Jesse Helms

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 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 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 Monday, February 13, 1995, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,805,964,501,071.04 (or $18,243.52 per person). Mr. President, it is important that all of us monitor, closely and constantly, the incredible cost of merely paying the interest on this debt. Last year, the interest alone on the Federal debt totaled $190 billion. Mr. President, my hope is that the 104th Congress can and will 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, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is like the weather--everybody talks about it but, up to now, hardly anybody has undertaken the responsibility of doing anything about it. The Congress now had better get cracking--time's a-wasting and the debt is mushrooming. In the past, a great many politicians talked a good game--when they were back home--about bringing Federal deficits and the Federal debt under control. When they got back to Washington, many of these same politicians regularly voted in support of bloated spending bills that rolled through the Senate. The American people took note of that on November 8. As of Friday, February 10, at the close of business, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,805,266,970,855.19. 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 should never be able to spend even a dime unless and until the spending had been 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. And do not be misled by declarations by politicians 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. 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 those billions-- of dollars. In other words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stood this morning at four trillion, 805 billion, 266 million, 970 thousand, 855 dollars and 19 cents. It'll be even greater at closing time today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, all of us who knew and/or served with Senator J. William Fulbright were saddened at the news of his passing. I had the privilege of serving my first 2 years in the Senate with this distinguished gentleman. He was an able U.S. Senator. Senator Fulbright presided over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with dignity and distinction. I join the American people in extending my deepest sympathies to his family.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business on Thursday, February 9, the Federal debt stood at $4,803,442,790,295.83 meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,233.95 as his or her share of that debt.

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 arrive at an answer, 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, February 8, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,805,605,149,692.51--meaning that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,242.16 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.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the day following the 1994 elections, I met with reporters in Raleigh to discuss in some detail the priorities I intended to pursue as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. High on my list of priorities was to do everything possible as chairman to help bring freedom and democracy to Cuba. Fidel Castro's brutal and cruel Communist dictatorship has persecuted the Cuban people for 36 years. He is the world's longest-reigning tyrant. That is why I am introducing today a bill titled the ``Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act'' as my first piece of legislation as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Let me be clear: Whether Castro leaves Cuba in a vertical position or a horizontal position is up to him and the Cuban people. But he must-- and will--leave Cuba. There are some voices murmuring that the United States should lift the embargo and begin doing business with Castro. I categorically reject such suggestions, because for 36 years, both Republican and Democratic Presidents have maintained a consistent, bipartisan policy of isolating Castro's dictatorship. There must be no retreat in that policy today. If anything, with the collapse of the U.S.S.R.--and the end of Soviet subsidies to Cuba--the embargo is finally having the effect on Castro that has been intended all along. Why should the United States let up the pressure now? It's time to tighten the screws--not loosen them. We have an obligation--to our principles and to the Cuban people--to elevate the pressure on Castro until the Cuban people are free. The bi-partisan Cuba policy has led the American people to stand together in support of restoring freedom to Cuba. As for the legislation I am offering today, it incorporates and builds upon the significant work of the two distinguished Senators from Florida, Connie Mack and Bob Graham, and of three distinguished Members of the House of Representatives: Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Bob Menendez, and Ileana Ros- Lehtinen. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act: Strengthens international sanctions against the Castro regime by prohibiting sugar imports from countries that purchase sugar from Cuba and then sell that sugar in the United States by instructing our representatives to the international financial institutions to vote against loans to Cuba and to require the United States to withhold our contribution to those same institutions if they ignore our objections and aid the Castro regime, by urging the President to seek an international embargo against Cuba at the United Nations, and by prohibiting loans or other financing by a United States person to a foreign person or entity who purchases an American property confiscated by the Cuban Government. Reaffirms the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act; Revitalizes our broadcasting programs to Cuba by mandating the conversion of television Marti to ultra-high frequency [UHF] broadcasting. Cuts off foreign aid to any independent State of the Former Soviet Union that aids Castro, especially if that aid goes for the operation of military and intelligence facilities in Cuba which threaten the United States; Encourages free and fair elections in Cuba after Castro is gone, and authorizes programs to promote free market and private enterprise development; and Help U.S. citizens and U.S. companies whose property was confiscated by Castro. The bill denies entry into the United States of anyone who confiscates or benefits from confiscated American property; and it allows a U.S. citizen with a confiscated property claim to go into a U.S. court to seek compensation from a person or entity which is being unjustly enriched by the use of that confiscated property. The Cuban people are industrious and innovative. Where they live and work in freedom, they have prospered. My hope is that this bill will hasten an end to the brutal Castro dictatorship and make Cuba free and prosperous. Libertad Para Cuba. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would be so grateful. I need under the rules to ask unanimous consent concerning holding of a bill until tomorrow. Let me do it this way. I am advised we have to check with both sides. I think it would be agreeable to both sides, Mr. President. I send to the desk a bill, and I ask that it be appropriately referred tomorrow, and I send a statement herewith to that bill.

Mr. HELMS. If the Chair will withhold, I have three unanimous- consents. One is required to be made orally. Let me do that. I further ask unanimous consent that this bill be held at the desk until the close of Senate business tomorrow, February 10, so that Senators wishing to do so may become original cosponsors. ordered.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

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 $4,806,972,690,433.20 as of the close of business Tuesday, February 7. Averaged out, every man, woman, and child in America owes a share of this massive debt, and that per capita share is $18,247.10.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask to have printed in the Record the membership and jurisdiction of the subcommittees of the Committee on Foreign Relations as agreed to by the committee pursuant to its business meeting on January 11, 1995.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI, I ask to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 104th Congress adopted by the committee on January 11, 1995.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is a lot like television's well-known energizer bunny--it keeps going and 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 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 Friday, February 3, 1995, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,804,906,983,189.27 or $18,239.50 per person. Madam President, it is important that all of us monitor, closely and constantly, the incredible cost of merely paying the interest on this debt. Last year, the interest on the Federal debt totalled $190 billion. Madam 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 Friday, February 3, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,804,726,503,001.28. This means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,238.82 as his or her share of the Federal debt. Compare this, Mr. President, to the total debt a little over 2 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 $600 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, the U.S. Senate, since the inception of the 104th Congress, has thus far participated in two significant debates. The first determined the role of the Federal Government in the affairs of the States; and the second will decide whether, after decades of insane spending of the American taxpayers' money, the U.S. Congress will finally get around to controlling itself with a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All of us should recognize the importance of these significant issues. Certainly, I do. However, one wonders whether liberal politicians, who time after time have beaten back attempts to restore moral and spiritual principles to our society, are not content for Congress to focus its attention on the Nation's economic woes while spiritual issues--for example, protecting unborn life and restoring school prayer--are being sidetracked with harsh rhetoric such as extreme, worthless, and insignificant. Mr. President, lest our leftward-tilted friends become too satisfied with the neglect of religious and spiritual values in America, they should be reminded of what our Nation's first President acknowledged-- and what so many in Congress have disregarded--that our Nation's material and spiritual wealth is bestowed by the Creator only when we seek His guidance in our Nation's affairs. George Washington stated: * * * the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained. Mr. President, in 1962, the Supreme Court forfeited by judicial fiat the rights of millions of American children to invoke in their schools the blessings and guidance of God. Consequently, this act begat a popular culture, the values, discipline, and moral standards of which are devoid of God and laden with relativism. A greater crime against our children could hardly be conceived. Today, all of us should take note of the desperate need to return to our Nation's children their constitutional right to voluntary prayer in the public schools. In this regard, a guest column published by the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer and authored by Dr. Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC, is very worthy of broad consideration. Dr. Geisler titled it ``10 Reasons for Voluntary School Prayer.'' Dr. Geisler is a foremost theologian as evidenced by his impressive catalog of degrees and achievements. He has lectured and traveled in 50 States and 24 countries on 6 continents. Dr. Geisler has been honored and listed in many leading publications including ``The Who's Who in Religion,'' ``The Writer's Who's Who,'' and ``Men of Achievement.'' He has authored or coauthored 45 books on a wide range of social, moral, and religious issues. Mr. President, I fervently hope that all Senators will spend a few minutes reading Dr. Geisler's convincing defense of the right of children to pray in public schools. His defense of one of our Founding Father's rule(s) of heaven has never been more needed nor more eloquently stated. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the January 30 guest column in the Charlotte Observer, ``10 Reasons for Voluntary School Prayer,'' be printed in the Record. [From the Charlotte Observer, Jan. 30, 1995] 10 Reasons for Voluntary School Prayer (By Norman L. Geisler] There are many good reasons for a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary prayer in the public schools. Ten come to mind. 1. Our government was based on religious principles from the very beginning: The Declaration of Independence says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights . . . .'' Indeed, it speaks of God, creation, God-given moral rights, the providence of God, and a final Day of Judgment--all of which are religious teachings. Indeed, the Supreme Court affirmed (Zorach, 1952) that ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' And school prayer has been an important part of our religious experience from the very beginning. 2. The First Amendment does not separate God and government but actually encourages religion. It reads: ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' The first clause merely declares that the federal government cannot establish one religion for all the people. It says nothing about ``separation of church and state.'' In fact, five of the 13 states that ratified it had their own state religions at the time. The second clause insists that the government should do nothing to discourage religion. But forbidding prayer in schools discourages religion. 3. Early congressional actions encouraged religion in public schools. For example, the Northwest Treaty (1787 and 1789) declared: ``Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged.'' Thus, religion, which includes prayer, was deemed to be necessary. presidents encouraged prayer 4. Early presidents, with congressional approval, made proclamations encouraging public prayer. President Washington on Oct. 3, 1789, declared: ``Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me `to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer. . . .''' 5. Congress has prayed at the opening of every session since the very beginning. Indeed, in a moment of crisis at the very first Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin urged prayer and observed that ``In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection.--Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. . . . And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? . . . I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayer imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.'' Congress has begun with prayer ever since. If the government can pray in their session, why can't the governed pray in their (school) sessions? 6. Public schools had prayer for nearly 200 years before the Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated class prayers were unconstitutional (Engel, 1962). The fact that prayer was practiced for nearly 200 years establishes it by precedent as a valid and beneficial practice in our schools. 7. Since the court outlawed prayer, the nation has been in steady moral decline. Former Secretary of Education William Bennett revealed in his cultural indexes that between 1960 and 1990 there was a steady moral decline. During this period divorce doubled, teenage pregnancy went up 200%, teen suicide increased 300%, child abuse reached an all-time high, violent crime went up 500% and abortion increased 1000%. There is a strong correlation between the expulsion of prayer from our schools and the decline in morality. 8. Morals must be taught, and they cannot properly be taught without religion. There cannot be a moral law without a moral Law Giver. And there is no motivation for keeping the moral law unless there is a moral Law Giver who can enforce it by rewards and punishments. secular humanism established 9. Forbidding prayer and other religious expressions in public schools establishes, in effect, the religion of secularism. The Supreme Court has affirmed that there are religions, such as ``secular humanism,'' which do not believe in God (Torcaso, 1961). Justice Potter (Abington, 1963) rightly feared that purging the schools of all religious beliefs and practices would lead to the ``establishment of a religion of secularism.'' In fact, the beliefs of secular humanism are just the opposite of the Declaration of Independence. By not allowing theistic religious expressions, the courts have favored the religious beliefs of secular humanism, namely, no belief in God, God-given moral laws, prayer and a Day of Judgment. 10. To forbid the majority the right to pray because the minority object, is to impose the irreligion of the minority on the religious majority. Forbidding prayer in schools, which a three-quarters majority of Americans favors, is the tyranny of the minority. It is minority rule, not democracy. Why should an irreligious minority dictate what the majority can do? The majority wishes to preserve our moral and spiritual values and, thus, our good nation.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, February 2, the Federal debt stood at $4,814,204,062,209.10. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America therefore owes $18,274.80 as his or her share of that debt.

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 it was, and is, the constitutional duty of Congress to control Federal spending. We'd better get busy correcting this because Congress has failed miserably to do it for about 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,810,859,576,867.71 as of the close of business Wednesday, February 1. Averaged out, every man, woman, and child in America owes a share of this massive debt, and that per capita share is $18,262.11.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, our offices in Washington and North Carolina have been inundated with calls protesting President Clinton's decision to bypass Congress and, more importantly, Mr. Clinton's willingness to ignore the emphatic will of the American people. In any event, that is what Mr. Clinton has done with his unilateral $20 billion bailout of Mexico. I have opposed this scheme from the very beginning because it will do nothing to remedy Mexico's internal problem and it is unfair to American taxpayers. Last week, I presided over in-depth hearings by the Foreign Relations Committee. Witness after witness warned the President not to violate the will of the American people in this matter. Mr. President, if this were as important as the President would have us believe, then Congress should debate the bailout and vote on it, up or down, for or against. Before the taxpayers' money is put at risk, however, the people being forced to foot the bill should have a say. The $20 billion in question is an enormous amount of money. It is more than the annual budget of the State of North Carolina; it is larger than the annual budgets of 16 of the 18 States represented on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am not convinced that refusal to bailout Mexico would be the disaster that the administration has described. Many topflight economists say the same. The Mexican people are already suffering, a condition that will improve only with solid political and economic reform, not as the result of a bailout. Mr. President, on several occasions between 1980 and 1994, Mexico used dollars drawn from a special line of credit at the United States Treasury. The United States has also aided Mexico with bridge loans, bank credits, currency swaps, and guarantees, all to shore up confidence in Mexico. Assistance from Uncle Sam usually has come right around election time in Mexico. Credit lines from the United States and other countries, amounting to as much as $12 billion, were negotiated twice in the past 15 months alone. With the exception of last week's hearings narrowly focused on the peso crisis, the Senate has not held hearings on the situation in Mexico since 1986. Since the President is obviously willing to risk saddling the taxpayers with $20 billion of debt, I believe Congress has a fundamental obligation to examine carefully the political and economic situation in Mexico and the administration's policy toward Mexico. Mr. President, the Mexican Government has a credibility gap, and for obvious reasons. Just one example: There are some 2,000 United States claimants protesting Mexico's refusal to pay about $19 billion owed under a little-known 1941 treaty--the Treaty on Final Settlement of Certain Claims--which provided for settlement of longstanding disputed property claims. The United States fully met its obligations by 1948, but Mexico broke its promise. The Mexicans signed the treaty on the dotted line knowing full well that it was never intended that Mexico would compensate these Americans. To this day, not a dime nor a peso has ever been paid to an American claimant. Mexico doesn't hesitate to break its promises to the United States, much less to violate United States policies. For example: Mexico is giving aid and comfort to Fidel Castro by investing in Cuba's economy, notwithstanding the United States trade embargo. According to Cuba Report, published by the Miami Herald, the Mexicans are financing Cuba's telephone company to the tune of $1.5 billion, And, by the way, the Cuban phone company is a confiscated United States business. Also, a Mexican-Cuba joint venture will invest $100 million in a Cuban oil refinery. The dominant member of this venture will be Pemex, the Mexican's Government-owned oil company. The Mexican Foreign Minister was quoted by the January 27 Financial Times as saying that ``the typical U.S. politician is not necessarily someone who is very conscious of international subjects. Even supposing they know where Mexico is * * * they lack information about what happens in Mexico.'' Mr. President, this is the same fellow who came to Washington with an outstretched hand pleading for cash. Mexico's international debt stands at $180 billion. According to the United States Treasury Department's own estimate, the Mexican debt coming due in 1995 alone--both public and private sector debt--is more than $80 billion. What Mexico sorely needs is to get at the root causes of its problems so that it will cease to require emergency intervention by the United States taxpayers. Mr. President, Mexican President Zedillo has a tough road to travel: He must solve the short term economic crisis; provide for a long-term economic stability; end a civil uprising; address corruption; stop drug trafficking, and initiate political reforms. Properly addressing these issues is what's needed to shore-up investor confidence. Mexico would be better off letting the markets set the value of the peso and Mexican stocks and bonds. The U.S. Government has no business bailing-out private or public investors who lose money on highly speculative investments. In testimony last week before the Foreign Relations Committee, experts controls; reform its banking industry; increase the pace of privatization and further open their oil company and other State- controlled entities to foreign investment, and then tighten its fiscal and monetary policies. A bailout of Mexico is bad policy. It may provide some illusory short term relief, but it fails to address the root causes of Mexico's woes. We've been told that the imposition of any conditions, such as: First, drug trafficking controls; second, extradition of Mexican citizens involved in United States crimes, and third, resolution of all outstanding claims against Mexico by United States citizens--these conditions are too politically sensitive for the Mexicans. It might hurt somebody's feelings. But, I for one, wonder why the Mexicans seek United States financial aid with one hand, while they sustain Fidel Castro's brutal dictatorship with the other. It boils down to this, Mr. President: When an American taxpayer gets a loan from his local bank to buy a house, the property is security for the loan, as Uncle Sam doesn't cosign the note. Yet, that is exactly what Mr. Clinton is proposing, namely that the United States sign the $20 billion note. In my judgment, the United States and the Mexican Governments are perpetuating an unhealthy situation in which Mexico has grown dependent on us to fix its financial problems. It's bad for Mexico and it's unfair to the American taxpayers. This is the seventh time since 1982 that the United States taxpayers have bailed-out Mexicans and have rewarded wealthy bankers who have made bad loans. The American taxpayers should not be placed at risk in bailing-out Wall Street bankers and speculators, particularly since the Federal Government has already run up a 4 trillion, 800 billion dollar debt which our grandchildren and their grandchildren will have to pay. Mr. President, on January 18, I sent the administration 35 questions about the proposed bailout. I ask unanimous consent that the responses, which I received 8 days later, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the incredibly enormous Federal debt is like New Year's Resolutions--everybody talks about making them but rarely do very much about them. The New Year arrived a little over a month ago, but the Senate is bogged down about passing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Senate had better get cracking--the clock is ticking and the debt is mushrooming. As of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, January 31, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,815,826,745,802.15 or $18,280 per person calculated on a per capita basis. This debt, don't forget, was run up by the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, most citizens cannot conceive of a billion of anything, let alone a trillion. Yesterday, President Clinton authorized a $20 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico. This figure was so disturbing to the American taxpayers--80 percent of them--that I felt compelled to discuss them during Foreign Relations Committee hearings. Now, multiply that $20 billion by 240--this equals the total debt of our Federal Government. Which sort of puts it in perspective, does it not, that Congress has run up this incredible Federal debt totaling 4,803 of those billions-- of dollars. In other words, the Federal debt, as I said earlier, stood this morning at 4 trillion, 803 billion, 795 million, 968 thousand, 326 dollars and 50 cents. It'll be even greater at closing time today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before contemplating today's bad news about the Federal debt, let us have that little pop quiz one more time: How many million dollars are in a trillion dollars? Congress that ran up a debt exceeding $4.8 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Monday, January 30, the Federal debt, down to the penny, at $4,803,795,968,326.50--meaning that every man, woman, and child in American now owes $18,235.29 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, to respond once more to 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 of $4.8 trillion.

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 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 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 Friday, January 27, 1995, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,805,320,933,038.83 or $18,241.08 per person. Mr. President, it is important that all of us monitor, closely and constantly the incredible cost of merely paying the interest on this debt. Last year, the interest on the Federal debt totaled $190 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, as of the close of business on Thursday, January 26, the Federal debt stood at $4,801,405,175,294.28 meaning that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,226.22 as his or her share of that debt.

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 it was, and is, the constitutional duty of Congress to control federal spending. We'd better get busy correcting this because Congress has failed miserably to do it for about 50 years. The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which stood at $4,799,369,247,041.81 as of the close of business Tuesday, January 24. Averaged out, every man, woman, and child in America owes a share of this massive debt, and that per capita share is $18,218.49.

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 a trillion dollars? When you arrive at an answer, remember that it was Congress that ran up a debt exceeding $4\1/2\ trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, Monday, January 23, the Federal debt, down to the penny, at $4,796,793,782,628.86-- meaning that every man, woman, and child in America now owes $18,208.71 computed on a per capita basis. Mr. President, 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 present Federal debt of $4\1/2\ trillion.

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 taxpayer. Many 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 Friday, January 20, 1994, the Federal debt stood--down to the penny--at exactly $4,796,537,934,595.60, or $18,207.74 per person. Mr. President, it is important that all of us monitor, closely and constantly the incredible cost of merely paying the interest on this debt. Last year, the interest on the Federal debt totaled $190 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.