Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, August 31, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,564,553,479,478.04 (Five trillion, five hundred sixty-four billion, five hundred fifty-three million, four hundred seventy-nine thousand, four hundred seventy-eight dollars and four cents). Five years ago, August 31, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,403,247,000,000 (Four trillion, four hundred three billion, two hundred forty-seven million). Ten years ago, August 31, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,575,800,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred seventy-five billion, eight hundred million). Fifteen years ago, August 31, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,348,374,000,000 (One trillion, three hundred forty-eight billion, three hundred seventy-four million). Twenty-five years ago, August 31, 1973, the federal debt stood at $461,845,000,000 (Four hundred sixty-one billion, eight hundred forty- five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,102,708,479,478.04 (Five trillion, one hundred two billion, seven hundred eight million, four hundred seventy- nine thousand, four hundred seventy-eight dollars and four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, July 23, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,537,084,024,142.92 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-seven billion, eighty-four million, twenty-four thousand, one hundred forty- two dollars and ninety-two cents). One year ago, July 23, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,367,623,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-seven billion, six hundred twenty-three million). Five years ago, July 23, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,342,543,000,000 (Four trillion, three hundred forty-two billion, five hundred forty-three million). Twenty-five years ago, July 23, 1973, the federal debt stood at $455,892,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-five billion, eight hundred ninety-two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,081,192,024,142.92 (Five trillion, eighty-one billion, one hundred ninety-two million, twenty-four thousand, one hundred forty-two dollars and ninety-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, July 22, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,536,743,281,758.09 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-six billion, seven hundred forty-three million, two hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred fifty-eight dollars and nine cents). One year ago, July 22, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,366,067,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-six billion, sixty-seven million). Five years ago, July 22, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,340,981,000,000 (Four trillion, three hundred forty billion, nine hundred eighty-one million). Ten years ago, July 22, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,552,070,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred fifty-two billion, seventy million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $3 trillion-- $2,984,673,281,758.09 (Two trillion, nine hundred eighty-four billion, six hundred seventy-three million, two hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred fifty-eight dollars and nine cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute has reported that for the week ending July 17 that the U.S. imported 8,750,000 barrels of oil each day, 605,000 barrels a day more than the 8,145,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 58.1 percent of their needs last week. There are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States imported about 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America s oil supply. All Americans should ponder the economic calamity certain to occur in the U.S. if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the U.S.: now 8,750,000 barrels a day at a cost of approximately $98,875,000 a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, are we now in morning business?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now begin a period for morning business to be concluded at 12 o'clock noon.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for no more than 20 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. on discretionary spending at the Department of Transportation and Department of Commerce.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Tuesday, July 21, 1998 beginning at 10:30 a.m. in room SH-215, to conduct a markup.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., to hold a hearing on the nominations of: Scott E. Thomas, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2003 (reappointment); David M. Mason, of Virginia, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2003, vice Trevor Alexander McClurg Potter, resigned; Darryl R. Wold, of California, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2001, vice Joan D. Aikens, term expired; and, Karl L. Sandstrom, of Washington, to be a member of the Federal Election Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2001, vice John Warren McGarry, term expired.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, to conduct a hearing on the monetary policy report to Congress pursuant to the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in closed session, to consider certain pending nominations.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on S. 766, Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 21, 1998, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have asked for this time this morning because this is the last week I will be here for a while. As of a week from today, I will have traded in my 1921 knees for some 1998 models. And during the time that I will be absent, the credit union issue will come up before the Senate. Now, I could duck the issue and probably make out all right, but I do not operate that way, and I feel I should not merely lay out for the record my views about this piece of legislation, but I should speak them publicly so that they can be known. Mr. President, I suspect that most, if not all, Senators will agree that a certain type of democracy has, without question, been at work in terms of the astounding number of postcards and letters, faxes, telephone calls, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, from representatives of the credit union industry at all levels. It would be an understatement, in fact, to describe the deluge as merely an impressive campaign. It is far more than that. I have been around this place for quite a while, and I have spent many hours meeting with citizens on both sides of the credit union legislation that the Senate will shortly consider. I have seen North Carolinians who support H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, and I have seen and visited with North Carolinians who are opposed to it. In any case, the supporters of this bill are an important segment of our community. Credit unions provide basic, efficient, and affordable financial services. And I have to say for the record that North Carolina's credit unions do good work in providing for the needs of countless of their fellow hard-working Tar Heels. Mr. President, it may be of interest to Senators from other States that this debate began in Randolph County, NC, which is the home of Richard Petty. And anybody who does not know who Richard Petty is, see me after I finish these remarks and I will fill them in on who Richard Petty is. In February of this year, after a 7-year court battle, the Supreme Court handed down its decision on the case titled National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co., which was a lawsuit involving several North Carolina financial institutions. It may be that a bit of history will be useful at this point. Credit unions, as clarified in the preamble of the Federal Credit Union Act of 1934, were created by Congress ``to make more available to people of small means credit for provident purposes.'' In order to serve these individuals of ``small means,'' credit unions were awarded back then specific benefits that others did not have in connection with their carrying out a clearly defined purpose, which was to provide essential basic financial services. Now then, these benefits, including exemptions from Federal taxes and the extraordinarily burdensome Community Reinvestment Act, CRA, as it is known around this place--have enabled the credit union industry to serve their customers with a marketplace advantage--very clearly an advantage--not allowed to other insured depository competitors which must pay taxes and which must abide by complex Federal regulations, which credit unions do not have to do. In the early 1980s, the National Credit Union Administration used its regulatory power for significant alteration and expansion of the original intent of the Federal Credit Union Act. Specifically, in 1982, the NCUA allowed credit unions to expand their memberships to include multiple employer groups, an action which effectively eliminated the meaning of the common bond. This, in fact, was the precise holding of the Supreme Court's February 1998 decision. When this debate started, some shrewd Washington lobbyists--and that is about the best I can describe them--these lobbyists circulated the notion that the Supreme Court's intent was--now get this, Mr. President--the intent of the Supreme Court, they said, was to kick people out of their credit unions. But what happened? Credit union members promptly began calling and writing to me, and all other Senators, I am sure, pleading with us to protect their right to remain members of their credit unions. Mr. President, that of course never was in doubt, and these lobbyists knew it. But they struck fear in the hearts of the credit union members; hence the deluge of telephone calls and faxes and letters and visits and all the rest of it. In no way--let me say this as plainly as I can--in no way will these membership rights be revoked from citizens who were credit union account holders prior to the February 25, 1998, Supreme Court decision. I hope I have nailed down that falsehood pretty well. Parenthetically, Mr. President, it should be made clear that such revocation has never--never--been remotely considered by anybody. It would have been fundamentally unfair for anybody to even think of it. It should also be emphasized that the banking industry is unanimously supportive of the position that it would be unfair. Mr. President, I am persuaded that many Senators may have been incorrectly persuaded by the deluge of contacts with their constituents that small bankers are attempting to take away the account rights of credit union members, which, in fairness, Mr. President, is an absolute falsehood, and even the lobbyists who contend otherwise are bound to have known and know to this moment that it is false. Let the record be clear, nobody--nobody--has a membership in a credit union where that membership depends on passing legislation that will allow the unrestrained expansion of credit unions. Now, the fact is, most traditional credit unions were not, nor ever will be, affected by the Supreme Court decision of last February. The fact is, in that decision the Supreme Court supported the original statutory intent of the Federal Credit Union Act of 1934 that credit unions must have a common bond, that is to say, some reason to be considered as a group. In fact, the Court was unanimous in its interpretation of the law, identical in effect to the way it was written way back in 1934. All right. You see, Mr. President, most credit unions operate under the definition of a ``common bond,'' as was clearly the intent of the Federal Credit Union Act. Mr. President, most credit unions will continue to operate and the members will continue to benefit from their regulatory tax-exempt status--taxes that their competitors have to pay. Now, the point is unmistakably clear. The only credit unions affected are credit unions that have expanded, in clear violation of the Federal Credit Union Act of 1934 which the Court upheld this year. The violation of this Federal Credit Union Act has been done in several ways--primarily by the unlawful inclusion of hundreds of groups, large and small, and thousands upon thousands of employees of these hundreds of groups. Now, the change in the National Credit Union Administration regulatory policy launched the credit union industry into an era of unprecedented growth. For example, in the 8 months following the regulatory change, one credit union added more than 1,000 different groups. That was done in less than 8 months' time. No longer were credit unions required to represent groups of individuals with common workplace or geographic interests, but hundreds of unrelated groups not joined by any commonality. Larger credit unions have used this newfound freedom to an advantage at the expense of their financial competitors. This legislation--and the name of it, just for the Record, is the Credit Union Membership Access Act; the number is H.R. 1151--this legislation proposes to codify, to place into law, the NCUA 1982 regulatory interpretation and thereby invite another major expansion of the credit union industry. H.R. 1151 proposes to authorize multibonded credit unions to bring in groups of up to 3,000 members--a number, by the way, which NCUA can waive at its discretion--and would effectively allow credit unions to target every entity in the United States. Now, the Bureau of the Census has declared that 99.9 percent of the businesses in the United States employ fewer than 3,000 workers. So you see the practical effect of allowing multibonded credit unions to bring into their membership groups which have less than 3,000 members would effectively repeal all limits of expansion on the credit unions which pay no taxes. In summary, H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, soon to be the pending business in the Senate, is a long way from the original concept and intent of the very clear common bond. According to the NCUA, to qualify for this tax-subsidized service--and that is what it is--one would simply have to walk in and sign up. It follows that many credit unions are moving beyond their original purpose of aiding individuals of ``small means'' with basic services. In fact, already such things as professional sports teams, yacht clubs, law firms, country clubs, and many, many others now have their own credit unions. I suggest that this exceeds any rational definition of individuals living by ``small means.'' In all fairness, the reason I am here this morning is H.R. 1151 does not qualify as simply a pro-credit union bill. It is really, if you want to call it what it is, an anti-competitiveness bill. If Congress wants to alter the intended dimensions of credit unions, Congress should be willing to say so clearly and not hide behind the guise--and that is what it is--that the intent of the soon-to-be pending legislation is to protect credit unions following the Supreme Court's ruling. Now, then, in realty, Congress is setting the stage for the expansion and growth of the credit union industry into thousands upon thousands of new markets well into the 21st century, while continuing to be exempt from paying the Federal taxes that the competitors down Main Street have to pay. If the credit union industry wants to expand its presence in the financial marketplace and increase its ability to offer various services to more and more groups--in short, if they want to operate like community banks--I commend their ambition because I believe that the banking industry will and should welcome them into the marketplace as long as credit unions are required to live under the very same tax structure and the very same regulatory morass that America's small community banks and small town bankers live with every day. Let me be clear, as I wind up, that I oppose both higher taxes and burdensome regulation. If Congress chooses to allow credit union growth without taxation and without costly regulations, then let's be fair and do the same for America's community bankers, the small bankers who are competing for the same core of business without the benefit of a Federal subsidy paid by the American taxpayer. It is unfortunate that the debate on this legislation up to now has pitted the banking interests versus the interests of the credit union industry. The debate should be about the willingness of Congress to provide a level and fair playing field for all financial interests. Is it equitable for credit unions, comprised of countless hundreds of groups and assets in the billions, to have a competitive advantage over small bankers who are competing for the same business? I am convinced the obvious answer to that is no. Unless and until this becomes a debate about fairness in the marketplace instead of a politically expedient response to a shrewd and energetic lobbying campaign, I cannot and will not support such misguided and tragically misunderstood legislation. In closing, a few personal observations: Earlier, I mentioned the enormous public relations campaign crafted by lobbyists for the credit union industry. I am confident that every Senator's office has experienced this full court press. This past week, in fact, a rally was staged right here on Capitol Hill by several thousand credit union supporters who had been brought to Washington to demand immediate passage of H.R. 1151, without amendments. Now, I am genuinely impressed by the willingness of the credit union industry's supporters to travel to Washington to express their support for H.R. 1151. However, I must question the actions of some of the lobbyists who staged this demonstration on the Capitol steps and used distortion and half-truths and even untruths to get their message across. This undermines the integrity of the people who they purport to represent. I hope in the future they will use greater care in representing their constituencies. So this debate boils down to an issue of fairness. Most Senators, including myself, have friends on both sides. I take great care in trying to ensure that the small guy, whether he is a bank customer or a credit union member, is given a fair and equal deal, the level playing field that we so often hear so much about. This bill does not represent a level playing field. Congress amended the Federal Credit Union Act in 1937 to give tax-exempt status to federally chartered credit unions to serve a narrow purpose, not to give a distinct market advantage over their competition with the small bank down the street. Now, it must be said that many credit unions such as the U.S. Senate Federal Credit Union, right here on Capitol Hill, have used this advantage judiciously in serving their clearly defined customer base. The employees of the Senate are their customer base. They won't lose their membership. Nobody is about to lose their membership. That is all hogwash. Unfortunately, too many other large credit unions have expanded the reach of their tax-exempt status far beyond the original congressional intent--extending their Government-subsidized services to include hundreds upon hundreds of unrelated groups and businesses. I say again, as a result of this tax-free status and their exemption from Federal regulations that require other financial institutions to reinvest in low-income areas, credit unions are able to offer deals on loan rates and checking accounts that most community banks simply cannot match. It gives me no pleasure to stand here and take this stand, Mr. President. I could have kept silent and gone on down to North Carolina to have my sore knees fixed. But I am obliged to say, in conclusion, that if we allow credit unions to expand tax free and act more and more like banks, then we should at least try to ensure that there is a level playing field for all similar financial institutions. If we tax the banking industry, the small bankers, we should tax the credit unions-- but I don't think we should tax either one of them. If we are to force banks to function under burdensome community reinvestment regulations, shouldn't we support equally demanding regulations for credit unions? Is this not, in the final analysis, just an issue of fairness? It would be simpler and easier for me to keep silent, but my conscience would not let me do so. I cannot engage in that luxury. I felt obliged to take my stand and I have done so. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, July 20, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,532,950,037,759.42 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-two billion, nine hundred fifty million, thirty-seven thousand, seven hundred fifty-nine dollars and forty-two cents). Five years ago, July 20, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,335,448,000,000 (Four trillion, three hundred thirty-five billion, four hundred forty-eight million). Ten years ago, July 20, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,553,113,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred fifty-three billion, one hundred thirteen million). Fifteen years ago, July 20, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,329,282,000,000 (One trillion, three hundred twenty-nine billion, two hundred eighty-two million). Twenty-five years ago, July 20, 1973, the federal debt stood at $455,844,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-five billion, eight hundred forty- four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,077,106,037,759.42 (Five trillion, seventy-seven billion, one hundred six million, thirty-seven thousand, seven hundred fifty-nine dollars and forty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, July 17, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,532,637,423,771.79 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-two billion, six hundred thirty-seven million, four hundred twenty-three thousand, seven hundred seventy-one dollars and seventy-nine cents). One year ago, July 17, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,363,009,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-three billion, nine million). Twenty-five years ago, July 17, 1973, the federal debt stood at $455,472,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-five billion, four hundred seventy-two million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,077,165,423,771.79 (Five trillion, seventy-seven billion, one hundred sixty-five million, four hundred twenty-three thousand, seven hundred seventy-one dollars and seventy-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, July 16, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,531,079,562,651.15 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-one billion, seventy-nine million, five hundred sixty-two thousand, six hundred fifty-one dollars and fifteen cents). One year ago, July 16, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,357,954,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred fifty-seven billion, nine hundred fifty-four million). Five years ago, July 16, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,334,093,000,000 (Four trillion, three hundred thirty-four billion, ninety-three million). Twenty-five years ago, July 16, 1973, the federal debt stood at $455,344,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred forty- four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,075,735,562,651.15 (Five trillion, seventy-five billion, seven hundred thirty-five million, five hundred sixty-two thousand, six hundred fifty-one dollars and fifteen cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, July 15, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,529,722,681,857.67 (Five trillion, five hundred twenty-nine billion, seven hundred twenty-two million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, eight hundred fifty-seven dollars and sixty-seven cents). One year ago, July 15, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,357,143,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred fifty-seven billion, one hundred forty-three million). Five years ago, July 15, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,333,088,000,000 (Four trillion, three hundred thirty-three billion, eighty-eight million). Ten years ago, July 15, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,553,732,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred fifty-three billion, seven hundred thirty-two million). Fifteen years ago, July 15, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,329,911,000,000 (One trillion, three hundred twenty-nine billion, nine hundred eleven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,199,811,681,857.67 (Four trillion, one hundred ninety-nine billion, eight hundred eleven million, six hundred eighty- one thousand, eight hundred fifty-seven dollars and sixty-seven cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute has reported that for the week ending July 10 that the U.S. imported 9,323,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,645,000 barrels a day more than the 7,678,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 59.6 percent of their needs last week. There are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States imported about 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. All Americans should ponder the economic calamity certain to occur in the U.S. if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the U.S.: now 9,323,000 barrels a day at a cost of approximately $104,137,910 a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise in respectful opposition to some of the implications of the amendment offered by my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar. Now, we all know that sanctions have come under assault of late. It is the politically correct thing to do amidst Senator Lugar's and my friends in the business community. And I think neither Senator Lugar nor I has failed to stand up for the free enterprise system and the business community when the community deserved to be supported, which is most of the time. Nevertheless, there are some powerful corporate interests in this town which have launched a well-financed lobbying campaign against sanctions, all sanctions, in an obvious attempt to convince Congress that all sorts of unreasonable sanction laws have been presented and that these sanctions are something new and unusual and somehow detrimental to the best interests of this country. On that point I beg to differ. The fact is, as an effective and principled foreign policy tool economic sanctions are older than this Republic itself. What did the American colonies do in response to Britain's imposition of the Stamp Act? The American colonies imposed economic sanctions forcing its repeal as a matter of fact. What did the Continental Congress do when Britain imposed the Intolerable Acts? The Continental Congress imposed economic sanctions on Britain. Why has Congress always authorized sanctions when needed? This is a question that is worth reviewing, and that is what I propose to do briefly, if it may be possible. Amazingly, some in the business community, and they have always been and will continue to be close friends of mine, have jumped to the conclusion on the recent events in India and Pakistan to pursue their attacks on the U.S. bilateral sanctions. But it is precisely those events in India and Pakistan, the decision by these governments to detonate a dozen separate nuclear weapons, that should heighten our resolve to enforce tough sanctions against governments that seek to destabilize the world. The fact is, in that instance, Madam President, I believe, and I believe I can demonstrate, that India detonated its devices because of India's fear that the United States was coddling China and bidding friendship for China that ought not to be a part of the foreign policy of this country. Now, just weeks ago the Senate passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act by an overwhelming vote of 90 to 4. Why did we do that? In order to place a cost on the specific companies for transferring dangerous missile technology to a terrorist regime in Iran which will use that technology to destabilize the entire Persian Gulf region. Now, we authorize the President to sanction states and foreign companies that threaten the safety of the American people by spreading nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction. We authorize sanctions on states, and when I say the word ``states,'' I mean governments, foreign governments, which provide training, weapons and political or financial and diplomatic support to terrorists who kidnap and murder American citizens. We authorize sanctions on governments involved in the smuggling and transshipment of illegal drugs that poison our children. We authorize sanctions on governments that commit acts of genocide and armed aggression against their neighbors and crimes against humanity. The question must be faced: Are we unreasonable in doing this? Should we be ashamed? I do not think so. Obviously, sanctions are not always the answer. I do not contend that they are, but we cannot escape the fact that sometimes they are the only answer. I think we better face the facts. There are only three basic tools in foreign policy. There is diplomacy, sanctions, and war. Without sanctions, where would we be? Our options with the dictators and proliferators and terrorists of this world would be three: empty talk, sending in the Marines, or withdrawing into isolation. And I for one am not willing to place such artificial limits on our foreign policy options. But this is exactly, I fear, what the pending amendment proposes to do. Perhaps the Senator from Indiana can persuade me and the remainder, the rest of the Senate that that is not intended and at least make some statements for the Record that can be viewed in the future. In practice, this amendment is not about sanctions reform as it states. It is an obvious attempt by opponents of sanctions and the business community to hamstring Congress' ability to authorize sanctions. The proposed amendment would tie Congress' hands with mandatory waiting periods for the implementation of all sanctions, require mandatory sunsets on all future sanctions laws and define a wide range of congressional actions known or referred to as ``sanctions'' when they are nothing of the sort. This amendment, I fear, would impose a mandatory 2-year time limit on all U.S. sanctions law. I'm afraid that would be opening a Pandora's box. Imagine if this was the law of the land when the United States enacted the Arms Export Control Act which prohibits the sale of sophisticated weapons to nations that the State Department determines annually support terrorism--governments like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Would we have wanted those sanctions to be eliminated under an arbitrary 2-year timetable? I think not. Further, what exactly is meant by the term ``sanctions''? The pending amendment, it seems to me, breaks new ground on what henceforth would be considered a ``sanction.'' Under this amendment, it seems to me, the denial of U.S. foreign aid would be deemed a sanction. Any conditionality on U.S. funding to the World Bank or the IMF would be a ``sanction'' on a foreign government. And let me remind Senators that since it was created in 1945, American taxpayers have anted up billions of dollars for the World Bank and now the antisanctions crowd tells us that we can't place any conditions on the expenditures of those funds. According to a recent report by the USIA, the conditions placed by Congress on U.S. foreign aid to the Palestinian Liberation Organization are a ``sanction.'' Really? Conditioning U.S. foreign aid to the PLO-- an organization whose modus operandi for most of its existence has been killing innocent civilians--is now deemed a sanction? What this amendment, I fear, proposes to do is to enshrine U.S. foreign aid giveaways as an entitlement, an entitlement to foreign countries. Wait one moment before jumping to conclusions. While this amendment expands the definition of sanctions to absurd proportions, it doesn't cover all sanctions. Oh, no. You see, our friends in the business community--and they are my friends, and they are Senator Lugar's friends--and their lobbyists who helped write this amendment have quietly carved out an exemption for bilateral sanctions they like-- sanctions that directly benefit them. The same folks who are busy telling us that sanctions don't work and should be scrapped, have ensured that certain retaliatory trade sanctions are exempt from the restrictions of this legislation. The way some in the business community have influenced the crafting of this amendment, Congress would be hamstrung in implementing sanctions against any nation that poses a threat to the safety of the American people, even if a government proliferates dangerous weapons of mass destruction, commits genocide, or supports terrorists responsible for murdering American citizens. But, if they flood the American market with cheap television sets--whoa, that is a different proposition. We can throw the book at them. Under this amendment, the President would be prohibited from implementing sanctions against any country for at least 45 days, supposedly under the guise of a ``cooling off'' period. On the surface, that sounds pretty reasonable. But in practice, a 2-month lapse is not only foolish, it can be downright dangerous. One example--after the Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103, murdering 263 innocent citizens in cold blood, the United Nations spent months and months debating appropriate actions against Libya. Meanwhile, Libya divested itself of most reachable assets in order to avoid the impact of sanctions. So the pending amendment would essentially afford other terrorist states the same courtesy. While the United States ``cools off'' for 45 days, the terrorists, the proliferators, the genocidal dictators, would have 2 months to quietly divest their finances and conceal the evidence and provide safe haven for fugitives. That strikes me as being something short of reform. The pending amendment would not place these requirements on multilateral sanctions. Of course, multilateral sanctions are more effective than bilateral sanctions. But, should the United States be handcuffed to the will, or more likely the lack of will, of the so- called international community? Should we tie our hands to the whims of our European ``allies''--and I put quotation marks around allies because their slumping welfare state economies are driving them to employ increasingly mercantilist foreign policies. Right now the United States is waging a lonely battle at the United Nations to stop our allies from caving in and lifting U.N. sanctions on Iraq. If it were up to the French and the Russians, international business would be rushing headlong into Baghdad to renew commercial ties with Saddam Hussein, notwithstanding his continued defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors. Yet, we should give these people a veto over our national security policy that was won through the sacrifice and courage and blood of American men and women just 7 years ago? I believe we need sanctions reform. One reform we might consider is requiring that the sanctions which Congress passes would be actually implemented. Not long ago, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act--a targeted law much of whose language, I might add, was drafted by the Clinton administration itself. Live on CNN, the President signed it into law with great pomp and circumstance. But then, when the time came to implement that law, the President lost his nerve and the U.S. foreign policy suffered yet another devastating loss of credibility. The distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, and the Senate minority leader, Mr. Daschle, have established a bipartisan ``sanctions reform task force'' to determine if, as critics have complained, Congress has gone ``sanctions mad.'' This, in my view, is a wise plan, and I serve on that task force; the Senator from Indiana serves on it, as does Senator Glenn and other interested Senators from both parties. The first question we are seeking to answer is, What is a sanction? In fact, we are having a hearing planned for July 31 to study this and other questions. In conclusion, Madam President, instead of rushing forward with any sort of ill-considered amendment--and I say that as respectfully as possible--the ramifications of which are unknown to most Senators, we should let that task force do its work and consider ways Congress can strengthen its consideration of proposed sanctions laws. Those who are prone to criticize the ``impulsive'' actions of the U.S. Senate, actions which I happen to believe are motivated by a devotion to the security of this country and its people, should themselves be wary of impulsive ``one-size-fits-all'' solutions such as this amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. I certainly will.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the premise of the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Indiana is that--as President Clinton recently put it--the United States has gone ``sanctions happy.'' We've all heard the statistics, repeated without question by the media, that the United States has enacted sanctions 61 times in just 4 years, thereby placing 42% of the world's population under the oppressive yoke of U.S. sanctions. Well, it just ain't so. I've examined these so-called statistics. And I've found that they are fabricated. The ``61-sanctions'' figure, which came from a study by the National Association of Manufacturers, and circulate widely by an anti-sanctions business coalition calling itself ``USA Engage.'' The NAM claims that, over a 4 year period (1993 through 1996) ``61 U.S. laws and executive actions were enacted authorizing unilateral economic sanctions for foreign policy purposes.'' According to NAM, these sanctions have targeted 35 countries, over 2.3 billion people (42% of the world's population) and $790 billion--19% of the world's total--in export markets. NAM lists a catalogue of 20 new laws passed by Congress and 41 Executive Branch actions for a total of 61 new sanctions in just 4 years. The ``61 sanctions'' figure cries out for examination. I asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze the NAM claim. After examining the NAM study, CRS reported to me, ``We could not defensibly subdivide or catagorize the entries in the (NAM) catalogue so that they add up to 61.'' How did NAM come up with this 61-sanctions claim? Here's how: The National Association of Manufacturers includes as examples of ``unilateral economic sanctions'' every time the U.S. complied with U.N. Security Council sanctions--which are, by definition, multilateral sanctions; The NAM used double-, triple- and quadruple-counts certain sanctions; They included as a so-called ``sanction'' any executive branch or Congressional actions denying, limiting or even conditioning U.S. foreign aid. (Since when, I ask, did foreign aid become an entitlement?) The NAM lists as sanctions instances where no sanctions were actually imposed, cases sanctions were actually lifted, and cases where sanctions were imposed briefly and then lifted. The NAM piled into their ``sanctions'' list any decision to bar the sale of lethal military equipment to terrorist states, and various actions which affect just a single corporate entity or individuals--not countries. Mr. President, this is not what most of us have in mind when we think of ``sanctions.'' We think of trade bans and embargoes on states--not seizing the assets of Colombian drug traffickers, blocking imports from a single factory in southern China which is using prison labor, or banning the sale of lethal equipment to states which arm and train terrorists. The fact is, there is no credible way to argue that the U.S. has imposed 61 sanctions in just four years, or that anywhere near 42% of the world's population has been targeted by U.S. sanctions. In other words, there is no basis for the claim that we in Congress have gone ``sanctions happy'' or for the problem that the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana proposes to fix. But don't take my word for it. The staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations has prepared a document which analyzes the NAM study and exposes its failings. I now ask uninanimous consent that this analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the review of the NAM study makes clear, most of these actions were taken at the President's discretion, either by Executive Order or based a law where President had broad waiver authority. If the Senate is going to have a debate over sanctions policy, we should do so on the basis of facts, not distortions presented by the anti-sanctions lobby. That is the reason that the Republican and Democratic leaderships have formed a bipartisan sanctions task force to examine the facts, and make recommendations. Apparently, some in the business community would prefer for the Senate to act before the facts come out. We should not fall for such tactics. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.