Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I had tried numerous times without success during the weekend to reach by telephone a remarkable young mother whom I had never met. I learned about her while reading a newspaper back home in North Carolina that published on April 23 what is most often referred to these days as an ``op-ed'' piece headed, ``Parents Abdicate; Faith Is Abandoned''. (An op-ed piece, of course, is the short-form identification of an article published on the page opposite a newspaper's editorial page.) The op-ed piece which so impressed me was authored by Mrs. Ashley Ethridge of Mebane, N.C., a former school teacher who decided to spend her time raising her two little girls. (She and her husband are expecting a third child later this year). I mentioned at the outset my having tried for much of the weekend to reach Mrs. Ethridge by telephone. Sunday afternoon those efforts were successful--and I must say, Mr. President, that my conversation with Mrs. Ethridge could not have been more meaningful. Senators who read her ``op-ed'' piece will agree, I think, that this lady is a gifted writer. She is a graduate of N.C. State University and she has completed graduate work. She is excitingly profound in her analysis of what ails America in our time. I must confess that I myself have long been alarmed by America's drift away from the moral and spiritual principles and priorities upon which our nation was founded more than two centuries ago. Many of my generation often lament the trend. But Mrs. Ethridge has diagnosed the moral malady better than I, and she offers the prescription to turn the nation's direction around more precisely, more specifically than I ever have. Mr. President, I don't often do this but in the case of my remarks today, and Mrs. Ethridge's clarity and counsel, I shall urge my fellow Senators to read what this young mother in Mebane, North Carolina, feels that all of us ought to consider. So I am glad that I tried, one more time, Sunday afternoon to reach Mrs. Ethridge. It was a blessing to hear her voice and to sense her understanding of the course America simply must take --now. So, Mr. President, I say to Ashley Ethridge: God bless you for the clarity of your wake-up call to the most fortunate people on earth--we citizens of the United States of America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Ashley Ethridge's observations be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, April 23, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,586,140,738,923.35 (Five trillion, five hundred eighty-six billion, one hundred forty million, seven hundred thirty-eight thousand, nine hundred twenty-three dollars and thirty-five cents). One year ago, April 23, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,501,159,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred one billion, one hundred fifty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, April 23, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,486,568,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, five hundred sixty-eight million). Twenty-five years ago, April 23, 1974, the federal debt stood at $471,225,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, two hundred twenty- five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,114,915,738,923.35 (Five trillion, one hundred fourteen billion, nine hundred fifteen million, seven hundred thirty-eight thousand, nine hundred twenty-three dollars and thirty-five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, April 21, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,630,289,872,162.63 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty billion, two hundred eighty-nine million, eight hundred seventy-two thousand, one hundred sixty-two dollars and sixty-three cents). One year ago, April 21, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,518,978,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred eighteen billion, nine hundred seventy-eight million). Five years ago, April 21, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,555,161,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-five billion, one hundred sixty-one million). Ten years ago, April 21, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,754,358,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred fifty-four billion, three hundred fifty-eight million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,875,931,872,162.63 (Two trillion, eight hundred seventy-five billion, nine hundred thirty-one million, eight hundred seventy-two thousand, one hundred sixty-two dollars and sixty-three cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and certainly thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for whom I have the greatest admiration.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 20, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,628,407,736,077.41 (Five trillion, six hundred twenty-eight billion, four hundred seven million, seven hundred thirty-six thousand, seventy- seven dollars and forty-one cents). One year ago, April 20, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,514,300,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred fourteen billion, three hundred million). Five years ago, April 20, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,569,088,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred sixty-nine billion, eighty-eight million). Ten years ago, April 20, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,754,104,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred fifty-four billion, one hundred four million). Fifteen years ago, April 20, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,486,967,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, nine hundred sixty-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,141,440,736,077.41 (Four trillion, one hundred forty-one billion, four hundred forty million, seven hundred thirty-six thousand, seventy-seven dollars and forty-one cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today we have in this Chamber a distinguished group of parliamentarians from the Republic of China on Taiwan. I invite Senators who have not already done so to come over and say a quick hello to our visitors.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 19, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,624,235,766,178.82 (Five trillion, six hundred twenty-four billion, two hundred thirty-five million, seven hundred sixty-six thousand, one hundred seventy-eight dollars and eighty-two cents). Five years ago, April 19, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,565,951,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred sixty-five billion, nine hundred fifty-one million). Ten years ago, April 19, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,776,338,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred seventy-six billion, three hundred thirty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, April 19, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,487,346,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-seven billion, three hundred forty-six million). Twenty-five years ago, April 19, 1974, the federal debt stood at $470,921,000,000 (Four hundred seventy billion, nine hundred twenty-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,153,314,766,178.82 (Five trillion, one hundred fifty-three billion, three hundred fourteen million, seven hundred sixty-six thousand, one hundred seventy-eight dollars and eighty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, April 16, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,640,540,994,484.49 (Five trillion, six hundred forty billion, five hundred forty million, nine hundred ninety-four thousand, four hundred eighty-four dollars and forty-nine cents). One year ago, April 16, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,510,369,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred ten billion, three hundred sixty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, April 16, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,486,333,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, three hundred thirty-three million). Twenty-five years ago, April 16, 1974, the federal debt stood at $473,584,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-three billion, five hundred eighty-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,166,956,994,484.49 (Five trillion, one hundred sixty-six billion, nine hundred fifty-six million, nine hundred ninety-four thousand, four hundred eighty-four dollars and forty-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 14, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,666,830,242,609.56 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-six billion, eight hundred thirty million, two hundred forty-two thousand, six hundred nine dollars and fifty-six cents). One year ago, April 14, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,547,606,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-seven billion, six hundred six million). Five years ago, April 14, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,567,340,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred sixty-seven billion, three hundred forty million). Ten years ago, April 14, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,771,629,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred seventy-one billion, six hundred twenty-nine million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,895,201,242,609.56 (Two trillion, eight hundred ninety-five billion, two hundred one million, two hundred forty-two thousand, six hundred nine dollars and fifty-six cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 13, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,666,223,263,670.85 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-six billion, two hundred twenty-three million, two hundred sixty-three thousand, six hundred seventy dollars and eighty-five cents). One year ago, April 13, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,545,139,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-five billion, one hundred thirty-nine million). Five years ago, April 13, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,567,992,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred sixty-seven billion, nine hundred ninety-two million). Ten years ago, April 13, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,771,862,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred seventy-one billion, eight hundred sixty-two million). Fifteen years ago, April 13, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,486,811,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, eight hundred eleven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,179,412,263,670.85 (Four trillion, one hundred seventy-nine billion, four hundred twelve million, two hundred sixty- three thousand, six hundred seventy dollars and eighty-five cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 12, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,663,866,732,410.23 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-three billion, eight hundred sixty-six million, seven hundred thirty-two thousand, four hundred ten dollars and twenty-three cents). Five years ago, April 12, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,565,109,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred sixty-five billion, one hundred nine million). Ten years ago, April 12, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,771,368,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred seventy-one billion, three hundred sixty-eight million). Fifteen years ago, April 12, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,486,599,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, five hundred ninety-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, April 12, 1974, the federal debt stood at $473,967,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-three billion, nine hundred sixty-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,189,899,732,410.23 (Five trillion, one hundred eighty-nine billion, eight hundred ninety-nine million, seven hundred thirty-two thousand, four hundred ten dollars and twenty-three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business Friday, April 9, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,661,252,699,346.90 (Five trillion, six hundred sixty-one billion, two hundred fifty-two million, six hundred ninety-nine thousand, three hundred forty-six dollars and ninety cents). One year ago, April 9, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,542,953,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-two billion, nine hundred fifty-three million). Fifteen years ago, April 9, 1984, the Federal debt stood at $1,486,873,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred eighty-six billion, eight hundred seventy-three million). Twenty-five years ago, April 9, 1974, the Federal debt stood at $472,761,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-two billion, seven hundred sixty-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,188,491,699,346.90 (Five trillion, one hundred eighty- eight billion, four hundred ninety-one million, six hundred ninety-nine thousand, three hundred forty-six dollars and ninety cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is a significant piece of legislation, I believe, the Serbia Democratization Act of 1999, on which I am honored by the cosponsorship of a number of distinguished colleagues-- Senators Gordon Smith, Lugar, Lieberman, Lautenberg, DeWine, McCain, and Orrin Hatch. More than a year ago, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic sent Serbian troops into Kosovo to launch a brutal assault on the ethnic Albanian population there. This action was the beginning of a merciless and unjustified Serbian offensive against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Two thousand victims of Milosevic's cruelty lie dead--many of them innocent civilians. And hundreds of thousands of people have been driven from their homes. Mr. President, this tragedy in Kosovo has emphasized the obvious: that if the United States continues to foolishly hope for good will on the part of Milosevic, the United States will be dragged into the crises this cruel man manufactures time and again. Instead of pursuing a strategy that leads to NATO airstrikes or the deployment of thousands of United States troops in peacekeeping operations, I believe it is the course of wisdom to examine the root cause of instability in that region--the bloody regime of Slobodan Milosevic. President Milosevic has imposed rigid controls on, or launched outright attacks against, the media, universities, and the judicial system in Serbia to prevent the possibility that a democracy and an independent civil society can be developed. The massacres of innocent women and children in Kosovo demonstrate Milosevic's disregard for basic human rights. This man, in a word, forbids the very thought of a democratic system in Serbia. For too long this Administration has claimed that no viable democratic opposition exists in Serbia or that the United States has no choice but to work with Milosevic. Mr. President, I refuse to accept this argument. There are individuals and organizations in Serbia that can be a force for democratic change in that country. Milosevic is not the only option. And in no case should the United States treat that dictator as a responsible leader or as someone with whom we can do business. The Serbia Democratization Act, which I am introducing today, has but one purpose--to get rid of the murderous regime of Mr. Milosevic. Let me briefly summarize the key points of the legislation: It authorizes $100 million over a two year period to support the development of a government in Yugoslavia based on democratic principles and the rule of law. It calls for increased Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasting to Serbia to undermine state control of the media and spread the message of democracy to the people of Serbia. It calls for humanitarian and other assistance to the victims of oppression in Kosovo. It adds new sanctions or strengthens those that exist against Serbia until the President certifies that the government is democratic. For example, it codifies the so-called ``outer wall'' of sanctions that the United States has informally in place. It blocks Yugoslav assets in the United States. It prevents senior Yugoslav and Serbian government officials, and their families, from receiving visas to travel to the U.S. And it requires a democratic government to be in place in Serbia before extending MFN status to Yugoslavia. It states that the U.S. should send to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia all information we have on the involvement of Milosevic in war crimes. Now, as for Mr. Milosevic's future, I do not care one way or the other if he lives out his days in sunny Cyprus if he will agree to step aside and make way for democracy in Serbia. The important thing is that he be removed from power, whether voluntarily or not. Once the Milosevic regime has been replaced by a democratic government in Yugoslavia, this legislation calls for immediate and substantial U.S. assistance to support the transition to democracy. When that day comes, I will lead the way in encouraging Yugoslavia to take its place among the democratic nations of the West. Until that time, I will work to implement a policy that will undermine the autocratic regime of Slobodan Milosevic in every way possible.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is a significant piece of legislation, I believe, the Serbia Democratization Act of 1999, on which I am honored by the cosponsorship of a number of distinguished colleagues-- Senators Gordon Smith, Lugar, Lieberman, Lautenberg, DeWine, McCain, and Orrin Hatch. More than a year ago, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic sent Serbian troops into Kosovo to launch a brutal assault on the ethnic Albanian population there. This action was the beginning of a merciless and unjustified Serbian offensive against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Two thousand victims of Milosevic's cruelty lie dead--many of them innocent civilians. And hundreds of thousands of people have been driven from their homes. Mr. President, this tragedy in Kosovo has emphasized the obvious: that if the United States continues to foolishly hope for good will on the part of Milosevic, the United States will be dragged into the crises this cruel man manufactures time and again. Instead of pursuing a strategy that leads to NATO airstrikes or the deployment of thousands of United States troops in peacekeeping operations, I believe it is the course of wisdom to examine the root cause of instability in that region--the bloody regime of Slobodan Milosevic. President Milosevic has imposed rigid controls on, or launched outright attacks against, the media, universities, and the judicial system in Serbia to prevent the possibility that a democracy and an independent civil society can be developed. The massacres of innocent women and children in Kosovo demonstrate Milosevic's disregard for basic human rights. This man, in a word, forbids the very thought of a democratic system in Serbia. For too long this Administration has claimed that no viable democratic opposition exists in Serbia or that the United States has no choice but to work with Milosevic. Mr. President, I refuse to accept this argument. There are individuals and organizations in Serbia that can be a force for democratic change in that country. Milosevic is not the only option. And in no case should the United States treat that dictator as a responsible leader or as someone with whom we can do business. The Serbia Democratization Act, which I am introducing today, has but one purpose--to get rid of the murderous regime of Mr. Milosevic. Let me briefly summarize the key points of the legislation: It authorizes $100 million over a two year period to support the development of a government in Yugoslavia based on democratic principles and the rule of law. It calls for increased Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasting to Serbia to undermine state control of the media and spread the message of democracy to the people of Serbia. It calls for humanitarian and other assistance to the victims of oppression in Kosovo. It adds new sanctions or strengthens those that exist against Serbia until the President certifies that the government is democratic. For example, it codifies the so-called ``outer wall'' of sanctions that the United States has informally in place. It blocks Yugoslav assets in the United States. It prevents senior Yugoslav and Serbian government officials, and their families, from receiving visas to travel to the U.S. And it requires a democratic government to be in place in Serbia before extending MFN status to Yugoslavia. It states that the U.S. should send to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia all information we have on the involvement of Milosevic in war crimes. Now, as for Mr. Milosevic's future, I do not care one way or the other if he lives out his days in sunny Cyprus if he will agree to step aside and make way for democracy in Serbia. The important thing is that he be removed from power, whether voluntarily or not. Once the Milosevic regime has been replaced by a democratic government in Yugoslavia, this legislation calls for immediate and substantial U.S. assistance to support the transition to democracy. When that day comes, I will lead the way in encouraging Yugoslavia to take its place among the democratic nations of the West. Until that time, I will work to implement a policy that will undermine the autocratic regime of Slobodan Milosevic in every way possible.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk for proper referral a bill.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 24, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,645,338,661,953.64 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-five billion, three hundred thirty-eight million, six hundred sixty-one thousand, nine hundred fifty-three dollars and sixty-four cents). One year ago, March 24, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,542,617,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-two billion, six hundred seventeen million). Five years ago, March 24, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,556,299,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-six billion, two hundred ninety-nine million). Ten years ago, March 24, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,737,627,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred thirty-seven billion, six hundred twenty-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,907,711,661,953.64 (Two trillion, nine hundred seven billion, seven hundred eleven million, six hundred sixty-one thousand, nine hundred fifty-three dollars and sixty-four cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. This bill is to do the best we can to ensure that the United States is fulfilling its obligations to the Republic of China as specified by the Taiwan Relations Act. Mr. President, this has been done reasonably well for about 20 years, but recent trends disclose the need for efforts by the United States to be stepped up, hence the introduction of this bill by Senator Torricelli and me. There will undoubtedly be further additions to the sponsorship of this bill. In any case, as you know, the Pentagon, last month, delivered to the Congress a report entitled ``The Security Situation in the Taiwan Straits.'' Frankly, I found this report exceedingly disturbing. For openers, the report stated that Red China has been and will continue to deploy a large number of missiles directly across the strait from Taiwan. In fact, according to media reports, China already has more than 150 such missiles aimed at Taiwan and plans to increase the number to 650 during the next few years. Taiwan has virtually no defenses against such missiles. In 1995 and 1996, Red China proved beyond a shadow of a doubt a willingness to use these missiles, at a minimum to intimidate Taiwan. I think Americans should also be concerned about Chinese missiles. In late November, the Chinese People's Liberation Army conducted exercises consisting of mock missile attacks on United States forces in South Korea and in Japan. The Pentagon report, to which I just referred, also makes clear that mainland China's vast quantitative edge over Taiwan in naval and air power, coupled with China's ongoing modernization drive, will prove overwhelming in any sort of military confrontation. The Pentagon report concluded that Taiwan's future success in deterring Chinese aggression will be--and I quote from the report--``dependent on its continued acquisition of modern arms, technology and equipment and its ability to deal with a number of systemic problems'' such as logistics. This is precisely where the United States had better step in, Mr. President, because the United States is the only power in the world that can assure that Taiwan can continue to acquire the weapons it needs and deal with its systemic problems. The question is, Will we do it? Communist China has coupled its military buildup and threats against Taiwan with increased pressure on the United States to limit or to cease our arms sales to Taiwan. This is reminiscent of 1982 when the Reagan administration yielded to Chinese pressure and mistakenly agreed to limit and gradually reduce our arms sales to Taiwan in the regrettable August communique. President Clinton, similarly, last summer caved in to Beijing's three noes--no, no, no. Will arms sales to Taiwan be sacrificed next? I put a question mark after it because I hope the administration will recover from its lack of foresight of last summer. In any event, if one listens to administration officials, who somehow seem incapable of commenting on arms sales to Taiwan without mentioning the 1982 communique, or the administration's refusal to sell submarines to Taiwan on the flimsy pretext that those submarines are offensive, I think one will get some idea of where the United States arms sales to Taiwan will be if we do not now stand steadfast. Let me explain. Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act compel us, oblige us, to provide defensive arms to Taiwan based solely upon the judgment of the United States regarding Taiwan's needs, meaning that Beijing's opinion doesn't count. Given China's threatening military buildup, it is unlikely that Taiwan's legitimate needs are going to go down soon. Nor should U.S. arms sales go down, Mr. President. Moreover, it is high time to begin a discussion of whether the United States ought to be doing more in the way of exchanges in training and planning with Taiwan's military. The Taiwan military has operated in virtual isolation for 20 years, and this has certainly contributed to some of the systemic problems alluded to in the Pentagon report, to which I referred just a moment ago. Taiwan's military does not exercise with us. They do not plan with us. When the Red Chinese missiles were flying over Taiwan in 1996 and our carriers went to the strait, the Taiwan military had no direct or secure way of communicating with the United States fleet, none whatsoever. The question is, Do we want to be stuck in that situation again? While the Secretary of Defense and other top officials can rub elbows in Beijing and possibly have champagne, the State Department prevents any other officer above the rank of colonel setting foot on Taiwan. In addition to being outrageous, this cannot help having a corrosive effect on our joint ability to deter conflict in the Taiwan Strait over time. All of this is why I have introduced, with Senator Torricelli, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which has three main thrusts. Let me briefly identify each of them. One, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act seeks to ensure that our friends in Taiwan will have the necessary equipment to maintain their self-defense capabilities as required by the Taiwan Relations Act. It does this by prohibiting any politically motivated reductions in arms sales to Taiwan pursuant to the 1982 communique and by authorizing the sale to Taiwan of a broad array of defense systems, including missile defense systems, satellite early warning data, diesel submarines, and advanced air-to-air missiles. Secondly, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which I have just introduced, seeks to bolster the process for defense sales to Taiwan. The bill does this in several ways. It requires an increase in staffing at the currently overworked technical section at the American Institute in Taiwan. It also requires the President to report to Congress annually on Taiwan's defense requests and to justify any rejection or postponement of arms sales to Taiwan. These actions are not currently taken and the President and the Congress need to get more involved in the process, precisely as the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which I just introduced, will require. Third, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act will redress some of the deficiencies in readiness resulting in part from the 20-year isolation of Taiwan's military. This will be achieved by supporting Taiwan's increased participation at United States defense colleges, requiring the enhancement of our military exchanges and joint training, and establishing direct communication between our respective militaries. All of this will merely implement section 2(b)(6) of what? It will implement the Taiwan Relations Act, which calls for the United States-- not Taiwan, but the United States--to maintain a capacity to resist any resort to force or coercion that would jeopardize Taiwan. How can we maintain that capacity over the long run if we can't even communicate with Taiwan's military--obviously, we can't--or if we do not do joint planning and training with Taiwan's military? I can hear it now. Some are going to say this is provocative. They will claim that doing these things will upset the United States relationship with China. This is true. The Red Chinese won't like this bill. But I think we all know, Mr. President, that many of the things called for in this legislation must be done at the earliest possible time. China's behavior--let me be clear--mainland China's behavior is a clear warning that it is time for the United States to be much more serious about maintaining a posture of deterrence in the western Pacific and in protecting our loyal, long-time friends in the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today on behalf of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, and myself, I am sending to the desk a bill entitled ``The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act.''

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today on behalf of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, and myself, I am sending to the desk a bill entitled ``The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act.''

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. This bill is to do the best we can to ensure that the United States is fulfilling its obligations to the Republic of China as specified by the Taiwan Relations Act. Mr. President, this has been done reasonably well for about 20 years, but recent trends disclose the need for efforts by the United States to be stepped up, hence the introduction of this bill by Senator Torricelli and me. There will undoubtedly be further additions to the sponsorship of this bill. In any case, as you know, the Pentagon, last month, delivered to the Congress a report entitled ``The Security Situation in the Taiwan Straits.'' Frankly, I found this report exceedingly disturbing. For openers, the report stated that Red China has been and will continue to deploy a large number of missiles directly across the strait from Taiwan. In fact, according to media reports, China already has more than 150 such missiles aimed at Taiwan and plans to increase the number to 650 during the next few years. Taiwan has virtually no defenses against such missiles. In 1995 and 1996, Red China proved beyond a shadow of a doubt a willingness to use these missiles, at a minimum to intimidate Taiwan. I think Americans should also be concerned about Chinese missiles. In late November, the Chinese People's Liberation Army conducted exercises consisting of mock missile attacks on United States forces in South Korea and in Japan. The Pentagon report, to which I just referred, also makes clear that mainland China's vast quantitative edge over Taiwan in naval and air power, coupled with China's ongoing modernization drive, will prove overwhelming in any sort of military confrontation. The Pentagon report concluded that Taiwan's future success in deterring Chinese aggression will be--and I quote from the report--``dependent on its continued acquisition of modern arms, technology and equipment and its ability to deal with a number of systemic problems'' such as logistics. This is precisely where the United States had better step in, Mr. President, because the United States is the only power in the world that can assure that Taiwan can continue to acquire the weapons it needs and deal with its systemic problems. The question is, Will we do it? Communist China has coupled its military buildup and threats against Taiwan with increased pressure on the United States to limit or to cease our arms sales to Taiwan. This is reminiscent of 1982 when the Reagan administration yielded to Chinese pressure and mistakenly agreed to limit and gradually reduce our arms sales to Taiwan in the regrettable August communique. President Clinton, similarly, last summer caved in to Beijing's three noes--no, no, no. Will arms sales to Taiwan be sacrificed next? I put a question mark after it because I hope the administration will recover from its lack of foresight of last summer. In any event, if one listens to administration officials, who somehow seem incapable of commenting on arms sales to Taiwan without mentioning the 1982 communique, or the administration's refusal to sell submarines to Taiwan on the flimsy pretext that those submarines are offensive, I think one will get some idea of where the United States arms sales to Taiwan will be if we do not now stand steadfast. Let me explain. Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Taiwan Relations Act compel us, oblige us, to provide defensive arms to Taiwan based solely upon the judgment of the United States regarding Taiwan's needs, meaning that Beijing's opinion doesn't count. Given China's threatening military buildup, it is unlikely that Taiwan's legitimate needs are going to go down soon. Nor should U.S. arms sales go down, Mr. President. Moreover, it is high time to begin a discussion of whether the United States ought to be doing more in the way of exchanges in training and planning with Taiwan's military. The Taiwan military has operated in virtual isolation for 20 years, and this has certainly contributed to some of the systemic problems alluded to in the Pentagon report, to which I referred just a moment ago. Taiwan's military does not exercise with us. They do not plan with us. When the Red Chinese missiles were flying over Taiwan in 1996 and our carriers went to the strait, the Taiwan military had no direct or secure way of communicating with the United States fleet, none whatsoever. The question is, Do we want to be stuck in that situation again? While the Secretary of Defense and other top officials can rub elbows in Beijing and possibly have champagne, the State Department prevents any other officer above the rank of colonel setting foot on Taiwan. In addition to being outrageous, this cannot help having a corrosive effect on our joint ability to deter conflict in the Taiwan Strait over time. All of this is why I have introduced, with Senator Torricelli, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which has three main thrusts. Let me briefly identify each of them. One, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act seeks to ensure that our friends in Taiwan will have the necessary equipment to maintain their self-defense capabilities as required by the Taiwan Relations Act. It does this by prohibiting any politically motivated reductions in arms sales to Taiwan pursuant to the 1982 communique and by authorizing the sale to Taiwan of a broad array of defense systems, including missile defense systems, satellite early warning data, diesel submarines, and advanced air-to-air missiles. Secondly, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which I have just introduced, seeks to bolster the process for defense sales to Taiwan. The bill does this in several ways. It requires an increase in staffing at the currently overworked technical section at the American Institute in Taiwan. It also requires the President to report to Congress annually on Taiwan's defense requests and to justify any rejection or postponement of arms sales to Taiwan. These actions are not currently taken and the President and the Congress need to get more involved in the process, precisely as the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which I just introduced, will require. Third, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act will redress some of the deficiencies in readiness resulting in part from the 20-year isolation of Taiwan's military. This will be achieved by supporting Taiwan's increased participation at United States defense colleges, requiring the enhancement of our military exchanges and joint training, and establishing direct communication between our respective militaries. All of this will merely implement section 2(b)(6) of what? It will implement the Taiwan Relations Act, which calls for the United States-- not Taiwan, but the United States--to maintain a capacity to resist any resort to force or coercion that would jeopardize Taiwan. How can we maintain that capacity over the long run if we can't even communicate with Taiwan's military--obviously, we can't--or if we do not do joint planning and training with Taiwan's military? I can hear it now. Some are going to say this is provocative. They will claim that doing these things will upset the United States relationship with China. This is true. The Red Chinese won't like this bill. But I think we all know, Mr. President, that many of the things called for in this legislation must be done at the earliest possible time. China's behavior--let me be clear--mainland China's behavior is a clear warning that it is time for the United States to be much more serious about maintaining a posture of deterrence in the western Pacific and in protecting our loyal, long-time friends in the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 23, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,645,199,129,224.03 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-five billion, one hundred ninety-nine million, one hundred twenty-nine thousand, two hundred twenty-four dollars and three cents). One year ago, March 23, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,539,833,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-nine billion, eight hundred thirty-three million). Five years ago, March 23, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,559,372,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-nine billion, three hundred seventy-two million). Ten years ago, March 23, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,737,055,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred thirty-seven billion, fifty-five million). Fifteen years ago, March 23, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,465,084,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-five billion, eighty-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,180,115,129,224.03 (Four trillion, one hundred eighty billion, one hundred fifteen million, one hundred twenty-nine thousand, two hundred twenty-four dollars and three cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 693 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. KENNEDY addressed the chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu and I are introducing today, its purpose being to implement the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption--a treaty pending before the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Landrieu and I have worked together on issues of adoption since her arrival in the Senate in 1997. I am genuinely grateful for her leadership on this issue. According to the most recent statistics, in 1998 almost 15,774 children were adopted by Americans from abroad. The majority of the children were brought to the United States from Russia, China, Korea, and Central and South American countries. In my state of North Carolina, 175 children were adopted in 1996 from outside the United States. The Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act will provide for the first time a rational structure for intercountry adoption. The act is intended to bring some accountability to agencies that provide intercountry adoption services in the United States, and strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State in ensuring that U.S. adoption agencies engage in efforts to find homes for children in an ethical manner. Mr. President, I strongly support adoption. It is in the best interest of every child--regardless of his or her age, race or special need--to be raised by a family who will provide a safe, permanent, and nurturing home. However, it is also a process that can leave parents and children vulnerable to fraud and abuse. For this reason, the legislation that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today includes a requirement that agencies be accredited to provide intercountry adoption. Mandatory standards for accreditation will include ensuring that a child's medical records be available in English to the prospective parents prior to their traveling to the foreign country to finalize an adoption. (We are also requiring that agencies be transparent, especially in their rate of disrupted adoption and their fee scales.) This legislation also places the requirements of implementing the Hague Convention with the U.S. Secretary of State. Some have advocated a role for various government agencies, but I believe that spreading responsibility among various agencies will undermine the effective implementation of the Hague Convention. During hearings last year in the Foreign Relations Committee regarding international parental kidnaping, the Committee heard testimony regarding the difficulties of coordination among agencies in implementing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Parental Abduction. This situation provides a valuable lesson. As a result, our legislation tasks the Secretary of State with establishing accreditation criteria for adoption agencies. The Foreign Relations Committee soon will schedule hearings to consider both the treaty and this legislation. I hope that these hearings will emphasize both the many benefits of intercountry adoption, but also several of the abuses that have resulted during this decade.