citizens and the U.S. Government to then espouse those claims with the foreign government that has taken U.S. citizens' property to obtain compensation--which, by the way, has been the practice for more than 40 years,--our Federal court system, the Federal court system, now will be given the role of effecting compensation for expropriated property claims. By the way, the historic treatment by the United States of expropriated property claims is not unique to our country. It has been international law for 46 years. So, all of a sudden, 46 years of law and practice world wide are going to be overturned for one particular country in one part of the world. Moreover, this legislation will broaden the universe of those eligible to be compensated to include individuals who were not U.S. citizens at the time their property was taken. For those who follow this expropriation of property without compensation, a fundamental principle for 46 years internationally has been that you must have been a citizen of the country that seeks to espouse your claim at the time the property was taken. That is, you must have been a United States citizen, in this case, at the time your property was expropriated in Cuba. That is the rule internationally. We are now saying, ``No, in this case you do not have to be a U.S. citizen at the time of the expropriation, and you go to the Federal courts.'' I urge my colleagues, no matter how angry you are about what happened a week ago, consider what we are doing here. We have already rejected over the years similar attempts to change the eligibility requirements for property compensation cases. So my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee will recall it was a difficult case--expropriation of property. They came and said, ``Won't you allow Hungarians who were not citizens at the time to be able to be covered in the compensation program?'' We said as a body here, ``We are deeply sorry. We understand your point. You have a vehicle available to you through your courts. If we carve out an exception for you, then what are we going to say to Polish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, and Arab-Americans?'' Up until now, we have said ``no'' to them. Now we are saying ``yes'' here. Now we are going to have to back other countries, I presume, who are likely to seek similar treatment. No matter how angry we are, to carve out an exception to one country here and deny others the opportunity is a bad, bad practice. The principle of international law and practice in the area of expropriation is very well established. Let me quote from the legal brief prepared by Mr. Robert Muse which summarizes very clearly the international law of claims: If international law is to apply to a governmental taking of property, a party claiming the loss must occupy at the time of loss the status of an alien with respect to the Government that took the property. The injured person must be a foreign national. The U.S. courts have stated on numerous occasions that confiscations by a State of the property of its own nationals, no matter how flagrant and regardless of whether other compensation has been provided, do not constitute violations of international law. This is not the first time, as I said a moment ago, an effort has been made to mandate legislatively that the United States depart from the nationality principle of international claims laws. Fortunately, on those occasions Congress wisely rejected such efforts. During the 84th Congress the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed very clearly why that should not be done in its report dealing with claims programs related to property losses in Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. The committee said: The committee has carefully considered the arguments advanced in support of the proposed extension of eligibility which, if adopted, would mark the first time in claims history of the United States that a declaration of intention was equated with citizenship. While sympathetic to the plight of those unfortunate individuals who are not American citizens when they sustained war losses, the committee has to keep utmost in view the interests of those individuals who did possess American nationality at the time of the loss. That is why I said our first responsibility is to our own citizenry-- to American citizens. We are placing them in second-class status. That is why in the 84th Congress we rejected, no matter how laudable, no matter how sympathetic we are to the claims of Hungarians, Rumanians, and Bulgarians, we said, ``No. We are sorry. We cannot do that.'' Today we are about to reverse that. Forget the other countries where individuals may have similar cases to make. They, of course, will not be handled accordingly, although they may come forward and seek similar treatment, I presume, once this legislation has been adopted. The committee went on to say, ``Further, these persons who have a paramount claim [speaking about American citizens] to any funds which may be available to include the not-national-in-origin group will only dilute the funds still further and increase the injustice to American owners.'' So here you are going to take an action that is likely to increase the injustice against those American citizens whose property was taken by Castro-- 1,911 of them. I say that because their chances of being fully compensated for their losses once this bill passes will be worse than beforehand because of the vastly expanded pool of claimants produced by this bill. In essence we are taking funds that might otherwise be available to them and diluting them by carving out this one exception to our global property claims programs. So, if you run to pass this bill and sign up for it, remember what you are doing. You are taking American citizens and putting them in second place. U.S. citizens at the time of the expropriation get second-class status when this bill passes because we are caught up in the emotion and the horror of what happened a week ago. Why not slow down and take a few days and think about what we are doing here instead of jamming this through on the emotion of the moment? Proponents of the Helms-Burton legislation appear to be indifferent, I must say, to the injustice that this legislation will entail to certified American claimants, although these claimants are terribly mindful of it and for that reason continue to oppose title III in this bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a February 29 letter that we received from one of the largest U.S. claimants, Mr. David Wallace, chairman of Lone Star Industries, who states quite clearly his opposition to this change in law and practice.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If I may ask my colleague from Maryland to yield so I can ask a question. I sit on the Rules Committee. There was a meeting of the Rules Committee this morning, was there not?

Mr. DODD. This is a very good point. I ask the minority leader if he would not agree this is a tremendously important point. I want to point out to my colleagues here and the minority leader that prior to that time, Mr. Poindexter and Mr. North had deleted--this was public information--over 5,000 e-mails. Mr. North had a shredding party at the White House, as reported by the United Press International. Fawn Hall had changed sensitive documents on North's orders, as reported, by the way, all prior to the consideration of abbreviating the hearings. I ask the minority leader--so we have had none of this, by the way, under this present investigation. Here, with this information of shredding documents, destroying e- mails, trying to take documents by stuffing them in their cowboy boots and sneaking them out of the White House--knowing that, with full information, is it not correct, I ask the minority leader, that the point that the Senator from Maryland is making is even more poignant, because even with that information, the Democratically controlled Congress said, give a finite period and wrap up these hearings. Is that not true?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield to me, in response to a question, just on the point the Senator from Maryland is making?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, $4 million.

Mr. DODD. I say further to the minority leader, I do not know if he was aware of the amount of work. But here are almost 300 pages of a report by the Pillsbury firm. It was the initial report in December, and then this is the supplemental report of February that comes in. There is in excess of 300 pages after a 2-year study, by the way. This is 2 years of work, some $4 million, as I pointed out earlier. I was not aware whether or not the minority leader knew exactly how extensive this report was. Further, may I inquire of the minority leader, he pointed out earlier how much time had been spent on matters such as Medicare, Medicaid, education, health, and the environment. I inquire of the minority leader whether or not he was aware that over the past 2 years, in addition to almost 50 hearings, by the way, on the Whitewater matter, and I gather another 15 hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge, some 60 hearings, more than 60 hearings were conducted, juxtapose that with the hearings that were not held, frankly, in this 104th Congress on the issues that people do care about. The minority leader, was he aware of the number of hearings?

Mr. DODD. When the two Senators from Maine made the case about extending the hearings, they were fully aware of this kind of information. Was that not the basis for the point in the book they talk about?

Mr. DODD. It was done by a private law firm hired by the FDIC--not Congress, or by Democrats or Republicans--that has expertise in this area. The law firm is Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, located, I think, on the west coast, using the services, I point out, of a former Republican U.S. attorney, Jay Stephens. They spent $4 million, in addition to the almost $26 million being spent by the independent counsel, the almost $2 million for the committee--and I do not know what the number is in the House--totaling more than $30 million spent on this investigation. Here is their report now that was added because, after the billing documents were discovered in December, they decided they better wait and take a further look at this. These conclusions are based on after examining those billing records that the people have talked so much about. Their conclusion is to stop it, do not spend another nickel on this, not another red cent. That is the conclusion of an independent body under the leadership of a former Republican U.S. attorney. Stop it. No more money on this. Now, I inquire of the minority leader. That is not what we recommend. The minority leader's recommendation was to allow another month of hearings, and another month after that for a report to be filed; is that not correct?

Mr. DODD. Will the minority leader yield?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I think as to the point which has been raised here regarding Mr. Jennings, a phone call to him, as far as deposition, would have answered the question. He had come up. He was asked because he practiced law in Arkansas with Mrs. Clinton, and the issue was raised as to whether or not she was a competent lawyer. That is why they came together. He could have answered that question in about 15 minutes. Instead he was brought before the entire committee for a whole day. He said she was competent.

Mr. DODD. Just to respond to that particular point which the Senator had.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Was the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, who is a member of the Rules Committee, present?

Mr. DODD. Was there a quorum at any point present?

Mr. DODD. I was referring to this morning.

Mr. DODD. Let me inquire. If a quorum had been produced in the Rules Committee, could not the Rules Committee then have marked up and sent out the bill that we are being asked----

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was going to raise that question. I was wondering whether or not the minority leader is familiar that the report prepared by Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, at the cost, I point out, of nearly $4 million, using the services of former Republican U.S. attorney Jay Stephens. They reached the conclusion--to quote from the report, that ``there existed no basis whatsoever. There is no evidence, however, that the Rose Law Firm had anything to do with the sales. In essence the evidence suggests that these transactions were put together by Mr. McDougal and others at Madison.'' It further concludes, ``It provides no basis for any sort of claim against the Rose Law Firm and, hence, Mrs. Clinton.'' I point that out and ask the leader whether or not he is aware of this. But the earlier report, which this latest report supplements, concludes on page 78 of the report, ``Therefore, pending the results of the criminal case, it is recommended that no further resources be expended on the Whitewater part of the investigation.'' Was the minority leader aware of that conclusion?