Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I respectfully object. I would like for the clerk to read the entire amendment. I want to be sure everything is in there that I want in there.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago I began these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of close of business the previous day. As of the close of business Monday, August 8, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,945,212,125,332.53. Computed on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,772.11 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It is important to bear in mind, Mr. President, that the Senate this year missed an opportunity to implement a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regrettably, the Senate failed by one vote in its first attempt to bring the Federal debt under control. There will be another opportunity in the months ahead to approve such a constitutional amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator made a proposition that I cannot refuse. As the Prince of Denmark was once reported to have said, it is a consummation devoutly to be wished. I thank the Chair. I thank the manager of the bill.

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I do every day the Senate is in session, I made a brief report to the Senate yesterday identifying the latest available figure of the Federal debt--down to the penny. This is a sort of daily report on irresponsibility of the Congress of the United States. I reported today that as of the close of business Monday, August 7, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at $4,946,673,660,276.63. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes an average share amounting to $8,777.66. With a debt this large, should Congress create a new program the cost of which is unknown? I hope not. But that is precisely what Senator Simon is proposing with his amendment to authorize the National African American Museum--saying, go ahead, give us unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money without making us accountable for 1 penny. The Simon amendment authorizes unlimited funds for an unlimited period of time for museum maintenance and operation. The Smithsonian has refused to furnish any estimate as to how much the project will ultimately cost the taxpayer--even after my asking them precisely that question on numerous occasions. In addition, the Smithsonian refuses to provide a budget for the museum's first 5 years--the Congressional Budget Office estimates the museum will cost $5 million per year until 1997, then a $6 million authorization for 1998. Mr. President, it is puzzling that this amendment would be offered at a time when the Smithsonian is lamenting its existing lack of funds before any consideration of yet another museum. As reported in the Washington Post, ``The Dilapidated State of the Nation's Attic,'' June 10, 1995, ``half a billion dollars' worth of repairs will be needed over the next 10 years to keep the Smithsonian Institution's aging facilities open.'' Smithsonian officials have told Congress that the Smithsonian buildings ``will all reach the end of their useful service lives within a 5-year time span.'' Certainly, this is not the time for the Smithsonian to be saddled with another responsibility--especially a new museum. Mr. President, most bills coming before the Senate provide lengthy estimates and explanations of what the particular project plans to do, what funds will be needed to fulfill those goals, where the funds will originate, etc. But, with this project, we have been told by the Smithsonian--we want to create a museum, please authorize the project so we can come up with a plan. Well, this Senator is used to seeing the plan and the projected costs involved before he votes. Let me reiterate, the Senate has no business authorizing any legislation when we do not know the basic facts about its conception, costs, and mission. I hope the Simon amendment will be tabled. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator. Committee Amendment on Page 10, Line 12

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe I have an amendment at the desk. I ask it be stated.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment proposes to save the American taxpayers almost $1 million by eliminating funding for the so- called Red Wolf Program, which has created an enormous problem for the people of North Carolina. This Red Wolf Program is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. President, 63 red wolves were released by the Fish and Wildlife Service onto Federal lands, but they just did not stay there. They have increasingly encroached on private property to the point that they have become hazardous and a menace to private property owners, their families, their animals, their livestock, and so on. Mr. President, the Red Wolf Program was created in 1987. It has already cost the American taxpayers $5,224,500. According to a March 1995 report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 63 wolves originally released in eastern North Carolina in 1987 have multiplied. Today there are at least 170 or more wolves in eastern North Carolina. At least 70 wolves have been born in the wild during the past 8 years. That amounts to an increase of more than 100 percent in the population of red wolves in less than 8 years. Since 1987 the Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted 934 monitoring flights over that entire area to monitor the location of these red wolves, at a cost of untold thousands of dollars--934 airplane flights to monitor these transplanted red wolves. And the administration has requested another $968,000 for this very same program for the coming year. I am told that the States of Tennessee and South Carolina have the same difficulty with the red wolves because the Fish and Wildlife Service has transplanted and relocated red wolves in those two States as well. Mr. President these wolves are predatory animals, and they have become an exceedingly dangerous presence in eastern North Carolina. They slink onto private property, they attack and feed upon farm animals and livestock, and we have reports that at least one child has been bitten by a red wolf and had to undergo tetanus treatment. We have received all sorts of mail from eastern North Carolina. We have mail from organizations such as the North Carolina Farm Bureau and the Hyde County, NC, officials, and from concerned citizens all over. They oppose vigorously this Red Wolf Program because it has become increasingly dangerous to the people, to their private property, and to their farm animals. The chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Hyde County, NC, put it this way. And I quote him: Red wolves have caused a lot of hardship in Hyde, . . . endangered species have more land rights than the landowner paying the property taxes. But the bottom line is that these red wolves have become such a dangerous problem that the Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations on April 13 finally allowing property owners to shoot these predatory animals on their land. And the farmers and other landowners feel that they ought not to have to go to that extreme. They want an end to the program, and I think that it has served its purpose, if it ever had one. In any case, for a long time authorities have been contending that reintroduction programs, which is what the Fish and Wildlife Service calls them, do not work very well. I have in hand a report published by the New York Times on October 5, 1993, which emphasizes that these reintroduction programs are useless. Michael Phillips, the field coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, was quoted by the New York Times as saying, and I am quoting him: Most things we have tried to orchestrate in the wild have not worked. The pairs we put out did not stay together and the families did not stay in the places we chose. So, Mr. President, so the many good citizens in eastern North Carolina resent this waste of taxpayers' money. They do not want these predators roaming their property, attacking their farm animals and livestock, and being a peril to their children. According to the committee report, private property owners in Idaho and Montana are experiencing the same sort of problems as a result of the gray wolf reintroduction program. All of it indicates to me--and I address this specifically for myself and my State, the Red Wolf Program--that this red wolf program is a bad idea whose time never came. I hope that we will not waste any more of the taxpayers' dollars on it. The pending amendment proposes to abolish the program by eliminating the proposed $968,000 for its continuance for 1 more year. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that November evening in 1972 when I first was elected to the Senate, I made a private commitment that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It has proved enormously beneficial to me because I have been inspired by the more than 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate. Most of them have been concerned about the enormity of the Federal debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. These young people and I almost always discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 22, 1992. I wanted to make a matter of daily record of the precise size of the Federal debt which as of yesterday, Monday, August 7, stood at $4,946,673,660,276.63 or $18,777.66 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I may state a different tack. I am sincere when I say this. I do not care which party straightens out this country just so one of them does. I have felt that way for a long time. For the benefit of those looking in on C-SPAN, the distinguished Parliamentarian was having a discussion with the Presiding Officer. I was wondering whether he was talking about some rule that I may have unwittingly violated. Anyway, I am pleased that debate in the Senate has finally begun on the issue of the fundamental reform of America's welfare system. There are all sorts of plans floating around. And my view is, let us get one that has a minimal amount of Government in it and proceed with a sensible welfare plan. Efforts to move away from the disastrous welfare state--some call it the dependency state--is long overdue. We have seen the bitter fruits of what has followed this business of trying to socialize welfare. We must pray that the Nation can somehow recover from the destruction of the basic fundamental precepts and principles, the moral and spiritual principles, if you will, laid down by our Founding Fathers. And a lot of damage has been done to all of those by the effort to have the Government provide for everybody, causing so many to decide that it is better not to work and just to sit back and get a welfare check. Now, that will cause screams in some quarters, but most Americans know it is so. Welfare as it now exists is a clear example of a Government program intended to be compassionate, but which, in fact, is demonstrably destructive, even to people to whom the political system gives benefits financed by citizens who work for a living. The welfare system has discouraged work. It encourages dependency. It encourages single motherhood and the breakup of families. Look at statistics. It is all there for people to perceive. Mr. President, a clear signal has been sent to the American people that the liberal policies of the past are and have been an abject failure. Congress must cease its sorry practice of cranking up more and more giveaway programs for the purpose of buying votes in the next election. It is time to stop throwing the taxpayers' money at pie-in- the-sky Federal programs instead of working to get to the root of the problem. So, here we are. The Senate now confronts the responsibility of deciding how significantly the Congress will reform the welfare system if some Senators will let the consideration proceed. Mr. President, it is not a matter of being for or against helping those in need. It is a matter of setting the parameters of welfare so that every able-bodied citizen will feel obliged to go to work instead of sitting back to receive free sustenance from the working taxpayers. Past policies of dumping that burden entirely on the shoulders of the American taxpayers has never worked, and it never will. There are many citizens across the country who are working to restore personal responsibility in this regard. I have a couple of remarkable ladies in mind when I say that. First, there is Mattie Hill Brown, of Wilson, NC. Now, we call her ``Miss Mattie.'' She was recently awarded the prestigious Jefferson Award for Outstanding Community Service. Mr. President, you know what she does? Do you know why she was given this award? This remarkable lady gives freely of her limited income-- and it is limited--to prepare and deliver meals to truly needy people. Her generosity is direct and it is personal. It is independent of all administrative agencies, public and private. She wants to do it because it is a desire of her heart and from her heart to help others. And then there is another lady. She is from Texas, Houston, TX. Her name is Carol Porter. Mrs. Porter is a remarkable lady who founded Kid- Care, Inc., a nonprofit group that helps feed some of Houston's neediest children. And Kid-Care will accept no government funding, not a penny. ``I'm against people saying, `Let the government do it,' '' Mrs. Porter once said. Then she added, ``It's time for Americans to feed needy Americans''--not the Government, but individual Americans out of the compassion of their hearts. Oh, we can sit up here in the U.S. Senate and spend other people's money and we can say how generous we are. But until we do it ourselves and sacrifice ourselves, it does not mean a thing. Mr. President, history shows clearly that efforts to shift the responsibility of welfare from individuals and communities to the Federal Government have failed. You can see that failure all around you, you can see it within three blocks of this U.S. Capitol. Now, since Lyndon Johnson led the Nation down the road to what he called the Great Society in the middle 1960's, the predictable result has been massive Federal spending, mushrooming Federal debt. By the way, the Federal debt is going to cross $5 trillion within the next 30 days. Watch it. It has led to increased poverty and, unfortunately, millions of Americans are locked into the welfare cycle. In 1988, Congress enacted the Family Security Act, which ostensibly reformed welfare to reverse the errors that were apparent, the errors of the past. They were continued, of course. But supporters of that legislation boasted at the time that it would ``revise the AFDC program to emphasize work and child support and family benefits * * * encourage and assist needy children and parents under the new program to obtain the education, training and employment needed to avoid long-term welfare dependence.'' If that is not a political declaration, I do not know what it is. And it was not so, and that bill failed. It is encouraging to note that neither Democrats nor Republicans now propose to perpetuate the JOBS Program, which is an entitlement to education and job training for AFDC recipients. It was created in the 1988 act. By the way, that one act in 1988--this business of Congress giving away other people's money--has run the Federal debt up $8 billion since 1988. It has increased the Federal debt for our children and grandchildren to pay by $8 billion. One reason for its failure is the large number of exemptions from participation in the JOBS Program. Currently, 57 percent of AFDC recipients are exempt from JOBS for one reason or another. Of the nonexempt only 11 percent are currently participating and all the rest--all the rest--are living off the taxpayers. These policies have not helped to end poverty in America. Just the opposite. As of 1993, there were 15.1 percent of Americans in poverty as compared to 13 percent when that reform took place. That is a 2- percent growth in the number of people in poverty. Yet, Senators agreed that this legislation would end welfare as we know it. We must not make that mistake on this welfare reform. In addition, Mr. President, 76 percent of AFDC recipients receive cash benefits for 5 years or more. That is certainly not the intended effect of the 1988 legislation. The point is, we must not miss the opportunity now to institute real reform of the welfare system. No longer should the taxpayers be forced to subsidize able-bodied people who just prefer not to work. We must provide individual responsibility and stop turning to the State and Federal treasuries for millions of borrowed dollars, the tab for which will be passed along to our children and grandchildren. Opinions differ as to what aspect of America's welfare system has been the greatest failure, in terms of principle. The fraudulent Food Stamp Program or the failed JOBS Program or the bloated bureaucracy-- the list is endless. The one segment of Federal Government control that is in most need of reform, however, is welfare. This past April, at Elon College, NC, the Right Honorable Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain and a close personal friend of Dot Helms and me, came down to speak to a convocation. She encouraged Americans, especially the young people in the audience, to take another look at our welfare system, which she explained that day fosters what we call dependency, dependency on Government welfare. [[Page S 11830]] Margaret Thatcher said: ``Of course you have to help people out of poverty. The Good Samaritan was the first.'' But then she said: ``What happens when the system you have for getting people out of poverty produces more people in poverty, generation after generation after generation?'' Maggie Thatcher, of course, was right. She had been repeatedly right in her challenges to Government socialism and in her defense of the free enterprise system. But there is another authority who is a favorite of mine. His name is Paul, the Apostle Paul who, in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 23, verses 7 through 10, and I am going to quote the modern version, had a thought or two about this issue which we call today welfare. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians and said this: We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. And then the Apostle Paul said: We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule. If a man will not work, he shall not eat. Whether we like it or not, and I happen to like it very, very much, the Apostle Paul was exactly right when he wrote his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. Margaret Thatcher is right in what she says. All the others down through history who have sounded the same tocsin in various ways, they have been right, they have been telling us, ``Watch out.'' Mr. President, political hi-jinks in this matter should be laid aside so that the Senate can have a meaningful welfare reform bill considered and enacted and sent to the President of the United States for his signature. The people have made clear that this is what they want. They have made clear that if we do not deliver, they will not forget it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it is regrettable that S. 227 fails to address the present concerns of countless small businesses in North Carolina, including many restaurants, that offer background music for the enjoyment of their customers. Many restauranteurs, retailers, and radio broadcasters resent the continued heavy-handed practices by music-licensing organizations in imposing unreasonable copyright fees. I hope these concerns may be addressed soon in future legislation. Mr. President, this is the problem: A restaurant has a radio or television set playing, and a representative of one of the music royalty organizations shows up threatening court action unless the restauranteur pays an exorbitant licensing fee, simply for having a radio or television set on. This double-dipping is both arrogant and unfair--the royalty organizations insist on collecting fees from both broadcasters and the small businesses that receive the public broadcasts. Not only do these organizations double-dip, they also seek to intimidate small businesses into paying fees for listening to radio or TV stations. Small businesses are entitled to fair protection against arbitrary pricing, discriminatory enforcement, and abusive collection practices by music-licensing organizations. This is a problem that should be addressed soon, and, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a relevant article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks--it being a Nation's Restaurant News article by Ron Ruggless entitled, ``Operators to Lawmakers: Now You're Playing Our Song; Legislators Tackle Industry's Music-Licensing Gripe; Restauranteurs.''

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it does not take a rocket scientist to be aware that the U.S. Constitution forbids any President to spend even a dime of Federal tax money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress--both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. So when a politician or an editor or a commentator pops off that Reagan ran up the Federal debt or that Bush ran it up, bear in mind that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies, made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty of Congress--a duty Congress cannot escape--to control Federal spending. Thus, it is the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress that has created the incredible Federal debt which stood at $4,945,941,078,492.53 as of the close of business Friday, August 4. This outrageous debt--which will be passed on to our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,774.87 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression will not go away: The $4.9 trillion Federal debt stands today as a sort of grotesque parallel to television's energizer bunny that appears and appears and appears in precisely the same way that the Federal debt keeps going up and up and up. Politicians like to talk a good game--and ``talk'' is the operative word--about reducing the Federal deficit and bringing the Federal debt under control. But watch how they vote. Control, Mr. President. As of Thursday, August 3, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood at exactly $4,956,664,786,501.42 or $18,815.58 per man, woman, child on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitur. Some control, is it not?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, historic victories such as Midway and Gettysburg and Yorktown and Normandy are remembered by memorializing the hallowed ground upon which American blood was shed. Historians rank the Battle of Midway as one of the most decisive naval battles of all time. The Midway Islands, and the surrounding seas where so many American lives were sacrificed, deserve to be memorialized as well, and that is what this amendment suggests. Mr. President, victory at Midway was the turning point in the Pacific Theater. During the month of June 1942, a badly outnumbered American naval force, consisting of 29 ships and other units of the armed forces, under the overall command of Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, out- maneuvered and out-fought 350 ships of the combined Japanese Imperial Fleet. The objectives of the Japanese high command were to occupy the Midway Islands and destroy the United States Pacific Fleet, but the forces under the command of Admiral Nimitz completely thwarted Japanese strategy. The outcome of the conflict, Mr. President, was remarkable given the fact that U.S. forces were so badly outnumbered. The United States lost 163 aircraft compared to 286 Japanese aircraft. One American aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Yorktown, and one Destroyer, the U.S.S. Hamman, were destroyed. On the other hand, the Japanese Imperial Navy lost five ships, four of the ships being the Imperial Navy's main aircraft carriers. Almost as devastating was the loss of most of the experienced Japanese pilots. At the end of the day, 307 Americans had lost their lives. The Japanese navy lost 2,500 men. The heroism of many of the American servicemen at Midway often required the ultimate sacrifice. Many of the Marine pilots, flying worn out and inferior planes, did not live to celebrate the victory at Midway. All but five torpedo-plane pilots who attacked the Japanese aircraft carrier task force--without protective air cover--were shot down. These pilots undoubtedly knew they were flying to an all but certain death. So severe was the damage inflicted on the Imperial Japanese Navy by American airmen and sailors, that Japan never again was able to take the offensive against the United States or Allied forces, and the rest, as they say, is history. Mr. President, victory over the Japanese achieved, of course, by men and women from all the U.S. Armed Forces. Certainly at Midway, elements of each of the services--Navy, Marines, and U.S. Army Air Corps--were heavily engaged, closely coordinated, and paid a high price for their bravery. The Midway Islands should be memorialized to honor the courageous efforts of all the services when they were called upon to defend our Nation and its interests. The sacrifice and heroism of these men should never be forgotten--it is vital that our sons and daughters never forget what their fathers and grandfathers sacrificed for freedom. The Battle of Midway should be memorialized for all time, on the Midway Islands, on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, which long ago soared into the stratosphere, is sort of like the weather-- everybody talks about it but scarcely anybody had done much about it until immediately after the elections last November. But then the new 104th Congress convened in January. The U.S. House of Representatives made haste to approve a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Later in the Senate all but one of the 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment; 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 later this year or next year. Mr. President, as of the close of business Thursday, August 3, the Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,944,455,888,709.39 or $18,769.23 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

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 make 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, August 2, the total federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,956,664,786,501.42, of which, on a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,815.58. Mr. President, back to our pop quiz, how many million in a trillion: There are a million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that evening in 1972 when I first was elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It has proved enormously beneficial to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate. Most of them have been concerned about the enormity of the Federal debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. The young people and I almost always discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 22, 1992. I wanted to make a matter of daily record of the precise size of the Federal debt which as of yesterday, Tuesday, August 1, stood at $4,954,700,676,689.14 or $18,808.12 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, while driving to the Capitol this morning, I fell to thinking about what a calamity it would be if, all of a sudden, the hosiery manufacturing business in America were to shut down. How many jobs would be lost? How would the economy be affected? How would our country's trade balance with other countries be affected? And how many grandchildren would have to think of something else to put under the tree for Grandpa next Christmas? None of the above is an idle question, Mr. President, and I bring up the subject because next week will mark the 24th annual observance of National Hosiery Week. So, beginning Monday, August 7, will be a time to pay our respects to a great American example of free enterprise, the hosiery manufacturers of our Nation. Now, regarding some of the questions I posed at the outset of these remarks: Last year, 1994, the U.S. hosiery industry made significant increases in exports. To be precise, shipments overseas increased 34 per cent to 240 million pairs of socks and stockings. Total U.S. production totaled 362 million dozen pairs--or, if you want to break it down, the total production comes to four billion 394 million pairs of hosiery. A mind-boggling number, indeed. We are blessed with a great many hosiery manufacturers in North Carolina, Mr. President. All of these companies are good corporate citizens--and the men and women employed in the hosiery industry are fine hard-working Americans. I am told that there are 455 hosiery plans in America, employing more than 65,000 people. Together these companies and these workers added more than $6 billion to the U.S. economy. But, Mr. President, it is in the many smaller communities where the hosiery industry makes its most significant contribution, because it is there that these companies constitute a large part of the local economy. In so many cases, a hosiery company is the major employer in the area, providing good, stable jobs for its employees. Mr. President, I think it was Dizzy Dean who once remarked that ``braggin' ain't braggin', if you can prove it.'' Well, I can prove why National Hosiery Week is of special importance to me--it is because North Carolina is the leading textile and hosiery State in the Nation, generating more than half of the total U.S. hosiery production. I am proud of the leadership of the hosiery industry and the fine quality of life that it has provided for over 40,000 people. On behalf of my fellow North Carolinians, I extend my sincere congratulations and best wishes to the hosiery industry and to its many thousands of employees for their outstanding contribution to our State and Nation.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration, of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 1995 at 11:00 a.m., to hold a hearing on annual refugee consultation.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 1995, at 11 a.m.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee of Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 1995, at 9:00 a.m.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, August 1, 1995 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the future of the Department of Commerce.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety be granted permission to conduct an oversight hearing Tuesday, August 1, at 2:00 p.m. on title V of the Clean Air Act.