Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Senator Hatch is on his way, and he wishes to speak. So I want to spend some of our time waiting for him to let him speak.

Mr. HELMS. I always like to hear the lady.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have the list of military organizations that have endorsed the amendment of Senator Miller and myself. I will read into the Record the list of those names: the National Guard Association of the United States, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Army Aviation Association of America, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, the Association of U.S. Army, the National Military Family Association, the CWO & WO Association of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Gold Star Wives of America Incorporated, the Jewish War Veterans of the USA, the Marines Corps League, the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval and Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Research Association, the Navy League of the United States, the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers Association, the Veterans' Widows International Network Incorporated, the Military Chaplain Association of the United States of America, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Retired Officers Association, the United Armed Forces Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and I feel obliged to mention one more time that the President of the United States favors the Helms-Miller amendment. I yield the floor, and I yield back my time if my colleague will yield back his.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for some time I have felt inclined to discuss in the Senate a matter for the Record and of importance to the people living in the far western counties of North Carolina and in the beautiful mountains adjacent to the Tennessee border. The matter involved is the federal government's finally fulfilling after a fashion a commitment made in 1943 in writing by the U.S. Government to the citizens of Swain County. The federal government proposed to build a road along the north shore of Fontana Lake which was created in World War II to provide power to the TVA. This written commitment was made to citizens who voluntarily gave up their homes to support the U.S.'s World War II defense efforts. The federal government has not yet fulfilled its commitment, and that has caused a great deal of resentment and mistrust of the government among the citizens of Swain County and other surrounding counties on the North Carolina side of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. These citizens understandably believe that the federal government should now live up to its written commitment made during World War II because these people gave up their homes in order that Fontana Lake could be built so that power could be generated by TVA. But, there has been a curious development. A small group of citizens in Swain County now proposes to ask that the federal government buy them out, thereby voiding that federal government commitment made in 1943. They presented the proposal that they be bought out to the Swain County Commissioners, and, praise the Lord, the commissioners rejected this suggestion. So as a result of the $16 million appropriation in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, this project has at long last begun to move. The National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration have restarted this process to complete that road as promised, in writing, in 1943 to the citizens of Swain County and western North Carolina. Mr. President, I have a letter in hand, along with the text of the resolution adopted by the Swain County Commissioners which expresses their thanks for the $16 million that provided for continued road construction and improvements that were included in the fiscal year 2001 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. The commissioners of Swain County want that road completed. The people of Swain County want that road completed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned letter and resolution be printed in the Record, following which I shall resume my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, roads in national parks are vital pieces of economic infrastructure that fuel the engines of economic growth. In fact, the National Park Service itself recognizes as much on its Web site. Let me quote: ``Recreation travel accounts for 20 percent of travel in the United States. Park roads are a vital part of America's transportation network, providing economic opportunity and growth in rural regions of the country. In addition to the park access, motor tourism has created viable gateway communities en route. In some areas entire economies are based on park road access. Examples include communities near Yellowstone, Glacier, and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks, and the Blue Ridge Parkway.'' Why on Earth, then, are these economic benefits denied to the people living in the counties on the North Carolina side of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park? I will tell you why. The Department of the Interior and the National Park Service have been held hostage by self- proclaimed environmentalists and their sympathizers in the Interior Department who are horrified, obviously, by their pretended apprehension that environmental Armageddon will somehow result from the construction of a simple ``two-lane dustless road,'' as specifically called for in the 1943 agreement, signed by the Federal Government. Mind you, this would be a Blue Ridge Parkway-type road allowing for greater access on the North Carolina side of the park just as long ago occurred on the State of Tennessee side a few miles west. Additionally, according to the National Park Service statistics, there are 5,000 miles of paved roads and 3,000 miles of unpaved roads in the National Park System of this country. My question is, can anybody seriously suggest that 30 more miles will cause an environmental Armageddon? The thought is laughable. Of course not. But that is the ringing cry of these professional environmentalists. In fact, the Federal Government began building the road back in 1963, and did build 2\1/2\ miles of it. In 1965, they built another 2.1 miles. Then in 1969, they built an additional mile, plus a 1,200-foot- long tunnel. That was when, Mr. President, the self-appointed environmentalists created an uproar and forbade the Federal Government from going further, which has caused, by the way, economic problems for the four North Carolina counties surrounding the park that I am talking about. Road engineering has improved enormously since that most recent section was built in 1969. Many more improved methods are now available to address the concerns thrown up by these self-appointed environmental opponents of progress. Let me make it clear, I have no problem with our Tennessee neighbors who are ably represented by Senators Frist and Thompson, but I am obliged, as a Senator from North Carolina, to emphasize some meaningful and relevant statistics of the National Park Service. In the 2000 report, which has the most recent statistics available, the Park Service stated that 4,477,357 visitors came to the North Carolina side of the park, while 5,698,455 visitors came to the Tennessee side of the park. Of course, for anybody who wants to figure it out, it is a difference of 1,221,098 visitors. Additionally, according to the latest available retail sales per capita figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, the four Tennessee counties surrounding the park have averaged $9,431.25, but the average for the four North Carolina counties that need that road for more tourists to come there have averaged $7,964.00, a difference of $1,467.25, if you want to get down to the penny. The North Carolina State average is $9,740.00 per capita, and the Tennessee State average is $9,448.00 per capita. The four Tennessee counties surrounding the park averaged just $16.75 under the Tennessee State average. The four North Carolina counties, on the other hand--the four counties of which we are talking about in terms of building this road along the north shore of Fontana Lake--come in $1,776.00 under the North Carolina average. Now then, these figures are among countless indications of the inequities between the North Carolina side and the Tennessee side of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Let me assure the Administration of this: I have met with the distinguished Director of the National Park Service, Fran Mianella and she is a very pleasant lady--to let her know that this is a significant issue with citizens of western North Carolina who have been neglected. I am hopeful she and Secretary Norton will give this matter their highest priorities and will continue to move this project well away from those who have for too long been holding it hostage. I will continue my opposition to a Federal buyout of the Federal Government's commitment in 1943 to the citizens of Swain County and western North Carolina. I commend the commissioners of Swain County for standing flatfooted against it as well. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I speak on some legislation filed by distinguished Senators relative to S. 1673 this past Friday. I am honored to join with my distinguished colleagues in offering legislation to provide the maximum flexibility and stability our farmers need to make proper business decisions based on market conditions. I am mindful, of course, of agriculture's importance to our country's economy and to America's security. I might add that agriculture is the No. 1 industry in North Carolina. Our farmers rank third in the Nation behind California and Florida in agricultural diversification. It is with genuine appreciation that I join Senator Lincoln, Senator Hutchinson, and Senator Miller in working together in crafting this bill. The farm bill we are introducing will be helpful in our guaranteeing that American farmers will continue to provide the American people with the safe and adequate food supply that too many take for granted. The past several years have been a genuine challenge to farmers, whether their operations are large or small. Farmers and their families have long been the backbone of countless rural communities. Every day, farmers face new challenges by literally dozens of factors beyond their control, from weather to insect infestation, to overreaching regulations that unnecessarily increase the cost of production, to trade barriers imposed by other countries on our farm products. All these factors make it especially difficult for farmers to earn a profit when prices are at such historic lows as they are today. As farmers begin preparing for a new planting cycle, meeting with their bankers to plan the financial future of their businesses and their families and making difficult decisions relating to capital improvement, they also face the uncertainty that comes with congressional consideration of a new farm bill. Farmers are already reeling from a string of especially difficult years, and this bill that was offered on Friday provides a balanced and bipartisan approach to provide the stability needed to better compete on a global playing field while allowing farmers the flexibility they must have in order to adjust to the world market. I think the House of Representatives is to be commended for its leadership in so quickly passing a farm bill that is a positive step toward bringing stability and predictability to American agriculture. The bill we offered Friday in the Senate is built on the concepts adopted by the House which, by the way, developed its bill by soliciting the input of farmers and farm organizations throughout the country for the better part of 2 years. We believe this bill is particularly well crafted to clear all of the legislative hurdles necessary to present it to the President for his signature by the end of this year. Although we have had many important national issues to deal with during this historic time, we must not forget the needs of America's farmers. I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to work together on a good piece of legislation, and I look forward to our continued cooperation with each other. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter endorsing the bill we introduced this past Friday be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, on top of the mayhem and slaughter in New York and at the Pentagon in Washington last September, a travesty against democracy occurred, again, in Belarus. Aleksandr Lukashenka, the dictator controlling this country, stole through intimidation and repression, the presidential elections that took place on September 9. Tragic as the events in our own country were and as serious an undertaking as the war against terrorism will continue to be, we must not overlook the brutality and injustice of a regime such as the one led by Lukashenka, especially in the heart of Europe. For this reason, I am introducing today the Belarus Democracy Act of 2001, the purpose of which is to support the people in Belarus who are struggling, often at great peril to their lives, to revive democracy, and to reconsolidate their country's declining independence and sovereignty. Democracy has been crushed in Belarus by a fanatical dictatorship that can only be described as a brutal throwback to the Soviet era. Aleksandr Lukashenka is an authoritarian obsessed with recreating the former Soviet Union, which he believes he will ultimately lead. Because of Lukashenka, Belarus has emerged as a dark island of repression, censorship, and command economy in a region of consolidating democracies. Belarus has tragically become the Cuba of Europe. Nonetheless, the people of Belarus have not succumbed to Lukashenka. Independent newspapers struggle to publish. The leadership of the parliament he unconstitutionally dismissed refuses to concede legitimacy to his sham regime. Scores of non-governmental organizations fight to promote the rule of law and to protect fundamental human rights. The vibrancy of Belarus's struggling civil society has been made evident by the ``Freedom Marches'' that have attracted literally tens of thousands of Belarusians to the streets of Minsk and countless other anti-Lukashenka demonstrations elsewhere in Belarus. Their agenda is the promotion of a free, independent, democratic and Western-oriented Belarus, a sharp contrast to Lukashenka's efforts to reanimate the former Soviet Union. This is an agenda not without risk. Those who have dared to take a stand against Lukashenka have disappeared. Yuri Zakharenko disapproved soon after he resigned his post as Lukashenka's Minister of Interior and began working with the opposition. Opposition leader Victor Gonchar and his colleague, Anatoly Krasovsky, vanished just hours after Lukashenka, in a drooling rage broadcast on state television, called upon his henchmen to crackdown on the ``opposition scum.'' Other opposition leaders such as Andrei Klimov, have been imprisoned under harsh conditions simply for expressing their opposition to Lukashenka's regime. This regime has tried to crush opposition marches with truncheon- wielding riot police. The independent press and non-governmental organizations promoting democracy, rule of law and human rights in Belarus are subject to constant government harassment, intimidation, arrests, fines, beatings, and murder. Dmitry Zavadsky, a cameraman for Russian television, known for his critical reporting of the Lukashenka regime, disappeared under mysterious circumstances. If passed, this bill will impose sanctions against the Lukashenka regime. It will deny international assistance to his government. It will freeze Belarusian assets in the United States. It will prohibit trade with the Lukashenka government and businesses owned by that government. It will also deny officials of the Lukashenka government the right to travel to the United States. And, if Lukashenka continues to surrender Belarusian sovereignty, this bill will strip his government of the diplomatic properties it currently enjoys in the United States. Indeed, if he is successful in his warped effort to recreate the Soviet Union, the Government of Belarus will sadly have no need for these properties. This bill supports our Nation's vision of Europe that is democratic, free and undivided. That vision will never be fulfilled as long as Belarus suffers under the tyranny of Aleksandr Lukashenka. It is our moral and strategic interest to support those fighting for democracy and freedom in Belarus and the return of their country to the European community of free states. To ignore this struggle for democracy and freedom and to turn an indifferent eye upon Lukashenka's effort to reconstruct the former Soviet Union would be a grave error. Not only would it be immoral, it would be strategically shortsighted. Allowing Moscow to reabsorb a state that was once independent and democratic would only whet Moscow's appetite to restore the old Soviet borders. That would set a precedent that would only jeopardize the security of Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Indulging antiquated Russian imperial pretensions would also undercut the prospects for democratic reform in Russia. For these reasons the Belarus Democracy Act of 2001 authorizes $30 million in assistance to restore and strengthen the institutions of democratic government in Belarus. It specifically urges the President of the United States to furnish assistance to political parties in Belarus committed to those goals. It expands the resources available to support radio broadcasting into Belarus that will facilitate the flow of uncensored information to the people of Belarus. The September elections in Belarus were stained by the Lukashenka regime's cruel suppression of democratic and human rights. Let the Belarus Democracy Act be America's response to Europe's last dictator, Aleksandr Lukashenka. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I am grateful to my friend from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for his determination to pursue this project which will be located in North Carolina. I believe ARS should make this project a priority. I appreciate the managers of the bill acknowledging its importance.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kohl, and the ranking member, Mr. Cochran, for their willingness to acknowledge the exciting animal waste research taking place in North Carolina. Senator Edwards and I are deeply impressed with the initiative being shown by the poultry and swine industry, which is actively seeking solutions to the problems associated with animal waste material. We have been particularly interested in proposals that will convert a variety of animal waste products into a usable energy resource. Several innovative North Carolina constituents are moving forward with the development of this technology, and I want to make sure that the Federal Government is both aware of and supportive of these efforts. I appreciate the willingness of the managers of the bill to show an interest in this work, and I will be grateful for their continued attention to this research. I look forward to working with Senator Edwards, my fellow members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and the appropriators to make sure that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the authorization and resources needed to support innovative use of animal waste.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, for far too long, corruption has been allowed to run rampant in Southeastern Europe. Recent events have highlighted the citizens of Montenegro as being among the most beleaguered by the corruption of its government. Montenegro is the beneficiary of a proud, freedom loving people courageously standing against the tyranny of Slobodan Milosevic. However, they have not been well served by their government, whose actions have undercut United States assistance to Montenegro. For example, the President of Montenegro purchases two luxury aircrafts, during the Kosovo Crisis! Costing 26 to 30 million dollars or more, one plane was a Lear Jet, and the other a Cessna Citation X. President Djukanovic has been flown in these planes at the very same time the taxpayers of the United States were making emergency cash payments to help the Montenegrin Government pay its pensions and energy bills. The $26 million spent on aircraft would have averted electricity power shortages in Montenegro. These purchases, by the way, were not reported to the United States Government, the Montenegrin Parliament which is now investigating this matter, or, the citizens of Montenegro. It is now clear that the Government of Montenegro was keeping two budgets: one facilitated the flow of international assistance; the second apparently served the personal interests of senior government officials. Since actions speak louder than words, it is obvious that a premium was placed on personal comfort of senior officials over legal reforms essential to rebuilding the Montengrin economy. Last year the United States earmarked $89 million in foreign assistance for fiscal year 2001 for Montenegro; plans are to dedicate about half that much in fiscal year 2002. Let me be clear, United States assistance must never be permitted to be a free ride for such officials. The citizens of Montenegro fought Milosevic to the very end. Now develops that, during that time, they, and the United States, were cheated by the government in Podgorica. The people deserve a responsible governing body that puts foreign assistance into its economy not the pockets of corrupt officials. The United States deserves assurance that United States assistance dollars are used for their intended purpose. Not one red cent should go to the government of Montenegro unless and until these planes have been fully accounted for--and sold. In addition, United States assistance to the Montenegrin government should be firmly conditioned upon tangible progress toward rooting out corruption and reintroducing the rule of law. The people of Montenegro deserve far better than they have received from their government and their President Djukanovic.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Lugar, Senator Durbin, and fourteen other of our colleagues I send to the desk a bill entitled the Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. An identical bill is being introduced simultaneously in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Doug Bereuter, Tom Lantos, and others. The Freedom Consolidation Act reaffirms what I believe to be a strong and bipartisan Congressional commitment to NATO enlargement. Focusing on the NATO Alliance's Prague summit in November of 2002, the bill endorses the vision of a Europe whole, undivided, free and secure. Indeed, this bipartisan vision has guided U.S. policy toward Europe for the last fifty years. It's a vision that President Clinton helped to make a reality through the integration of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO. It is also a vision so powerfully reaffirmed by President George W. Bush in Warsaw this past June. Some hoped that the tragic events of September 11 would weaken the NATO Alliance. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. It has reinvigorated awareness on both sides of the Atlantic that NATO, an organization of collective defense, remains vital to the interests and values of the community of democracies. Moreover, the atrocities of September 11 have reaffirmed the need for the Alliance to move decisively forward on its agenda of enlargement, military modernization, and enhancements of its capacities against weapons of mass destruction. Today, we can build on NATO's fifty years of joint military planning, training, and operations as the foundation for U.S. and European cooperation in the war against terrorism. Consolidating the zone of peace, democracy and security in Europe should be the cornerstone of our integrated global strategy against the threats of the 21st century. NATO enlargement must, thus, remain a leading priority of American foreign policy. Recently, the heads of state of European democracies seeking NATO membership gathered in Sofia, Bulgaria, to explore how they can more effectively contribute to Euro-Atlantic security. Even more important is the fact that these democracies are conducting themselves today as de facto members of the NATO Alliance. Their troops stand shoulder to shoulder with U.S. forces keeping the peace in the Balkans. They were among the first to offer their services, including not only the use of their bases, but even the deployment of their own troops in this war against terrorism. The most recent round of NATO enlargement, which was ratified by the Senate with an overwhelming 80 votes, has proven to be a success. Polish, Czech, and Hungarian membership have strengthened the Alliance. Their integration into NATO has enhanced European security and stability. And contrary to NATO nay-sayers their integration into NATO has helped to normalize not only their bilateral relationships with Russia, but also relations between Russia and the West. I am confident that the Alliance's summit in Prague next year will initiate the next round of enlargement, which will strengthen the Alliance. It will help reverse the historic wrongs of Yalta, and it will bring us that much closer to fulfilling the vision of a Europe, whole, free and secure. I urge my colleagues to consider supporting the Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, and I urge them to do so.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I find it incomprehensible for a government that claims to be democratic and just to sustain this cruel vestige of the Milosevic era. Last August, I asked my staff to travel to Serbia and visit these Albanian political prisoners. My intent was the following: I wanted to check on the physical conditions of these prisoners. I wanted to ensure that they and their families know the United States has not forgotten about their suffering. I wanted to underscore to authorities in Belgrade that they must release these political prisoners who were arrested, too often brutally tortured, sentenced and jailed by Milosevic and his system of kangaroo justice. And, I wanted to remind Belgrade that failure to do so will have consequences for their relationship with the United States. Serbian Justice Minister Batic cooperatively arranged meetings for my staff. These took place in two Serbian jails with four Kosovar Albanian prisoners: Kurti Aljbin, Isljam Taci, Berisa Petrit, and Sulejman Bitici. These four individuals, I might add, were chosen at the recommendation of an extremely courageous woman, Natasa Kandic of the Humanitarian Law Center in Yugoslavia. Ms. Kandic is Serb, who at great risk to her personal safety, has provided these and other Albanian political prisoners legal and humanitarian assistance. The stories of these four political prisoners speak volumes to the atrocities and injustice of the Milosevic regime. Imagine being arrested because you are an Albanian student, thrown in jail only to learn later that there were no formal charges brought against you, and even if there were you couldn't appeal them because your file had ``disappeared'' or it was burned. Imagine being thrown out of a fourth story window so that your legs would break, or being subjected to repeated beatings, shock torture, and mock executions. That is exactly what happened during the Milosevic era. The good news is that these tortures have ended. However, ending the torture is not enough. Each day Belgrade keeps people like Kurti Aljbin, Isljam Taci, Berisa Petrit, and Sulejman Bitici locked behind bars is another day that Belgrade has continued the horrors and injustice of the Milosevic regime. And this is totally unacceptable. One prisoner asked the poignant question: ``If Milosevic is in jail, why are we still here?'' The fact is there is no justifiable answer to this question. I yield the floor to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Lugar, Senator Durbin, and fourteen other of our colleagues I send to the desk a bill entitled the Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. An identical bill is being introduced simultaneously in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Doug Bereuter, Tom Lantos, and others. The Freedom Consolidation Act reaffirms what I believe to be a strong and bipartisan Congressional commitment to NATO enlargement. Focusing on the NATO Alliance's Prague summit in November of 2002, the bill endorses the vision of a Europe whole, undivided, free and secure. Indeed, this bipartisan vision has guided U.S. policy toward Europe for the last fifty years. It's a vision that President Clinton helped to make a reality through the integration of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO. It is also a vision so powerfully reaffirmed by President George W. Bush in Warsaw this past June. Some hoped that the tragic events of September 11 would weaken the NATO Alliance. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. It has reinvigorated awareness on both sides of the Atlantic that NATO, an organization of collective defense, remains vital to the interests and values of the community of democracies. Moreover, the atrocities of September 11 have reaffirmed the need for the Alliance to move decisively forward on its agenda of enlargement, military modernization, and enhancements of its capacities against weapons of mass destruction. Today, we can build on NATO's fifty years of joint military planning, training, and operations as the foundation for U.S. and European cooperation in the war against terrorism. Consolidating the zone of peace, democracy and security in Europe should be the cornerstone of our integrated global strategy against the threats of the 21st century. NATO enlargement must, thus, remain a leading priority of American foreign policy. Recently, the heads of state of European democracies seeking NATO membership gathered in Sofia, Bulgaria, to explore how they can more effectively contribute to Euro-Atlantic security. Even more important is the fact that these democracies are conducting themselves today as de facto members of the NATO Alliance. Their troops stand shoulder to shoulder with U.S. forces keeping the peace in the Balkans. They were among the first to offer their services, including not only the use of their bases, but even the deployment of their own troops in this war against terrorism. The most recent round of NATO enlargement, which was ratified by the Senate with an overwhelming 80 votes, has proven to be a success. Polish, Czech, and Hungarian membership have strengthened the Alliance. Their integration into NATO has enhanced European security and stability. And contrary to NATO nay-sayers their integration into NATO has helped to normalize not only their bilateral relationships with Russia, but also relations between Russia and the West. I am confident that the Alliance's summit in Prague next year will initiate the next round of enlargement, which will strengthen the Alliance. It will help reverse the historic wrongs of Yalta, and it will bring us that much closer to fulfilling the vision of a Europe, whole, free and secure. I urge my colleagues to consider supporting the Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, and I urge them to do so.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, on September 10, Roger Milliken, a distinguished American, was inducted as a charter member of the Textile Hall of Fame in Lowell, MA. Roger Milliken has long been a leader in the textile industry and his induction as a charter member of the Textile Hall of Fame was well- deserved. But Roger Milliken is far more than an outstanding American industry leader. He is a true patriot, and his love of country constantly manifests itself in countless ways. Roger Milliken's genuine commitment to the health of the American economy is unfailing and unyielding. It is typical of his nature and his fidelity to his country that he used the occasion of his induction into the Textile Hall of Fame to sound a warning about the continuing erosion of the U.S. manufacturing base--and the hollowing-out of the U.S. economy--by the displacement of solid manufacturing jobs in America to low-wage paying countries all over the world. You see, Roger Milliken has steadfastly supported keeping American manufacturing strong but too often, his wise counsel has gone unheeded by the so-called ``trade experts.'' But make no mistake, in the name of globalization, our trade policy is, in fact, encouraging overproduction, as subsidized foreign industries flood the global market and bring prices in this country below the cost of domestic production. The economic threat has been eating away at our manufacturing base slowly but surely. In this year alone, the malignancy will result in the loss of 1 million American manufacturing jobs. In the U.S. textile industry, more than 600,000 jobs have been lost since NAFTA and the Uruguay Round's Agreement on Textiles and Clothing became effective in 1995. Sadly, precious little attention is being paid to the real victims of this trade policy: the small towns and medium-sized cities throughout America devastated by plant closings and job losses. The textile and apparel industry in the South is only one part of the tragedy. The same can be said of the auto industry, the steel industry, and even the high-tech semiconductor industry in California. Roger Milliken's eloquent statement on behalf of American manufacturing rings clear, and it merits the attention of the Senate. I therefore ask that excerpts from the Milliken statement--entitled ``The Wealth of Nations: U.S. Manufacturing in Serious Trouble'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to President Chen Shui-bian and Ambassador C.J. Chen of the Republic of China on Taiwan for their support of the United States in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. Taiwan was one of the first countries to declare its unequivocal support and cooperation with the United States, and deserves our gratitude for its firm stand with us. In offering us whatever we need to combat worldwide terrorism, Taiwan has demonstrated its unity with America during our time of grief. During this period of turmoil and anxiety, I remind my colleagues that Taiwan will mark its National Day on October 10. In recent years Taiwan has sought to return to the United Nations. I believe we should give Taiwan our support. The Republic of China on Taiwan is a democracy guaranteeing rights to all its citizens; it is one of the most important economic entities in the world; and despite its small population, 23 million people, Taiwan has financial resources surpassing those of many western countries. Sadly, the international community accords Taiwan less recognition than many other non-state entities, including the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization. As the people of Taiwan, the East Asian region's leading free market democracy, celebrate their National Day on October 10, we should commend them for their successes and encourage other nations to support Taiwan's participation and membership in international organizations.

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. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, please. Is there an amendment pending?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1724 (Purpose: To protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1724 and ask that it be stated.

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

Mr. HELMS. I just inserted a letter in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. We have a responsibility as Senators to enact an insurance policy for our troops and our officials--such as Secretary of State Powell--to protect them from a U.N. Kangaroo Court where the United States has no veto. That is precisely what this amendment is all about. Let me state for the record, to be absolutely certain there is no mistake made about it, (1) this amendment will prohibit U.S. cooperation with the court, including use of taxpayer funding or sharing of classified information; (2) it will restrict a U.S. role in peacekeeping missions unless the United Nations specifically exempts U.S. troops from prosecution by this international court; (3) it blocks U.S. aid to allies unless they too sign accords to shield U.S. troops on their soil from being turned over to the court; and (4) it authorizes the President to take any necessary action to rescue U.S. soldiers, any service man or woman, improperly handed over to that Court. Now, then, my very good friend from Connecticut, and he is my friend--we have worked together on a number of things--Senator Dodd, has made comments about this legislation which I feel obliged to address. This past Wednesday, September 26, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, here on the Senate floor, said: ``This amendment is called, ironically [Senator Dodd said], the American Servicemen's Protection Act. It is anything but [said Senator Dodd]. The establishment of this amendment places our men and women in uniform in greater jeopardy than they would be if we were to participate in trying to develop the structures of this court to minimize problems. Now that is quoting Senator Dodd, my friend, a friend of all of ours. But that's not the case. I hope I might persuade Senator Dodd to withdraw that statement because it is not the case. Let me repeat for emphasis, it is not the case at all. The pending amendment does nothing whatsoever to preclude the Bush administration from taking any action it deems necessary to address our concerns during the Preparatory Commission meetings of the International Criminal Court. However, we should not be misled: the negotiators of this Court have no intent to amend the treaty creating the Court to meet our objections. In fact, negotiators voiced a loud cheer when they finished negotiation of the treaty in 1999--over the objections of the United States of America. Senator Dodd himself acknowledged that the Rome Treaty creating the Court is fatally flawed, when he stated: In fact, 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. Also, when President Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on December 31, 2000, he stated that he would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification and recommended that President Bush not transmit it either, given the remaining flaws in the Court. So let me be, as the saying goes, perfectly clear. The pending amendment would shield American service people, men and women, from a court run amok. U.N. bodies often run amok. For instance, filled with dictatorships, the U.N. Human Rights Commission condemned the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, in multiple resolutions earlier this year. And just five weeks ago, the United Nations Conference on Racism in Durban South Africa, became an agent of hate rather than against hate. If U.N. commissions and conferences run amok, a permanent court, not subject to Security Council approval--and immune to a U.S. veto--could well turn on us, and on our democratic allies (the most likely one being Israel). We need only to look back to the Kosovo War when the Bosnian Tribunal's chief prosecutor attempted to undertake an investigation of NATO for war crimes abuses. Mr. President, despite the importance of this pending amendment with my sponsorship and that of others, opponents may want to hide behind procedural objections in an effort to just make our amendment go away. Unfortunately, this kangaroo court is not going away, it will be there, and the risk to our service men and women will exist as long as it is there unless we do something, as described in this amendment. In the meantime, our Secretaries of State and Defense are telling us and the American people at the same time to get ready for a long campaign against global terrorists. We owe it, don't we, to our men and women representing this country, both in the military and in civilian agencies, to ensure their actions are not the subject of second- guessing by United Nations judicial bodies?