Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am about 6 minutes late in reaching the Senate floor because of my responsibility of presiding this morning over the Foreign Relations Committee, at which our former Senator Sasser from Tennessee appeared as President Clinton's nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Communist China. It was good to see so many people from Tennessee, including Senator Sasser's attractive family. I listened with great interest to his testimony. Mr. President, we now resume consideration of the Libertad bill involving the question of whether the United States will continue to tolerate a Communist tyrant 90 miles off our shore, the tyrant being, of course, Fidel Castro. We have a lot of friendly activity around this place from time to time, bipartisan some of it, but much of it intensely partisan. But after all is said and done, most of the times those who participate in partisan exchanges leave the Senate Chamber with friendships intact. That is what I so often do with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd]. Senator Dodd is an interesting gentleman. He is the son of a distinguished U.S. Senator whom I knew. And I think it is fair to say-- and I know that Chris Dodd, the present Senator, would acknowledge the fact--that he and his father differed very sharply in their philosophical views, their views about foreign policy, and so forth. That is certainly the case with respect to the pending legislation, the so-called Helms-Burton bill. This Libertad bill has already been passed by the House. Yesterday, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Dole, made the judgment that it was time for the Senate to act on the Senate version of the bill. They are almost identical. But Senator Dole realized that the Senate would have to confront another filibuster by our Democrat friends. Now, our friends across the aisle here have filibustered just about everything that has come up this year. A filibuster is not unusual because it is done by both sides. As a matter of fact, I must confess once or twice at least in my years in the Senate I have raised questions at some length about various pieces of legislation. But as I listened to Senator Chris Dodd yesterday while he spoke at some length about the pending Cuban Libertad bill, I frankly could not tell which bill he was talking about. He certainly was not talking about the bill pending at that time, which in fact is pending now, the Libertad Act. He was talking about some imaginary bill that was totally unrecognizable to me. I decided it was mostly tongue-in-cheek on his part. But it is hard to tell. Anyway, Mr. President, I thought about it last night as I was driving home, and again this morning. I wish that Senator Dodd were here now. He may presently be, because he, like me, is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and he attended the Sasser hearing this morning. But, as I listened to Senator Dodd's oratory talking about a nonexistent bill, I made the judgment that I would like to join him in opposing the bill that he was condemning--a fictional bill that does not exist, a bill that has nothing to do with the pending legislation which the clerk has just reported. That said, let us talk about what is before the Senate, the pending Cuban Libertad bill. It goes by various names. The Senate version is known as the Dole-Helms Libertad Act. When I first introduced my version early this year--with Congressman Burton offering very similar legislation in the House, it became the Helms-Burton bill. I don't care whose name is attached to it or who gets the credit for it; I believe that the U.S. Government and the American people had better make clear that we are not going to kowtow to Fidel Castro, a Communist who has murdered literally thousands of his own people, a tyrant who has imprisoned his political enemies for as long as 30 years. And yet there are some voices in this country, and in this Senate, who say, well, we need to get along with Fidel Castro and we need to trade with Castro. Well, that reminds me of the distinguished Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, who went over to Munich to meet with Adolph Hitler. Chamberlain returned to London exuberant. Boasting, in effect: ``We can do business with this fellow Hitler. We can have peace in our time.'' And the press in England, the London Times and all the rest, put Lord Chamberlain all over their front pages, praising Chamberlain to the skies. But there was one patriot who dared to stand up to be counted, who said: ``Wait a minute. I will not be a party to this.'' That voice was Winston Churchill, and as Paul Harvey says, now you know the rest of the story. Neither the British nor anybody else had peace in their time. Adolph Hitler was a bloody tyrant. World War II put an end to Hitler and Winston Churchill led the free world to victory over tyranny. Winston Churchill has gone down in history as a hero. Neville Chamberlain is all but forgotten. But what is before this body, Mr. President--let us call it the Dole- Helms Libertad Act--is simply a proposal to perfect and improve a bill that passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 294 to 130 earlier this year. So what is now before the Senate is a bill that has been improved to reflect the legitimate concerns of the Clinton administration and others who support the pending Libertad Act. Now, let me try to focus in on some of the details of the pending bill. Title I of the Dole-Helms Libertad Act is designed to be the next logical step in building on the Cuban Democracy Act. The Cuban Democracy Act was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1992. It was intended to strengthen the U.S. embargo against Castro. It was intended to seek, aggressively, international sanctions against Fidel Castro's repressive regime, and it was intended to support directly the Cuban people who were being brutalized by Fidel Castro and his henchmen. Mr. President, some of the provisions of the Dole-Helms substitute: First, to authorize the President, whoever he may be, to furnish assistance to support democracy-building efforts and to assist victims of political repression and to facilitate visits of international human rights monitors; Second, to prohibit loans, credits or other financing for transactions involving U.S. property that has been confiscated by the Castro thugs; Third, condition any U.S. aid that may be contemplated to any republics that belonged to the former Soviet Union. Such conditions will be based on whether these former republics are now subsidizing the Castro economy or are benefiting from Cuban intelligence facilities directed against the United States. The Dole-Helms bill authorizes the President to implement a fully reciprocal exchange of news bureaus between the United States and Cuba. [[Page S 15078]] Some of these sections already speak to actions the President has already taken. Nothing in the pending bill--nothing--prevents the exercise of lawful Presidential authority. What it does is place the Congress of the United States--the House of Representatives and this Senate--on record as being concerned with the direction of certain executive branch activities. Now let us get to what is identified as the spending Dole-Helms bill. Title III of the substitute is the most misunderstood part of the bill, and it is the most important section. What title III does, Mr. President, is protect the interests of U.S. nationals whose property was wrongfully confiscated by Fidel Castro and his henchmen. It does this by making persons or entities that knowingly and intentionally exploit stolen properties--United States properties, that is--in Cuba liable for damages in United States district court. The intent, of course, is to deter third country nationals from seeking to profit from wrongfully confiscated properties--and to deny Fidel Castro what he needs most to survive: hard cash. Title III specifically establishes the private civil right of action--that is, a right to sue in U.S. courts--for any U.S. national having ownership of a claim to commercial property confiscated by Castro against a person or entity who is knowingly benefiting from the use of such confiscated property. In other words, making profit off stolen goods. That is the simple term. The intent of this provision is to create a deterrence so that foreign investors do not unjustly benefit from American property confiscated by Fidel Castro and his henchmen. But there are a number of conditions that an American claimant must satisfy before he can even get into court. The Libertad Act now pending provides a 6-month period between this provision's enactment and the ability of a claimant to use the remedy. It requires an affirmative duty to notify a potential defendant about the claim to the confiscated property, and it provides treble damages only after an additional notice has been given. It requires that the claim meet a minimum amount in controversy, a minimum amount of $50,000 exclusive of court costs. It requires service of process in accordance with existing laws and rules, including that any actions brought against a State entity must be in accordance with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. That was the reason I was puzzled by some of the things Senator Dodd was saying yesterday, and I am sorry he is not here to discuss them with me. Finally, it provides that certified claimants who use this right of action are not denied U.S. Government espousal if they do not receive full compensation, but it reduces any responsibility to espouse by the amount of any recovery, and it discharges the United States from responsibility with respect to the certified claim if the claimant receives equal or greater compensation through this right of action. Now then, I think it is essential to make it clear what title III does not do. It does not require, nor does not authorize, the United States Government to espouse the claims of a naturalized person in any settlement with a future Cuban Government. All sorts of legalistic meanderings have insinuated that this bill does that. Strike it, it does not do that. Title III is the most important part, in my judgment, of the Libertad Act because, in addition to protecting our own citizens' property rights, it will deny the Castro Government access to the taking of foreign hard cash that Castro has been using to prop up his tottering regime, and to continue his enslavement of the Cuban people. Oh, yes, I can understand that these thieves in the night, who operate in the dark shadows of international commerce, are upset that our action might end the free ride that they have been enjoying while pocketing a great deal of blood money. But it is time for simple justice; it is a moral duty and responsibility that we do this. We become a part of what we condone, Mr. President. If we further condone Fidel Castro, we are a part of Fidel Castro's tyranny. And I do not intend to be a part of that. It is time that we serve notice on our principal trading partners that they should be ashamed of themselves-- ashamed of themselves--for having anything to do with such activity by any of their own nationals, or to stand idly by without speaking out when it is done by others. They have a moral duty. We have a moral duty, and that is what this bill is all about. What it does not do, contrary to what the distinguished Senator from Connecticut was implying yesterday, is, it does not adversely affect, in any way, the rights of any certified American claimants. Not one. What it does not do is create an open door for voluminous Federal litigation. It will not happen. Henny Penny can quiet down, the skies are not going to fall. What it also does not do is create new burdens for this or any future Cuban Government. The target is international traffickers, and the remedy has been designed to achieve that goal. Once again, despite insinuations, suggestions, allegations, whatever, that no certified claimants support this bill, the fact is that countless hundreds of them do indeed support the Libertad Act--for example, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Chrysler, Consolidated Development Corp., and many others. Frankly, Mr. President, what the Libertad Act also does not do is burden the executive branch of our own Government, in a time of transition, from fashioning effective agreements with a Cuban transition government. It should enhance the ability of the President of the United States to fashion effective remedies, discouraging trafficking in property owned by U.S. citizens. Now, lest it escape the understanding of anybody, let us be clear about how Castro and his cronies acquired these ``confiscated'' properties. He stole them. He stole them from their rightful owners, and now that he is desperate for hard currency to sustain his regime, Castro is offering foreign investors a subjugated labor force. He is offering foreign investors a low-cost use of this property, the same stolen properties that belong to American citizens. If there ever was unjust enrichment at the expense of U.S. citizens, this is it, and it has to stop. We must, in my judgment, as a responsible U.S. Senate, vote to throttle Fidel Castro. That is why the Libertad Act is more important than ever before. Since the introduction of the Libertad Act, the news media have reported on numerous occasions that foreign investments in Cuba are slowing down because of concerns that the bill will be enacted. The Miami Herald reported in June of this year, ``One Canadian firm called off plans to expand its involvement in Cuba, and other investors have slowed down their plans to avoid committing any cash before the fate of Helms-Burton is decided.'' In July of this year, 3 months ago, the National Law Journal reported: ``The chilling specter of lawyers enforcing the embargo has led more than one foreign investor to conclude that investing in Cuba may not be worth the risk of having their U.S. assets attacked by companies that once did business on the island.'' Many foreign investors are leaving Cuba because Castro continues to confiscate property. A German investor wrote an op-ed piece in USA Today in September, saying ``My trust in the Cuban marketplace has been severely shattered, and I want to issue a warning to eager potential investors from the United States: In Cuba, you have to learn to live with out-of-control communism. I have learned my lesson.'' Mr. President, this German investor was taken by Castro's security agents to their headquarters and was later put on a plane back to Germany. Cuban officials confiscated much of his belongings. Now, that is the way the Castro regime operates; that is the way it has always operated. It used to be that Americans stood united about this Communist threat 90 miles off our shore. But now we are changing, ala Neville Chamberlain, who went over to Munich and consulted with Adolf Hitler and came back and said, ``We can have peace in our time. We can do business with Adolf Hitler.'' But nobody could do business with Adolf Hitler, and we should not be doing business with Fidel Castro. They are two peas in the same pod. [[Page S 15079]] The Libertad Act is certainly worth the support of every Senator. Every Senator will not support it; but I ask support for this bill, as does Senator Dole, because it is the right thing to do for America. I ask support for the bill because it is the right thing to do for the Cuban people. Ask the Cubans how they feel about it. The ones still in Cuba, the ones who are in exile in this country and elsewhere. I have received countless letters of support, Mr. President, from Cubans still in Cuba, pleading for this Senate to enact the Libertad bill into law. Their hope for freedom is at stake. These people are supporting this bill, fully aware that for having done so, they are risking persecution by Fidel Castro. As far as I am concerned, they are the heroes of the Libertad Act. I think Senators ought to bear that in mind when the time comes, if it comes, to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American people have an enormous stake in Mexico--a neighboring country with which the United States shares a 2000-mile border and which is a significant trading partner. Many of Mexico's problems have become our problems, especially drug trafficking fueled by incredible corruption which touches every community in America. On August 8, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted a hearing on the magnitude of the illegal Mexican drug trade and its affect on United States-Mexican relations. It was startling to hear both United States officials and Mexican experts describe the spreading tentacles of drug trafficking and drug-related corruption threatening to engulf the 10-month presidency of Ernesto Zedillo. The hearing, however, was not limited to the bad news; the witnesses offered several initiatives that could be helpful to President Zedillo and the Mexican people in confronting the drug lords. This hearing prompted Senator Feinstein and me, working with Senator Grassley as chairman of the Senate Drug Enforcement Caucus, to prepare a resolution I now send to the desk for first reading and appropriate referral. The enormity of the problem confronting Mexico is such that the Mexican Government's own National Institute for Combating Drugs concluded recently that the increasing power of the drug kingpins could ultimately make Mexico ``ungovernable.'' All too often, Mr. President, these evil traffickers are aided and abetted by unscrupulous Mexican Government and law enforcement officials. For example, it has been reported that the leader of the so- called gulf cartel, Juan Garcia Abrego--who also has become a fixture on the FBI's most wanted list--bribes senior Mexican Government officials to the tune of $50 million a month in running his operations. While United States officials were heaping praise upon former Mexican president Salinas' commitment to fighting drugs, Mr. Salinas' senior drug enforcement officials were on the traffickers' payroll. Two of his three drug enforcement directors have been charged with accepting bribes from drug traffickers. Salinas' Deputy Attorney General, Mario Ruiz Massieu, kept millions of dollars in U.S. bank accounts which the U.S. district attorney for southern Texas alleges are payoffs from drug traffickers. And in another disturbing revelation, in May, Mexican newspapers published transcripts of phone conversations involving Marcella Bodenstadt, identified as a Garcia Abrego associate and the wife of a cartel money-launderer, and Salinas' Minister of the Presidency, with whom she was having an affair. The Minister of the Presidency, who managed the national security and intelligence apparatus for the Salinas government, claims he knew nothing about Ms. Bodenstadt's drug connections. This concurrent resolution recognizes that President Zedillo inherited the governmental structure influenced [[Page S 15131]] by the drug lords. It acknowledges his initial efforts at reform. And it urges President Clinton to encourage and support President Zedillo's initiatives to create a nation of law, combat drug trafficking, investigate political killings--many of which also are related to the drug trade--and to punish official malfeasance. It is in Mexico's interest to pursue vigorously the investigations of three high-profile murders linked to drug trafficking. The May 1993 murder of Cardinal Juan Posadas, allegedly by drug traffickers led by the kingpins of the so-called Tijuana cartel, Benjamin and Ramon Arellano Felix, shocked the world. However, 2\1/2\ years later, the Arellano Felix brothers are still free, even though they reportedly are seen around town. Then there was the killing of PRI Presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio in Tijuana in March 1994. Drug traffickers and corrupt police officials have been implicated in the killing and in subsequent efforts to obstruct investigations. Two weeks after Colosio's murder, the local police chief was gunned-down while conducting his own investigation into the assassination. In May 1995, the Governor of Baja California confirmed that the Tijuana police chief had been murdered by a Federal Judicial Police officer. Mr. President, corruption within the police remains a serious problem. In March 1995, 14 officers of the same Federal Judicial Police--a group known for torture, rape, and drug corruption--were accused of stealing and selling cocaine base. Earlier this year, NBC Nightly News aired film footage of Mexican police helping traffickers unload cocaine. And when President Zedillo's appointed chief of police, Juan Pablo de Tavira, decided to purge the force of corrupt officers, he was mysteriously poisoned hours before a meeting with the Attorney General to implement the cleansing of the police force. In the case of Mexico, President Zedillo must guarantee that his nation will be governed by law--which has not been the case during the PRI's 66-year one-party rule of Mexico. It is not sufficient to arrest an occasional drug lord who has not paid for protection. A consistently applied standard of punishment against all drug traffickers and corrupt government and law enforcement officials, regardless of position or wealth, is crucial. U.S. programs to combat drug trafficking are a waste if senior foreign government officials assist drug gangs and policemen are in cahoots with traffickers. The U.S. Government must send the message that we support tough antidrug and anticorruption initiatives. While a few dedicated United States officials daily combat drug trafficking, in diplomatic exchanges with Mexico, drug trafficking and corruption are rarely ever mentioned. It seems that U.S. officials fear that the mere mention of drugs will offend their counterparts and perhaps ruffle cozy diplomatic relationships. This is absurd. The insidious influence of drug trafficking and political corruption are the greatest threat to both nations' national security. All of us are affected by drugs and crime--much of which is committed by persons under the influence of drugs. We have a responsibility to fight drugs crossing our borders. The lives and well-being of our families, children, and grandchildren are at stake. It is the intent of this resolution to signal our resolve in fighting the scourge of illegal drugs.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a heart-rending article about China's forced abortion policy was published in September's Reader's Digest. The article emphasized the absurdity of the U.N. Fourth Conference on Women having been held in Beijing, and should be required reading for those who insist that China's human rights record should be considered only in the abstract--and should not interfere with full-scale relations with the Communist Chinese. The Reader's Digest story, ``A Question of Duty,'' relates a young Chinese obstetrician's courageous decision to refuse to murder a baby born illegally under Chinese law. For refusing to kill the baby (who survived a chemical abortion procedure) Dr. Yin Wong was banished to a remote Chinese province. Dr. Wong eventually escaped to the United States where he hopes to be granted political asylum. But the baby Dr. Wong fought to save was put to death under orders from the local Chinese family planning office. Mr. President, the thought of killing a baby is abhorrent, but it is commonplace in Communist China. The concept that the birth of a human being can be illegal is grotesque, but in China, it is the law of the land--for mothers who already have one child. Mr. President, I will never understand how or why the United Nations chose Beijing for such a high-profile human rights meeting. It was the U.N. Population Program [U.N.F.P.A.] that helped design China's population control program 20 years ago. This cruel experiment, which uses forced abortions and sterilizations to limit each family to one child, has debased the value of human life and has forever discredited U.N.F.P.A. For fiscal year 1995, the Clinton administration handed over $50 million to U.N.F.P.A., and Mr. Clinton proposed another $55 million for fiscal year 1996. If Senators will take the time to read Dr. Yin Wong's story, they will understand why many Americans feel so strongly, as I do, that further funding of the U.N. Population Program, using American taxpayer's money, should be prohibited. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that ``A Question of Duty'' from the September 1995 Reader's Digest be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I am very glad the Senator asked that question because it appears that there has been organized fearmongering regarding this legislation by a few who, are not content to wait until it is lawful for Americans to deal with a free and independent Cuba. Instead, these people seem intent on cutting their own early deal with the evil dictator, Castro, at the expense of the Cuban people. I have previously said that I am expecting to hear soon that the Libertad bill is the cause of the common cold. There is nothing in this bill which disadvantages certified American claimants; on the contrary, there is much that enhances their status. And there is nothing in this bill that will result in a wave of lawsuits that will burden our courts. In the first instance, this bill particularly recognizes and restricts the U.S. Government's espousal responsibilities to certified claimants. The Libertad bill also specifically ties the President's authority to provide foreign assistance or to support international credit to a new government in Cuba to that government's public commitment and initiation of a process to respond positively to the certified claimants' property claims. The bill advantages certified claimants by restricting the right of action--the right to sue foreigners for compensation--to require that recoveries from traffickers will reduce the amount recovering claimants can otherwise obtain from the U.S. Government's espousal. And it is not a possible to obtain default judgments against the current government in Cuba under this bill, thus assuring that additional claims will not burden the new government. Title III also protects the settlement amount of all certified claims by denying a claim to, participation in, or interest in any settlement proceeds by: First, those who were not eligible to file under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 but did not do so; second, those who were not eligible to file under the International Claims Settlement Act; or third, any Cuban national, including the Cuban Government. Such an exclusive provision does not now exist. The Libertad bill will make it clear, in a statute, who can receive the benefits of any settlement of certified property claims with the Cuban Government. In short, it is the bill's intent that certified claimants have priority to assets of the Cuban Government in settling property claims. The President is authorized to suspend the right of action when a transition government comes to power, and he is already authorized under existing law to terminate any lawsuits then underway. Thus, this statute will not impede the President's authority to negotiate with a transition Cuban Government. The right of action is itself an important weapon for certified claimants to assure their property will still be intact when freedom comes. Let me point out some other reasons why the Libertad will not result in a flood of litigation. The bill provides a 180-day grace period, beginning on the bill's date of enactment, for traffickers to stop their violation of our citizen's property rights. There is an additional 30-day notice required before exemplary additional damages can be sought. Furthermore, the jurisdictional requirements mandate that the plaintiff must be a U.S. citizen with a claim to commercial property valued in excess of $50,000 that is being unjustly exploited by a third party. The bill requires that the defendant must be properly found within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The bill denies the use of the right of action when a property claim has been traded or transferred into U.S. jurisdiction after the bill's enactment. As I have previously stated, it also discourages suits against the present government in Cuba and requires that the defendant be proven to have knowingly and intentionally trafficked in the property after the 6-month period following the bill's enactment. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only a few cases would qualify under these stringent requirements. The point of these requirements is to ensure that only commercially significant cases are filed and adjudicated. I hope you will agree that we have accomplished our goal and that this will reassure your constituents that they have been falsely informed regarding what this bill does.

Mr. HELMS. I would be glad to respond to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that evening in 1972 when I first was elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It has proved enormously beneficial to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate. Most of them have been concerned about the enormity of the Federal debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. The young people and I almost always discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 22, 1992. I wanted to make a matter of daily record of the precise size of the Federal debt which as of yesterday, Wednesday, October 11, stood at $4,968,818,321,533.20 or $18,861.72 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, some of us have been waiting quite a while for the pending legislation, known generally as the Helms-Burton bill. But as the distinguished majority leader has [[Page S 14995]] just said, the pending bill has wide support in both parties and in both Houses of Congress. The water was muddied a bit last week by President Clinton, but I will say for the President that, confusing as his actions are and have been with respect to Cuba, he did, in my judgment, reemphasize last week that the embargo against Fidel Castro's Communist regime in Cuba is still an absolute necessity. On that, I certainly agree with the President. I think most Americans, and certainly those who are still prisoners in Cuba and those who fled Cuba and are now in exile, unanimously agree that the embargo against Fidel Castro must be continued. For 36 years--and this covers a period when eight American Presidents were in the Oval Office--the U.S. policy of isolating Castro has been consistently bipartisan. And I do hope that consideration of this bill today, and for however long it takes beyond today, will continue to be bipartisan. It is called the Libertad bill, and it builds on and enhances that embargo policy, which I hope, as I say, will continue to be bipartisan. Why? That is a rhetorical question, and everybody knows the answer to it. Certainly, every Senator is old enough to remember Fidel Castro's entry into Cuba. I remember Herbert Mathews of the New York Times--that newspaper that prints ``all the news that is fit to print,'' as they say in boastful declarations--Mr. Mathews sent dispatch after dispatch to the New York Times from Havana reminding one and all that Fidel Castro was just a nice, little agrarian reformer. And then there was Edward R. Murrow, who broadcast nightly that Fidel Castro was a peace- loving agrarian reformer. That is when Fidel Castro was in the boondocks and Mathews and Edward R. Murrow went out and sat at Castro's knee and trumpeted his propaganda via CBS and the New York Times. Well, when Mr. Castro got to Havana, the bloodletting began. And anybody who is in this Senate is certainly old enough to remember what happened. There was tyranny throughout Cuba. Mr. Castro, first of all, took up all of the guns from his political enemies; and he lined up a great many of those political enemies before firing squads. As for the declarations by Herbert Mathews of the New York Times and Edward R. Murrow that Fidel Castro was not a Communist, the first declaration that Mr. Castro made when he became the premier of Cuba was, ``I am a Communist, I have always been a Communist, and I will always be a Communist.'' So Fidel Castro became known worldwide as a cruel, bloody tyrant, whose regime engaged in rampant human rights abuses, drug smuggling, arms trafficking, and terrorism. Mr. Castro sits atop a structure that regularly and routinely abuses, detains, tortures, and executes its citizens. He is a self-declared, committed Communist who stands against every fundamental principle that the American people value. In all--I saw some statistics on this the other day, Mr. President-- more than 10,000 Cubans have been killed by Castro and his regime, with tens of thousands more having fled their homeland to escape his tyranny. Currently, at least a thousand Cubans are, this very day, being held as political prisoners in Castro's jails. Yet, the United States liberal community, including this Senate, so desperately desires good news out of Cuba so that they can cast Castro in some favorable light that they will seize on the flimsiest of evidence. I fear that this is precisely what is going on down on Pennsylvania Avenue. Let the record show that there has been no fundamental change in Fidel Castro's policies. None whatever. If you doubt it, ask Mario de Armis who is acknowledged by the U.S. State Department as the Cuban prisoner who has served the longest sentence--30 years in a Castro prison--for his political beliefs. He committed no crime. He just did not agree with Fidel Castro. He was not a Communist. So, to jail he was sent by Castro for 30 years. Mr. de Armis supports the U.S. embargo. Let me quote exactly what he said recently: Stand on the side of the oppressed against the dictator Fidel Castro. It is not my opinion but the opinion of everybody. I refer to the working people of Cuba, that the embargo should be maintained, it should be kept in effect, it should be strengthened. Or you might want to ask Armando Valladares, who was locked up for 20 years in a Castro prison. He said in a recent letter to me, ``I strongly believe that the remaining days of Castro's tyranny will be shortened once your Libertad bill is passed.'' Now, Mr. President, it is not just those who have suffered under Castro who have been forced to flee. It is not these people alone who favor continued isolation of Castro. It is those still inside Cuba, still struggling for freedom, who also endorse a tightening of the embargo. Recently, I received a letter signed by scores of Cubans inside Cuba who courageously, at great risk to themselves and their personal safety, endorsed the Libertad bill. Let me quote from their letter: ``Because of a wicked turn of destiny, a history with contrasting elements is repeating itself in Cuba. In the early years of the revolutionary triumph, the government headed by Castro confiscated all private property belonging to both Cuban and foreign capitalists to save economically the fledgling revolution.'' ``In 1995,'' the letter continues, ``and in order to save the same revolution, socialism and [its] alleged gains, the same properties are put on sale for other capitalists to buy although this represents no benefit for the Cuban people.'' Now, Mr. President, the letter is long but let me refer to one more statement: ``We support the alternative you propose.'' Now, Mr. President, he is referring to the pending legislation now before the U.S. Senate. He goes on to say ``Its approval will mean a definite turn in our favor. We thank you sincerely for what you are doing.'' Now, these people, who are still in Cuba, and who ran a personal risk in writing their letter to me, said--referring to the impact of the economic embargo--``The economic embargo maintained by subsequent administrations has begun to have its effect, felt not against the people, but against those who cling to power.'' Despite the risk of arrest and intimidation and forced exile, these letters of support coming to me and, I am sure, coming to Congressman Burton and other Members of the House and Senate of the United States in support of the pending bill, continue to make their way out of Cuba and on to our desks in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. I must emphasize, for the sake of clarity, that these are the people on the front line in Cuba. They know firsthand what kind of man Castro is and has been. They know what he represents. They are in a position to judge best what the impact of the pending bill, the Libertad bill, the Helms-Burton bill, will have in Cuba. Now, some opponents of the pending legislation have recently made claims that it is time to normalize relations with Castro, that he has made political and economic reforms, and that Cuba is open for business and that we are somehow missing out on golden opportunities. Some prominent people in business circles contend that we are missing out on what they describe as golden opportunities. They seem willing to overlook the thousands of people murdered by Castro, the thousands of people who have been locked up in Castro's dingy prisons. No problem, they say, in effect. Just do a little business with Castro, make a little profit off of the misery of these Cuban people. Talk about callous nonsense--Castro has not implemented even one serious political move toward a free society in the last 36 years--not once. His economic reforms have been designed more to alleviate pressure on his regime than to permit the betterment of the Cuban people. The Cuban economy is in shambles. It is, in fact, in such dire straits that Castro has laid off some 500,000 to 800,000 workers, more than one-fifth of Cuba's work force. Even Castro's new foreign investment law that has been trumpeted all around in big business circles, this foreign investment law continues to place economic decisionmaking in the hands not of free enterprise but in the hands of the Cuban Communist Government. It has nothing to do with economic freedom for the Cuban people. The [[Page S 14996]] Cuban Communists, Mr. Castro's crowd, do you not know, will still dictate which Cubans get jobs and which Cubans will not. They will determine how much Cubans will be paid, and it is a pitiful sum that they intend to be paid. So, I think we ought to stop kidding ourselves. We are still dealing with a tyrant, a tyrant who is determined to keep his grip on power. Fidel Castro is not now interested, nor has he ever been interested, in bringing genuine economic and political freedom to Cuba. That is why 30 Senators introduced the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, the Libertad Act or the Helms-Burton bill, however you want to identify it. We are convinced that real political and economic change will come to Cuba only by and when pressure is increased on the Castro regime and while we continue to make clear that we are supporting the Cuban people. This combination of pressure on Castro and support for the Cuban people is central to the pending legislation, the Libertad bill. What does this bill do? It certainly does more than stiffens sanctions. It has three separate and distinct objectives. First, to bring an early end to the Castro regime by cutting off hard currency that keeps the Castro crowd afloat. Without hard currency from the outside, Mr. Castro's days will certainly be numbered. If you want to keep Castro in power, let him get hard currency from outside. But I say no, cut off the hard currency to Fidel. Second, the bill stipulates that planning should start now for United States support to a democratic transition in Cuba with full respect for the self-determination of the Cuban people. And third, of course, is to protect the property confiscated from United States citizens by Castro and his crowd, property that is being exploited this very day by Fidel Castro to subsidize his Communist regime, with foreign companies earning blood money at the expense of the Cuban people. That is what this bill is all about. The proactive strategy set forth in this legislation preserves United States credibility with the Cuban people; it shows that the United States is one of the few countries not willing to legitimize the brutality of the Castro regime in exchange for some mythical market share. Here is the point, Mr. President: This legislation seeks to break the status quo by extending an offer of broad, U.S. support for a peaceful transition, while providing disincentives to companies whose ventures prop up the Castro crowd, the Castro regime, the Communist regime in Cuba, that is exploiting the labor of the Cuban people and the resources of the American property owners. That is what those who want to prop up Castro are willing to do. They are willing to forget all of the murders, all of the decades in which people have suffered in jails since Castro took power. Since this bill was introduced, there has been an unprecedented hue and cry from Mr. Castro's crowd in Havana and, to be honest about it, from certain quarters in the United States. All sorts of dire consequences have been forecast about this bill's probable impact on United States relations with the Europeans and the Canadians. Well, la de da, the Canadians, after all, have been transshipping sugar from Cuba all along, in violation of United States law. I could catalog a lot of other things that ought to be stopped, which the U.S. Government ought to get about the business of stopping. In any case, many of the same predictions that Congress heard in 1992 during the debate on the Cuban Democracy Act are being said today. Nothing came of those predictions about ruptured relations; but the predictions that did materialize were felt by Castro, who was and is the target of the Cuban Democracy Act. The only dire consequences of the Libertad bill's enactment are dire for Mr. Castro. And I do not mind telling you I want to set his tail feathers afire, which is long overdue. He has tormented his own people long enough. I do not have much sympathy for the view held by Americans who do not feel that the United States ought to come to the aid of the Cuban people. We should have done it a long time ago. The pending bill will hurt Mr. Castro at his most vulnerable point-- his pocketbook. It makes clear that only a democratic Cuba, a free Cuba, will receive the benefits of American trade and recognition. Cuba is the last Communist nation in this hemisphere. There once was a bunch of them. Castro is losing his grip on power. He knows it. We know it. And anybody with average vision ought to be able to see it. Why else has Castro launched such an aggressive campaign against this Libertad bill and in favor of lifting the embargo? Everybody knows that. Castro wants an influx of American hard currency. That is what he needs most. That is the only thing that will keep him afloat in the crisis that is growing over his head. What Mr. Castro does not want is for the pending legislation to become law. For those who genuinely support freedom for the Cuban people, that, it seems to me, is the best reason for this United States Senate to follow the lead of the United States House of Representatives in approving the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters from the prodemocracy activists in Cuba and Armando Valladares be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] be recognized for 15 minutes, at which time I regain 4 minutes.

Mr. HELMS. Oh, yes, it is. I know one when I see it.

Mr. HELMS

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

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before discussing today's bad news about the Federal debt, how about another go, as the British put it, with our pop quiz. Remember? One question, one answer. The question: How many millions of dollars does it take to add up a trillion dollars? While you are thinking about it, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.9 trillion. To be exact, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stands at $4,969,404,416,914.25, of which, on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,863.94. Mr. President, back to our pop quiz, how many million in a trillion: There are a million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to state the pending business.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I further ask that any first-degree amendments be filed up to 1 p.m. tomorrow under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, October 12, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there be a period of [[Page S 15065]] morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the exception of the following: Mr. Kohl, 10 minutes; Mr. Burns, 10 minutes; Mr. Hatch, 30 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 927, the Cuba sanctions bill.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 11, 1995, to conduct a hearing on Iran sanctions.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 11, 1995, at 2 p.m.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, a cloture motion was filed on the pending substitute amendments to the Cuba sanctions bill, and it is the hope of the two leaders that the cloture vote could occur tomorrow late evening. A second cloture motion was filed, and that vote is expected to occur Friday morning. Also, the Senate could begin consideration of the State Department reauthorization bill if available.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from Georgia is seeking recognition.