Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, a basic question--and I think a significant one-- pending with this amendment is: Should the taxpayers be required to pay for the controversial ``morning-after pill''--which is identified as an abortifacient--to be distributed to schoolgirls on school property? The answer, Mr. President, is absolutely not. But as CRS reported to me, federal law does, indeed, permit the ``morning-after pill'' to be distributed at school-health clinics. I urge my colleagues to prohibit funds from the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill to be used to distribute the ``morning- after pill'' on school property.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to make my remarks from my chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 28, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,649,147,080,050.00 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-nine billion, one hundred forty-seven million, eighty thousand, fifty dollars and no cents). One year ago, June 28, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,640,294,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred forty billion, two hundred ninety-four million). Five years ago, June 28, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,948,205,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred forty-eight billion, two hundred five million). Twenty-five years ago, June 28, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $535,337,000,000 (Five hundred thirty-five billion, three hundred thirty-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,113,810,080,050.00 (Five trillion, one hundred thirteen billion, eight hundred ten million, eighty thousand, fifty dollars and no cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Amendment No. 3698 (Purpose: To provide for a limitation on the use of funds for certain agreements involving the conveyance or licensing of a drug)

Mr. HELMS. Yes, I am. Has the Chair ruled on the yeas and nays?

Mr. HELMS. They have been ordered. Mr. President, I am advised I should ask unanimous consent that this amendment of mine be laid aside and the vote be put in regular order tomorrow morning. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. I yield.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks at my seat.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, Americans who follow international news, will recall that the French Government recently created an uproar when it authorized its public schools to distribute the post-conception ``morning-after-pill'' to girl students as young as 12 years old. I wish parents in our country could be assured that such an initiative will never see the light of day in the United States, but no such assurance can be made under existing circumstances. In fact, when the French Government announced that it would be distributing the ``morning-after pill'' in French schools, the Alan Guttmacher Institute--the research arm of Planned Parenthood-- recommended almost immediately that the United States duplicate the Western European's approach in handing out contraceptions to teenage girls. So, isn't it clear that attempts to distribute the ``morning-after pill'' in U.S. public schools are indeed underway in planning boards of Planned Parenthood? Moreover, Americans will be alarmed to learn that Federal law currently gives schools the authorization to distribute these ``morning-after pills'' to schoolchildren. In fact, the Congressional Research Service confirmed to me that Federal law does, indeed, permit the distribution of the ``morning- after pill'' at school-based health clinics receiving Federal funds designated for family planning services. Simply put, this means that any school receiving Federal family planning money is prohibited by Federal law to place any sort of restriction on contraception. Even parental consent requirements. In a handful of cases, the Federal courts have struck down parental consent laws, ruling that any Federal family planning program trumps a State or county parental consent statute because Federal law prohibits parental consent requirements--even though Federal law says recipients of Federal family planning money should ``encourage family participation.'' I make this point because so many who oppose placing restrictions on contraception--like parental consent requirements--run for cover under this language ``encourage family participation'' when they know good and well that it means absolutely nothing in a court of law. Let me reiterate a warning: There is nothing in Federal law to prevent the post-conception ``morning-after pill'' from being distributed on school grounds by clinics receiving Federal funding-- regardless of whether a parental consent State statute exists. That is why I asked the Congressional Research Service to look into whether or not school clinics are distributing the ``morning-after pill.'' What CRS found is that there is some discrepancy to the response to this question. For example, according to CRS, the National Conference of State Legislatures spokesman said there was no knowledge that any school had distributed the ``morning-after-pill.'' Yet, the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care--an organization which works closely with HHS--told Congressional Research Service that their group has recently conducted a national survey of their members, and that the resulting data reflected that out of 1,200 schools, 15 percent offer contraceptives, including the ``morning-after pill.'' So, you see, it is not clear as to exactly what is being provided to schoolchildren these days. But it is clear that we are not just talking about condoms. Simply put, Planned Parenthood and its cronies have been given free reign to distribute to American schoolchildren whatever they so please--to the point where schoolchildren are now being provided extremely controversial forms of contraception. And, in my judgment, this has gone on far too long. That is why I am offering an amendment today that would forbid schools from using Federal funds from the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill to distribute the lawfully given ``morning-after pill'' in school. But before the guardian angels of Planned Parenthood get themselves in a tizzy, let me make clear precisely what this amendment will and will not do. Under the proposed measure, elementary and secondary schools will be forbidden to use funds from the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill to distribute to school children the ``morning-after pill''--which is widely considered to be an abortifacient. In fact, many pharmacists nationwide have refused to fill prescriptions for the ``morning-after pill'' because they, too, see it as an abortifacient. This amendment will apply only to school clinics on school property. Clearly, Congress simply must not ignore the fact that our schoolchildren deserve to be protected. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two memoranda prepared by the Congressional Research Service be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. HELMS. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, June 27, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,650,719,953,982.79 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty billion, seven hundred nineteen million, nine hundred fifty-three thousand, nine hundred eighty-two dollars and seventy-nine cents). One year ago, June 27, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,640,526,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred forty billion, five hundred twenty-six million). Five years ago, June 27, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,948,217,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred forty-eight billion, two hundred seventeen million). Ten years ago, June 27, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,165,289,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred sixty-five billion, two hundred eighty-nine million) which reflects almost a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $2.5 trillion--$2,485,430,953,982.79 (Two trillion, four hundred eighty-five billion, four hundred thirty million, nine hundred fifty-three thousand, nine hundred eighty-two dollars and seventy-nine cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 26, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,647,618,721,190.63 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-seven billion, six hundred eighteen million, seven hundred twenty-one thousand, one hundred ninety dollars and sixty-three cents). Five years ago, June 26, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,889,053,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-nine billion, fifty-three million). Ten years ago, June 26, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,118,101,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred eighteen billion, one hundred one million). Fifteen years ago, June 26, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,462,594,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-two billion, five hundred ninety-four million). Twenty-five years ago, June 26, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $526,124,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-six billion, one hundred twenty- four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,121,494,721,190.63 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty-one billion, four hundred ninety-four million, seven hundred twenty-one thousand, one hundred ninety dollars and sixty-three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business Friday, June 23, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,646,605,711,994.02 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-six billion, six hundred five million, seven hundred eleven thousand, nine hundred ninety-four dollars and two cents). One year ago, June 23, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,594,432,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-four billion, four hundred thirty-two million). Five years ago, June 23, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,887,614,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-seven billion, six hundred fourteen million). Twenty-five years ago, June 23, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $525,118,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-five billion, one hundred eighteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,121,487,711,994.02 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty-one billion, four hundred eighty-seven million, seven hundred eleven thousand, nine hundred ninety-four dollars and two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,653,964,505,301.84 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-three billion, nine hundred sixty-four million, five hundred five thousand, three hundred one dollars and eighty-four cents). One year ago, June 21, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,589,358,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-nine billion, three hundred fifty-eight million). Five years ago, June 21, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,898,069,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred ninety-eight billion, sixty-nine million). Ten years ago, June 21, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,177,422,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred seventy-seven billion, four hundred twenty-two million). Fifteen years ago, June 21, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,761,470,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred sixty-one billion, four hundred seventy million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,892,494,505,301.84 (Three trillion, eight hundred ninety- two billion, four hundred ninety-four million, five hundred five thousand, three hundred one dollars and eighty-four cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the hopes that it will bring about needed realism in our Government's relationship with Russia. President Clinton continues to promote the myth that the Russian Government has been ``a supportive and reliable partner in the effort to bring peace and stability to the Balkans.'' That myth was shattered again last month by the Kremlin's brazen display of the enormous political, military, and economic support Russia continues to provide the Milosevic regime. Surely no Senator has forgotten the visit to Moscow last month by General Ojdanic, Milosevic's Minister of Defense, who just happens to be a war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia. Instead of arresting and sending this man to The Hague, the Kremlin provided not only meetings with the Russian Minister of Defense but a privileged seat at the Putin inauguration and a week of fine food and camaraderie. Shortly after Milosevic's Minister of Defense visited Russia, Russian officials announced that it is sending to the Milosevic regime $102 million of a $150 million loan. All of this flies in the face of the effort of the international community to isolate and undermine the Milosevic regime. I confess that I find incredible the audacity of Russian President Putin. Here he is, providing the Milosevic regime with more than $150 million in economic support while seeking debt relief from the international community and loans from the International Monetary Fund. He is doing this while his country seeks and receives food aid from the United States and while he is asking the United States to reschedule and forgive Russian debt owed to the United States. The Kremlin should not be encouraged to assume that Western, and particularly the United States, economic assistance and aid are an entitlement. It is, however, sadly evident that Putin has concluded that he can conduct Russian foreign policy with impunity and still count on the West's economic largesse. The fact is, the hospitality and support provided to Serbian war criminals occurred just one month prior to President Clinton's visit to Moscow, emphasizing how little respect Putin has for the policies of the U.S. Government. What concerns me most about the relationship of the Kremlin and the Milosevic regime is the threat it poses to America's men and women in uniform serving in the Balkans, along with those of our allies. The political, military, and economic support the Kremlin provides Milosevic directly jeopardizes the safety and security of both American and allied forces deployed in the Balkans. While we are trying to force the Milosevic regime to step down and turn power over to Serbia's democratic opposition, Russia is signaling Milosevic that he can survive and even outlast the alliance and that Russia will help him, Milosevic, prevail. There is no reason the American taxpayer should provide Russia loan forgiveness and economic assistance when the Kremlin continues to support a regime in Serbia whose forces directly threaten U.S. troops who are trying to bring peace to the Balkans. My amendment, which I have just offered, simply underscores that the U.S. assistance is not an entitlement benefiting the Kremlin. The amendment proposes that the United States withhold assistance to Russia by an amount equal to the amount which Russia provides Serbia. The amendment also will preclude any debt forgiveness or rescheduling of OPIC and Eximbank programs along with U.S. support for loans from international financial institutions to Russia. This assistance certainly is not warranted unless and until the Kremlin demonstrates that it has at long last cut its ties to the Milosevic regime. Amendments Nos. 3499 Through 3513, En Bloc

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. President, more than 80 percent of the cocaine, and most of the heroin flooding America's streets comes from Colombia. That is just one of many reasons why helping honest Colombians is an urgent and absolute necessity. Today, Colombia's democratically elected government is besieged by blood-thirsty communist guerrillas who have gone into business with narcotraffickers, and, Mr. President, without U.S. help, Colombia may very well lose its fight with these narcoterrorists--and that is why the United States must move swiftly to help President Andres Pastrana save the second oldest democracy in the Americas. I support doing whatever it takes to save Colombia--not only because of the enormous cost of drugs to our country but because the United States of America should stand with a decent, democratic government in our own hemisphere that is threatened by Marxist terrorist groups. I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the able Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, for including in the foreign operations bill the emergency anti-drug assistance for Colombia and surrounding countries. This bill deserves our support even though I expect that the House- Senate conference will choose to make some adjustments. For example, we must resist unrealistic conditions that will block the delivery of badly needed support. Also, I am persuaded that we must supply the Colombian Army with Blackhawk helicopters so they have the mobility to respond to the hit-and-run tactics of the guerrillas who are part of the drug trade. The stakes are enormously high. Colombia is one of the most important U.S. trading partners in the Americas, with $4.5 billion in direct U.S. investment in sectors--not counting the key petroleum sector. Also, the guerrillas have expressly targeted American businesses and citizens in Colombia for bombings, kidnapings, and murders. Further, the threat to regional stability is acute: Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador all have massed troops on their borders with Colombia. Panama, which has no army, is helpless to secure its frontier from smugglers of drugs and weapons. President Pastrana doesn't ask us to do his fighting for him. In fact, no man alive has taken more risks for peace. If anything, he might be criticized for making too many concessions to bring the guerrillas to the peace table. The guerrillas have responded by launching murderous attacks on civilian targets. While President Pastrana is going the extra mile for peace, the guerrillas have launched a recruitment drive--bent on tearing Colombia apart. These guerrillas are criminals and terrorists who thrive on drug trafficking, kidnaping, and extortion. They are playing an ever- increasing role in the drug trade, which earns them a blank check from the narcotraffickers who realize that chaos is good for their dirty enterprise. These 20,000 guerrillas move about the country virtually unchallenged while most of Colombia's army is pinned down protecting bridges, oil pipelines, and power stations from terrorist attacks. That leaves only 40,000 soldiers, with a mere 30 helicopters, to take on the guerrillas in a rugged, mountainous country almost twice the size of Texas. What can the United States do to help? We can approve emergency anti-drug aid to Colombia and to her neighbors, thereby giving them a fighting chance to stem the tide of lawlessness and cocaine that threatens the entire Andean region. U.S. support will bolster the Colombian army's counter-drug battalions, providing continued U.S. military training, better intelligence and communications, and increased mobility in he form of transport helicopters. We will also provide support to eradicate illegal crops and create alternative employment for displaced farmers. Current U.S. law requires that any military units receiving U.S. aid must be ``scrubbed'' for human rights violations. That is as it should be. But we should not hold U.S. support hostage to unrealistic preconditions. If America fails to act, Colombia will continue to hurdle toward chaos. If the war drags on--or if desperate Colombians lose their struggle or are forced to appease the narco-guerrillas--the United States and the rest of the hemisphere will pay a very dear price. The longer we delay, the higher that price will be. I urge Senators to support emergency anti-drug support for Colombia-- and to do so without delay.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that I deliver my statement while seated at my desk.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be considered.