Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 682 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 22, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,642,227,279,510.37 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-two billion, two hundred twenty-seven million, two hundred seventy-nine thousand, five hundred ten dollars and thirty-seven cents). Five years ago, March 22, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,557,220,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-seven billion, two hundred twenty million). Ten years ago, March 22, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,736,549,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred thirty-six billion, five hundred forty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, March 22, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,465,629,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-five billion, six hundred twenty-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, March 22, 1974, the federal debt stood at $471,830,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, eight hundred thirty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,170,397,279,510.37 (Five trillion, one hundred seventy billion, three hundred ninety-seven million, two hundred seventy-nine thousand, five hundred ten dollars and thirty-seven cents) during the past 25 years.

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.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 19, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,640,185,158,295.15 (Five trillion, six hundred forty billion, one hundred eighty-five million, one hundred fifty-eight thousand, two hundred ninety-five dollars and fifteen cents). One year ago, March 19, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,537,630,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-seven billion, six hundred thirty million). Fifteen years ago, March 19, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,465,615,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-five billion, six hundred fifteen million). Twenty-five years ago, March 19, 1974, the federal debt stood at $471,306,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, three hundred six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,168,879,158,295.15 (Five trillion, one hundred sixty-eight billion, eight hundred seventy-nine million, one hundred fifty-eight thousand, two hundred ninety-five dollars and fifteen cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, March 18, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,639,558,556,809.78 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-nine billion, five hundred fifty-eight million, five hundred fifty-six thousand, eight hundred nine dollars and seventy-eight cents). One year ago, March 18, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,537,179,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-seven billion, one hundred seventy-nine million). Five years ago, March 18, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,554,111,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-four billion, one hundred eleven million). Twenty-five years ago, March 18, 1974, the Federal debt stood at $471,215,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, two hundred fifteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,168,343,556,809.78 (Five trillion, one hundred sixty-eight billion, three hundred forty-three million, five hundred fifty-six thousand, eight hundred nine dollars and seventy-eight cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 17, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,641,694,979,239.08 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-one billion, six hundred ninety-four million, nine hundred seventy-nine thousand, two hundred thirty-nine dollars and eight cents). One year ago, March 17, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,536,664,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-six billion, six hundred sixty-four million). Five years ago, March 17, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4,553,032,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-three billion, thirty-two million). Ten years ago, March 17, 1989, the Federal debt stood at $2,736,679,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred thirty-six billion, six hundred seventy-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,905,015,979,239.08 (Two trillion, nine hundred five billion, fifteen million, nine hundred seventy-nine thousand, two hundred thirty-nine dollars and eight cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I commend our distinguished colleagues from Florida, Senators Bob Graham and Connie Mack, for their leadership in the bipartisan effort to defend the rights of the Cuban people. Their Senate Resolution No. 57--of which I am a proud cosponsor--is a timely reminder to the administration that the United States must speak out clearly in behalf of those whose own voices are choked by communist repression--be they in China or Cuba. Our principled, consistent defense of human rights must be heard at the upcoming meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. In recent weeks, Fidel Castro has executed a brutal crackdown on courageous Cubans and independent journalists who seek freedom from the heavy-handed treatment imposed on them by the Castro government. Just this week, he sentenced four prominent, peaceful dissidents to up to 5 years in prison for daring to criticize Castro's failed communist experiment. There's nothing new about Castro's brutality. But the latest Castro crackdown is significant because it violates Castro's commitments to the Pope. The Pope asked Castro to ``open up to the world'' and to respect human rights. Castro's reply has now been heard: He gave a bloody thumbs-down to the Pope's plea. The latest crackdown also comes despite years of Canadian coddling and European investment in Cuba. The Canadians' self-described ``policy of engagement'' has served to prop-up the Castro regime but has done nothing to advance human rights or democracy. Thos who have urged unilateral concessions from the United States in order to nudge Castro toward change surely will now acknowledge that appeasement has failed--as it always does. The U.S. response to this latest wave of repression must be resolute and energetic. We must invigorate our policy to maintain the embargo on Castro, while undermining Castro's embargo on the Cuban people. We should make no secret of our goal: I myself have declared publicly and repeatedly that, for the sake of the people of Cuba, Fidel must go. And, whether he goes vertically or horizontally is up to him. Since the Pope's visit to Cuba, I have urged the administration to increase United States support for Cuban dissidents and independent groups, which include the Catholic Church. Once again, I call on the Clinton administration to increase U.S. support for dissidents, to respect the codification of the embargo, and to work with us on this bipartisan policy. Castro's recent measures make clear that he is feeling the heat from our efforts to reach out to the Cuban people. That is why Castro is trying to crush dissidents and independent journalists, who are daring to tell the truth about his regime. That is why he has made it a criminal offense for Cubans to engage in friendly contact with Americans. Castro's cowardly brutality--when one pauses to think about it--shows that he is a weak and frightened despot. His cruelty should make us more determined than ever to sweep Castro-ism onto the ash heap of history. Senate Resolution 57 calls upon the administration to use its voice and vote at the upcoming meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to support a strong resolution that will condemn Castro's systematic repression and appoint a special rapporteur to document the regime's willful violations of universally recognized human rights.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 16, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,639,342,063,058.30 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-nine billion, three hundred forty-two million, sixty-three thousand, fifty-eight dollars and thirty cents). One year ago, March 16, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,530,456,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty billion, four hundred fifty-six million). Five years ago, March 16, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,550,473,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty billion, four hundred seventy-three million). Ten years ago, March 16, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,737,640,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred thirty-seven billion, six hundred forty million). Fifteen years ago, March 16, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,465,672,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-five billion, six hundred seventy-two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,173,670,063,058.30 (Four trillion, one hundred seventy-three billion, six hundred seventy million, sixty-three thousand, fifty-eight dollars and thirty cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment of the able Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) because I interpret that it refers to the policy of pursuing Russian ratification of the START II Treaty. Any proposed reduction below the START II level should, of course, be considered on its specific merits. I commend Senator Landrieu for offering the amendment consistent with my interpretation stated above.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 15, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,634,976,613,497.51 (Five trillion, six hundred thirty-four billion, nine hundred seventy-six million, six hundred thirteen thousand, four hundred ninety-seven dollars and fifty-one cents). Five years ago, March 15, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,549,059,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred forty-nine billion, fifty-nine million). Ten years ago, March 15, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,737,036,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred thirty-seven billion, thirty-six million). Fifteen years ago, March 15, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,465,029,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-five billion, twenty-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, March 15, 1974, the federal debt stood at $471,094,000,000 (Four hundred seventy-one billion, ninety-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,163,882,613,497.51 (Five trillion, one hundred sixty-three billion, eight hundred eighty-two million, six hundred thirteen thousand, four hundred ninety-seven dollars and fifty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, in addition to being sort of a jawbreaker of a title, is exceedingly significant legislation which takes the first step toward protecting the American people from the growing threat of attack from ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads. Now, I am gladly a cosponsor because this establishes the unmistakable policy of the U.S. Government emphasizing the need to defend the American people from missile attack. This policy is clear, it is unequivocal. However, it is only the first step. Ultimately, the President must agree or be compelled to agree by an overwhelming congressional override of his veto to begin immediately the building and deploying of a national missile defense. The construction of a meaningful defense will take time, obviously-- time that, given North Korea's recent missile test--we may not have. I am among those who have become increasingly frustrated as the Clinton administration has squandered month after month, year after year, dithering and delaying, and otherwise reacting in ostrich-like fashion to the fast-approaching threat of missile attack by a rogue regime. I have long regarded as beyond belief that the Clinton administration still refuses to commit to the immediate deployment of a national missile defense. I wonder, given the fact that North Korea now has a three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile capable of dropping anthrax on U.S. cities in Alaska and perhaps Hawaii, how much indifference could so dictate such a perilous do-nothing attitude by the President and his advisors. Nero fiddled as Rome burned--and the crowd in charge on Pennsylvania Avenue may wake up one morning and realize that they have been playing with the safety of the American people and playing fast and loose. I trust I am very clear on this point: it is an absolute, irrefutable fact that a hostile tyrant today possesses missiles capable of exterminating American cities. Mr. President, North Korea is not our only concern. The Islamic fundamentalists in Iran continue their crash missile program. The Rumsfeld Commission has warned that Iran has everything it needs to put together an ICBM within a few years. And because the Clinton administration has fooled around in its do-nothing mode for so long, Iran may very well be able to deploy an ICBM before America has a missile defense to counter it, even if the United States breaks ground on construction tomorrow morning. Perhaps most troubling, however, is Communist China's nuclear missile program. China fields dozens of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hundreds of warheads on heavy bombers, roughly 24 medium and long-range ballistic missiles, and has several crash modernization initiatives in progress this very moment. Further, Red China has begun deploying several new types of ballistic missiles. And most troubling, it is now clear that China has stolen America's most sensitive nuclear secret--technical data for the W-88 warhead. Theft of that warhead design, coupled with the multiple- satellite dispenser that China developed working with United States satellite companies, will enable the PRC to deploy MIRVed weapons far sooner than expected. In other words, China is on the verge of tripling or quadrupling, the number of warheads pointed at our cities, and this, Mr. President, is the same country that flexed its military might by firing missiles in the Strait of Taiwan in an effort to intimidate a longstanding and peaceful ally of the United States. The People's Republic of China-- that is to say, Communist China--also is the same nation that engaged in a bit of nuclear blackmail by threatening a missile strike against Los Angeles. Obviously, Mr. President, with these hostile threats emerging, it would be assumed that the United States would already have deployed a system to protect the American people against this danger; and it would be assumed that the Clinton administration surely is working, in cooperation with a bi-partisan majority in Congress, to make certain that the United States will never be exposed to a missile attack by a terrorist regime. Well, such assumptions have been woefully wrong. The do-nothing Clinton administration has aggressively blocked every effort by Congress to implement a national missile defense system to protect the American people. More than 3 years have already been lost in deploying a missile defense system because of the President's veto, in December, 1995, of critical legislation designed to protect the American people. The President's people, in fact, are out there right now lobbying against the pending business of the Senate today, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, of which I am a cosponsor. Indeed, China, North Korea, and Iran can today hold the American people hostage to missile attack because of the do-nothing attitude of the President of the United States who, here in Washington, has consistently refused to build, or even consider building, the strategic missile defenses necessary to protect the American people from such an attack. For years, liberals have tut-tutted that no long-range missile threat existed to necessitate a missile defense. But now, in the wake of the Rumsfeld Commission's report and North Korea's missile launch, even the most zealous arms control advocates have been forced to admit that their critical lapse of judgment and foresight has put our nation at heightened risk. Though these people now admit the existence of a serious threat, just the same, they cannot bring themselves to agree to the deployment of a shield against missile attack. Why, Mr. President? I'll tell you why. It is because of an incredible and dumb devotion to an antiquated arms control theory. Critics of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 claim that Henny Penny's sky will fall because even the most limited effort to defend the American people will scuttle strategic nuclear reductions. One Senator, for example, declared in a recent press release that, if S. 257 is passed, ``Russia would likely retain thousands of nuclear warheads it would otherwise eliminate under existing and planned arms reduction treaties.'' Mr. President, if this is the last, best argument that can be mustered against deploying a national missile defense, opponents of the pending National Missile Defense Act of 1999 had better go back to the drawing board in search of logic. While they are at it, they should ponder the fact that Russia has been threatening to block ratification of START II since almost the day it was signed. For more than 6 years, the United States has been waiting for the Russian Government to put this treaty into force; in the meantime the American people have been subjected to a barrage of Russian threats and demands for concessions on a bewildering array of issues, largely unrelated to the treaty. For the benefit of Senators, and the American people, I ask unanimous consent that a document, cataloging just a few of these Russian demands regarding START II, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that it is prima facie ridiculous to still insist that the United States must forgo defending itself against missile attack in order to ensure that Russia ratifies START II. The United States has already paid a dozen ransom notes to Russia in an effort to secure START II's ratification--to no avail. This latest price demanded by Russia is simply too high. Now, I believe that START II may still be in the United States' national security interests, but it is not of such overriding interest that we must forgo the defense of the American people in order to salvage START II. What will happen if START II is not ratified? Strategic forces are expensive to maintain, as both the United States and Russia have rediscovered. That is why the Clinton administration is seeking permission to fall below START I levels regardless of whether the Russians honor their START II obligations--because it wants the money that would be spent on strategic nuclear forces to be used for other, neglected requirements like readiness. And what of Russia, Mr. President? The truth is that Russia's strategic force levels are going to plummet far past the levels mandated by START II regardless of whether there is any agreement in force. The strategic missiles Russia (then the Soviet Union) deployed in the 1980s are reaching the end of their useful life, and cannot be replaced. Russia has neither the money nor a reason, to replace them. In fact, last year the Russian Minister of Defense told Russia's Security Council that even the new SS-27 Topol ICBM currently being deployed, Russia will be unable to field more than 1,500 warheads by the year 2010, which, at the rate things are going, might be about the time the Duma finally gets around to ratifying START II. The truth is that arms control agreements are not controlling force levels. Fiscal and strategic realities are. Why is Russia allowing its forces to fall to historically low levels? I will tell you. For the same reason as is the United States. We no longer live in a cold war world in which huge nuclear arsenals are our top spending priority. The notion that limited ballistic missile defenses will somehow set off a new arms race--or forestall further reductions--is absurd. Mr. President, the truth of the matter is that the arguments about START II are really a cover for those who continue to worship the arms control doctrine of mutually-assured destruction. No amount of policy sophistry or arms control rhetoric by the Clinton administration can alter the fact that the United States is vulnerable to nuclear-tipped missiles fielded by China, or any one else. Rectifying this dangerous deficiency requires leadership and action. It is an all the more pressing issue because the current course charted by the administration fails to recognize the inherent danger in China's pursuit of an advanced nuclear arsenal, based--as we have learned in recent days-- around the W-88 warhead. Mr. President, any further delay in the development by the United States of a flexible, cost-effective national missile defense is unconscionable. I am honored to cosponsor the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 and I urge Senators to support this legislation to make certain that the United States Government will finally adopt a policy to protect the American people from attack by ballistic missiles. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Chair. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today, March 15th, is the Ides of March for 1999. Like Caesar, Congress and the Administration are ignoring the one thing that has the potential to cripple our nation by crippling the booming U.S. economy--I am speaking of the Federal Debt. While the political debate addresses the budget surplus, the balanced budget, and Social Security, it ignores the larger and lingering problem of the federal debt, and the lurking interest on the federal debt. Essentially, Mr. President, the forest cannot be seen for the trees. Well, Mr. President, I am one who far prefers to examine to see the whole picture. If we continue to ignore the escalating debt and its enormous interest growing almost one billion dollars daily--just to pay the interest, mind you--then we will continue to risk economic bedlam down the road. With these thoughts in mind, Mr. President, I begin where I left off Friday: At the close of business, Friday, March 12, 1999, the federal debt stood at 5,653,581,734,840.04 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-three billion, five hundred eighty-one million, seven hundred thirty-four thousand, eight hundred forty dollars and four cents). One year ago, March 12, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,529,750,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-nine billion, seven hundred fifty million). Fifteen years ago, March 12, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,464,623,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-four billion, six hundred twenty-three million). Twenty-five years ago, March 12, 1974, the federal debt stood at $469,792,000,000 (Four hundred sixty-nine billion, seven hundred ninety-two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,183,789,734,840.04 (Five trillion, one hundred eighty- three billion, seven hundred eighty-nine million, seven hundred thirty- four thousand, eight hundred forty dollars and four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 10, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,652,343,384,711.69 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-two billion, three hundred forty-three million, three hundred eighty-four thousand, seven hundred eleven dollars and sixty-nine cents). One year ago, March 10, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,525,631,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-five billion, six hundred thirty-one million). Five years ago, March 10, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,546,801,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred forty-six billion, eight hundred one million). Ten years ago, March 10, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,737,909,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred thirty-seven billion, nine hundred nine million) which reflects a debt increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,914,434,384,711.69 (Two trillion, nine hundred fourteen billion, four hundred thirty-four million, three hundred eighty-four thousand, seven hundred eleven dollars and sixty-nine cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 9, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,650,748,864,597.49 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty billion, seven hundred forty-eight million, eight hundred sixty-four thousand, five hundred ninety-seven dollars and forty-nine cents). One year ago, March 9, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,523,019,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-three billion, nineteen million). Five years ago, March 9, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,542,638,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred forty-two billion, six hundred thirty-eight million). Ten years ago, March 9, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,740,636,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred forty billion, six hundred thirty-six million). Fifteen years ago, March 9, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,464,624,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-four billion, six hundred twenty-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,186,124,864,597.49 (Four trillion, one hundred eighty-six billion, one hundred twenty-four million, eight hundred sixty-four thousand, five hundred ninety-seven dollars and forty-nine cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, March 5, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,652,546,580,761.78 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-two billion, five hundred forty-six million, five hundred eighty thousand, seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy- eight cents). One year ago, March 5, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,528,530,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-eight billion, five hundred thirty million). Fifteen years ago, March 5, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,473,914,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred seventy-three billion, nine hundred fourteen million). Twenty-five years ago, March 5, 1974, the federal debt stood at $468,399,000,000 (Four hundred sixty-eight billion, three hundred ninety-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,184,147,580,761.78 (Five trillion, one hundred eighty-four billion, one hundred forty-seven million, five hundred eighty thousand, seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy-eight cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 3, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,653,396,336,274.78 (Five trillion, six hundred fifty-three billion, three hundred ninety-six million, three hundred thirty-six thousand, two hundred seventy-four dollars and seventy-eight cents). One year ago, March 3, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,528,587,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-eight billion, five hundred eighty-seven million). Five years ago, March 3, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,546,225,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred forty-six billion, two hundred twenty-five million). Ten years ago, March 3, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,745,475,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred forty-five billion, four hundred seventy-five million) which reflects a doubling of the debt--an increase of almost $3 trillion--$2,907,921,336,274.78 (Two trillion, nine hundred seven billion, nine hundred twenty-one million, three hundred thirty-six thousand, two hundred seventy-four dollars and seventy-eight cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 2, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,649,288,631,596.74 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-nine billion, two hundred eighty- eight million, six hundred thirty-one thousand, five hundred ninety-six dollars and seventy-four cents). One year ago, March 2, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,514,791,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred fourteen billion, seven hundred ninety-one million). Five years ago, March 2, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,554,852,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-four billion, eight hundred fifty-two million). Ten years ago, March 2, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,743,744,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred forty-three billion, seven hundred forty-four million). Fifteen years ago, March 2, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,468,923,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred sixty-eight billion, nine hundred twenty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,180,365,631,596.74 (Four trillion, one hundred eighty billion, three hundred sixty-five million, six hundred thirty-one thousand, five hundred ninety-six dollars and seventy-four cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. There are times, Mr. President, when every Senator, on one occasion or another, for one reason or another, feels the need to share with his colleagues a moment of grief or happiness or sadness or hope. This being a time like that for me, Mr. President, my purpose is to share a few thoughts about a wonderfully gifted, beautiful, thoughtful lady named Hannah Covington McGee. I suppose I should begin, Mr. President, by stating that Hannah married a young fellow named Jerry McGee 33 years ago. Dr. Jerry McGee today is president of Wingate University, a splendid Baptist institution in North Carolina. Jerry is the kind of friendly, caring and active husband and father with an enthusiasm for his responsibility as a top-flight educator--and his privilege of being Hannah's husband all those years. Mr. President, Jerry and Hannah this past weekend were enjoying a six-week sabbatical at Tortola Island, one of the British Virgin Islands. Their stay on Tortola had been, both said last week, the happiest weeks of their lives. It all ended when Hannah was awakened Sunday morning suffering an excruciating numbness which quickly developed into the massive cerebral hemorrhage that claimed Hannah McGee's life at such an early age. Hannah grew up in Rockingham in North Carolina. At age 14 she caught the eye of a star athlete at Richmond County Senior High School. She married that star athlete years later--- after both of them had finished college. They immediately began together devoting their lives to young people. A mutual friend asked Jerry about Hannah. Jerry's response was that Hannah provided the kind of relationship that everyone dreams of; he confirmed that he had been in love with Hannah since his high school football days when she was that 14-year-old girl with the ponytail. Mr. President, services for that beautiful, loving and caring Hannah will be held at the Wingate Baptist Church tomorrow very close to the campus of Wingate University. She will be remembered as one who was forever and tirelessly doing things for others and, as Jerry McGee put it, ``It never once occurred to her that anybody ought to do anything for her.'' Mr. President, I certainly know nothing more than anyone else about the hereafter, or what will happen on that inevitable day for all of us. But I suspect that Saint Peter was standing at the Pearly Gate Sunday motioning for Hannah to come in and take her seat on the right hand of God who loves her just as all of us who know her do. Mr. President, The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer this morning published a detailed story, written by Wendy Goodman, praising Hannah McGee. I ask unanimous consent that Wendy Goodman's fine article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 1, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,643,045,679,358.32 (Five trillion, six hundred forty-three billion, forty-five million, six hundred seventy-nine thousand, three hundred fifty-eight dollars and thirty-two cents). Five years ago, March 1, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,554,537,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred fifty-four billion, five hundred thirty-seven million). Ten years ago, March 1, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,743,808,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred forty-three billion, eight hundred eight million). Fifteen years ago, March 1, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,473,047,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred seventy-three billion, forty-seven million). Twenty-five years ago, March 1, 1974, the federal debt stood at $470,866,000,000 (Four hundred seventy billion, eight hundred sixty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,172,179,679,358.32 (Five trillion, one hundred seventy-two billion, one hundred seventy-nine million, six hundred seventy-nine thousand, three hundred fifty-eight dollars and thirty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, February 24, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,620,229,439,635.41 (Five trillion, six hundred twenty billion, two hundred twenty-nine million, four hundred thirty-nine thousand, six hundred thirty-five dollars and forty-one cents). One year ago, February 24, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,522,503,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-two billion, five hundred three million). Five years ago, February 24, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,541,555,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred forty-one billion, five hundred fifty-five million). Ten years ago, February 24, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,722,784,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred twenty-two billion, seven hundred eighty-four million). Fifteen years ago, February 24, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,454,599,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred fifty-four billion, five hundred ninety-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,165,630,439,635.41 (Four trillion, one hundred sixty-five billion, six hundred thirty million, four hundred thirty- nine thousand, six hundred thirty-five dollars and forty-one cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, February 23, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,619,947,525,857.17 (Five trillion, six hundred nineteen billion, nine hundred forty-seven million, five hundred twenty-five thousand, eight hundred fifty-seven dollars and seventeen cents). One year ago, February 23, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,519,493,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, four hundred ninety-three million). Five years ago, February 23, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,541,171,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred forty-one billion, one hundred seventy-one million). Ten years ago, February 23, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,722,096,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred twenty-two billion, ninety-six million). Fifteen years ago, February 23, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,455,152,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred fifty-five billion, one hundred fifty-two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,164,795,525,857.17 (Four trillion, one hundred sixty- four billion, seven hundred ninety-five million, five hundred twenty- five thousand, eight hundred fifty-seven dollars and seventeen cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI, I ask to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 106th Congress adopted by the Committee on February 12, 1999. Rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations (Adopted February 12, 1999) rule 1--jurisdiction (a) Substantive.--In accordance with Senate Rule XXV.1(j)(1), the jurisdiction of the Committee shall extend to all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects: 1. Acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and legations in foreign countries. 2. Boundaries of the United States. 3. Diplomatic service. 4. Foreign economic, military, technical, and humanitarian assistance. 5. Foreign loans. 6. International activities of the American National Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross. 7. International aspects of nuclear energy, including nuclear transfer policy. 8. International conferences and congresses. 9. International law as it relates to foreign policy. 10. International Monetary Fund and other international organizations established primarily for international monetary purposes (except that, at the request of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, any proposed legislation relating to such subjects reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations shall be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs). 11. Intervention abroad and declarations of war. 12. Measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad. 13. National security and international aspects of trusteeships of the United States. 14. Ocean and international environmental and scientific affairs as they relate to foreign policy. 15. Protection of United States citizens abroad and expatriation. 16. Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally. 17. Treaties and executive agreements, except reciprocal trade agreements. 18. United Nations and its affiliated organizations. 19. World Bank group, the regional development banks, and other international organizations established primarily for development assistance purposes. The Committee is also mandated by Senate Rule XXV.1(j)(2) to study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to the national security policy, foreign policy, and international economic policy as it relates to foreign policy of the United States, and matters relating to food, hunger, and nutrition in foreign countries, and report thereon from time to time. (b) Oversight.--The Committee also has a responsibility under Senate Rule XXVI.8, which provides that ``. . . each standing Committee . . . shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration, and execution of those laws or parts of laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee.'' (c) ``Advice and Consent'' Clauses.--The Committee has a special responsibility to assist the Senate in its constitutional function of providing ``advice and consent'' to all treaties entered into by the United States and all nominations to the principal executive branch positions in the field of foreign policy and diplomacy. rule 2--subcommittees (a) Creation.--Unless otherwise authorized by law or Senate resolution, subcommittees shall be created by majority vote of the Committee and shall deal with such legislation and oversight of programs and policies as the Committee directs. Legislative measures or other matters may be referred to a subcommittee for consideration in the discretion of the Chairman or by vote of a majority of the Committee. If the principal subject matter of a measure or matter to be referred falls within the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee the Chairman or the Committee may refer the matter to two or more subcommittees for joint consideration. (b) Assignments.--Assignments of members to subcommittees shall be made in an equitable fashion. No member of the Committee may receive assignment to a second subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all members of the Committee have chosen assignments to one subcommittee, and no member shall receive assignments to a third subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all members have chosen assignments to two subcommittees. No member of the Committee may serve on more than four subcommittees at any one time. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall be ex officio members, without vote, of each subcommittee. (c) Meetings.--Except when funds have been specifically made available by the Senate for a subcommittee purpose, no subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations shall hold hearings involving expenses without prior approval of the Chairman of the full Committee or by decision of the full Committee. Meetings of subcommittees shall be scheduled after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee with a view toward avoiding conflicts with meetings of other subcommittees insofar as possible. Meetings of subcommittees shall not be scheduled to conflict with meetings of the full Committee. The proceedings of each subcommittee shall be governed by the rules of the full Committee, subject to such authorizations or limitations as the Committee may from time to time prescribe.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, now that we are back to doing the people's business, it may be of interest that despite the so-call budget surplus, the federal debt continues to increase by an average of $248 million a day. Some ``surplus''! Congress and the Administration have been BUSILY creating new federal programs which in turn appear to absorb more taxpayer money than produce desired benefits for the American people. If we continue with this spend--spend--spend mentality, the American people's average portion of the federal debt will further escalate from its present sum of $20,650.78. With these thoughts in mind, Mr. President, I begin where I left off in the 105th Congress: At the close of business yesterday, Monday, February 22, 1999, the federal debt stood at $5,617,212,277,099.84 (Five trillion, six hundred seventeen billion, two hundred twelve million, two hundred seventy- seven thousand, ninety-nine dollars and eighty-four cents). Five years ago, February 22, 1994, the federal debt stood at $4,540,132,000,000 (Four trillion, five hundred forty billion, one hundred thirty-two million). Ten years ago, February 22, 1989, the federal debt stood at $2,722,208,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred twenty-two billion, two hundred eight million). Fifteen years ago, February 22, 1984, the federal debt stood at $1,454,396,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred fifty-four billion, three hundred ninety-six million). Twenty-five years ago, February 22, 1974, the federal debt stood at $467,489,000,000 (Four hundred sixty-seven billion, four hundred eighty-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,149,723,277,099.84 (Five trillion, one hundred forty-nine billion, seven hundred twenty-three million, two hundred seventy-seven thousand, ninety-nine dollars and eighty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, one doesn't lose a friend like Wilmer Mizell without experiencing a deep and penetrating sadness. And, by the way, Mr. President, my reference to ``Wilmer'' just now is one of the few times I have ever called him that. Sure, that's the name on his birth certificate; he was officially identified as Wilmer for the very good reason that Wilmer is the name given him by his parents. At least 95 percent of his thousands of friends knew him as ``Vinegar Bend'', or sometimes as just ``Vinegar''. And everybody who knew him loved him. (He was born in Vinegar Bend, Alabama, 68 years ago.) Vinegar Bend died this past Sunday while visiting his wife's family in Texas. He suffered a severe heart attack some weeks ago, but had bounced back and was apparently feeling well until the fatal attack on Sunday. Vinegar Bend Mizell served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1969 through 1974. His first wife, Nancy, was exceedingly popular among Members of the House and Senate until her death several years ago. He and his second wife, Ruth Cox Mizell, were a devoted couple. Mr. President, I have at hand a newspaper account regarding Vinegar Bend's death. I ask unanimous consent that the article, published Monday in The Greensboro (N.C.) News and Record, headed ``Former Ballplayer; N.C. Congressman Mizell Dies at 68'' be printed in the Record.