Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression simply will not go away; the enormous Federal debt greatly resembles that well-known energizer bunny we see, and see, and see on television. The Federal debt keeps going and going and going--always at the expense, of course, of the American taxpayers. A lot of politicians talk a good game--when they home to campaign-- about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But so many of these same politicians regularly voted for one bloated spending bill after another during the 103d Congress--which could 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, March 20, at the close of business, the total Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,842,719,633,258.54 or $18,383.05 per person. The lawyers have a Latin expression which they use frequently--``res ipsa loquistur''--``the thing speaks for itself.'' Indeed it does.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for about 3 years I have been making daily reports to the Senate regarding the exact Federal debt as of the previous day. We must pray that this year, Federal spending will finally begin to be reduced. Indeed, if we care about America's future, Congress simply must face up to its responsibility to balance the Federal budget. As of the close of business Friday, March 17, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at $4,841,551,787,157.03, meaning that on a per capita basis, every man woman, and child in America owes $18,378.61 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It's important to note, Mr. President, that the United States had an opportunity to begin controlling the Federal debt by implementing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Senate did not seize their first opportunity to control this debt--but rest assured they will have another chance during the 104th Congress. If the Senate does not concentrate on getting a handle on this enormous debt, their constituents are not likely to overlook it 2 years hence.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, President Clinton's decision to attend a summit meeting in Moscow in May is the latest in a series of ill- advised foreign policy actions that have been set-backs for U.S. leadership in world affairs. This one will be perceived as an implicit show of support for the policies of the Russian Government. It will be interpreted as an endorsement of: First, Russian aggression in Chechnya; second, nuclear sales to Iran; and third, meddling by Russian agents in the affairs of former Soviet Republics. Two months ago, I had the privilege of meeting with Elena Bonner, a longtime acquaintance and courageous fighter against the tyranny of the Soviet Union during the darkest days of the cold war. Mrs. Bonner paid a much higher price than most in battling the Soviet Government. As the wife and partner of the late Andrei Sakharov she was severely harassed for years, and exiled under house arrest in a provincial Russian city. This brave lady bore the grief of watching the stress and turmoil of Soviet oppression that inflicted an early end to the life of her husband before what would have been his crowning moment--the collapse of the Soviet Union. So why, Mr. President, was Mrs. Bonner in Washington? She came on short notice because decency demanded it. She was here to criticize the policy of the United States which has virtually ignored a degree of repression and violation of human rights in Russia that is without precedent since the time of Josef Stalin. As Mrs. Bonner recounted for me the violence and devastation in Chechnya I came to the conclusion that not only are the internal policies of the Russian Government out of control, but that United States policy toward Russia has completely lost its bearings. Recently President Yeltsin shook the Clinton administration with his threat to renew the cold war under the guise of a cold peace. Any astute observer would have already heard this message in the many negative actions of the Russian Government before and since that threat. Two weeks ago a spokesman for the Russian Government publicly warned President Clinton of the dire results if the President canceled the Moscow summit. The summit meeting is set to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Russian victory over Germany in World War II. If the President canceled his visit--so goes the logic of the Russian Government--the Russians would be reminded that American forces refused to open a second front against Germany early in World War II. Mr. President, this revisionist history comes directly from the Stalin era. According to Stalin, the United States let Russia bear the brunt of the German assault in World War II while dallying elsewhere. This lie, perpetuated by Stalin to cover his own complicity for devastating Russian casualties in World War II, and to deny his profane agreement with Adolf Hitler to conquer and divide Europe, has been refuted by every post-war United States administration until now. Unbelievably, the Clinton administration has not only failed to condemn this historical lie, they have agreed to commemorate it in Moscow. If President Clinton wished to truly celebrate the 50th anniversary of victory over Germany perhaps he should go to Warsaw, where the Red Army patiently waited to press its offensive until Nazi forces exterminated the Polish anti-Communist resistance fighters. The President could visit the Baltic Nations to remember the 50-year Soviet occupation put in place by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. A Russian politician recently visiting the Foreign Relations Committee reminisced about the talent of past American Presidents in conveying a sense of warmth to the Russian people while simultaneously maintaining a principled stand against the nondemocratic Soviet Government. Through diplomacy, communications such as Radio Free Europe, and public condemnation when necessary, the United States maintained a constant pressure on the Soviet Government to respond to the interests of its own people. This message was clearly understood by the Russian people, and it won the United States the deserved reputation as a defender of their liberty. By agreeing to go to Moscow while the war rages on in Chechnya President Clinton has done great damage to that hard earned reputation. The muted response from the United States Government to the disaster in Chechnya is in direct conflict to numerous Russian politicians with unimpeachable and consistent pro-reform credentials who oppose President Yeltsin's policy. We have failed to support the reformers in Russia. I would even argue that we have failed to support the good people of Russia--who stand 4 to 1 against this terrible civil war. Ultimately, however, we have failed ourselves. How has the U.S. Government strayed so far the principles of its people? Mr. President, President Clinton's decision to attend hold this summit is a mistake. I regret that the President and his advisors declined to reconsider it when some of us pleaded that he not go.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Thursday, March 16, the Federal debt stood at $4,840,322,581,646.83. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,373.95 as his or her share of that dabt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 5 minutes so that Senators may pay their respects and extend their welcome to the distinguished Prime Minister from Ireland.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Bumpers' amendment because it is reasonable to link further United States funding for technical cooperation with the Russians on the space station with Russia's arrogant sale of nuclear reactors to Iran. The Bumpers amendment makes the choice for the Russian Government quite simple. On the one hand, the Russians can continue to develop economic relations with the United States and move onward into the 21st century on the cutting edge of space-based technology. Or the Russians ban pursue a dangerous nuclear relationship with Iran one of the world's most reprehensible governments. But Russia cannot have it both ways. The two greatest threats facing the security of the United States and its allies are Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear proliferation. The proposed Russian sale of nuclear reactors to Iran is an intersection of these threats. Even the Russians must realize the danger this poses to their own nation. I am truly surprised that no reasonable figure of authority in Russia is willing to confront that obvious reality. Despite all the rhetoric that one hears from Moscow about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to the south of Russia, it appears that short- term profit is the most important interest for the Russian Government. Recently the head of the Russian Ministry of Nuclear Power compared the profit he could turn from nuclear sales to Iran with the level of assistance that the United States gives to Russia. In essence he said that the funds the United States provides to Russia could easily be replaced by unrestricted worldwide sales of reactors and uranium. This reckless and insulting view of our Nation's efforts to develop a stronger relationship with Russia may have escaped comment by President Clinton, but it will not pass muster in the Senate. The United States will not join in a bidding war with terrorist countries like Iran for the fickle friendship of the current Russian Government. Our appeal to Russia is broadly based upon reason and principle. While economic assistance has been a feature of the United States' effort to build closer ties with Russia, far exceeding any aid has been our willingness to build closer relations. We have extended an open hand in order to help Russia recover from the wounds of 70 years of totalitarian, Communist government. If bean counting bureaucrats in the Russian Nuclear Power Ministry see more profit by tying Russia's future to Iran--then let them have at it. But they can't--and won't-- have it both ways.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let's do that little pop quiz again: How many million dollars are in $1 trillion? When you decide upon an answer, no matter what it is, bear in mind that it was Congress that ran up a debt now exceeding $4.8 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 15, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,847,771,555,727.54--meaning that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,402.22 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, again to answer the pop quiz question, How many million in a trillion? There are a million million in a trillion; and you can thank the U.S. Congress for the existing Federal debt exceeding $4.8 trillion and headed shortly for $5 trillion and higher.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, the enormous Federal debt which has already soared into the stratosphere is in about the same category as the weather--everybody likes to talk about it but almost nobody had undertaken the responsibility of trying to do anything about it until immediately following the elections last November. When the 104th Congress convened in January, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a balanced budget amendment. In the Senate, however, while all but one of the 54 Republicans supported the balanced budget amendment, only 13 Democrats supported it. The balanced budget constitutional amendment, needing 67 votes, failed by just 1 vote. There will be another vote later this year or next year. This episode--the one-vote loss in the Senate--emphasizes the fact that a lot of politicians talks a good game when they are back home about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But so many of them come back to Washington and vote in support of bloated spending bills rolling through the Senate. As of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 14, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly by the Congress of the United States. The Founding Fathers decreed that the big-spending bureaucrats in the executive branch of the U.S. Government must never be able to spend even a dime unless and until authorized and appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution is quite specific about that, as every school boy is supposed to know. So, do not be misled by politicians who falsely declare that the Federal debt was run up by some previous President or another, depending on party affiliation. These passing-the-buck declarations are false because as I said earlier, the Congress of the United States is the culprit. The Senate and the House of Representatives have been the big spenders for the better part of 50 years. Madam 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, Mr. President, the Cuban missile crisis was in progress. A billion minutes ago, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ had occured not long before. Which sort of puts it in perspective, does it not, that Congress has run up this incredible Federal debt totaling 4,846 of those billions-- of dollars. In other words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stood this morning at 4 trillion, 846 billion, 819 million, 443 thousand, 348 dollars and 28 cents. It'll be even greater at closing time today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression will not go away: The enormous Federal debt greatly resembles the well-known energizer bunny we see, and see, and see on television. The Federal debt keeps going and going and going--always at the expense, of course, of the American taxpayer. A lot of politicians talk a good game--when they are back home--about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But so many of these same politicians regularly voted in support of bloated spending bills during the 103d Congress--which may have been one factor in the new configuration of U.S. Senators for the 104th Congress. There is a rather distressing fact as the 104th Congress moves along: As of Friday, March 10, 1995, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,847,327,170.23 or $18,400.54 per person. Mr. President, my hope is that the 104th Congress can bring under control the outrageous spending that created this outrageous debt. If the party now controlling both Houses of Congress, as a result of the November elections last year, does not do a better job of getting a handle on this enormous debt, the American people are not likely to overlook it in 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am happy to participate in calling the Senate's attention to a travesty in the modern conduct of U.S. foreign relations. The question all Americans should confront is, how and when did the United States reach the point in United States-Taiwanese relations that United States foreign policy could possibly forbid a visit to the United States by the highest-ranking, democratically elected citizen of Taiwan? Though I seldom disagree with Ronald Reagan--I did strongly disagree on a few occasions and one of those was when President Reagan's advisors made a bad decision--one which so jeopardized our relations with Taiwan by cuddling up to the brutal dictators in Beijing. Since that time, the United States has been forced to hide behind a diplomatic screen to demonstrate our commitment and loyalty to the Taiwanese people. Mr. President, at the time President Reagan's advisers cast their lot with the Red Chinese Government, Congress was promised that the United States would nonetheless continue to ``preserve and promote extensive, close and friendly * * * relations'' with the people on Taiwan. But one administration after another failed to live up to that promise. How in the world could any one consider it close and friendly to require the President of Taiwan to sit in his plane on a runway in Honolulu while it was refueled? I find it hard to imagine that United States relations with Red China would have come to a standstill because a weekend visit to the United States by Taiwan's President Lee was allowed. The President's China policy is in poor shape at this point--even members of Mr. Clinton's team recognize that. So, how can anyone really pretend that allowing President Lee to travel to his alma mater--or to vacation in North Carolina--would send our already precarious relations with Red China plummeting over the edge? Last time I checked the mainland Chinese were obviously and understandably enjoying their relations with the United States a great deal. We would be enjoying them, too, if only American taxpayers could be benefiting to the tune of $30 billion every year as a result of United States trading with Red China. Time and again, the U.S. Congress has urged the administration to grant President Lee a visa. We have even amended United States immigration law so that it now specifically mentions the President of Taiwan. Congress has passed resolution after resolution encouraging the President to allow President Lee into the United States for a visit. All to no avail. Now's the time, Mr. President, We encourage you to allow President Lee to visit the United States when he so chooses. Bear in mind that some of us in Congress will never cease our support for one of America's greatest allies, the oldest democracy in the Asian region-- the Republic of China on Taiwan. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business on yesterday, Thursday, March 9, the Federal debt stood at $4,846,101,629,353.21. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,395.89 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for about 3 years I have been making daily reports to the Senate regarding the exact Federal debt as of the previous day. We must pray that this year, Federal spending will begin to be reduced. Indeed, if we care about America's future, Congress must face up to its responsibility to balance the Federal budget. As of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 8, the Federal debt stood (down to the penny) at $4,848,281,758,236.20, meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,404.16 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It's important to note, Mr. President, that total Federal debt a little over 2 years ago (January 5, 1993) stood at $4,167,872,986,583.67--or averaged out, $15,986.56 for every American. During the past 2 years (that is, during the 103d Congress) the Federal debt has escalated by more than $6 billion, which illustrates the point that so many politicians talk a good game at home about bringing the Federal debt under control, but vote in support of bloated spending bills when they get back to Washington. If the Republicans do not concentrate on getting a handle on this enormous debt, their constituents are not likely to overlook it 2 years hence.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Connecticut. It is always a pleasure to work with him. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Dole and myself, and I estimate about 30 to 35 Senators who met at lunch today, had a purpose yesterday in my offering the pending amendment. We wanted to send a clear and unmistakable message to the administration that any proposal to make life easier for Fidel Castro will be vigorously opposed on a bipartisan basis by a majority of the U.S. Senators. The presence of Senator Dodd on the floor illustrates that. I believe that the point has been made. I believe it has been heard on Pennsylvania Avenue. If it has not, perhaps they should order some hearing aids. Let me make a confession or two. First of all, I do not like to break the Senate rules, or bend them. When I offered the amendment yesterday, I knew that it was legislation on an appropriations bill. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii and I have a little joke about sanctimony, about when an amendment is legislation on an appropriations bill. This is done all the time. But that does not make it right, really. So my intent yesterday was just to make a point--and I had discussed with Senator Dole my intention to make a few remarks, which I did, and then to withdraw the amendment. But there was so much excitement about the amendment and so much support for it that I had to back up and see what I had to do. The pending amendment, the Helms amendment, as the television is referring to it, is in fact the exact text of S. 381, ``The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act,'' which I introduced on February 9, with 21 cosponsors. There is a companion bill in the House with a number of cosponsors--I do not know the exact number. Let me say this: As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is an able member of that committee, I guarantee--and I think Senator Dodd will help me--that S. 381 will be the subject of a hearing, as early as about the 1st of May, before we get to it because of various schedules in the Senate. I say again that the pending amendment is legislation on an appropriations bill. While every appropriations bill does have legislation in it, at least everyone which I have seen, I do not enjoy testing the working rules of the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I now withdraw the amendment.

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 move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the amendment speaks for itself. Mr. President, the pending amendment to funds appropriated for title 10, section 127 of the United States Code makes the point that if and when a country is not allowed to receive foreign aid from the United States, then, under the provision, that country would not be allowed to benefit from any of the funds provided by the authority of section 127. Section 127 authorizes the Department of Defense to provide for ``any emergency or extraordinary expense slush fund for unanticipated expenses; the Department does not have to ask for congressional approval to expend any of the money. Let me add that I might not even have known about this little authority had the State Department not abused it so clearly in January of this year. At the Department of State's insistence, the Secretary of Defense authorized an almost $5 million expenditure from this account to purchase fuel oil for our enemy of 40 years, North Korea. Not once, since 1938 when the Department was first allowed to spend money for emergencies, has this fund ever been used for anything like this. So why did they use it this time? To get around Congress. According to a senior U.S. defense official who spoke to the Washington Post on January 6 of this year, the United States had to use this authority because the Department of Defense ``had the funds on hand and no U.S. allies agreed to contribute money for the oil * * *'' It was not an emergency. It was simply one of the few accounts the State Department could raid to support its buy out of North Korea without having to come to Congress for approval. Congress has voted time and again that North Korea should not be eligible to receive aid because it is a known sponsor of international terrorism, it is a Communist country, and it is a country known to trample the human rights of its own citizens. Just last year, Congress voted to prohibit all direct and indirect assistance for North Korea. And yet, the administration found some way to get around all of this. And they abused DOD authorities in the process. My amendment aims to ensure that will not happen in the future. It is hard for me to imagine how there could be opposition to this one. If we are all in agreement that terrorists and drug traffickers should not get foreign aid from AID, then why should they be able to get foreign aid from the Department of Defense? My amendment is not retroactive and it would not prevent the Secretary of Defense from using emergency moneys the way they have been used since 1938. What it does is shore up one of the gaping loopholes in the way we provide foreign aid to other countries. Mr. President, I hope to move my amendment expeditiously. Mr. President, I think the amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask that it be read in full.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays.