Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Amendment No. 2320, and then followed by 2324?

Mr. HELMS. We will do that afterwards.

Mr. HELMS. I suggest we get something done. I suggest we proceed with the vote.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before we proceed to a vote, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, if he is satisfied now with Ted Stevens' amendment?

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that the first vote to occur on the amendment No. 2320, the Conrad-Bingaman amendment, be a 15-minute vote; that the second vote on this pending amendment, the Bingaman No. 2324, be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to propound a unanimous consent request regarding time for the next vote and the vote thereafter.

Mr. HELMS. Very well. I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time being charged equally.

Mr. HELMS. No. Go ahead.

Mr. HELMS. There is a 30-minute time limitation; is that correct?

Mr. HELMS. I was assigned this afternoon to make the train run and to save Senators a lot of time. In that connection, I ask unanimous consent the Conrad amendment 2320 be laid aside, and Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer his amendment regarding strategic concept, and there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form; I further ask following the expiration time, the amendment be laid aside.

Mr. HELMS. Does the Senator want to ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. HELMS. I call for the regular order, the Conrad amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Let me say that I remember the old adage is, ``I like a finished speaker. I really, truly do. I don't mean one who's polished, I just mean one who's through.'' I deliberately stayed away from the podium yesterday because I wanted everybody to have their say on this matter, and I think it is time for us to move along and become finished speakers. But before I do, I want to make a few comments that occurred to me when I listened in my office and on the floor--a combination of the two--to various statements that were being made. The Conrad amendment--and I have the greatest respect for Senator Conrad--I must unalterably oppose because the United States has never, never agreed to tactical nuclear weapons reductions with the Russians, or the Soviets, for good reason. First, these weapons are essential to an equitable sharing of the risk and burden associated with NATO's nuclear mission. Further, they are a visible sign that NATO is prepared to use any and all force necessary to deter an attack. Finally, there is absolutely no way that the United States can verify Russian compliance with an agreement to eliminate tactical nuclear weapons. Mr. President, I am increasingly fascinated by the wailing, tearing of hair, and gnashing of teeth engaged in by the more liberal of our brethren, the news media, and otherwise, regarding the impact that NATO expansion would have on the United States-Russian relationship. It seems that the only argument against NATO enlargement--aside from the ``cost bugaboo''--is that Senate approval of this treaty will derail Russian ratification of START II, imperil future arms control agreements, and I have heard over and over again that it will turn Russia into a hostile power. I am going to agree to discuss these things as time goes by, but not this afternoon. Mr. President, there has been a surfeit of bellyaching about the START II treaty. It has been nearly 5\1/2\ years since the United States and Russia signed that treaty. Since that time, Russia has used START II ratification as a pretext to hold hostage an ever-changing, ever-growing number of issues. And, of course, the weak-kneed arms controllers and Russia apologists in the United States have, in the past 5 years, been feeding the beast, encouraging the Russians to take one hostage after another. I could walk you through the various Russian threats, such as the Russians have threatened that there would be no START II treaty if the United States deploys a national missile defense. At a press conference before the March 1997 Helsinki summit, President Yeltsin criticized U.S. discussion of a national missile defense stating, ``Well, you understand, of course, why it is that the state Duma has not yet ratified START II--because ABM was suspended.'' Why does Russia not want the United States to abandon the ABM Treaty? Because with it we are prevented from having a national missile defense and Russia can hold our citizens hostage to its intercontinental ballistic missiles. Then there is a second threat. The Russians have threatened that there would be no START II unless the United States makes more foreign aid concessions. In 1996, the chairman of the Duma's defense committee, Sergei Yushkov, tied START II ratification not just merely to the ABM Treaty but to ``the provision of adequate funds for the maintenance of Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal.'' Threat No. 3: The Russians declared there would be no START II unless the United States makes other, unspecified concessions. In September of 1997, last year, there was a powerful voice that controls a sizable block of Duma votes who declared that START II should not be ratified until ``a favorable moment'' and that Russia should hold out for more U.S. concessions. According to this man, this leader, ``We have created a powerful missile complex, and we must use it to get certain advantages.'' Threat No. 4: The Russians declared there would be no START II if the U.S. mounts air-strikes against Saddam Hussein. In connection with the U.S. military build-up in the Persian Gulf, the Deputy Speaker of the Duma declared that START II would never be approved if the United States were to use force against Iraq. In the wake of that particular threat, the Russian diplomats at the United Nations have been working overtime to phase out international inspections of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological warfare facilities. We already caught the Russians red-handed trying to sell the Iraqis a fermenter specially-designed for biological weapons, and without UNSCOM inspectors poking around, Saddam's cooperation with Russia in developing these horrible weapons will be free and unimpeded. Threat No. 5: The Russians declared there would be no START II unless the U.S. agrees to allow continued Russian violation of the START Treaty. Most recently, U.S. arms control negotiators were told that their refusal to shelve U.S. concerns over repeated Russian violations of the START Treaty would jeopardize START II ratification. I was amazed to hear some point to the recent, massive salvo of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) which the Russians launched to their destruction as the kind of cooperation that will cease if NATO is enlarged. Senators should know, as should others in the executive branch, that these SLBM launches were not emblematic of arms control cooperation. In fact, the Administration has noted that these SLBM launches were violations of the START Treaty because Russia refused to provide telemetry as required. They simply brushed aside our concerns and went on with their plans. Mr. President, the bottom line is that the Russian threat over NATO Enlargement is just one in a long, tired litany of ever-changing excuses for not ratifying START II. I urge the American people, and my fellow Senators, not to be taken in by this ludicrous argument. I urge those who are bemoaning the abuse that we are doing to our ``Russian friends'' to listen very carefully: There is not one arms control treaty signed by Russia that it is not violating! As I have said, Russia stands today in violation of its START Treaty obligations. Likewise, Russia consistently has engaged in the worst, most abhorrent perversions of bio-chemistry known to man. Russian scientists continue to work overtime at weaponizing biological pathogens in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention. According to key Russian defectors, Russia has placed enough biological agent--for example, small pox and various fever viruses--on its intercontinental ballistic missiles to wipe the human race from the face of the earth. Similarly, as I warned during the course of debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention, Russia is violating that treaty by clandestinely producing a series of nerve agents more lethal than any other chemical substance known to man. And we have all read in recent days about the robust and continuing Russian assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program, in violation of their obligations under the Missile Technology Control Regime. Mr. President, the list of arms control violations goes on and on. I am amazed that we are wringing our hands about antagonizing a country that is engaging in such abhorrent, reprehensible behavior. I challenge anyone to defend that regime's record of flagrant disregard for its treaty obligations, and its calculated assistance to regimes hostile to the United States. In light of these facts, piling another item onto the arms control agenda seems particularly ill-advised. Russia is becoming, despite our best efforts to the contrary, a rogue nation bent on challenging the United States at every turn. Neither tactical nuclear weapons nor NATO expansion have anything to do with it.

Mr. HELMS. I could not hear.

Mr. HELMS. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate resumes consideration of the Conrad amendment numbered 2320, there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. I further ask that following the expiration of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Conrad amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I would like to send a modification to the desk so we can accept that.

Mr. HELMS. That is fair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there is a notable chorus of Senators congratulating the people of Israel and their government on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Israel's birth. There are few things that have not been said on the subject of Israel--friend, ally, democracy. The Congress has spoken on countless occasions about Jerusalem, our commitment to Israel's security, and to peace in the Middle East. In the end, however, all these expressions, as heartfelt as they are, pale beside the real miracle of the Jewish people, in exile for 2000 years, having returned to the land of Israel. And on that tiny piece of land, smaller than the State of New Jersey, an incredible nation has been built--a nation that has survived five wars, untold numbers of terrorist attacks, and the hostility of most of its neighbors. Israel has absorbed millions of immigrants, providing homes, and jobs, and schools and freedom. Year to year, day to day, Israel may not look precisely like a land of milk and honey, but for the Jews of Europe who survived the Holocaust, and the Russians who survived Communism, it is the Promised Land. Israel is great, not merely because its creation is the fulfillment of a biblical promise, or because it is a faithful friend to the United States. It is great because the people of Israel are great people. I congratulate my friend, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and all the people of Israel.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, April 29, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,512,958,788,432.21 (Five trillion, five hundred twelve billion, nine hundred fifty-eight million, seven hundred eighty-eight thousand, four hundred thirty-two dollars and twenty-one cents). One year ago, April 29, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,348,145,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred forty-eight billion, one hundred forty-five million). Five years ago, April 29, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,237,171,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty-seven billion, one hundred seventy-one million). Ten years ago, April 29, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,502,100,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred two billion, one hundred million). Fifteen years ago, April 29, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,247,917,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred forty-seven billion, nine hundred seventeen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,265,041,788,432.21 (Four trillion, two hundred sixty- five billion, forty-one million, seven hundred eighty-eight thousand, four hundred thirty-two dollars and twenty-one cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic endured nearly half a century of communist domination as a result of expedient and short-sighted policies of the West. Today, we have the opportunity to remedy that injustice while securing democracy in Central Europe for future generations. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have established democratic governments, each has built a market economy, and all three work with us in defense of liberty from Cuba to China. In my judgment, Mr. President, these three countries belong to NATO. I have met with the Foreign Ministers of all three countries. They understand the commitment and responsibilities that they undertake by joining NATO. I am confident they will meet all of their obligations. The Foreign Relations Committee held 8 hearings in the past six months, heard from 37 supporters and opponents of NATO expansion. Before the Committee hearings, I myself had concerns about NATO expansion, including what it would cost, how we could deal with Russia, and the future mission of NATO. The Committee's resolution addresses all of these points and passed by a vote of 16-2. Mr. President, NATO enlargement has been endorsed by countless distinguished individuals including Margaret Thatcher, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Caspar Weinberger, and Richard Perle. In addition, the Foreign Relations Committee has received endorsements of this policy from every living former U.S. Secretary of State, numerous former Secretaries of Defense and national security advisors, and more than sixty flag officers and general officers, including five distinguished former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly in support of NATO enlargement. This is the right decision for the United States of America.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 28, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,512,793,625,127.26 (Five trillion, five hundred twelve billion, seven hundred ninety-three million, six hundred twenty-five thousand, one hundred twenty-seven dollars and twenty-six cents). One year ago, April 28, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,347,125,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred forty-seven billion, one hundred twenty-five million). Five years ago, April 28, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,238,574,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty-eight billion, five hundred seventy-four million). Ten years ago, April 28, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,499,676,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred ninety-nine billion, six hundred seventy-six million). Fifteen years ago, April 28, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,246,126,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred forty-six billion, one hundred twenty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,266,667,625,127.26 (Four trillion, two hundred sixty- six billion, six hundred sixty-seven million, six hundred twenty-five thousand, one hundred twenty-seven dollars and twenty-six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 27, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,507,607,026,200.10 (Five trillion, five hundred seven billion, six hundred seven million, twenty-six thousand, two hundred dollars and ten cents). Five years ago, April 27, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,234,899,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty-four billion, eight hundred ninety-nine million). Ten years ago, April 27, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,500,616,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred billion, six hundred sixteen million). Fifteen years ago, April 27, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,247,506,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred forty-seven billion, five hundred six million). Twenty-five years ago, April 27, 1973, the federal debt stood at $456,773,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-six billion, seven hundred seventy-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,050,834,026,200.10 (Five trillion, fifty billion, eight hundred thirty-four million, twenty-six thousand, two hundred dollars and ten cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. All the President has to do is pull back that flag of veto. All the Democrats have to do is to vote for this bill, and then we can proceed to work in harmony, as we have previously, leading to a 90-5 endorsement on this bill on the first go-round. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished assistant majority leader.