Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be stated.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, September 7, the Federal debt stood at $4,968,651,845,437.79. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,861.09 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before discussing today's bad news about the Federal debt, how about ``another go'', as the British put it, with our pop quiz. Remember? One question, one answer. The question: How many millions of dollars does it take to add up to a trillion dollars? While you are thinking about it, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the Federal debt that now exceeds $4.9 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, September 6, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,969,749,463,346.30, of which, on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,865.25. Mr. President, back to our pop quiz, how many million in a trillion: There are one million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, now soaring toward $5 trillion, has been fueled for a generation now by bureaucratic hot air--and it's sort of like the weather, everybody talks about it but almost nobody did much about it until immediately after the elections in November 1994. But when the new 104th Congress convened this past January, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the Senate side, all but one of the 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment--that was the good news. The bad news was that only 13 Democrats supported it and that killed it for [[Page S 12680]] the time being. Since a two-thirds vote--67 Senators, if all Senators are present--is necessary to approve a constitutional amendment, the proposed Senate amendment failed by one vote. There will be another vote either this year or in 1996. Here is today's bad debt boxscore: As of the close of business Tuesday, September 5, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,968,612,934,278.22 or $18,860.94 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I support the Nunn amendment identified as ``The Missile Defense Act of 1995.'' Last week there was a curious, trumped up suggestion in a local newspaper that, somewhere along the line, I had mysteriously changed my position regarding the ABM Treaty. I have not, and the reporter who wrote the story knew it. I have always questioned the wisdom of the ABM Treaty, and I still do. In fact, this past April I wrote to President Clinton stating my belief that the current U.S. position on the ABM Treaty is rooted in cold war mentality. In 1972, Mr. President, neither United States nor Soviet negotiators had any way to envision the security environment of 1995, characterized as it is by the rampant proliferation of ballistic and cruise missile technology. Even former Secretary of State Kissinger--one of the principal architects of the ABM Treaty--recently told me that he too feels that strategic stability in the post-Cold war world has moved beyond the current scope of the ABM Treaty. I use the word ``current'' because the ABM Treaty itself contains provisions for modification or legal abrogation. Mr. President, the national security interests of the United States should be our number one priority, and for that reason I have directed the Committee on Foreign Relations, in consultation with the Committee on Armed Services and other appropriate committees, to undertake a comprehensive review of the continuing value of the ABM Treaty for the purpose of providing additional policy guidance during the second session of the 104th Congress. In this regard, I reiterate my opposition to the creation of yet another special Select Committee replete with bureaucratic trappings, staff, and cost to the American taxpayer for the purpose of reviewing this treaty. We already have standing committees with the responsibility for making these determinations and recommendations, and we are going to do our job. In conclusion, I support the Nunn amendment for its foresight in developing a missile defense system to protect all Americans. Still, I confess having reservations about the amendment because I am convinced that it may compromise some of the decisive language and vision contained in the original bill. Mr. President, I reiterate my support for passage of the Defense Authorization Bill of 1995.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this technical amendment is to fix an incorrect authorization level for construction of a mission essential Special Operations Forces Group Headquarters at Fort Bragg, NC. This project was authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee at the original, incorrect estimate of $2,600,000. As background, the U.S. Special Operations Command--or USSOCOM, as it is called--requested in its fiscal year 1996 milcon budget a Group HQ originally estimated to cost $2,600,000. Based upon that erroneous estimate, the administration requested and the House Appropriations Committee appropriated that amount. The correct project estimate is $3,900,000. The cost increase is attributable to two key factors; a failure to account for the area cost factor for construction in the Fort Bragg area and the realization that special construction requirements are necessary. Equipped with the new, accurate estimate, the Senate Military Construction Subcommittee, approved $3,900,000 for the project. My amendment will fix the discrepancy between the Senate Military Construction Subcommittee's appropriation and the Senate Armed Services Committee's authorization.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of the last recorded business day, Friday, September 1, the Federal debt stood at $4,968,255,379,449.49. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,859.58 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on July 26, Secretary of State Christopher waived the prohibition on United States foreign aid to the Nicaraguan Government--on what he called national interest grounds--even though the Nicaraguan Government has failed to resolve the claims of properties stolen from Americans. Nicaragua has not resolved even one- third of the cases involving confiscation of properties owned by American citizens. In order to comply with United States law, the Government of Nicaragua has four options: First, it can return the properties to the rightful owners, second, compensate the owners, third, develop a viable process to resolve claims, or fourth, submit cases to international arbitration. Despite this considerable statutory latitude, the Nicaraguan Government has nonetheless failed miserably in meeting the criterion required by United States law before any United States aid can properly be provided. Since November 1994, following elections in which the Democrats lost control of both the United States House and the United States Senate, the Nicaraguan Government did pick up a bit of occasional speed and resolved in 6 months twice as may cases as were resolved in the previous 4 years, proving that the problem is not the Nicaraguan Government's inability to resolve these cases and thereby comply with United States law; no, it is the Nicaraguan regime's unwillingness to do so. This is a problem of political will. So the Nicaraguans prevailed upon the Clinton administration to bail them out. Secretary of State Christopher dutifully complied so that United States foreign aid would continue to flow to the Chamorro regime which is still largely under the control of the Communist Sandinistas who brought ruin to Nicaragua while they were in control of the government in Managua. Thus Secretary Christopher and the Clinton administration rewarded Nicaragua, claiming that foreign aid to that country is in the United States national interest. Mr. President, I have received scores of letters from American citizens whose properties in Nicaragua were confiscated by the Sandinistas. These citizens reject the nonsense that assistance to the Nicaraguan Government is in the national interest of the United States taxpayer. In fact, they assert, it is the height of folly to send further foreign aid to a government that refuses to return their properties to them or fairly compensate them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 20 of these letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The others are available for inspection by anyone desiring to see them.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday 10, the Federal debt stood at $4,943,017,430,508.20. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,763.78 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been in three successive meetings all afternoon long, each dealing with a different aspect of foreign policy. I have lost track of what is going on the floor. Am I to understand that you have four amendments in line now? I make that parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HELMS. Is the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] one of the five?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Dole, Senators Lieberman, and McCain, and myself, I shall momentarily send a bill to the desk to be read for the first time and appropriately referred. I will pause here just a moment, Mr. President, to ask a parliamentary inquiry. Inasmuch as what I am to discuss--and Senator Dole will be here momentarily to make his comments. We are introducing a bill to be properly referred. Is it necessary that we ask unanimous consent to lay aside any amendment?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader and myself, I ask unanimous consent in that regard.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will defer to the majority leader because he has another appointment that he needs to make.

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

Mr. HELMS. Certainly.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment provides incentive for continued reform in countries of that region by offering closer integration with the West for countries that meet the fundamental criteria of democracy and economic reform. While some countries have taken more steps than others in fulfilling the criteria outlined in the Brown amendment, reform efforts are so fluid and governments evolve so often that I do not believe it is fair to prejudge any one country, or set of countries, for that matter, at this time. It would certainly not be honest to make the judgment that Slovakia, for example, has made more progress in fulfilling the criteria in this bill than have Estonia or Slovenia. While I support Slovakia's independence and the people of that country, the Government of that country has backed away, I am sorry to say, from privatization and has interpreted democracy to mean total control by the ruling political party of the country. The Brown amendment offers a real blueprint for forging closer relations with the free nations of Central Europe. We should not content ourselves with the Clinton administration's tepid approach to our victory in the cold war. To this day, the administration has failed to define the process by which Central European countries can become NATO members. The Brown amendment will right this unfocused approach by concentrating our assistance on those countries taking brave steps to reform their political, economic and military systems and tie their future to NATO. I firmly believe that NATO enlargement to countries which prove themselves capable of contributing to the NATO Alliance is in the U.S. national interest. Spreading NATO ideals to Central Europe at this time aligns these countries in a defense-oriented posture which must be more comforting to Russia than the current undefined security situation in Central Europe. I would encourage the President to take the bold step of making all the countries in this bill eligible for much of the NATO transition assistance provided in this amendment. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], has demonstrated his customary fine leadership in offering his amendment to bring a possible NATO membership one step closer for friends of the United States in Central Europe. Now, nations from Latvia to the Czech Republic have bitter memories of the period following World War II when they were left in a security vacuum. Some 50 years of Communist captivity ensued. I ask unanimous consent to be identified as a cosponsor on the Brown amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his statement and for his support, as I thank the other cosponsors. Now, the purpose of this legislation is to correct an injustice that is burdening the conscience of millions of Americans, as well as citizens of all civilized countries around the world. I refer, of course, to what so many Senators properly consider an imperative responsibility both personally and as a nation to move to untie the hands of the Bosnian people, thereby enabling them to acquire the means to defend themselves against Serbia's cruel genocide designed to achieve an illegal conquest of the sovereign nation of Bosnia. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader [Mr. Dole] Senators Lieberman, McCain, and myself, I shall momentarily send a bill to the desk to be read the first time. The purpose of this legislation is to correct an injustice that is burdening the conscience of millions of Americans as well as citizens of all civilized countries around the world. I refer of course to what so many Senators properly consider an imperative responsibility to move to untie the hands of the Bosnian people, thereby enabling them to acquire the means to defend themselves against Serbia's cruel genocide designed to achieve an illegal conquest of the sovereign nation of Bosnia. Mr. President, in a joint hearing conducted yesterday by the Senate's Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees to investigate war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, a distinguished witness asserted that the difference between the conduct of a great nation and the conduct of a mighty nation is [[Page S 12253]] that, while both are capable of shaping events far beyond their borders, a great nation is guided by deep sense of moral principle. The greatest expression of that moral principle, as practiced by our Nation in the past, has been the enduring commitment that never again will we stand silent while a people fall victim to crimes against humanity--as did the Jews in World War II. Could it be that that enduring commitment must today seem an empty one to the people of Bosnia? Instead of protecting the Bosnian people, the United Nations--the very body created years ago to make certain that such genocide would never happen again--has served instead to render the Bosnian people defenseless in the face of Serbia's annihilation of their country. And the United States, the leader of the Atlantic alliance, has done scarcely more than sit on the sidelines and watch as an entire nation of people is slowly exterminated. Mr. President, we can no longer sit on the sidelines. The shameful policy of neutrality in the face of genocide must be brought to an end. There must be a policy, once and for all, that distinguishes clearly between victim and aggressor, and which puts the diplomatic, military, and financial resources of the United States squarely behind the victim. No one doubts the magnitude of the abuse against the Bosnian people. Today's Washington Post discloses the Clinton administration has openly acknowledged that crimes against humanity are being committed this very moment in the center of Europe. Yet the administration continues to deny the Bosnian victims any hope of defending themselves. The President of the United States--fully aware of these crimes--intends to veto the legislation Congress has passed to restore Bosnia's right of self-defense. This veto is wrong, it is unfair, it is unjust, and it must be overridden. There are many in both the House and the Senate who have pledged to the people of Bosnia that we will do everything in our power to make sure Congress overrides that veto. And we will fight to pass legislation not only to lift this brutal embargo, but to help provide the Bosnian people with the means to defend themselves, their families and their sovereign nation. Mr. President, it is time the United States began treating the Bosnian people the same way we treated the contras in Nicaragua and the mujahadeen in Afghanistan--as freedom fighters engaged in a war for the liberation of their country. We must help arm them and train them and to help them defend themselves against Serbian genocide. The legislation we are introducing today will do just that. It will establish a multilateral fund to collect and hold donations by countries seeking to assist in the self-defense of Bosnia until the arms embargo is lifted. The bill authorizes an initial U.S. contribution of $50 million in foreign military financing, and the transfer of up to $50 million in U.S. defense stocks. Moreover, it proposes to create the means to coordinate the efforts of nations such as Turkey, Malaysia, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, who are eager to assist the Bosnians in a similar fashion. Our bill will ensure that, upon the withdrawal of the failed United Nations mission, the Serb military will be unable to take advantage of any lag in the arming of the Bosnian people. The multilateral fund will allow the Bosnian Government to coordinate contributions--and to begin procurement by proxy--of the weapons they need for their national self- defense. The Bosnians will be able to ensure the necessary support and transport are available for immediate delivery of weapons after the lifting of the embargo. And finally, Bosnian soldiers will be travel to third countries to acquire training for the use of donated weapons. Our legislation is consistent with the legislation to repeal the arms embargo in that it postpones the actual delivery of weaponry until the conclusion of the peacekeeping effort. But it will provide the Bosnian Government a running start as the arms embargo is lifted. The President claims that the recent success of the Croatian military has created a new balance of power in the region, thereby giving us an opportunity for a political settlement. The President ignores the lessons of the last half-century. There can be no lasting peace built on weakness; there can only be peace through strength. Let us have no illusions that Serbia's recent defeats have taken away their craving for territorial expansion--Serbia's appetite for war, destruction and conquest is far from satisfied. What the success of the recent Croatian offensive does show, however, is that the Serb aggression can be successfully confronted and defeated, and that Serbs can be driven from land they have unlawfully conquered. If a real and lasting peace is to come to Bosnia, we must help the Bosnians achieve it by forcing the Serbs to evacuate the land they have occupied in Bosnia. We must recognize that there can be no peace in that troubled region until the Bosnian people can defend themselves against aggression. We must help them restore their nation so that they can negotiate from a position to strength. The lifting of the unlawful and unjust arms embargo on the Bosnian people is long overdue. And it will be lifted. The time has come to end America's silence in the face of the unspeakable injustices in Bosnia. The time is overdue to lift the embargo and help arm the Bosnian Moslems. I hope the Senate will vote to allow the Bosnian people to defend themselves at long last.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, no other legislation likely to come before Congress this year will have more direct impact on my State of North Carolina, and the people who live there, than the 1995 farm bill. For an agriculture State that ranks third as the most diversified agribusiness State in the country, the farm bill is critically important legislation. I commend the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] for leading the [[Page S 12251]] way in maintaining the support of the agricultural commodities that give American consumers peace of mind by providing the safest, most affordable, and most abundant food supply in the world. Mr. President, when Congress begins the debate on this legislation, it is essential that we focus on fundamental reform. The time for farm program facelifts is rapidly approaching--and overdue in some instances. It is time for real change, change that will return farm programs to their fundamental and original mission: helping family farmers survive and prosper. Today, along with the other cosponsors of this commodity title of the 1995 farm bill, I can report that there is real reform for the peanut program. Permit me to highlight a few of the significant changes that have been made to the peanut program: First, it eliminates Government cost through reducing the amount of peanuts subject to government support. Second, allows the sale and transfer of quota across country lines. Third, provides all growers quota to cover seed requirements. Fourth, allows the support level to fluctuate with cost of production. These sacrifices will cost at least $110 million annually in income to our growers. Mr. President, much of a negative nature has been said about peanuts this year. The peanut portion of the commodity title addresses major changes that the growers have supported wholeheartedly. The peanut program is one of the most important programs not only to my State, but to all Southern States. Critics have asserted, mistakenly, that the peanut program costs consumers hundreds of millions of dollars each year in higher prices. This is simply not true. In fact, according to the USDA, 74 percent of the consumer cost is added to a jar of peanut butter after farmers have sold their peanuts. So contrary to the myth that farmers are reaping huge profits from the peanut program, it is, in fact, the manufacturers of peanut products who reap the sizable profits. The 1990 farm bill extended the peanut program through the 1995 crop. But this year, peanut growers had to reevaluate their program; we have included their reform in this legislation. This reform package is the first step in providing a safety net for our farmers while addressing the new demands of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades [GATT]. This legislation will carry our farmers into a more market-oriented 21st century. In the current budget-driven atmosphere in Washington, urban Members of Congress often mistakenly view phasing out farm programs as a simple solution to our budget problems. Its easy for politicians who have no peanut producers in their States to take cheap shots at the livelihoods of those who earn their livings in the peanut industry. The peanut program is an investment in the business of farming. It means 150,000 U.S. jobs, $200 million in U.S. exports, $1 billion in U.S. farm revenue, and $6 billion in U.S. economic activity each year. This commodity title includes peanut reform provisions that make solid changes to the current program. This reform package will be an alternative that will turn this program towards a market-oriented plan that will ensure U.S. competitiveness in global markets, will operate at no net cost to the taxpayer, and will provide a safety net for farmers. Farmers and their families have contributed so much to the growth of our country. Today, according to USDA, the United States is the third largest producer of peanuts in the world. Elimination of the peanut program would mean an immediate loss of 37,000 U.S. jobs, as well as $350 million in lost farm revenue, $50 million in lost exports, and $25 million in lost tax revenues. Everyone in the peanut industry, from the growers to the shellers and manufacturers, realizes the program must be reformed as part of the 1995 farm bill. The peanut farmers of my State of North Carolina and throughout the Nation have taken a responsible voluntary approach of cutting their budgets. They are willing to make major sacrifices and reforms in order to eliminate government cost and make the peanut program more market- oriented. Again, I commend the able Senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] for his diligent efforts to address the issues of real reform.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, which long ago soared into the stratosphere, fueled by bureaucratic hot air, is sort of like the weather--everybody talks about it but almost nobody did much about it until immediately after the elections last November. But when the new 104th Congress convened in January, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the Senate side, all but one of the 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment --that was the good news. The bad news is that only 13 Democrats supported it. Since a two- thirds-vote--67 Senators--is necessary to approve a constitutional amendment, the proposed Senate amendment failed by one vote. There will be another vote either this year or next. Here is today's bad debt boxscore: As of the close of business Wednesday, August 9, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,942,218,005,858.98 or $18,760.74 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.