Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me begin by saying it is a source of great pride and pleasure to Dot Helms and me that Dr. Gary L. Hollingsworth has accepted the Senate's invitation to serve as guest chaplain today. His eloquent prayer was typical of his great ministry--sincere, impressive, and deeply reverent. The Nation very much needs to be remembered every day in the prayers of all of us, and we Senators need the prayerful support of all Americans that we will faithfully uphold the moral and spiritual principles set forth by our Founding Fathers. Dr. Hollingsworth is pastor of First Baptist Church, Alexandria, which since its organization in 1803 has served the spiritual needs of countless citizens of the Nation's Capital and surrounding area. It is one of the truly historic churches of the area; its congregation numbers 2,850 members. The First Baptist annual budget has grown to $2 million. In addition to the spiritual needs of its congregation, First Baptist, Alexandria, serves many other local, national, and international ministries--for example in the Dominican Republic, Tanzania, Ukraine, and others. Now, first a word about Dr. Hollingsworth: He and Gwen Beaman were married a few days before Christmas in 1978. They have two fine sons, Jonathan Andrew and Ryan Thomas. Gary's friends are excited about his being a part of the U.S. Senate today--but I suspect his wonderful parents, L.T. and Magoline Hollingsworth, are excited most of all. A number of staff members and members of First Baptist, Alexandria, are here today and of course the Senate welcomes all of them as well. For the remainder of today's Senate session, Dr. Hollingsworth will have the privilege of the Senate floor. He can come and go--meaning that he can meet the Senators, talk with them and maybe counsel some who need it most. Thank you, Chaplain Hollingsworth, from the U.S. Senate, for this day, for being here today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Let me sum up this amendment. I think we had two votes against it the last time. This amendment requires that States receiving Federal funds for AIDS education and prevention take specific legislative and/or administrative steps to make sure that spouses--that is, the wife or husband--of an individual infected with the HIV/AIDS virus, that the spouse be promptly notified. Let me say why I think we ought to vote on this again. Some years back, 2 or 3, I forget how long ago, there were several circumstances that led me to draft this amendment at that time. It began when I received a call from a young woman who worked on the House side of the Congress who said, ``Senator, my mother wants to come by and talk with you on a matter of confidence. She doesn't want you to ever use her name,'' and I shall not. They came, a lovely lady and her beautiful daughter. I shall never forget that visit. The meeting did not last long. After the usual amenities--and I had no idea what the lady wanted to discuss--but after the usual amenities, I seated them. The three of us began to discuss why she had come and what I might be helpful to her about. At that point, tears welled up if that mother's eyes as she began to tell the story. She took a deep breath and stated the bottom line. She had AIDS, she said, ``and I am dying.'' Her bisexual husband, you see, had infected her with the AIDS virus. He had not informed her he was infected, and State law in her State forbade the family doctor from telling her--which I consider to be outrageous. Now, Mr. President, we hear so much about protecting the confidentiality of AIDS-infected patients, yet we hear nothing about the fatal consequences of confidentiality laws. The homosexuals march in Washington, and they demand their rights, but what about the rights of this lovely lady and the thousands of others like her, potentially, who, through no fault of their own, have become infected with the deadly AIDS virus, or may be infected in the future? Do they not have rights, too? Should there not be laws to protect the innocent spouses, instead of those who hide behind the confidentiality law and, as in this case, are causing others to die? What a terrible tragedy. Only 12 States protect the lives of spouses of HIV-infected citizens, only 12 States. Eighteen States provide for notification of partners, but they are silent on the rights of spouses. What kind of fair play is that? And you know what I mean when I say ``partner.'' Does this not lead to the conclusion that some States may appear more concerned with protecting the interests of the HIV-positive spouse instead of the life of the unsuspecting innocent spouse? This amendment does not require States to initiate a spousal notification program. It simply says that if States want Federal money, which they take from the taxpayer--if States want money to combat the AIDS virus, the AIDS disease, those States are going to have to make a genuine and concerted effort to protect innocent spouses from being exposed to the AIDS virus. It is time to start treating AIDS as the public health issue that it is, rather than the civil rights issue that it has become. I have no doubt that if we take this step, it will help curb, to some extent at least, the spread of this lethal disease. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Not to my knowledge. But even if it is, if you will forgive me, it will not hurt the Senate to go on record again.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have some amendments to come before the Senate. I do not intend to second-degree anybody else's amendment, and I hope we can just have up-and-down votes and get this bill out of the way. Now, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be stated.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the guidance of the clerk, the headline in the article is ``Bill Oils the AIDS Squeaky Wheel.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, June 19, 1995] Bill Oils the AIDS Squeaky Wheel (By Michael Fumento) Grab your wallet, folks! The Senate is about to demonstrate its boundless compassion again by spending billions of your dollars. But this time it won't just be unfair to taxpayers but to the great majority of Americans suffering from serious diseases. The subject of this latest act of largesse is the cynically named Ryan White Act, which is up for reauthorization. With 58 co-sponsors, its Senate approval is virtually guaranteed, though for the moment its passage is blocked by North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms. Enacted in 1990, ostensibly to provide care for such victims as Ryan White, the measure was a sham from the start. Young Ryan White was a hemophiliac who won the heart of the nation after he contracted AIDS. He died at age 18. But only 2 percent of AIDS victims in 1990 were hemophiliacs, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Today it's 1 percent. Less than 2 percent of AIDS victims are under the age of 20. One wonders how the bill would have fared had it been named the Robert Mapplethorpe Act, after the late homosexual photographer famous for such depictions as bullwhips extending from people's posteriors. The Ryan White Act was also sold as a means of helping, as National Commission on AIDS Chairwoman June Osborne put it, the ``many parts of rural America [that] are about to be blind-sided by the epidemic.'' Yet then, as now, cases from non-metropolitan areas amounted to 5 percent of those reported. Predictably, almost all of the money went to those places that had the most AIDS cases. This means not Ryan White's town of Cicero, Ind., but rather New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other areas that also happened to be Democratic strongholds. In other words, it followed the same supply lines as all the Democratic pork of that era. The money went for those who make up the bulk of AIDS victims: homosexual men and intravenous drug abusers. Further, even on a per-patient level, the bill resulted in allocating several times more money per victim in larger cities than in less-populated areas. Misnaming and misrepresenting the act has paid handsomely. In its first five years, spending more than doubled from $276 million in 1991 to $664 million for this year, for a total of over $2 billion. This time around, the bill is sponsored by Kansas Republican Sen. Nancy Kassebaum. When I called her office, her aide cited-- yes--the rural AIDS bogeyman. One wonders if the good senator knows that Kansas has all of 245 AIDS cases last year, just 3 percent of the national total. Of those, eight were children. In fairness, Sen Kassebaum has rewritten the act so that more money will be authorized for rural areas. But with so few patients there, the money must necessarily flow right back through the old pork pipeline established in 1990. The biggest difference this time is that the estimated cost will balloon from slightly more than $2 billion to $3.6 billion. This even though the AIDS epidemic is declining. New AIDS cases are being reported at a rate well below the 80,000 of last year. Yet even if the bill weren't such a budget-buster, it would be terribly wrong. Ryan White provides no money for medical research, so no one will ever be cured of AIDS with all those billions of spending. Along with some allocations for education that are redundant with the $500 million federal AIDS education budget, the Ryan White Act simply provides money for treatment, drugs, free meals, in-home care and the like. It's nice that sick people can get such services regardless of their income levels. But for anybody with any disease besides AIDS the sign on the door reads, ``Go away!'' There is no Gilda Radner Act for victims of ovarian cancer, no Ronald Reagan Act for Alzheimer's disease patients. Some elderly and indigent people with such diseases can qualify for programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but then so can AIDS patients. No, the Ryan White Act was a gift to one extremely squeaky wheel. Not content with a medical research budget that dwarfs that of every other disease but cancer--despite being only the ninth-greatest killer of Americans--the AIDS activists demanded and got privileges that persons with other diseases can't even dream about. Quite simply, the homosexual activists want special treatment because they themselves, and their friends, have an extraordinary chance of contracting the disease. Somehow they have translated ``Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!'' into a cry for compassion. Long gone are the days when AIDS activists begged merely to be treated no worse than the victims of diseases not associated with behaviors society finds distasteful. I called the offices of both Sen. Kassebaum and the other Kansas senator, Bob Dole, for a statement about the fairness issue. Wonder of wonders, I got none. To a Congress always eager to take money from all of us and give it to some of us to buy votes, fairness is a four-letter word. And while several senators claim that as president they would be tough enough to deal with America's foreign adversaries, when it comes to AIDS activists they go crawling for the deepest foxhole. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as the Senate proceeds to the consideration of the proposal to reauthorize the so-called Ryan White CARE Act of 1990, there are so many ironies, that I feel obliged to call attention to some of them. Although the homosexual activists of America have created a virtual minefield for any Senator who dares raise a question about the legislative history of this proposal. These homosexual activists have managed to convince the news media, and a surprising number of Senators, that it is irrelevant to talk about who and what really caused the death of Ryan White--Ryan White, the 18-year-old hemophiliac who died of AIDS because tainted blood was pumped into his veins, blood that was tainted in the first place by a homosexual conduct somewhere generations back. The Centers for Disease Control was quite candid in the early 1980's as to when and how the AIDS disease was brought to America. The CDC may be somewhat politically correct now. In any event, I have in hand a volume which I obtained on loan from the Library of Congress, a book authored by Randy Shilts entitled ``And the Band Played On.'' Newsweek magazine described this book in 1987 as ``compelling and often shocking, impassioned, and path breaking, the best book yet on AIDS.'' The Washington Post described it as ``a monumental history.'' Time magazine called the book ``stunning and impressively researched, a richly detailed narrative.'' The Chicago Tribune described it, ``It reads like a good medical sleuth story. But it is not fiction. It is a painstakingly detailed history.'' Mr. President, let us emphasize how virulent the AIDS virus is. A Canadian airline flight attendant, who knew he had AIDS and whose name is a matter of record, flew into the United States, and over a period of time--I am quoting from page 147 of Mr. Shilts' book--the Canadian airline flight attendant ``established sexual links between 40 patients in 10 cities. The role played by the flight attendant was remarkable,'' Mr. Shilts says. And he continues, ``At least 40 of the first 248 homosexual men diagnosed with HIV or AIDS in the United States as of April 12, 1982 either had had sex with the flight attendant or had had sex with someone who had.'' Mr. Shilts continued, ``The links sometimes were extended for many generations of sexual contacts, giving frightening insight into how rapidly the epidemic had spread before anybody knew about it.'' Mr. President, I include those details to emphasize the virulence of HIV, AIDS, and it has been that way since the very beginning. Yet, I know of not one homosexual organization that has advocated abstinence from engaging in the incredibly offensive and revolting conduct that has led to the proliferation of AIDS; not to this good day has there been even a hint that abstinence should be followed. No. The homosexual activists have gone precisely in the other direction, demanding more and more Federal funds for research and special funding for personal care available to no other Americans suffering and dying of other diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. This is a unique piece of legislation. It was in 1990, and it still is. There has never been a bill like this for any other disease. The ferocity of the lobbying and the intensity of media criticism of anyone raising a question about all of this has caused many in Congress to go along with the questionable demands of the homosexual lobby. I myself, Mr. President, have taken the heat, but I will not be deterred. The Senate probably will pass this bill again, and the House has already passed it. And it may become law because President Clinton will rush and sprain his ankle grabbing a pen to sign it. I have intended to have my say, and I have intended to offer a number of amendments for the consideration of Senators to vote for or against as they please. But I think the Senate ought to go on record. Let us examine some of the support the American taxpayers are forced to give to a comparison of diseases. Let us start off with AIDS. This year, $2,700,000,000 for AIDS. That is the tab Congress has demanded that the American taxpayers furnish. That is more money than for any other disease. The Congressional Research Service breaks down the money like this: This year, $1.548 billion for research, $491 million for so-called prevention or education programs--and I will get into that in just a minute--and $664 million for treatment. And this is only for fiscal year 1995. The fiscal year 1996 request totaled a whopping $2.9 billion --$1.819 billion for research, $526 million for prevention or education, and $555 million for treatment programs. Now, the disease AIDS ranks No. 8 in America among all of the diseases in terms of causing death. The No. 1 killer is heart disease followed by cancer, followed by stroke and lung disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and so forth. But do they get money like this? No. AIDS is No. 8--No. 8--yet AIDS gets more Federal money than any of the other diseases. If memory serves me correctly, the original 1990 Ryan White bill was funded with money taken from a fund originally allocated for Alzheimer's disease. The Federal Government spends $91,000 for every patient who dies of AIDS. The Federal Government spends $5,000 for each American who dies of cancer. I know the advocates of this Ryan White reauthorization bill will claim that comparisons are odious, but there is a great big odor rising from the manner in which Congress is falling all over itself to do what the homosexual lobby is almost hysterically demanding that Congress do. Now, then, I am a little bit fascinated by a clause in this existing bill that is now the pending business, language which authorizes--and let me quote from the bill--``appropriations of such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.'' Supporters of the bill say, ``Oh, well, do not worry about that, Jesse. That does not mean anything. It still will have to go through the authorization and appropriations process each year.'' Well, if that is so, Mr. President, if it does not mean anything, let us take out that reference to ``such sums as may be necessary.'' I will bet you a quarter not one of the proponents will agree to that. Of course, it means something. While I am at it, let me raise a question about the provision in this Ryan White bill's title V which creates new education and training centers related to homosexuality and AIDS. Mr. President, this bill is silent in seven languages about teaching the importance of abstinence. It is not even mentioned. Abstinence, I say again and again and again, is the only way AIDS will ever be brought under control. And the activists do not even use the word or permit it to be used. There is general agreement among scientists that the biggest risk for contracting HIV or AIDS is the number of sexual partners homosexuals have. The more promiscuous a homosexual, the greater his risk of contracting HIV or AIDS, and, by the way, infecting innocent people like little Ryan White, whose name is being exploited in this legislation, who had nothing to do with that. He was innocent. Reliable surveys, Mr. President, show that many homosexuals average 16 different sex partners every month, 182 partners per year. And my source for that is a document ``Hepatitis B Cohort Study of 1980,'' and I have it available for any Senator who wants to see it. Now, is it not clear, Mr. President, that AIDS is a chronic disease of sexually promiscuous people? And a lot of innocent people like Ryan White are caught up in it, unknowingly and without any misconduct on their part. Let me move on. Mr. President, you would not believe the stonewalling that has been going on in and by the Clinton administration to prevent my staff and me from obtaining statistical information about how these millions and billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money are to be spent and have been spent in the past. You call HHS--and we have the date and time and the name of the people we talk with--and they say they do not know, that there is no monitoring going on. Stonewalling, that is what we have. But I say this, and I say it with all the sincerity I possess, that before the Senate Appropriations Committee acts on this bill, S. 641, I hope Senators Hatfield and Byrd and all of the members of the Appropriations Committee will insist on credible documented information about who has received the Ryan White funds since the enactment of the 1990 version of the Ryan White CARE Act. That is all I ask. If Senator Robert C. Byrd says it is all right, after he has looked at the information, I will be reasonably satisfied because I trust Senator Byrd. We do not belong to the same party. We do not agree on everything. But I respect him as an honorable gentleman. I think the American people will be appalled by what their hard-earned tax dollars are supporting in fact. Nobody knows now. I am sure Nancy Kassebaum has no idea what is going on because I know this lady. I know her inclinations, and I know her character. But a lot of things are going on that have not been discussed or disclosed to the Congress of the United States let alone the American people. For example, I have a brochure from the Gay Men's Health Crisis. By the way, I hate to use the word ``gay'' in connection with sodomy. There is nothing gay about these people. ``Gay'' used to be a beautiful word. It has been corrupted, but that is another argument for another day. This Gay Men's Health Crisis organization put out a brochure describing various and sundry methods of homosexual sex. Now, I have been around the track a long time, and I have seen a lot of things in my lifetime, but I can just imagine how the average American would react if they could see what this is all about. Not once--I reiterate, not once--is abstinence mentioned as the way to avoid HIV infection. They do not want abstinence. Senators may be interested in an advertisement by another homosexual outfit, the so-called Whitman Walker Clinic in Washington. This advertisement says: ``If you visit a bath house remember to always use a latex condom. Used properly latex condoms prevent HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.'' Now, this statement is blatently false. It is inaccurate. It is misleading. And yet taxpayer funds are being used to circulate this falsehood, giving false hope to homosexuals in their many and various liaisons. Then there is the Washington Blade, which is a homosexual newspaper published here in Washington, DC. They have a pink section they call Lights Out. The implications are obvious on that. This pink ``Lights Out'' section is dedicated exclusively to advertising for anonymous dates, sexual encounters. No names are given. You just pick this one that sounds good to you, and there you go. Decency prevents me from reading the so-called classified ads out loud on the Senate floor. Suffice it to say here comes the Whitman Walker Clinic again. This time implying, ``Just do it, but do it with a condom.'' And they know that is not so. They know that it is not so. The Whitman Walker Clinic, which receives Ryan White CARE Act money from the American taxpayers, who care for people with HIV or AIDS, leads homosexuals to believe that as long as you use a condom it is safe to have anonymous sexual encounters. Now, what kind of use of the American taxpayers' money is that? People say, it is hateful for Jesse to talk about this. But somebody needs to talk about it. Somehow the American people need to know and deserve to have an understanding of what is going on, not get up here with all of the plaintive remarks about Ryan White. Let us talk about what killed Ryan White. Who furnished the tainted blood? Where did it come from? I met the little boy one time. I was sorry for him then, and I am sorry that he is dead now. But it was not accidental. There was somebody who did not care, who furnished tainted blood. Now, the Gay Men's Health Crisis and the Whitman Walker Clinic are not the only such homosexual outfits receiving Ryan White funds advocating so-called safe sex. As I said earlier, I do not believe Senators could possibly believe the stonewalling by the Clinton administration to prevent us, my staff and me, from obtaining accurate, verifiable statistical information on precisely how these millions and billions of dollars have been spent and will be spent. I think it is a legitimate question for the legislative branch to ask the executive branch. But not the Clinton administration. Nobody. That is off limits. They have got a deal. The Senate is debating whether or not to reauthorize this act for appropriations of such sums as may be necessary, and nobody can tell me and nobody can tell the American people exactly where this money is going and for what it is being spent. Oh, you hear all of the wonderful stories about how these people say it is being spent. And I suppose some of it is being spent for good purposes. But Congress does not monitor this, and HHS will not let anybody monitor it. So it is sort of a closed shop, do you not see? Incidentally, speaking of the word ``care,'' I have been the butt of a lot of diatribes lately, like the New York Times, which put words in my mouth that I had not said. And these editorial writers around the country somewhere along the line gave up this responsibility of checking for themselves what the facts are and what was really said. They pick up a report from the New York Times, and they rush to their little hot typewriters or little hot microphone or camera and say, ``Oh, you cannot talk about this. This is a hateful thing to do.'' It is all right with me what they say. I do not care. I do not talk to them much anyway because they will take a snippet here and a snippet there and about 5 seconds here and 5 seconds there, and they will make the quote say what they want it to say. The first amendment does not require that they be honest or fair about anything. For the record, Mr. President, let me say that I do not hate anybody, but I have been accused of it in editorial after editorial. I do not hate homosexuals. I do not even know any homosexuals. But what I do not like is for the Congress of the United States to bow and scrape to homosexual pressure and give them Federal funds and rights and privileges that other Americans are denied. That is what I do not like. And, yes, Mr. President, I have a deep sympathy for homosexuals who are dying of AIDS because of their having deliberately--deliberately-- placed their lives at risk. I have deep sympathy for anybody who sticks a loaded pistol in his mouth and pulls the trigger. You are playing Russian roulette either way. And homosexuals are losing and losing and losing, and they do not want to talk about abstinence. Now, homosexuals know the risk they are running with their sexual conduct. They go on television programs. I saw one or two on ``60 Minutes'' the other night, 2 or 3 weeks ago. They discussed why they just cannot abstain and why it is so much more intimate not to try to protect themselves from being infected with AIDS or preventing others from being infected. They are not interested in abstinence. They are not interested. In all candor, Mr. President, when you get down to the guts, feathers and all, they do not give a damn. But the rest of us do. A lot of us are sick and tired of all the pretenses of injured innocence. They are not innocent. They know it. And that is why they are so belligerent in their demands that homosexuality be accepted as just another lifestyle--indeed, a specially protected and encouraged lifestyle. And that is not a reckless statement because I am about to explain what I mean. I do not believe they will ever sell that bill of goods to the American people. But back to Senator Hatfield, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator Robert C. Byrd, who has served with distinction as chairman of that committee in the past, and he serves now, of course, as ranking minority Member. The Department of Health and Human Services has declined to make any useful information available to my staff or me. They say they have no records of how many homosexual advocacy groups receive or have received Ryan White funds. They have no record of what they do with it. But to that I say, why? Why? And I think the American people are entitled to say, why? It is not HHS money. It is not Jesse Helms' money, and it is not Nancy Kassebaum's and certainly not Ted Kennedy's money, or any of his aides'. It is the American people's money. They have a right to know the full information. Senators Hatfield and Byrd and other members of the distinguished Senate Appropriations Committee might start by inquiring officially and formally how much Federal money was delivered to, for example, the Gay Men's Health Crisis Organization in New York, or right here in Washington, how about the homosexual outfit, the Whitman Walker Clinic? Surely, the Appropriations Committee is entitled to know. Surely, the Members of the Senate are entitled to know. During the past 15 years, Mr. President--and I shall conclude shortly--AIDS has killed 270,000 people in this country. Heart disease kills more than that in less than 5 months. Less than 2 percent of the deaths last year in America were the result of AIDS. I go back to Ryan White. I was sorry for that young man then, and I am sorry for him now. He died at age 18 of AIDS, a disease that he almost certainly contracted from that tainted blood that had its origin as a result of that homosexual airline flight attendant who was the first documented instance of the AIDS disease being brought into North America from Africa. We will never know, of course, the precise list of individuals who passed the HIV virus along--in what they call the generational series of homosexuals--to drug users, and one or more of them contributed to that blood transfusion that Ryan White got. But you know one thing, they were involved in it and they know it, too, but they want to obscure that. They usually go around Ryan White to attract sympathy for them, undeserved sympathy. I am talking about the ones who have not caught it yet, but they are playing Russian roulette and they want the discovery to be made so it will be safe for them. I do not think there is ever going to be a protection of that nature developed by science. I find myself hoping that it will be, but I just do not believe it is going to happen. Ryan White was without blame. He was a hemophiliac who had to have a blood transfusion, but he did not deserve a fatal tainted blood transfusion. Ryan White was innocent, and I pass no judgment on any member of his family or any other family who has lost in such a way a member of their family. I do not have any real problem--I do not understand it--but I do not have any problem with Ryan White's name being exploited by the kind of people who have acknowledged that they either cannot or will not even try to restrain their impulses to prevent the further spread of AIDS. Michael Fumento, an associate of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, has written a book that all Senators should read, but probably will not. The name of the book is ``The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.'' I wish some of the people in the press gallery would read it. Mr. Fumento relates that he called the offices of a number of Senators to inquire about the fairness of devoting so much of the taxpayers' money to one disease at the expense of other diseases. He said he asked in each Senate office for a statement on the fairness of it all. And then he wrote: Wonder of wonders, I got no answer. He concluded this way: And while several Senators claim that as President they would be tough enough to deal with America's foreign adversaries, when it comes to AIDS activists, they go crawling for the deepest foxhole. I am not looking for a foxhole. What I want is for the American people to be informed as to how this money is to be spent, where it is to be spent and by whom it is to be spent. Do not take the word of Senators who say, ``Well, we had in our State this situation,'' or others, ``We had our situation and it's terrible,'' and so forth and so on. Of course, it is terrible, but that does not address the problem. Let us find out how this money is being spent. That is all I have said at any time along the line. No foxhole for me. We will find out sooner or later what happened. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an op-ed column written by Mr. Fumento, published on June 19 by the Washington Times, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from Kansas. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I do not know how anybody can oppose this. I certainly support it. I think that we should expedite the consideration of this bill by letting all amendments possible be approved on voice vote, and not get into any high-jinks about second degree. I am not going to second-degree anybody's amendment. We can save a lot of time if we do not get involved in that, and can get this Ryan White bill behind us. I certainly approve of this amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. HELMS. My expert is sitting to my left, and sometimes to my right as well, and she says she does not know about that. And so, of course, I do not.

Mr. HELMS. That is fine, just so there is no attempt to second-degree my amendment, because then we will have protracted debate.

Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. It is not necessary to get the yeas and nays yet on this pending amendment. So we will lay that aside, if the Chair will permit us to do so, and I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. HELMS. Certainly.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. May I ask a question before the Senator asks for the quorum call?

Mr. HELMS. What is up? We are supposed to be working on this bill.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the clerk has indicated, and I say the amendment as read speaks for itself, this amendment proposes to freeze Federal funding authorizations for the years 1996 through 2000 at an amount not exceeding the fiscal year 1995 funding for HIV-AIDS. The amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995 totals $633 million of the taxpayers' money. I consider this amendment is essential--imperative, as a matter of fact, to close a vast loophole in the pending bill. As currently written, the Ryan White Reauthorization Act authorizes funding for the Ryan White programs: At such sums as may be necessary in each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. As I said earlier, some of the proponents say, ``This does not mean anything. It still has to go through the authorization and appropriations process,'' which is true. But it has a psychological effect, when it has been written into the Ryan White authorization bill that the appropriations will be ``such sums as may be necessary.'' So, as I said earlier, if it does not mean anything let us take it out. Because whenever I see vague, open-ended funding language such as this, I can understand why the Federal debt is approaching $5 trillion. It stands at about $4.9 trillion now. Congress should never write a blank check for any purpose. The least we can do for the American taxpayers is to specify the amount of Federal funding, with no obfuscation, no vagueness, no whatever. Taxpayers will be interested to know that the total estimated outlays under the current act are $3.68 billion. That is $3,680,000,000 over a 5-year period. So we are not talking about chickenfeed. We are talking about real money; real money that can run up the debt, the Federal debt, that will be on the backs of the young people of this country for generations. This $3.68 billion does not include NIH funding or the many other Federal programs dealing with HIV-AIDS. Federal funding for AIDS research and prevention within the Public Health Service has increased from $200,000 in 1981--$200,000 in 1981-- to $2,700,000,000 in 1995. When all the other Federal funds spent on HIV-AIDS are included, the total is about $7.1 billion for fiscal year 1995. We have an arrangement in the process, I will say parenthetically, that I will present each of my amendments. Have we obtained the yeas and nays on the amendment set aside?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.