Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess for 7 minutes so the Senators may pay their respects to the Honorable King of Jordan and his lovely lady.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have prepared the best speech you will never hear. I was prepared to have to oppose my friend from Minnesota, but we have come to an understanding about this matter. We have agreed to amend and modify the proposed amendment in a way that makes it satisfactory to me. Amendment No. 3211 (Purpose: To express condemnation of the use of children as soldiers and expressing the belief that the United States should support and, where possible, lead efforts to end this abuse of human rights)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to speak from my seat.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, June 6, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,647,513,754,741.07 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-seven billion, five hundred thirteen million, seven hundred fifty-four thousand, seven hundred forty-one dollars and seven cents). Five years ago, June 5, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,904,369,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred four billion, three hundred sixty-nine million). Ten years ago, June 5, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,127,273,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty-seven billion, two hundred seventy-three million). Fifteen years ago, June 5, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,776,407,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred seventy-six billion, four hundred seven million). Twenty-five years ago, June 5, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $524,448,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-four billion, four hundred fourty-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,123,065,754,741.07 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty- three billion, sixty-five million, seven hundred fifty-four thousand, seven hundred forty-one dollars and seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records of the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 5, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,642,401,863,301.59 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-two billion, four hundred one million, eight hundred sixty-three thousand, three hundred one dollars and fifty-nine cents). Five years ago, June 5, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,903,928,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred three billion, nine hundred twenty-eight million). Ten years ago, June 5, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,127,410,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty-seven billion, four hundred ten million). Fifteen years ago, June 5, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,776,269,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred seventy-six billion, two hundred sixty-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, June 5, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $522,954,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-two billion, nine hundred fifty- four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,119,447,863,301.59 (Five trillion, one hundred nineteen billion, four hundred forty-seven million, eight hundred sixty-three thousand, three hundred one dollars and fifty-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, one of the myths dear to President Clinton's heart these days is that the government of Russia has been ``a supportive and reliable partner in the effort to bring peace and stability to the Balkans.'' That myth was shattered once again earlier this month when a war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, was hosted in Moscow--not by Russia's criminal underworld--but by the Kremlin itself. General Dragolub Ojdanic, Minister of Defense of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, visited Moscow for nearly a week earlier this month-- from May 7-12, 2000. He was there as a guest of the government of the Russian Federation and enjoyed the privilege of attending President Vladimir Putin's inauguration ceremonies. As Slobodan Milosevic's military Chief of Staff during the Kosovo war, General Ojdanic was directly responsible for the Serbian military's ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo. For this, the General was indicted by the ICTY for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war for alleged atrocities against Albanians in Kosovo. Mr. President, the ICTY has issued international warrants for General Ojdanic's arrest and extradition to The Hague. The Russian Federation, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council which established the ICTY, has an obligation to arrest General Ojdanic and extradite him to The Hague if and when they have the opportunity. But what did President Putin and his regime do when Ojdanic was in Moscow? Instead of arresting and sending him to The Hague, they provided a week of fine food and camaraderie and a privileged seat at the Putin inauguration! What truly disturbs me, Mr. President, is that General Ojdanic's visit was not just for fun. He was there to work--to reestablish the links between the Milosevic regime and the Kremlin. While in Moscow, he held official talks with Defense Minister Sergeyev, Army Chief of Staff Anatoly Kvashnin, and Foreign Minister Ivanov. On May 16, four days after General Ojdanic's visit to Moscow, Russia announced that it has provided the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic with $102 million of a $150 million loan. The Russian government also announced that it will facilitate the sale to Serbia of $32 million worth of oil, despite the fact that the international community has imposed economic sanctions against the Milosevic regime. I confess that I am impressed by the audacity of Russian President Putin. Here he is, providing the Milosevic regime with over $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. What should we conclude from all this? First, President Putin seems comfortable ignoring the requirement to arrest and transfer indicted war criminals to The Hague. I suppose we can just add this to the long list of international obligations Mr. Putin sees fit to disregard. Second, Russia does not share NATO's goals and objectives in bringing peace and stability to the Balkans. If it did, its leaders would not be so brazenly and warmly supporting senior officials of the Milosevic regime. Third, the Kremlin must regard Western, and particularly, U.S. economic assistance and aid to be unconditional. He has evidently concluded that he can conduct his foreign policy with impunity and still count on the West's economic largesse. The fact that the hospitality and support provided to these Serbian war criminals occurs just one month before President Clinton's visit to Moscow shows how little respect Putin has for the policies of the United States. Mr. President, what concerns me most about the relationship between the Kremlin and the Milosevic regime is the threat it poses to our men and women in uniform serving in the Balkans--and those of our allies. The political support the Kremlin provides Slobodan Milosevic directly jeopardizes the safety and security of American and allied forces deployed in the Balkans. This outreach by Putin to the Milosevic regime only encourages that brutal dictator to continue his policies of destruction in the Balkans. While we are trying to force the Milosevic regime to step down and to turn power over to Serbia's democratic opposition, Russia is signaling to Milosevic that he can survive and even outlast the Alliance--and that Russia will help him prevail. It is for these reasons, that I plan to introduce an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill that will restrict material and economic assistance the United States provides to the Russian Federation. There is no reason why the United States should be providing Russia loan forgiveness and economic assistance when the Kremlin continues to support a regime in Serbia whose forces directly threaten our troops and those of our allies trying to bring peace to the Balkans. This amendment does four things: First, it reduces assistance obligated to the Russian Federation by an amount equal in value to the loans, financial assistance, and energy sales the Government of the Russian Federation has provided and intends to provide to the Milosevic regime. Second, it ensures U.S. opposition to the extension of financial assistance to Russia from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other international financial institutions. Third, it suspends existing programs to Russia provided by the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Fourth, it ensures the United States will oppose proposals to provide Russia further forgiveness, restructuring, and rescheduling of its international debt. Mr. President, I sincerely believe that a partnership with Russia is possible and indeed, would serve the interests of both countries. A strategy of engagement, however, cannot and must not ignore reality. Partnership cannot occur when Russia blatantly supports a regime that continues to threaten stability in the Balkans, whose calling cards are ethnic cleansing and political repression, and that continues to threaten U.S. soldiers in the field. I will be pleased to treat Russia as a responsible partner when it behaves as one.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 24, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,676,761,996,112.82 (Five trillion, six hundred seventy-six billion, seven hundred sixty-one million, nine hundred ninety-six thousand, one hundred twelve dollars and eighty-two cents). One year ago, May 24, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,597,943,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-seven billion, nine hundred forty-three million). Five years ago, May 24, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,887,785,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-seven billion, seven hundred eighty-five million). Ten years ago, May 24, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,094,795,000,000 (Three trillion, ninety-four billion, seven hundred ninety-five million). Fifteen years ago, May 24, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,751,794,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred fifty-one billion, seven hundred ninety-four million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,924,967,996,112.82 (Three trillion, nine hundred twenty-four billion, nine hundred sixty-seven million, nine hundred ninety-six thousand, one hundred twelve dollars and eighty-two cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Sierra Leone is a failed state and merely hoping that a few new Bangladeshi or Indian peacekeepers will turn the situation around is irresponsible. The President should bear this in mind as he decides U.S. policy in Sierra Leone--especially the extent of U.S. military involvement there or support for a U.N. or regional peacekeeping or peacemaking operation. All of us--100 Senators--must remind ourselves that the rebels in Sierra Leone--the Revolutionary United Front (RUF)--cannot be dealt with as if it were a political party. The Revolutionary United Front has terrorized the population of Sierra Leone by mutilating their enemies--and innocent civilians, including women and children--by chopping off their ears, noses, hands, arms, and legs. At some point the downtrodden people of Sierra Leone must find a way to hold their own leadership responsible. But it's impossible to overlook the fact that Liberian President Charles Taylor provides succor to the sadistic Revolutionary United Front. Taylor (with enthusiastic participation of regional leaders, including Maummar Qadhafi) provides leadership, weapons and safe haven while the RUF digs diamonds using slave labor in payment for services rendered. It's shameful that President Clinton's hand-picked emissary hugs the godfather of the RUF like a brother and contemplates negotiating with his henchmen. Or had it not been for certain Congressional objections, the U.S. Government would be shoveling foreign aid to Charles Taylor. Mr. President, the Resolution I offer, along with Senators Biden, Frist, and Feingold, speaks for itself. The Administration should take note, as it attempts to formulate U.S. policy, that at this stage of the game there is bipartisan ``concern'' (and I use that world in the most understated diplomatic fashion) about the policy of the United States and the sorry performance of the United Nations.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 23, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,670,641,391,640.46 (Five trillion, six hundred seventy billion, six hundred forty-one million, three hundred ninety-one thousand, six hundred forty dollars and forty-six cents). Five years ago, May 23, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,885,335,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-five billion, three hundred thirty-five million). Ten years ago, May 23, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,093,087,000,000 (Three trillion, ninety-three billion, eighty-seven million). Fifteen years ago, May 23, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,750,995,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred fifty billion, nine hundred ninety-five million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,919,646,391,640.46 (Three trillion, nine hundred nineteen billion, six hundred forty-six million, three hundred ninety- one thousand, six hundred forty dollars and forty-six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will shortly offer legislation authorizing the naming of the Post Office 114 Ridge Street Lenoir, N.C., for The Honorable James T. Broyhill, one of North Carolina's more distinguished servants, philanthropists, and businessmen. Congressman Richard Burr and Congressman Cass Ballenger are offering companion House legislation, which is cosponsored by the entire North Carolina delegation in that body. He was born in Lenoir, NC on August 19, 1927 to the late J.E. and Satie (Hunt) Broyhill. He is a 1950 graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a degree in Business Administration. After graduation he served as Vice-President of Broyhill Furniture Industries and as a member of the Lenoir Chamber of Commerce, which he served as President from 1955 to 1957. As many Senators are aware, Broyhill Furniture Industries has a worldwide reputation as one of the finest furniture manufacturers in the world. Mr. President, in 1962, Jim Broyhill was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he served 12 terms ending in June of 1986. During his service in the House he was the Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was instrumental in guiding Republican legislative efforts through that committee. In May 1986 he won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Senator John P. East. Following Senator East's tragic death in June of 1986, Jim Broyhill was appointed to the U.S. Senate by then Governor Jim Martin to serve the remainder of Senator East's term. His committee assignments include seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee. While he was unsuccessful in his 1986 election bid for the U.S. Senate, but this did not dampen his willing commitment to help others in North Carolina. In addition he was selected (by then Governor Jim Martin) to serve as Chairman of the North Carolina Economic Development Board. In 1989, he was appointed by Governor Martin to serve as North Carolina's Secretary of Commerce, which he held until 1991. He then retired to Winston-Salem. His wife is the former Louise Robbins and has three fine children; and they have three children: Marylin Beach, James Edgar Broyhill II, and Philip R. Broyhill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the enabling legislation (S. 2629) be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will shortly offer legislation authorizing the naming of the Post Office 114 Ridge Street Lenoir, N.C., for The Honorable James T. Broyhill, one of North Carolina's more distinguished servants, philanthropists, and businessmen. Congressman Richard Burr and Congressman Cass Ballenger are offering companion House legislation, which is cosponsored by the entire North Carolina delegation in that body. He was born in Lenoir, NC on August 19, 1927 to the late J.E. and Satie (Hunt) Broyhill. He is a 1950 graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a degree in Business Administration. After graduation he served as Vice-President of Broyhill Furniture Industries and as a member of the Lenoir Chamber of Commerce, which he served as President from 1955 to 1957. As many Senators are aware, Broyhill Furniture Industries has a worldwide reputation as one of the finest furniture manufacturers in the world. Mr. President, in 1962, Jim Broyhill was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he served 12 terms ending in June of 1986. During his service in the House he was the Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was instrumental in guiding Republican legislative efforts through that committee. In May 1986 he won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Senator John P. East. Following Senator East's tragic death in June of 1986, Jim Broyhill was appointed to the U.S. Senate by then Governor Jim Martin to serve the remainder of Senator East's term. His committee assignments include seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee. While he was unsuccessful in his 1986 election bid for the U.S. Senate, but this did not dampen his willing commitment to help others in North Carolina. In addition he was selected (by then Governor Jim Martin) to serve as Chairman of the North Carolina Economic Development Board. In 1989, he was appointed by Governor Martin to serve as North Carolina's Secretary of Commerce, which he held until 1991. He then retired to Winston-Salem. His wife is the former Louise Robbins and has three fine children; and they have three children: Marylin Beach, James Edgar Broyhill II, and Philip R. Broyhill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the enabling legislation (S. 2629) be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 22, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,673,857,621,024.05 (Five trillion, six hundred seventy-three billion, eight hundred fifty-seven million, six hundred twenty-one thousand, twenty-four dollars and five cents). Five years ago, May 22, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,883,843,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-three billion, eight hundred forty-three million). Ten years ago, May 22, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,092,808,000,000 (Three trillion, ninety-two billion, eight hundred eight million). Fifteen years ago, May 22, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,750,663,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred fifty billion, six hundred sixty-three million). Twenty-five years ago, May 22, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $522,752,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-two billion, seven hundred fifty- two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,151,105,621,024.05 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-one billion, one hundred five million, six hundred twenty-one thousand, twenty-four dollars and five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 19, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,673,912,681,580.44 (Five trillion, six hundred seventy-three billion, nine hundred twelve million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, five hundred eighty dollars and forty-four cents). One year ago, May 19, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,593,798,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-three billion, seven hundred ninety-eight million). Five years ago, May 19, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,883,152,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-three billion, one hundred fifty-two million). Twenty-five years ago, May 19, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $520,328,000,000 (Five hundred twenty billion, three hundred twenty- eight million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,153,584,681,580.44 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-three billion, five hundred eighty-four million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, five hundred eighty dollars and forty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 17, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,671,580,132,464.01 (Five trillion, six hundred seventy-one billion, five hundred eighty million, one hundred thirty-two thousand, four hundred sixty-four dollars and one cent). One year ago, May 17, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,587,730,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-seven billion, seven hundred thirty million). Five years ago, May 17, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,884,247,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-four billion, two hundred forty-seven million). Ten years ago, May 17, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,093,688,000,000 (Three trillion, ninety-three billion, six hundred eighty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, May 17, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,751,773,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred fifty-one billion, seven hundred seventy-three million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,919,807,132,464.01 (Three trillion, nine hundred nineteen billion, eight hundred seven million, one hundred thirty-two thousand, four hundred sixty-four dollars and one cent) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of five bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of five bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 15, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,669,366,486,429.39 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-nine billion, three hundred sixty-six million, four hundred eighty-six thousand, four hundred twenty-nine dollars and thirty-nine cents). Five years ago, May 15, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,882,765,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-two billion, seven hundred sixty-five million). Ten years ago, May 15, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,092,310,000,000 (Three trillion, ninety-two billion, three hundred ten million). Fifteen years ago, May 15, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,752,019,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred fifty-two billion, nineteen million). Twenty-five years ago, May 15, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $520,109,000,000 (Five hundred twenty billion, one hundred nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,149,257,486,429.39 (Five trillion, one hundred forty-nine billion, two hundred fifty-seven million, four hundred eighty-six thousand, four hundred twenty-nine dollars and thirty-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 15, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,665,244,853,842.93 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-five billion, two hundred forty-four million, eight hundred fifty-three thousand, eight hundred forty-two dollars and ninety-three cents). Five years ago, May 15, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,881,377,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred eighty-one billion, three hundred seventy-seven million). Ten years ago, May 15, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,092,389,000,000 (Three trillion, ninety-two billion, three hundred eighty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, May 15, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,750,555,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred fifty billion, five hundred fifty-five million). Twenty-five years ago, May 15, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $520,101,000,000 (Five hundred twenty billion, one hundred one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,145,143,853,842.93 (Five trillion, one hundred forty-five billion, one hundred forty-three million, eight hundred fifty-three thousand, eight hundred forty-two dollars and ninety-three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 12, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,667,021,443,140.97 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-seven billion, twenty-one million, four hundred forty-three thousand, one hundred forty dollars and ninety-seven cents). One year ago, May 12, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,578,150,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred seventy-eight billion, one hundred fifty million). Five years ago, May 12, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,859,131,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred fifty-nine billion, one hundred thirty-one million). Twenty-five years ago, May 12, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $515,906,000,000 (Five hundred fifteen billion, nine hundred six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,151,115,443,140.97 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-one billion, one hundred fifteen million, four hundred forty-three thousand, one hundred forty dollars and ninety-seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 10, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,664,193,479,449.87 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-four billion, one hundred ninety-three million, four hundred seventy-nine thousand, four hundred forty-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents). One year ago, April 26, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,571,920,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred seventy-one billion, nine hundred twenty million). Five years ago, May 10, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,856,767,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred fifty-six billion, seven hundred sixty-seven million). Ten years ago, May 10, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,075,637,000,000 (Three trillion, seventy-five billion, six hundred thirty-seven million). Fifteen years ago, May 10, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,739,232,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred thirty-nine billion, two hundred thirty-two million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $4 trillion--$3,924,961,479,449.87 (Three trillion, nine hundred twenty-four billion, nine hundred sixty-one million, four hundred seventy-nine thousand, four hundred forty-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, mothers across America will be showered with love and appreciation this Sunday as an annual expression of love and gratitude for the selfless acts mothers make for their families every day. Sunday is one of the truly special days of the year. It is Mother's Day. Americans have a tradition of honoring mothers, dating back to 1914, when the second Sunday of May was first recognized as ``Mother's Day'' It is especially significant in this year 2000 because of the irony that a number of high-profile women in the Clinton Administration--and in Congress--are so vocally supportive of the so-called U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which they call CEDAW--which rhymes with hee-haw. In any case, the point is this, Mr. President, the radical feminists groups around the country have gone to extreme lengths with incessant declarations, shouting, and even rudely disrupting at least one congressional hearing in their futile efforts to convince American women that the CEDAW Treaty somehow protects the rights of women, which it absolutely would not do--even in the highly unlikely event that the Senate ever gives CEDAW a second glance. The problem for the radical feminists is that the truth has been circulated across the land that the proposed treaty fails to offer increased opportunities for women. All the same, the radical feminists have tried to turn the proposed treaty into a feminist manifesto, and the militant women have fallen on their faces in the process. Mr. President, one needs only to examine the reports of the various CEDAW committees, and it is clear that motherhood is not favorably viewed by the CEDAW advocates. For instance, Mr. President, earlier this year, one such committee solemnly warned the nation Belarus that there was great ``concern [over] the continuing prevalence of such [stereotypical] symbols as a Mother's Day.'' Now get that--``the continuing prevalence of such [stereotypical] symbols as a Mother's Day.'' The nation Armenia was lectured about the need to ``combat the traditional stereotype of women in the noble role of mother.'' Another CEDAW committee warned Slovenia that too many Slovenian mothers (that's right, too many mothers) were staying home (in the opinion of the CEDAW ladies) to raise their children. Think of that bad situation, mothers staying home to raise their children. The CEDAW crowd also warned that because only 30 percent of children in Slovenia were in day-care centers, the other 70 percent were in grave danger of ``miss[ing] out on educational and social opportunities offered in (the) formal day-care institutions.'' One can surmise they mean that all this is more important and more effective than motherhood in the home. So, in spite of CEDAW's noisy advocates, Mr. President, the so-called Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women--and that is a jawbreaker within itself--has been left at the starting gate simply because this unwise proposed treaty was clearly negotiated by radical feminists with the intent of enshrining their radical anti-family agenda into international law. That is why this CEDAW mishmash has been collecting dust in the Senate for 20 years. And when I say Senate, I mean the Committee on Foreign Relations. It was sent to the Senate by President Carter in 1980--since which the Democratic Party was in control of the Senate for 10 years. But the treaty is so obviously bad that the Democrats never brought it up for a vote, and if I have anything to do with it--and I think I do--it will never see the light of day on my watch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of more than 100 U.S. groups, representing countless millions of Americans who oppose the CEDAW, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to make my presentation seated.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 9, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,662,962,880,861.72 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-two billion, nine hundred sixty-two million, eight hundred eighty thousand, eight hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy-two cents). Five years ago, May 9, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,853,700,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred fifty-three billion, seven hundred million). Ten years ago, May 9, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,075,888,000,000 (Three trillion, seventy-five billion, eight hundred eighty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, May 9, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,741,509,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred forty-one billion, five hundred nine million). Twenty-five years ago, May 9, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $515,471,000,000 (Five hundred fifteen billion, four hundred seventy- one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,147,491,880,861.72 (Five trillion, one hundred forty-seven billion, four hundred ninety-one million, eight hundred eighty thousand, eight hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the distinguished Majority Leader knows, I have made no secret of my opposition to the conference report to accompany H.R. 434, the so-called African Growth and Opportunity Act. And though there's no doubt that the conference report will be adopted by the Senate, I am obliged to point out that Congress is on the brink of passing legislation that accelerates the loss of a significant part of America's manufacturing base and costs numerous jobs in the beleaguered textile and apparel industry. Let me say at the outset that I certainly am not against ``African growth'' or ``African opportunity'' or economic growth in the Caribbean Basin. But I do not believe--and will not be convinced--that U.S. trade policy should aid emerging economies at the expense of an entire domestic industry and thousands of American workers. But make no mistake, Mr. President, that is precisely what is occurring this week in the United States Senate. Consider the evidence: The textile industry is already operating under an enormous trade deficit. For every $6 million in apparel and fabric the industry exports, $21 million is imported, the vast majority of which streams in from third-world countries with cheap production costs. I don't suspect any Senator will seriously argue that H.R. 434 will do anything but dramatically increase this trade deficit. Why is this so? Because American textile companies simply cannot compete on a playing field that isn't a level playing field. As cheap imports continue to flood the domestic market, job loss will not only continue, but increase. The media report news of our booming economy, but this so-called ``boom'' has left the textile and apparel industry out in the cold. As the Clinton administration crows about low unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also announced that just last month, 3,000 textile jobs were lost. Since 1994, when Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, this industry alone has lost 453,000 jobs. That's not just a statistic, Mr. President. That's 453,000 families forced to contend with the stress and displacement that accompany job loss. That's 453,000 workers forced to find new means to make their livelihood, often at lower-paying, entry level jobs for which they have little or no training. 453,000 Americans lost their job Mr. President, 70,000 of whom are North Carolinians. Let's try to put that job loss statistic into perspective. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, knows that there are only 412,000 jobs in the entire state of Delaware. A senior member of his committee, Senator Baucus, who was a conferee on this legislation, surely is aware that there are only 389,000 total jobs in Montana. Alaska has 289,000 jobs, Wyoming has 235,000 jobs, Vermont 296,000, South Dakota 381,000 and North Dakota 325,000 jobs. Perhaps Senators would feel differently about U.S. trade policy if all of the workers instead of their entire states lost their jobs in the last decade. Yet that's the precarious state of textile and apparel in America, Mr. President, and Congress continues to promote policies that will further erode the industry. In the textile communities of North Carolina, where 18 plants shut down in 1999 alone, you can bet they don't talk much about the booming economy. They're talking about something else. Last April, I held a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on the effects of NAFTA five years after it took effect. Among those who provided testimony was a wonderfully unassuming women named Vontella Dabbs. Ms. Dabbs works at Delta Mills in Maiden, North Carolina, and although she was seated at the same table with Ambassador Richard Fischer and Pat Buchanan, she stole the show. I am going to quote extensively from her testimony because it's important and it bears repeating again and again. She said the following: I come to you not as an expert in any field, not as a politically motivated person, but simply as an American that is deeply concerned for both my future and the future of my family and friends. I cannot quote you statistics or give you fancy computer-generated data to support some theory about foreign trade. What I can give you are honest and heartfelt feelings about what's going on in our community, as related to the foreign trade agreements and the people who work in textile plants . . . Today . . . modern textile companies and plants are threatened by one thing that I feel can put an end to our entire industry. This threat is that we are not being given a fair opportunity to compete with foreign business on a level playing field. Many of the well-intentioned laws, treaties, and trade agreements enacted during the past few years have made the competition between domestic and foreign textile business unfair, in favor of the foreign producers. These treaties and laws and trade agreements have not really opened up the world to American textiles, as was intended, but instead have opened our borders for foreign manufacturers to flood our country with goods produced with near slave labor in deplorable conditions for workers. These agreements have also created an incentive for American manufacturers to close the door on American manufacturing and go south to Mexico and the Caribbean to invest millions in foreign countries. And by doing this, they are putting thousands of hard-working Americans out of a job. It's hard to argue with that, Mr. President, though I have no doubt that many of my colleagues will try to do so. I can hear them now, saying that may comparable new jobs have been created through the growth of the retail industry. To which the textile communities of North Carolina say, ``Thanks for nothing.'' Textile jobs pay 63 percent more than retail jobs. While the average mill worker earns wages of $440.59 a week, retail workers make only $270.90. Worse, the loss of textile jobs means money is drained from the economies of the hardest-hit communities, making it impossible for these towns to support this highly touted new retail employment. When the mills close, workers can't simply consult the local newspapers to get another job. Instead, they are forced to relocate, looking for those elusive retail jobs that pay barely more than half than the job they just lost, and are growing most rapidly in larger cities with a higher cost of living. With this in mind, the last thing Congress needs to do is increase the amount of cheap imports coming into our markets. Yet this is exactly what H.R. 434 will do. Even worse, however, the bill provides the perfect loophole for Asian countries to circumvent U.S. import restrictions. No wonder many people around town are starting to refer to this legislation as the ``Chinese Transshipment Bill.'' Here's how Asian companies can easily conduct illegal transshipments from both African and Caribbean nations, Mr. President. Asian companies, which currently must comply with U.S. quota and duty requirements, will simply set up shop in the nations that benefit from this legislation. Once they are in operation, it's impossible to know whether garments are actually assembled in Africa or the Caribbean or being shipped to these countries from elsewhere. Then, under the bill, they can add another $3 billion to their current agreements with the United States. Mr. President, these illegalities certainly won't benefit American textile companies--and it's hard to see how it does much for the African and Caribbean nations that this bill is ostensibly designed to help. Instead, it merely allows already-established Asian companies to use these nations as simple fronts for their own business. I certainly hope that's not what the Senate has in mind. Mr. President, in my view, the decimation of one of America's most important industries is absolutely unacceptable. I do not quarrel with the contention that economic development in Africa and the Caribbean is an important objective and ultimately in America's best interest. Yet I fail to see why we must sacrifice an entire domestic industry to this international goal. Sadly enough, the Senate is now poised to do just that. I am realistic enough to know the ultimate outcome of this debate. But I would be remiss in my duty as a Senator from North Carolina--and as an American--if I did not take a stand on behalf of the many thousands of workers who have paid--and will continue to pay--the price for a U.S. trade policy willing to countenance the destruction of the textile industry and the communities it supports. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.