Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum so I can get my records over here.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I don't understand the request.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. I object.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended, and that at the conclusion of Senator Cleland's remarks I be recognized.

Mr. HELMS. I ask that I be recognized.

Mr. HELMS. I object.

Mr. HELMS. I object unless it is recognized by all that I get the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, who gets the floor when the Senator from Georgia has finished his remarks?

Mr. HELMS. We can't have a colloquy.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 29, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,645,399,491,050.88 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-five billion, three hundred ninety-nine million, four hundred ninety-one thousand, fifty dollars and eighty-eight cents). One year ago, September 29, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,523,786,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-three billion, seven hundred eighty-six million). Five years ago, September 29, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,669,823,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred sixty-nine billion, eight hundred twenty-three million). Ten years ago, September 29, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,857,431,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred fifty-seven billion, four hundred thirty-one million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,787,968,491,050.88 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-seven billion, nine hundred sixty-eight million, four hundred ninety-one thousand, fifty dollars and eighty- eight cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I said a moment ago, and I repeat for emphasis, I am absolutely astonished our friends across the aisle refuse to agree to the majority leader's unanimous consent agreement to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate floor for debate and vote on October 7. I think this refusal is significant because of the incessant grandstanding that has been going on by the administration and some Senators and, of course, the liberal media that are not going to tell the facts about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--all clamoring that there is such an urgent need for immediate Senate action on the CTBT. It has been proclaimed constantly that the Senate absolutely must ratify the treaty so the United States can participate in the October 6 through 8 conference in Vienna. Yet when the majority leader offered a unanimous consent agreement to bring the treaty to a vote in time for that conference, the same people clamored for more action, running for the hills and demanding more time and making other demands. If it were not so pitiful, this behavior would be amusing. I am not going to let Senators have it both ways. The same people who have been criticizing the Foreign Relations Committee for inaction on the CTBT are now refusing to a date certain, and a timely vote on the CTBT. Of course, some are hiding behind the idea that more hearings are needed for a full Senate vote. Hogwash. For the record, the Committee on Foreign Relations has held in the past 2 years alone 14 hearings in which the CTBT was extensively discussed. Most folks don't show up for the hearings--the train was too late or whatever. This number of 14 does not include an even larger number of hearings held by the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee on CTBT relevant issues, nor does this include three hearings by the Governmental Affairs Committee on the CTBT and relevant issues. I ask unanimous consent this list documenting each Foreign Relations Committee hearing be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at least 17 respected witnesses have discussed their views on both sides of the CTBT question in the past 2 years. The administration itself has included this treaty in testimony on five occasions. More than 113 pages of committee transcript text are devoted to this subject. I have a stack of papers here that are CTBT testimony and debate within the committee. A record can be made of how this has been delayed and by whom. Mr. President, I find it puzzling that some in the Senate are objecting to the unanimous-consent request of the majority leader. The Foreign Relations Committee has thoroughly examined this matter. We have heard from experts on this very treaty. Let me share this with the Senate, the people listening, and the news media--that have not covered hearings on this matter but whose editors have said it is a disgrace that a vote has not been allowed on the CTBT treaty. Here are the people who have discussed the CTBT before the Foreign Relations Committee. Let me point out, we have hearings fairly early in the morning, maybe too early for some to come. But I look on both sides of the aisle, and I have seen, sometimes, nobody on one side. Anyway, here is a list of the people I recall having discussed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with the Committee on Foreign Relations: The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State; The Honorable Karl F. Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs; Mr. Robert Einhorn, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation; The Honorable R. James Woolsey, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Dr. Fred Ikle, Former Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; The Honorable Stephen J. Solarz, Former U.S. Representative from New York; The Honorable William J. Schneider, Former Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology; Dr. Richard Haass, Former Senior Director, Near East and South Asia, National Security Council; The Honorable Stanely O. Roth, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; The Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Former Secretary of Defense; The Honorable Eric D. Newsom, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs; The Honorable Ronald F. Lehman, Former Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Parenthetically, I might say, not one word, as I recall, has been published by the same newspapers that have been piously declaring there must be action on the CTBT. To continue the list: General Eugene Habiger, Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Strategic Command; The Honorable Frank G. Wisner, Vice Chairman, External Affairs, American International Group; Dr. Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution; The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger, Former Secretary of State; and The Honorable Richard Butler, Former Executive Chairman United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). I think this record will show--it should--that the Foreign Relations Committee has thoroughly examined this matter. We have pleaded for members of the committee, several of them, to come to a meeting once in a while. I have done everything I could to get this thing orderly presented to the Senate. All I have received are communications from Senators with a veiled threat if I did not proceed in some other way. We have certainly talked about this treaty in more depth than many other treaties, to my knowledge. Those who are objecting, and objected to the majority leader's proposition this morning, don't want more hearings; what they want is more delay. You see, until a few minutes ago, until the majority leader offered his unanimous consent request, the same people who are now demanding more hearings were ready to dispense with further debate and go to a vote. Let me tell you what I mean. The American people may recall, if they were watching C-SPAN, that President Clinton, in his State of the Union Address on January 27, 1998, declared: ``I ask the Senate to approve it" --the CTBT--and he said ``this year'' in mournful tones. In other words, the President was ready for a vote in 1998. Then a year later, the President said: I ask the Senate to take this vital step: Approve the Treaty now. ``Approve it now,'' he said. He did not say approve the CTBT after more hearings. On July 23, 1998, the Vice President, Mr. Gore, asked the Senate to ``act now'' on the CTBT, and all the while the New York Times and the Washington Post, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, have been saying that Helms is holding up this treaty. In February, Secretary Albright asked for approval of the CTBT ``this session.'' And in April she said: . . . the time has come to ratify the CTBT this year, this session, now. On January 12, 1999, the National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, declared: . . . it would be a terrible tragedy if our Senate failed to ratify the CTBT this year. The point I am making is that the list goes on and on. Mr. President, 45 Democratic Senators wrote to me asking me to allow a vote: . . . with sufficient time to allow the United States to actively participate [sic] in the Treaty's inaugural Conference of Ratifying States. . . . That conference begins next week. At a recent press conference for the cameras, Senator Specter, my friend, declared: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was submitted to the Senate months ago, and it is high time the Senate acted on it. Senator Murray called for: . . . immediate consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Senator Dorgan said that: . . . we must get this done at least by the first of October. I must observe that the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, also had very strong words on this matter. Just 6 days ago, he proclaimed: Senate Republicans have permitted a small number of Members from within their ranks to manipulate Senate rules-- I wonder how we did that when I was not looking. No rules have been manipulated, and I resent the inference. But to continue his quote-- from within their ranks to manipulate Senate rules and procedures to prevent the Senate from acting on the CTBT. . . . I would hope we would soon see some leadership on the Republican side of the aisle to break the current impasse and allow the full Senate to act on the CTBT . . . That effort must begin today. Mr. President, I hope when we get to the debate, however long it lasts, that we will not have the spectacle of Senator Kennedy again and again offering his minimum wage amendment. He keeps it in his hip pocket all the time and pulls it out anytime he can stick it up, and he will debate it for an hour or 2. We have to have some understanding about what we are going to debate, when we do debate, and I hope we will debate on the terms the Senator from Mississippi, the majority leader, offered. I think all this speaks well of the majority leader, and I congratulate him. I congratulate him for having the will to do this because this has been insulting on many occasions as a political issue, which it is not. I hope the Senate Democrats will reconsider their refusal to agree to a CTBT vote after having demanded it so often. Let me go back in time a little bit. I have been waiting for the President of the United States to follow up on his written commitment to me that he will send up the ABM Treaty, and I have been hoping to see a treaty on two or three other things. I am not in the mood to leave the American people naked against a very possible missile attack, and that has been my problem. The President of the United States has insisted on keeping the ABM Treaty alive when that would forbid anything happening in terms of defending the security of the American people. I was unwilling to do that until he followed through on his written guarantee to me that he would send the ABM Treaty to me and to the Senate. I trust in the future that the media will, for once, acknowledge some of their statements regarding the CTBT for what they have really said because it is inaccurate and misleading to the American people. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 28, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,647,297,448,741.19 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-seven billion, two hundred ninety-seven million, four hundred forty-eight thousand, seven hundred forty-one dollars and nineteen cents). One year ago, September 28, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,525,126,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-five billion, one hundred twenty-six million). Five years ago, September 28, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,672,477,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred seventy-two billion, four hundred seventy-seven million). Ten years ago, September 28, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,844,962,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred forty-four billion, nine hundred sixty-two million). Fifteen years ago, September 28, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,572,266,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred seventy-two billion, two hundred sixty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,075,031,448,741.19 (Four trillion, seventy-five billion, thirty-one million, four hundred forty-eight thousand, seven hundred forty-one dollars and nineteen cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 27, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,641,247,753,162.35 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-one billion, two hundred forty-seven million, seven hundred fifty-three thousand, one hundred sixty-two dollars and thirty-five cents). Five years ago, September 27, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,670,106,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred seventy billion, one hundred six million). Ten years ago, September 27, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,843,044,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred forty-three billion, forty-four million). Fifteen years ago, September 27, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,570,251,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred seventy billion, two hundred fifty-one million). Twenty-five years ago, September 27, 1974, the Federal debt stood at $481,717,000,000 (Four hundred eighty-one billion, seven hundred seventeen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,159,530,753,162.35 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-nine billion, five hundred thirty million, seven hundred fifty-three thousand, one hundred sixty-two dollars and thirty-five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, September 24, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,638,915,059,997.81 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-eight billion, nine hundred fifteen million, fifty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-seven dollars and eighty-one cents). One year ago, September 24, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,523,268,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-three billion, two hundred sixty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, September 24, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,566,734,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred sixty-six billion, seven hundred thirty-four million). Twenty-five years ago, September 24, 1974, the Federal debt stood at $480,939,000,000 (Four hundred eighty billion, nine hundred thirty-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,157,976,059,997.81 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-seven billion, nine hundred seventy-six million, fifty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-seven dollars and eighty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it has been a moving and gratifying experience to witness the outpouring of genuine, spontaneous concern by countless Americans for the victims of the Hurricane Floyd flooding. It goes without saying that I am deeply grateful for the countless public servants and concerned neighbors who have been and still are working around the clock to extend heroic efforts and helping hands to the thousands of Eastern North Carolina people who have lost everything they possess--except their courage, and their determination to rise above the hardship that befell them. Mr. President, before I go further I am compelled to convey publicly my personal gratitude to FEMA Director James Lee Witt and his remarkable associates for their dedication to helping those in such dire need. No federal agency could possibly be more efficient in carrying out its mission, and Director Witt deserves enormous credit for the incredible responsiveness FEMA has demonstrated on so many occasions when disasters have befallen many other areas of America. Also, I am deeply grateful to my colleagues, who have responded to this disaster not merely with kind condolences and genuine sympathy, but also with their actions. For example, the senior Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, made every effort to assure that FEMA is adequately funded to do the job in North Carolina. The Senate Leadership on both sides of the aisle--particularly Senator Lott--have been gracious in their offers of assistance. Many in the administrative branch are also going out of the way to be helpful. Yesterday, Customs Service Administrator Raymond Kelly granted my request to administratively waive certain maritime regulations, thereby allowing grain and feed shipments to reach flood-ravaged farmers more quickly. I am genuinely appreciative of his swift action. And Mr. President, let there be no mistake: Eastern North Carolina needs all the help it can get. I do not exaggerate when I say that the flooding is of near-Biblical proportions. At least 45 people have lost their lives; there are fears of finding even more bodies as the flood waters recede. Entire communities have been washed away. Standing flood waters are becoming more polluted each day by gasoline, chemicals, animal waste and drowned livestock. An estimated 1,000 roads have been flooded, and countless houses have been damaged, some beyond repair. Perhaps the most poignant stories are those of cemeteries washing away, with coffins rising to the surface. It is a devastating regional problem, Mr. President, but more than that, it is truly a national problem affecting every state in the Union. Because the communities affected by this flooding--whether they be Wilson or Greenville, Rocky Mount or Goldsboro, Kinston or Tarboro-- are communities that are essential to American agriculture. The heart of the agriculture community in North Carolina has been virtually destroyed by this storm, Mr. President. And as concerned as we are for the countless citizens who have lost their homes and their possessions, the agricultural implications of this disaster for our entire country are enormous. Here's why: North Carolina ranks third in total agricultural income, behind only California and Iowa. Numerous commodities will be radically affected by the flooding because North Carolina ranks in the top ten states of production for such a wide variety of products: turkeys, sweet potatoes, hogs, cucumbers for pickles, peanuts, poultry and egg products, chickens, blueberries, peanuts, strawberries, cotton, catfish, pecans, watermelons, peaches, tomatoes. In short, Mr. President, North Carolina agricultural production is inseparable from U.S. agricultural production, and this regional disaster is in fact a national disaster. And I highlight this not to insist upon a government response--though one is needed--but to underscore the inescapable fact that the private sector must play a key role in helping Eastern North Carolina recover from this disaster. The federal government can do its share to meet the needs of those who have been affected by the flood--and I will work to make sure the federal government plays a substantial role in assisting in the recovery. (In fact, those who are being helped by FEMA know that the federal government is already doing its part to lend a helping hand.) But government cannot do it all, Mr. President. The private sector must play an enormous role in rebuilding the communities and economy of my home state. And this will be an historic test of the strength and purpose of the free enterprise system--and of all of us who believe that the strength of America is the willingness to stand up for each other in times of hardship. North Carolinians understand this fact instinctively, Mr. President. Already, private citizens and businesses from all over the state are volunteering their time and money to help their neighbors. May I offer a few examples: Carolina Power & Light, a wonderfully civic-minded electrical company, has promised to match citizens' donations to the Red Cross up to $100,000 and is double-matching its employee's contributions. Capitol Broadcasting in Raleigh has donated $100,000. From the financial industry, Bank of America has donated $150,000. First Union is contributing the same generous amount to the Red Cross and is also pitching in with in-kind contributions of ice and water. First Citizens Bank has donated $100,000 and has already developed a short-term emergency loan program. The tobacco industry, which is so important to Eastern North Carolina--and which, incidentally, is now facing another spiteful attack by the Justice Department-- has been especially generous. RJ Reynolds has donated $250,000; Philip Morris has donated $50,000 in addition to the food products they are donating through Kraft. US Tobacco has given an additional $25,000. And, of course, I have been in contact almost daily with Franklin Graham, son of the remarkable Billy Graham, who operates a truly wonderful organization called Samaritan's Purse, which distributes food, clothing and medical supplies to people who are suffering all over the world. Franklin and his associates have once again demonstrated their usual selflessness by sending truckloads of potable water and other needed supplies to the areas in greatest need. All of this generosity does not include the generous contributions of individual North Carolinians that are pouring in, Mr. President. Our fine Governor, Jim Hunt, has set up a Disaster Relief Fund for contributions to the United Way, and the contributions are coming in so fast that they have yet to be counted. I am continually amazed and highly gratified by the thoughtfulness of North Carolinians who genuinely want to help those in distress. Mr. President, neither government nor the private sector alone can help rebuild the communities of North Carolina. If ever there was a time In North Carolina's history when all of our institutions--public and private--must work together, that time is now. And I pledge to do my part to make sure that individuals, businesses and government are working together to help North Carolina recover from the worst disaster in its history.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, September 23, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,638,477,894,300.66 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-eight billion, four hundred seventy-seven million, eight hundred ninety-four thousand, three hundred dollars and sixty-six cents). One year ago, September 23, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,517,883,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred seventeen billion, eight hundred eighty-three million). Five years ago, September 23, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,667,471,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred sixty-seven billion, four hundred seventy-one million). Twenty-five years ago, September 23, 1974, the Federal debt stood at $480,719,000,000 (Four hundred eighty billion, seven hundred nineteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,157,758,894,300.66 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-seven billion, seven hundred fifty-eight million, eight hundred ninety-four thousand, three hundred dollars and sixty-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 22, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,636,049,287,069.79 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-six billion, forty-nine million, two hundred eighty-seven thousand, sixty-nine dollars and seventy-nine cents). One year ago, September 22, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,515,819,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred fifteen billion, eight hundred nineteen million). Five years ago, September 22, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,666,417,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred sixty-six billion, four hundred seventeen million). Ten years ago, September 22, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,844,377,000,000 (Two trillion, eight hundred forty-four billion, three hundred seventy-seven million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,791,672,287,069.79 (Two trillion, seven hundred ninety-one billion, six hundred seventy-two million, two hundred eighty-seven thousand, sixty-nine dollars and seventy-nine cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful for the courtesy of the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. Bond, for his willingness to work with me to make sure that FEMA is fully prepared to respond to the needs of victims of flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd. I do not exaggerate when I say that North Carolina is facing the worst flooding in its history. There is no need for me to catalogue the details of the enormous suffering caused by this storm because I know that Senators understand and share my dismay in hearing the incredible damage reports still coming in from my home state. I am so very grateful for the kind words of my colleagues who have told me they are thinking of--and praying for--the people of Eastern North Carolina, and I know they join in pledging that the federal government will do its part to alleviate their suffering. So, Mr. President, I genuinely appreciate Senator Bond's efforts to assure that FEMA is currently funded at a level to respond to the developing situation in Eastern North Carolina. I hope it is understood that this is a serious and ongoing situation and that state and local officials are still scrambling to grasp the enormity of the loss to life and property. North Carolinians have become gratefully familiar with the splendid work FEMA does in the wake of natural disasters, but our familiarity does not minimize the heartfelt gratitude we feel for the dedicated public servants who are helping the victims of flooding. I have the utmost faith in Senator Bond and his fine staff, and I appreciate their willingness to consider any additional needs that FEMA may identify as this bill goes to Conference. At the same time, I certainly understand that there will be an effort to make an accurate accounting of the funding--if any--that FEMA needs and I pledge that I do not intend to make unreasonable demands upon appropriators. It is important that we do not act heedlessly in our understandable haste to help those in desperate need, and I will certainly make every effort to make sure that any aid requested is genuinely necessary.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 21, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,634,836,758,964.63 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-four billion, eight hundred thirty-six million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, nine hundred sixty-four dollars and sixty-three cents). One year ago, September 21, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,510,750,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred ten billion, seven hundred fifty million). Five years ago, September 21, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,685,969,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred eighty-five billion, nine hundred sixty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, September 21, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,566,880,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred sixty-six billion, eight hundred eighty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,067,956,758,964.63 (Four trillion, sixty-seven billion, nine hundred fifty-six million, seven hundred fifty-eight thousand, nine hundred sixty-four dollars and sixty-three cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 1658.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Americans should be disturbed that the U.S. Census Bureau obviously no longer regards marriage as having any importance. When the Census Bureau compiled its list of questions to be included in the 2000 decennial survey, the decision was obvious that it would be unnecessary and burdensome for the Bureau to include marital status in the census forms sent to the majority of American households. So the Census Bureau decided to delete the marital status question from the census ``short form'' which it is called--which goes to approximately 83 percent of the American population--but continue to use the question on the ``long form''--which goes only to approximately 17 percent of the American population. This will mark the first time since 1880 that the decennial census will not gather from the majority of the U.S. population, a count of those who are single, married, divorced, or widowed. This is especially disturbing, at least to this Senator, when one considers that the survival of the American culture is dependent upon the survival of the sacred institution of marriage. Moreover, marital status has heretofore regularly been viewed as vital information because there has always been great value placed in the institution of marriage. It is irresponsible for the U.S. Government to suggest or imply that marriage is no longer significant or important, but that is precisely the message that will go out if marital status is eliminated from the short form by the Census Bureau. However, Mr. President, the Census Bureau feels far differently when it comes to compiling statistics on various other things including race. The Census Bureau made it a top priority to learn the race of the majority of Americans; therefore the agency is asking, not one, but two questions relating to racial identity. One can only speculate the reasoning behind this bizarre maneuver removing marital status from the short form, while asking two questions about race. It's important to remember that every year, more than $100 billion in Federal funding is awarded based on the data collected by the Census Bureau. Considering that American people will foot the bill on the Census Bureau's strange inclinations, should not Congress remind the U.S. Census Bureau that its job is not to seek out information to promote a social agenda. For this reason, Mr. President, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the Transportation appropriations bill, expressing that the U.S. Census Bureau was wrong to eliminate marital status from the census short form. The U.S. Census Bureau should include marital status on the short form census questionnaire-- the one going out to the vast majority of Americans for the 2000 decennial census. Unfortunately, most of the census short form questionnaires have already been printed without the important marital status question being included. Notwithstanding that, does not Congress have a moral obligation, as caretaker of America's culture, to set the record straight in emphasizing that marriage is still at the forefront of America's national survey? I believe this sense-of-the-Senate resolution deserves careful consideration of all Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.