Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably two nomination lists in the Foreign Service which were printed in full in the Records of March 23, 1995 and May 15, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression simply will not go away: The $4.8 trillion Federal debt is a grotesque parallel to the energizer bunny we see, and see, and see on television. The Federal debt keeps going and going and going--up, of course, and always to the added misery of the American taxpayers. So many politicians talk a good game--when, that is, they go home to talk--and ``talk'' is the operative word--about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But, sad to say, so many of these very same politicians have regularly voted for one bloated spending bill after another during the 103d Congress and before. Come to think about it, this may have been a primary factor in the new configuration of U.S. Senators as a result of last November's elections. In any event, Mr. President, as of yesterday, Monday, June 19, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,892,922,141,296.33 or $18,573.62 per man, woman, child on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitus. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, I began these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of close of business the previous day. On Mondays, of course, my reports are always ``as of'' the previous Friday. As of the close of business Friday, June 16, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,892,368,600,316.89. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,571.52 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It is important to recall, Mr. President, that the Senate this year missed an opportunity to implement a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regrettably, the Senate failed by one vote in that first attempt to bring the Federal debt under control. There will be another opportunity in the months ahead to approve such a constitutional amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, June 15, the Federal debt stood at $4,893,073,460,637.78. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,574.19 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate referral, a bill on behalf of D&S International of Burlington, NC, which imported from Germany, four warp knitting machines at a duty-free rate which D&S then sold to a Venezuelan company, which decided not to keep the machines and returned them to D&S. Upon reentry, the Customs Service mistakenly classified the machines first as a reentry of United States goods, instead of a German, then misclassified them at a duty rate of 4.4 percent. D&S contacted Customs to protest the duty assessment. However, Customs ruled that the D&S memorandum did not qualify as a formal protest because D&S did not file form 19. Amazingly, no right of appeal exists within Customs on such rulings if a company misses the deadline for protesting. D&S would have to spend a lot of money going to court to try to rectify the mistake. Mr. President, as a result of these mistakes, D&S now owes $25,000 in duties on machines that were supposed to be duty-free. This error by the Customs Service will be remedied by my bill, which instructs Customs to reclassify the machines as duty-free and refund to D&S the duties improperly assessed.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, may I direct a question to my distinguished colleague from South Dakota regarding a minor technical matter in the Committee amendment? Specifically, I believe a clarification is in order regarding the Senate's intent in changing the heading on page 101 at lines 15 and 16 to read ``(2) Non-Discrimination Standards . . ..'' It is my understanding that this amendment is necessary to express clearly the Senate's intent that the nondiscrimination provisions in this paragraph shall apply to transactions of Bell operating companies with all parties, not just other local exchange carriers as incorrectly suggested in the Committee Report. Such nondiscriminatory treatment in procurement, standards-setting, and equipment certification is particularly important to the telecommunications equipment supplier community. Independent suppliers must have the same opportunity to sell to the Bell operating companies as any of their affiliates. This is good for the consumer, good for the suppliers, and good for the telephone companies.

Mr. HELMS. I thank my good friend from South Dakota for making this clarification in the bill. amendment no. 1256

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that memorable evening in 1972 when I learned that I had been elected to the Senate in 1972, one of the commitments I made to myself was that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It certainly proved beneficial to me because I've been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I've visited during the nearly 23 years I've 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'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 14, stood at $4,905,557,258,890.90 (or $18,621.58 for every man, woman, and child in America).

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 133 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I would inquire of the Senator from Indiana if my understanding is correct that, under subsection (f)(1) of your amendment, a person is protected solely for providing access. Is that correct?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize 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--a duty Congress cannot escape--to control Federal spending. They have not for the past 50 years. It is the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress--of Congress!--that ran up the Federal debt that stood at $4,903,284,242,955.00 as of the close of business Tuesday, June 13. This debt, which will, of course, be passed on to our children and grandchildren, averages out to $18,612.95 on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. No, no. What was the unanimous consent request?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as a former executive at a television station, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Dorgan amendment which is now pending. This amendment would ensure that local television news and programming decisions remain in the hands of local broadcasters. It is a worthy amendment. The Senate ought not to hasten to vote to table it. I will tell Senators why. There is now a delicate balance of power between the network and their affiliates. I am concerned that if we allow the networks to acquire even more stations, the balance will be unwisely tilted. Media power should not be concentrated in the hands of network broadcasters. I say this as a former broadcaster who has been there. The networks will kick the dickens out of an affiliate if the affiliates do not toe the line. On one occasion, my television station switched networks because of the dominance of an overbearing network. It was one of the smartest decisions we ever made. This bill increases what is known as the national audience cap from the current 25 percent to 35 percent. I oppose this increase, because it will allow the networks to acquire more stations. This, in turn, could very well increase domination by the networks and enhance their ability to exercise undue control of television coverage on local events and news reports. Mr. President, I am also concerned about the negative impact of allowing cable companies to buy television stations. Consider, if you will, the possibility that Time Warner might buy up local cable station companies and local television stations. The Dorgan amendment, which I cosponsor, restores, one, the 25 percent audience cap; and two, the restriction on cable broadcast cross-ownership. If Congress increases the audience cap and thus the number of stations a network can acquire, it will be more difficult for a local affiliate to preempt a network program. Mr. President, affiliates serve as a very good check against the indecent programs being proliferated these days by the networks. The ``NYPD Blue'' program is an example. Many affiliates consider this show to be too violent and otherwise unacceptable because of its content of offensive material. When the affiliates objected to the program, the network lowered the boom. There are too many indecent, sexually explicit programs on television already. Some time back, Mr. President, I sponsored an amendment to restrict fought that amendment down to the ground and fought it in the courts? Of course, the networks. The networks resent being limited in the amount of indecent material they can pump out over the airwaves. Do we really want to give the networks more power? I say no, and the Dorgan amendment says no. The children of America, have spoken out about indecent material. In a recent survey, 77 percent of the children polled said TV too often portrays extramarital sex, and 62 percent said sex on television influences children in that direction. Mr. President, affiliate stations often preempt programming and carry instead regional college sports and such things as Billy Graham's Crusade. These are important programs, and they should not be inhibited by network power. We should not concentrate too much power in the hands of four national networks. The current provision in S. 652 would make possible just that kind of concentration. If this ownership rule had not been in place 10 years ago, the Fox Network could never have been created. Local stations must have the freedom in the future to create and select and control programming, other than programming provided by the networks. I urge Senators to support this amendment to restore local control of broadcasting decisions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, all time has not been yielded back.

Mr. HELMS. I wish to speak for 60 seconds.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the aspect of the unanimous consent requiring a tabling motion be vitiated and that we have an up-or-down vote on this amendment.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Is there any other time outstanding?

Mr. HELMS. Has all time been yielded back except for my time?

Mr. HELMS. Right on.

Mr. HELMS. I did not use all of my time, that 60 seconds. I reserve that so I can suggest the absence of a quorum at that time.

Mr. HELMS. Please repeat that.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I certainly do. Yes.