Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention a report submitted by the Secretary of State on ``The Settlement of Outstanding United States Claims to Confiscated Property in Cuba'' as mandated by Public Law 104-114, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity [LIBERTAD] Act, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The report follows: Department of State, Washington, DC, September 27, 1996. Hon. Jesse Helms, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate. Dear Mr. Chairman: In accordance with the provisions of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, we are filing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the report entitled the Settlement of Outstanding United States Claims to Confiscated Property in Cuba, required by Section 207 of the Act. Copies of this document are also being filed with the House International Relations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Appropriations Committee. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions on this issue or on any other matter. Sincerely, Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs. Enclosure: Section 207 report. Settlement of Outstanding United States Claims to Confiscated Property in Cuba (Report to Congress Under Section 207 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996) Section 207 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 requires the Secretary of State to ``provide a report to the appropriate congressional committees containing an assessment of the property dispute question in Cuba.'' Pursuant to section 207(a), included in this report are the following areas of review: An estimate of the number and amount of claims to property confiscated by the Cuban government that are held by United States nationals in addition to those claims certified under section 507 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, 22 U.S.C. 1643f; An assessment of the significance of promptly resolving confiscated property claims to the revitalization of the Cuban economy; A review and evaluation of technical and other assistance that the United States could provide to help either a transition government in Cuba or a democratically elected government in Cuba establish mechanisms to resolve property questions; An assessment of the role and types of support the United States could provide to help resolve claims to property confiscated by the Cuban government that are held by United States nationals who did not receive or qualify for certification under section 507 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949; and An assessment of any areas requiring legislative review or action regarding the resolution of property claims in Cuba prior to a change of government in Cuba. estimate of claims Under the Cuban Claims Program, established by Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended in 1964, 8,816 claims were filed with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC). In 1972, the FCSC completed its Cuban claims program and certified 5,911 claims against the Cuban Government. The value of these claims was originally $1.8 billion, but is now estimated with interest to be approximately $6 billion. No systematic accounting has ever been done for claims of U.S. nationals in addition to those claims cetified under the FCSC's Cuban Claims Program. Virtually all such claims are held by individuals and companies that were not U.S. nationals or entities at the time of the loss. Based on the approximately 1.5 million Cuban-Americans in the United States and the U.S. government's previous experience with claims resolution, we would estimate that there may be from 75,000 to 200,000 such claims. It is more difficult still to estimate the value of these claims, but it could run easily into the tens of billions of dollars. significance of prompt resolution to the cuban economy The prompt resolution of confiscated property claims is essential to the revitalization of the Cuban economy under a transition or democratic government. Cuba's recovery from decades of economic mismanagement will require the creation of a climate friendly to investment, and a clear commitment to property rights is indispensable for creating such a climate. Progress in resolving uncompensated claims will serve as a signal to new investors, foreign and domestic, that transition and democratic governments understand and respect the importance of private property. It will also be particularly critical to clear up questions concerning title to commercial properties that play, or could play, major roles in Cuba's economy. Delays in doing so will almost certainly delay investment necessary to continue, restore and/or upgrade operations at commercial facilities. Delays of this kind would constitute serious setbacks to a new government's efforts to increase employment and restore the country's fiscal health. Beyond building confidence in Cuba among potential new investors, the process of claims resolution, if carried out creatively and effectively, may itself generate investment in Cuba by the holders of claims. Negotiating a resolution of certified claims will be an important step. Holders of certified U.S. claims in Cuba include some of the United States' largest and most successful corporations, many of which may be interested in renewing their involvement in Cuba under the right conditions. Resolution of non-certified claims will also be important to attracting new investment. While prompt resolution of property claims is essential, it will not be easy. Experience in other countries making the transition from Marxist to market economies has shown that resolution of most expropriation claims can take several years, even when governments move expeditiously to set up the proper mechanisms to do so. While they are engaged in these efforts, these new governments have also been faced with a myriad of other political and economic challenges. The United States' goal in these transitions has been--as it will be in Cuba--to help the new governments maintain stability, overcome these many challenges and firmly establish democratic governments and market economies. Within this broader context, and balancing objectives when necessary, prompt resolution of property claims is a priority for the U.S. government, both in order to protect the interests of U.S. claimants and to stimulate investment in a new Cuba. assistance and support for resolving property claims Consistent with long-standing practice and international law, the United States would expect to assist U.S. nationals with claims against the Government of Cuba. One aspect of such assistance may be the negotiation of a lump-sum settlement of certified claims, as forseen by the FCSC's Cuban Claims Program under Title V of the International Claims Settlement Act. The timing of any such negotiation cannot be predicted now. Resolution of non-certified property claims and disputes in Cuba could be facilitated by technical and other assistance from the U.S. government. Programs of this kind could assist officials of a transition or democratic Cuban government in the development of policy alternatives, formulation of legal and administrative mechanisms, public education campaigns and institution-building. Such assistance may enhance the government's ability to resolve claims and thereby improve claimants' prospects of obtaining compensation or restitution for confiscated property. Assistance in this area could include help in interpreting and evaluating the experience of other countries in resolving property issues, assessing the potential impact of various alternatives, and training officials in consensus-building processes in Cuba. In one instance, a U.S. technical adviser worked with a government's ministry of finance to develop a compensation program based on indemnification bonds. American assistance would reflect the lessons learned from major property disputes with respect to governments in transition to democracy. Elements of a successful claims resolution strategy include: Rapid establishment of a legal framework for property ownership. An administrative process for claims resolution that is centralized, transparent and simple. A credible and fair system for payment of compensation to legitimate prior owners where restitution is not provided. Effective enforcement of both restitution and the payment of compensation from national treasury reserves. U.S. assistance and support for resolving property claims might therefore include the following elements: U.S. technical advisers could assist in the drafting of legislation and supporting regulations which are essential to creating a functioning compensation program. Some elements of a program might include establishing legal bases for arbitration mechanisms, creating financial instruments and other reforms to underpin compensation schemes, and suggesting property titling or registration reforms related to providing secure and transferable ownership rights of both claimants and individuals in Cuba. U.S. experts could review for a democratic or transitional government in Cuba the institutional support required for resolving property disputes. This could include an assessment of the best institutional practices developed elsewhere, and development of the information and administrative systems necessary for effective implementation. Key to getting such a program started could be various sorts of training, advice regarding information systems, hardware and software, property surveying and registration systems, and assessing operational, management and staffing costs for administration. U.S. advisers could help in the development of a plan for educating the Cuban public about the nature and basis of such a system. Such a program could require a significant commitment of effort and resources by a future Cuban government and the U.S. government. This effort could focus on gauging public opinion and identifying concerns and issues of potential stake holders in the reconciliation process to ensure policy and legal solutions are responsive. Intenational financial institutions could develop and carry out programs with similar goals and along these lines. Various agencies of the U.S. government may be available to provide such assistance. For instance, the FCSC may be able to offer technical assistance to a transition or democratic government in Cuba, as well as to interested NGOs and independent organizations, in the efforts to resolve property disputes. Such assistance could include advice on structuring a claims adjudication or arbitration mechanism is Cuba, assistance in devising procedures for collecting, hearing and disposing of the claims, and advice on principles to follow in resolving claims involving property that has been substantially altered subsequent to being taken. assisting u.s. nationals without certified claims Assisting a democratic or transition government in its efforts to establish an efficient property resolution mechanism will directly support the efforts of non-certified claimants to obtain compensation in Cuba. In addition, the U.S. government may provide various forms of support to U.S. nationals wishing to present claims to such a domestic Cuban body. Such support could include ensuring that interested persons obtain the necessary papers to file their claims; encouraging a transition or democratic government to resolve such claims promptly and effectively; monitoring the progress of claims settlement and, where necessary, offering creative solutions to difficult problems; and providing informal assistance to claimants seeking to understand the process and present a claim. In the case of Central and Eastern Europe, for instance, the U.S. government--principally through the special envoy for property claims in the region--has actively promoted the resolution of claims arising from both Nazi confiscations and Communist nationalizations. legislative review At this time, there are no areas requiring further legislative action regarding the resolution of property claims in Cuba prior to a change of government in Cuba. Once a transition or democratic government comes to power in Cuba, however, it will be important for the Administration and Congress to consult closely as conditions change in Cuba to assist in the resolution of property claims in Cuba in a manner that contributes both to the development of a strong bilateral relationship with a democratic Cuba and to Cuba's economic recovery.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending September 27, the United States imported 6,536,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,258,000 less than the 7,794,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Nevertheless, Americans relied on foreign oil for 50 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf war, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 6,536,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, October 2, the Federal debt stood at $5,235,509,457,452.56. One year ago, October 2, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,587,000,000. Five years ago, October 2, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,675,035,000,000. Ten years ago, October 2, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,125,302,000,000. Fifteen years ago, October 2, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $994,220,000,000 which reflects an increase of more than $4 trillion, $4,241,289,457,452.56, during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am gratified that the U.S. Senate today passed S. 1612, a bill I introduced on March 13, 1996, stipulating that a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence shall be imposed upon any criminal possessing a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a violent or drug trafficking crime. I'm informed that this bill will be approved by the House this afternoon, unless there is strong opposition by a Member of that body. If and when signed by the President, it will obviously crack down on criminals who possess a gun while committing violent felonies and/or drug trafficking offenses. In short, it will ensure that criminals possessing a firearm while committing a violent or drug trafficking felony shall receive stern and inescapable punishment. This is common sense, Mr. President; violent felons who possess firearms are more dangerous than those who don't This legislation builds upon existing Federal law providing that a person who, during a Federal crime of violence and/or drug trafficking crime, uses or carries a firearm shall be sentenced to 5 years in prison, a law that has been used effectively by Federal prosecutors across the country. However, a December 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision undermined the efforts of prosecutors to use this statute effectively--the Supreme Court's decision, Bailey versus United States, interpreted the law to require that a violent felon actively employ a firearm as a precondition of receiving an additional 5-year sentence. The Court in Bailey held that the firearm must be brandished, fired, or otherwise actively used before the additional 5-year sentence may be imposed. So, if a criminal merely possesses a firearm, but doesn't fire or otherwise use it, he gets off without the additional 5-year penalty. Mr. President, this Supreme Court decision posed serious problems for law enforcement. It weakened the Federal criminal law and lead to the early release of hundreds of violent criminals. Before this Supreme Court's error of judgment--in the Bailey versus United States decision--armed criminals committing violent or drug trafficking felonies were jailed for an additional 5 years, regardless of whether they actively employed their weapons. But when the Court's decision was announced, hardened criminals across America were overjoyed by the prospect of prison doors swinging open for them. And sure enough, since the Bailey decision last December 6, hundreds of criminals have indeed been set free. As a result of the Court's decision, any thug who hid a gun under the back seat of his car, or who stashed a gun with his drugs, escaped the additional 5-year penalty. But in fact, Mr. President, firearms are the tools of the trade of most drug traffickers. Weapons clearly facilitate the criminal transactions and embolded violent thugs to commit their crimes. I believe that mere possession of a firearm, during the commission of a violent felony--even if the weapon is not actively used--should nonetheless be punished--because of the heightened risk of violence when firearms are present. In its opinion, the Supreme Court observed, ``Had Congress intended possession alone to trigger liability * * * it easily could have so provided.'' That, Mr. President, is precisely the intent of this legislation--to make clear that possession alone does indeed trigger liability. So this legislation retains the 5 year mandatory--repeat, mandatory-- sentences for violent armed felons, and it expands the penalty to apply in the case of possession. In addition, it directs the United States Sentencing Commission to consider strengthening the penalty when a criminal discharges a firearm in furtherance of a heinous crime. As originally introduced, S. 1612 would have boosted the mandatory sentence to 10 years; 20 years if the weapon was discharged; and the death penalty or a mandatory life sentence if someone was killed during the crime. However, some Senators--perhaps responding to blandishments from the lobbyists at A.C.L.U.--objected to heightened mandatory sentences. So I scaled them back--reluctantly--and with the leadership and expertise of the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], this essential legislation was passed. Representative Sue Myrick's guidance in the House of Representatives also has been indispensable. Mr. President, this bill is a necessary and appropriate response to the Supreme Court's judicial limitation of the mandatory penalty for gun-toting criminals. According to Sentencing Commission statistics, more than 9,000 armed violent felons were convicted from April, 1991, through October, 1995. In North Carolina alone, this statute was used to help imprison over 800 violent criminals. We must strengthen law enforcement's ability to use this strong anti-crime provision. Fighting crime is, and must be, a top concern in America. It has been estimated that one violent crime is committed every 16 seconds in the United States. We must fight back with the most severe punishment possible for those who terrorize law-abiding citizens. Enactment of this legislation removes one of the roadblocks between a savage criminal act and swift, certain punishment. It is a necessary step toward recommitting our Government and our citizens to a real honest- to-God war on crime.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, October 1, the Federal debt stood at $5,234,730,786,626.50. Five years ago, October 1, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,674,303,000,000. Ten years ago, October 1, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,125,302,000,000. Fifteen years ago, October 1, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $997,984,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, October 1, 1971, the Federal debt stood at $412,058,000,000 which reflects an increase of nearly $5 trillion ($4,822,672,786,626.50) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 30, the Federal debt stood at $5,224,810,939,135.73. Five years ago, September 30, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,665,303,000,000. Ten years ago, September 30, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,125,303,000,000. Fifteen years ago, September 30, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $997,855,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, September 30, 1971, the Federal debt stood at $412,268,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $4 trillion-- $4,812,542,939,135.73--during the 25 years from 1971 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Again, I thank the Senators from West Virginia and Oregon for making clear the agreement relating to assistance for victims of Hurricane Fran in my State and other States. printing error

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in light of the estimated $5 billion in damage to homes, businesses and farms in North Carolina, it is imperative that critical Federal disaster relief efforts not be delayed, and I am deeply grateful to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Hatfield, and the equally distinguished ranking member Mr. Byrd of the Appropriations Committee for their fine help in allocating adequate funds in this bill for disaster relief. A tremendous amount of time was spent last week in working out the details of the disaster relief package. Needless to say, I was concerned about the prospect of disaster relief funds running out. After extensive consultations last week, a total of nearly $400 million in new funds was provided for various programs to provide assistance to citizens affected by Hurricane Fran. It is my understanding that existing unobligated funds are also available for programs within the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, as well as FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and I respectfully inquire of the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee if they agree that more than $150 million in existing unobligated funds from these programs will be available for disaster relief for North Carolina victims of Hurricane Fran?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senators from West Virginia and Oregon for this explanation. In addition to these funding levels, have any other actions been taken to eliminate obstacles that may affect the availability of assistance to North Carolinians?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Is this the same understanding of the Senator from Oregon, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when Hurricane Fran swept across North Carolina on September 5, it left a path of unprecedented destruction; thousands of citizens lost their homes, their cars, their farms, or their businesses. The cost of the damage exceeds $5 billion, making that the most devastating disaster in North Carolina's history. I am delighted that after weeks of negotiations, North Carolina will receive a total of $1.8 billion in disaster aid. This much needed assistance will assist farmers, homeowners, and small businessmen in getting back on their feet. From the outset, we worked closely with the North Carolina delegation and with Gov. James B. Hunt in developing a package to provide adequate funds for disaster relief. We made clear that in light of the enormous damage to North Carolina, we would seek a total of $2 billion. Last week, we secured $1.3 billion for FEMA for funds to provide emergency assistance, temporary housing, and debris removal. Mr. President, the pending legislation allocates an additional $500 million for various programs that provide needed services. For example, the Department of Agriculture is authorized to provide emergency loans to farmers, the Army Corps of Engineers can perform debris removal, dredging, and beach renourishment, and the Small Business Administration can help out with low-cost loans. I am deeply grateful to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mark Hatfield, the ranking member, Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others, for standing firm and helping preserve the $1.8 billion total. In the process, President Clinton proposed in effect to cut North Carolina's request by $434 million. It was reported that the President sought an increase of $225 million of the U.S. taxpayers' money to be given to the United Nations and the State Department while cutting the disaster aid to North Carolina. In the end, we worked with Senators Lott, Nickles, Byrd, Hatfield, and others to ensure that sufficient funds would be allocated for disaster relief irrespective of any request for funds filed by the White House. North Carolinians have unfailingly supported other States where disasters have struck. So we are thankful that other states have now supported our efforts to secure adequate funds for North Carolina in its effort to recover from disaster. The road to recovery will be a long one, but I hope that these Federal disaster funds will make the process a bit easier for our citizens who have suffered so much.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, speaking of remarkable, I have been in correspondence with a great lady who fits that description perfectly. Phyllis Schlafly long ago became a legend in her own time, a fact that once more came to mind a few weeks back when she and I discussed the then-upcoming 50th anniversary of America' Future, Inc. America's Future was founded by great Americans dedicated to the preservation--and the restoration--of the principles outlined by the Founders of this Republic. Dr. Robert Morris, who, by the way, celebrates his 81st birthday today, is chairman and president, and a trustee of America's Future, along with the following who also serve as trustees: D. Clifford Allison, attorney of Wichita; Dr. Anthony T. Bouscaren of Fayetteville, NY; Philip C. Clark of Greensboro, NC; William J. Gill of Washington; Wesley H. Hillendahl of Santa Rosa, CA; Dr. Anthony Kubek of Clearwater Beach, FL; John J. Metzler of New York City; Mrs. Herbert Philbrick of Rye Beach, NH; Elizabeth E. Racer of Winchester, VA; Brig. Gen. Robert C. Richardson III (retired) of Washington; Henry Salvatori of Los Angeles; Phyllis Schlafly of Alton, IL; Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub (retired), Arlington, VA; Retired Ambassador Raymond L. Telles of El Paso; James L. Tyson of Darien, CT; W. Raymond Wannall, retired Assistant FBI Director, Silver Spring, MD, and John C. Wetzel, Milford, PA. Gen. Dan Graham was a trustee prior to his death sometime back. I have been a trustee for several years. Mr. President, when America's Future was founded, 50 years ago, the Second World War had just ended and the United Nations had just been launched. The cold war had not yet begun, and neither had the conservative movement. Fifty years ago, the number of conservative, constitutionalist, free-market-oriented organizations and publications could be counted on one hand. But the number of Communist- front organizations, to say nothing of liberal and left groups, numbered more than 1,000. Our Nation was in transition, and our enemies moved quickly to make the most of it. There was an obvious need for organizations and individuals willing to defend the American way. And so, on April 24, 1946, America's Future, Inc., a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational organization, was founded in New York City by a group of businessmen dedicated to the preservation of two great fundamental principles: The competitive, private enterprise system that has made our country strong and prosperous, and the constitutional form of government that has kept us free from the tyranny of individuals or factions. America's Future had among its founding members such distinguished Americans as Frank E. Gannett, Mrs. Amos Pinchot, and Gen. Robert E. Wood of Sears, Roebuck & Co. The many prominent Americans who served as trustees include National Association of Manufacturers past president, Robert L. Lund, Henning W. Prentis, Jr., of Armstrong Cork Co., former New Jersey Governor Charles Edison, George W. Strake of Houston, and Charles Hook of Armco Steel. Mr. President, between 1946 and 1948, America's Future sponsored and produced over the ABC Radio Network a Sunday afternoon commentary featuring Samuel B. Pettengill, former Member of Congress and nationally known constitutional authority. America's Future also began the publication and distribution of books, pamphlets, and reprints now numbering in the millions. In the 1950's, noted journalist and staunch patriot John T. Flynn joined forces with America's Future. He went behind the headlines to explain the real significance of events and personalities. His commentary for America's Future, aptly named ``Behind The Headlines,'' was carried on more than 300 radio stations of the Mutual Broadcasting System. Commentaries by Flynn were also distributed to hundreds of newspapers. America's Future launched its Textbook Evaluation Project in 1958, to give due recognition to textbooks that accurately portray our history, our government, and our economic system--and to alert the unsuspecting public to those who distort the fact or justify the expansion of big government. The first issue of the America's Future newsletter appeared the following year, in 1959. R.K. Scott devoted 31 years of his life to America's Future, succeeding the late Robert Lund as president in 1958, and becoming the full-time moderator of ``Behind the Headlines'' in 1961. John Wetzel, who had served America's Future as treasurer since 1958, succeeded as president in 1989. Philip Clarke, a veteran journalist who has reported for the Associated Press, Newsweek magazine, and the Mutual Broadcasting System, became the voice of the syndicated radio commentary, ``Behind the Headlines.'' Robert Morris, the renowned geopolitical strategist and one of America's foremost authorities on intelligence and national security, became chairman of the board of America's Future in 1989 and president in 1995. He served as a U.S. Navy intelligence officer during World War II and was chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee from 1951 to 1953. A former judge, the former president of two Texas universities, the author of numerous books and a syndicated newspaper column, Morris is currently the chairman of the National Committee to Restore Internal Security. Mr. President, America's Future continues to provide its ``Behind The Headlines'' commentaries free of charge to any radio station or newspaper that requests them. ``Behind the Headlines'' is currently broadcast by more than 120 radio stations across America, and published by more than 300 newspapers. The commentaries are summarized for thousands of subscribers nationwide in the bimonthly America's Future newsletter, which is available free of charge to college and high school libraries, ``Behind The Headlines'' can also be found on the America's Future worldwide website--http://www.accessus.net/ eamiller/af. Methods of communications may change, but the principles America's Future espouses will remain timeless. Whether it's on the radio, in newspapers and pamphlets and newsletters, on the Internet, or though some medium not yet imagined, America's Future will keep reminding our countrymen that the best way to protect the freedoms Americans enjoy is by preserving our constitutional form of government and our private enterprise system. As it stands poised on the threshold of a new century, America's Future can by justly proud of its success in combating the philosophical errors of our era. Big government is not dead yet, but it is discredited. We have every reason to hope, therefore, that tomorrow will bring a rebirth of freedom in our country. There truly is a lot to look forward to in America's future, and we congratulate America's Future, Inc., on the occasion of its golden anniversary.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, September 27, the Federal debt stood at $5,199,074,786,599.17. One year ago, September 27, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,955,603,000,000. Five years ago, September 27, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,638,661,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, September 27, 1971, the Federal debt stood at $415,658,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $4 trillion-- $4,783,416,786,599.17--during the 25 years from 1971 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., the distinguished former Senator from North Carolina, often said that the United States had never lost a war nor won a treaty. Well, during the summer, the Clinton administration quietly set the wheels in motion in Geneva for yet another disastrous treaty for the United States. During July meetings, Tim Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, committed the United States to the negotiation of a binding legal instrument with the stated goal of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Many experts agree that the premise for this new treaty, which excludes developing countries from enforcing the commitments to reduce emissions, makes its goal simply unachievable. Developing nations such as China will be the largest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in the post 2000 period, yet will be exempt from any new restrictions. The United States currently is party to the U.N. Convention on Global Climate Change, signed at Rio in 1992 and ratified by the Senate in 1993. Under that treaty the member countries are divided into industrialized countries, termed ``Annex I countries,'' and developing countries, termed ``non-Annex I countries,'' for purposes of determining treaty commitments. The treaty tasks Annex I Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. In March of 1995, the parties to the U.N. Convention laid the framework for the current negotiations when they met in Berlin, Germany, and agreed to the so-called Berlin mandate. The Berlin mandate states that the parties to the Convention would address this global problem post 2000 without binding any of the non-Annex I parties to new commitments. By agreeing to this disastrous concession--after making assurances to Congress that they would not do so, I might add--the means for addressing the issue as a global problem were removed from the table. Mr. President, as things often happen, the flawed Berlin mandate became the building block for the latest round of concessions made by Tim Wirth in Geneva. There, parties approved a Ministerial Declaration which--in ``U.N. speak''--directs Annex I parties to ``instruct their representatives to accelerate negotiations on the text of a legally- binding protocol of another legal instrument.'' The Declaration directs that the commitments of Annex I parties will include ``quantified legally-binding objectives for emission limitations and significant overall reductions within specified timeframes, such as 2005, 2010, 2020.'' In plain English this means that any new treaty commitments regarding greenhouse gas emissions will set forth legally binding emission levels that must be met by industrialized countries only. The U.S. position turns basic principles of sound economic policy on its head since it directs industrialized countries to subsidize developing countries by polluting less while incurring higher costs so that developing countries can pollute more without incurring costs. Some of our allies recognize the serious flaws in the current negotiations. According to the findings of an Australian Government study entitled ``Global Climate Change: Economic Dimensions of a Cooperative International Policy Response Beyond 2000,'' the treaty will not even achieve the desired environmental effect. The study finds that stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions of developed countries only at 1990 levels during the period from the years 2000 to 2020 ``would lead to minimal reductions in global emissions and would have higher costs for most countries than alternative abatement strategies.'' According to the Australian study, despite the additional costs, there will be no substantial reduction in the growth of global emissions because of the continued growth in the rest of world emissions. Mr. President, even the elements that would provide some leveling of the playing field are nonexistent in the Ministerial Declaration that was approved by the parties in Geneva. For example, the document makes no reference to Joint Implementation [JI], a practice by which a country's emissions abatement costs can be spread across national borders. Under JI, a nation with relatively high marginal abatement costs can offset costs through involvement with projects in countries with relatively low emissions reduction costs. If countries were truly serious about decreasing the level of global emissions this plan would provide a global solution to the problem and bring economic benefits to the lower cost country in the form of foreign investment. These are clearly not the goals of the parties advancing this doomed policy. According to a study by the General Accounting Office that I requested, during the period from 1993 to 1995, Federal agencies of the United States have spent almost $700 million on global climate change related spending. This is more than 70 percent of the total spending by the United States to advance major international environmental treaties. Despite the heavy resources being pumped into this Convention by the Clinton administration, Congress has yet to be provided a full economic analysis of the costs of the proposed protocol to the original treaty. Nor has the administration been forthcoming in its own proposals for the new Protocol. Instead, a shell game is being played out in which the substance of the new protocol will be laid on the table in December, after U.S. elections. During hearings last week in the Senate Energy Committee, the able Senator from Alaska, Frank Murkowski, raised serious questions about the administration's support of the current negotiations underway at the United Nations, particularly the possibility of a carbon tax. I can assure you that for so long as I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee any international legal instrument agreed to by this administration must not and should not put the U.S. economy at a competitive disadvantage to other countries. Most importantly, the treaty should actually achieve the purpose for which it is negotiated. Any treaty that comes before the Senate for ratification must ensure that U.S. businesses will remain competitive and U.S. jobs will be protected.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, September 26, the debt stood at $5,198,325,061,997.28. One year ago, September 26, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,953,251,000,000. Five years ago, September 26, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,638,501,000,000. Ten years ago, September 26, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,109,293,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $3 trillion ($3,089,032,061,997.28) during the 10 years from 1986 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 25, the Federal debt stood at $5,198,780,826,934.47. One year ago, September 25, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,949,969,000,000. Five years ago, September 25, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,630,755,000,000. Ten years ago, September 25, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,109,249,000,000. Fifteen years ago, September 25, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $979,210,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $4 trillion ($4,319,570,826,934.47) during the 15 years from 1981 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending September 20, the U.S. imported 7,296,000 barrels of oil each day, 16,000 more than the 7,280,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 53 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 7,296,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, regardless of the outcome, when the Senate votes on the question of whether to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the impact will have grave consequences. For those who care deeply about the most innocent and helpless human life imaginable, failure to override the Clinton veto will border on calamitous. But it will have focused the abortion debate on the baby. The spotlight will no longer shine on the much-proclaimed right to choose. Senators have been required to consider whether an innocent, tiny baby--partially-born, just 3 inches from the protection of the law--deserves the right to live, and to love and to be loved. The baby is the center of debate in this matter. On December 7, 1995, the Senate voted, 54 to 44, to outlaw the inhuman procedure known as a partial-birth abortion, as the House of Representatives had done the previous November 1. But the President, taking his cue from the radical feminists and the National Abortion Rights Action League, vetoed the bill. President Clinton, and other opponents of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, have sought to explain the necessity of a procedure that allows a doctor to deliver a baby partially, feet-first from the womb, only to have his or her brains brutally removed by the doctor's instruments. The procedure has prompted revulsion across the land, even among many who previously had supported the freedom-of-choice rhetoric. Many Americans view the President's veto in terms of a character lapse and a regrettable failure of moral judgment. Now Senators must stand up and be counted, for or against the President's veto, with him or against him, for or against the destruction of innocent human life in such a repugnant way. In my view, the President was wrong, sadly wrong. His veto by any civilized standards, let alone by any measurement of decency and compassion, is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Senate must override the President's cruel error of judgment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a September 24 Washington Post column by Richard Cohen, headed ``A New Look at Late-Term Abortion,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Likewise, I ask unanimous consent a Bergen County, NJ, Sunday Record article of September 15, 1996, headed ``The Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 24, the Federal debt stood at $5,195,854,879,174.22. Five years ago, September 24, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,629,138,000,000. Ten years ago, September 24, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,107,495,000,000. Fifteen years ago, September 24, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $979,131,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, September 24, 1971, the Federal debt stood at $415,688,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $4 trillion ($4,780,166,879,174.22) during the 25 years from 1971 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. In order for the United States to retain its membership in INRO, the United States must ratify INRA 1995 prior to the end of 1996. I ask that the Senate move expediently to a vote on this treaty. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Would the Senator like to go first?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, please advise me when I have used 10 minutes. Mr. President, one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and specified as such under the Senate rules, is to consider measures that ``foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and safeguard American business interests abroad.'' Throughout the 104th Congress, I have placed a high priority on measures that promote American commercial interests in the United States and overseas. During this Congress the Foreign Relations Committee has reported six bilateral tax treaties providing for reduced withholding tax liabilities and protection against the double taxation of American goods and services. During this Congress, the Foreign Relations Committee also reported nine bilateral investment treaties, or BIT's, as they are known around the world. BIT's between the United States and other countries can have an enormous impact in opening doors for American business in less developed markets. To date, the Senate has overwhelmingly approved all of the bilateral tax and investment treaties reported from our committee during the 104th Congress. Today, the Senate is considering yet another treaty that expands opportunities for U.S. business and protects American jobs. This treaty, the International Natural Rubber Agreement (INRA) is designed to stabilize product and prices of natural rubber. This agreement has been in effect for 16 years and has proved a useful tool for maintaining a relatively stable supply of natural rubber at a fairly consistent price. The pending treaty would extend the agreement for an additional 4 years. This commodity agreement essentially reauthorizes a buffer stock that stabilizes the price of natural rubber. The buffer stock is designed to buy and sell rubber in order to keep the price within 15 percent of a reference price established annually based on the market. The stock is financed by direct cash contributions from its members, who are both producers and consumers of natural rubber. Absent the development of a mature futures market for natural rubber, the agreement ensures predictable supplies of natural rubber priced at annual market rates. Virtually all Americans, whether aware of it or not, depend on rubber products every day of the week. Any American who drives a car, or rides a bus, or takes a taxi to work relies on rubber products. Many Americans may not be aware that we are completely dependent upon foreign countries for our supply of natural rubber. In fact, synthetic rubber products still require some natural rubber. Here is the point. Seventy-five percent of all natural rubber is grown in only three countries--Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. About 80 percent of natural rubber is grown by small farmers, and it requires seven years for new rubber trees to reach full production level. Thus, a drastic reduction in rubber prices could force small farmers to convert their crops to more profitable commodities such as palm oil. Since natural rubber takes seven years to mature, valuable time could be lost before the market was once again provided with a reliable supply. In terms of jobs, the president of the Rubber Manufacturing Association testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the livelihood of more than 100,000 employees, and the thousands of suppliers to the rubber industry and its customers, depends on available supplies of natural rubber and the continued production of finished products. By keeping the cost of tires--and other rubber products that we all depend upon--relatively stable, U.S. consumers benefit directly from the agreement. Ensuring that small farmers will continue to grow rubber is therefore essential to ensuring an adequate supply level for the United States. One of the main reasons the United States signed the original agreement, it is known in short form as INRA--with broad bipartisan support--and its renewal in 1987, was to encourage producers to invest in planting new trees and to continue to harvest rubber to meet the projected increases in worldwide demands. Since the original INRA, production of natural rubber has doubled to keep pace with a similar rise in consumption of rubber products. Senate ratification of this treaty is essential to ensuring market stability as the United States and other consuming countries transition to a system that relies on private sector institutions to manage market risk. In a letter to me, dated January 22, 1996, the State Department said it ``shared industry's and labor's concern that a precipitous end to the accord would be disruptive.'' As we know all too well in Washington, private institutions do not replace public institutions overnight--much as we might like to see it be otherwise. INRA III will bridge the period of transition and decrease the potential for disruption of the natural rubber supply during the four year period in which the treaty will be in force. Membership in INRA has proved to be profitable to the U.S. Treasury. The original International Natural Rubber Agreement [INRA] was funded by the United States in 1980 with a contribution of $53 million. Since that time, the U.S. contribution has increased through profit and interest by $25 million and now stands at $78 million. Given this record it is evident that the U.S. Treasury will benefit directly from its membership in the International Natural Rubber Organization [INRO] in more ways than ensuring an adequate supply of natural rubber. When the U.S. contribution to the INRO is returned to the Treasury in four years, we can expect the U.S. share of INRO to have grown beyond its current level of $78 million. Commitment to INRA III will be funded without additional appropriations from the United States. According to the Office of Management and Budget, in a letter to me dated August 8, 1996, ``because rolling over U.S. government resources currently in the INRO Buffer Stock Account will not require any legislation, ratification of INRA 1995 will not be subject to pay-as-you-go budgetary procedures, and will simply change the timing of the return of these assets to the U.S. Treasury.'' According to the Office of Management and Budget, the proposed roll- over of resources in the Buffer Stock Account from INRA 1987 to INRA 1995 is based upon the provisions of INRA 1987, and the 1988 precedent of the Senate rolling over funds from INRA 1979 to INRA 1987. Some annual appropriations are necessary; specifically, the U.S. share of the administrative costs of INRO are estimated to be $300,000 per year. Finally, Mr. President, the administration, U.S. industry, and this Senator, agree that it is time to move toward a system which relies on private sector institutions to manage market risk. I agree with Senator Brown on that point. But, consequently, in correspondence with the Secretary of State and during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 20, 1996, I stated that industry must begin such a transition. So, this will be the last International Natural Rubber Agreement. However, industry needs sufficient time to create a mechanism and prepare for a smooth transition to such a system. Given the unique production challenges of natural rubber, ratification of INRA III will provide an adequate transition period. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that correspondence to me emphasizing the importance of this agreement be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Delaware. He was unable to come to a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee this morning at which we spent 1\1/ 2\ hours paying tribute to this wonderful man, and I agree with everything that Senator Biden has said about Senator Pell. At the meeting this morning, a resolution of commendation for Senator Pell was adopted by standing ovation, and I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably four nomination lists in the Foreign Service which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of June 26, September 9, and September 19, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 23, the Federal debt stood at $5,192,406,060,962.74. Five years ago, September 23, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,628,836,000,000. Ten years ago, September 23, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,107,785,000,000. Fifteen years ago, September 23, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $977,809,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, September 23, 1971, the Federal debt stood at $415,377,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $4 trillion, $4,777,029,060,962.74, during the 25 years from 1971 to 1996.