Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. Chief Justice, 26 years ago this past November, I was first elected to serve as a United States Senator from North Carolina. I had not believed it possible that I would be the first Republican directly elected to the U.S. Senate by the people of North Carolina. I have often told many of the thousands of young people with whom I have visited during the past 26 years that one of three commitments I made to myself on that election night in November 1972 was that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who want to see me. That was one of the most meaningful decisions I ever made. I am told that I have met with something in the neighborhood of almost 70,000 young people according to our records for the past 26 years. These are wonderful young Americans and I am persuaded that they are by all odds the most valuable treasure held by our country. For the better part of the past year, these young people have almost without fail asked me about what they described as ``the problems'' of President Clinton. The vast majority of the time, the young people have talked about the moral and spiritual principles so deeply etched in the hearts of those patriots whom we today call our Founding Fathers--or the Framers of our Constitution--or both--when America was created. So, in the first few weeks of this New Year 1999, I have begun my remarks to the young visitors with the recitation of two statements that I sincerely believe have much to do with whether (and how) this blessed nation can and will survive. The first statement: ``A President cannot faithfully execute the laws if he himself is breaking them.'' The second statement: ``The foundations of this country were not laid by politicians running for something--but by statesmen standing for something.'' The first statement was voiced by a former distinguished Democratic U.S. Attorney General of the United States, The Honorable Griffin Bell. The second was sent to me at Christmas time by a friend whose name and voice I suspect is familiar to most if not all Senators, my dear friend, George Beverly Shea, who for so many years has thrilled and inspired millions as he stood beside Billy Graham and, singing with that remarkably deep voice ``* * * How great Thou art. Our trouble today is that the American people every day, must choose between what is popular and what is right. There is a constant deluge of public opinion polls telling us which way to go, almost without fail showing the popular way. But I must put it to you that we will, at our own peril, look to opinion polls to decide how we vote, when the real need is to look to our hearts, to our consciences and to our soul. So many decisions are made in the Senate--be it on the fate of treaties, or legislation, or even presidents--decisions having implications, not merely for today, but for generations to come, reminding that if we don't stand for something, the very foundations of our Republic will crumble. Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious charges, as nobody knows better than you, Mr. Chief Justice, charges that have been proved during the course of this trial. Therefore, the outcome of this trial may determine whether America is becoming a fundamentally unprincipled nation, bereft of the mandates by the Creator who blessed America 210 years ago with more abundance, more freedom than any other nation in history has ever known. There is certainly evidence fearfully suggesting that the Senate may this week fail to convict the President of charges of which he is obviously guilty. What else can be made of the behavior of many in the news media whose eyes are constantly on ratings instead of the survival of America? This trial has been dramatized as if it were a Hollywood movie trivializing what should be respected as our solemn duty. The new media technology is creating an explosion of media outlets and 24-hour news channels--and a brand new set of challenges. A friend back home called me after an impressive presentation by one of the House managers and said, ``You know, Jesse, I found Asa Hutchinson persuasive. But I had to tune into CNN to see whether it was effective--because I knew without the media's immediate stamp of approval, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.'' He had a valid point. Mr. Chief Justice, the awesome power of the media with its instant analysis is frightening. A political event occurs. The TV commentators immediately offer their lofty opinions; overnight surveys are taken and many politicians are all too often cowed into submission by poll results. In these proceedings, the House Managers of course provided a forest of evidence clearly indicating that the President of the United States perjured himself before a federal grand jury and obstructed justice. The imaginative White House attorneys of course chopped down a few trees here and there--and then proclaimed that the whole forest had burned down. The press gallery bought that whole concept. Some years ago, there was a western movie starring Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne called ``The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.'' Jimmy Stewart portrayed a tender-footed young lawyer who ran afoul of the local outlaw, Liberty Valance. Through a twist of fate, the character played by Jimmy Stewart received credit for ridding the county of the outlaw, even though it was John Wayne's gun that brought Liberty Valance down. Yet it was Stewart who rode public acclaim into a political career in the United States Senate, while Wayne's character faded into obscurity. Late in life, Stewart's character, still a Senator, returned from Washington to attend John Wayne's funeral. Stewart felt guilty, of course, that the truth of Wayne's heroism remained untold. He related the entire story to the local newspaper, only to find the editor totally disinterested. ``When the legend becomes fact,'' the editor said, ``print the legend.'' With its vote on Articles of Impeachment, the United States Senate is preparing to add to the legend of this whole sordid episode, Mr. Chief Justice. We have the facts before us and we should heed those facts because truth must become the legend. We must not permit a lie to become the truth. A couple of weeks ago, a Falls Church Episcopal minister, the Reverend John Yates delivered a remarkable sermon to his parishioners. The Reverend Dr. Yates had this to say about lying--and liars: . . .if a person will lie, and develops a pattern of lying as a way of life, that person will do anything. Someone who becomes good at lying loses his fear of being discovered and will move on to any number of evil actions. He becomes arrogant and self-assured. He comes to believe he is above the law. You should fear people like this. If such a person is caught red-handed in a lie and confronted with the evidence, that sort of man or woman will be forced to admit it, but he won't like it. It will make him angry and vengeful. He will do all he can to move and leave it behind. It's what the Bible calls evidence of a seared conscience, not a sensitive conscience, but a seared conscience.'' If we allow the lies of the President of the United States of America to stand, Mr. Chief Justice, then I genuinely fear for America's survival. Shortly before his death, Senator Hubert Humphrey visited this chamber for the last time. He knew it was the last time; we knew it was the last time. Hubert's frail body was wracked with cancer, his steps were halting, his voice feeble. But as he walked down the aisle, Hubert saw me standing at my desk over there. He walked over to me, arms outstretched. Tears welled up in my eyes as Hubert hugged me softly saying, ``I love you''. I loved Hubert Humphrey too, Mr. Chief Justice, and I told him so. Hubert and I disagreed on almost all policy matters, large and small. Often Hubert got the better of me in debates, a few times I did it to him. But I loved Hubert Humphrey because we agreed on so much more-- duty, honor, patriotism, faith and justice, the very essence of America. But we are obliged to ponder: What is the essence of America now? Public life once was about honest debate on the merits, but it is now often a debate on the merits of honesty. And it was the President of the United States who brought us where we are today. In November of 1955, a young editor named William F. Buckley undertook an ambitious mission, now completed. Bill had decided to start a conservative journal of ideas that would fuel an entire political movement. In his ``Publisher's statement'', printed in the very first edition of National Review, he declared that his magazine ``stands athwart history yelling `Stop!' '' Mr. Chief Justice, I plead with Senators to look around and see what Bill Clinton's scandal has wrought. National debate is now a national joke. Children tell their parents and teachers that it's okay to lie, because the President does it. Our citizens tune out in droves, preferring the daily distractions of everyday life to an honest appraisal of the depths to which the Presidency of the United States has sunk. If this is progress and if this is the path history is taking, the Senate does have an acceptable alternative: We simply must summon our courage and yell, ``Stop tampering with the soul of America''.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, among the steady stream of foreign heads of state visiting the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, King Hussein was always given a special welcome. He was instinctively a friend possessing a unique combination of grace and good humor. I therefore view his death as a personal loss. I recall one occasion when members of our committee were gathered around the large oval table enjoying the King's jovial good humor. Queen Noor was present on that occasion. As His Majesty traded comments with the senators around him, it occurred to me that Queen Noor had perhaps not been properly welcomed. So I asked the King if he could identify the most significant 20th century export to his country. He obviously pondered the question with uncertainty, so we identified the ``export''--Queen Noor. He laughed heartily and replied: ``I'm not about to disagree with that!'' This great man, great leader, and faithful friend of the United States presided over his country at a time fraught with peril, beset with almost constant threats both internal and external. Yet throughout his long reign he met the challenges of leadership with grace and courage. Without King Hussein, there would not today be even the limited peace the Middle East now enjoys. He will be sorely missed, certainly by me. I wish godspeed to his son and successor, Abdullah bin Hussein.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, government has no higher obligation than the protection of the most vulnerable among us--our children. Outside of their own home, there is no place that a child should feel more secure and protected than while at school. That is why I joined with several other Senators last Congress in introducing the Safe Schools Act. This legislation directly confronts the issue of illegal drug use and juvenile violence by requiring schools that accept federal education funds to adopt a ``zero tolerance'' policy when a student is found in possession of illegal drugs at school. The Safe Schools Act provides a logical and commonsense extension of 1994's Gun-Free Schools Act by conditioning receipt of federal education dollars on state adoption of a policy requiring the expulsion for not less than one year of any student who brings illegal drugs to school. Anyone who questions the link between school violence and drugs should merely turn their attention to the results of a recent National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education survey, or PRIDE survey as it is called, which found that: Gun-toting students were twenty times more likely to use cocaine than those who didn't bring a gun to school; Gang members were twelve times more likely to use cocaine than non- gang members; And students who threatened others were six times more likely to be cocaine users than others. These frightening statistics combined with students own reports that drugs are the number one problem they face and that illegal drugs are readily available to students of all ages illustrate the need for immediate action. The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University has documented that two-thirds (66%) of students report that they go to schools where students keep, use and sell drugs and that over half (51%) of high school students believe the drug problem is getting worse. In contrast, CASA has found that most principals see drugs ``virtually nowhere.'' Mr. President, the Center for the Prevention of School Violence in North Carolina tracks the incidence of criminal acts on school property. For the last four years, ``possession of a controlled substance'' has been either the first or second most reported category of incident. It is past time that we restore an environment that is secure and conducive to the education of the vast majority of students who are eager to learn. Our students and teachers deserve nothing less.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Voluntary School Prayer Protection Act will make sure that student-initiated prayer is treated the same as all other student-initiated free speech--which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as constitutionally protected so long as it is done in an appropriate time, place and manner such that it ``does not materially disrupt the school day.'' [Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503.] Under this bill, school districts could not continue--in constitutional ignorance--enforcing blanket denials of students' rights to voluntary prayer and religious activity in the schools. For the first time, schools would be faced with real consequences for making uninformed and unconstitutional decisions prohibiting all voluntary prayer. The bill creates a complete system of checks and balances to make sure that school districts do not shortchange their students one way or the other. This proposal, Mr. President, prevents public schools from prohibiting constitutionally protected voluntary student-initiated prayer. It does not mandate school prayer and suggestions to the contrary are simply in error. Nor does it require schools to write any particular prayer, or compel any student to participate in prayer. It does not prevent school districts from establishing appropriate time, place, and manner restrictions on voluntary prayer--the same kind of restrictions that are placed on other forms of speech in the schools. What this proposal will do is prevent school districts from establishing official policies or procedures with the intent of prohibiting students from exercising their constitutionally protected right to lead, or participate in, voluntary prayer in school.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act has several goals. First, it puts the Senate on record as declaring that one, every abortion destroys deliberately the life of an unborn child; two, that the U.S. Constitution sanctions no right to abortion; and three, that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. Second, this legislation will prohibit Federal funding to pay for, or promote, abortion. Further, this legislation proposes to de-fund abortion permanently, thereby relieving Congress of annual legislative battles about abortion restrictions in appropriation bills. Third, the Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act proposes to end indirect Federal funding for abortions by one, prohibiting discrimination, at all federally funded institutions, against citizens who as a matter of conscience object to abortion and two, curtailing attorney fees in abortion-related cases. Fourth, this bill proposes that appeals to the Supreme Court be provided as a right if and when any lower Federal court declares restrictions on abortion unconstitutional, thus effectively assuring Supreme Court reconsideration of the abortion issue. Mr. President, I believe this bill begins to remedy some of the damage done to America by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. I continue to believe that a majority of my colleagues will one day agree, and I will never give up doing everything in my power to protect the most vulnerable Americans of all: the unborn.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk a slate of legislation that addresses a number of our Nation's most pressing social problems. I have introduced a great many of these bills in prior Congressional sessions and Senators who have been around for a while will find these proposals familiar. Nonetheless, I shall devote a few minutes to explain the importance of these bills and why it is so crucial to address permissive social policies that are creating a moral and spiritual crisis in our country. I am delighted, Mr. President, that our Nation's economy has grown and prospered for the last two years--helped along, not incidentally, by the responsible fiscal policies insisted upon by the Republican Congress. But the good news on the financial pages is too often overshadowed by utterly horrifying stories elsewhere, stories which detail a moral sickness at the heart of our culture, stories which chronicle the devaluation of human life in our society, symbolized by the tragic 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. The most notorious of these appalling stories was the episode involving a young New Jersey woman who in May of 1997 gave birth to an infant in a public bathroom stall during her senior prom. She then strangled her newborn baby boy, placed the body in a trash can, adjusted her makeup, and returned to the dance floor. Mr. President, this chilling tale cries out that something is badly wrong in the culture that produced it. The American people were justifiably stunned by the furor surrounding this crime--and they are surely even more shocked to learn that this is not an isolated incident. Consider this: In November of 1997, in Tucson, Arizona, a 15-year-old boy found a newborn in a 3-pound coffee can. After an investigation, police arrested the boy's sister, then 19 years of age. She had given birth to the baby and promptly drowned it in the toilet, covered its little head with a plastic ice cream wrapper, wrapped the body in a flannel shirt and hidden it. She said she had intended to bury it later. Despite these largely uncontested facts, an Arizona jury--browbeaten into submission by a defense team suggesting that its client was in fact the victim of a strict Catholic upbringing-- returned a guilty verdict only on a charge of negligent homicide, the least severe conviction applicable. This woman, who had murdered her own baby, received a sentence of one year, and during her prison term, she will be released during daytime hours on a work furlough program. This is the tip of the iceberg, Mr. President. National Public Radio recently reported that the bodies of about 250 newborns are callously discarded each year. In some of these cases the babies were stillborn, but in others, the newborns were murdered. Lest anyone think I am exaggerating, pick up almost any newspaper in America, and a distressing story is likely to be found. For example: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 12, 1997: Teenage Mother Admits Slaying: Newborn was Found Dead in Gym Bag in Garage of Home The Record, Northern New Jersey, December 24,1997: 12 Years for Mom Who Killed Baby: Newborn Tossed From Window Associated Press, Atlantic City, New Jersey, July 14, 1997: Baby Born in Toilet Stall, Left in Atlantic City Bus Terminal St. Petersburg Times, December 20, 1997: Girl Charged who Left Baby in Trash Dallas Morning News, October 29, 1997: Teen Jailed in Baby's Death Hid Pregnancy, Parents say Newborn Boy Was Found Suffocated in Garbage Bag Should we really be surprised, Mr. President, that a Nation that not only tolerates, but actively defends the practice of partial birth abortion would produce these gruesome headlines? And the extraordinary level of disrespect for human life to which America has fallen isn't limited to the horrible practice of neonaticide on the part of young mothers. It pervades every part of our society. In Pennsylvania, two teenagers were stabbed during a showing of a so- called ``horror movie'' that itself featured two characters being brutally stabbed to death watching a horror film. In Oregon, much of the Nation watched in disbelief as news reports described the case of a young man who, after killing his parents, walked into a crowded school cafeteria and opened fire on his fellow students. No one Act of Congress or court decision is solely responsible for these tragedies, of course. But can it be denied that the decline in moral values in American culture helped set the stage for these notorious crimes? The American people believe this is true. Last year, CBS and CNN/Time both conducted polls indicating more Americans believe that a lack of moral values was the most important problem facing the United States--more important than crime, more important than taxes, more important than health care, more important than education. Too often, however, the mainstream media doesn't seek to remedy our decaying culture; they actively celebrate it. Just last fall, the supposedly responsible news magazine ``60 Minutes'' elected to show the videotaped death of a man via Dr. Jack Kevorkian's so-called ``suicide machine''. In voice-over, Kevorkian was allowed to comment on the procedure--no, strike that, the murder--that the viewer was watching. All the while he defended his abhorrent belief in assisted suicide. And instead of responding with outrage, a portion of the American public rewarded the program with its highest ratings of the year. Has America become so hard-hearted and callous, Mr. President? Or is it just responding to so-called cultural elitists who celebrate abortion, euthanasia, and promiscuity, while with unrestrained zeal endeavor to destroy all traces of religion in American public life. Too many politicians blithely suggest that government and morality are not and should not be related; too many producers in Hollywood claim that the filth that passes for entertainment does not corrupt our culture; and too many educators claim the academy does not have a place in addressing the difference between right and wrong. Mr. President, they are the ones who are wrong. We fool ourselves and we fool the public if we suggest that there is no connection between the business we do in Congress and the state of public morality in our society. We are the caretakers of our own culture. And we must not shrink from the responsibility of passing laws that promote what is right and prevent what is wrong in our society. We make judgements between right and wrong every day, Mr. President in every vote we cast and every action we take. And when we judge correctly, the positive results can be wonderfully encouraging. Consider this: On August 1, 1996, the Senate passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It was subsequently enacted into law. This landmark legislation, commonly referred to as ``welfare reform'', injected the time-honored values of hard work and personal responsibility into our social welfare system. Welfare reform has been successful beyond even its supporters' wildest expectations--and, in my view, has tangible indirect benefits as well. The numbers are stunning: According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the percentage of Americans receiving welfare benefits has plunged from 5.5% in 1995 to 3.3% in 1998. In three short years-- and aided by the polices of a number of creative, innovative Governors and state leaders--welfare reform almost halved the welfare rolls. The success of welfare reform is not limited to the dramatic decline of the welfare recipients, though the numbers are impressive indeed. Putting people back to work has started to mend other social problems. The January/February 1999 edition of The American Enterprise reports the following good news: The number of homicides has dropped from 11 Americans per 100,000 in 1990 to only 7 in 1998, with a noticeably steep decline in the curve since 1995. Poverty among Black Americans has declined sharply, to a 30-year low of 27%. (U.S. Bureau of the Census) Divorce rates in the last three years are dropping, while marriage rates over the same time period are inching upward. (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics) I for one do not doubt that welfare reform is partially responsible for these encouraging statistics. In short, Mr. President, good laws help make good societies. And that is the reason I continue to introduce bills in each and every Congress that limit the modern tragedy of abortion and its insidious effects; that allow for prayer in schools while taking steps to ease the scourge of drug use among our children; that protect the rights of federal employees to speak their minds about moral issues; and that make sure our civil rights laws treat Americans as individuals rather than faceless members of racial groups, religious groups, or of a certain gender. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my explanation of it.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the last of these bills is entitled the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1999. Specifically, this legislation prevents Federal agencies, and the Federal courts, from interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow an employer to grant preferential treatment in employment to any group or individual on account of race. This proposal prohibits the use of racial quotas once and for all. During the past several years, almost every member of the Senate--and the President of the United States--have proclaimed that they are opposed to quotas. This bill will give Senators an opportunity to reinforce their statements by voting in a roll call vote against quotas. Mr. President, this legislation emphasizes that from here on out, employers must hire on a race neutral basis. They can reach out into the community to the disadvantaged and they can even have businesses with 80 percent or 90 percent minority workforces as long as the motivating factor in employment is not race. This bill clarifies section 703(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it consistent with the intent of its authors, Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen. Let me state it for the Record: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any entity that is an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group with respect to selection for, discharge from, compensation for, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of, employment or union membership, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group, for any person, except as provided in subsection (e) or paragraph (2). It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an entity described in paragraph (1) to recruit individuals of an under-represented race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, to expand the applicant pool of the individuals seeking employment or union membership with the entity. Specifically, this bill proposes to make part (j) of Section 703 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act consistent with subsections (a) and (d) of that section. It contains the identical language used in those section to make preferential treatment on the basis of race (that is, quotas) an unlawful employment practice. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this legislation does not make outreach programs an unlawful employment practice. Under language suggested years ago by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole, a company can recruit and hire in the inner city, prefer people who are disadvantaged, create literacy programs, recruit in the schools, establish day care programs, and expand its labor pool in the poorest sections of the community. In other words, expansion of the employee pool is specifically provided for under this act. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary because in the 33 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Government and the courts have combined to corrupt the spirit of the Act as enumerated by both Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen, who made clear that they were unalterably opposed to racial quotas. Yet in spite of the clear intent of Congress, businesses large and small must adhere to hiring quotas in order to keep the all-powerful federal government off their backs. This bill puts an end to that sort of nonsense once and for all.

Mr. HELMS. In 1989, our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gordon Humphrey, first called attention to the incredibly brutal practice of abortions performed solely because prospective parents prefer a child of a gender different from that of the baby in the mother's womb. The Civil Rights of Infants Act makes sure nobody could ever act upon this unthinkable decision by specifically amending title 42 of the United States Code governing civil rights. Anyone who administers an abortion for the purpose of choosing the gender of the infant will be subject to the same laws which protects any other citizen who is a victim of discrimination. Nobody--even the most radical feminists--can ignore the absurdity of denying a child the right to life simply because the parents happened to prefer a child of the opposite gender. I hope the 106th Congress will swiftly act to fulfill the desires of the American people, who rightfully believe it is immoral to destroy unborn babies simply because the parents demand a child of a different gender.

Mr. HELMS. I am also pleased to intoduce the Federal Adoption Services Act of 1999. This bill proposes to amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to permit federally funded planning services to provide adoption services based on two factors: (1) the needs of the community in which the clinic is located, and (2), the ability of an individual clinic to provide such services. Under this legislation, no woman will be threatened or cajoled into giving up her child for adoption. Family planning clinics will not be required to provide adoption services. Rather, this legislation will make it clear that Federal policy will allow, or even encourage adoption as a means of family planning. Women who use title X services, will be in a better position to make informed, compassionate judgments about the unborn children they are carrying. With so many loving, caring parents available to care for unwanted children, the federal government should do everything it properly can to make sure that adoption is an alternative for expectant mothers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this reasonable proposal.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am also pleased to introduce the Freedom of Speech Act, which makes sure that federal employees are not forced to check their moral beliefs at the door when they arrive at the federal workplace. This bill attempts to make sure that President Clinton is not allowed to do by Executive Order what Congress has declined to enact in the past two Congressional sessions--namely, to treat homosexuals as a special class protected under various titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Last year, President Clinton signed such an Executive Order, and in so doing, infringed upon the Constitutional rights of Federal employees who wish to express their moral and spiritual objections to the homosexual lifestyle. President Clinton has instructed Federal agencies and departments to implement a policy that treats homosexuals as a special class protected under various titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This necessarily prevents federal employees who have strong religious or moral objections to homosexuality from expressing those beliefs without running afoul of what amounts to a workplace speech code. Apparently, when the President's desire to write his belief system into federal workplace regulations conflicted with the First Amendment right to free speech, the Constitution lost. Congress should jealously protect its Constitutional prerogative to make laws, and prevent the executive branch from creating special protections for homosexuals, particularly in a way that doesn't take into account the Constitutional right of freedom of speech enjoyed by all Federal employees. That is the purpose of the legislation I offer today. Under this bill, no Federal funds could be used to enforce President Clinton's Executive Order #13807. Further, no Federal department or agency would be able to implement or enforce any policy creating a special class of individuals in Federal employment discrimination law. This bill will also prevent the Federal government from trampling the First Amendment rights of Federal employees to express their moral and spiritual values in the workplace. Mr. President, for many years the homosexual community has engaged in a well-organized, concerted campaign to force Americans to accept, and even legitimize, an immoral lifestyle. This bill is designed to prevent President Clinton from advancing the homosexual agenda at the expense of both the proper legislative role and the free speech rights of Federal workers.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I do not pretend that enaction of this legislation will solve all of the pathologies of modern society. But taken as a whole, they seek to turn the tide of the increasing apathy-- and in some cases, outright hostility--toward moral and spiritual principles that have marked late twentieth-century social policy. The Founding Fathers knew what would become of a society that ignores traditional morality. I have often quoted the parting words of advice our first President, George Washington, left his beloved new Nation. He reminded his fellow citizens: Of all the dispensations and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. Mr. President, that distinguished world leader, Margaret Thatcher, highlighted for us the words of Washington's successor, John Adams, who said ``our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.'' Our Founding Fathers understood well the intricate relationship between freedom of responsibility. They knew that the blessings of liberty engendered certain obligations on the part of a free people-- namely, that citizens conduct their actions in such a way that society can remain cohesive without excessive government intrusion. The American experiment would never have succeeded without the traditional moral and spiritual values of the American people--values that allow people to govern themselves, rather than be governed.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Moynihan today in introducing a bill that would for the first time place in statute the government system for the classification of information. To date this has been accomplished solely through executive order. The statute is based on the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission to Protect and Reduce Government Secrecy chaired by my colleague Pat Moynihan, the senior senator from New York. The Secrecy Commission achieved a unified report of recommendations--a feat that should not be underrated, especially in Washington. The bill also makes changes based on recommendations by the Government Affairs Committee during its consideration of our legislation during the 105th Congress. The bill recognizes that over-classification can actually weaken the protections of those secrets that truly are in our national interest. All the same I am obliged to begin with a reiteration of the obvious-- that the protection of true national security information remains vital to the well-being and security of the United States. The end of the Cold War notwithstanding, the United States continues to face serious and long-term threats from a variety of fronts. While communist and anti-American regimes, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, continue to wage a war against the United States, new threats have arisen as well. Indeed, there is even a growing trend of espionage conducted not by our enemies but by American allies. Such espionage is on the rise especially against U.S. economic secrets. At first blush, a push to reduce government secrecy may seem at odds with these increasing threats. I am convinced it is not. The sheer volume of government ``secrets''--and their costs to the taxpayers and U.S. business--is staggering. In 1996 the taxpayers spent more than $5.2 billion to protect classified information. We know all too well from our own experiences that when everything is secret nothing is secret. Secrecy all too often then becomes a political tool used by Executive Branch agencies to shield information which may be politically sensitive or policies which may be unpopular with the American people. Worse yet, information may be classified to hide from public view illegal or unethical activity. On numerous occasions, I, and other Members of Congress, have found the Executive Branch to be reluctant to share certain information, the nature of which is not truly a ``national secret,'' but which would potentially politically embarrassing to officials in the Executive Branch or which would make known an illegal or indefensible policy. I have also found that one of the largest impediments to openness is the perverse incentives of the government bureaucracy itself in favor of classification, and the lack of accountability for those who do the actual classification. I strongly endorse the Commission's recommendation of adding individual accountability to the process by requiring a detailed justification of the decision to classify. On the other hand, declassification decisions can be politicized. Limited resources for declassification are used to declassify information for political purposes. Only recently, in the case of documents relating to U.S. activities in Central and South America the Administration has made decisions to declassify documents at the request of certain interest groups. As a result the resources for routine declassification are being redirected to serve political ends. This bill would serve to eliminate politicized declassification decisions by requiring routine declassification and oversight by an independent board. I would add a note of caution regarding declassification, however. In the course of the two years of its work, the Commission became very interested in the declassification of existing documents and materials. In a perfect world, if information remains relevant to true U.S. national interests it should remain classified indefinitely. Information that does not compromise U.S. interests and sources should be made public. We all realize, however, that this is a tremendously costly venture. In fact, the Commission was unable to come up with solid data on the true cost of declassification. In this era when Congress has finally begun to grasp the essential need to reduce government spending and balance the budget, the issue of balancing costs and benefits is an essential one. The financial costs to the American taxpayers must be balanced against the necessity of the declassification. The real lesson to take from the work of this Commission is the need to redress for the future the problems of over classification and a systematic process for declassification, so that the costs and timeliness of declassification does not pose the same economic and regulatory burdens on future generations. At the same time, it may be too costly to declassify all of the countless classified documents now in existence. I hope the 106th Congress will complete the work of the 105th Congress and bring government wide rationalization to the classification process. It is an area where tough Congressional oversight is long overdue.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Moynihan today in introducing a bill that would for the first time place in statute the government system for the classification of information. To date this has been accomplished solely through executive order. The statute is based on the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission to Protect and Reduce Government Secrecy chaired by my colleague Pat Moynihan, the senior senator from New York. The Secrecy Commission achieved a unified report of recommendations--a feat that should not be underrated, especially in Washington. The bill also makes changes based on recommendations by the Government Affairs Committee during its consideration of our legislation during the 105th Congress. The bill recognizes that over-classification can actually weaken the protections of those secrets that truly are in our national interest. All the same I am obliged to begin with a reiteration of the obvious-- that the protection of true national security information remains vital to the well-being and security of the United States. The end of the Cold War notwithstanding, the United States continues to face serious and long-term threats from a variety of fronts. While communist and anti-American regimes, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, continue to wage a war against the United States, new threats have arisen as well. Indeed, there is even a growing trend of espionage conducted not by our enemies but by American allies. Such espionage is on the rise especially against U.S. economic secrets. At first blush, a push to reduce government secrecy may seem at odds with these increasing threats. I am convinced it is not. The sheer volume of government ``secrets''--and their costs to the taxpayers and U.S. business--is staggering. In 1996 the taxpayers spent more than $5.2 billion to protect classified information. We know all too well from our own experiences that when everything is secret nothing is secret. Secrecy all too often then becomes a political tool used by Executive Branch agencies to shield information which may be politically sensitive or policies which may be unpopular with the American people. Worse yet, information may be classified to hide from public view illegal or unethical activity. On numerous occasions, I, and other Members of Congress, have found the Executive Branch to be reluctant to share certain information, the nature of which is not truly a ``national secret,'' but which would potentially politically embarrassing to officials in the Executive Branch or which would make known an illegal or indefensible policy. I have also found that one of the largest impediments to openness is the perverse incentives of the government bureaucracy itself in favor of classification, and the lack of accountability for those who do the actual classification. I strongly endorse the Commission's recommendation of adding individual accountability to the process by requiring a detailed justification of the decision to classify. On the other hand, declassification decisions can be politicized. Limited resources for declassification are used to declassify information for political purposes. Only recently, in the case of documents relating to U.S. activities in Central and South America the Administration has made decisions to declassify documents at the request of certain interest groups. As a result the resources for routine declassification are being redirected to serve political ends. This bill would serve to eliminate politicized declassification decisions by requiring routine declassification and oversight by an independent board. I would add a note of caution regarding declassification, however. In the course of the two years of its work, the Commission became very interested in the declassification of existing documents and materials. In a perfect world, if information remains relevant to true U.S. national interests it should remain classified indefinitely. Information that does not compromise U.S. interests and sources should be made public. We all realize, however, that this is a tremendously costly venture. In fact, the Commission was unable to come up with solid data on the true cost of declassification. In this era when Congress has finally begun to grasp the essential need to reduce government spending and balance the budget, the issue of balancing costs and benefits is an essential one. The financial costs to the American taxpayers must be balanced against the necessity of the declassification. The real lesson to take from the work of this Commission is the need to redress for the future the problems of over classification and a systematic process for declassification, so that the costs and timeliness of declassification does not pose the same economic and regulatory burdens on future generations. At the same time, it may be too costly to declassify all of the countless classified documents now in existence. I hope the 106th Congress will complete the work of the 105th Congress and bring government wide rationalization to the classification process. It is an area where tough Congressional oversight is long overdue.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, although the late Honorable Harold A. Shaub was not a citizen of my State, I regarded his friendship, and his interest in North Carolina, sufficient to qualify him to be declared an honorary Tar Heel. He was a remarkable gentleman whom I met casually one morning when he was trying to find the office of then Senator Curtis of Nebraska. From that day on, he was a friend for whom I had great admiration. He visited occasionally when he was in Washington, and I enjoyed his company fairly often in the Senate Dining Room. Occasionally, Mrs. Shaub and one or more of his and Mrs. Shaub's children joined us. Mr. President, there was not one iota of pretense in Harold Shaub's personality. Yet he was one of America's leading business men, perhaps most notably as president and chief executive officer of the Campbell Soup Co. I never asked Harold for a special favor, nor did he of me. There was one occasion, a number of years ago, when North Carolina was one of the States seeking to acquire a Campbell Soup Co. plant. I had studied the data on each of the States competing against mine for the Campbell plant. I was convinced that North Carolina met Campbell Soup's needs better than did our competitors. So I called Harold, told him of my interest in the proposed plant, and asked if he would object to my sending to him the details of why I sincerely believed North Carolina should be chosen. His response was that I should send the information as quickly as possible because the first decision deadline was near. I did--that very day. Within a week, he was on the telephone. He said, simply: ``I suspect you would be wise to make arrangements for some news about a new corporate citizen coming to North Carolina.'' Mr. President, I have at hand an obituary about my friend, Harold Shaub, published in Pennsylvania. I ask that it be printed in the Record. Harold A. Shaub: November 28, 1915-November 29, 1998 Harold A. Shaub, 83, former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Campbell Soup Company, died November 29 in Bryn Mawr Hospital of heart failure. Mr. Shaub, a native of Lancaster County, was a resident of the Gladwyne/Bryn Mawr area for the past 30 years. He graduated from Drexel University in 1939 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Commerce. Mr. Shaub's career at the Campbell Soup Company spanned 38 years. He joined the Company in 1942 as Assistant to the General Superintendent of the Camden, New Jersey plant and subsequently held other supervisory positions there and at the Company's Chicago plant. In 1957 he was elected Vice President/General Manager of the Campbell Soup Company Ltd., the Canadian subsidiary headquartered in Toronto, and from 1961 to 1966 served as President of the Canadian Company. From 1966 to 1968 he was President of Pepperidge Farm, Inc. in Norwalk, Connecticut. Mr. Shaub returned to the Philadelphia area in 1968 following his transfer to the Campbell Soup Company's headquarters in Camden, New Jersey. He served as Senior Vice President and then Executive Vice President prior to serving as President and Chief Executive Officer from 1972 through 1980. He was elected to the Campbell Soup Company Board of Directors in 1970 and served on the Board until 1988. In addition in serving as a Director for the Campbell Soup Company, Mr. Shaub served on the Board of Directors of the Exxon Corporation, R.H. Macy & Co., Scott Paper Company, The Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia, New Jersey Bell Telephone, Westminster Paper Company, LTD., the Food Processors Institute, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America. He was also a member of the National Association of Manufacturers, the International Advisory Council of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Toronto, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, the Industries Advisory Committee of the Advertising Council, and The Conference Board. He was a Past Chairman of the Penjerdel Corporation, a regional business organization serving eleven counties in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. He played a key role in the successful effort that brought the Saratoga for overhaul to the Philadelphia Shipyard. Throughout his lifetime Mr. Shaub was committed to community service. He served on the Drexel University Board of Trustees and was named an Emeritus Trustee. He was a Life Trustee and Distinguished Fellow for the Cornell Institute for Medical Research. His directorships included the United Medical Corporation in Haddonfield, New Jersey, Queenway General Hospital in Toronto; the Citizens Crime Commission in Philadelphia; and Valley Forge Military Academy and Junior College. He was also a member of the Board of Managers of The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and a former Trustee of the Nutrition Foundation and the Foundation of the College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He had worked on behalf of many other organizations including the Boy Scouts of America, the United Way, and the Cooper Medical Center. Mr. Shaub was the recipient of many awards and honors. The Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and Penjerdel Council awarded him the prestigious William Penn Award in 1980 and honored him as one of Fifty Distinguished Pennsylvanians in 1979. In 1979, he also received the U.S. Marine Corps Semper Fidelis Award and an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Lebanon Valley College. He received the Corporate Leadership Award in 1976 and the South Jersey Chamber of Commerce named him Businessman of the Year in 1980. Drexel University honored him numerous times, naming him Drexel Businessman of the Year in 1973 and conferring upon him the A.J. Drexel Paul Award in 1975, the Distinguished Alumni Achievement Award, and ``The Drexel 100'' Award in 1992. Mr. Shaub was a world traveler and outdoorsman. He was an avid salmon and trout fisherman and a charter member of the Tunkhanna Fishing Association in the Paconos where he shared his enthusiasm for fly fishing with others and worked to preserve the trout stream and surrounding area. He was predeceased by his son Harold (Bud) Shaub Jr. He is survived by his wife Eileen, his son John Shaub of Oakville, Ontario, Canada; and daughters Carole Hoffman of Dayton, Ohio; and Lynn Benton of Ellicott City, Maryland; 10 grandchildren; and 9 great grandchildren. A memorial service will be held on Monday, December 14 at 11:00 a.m. at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church, 625 Montgomery Avenue, Bryn Mawr. A private burial service will be held in Lancaster County. Donations in Mr. Shaub's memory may be made to the Cornell Institute for Medical Research, 401 Haddon Avenue, Camden, NJ 08103.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, October 20, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,543,686,190,391.39 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-three billion, six hundred eighty-six million, one hundred ninety thousand, three hundred ninety-one dollars and thirty-nine cents). One year ago, October 20, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,418,458,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred eighteen billion, four hundred fifty-eight million). Five years ago, October 20, 1993, the Federal debt stood at $4,405,120,000,000 (Four trillion, four hundred five billion, one hundred twenty million). Ten years ago, October 20, 1988, the Federal debt stood at $2,622,321,000,000 (Two trillion, six hundred twenty-two billion, three hundred twenty-one million). Fifteen years ago, October 20, 1983, the Federal debt stood at $1,382,213,000,000 (One trillion, three hundred eighty-two billion, two hundred thirteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,161,473,190,391.39 (Four trillion, one hundred sixty- one billion, four hundred seventy-three million, one hundred ninety thousand, three hundred ninety-one dollars and thirty-nine cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, following Senate approval of the resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and subsequent ratification of the treaty by the President, it became necessary for the United States to enact legislation to implement its various domestic obligations. The Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees of the Senate immediately fulfilled their obligation to prepare implementing legislation once the treaty had been ratified. On May 23, 1997, the full Senate passed S. 610-- ``the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1997.'' Soon thereafter, on November 12, 1997, the House of Representatives passed the implementing legislation, together with sanctions on Russian firms that are assisting Iran's ballistic missile program. I regret that it has taken so long to enact the implementing legislation into law, if for no other reason than that I expect numerous U.S. companies to challenge the constitutionality of the treaty and overturn it in the courts. Unfortunately, final resolution of the legal issues surrounding the CWC, as well as full U.S. compliance with the treaty, has been delayed this entire session of Congress because of President Clinton's opposition to the unrelated missile sanctions provisions of the bill. Indeed, the President sought to delay and derail CWC implementing legislation throughout the entire spring. The President alone is responsible for putting the United States into noncompliance by delaying and then ultimately vetoing the bill (on June 23, 1998). It is important that those who are frustrated with the slow pace of U.S. implementation of the CWC understand that the Congress has discharged its obligation to provide implementing legislation for the President's signature not once--but twice. It is the President, not Congress, who has blocked speedy and complete adherence to the treaty. For the record, I note that two trade associations were directly involved in the crafting of the CWC's implementing legislation. The President and CEO of the Chemical Manufacturers Association wrote to me on May 7, 1998, stating that S. 610 was ``a reasonable approach to meet U.S. obligations under the CWC and protect industry's interests.'' The Vice President for Regulatory Affairs of the American Forest and Paper Association wrote to Senator Hatch on May 21, 1997, offering its support for S. 610 since the bill ``contains a number of provisions that the forest products industry believes are crucial to ensuring that implementation of the CWC is reasonable and meets the stated purpose of the treaty.'' I submit the following assessment which details the most significant provisions of the implementing legislation, together with an explanation of the Senate's rationale. Section 3. Definitions. Section 3 specifically lists those chemical formulae (and a few bio-toxins) falling under the terms: ``Schedule 1 chemical agent''; ``Schedule 2 chemical agent''; and ``Schedule 3 chemical agent''. Any chemical not listed in Section 3 as either a Schedule 1, 2, or 3 chemical agent is not subject to the any of the requirements under the legislation relating to such chemical agents (e.g. data declaration and routine inspections). The Annex on Chemicals of the CWC excludes some chemicals which are capable of being used as chemical weapons precursors, but which also have wide commercial applications. As a result, verification measures are not applied under the Convention to those chemicals. For this reason, if the CWC were to be expanded in scope, the most likely candidates for addition to the Annex are dual-use chemicals which are produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not prohibited under the Convention. The addition of these chemicals to the Annex on Chemicals likely would increase the number of businesses affected by the Convention's verification regime, entailing additional reporting and data declarations from companies, and subjecting additional facilities to routine inspections. Thus the implementing legislation is deliberately structured to ensure that a change in law will be required before any provision of the Verification Annex can be applied to any new chemical or biological substance added to the Annex on Chemicals. This will provide both the Congress and the American public sufficient opportunity to examine proposals by the executive branch to expand the CWC. Indeed, depending upon the extent to which the addition of a chemical (or other type of substance) is judged to substantively increase the scope of application of the CWC, such a change also might require the advice and consent of the Senate. The American Forest and Paper Association specifically supported the requirement that ``additions or deletions from the list would only be permitted by legislative amendment, and not through the administrative regulatory process.'' Section 102. No Abridgement of Constitutional Rights. This section makes clear that the Federal Government may not force anyone to waive any Constitutional right as a condition for entering into a contract with the federal government or as a condition for receiving any other form of benefits from the government. This provision works in conjunction with Section 308, which amends The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act. Many of the companies subject to the reporting and inspection requirements of the CWC work under contract to the federal government. Sections 102 and 308 protect these companies by prohibiting the government from imposing, as a condition of a contract, the requirement that they must agree to warrantless searches under the CWC or forego any other Constitutional right (such as the right to challenge the constitutionality of the CWC). The same protections apply to individuals receiving benefits from the United States. Section 103. Civil Liability of the United States. Section 103 is necessary to address Fifth Amendment problems which arise with respect to the CWC. The Convention requires that the United States provide foreign inspectors with intrusive access into numerous U.S. businesses; this, together with the mandatory data declaration requirements, holds at risk trade secrets and critical proprietary information. For instance, the authority of inspectors to collect data and take samples for analysis may constitute a form of illegal seizure and the taking of private property without compensation. But the CWC contains no provisions to ensure just compensation to those whose property has been taken. Proprietary information is often the basis for a chemical company's competitive edge. As a practical matter, a wide variety of things are considered proprietary or sensitive. For instance, the following are often considered to be ``trade secrets'': (1) the formula of a new drug or specialty chemical; (2) a synthetic route that requires the fewest steps or the cheapest raw materials; (3) the form, source, composition, and purity of raw materials or solvents; (4) a new catalyst that improves the selectivity, efficiency, or yield of a reaction; (5) the precise order and timing with which chemicals are fed into a reactor; (6) subtle changes in pressure or temperature at key steps in a process; (7) isolation methods that give the highest yields consistent with good recycling of solvents and reagents; (8) expansion and marketing plans; (9) raw materials and suppliers; (10) manufacturing cost data; (11) prices and sales figures; (12) names of technical personnel working on a particular project; and (13) customer lists. The theft of any one of these items could result in a loss of revenue and investment that could damage a large company, and drive a small one out of business. Because some trade secrets are not all that complex, even simple visual inspection could reveal proprietary information of great value to a competitor. During routine inspections, for example, companies will run the risk that a skilled chemical engineer equipped with knowledge of the target facility and a list of specific questions to be answered will learn a great deal about that business' activities. The Fifth Amendment provides that no private property shall ``be taken for public use without just compensation.'' As one noted constitutional scholar, Ronald Rotunda, warned the Foreign Relations Committee on March 31, 1997: ``If the federal government would simply take this property, the Constitution requires that it pay just compensation. If the federal government sets up a legal structure that allows international inspectors to make off with intellectual property, there is a `taking' for purposes of the just compensation clause.'' The CWC, however, does not provide for just compensation in the event of misuse of treaty inspection rights. In the absence of a treaty-mandated remedy, the only means of guaranteeing Fifth Amendment protections is to hold the federal government liable for the legal structure it has created by ratifying the CWC. It is the federal government, after all, which approved a treaty giving foreign nationals access to U.S. facilities, thereby creating the potential for the taking of private property. Section 103 provides U.S. companies and citizens with the right to bring a civil action for money damages against the United States for the actions of foreign inspectors and other OPCW employees (as well as U.S. government personnel) undertaken pursuant to, or under the color of the CWC or the implementing legislation. It precludes the federal government from raising sovereign immunity as a defense, and establishes a process whereby, once a prima facie case has been established that proprietary information has been divulged or taken, the burden to disprove the claim falls upon the United States. In so doing, Section 103 establishes a reasonable standard of evidence to be used in resolving this type of civil action, given the ambiguity that often surrounds suspicions of the theft of trade secrets. Section 103 defers action on a civil claim for one year, providing a period of time for the United States to pursue diplomatic and other remedies to seek redress for the claim. However, once the claim moves forward, Section 103 establishes a clear policy and process by which the U.S. government shall pursue recoupment of all funds paid in satisfaction of any tort or taking for which the U.S. has been held liable. In particular, the United States will impose severe sanctions on all foreign entities (both governmental and private) involved in the theft of the trade secret in question. Sanctions against foreign governments can be waived by the President on a case-by-case basis, though sanctions against foreign persons are lifted only once the U.S. has received ``full and complete compensation.'' These provisions are designed to operate together with the requirements of Condition 16 of the resolution of ratification for the CWC. Pursuant to that condition, in the event that ``persuasive information'' becomes available indicating that a U.S. citizen has suffered financial losses or damages due to the unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information, the President is required to secure a waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for any foreign person responsible for financial losses or damages to a U.S. citizen, or to withhold half of the U.S. contribution to the OPCW until the situation has been resolved ``in a manner satisfactory to the United States person who has suffered the damages. . .'' Section 302. Facility Agreements. Section 302 prohibits the United States from concluding facility agreements which would prohibit U.S. businesses from withholding consent to an inspection request for any reason or no reason (thereby triggering a requirement for a search warrant under Section 305). It also ensures that representatives from U.S. companies may participate in preparations for the negotiation of a facility agreement, and may observe such negotiations to the maximum extent practicable. Section 303. Authority to Conduct Inspections. In addition to providing the legal basis by which U.S. companies may be inspected by foreign personnel, Section 303 ensures that at least one special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall accompany each inspection conducted under the Convention. This ensures a minimum of protection against the possible theft of trade secrets for U.S. companies. Section 303 also prohibits OSHA or EPA employees from escorting or otherwise accompanying inspection teams, and requires that the number of U.S. government personnel be kept to the minimum number necessary. The Administration asserted, in response to a question for the record before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, that the U.S. Government would be permitted ``to use information or materials obtained during inspections in regulatory, civil, or criminal proceedings conducted for the purpose of law enforcement, including those that are not directly related to enforcement of the CWC.'' This alarmed many companies. The American Forest and Paper Association stated its support for Section 302(b)(2)(B), noting that ``[t]he treaty should not be used as an omnibus vehicle for regulatory inspections unrelated to its intended purpose. We believe that it would be inappropriate to include such government officials [from OSHA and EPA] on an international inspection team formed for the purposes set out in the CWC and would merely serve to detract from the intent of the inspection.'' By barring EPA and OSHA officials from participating in CWC inspections, Section 303 prevents the Administration from using the Convention to gain a degree of access to facilities which it otherwise is denied. As Professor Rotunda noted in his March 31, 1997, letter: ``Searches that violate the Fourth Amendment are not cured of the violation by the simple expedient of a treaty ratification or an executive agreement.'' Finally, Section 303 establishes a reasonable legal standard by which the President is expected to evaluate the risk posed by an individual inspector to the national security or economic well-being of the United States. The President has the right under the CWC to object to an individual serving as an inspector in the United States. Section 303 obligates him to give ``great weight to his reasonable belief that . . . the participation of such an individual as a member of an inspection team would pose a risk to the national security or economic well-being of the United States.'' As has been noted, the CWC provides inspectors from foreign countries unprecedented access to U.S. facilities--both commercial and government-related. The risk that trade secrets or national security secrets could be stolen during an inspection is very high. In particular, because chemicals covered by the CWC are used in a variety of aerospace activities--from the manufacture of advanced composites and ceramics to additives for paints and fuels--dozens of defense contractors are targeted for routine inspections under the CWC. Thus a threat to proprietary information often also will constitute a threat to national security information. Certainly a number of countries intend to use CWC inspections for commercial espionage. Several incidents of concern have already occurred in this respect. For this reason, the Senate adopted a common-sense approach to the standard of evidence required by the President in exercising the right of inspector refusal. A decision to apply a higher evidentiary standard than ``reasonable belief'' would be inconsistent with Section 303. Section 304. Procedures for Inspections. Section 304 contains a number of critical protections for U.S. companies. First, Section 304 (b)(3)(B) requires that notification of a challenge inspection pursuant to Article IX of the Convention ``shall also include all appropriate evidence of reasons provided by the requesting state party to the Convention for seeking the inspection. The requirement for specific identification of the reasons for a challenge inspection will enable companies to formulate their own views on the extent to which ``probable cause'' exists for such an inspection. As the Committee's analysis of Sections 305 makes clear, the CWC does not require a foreign country to demonstrate ``probable cause'' when it initiates a challenge inspection of a commercial U.S. facility. For this reason, the Congress has adopted implementing legislation which specifically raises the question of the constitutionality of the CWC's challenge inspection regime and provides for expedited review by the courts (under Section 503). Many in the Senate expect the Supreme Court to rule against the constitutionality of the sweeping inspection rights under Article IX of the CWC. Section 304(f) allows the U.S. company or person to be inspected to determine who shall take samples during an inspection. It also reiterates the requirement, imposed pursuant to the resolution of ratification of the CWC, that ``[n]o sample collected in the United States may be transferred for analysis to any laboratory outside the territory of the United States.'' This provision mirrors the Presidential certification requirement contained in Condition 18 of the resolution of ratification for the CWC. The CWC explicitly affords an inspection team the right to take samples on-site and, pursuant to Part II paragraph (E)(55) of the Verification Annex, ``if it deems necessary, to transfer samples for analysis off-site at laboratories designated by the Organization.'' As Part II paragraph (E)(57) makes clear: ``when off-site analysis is to be performed, samples shall be analysed in at least two designated laboratories.'' In agreeing to both Condition 18 of the CWC's resolution of ratification and Section 304(f) of the implementing legislation, the Executive Branch acknowledged that the United States intends to field two OPCW-designated laboratories. Specifically, the Department of Defense intends to field a mobile laboratory which will be available to analyze samples taken in the United States. While sample residue left in the laboratory's equipment would preclude it from leaving U.S. territory, the lab is intended to serve as a counterpart to a second mobile laboratory operated by the OPCW (which could be deployed to countries unable to secure OPCW approval for a facility). There is no treaty-requirement that analysis be done in laboratories operated by countries other than the one where a sample was taken. The United States may legally preclude the transfer of samples overseas while still meeting the CWC requirement that samples-analysis be conducted in two designated laboratories. Some have argued that Section 304(f) sets a ``dreadful example'' prompting countries to deny foreign inspectors the ability to send chemical samples abroad for analysis at independent laboratories. Such arguments fail to recognize several key points. First, any country that succeeds in obtaining OPCW accreditation for two laboratories has the treaty-right to insist that samples be analyzed ``in country,'' regardless of U.S. policy. Second, opponents of sampling limitations overstate the scientific capacity and technical capability of proliferant countries to secure OPCW approval for two laboratories. To date, the OPCW has not given approval to any lab in any country; certainly no country has secured approval for two. Indeed, only a handful of western European countries, and perhaps Russia and China, have the ability to field two approved laboratories. The former countries pose no proliferation concern, and both Russia and China are capable of completely concealing their chemical warfare program from international inspectors (making sampling irrelevant). Thus the argument that U.S. strictures on sampling transfers will undo the CWC's verification regime are unsupportable. Third, those who criticize Section 304(f) overstate the value of sampling analysis to U.S. nonproliferation efforts. On March 1, 1989, then-Director of Central Intelligence, Judge William Webster, pointed out the ease with which chemical weapons production can be concealed: ``. . . within fewer than 24 hours, some say 8\1/2\ hours, it would be relatively easy for the Libyans to make the site [at Rabta] appear to be a pharmaceutical facility. All traces of chemical weapons production could be removed in that amount of time.'' Similarly, delays of just a few hours have undercut UNSCOM's efforts to prove Iraqi chemical and biological concealment activities. In contrast, the CWC gives proliferant countries five days of advance warning to conceal their activities before a challenge inspection team must be allowed on-site. Very simple techniques, such as the production of pesticides on a line used to manufacture nerve agent (e.g. production of the pesticide methyl-parathion instead of the nerve agent sarin), will reduce or eliminate the utility of sampling analysis. Fourth, the over-focus on analysis to be done by ``independent'' laboratories ignores UNSCOM's experience with Iraq's VX program. In the case of samples taken from warheads believed to be weaponized with VX, ``independent'' laboratories in France, Switzerland, and the United States have given contradictory and inconsistent analyses. This has only complicated U.S. efforts to prove to the international community that Saddam Hussein's nerve agent program is far more advanced than admitted by Iraq. This has occurred despite UNSCOM's relatively unfettered ability--at least in comparison with the CWC--to take samples when and where it pleases. Because the CWC's timeframes provide cheating nations with ample opportunity to mask chemical warfare signatures, analysis of samples at foreign laboratories is guaranteed to make U.S. efforts to prove noncompliance harder, not easier. This will be the case regardless of whether sampling analysis is done ``in-country.'' Fifth, in addition to overselling the value of sampling analysis to the CWC's verification regime, opponents of Section 304(f) persist in ignoring the threat that such procedures pose to legitimate commercial activities. A loss of proprietary information through sample analysis would bankrupt many chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. Moreover, chemical formulas, which are the type of proprietary information put at greatest risk by sampling, often are not patented. This is done to preserve competitive advantage and to prevent disclosure pursuant to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. But the lack of a patent also will make it harder for U.S. companies to prove that a trade secret has been stolen. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimated in August, 1993, that the U.S. chemical industry loses approximately $3-6 billion per year in counterfeited chemicals and chemical products. A U.S. pharmaceutical firm spends on average about $350 million to research and develop a new compound. Clearly, while it is difficult to assess the potential dollar losses associated with the CWC, information gleaned from sampling analysis could be worth millions of dollars to foreign competitors. Equally troubling is the fact that the CWC does not require the return of samples to the country from which they were taken, but instead gives the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW responsibility over final disposition. This further increases the possibility that proprietary information contained in the sample will be compromised. As Kathleen Bailey, then-Senior Fellow at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, warned in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee: ``Experts in my laboratory recently conducted experiments to determine whether or not there would be a remainder inside of the equipment that is used for sample analysis on-site. They found out that, indeed, there is residue remaining. And if the equipment were taken off-site, off of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory site, or off of the site of a biotechnology firm, for example, and further analysis were done on those residues, you would be able to get classified and/or proprietary information.'' Numerous other distinguished witnesses expressed concern regarding the threat to trade secrets posed by the CWC's intrusiveness, including Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense and President and former Chairman and CEO of G.D. Searle and Company; James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence; Lieutenant General William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency; Lieutenant General James Williams, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; Edward J. O'Malley, former Assistant Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation, Chief of Counterintelligence; and Bruce Merrifield, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology. It was on the basis of the testimony of these individuals, and the concerns expressed by numerous companies and industries (ranging from members of the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the Aerospace Industries Association to other types of companies such as the one that manufactures special ink for the dollar bill) that the Congress chose to prohibit the transfer of samples overseas for analysis. Section 305. Warrants. Section 305 builds upon Condition 28 of the resolution of ratification for the CWC, which required the President to certify to Congress that, for any challenge inspection where consent has been withheld, the United States ``will first obtain a criminal search warrant based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. . . .'' Further, the President certified pursuant to Condition 28 that an administrative search warrant issued by a United States magistrate judge would be required for involuntary routine inspections. Accordingly, Section 305 requires Administrative search warrants for routine inspections where consent has been withheld. It limits routine inspections to no more than one per year per plant site. Additionally, for Schedule 3 facilities and sites working with discrete organic chemicals, Section 305 requires the federal government to affirm in an affadavit, prior to obtaining an administrative search warrant, that a given routine inspection: (1) ``will not cause the number of routine inspections in the United States to exceed 20 in a calendar year;'' and (2) the facility to be inspected was selected randomly by the Technical Secretariat, taking into account equitable geographic distribution of inspections and other relevant information relating to the site in question. Finally, Section 305 requires that the federal government stipulate in its affadavit that the routine inspection will not exceed the time limits specified in the Convention unless the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the plant agrees. Section 305 requires criminal search warrants for any challenge inspection where consent has been withheld. In seeking the warrant, the federal government is required to provide to the judge of the United States all appropriate evidence or reasons showing probable cause to believe that a violation of the implementing legislation (and thus the treaty) is occurring. In the event that a frivolous challenge inspection is initiated against the United States, perhaps in retribution for a U.S.-initiated inspection, the federal government may prove unable to provide sufficient probable cause to obtain a criminal search warrant. Under the CWC, a country wishing to initiate a challenge inspection is not required to provide any supporting evidence. The request for an inspection simply is made; unless 31 of 41 members of the Executive Council of the OPCW vote against it proceeding within 12 hours of such a request, the challenge inspection will move forward. Thus the ``screen'' against frivolous or abusive inspections is of a political, rather than evidentiary, nature. Moreover, review under the CWC of whether the challenge inspection request was within the scope of the CWC, or whether the right to request a challenge inspection had been abused, is allowed only retroactively (following conclusion of the inspection). Therefore nothing in the Convention prevents a challenge inspection from being initiated against a U.S. company without ``probable cause'' having been demonstrated. As will be discussed in connection with Section 503, the courts will ultimately serve as the final arbiter over questions of the CWC's constitutionality. Section 307. National Security Exception. Section 307 allows the President to deny any inspection request that ``may pose a threat to the national security interests of the United States.'' This simple provision is designed to protect the United States from frivolous inspections. A recent Stimson Center report makes the claim that ``[t]he national security exception negates the treaty obligation to accept a challenge inspection at any U.S. location.'' This statement incorrectly asserts that the United States has such an obligation. Condition 28 of the resolution of ratification clearly established that the United States will not agree to a broad treaty obligation to accept a challenge inspection at any U.S. location. Rather, the United States will agree to inspections under Article IX of the CWC only in those cases where either consent to an inspection has been given, or probable cause has been demonstrated and a criminal search warrant obtained. Under any other circumstances, no access will be given. Thus the argument made against Section 307 is flawed on its face. Moreover, the CWC explicitly gives the United States the right, for instance, under paragraph 41 of Part X of the Verification Annex, to ``take such measures as are necessary to protect national security.'' Indeed, as paragraph 38 makes clear, access to sensitive facilities must be negotiated between the inspection team and the inspected State Party; moreover, the inspection team is obligated to use of the least intrusive procedures possible. Under paragraph 42, should the United States provide ``less than full access to places, activities, or information'' the United States incurs the obligation to ``make every reasonable effort to provide alternative means to clarify the possible non-compliance concern that generated the challenge inspection.'' Section 307 clarifies the fact that the President has the right, both under the Constitution and pursuant to the treaty, to deny a potentially-damaging inspection. However, the exercise of such a denial must be made ``consistent with the objective of eliminating chemical weapons.'' Thus the President is obligated to provide alternative means of clarifying non-compliance concerns, and must consider the implications of a denial for the operation of the CWC, and for U.S. nonproliferation efforts. The national security interests of the United States, however, must remain paramount. Section 402. Prohibition Relating to Low Concentrations of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 Chemicals. The CWC does not define the term ``low concentration'' as it relates to Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 chemicals. Section 402 establishes the intent of the United States to interpret this term to mean a 10 percent concentration of a Schedule 2 chemical and an 80 percent concentration of a Schedule 3 chemical (measured either by volume or total weight, whichever yields the lesser percent). In setting the percentages at these levels, Section 402 ensures that Schedule 2 chemicals, which are of direct concern for chemical weapons production, are captured in low concentrations. It also recognizes the broad range of commercial uses for Schedule 3 chemicals, and reduces the regulatory impact of the CWC on many industries. No chemical is placed on Schedule 2 of the CWC unless it meets specific criteria: (1) it must be lethal enough that it could be used as a chemical weapon by itself; (2) it can serve as a precursor in the final stage of the manufacture of a chemical weapon, or otherwise is important to the production of a chemical weapon; and (3) is not produced ``in large commercial quantities.'' Obviously, such chemicals should be tightly controlled even at relatively dilute levels. Schedule 3, on the other hand, contains seventeen chemicals which are produced in large commercial quantities for use in production of various organic chemicals and agricultural products. Additionally, these chemicals are used to make gasoline additives, pharmaceuticals, detergents, flame retardant materials, and dyestuffs, among other things. There are 17 compounds on Schedule 3. Schedule 3A (4), Chloropicrin, has important uses for the disinfection of cereals and grains, considerably increasing the potential storage life. It is also used as a soil insecticide to sterilize the soil before the planting of crops that are very sensitive to weed competition. Schedule 3B (5), Phosphorous oxychloride, is used as an insecticide, as a chlorinating agent, flame retardant, gasoline additive, hydraulic fluid, organic synthesis, plasticizer, and as dopant for semiconductors. Phosphorous trichloride, Schedule 3B (6), is used in dyestuffs, surfactants, plasticizers, gasoline additives, insecticides, and in organic synthesis. Phosphorous pentachloride, Schedule 3B (7), is used as a pesticide, in plastics, and in organic synthesis. Trimethyl phosphite, Schedule 3B (8), is used in insecticides, organic synthesis, veterinary drugs. Triethyl phosphite, Schedule 3B (9), is used in insecticide synthesis, as a lubricant additive, in organic synthesis, and as a plasticizer. Schedule 3B (10), Dimethyl phosphite, is used in insecticide production, as a lubricant additive, in organic synthesis, and as a veterinary drug. Diethyl phosphite (Schedule 3B (11)) is used in the production of insecticides, as a gasoline additive, as a paint solvent, in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals, and in organic synthesis. Sulfur monochloride (Schedule 3B (12)) is used extensively as an intermediate and chlorinating agent in the production of dyes and insecticides. It is also used for cold vulcanisation of rubber, in the treatment of vegetable oils and for hardening soft woods, in pharmaceuticals, organic synthesis, as a polymerization catalyst, and in the extraction of gold from ores. Thionyl Chloride, Schedule 3B (14), is used in batteries, engineering plastics, pesticides, as a catalyst, surfactant, chlorinating agent, and in organic synthesis of herbicides, drugs, vitamins, and dyestuffs. Common agricultural products involving this chemical are: Fenvalerate, Endosulfan, Methidathion, Flucythrinate, Fluvalinate, Lethane, Diphenamit, Napromaide, Propamide, Tridiphane, Topan, and Pipertain. Schedule 3B (17), Triethanolamine, is another chemical with a widespread use. Because of its surface active properties it is added to waxes and polishes and is used as a solvent for herbicides, shellac and various dyes. It is also used for producing emulsions of various oils, paraffins and waxes, as well as for breaking up emulsion. It is an important ingredient of the cutting oil used for metal shaping. Further uses include in detergents, cosmetics, corrosion inhibitors, as a plasticizer, rubber accelerator, and in organic synthesis. As can be seen from this partial listing, the majority of these chemicals are used in agriculture, the automobile industry, and pharmaceuticals production. The vast majority are used as herbicides or insecticides/pesticides. A decision to lower the percentage associated with ``low concentrations'' of Schedule 3 chemicals would dramatically increase the number of agricultural companies and facilities subject to the CWC's onerous reporting and inspection requirements. The costs resulting from such a dramatic expansion of the CWC's scope would invariably be passed by such companies to the one consumer who can least afford an increase in operating costs at this time--the U.S. farmer. Section 403. Prohibition Relating to Unscheduled Discrete Organic Chemicals and Coincidental Byproducts in Waste Streams. Section 403 exempts from reporting and inspection any ``unscheduled discrete organic chemical'' that is a ``coincidental byproduct . . . that is not isolated or captured for use or sale . . . and is routed to, or escapes, from the waste stream of a stack, incinerator, or wastewater treatment system or any other waste stream.'' The CWC does not list unscheduled discrete organic chemicals. Instead, it generally defines these substances as: ``any chemical belonging to the class of chemical compounds consisting of all compounds of carbon except for its oxides, sulfides and metal carbonates, identifiable by chemical name, by structural formula, if known, and by Chemical Abstracts Service registry number if assigned.'' This definition captures thousands of chemical compounds--so many that it is impossible to list them. The CWC's sweeping definition of a ``discrete organic chemical'' captures thousands of U.S. companies under its reporting and inspection obligations. However, that number would expand exponentially without Section 403's exclusion of discrete organic chemicals which form as a byproduct in a variety of manufacturing processes. The declaration and inspections costs under the CWC would fall on a far broader number of U.S. companies. Moreover, the costs of compliance for these additional companies will be far greater. Companies must declare the aggregate tonnage of discrete organic chemicals produced. If ``production'' is defined as the formation of coincidental byproducts in a waste stream, however, many companies would find it costly, and perhaps impossible, to comply with the treaty. The paper industry, in particular, has expressed concern over the ``discrete organic chemical category,'' warning that various chemicals such as methanol, phenol, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl mercaptan are formed in the process of paper manufacturing. The American Forest and Paper Association warned on May 25, 1994, that ``pulp digester gases containing methanol are vented, and some methanol will also be lost as fugitive air emissions from the wastewater treatment system. Methanol is only one component of these streams; it is not isolated or captured for use or sale.'' Without Section 403, numerous industries are at risk of being required to measure and report on countless chemical interactions in waste streams, and to undergo international inspection to verify the accuracy of their data. On May 21, 1997, the American Forest and Paper Association reiterated its concern over the broad scope of the CWC and stated its support for Section 403: ``We strongly support the prohibition of requirements under the treaty for chemical byproducts that are coincidently manufactured. Due to the broad nature of the category of `discrete organic chemicals,' as defined by the treaty, it is critical to recognize that inclusion of coincidental byproducts of manufacturing processes that are not captured or isolated for use or sale would exceed the stated purpose of the CWC.'' Section 503. Expedited Judicial Review. Section 503 allows for U.S. citizens to challenge the constitutionality of any provision of the implementing legislation (and, therefore, the CWC). Such a challenge must be given priority in its disposition, and a prompt hearing by a full Court of Appeals sitting en banc must be given to a final order entered by a district court. In reviewing the constitutionality of legislation, the courts often assume that Congress has exercised its independent judgment and that the legislation in question is constitutional. However, as the legislative history of the CWC makes clear, Congress expressed numerous misgivings about the constitutionality of the CWC (and thus about the implementing legislation required). These concerns were articulated in hearings before the Committees on Foreign Relations and Judiciary, and in correspondence between the Senate, Executive Branch, and U.S. businesses. As has been noted elsewhere, the Senate expressed some specific concerns over the constitutionality of the CWC as conditions in the resolution of ratification. The resolution also included Condition 12, which makes clear that nothing in the CWC authorizes or requires legislation, or any other action prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the United States. Many in the Congress are convinced that the Chemical Weapons Convention is incompatible with the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of Americans. It therefore is expected that the courts will hold that some, or all, of the CWC and its implementing legislation is unconstitutional and issue the appropriate injunctions. American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, October 19, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,541,765,173,290.62 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-one billion, seven hundred sixty-five million, one hundred seventy-three thousand, two hundred ninety dollars and sixty-two cents). Five years ago, October 19, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,403,899,000,000 (Four trillion, four hundred three billion, eight hundred ninety-nine million). Ten years ago, October 19, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,620,577,000,000 (Two trillion, six hundred twenty billion, five hundred seventy-seven million). Fifteen years ago, October 19, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,382,541,000,000 (One trillion, three hundred eighty-two billion, five hundred forty-one million). Twenty-five years ago, October 19, 1973, the federal debt stood at $461,462,000,000 (Four hundred sixty-one billion, four hundred sixty- two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,080,303,173,290.62 (Five trillion, eighty billion, three hundred three million, one hundred seventy-three thousand, two hundred ninety dollars and sixty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, October 14, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,536,803,329,458.17 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-six billion, eight hundred three million, three hundred twenty-nine thousand, four hundred fifty-eight dollars and seventeen cents). One year ago, October 14, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,412,699,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred twelve billion, six hundred ninety-nine million). Five years ago, October 14, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,407,560,000,000 (Four trillion, four hundred seven billion, five hundred sixty million). Ten years ago, October 14, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,616,812,000,000 (Two trillion, six hundred sixteen billion, eight hundred twelve million). Fifteen years ago, October 14, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,383,483,000,000 (One trillion, three hundred eighty-three billion, four hundred eighty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,153,320,329,458.17 (Four trillion, one hundred fifty-three billion, three hundred twenty million, three hundred twenty-nine thousand, four hundred fifty-eight dollars and seventeen cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, October 13, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,537,720,928,486.41 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-seven billion, seven hundred twenty million, nine hundred twenty-eight thousand, four hundred eighty-six dollars and forty-one cents). Five years ago, October 13, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,403,485,000,000 (Four trillion, four hundred three billion, four hundred eighty-five million). Ten years ago, October 13, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,616,702,000,000 (Two trillion, six hundred sixteen billion, seven hundred two million). Fifteen years ago, October 13, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,383,620,000,000 (One trillion, three hundred eighty-three billion, six hundred twenty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,154,100,928,486.41 (Four trillion, one hundred fifty- four billion, one hundred million, nine hundred twenty-eight thousand, four hundred eighty-six dollars and forty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in light of the Columbus Day holiday--a day in which we honor Christopher Columbus for discovering a debt-free nation--I am unable to report to Congress our nation's outstanding federal debt from the close of business Friday, October 9, 1998. I do however feel obliged to submit the federal debt from years past. With no holiday in site for an escalating national debt, I report, Mr. President, that one year ago, October 9, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,409,087,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred nine billion, eighty-seven million). Twenty-five years ago, October 9, 1973, the federal debt stood at $459,857,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-nine billion, eight hundred fifty- seven million). Mr. President, as we stand in the twilight of budget negotiations for fiscal year 1999, I remind my distinguished colleagues that we must curb the desire to spend, spend, spend. Even with a holiday weekend our federal debt reflects an increase of more than $5 trillion--that is more than 5 million million--during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think the Senator understood. I think we ought to stop this absurdity, and stop it now, and do the people's business.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the conference report be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. Again, I ask that this absurdity be brought to an end so the Senate can conduct its business.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in order that the Democrats not put the Senate in a stalemate, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the conference report be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in order for the U.S. Senate to conduct the people's business, despite the delay and frustration of the other party, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the conference report be dispensed with.