Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I strongly support the secondary exchange programs in the Bradley amendment. These semester and academic year programs are one of the more successful assistance programs we have with the new Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The Senator's amendment is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Russia sections of the Libertad bill. I am prepared to accept the amendment exempting this program from the Libertad bill's restrictions on aid to the former Soviet States.

Mr. HELMS. That is correct.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader, and I share his regret that we had to go through all of this. Sometimes it is absolutely essential that we do. I have no hard feelings toward anybody about it. I just wish we could have moved along a little more rapidly. I appreciate all the help the majority leader has given. Amendment No. 2930 to Amendment No. 2936 (Purpose: To make limited exceptions to restrictions on assistance for the independent states of the former Soviet Union imposed by the bill)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Bradley and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I lay before the Senate amendment No. 2936 which includes title I and title II of the Libertad Act only. I ask it be stated.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, title I of the Libertad Act strengthens sanctions against the Castro government. Some of the principal provisions of that title include: urging the President to seek an international embargo against the Castro dictatorship; authorizing the President to support democracy-building efforts in Cuba and to help the victims of Castro's repression; prohibiting financing to any person to finance transactions involving U.S. property confiscated by the Cuban Government; and ensuring that U.S. foreign aid to former Soviet states is not being used to subsidize Castro's regime. Title II of the Libertad Act lays out a proactive strategy to support Cuba's transition to a democratically elected government. The provisions of title II include instructing the President to develop a plan for providing support to the Cuban people during a transition to a democratically elected government. This title also authorizes assistance to meet the emergency and basic humanitarian needs of the Cuban people during the transition period; and it gives the President flexibility to suspend the economic embargo during a transition and to terminate the embargo once a democratically elected government is in office in Cuba. Mr. President, the Libertad bill sends a clear message to the Cuban people, and to other nations, that the United States will not do business with Castro's dictatorship. Mr. President, I strongly urge Senators to support this legislation. I believe that enactment of the Libertad Act will help bring about Castro's departure from power, making Cuba free and democratic. The people of Cuba deserve freedom, and we must not desert them now. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Hear, hear.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, following the remarks of the majority leader, if there be no further business to come before the Senate at that time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. For the final time this afternoon, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. While we are waiting, Mr. President, let me mention that since February 1992, I have each day the Senate has been in session reported to the Senate the exact total of the Federal debt as of the day before the close of business, or in the case of Mondays the previous Friday. I call it the bad news about the Federal debt, and today's news about the Federal debt is pretty bad. Before we have ``another go,'' as the British put it, with our little pop quiz that I so often have, I hope Senators will remember one question, one answer, about this $5 trillion debt that the Congress of the United States has run up for future generations to pay off. That one question on my pop quiz is: How many millions of dollars would it take to add up to $1 trillion? While anybody within earshot is thinking about that, I would suggest that we bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress, where I work--here and the House of Represenatives on the other side--that ran up this Federal debt that now exceeds $4.9 trillion. We are going to hit $5 trillion before this year is out. And these young people who are serving as pages, their generation and generations following them, will be struggling to pay off the debt. Every day that we fail to balance the Federal budget runs the debt up further. All right, what about the total Federal debt as of the close of business yesterday, October 17? The total Federal debt down to the penny stood at $4,968,953,453,657.73. Now, this figure is not far from $5 trillion. Another depressing figure discloses that on a per capita basis, assuming that every man, woman, and child would accept and pay off somehow his or her share of the debt--and we know that only about half of the people, men, women, and children, will in fact pay any taxes at all, but if everybody had a share and paid it off, it would amount to $18,862.23 per man, woman, and child. Now, then, remember the question that I asked in my little pop quiz? How many million in $1 trillion? There are 1 million million in $1 trillion. That gives you some idea of the enormity of the debt and the enormity of the irresponsibility of the Congress during the past generation or more. I suggest the absence of a quorum, awaiting wrap-up information.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Following the disposition of H.R. 927, it is the hope of the leader that the [[Page S 15295]] Senate may consider the State Department reorganization bill, if the manager's amendment can be worked out by that time. Now then, the NASA authorization is a probability in terms of consideration tomorrow. Therefore, additional votes can be expected following the disposition of H.R. 927. Also, all Senators should be on notice that the majority leader intends to turn to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill on Friday of this week.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, it is the hope of the leadership that the Senate may complete action on H.R. 927 by 12 noon, or thereabouts, tomorrow; therefore, votes can be expected to occur prior to 12 noon tomorrow. So I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the Simon amendment numbered 2934, Thursday, October 19, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, following 20 minutes of debate to be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, now about $25 billion short of $5 trillion, has been fueled for a generation by bureaucratic hot air; it is sort of like the weather, everybody has talked about it but almost nobody did much about it. That attitude began to change immediately after the elections in November 1994. When the new 104th Congress convened this past January, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the Senate side, all but one of the 54 Republican Senators supported the balanced budget amendment. That was the good news. The bad news was that only 13 Democrat Senators supported it, and that killed the balanced budget amendment for the time being. Since a two-thirds vote--67 Senators, if all Senators are present--is necessary to approve a constitutional amendment, the proposed Senate amendment failed by one vote. There will be another vote during the 104th Congress. Here is today's bad debt boxscore: As of the close of business Monday, October 16, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,967,827,640,196.29 or $18,857.96 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, some opponents of the pending Libertad bill, I am sad to say, appear to be willing to say almost anything to defeat this bill, a bill that Cubans inside of Fidel Castro's land are pleading with us daily to [[Page S 15213]] pass so that they could have an opportunity for freedom. These people in Cuba are writing to me every day. We have had--I do not know how many letters--50 or 60. Yet the forces who oppose this bill have repeatedly misrepresented what the bill does and have ignored the support that this bill has among the American certified claimant community as well as among Cubans inside Cuba. Now, the record needs to be set straight about what these two groups are saying about the Libertad Act. Last week, for example, this Senate was told that all certified claimants oppose this bill. Not so. For example, Colgate-Palmolive, a certified claimant whose stolen property is valued at over $14 million in 1960 dollars, wrote to me stating this communication is to state for the record the support of Colgate-Palmolive Co. for Senate bill S. 381. This is the bill pending right now. Then Procter & Gamble, another company who had property seized by Fidel Castro's crowd and is therefore a certified claimant, wrote to me and said, We support this legislation as currently written, and agree with the aims and goals of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act. Then there is another claimant company, Consolidated Development Corp., whose president, Alberto Diaz-Masvidal, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee this past June in strong support of this bill. The United States-Cuban Business Council, the largest private sector organization addressing Cuban issues of interest to businessmen-- particularly American certified claimants--has actively encouraged its members to support this legislation. In September, a letter went to all of its members asserting that the Council considers the Libertad Act to be beneficial for the United States business community, protection of United States property rights, and the economic development of a free market, democratic Cuba. Another American property owner supporting the Libertad bill is the Cintas Foundation, which is a New York charitable organization. This organization owns artwork on loan right now to the National Museum in Havana and it, too, has been victimized by Castro's thievery. In 1991, two pieces from the Cintas collection appeared for auction in London. See, what is happening? Castro is stealing this stuff and selling it overseas. The Cintas Foundation submitted testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee saying that the Libertad bill provides an important legal avenue for the Cintas Foundation to prevent any further attempts by the Castro regime to break up and sell off this valuable art collection. These are just a few examples. Now, then, the truth deserves to be heard. There have been specious suggestions that the Cuban people are opposed to the Libertad bill, the pending bill. Absolutely untrue. Yet it has been said on this Senate floor that that is the case. Scores of letters and cassette tapes have been smuggled out of Castro's Cuba and delivered to me expressing support for the Dole-Helms bill or the Helms-Burton bill, or however you want to describe it. These are Cubans who are very well aware that in speaking out against Castro they will be persecuted, to say the very least. They go ahead and speak at great personal risk because they are willing to put their lives on the line to help get this bill passed. Yet we have voices in this Senate and we have voices in the news media saying this is a terrible bill. Mr. President, let me read from one or two of the letters. A vast number of Cuban citizens on October 8 signed a letter to me saying: We, as members of the internal opposition to the dictatorial regime that oppresses us, ask you, in the name of the men and women who languish in Castro's prisons or who saw the ends of their days before a firing squad, that you cooperate to remove the last tyrant in our continent. Then they said: A vote in favor of Helms-Burton will bring joy and hope to all Cubans. It is not the embargo that keeps the Cuban people hungry and desperate, but the Castro dictatorship, and that, all of Cuba knows well. Then there is an October 10 statement delivered by cassette tape representing the views of more than a dozen leaders of human rights and dissident groups in Cuba saying: The U.S. embargo works. The few changes that have taken place in Cuba are a result of economic, political, and diplomatic pressures. Those pressures should be intensified. We support the Helms-Burton initiative. We call upon the Executive not to veto it, if passed. It is a peaceful measure, aimed only at preventing that foreign investors continue buying from the Cuban Government properties confiscated from and not paid to United States and other citizens. By passing this bill, you will be taking a fair ethical decision in the name of freedom and democracy. In September, the leader of another dissident group, Democratic Solidarity Party in Cuba, wrote, We want freedom from oppression, we want respect for our rights, but most democratic government seems to ignore this, * * * But we know that we are not alone in this problem, and you are proof of that Sir. * * * We are deeply thankful of you, and all the politicians who are not forgetting the ultimate interest of the Cuban people * * * to live in freedom and democracy. There are many more, but I think Senators get the point, which is this: American citizens whose property was stolen by Castro want this bill passed. The Cuban people are begging that it be enacted. I simply cannot be a party to our turning our backs on them. The Cuban people deserve freedom. They are pleading for our help. The question just will not go away. Can we in good conscience, Mr. President, turn away from them and walk away on the other side of the road? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters and statements previously referred to in my brief remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Let me read the letter. Dear Jim: It was unfortunate that circumstances yesterday required that I depart from your hearing and go to the Senate Floor to manage a piece of legislation that became the Senate's pending business at 11 a.m. Your comments on two matters after I departed left two significant additional matters that I feel obliged to have you discuss further in a second public hearing on your nomination. They are: (1) Your comment after I had departed, to the effect that you ``corrected the record'' (according to media reports) by testifying that you had become ``less and less convinced'' that it was correct to link trade with China to human rights, and (2) your comments relating to China's threat to disband Hong Kong's Legislative Council. It need not be a lengthy hearing but I believe it essential that there be one. Accordingly, I am asking Admiral Nance and his staff to work with you and the State Department in scheduling your appearance at the most mutually agreeable date and time. It is my intent to schedule a business meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee as quickly as possible for a vote on reporting your nomination to the Senate. When I made my statement, my positive statement, regarding the Sasser nomination, and identified the six votes that Senator Sasser as a Senator had cast correctly, he nodded. It never dawned on me that he was going to correct the record after I left the hearing. If he had made any indication of what he was going to do, I would have called the Senate floor and said I will be delayed in getting there, because it is time that the American people, and particularly those of us who say we represent the American people, understand that we become a part of what we condone. For us to condone what is going on in Red China is to be a part of it. And that is the reason I want to hear further from Senator Sasser, about his nomination to be Ambassador to Communist China--which they call the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, yesterday's comments by Mr. Sasser relating to the administration's position on China's threat to disband and abolish the Hong Kong Legislative Council deserves a bit more comment as well. I do not challenge the opinion expressed by Mr. Sasser on behalf of the administration regarding this action by China. I want to emphasize, however, that China is sweeping away every vestige of democracy in Hong Kong. It is a matter that deserves somewhat more detailed understanding by Americans of precisely what is at stake in Hong Kong. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a front page article of the South China Morning Post faxed to me from Hong Kong be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I apologize for keeping the Senate in session a little bit longer than would otherwise have been the case. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on another subject, with varying frequency all Senators occasionally find themselves in the predicament of having to be in two places or more at one time. Generally, the problem can be resolved by dividing time between conflicting responsibilities. This happened to me yesterday, when the distinguished former Senator from Tennessee, Jim Sasser, appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee, having been scheduled a week or so earlier in connection with his nomination by President Clinton to serve as United States. Ambassador to mainland China, which calls itself the People's Republic of China. If ever there was a misnomer, that is it. In any case, the hearing had been set several days ago for 10 a.m. yesterday morning. On Wednesday evening, the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority leader of the Senate scheduled the Cuba Libertad bill to be the pending business of the Senate at 11 a.m. yesterday. This kind of scheduling happens to all Senators with a high degree of frequency, as I say. And all of us understand that it is endemic to Senate procedure. Yesterday morning I knew it would be a tight fit to handle both responsibilities, but I had many times done it before. But yesterday it did not turn out quite that way. In any event, in my opening statement as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee I wanted to say some positive things about former Senator Sasser's nomination to be Ambassador to Communist China. So, midway through my brief remarks I commented, and I quote myself: When Jim was nominated, I was especially pleased to learn that the President had nominated a gentleman who hasn't always been that easy on the Communists in Beijing. When Mr. Sasser was in the Senate, in fact, he and I often agreed on our respective approaches to China. Between 1988 and 1994 Senator Sasser voted six times to condition the renewal of most-favored-nation trading status for China until the Chinese made significant progress on human rights. He helped override President Bush's veto of the legislation prohibiting the President from extending MFN until the Chinese cleaned up their act after the massacre of 1989. I commend Senator Sasser for standing firm. In his capacity as Senator from Tennessee, Jim Sasser voted to impose some of the very sanctions against China that many U.S. businessmen now actively seek to relax--for example, the suspension of the operations in China by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Senator Sasser supported restrictions on the transfer of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology to China unless specific conditions were met. These were hard, tough issues and Senator Sasser chose the right way every time. I hope he will continue to stick by his principles in making the decisions he will have to make as Ambassador Sasser. Now that he has been nominated to represent the President and the executive branch, I trust he will understand, encourage, and support the congressional role in the formulation and adaptation of the United States foreign policy toward China, Taiwan, and Tibet. That was the statement I made yesterday at the hearing. Now, then, I am getting to the point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a letter I have this afternoon faxed to Senator Sasser be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, every day since February 1992, I have reported to the Senate the exact total of the Federal debt, down to the penny, as [[Page S 15163]] of the close of business of the previous day, or on Mondays it would be, of course, for the previous Friday. As of the close of business yesterday, October 12, the Federal debt stood at $4,972,685,593,071.75. And this figure is approximately $27 billion away from $5 trillion which the Federal Government will surpass later this year or early next year. On a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,876.40, as is his or her share of that debt. No wonder babies come into this world crying.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.