Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the hopes that it will bring about needed realism in our Government's relationship with Russia. President Clinton continues to promote the myth that the Russian Government has been ``a supportive and reliable partner in the effort to bring peace and stability to the Balkans.'' That myth was shattered again last month by the Kremlin's brazen display of the enormous political, military, and economic support Russia continues to provide the Milosevic regime. Surely no Senator has forgotten the visit to Moscow last month by General Ojdanic, Milosevic's Minister of Defense, who just happens to be a war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia. Instead of arresting and sending this man to The Hague, the Kremlin provided not only meetings with the Russian Minister of Defense but a privileged seat at the Putin inauguration and a week of fine food and camaraderie. Shortly after Milosevic's Minister of Defense visited Russia, Russian officials announced that it is sending to the Milosevic regime $102 million of a $150 million loan. All of this flies in the face of the effort of the international community to isolate and undermine the Milosevic regime. I confess that I find incredible the audacity of Russian President Putin. Here he is, providing the Milosevic regime with more than $150 million in economic support while seeking debt relief from the international community and loans from the International Monetary Fund. He is doing this while his country seeks and receives food aid from the United States and while he is asking the United States to reschedule and forgive Russian debt owed to the United States. The Kremlin should not be encouraged to assume that Western, and particularly the United States, economic assistance and aid are an entitlement. It is, however, sadly evident that Putin has concluded that he can conduct Russian foreign policy with impunity and still count on the West's economic largesse. The fact is, the hospitality and support provided to Serbian war criminals occurred just one month prior to President Clinton's visit to Moscow, emphasizing how little respect Putin has for the policies of the U.S. Government. What concerns me most about the relationship of the Kremlin and the Milosevic regime is the threat it poses to America's men and women in uniform serving in the Balkans, along with those of our allies. The political, military, and economic support the Kremlin provides Milosevic directly jeopardizes the safety and security of both American and allied forces deployed in the Balkans. While we are trying to force the Milosevic regime to step down and turn power over to Serbia's democratic opposition, Russia is signaling Milosevic that he can survive and even outlast the alliance and that Russia will help him, Milosevic, prevail. There is no reason the American taxpayer should provide Russia loan forgiveness and economic assistance when the Kremlin continues to support a regime in Serbia whose forces directly threaten U.S. troops who are trying to bring peace to the Balkans. My amendment, which I have just offered, simply underscores that the U.S. assistance is not an entitlement benefiting the Kremlin. The amendment proposes that the United States withhold assistance to Russia by an amount equal to the amount which Russia provides Serbia. The amendment also will preclude any debt forgiveness or rescheduling of OPIC and Eximbank programs along with U.S. support for loans from international financial institutions to Russia. This assistance certainly is not warranted unless and until the Kremlin demonstrates that it has at long last cut its ties to the Milosevic regime. Amendments Nos. 3499 Through 3513, En Bloc

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I look around the Chamber, I see nobody except myself who is old enough to remember a Prime Minister of Great Britain who went over to Munich, before the United States entered World War II, sat with Adolph Hitler and made a deal with him. He came back and he told the British people: We can have peace in our time. I trust this man. Castro's own daughter has publicly condemned him over and over for the atrocities he has committed against the Cuban people. He is a bloodthirsty tyrant; and it is well known that he is. That is why I support the motion to table the amendment offered by my friend, Chris Dodd, who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. We work together amiably and effectively, I think. I do so for several practical reasons--including the one I have just stated--that I hope Senators will bear in mind as they consider Senator Dodd's proposal. First, the proposal is to create a national commission on Cuba. I would remind the Senators here, and those who may be watching by television in their offices, that such a panel already exists. It is called the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, consisting of 18 Senators, all duly elected representatives of the American people. There is a similar committee over in the House of Representatives. The Senate committee has been quite active on Cuba, as my friend, Senator Dodd, will testify. In this session alone, we have held hearings on Castro's repression of the Cuban people. We adopted a resolution supporting a United Nations resolution on Cuba and even approved language that would modify the U.S. embargo on Cuba. I do not support the latter proposal--which was the Ashcroft amendment--but it was reported out of committee as part of a broader foreign affairs bill. In short, we have a committee on Cuba consisting of elected representatives of the American people. I think it works just fine, thank you. Secondly, what on Earth has Fidel Castro done to earn the forbearance of the United States? Does every cruel dictator in the world deserve a commission to study how U.S. foreign policy has done him wrong? Why not a national commission on Iraq or Libya or North Korea or China? The problem is not that U.S. policy toward Cuba has not changed. The tragedy for 11 million Cubans is that Fidel Castro has not changed. U.S. policy toward Cuba is based on sound, clear principles. Our economic and political relations will change when Cuba's regime frees all prisoners of conscience, legalizes political activity, permits free expression, and commits to democratic elections. But that bar is too high for Fidel Castro. That is his problem. It is not our problem. But making unilateral concessions to a dictatorship on its last legs is the worst sort of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain would be proud of this proposition. Third, why single out Cuba? Is there any Senator who does not expect the next President of the United States to review our entire foreign policy across the board? A lot of Americans are counting the days when the United States has someone in the White House who will turn around our foreign policy for the better. That brings me to my fourth and final point. It will be the prerogative of the next President of the United States to review U.S. foreign policy across the board and to formulate his own policies in close consultation with a new Congress. The next administration should not be saddled with the recommendations of a lameduck ``Clinton Commission'' on Cuba. For these reasons, I hope Senators will vote to table the amendment of my friend, Chris Dodd. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, June 15, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,644,606,868,488.81 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-four billion, six hundred and six million, eight hundred and sixty-eight thousand, four hundred eighty-eight dollars and eighty-one cents). Last year, June 16, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,579,687,718,133.89 (Five trillion, five hundred seventy-nine billion, six hundred eighty-seven million, seven hundred eighteen thousand, one hundred and thirty-three dollars and eighty-nine cents). Five years ago, June 16, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,893,073,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred ninety-three billion, seventy-three million, seven hundred eighteen thousand, one hundred and thirty-three dollars and eighty-nine cents). Ten years ago, June 16, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,121,688,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty-one billion, six hundred eighty-eight million).

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 14, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,643,728,718,133.89 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-three billion, seven hundred twenty-eight million, seven hundred eighteen thousand, one hundred thirty-three dollars and eighty-nine cents). One year ago, June 14, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,608,265,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred eight billion, two hundred sixty-five million). Five years ago, June 14, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,905,557,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred five billion, five hundred fifty-seven million). Ten years ago, June 14, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,122,390,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty-two billion, three hundred ninety million). Fifteen years ago, June 14, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,766,279,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred sixty-six billion, two hundred seventy-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,877,449,718,133.89 (Three trillion, eight hundred seventy-seven billion, four hundred forty-nine million, seven hundred eighteen thousand, one hundred thirty-three dollars and eighty-nine cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, June 13, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,651,368,584,663.04 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-one billion, three hundred sixty- eight million, five hundred eighty-four thousand, six hundred sixty- three dollars and four cents). Five years ago, June 13, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,903,284,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred three billion, two hundred eighty-four million). Ten years ago, June 13, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,120,867,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty billion, eight hundred sixty-seven million). Fifteen years ago, June 13, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,766,874,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred sixty-six billion, eight hundred seventy-four million). Twenty-five years ago, June 13, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $528,036,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-eight billion, thirty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,123,332,584,663.04 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty-three billion, three hundred thirty-two million, five hundred eighty-four thousand, six hundred sixty-three dollars and four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that the Senate, with only one dissenting vote, approved, in October 1999, $81 million in payments to farmers, but the House refused to follow the Senate's action because North Carolina tobacco farmers would benefit?

Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that this 1999's aid package of more than $800 million was in addition to nearly $1 billion of federal disaster aid directed to North Carolina through established federal disaster programs?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, during the past week, there has been a great deal of misinformation emanating from the ivory towers of liberal newspaper editors in North Carolina. They have made futile attempts to place blame for what they describe as the ``stalled'' aid to Eastern North Carolina victims of Hurricane Floyd. The tone and the substance of those editors are mystifying when we consider that North Carolina has been specified by the federal government to receive more than $2 billion in federal aid. There are some politicians who are feeding the editors false and misleading information while they themselves know better. They complain about politics, even though their actions clearly suggest they themselves are practicing politics in its very worst form. I am dismayed that much of the false and unfair criticism has focused on some distinguished Senate colleagues, who have done far more for North Carolina's flood victims than the political finger-pointers. One in particular who has done much for North Carolina is the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, who has been deeply and consistently concerned with the plight of the flood victims. Since the day Hurricane Floyd struck North Carolina, nobody has shown more concern or been more willing to help than Ted Stevens. He has stood with us every step of the way, and I shall never forget his friendship and his compassion. And if I may impose Senator Stevens one more time, may I engage him in a colloquy to set the record straight? First, is it not correct that the Senate, under the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, directed more than $800 million in federal aid to go to flood victims this past fall not long after the flood hit Eastern North Carolina?

Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, along with the Majority Leader, Mr. Lott, have made clear their intent to include additional emergency natural disaster aid-- including the aforementioned $81 million for farmers--in the Military Construction Conference Report?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chairman. He is always candid, always helpful, and an outstanding Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I am genuinely grateful for his concern for the flood victims of North Carolina.

Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that the Military Construction bill is likely to be the first appropriations bill to reach the President's desk for signature?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 12, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,648,173,825,800.99 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-eight billion, one hundred seventy-three million, eight hundred twenty-five thousand, eight hundred dollars and ninety-nine cents). Five years ago, June 12, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,901,416,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred one billion, four hundred sixteen million). Ten years ago, June 12, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,120,196,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty billion, one hundred ninety-six million). Fifteen years ago, June 12, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,766,703,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred sixty-six billion, seven hundred three million). Twenty-five years ago, June 12, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $527,785,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-seven billion, seven hundred eighty-five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,120,388,825,800.99 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty billion, three hundred eighty-eight million, eight hundred twenty-five thousand, eight hundred dollars and ninety-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, June 9, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,645,113,216,631.00 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-five billion, one hundred thirteen million, two hundred sixteen thousand, six hundred and thirty-one dollars). One year ago, June 9, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,604,849,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred four billion, eight hundred forty-nine million). Five years ago, June 9, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,899,367,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred ninety-nine billion, three hundred sixty-seven million). Twenty-five years ago, June 9, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $526,170,000,000 (Five hundred twenty- six billion, one hundred seventy million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,118,943,216,631.00 (Five trillion, one hundred eighteen billion, nine hundred forty-three million, two hundred sixteen thousand, six hundred and thirty-one dollars) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Let me tell you something, my friend. I will put this amendment on anything I can, if it does one ounce of benefit for the Chechen people.

Mr. HELMS. And if it will encourage your President to at least stop some of his other activities and look at what is happening over there.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am absolutely amazed that any Senate Democrat, particularly my long-time friend from Connecticut, would talk about offering legislation on appropriations bills. I hope he won't take this further because I will cite hundreds of instances in the last 2 years where his side has bollixed up the operation of the Senate.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be read in full.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator from Alaska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks from my desk.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut. I know he is sincere in every word he says. But let me tell him what my friend and his friend, Madeleine Albright's crowd, did down at the State Department. This gentleman with whom I met yesterday was told: Well, we will send some functionary from the State Department to meet you in a restaurant somewhere, but we will not meet with you at the State Department. Now, come on; that is the worst example of ``get aside, we are not interested in you'' to the Chechen people. I resent it.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. First of all, I compliment the distinguished clerk because there was a name or two that was difficult to pronounce. I probably will have the same difficulty. In any case, I wanted the amendment to be read to serve notice that this is a matter of great importance and one that bothers me tremendously. It grew out of a meeting yesterday morning with Mr. Ilyas Akhmadov, the Foreign Minister of Chechnya, who represents Chechnya's democratically elected President. He is visiting Washington hoping to discuss with the Clinton administration his government's efforts to bring an immediate cease-fire to the brutal war that has wrought so much misery and destruction upon the Chechen people. His proposals to achieve a cease-fire and peace negotiations deserve close consideration by Russia and, indeed, the entire international community. I find it incredible that Mr. Akhmadov's requests for a meeting with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other senior U.S. Government officials have been flatly rejected. As a matter of fact, I resent the fact that they conducted themselves as they did because this is an outrage. The United States should be working to facilitate peace in Chechnya, not to encourage the Kremlin to further its brutal campaign against the Chechen people. There is simply no excuse for the Secretary of State to refuse even to meet with Mr. Akhmadov. Any meeting to discuss the democratically elected Government to Chechnya's legitimate peace proposal would not constitute a de facto recognition of Chechen independence. And the Secretary of State and others know that. But this refusal even to meet with Mr. Akhmadov will certainly be interpreted, by Russia's President Putin, as yet another green light from the Clinton-Gore administration to continue its indiscriminate campaign of violence against the Chechen people--a campaign that has led to the death, starvation, and torture of countless of innocent people in Chechnya. In our meeting yesterday morning, Mr. Akhmadov and I discussed the atrocities that Russian forces are committing against the Chechen population. He shared with me, with tears in his eyes--and these were not pretended tears; this man was almost distraught about what is happening to his people--he gave me a grim picture of life in Chechnya under the repeated and indiscriminate assault by the Russian military. Countless families continue to be bombed out of their homes. Chechens are still rounded up and sent to what are called ``filtration camps'' where they are tortured, raped, and then executed. For too long, our President has refused to use his power and influence to pressure the Kremlin into genuine negotiations to end the bloody conflict in Chechnya which already has cost countless thousands of lives of men, women, and children. Aside from empty rhetoric from the administration, not one finger has been lifted to make clear the outrage of the United States at the atrocities committed by Russian forces against innocent Chechen civilians. Worse still, the administration has even legitimized Russia's military campaign in Chechnya with public declarations comparing this conflict to the Civil War in the United States. For this reason, I submit this amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It calls upon the Kremlin to cease immediately its military operations in Chechnya. It calls upon the Kremlin to grant international humanitarian organizations access to the victims of this conflict and do it immediately. And, this amendment calls upon Secretary of State Albright to meet with Mr. Akmadov to at least consider his proposal to bring an end to this terrible war in Chechnya. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 7, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,645,678,929,300.91 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-five billion, six hundred seventy-eight million, nine hundred twenty-nine thousand, three hundred dollars and ninety-one cents). One year ago, June 7, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,606,739,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred six billion, seven hundred thirty-nine million). Five years ago, June 7, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,902,044,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred two billion, forty-four million). Ten years ago, June 7, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,124,978,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty-four billion, nine hundred seventy-eight million). Fifteen years ago, June 7, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,769,118,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred sixty-nine billion, one hundred eighteen million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,876,560,929,300.91 (Three trillion, eight hundred seventy- six billion, five hundred sixty million, nine hundred twenty-nine thousand, three hundred dollars and ninety-one cents) during the past 15 years.