Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may modify, at the bottom of page 1 of the amendment, so as to read, ``At the end of the first excepted committee amendment, add the following:''.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, up to now the incredibly enormous Federal debt has been like the weather--everybody has talked about it but hardly anybody has undertaken the responsibility of doing anything about it. The balanced budget amendment failed to pass the Senate--by one vote! There'll be another vote later this or next year. A lot of politicians talk a good game--when they are back home--about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. But many of them regularly vote in support of bloated spending bills that roll through the Senate, and the American people took note of that on November 8. As of Friday, March 3, at the close of business, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,840,472,285,419.16. This debt, remember, was run up 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 schoolboy is supposed to know. Do not be misled by politicians who declare that the Federal debt was run up by some previous President or another, depending on party affiliation. Sometimes you hear false claims that Ronald Reagan ran it up; sometimes they play hit-and-run with George Bush. These buck-passing declarations are false, as I said earlier, because the Congress of the United States is the culprit. The Senate and the House of Representatives are the big spenders. 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, Mr. President, 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 this incredible Federal debt totaling 4,808 of this billions--of dollars. In other words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stood this morning at 4 trillion, 840 billion, 472 million, 285 thousand, 419 dollars, and 16 cents. It will be even greater at closing time today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, all of us think and talk a lot about priorities these days, and that it is good. And ever so often we read or hear about a special person with special priorities and principles. When we do, a sense of admiration wells up within us--and, in my own case, a sense of regret that I haven't done more than I have in terms of what my father used to call the Lord's work. I have reached the age, Mr. President, when far younger men and women than I are doing wonderful and remarkable things. Many of them I have met; some are like members of the family. One in particular came to mind the other night when I was reading the 1994 annual report of the Knoxville Medical Center, of the University of Tennessee. But I am moving ahead of my story. Many years ago I met a young man named Bob Caudle whom I found impressive. I was then one of the senior officers of Capitol Broadcasting Co. in Raleigh which owned and operated a television station, a radio station, two statewide radio networks and an assortment of other related enterprises. I persuaded Bob Caudle to join Capitol Broadcasting's team. He served well until he retired and then agreed to become a part of the Helms Senate family. We don't have a staff, Mr. President--not in Washington nor in Raleigh nor in Hickory. We're a family that is praised by even my strongest critics for the splendid constituent service they render-- not only to North Carolinians but to citizens all over the country who contact us seeking assistance. Bob and Jackie Caudle had two little boys when Bob began work at the television station. Later a precious little baby girl, Lisa, rounded out the Caudle family. Lisa Caudle is today a beautiful young woman with one of the most beautiful voices I've ever heard. Both of the Caudle boys long ago became men, both became highly respected physicians. Dr. Bob Caudle, Jr., is in practice in Raleigh. Dr. Michael Caudle, hereinafter referred to as Mike, is now chairman of the University of Tennessee's Medical Center's department of obstetrics and gynecology. I mentioned the 1994 annual report of the University of Tennessee's Medical Center of Knoxville. The entire issue is devoted to the subject of compassion. The foreword discloses to all of us the definition of compassion. Note these eloquent words, Mr. President: Deep inside ourselves, there is a place where compassion knows no limits; where love and concern for our fellow human beings become omnipotent. But for many, limited courage and determination leave this wellspring untapped. For others, this wellspring is where they find their life's purpose. Such is the case for the physicians, staff and volunteers features in these pages. The Medical Center was their starting point, but their compassion has led them beyond the institution's walls. They have gone where others are weak, vulnerable, lonely and broken. Their journeys have changed them forever. Mr. President, there follows immediately in that annual report a full-page color picture of Dr. Mike Caudle, striding along a walkway at the medical center, stethoscope in the right pocket of his white physician's jacket. And then, on the next page, begins an in-depth tribute to that distinguished physician who, it seems, was a polite little boy visiting his dad at the Raleigh television station--surely it could be no longer than a few weeks ago. No, Mr. President, it was awhile ago, and I want Senators, and others who peruse the Congressional Record, to have this tribute, headed ``Foreign Soil, Common Ground'' available for reading. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned article 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, has time for morning business expired?

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 497 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business on Thursday, March 2, the Federal debt stood at $4,851,006,718,917.40 meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,414.50 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am proceeding with the Executive Calendar. It goes without saying that what I am about to refer to has been cleared with the other side. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar en bloc: Calendar Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. I believe they are all Department of State nominations. Further, Mr. President, I ask that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today that it stand in adjournment until the hour of 1 p.m. on Monday, March 6, 1995, and that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask that there then be a period for the transaction of routine morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 2 p.m, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

Mr. HELMS. I further ask, Mr. President, that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar item No. 21, S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act. At least one amendment, I might add, is expected to be offered. Therefore, votes could occur during Monday's session of the Senate.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, momentarily I am going to send a bill to the desk for introduction but I want to make a few remarks before I do that. First of all, this bill will simply get us started along a road that the Senate ought to have taken a long time ago. Senator Dole may have a similar bill, in which case I will gladly serve as a cosponsor of his bill, and I feel sure that he will want to be a cosponsor of mine. There may be others. But somebody has to start the ball rolling and that is what I am doing here at about 18 minutes until 3 p.m. on Friday. bill I shall offer today hits the hopper there is likely to be the usual outburst of usual phony demagoguery among our liberal brethren in the political arena and in the news media. It always happens when a proposal is made to do away with any Federal program that was established in the first place to attract votes for liberal candidates and liberal issues. The liberal brethren can begin their holier than thou lamentations, because here comes the bill that proposes to eliminate so-called affirmative action programs that have done more harm than good in terms of race relations, which have been exceedingly costly to the American taxpayers, and worst of all, have been so burdensome for people trying to operate small businesses or, in fact, businesses of any size. This legislation, which I shall send to the desk presently, is almost identical to the California Civil Rights Initiative which proposes to erase several decades of State-sponsored preferential programs in California based on race, color, gender, or ethnic background. If you want to call it the Helms bill that is fine, but I want to call it, ``An Act to End Unfair Federal Preferential Treatment.'' And I hope that hereinafter it will be known as that. This bill's principal difference with the California legislation is that I am proposing to eliminate the same kinds of discriminatory, expensive, and counterproductive programs on the Federal level as California is attempting on the State level. As I said at the outset, Mr. President, we are likely to hear and see the customary antics by the liberal news media who always start tossing epithets around any time efforts are proposed to put an end to Federal programs that do not work and that have done more harm than good--in this case, the heavy-handed effort of Government to force so-called affirmative action down the throats of the American people of all races. But I say, here and now, that this legislation--indeed this issue--is not about race--although an intellectually dishonest liberal media may try to portray it as such. It is about fairness. It is about putting an end to reverse discrimination at the hands of ruthless bureaucrats. Reasonable men and women may disagree about the wisdom of the Government's having gotten into the business of racial and other quotas, and affirmative action in the first place. But, now is not the time to revisit that argument, or to attempt to unscramble that egg. And that is not what this legislation is all about. Rather, Mr. President, this legislation is based on questions being raised by a vast percentage of the American people. For example: First, with a Federal debt of $4.8 trillion, can Congress justify forcing the American taxpayers to continue paying for programs that are today no longer needed? Second, should Congress--which so recklessly ran up this $4.8 trillion debt--now act to do away with the social engineering foolishness that is so harming the country? Third, after 30 years of federally funded affirmative action programs, it is now time to say enough is enough. Fourth, should America return to the fundamental principles laid out prayerfully, and with specificity, by our Founding Fathers? Is not the answer ``yes'' to each of these questions? Of course it is. You see, Mr. President, the American dream has been within the reach of citizens of all races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds because our Nation has adhered for so many years to the principles of free enterprise, self reliance, personal responsibility, and, of course, the concept that every citizen should be free to pursue his or her personal dream--based not on birthright, but rather on hard work, initiative, talent, and character. The now-entrenched, but nonetheless discriminatory system of affirmative action preferences established by Congress, the courts, and virtually every Federal agency flies in the face of the merit-based society that the Founding Fathers envision, which is why my legislation, aimed at removing these preferences, is called the ``Act to End Unfair Federal Preferential Treatment.'' Mr. President, I am convinced this legislation reflects the thoughts of countless citizens across America of every color and creed who struggle each day to make the American dream become a reality--to own their own homes, raise their families, and provide educations for their children. But the all-powerful Federal Government somehow manages to get in the way at nearly every turn. This is the thing that we must put an end to. Those familiar with the debate surrounding affirmative action and quota programs likely have heard of the California Civil Rights Initiative, which residents of that State will vote upon as early as next March. For those unfamiliar with this initiative, it reads: Neither the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions or agents shall use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group in the operation of the State's system of public employment, public education or public contracting. As I stated previously, the Act To End Unfair Federal Preferential Treatment--which I will shortly send to the desk--differs in that it puts an end to taxpayer funding of such programs on the Federal level. Mr. President, polls show that 73 percent of Californians support this initiative to roll back racial and other quotas and preferences. But California is not alone in this sentiment. According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, 2 out of every 3 Americans-- including half of those who voted for President Clinton--oppose so- called affirmative action. This demonstrates, I believe, that the American people are once again far ahead of their leaders in Washington. Americans recognize that such programs are divisive, discriminatory, and in fact, harm the very citizens they claim they want to help. In short, these programs pervert the concept of equality. As Senator Malcolm Wallop, the great statesman from Wyoming, put it, ``Any government that is not strictly blind in matters of race is quite simply un-American.'' Mr. President, we simply cannot afford to continue to pour money into ineffective and ultimately destructive affirmative action programs when the total Federal debt, as of March 1, stood at exactly $4,848,389,403,816.26. That is $18,404.57 for every man, woman, and child in America. Of course, those who pay taxes--because so many do not--will pay even far more than that in the theoretical sense of how much it will cost to pay off the debt. We must stop wasting the taxpayers' money on programs that demonstrably cannot and will not work. If the California initiative passes, one legislative analysis predicts that high schools and community colleges would save $120 million a year in administrative costs. Universities would save another $50 million a year. Think of the savings we could realize if Federal programs are terminated nationwide. It boggles the mind. Let me offer a few examples of Government-sponsored affirmative action programs that are so counterproductive and divisive they make me wonder how much more of this we can swallow. These few programs are only the tip of the iceberg. First, the State Department has been instructed that certain new positions must be filled with women and minorities rather than white workers. The administration complained when a State Department list of candidates for ambassadorial posts did not contain enough minorities and women. The White House returned the list to Secretary Christopher. Second, the Federal Communications Commission has for years implemented a program where women and minorities are given special tax breaks and special incentives to enable them to acquire mass media facilities, such as radio and television stations. The most well-known example is the special tax break that Viacom, the world's second largest entertainment conglomerate, is trying to use. Under current FCC law, Viacom can defer $1.1 to $1.6 billion in taxes on the sale of its cable operations simply by selling them to an African-American buyer. And this buyer just happens to be the same man who conceived the minority tax-break program while working on FCC issues in the Carter White House. his own money in the acquisition. I ask you, Mr. President, is this someone in need of a Federal preference? I say no way, Jose. Third, the Forest Service has a firefighter program where certain positions can be filled only with women or minorities. And a North Carolina constituent and Forest Service employee recently sent me articles regarding an internal Forest Service document that actually states, ``Only unqualified applicants will be considered.'' This policy was supposed to be a set-aside for women. So much for qualifications being important. Fourth, and what about the Defense Department's special hiring directive that said, ``special permission will be required for promotion of all white men without disabilities.'' Mr. President, I have it on good authority that there are more than 160 such preference programs in place today in the Federal bureaucracy. That is what this bill is aimed at. And who pays for them? That is right. The American taxpayers pay for them. Citizens visiting my office frequently note on my office wall a picture of a man who was a friend of all of us who served with him, Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota. Hubert was the author of the original Civil Rights Act of 1964. True enough, Senator Humphrey and I disagreed on just about every policy issue but we disagreed agreeably. We were friends, nevertheless. And I respected him for having the courage of his convictions, wrong as I thought those convictions were sometimes. He stated many times to me that my feeling about him was mutual, and I appreciated that. In any event, Hubert Humphrey was exactly right when he stated during a debate in this room over the Civil Rights Act of 1964: * * * if there is any language [in the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which provides that any employer will have to hire on the basis of percentages or quotas related to color, race, religion or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another because it is not there. Well, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Dole, recently remarked, Now we all have indigestion from living in an America where the government too often says that the most important thing about you is the color of your skin or the country of your forefathers * * * that's wrong, and we should fix it. I agree with Senator Dole. Bob Dole was on target, and hopefully the legislation that I am introducing today will serve as a first step toward fixing this problem. As I said at the outset, I anticipate that Senator Dole may offer legislation on this subject. I hope others will too so that we can all think together and act together on a problem that should not be allowed further to beset the greatest country on Earth. But, Mr. President, back to Hubert Humphrey. Hubert Humphrey hated the idea of quotas and preferential treatment based on race. He knew instinctively that such programs, if instituted, would turn America inside out--which is exactly what has occurred: there is much evidence that so-called affirmative action programs have exacerbated racial problems--not healed them. Former Secretary of Education William Bennett put it this way. Affirmative Action has not brought us what we want--a colorblind society. It has brought us an extremely color- conscious society. In our universities we have separate dorms, separate social centers. What's next--water fountains? That's not good, and everybody knows it. George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center had this observation regarding how divided a country America has become: People have not grasped the extent to which the notion of governmentally appointed preference groups is pernicious to American democracy * * * They have not grasped what it means to balkanize the United States. My guess is that there will be a tremendous revolt against this. Paul Sniderman of Stanford University and Thomas Piazza of the University of California recently completed a book, ``The Scar of Race.'' These authors demonstrate that whites are more likely to view African-Americans in a negative light if they are first asked questions about affirmative action. Here's what Sniderman and Piazza found: A number of whites dislike the idea of affirmative action so much and perceive it to be so unfair that they have come to dislike blacks as a consequence. Parenthetically, Mr. President, that is an awful state of affairs, but I believe it to be true. It should not be true, but it is. The authors continued: Hence the special irony of the contemporary politics of race. In the very effort to make things better, we have made some things worse. Sharon Brooks Hodge, an African-American writer and broadcaster, perhaps summed it up best when she observed: * * * white skepticism leads to African-American defensiveness * * * Combined, they make toxic race relations in the workplace. And, as is the case with so many forays into social engineering by the Federal Government, affirmative action and quota programs, have, at the end of the day, harmed the very people their proponents designed them to assist. Peter Schrag of the San Diego Union-Tribune hit the nail on the head when he asked: To what extent will the real achievements of minorities be diminished by the suspicion that they got some sort of break? Although Federal agencies designed affirmative action programs to benefit victims of discrimination at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, today they benefit chiefly educated, middle-class minorities. As Linda Chavez, the Hispanic leader and President of the Center for Equal Opportunity and former staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights under President Reagan, observed today's government affirmative action programs benefit those who can make it on their own. Mr. President, after 30 years of affirmative action, America now finds itself a more racially ethnically divided society than ever before. The cohesiveness which once brought all of us together as Americans first is slipping away. After 30 years, it is obvious that this social experiment called affirmative action has outlived its usefulness. It is time for the Federal Government to scrap these programs, and restore the principles upon which our country was built--personal responsibility, self- reliance, and hard work. Mr. President, that formula for achievement was the answer 200 years ago and it is still the same today. And I might add, it is the only road to reaching the American dream for all our citizens, whether they be black, white, Hispanic or Asian, men or women. The Act To End Unfair Federal Preferential Treatment is the first step toward this dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following items be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks following the text of the bill, an August 21, 1994, article by Peter Schrag of the San Diego Union Tribune; a February 15, 1995, article by Linda Chavez in USA Today; and a February 13, 1995, article by Steven Roberts in U.S. News & World Report.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there are two disappointing things to mention today. The first is my regular daily report on the latest available disclosure of the total Federal debt, this time as of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 1, stood at $4,848,389,816.26. If this debt were to be paid off today, with every man, woman, and child in the country paying his or her proportionate share, each of us would have to fork over $18,404.57. Of course, since millions of Americans pay no taxes at all, the average share of the Federal debt would be far greater than the per capita amount referred to above. The other sad thing? It is, of course, the Senate's failure today to approve a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the Federal budget. If just one more Senator had voted today in favor of the amendment, it would have been approved by 67 Senators, exactly enough to pass the amendment and send it to the 50 States for ratification. Don't look for a balanced Federal budget anytime soon. But one day it will come. The American people will demand it.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I pointed out yesterday in this daily report--which I began 3 years ago--Federal debt has risen to astronomical proportions. As of the close of business yesterday, Monday, February 27, the Federal debt stood at $4,839,489,402,270.31-- or $18,370.79 on a per capita basis. Mr. President, anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows that no President can spend 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. Mr. President, I am convinced today, as I was back in 1973, that it is the absolute responsibility and duty of Congress to control Federal spending. The U.S. Senate has a momentous challenge later today in lowering this enormous debt by approving a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution and sending it to the 50 States for ratification.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. It's is no exaggeration to suggest Mr. President, the Senate is about to make one of the most momentous decisions in the history of the Nation--on the question of whether to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. On the eve of this significant vote, it is instructive to consider the counsel of our Founding Fathers on this matter. Thomas Jefferson said in 1816 that ``To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.'' Mr. Jefferson thereby laid out the choice before the Senate--liberty or servitude. Congress, having become enslaved to deficit spending, has refused for decades to stop the practice of spending money it does not have. How enormous is the Federal debt? For nearly 3 years, Mr. President, I have made a daily report to the Senate regarding the Federal debt-- down to the penny as of the close of business the preceding day. As of close of business this past Friday, February 24, the debt stood at $4,838,340,250,340.71. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,366.42. The taxpayers had to fork over $203 billion in 1994 just to pay the interest on this massive debt, and that, on a per capita basis, amounts to $1,138.76 for every American man, woman, and child. One looks back in time to see where we stood. Mr. President, when I was sworn in as a Senator in January 1973, I was distressed that long ago, that Congress had been spending far more than it took in--year after year. Deficit spending had become a way of legislative life. So on July 19, 1973, I offered S. 2215, a bill to require a balanced budget. It was cosponsored by the then distinguished Senator Harry F. Byrd. On that day, July 19, 1973--if you can believe this--the Federal debt stood at a relatively small figure of $455,570,163,323.85. Today, 22 years later, the Federal debt has skyrocketed to $4.3 trillion. The historical tables of the 1996 budget reveal that the interest on the money borrowed by Congress since 1973, cost the taxpayers $3,209,417,000,000. Imagine if Congress had passed a balanced budget amendment in 1973 as proposed by Senator Harry F. Byrd and me, the American taxpayers could have been saved more than $3.2 trillion in interest alone. The American people have difficulty comprehending the enormity of a trillion dollars. I went into the cloakroom the other day, and several Senators were sitting around. I said, ``How many million are in a trillion?'' One said ``100,000.'' Another one said, ``I do not know.'' And a third one said, ``Don't give us that. What is it?" I said, ``There are 1 million millions in a trillion.'' Bear in mind that the U.S. Government--meaning the taxpayers of this country--owes $4.8 trillion. That dead cat lies at the doorstep of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. We cannot get around it. No President can spend a dime that is not first authorized and appropriated by the Congress of the United States. If I may return for a moment to one of my American heroes, Mr. Jefferson, he also said that ``The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' Amen, Thomas Jefferson. That just about tells it all, certainly in terms of the moral injustice that we have been heaping upon our children and their children and their children. Nobody suggests that balancing the budget will be easy. It will be tough. It really boils down to a matter of doing what we were elected to do, and that is leveling with the people of this country. I can debate for hours the contention that accepting a balanced budget amendment is not constitutional. However, statements like that do not make sense. I do not denigrate anybody who uses their best argument to try to defeat something that I happen to believe in. There was another eloquent President, by the way, who spoke one time of a rendezvous with destiny. What destiny will the U.S. Senate choose tomorrow? What legacy will we vote tomorrow for generations yet to come? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 2215, the balanced budget bill offered by the then Senator Harry Byrd, Jr., and myself, on July 1973 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let's conduct that little pop quiz again: How many million dollars are in $1 trillion? When you arrive at an answer, bear in mind that it was the Congress of the United States that ran up a debt now exceeding $4.8 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Friday, February 24, the Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,838,340,257,340.71-- meaning that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,366.42 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, again to answer our pop quiz question--how many million in a trillion?--there are one million million in a trillion; and you can thank the U.S. Congress for the existing Federal debt exceeding $4.8 trillion.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business on Thursday, February 23, the Federal debt stood at $4,837,336,500,173.73 meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,362.61 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for nearly 3 years I have reported to the Senate the exact total of the Federal debt as of the close of business the previous day. This debt has been run up by the liberal big-spenders in Congress. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, February 22, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,835,998,510,879.83, meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,357.53 as his or her share of the Federal debt. Mr. President, a little over 2 years ago--January 5, 1993--the debt stood at $4,167,872,986,583.67--$15,986.56 for every American. During the 103d Congress the Federal debt increased by more than $6 billion. The point is that so many politicians talk a good game at home about bringing the Federal debt under control, but support bloated spending bills when they get back to Washington.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is a lot like television's well-known energizer bunny--it keeps going and going--at the expense, of course, of the American taxpayers. 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 perhaps is a primary factor in the new configuration of U.S. Senators. This is a rather distressing fact as the 104th Congress gets down to business. As of Tuesday, February 21, 1995, the Federal debt stood-- down to the penny--at exactly $4,834,640,034,065.84 or $18,352.38 per person. Mr. President, it is important that all of us monitor, closely and constantly the incredible cost we incur each week due to this debt. As a matter of fact, in the past week the debt has increased over $25 billion. 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 doubt that there have been many, if any, candidates for the Senate who have not pledged to do something about the enormous Federal debt run up by the Congress during the past half- century or more. But Congress, both House and Senate, have never up to now even toned down the deficit spending that sent the Federal debt into the stratosphere and beyond. We must pray that this year will be different, that Federal spending will at long last be reduced drastically. Indeed, if we care about America's future, there must be some changes. You see, Mr. President, as of the close of business Wednesday, February 15, the Federal debt stood (down to the penny) at exactly $4,828,675,772,079.58. This means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,329.74 as his or her share of the Federal debt. Compare this, Mr. President, to the total debt about two years ago (January 5, 1993) when the debt stood at exactly $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 increased over $6 billion. This illustrates, Mr. President, 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 do a better job of getting a handle on this enormous debt, their constituents are not likely to overlook it 2 years hence.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, anyone even remotely familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows that no President can spend 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 made it very clear that it is the constitutional duty of Congress to control Federal spending. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,807,066,615,385.66 as of the close of business Tuesday, February 14. Averaged out, every man, woman, and child in America owes a share of this massive debt, and that per capita share is $18,247.71.