Ambassador YOST. Frankly, I think that some of them may go farther than is really necessary, but if it is helpful in procuring ratification, I would certainly think it was worth accepting them.

AFFECT OF RATIFICATION ON PERSECUTION OF DISSIDENTS

Senator PELL. Finally, do you think ratification would affect, in any way, the persecution of the dissidents who are on trial right now, as, for example, those in Czechoslovakia?

Ambassador YoST. I think anything that we can do and the international community can do to show evidence of deep concern for this matter does have some effect. It is not an instant effect, obviously, but it is a cumulative effect. Therefore, this would be helpful in that connection.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Ambassador. Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, I think the case is very persuasive, even on the record, and your support for it is very agreeable and very desirable. I think it carries itself.

As I said when you opened, I will do my utmost as one Senator to get the Senate to act, I hope very much the committee will, too. It is what we practice far more than what we preach that counts, and that is exactly your testimony.

Thank you.

Senator PELL. Senator Helms?

Senator HELMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to echo Senator Javits' comments and thank Ambassador Yost for his appearance here today.

Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate for me to make a small statement for the record?

Senator PELL. Absolutely. This would be the ideal time.
Senator HELMS. Thank you, I will not take long.

I will summarize my statement and will ask that the whole statement be printed in the record.

Senator PELL. Without objection, it will be inserted in full in the record.

Senator HELMS. I thank the Chair.

SENATOR HELM'S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, the history of the United States has been, in no small part, the history of one nation's attempt to advance the cause of freedom and human rights. Following the end of World War II, we joined with other countries which participated in that conflict to establish the United Nations organization. One of its first acts was the adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document remains today a unique expression of international cooperation to secure freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

Nearly 20 years later, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the two treaties drafted to implement the declaration: The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Yet, the unanimous vote of the General Assembly in 1966, in adopting the two convenants, tended to conceal the profound and vigorous divisions which so greatly prolonged the acceptance of these treaties. From the very first discussions in the attempt to codify the declaration, the Soviet Union strenuously objected to article 17 of the declaration being included in any implementing treaty.

Mr. Chairman, the issue was not a minor one because, as you know, article 17 reads: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

President Truman insisted that the Universal Declaration contain article 17, guaranteeing the individual's right to property, before the United States would support the declaration. It has been the consistent position of the United States since that time-of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford-that before the United States would become a party to any implementing treaty of the declaration, the treaty must recognize every person's right to property as a basic human right protected under international law. Mr. Chairman, when the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are presented for the advice and consent of the Senate to their ratification, I intend to submit in the form of an amendment to the covenants, article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

I believe that only in this way can we contribute to the international legal protection of human rights consistent with our own Constitution. I thank the chairman for generously yielding me the time this morning to make this statement.

[Senator Helm's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JESSE HELMS

The history of the United States has been, in no small part, the history of one nation's attempt to advance the cause of freedom and human rights. Following the end of World War II, we joined with other countries which participated in that conflict to establish the United Nations organization. One of its first acts was the adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document remains today a unique expression of international cooperation to secure freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

Following so closely the barbarism of World War II, the declaration was a reaffirmation that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, does not have the force of law. It is not a treaty, but a mere statement of principles. The United Nations then undertook to transform the principles of the declaration into treaty provisions which established international legal obligations on the part of each ratifying state.

Nearly 20 years later, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously adopted the two treaties drafted to implement the declaration: The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Yet the unanimous vote of the General Assembly in 1966 in adopting the two covenants tended to conceal the profound and vigorous divisions which so greatly prolonged the acceptance of these treaties. From the very first discussions in the attempt to codify the declaration, the Soviet Union strenuously objected to article 17 of the Declaration being included in any implementing treaty. The issue was not a minor one. Article 17 reads:

"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

President Truman insisted that the Universal Declaration contain article 17 guaranteeing the individual's right to property, before the United States would support the declaration. It has been the consistent position of the United States since that time or Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford-that before the United States would become a party to any implementing treaty of the declaration, the treaty must recognize each person's right to property as a basic human right protected under international law.

On October 5, 1977, President Carter reversed this American position of nearly three decades by signing, on behalf of the United States, the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights. On February 23 of last year, the President transmitted these covenants to the Senate for ratification. Because of the history of these covenants regarding article 17 of the declaration and personal property rights, their ratification by the Senate would for the first time legitimize the unlawful expropriation without compensation or arbitrary seizure of Americans' property overseas. Furthermore, ratification by the Senate would again for the first time have the United States formally acquiesce to Socialist and Marxist governments' denial of basic individual economic rights. As presently written, these U.N. covenants require the United States to ignore basic constitutional rights of Americans as a matter of international law.

THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION

The authors of the Constitution realized that the existence of personal liberty depends upon a delicate balance of many individual freedoms. The freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights come together in a unique way to establish a context in which personal liberty is possible. To erode or ignore one part of that liberty, they understood, was to seriously weaken the whole. They were not willing to maintain one right at the expense of another, and they strove to preserve a balance of freedoms as the foundation of liberty in an ordered society. The Americans, Jefferson asserted in the Declaration of Independence, strove to preserve their inherited rights and freedoms as part of their English legal tradition.

The Founding Fathers of the new United States determined to preserve this heritage of liberty. Certainly the right to property was viewed as part_of_the tradition of freedom obtained from England. "The Commentaries on English Law" by William Blackstone, which sold nearly as many copies in the 13 colonies as in England itself, maintained that "so great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it."

John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government," the influence of which can be seen throughout the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, observed that the preservation of property is the reason why societies are formed and governments are created. Locke maintained that "the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent."

The authors of the Constitution sought to protect the right to property from government intrusion. Section 9 of article I prohibits the seizure of property through the use of arbitrary tax laws and section 10 prohibits laws impairing the obligation of contracts. James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that the denial of property rights through laws impairing the obligation of contracts is "contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

John Adams maintained that the right to property was not only a personal right, but a cornerstone of just government. Without the right to property Adams believed the exercise of freedom was not possible in an ordered society. He wrote:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."

The Bill of Rights accords the right to property the same high standing as other rights of the person. The fourth amendment establishes the same protection against unlawful search and seizure of property as it does of the person. The right to trial by jury extends not only to criminal cases against the individual, but also to civil cases concerning property. The fifth amendment provides that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." James Madison wrote:

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort, and this being the end of government, that alone is not a just government . . where the property

which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures.'

The right to property was understood by the framers of the Constitution to encompass more than just real estate. It extends to the product of an individual's labor and industry.

The newly instituted Supreme Court moved quickly to defend the inviolability of contracts and the right of individuals to private property under the Constitution. Along with Blackstone, Locke, and Madison, Justice Joseph Story understood that " one of the great objects of political society is the protection of

property."

In a series of decisions beginning with the case of Fletcher against Peck, Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Story used the contract clause to affirm a strong constitutional right to property.

Later, Story was to explain the motivation of the Court in this endeavor: "The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call them sacred, because, if they were unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary. What is liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry? What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our prosperity? What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives"?

THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY AMENDMENT

How is it that we are suddenly asked to abandon a right so central to the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would we not hesitate to abandon its companion rights central to the existence of a free society? Rights such as freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion? Would we agree to ratify a treaty which specifically and purposefully rejected a right of free speech or of religion or of a fair trial on the grounds that our failure to become a party increasingly reflects upon our human rights policy?

To ratify treaties which purport to advance human rights while in fact denying the basic human right of each individual to possess the product of his labor would be to ignore our own constitutional heritage. The United States must continue to lead the development of human rights under international law. Yet, we cannot do so if we fail to defend and promote those human rights so long a part of our own Constitution. To ratify these treaties in their present form would be such a denial of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are presented for the advice and consent of the Senate to their ratification I intend to submit in the form of an amendment to the covenants, article 17 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states as follows:

"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.'

I believe that only in this way can we contribute to the international legal protection of human rights consistent with our own Constitution.

HELMS AMENDMENT TO U.N. TREATIES TO PROTECT AMERICAN RIGHTS

Washington-Senator Jesse Helms announced today that when two U.N. treaties concerning human rights are presented to the Senate for ratification, he will seek to amend them to protect Americans from the arbitrary or unlawful seizure of their private property overseas by foreign governments.

The treaties under consideration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, were the subject of hearings beginning today before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator Helms is a member of the Committee.

The treaties are the result of three decades of work to implement and make legally binding the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. However, at the insistence of the Soviet Union, the treaties specifically exclude Article 17 of the Declaration which guarantees the right to private property as a human right.

"Every American President since Harry Truman has refused to sign these treaties unless they protect the individual's right to property," Helms said. "The recent action by President Carter is a reversal of this consistent U.S. policy."

"Ratification of these treaties under such circumstances amounts to a denial by the United States under international law of our constitutional rights to enforceable contracts, freedom from unlawful search and seizure of property, to have property taken only for due process of law and to receive just compensation for any property taken by government," Helms said.

"Should the Senate ratify these treaties without adding the right to property provision of the Universal Declaration, it would for the first time legitimize under international law the expropriation and nationalization of Americans' property overseas by foreign governments without payment," Helms said.

“Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

Senator PELL. Thank you, Senator Helms. Do you have any questions of Ambassador Yost?

Senator HELMS. No, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PELL. Ambassador Yost, thank you very much, indeed, for being with us. We are delighted to have you here.

Ambassador YOST. I was very pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman. Senator PELL. I believe Ambassador Goldberg, who was originally scheduled to be heard at 9:30 is now with us. I must say that we are very fortunate to have him here, with his wide experience in the United Nations, in politics, in Government, and particularly his excellent work in connection with the Helsinki commission a year ago, when I had the honor of serving under him on our delegation. I also greet him as an old friend. We are delighted to have you here, Justice Goldberg.

Justice GOLDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Senator PELL. Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. I just want to join the chairman in welcoming Justice Goldberg here today. He is also an old friend of mine. I think he is one of our most distinguished Americans. We are indeed lucky to have him testify this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR GOLDBERG, FORMER JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Justice GOLDBERG. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Javits, Senator Helms, it is a great pleasure again to be before this committee. It is like coming home. I appear before this committee in support of ratification by the Senate of the four treaties which have been transmitted to it by the President. I shall not read my statement, but, with your permission, I ask that it be incorporated in the record.

Senator PELL. It will be inserted in the record in full.

Justice GOLDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, you and I together were at the United Nations, and we were also at the Belgrade Conference. I think I can speak for both of us, if I may

Senator PELL. Only more eloquently than I believe I could speak for us.

Justice GOLDBERG [continuing]. Say that the failure of the United States to ratify these four covenants and the Covenant on Genocide, of which Senator Javits has been such a great exponent throughout