Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, it does not take a rocket scientist to be aware that the U.S. Constitution forbids any President's spending 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 $4,925,464,401,230.13 as of the close of business Tuesday, July 11. This outrageous debt--which will be passed on to our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,697.15 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 million dollars in a trillion dollars? (While you are arriving at an answer, 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, Monday, July 10, the exact Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,924,014,991,181.29. This means that, on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,691.65. 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. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Three minutes. Well, I will make haste, then. I thank the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably a nomination list in the Foreign Service which was printed in full in the Congressional Record of June 26, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, President Clinton's announcement today that the United States will establish full diplomatic relations with Communist Vietnam, is a mistake, in my judgment, of [[Page S 9695]] the highest order. It is not timely yet. Vietnam has not earned recognition. While the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the President is solely responsible for sending and receiving Ambassadors, Congress has the power of the purse. I fully support the able majority leader, Mr. Dole, and the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, in their efforts to exercise that power by withholding funding for this normalization until all American POW's are fully accounted for. Mr. President, Congress has the inescapable responsibility to weigh in on this decision if we believe President Clinton is wrong. And I believe him to be terribly wrong. The President has not yet fulfilled his commitments to resolve the POW/MIA issue. The Vietnamese know much more than they are telling us about the fate of our missing American POW/MIA's. Yet, despite the $100 million we paid the Vietnamese Government each year to assist our Government in investigating those POW and MIA cases, the Vietnamese still renege on giving us a full accounting. Until the Vietnamese give us the full accounting of all missing American servicemen, it makes no sense whatsoever to confer upon them the honor of U.S. recognition. The President insists that normalization of relations will result in the United States gaining more access to the Vietnamese Government--the more dialog, he argues, the faster they will move toward democracy. The trouble with this spurious argument is that it has been used in Washington to justify United States accommodation of Red China--and just take a look at where that policy has gotten us. The Chinese have certainly moved toward a greater opening of their economy--foreigners can not invest fast enough, and China is taking in dollars hand over fist. But what has China sacrificed for all that Western hard currency? Has our policy of engagement persuaded the Chinese Communists to adopt any democratic reforms whatsoever? No, to the contrary, the Chinese leadership is today more hard line and authoritarian than it has been since Mao's Cultural Revolution. Today, China is once again rounding up dissidents; they are using prison slave labor to create products for export abroad; they are executing prisoners on demand to sell their organs to wealthy foreigners; and they are enforcing a brutal forced abortion policy that has resulted in the mass execution of millions of Chinese children. Clearly United States recognition and engagement of Red China hasn't bought us any influence with the Communist thugs in Beijing. If anyone doubts this, just ask Harry Wu how much the Communist regime there values our opinion. I think it is a disgrace that, at the same time this administration refuses to support the efforts of Taiwan--a friendly, free market democracy--to even gain admission to the United Nations, and practically had to be forced by Congress to issue a visa to Taiwan's democratically elected President for a private United States visit, they are enthusiastically conferring full diplomatic recognition on Vietnam's recalcitrant Communist dictatorship. What kind of message does that send about our Nation's priorities? If the President insists on going through with the normalization of relations, I can only say this: as chairman of the committee that confirms ambassadorial nominations, it's going to be a tough road to confirmation for nay ambassadorial nominee to Vietnam before the Vietnamese have accounted for the unresolved POW-MIA cases. As long as Vietnam remains an unrepentant Communist dictatorship, as long as they refuse to provide all information they have about missing American servicemen, the United States should not reward their leaders by welcoming them into the community of friendly nations. The President's announcement today is just the first step of many. The administration will have to approach Congress to discuss the conferral of benefits such as MFN, GSP, or OPIC insurance. Those will be a matter of great debate here in Congress and there is no reason for us to move on those until the Vietnamese have earned it. We should take the Vietnamese Government for what it is: a Communist one. It should continue to be treated as such until it makes true political reform by establishing a legal code and respect for the general human rights of all Vietnamese citizens as individuals, rather than merely supporters of the State. Vietnam has a long way to go if it wants to reestablish its position in the international community. We should not put the cart before the horse and extend them U.S. recognition before they have earned it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today I once again offer legislation to correct an obviously unintended and mistaken reclassification of pharmaceutical-grade, FDA-approved egg yolk phospholipid by HTS, the Harmonized Tariff Classification System. Another provision of this legislation has been accomplished in the Uruguay round GATT agreement. Kabi Pharmacia is a U.S. company in Clayton, NC. Kabi has become a leading employer in rural Johnston County; it has 175 employees engaged in high-technology manufacturing and research work. The main product manufactured by Kabi Pharmacia in Clayton is intralipid, a unique intravenous feeding solution. Kabi must import a key, unique intralipid ingredient--pharmaceutical-grade, FDA-approved egg yolk phospholipid, because it is made only by Kabi's parent company in Sweden. The duty on Kabi's phospholipid was set at 1.5 percent in the 1970's when Kabi began operations in Clayton. Beginning in March 1991, the unintentional HTS reclassification of the phospholipid more than tripled this duty, a situation that could not be corrected in the GATT agreement because it is a matter of U.S. law--which, of course, only Congress can change. Mr. President, my legislation would return the rate on the phospholipid to 1.5 percent for the period from March 29, 1991, until January 1, 1995, when the duty for Kabi's phospholipid and other pharmaceutical components and products became zero under the GATT agreement, and refund the unintended duty increase. The amount of the unintended duty increase is $396,779.16. Mr. President, there has been no disagreement that the duty increase on Kabi's phospholipid was unintended and unwarranted. Simple fairness emphasizes the need for the legislation I offer today. The correction of the erroneous HTS reclassification must be retroactive in order that there can be an equitable redress. It is a matter of simple fairness and equity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation (S. 1015) be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today I offer a private bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to right a wrong committed against a dedicated public servant. Clarence P. Stewart of Lillington, NC, served 23 years with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service [ASCS] at the Department of Agriculture. In April 1981, Mr. Stewart was North Carolina State Executive Director when, during the transition to a new administration, the ASCS decided to remove all State Executive Directors as part of an what the Department described as a reduction- in-force [RIF]. Mr. Stewart considered appealing the ASCS decision but was told by his superior at the ASCS not to bother, that he had no right to appeal the dismissal action. Unfortunately, Mr. Stewart accepted this information at face value and did not appeal the ASCS decision. Mr. President, years later, Mr. Stewart learned that, as a veteran, he did in fact have a right to appeal his dismissal from the ASCS. He also learned that 24 other State Executive Directors who had been dismissed at the same time as Stewart had appealed their dismissals to the Merit Systems Protections Board and they had won. In this appeal, known as the Blalock case, the Merit Systems Protection Board found that the State Directors had in fact been removed for cause rather than separated pursuant to RIF and as a result could be removed only if they were given advance notice and an opportunity to reply. The Merit Systems Protection Board ordered the Department of Agriculture to reinstate, retroactively, the appellants to their positions. Although none of the appellants actually returned to work, the Department of Agriculture, as part of a settlement agreement, gave each appellant 1 year and 10 months salary and recomputed retirement benefits based on this increased salary. Once Mr. Stewart learned of the Blalock decision he filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board. Because his appeal was filed late, the MSPB dismissed Mr. Stewart's appeal. He then filed a petition for review with the MSPB, but that too was denied. Mr. Stewart, therefore, has exhausted all possible avenues of administrative review. Mr. Stewart is a North Carolina citizen who gave years of faithful service to his State and country. He was wrongfully removed from his job as North Carolina State Director of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. At the time, he was told he had no right to appeal the dismissal when, as a decorated veteran who served his country valiantly in World War II, he had a very real right to appeal. Mr. President, I doubt that any of our colleagues believe that this good man should be punished for having taken the word of his superior. But for his superior's mistake, Mr. Stewart would have filed a timely appeal and would have prevailed just as the other 24 appellants did in the Blalock case. Mr. President, I do hope that in the interest of equity Mr. Stewart will receive the same benefits that were afforded the other State Directors.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, which long ago soared into the stratosphere, is in a category like the weather-- everybody talks about it but scarcely anybody had undertaken the responsibility of trying to do anything about it. That is, not until immediately following the elections last November. When the new 104th Congress convened in January, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 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 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 Friday, July 7, the Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,929,459,412,839.22 or $18,712.31 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. The resolution condemns the arrest of Mr. Peter H. W., a personal friend of mine who has been arrested by the Red Chinese. I understand the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations reported a similar resolution yesterday that is expected to be considered by the House this morning. Peter Hongda Wu, known to all of us as Harry Wu, entered China last week on a valid United States passport and a valid visa issued by the Chinese themselves. Harry submitted his papers at the border and was immediately placed under house arrest by Chinese authorizes and held for 3 days, after which a caravan of Communist-style cars arrived in the small border town near Kazakhstan and whisked Harry away. Harry Wu has not been seen or heard from since. Mr. President, the cruelty the Chinese Communists can inflict, especially on humans they claim have committed crimes against the state. Unfortunately, because Harry has devoted his life to exposing human rights abuses in China, the Chinese have taken purely punitive action against him. Harry Wu has worked and cooperated with the Senate for many years. It was Harry who first informed me that the Chinese were forcing their own prisoners, many of them political prisoners, to produce products for sale to other countries. Harry was extraordinarily familiar with these practices since he spent 19 years in a Chinese prison. More recently, Mr. President, at my invitation, Harry testified before the Foreign Relations Committee regarding the Chinese Government's practice of selling organs removed from the bodies of just-executed prisoners, including political prisoners. The Chinese make these organs available on the international market--for cold cash--for example, $10,000 for a liver and varying amounts for corneas and other human organs. Harry's video footage filmed in China, proved that the Chinese even have gone so far as to harvest both kidneys from living prisoners. Understandably, the hearing received a great deal of international attention, and the Chinese are obviously punishing Harry Wu for informing the U.S. Congress about this and other matters. Mr. President, the Chinese have already usurped 19 years of Harry Wu's life. They must not persecute him further. He is a faithful and honest American citizen devoted to ensuring the wellbeing of Chinese citizens. I urge Senators and the President to do everything within their power to press for Harry Wu's immediate release and safe return. As his friend, I appeal to all Senators for their support. Mr. President, my resolution expresses condemnation of the arrest and detention of Harry Wu. It further calls upon China to comply immediately with its commitments under the United States-People's Republic of China Consular Convention by providing the United States Government with a full accounting for Harry's arrest and detention. I urge the Senate to adopt the resolution.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, June 29, the Federal debt stood at $4,898,835,701,662.79. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,596.06 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for the mammoth task he is about to complete--to pass a resolution putting the United States on track to balance the Federal budget by 2002. The Foreign Relations Committee is committed to do its part to put the international affairs budget function on a trajectory for meeting the targets specified in the budget blueprint that [[Page S 9405]] lies before us. That said, I respectfully request to ask my friend from New Mexico to engage in a colloquy to clarify for the Record the terms of the conference report on the budget resolution relating to the international affairs budget function.

Mr. HELMS. I thank my distinguished friend from New Mexico for his support and look forward to celebrating his remarkable victory later today.

Mr. HELMS. The House resolution contains an agreement to restructure the various foreign affairs activities by consolidating AID, USIA, and ACDA into the Department of State. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. HELMS. It is my further understanding that the Senate budget resolution also assumed major restructuring of the U.S. foreign affairs apparatus, including support for the consolidation of ACDA, USIA, and AID into the Department of State and any cost savings which it generates. Is that correct?

Mr. HELMS. So, in other words, the House and Senate budget conference report accommodates the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reorganization proposal to abolish the Agency for International Development, the United States Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and fold their essential functions and personnel into the Department of State, and when the Senate decides to abolish these agencies the budget resolution will support it. Is that correct?

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, June 28, stood at $4,892,751,687,771.67 or $18,572.97 for every man, woman and child in America on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, which long ago soared into the stratosphere, is like the weather--everybody talks about it but scarcely anybody had undertaken the responsibility to trying to do anything about it. That is, not until following the elections last November. When the new 104th Congress convened in January, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the Senate all but one of the Senate's 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment; only 13 Democrats supported it. Since a two-third-vote is necessary to enact a conditional amendment the Senate's amendment failed by one vote. There will be another vote later this year or next year. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, June 27, the Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,890,154,885,704.22 or $18,563,11 for every man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression simply will not go away: The [[Page S 9174]] existing $4.8 trillion Federal debt is a sort of grotesque parallel to the engerizer bunny that appears and appears and appears on television--the same way that the Federal debt keeps going and going and going--up, of course, always to the added burdens on the American taxpayers. So many politicians talk a good game--and talk is the operative word--about reducing the Federal deficit and bringing the Federal debt under control. In any event, Mr. President, as of yesterday, Monday, June 26, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,889,052,929,226.24 or $18,558.93 per man, woman, child on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitur.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, one need not be a rocket scientist to know that the U.S. Constitution forbids any President's spending 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 you hear a politician or an editor or a commentator declare 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--of Congress--a duty Congress cannot escape--to control Federal spending--which Congress has not done for the past 50 years. Thus, it is the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress that has created the incredible Federal debt which stood at $4,887,614,064,494.86 as of the close of business Friday, June 23. This outrageous debt--which will be passed on to our children and grandchildren--averages out to $18,553.47 on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, June 22, the Federal debt stood at $4,885,968,241,521.21. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,547.22 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, with a Federal debt of $4,898,068,854,045.71 as of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 21, it is time to ask ourselves a question: Should Congress continue to force the American taxpayers to provide $400 million every year to pay the salaries of, and to otherwise fund, a cadre of liberal lawyers to push their social policies down the throats of local governments and citizens? I think not--and I suspect most Americans will agree, which is why I today offer legislation to put an end to Federal funding of the Legal Services Corporation. North Carolina has been harassed by the LSC for years and, adding insult to injury, LSC attorneys in my State--whose salaries are federally subsidized--are now demanding through the courts that the State of North Carolina pay them $320,000 in additional attorney's fees. Mr. President, a few details about this specific outrage may be in order. In 1975, Legal Services attorneys successfully took on the State of North Carolina on behalf of applicants enrolled in the Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid programs. And what was the great offense by North Carolina's local Departments of Social Services to justify this law suit? In the arrogant judgment of the Legal Services lawyers, it was taking the local Departments of Social Services too long to process benefits. Since that time, the local Departments of Social Services have done their best to follow the numerous court-imposed requirements. In the meantime, the Legal Services attorneys have collected--now get this, Mr. President--an estimated $1 million in attorney's fees from the State of North Carolina. But that doesn't satisfy them. On June 14, a little more than a week ago, the Legal Services attorneys demanded another $320,000 in attorney's fees. So, Mr. President, these Legal Services attorneys are paid with Federal funds through the Legal Services Corporation and with State and local Legal Services agencies to sue the State of North Carolina. In addition to the taxpayers' money they receive to dismantle local government policies, the Legal Services attorneys are demanding additional money for themselves--out of the pockets of North Carolina's taxpayers. The legislation I introduce today will fix this costly problem--by ending Federal funding of Legal Services Corporation, which like most other social programs spawned in the 1960's, has strayed far from any meaningful purpose and deserves a quiet funeral. [[Page S 8949]] For the record, the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 ostensibly to provide legal assistance to low-income citizens in civil, noncriminal matters. Its first annual budget, for fiscal year 1976 was $92 million. It will cost the taxpayers $400 million in 1995. It does not provide services directly, it makes grants to local agencies which in turn are charged with providing legal services to those who can't afford a lawyer--low-income individuals, migrants and immigrants, and minorities. Mr. President, it is precisely these local agencies throughout the country which, instead of carrying out the mission of providing legal assistance to those who can't afford it, have promoted a liberal public policy and propaganda mechanism. It has unmercifully harassed law-abiding citizens and has imposed countless dollars in litigation costs upon hapless small businessmen, farmers, and so forth. Another example from North Carolina: The Department of Labor, in conjunction with local legal services agencies, has done its best to dismantle the H-2A Immigrant Farm Labor Program--a Federal program allowing small farmers to employ temporary immigrant workers for seasonal harvests. Since North Carolina's farmers have had difficulty finding citizens to work on their farms, this program is a must for the survival of many of these small farms. There is no other reason for the local legal service agency to harass North Carolina's farmers beyond furthering the protection and rights of immigrants brought in to work. Mr. President, the North Carolina Growers Association is today mired in a legal battle to protect the rights of farmers to participate in a program designed by Congress to assist farming production. The irony is that the American taxpayer is forced to fund the LSC and its liberal assault on law-abiding citizens, North Carolina's farmers included. Of course, the LSC has not limited its activities to bullying citizens. The corporation has set its sights on changing State laws through litigation and direct lobbying as well as tearing apart programs designed to help the poor and needy. For example, as the Heritage Foundation notes in its publication ``Rolling Back Government: A budget plan to rebuild America,'' the LSC recently filed a lawsuit in New Jersey challenging that State's welfare reform initiatives. In New York City, the LSC filed suit against HELP, a proven nonprofit organization that assists the homeless. The LSC has even pursued cases to provide free public education for illegal aliens. The Heritage Foundation report concludes, ``rather than helping the poor settle landlord disputes, wills, and other common legal problems, the LSC increasingly is concerned with public policy.'' Perhaps William Mellor, president of the Washington-based Institute for Justice, said it best in his February 1, 1995, editorial, ``Want Welfare Reform? First Fight Legal Services Corporation.'' Mr. Mellor writes: Instead of just helping the poor with problems such as child support and rent disputes, LSC lawyers have worked for years to get the courts to enshrine a constitutional right to welfare. Mr. President, is this the kind of arrogant absurdity that was intended for LSC? Why should the U.S. Congress be concerned with--as candidate Bill Clinton put it--``changing welfare as we know it,'' when the taxpayers are required to pay lawyers to convince the Federal courts to make welfare a constitutional right? The American people in the 1994 election emphatically stated that government is running their lives. There is far more waste in government than the American people should be forced to pay for. Congress, for a half century, has been wasting billions of dollars, running up a Federal debt of about $4.9 trillion. Fortunately, for the American people, the House of Representatives has proposed eliminating funding for the Legal Services Corporation, the cost of which has exploded from $92 million in fiscal year 1976 to $400 million in fiscal year 1995. And according to the Heritage Foundation, despite this large budget and tremendous growth, only 4 percent of the Nation's poor directly benefited from the LSC in 1993. So, Mr. President, the legislation I offer today, to eliminate Federal funding of the Legal Services Corporation, is long past due. While saving the taxpayers millions of dollars, my bill will end the forced sponsorship by the U.S. taxpayers of an agency the purpose and mission of which was laid aside and forgotten long ago in its rush to promote a leftwing social agenda. It's time for the Legal Services Corporation to be discarded--forever.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that memorable 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. [[Page S 8849]] That's why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 22, 1992. I wanted to make it a matter of daily record precisely the size of the Federal debt which as of yesterday, Wednesday, June 21, stood at $4,898,068,854,045.71 or $18,593.15 for every man, woman, and child in America.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk for appropriate referral. It addresses the precarious situation growing out of two nuclear-armed nations facing each other on the South Asian subcontinent. During the past 50 years, the two nations have gone to war twice, and barely avoided doing so again in 1990. The dispute over the State of Kashmir continues to fester, and India and Pakistan are nowhere near resolving their differences. Kashmir could easily ignite a nuclear conflagration, and it would be difficult to imagine a greater interest by the United States than preventing such a terrifying tragedy. Mr. President, exacerbating the tensions in the region is a pattern of gross violations of the Kashmiri people's basic human rights. More than 20,000 Kashmiris have been killed in the past 6 years, and the people of Kashmir continue to endure daily abuses, most often at the hands of the Indian Army and security forces. The State Department's 1994 Report on Human Rights lists ``extrajudicial executions, torture and reprisal killings'' as common tactics used by Indian Government forces. Only last month, Mr. President, a battle between militants and Indian troops in the town of Charar-i-Sharief started a fire that destroyed 1,000 homes, and a 600-year-old mosque that is Kashmir's most important Moslem shrine. The blaze also displaced nearly 25,000 people. The resolution Senator Leahy, Reid, and I are offering speaks directly to the very serious issues that confront the people of Kashmir. It decries human rights abuses perpetrated by both Indian security forces and Moslem militants. It also speaks to the root of the threat to South Asia and to the United States--the failure to negotiate a settlement to the Kashmiri dispute. Since 1972, India and Pakistan have worked through the Simla framework: bilateral negotiations to resolve bilateral problems, including Kashmir. After 23 years, it is time to admit failure. Negotiations will not succeed without the involvement of the Kashmiri people. The resolution that Senator Leahy and I are introducing today asks that the Kashmiri people, through the peaceful voice of their Hurriyet Council, be represented in any negotiations on the future of Kashmir. Kashmir must not be ignored; it will come back to haunt us all. I urge Senators to support not only this resolution, but more importantly, this cause.

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 million dollars are in one trillion dollars? While you are arriving at an answer, 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, June 20, the exact Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,895,341,208,279.21. This means that, on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,582.80. Mr. President, back to the pop quiz: How many million in a trillion? There are a million million in a trillion.