Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Senator Byrd has some time, too?

Mr. HELMS. Very well. I do thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee this past Thursday reported a treaty to amend the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. The vote was unanimous. I have never hesitated to oppose, or seek to modify, treaties that ignore the best interests of the American people. As long as I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, I will be mindful of the advice and consent responsibilities conferred upon the Senate and the Senators by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, I have never hesitated to oppose bad treaties and bad resolutions of ratification without hesitation. But when a treaty serves the Nation's interests, if it is verifiable, and if the resolution of ratification ensures the integrity of these two points for the life of the treaty, I unfailingly offer my support to it. That is why I support the treaty before us today. In that connection, let the record show that the pending treaty was signed on May 31, 1996, and was not submitted by the President to the Senate for our advice and consent April 7, 1997. With the bewildering delay in the delivery of this treaty, the administration demanded action by May 15, 1997, which is tomorrow. So, after wasting an entire year, the administration demanded that the Senate act on this treaty within 1 month's time. I believe it is obvious that the Foreign Relations Committee has been more than helpful in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent. The treaty before us today is a modification of the treaty approved by the Senate in 1991. Specifically, it will revise the obligations of Ukraine and Russia in what is known as the flank zone of the former Soviet Union. In recognition of the changes having occurred since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 30 parties to the CFE Treaty have agreed to modify the obligations of Ukraine and Russia. The 1991 CFE Treaty could not and did not anticipate the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, let alone the expansion of NATO to include Central and Eastern Europe countries. Consequently, recent years have been occupied with efforts to adapt the treaty to the new security environment of its members. Mr. President, in its essentials, the Flank Agreement removes several administrative districts from the old flank zone, thus permitting current flank equipment ceilings to apply to a smaller area. In addition, Russia now has until May 1999 to reduce its forces sufficient to meet the new limit. To provide some counterbalance to these adjustments, reporting requirements were enhanced and inspection rights in the zone increased. Mr. President, with the protections, interpretations, and monitoring requirements contained in the resolution of ratification, I recommend approval of this treaty because it sets reasonable limits and provides adequate guarantees to ensure implementation. However, the simple act of approving this treaty does not diminish the need for further steps by the U.S. Government to strengthen the security of those countries located on Russia's borders. If this agreement is not implemented properly, Russia will retain its existing military means to intimidate its neighbors--a pattern of behavior with stark precedents. As the Clinton administration is so fond of saying, this treaty is but a tool to implement the foreign policy of the United States. During the past 4 years, the Clinton administration has remained silent while Russia has encroached upon the territory and sovereignty of its neighbors. It was the lack of a foreign policy--not a lack of tools-- that allowed this to happen. I have confidence that the new Secretary of State will correct the course of our policies toward Russia, and I gladly support this treaty to aid the Honorable Madeleine Albright in that endeavor. The collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the finest moments of the 20th century. To allow even a partial restoration of the Soviet Union before the turn of the century would be a failure of an even greater magnitude. Mr. President, a final and related issue in the resolution of ratification is one upholding the prerogatives of the Senate in matters related to the ABM Treaty. During the past few years, the executive branch has sought to erode the Senate's constitutional role of advice and consent regarding treaties. In fact, the executive branch originally refused to submit for advice and consent the treaty that is before the Senate today. Through protracted negotiations, the Senate successfully asserted its proper role to advise and consent to new, international treaty obligations. Likewise, on revisions to the ABM Treaty, it is only through a legally binding mandate that we can ensure the proper, constitutional role of the U.S. Senate. I hope, Mr. President, that we can proceed to do that without delay. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the resolution of ratification.

Mr. HELMS. I believe the Senator from Delaware wishes to speak.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from Delaware. How much time do I have?

Mr. HELMS. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner].

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments by the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. I must say for the record that I also enjoy the privilege of working with him. I think the committee has been more active in the last year or two than it has been for some time. But in any case, I am grateful to Senator Biden. Mr. President, the history of the succession agreements to the various treaties concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union further supports the case for Senate consideration of ABM multilateralization. In only one case was advice and consent not required for multilateralization on an arms control treaty. Because the INF Treaty carried the so-called negative obligation of not possessing any intermediate-range nuclear missiles, that treaty could be multilateralized without altering any treaty terms or imposing any new treaty rights or obligations on the United States or new parties. Multilateralization of the START I Treaty under the Lisbon Protocol, on the other hand, required Senate advice and consent because this change had clear implications for the treaty's text and object and purpose. The Lisbon Protocol determined the extent to which countries other than Russia would be allowed to possess strategic nuclear weapons. Similarly, ratification of the Lisbon Protocol also effectively determined successorship questions to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. Under that protocol, Belarus and other countries agreed to a legally binding commitment to join the NPT as nonnuclear weapons states. Thus when the Senate offered its advice and consent to the Lisbon Protocol, it approved successorship to both the INF and the START treaties. Finally, the Senate specifically considered the question of multilateralization of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe under condition 5 of the resolution of ratification for the CFE Treaty. Under article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the Senate holds a co-equal treaty-making power. John Jay made one of the most cogent arguments in this respect, noting: Of course, treaties could be amended, but let us not forget that treaties are made not only by one of the contracting parties, but by both, and consequently that as the consent of both was essential to their formation at first, so must it ever afterwards be in order to alter . . . them. Now, my colleagues of the Senate may disagree on the wisdom of continuing the national strategy embodied in the ABM Treaty. Where I hope all of our colleagues could agree, however, is on the imperative of upholding the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate, as reposed in this body by the Founding Fathers. Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated: The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however, slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority. I know the administration has demonstrated nothing if not disregard for the Senate's constitutional authority. The Senate's duty with regard to the issue of ABM multilateralization is, I believe, Mr. President, clear. I yield the floor. How much time does the distinguished Senator from Texas want?

Mr. HELMS. If the Senator could do with 8 minutes, I think I could cover everybody, and the distinguished President pro tempore.

Mr. HELMS. Why don't you proceed.

Mr. HELMS. I say to Senator Thurmond, you have been yielded to by the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. HELMS. Yes.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Smith].

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I assure him it is an honor to serve in the Senate with him. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HELMS. I have a little housekeeping function. I ask what I am about to do will not be charged to either side.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith].

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I want to pay my respects to the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. He is the chairman of the Europe subcommittee, and he has devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to bringing this treaty forward. So he thanks me, but I thank him. I am glad he is in the Senate. I am glad he is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. I have been asked to advise Senators that the coming vote, after the able Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, completes his presentation, the ensuing vote will be the last vote of the day. I yield the floor and yield back such time as I may have.

Mr. HELMS. No, except to say Senator Biden has said it correctly.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 13, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,337,494,540,137.51. (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-seven billion, four hundred ninety-four million, five hundred forty thousand, one hundred thirty- seven dollars and fifty-one cents) One year ago, May 13, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,094,151,000,000. (Five trillion, ninety-four billion, one hundred fifty-one million) Five years ago, May 13, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,889,146,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty-nine billion, one hundred forty-six million) Ten years ago, May 13, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,272,432,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred seventy-two billion, four hundred thirty-two million) Fifteen years ago, May 13, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,061,721,000,000 (One trillion, sixty-one billion, seven hundred twenty-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,275,773,540,137.51 (Four trillion, two hundred seventy- five billion, seven hundred seventy-three million, five hundred forty thousand, one hundred thirty-seven dollars and fifty-one cents) during the past 15 years. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. As in legislative session, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following disposition of the Feinstein amendment to H.R. 1122 during Thursday's session of the Senate, Senator Daschle be recognized to offer an amendment and it be considered under the following time agreement: 2\1/2\ hours under the control of Senator Daschle or his designee, and 2\1/2\ hours under the control of Senator Santorum or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion or yielding back of time on the Daschle amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Daschle amendment without further action or debate, with no amendments in order during the pendency of the Daschle amendment.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. You have done it correctly, I say to the Senator. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 of the resolution on ratification require the President to observe reasonable limits in the conduct of certain negotiations facilitated by the United States in support of the CFE Treaty. Specifically, this entails an obligation for the President to conduct his diplomacy in a manner that respects the sovereignty and free will of countries on the periphery of Russia that are under pressure by Russia to allow the establishment of military bases. In fact, I do not believe that the United States should be party to any negotiation which could result in allowing Russia to deploy its troops into the territory occupied by the Soviet Union for nearly 70 years. Yet this is exactly the result contemplated by the Clinton administration if this resolution of ratification is not clear on this point. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 are clear on this matter. It is clear from this document that the Clinton administration has demonstrated a willingness to participate in negotiations that could actually result in the establishment of Russian military bases on the territory of other States with the endorsement--and even with the active assistance--of the United States. Is there anyone in the administration who is prepared to state that it would be in the United States' interest for Russia to establish military bases outside of its territory? The Clinton administration offers hollow assertions that Russian troops will not be deployed in other States without the freely given consent of the relevant government. Russia--still the largest military power in Europe--has used its armed forces in recent years in both Georgia and Azerbaijan with virtually no complaint from the Clinton administration. Russia uses its military presence in Ukraine and Moldova to influence the sovereign governments of those States while the Clinton administration remains silent. Russian Government officials have made open threats of military invasion against the Baltic States. Finally, less than 1 year ago, a bloody war in Chechnya was brought to an end. That war was characterized by wide scale Russian atrocities, the intentional targeting of civilians, and casualties possibly in excess of 100,000 people--mostly innocent men, women, and children. Do the administration's lawyers find that these incidents were with the freely given consent of the affected governments? Conditions 1, 2, and 3 set reasonable limits specifically tied to activities cited in paragraph IV (2) and (3) of the CFE Flank Document.

Mr. HELMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator. During the past 4 years, the Clinton administration has remained silent while Russia has encroached upon the territory and sovereignty of its neighbors. It was the lack of a foreign policy--not a lack of tools--that allowed this to happen. I have confidence that the new Secretary of State will correct the course of our policies toward Russia, and I gladly support this treaty to aid the Honorable Madeleine Albright in that endeavor. The collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the finest moments of the 20th century. To allow even a partial restoration of the Soviet Union before the turn of the century would be a failure of an even greater magnitude. Senator Lott, I believe, is standing by. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Let us make a pact.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Wei is China's most prominent dissident. Perhaps I should say that he is China's most prominent dissident in jail. In any event, there are no active dissidents in China, according to this year's State Department human rights report--they are all in jail, or silent. Wei became famous for his powerful, articulate statements during the Democracy Wall movement. After his release in 1993, he returned his advocacy of democratic reform. After 6 months, he was rearrested and held incommunicado for almost 2 years before being sentenced to another 14-year prison term in 1996. Wei shows no concern for himself. His health is poor, threatened by heart problems. Yet he continues to stand up to the Chinese Government, demanding freedom and democracy for the people of China. Wei's letters reveal courage in the face of a brutal and immoral regime. His example is bound to humble any one who dares take for granted the freedoms enjoyed by the American people. I hope that, somehow, Wei will learn of the enormous respect and support he has from the American people. I urge Senators to join in calling upon the Chinese Government to release Wei and immediately provide him with the medical treatment he so badly needs. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Monday, May 5, 1997] Letters From a Chinese Jail--The Blunt Demands of Wei Jingsheng (By Tina Rosenberg) For nearly 20 years, the Chinese government has sought to silence one of the world's most important political prisoners, Wei Jingsheng. Once an electrician in the Beijing Zoo, Mr. Wei is the strongest voice of China's democracy movement. He has spent all but six months of the last 18 years in prisons and labor camps, most in solitary confinement in conditions that would have killed a less stubborn man long ago and may soon kill Mr. Wei, who is 46 and very ill. Now serving a second long sentence, he is watched around the clock by non-political criminal prisoners who insure he does not put pen to paper. But during his first imprisonment he was permitted to write letters on certain topics to his family, prison authorities and China's leaders. Most were never sent. But they have now been translated and published. They form a remarkable body of Chinese political writing. The book, ``The Courage to Stand Alone,'' is published by Viking. It shows why the Chinese Government is so afraid of Mr. Wei. His weapon is simplicity. Unlike other Chinese activists, Mr. Wei does not worry about tailoring his argument to his audience and does not indulge in the Chinese intellectual tradition of flattering the powerful. He does not worry about being seen as pro-Western, or a traitor to China. He writes as if what is obvious to him--that China needs democratic freedoms--should be clear to anyone. ``Dear Li Peng: When you've finished reading this letter, please pass it on to Zhao Ziyang and Deng Xiaoping,'' begins one typical letter to three top Chinese leaders. ``I would like to offer several concrete suggestions.'' The first suggestion: ``take great strides to implement a democratic government as quickly as possible.'' He wrote this letter on May 4, 1989, one month before the massacre in Tiananmen Square, ordered by Li Peng and Deng Xiaoping. Although he was not allowed to write of his worst mistreatment, his letters describe his health and request books, a heater, medicine or a hutch to breed rabbits when he is in a labor camp. The Government expected Mr. Wei to show he was being ``re-educated.'' Instead, he wrote essays on democratic restructuring of the Government. Mr. Wei has always been uncompromising. In 1978, Mr. Deng was fighting for control of the leadership and encouraged reformist thinking. The activists created a Democracy Wall along a highway outside Beijing, where writers put up posters with their thoughts. Mr. Wei wrote the boldest poster, a tract arguing for real democracy and criticizing Mr. Deng, who was then revered by the activists. Mr. Wei then founded an independent magazine. He was arrested in March 1979, given a show trial and sentenced to 15 years. He was released six months before completing his sentence, as part of China's bid to win the Olympics in 2000. He refused to leave before getting back letters the prison authorities had confiscated. Once free, he immediately resumed his work for democracy. He was rearrested, and after a 20-month incommunicado imprisonment he was sentenced to another 14 years. Although censorship insured that few Chinese heard of Mr. Wei after 1979, he has remained a touchstone of the democracy movement. In January 1989, Fang Lizhi, the astrophysicist, wrote a public letter to Mr. Deng asking for amnesty for political prisoners, mentioning only Mr. Wei by name. That letter touched off more letters and petitions and was one of the sparks of the student movement and the occupation of Tiananmen Square. There is no visible dissent in China today. Some of the activists went into exile, many were arrested, others gave up politics and turned their talents to commerce. The moral force of Mr. Wei's writing recalls the prison letters of other famous dissidents, such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s ``Letter From the Birmingham Jail,'' Adam Michnik's ``Letters From Prison'' and Vaclav Havel's ``Letters to Olga.'' Mr. Wei's letters are less eloquent, however. He is not a man of words, and he was probably not writing with an eye to publication. But the most important thing the others had that Mr. Wei does not is widespread international support. Mr. King, Mr. Michnik and Mr. Havel knew that people all over the world were looking out for them and their governments were under pressure to free them, treat them well and heed their cause. This security is as important to a political prisoner's survival as food and water, and Mr. Wei and his fellow Chinese dissidents do not have it. Their names are not widely known. While some American and other officials have brought them up during talks with Chinese leaders, in general the outside world treats Beijing officials with the deference due business partners. Today Mr. Wei suffers from life-threatening heart disease. Because of a neck problem, he cannot lift his head. All indications are that he has not seen a doctor in more than a year. He is due to be released in 2009--if he lives that long.