Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a little over 40 years ago--January 28, 1955--the Nation's pre-eminent defender of workers' freedom was founded in the basement of Washington's Mayflower Hotel. It was named the National Right to Work Committee, and it was organized by a small group of railroad workers and small businessmen. The Right to Work Committee has grown into a proud home for freedom- loving Americans who believe that while workers may have the right to unionize, no American worker should ever be compelled to join, or even support, a labor union. Mr. President, upon the founding of the committee, its first president, Congressman Fred A. Hartley, Jr., of New Jersey, declared, ``[We] will not shrink because of attacks which may be made against us. We intend to do everything [[Page S5390]] possible to educate the American people to the perils of compulsory unionism and to encourage them to resist it.'' Three years later, in 1958, after piloting the successful fight for Kansas' Right to Work Law, a dedicated American named Reed Larson left his job as an engineer in Kansas to lead the right to work movement in America. At the time, the power of the Big Labor bosses was virtually unchecked. By 1965, the unions had rolled up what appeared to be a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate favoring legislation to obliterate the one obstacle in their path to total dominance of the American work force: State Right to Work Laws. Such legislation was Big Labor's number one priority. The bosses were backed by President Lyndon Johnson and the Congressional leadership. But, Mr. President, Reed Larson and the Committee's members refused to be intimidated by the power arrayed against them. With the help of legendary Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen and after a fierce 2 year struggle, the Committee defeated the enemies of worker freedom. The fight to preserve State Right to Work laws marked the coming of age of the National Right to Work Committee. From that moment on, the Big Labor bosses realized that someone was finally going to stand up to their ceaseless demand for power over the lives of American working men and women. As further protection for working Americans, Larson in 1968 founded the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation to aid workers in legal confrontations with union-boss despots. In the 27 years since, the Foundation has been a leader in protecting the legal rights of workers and has won several significant Supreme Court cases--including the landmark 1988 Beck case which declared that forced union dues for politics was unconstitutional. During the 1970s the Committee battled attempts by Big Labor and its Congressional allies to throw the net of compulsory unionism over the American construction industry with the ``Common Situs'' picketing scheme. Big Labor steamrolled this legislation through both the House and Senate amid President Ford's Labor Secretary John Dunlop's assurances of presidential approval. Against all odds, Reed Larson launched what was at the time the largest grassroots mobilization in American history, flooding the White House with over 700,000 cards and letters of protest. Despite the pleas of his own Labor Secretary (who resigned shortly afterwards) President Ford vetoed the bill. When the Common Situs Picketing bill returned in 1977, Larson rallied the same grassroots coalition he had so painstakingly assembled the year before and did battle with a seemingly stronger Big Labor political machine. However, Mr. President, in one of the most stunning upsets in American political history, Right to Work forces emerged victorious in the House of Representatives by a slim 217 to 205 vote. As Reed stated after the vote, ``The history and death of the coercive piece of legislation should serve as a very important lesson to powerful union officials . . . seemingly limitless doses of money and muscle are no match for the will of the American people.'' In 1978, Big Labor was razor close to enacting a so-called ``Labor Law Reform'' bill which would have given union organizers tremendous powers to blackmail employers into granting forced-dues contracts. Reed Larson mobilized the majority of Americans opposed to compulsory unionism through a massive mail, media, and lobbying campaign which generated over 4 million cards and letters to the Senate during the course of the fight. Mr. President, after a marathon of six separate cloture votes in the Senate, the labor bosses gave up. Throughout the 1980s, Larson and the Committee kept up their campaign to bring the benefits to workers freedom to more and more Americans. That campaign resulted in the successful 1986 referendum making Idaho the Nation's 21st Right to Work State. But the decade of the 1990s opened with yet another big labor power grab. This time it was the Pushbutton Strike bill, or the so-called ``Anti- Striker Replacement bill.'' And once again, Reed and the Committee cranked up their grassroots network of freedom loving Americans to put the heat on Congress. This bill would have handed union czars new strike powers so they could blackmail employers into signing contracts forcing their workers to pay union dues. In response to Larson's letters and phone calls, the Senate was flooded with nearly two million cards, letters, faxes, and phone calls. After 3 long years (and four more cloture votes) Larson and the Committee emerged victorious once again. Today, the National Right to Work Committee, 1.9 million members strong and growing, stands on the vanguard for worker freedom and has compiled an outstanding record of commitment to principle and effective action. So, Mr. President, I proudly salute the members of the National Right to Work Committee--and especially my good friend, Reed Larson, upon his 35th anniversary as president of the Committee for their unswerving dedication and tireless action on behalf of every American's birthright not to be forced to join a labor union to get or keep a job.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredible Federal debt which long ago soared into the stratosphere is in about the same category as the weather--everybody talks about it but almost nobody had undertaken the responsibility of trying to do anything about it until immediately following the elections last November. When the 104th Congress convened in January, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a balanced budget amendment. In the Senate all but one of the 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment but only 13 Democrats supported it. Thus, the balanced budget amendment failed by just one vote--there will be another vote later this year or next year. As of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, April 5, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,878,158,190,719.92.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Will the distinguished subcommittee chairman yield for a moment?

Mr. HELMS. Senator Gorton, I am not sure that all of our colleagues realize that 72 percent of Smithsonian operating funds are public, taxpayer funds.

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield for a point of clarification?

Mr. HELMS. I welcome comments from the able Senator from the State of Washington.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when debate began on the House rescissions bill I intended to offer an amendment prohibiting the Smithsonian Institution from using appropriated funds to develop, plan, or build any new museum before congressional authorization had been obtained. After speaking with the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, I chose to forgo proposing the amendment. Senator Gorton assured me that the Smithsonian has no intention of beginning any new museum without first seeking the appropriate authorization from Congress. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the Smithsonian, I have seen the Smithsonian initiate a new project without congressional authorization and then come to Congress to authorize the project bemoaning the waste of funds already spent should the project not be authorized. It is important to stress that any new project requesting taxpayer funds, should first go to the committee that has authorizing authority and then, if and only if, the project has been authorized should the request go to the Appropriations Committee for funding. The Smithsonian must not ignore this process.

Mr. HELMS. I sincerely appreciate the work the Senator from Washington has done in this area. The Senate Rules Committee has yet to meet with the current Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mr. Heyman, but I have been assured we will soon be given that opportunity. I will welcome that important hearing.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. The strongest policy part of any legislation are the dollars. That is what really counts. I am not saying anything that the Senator does not know or believe himself. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. So, the Foreign Relations Committee, I assure the Senate-- --

Mr. HELMS. I am not being critical of the Senator. I would hate to have his job as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It seems to me we have $60 million somewhere in limbo--it might be in the pipeline, it may have been committed without our knowing. There are so many ambiguities about it. How can we tie it up so there will be no commitment beyond what has already been made?

Mr. HELMS. But the Senator will not presume to permit any further commitments. Is that correct?

Mr. HELMS. Let me ask, if I may, will we have somebody on the Appropriations Committee staff try to explain to me specifically where the $60 million is, because I do not want to leave this unvisited before we pass this bill. Can somebody answer that?

Mr. HELMS. That is what got my attention.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a bit of a dilemma. I have been in Foreign Relations Committee meetings and other things most of the day. I am not aware of precisely what has happened on one issue which is of great interest to me and which I consider to be an outrageous invasion of the taxpayers money. It involves the 1995 appropriations bill containing $30 million that would be spent to build housing for Russian military officers. My understanding is that there may have been some action to delete part of that $30 million. I will speak my opinion about this and then I will consult with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is now on the floor, about whether my understanding is correct. This program was begun, as I recall, in 1993 by President Clinton. In my judgment, it is a perfect example of how the United States conceives a bad foreign aid giveaway program, shrouds it in doubletalk to protect it, and then scrambles to spend the money when elected officials in Congress raise questions about it. In April 1993, President Clinton met at a summit with Russian President Boris Yeltsin in Vancouver. At that time, Mr. Clinton proposed that the United States would pay--meaning the taxpayers of the United States would pay--to construct housing in Russia so that Russian troops occupying the Baltic States could be withdrawn to Russia. Now, let me drag that by one more time--going to spend American taxpayers' money to build housing for Russian soldiers so Russian soldiers can go home. The Clinton administration suggested this, as I understand it, on the grounds that no housing existed in Russia for these soldiers. There is at least one problem with that logic. Instead of building housing in Russia, the United States is now giving Russian soldiers $25,000 apiece to go out and purchase an existing unoccupied house. Now I am in favor of home ownership and I wish the Clinton administration would support more home ownership right here in America. But this program, Mr. President, is absolutely outrageous. In fact, what the administration is saying is that it is not a housing shortage that the Russian military has; it is a cash shortage. I think that question is going to be of great interest to a lot of America's taxpayers. Well, the U.S. Government, as a matter of fact, come to think of it, has a cash shortage. The Federal debt, as of yesterday afternoon closing time, was over 4.8 trillion bucks. Everybody knows about the budget deficit. We have talked and talked and talked about it for years. Finally, when something is being done about it, you hear all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth--``But you can't do that to this one or you are doing this to that one,'' and so forth. So I want to see these political figures go home and try to explain their votes against cutting the Federal deficit. The administration itself is struggling to fund a request for 77,000 new and improved housing units for American soldiers and their families. They do not have the money for it, but they are struggling to find it. But they have already found it for the Russian soldiers. The conditions in which many of the men and women who serve in the U.S. services--the Army, Navy, Marines, and all the rest--are required to live are circumstances that are an embarrassment. And yet we have money for $25,000 apiece for Russian soldiers for housing. Finally, the question absolutely must be asked: why does the Russian military have a shortage of money? The answer is no further away than the evening news in various places where the Russians are still participating in mayhem. This program to build housing for Russian soldiers is not essential and it did not get the Russian military out of the Baltic States. This program is nothing but a golden parachute for the Russian military--not the United States military. Mr. President, while the United States plays real estate agent to the Russian military, they have time and resources to fight in other places they ought not to be fighting. Let me ask the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee if any action on this outrageous allocation of money has been taken since I last heard. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the amendments necessary be set aside.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished Presiding Officer if my understanding is correct that we are in a period when amendments can be offered, although several amendments--I do not know how many--have been set aside for this purpose; is that correct?

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

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 the Senate to have 5 minutes in recess to greet and welcome this distinguished lady.

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 Senate Foreign Relations Committee has the honor of welcoming the distinguished Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and I wish to bring her to the Senate floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the drug problem today is worse then it was in 1992. Drug use by young people is up; addiction is up; and drugs on American streets can be acquired at cheaper prices and with greater purity levels than ever before. The most destructive ``crack'' continues unabated; and there are worrisome reports of increasing heroin availability and use. The world's primary source of cocaine is Colombia. It is the headquarters for the international cocaine cartels, who are operating with virtual impunity in Colombia. Colombia is also a significant producer of heroin, having overtaken Mexico as the major Western Hemisphere heroin producer; and Colombia's cultivation and export of marijuana is increasing. On March 1, as required by law, the Clinton Administration announced its annual decision regarding Colombian cooperation with the United States in the fight against drugs. The Administration said Colombia failed to cooperate, the result of which is, in the Clinton Administration's own words, that ``* * * the activities of the Colombian drug syndicates continue to ensure that the flow of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana from Colombia to the United States remains undiminished.'' This is a startling conclusion. Yet, the Clinton administration then gave Colombia a ``national interest'' waiver. The effect of this decision is to do nothing about Colombia's abysmal record, with our bilateral relationship continuing as if nothing is wrong. This is a grave moral and geopolitical mistake. This is way Senator Mack and I are introducing the Narcotics National Emergency Sanctions Act of 1995, a bill to cut off all economic aid, trade benefits, and military assistance to Colombia if the nation does not fulfill the antinarcotics agenda outlined by Colombia's own President, Ernesto Samper. This legislation requires the President to certify to the U.S. Congress that Colombia has made demonstrable progress in fighting drugs between now and February 6, 1996. If Colombia cannot fulfill what President Samper himself has outlined as his Government's antidrug agenda, then sanctions go into effect. The objectives outlined by President Samper, and contained in the legislation, include: investigating the financing of political parties and candidates by the drug lords; capturing and imprisoning the major drug kingpins; confiscating the profits from illegal drug activities; reforming the penal code and plea-bargaining system, and increasing penalties for drug trafficking; and destroying 44,000 hectares of illegal coca and poppy plants in Colombia by February 6, 1996, and all remaining illegal crops by February 6, 1997. These initiatives are in the legislation as the specific conditions that Colombia must meet. They were not created by this Senator, another Senator, or by anyone in the U.S. Government. They were announced by President Samper as his Government's own antidrug program in his July 15, 1994, letter to the U.S. Congress and in a February 6, 1995, speech. We expect President Samper and the Colombian Government to fulfill their promises, and we will judge Colombia by their own standards. I do not see how we can accept a national policy that fails to hold the Colombian Government responsible for the poison they are allowing to be sent to our children, especially in the inner cities. I recognize that Colombia's Government is not the only one at fault. However, Colombia is the corporate headquarters for the booming international drug trade. How can we ask our local police and our Federal law enforcement agencies to continue a tough fight--including risking their lives--if their own national Government won't get tough with foreign governments protecting the drug bosses? I find this situation amazing, given that the Clinton administration was prepared to sanction China for pirating video tapes and computer programs. Why is the United States prepared to sanction nations that harm U.S. businesses that allow the theft of intellectual property but is not prepared to take equally strong measures against a Government that allows the poisoning of our children? Let me clearly state that I have no quarrel with the Colombian people. There are many dedicated Colombians who risk their lives every day fighting the drug cartels. Colombian citizens have suffered more wanton violence from greedy drug lords than any people on Earth. My concern is that the Colombian Government is not supporting these courageous individuals. Mr. President, here is just a brief review of Colombia' record: No arrest of any significant member of the Cali drug cartel, which accounts for 80 percent of the cocaine shipped into the United States. The brother of a major Cali cartel trafficker was arrested recently, but there are many--including some law enforcement agencies--who doubt that this person is a ``big fish.'' He may be a sacrifice by the drug lords to try to help the Colombian Government show resolve. No significant steps have been taken to investigate or prosecute some 15,000 drug corruption cases, including no serious investigations into allegations that Colombian President Samper's Presidential campaign received millions of dollars from the Cali cartel or into corruption of Members of the Colombian Congress. A plea-bargaining system that Colombia's own Justice Ministry criticized for its lenient use, noting that nearly 40 percent of convicted drug traffickers have been freed on parole, without serving a day in prison. According to Colombia's Chief Prosecutor, ``the system results in virtual impunity.'' Mr. President, the American people have every right to expect full cooperation in the ``drug war'' so long as our youth are being poisoned by Colombian cocaine. Countries that produce drugs should be put on notice that the United States will not look the other way. William J. Bennett, former U.S. ``drug czar,'' and I jointly prepared an op-ed piece for yesterday's Wall Street Journal in which we asserted: The Colombian leaders must be sent a clear and unmistakable message: In the war on drugs, they can either continue to ally themselves with the [drug] cartels, and thereby become a pariah state like Libya and Iran; or they can return to the community of civilized nations, fulfill the promises President Samper made, and join with the U.S. in an effort to put the cartels out of business. The choice is theirs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Bennett-Helms Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, along with President Samper's July 15, 1994, letter to Senator Helms and his February 6, 1995, counterdrug speech, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Narcotics National Emergency Sanctions Act of 1995 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows that no President can spend a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress-- both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when you hear a politician or an editor or a commentator declare that ``Reagan ran up the Federal debt'' or that ``Bush ran it up,'' bear in mind that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush presidencies, made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty of Congress to control Federal spending, though Congress has failed to do so for the past 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,876,206,792,345.50 as of the close of business Tuesday, April 4. This outrageous debt, which will be saddled on the backs of our children and grandchildren, averages out to $18,510.16 on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.