Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, February 22, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,742,317,374,668.82 (Five trillion, seven hundred forty-two billion, three hundred seventeen million, three hundred seventy-four thousand, six hundred sixty-eight dollars and eighty-two cents). One year ago, February 22, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,617,212,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred seventeen billion, two hundred twelve million). Five years ago, February 22, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,835,999,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred thirty-five billion, nine hundred ninety-nine million). Ten years ago, February 22, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,992,794,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred ninety-two billion, seven hundred ninety-four million). Fifteen years ago, February 22, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,695,818,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred ninety-five billion, eight hundred eighteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,046,499,374,668.82 (Four trillion, forty-six billion, four hundred ninety-nine million, three hundred seventy-four thousand, six hundred sixty-eight dollars and eighty-two cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, February 18, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,739,814,030,329.64 (Five trillion, seven hundred thirty-nine billion, eight hundred fourteen million, thirty thousand, three hundred twenty-nine dollars and sixty- four cents). One year ago, February 18, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,613,958,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred thirteen billion, nine hundred fifty-eight million). Twenty-five years ago, February 18, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $494,617,000,000 (Four hundred ninety-four billion, six hundred seventeen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,245,197,030,329.64 (Five trillion, two hundred forty-five billion, one hundred ninety-seven million, thirty thousand, three hundred twenty-nine dollars and sixty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the past three years the Clinton administration has fought tooth-and-nail against the legislation now before the Senate. The White House repeatedly claimed, in its attempted defense, that the Lott-Lieberman initiative would undermine U.S. nonproliferation efforts, repeatedly asserting that they had Russia's behavior in check, and that progress was being made. Well, Mr. President, we now confront an Iran that has been armed to the gills with technology for ballistic missiles and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. According to the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs, (who testified before the Foreign Relations Committee this past September), Iran is in a position to test, within the latter half of this decade, an ICBM that ``could deliver a several-hundred kilogram payload to many parts of the United States . . . using Russian technology and assistance.'' Moreover, according to the Director of Central Intelligence, Iran ``probably has achieved `emergency operational capability' '' with its medium range Shahab-3 missile. In other words, under President Clinton's watch, Iran has acquired from Russia and China the ability to strike Israel and Turkey with ballistic missiles carrying chemical or biological warheads. And the mullahs are working overtime to develop the Shahab-4 and Shahab-5 in order to menace U.S. citizens at home. In conclude now, in the absence of fierce opposition to this bill from the White House this time around, that reality has finally sunk in at the National Security Council. The Clinton administration's nonproliferation policy has been an abject failure. Bill Clinton and Al Gore will leave office having subordinated nonproliferation concerns to business interests, the wishes to foreign campaign donors, and their ``touchy-feely'' personal politicking in Russia, China and elsewhere. The result has been an all-out fire-sale of deadly technologies by Russia, China, and others. Delegations from Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, India, and Pakistan are virtually tripping over one another on their way in and out of various Russian and Chinese firms. The Clinton-Gore Administration will leave office: 1. having allowed Russia and China to sell dangerous commodities around the globe with no fear of sanctions or consequences; 2. having presided over the development of a North Korean ICBM capable of dropping biological weapons on U.S. soil (according to the intelligence community, a Taepo Dong-2 ICBM could be tested any day now); 3. having presided over the arming of Iran, Syria, and others with nuclear, chemical, and biological missiles; 4. having squandered its inheritance regarding Iraq by interfering with, and ultimately abandoning, UNSCOM; 5. having prompted India and Pakistan into an all-out nuclear arms race by trying to ``strong-arm'' the two countries into the Test Ban Treaty (which merely prompted the nations to test); 6. having lost all hope of getting the START II Treaty ratified, which would have banned MIRVed ICBMs in Russia; 7. having imperiled the IAEA by tying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to the poorly-conceived, poorly-drafted CTBT, which the Senate rightly rejected; 8. having destroyed the Missile Technology Control Regime by allowing Russia (a missile proliferator) to come in as a member; and 9. having wasted half a decade of precious time in deploying a national missile defense to protect the United States from the consequences of their failed nonproliferation policy. We must all remember that the Clinton-Gore administration voted the DoD authorization bill in 1995 because it required deployment of a national missile defense by 2001, with additional protection by 2003. Because of the President's reckless disregard for the nation's security, the U.S. will not ``break ground'' on a missile defense site in Alaska until this summer, at the earliest. At the same time, this administration taught Russia and China how to evade U.S. sanctions laws while simultaneously putting the U.S. sanctions determination process into a deep freeze. Not a single MTCR sanction has been imposed for Russia's arming of Iran or China's assistance to Pakistan. The enormity of this blatant disregard for the law is stunning, Mr. President. What is worse, by promoting U.S. commercial interests at the expense of national security, the Clinton-Gore administration has become part of the problem. China's nuclear proliferation has been swept under the rug by Mr. Clinton in order to clear the way for the nuclear lobby to sell reactors to the PRC. We must recall that, in 1998, President Clinton made a legally binding certification which no other President could, in good faith, bring himself to make. But the Clinton-Gore administration was happy to oblige industry and the Communist Chinese. In 1996 the Clinton administration pulled controls on commercial satellites because millionaire campaign donors wanted it. Unsupervised, unscrupulous U.S. companies engaged in the transfer of very sensitive ballistic missile information to the PRC, including information relating to the MIRVing of ICBMs. The Congress tried to shore up this fiasco by recontrolling satellites, but the Commerce Department is at it again, having recently declared--despite the law--that it wants reduced controls on extremely sensitive items such as radiation hardened chips and kick motors. From 1993 until 1999, willful disregard for security at the White House and the Department of Energy permitted continued acquisition of the nation's most sensitive nuclear warhead designs by China. This was exacerbated by the foolhardy declassification of thousands of documents by Hazel O'Leary, which undoubtedly has contributed to nuclear weapons capabilities around the globe. Even now, the Clinton-Gore administration is contemplating sharing nuclear weapons secrets with Russia in an effort to bribe them into submission on the ABM Treaty. Lately, the Department of Defense--once the bulwark against the foolhardy weakening of export controls--has been working ``hand-in- glove'' with the defense industry and the Gore campaign. The Pentagon is now looking for ways to undermine the Arms Export Control Act. Again, this is happening because industry lobbying groups want these changes. There is an effort underway to avoid congressional notification of arms sales and to create license-free zones. The result, if unchecked, will be unfettered and unregulated trade in weaponry, which cannot be seen as a positive development under any circumstance. Finally, the administration has decided to support passively an Export Administration Act which would effectively undermine all existing U.S. export controls and which would undercut what is left of the nonproliferation policy which this administration inherited eight years ago. Enormous sums of money are being spent all over Washington by various industry groups because they know how loose export controls will be under this bill. Ronald Reagan's nonproliferation policy is in shambles, Mr. President. At best, this administration has been inept in managing such important issues. At worst, the administration has co-opted and corrupted nonproliferation policy on the basis of fund-raising schemes being run out of the Oval Office. The damage to U.S. nonproliferation policy is so severe and far-reaching, and the global results to date have been so catastrophic, that the next administration is going to spend the first four years just picking up the pieces. Mr. President, history will do worse than recording this administration as having fiddled while Rome burned. It will record these people as having set many of the fires themselves. I support the Iran Nonproliferation Act. Its reporting requirements will shed light on the fact that numerous Russian entities have sold their souls to the Mullahs in Tehran by offering that bunch of terrorists everything they want for their ballistic and cruise missile programs, including nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare technology. It will also prove that this administration has accomplished nothing in the past several years of ``talking.'' That said, however much it might help, this bill will not solve the problem. It is much too late to prevent Iran from capitalizing upon the capabilities it has acquired. While it is not too late to defend ourselves, or to assist Israel, Turkey, and others in defending themselves, it will fall to the next administration to reconstruct a comprehensive nonproliferation policy and reverse the fearful effects of the past eight years. Thank you, Mr. President; I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, February 9, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,690,617,208,881.34 (Five trillion, six hundred ninety billion, six hundred seventeen million, two hundred eight thousand, eight hundred eighty-one dollars and thirty-four cents). One year ago, February 9, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,585,068,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-five billion, sixty-eight million). Five years ago, February 9, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,803,443,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred three billion, four hundred forty-three million). Ten years ago, February 9, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,980,491,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighty billion, four hundred ninety-one million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,710,126,208,881.34 (Two trillion, seven hundred ten billion, one hundred twenty-six million, two hundred eight thousand, eight hundred eighty-one dollars and thirty-four cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, February 8, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,694,611,209,189.87 (Five trillion, six hundred ninety-four billion, six hundred eleven million, two hundred nine thousand, one hundred eighty-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents). One year ago, February 8, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,585,153,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-five billion, one hundred fifty-three million). Five years ago, February 8, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,805,605,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred five billion, six hundred five million). Ten years ago, February 8, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,984,058,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighty-four billion, fifty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, February 8, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,679,171,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred seventy-nine billion, one hundred seventy-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,015,440,209,189.87 (Four trillion, fifteen billion, four hundred forty million, two hundred nine thousand, one hundred eighty-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, February 7, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,693,618,340,748.18 (Five trillion, six hundred ninety-three billion, six hundred eighteen million, three hundred forty thousand, seven hundred forty-eight dollars and eighteen cents). Five years ago, February 7, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,806,973,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred six billion, nine hundred seventy-three million). Ten years ago, February 7, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,988,020,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighty-eight billion, twenty million). Fifteen years ago, February 7, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,682,610,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred eighty-two billion, six hundred ten million). Twenty-five years ago, February 7, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $489,675,000,000 (Four hundred eighty-nine billion, six hundred seventy-five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,203,943,340,748.18 (Five trillion, two hundred three billion, nine hundred forty-three million, three hundred forty thousand, seven hundred forty-eight dollars and eighteen cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business Friday, February 4, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,691,096,297,325.05 (Five trillion, six hundred ninety-one billion, ninety-six million, two hundred ninety-seven thousand, three hundred twenty-five dollars and five cents). One year ago, February 4, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,584,640,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-four billion, six hundred forty million). Fifteen years ago, February 4, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,672,705,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred seventy-two billion, seven hundred five million). Twenty-five years ago, February 4, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $487,665,000,000 (Four hundred eighty-seven billion, six hundred sixty- five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,203,431,297,325.05 (Five trillion, two hundred three billion, four hundred thirty-one million, two hundred ninety-seven thousand, three hundred twenty-five dollars and five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, February 2, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,702,134,559,981.88 (Five trillion, seven hundred two billion, one hundred thirty-four million, five hundred fifty-nine thousand, nine hundred eighty-one dollars and eighty-eight cents). One year ago, February 2, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,594,817,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-four billion, eight hundred seventeen million). Five years ago, February 2, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,814,204,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred fourteen billion, two hundred four million). Ten years ago, February 2, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,987,306,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighty-seven billion, three hundred six million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,714,828,559,981.88 (Two trillion, seven hundred fourteen billion, eight hundred twenty-eight million, five hundred fifty-nine thousand, nine hundred eighty-one dollars and eighty-eight cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, February 1, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,702,651,446,667.03 (Five trillion, seven hundred two billion, six hundred fifty-one million, four hundred forty-six thousand, six hundred sixty-seven dollars and three cents). One year ago, February 1, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,588,099,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-eight billion, ninety-nine million). Five years ago, February 1, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,810,860,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred ten billion, eight hundred sixty million). Ten years ago, February 1, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,994,932,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred ninety-four billion, nine hundred thirty-two million). Fifteen years ago, February 1, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,672,555,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred seventy-two billion, five hundred fifty-five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,030,096,446,667.03 (Four trillion, thirty billion, ninety-six million, four hundred forty-six thousand, six hundred sixty- seven dollars and three cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, January 31, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,711,285,168,951.46 (Five trillion, seven hundred eleven billion, two hundred eighty-five million, one hundred sixty-eight thousand, nine hundred fifty-one dollars and forty-six cents). Five years ago, January 31, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,815,827,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred fifteen billion, eight hundred twenty-seven million). Ten years ago, January 31, 1990, the Federal debt stood at $2,974,584,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred seventy-four billion, five hundred eighty-four million). Fifteen years ago, January 31, 1985, the Federal debt stood at $1,679,916,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred seventy-nine billion, nine hundred sixteen million). Twenty-five years ago, January 31, 1975, the Federal debt stood at $494,140,000,000 (Four hundred ninety-four billion, one hundred forty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,217,145,168,951.46 (Five trillion, two hundred seventeen billion, one hundred forty-five million, one hundred sixty-eight thousand, nine hundred fifty-one dollars and forty-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr HELMS

Mr HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, November 18, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,693,813,174,823.97 (Five trillion, six hundred ninety-three billion, eight hundred thirteen million, one hundred seventy-four thousand, eight hundred twenty-three dollars and ninety-seven cents). One year ago, November 18, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,586,312,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-six billion, three hundred twelve million). Five years ago, November 18, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,752,722,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred fifty-two billion, seven hundred twenty-two million). Twenty-five years ago, November 18, 1974, the Federal debt stood at $481,413,000,000 (Four hundred eighty-one billion, four hundred thirteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,212,400,174,823.97 (Five trillion, two hundred twelve billion, four hundred million, one hundred seventy-four thousand, eight hundred twenty-three dollars and ninety-seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I believe that is correct. If the Department's assurances are accurate, then this provision would not modify DOD's current policies regarding the protection of sensitive sources and methods. The Foreign Relations Committee has no intention of seeking expanded access to such sources and methods, or to DOD special access programs, so long as DOD lives up to its reporting obligations under existing law. DOD's policy of not handling nonproliferation information within special access channels certainly provides a significant reassurance in that regard. Our concern is only to ensure that DOD policy regarding special access programs or intelligence sources and methods not be seen as obviating its long-standing legal obligations to inform appropriate committees of Congress.

Mr. HELMS. I appreciate these assurances and thank my colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. HELMS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Unlike the other Secretaries you have mentioned, the Director of Central Intelligence is required only to disclose information covered under subparagraph (B). That information relates to significant proliferation activities of foreign nations. The Director is exempt from reporting information under subparagraph (A) and (B) which relates to the agency's operational activities. The Foreign Relations Committee understands that intelligence operations fall within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee, and therefore did not include such activities in this reporting requirement.

Mr. HELMS. I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I too have been assured by the Department that it will not use special access program status to deny the Foreign Relations Committee access to the nonproliferation information required by section 602(c).

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for those who may wonder why H.R. 3427, which was deemed enacted as a separate law in H.R. 3194, the D.C. Appropriations bill is called the ``Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2000 and 2001,'' it is because of our love, affection and respect for Admiral Bud Nance and Meg Donovan. Bud Nance was Chief of Staff of the Foreign Relations Committee until he passed away on May 11. Bud served his country his entire adult life--as an ensign aboard the USS North Carolina in the Pacific Theater during World War II and later as a test pilot and fighter pilot. Among his many honors, he earned two Distinguished Service Medals and capped off his distinguished 38-year navy career as skipper of the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. Bud went on to serve as President Ronald Reagan's Deputy National Security Advisor. And at my request in 1991 Bud became minority staff director for the Foreign Relations Committee. From January 1995 until his passing in May, he served as Chief of Staff for the majority. Bud refused to take the job until I agreed that he would not take a paycheck. Bud said that his country had been good to him and this was how he could give something back to his country. Bud was my lifelong friend. We were born two months apart, two blocks apart in the little town of Monroe, North Carolina. I miss my friend; it was a blessing to know him. I am pleased that the House and the Senate agreed to recognize Bud and his influence on this bill, which was the last bill on which he had the opportunity to work. In addition, Meg Donovan has been added to the bill's name. I know Bud would have been honored to share this bill with Meg for whom he had a deep affection. Like Bud, Meg Donovan, who died at age 47 of cancer last October, had spent much of her life in government service and international affairs. She served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the State Department at the time of her death, and before that was a longtime House International Relations Committee staff member. Meg worked closely with the Senate on the confirmation of key foreign affairs nominations, including those of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and later, Madeleine K. Albright. In the Congress, she worked primarily on issues dealing with political and religious dissidents, minorities and other persecuted groups, including Tibetans, Soviet Jews and women. Both Bud and Meg are missed by the staffs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee, and by me and countless others, all of whom are pleased that this legislation bears the names of these two fine Americans.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, November 17, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,690,918,151,426.47 (Five trillion, six hundred ninety billion, nine hundred eighteen million, one hundred fifty-one thousand, four hundred twenty-six dollars and forty-seven cents). One year ago, November 17, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,586,021,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-six billion, twenty-one million). Five years ago, November 17, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,752,752,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred fifty-two billion, seven hundred fifty-two million). Ten years ago, November 17, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,918,126,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighteen billion, one hundred twenty-six million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,772,792,151,426.47 (Two trillion, seven hundred seventy-two billion, seven hundred ninety-two million, one hundred fifty-one thousand, four hundred twenty-six dollars and forty-seven cents) during the past 10 years. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, November 16, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,689,775,697,887.62 (Five trillion, six hundred eighty-nine billion, seven hundred seventy-five million, six hundred ninety-seven thousand, eight hundred eighty-seven dollars and sixty-two cents). One year ago, November 16, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,581,706,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-one billion, seven hundred six million). Five years ago, November 16, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,748,423,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred forty-eight billion, four hundred twenty-three million). Ten years ago, November 16, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,918,690,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighteen billion, six hundred ninety million). Fifteen years ago, November 16, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,627,271,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred twenty-seven billion, two hundred seventy-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,062,504,697,887.62 (Four trillion, sixty-two billion, five hundred four million, six hundred ninety-seven thousand, eight hundred eighty-seven dollars and sixty-two cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Monday, November 15, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,686,436,332,009.22 (Five trillion, six hundred eighty-six billion, four hundred thirty-six million, three hundred thirty-two thousand, nine dollars and twenty-two cents). Five years ago, November 15, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,747,133,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred forty-seven billion, one hundred thirty-three million). Ten years ago, November 15, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,916,316,000,000 (Two trillion, nine hundred sixteen billion, three hundred sixteen million). Fifteen years ago, November 15, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,626,849,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred twenty-six billion, eight hundred forty-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, November 15, 1974, the federal debt stood at $481,430,000,000 (Four hundred eighty-one billion, four hundred thirty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,205,006,332,009.22 (Five trillion, two hundred five billion, six million, three hundred thirty-two thousand, nine dollars and twenty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, November 9, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,659,600,009,349.26 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-nine billion, six hundred million, nine thousand, three hundred forty-nine dollars and twenty-six cents). One year ago, November 9, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,556,815,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred fifty-six billion, eight hundred fifteen million). Five years ago, November 9, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,720,919,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred twenty billion, nine hundred nineteen million). Ten years ago, November 9, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,893,041,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred ninety-three billion, forty-one million). Fifteen years ago, November 9, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,613,716,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred thirteen billion, seven hundred sixteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,045,884,009,349.26 (Four trillion, forty-five billion, eight hundred eighty-four million, nine thousand, three hundred forty- nine dollars and twenty-six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, protecting America's children, our most vulnerable future leaders, is one of the highest obligations of government. Foremost among the reasons for waging a war on illegal drugs is the threat drugs pose and the damage they inflict on the children of America. At the core, it has always been understood that drug policy is primarily a federal responsibility. The vast majority of illegal drugs consumed in the United States are produced outside of our borders, smuggled into the country, transported across state lines, and distributed via a complex multi-faceted criminal network. If we hope to combat the spread of this cancer effectively, the federal government simply must take the lead role. The able Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, expressed that view well when he said: [W]hile our schools are the responsibility of states and local communities, the federal government has a responsibility to lead. . . . We must act now to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn in a safe and drug- free school. . . . The message we send our children on drugs is a real problem. When the message is anything short of zero tolerance for drugs, we encourage drug usage by kids. Mr. President, I agree absolutely. This recognition led me, along with several other Senators, to introduce a bill in the past two Congresses to extend the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act to illegal drugs. A modified version of that bill was also introduced as an amendment to S. 254 earlier this year; that version was unanimously agreed to by the Senate. Today, I am reintroducing that amendment as part of the Hatch- Ashcroft-Abraham drug amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I am thankful for the opportunity once again to allow Senators to go on record in support of the eradication of illegal drugs from our classrooms. Simply put, my amendment conditions receipt of federal education funds on state adoption of a policy of ``zero tolerance'' for student drug dealers. By zero tolerance, my amendment would require that drug traffickers be expelled from school for not less than one year. Anyone who thinks this policy unduly harsh should consult the 1998 CASA National Survey of Teens, Teachers and Principals. Prepared by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University under the direction of President Carter's former HEW Secretary, Joseph Califano, the report states under the heading ``Drug Dealing in Our Schools'': For too many kids, school has become not primarily a place for study and learning, but a haven for booze and drugs. . . . Parents should shutter when they learn that 22% of 12- to 14-year-olds and 51% of 15- to 17-year-olds know a fellow student at their school who sells drugs. . . . Indeed, not only do many of them know student drug dealers; often the drug deals take place at school itself. Principals and teachers may claim their schools are drug-free, but a significant percentage of the students have seen drugs sold on school grounds with their own eyes. . . . In fact, more teenagers report seeing drugs sold at school (27%) than in their own neighborhoods (21%). The report goes on to detail that students consider drugs to be the number one problem they face, that illegal drugs are readily available to students of all ages, and that illegal drugs are now cheaper and more potent than ever before. According to CASA, ``one in four teenagers can get acid, cocaine or heroin within 24 hours, and given enough time, almost half (46%) would be able to purchase such drugs.'' Clearly, eliminating illegal drugs from America's classrooms is a required first step to restore order. Impossible to calculate--the ill effects, disruptions, and violence associated with the drug trade are not limited to those who are active participants. The lives and futures of children who want to learn are often sacrificed by those disruptive students who seek to victimize their classmates. A clear link between school violence and drugs was found by the PRIDE survey, conducted by the National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education, when it reported that: Gun-toting students were 23 times more likely to use cocaine; gang members were 12 times more likely to use cocaine; and students who threatened others were 6 times more likely to use cocaine than others. The connection between drugs and school violence is apparent. Mr. President, the devastation wrought by illegal drugs crosses all geographic, political and economic boundaries. It is not confined to a region of the country or a class of individuals. As one example, according to the North Carolina State University's Center for the Prevention of School Violence (a remarkable organization that tracks the incidence of school crime in North Carolina and suggests preventative measures), ``possession of a controlled substance'' has been either the first or second most reported category of school crime in my home state for the past four years. Regrettably, I suspect that many other states share that dubious distinction as well. In recognition of the federal obligation to foster safe schools, the Congress passed and the President signed the Gun-Free Schools Act in 1994. Many commentators have, at least in part, credited that act with reducing the number of guns brought to our schools. It is time to provide a logical and common sense extension of that act by focusing not merely on the gun but on why students take guns to school in the first place. We must acknowledge that many children take guns to school either because they are involved in illegal activity or because they seek to protect themselves from those who are. A comprehensive effort to rid our schools of weapons must eliminate the reasons why students arm themselves not merely prohibit the possession of weapons. This realization is not lost on those who are on the ``front lines'' of our war on drugs. When surveyed, students, teachers, and parents express overwhelming support for the adoption of a zero tolerance policy for drugs at schools. In fact, the closer they are to the problem, the more enthusiastic they are in support of zero tolerance. For example, the CASA study that I mentioned earlier found that 80% of principals, 79% of teachers, 73% of teenagers and 69% of parents support zero tolerance. Additionally, 85% of principals, 79% of teachers, and 82% of students believe this policy effective at keeping drugs out of schools and believe that adoption of the policy would actually reduce drugs on their campus. In conclusion, the CASA report stated: If these students believe them [zero tolerance policies] so effective, these policies must make an impact on their decisions to not bring drugs on campus. Given this, it seems that schools . . . should implement and strictly enforce zero tolerance policies. Mr. President, this policy is firm but fair. The drug trade and its violence have no place in America's schoolhouses. Schools should be a safe haven for our children, fostering an environment that is conducive to learning and supportive of the vast majority of students who are eager to learn. At the very least, our children and teachers deserve a school free of fear and violence. President Clinton, in his 1997 State of the Union address, stated ``[W]e must continue to promote order and discipline, supporting communities that remove disruptive students from the classroom, and have zero tolerance for guns and drugs in schools.'' Echoing that view, Texas Governor George W. Bush, in a major education speech last week, called for zero tolerance policies for disruptive students, stronger enforcement of federal laws on bringing guns into schools and greater accountability from schools that receive federal money for drug and safety programs. Mr. President, it is obvious that the need to set high standards to protect our children from the scourge of illegal drugs should be a subject of broad bipartisan consensus. I hope that the Congress will heed President Clinton and Governor Bush's calls and that the Senate will once again send a strong signal to all that we intend to give our children the support they need to grow up safe and drug-free.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President in responding to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, it is certainly true that North Carolina is the largest of the nation's textile and apparel states in terms of employment. In fact, North Carolina employs over 200,000 workers in this industry, many of which are directly involved in wool fabric production. For that reason, I share his deep interest in this wool fabric issue. I want to make it clear that any such legislation would institute a unilateral tariff reduction on the part of the U.S. I do not believe that it is wise policy for the U.S. to simply reduce important tariffs and gain nothing in return. These same fabric makers are essentially precluded from shipping their products to many key markets overseas. My point is simply, if we want to consider reducing these duties, it would be better done as part of the upcoming World Trade Organization talks later this month in Seattle. At the very least, in that forum we would have the ability to gain some reciprocal market access to our manufacturers.

Mr. HELMS. That is my understanding of your verbal agreement with the managers of the bill.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 4 days ago, on November 5, the Senate Foreign Relations East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee conducted its hearing on the Moseley-Braun nomination. Since it was a subcommittee meeting and a hearing, I viewed it on television. I have a long practice of giving chairmen and ranking members of our subcommittees free rein in conducting their respective hearings. So I viewed the hearing on television, as I say, and it was a sight to behold. In fact, what it was was a political rally, lacking only a band and the distribution of free hot dogs, soda pop, and balloons. Last night, the full committee met briefly, almost informally, just outside the Chamber here, and reported the nomination to the Senate, with one dissent. I will let you guess whose dissent that was. Before I proceed further, I express the sincere hope that the nominee, when confirmed to serve as U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand, will serve diligently, effectively, and honestly. She will be representing the United States, the country of all Americans. For the sake of our country, I pray there will be no further reports of irregularity involving her conduct. In short, I wish her well. Before the book is closed on the scores of reports regarding the nominee's often puzzling service as a U.S. Senator, I decided a few footnotes were in order. Many citizens from many States all over this country--principally, however, from the Chicago area--have contacted me during the past few weeks. There have been expressions of puzzlement that the President of the United States decided to reverse the clearly expressed judgment of the people of Illinois in the 1998 election. Several speculated over the weekend that the Senate was about to rubber stamp the President's nomination to serve as U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand. After all, the Illinois voters have made the judgment that serious charges of ethical misconduct by Senator Moseley-Braun disqualified her from further representing them in the Senate. Now they say the same Senate is preparing to declare she is qualified to represent all Americans abroad. I think it important, therefore, that the people of Illinois -- indeed, all Americans--be assured before the Senate proceeds that what they are witnessing is by no means an absolution of Ms. Moseley-Braun. What the American people are witnessing is a successful coverup of serious ethical wrongdoing. I am not going to dwell this afternoon on each of the many serious charges that have been raised, such as the continuing mystery of who really paid for her numerous visits to Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha or where Ms. Moseley-Braun's fiance, Kosie Matthews, got the $47,000 downpayment on the Chicago condo. For the record, Mr. Matthews was also her campaign manager and is now conveniently a missing man. Nobody knows where he is. Whatever happened to the $249,000 the Federal Election Commission cannot account for her in her campaign? Or who was it exactly who paid for several thousand dollars in airfare, luxury hotel bills, and jewelry purchases during her 1992 trip to Las Vegas or the $10,000 in jewelry she purchased on her 1992 trip to Aspen, CO? In most cases, the Foreign Relations Committee and its legal officer were unable to get to the bottom of these and other matters because Ms. Moseley-Braun has been hiding behind Mr. Matthews. Mr. Matthews, a South African native, has skipped the country and is nowhere to be found. My purpose today is not to go through the laundry list of Ms. Moseley-Braun's well-known ethical lapses but, rather, to focus on the Clinton administration's culpability in all of this affair. Ms. Moseley-Braun was suspected of serious tax crime by the Internal Revenue Service following her 1992 campaign. According to a report in the New Republic magazine, she had: . . . a $6 million-plus war chest for her general election campaign, only $1 million of which was spent on TV advertising. Moreover, her campaign wound up $544,000 in debt. Where did this money go? The IRS wanted to find out, but the IRS' efforts to investigate allegations that Moseley-Braun had diverted an estimated $280,000 of those campaign funds for personal use and failed to report it as personal income, those allegations were blocked every step of the way by the Clinton Justice Department. In 1995, the Clinton Justice Department twice refused routine requests by the IRS Criminal Tax Division to convene a grand jury to investigate the charges against Ms. Moseley-Braun. The IRS had credible evidence that, among other things, she had spent some $70,000 in campaign funds on designer clothes, $25,000 on two jeeps, $18,000 on jewelry, $12,000 on stereo equipment, and some $64,000 on luxury vacations in Europe, Hawaii, and Africa. Without a grand jury, Government investigators were denied the subpoena power to get at the key documents they had to have to prove their case. The Clinton Justice Department refused repeated requests to convene a grand jury. Refusing such a request is highly unusual, according to numerous former IRS and Justice Department officials who made clear that the Justice Department's routine in such matters was to impanel grand juries so the IRS could continue gathering evidence. One former official with the Criminal Tax Division of the Justice Department, a Mr. John Bray, called it virtually unheard of to deny such a request. A former head of the Criminal Tax Division, Cono Namorato, commented: They [that is to say, the IRS] don't need to show much. . . . By and large, if it is requested, it is approved. Another described the relationship between the Justice Department and the IRS this way: The Justice Department basically sees the IRS as their client, and as their attorney they should do as requested. But in Moseley-Braun's case, this routine request from the client was denied, not once but twice. Then the Foreign Relations Committee requested all of the documents from both IRS and the Department of Justice on this matter. Contrary to declarations by Ms. Moseley-Braun, the documents do not absolve her of wrongdoing. What the documents prove is that these serious allegations of ethical misconduct were never properly examined because the investigation was blocked by political appointees at the Justice Department, no doubt on instructions from the White House. Interestingly enough, the official at the Justice Department who made the decision, Loretta Argrett, was a Moseley-Braun supporter who had made a modest contribution to the Moseley-Braun 1992 campaign and who had a picture of Ms. Moseley-Braun on her office wall. Senator Moseley-Braun even presided over Ms. Argrett's confirmation in 1993. It is noteworthy that the White House had to spend more than a week digging around in the bowels of the Justice Department to find the documents requested by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is compelling evidence in and of itself because it demonstrates that the administration failed to properly examine the charges against this nominee when the charges were presented by the IRS in 1995. Again, the administration demonstrably failed even to review the charges in 1999 before sending her nomination up to the Senate. It occurs to me that perhaps that was not unintentional. Perhaps the folks in the administration knew exactly what they were doing. Perhaps they hoped the spectacle of a public dispute between Jesse Helms and Carol Moseley-Braun would serve the base political interests of the Clinton administration. Well, Mr. President, I am not going to give them the spectacle they have been hoping to provoke. It may be that history, in a strange way, is now repeating itself. It is of interest to me that back in 1943, the then United States Senator Josiah William Bailey of North Carolina strongly opposed a proposal that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominate FDR's press secretary, a former Raleigh newspaper editor named Jonathan Daniels, as nominee to go--where? To New Zealand as United States Ambassador. Jonathan Daniels was a son of Josephus Daniels who had founded the Raleigh News and Observer many years earlier. Josephus once served as Secretary of the Navy and had chosen Franklin D. Roosevelt to be his assistant. Later on Josephus Daniels served as Ambassador to Mexico, nominated by President Roosevelt. Jonathan Daniels repeatedly pleaded with FDR to nominate him to be Ambassador to ``somewhere'' so that he could emulate his father Josephus, but FDR told Jonathan Daniels that he would nominate him to be an Ambassador only if Jonathan persuaded Senator Bailey to approve the nomination. The fly in the ointment was that Jonathan Daniels, prior to going to Washington as press aide to FDR, had written a series of abusive, mean editorials about Senator Bailey. Anyhow, Jonathan decided that he had nothing to lose by going to Senator Bailey's office to plead his case. Senator Bailey flatly rejected the idea of Jonathan Daniels' going anywhere as Ambassador--and flat-out told Jonathan so. To which Jonathan Daniels played his last card, pleading: Well, Senator, I would have thought that you wouldn't mind my being sent to New Zealand--it's on the other side of the world, you know. To which U.S. Senator Josiah William Bailey slowly shook his head and said: Yes, and it ain't fur enough. Mr. President, you are free to draw your own conclusion. I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, November 8, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,660,688,811,424.68 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty billion, six hundred eighty-eight million, eight hundred eleven thousand, four hundred twenty-four dollars and sixty-eight cents). Five years ago, November 8, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,724,109,000,000 (Four trillion, seven hundred twenty-four billion, one hundred nine million). Ten years ago, November 8, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,895,742,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred ninety-five billion, seven hundred forty-two million). Fifteen years ago, November 8, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,616,564,000,000 (One trillion, six hundred sixteen billion, five hundred sixty-four million). Twenty-five years ago, November 8, 1974, the Federal debt stood at $478,873,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-eight billion, eight hundred seventy-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,181,815,811,424.68 (Five trillion, one hundred eighty-one billion, eight hundred fifteen million, eight hundred eleven thousand, four hundred twenty-four dollars and sixty-eight cents) during the past 25 years.