Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 16, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,581,245,428,829.42 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-one billion, two hundred forty-five million, four hundred twenty-eight thousand, eight hundred twenty-nine dollars and forty-two cents). One year ago, June 16, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,489,044,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred eighty-nine billion, forty-four million). Five years ago, June 16, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,592,643,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred ninety-two billion, six hundred forty-three million). Ten years ago, June 16, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,783,200,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-three billion, two hundred million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,798,045,428,829.42 (Two trillion, seven hundred ninety- eight billion, forty-five million, four hundred twenty-eight thousand, eight hundred twenty-nine dollars and forty-two cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 15, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,579,687,074,229.55 (Five trillion, five hundred seventy nine billion, six hundred eighty seven million, seventy four thousand, two hundred twenty-nine dollars and fifty five cents). One year ago, June 15, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,484,471,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred eighty four billion, four hundred seventy-one million). Five years ago, June 15, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,607,232,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred seven billion, two hundred thirty-two million). Ten years ago, June 15, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,782,363,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty two billion, three hundred sixty-three million). Fifteen years ago, June 15, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,519,266,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, two hundred sixty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,060,421,074,229.55 (Four trillion, sixty billion, four hundred twenty-one million, seventy-four thousand, two hundred twenty- nine dollars and fifty-five cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 14, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,608,264,664,474.06 (Five trillion, six hundred eight billion, two hundred sixty-four million, six hundred sixty-four thousand, four hundred seventy-four dollars and six cents). Five years ago, June 14, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,605,762,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred five billion, seven hundred sixty-two million). Ten years ago, June 14, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,784,398,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-four billion, three hundred ninety-eight million). Fifteen years ago, June 14, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,519,266,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, two hundred sixty-six million). Twenty-five years ago, June 14, 1974, the federal debt stood at $473,308,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-three billion, three hundred eight million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,134,956,664,474.06 (Five trillion, one hundred thirty-four billion, nine hundred fifty-six million, six hundred sixty-four thousand, four hundred seventy-four dollars and six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the commencement speaker at a leading university in my state, Campbell University at Buies Creek, N.C., was one of the most impressive and meaningful addresses that I have ever heard or read. It was delivered by Dr. Denton Lotz, General Secretary to the Baptist World Alliance. Dr. Lotz's subject was ``New Hope for Destroyed Foundations''. Campbell University is a truly remarkable institution whose president, Dr. Norman Adrian Wiggins, is one of the Nation's most respected educators. Incidentally, in addition to his responsibilities as president, Dr. Wiggins serves as Professor of Law. I am obliged to add a personal note here: Campbell University's law school is the only law school in North Carolina not one of whose graduates has flunked the State Bar Exam for the past several years. But I digress. My purpose today is to ask that the text of Dr. Denton's commencement address at Campbell University be printed in the Record. The material follows: New Hope for Destroyed Foundations--Campbell University Commencement Sermon Delivered by Dr. Denton Lotz ``If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?'' Psalm 11:3 Bob Dylan reminded his generation and ours that ``the answer is blowing in the wind.'' But is it? Is it not rather like the prophet Hosea of old said that we have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind? (Hosea 8:7) How many litanies this spring shall we hear of Littleton, Colorado and why and how children could lose all sense of values and go on a killing spree? How many times have we read of parental irresponsibility, the school's fault, youth are not listening, and the litany goes on? What happened in Littleton, Colorado is symbolic of a generation whose foundations have been destroyed. But, this is not only the problem of this generation. It is the history of the 20th century, with the gas warfare of World War I and the gas chambers of World War II. As we enter the 21st century, the President's dream of a new world order has faded and bombs are falling on the Serbian dictator Milosvic, ethnic cleansing continues, children and women suffer. Man experiences the cruelest of deaths. We seem to be able to solve the Y2K computer problem, but deep within humanity there is something that is wrong. The Psalmist spoke of this something as ``destroyed foundations''. Indeed when one considers our society we see a number of destroyed foundations: in the family, in the world, and in the church. (1). The family was long considered the pillar of a just and moral society. Home was the one place you could always go. But, today 60% of new marriages will end in divorce. The result has been a generation of you people without foundations. It is said that 3 in 4 teen suicides are the result of divorce, and 4 in 5 psychiatric admissions. But not only divorce has broken up the family; the community is broken apart. All the blessings of modern society have not brought us together but have divided us. On a warm summer day in Havana, Cuba I saw this. There was no air conditioning, as a result people sat on their porches, children played together in the streets, people talked to one another. Our modern blessings have caused us to close our doors, turn on the air and sit in front of the TV . . . cut off from community, alone and isolated. (2). The same is true for the church. Modern media has made religion an entertainment business. Like Kirkegaard's famous geese, we come to Church on Sunday morning and waddle home and that's the end of it. Theological controversy within and hypocrisy without have diminished the role of the Church. When great tragedies strike, no longer is the pastor the counselor, but immediately TV goes to Hollywood and our favorite guru TV actor tries to console society which, without God and without hope, has pretty much made a mess of things! (3). And the government suffers the same fate. Government in Washington is not trusted. Righteous laws proposed by unrighteous legislators confuse the population. Indeed the strong foundations of the capitol building are now guarded by armed policemen, guard dogs, and metal detecting devices. Everything seems to be falling apart. This spring even the Washington cherry trees were not immune. Unknown and uncaught beavers were chopping down cherry trees every night, until they were finally caught. It is a symbol of our day. The strong trees of justice, of equality, of morality seem to being chopped down. Is there any hope? Well, if it is any comfort, we are not the first generation to experience destroyed foundations. It seems to be the plight of humanity. Indeed it is the human story. It is what history is all about. Destroyed foundations, and rebuilding new foundations that will withstand the next assault. This seems to be the fate of modern man. Rousseau expressed it well in explaining the agitated street life of Paris. He called it the social whirlwind. One of his heroes says: ``I'm beginning to feel the drunkenness that this agitated, tumultuous life plunges you into. With such a multitude of objects passing before my eyes. I'm getting dizzy. Of all the things that strike me, there is none that holds my heart, yet all of them together disturb my feelings, so that I forget what I am and who I belong to.'' (Cox, Religion in the Secular City, p. 182) Does that sound familiar? Isn't that our plight today? The dizziness of it all. The Psalmist knew the problem, as did men and women of old and thus the question, ``If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?'' I. False answers: The first advice the Psalmist gets is simply to run away: ``Flee like a bird to the mountains; for lo, the wicked bend the bow, they have fitted their arrow to the string, to shoot in the dark at the upright in heart.'' A modern interpretation may sound like this: ``Let's escape from it all and have a great weekend and forget all our problems. The trenchcoat mafia may abound and have its sight on us, but we are going to drink and be merry and have a ball.'' As you now enter the work force there are going to be many temptations put upon you. You also will be confronted with destroyed foundations and there will be many who give the advice, ``Flee like a bird to the mountains.'' The temptations to flee today are many, but three stand out: 1. Materialism: The foundation may be destroyed but I am going to make my mark in life by getting rich. This philosophy escapes the problems of society by fleeing to materialism. It accepts the creed of Milliken and his lot, ``He who has the most toys in the end wins.'' What a folly! What a poor foundation upon which to build one's life. Materialism in the end becomes greedy and consumes the possessors so that all values are lost except one's own big ego. Materialism will not bring back lost love. Materialism will not warm the stomach of a hungry child. Materialism will not bring peace to our troubled cities. Materialism will not bring racial justice. Indeed when the foundations are destroyed the rush towards materialism is only a sign of the foundation that has destroyed us. 2. Pleasure and sports: When the foundations are destroyed there is the temptation to run to pleasure and sports to halt the further decay of crumbling foundations. Indeed, Edward Gibbons in his ``Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'' lists this as one of the five basic reasons why great civilizations die: ``The mad craze for pleasure; sports becoming every year more exciting, more brutal and more immoral.'' This indeed is a social commentary on our present situation. Wrestling and boxing without rules is the new big sport. Two combatants actually try to kill one another. We have become mad when our athletes are paid exorbitant salaries and our teachers, police, and servants of society become paupers. What kind of a value is that . . . and so the Psalmist warns of those who say flee like a bird to the pleasure mountain of sports . . . for in the end it means destruction! 3. Ghettoism and Quietism: This is the last resort of the religious. We will flee to the mountain and make ourselves a little retreat center to escape from the evils of the world. When religion becomes quietist it truly becomes sectarian and useless to a needy world! Indeed we too have heard the cynics ask what can one do when the foundations are destroyed and we have been tempted to fleet like a bird to the mountain! The tragedy of this type of ghetto religion is that it is so heavenly mined that it is no earthly good. It was the temptations of Jesus' disciples to flee to the mountain and build a retreat center and have warm fuzzy feelings. But, Jesus said, No! Go back down into the valley and where you see my people who are hungry feed them!, where they are naked, clothe them!, where they are thirsty, give them to drink!, where they are sick, visit them! where they are in prison go to them!'' And then you will ``inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world!'' (Matt25ff.) II. What can the righteous do? And so the Psalmist disregards the advice of his friends to flee like a bird to the mountains. And our advice to you is also to beware of those who tell you to flee like a bird. What shall we do then? Not that we are the righteous ones? But, we who would follow a righteous God, what shall we do? How do we answer the question, ``If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?'' 1. Take refuge in God? ``The Lord is in his holy temple. . . his eyes behold the children of men . . . '' From days of old until today, men and women of faith have not fled to the mountains, but they have fled to God. The Psalmist knew that: ``God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble. Therefore we will not fear though the earth should change, through the mountains shake in the heart of the sea . . . Why? There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God.'' (Psalm 46f) What do you do when the foundations are destroyed! You go the temple! You take refuge in God! God is not dead. He lives and because He lives you can indeed face destroyed foundations but not only that, you can regain strength to rebuild the fallen foundations of your life! And thus the Psalmist very simply advises us, ``Take refuge in God! Go to the temple and pray!'' Every student generation seeks a new experience of God. Every student generation feels alienated from their roots and their spiritual heritage and thus is seeking new ways. No wonder there are so many sectarian movements out there . . . all vying for the new age market. But in the end, they are not historical faith, but faith built upon an illusion. Therefore, go to the temple, go to church and pray! I remember students at Harvard were concerned about spirituality in my student days. And so every Thursday noon we gathered in the cafeteria to hear professors witness to their pilgrimage of faith. I particularly remember one professor who had just lost his little girl who accidentally hung herself. The professor warned the students: ``If you do not pray daily, one day you will have to learn how to pray!'' Korean Christians pray every morning at 4:30. Their churches are full because during their suffering they experienced the power of prayer! When the foundations are destroyed the first thing one does is go to the temple to pray and there one finds that God is our refuge and strength! 2. Cease to do violence! The Psalmist teaches us that God is a judge. His burning love is shown in his fiery justice! God is a God of justice and righteousness who demands the same from his people. He will judge the earth with equity and demands justice. And therefore the Psalmist warns us, ``his soul hates him that loves violence . . . '' (Ps.11:5) The USA has become a very violent society. And the media thinks it has nothing to do with it. Our children, before they are 18, will have seen on television 18,000 acts of violence. Like a drip of water on a stone, drip, drip, drip, it continually wears at the fabric of our society until we are worn down and violence becomes a way of life! The corollary to God hating violence is his demand for justice. No theologian of the 19th century captured this understanding of God as a God of justice more than President Abraham Lincoln. In his Second Inaugural address he painfully warned a country engaged in civil war: ``The Almighty has His own purposes: `Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!' . . . Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled upon the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said `the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.' '' What do you do when the foundations are destroyed! Cease to do violence! Remember that God demands justice! 3. Do righteous deeds! Finally, the Psalmist considering the alternatives before him is confronted with the final challenge. He cannot flee to the mountains, that is the easy way out. Rather he will go to the temple and take refuge in God, he will cease to do violence . . . and now finally, we hear the final command, ``Do righteous deeds!'' If indeed we have prayed and sought God's counsel and refuge. If indeed we have ceased to do violence, then our lives must show it! This is the command of which the prophet Amos reminded his generation, ``What does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.'' (Mich. 6:8) Religion that does not issue in a changed behavior, changed heart, and changed action is not worth its salt. Religion which contemplates its own navel and is concerned about its own ego, is not a faith worth living, it is not biblical faith, but a neurotic form of ego-tripism. Biblical faith calls for action, not escapism. This is what we do when the foundations around us are crumbling and destroyed. We do righteous deeds! In a little village in Kenya I remember after one Sunday morning service, the poor old women in a corner collecting what coins they had to help feed a refugee from Somalia. In Bangladesh, some struggling to make it from day to day, the women collect the least coin to help others. In India, every day Baptist women save a little of their monthly allotment of rice to help those in need. Indeed these random acts of kindness are fulfilling the Biblical command to be holy as god is holy. III. What do the righteous do when the foundations are destroyed? Isn't there a missing link? Indeed we understand that we must go to the temple, that God is our refuge, that we must cease to do violence and beware of God's justice, but how can we do righteous deeds? How can we flee to God? What is missing? The foundation upon which all of these actions are executed! The Apostle Paul stated very clearly that there needs to be a foundation for our action and therefore he boldly announces: ``For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.'' (ICor.3:11) Paul knows the temptation to flee like a bird to the mountain. He knows the temptations of materialism, pleasure and escapism. He knew this as a Pharisee until one day all of his foundations were destroyed, existentially, spiritually and physically. When he met Christ on the Damascus road his whole life was turned around. He was a changed person with a new foundation. He knew now that the city he was looking for was not the secular city with all its dizzy attractions but without foundations. He was now looking for that city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God (Heb.11:10) As a soon to be graduate you will have learned many facts. You will know many things. But, this does not make you wise! Wisdom is knowing the foundation which undergirds all of knowledge! Western civilization was built upon faith: faith in the incarnation of God in His Son Jesus Christ. All of the great achievements of the human spirit came from the freedom of the Spirit through Christian intellect. The idea of the university was that all knowledge was of God and therefore the Universe should be studied because it was the handiwork of God. All of Western civilization, great concern for the arts, for freedom, for justice, for feeding the poor and hungry, from where did these freedoms come? Are they not rooted in the Bible? Is Christ not the source of freedom and justice? Modernism since the Enlightenment thinks that it can understand humankind without God, And precisely because it has attempted to explain the world without God, it has become a godless world with no hope and no future. H. Richard Niebuhr commented upon this when he said that such faith was weak because ``It preached that a God without wrath brought men without sin, into a kingdom with judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.'' And so it is today. Western civilization wants all the blessings of Christianity without Christ. And like fruit cut from the stem it will rot. What do you do when the foundations are destroyed? You build upon the foundation which will endure. And that is why for two thousand years the Church has pointed not to itself but to Jesus Christ! And thus we close with the Psalmist question, ``If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?'' Go to the temple and pray to God as your refuge! Cease to do violence! Do righteous deeds! Put your faith in the only foundation for life, even Jesus Christ our Lord! Amen.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that 30 years of federal deficits have taken their toll on the federal budget. Likewise, two budget ``surpluses,'' although a step in the right direction, will scarcely make a dent on the actual federal debt oppressing both the government and the people. In fact, it does very little, but constrict the actual increase of the federal debt. Even if the projected estimates from the Office of Management and Budget are correct, a surplus for 11 consecutive years will go hand-in- hand with a ``gross federal debt'' that will inch closer and closer to a 6 trillion dollar figure!--Now that, Mr. President, is a couple I do not particularly like to envision. But that is where we are. We are in a quagmire of debts. I have heard comments that we--the Congress and this Administration-- have taken steps to cut the federal deficit, but what is not being said is that the budget ``surplus'' has little effect on the federal debt. We have indeed managed to cut the deficit out of the equation, but the answer to the relevant question--are we reducing the total federal debt at the same time--is NO. The surplus only cuts the debt's rate of growth. With these thoughts in mind, Mr. President, I begin where I left off on Thursday: At the close of business, Friday, June 11, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,606,704,532,050.51 (Five trillion, six hundred six billion, seven hundred four million, five hundred thirty-two thousand, fifty dollars and fifty-one cents). One year ago, June 11, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,496,698,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-six billion, six hundred ninety-eight million). Fifteen years ago, June 11, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,519,173,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, one hundred seventy-three million). Twenty-five years ago, June 11, 1974, the federal debt stood at $472,107,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-two billion, one hundred seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,134,597,532,050.51 (Five trillion, one hundred thirty-four billion, five hundred ninety-seven million, five hundred thirty-two thousand, fifty dollars and fifty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the late Admiral James W. (Bud) Nance was eulogized in late May by an eloquent friend who knew Bud well, a friend who had worked with Bud on many occasions beginning with their respective responsibilities with President Reagan during the eight years of the Reagan presidency. That eloquent friend is a friend of many of us, a remarkable American who understands the miracle of this great country, Richard V. Allen, Chairman, The Richard V. Allen Company. Mr. President, Dick Allen was speaking at a dinner on behalf of a non-profit foundation at Wingate University. He began by paying his respects to ``fifteen distinguished directors'' of the foundation, among them the Honorable Roger Milliken identified by Mr. Allen as ``the champion of good causes''. At this point, Mr. President, I shall pick up, verbatim, Mr. Allen's remarks, and I ask that the remainder of those remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 10, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,604,848,624,148.74 (Five trillion, six hundred four billion, eight hundred forty-eight million, six hundred twenty-four thousand, one hundred forty-eight dollars and seventy-four cents). One year ago, June 10, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,493,570,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-three billion, five hundred seventy million). Five years ago, June 10, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,601,856,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred one billion, eight hundred fifty-six million). Ten years ago, June 10, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,783,892,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-three billion, eight hundred ninety-two million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,820,956,624,148.74 (Two trillion, eight hundred twenty billion, nine hundred fifty-six million, six hundred twenty-four thousand, one hundred forty-eight dollars and seventy-four cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, June 8, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,607,597,460,814.09 (Five trillion, six hundred seven billion, five hundred ninety-seven million, four hundred sixty thousand, eight hundred fourteen dollars and nine cents). One year ago, June 8, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,495,352,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-five billion, three hundred fifty-two million). Five years ago, June 8, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,605,626,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred five billion, six hundred twenty-six million). Ten years ago, June 8, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,787,738,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-seven billion, seven hundred thirty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, June 8, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,519,266,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, two hundred sixty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,088,331,460,814.09 (Four trillion, eighty-eight billion, three hundred thirty-one million, eight hundred fourteen dollars and nine cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 7, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,606,738,885,838.87 (Five trillion, six hundred six billion, seven hundred thirty-eight million, eight hundred eighty-five thousand, eight hundred thirty-eight dollars and eighty-seven cents). Five years ago, June 7, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,606,572,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred six billion, five hundred seventy-two million). Ten years ago, June 7, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,795,983,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred ninety-five billion, nine hundred eighty-three million). Fifteen years ago, June 7, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,519,266,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, two hundred sixty-six million). Twenty-five years ago, June 7, 1974, the federal debt stood at $471,794,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, seven hundred ninety-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,134,944,885,838.87 (Five trillion, one hundred thirty-four billion, nine hundred forty-four million, eight hundred eighty-five thousand, eight hundred thirty-eight dollars and eighty-seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, June 4, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,605,818,000,792.65 (Five trillion, six hundred five billion, eight hundred eighteen million, seven hundred ninety-two dollars and sixty-five cents). One year ago, June 4, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,496,568,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-six billion, five hundred sixty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, June 4, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,519,266,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, two hundred sixty-six million). Twenty-five years ago, June 4, 1974, the federal debt stood at $469,771,000,000 (Four hundred sixty-nine billion, seven hundred seventy-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,136,047,000,792.65 (Five trillion, one hundred thirty-six billion, forty-seven million, seven hundred ninety-two dollars and sixty-five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 26, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,602,150,880,889.93 (Five trillion, six hundred two billion, one hundred fifty million, eight hundred eighty thousand, eight hundred eighty-nine dollars and ninety-three cents). One year ago, May 26, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,506,917,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred six billion, nine hundred seventeen million). Five years ago, May 26, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,596,085,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred ninety-six billion, eighty-five million). Ten years ago, May 26, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,779,342,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred seventy-nine billion, three hundred forty-two million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,822,808,880,889.93 (Two trillion, eight hundred twenty-two billion, eight hundred eight million, eight hundred eighty thousand, eight hundred eighty-nine dollars and ninety-three cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Murray amendment because it proposes to legalize the destruction of innocent unborn babies at military facilities. And Mr. President, if precious unborn babies are allowed to be slaughtered on military grounds, it will be a stark contradiction to the main purpose of our national defense--the defense and protection of the human lives in America. Small wonder that the men and women serving in the military are losing faith in the leadership of this country. In fact, Congress recently heard from members of the Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines who testified about the low morale among U.S. service men and women-- which they contribute to a general loss of faith and trust. After all, the military establishment continues to have its moral walls chipped away by the immoral principles of the extreme liberal- left. In fact, the American people would be shocked and disturbed to learn that our military has been pressured to accept Witchcraft as a recognized religion. Why would Congress wish to demoralize our military folks further by casting a dark cloud over military grounds--which is precisely what will happen if abortions are to be performed at these facilities. Let us not forget, America's military is made up of fine men and women possessing the highest level of integrity and pride in defending their country. These are men and women who have been selfless in dedicating their lives to a deep held belief that freedom belongs to all. Senators should not mince words in saying that military doors should be shut closed to abortionists. I urge Senators to vote against this amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 25, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,600,993,485,850.44 (Five trillion, six hundred billion, nine hundred ninety-three million, four hundred eighty-five thousand, eight hundred fifty dollars and forty-four cents). Five years ago, May 25, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,594,146,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred ninety-four billion, one hundred forty-six million). Ten years ago, May 25, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,779,572,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred seventy-nine billion, five hundred seventy-two million). Fifteen years ago, May 25, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,489,052,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-nine billion, fifty-two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,111,941,485,850.44 (Four trillion, one hundred eleven billion, nine hundred forty-one million, four hundred eighty-five thousand, eight hundred fifty dollars and forty-four cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Monday morning I was delighted--and highly gratified--to find that the national media are finally catching up to a fact that many of us have known all along: The Honorable Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the brightest, most principled, and intellectually engaging member of the United States Supreme Court in a generation. An article in Monday's The Washington Post headed ``After a Quiet Spell, Justice Finds Voice'' drew a profile of a Justice who refuses to subvert to his own personal views the plain meaning of statutes passed by Congress; a Justice who is committed to protecting our basic American political structure by respecting state sovereignty; and who exercises the patient to undertake the exhaustive historical research needed to ascertain the original intent of the Founding Fathers in framing our Constitution. Clearly, Mr. President, Mr. Justice Thomas is a remarkable American-- one who bears no resemblance to the often cruel and totally false caricatures his critics have attempted to create. I shall not catalogue or dwell upon the many injustices Mr. Justice Thomas has suffered at the hands of those who--for their own petty political purposes--have heaped abuse upon this fine man except to make this simple observation: Clarence Thomas has found the strength to serve his country and remain true to his principles in the face of viciously unfair personal criticism and his courage speaks volumes about the strength of his character. Mr. President, I ask that the article from The Washington Post be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, May 24, 1999] After a Quite Spell, Justice Finds Voice--Conservative Thomas Emerges From the Shadow of Scalia (By Joan Biskupic) He's been known by the company he's kept. For the past eight years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has walked in the shadow of Justice Antonin Scalia. The pair have voted together more than any other two justices, staking out the court's conservative flank but also inspiring criticism that Thomas is simply a ``clone'' or ``puppet'' of the forceful, fiery-tempered Scalia. But increasingly, Thomas has been breaking from Scalia, taking pains to elaborate his own views and securing his position as the most conservative justice on the court. So far this term, Thomas has more than doubled the number of opinions he has written to explain his individual rationale, compared with the two previous terms. And even though the most controversial, divisive cases of the term are yet to be announced, Thomas already has voted differently from Scalia in several significant disputes, including last week's case on welfare payments for residents new to a state and an earlier case on how public schools must treat disabled children. Through these and other opinions, a more complex portrait is emerging of the court's second black justice, who had been best known among the public for the sexual harassment accusations made against him during his 1991 confirmation hearings. ``I think Thomas has turned out to be a much more interesting justice than his critics and probably even his supporters expected,'' said Cass R. Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor. ``He is the strongest originalist on the court, more willing to go back to history and `first principles' of the Constitution.'' ``People in conservative legal circles are definitely noticing that Thomas has found his voice,'' said Daniel E. Troy, a District lawyer and protege of former conservative judge Robert H. Bork. ``He is more willing to strike out on his own.'' This term offers new evidence of Thomas's independent thinking. Of the 45 decisions handed down so far (31 still remain), Thomas has differed from Scalia in the bottom-line ruling of five, and in five other cases he has been on the same side as Scalia but has offered a separate rationale. It's a substantial departure from their previous pattern: Since 1991, Thomas and Scalia have voted together about 90 percent of the time. As recently as two years ago, the two voted together in all but one case. For years, the reputations and practices of the two men have helped feed the widespread impression that Thomas was content to follow Scalia's lead. Scalia, a former law professor at the University of Chicago and a longtime judge, was already known for his narrow textualist reading of the Constitution and federal statutes when he joined the high court in 1986. His creative, aggressive approach inspired an admiring appeals court judge to call Scalia a ``giant flywheel in the great judicial machine.'' Thomas, meanwhile, had little reputation as a scholar when he joined the court in 1991. He had worked in the federal bureaucracy for nearly a decade, becoming prominent as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His conservatism, which included opposition to affirmative action programs, was viewed mostly in political terms. These impressions were reinforced by the two justices' behavior at the high court. Scalia, the first Italian American justice, is a stylist of the first order, with a sharp, sardonic edge. Last year, for example, when he rejected a legal standard used by the majority, he took a page from Cole Porter, saying: ``Today's opinion resuscitates the ne plus ultra, the Napoleon Brandy, the Mahatma Ghandi, the Celophane of subjectivity, th' ol' shocks-the-conscience' test. In another case, he said, ``I join the opinion of the court except that portion which takes seriously, and thus encourages in the future, an argument that should be laughed out of court.'' Thomas, by contrast, was quiet in his early years, rarely speaking during oral arguments and writing few of his own concurring or dissenting opinions. He let Scalia hold the pen: Whatever their joint views, Scalia, 63, tended to write them up. Thomas, 50, merely signed on. Legal scholars on both the right and left publicly criticized Thomas as a pawn. Now, however, Thomas is showing an increased willingness to express himself, speaking before broader audiences and writing more of his own opinions. Thomas and Scalia are still very like-minded justices. More than the other conservative members of the Rehnquist Court, they believe the Constitution should be interpreted by looking at its exact words and establishing the intentions of the men who wrote it. They are unwilling to read into a statute anything not explicitly stated. They want the government--particularly the federal government--to get out of people's lives. But Thomas is becoming the more consistent standard-bearer of this brand of conservatism. He would go further than Scalia in overturning past court rulings that he believes conflict with the Constitution. And he is more likely than Scalia to delve into legal history predating the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and more inclined to reject recent case law. In last week's welfare case, for example, Thomas began by tracing a core constitutional provision from the 1606 Charter of Virginia: ``Unlike the majority, I would look to history to ascertain the original meaning of the Clause,'' he wrote. While Scalia signed onto the majority opinion striking down limited welfare benefits for residents newly arrived in a state, Thomas and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented. Thomas wrote that the majority was wrongly interpreting the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, raising ``the specter that the . . . Clause will become yet another convenient tool for inventing new rights, limited solely by the predilections of those who happen at the time to be members of this court.'' Thomas has also distinguished himself from Scalia by seeking more strongly to buttress state authority. He has emphasized that the Constitution's authority flows from ``the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the nation as a whole.'' This accent on states' rights was evident in a case earlier this term when only Thomas fully dissented from a voting rights decision that he believed too broadly interpreted a federal law targeting discrimination at the polls. ``The section's interference with state sovereignty is quite drastic,'' he complained. In another example of Thomas's narrower reading of federal law, he and Scalia were on opposite sides when the court interpreted a statute intended to guarantee equal educational opportunities for disabled school-children. Scalia voted with the majority in the March case to find that the federal disabilities law requires public schools to provide a wide variety of medical care for children with severe handicaps. Thomas dissented with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. ``Congress enacted [the law] to increase the educational opportunities available to disabled children, not to provide medical care for them,'' Thomas wrote. ``[W]e must . . . avoid saddling the states with obligations that they did not anticipate.'' Because Scalia did not write separately in any of those three recent cases--on welfare, voting rights and disabled children--it is impossible to compare directly his thinking with Thomas's. But differences between the two were visible when they both dissented from an April ruling that said defendants who plead guilty do not lose their right to remain silent during a sentencing hearing and that judges cannot use their silence against them. Scalia wrote the main opinion for the four dissenting justices, attempting to discredit the case law on which the majority relied. But Thomas also wrote a separate opinion that went still further, suggesting that an earlier case should be overturned altogether. The ``so- called penalty'' of having one's silence used adversely, Thomas wrote, ``lacks any constitutional significance.'' Some legal experts observe that Thomas's willingness to give voice to his solitary views recalls Rehnquist's position on the court in the 1970s and Scalia's in the late 1980s, before Thomas came on. He's at a point, said Troy and other observers, where he is comfortable enough to express his singular views but not so frustrated with writing alone that he is prepared to compromise. ``Thomas comes to it more as an outsider,'' said Alan Meese, a William and Mary law professor, who has followed the writings of Scalia and Thomas. ``He probably says when he looks at [an earlier ruling], `My God, we said that? That's loony.' ''

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it is abundantly clear that more judges like Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court * * *. As further proof, I offer the disastrous decision of the Supreme Court--from which Justice Thomas sensibly dissented--in the case of Davis v. Monroe County School Board. By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court held that public schools can be held liable under federal law for failing to stop so-called sexual harassment on the part of school children. Exactly what constitutes sexual harassment on the part of children is not defined by the Court, Mr. President. Moreover, what constitutes the vague ``deliberate indifference'' standard that public school administrators must now avoid is anyone's guess. The meaning will no doubt be haggled over in countless frivolous lawsuits in federal court that will impose unnecessary financial costs on beleaguered school districts. As the cacophony countless exhortations to spend ever-increasing amounts of money on federal education programs continue, Mr. President, should we not also address the financial problems federal laws cause to local school boards in our increasingly litigious society? For if more distinguished judges like Clarence Thomas are not present to rein in lawsuit-happy interest groups (e.g. the National Women's Law Center, which brought this case in the first place), we will find even the most trivial aspects of children's regrettable but predictable boorishness regulated by federal judges. Playground teasing and immature behavior does not require a federal lawsuit, Mr. President; it may require a good spanking. Unfortunately, we often find that reasonable discipline measures result in legal action as well. Pity the taxpayer who pays the bill, Mr. President--and pity the students and teachers who must navigate this baffling legal minefield. So thank Heaven for Clarence Thomas, who is doing his level best to hold the line against foolish decisions. We must hope the Senate will soon act to rectify the devastating financial effects frivolous lawsuits are imposing on school boards and local taxpayers across the country.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 24, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,597,942,875,397.10 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-seven billion, nine hundred forty-two million, eight hundred seventy-five thousand, three hundred ninety- seven dollars and ten cents). Five years ago, May 24, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,591,881,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred ninety-one billion, eight hundred eighty-one million). Ten years ago, May 24, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,781,133,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-one billion, one hundred thirty-three million). Fifteen years ago, May 24, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,489,236,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-nine billion, two hundred thirty-six million). Twenty-five years ago, May 24, 1974, the federal debt stood at $471,902,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, nine hundred two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,126,040,875,397.10 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty-six billion, forty million, eight hundred seventy-five thousand, three hundred ninety-seven dollars and ten cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 21, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,596,857,521,196.34 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-six billion, eight hundred fifty-seven million, five hundred twenty-one thousand, one hundred ninety-six dollars and thirty-four cents). One year ago, May 21, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,503,780,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred three billion, seven hundred eighty million). Fifteen years ago, May 21, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,485,189,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-five billion, one hundred eighty-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, May 21, 1974, the federal debt stood at $470,357,000,000 (Four hundred seventy billion, three hundred fifty- seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,126,500,521,196.34 (Five trillion, one hundred twenty-six billion, five hundred million, five hundred twenty-one thousand, one hundred ninety-six dollars and thirty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to Senators Hatch, Allard, Ashcroft, and Sessions who have spent countless hours over the past two Congresses addressing the complex issues of school safety and juvenile violence. And, needless to say, I deeply appreciate their accommodating my concerns regarding a bill that I regard as among the most significant pieces of legislation to be considered this Congress--and for their having included three of my amendments in the manager's education package. When enacted, these provisions will improve access to public school disciplinary records by other schools; expand the authority of schools to run a national criminal background check on their employees; and encourage State and local governments to run such checks on all school employees who are charged with providing educational and support services to our children. Together, these provisions will make sure that local public, private, and parochial schools are able to make informed decisions about these individuals--whether a student, a teacher, or other school employee-- who pose an unreasonable risk to the safety and security of our children. Mr. President, we all share a common responsibility to protect our children and a common hope that our children will have a bright future. Though we disagree on the wisdom of creating more gun control laws, there are things that we ought to agree are necessary and in our children's best interests. In this spirit, I introduced a bill in the past two Congresses seeking to extend the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act to illegal drugs. This amendment is based on that bill and is cosponsored by the distinguished Assistant Majority Leader, Mr. Nickles, and the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond. I trust that this amendment will be looked upon favorably by Senators on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, this amendment will strike an important blow in the war against drugs by helping to protect America's school-children from the scourge of drugs in their classrooms. It does this by requiring States to adopt a low mandating ``zero tolerance'' for illegal drugs at school in order to qualify for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funds. Zero tolerance is defined as requiring any student in possession of a felonious quantity of this contraband at school to be expelled for not less than one year. Its adoption will finally send a clear unambiguous message to students, parents, and teachers--drugs and schools do not mix. Anybody who questions the necessity of this measure should consider these excerpts from the 1998 CASA National Survey of Teens, Teachers and Principals. This outstanding report was 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. Under the heading ``Drug Dealing In Our Schools'', the report states: 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 percent of 12- to 14-year-olds and 51 percent 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 percent) than in their own neighborhoods (21 percent). In other places, the report details that students consider drugs to be the number one problem they face and that illegal drugs are readily available to students of all ages. Exacerbating this terrible situation, illegal drugs are not cheaper and more potent than ever before. The CASA report goes on to state that ``one in four teenagers can get acid, cocaine or heroin within 24 hours, and given enough time, almost half (46 percent) would be able to purchase such drugs.'' Clearly, eliminating drugs from America's classrooms is a necessary first step to the restoration of order in our schools. The harm that illegal drugs causes our students in incalculable. Though its' ill effects, disruptions, and the violence associated with it are not limited to those actually involved in the drug trade. The PRIDE survey, conducted by the National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education, found a link between school violence and drugs when it demonstrated 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. Clearly, the connection between drugs and school violence is an irrefutable as it is frightening. Mr. President, it should seem obvious that many children take guns to school because they are either involved in illegal activity or because they seek to defend themselves from those who are. It is clear that any further effort to eliminate guns and violence from schools must focus not merely on the gun but on the reasons why students choose to arm themselves. My amendment does precisely that. My home state of North Carolina has not been immune to the ravages of illegal drugs. In fact, ``possession of a controlled substance'' has been either the first or second most reported category of school crime in North Carolina for the past four years. That's according to North Carolina State University's Center for the Prevention of School Violence, an outstanding organization that tracks the incidence of school crime and suggests ways to prevent it. As bleak as the picture is, there are immediate steps that we can take to reverse course. Those who are on the ``front lines'' of our country's drug war have important things to contribute to the discussion. Overwhelmingly, students, teachers and parents support the adoption of a zero tolerance policy for drugs at school. Among those surveyed, the CASA study found broad support for the adoption of firm policies on random locker searches, drug testing of student athletes, and zero tolerance policies. Regarding zero tolerance, 80% of principals, 79% of teachers, 73% of teenagers and 69% of parents voiced support for the adoption of such a policy at their school. Additionally, 85% of principals, 79% of teachers and 82% of students believe that zero tolerance policies are effective at keeping drugs out of schools and that they would actually reduce drugs on their campus. Quoting from the CASA report again: 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. Perhaps in doing so they can increase their likelihood of eradicating drugs on their school grounds. It is not my position that this amendment, by itself, will eliminate all drugs from our schools but it is clear that this is a long overdue step in the right direction. This policy is firm but fair. The drug trade and the violence associated with it have no place in America's classrooms. Schools should foster an environment that is conducive to learning and supportive of the vast majority of students who want to learn. Children and teachers deserve a school free of the fear and violence caused by drugs. Removing drugs and violence from our schools is a goal that we should all agree on. The President, in his 1997 State of the Union address, said ``we must continue to promote order and discipline'' in America's schools by ``remov[ing] disruptive students from the classroom, and hav[ing] zero tolerance for guns and drugs in school.'' I could not agree more with the President on this point: it is time that the Senate go on record in support of removing illegal drugs from America's classrooms, by approving this amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 19, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,593,797,968,334.37 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-three billion, seven hundred ninety-seven million, nine hundred sixty-eight thousand, three hundred thirty-four dollars and thirty-seven cents). Five years ago, May 19, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,588,987,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred eighty-eight billion, nine hundred eighty-seven million). Ten years ago, May 19, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,780,326,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty billion, three hundred twenty-six million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,813,471,968,334.37 (Two trillion, eight hundred thirteen billion, four hundred seventy-one million, nine hundred sixty-eight thousand, three hundred thirty-four dollars and thirty-seven cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, as always, is gracious, and I thank him very much. As he indicated, we have today a distinguished son of a distinguished father who has visited many times. His Majesty, King Abdallah bin Hussein of Jordan. He has been visiting with the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and I present him to the Senate.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess for 3 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 18, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,593,840,202,404.86 (Five trillion, five hundred ninety-three billion, eight hundred forty million, two hundred two thousand, four hundred four dollars and eighty-six cents). One year ago, May 18, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,497,225,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-seven billion, two hundred twenty-five million). Five years ago, May 18, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,590,202,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred ninety billion, two hundred two million). Ten years ago, May 18, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,780,338,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty billion, three hundred thirty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, May 18, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,485,574,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-five billion, five hundred seventy-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,108,266,202,404.86 (Four trillion, one hundred eight billion, two hundred sixty-six million, two hundred two thousand, four hundred four dollars and eighty-six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 17, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,587,730,041,115.05 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-seven billion, seven hundred thirty million, forty-one thousand, one hundred fifteen dollars and five cents). Five years ago, May 17, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,588,709,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred eighty-eight billion, seven hundred nine million). Ten years ago, May 17, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,781,561,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-one billion, five hundred sixty-one million). Fifteen years ago, May 17, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,486,043,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, forty-three million). Twenty-five years ago, May 17, 1974, the federal debt stood at $469,577,000,000 (Four hundred sixty-nine billion, five hundred seventy-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,118,153,041,115.05 (Five trillion, one hundred eighteen billion, one hundred fifty-three million, forty-one thousand, one hundred fifteen dollars and five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. No.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that any further remarks by other Senators today or subsequent to today relative to Bud Nance be printed in tandem with the remarks that will already appear.