Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks seated at the desk.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 15, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,651,674,551,618.32, five trillion, six hundred fifty-one billion, six hundred seventy-four million, five hundred fifty-one thousand, six hundred eighteen dollars and thirty-two cents. One year ago, May 15, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,665,245,000,000, five trillion, six hundred sixty-five billion, two hundred forty-five million. Five years ago, May 15, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,115,694,000,000, five trillion, one hundred fifteen billion, six hundred ninety-four million. Ten years ago, May 15, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,460,389,000,000, three trillion, four hundred sixty billion, three hundred eighty-nine million. Fifteen years ago, May 15, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,030,072,000,000, two trillion, thirty billion, seventy-two million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $3.5 trillion, $3,621,602,551,618.32, three trillion, six hundred twenty-one billion, six hundred two million, five hundred fifty-one thousand, six hundred eighteen dollars and thirty-two cents during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it is an honor to be joined today by Senator Lieberman and eight other distinguished Senators in the sponsorship of the Cuban Solidarity Act which is intended to be a blueprint for a more vigorous U.S. policy to liberate the now enslaved island of Cuba. This measure, S. 894, is the companion to House bill No. 1271 sponsored by Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart and 95 other Members of the House of Representatives. Whether one supports the current embargo on the Castro regime or not, we should all agree that we can and must do more to help those struggling for freedom today in Cuba. That is the aim of the Cuban Solidarity Act, and that is why I ask Senators on both sides of the embargo issue to consider supporting this bill on its merits. The embargo is not a policy, it is merely a policy tool, and the U.S. policy should be to put an end to Fidel Castro's stranglehold on the Cuban people and end his brutal dictatorship--and the sooner the better. The Cuban Solidarity Act will authorize $100 million in U.S. assistance to the Cuban people over 4 years. It also will mandate a proactive U.S. policy to support the internal opposition to Castro in Cuba. This strategy, by the way, is modeled after the decisive U.S. support for the Polish Solidarity movement back in the 1980s. With the enactment of the legislation, the U.S. Government will move beyond merely isolating the Fidel Castro regime. Indeed, we can undermine Castro's isolation and oppression of the Cuban people by finding bold, proactive, and creative programs to help those who are working for change on the island of Cuba. This can be achieved by giving the President a mandate to increase all forms of U.S. support for prodemocracy and human rights activists in Cuba. This support may include food, medicines, office supplies, books, educational materials, telephones, FAX machines, or other material or financial support. And recipients may include political prisoners or their families, persecuted dissidents, labor rights activists, economists, journalists, and others working for peaceful change. Such support will encourage independent libraries, independent agricultural cooperatives, so-called microenterprises run by self- employed Cubans, or U.S.-based exchange and scholarship programs. In addition, this measure will support nongovernmental charitable programs, such as senior citizen centers, free clinics, or soup kitchens. For Senators who are not fans of foreign aid--and I am among them--I am obliged nevertheless to acknowledge that the investment the United States made in the liberation of Eastern Europe has yielded immeasurable benefits. That is precisely what we propose to do with and to Cuba. Our businesses and our farmers stand to benefit once the Cuban people can begin to reconstruct their economy. This, of course, cannot happen until the Cuban people can shed themselves of the Marxist regime now in power in Cuba that is bankrupt in every sense of the word. While the pending bill neither tightens nor loosens the embargo on the Cuban regime--that is to say, the Fidel Castro regime--it will allow President Bush to license private donations from Americans to independent Cuban groups and to independent self-employed Cubans. The President can license the importation into the United States of goods made by independent, self-employed Cubans. These potential beneficiaries and activities have in common the intent and purpose to promote freedom and independence from the ruthless Fidel Castro regime that now uses hunger and fear to keep the people of Cuba under control. Critics of this bill may contend that this high-profile support will give Castro an excuse to harass and jail dissidents for receiving foreign support. But the sad truth is that Fidel Castro is already tormenting his own people, systematically and relentlessly. Furthermore, if courageous Cuban dissidents choose to stand up for their God-given rights and look to us for moral or material support, certainly we should not turn our backs on them. Let Castro do his worst. Let us do our best. Let others waste their energy trying to engage the wornout, cruel dictator, Fidel Castro. The United States will be engaging the other 11 million souls on the island of Cuba who have suffered persecution for too long already. President Bush already has broad authority to initiate many of the programs prescribed by this bill, and I anticipate that he may do so. He should begin by instructing all relevant U.S. agencies to increase support to democratic opposition groups on the island of Cuba. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development has been providing support to U.S. groups promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba. Under the Clinton administration, this program amounted to little more than ``window dressing.'' Hardly anything was done about it. Under President Bush, it must have more personnel, more money, and more room to maneuver around the Fidel Castro regime. Now other steps are prescribed by this proposed legislation, and they are steps that President Bush can take this day, right now. For example, the proposed act also urges multilateral diplomacy calling on the Cuban Government to respect human rights, free political prisoners, legalize political parties, allow independent trade unions, and submit to internationally monitored free elections, none of which Fidel Castro has permitted since he took over the island of Cuba. The pending legislation urges the ``freedom broadcasting" stations, known as Radio and Television Marti and the Voice of America, to take steps to overcome Castro's jamming of the power of those stations so that their excellent programming will be available throughout the island. The act also urges the President of the United States to instruct the Attorney General to bring to justice those Cubans involved in the February 1996 shoot-down of four innocent pilots on a humanitarian mission over international waters. Pending indictments also tell us that Castro and his cronies are up to their noses in cocaine smuggling. It is high time for Fidel Castro to be held accountable for that crime and his many other crimes. The act also mandates an international campaign to remind the world every day of Castro's abuse of human rights, workers' rights, the independent press, and religious freedom of the Cuban people. The act also requires an indepth review of all of Fidel Castro's threats to U.S. security posed by his espionage and his relentless quest for unconventional weaponry. This coming Sunday, May 20, will mark Cuba's independence day. Few Americans know that the United States played a pivotal role in helping Cubans win their independence from Spain back in 1902. Today, our Nation is called upon to keep faith with those Cuban mothers who want to raise their children with the best values, and with Cuban fathers who want to see their families thrive and prosper, and for little Cuban children who deserve a better future than they now have. The Cuban Solidarity Act is a blueprint for a principled, proactive policy aimed at liberating Cuba. We will be keeping faith with the Cuban people. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 14, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,641,550,724,928.73, Five trillion, six hundred forty-one billion, five hundred fifty million, seven hundred twenty-four thousand, nine hundred twenty-eight dollars and seventy-three cents. Five years ago, May 14, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,096,217,000,000, Five trillion, ninety-six billion, two hundred seventeen million. Ten years ago, May 14, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,435,319,000,000, Three trillion, four hundred thirty-five billion, three hundred nineteen million. Fifteen years ago, May 14, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,013,345,000,000, Two trillion, thirteen billion, three hundred forty-five million. Twenty-five years ago, May 14, 1976, the Federal debt stood at $601,068,000,000, Six hundred one billion, sixty-eight million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion, $5,040,482,724,928.73, Five trillion, forty billion, four hundred eighty-two million, seven hundred twenty-four thousand, nine hundred twenty-eight dollars and seventy-three cents during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator is most gracious, and I certainly appreciate it. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to present my remarks seated at my desk.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. What is the pending amendment? Are there pending amendments, Mr. President?

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that they be laid aside temporarily so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 574 and ask that it be stated.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for years, the Boy Scouts of America organization has been subjected to malicious assaults by some homosexuals and some liberal politicians simply because the Boy Scouts of America organization, and many individual scout groups, have steadfastly continued to uphold their moral and decent standards for scouting and the leaders of that great organization. I have long admired and supported scouting--its leaders, and the Boy Scouts themselves. (I was one a long time ago, although we will not discuss how long ago that was.) In any case, it comes as no surprise to me that the Supreme Court properly upheld in June of last year the constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America--their rights to establish their own membership guidelines, which included no obligation whatsoever to accept homosexuals as Boy Scout members or leaders. Nor was there any surprise that there came the customary discordant company of radical militants demanding that this landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court be undermined. Mr. President, they never miss a beat, not one--those who demand that everybody else's principles must be laid aside in order to protect the rights of homosexual conduct, or they go on and on like Tennyson's Brook. These radical militants are up to the same old tactics when targeting an honorable and respectable organization, the Boy Scouts of America. Where else do you suppose these people are aiming their attacks now? The answer: the public schools of America. School districts across America are now being pressured to kick the Boy Scouts of America out of federally funded public school facilities. Why and how come, you may ask. I will tell you. It is because the Boy Scouts will not agree to surrender their first amendment rights, and they will not accept the agenda of the radical left in this country. I asked the Congressional Research Service for a report about how many school districts have already taken hostile actions against the Boy Scouts of America. The Congressional Research Service reported to me that at least nine school districts are known to have publicly attacked the Boy Scouts of America, and in the majority of these cases they have done so in an outright rejection of the Supreme Court's ruling protecting Boy Scouts' rights. One of the more publicized instances occurred in Broward County, FL-- a place which earned some notoriety last fall due to its ballot confusion during the Presidential election. Obviously, Broward County, FL, is in another state of confusion: Its school board voted unanimously to forbid--get this--forbid the Boy Scouts of America to use the public school facilities for their meetings, as had historically been the case, unless the Boy Scouts compromised with, guess who? That is right: the homosexual leaders of Broward County. Thankfully, the U.S. district court in Florida intervened at that point, and the court has issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Broward County from moving forward in evicting the Boy Scouts from the school premises. I am obliged to acknowledge that Broward County is not the only school district taking such action. In my own State of North Carolina, members of the Chapel Hill School District have demanded that the Boy Scouts of America change their policy (which was upheld, Mr. President, you will remember, by the Supreme Court in June of last year), or the Chapel Hill School District will send the Boy Scouts packing to find another meeting place. Either do it their way or get out of the school. That is what they are saying in Chapel Hill, NC. Only if they will accept homosexuals as their leaders and fellow scouts will these Boy Scouts be allowed to continue their meetings on school property. But those very same meeting places at school remain open for more than 800 Gay-Straight Alliance clubs. These are homosexual school clubs that have been formed with the assistance of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, which is a radical group committed to promoting immoral lifestyles in the school systems of America. With groups such as these welcomed in our public schools, while the Boy Scouts are kicked out, schoolchildren need, it seems to me, to have the Boy Scouts stick around, and that is what I want to do with this legislation, if I can, and if the Senate will go along with it. This arrogant discriminatory treatment of Boy Scouts of America must not be allowed to continue, and that is why I am sitting here this afternoon offering amendments to reinforce the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the first amendment rights of the Boy Scouts of America and not oblige those Boy Scouts to compromise their membership or leadership guidelines, nor any of their moral principles. Specifically, the pending first-degree and second-degree amendments propose that any public school receiving Federal funds from the Department of Education must provide the Boy Scouts or youth groups such as the Boy Scouts equal access to school facilities and must not discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America by requiring scouts or any other youth groups to accept homosexuals as members or as leaders or any other individuals who reject the Boy Scouts' oath of allegiance to God and country. The penalty for such violation, could constitute the risk of their Federal funding being eliminated. This amendment provides the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education the statutory authority to investigate any discriminatory action taken against The Boy Scouts of America based on their membership or leadership criteria. In other words, DOE will handle cases of discrimination against the Boy Scouts, in the same manner that DOE currently handles other cases of discrimination, which are barred by Federal law and may result in termination of Federal funds. For those unfamiliar with the existing process: DOE has given their Office of Civil Rights oversight responsibility over discrimination complaints. The Office of Civil Rights typically notifies and warns a fund recipient--such as a school--to correct its actions or else. However, it should be noted that according to CRS: Historically, the fund termination sanction has been infrequently exercised, and most cases are settled at . . . the investigative process. . . . Therefore, it's highly unlikely that any school will in fact ever have its funding cut-off; unless it adamantly refuses to provide the Boy Scouts of America equal access to school facilities. Mr. President, 70 years ago, I remember raising my hand to take the Scout Oath. I have it written here but I really do not need it. How many times on Friday night would we stand with our hands up and say: On my honor as a Scout, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law. To help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. Mr. President. I hope the Senate will, as the U.S. Supreme Court has already done, uphold the constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America to continue to take this oath, meaningfully and sincerely. I ask unanimous consent that the two memoranda, prepared by the Congressional Research Service and a legal analysis, which was prepared by the American Center for Law and Justice in support of my amendment on the grounds that it is constitutional--I ask that all of these documents be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 11, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,637,839,303,470.87, Five trillion, six hundred thirty-seven billion, eight hundred thirty-nine million, three hundred three thousand, four hundred seventy dollars and eighty- seven cents. One year ago, May 11, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,666,075,000,000, Five trillion, six hundred sixty-six billion, seventy-five million. Twenty-five years ago, May 11, 1976, the Federal debt stood at $599,704,000,000, Five hundred ninety-nine billion, seven hundred four million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion, $5,038,135,303,470.87, Five trillion, thirty-eight billion, one hundred thirty-five million, three hundred three thousand, four hundred seventy dollars and eighty-seven cents during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am honored to join my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, in introducing legislation to protect workers from having to pay dues to a labor union simply to keep their jobs. This bill, briefly titled the National Right to Work Act, repeals Federal labor laws allowing union bosses to coerce dues from workers who want to go to work, earn honest paychecks and support their families without being forced to support a labor organization. The legislation we are introducing today proposes to put an end to more than half a century of Federal labor policy that directly contradicts Thomas Jefferson's famous statement that ``to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' Specifically, the National Right to Work Act proposes the repeal of those sections of the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, and the Railway Labor Act, RLA, that allow unions to enter into collective bargaining agreements forcing workers to pay dues as a condition of employment. These so-called ``union security'' clauses have been a central tenet of Federal labor law despite interfering with the rights of freedom of speech and association that most Americans take for granted. Under this unfair Federal scheme, labor organizations succeeded in creating workplaces where individual workers have two choices: 1. they either must march in lockstep with local union bosses; or 2. they must forfeit their job. That's clearly not fair, and in response to the excesses of this abuse of the free association rights of employees, Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. While this reform bill did not fully right the wrongs of earlier labor legislation, it did grant States the ability to pass legislation overriding the NLRA regarding union security clauses. Since Taft-Hartley freed State legislature to protect workers, 21 States have passed Right to Work laws, and, not surprisingly, these States have reaped the economic benefits associated with a fair and free labor market. In fact, the 21 States that have passed Right to Work laws have outperformed non-Right to Work States in job creation, real income, and entrepreneurial growth. But much work remains unfinished. More than 8 million workers in 29 non-Right to Work States must pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, and another 1 million workers in Right to Work States are forced to pay dues under the Federal Railway Labor Act, which cannot be preempted by State Right to Work laws. Make no mistake, that warms the hearts of union bosses who take advantage of union security clauses to use workers as cash machines. This gives them an endless source of funding for union activities, including activities not related to collective bargaining activity. The growing influence unions have on the political process--financed by coerced worker dues--is openly acknowledged. During the past election cycle, the AFL-CIO bragged of its plans to spend more than $40 million on worker-subsidized political activity, nearly all on behalf of liberal candidates. These politicians who continue to benefit from the Big Labor cash cow have been successful in protecting the union's ability to coerce money from their membership. But the American people aren't fooled. For more than 20 years, Americans have consistently told pollsters that they believe that a requirement to pay union dues as a condition of employment is unfair. In 1997, a Mason-Dixon poll found that 77 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that workers should be able to keep their job regardless of whether they belong to unions. They're right, and I hope that this legislation will soon put an end to congressional tolerance of forced worker dues. I'm proud to stand with my distinguished colleagues in supporting the National Right to Work Act.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am honored to join my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, in introducing legislation to protect workers from having to pay dues to a labor union simply to keep their jobs. This bill, briefly titled the National Right to Work Act, repeals Federal labor laws allowing union bosses to coerce dues from workers who want to go to work, earn honest paychecks and support their families without being forced to support a labor organization. The legislation we are introducing today proposes to put an end to more than half a century of Federal labor policy that directly contradicts Thomas Jefferson's famous statement that ``to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' Specifically, the National Right to Work Act proposes the repeal of those sections of the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, and the Railway Labor Act, RLA, that allow unions to enter into collective bargaining agreements forcing workers to pay dues as a condition of employment. These so-called ``union security'' clauses have been a central tenet of Federal labor law despite interfering with the rights of freedom of speech and association that most Americans take for granted. Under this unfair Federal scheme, labor organizations succeeded in creating workplaces where individual workers have two choices: 1. they either must march in lockstep with local union bosses; or 2. they must forfeit their job. That's clearly not fair, and in response to the excesses of this abuse of the free association rights of employees, Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. While this reform bill did not fully right the wrongs of earlier labor legislation, it did grant States the ability to pass legislation overriding the NLRA regarding union security clauses. Since Taft-Hartley freed State legislature to protect workers, 21 States have passed Right to Work laws, and, not surprisingly, these States have reaped the economic benefits associated with a fair and free labor market. In fact, the 21 States that have passed Right to Work laws have outperformed non-Right to Work States in job creation, real income, and entrepreneurial growth. But much work remains unfinished. More than 8 million workers in 29 non-Right to Work States must pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, and another 1 million workers in Right to Work States are forced to pay dues under the Federal Railway Labor Act, which cannot be preempted by State Right to Work laws. Make no mistake, that warms the hearts of union bosses who take advantage of union security clauses to use workers as cash machines. This gives them an endless source of funding for union activities, including activities not related to collective bargaining activity. The growing influence unions have on the political process--financed by coerced worker dues--is openly acknowledged. During the past election cycle, the AFL-CIO bragged of its plans to spend more than $40 million on worker-subsidized political activity, nearly all on behalf of liberal candidates. These politicians who continue to benefit from the Big Labor cash cow have been successful in protecting the union's ability to coerce money from their membership. But the American people aren't fooled. For more than 20 years, Americans have consistently told pollsters that they believe that a requirement to pay union dues as a condition of employment is unfair. In 1997, a Mason-Dixon poll found that 77 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that workers should be able to keep their job regardless of whether they belong to unions. They're right, and I hope that this legislation will soon put an end to congressional tolerance of forced worker dues. I'm proud to stand with my distinguished colleagues in supporting the National Right to Work Act.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in rejecting U.S. membership in the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the strongest voice for freedom in the world has been silenced at and by the United Nations. Clearly, Members of the United Nations are far more comfortable with a definition of human rights which is agreeable to rogue nations like Libya and Sudan. This is precisely the sentiment which created the International Criminal Court. If the signatories to the Rome Treaty proceed to establish a permanent International Criminal Court, we need an insurance policy against politicized prosecution of American soldiers and officials. This bill is just that protection, and let me be absolutely clear, the Rome Treaty, if sent to the United States Senate for ratification, will be dead on arrival. Notwithstanding the fact that the Senate will not ratify this treaty, it is, to my knowledge, the first treaty which would be applicable to the U.S. even without the United States consent. This is, to say the least, an appalling breach of American sovereignty and it will not stand. But, there will be real consequences if the United States remains silent in the face of this outrage. It is easy to imagine the U.S. or Israel becoming a target of a U.N. witch hunt, with officials or soldiers being sent before judges handpicked by undemocratic countries. I am pleased that the able Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, is joining in the introduction of this bill. It will help President Bush signal that the United Nations will have to go back to the drawing board when dealing with war crimes. If any such treaty creating a war crimes court does not include the opportunity for a U.S. veto, I will make certain that the Senate vetoes the treaty.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 9, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,643,268,010,418.43, five trillion, six hundred forty-three billion, two hundred sixty-eight million, ten thousand, four hundred eighteen dollars and forty-three cents. One year ago, May 9, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,662,963,000,000, five trillion, six hundred sixty-two billion, nine hundred sixty-three million. Five years ago, May 9, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,088,829,000,000, five trillion, eighty-eight billion, eight hundred twenty-nine million. Ten years ago, May 9, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,435,605,000,000, three trillion, four hundred thirty-five billion, six hundred five million. Fifteen years ago, May 9, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,012,034,000,000, two trillion, twelve billion, thirty-four million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $3.5 trillion, $3,631,234,010,418.43, three trillion, six hundred thirty-one billion, two hundred thirty-four million, ten thousand, four hundred eighteen dollars and forty-three cents during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 8, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,647,881,033,420.09, five trillion, six hundred forty-seven billion, eight hundred eighty- one million, thirty-three thousand, four hundred twenty dollars and nine cents. One year ago, May 8, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,662,693,000,000, five trillion, six hundred sixty-two billion, six hundred ninety-three million. Five years ago, May 8, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,094,597,000,000, five trillion, ninety-four billion, five hundred ninety-seven million. Ten years ago, May 8, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,440,039,000,000, three trillion, four hundred forty billion, thirty- nine million. Fifteen years ago, May 8, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,015,014,000,000, two trillion, fifteen billion, fourteen million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $3.5 trillion, $3,632,867,033,420.09, three trillion, six hundred thirty-two billion, eight hundred sixty-seven million, thirty-three thousand, four hundred twenty dollars and nine cents during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks seated.

Mr. HELMS. I thank my distinguished friend, Joe Biden, for the depth of his explanation. Mr. President, I feel obliged to say at the outset that of all the talented and well-qualified nominees whom President Bush has selected for senior foreign policy positions in his administration, John Bolton, in my judgment, emerges as one of the best and the wisest. He is a patriot, a brilliant thinker, and a talented writer. But most important, John Bolton has the courage of his convictions. He says what he means he means what he says, and he says it well, which is precisely what is needed at the State Department. Mr. Bolton comes to this position at a crucial time because he will confront many security issues, not the least of which is President Bush's pledge to build and deploy a missile defense system. Proceeding with that plan will require close consultation with our allies and much hand holding with Russia. John Bolton's extensive experience in building international support for U.S. positions--remember his service as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations--will serve him and the country well. John Bolton comes with high recommendations and endorsements of some of the Nation's most distinguished foreign policy experts. Four former Directors of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have written to endorse John Bolton. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. I also have at hand a letter written and signed by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, and Larry Eagleburger, among others, urging John Bolton's confirmation by the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, isn't it significant that so many of our Nation's leading and senior foreign policy experts declare in writing and otherwise that John Bolton is eminently qualified for the responsibilities for which the President has nominated him? Of course, the issue is not Mr. Bolton's arms control expertise. The issue here is that some Senators oppose President Bush's policy on various matters and particularly the one involving missile defense. I also suspect that there are some Senators who just don't like the fact that the administration has put forward the nomination of a fine American who will very capably implement President George Bush's policy. The distinguished ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, who is my friend and with whom I work closely and pleasantly, put it honestly and forthrightly when he said to John Bolton during John's nomination hearing: This is not about your competence. My problem with you over the years has been that you are too competent. I would rather that you be stupid and not very effective. Neither of which, I say to my distinguished colleague, John Bolton will ever, ever be. I respectfully suggest that Senators should not be in the business of rejecting nominees because they are too competent for the job, but I commend Senator Biden for his clarity and honesty, as always. I understand the opposition of some Senators to various administration policies, but I do hope my colleagues will give careful consideration to the views of the Anti-Defamation League and other nonprofit organizations which have written their support for John Bolton's nomination. Again, I ask unanimous consent that letters, such as the letter from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, which can hardly be regarded as conservative organizations, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, these groups support John Bolton because of his political views, because of his political expertise, and because of, yes, his personal moral principles. John Bolton is precisely the kind of citizen the United States desperately needs in this difficult time to have an important role in the protection of the American people from the threat of missile attack. This man is a thoughtful scholar and an accomplished diplomat and an honest and decent man. I urge that the Senate confirm his nomination without further delay. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 March 14, 2001. Hon. Jesse Helms, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Dirksen Senate Office Building, SD-450, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We are pleased that you have scheduled a hearing date on President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to serve as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. We strongly support the President's selection of John Bolton for this important position. As former Directors of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, we believe John Bolton is eminently qualified to serve as Under Secretary. He brings a wealth of knowledge to the position as an expert in international law and a great deal of relevant practical experience as a former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. He has acquired a great deal of experience with multinational organizations which have gained in importance for arms control and disarmament, relative to the bilateral forums that dominated the evolution of arms control during the Cold War. Also, he is well suited to work with regional organizations that are pursuing arms control agendas, such as the Organization of American States (which deals with the convention on illicit weapons trafficking). His prior services as Assistant Secretary of State also acquainted him with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the then emerging structure of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. As an experienced international lawyer, John Bolton is superbly qualified to guide the US participation in the negotiations of complex international treaties and in making best use of these treaties for the intended arms control purposes. This is of key importance for the continuing struggle to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to deal with the current proliferation problems regarding Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and other nations. Iraq may well be the most difficult case at this time. It is a fortunate coincidence that John Bolton was deeply involved in the formation of UNSCOM and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolutions designed to reveres Saddam's weapons programs. This expertise is greatly needed now as the Bush Administration seeks to restore the badly eroded international support for maintaining sanctions. Mr. Chairman, we can recommend John Bolton to the Committee without reservation. He has a thorough knowledge of the most pressing arms control and nonproliferation issues of the day, and we hope that the Foreign Relations Committee will unanimously support his nomination. Sincerely, Kennth L. Adelman, Fred C. Ikle, Distinguished Scholar, Center for Strategic & International Studies. Ronald F. Lehman, Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.