Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it is my honor to present to the Senate the longtime friend of most Senators, the Honorable President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent we stand in recess for 7 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 28, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,733,741,907,422.83 (Five trillion, seven hundred thirty-three billion, seven hundred forty-one million, nine hundred seven thousand, four hundred twenty-two dollars and eighty-three cents). Five years ago, March 28, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,849,996,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-nine billion, nine hundred ninety-six million). Ten years ago, March 28, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,051,947,000,000 (Three trillion, fifty-one billion, nine hundred forty-seven million). Fifteen years ago, March 28, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,710,720,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred ten billion, seven hundred twenty million). Twenty-five years ago, March 28, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $508,988,000,000 (Five hundred eight billion, nine hundred eighty-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,224,753,907,422.83 (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-four billion, seven hundred fifty-three million, nine hundred seven thousand, four hundred twenty-two dollars and eighty-three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 27, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,731,795,924,886.02 (Five trillion, seven hundred thirty-one billion, seven hundred ninety-five million, nine hundred twenty-four thousand, eight hundred eighty-six dollars and two cents). Five years ago, March 27, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,847,680,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-seven billion, six hundred eighty million). Ten years ago, March 27, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,022,612,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty-two billion, six hundred twelve million). Fifteen years ago, March 27, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,709,535,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred nine billion, five hundred thirty-five million). Twenty-five years ago, March 27, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $507,841,000,000 (Five hundred seven billion, eight hundred forty-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,223,954,924,886.02 (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-three billion, nine hundred fifty-four million, nine hundred twenty-four thousand, eight hundred eighty-six dollars and two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, March 24, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,730,876,091,058.27 (Five trillion, seven hundred thirty billion, eight hundred seventy-six million, ninety-one thousand, fifty-eight dollars and twenty-seven cents). One year ago, March 24, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,645,339,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-five billion, three hundred thirty-nine million). Five years ago, March 24, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,846,988,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-six billion, nine hundred eighty-eight million). Twenty-five years ago, March 24, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $505,328,000,000 (Five hundred five billion, three hundred twenty-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,225,548,091,058.27 (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-five billion, five hundred forty-eight million, ninety-one thousand, fifty-eight dollars and twenty-seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when a remarkable North Carolina native died on March 16, a more perfect world would have dictated that his death be given far more attention than it received, attention that would have invoked memories of a distinguished, decorated war veteran; a career Air Force officer; and a conscientious, hard-working real estate agent; and most importantly, it would have kindled memories of a kind, gentle grandfather who enjoyed bass fishing and tending to his beloved roses. But, when death came to Thomas Wilson Ferebee, some of the media mentioned these fine personal qualities only in passing, but many others will remember Tom Ferebee's carrying out his awesome, solemn responsibility as lead bombardier on the Enola Gay. It was he, on duty that fateful day when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, helping to bring, finally, an end to the costly, destructive, most terrible conflict that history records as World War II. The decision to use the atomic bomb was an extraordinarily difficult one. And, too often, revisionist historians have tried to rewrite the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with unjustified suggestions that Harry Truman's decision to use the bomb to end the war was immoral. What would have been immoral, of course, would have been to force the world into a further, protracted, bloody struggle when the means were available to end it--with, in the end, less suffering, destruction, and killing. The weight of that decision was placed on the shoulders of the crew of the Enola Gay, among whom was a farm boy from Davie County, NC. In nearby Mocksville, where Tom Ferebee went to school, nobody could have predicted that this four-sport star of baseball, football, basketball, and track would be remembered one day around the world. Throughout his later years, Tom Ferebee was often questioned about his Enola Gay role. One journalist after another with their minds made up in advance tried to press Tom Ferebee to admit guilt about his role--which Tom Ferebee rejected, saying, for example in 1995: I'm sorry an awful lot of people died from that bomb, and I hate that something like that had to happen to end the war. But it was war, and we had to do something to end it. None of us who were on the Enola Gay ever lost a minute's sleep over it. In fact, I sleep better because I feel a large part of the peace we have had in the last 50 years was what we brought about. If we hadn't forced the surrender, there would have had to be a land invasion of Japan and the estimates are that a million Americans and as many Japanese would have died in it. Which is absolutely correct. The fact is, Mr. President, that Tom Ferebee and his comrades deserve better than to be symbols of phony guilt resulting from an absolute necessity of war. Tom Ferebee knew--as we do--that he did the right thing by carrying out his mission. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Tom Brokaw's recently released a best- selling book, ``The Greatest Generation'' is a tribute to the contributions of the millions of Americans who grew up during the Great Depression, then went on to fight and win WWII. I suggest that most Americans will agree that Mr. Brokaw's father's generation is one of unique and lasting significance. Having lived through that dark hour when totalitarian regimes in Europe and Asia threatened the survival of our republic, and having witnessed the sacrifices unhesitatingly borne by our servicemen, I must confess that I, like most of that generation, can never take our liberties for granted. More than a half-century removed from victory in WWII, in retrospect I am convinced that far too many Americans have forgotten (or perhaps never learned) how bleak the prospects for our success appeared to be in the spring and early summer of 1942. Victory was not preordained, and our fate might well have been vastly different had it not been for the heroic actions of U.S. Navy Lieutenant Richard Best and others like him who won that decisive victory at the Battle of Midway in June 1942, reversing a decade of previously unchecked (and largely unchallenged aggression) by the Japanese Imperial Navy. Mr. President, to understand fully the heroic nature of Lieutenant Best's heroism, it is essential to understand the events leading up to the battle. Prior to Midway, American forces in the Pacific had endured a devastating series of losses and withdrawals that had crippled the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Beginning with almost 3,600 casualties at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Americans witnessed the fall of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Rangoon to battle-hardened Japanese forces; the collapse of a spirited defense of Battan by American and Filipino forces; and finally, the devastating loss of Corregidor, the island at the entrance of Manila Bay--an island that the United States had heavily fortified and which had been dubbed the ``Gibraltar of the East.'' These losses led many Americans to the conclusion that Japan's success in the Pacific was inevitable. Some voices at home began to call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Pacific theater so that we could first concentrate on winning the war against fascism in Europe. After the selfless and courageous action of Lieutenant Best on June 4, 1942, and the American victory at the Battle of Midway, it became clear that America would not abandon the Pacific theater to an unprovoked aggressor. Instead, America would stand and fight. Mr. President, the Japanese plan of attack on Midway was designed as part of the largest operation in the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Anticipating complete surprise and equipped with four fast carriers, Kaga, Akagi, Soryu, and Hiryu, the First Carrier Striking Force had reason to expect a crushing victory. The early action of the battle seemed to justify that confidence. The first action saw three successive waves of American torpedo bombers attack the Japanese carriers. While avoiding damage to their carriers, Japanese fighters and antiaircraft guns quickly managed to shoot down 35 of the 41 American aircraft. Following these devastating losses, two squadrons of United States dive bombers from the U.S.S. Enterprise swooped down on the Japanese carriers. Leading the Enterprise's Bombing Squadron Six, a group of 15 Dauntless SBD aircraft was their commanding officer, Lieutenant Richard Best (later lieutenant commander). Regarded as one of the Navy's most skilled dive-bomb pilots. Lieutenant Best took the point attacking the well-defended Japanese flagship, The Akagi. With precision, he delivered his bomb on the flight deck of the powerful carrier, scoring the first direct hit, one that would eventually lead to the sinking of the ship. Of the 15 planes in his squadron, only Lieutenant Best and four others returned to the Enterprise that day. After refueling and rearming, Lieutenant Best soared into the air again. This time he was searching for the Hiryu, the one Japanese carrier that had managed to survive the day's earlier fighting. According to the Naval Historical Center, Richard Best scored a second direct hit against the Hiryu, helping to deliver a devastating blow the overconfident and seemingly invincible Japanese Navy. In addition to being the only American pilot to score two successful direct hits on Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway, there was something else remarkable about Lieutenant Best's courage that day. At the time of the attack, he was physically weakened and suffering from severe lung damage. Doctors later diagnosed him as suffering from tuberculosis, a condition that would (1) prevent him from ever flying again and (2) would cause him to spend the next two years recovering in Navy hospitals. For his actions at Midway, Lieutenant Commander Best received the Navy Cross in 1942, the second highest military award presented to members of the Naval Service. It now appears that this award was based on incomplete information and that at the time, the Navy was not aware (1) that Best was the only pilot who scored two direct hits and (2) that he was suffering from tuberculosis. Since then, a number of distinguished retired Naval officers, including Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, have ``weighed-in'' in support of awarding Dick Best the Congressional Medal of Honor. Should the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense determine that an upgrade of the Navy Cross is appropriate I will unhesitatingly support it. Mr. President, tomorrow night, at a dinner in New York City, the International Midway Memorial Foundation, will celebrate the 90th birthday of Dick Best and honor him for his selfless and courageous conduct in the Battle of Midway. While I am unable to be present, I certainly extend my gratitude and respect for his incredible heroism that day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 22, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,727,734,275,348.06 (Five trillion, seven hundred twenty-seven billion, seven hundred thirty-four million, two hundred seventy-five thousand, three hundred forty-eight dollars and six cents). One year ago, March 22, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,642,227,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-two billion, two hundred twenty-seven million). Five years ago, March 22, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,844,513,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-four billion, five hundred thirteen million). Ten years ago, March 22, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,022,412,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty-two billion, four hundred twelve million). Fifteen years ago, March 22, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,708,934,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred eight billion, nine hundred thirty-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,018,800,275,348.06 (Four trillion, eighteen billion, eight hundred million, two hundred seventy-five thousand, three hundred forty-eight dollars and six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 21, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,728,846,067,846.82 (Five trillion, seven hundred twenty-eight billion, eight hundred forty-six million, sixty-seven thousand, eight hundred forty-six dollars and eighty-two cents). Five years ago, March 21, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,843,694,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-three billion, six hundred ninety-four million). Ten years ago, March 21, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,020,865,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty billion, eight hundred sixty-five million). Fifteen years ago, March 21, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,709,314,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred nine billion, three hundred fourteen million). Twenty-five years ago, March 21, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $505,306,000,000 (Five hundred five billion, three hundred six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,223,540,067,846.82 (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-three billion, five hundred forty million, sixty-seven thousand, eight hundred forty- six dollars and eighty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 20, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,728,253,942,273.38 (Five trillion, seven hundred twenty-eight billion, two hundred fifty-three million, nine hundred forty-two thousand, two hundred seventy-three dollars and thirty-eight cents). Five years ago, March 20, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,842,720,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-two billion, seven hundred twenty million). Ten years ago, March 20, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,020,566,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty billion, five hundred sixty- six million). Fifteen years ago, March 20, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,707,839,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred seven billion, eight hundred thirty-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, March 20, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $505,392,000,000 (Five hundred five billion, three hundred ninety-two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,222,861,942,273.38 (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-two billion, eight hundred sixty-one million, nine hundred forty-two thousand, two hundred seventy-three dollars and thirty-eight cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business Friday, March 17, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,728,671,330,064.36 (Five trillion, seven hundred twenty-eight billion, six hundred seventy-one million, three hundred thirty thousand, sixty-four dollars and thirty- six cents). One year ago, March 17, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,641,695,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-one billion, six hundred ninety-five million). Five years ago, March 17, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,841,552,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-one billion, five hundred fifty-two million). Twenty-five years ago, March 17, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $502,644,000,000 (Five hundred two billion, six hundred forty-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,226,027,330,064.36 (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-six billion, twenty-seven million, three hundred thirty thousand, sixty-four dollars and thirty-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 8, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,745,125,070,490.06 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-five billion, one hundred twenty-five million, seventy thousand, four hundred ninety dollars and six cents). One year ago, March 8, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,651,493,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-one billion, four hundred ninety-three million). Five years ago, March 8, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,848,282,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-eight billion, two hundred eighty-two million). Ten years ago, March 8, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,023,842,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty-three billion, eight hundred forty-two million). Fifteen years ago, March 8, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,704,823,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred four billion, eight hundred twenty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,040,302,070,490.06 (Four trillion, forty billion, three hundred two million, seventy thousand, four hundred ninety dollars and six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I report favorably a nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that the nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, earlier this morning I was thinking about 20 years ago when a delightful young lady Senator from Kansas served in this body, Nancy Kassebaum. She was a lady in every respect, and I miss her to this good day. I was thinking about Nancy because today is International Women's Day. The radical feminists are at it again. They have chosen once again to press their case for Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and that has the acronym of CEDAW. Let's examine this treaty which women organizations--including some of the more liberal women in Congress--are so eager to have approved by the Congress and reported out, first of all, by the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I am chairman. They put out a press release yesterday that they were going to picket me. I guess they were going to scream and holler at me as they tried to do not long ago, which suits me all right because I have been screamed and hollered at before by the same crowd. ``This urgently needed'' treaty, as they describe it, has been collecting dust in the Senate archives for 20 years. It was submitted by President Carter to the Senate in 1980. In these years since President Carter sent it to the Senate, the Democratic Party controlled the Senate for 10 of those years and the Democrats never brought it up for a vote. Indeed, in the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, when the Democrats controlled not only the Senate but the White House, the Democrats never saw fit to bring this radical treaty up for a vote. They were silent in seven languages about it. Now, suddenly, 20 years later, they demand to be given urgent priority in the recommendation of this treaty, and that it be considered first by the Foreign Relations Committee and then by the Senate. I say dream on because it is not going to happen. Why has CEDAW, the Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, never been ratified? Because it is a bad treaty; it is a terrible treaty negotiated by radical feminists with the intent of enshrining their radical antifamily agenda into international law. I will have no part of that. Let me give a few examples of the world in which the authors and proponents of this treaty would have all live. Under this treaty, a ``committee on the elimination of discrimination against women is established with the task of enforcing compliance with the treaty.'' Mr. President, how about a few excerpts from the reports that the committee has issued? They provide a telling insight into the hearts and minds of the authors who wrote this treaty in the first place. What do they propose? They propose global legalization of abortion. The treaty has been intended, from the very beginning, to be a vehicle for imposing abortion on countries that still protect the rights of the unborn. For example, this committee has instructed Ireland a country that restricts abortion, to ``facilitate a national dialogue on * * * the restrictive abortion laws'' of Ireland and has declared in another report that under the CEDAW treaty ``it is discriminatory for a [government] to refuse to legally provide for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women''--that is to say, abortion. Another issue: Legalization of prostitution. In another report issued in February of, 1999, the CEDAW committee declared: The committee recommends the decriminalization of prostitution. They even called for the abolishment of Mother's Day. The CEDAW crowd has come out against Mother's Day--yes, Mother's Day. Earlier this year, the committee solemnly declared to Belarus its ``concern [over] the continuing prevalence of * * * such [stereotypical] symbols as a Mother's Day'' and lectured Armenia on the need to ``combat the traditional stereotype of women in `the noble role of mother.' '' There are not enough kids in day care, they claim. The committee informed Slovenia that too many Slovenian mothers were staying home to raise their children. What a bad thing for mothers to do--think of it--staying home with their children. This committee warned that because only 30 percent of children were in day-care centers, the other 70 percent were in grave danger of, now get this, ``miss[ing] out on educational and social opportunities offered in formal day-care institutions.'' Another thing, mandating women in combat. Boy, they are hot to trot on that. In a 1997 report, the CEDAW committee mandated that all countries adopting the treaty must ensure the ``full participation'' of women in the military, meaning that nations would be required to send women into combat even if the military chiefs decided that it was not in the national security interest of, for example, the United States of America. This is the world that the advocates of this CEDAW treaty want to impose on America. That is why they are picketing my office right now, demanding the Senate Foreign Relations Committee consider this treaty and report it out to the Senate for approval. I say to these women who are picketing my office: Dream on. If its authors and implementers had their way, the United States, as a signatory to this treaty, would have to legalize prostitution, legalize abortion, eliminate what CEDAW regards as the preferable environment of institutional day care instead of children staying at home. This treaty is not about opportunities for women. It is about denigrating motherhood and undermining the family. The treaty is designed to impose, by international fiat, a radical definition of ``discrimination against women'' that goes far beyond the protections already enshrined in the laws of the United States of America. That is why this treaty was publicly opposed in years past by, as I said earlier, Nancy Kassebaum and many others, who felt as I did then, and still do, that creating yet another set of unenforceable international standards would dilute, not strengthen, the human rights standards of women around the world. We need only to look at the conditions of women living in countries that have ratified this treaty, countries such as Iran and Libya, to understand that Nancy Kassebaum was right in her opposition to the Treaty on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The fact is, the United States has led the world in advancing opportunities for women during the 20 years this treaty has been collecting dust in the Senate's archives. I suspect that America will continue to lead the way, while the CEDAW crowd and the treaty sits in the dustbin for a few more decades to come. If I have anything to do with it, that is precisely where it is going to remain. I do not intend to be pushed around by discourteous, demanding women no matter how loud they shout or how much they are willing to violate every trace of civility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 7, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,747,932,431,376.73 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-seven billion, nine hundred thirty- two million, four hundred thirty-one thousand, three hundred seventy- six dollars and seventy-three cents). Five years ago, March 7, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,851,012,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred fifty-one billion, twelve million). Ten years ago, March 7, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,027,086,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty-seven billion, eighty-six million). Fifteen years ago, March 7, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,708,698,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred eight billion, six hundred ninety-eight million). Twenty-five years ago, March 7, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $499,218,000,000 (Four hundred ninety-nine billion, two hundred eighteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,248,714,431,376.73 (Five trillion, two hundred forty-eight billion, seven hundred fourteen million, four hundred thirty-one thousand, three hundred seventy-six dollars and seventy-three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 6, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,745,099,557,759.64 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-five billion, ninety-nine million, five hundred fifty-seven thousand, seven hundred fifty-nine dollars and sixty-four cents). Five years ago, March 6, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,840,905,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty billion, nine hundred five million). Ten years ago, March 6, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,028,453,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty-eight billion, four hundred fifty-three million). Fifteen years ago, March 6, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,713,220,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred thirteen billion, two hundred twenty million). Twenty-five years ago, March 6, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $499,255,000,000 (Four hundred ninety-nine billion, two hundred fifty- five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,245,844,557,759.64 (Five trillion, two hundred forty-five billion, eight hundred forty-four million, five hundred fifty-seven thousand, seven hundred fifty-nine dollars and sixty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, March 3, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,742,858,530,572.10 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-two billion, eight hundred fifty-eight million, five hundred thirty thousand, five hundred seventy-two dollars and ten cents). One year ago, March 3, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,653,396,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-three billion, three hundred ninety-six million). Five years ago, March 3, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,840,473,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty billion, four hundred seventy-three million). Twenty-five years ago, March 3, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $496,847,000,000 (Four hundred ninety-six billion, eight hundred forty- seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,246,011,530,572.10 (Five trillion, two hundred forty-six billion, eleven million, five hundred thirty thousand, five hundred seventy-two dollars and ten cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 1, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,725,649,856,797.45 (Five trillion, seven hundred twenty-five billion, six hundred forty-nine million, eight hundred fifty-six thousand, seven hundred ninety-seven dollars and forty-five cents). One year ago, March 1, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,643,046,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-three billion, forty-six million). Five years ago, March 1, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,848,389,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred forty-eight billion, three hundred eighty-nine million). Ten years ago, March 1, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $3,026,322,000,000 (Three trillion, twenty-six billion, three hundred twenty-two million). Fifteen years ago, March 1, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,712,490,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred twelve billion, four hundred ninety million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,013,159,856,797.45 (Four trillion, thirteen billion, one hundred fifty-nine million, eight hundred fifty-six thousand, seven hundred ninety-seven dollars and forty-five cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in honor of Leap Day, which was yesterday, I am going to vary my regular format. It is estimated that 200,000 people in the United States were born on February 29th. While these individuals may not share their birthdays with their families and loved ones every year, they do share--every year--in the less than desirable Federal debt like the rest of us. Since 1970, the Federal debt has leapt remarkably--reaching $5,735,333,348,132.58 (Five trillion, seven hundred thirty-five billion, three hundred thirty-three million, three hundred forty-eight thousand, one hundred thirty-two dollars and fifty-eight cents) at the close of business yesterday, February 29, 2000. The previous Leap Day, February 29, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,016,041,000,000 (Five trillion, sixteen billion, forty-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $700 billion-- $719,292,348,132.58 (Seven hundred nineteen billion, two hundred ninety-two million, three hundred forty-eight thousand, one hundred thirty-two dollars and fifty-eight cents) during the past four years. Today, Mr. President, each citizen's share of the Federal debt is $20,727.13. Translating this figure into the amount that Leap Day citizens owe, the figure becomes $4,145,426,000.00 (Four billion, one hundred forty-five million, four hundred twenty-six thousand). This amount may not seem like a lot, but it is when you consider it is only enough to pay down four days worth of the interest on the Federal debt. Mr. President, I wish my Senate colleagues to note how tragic it is that our country's debt leaps with more frequency than the years do.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, February 28, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,747,333,809,275.61 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-seven billion, three hundred thirty-three million, eight hundred nine thousand, two hundred seventy- five dollars and sixty-one cents). Five years ago, February 28, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,854,298,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred fifty-four billion, two hundred ninety-eight million). Ten years ago, February 28, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,994,354,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred ninety-four billion, three hundred fifty-four million). Fifteen years ago, February 28, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,698,358,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred ninety-eight billion, three hundred fifty-eight million). Twenty-five years ago, February 28, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $499,711,000,000 (Four hundred ninety-nine billion, seven hundred eleven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,247,622,809,275.61 (Five trillion, two hundred forty-seven billion, six hundred twenty-two million, eight hundred nine thousand, two hundred seventy-five dollars and sixty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business Friday, February 25, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,748,251,779,017.69 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-eight billion, two hundred fifty-one million, seven hundred seventy-nine thousand, seventeen dollars and sixty-nine cents). One year ago, February 25, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,620,928,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred twenty billion, nine hundred twenty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, February 25, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,695,295,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred ninety-five billion, two hundred ninety-five million). Twenty-five years ago, February 25, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $496,984,000,000 (Four hundred ninety-six billion, nine hundred eighty- four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,251,267,779,017.69 (Five trillion, two hundred fifty-one billion, two hundred sixty-seven million, seven hundred seventy-nine thousand, seventeen dollars and sixty-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, back in the mid-1960s, I was enjoying life as one of the guys active in the management of a very successful television station in my hometown of Raleigh. The company, Capitol Broadcasting Company, had been founded by a remarkable gentleman, Mr. A.J. Fletcher, born in the mountains of Western North Carolina, son of a circuit-riding Baptist preacher whose ministry included hundreds of mountain families who attended the many churches under the watchcare of the Reverend Mr. Fletcher. Those were hard scrabble times and by today's standards, just about everybody whom Reverend Fletcher's ministry served was poor. A.J. Fletcher had nonetheless begun a lifetime love affair with the music of opera. So he headed east, to Raleigh and Wake County; virtually penniless he nonetheless studied law at night and in the process developed an instinctive knowledge of business and investment. In the years that followed, neither A.J. Fletcher nor anyone else in his family ever lived another hard-scrabble day. Mr. President, I developed a high respect and genuine friendship for and with Mr. Fletcher. What I have recited up to this point is intended to be a lead-in to a magazine article about one of Mr. Fletcher's remarkable grandsons, James Fletcher Goodmon who today is president and CEO of Capitol Broadcasting Company. I will get to the article in a moment, Mr. President, but I am obliged to mention my earliest impressions of Jim Goodmon when he was in high school in Raleigh and worked every possible minute of every day (and night) that he could manage at the television station (WRAL-TV) which was to become the flagship station-to-be of an expanded Capitol Broadcasting Company. I saw young Jim Goodmon frequently back in those days (and nights) as he concentrated on learning everything possible about the mysteries of keeping a television station on the air. Many times he was covered with grease, many times he was bound to have been tired, but Jim Goodmon was then, as he is today, a hard-charger. Grandpa Fletcher was proud of Jim--and so was I. I sensed back then that Jim Goodmon would one day be a leader in television--as he certainly has turned out to be. A few words about Jim Goodmon's family. After attending Duke University, Jim Goodmon found a bride--a lovely one and a hard-charger herself--across the mountains in Tennessee. Barbara Lyons was a registered nurse then. Now, years later, Barbara Lyons Goodmon genuinely cares about people. She and Jim have three children and one grandchild. They complement each other; both stay busy but never so busy that they cannot help each other in their myriad of projects. What I have stated is scarcely more than a snapshot of a remarkable family. Mr. A.J. Fletcher is long gone from the scene but I have a hunch that he is looking down from a Cloud Nine somewhere, nodding his approval of the way Jim and Barbara are doing things. Let me hurriedly add that Jim Goodmon is president and owner of the Durham Bulls baseball team which plays its home games in its dandy new stadium about 20 miles away in Durham--and then I will proceed to calling attention to a profile about Jim Goodmon published in the latest issue of the magazine, Region Focus. The article, by Betty Joyce Nash, is entitled ``James F. Goodmon, an industry visionary and community cheerleader defines the future.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, February 23, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,744,135,736,409.24 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-four billion, one hundred thirty-five million, seven hundred thirty-six thousand, four hundred nine dollars and twenty-four cents). One year ago, February 23, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,619,948,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred nineteen billion, nine hundred forty-eight million). Five years ago, February 23, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,837,337,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred thirty-seven billion, three hundred thirty-seven million). Ten years ago, February 23, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,992,887,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred ninety-two billion, eight hundred eighty-seven million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,751,248,736,409.24 (Two trillion, seven hundred fifty-one billion, two hundred forty-eight million, seven hundred thirty-six thousand, four hundred nine dollars and twenty-four cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am certainly not alone in my disappointment at the recent turn of events in Northern Ireland. It is a disheartening development. With the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998 and the overwhelming desire for peaceful resolution of the conflict--in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland--the prospects for peace in that troubled region had never seemed better. The Good Friday Agreement, like all negotiated peace settlements, offers incentives to all parties but it also requires compromises-- compromises that most people are willing to make, and have made, in order for peace. I do not pretend to speak for any side in Northern Ireland, but I can imagine that it was difficult for many in the Unionist community to see convicted IRA bombers walk free from prison. And it was certainly difficult for many in the nationalist community to accept the principal of continued British sovereignty over Northern Ireland. But David Trimble, John Hume, and other honorable men and women have fulfilled their obligations under the Good Friday Agreement in order to give peace the opportunity to take root in Northern Ireland. The current crisis stems from the refusal of one organization--the Irish Republican Army--to begin the process of decommissioning of their weapons and explosives. The IRA claims it has done enough by keeping its guns silent, by not setting off bombs, by adhering to a cease-fire. But, Mr. President, what kind of democratic system exists when one organization maintains a massive arsenal for potential use in the event that it is dissatisfied with the political process? Is that considered a genuine peace? I maintain that it is not, and it should not be accepted by people in this country. Let me clear, the IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, signed onto decommissioning in the Good Friday Agreement. As the Agreement states: ``all participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations'' and to ``use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years'', which is May 22 of this year. Now, Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams has said that his organization ``has no further room to move'', which I find quite interesting, considering that members of his party were allowed to participate in the local governing structures established by the Good Friday Agreement (but do not seem to be willing to convince the IRA it must fulfill its obligations as well). I suggest that Mr. Adams be advised that he cannot have it both ways. And to those whose excuse is that the deadline for decommissioning is still three months off (May 22, 2000), I would remind them that there is an established body designed to manage this process and that the IRA refused to make any commitment or offer any timetable for decommissioning to this institution. It is difficult to believe that on May 21, 2000, the IRA would have, in any event, turned over its hundreds of guns, its tons of Semtex, which it maintains as a veto on peace. We are at a critical point: due to lack of commitment by the IRA on decommissioning, the British government had no choice but to suspend the indigenous institutions of Northern Ireland. Why? Let me merely recite the obvious: Why should Sinn Fein be allowed to participate in legitimate, elected governing bodies when the IRA refuses to disarm? How can we expect the unionist community to deal with Sinn Fein officials in this capacity when the IRA has turned its back on this crucial part of the peace process? Sinn Fein and the IRA continue to raise the bar; after demanding that the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly be established before beginning decommissioning, they now state that if the British withdraw their troops from bases in Northern Ireland, they might consider handing in their weapons. I would remind them that there is an agreement, there is a process that they have signed onto--from which they have benefitted. Their prisoners have been released. Plans for a drastic overhaul of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been put forth. Cross border institutions have been established and are functioning. They must abide by their obligations as well. Mr. President, Sinn Fein and the IRA must understand that if they do not, they will not have the support of the United States. Today I am offering a resolution stressing the importance of decommissioning to the success of the peace in Northern Ireland and calling on the IRA to commit to the process and to offer a timetable as to when they will turn in their arms and explosives. And although the loyalist paramilitary organizations have significantly fewer weapons in their possession, they must fulfill their promise to disarm as well. The two main loyalist paramilitaries have stated that they will disarm when the IRA begins to do so. If the IRA moves on decommissioning, these organizations should respond immediately. This is an historic moment in Northern Ireland--the best chance for peace in a quarter of a century. Let us not waste it. We must encourage those who are working for peace. But more importantly, we must make clear to those who want to destroy this opportunity by clinging to old and violent means, they can not succeed.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, during the past 5 months the Government of Russia has waged a brutal war against Chechnya. The Kremlin's indiscriminate use of force has left countless thousands of innocents dead and hundreds of thousands homeless on the icy plains and in the snow-covered mountains of the Caucasus. We all have seen the photos of Grozny, a city subjected to a travesty not witnessed in Europe since the siege of Stalingrad and the leveling of Warsaw in World War II. Indeed, what has been done to Grozny surpasses even the havoc Milosevic wrought upon the towns and cities of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. It is difficult to believe, but it is true. In a time when Western Governments have turned a blind eye to this conflict, the ability of journalists to report objectively on the horrors of this war becomes all the more important to the effort to bring an end to this violence and establish a just peace. Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to recognize this only too well. As a consequence, freedom of the press, a cornerstone of democracy, has become another victim of his government and his war against Chechnya. Mr. President, the Russian government is today systematically censoring the press and attempting to use it to disseminate misinformation about public events. Journalists in Russia who report on the war and other matters in a manner contradicting the Putin Government do so at great risk. They are subject to intimidation, harassment, detention, and even violence by Russian authorities. In one recent case, Russian police attempted to arrest a journalist and send him off to a psychiatric hospital, a ghoulish effort reminiscent of Putin's not to distant career in the Soviet KGB. Nowhere has this suppression of the free press become more blatant and cruel than in the case of Andrei Babitsky, a ten year veteran journalist of our own Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe. Babitsky courageously and objectively covered the 1994-1996 Russo- Chechen war as well as the current conflict. For his accounts of the atrocities committed by Russian military and the resilience of the Chechen resistance, he has paid an extremely high price. In mid-January, he was seized in Chechnya by Russian forces and detained. That is the last heard from him directly. The Russian Government's response to inquiries about Babitsky's health and whereabouts have been contradictory and dismissive. After nearly three weeks of asserting that Babitsky had not been detained, that he was about to be freed--and, indeed, that he had been freed, a Kremlin spokesman summarily announced on February 3 that his government exchanged Babitsky for three Russian prisoners of war held by the Chechen resistance. Chechen authorities deny that such an exchange ever took place. And, the Kremlin has not provided one iota of credible evidence backing its version of events. Today, the fate of Andrei Babitsky remains unknown. He is a father with a loving and courageous wife and two children. We must pray that Babitsky will return safely to his family. Mr. President, it is with Andrei Babitsky in mind, I, along with Senator Biden, the Majority Leader, and Senator Roth, send to the desk a resolution concerning the state of freedom of press in Russia. This resolution recounts the facts as we know them in the case of Andrei Babitsky, and it underscores that his detention and disappearance are not isolated incidents but part of the Russian government's broader and systematic repression of the press. It expresses our belief that--and at that this point I shall read the concluding elements of the pending resolution: (1) The detention of Andrei Babitsky by the Government of Russia and the misinformation it has issued concerning this matter constitute reprehensible treatment of a civilian in a conflict zone, in violation of the principles set forth in Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, and demonstrate the [Russian] Government's intolerance toward a free and open press; (2) The conduct by the Government of Russia leaves it responsible for the safety of Andrei Babitsky; (3) The Government of Russia should take steps to secure the safe return of RFE/RL reporter Andrei Babitsky to his family; (4) The Government of Russia should provide a full accounting of Mr. Babitsky's detention and the charges he faced; and (5) The Russian authorities should immediately halt its harassment of journalists, foreign and domestic, who cover the war in Chechnya and any other event in the Russian Federation and should fully adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares in Article 19 that ``everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'' No principle lies deeper in the heart of democracy than the right to free speech. And the embodiment of that principle is a free press. Not only is freedom of the press a cornerstone of democracy, it is a key catalyst of democratic reform. Russia will not become a democracy if the Kremlin continues to repress, intimidate, harass, and brutalize those journalists who do not share its point view. Our ability to help Russia evolve into a democracy cannot be effective if we ignore such systematic repression of the press. I call upon my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. Allow me to close on one point related to the disappearance of Andrei Babitsky, freedom of the press in Russia and the relationship between Washington and Moscow. It has become public knowledge that some in these two capitals contemplate a summit meeting in the near future between President Clinton and President Vladimir Putin. If our government is serious about determining the facts surrounding Andrei Babitsky's fate, if our government is serious about protecting other journalists from such abuse, and if our government is serious about promoting democratic reform in Russia, the administration will promptly dismiss such proposed summits until Putin has provided a full and credible accounting of Babitsky's detention and his current whereabouts. It is premature to consider summit meetings at a time when the Russian government remains contemptuously dismissive of Babitsky and our concerns about his safety, not to mention the international community's call for a just peace in Chechnya. The administration has repeatedly stated that the Kremlin will isolate itself through its barbaric conduct in Chechnya. Now is the time for the administration to live up to its own words.