Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. That would be all right.

Mr. HELMS. I will retain the floor. We will stand in limbo.

Mr. HELMS. Absolutely, 100 percent.

Mr. HELMS. I will agree to that if I may ask unanimous consent that when I choose to ask that the quorum call be rescinded, that I be recognized to do so and that it occur.

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. As of yesterday, Monday, July 24, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood at exactly $4,938,384,897,270.48 or $18,746.19 per man, woman, child on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitur. Some control.

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 $4,936,735,579,244.31 as of the close of business Friday, July 21. This outrageous debt--which will be passed on to our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,739.93 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for myself and Senator Pell, I offer today the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995, which is cosponsored by the Senate's leaders, Mr. Dole and Mr. Daschle, along with Senators Mack, Lieberman, Feinstein, McConnell, Leahy, and Lautenberg. It is for me a difficult undertaking to participate in any proposal that permits assistance to go to the Palestine Liberation Organization. I can never forget the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women, and children at the hands of PLO terrorists, and their memory weighs heavily on me. We have Biblical instructions to ``guide our feet into the way of peace,'' and I have undertaken to follow that dictum. I believe that this legislation demonstrates our commitment to peace--and to the terms of that peace as well. Mr. President, I have never tried to tell Israel what to do. It was the choice of the sovereign, democratically elected government of Israel to negotiate peace with the PLO. That would not have been my decision. The United States cannot dictate the terms of Middle East peace. It can, however, dictate the terms of our assistance to the parties to the peace. In retrospect, previous versions of this legislation have lacked needed strength. My aim in crafting this bill, along with my colleagues, was to tighten and strengthen the standards under which the President may waive existing restrictions on assistance to the Palestinians. Within the realm of possibility, I believe we have succeeded in that aim, and now provide for a cutoff of assistance should the PLO not meet the strict requirements of this law. The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 contains a cutoff of assistance to the PLO, if, after 6 months, certain vital conditions are not met. Mr. President, this legislation requires that the PLO, among many other things: Eschew and condemn violence, and bar those who commit such acts from participating in Palestinian institutions; keep to commitments, and annul those portions of the Palestine National Covenant which call for the destruction of the State of Israel; observe international norms of human rights and democracy; disarm gun-toting thugs throughout territories controlled by the PLO and fight alongside Israel to arrest, prosecute and imprison terrorists and would-be terrorists. If, 6 months from the date of enactment of this act, the President cannot certify that the PLO has met these most stringent and specific conditions, no money will be provided pursuant to the exercise of this act. Period. Mr. President, it is never easy to agree on how to proceed on an emotional issue such as the Israeli-Arab peace process. I walked the beautiful hills of Judea and Samaria and it breaks my heart to see Israel relinquish its rights in those territories. It is doing so in return for what it believes will be a lasting peace. We in the United States must do everything in our power to ensure that it is a real peace. I hope this legislation contributes to that effort. This is not a perfect work, but it is the product of many hours of labor and, yes, with some reluctant compromise. I thank Senator Pell and his staff for their cooperation in this effort.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. HELMS. That is the so-called Ryan White bill.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I shall not speak long, because there is not much time allocated this afternoon to this measure. I am sure that the distinguished majority leader was looking for something to take up for 2 or 3 hours, and I am not going to keep you here very long on this Friday afternoon. However, I have been listening in my office to the comments of Senators who advocate this legislation. I respect them, but I disagree with them. At a later time, I will go into some detail to explain to all Senators what they will be voting for; indeed, some 62 or 63 Senators are identified as cosponsors of this so-called Ryan White bill. I have talked with 2 or 3 Senators at lunch, and at other times, about the details of the bill. They do not have the foggiest notion what the bill is all about. It just sounds good to be for the Ryan White bill. Let the Record show that I am sorry for people who have AIDS. However, I am not unmindful of how the majority of people get AIDS. I said so in an interview with a woman reporter for the New York Times who called me several weeks ago. What she really called me about, Mr. President, was clear at the time; she repeatedly brought up Senator Dole, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate and candidate for President. She was going to write one of those speculative stories, you see, suggesting that Senator Dole was holding up the so-called Ryan White bill. The fact is, nobody was holding up the Ryan White bill. Nobody is holding it up right now. I emphasized that, yes, I did put a ``notify'' hold in the Cloakroom on the Ryan White bill, meaning that I wanted to be notified when the bill was called up so that I could offer amendments to give Senators--including the 60-odd Senators who are cosponsors of the bill, without knowing what they are cosponsoring-- give them a chance to vote on a number of questions which are of interest to the vast majority of the American people. Since the distorted story was published about 80 percent of the thousands of calls and letters I received from around the country have been favorable. I told the lady from the New York Times that her speculation was preposterous, that Bob Dole was not holding up the Ryan White bill, that Jesse Helms was not holding up the Ryan White bill, that, in fact, nobody was holding it up. I asked, ``When has Senator Dole, the majority leader, had a time to call up this bill?'' And, by the way, I said, the existing bill does not expire until September 30, so what is the big rush? No, it is the homosexual lobby in this country. My hometown paper engaged in an editorial about the weak forces of the homosexual lobby. Well, Mr. President, the homosexual lobby is one of the most potent lobbying outfits in the country. They talk about little Ryan White--an attractive little boy, an innocent little boy. He died of AIDS, and now his name is being exploited, as if the homosexuals had nothing to do with the tainted blood that killed Ryan White. Where does the New York Times think that the tainted blood came from in the beginning? That is what Senators need to consider before they rush pell-mell into voting for this bill. There will be at least five or six amendments to consider and to vote on before the Senate gets to final passage on this amendment. What the homosexual lobbyists in this country are demanding are special advantages over everybody else. The Clinton administration is making a mockery of fair play in kowtowing to the homosexual demands at every turn, which prompts me to wonder, for example, how many Senators--or how many people in the news media, for that matter--know about the seminars being conducted these days throughout the Federal Government bureaucracy, seminars that are mandatory. Federal employees are penalized if they do not attend them. What are these seminars all about? They are designed to ``teach'' Federal employees that homosexuality is just another lifestyle. I have not seen a word about it in the New York Times or the Washington Post, nor have I seen it on CBS, ABC, CNN, or any of the rest of them. You see, it's not politically correct to talk about this. Federal employees do not have a choice about whether to attend these seminars. They go to them--or else. We had one case last year--and I had to intervene--where a dedicated Federal official stationed in Atlanta was booted out of his job because he made a statement saying that we ought to look for the higher things in life instead of concentrating on homosexuality, and teaching the false doctrine that homosexuality is just another lifestyle. This homosexual lobby has gone to incredible extremes to exploit Ryan White's name to acquire an unjustified amount of Federal funding for AIDS. By the way, Mr. President, there has never been another disease for which there has been a special Federal fund for one specifying money not devoted to AIDS research. This money is distributed with substantial amounts going to homosexual organizations such as the Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York, and the Whitman Walker Clinic, right here in Washington, DC. But just try, Mr. President, to obtain some information out of the Department of Health and Human Services. They stonewall. They do not want anybody to get the facts on how this AIDS money is distributed. But, later on, the Senate is going into all of this, and in great detail when consideration of this bill begins. There will be no home- free basis. We are going to lay it out for everybody to see. And if Senators then want to vote for it, fine. That is all I am going to say today, Mr. President. But I want it to be made a matter of record that this is not a bill that the American people know anything about, nor is it one that many Senators know about. If the Lord gives me strength, the Senators at least will know about it before this reauthorization of the so-called Ryan White is approved by the Senate. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, July 20, the Federal debt stood at $4,935,796,845,291.29. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,736.37 as his or her share of that debt. Well before the end of the year, the Federal debt will pass the $5 trillion mark.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that evening in 1972 when I learned that I had been 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 magnitude of the Federal debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. The young people and I 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, Wednesday, July 19, stood at $4,932,430,021,919.50 or $18,723.59 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let us have ``another go,'' as the British put it, with our little 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, Tuesday, July 18, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,929,786,301,717.48, of which, on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,713.55. Mr. President, back to the pop quiz: How many million in a trillion? There are a million million in a trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, my reaction to this agreement which may soon be entered into is: At long last. On the first day that the Senate this year accepted bills and resolutions to be introduced, this resolution was introduced by the distinguished majority leader with some of the rest of us as cosponsors. The Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am chairman, has not acted on this resolution, at the specific request of the majority leader and others. But I am delighted that finally we are confronting the questions that have been raised about the delay in the resolution. In short, Mr. President, it is high time for the Senate to acknowledge what is already perfectly clear to any objective observer: The U.N. peacekeeping effort in Bosnia is an abject failure. The Bosnian Serbs have certainly known this for a long time, as has the beleaguered Bosnian Muslim government. Yet, the United Nations persists in a policy that, at best, has given the appearance of action while, in fact, allowing the slow-motion genocide of Bosnian Muslims. Lest the President of the United States need reminding, along with the leaders of our European allies, Bosnia was recognized as an independent nation 3 years ago. Commensurate with that status is the explicit right of self-defense. For 3 years, the Bosnian Serbs have pursued an aggressive campaign, aided and abetted by the Government of Serbia. Irrefutable evidence, such as the integrated air defense of these two brutal forces, demonstrates that this is truly a war of aggression being waged by Serbia. How any democratic government can continue to justify the arms embargo against Bosnia on either moral or legal grounds escapes me. It absolutely escapes me. So-called safe areas are being overrun, U.N. peacekeepers have been taken hostage, humanitarian assistance convoys are either blocked or being looted by Bosnian Serb fighters, and Sarajevo airport has been closed for 3 months. Despite this deteriorating situation, the U.S. Government persists in supporting the illusion of peacekeeping--as if there is any peace to keep in that part of the world. Most recently, President Clinton has stated his intention to spend an additional $95 million on the U.N. so-called rapid reaction force in order to perpetuate this failed policy. Under the current rules [[Page S 10231]] of engagement, that force will do nothing to confront Serb aggression. Mr. President, it would be an exaggeration to suggest that the situation in Bosnia is at a diplomatic standstill. It is moving backward. It appears that the closest the Western Powers can get to a negotiated solution is to reward the Serbian dictator who started this entire war by easing the sanctions against his country. Even this effort--which is an embarrassment to the United States--has fallen short. So in recognition of this failure, and as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I declare that it is time for us to take a step which should have happened 3 years ago. We must approve this legislation to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnians and allow those people to defend themselves. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

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

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 much this same way that the Federal debt keeps going and going and going--up, of course. A lot of politicians talk a good game--and talk is the operative word--about reducing the Federal deficit and bringing the Federal debt under control. Control, Mr. President? As of yesterday, Monday, July 17, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood at exactly $4,927,653,309,340.54, or $18,705.46 per man, woman, and child on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitur. Some control.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the majority leader announced today his intentions to bring S. 908, the State Department Authorization Bill, to the Senate floor before the August recess. As my colleagues are well aware, this bill proposes to reorganize the agencies of the executive branch charged with the conduct of America's foreign policy, saving needed Federal tax dollars in the process. Before my colleagues rush to judgment on the efforts to restructure the State Department, I recommend they read John Bolton's June 25 op-ed piece in the Washington Times, ``Quest for a Stronger Foreign Policy Hand.'' Mr. President, John Bolton writes with authority on the purpose and past performance of the State Department because of his having served as Assistant Administrator of the Agency for International Development in the Reagan administration and as assistant Secretary of State in the Bush administration. Currently, John Bolton serves as the president of the National Policy Forum. I urge Senators to take note of John Bolton's counsel. His advice regarding strengthening America's foreign policy hand is both sound and sorely needed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the June 25 op-ed piece in the Washington Times, ``Quest for a Stronger Foreign Policy Hand'', be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is like the temperature outside--rising rapidly. As for the rising Federal debt, Congress had better get cracking--time is a-wasting and the debt is mushrooming and approaching the $5 trillion level. In the past, a lot of politicians talked a good game, when they were back home with the voters, about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But many of them regularly voted in support of bloated spending bills that rolled through the Senate like Tennyson's brook. So look at what has happened: As of Friday, July 14, at the close of business, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,933,039,330,339.52. This debt, remember, was run up by the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, most citizens cannot conceive of a billion of anything, let alone a trillion. It may provide a bit of perspective to bear in mind that a billion seconds ago, the Cuban Missile Crisis was in progress. A billion minutes ago, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ had occurred not long before. Which sort of puts it in perspective, does it not, that Congress has run up an incredible Federal debt totaling 4,808 of those billions--of dollars. In other words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stood this morning at opening time at four trillion, 933 billion, 39 million, 330 thousand, 339 dollars and 52 [[Page S 10086]] cents. It'll be even greater at closing time today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, U.S. taxpayers spend 5.4 billion hours and $192 billion every year trying to fill out these tax forms. One can only imagine how easy it would be simply to submit this postcard in lieu of the existing paperwork. Mr. President, taxpayers spend a lot of money trying to comply with or to avoid the tax laws. We all know that. A study by James Payne of Lytton Research estimates that the Tax Code costs $593 million every year, which includes tax avoidance, tax compliance, paperwork, and lost production. The flat tax would save taxpayers an enormous amount of time and money. Now, the second benefit of the flat tax proposal that I just sent to the desk would provide millions of Americans with a tax cut. Over the years, taxpayers have been taken to the cleaners by the Federal Government, a government which has taken more and more money away from the American workers every year. I noticed in a report from the Heritage Foundation recently that in 1948 the average family of four paid 2 percent of its income to the Federal Government. In 1992, that same family of four would pay 24.5 percent of its income to Uncle Sam. That is only Federal taxes. Third, we should dramatically reduce the size of the Federal Government by eliminating every dollar of Federal spending that is not absolutely essential. Entire programs should be abolished or reformed, including the Internal Revenue Service itself. With a flat tax, those countless thousands of IRS agents would no longer be justified in harassing the taxpayers. A General Accounting Office study, by the way, Mr. President, disclosed one-half of the 10 million notices sent out by the IRS are-- quoting the General Accounting Office-- ``incorrect, unresponsive, unclear, or incomplete.'' I might add, or all four. Mr. President, the flat tax would have a profound effect on the economy. It will promote growth by increasing incentives for work and investment and production. It will eliminate the double taxation of interest and dividends and the taxation of capital gains, which will increase savings, of course, and investments, and obviously it will stimulate growth and create jobs. The economists have said that a flat tax would increase work output by 3 percent, and an additional 3 percent from capital formation. That translates into about $1,900 extra for every American worker by the year 2002. Furthermore, increased savings will push interest rates down and thus reduce the cost of capital and the cost of homes, cars, and college educations for American families. Finally, Mr. President, this bill provides a transition rule for home mortgage. I thought about this a lot. I came to the conclusion that those families who have existing home mortgages should be allowed to deduct the interest for the duration of that existing mortgage. This is only a transition rule and applies only to existing home mortgages. Now, I recognize that the concept of flat tax is not new. As a matter of fact, I offered my first flat tax bill, S. 2200, back in 1982, March 15. It called for a 10-percent flat tax. Needless to say, I commend Representative Armey for his having put forward a solid proposal. He is doing the Nation a great service and I plan to support his version, cosponsor it, when it comes over to the Senate. Our tax system has become so complex and so economically unproductive, outmoded, and riddled with exceptions that it is no wonder that the American people have lost faith in their Government to such a high degree. Mr. President, a flat tax is based on equity, efficiency, and simplicity. I think the American people want a flat tax because they understand that it is fair. They understand that it will save billions of dollars and that it will be a spark plug for the economy.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in sending to the desk a bill entitled ``The Flat Tax Act of 1995,'' my hope is that this legislation will help stimulate further interest and understanding regarding the replacing of the present cumbersome and complex Tax Code with a simple 15-percent flat tax. It also, by the way, provides a standard deduction of $10,000 for individuals and an extra $5,000 for each child. This means that a family of four would not pay taxes on its first $30,000 of income. The bill also requires a 15 percent across-the-board reduction in Federal spending; it cuts foreign aid by 50 percent; and eliminates the IRS entirely, thereby giving millions of taxpayers a tax cut and sharply reducing Federal spending at the same time. Now, the flat tax has been discussed many, many times. Thus far, it has not advanced to any extent measurable, but it is fair, it is simple, and it will eliminate the myriad of loopholes that presently riddle the Tax Code. In contrast to the existing system, a flat tax would save billions of dollars each year in time and paperwork. It will spur massive economic growth. Mr. President, I believe that Congress absolutely must overhaul the Federal income tax system and, at the same time, overhaul the Federal Government. Any flat tax proposed must be based on three fundamental principles: First, it must be simple and pure--there should be no exceptions or deductions other than a standard personal deduction; second, it should provide Americans with a tax cut; third, it should be coupled with a meaningful cut in spending. On the first point, it is abundantly clear that the Federal tax laws are too complex, unfair, and unworkable. There are more than 480 tax forms confronting the taxpayers of the United States. I have copies of all of the tax forms at my desk, and I ask Senators, at some convenient time, to contrast that pile of forms to the flat tax postcard which I have in my hand. Incidentally, I ask unanimous consent that this proposed tax postal card be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask that it be appropriately referred.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, July 13, the Federal debt stood at $4,933,342,394,729.43. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,727.05 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that evening in 1972 when I learned that I had been elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see any young person, or any 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 magnitude of the Federal debt that Congress has run up for the coming generations to pay. The young people and I 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, Wednesday, July 12, stood at $4,927,810,673,266.79 or $18,706.05 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.