Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2822 To Amendment No. 2471

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for about 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order for the Senate to stand in recess in honor of the distinguished guest we have today. He is the President of Romania. He is in his second term. His name is Ion Iliescu. Welcome, Mr. President.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 6 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I wish to present the distinguished President of Macedonia, the Honorable Boris Trajkovski, who is a very fine gentleman with whom I have met and with whom the President has met.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Certainly.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think I may be the only Senator now a Member of this body, or maybe one or two or three, who remembers when Edward R. Murrow and Herbert Matthews portrayed a young man out in the boondocks of Cuba as being a humanitarian who was ready to come into Cuba and save the Cuban people. That young man's name was Fidel Castro. Night after night, CBS repeated that fiction. Morning after morning, the New York Times repeated that fiction. And finally, Fidel Castro came in after Batista left. The first thing he did was to take up all the guns of the people who were politically opposed to him. The second thing he did was jail most of them. The third thing he did was to back the rest of them up against a wall and end their lives before a firing squad. I say all this because so much fiction has been circulated about Fidel Castro, and so much cruelty is being heaped upon the farmers of North Carolina, giving them hope that they can get financial gain from making their crops available to the people of Cuba. I wish it were so, but it is not so. The Cuban Government, as has already been discussed this afternoon, is not prepared to pay for anything. It is bankrupt. As has been said here this afternoon by two or three of the distinguished speakers, Cuba has been identified on the State Department's so-called State Sponsors of Terrorism List for very good reason. Not only has the State Department documented evidence that Fidel Castro provides aid and comfort to the terrorists, but there is also clear evidence that Castro has close ties to insurgent groups and other government sponsors of terrorism all around the world. Fidel Castro maintains connections with guerrillas in Colombia, Spain's Basque separatists, the Irish Republican Army, and so on. Today nearly 100 terrorists and fugitives from United States justice enjoy safe haven in Cuba. Most of these fugitives are airline pirates and airline hijackers. Among the terrorists being shielded by Castro are members of Puerto Rican terrorists, which includes terrorists on the FBI's most wanted list. One of the fugitives was the lead bombmaker responsible for several terrorist attacks, including a New York bombing that killed 1 and maimed 60 others. I am sure Senators recall that in 1996 it was Fidel Castro who ordered that two unarmed civilian U.S. aircraft be shot down, and they were. They were shot down over international waters. I know Senators have not forgotten that it was this savage act of terrorism that united the Congress of the United States and the White House in opposition to the terrorist state of Havana. The Cuban regime trades in information it collects on United States activities through a deeply entrenched spy network in the United States. Just after the September 11 attacks, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested a high ranking U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency official who was passing sensitive national security information to Castro's government. There should be no doubt that this traitor would have continued to funnel information to Cuba and, therefore, our enemies in the war against terrorism around the world. The FBI acted quickly to shut down this dangerous leak, even as U.S. troops headed into battle as a result of the episodes on September 11. Despite all of this evidence, there are still some Senators who are attempting to help the terrorist state of Havana to fill its coffers with U.S. dollars. If financing restrictions are lifted, it is an absolute certainty that a great many additional American dollars will give Castro's regime the means to enhance cooperation with our terrorist enemies and fuel its cruel repression of the Cuban people. If we had the time, I would outline facts that are known and are part of the Foreign Relations Committee books. Women, doctors, and lawyers are having most of their income taken from them by Castro's government, and a lot of these women have no choice that they can see in order to feed their families but to subject themselves to prostitution. This is the kind of man Fidel Castro is. Senators who seek United States financing for United States businesses which hope to do business with Havana do not seem to want to discuss the fact that Cuba could not be more hostile to private business interests or more unreliable in paying its bills. The Cuban Government has without compensation expropriated more United States property from United States citizens than any other government in the world. No other government is even close to Cuba. The Cuban economy is one of the most repressed economies in the world and features an appalling lack of workers' rights, no protection for private property rights, no provision for international arbitration of disputes, and no enforcement of contracts. This point needs to be underscored. The Cuban Government does not pay its bills. The Cuban Government has more than $12 billion in hard currency debt. Earlier this summer, France froze $175 million in short- term trade cover for Cuba after the Castro government defaulted on a similar agreement in the year 2000. When the record is reviewed regarding this year alone, it will be clear that governments and companies from South Africa to Panama to Chile and Spain are complaining that the Cuban Government is not paying its bills. Now, how would any Senator be eager for their home State businesses, including especially their farmers, to assume the risk of doing business with the Castro regime? I don't need to remind this Senate that our country is at war with terrorism. This is not the time for the Senate to make unilateral discussions and concessions to a faltering dictatorship and a known identifiable terrorist state. That is the most foolish kind of appeasement. President Bush's administration has stated its strong opposition to repealing the financing restrictions on sales to Cuba: ``Because of Cuba's continued denial of basic civil rights to its citizens as well as its egregious rejection of the global coalition's efforts against terrorism . . .'' I urge my colleagues to stand with President Bush in the fight against terrorism. Support the Torricelli amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment which I ask to be stated.

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, at this point I do not desire to prolong the proceedings, but so many strange statements are being made that have no relationship with accuracy that I have to correct some of them. Before I do that, let me say I do not have two better friends in this body than Senator Biden, who is now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--and I cannot remember who was the former chairman--and the father of Grace, that little sweet thing in Connecticut. That is a wonderful picture he sent, and I bear him no ill will, but I wish I was on their side on this because they are so eloquent and, if I may say so, they are so loud. In any case, the statement they made that we have not had any hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, that is strange. On Wednesday, June 14 of last year, 2000, 3:30 p.m., Dirksen Building, 419, the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on the International Criminal Court protecting American servicemen and officials from the threat of international prosecution. The witnesses included the Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense, and chief executive officer of Forbes, Incorporated. Then there is a distinguished professor, Dr. Jeremy B. Rabkin, from the Department of Government, Cornell University, and Ruth Wedgwood, professor of law at Yale University. That was a good hearing. I was there. Then on Tuesday, July 20 of 1999, we had an Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues, the Honorable David A. Scheffer, and this was a closed door hearing so that he could speak candidly and not be put on record. Then on Thursday, July 23, 1998, in the Dirksen Building, the Foreign Relations Committee heard panel 1, the Honorable David Scheffer, Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues, and panel 2, the Honorable John Bolton--most Senators have heard of John--Lee Casey, attorney from Hunton & Williams, Washington, DC, and Michael P. Scharf, professor of law, Boston, MA. The point is, the President of the United States wants this amendment. He does not want a second-degree amendment to it. He wants this amendment. We have worked it out with the President, and I think he is entitled to have some consideration on this without a whole lot of gobbledegook that is meaningless and, in some cases, not even close to the truth. I do not mind being opposed, but I hope we can lower our voices. I had to turn my hearing aid down because the sound was ringing in my ears. Can we not address this in a rational sort of way? Frankly, I have my doubts about some of these judges of other countries with which we do business. I will not identify the country because it is a personal matter, but there is the wife of an ambassador to the United States from one of our finest allies whose husband kidnapped their two little boys and took them to his home in a foreign country. You can't even get the courts of that foreign country to do anything about it--even giving the wife of this Ambassador to the United States a hearing. This is the kind of thing we run into. I don't want our servicemen subjected to any kind of inhibitions not to their benefit. If anybody with a second-degree amendment can present credentials that they have the support for their second-degree amendment from veterans organizations, veterans publications, veterans representations, representing 5.5 million servicemen in this country, let the Senators present their credentials and I will be impressed. But, no, they don't agree with me on this International Criminal Court. They have not done anything to move it along in the Foreign Affairs Committee despite my exhortations. And I understand that. The legislative process works that way, and I don't get my feelings hurt if I don't get my way on things. But I will be here until midnight before I submit to the suggestion that this amendment ought not be approved by the Senate. I hope we can move along without so much waste of time, but I would hope that any Senator who wants to attack this amendment will tell why he is disagreeing with the President of the United States. I want him to present his credentials as to the support from servicemen and service organizations representing 5.5 million people. If they can present the credentials, I will back up and not push the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum temporarily.

Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection if it is understood that I shall be recognized immediately following the two amendments.

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I do thank the Chair. Mr. President, there is a little bit of manipulation going on, but let me emphasize the President of the United States is in favor of the underlying amendment, to which a second-degree amendment proposes to gut the amendment I have just offered. If we are going to play this sort of game around here, that is fine. I can play it, too, and I have been around a little while, and I know how to do it. The International Criminal Court will be empowered if and when just 13 more countries ratify the so-called Rome Treaty. Forty-seven have ratified it as of this past Friday, November 30. It has been a privilege to work with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, in crafting this amendment to protect American soldiers and officials from illegal prosecutions by that Court. In addition to Senator Miller and me, Senator Lott, Senator Warner, Senator Hagel, Senator Hatch, Senator Shelby, Senator Frist, and Senator Murkowski joined in introducing the American Service Members Protection Act on May 9 of this year. The pending amendment is the result of our converting that act into an amendment to the pending Defense appropriations bill. As I said at the outset, there are going to be attempts to defeat this pending amendment despite the support of the President of the United States, despite the support of all manner of organizations, including veterans and members of the armed services. I feel a bit of resentment. What they are doing is well within the rules. We will see how the Senate stacks up on this little bit of play. Without this amendment, the Rome Treaty can expose U.S. soldiers and civilian officials to the risk of prosecutions separate and apart from the laws of the United States of America. Therefore, they could very well be battling international bureaucrats and prosecutors instead of terrorists such as those who on September 11 committed mass murder against thousands of innocent American citizens in New York City and at the Pentagon, not far from here. The pending amendment ensures that neither the International Criminal Court nor overzealous prosecutors and judges will ever be able to prosecute and persecute American military personnel. At this time, along with the mobilization to fight terrorists, there is unanimous support in Congress for giving the President the tools he needs to wage the war against terrorism. Accordingly, the distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde, of the House International Relations Committee, and I have negotiated with the Bush administration some needed refinements to the American Servicemembers' Protection Act that is now pending for consideration by this Senate. This amendment then is a sort of revised version of the original bill to give the President flexibility and authority to delegate provisions in the legislation that he needs in this time of national emergency to protect our service men and women. I have in hand two letters dated September 25, 2001, and November 8, 2001, respectively, from Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Paul V. Kelly indicating that the administration does support the language of the pending amendment. Instead of placing these letters in the Record, I want to read them. The first one, Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs of the U.S. Department of State: Dear Senator Helms: This letter advises that the administration supports the revised text of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), dated September 10, 2001, proposed by you, Mr. Hyde and Mr. DeLay. We commit to support enactment of the revised bill in its current form based upon the agreed changes without further amendment and to oppose alternative legislative proposals. We understand that in the House the ASPA legislation will be attached to the State Department authorization bill or other appropriate legislation. The Senate has a responsibility to enact an insurance policy for our men and women serving at home and overseas. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell agree it is essential to protect all of them from a permanent kangaroo court where the United States has no veto. Precisely, this amendment does the following: It will prohibit U.S. cooperation with the court, including use of taxpayer funding or sharing of classified information. Two, it will restrict U.S. involvement in peacekeeping missions unless the United Nations specifically exempts U.S. troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Three, it limits U.S. aid to allies unless they also sign accords to shield U.S. troops on their soil from being turned over to this kangaroo court. And four, it authorizes the President of the United States to take necessary action to rescue any U.S. soldiers or service people who may be improperly handed over to that court. When former President Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on December 31, 2000, he stated he would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification and recommended that President Bush not transmit it to the Senate either, given the remaining flaws in the court. Moreover, I understand my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, said this about the Rome Treaty on September 26, and I quote the distinguished Senator from Connecticut: If for some reason miraculously the proposal were brought to this Senate chamber this afternoon, and I were asked to vote on it as is, I would vote against it because it is a flawed agreement. Many Americans may not realize that the Rome Treaty, so-called, can apply to Americans even if the Senate has declined to ratify the treaty. This international legal precedent lacks any basis in U.S. law. So I reiterate, the pending amendment will shield Americans from this international court, and that is why 28 uniformed services and veterans organizations representing more than 5\1/2\ million active and veteran military personnel and their families support the pending amendment. I have a copy of a letter dated November 19 of this year signed by the directors of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and at the Reserve Officers Association and associations representing every one of the services. They favor this amendment. I will take time right now to read this letter into the Record. I started to insert it, but I think it is important for me to read it. Dear Senator Helms: The Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans' organizations representing more than 5.5 million current and former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their families and survivors, strongly supports the amended version of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act. Mr. President, that is the pending Senate amendment. The Coalition understands that the administration also supports this legislation. I have already covered that. Then the letter continues: This bill would seek to protect American servicemembers from criminal prosecution by an International Criminal Court to which the United States is not a party. TMC [that is the military coalition] believes the United States must ensure military personnel (plus Federal officials and employees) are protected when it orders them to participate in operations or other prescribed duties in foreign countries. Any effort to the contrary by internal or external entities should be thwarted. Our Nation cannot continue to dispatch its uniformed and official personnel, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, to international assignments without guaranteeing them their rights under that magnificent document. Sincerely. It is signed by the officers of the association. President Bush and his national security team support this amendment. There is a great need to approve this amendment now and not wait until some vague future date next year or even later. Obviously, I support and urge support for this amendment to protect these service and civilian leaders from unaccountable kangaroo courts. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. I thank Senator Miller for the great work he has done, and I yield the floor to him.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, forgive me for not being able to stand. I do not know where I put an end to mistaken statements in this debate. I have corrected several of them this afternoon. It is a good thing everybody involved in this debate are friends. We will be friends when we walk out of here. But such statements have been made that there have not been any hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. There have been 3 days of hearings. The statement was made that the Bush administration will be prohibited from further negotiations of the criminal court and that it will be deleted from the statute books should the Senate ever verify the Rome statute. That is simply not so. I hope for the remainder of this debate we can come pretty close to factual statements and not resort to a situation--I do wish the opponents of this amendment will tell how many of our service men and women support their motion to table the amendment of Senator Miller and me. We do not have 5.5 million service people represented by the organizations that have contacted us on their behalf, who support us and who, therefore, support the other side. If they have 5.5 million people, I wish they would trot them out. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, if I could be recognized one more time.