Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Notify me when it is over.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, rumors, they are aflying to the effect that the President of the United States has instructed the Democrats of the Senate to vote against this conference report and, if my intelligence sources are correct, it will get about three Democratic votes this afternoon. That compares with the vote of 90-5 for this very same bill, largely, that was passed by the Senate. If such game playing is going to happen, and if this conference report is defeated because of that sort of thing, then the President is going to have a difficult time about a lot of things. Let me say it again. The pending conference report is the result of more than a year's hard work by Senator Biden and Secretary Albright and Judd Gregg, Rod Grams, and many others to abolish two antiquated temporary Federal registries created in the 1950s and bringing reform to the United Nations. Now, if this conference report is defeated this afternoon, so be it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HELMS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. It is what, 5 minutes each?

Mr. HELMS. I yield myself half of my time.

Mr. HELMS. If I have anything to do with it, there will be no action on arrearages or anything else that the President is interested in. Now, he has waved that veto flag time and time again. Let him wave it this time, but he must bear in mind that this is it, this is the end of it, one way or the other. I thank the Senator.

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.

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

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, April 24, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,505,293,755,428.21 (Five trillion, five hundred five billion, two hundred ninety-three million, seven hundred fifty-five thousand, four hundred twenty-eight dollars and twenty-one cents). One year ago, April 24, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,343,217,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred forty-three billion, two hundred seventeen million). Twenty-five years ago, April 24, 1973, the federal debt stood at $455,284,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-five billion, two hundred eighty- four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,050,009,755,428.21 (Five trillion, fifty billion, nine million, seven hundred fifty-five thousand, four hundred twenty-eight dollars and twenty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute's report for the week ending April 17, that the U.S. imported 9,503,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,519,000 more barrels than the 6,424,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. Americans relief on foreign oil for 59.6 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States obtained approximately 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. Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the U.S.--now 9,503,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, April 23, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,501,159,283,287.65 (Five trillion, five hundred and one billion, one hundred fifty-nine million, two hundred eighty-three thousand, two hundred eighty-seven dollars and sixty-five cents). One year ago, April 23, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,345,089,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred forty-five billion, eighty-nine million). Five years ago, April 23, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,230,203,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty billion, two hundred three million). Twenty-five years ago, April 23, 1973, the federal debt stood at $454,924,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-four billion, nine hundred twenty- four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $ (Five trillion, forty-six billion, two hundred thirty-five million, two hundred eighty-three thousand, two hundred eighty-seven dollars and sixty-five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished occupant of the chair, who is a valued member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I say good morning to him, and all the others who are here this morning. Mr. President, back in the middle of the 20th century--and when I say that I sound like I'm talking about a long time ago--Congress created a number of temporary, independent federal agencies. I think it was a bad mistake. If I had been here, I would not have voted to do that, having the hindsight that I have. But, of course, members of Congress did not have the hindsight. They had just gone through, not too many years earlier, a horrible World War and were trying to get this Government stabilized, trying to help get the rest of the world stabilized. This seemed like a good idea, to create these specialized, independent Federal agencies. Ronald Reagan, when he was President, had to deal with what these independent agencies had become--and they did grow mighty independent. He would say, ``There is nothing so near eternal life as a temporary Federal agency.'' I read the other day that the responsibilities of just one of these agencies is duplicated by about 42 other entities in the Federal Government. And of course the cost of running the U.S. bureaucracy has risen constantly. Furthermore, there is what has become an interesting psychology among those who not only run these agencies but are employed by them. The agencies have become the personal little fiefdoms of these bureaucrats, and they fight tenaciously at any attempt to do away with their turf or, as this conference report proposes to do, to mesh these agencies with the rest of the State Department foreign policy apparatus. In order to pass this legislation, we have gone through a great deal of difficulty, but turf protection is only one of the difficulties. Let me proceed, if I may, to give some further historical reference, with an assessment of the situation that now exists. Of course, we have before us as the pending official business the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which I believe, it is fair to say, is the most comprehensive and far- reaching foreign policy reform ever considered by the Congress of the United States regarding both the United Nations and the executive branch of this country. Now then, the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I, and many others, have spent not months but years working on this proposition. We made every proper and reasonable concession in arriving at the general draft of this legislation that is now before us in the form of a conference report issued by the House and the Senate. So it has been the result of long and painstaking negotiations between the Congress and the administration. The sweeping and bipartisan reforms contained in this conference report are clearly designed to enhance America's post-cold war foreign-policy- making process and to force some fundamental reforms on the United Nations. With the full support of the administration, this legislation shuts down two Federal agencies--the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S. Information Agency. I say ``now.'' That is a relative term, in terms of doing something in the Federal Government. It has to be done within the next 18 months. The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to rein in the existing increasingly unwieldy U.S. foreign aid agency, the Agency for International Development, and it strengthens the independence of U.S. public diplomacy and international broadcasting programs. The legislation also mandates a series of deep-seated reforms at the United Nations, which many Members of this Senate and of the House of Representatives have been demanding for years. I remember the distinguished Senator from Kansas, a gentlelady if there ever was one, Nancy Kassebaum, whose ire was raised when she found out what was going on in terms of irresponsibility in the operation of the United Nations. How to get it under control? I am going to discuss that in some detail in just a minute. All you hear these days is talk about how wonderful the United Nations is--and that is not so, it is a bureaucratic nightmare--and how bad the United States and the American people are for not paying what is called ``the arrearages.'' Hogwash. For more than a year, I have worked with Senator Biden, Senator Grams, Senator Gregg, and others, to create a package of reform benchmarks-- reforms that the State Department must certify that the United Nations has completed--before they are paid any of these so-called arrearages. In other words, it is a very clear put up or shut up. For months, we negotiated these reforms with the State Department and the White House. In fact, we even shared our proposals with Kofi Annan, the distinguished Secretary-General of the United Nations, so that the international elite in New York and Geneva would not be blindsided by these requirements for reform of the United Nations. Kofi Annan came down and visited me one day. We had a nice visit. We went to several places on Capitol Hill together. One by one--in S. 116, down on the first floor of this Capitol, which is one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing rooms--we went down the list, benchmark by benchmark by benchmark by benchmark, and he nodded, and he nodded, and he nodded. This conference report contains the fruits of hundreds of hours of bipartisan negotiations. Maybe it could be done better, but I don't know anybody in this Senate who is going to take the time to do it better, because it is going to take hundreds upon hundreds more hours to change the kinds of things that we worked out. You are going to have the lobbyists from the United Nations piling all over Senators, ``Oh, you can't do this, we've got to have our money right now.'' You are going to have lobbyists for this agency and this independent agency and all the rest. They don't want to be folded into the foreign policy apparatus that exists and which costs billions upon billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. It is either now or never. The game playing is over, and the enactment of this legislation represented by this conference report between the House and the Senate is the last shot the President will have at enacting this legislation. If members want to go home and tell their constituents, ``Well, I didn't like this aspect,'' or ``I didn't like that aspect,'' I am going to be right behind you saying, ``Yes, but `what he didn't do' or `what she didn't do' is vote to clean up a mess in Washington, DC.'' This conference report, as I say, contains the fruits of hundreds upon hundreds of hours of labor. Once these U.N. reform benchmarks are implemented, only then will be made $819 million available for the United Nations and other international organizations. In addition, the President will be authorized to forgive an additional $107 million in debt that the United Nations owes the United States. Nobody ever mentions that. Of course, it is a lot bigger than that when you figure in the American people have paid for all of these police actions that the United Nations has been doing all around the world. But that is neither here nor there for the time being. What I am saying, Mr. President, is that there has been no disagreement about any of these provisions. So the substance of this bill, a complete overhaul of our Government's foreign policy apparatus, and the reform of the United Nations, which has to come before a dollar changes hands, remains virtually unchanged since the Senate passed this bill, by a vote of 90 to 5, on June 17, 1997. Let me restate for the obvious an important point. This conference report remains virtually unchanged from the bill passed by the Senate by a vote of 90 to 5 last year. The Senate has overwhelmingly endorsed the reforms, and the Clinton administration has signed off on them. Let's see who reneges on this agreement. Will it be the administration? Will the administration veto this bill because of two or three lines that it happens not to like? We will find out, won't we? All those Senators who say, ``Well, I don't like this aspect of it, so I'm not going to vote for any of it,'' had better be prepared to explain what they, in effect, voted against. If they want to come and sit down and talk with Joe Biden and me, we will explain the purpose and the reason for everything in this bill. And yet--and this is bothersome to me, I confess--we are now facing a razor-thin majority vote in the Senate. We might not even have a majority. Far from lobbying the Senate for passage of this legislation, the President has been standing over there in the wings and has indicated that he may veto the bill, the substance of which his administration had negotiated with us and agreed to with us. Why is the President threatening to veto this bill? One small provision--a few words included by our House colleagues--section 1816 bars American organizations from using U.S. taxpayers' dollars to lobby foreign governments to change their abortion laws. I guarantee you, that is all there is to it, and the President sits down on Pennsylvania Avenue and says, ``If you don't take that out, I'm going to veto it; I don't care whether you save billions of dollars or not.'' Mr. President, as they do in grade school, this is show-and-tell day--put-up-or-shut-up. I tell you one thing, I have tried to get along with the administration, but if the administration vetoes this bill because of those few lines, I am going to go do everything I can, go everywhere I can and explain exactly what the President did. I have dealt with him on this thing and he has been very accommodating, and so have his people, but if he wants trouble on this bill, just veto it, and I will give him some trouble. That little provision for which he is threatening to veto this bill-- let me repeat--it stops those who advocate abortion--that is the deliberate destruction of innocent and helpless human life--from using tax dollars paid by the American people to lobby foreign governments to change their policies on abortion. I did not want to have the subject mentioned. I could have put it in this bill when it went through the Senate, but I thought we ought to address the real problem in this bill, and that is this foreign policy apparatus which has become so bloated and with so many other Federal entities running around duplicating each other's business. I do not believe in my heart of hearts, or cannot believe, that Mr. Clinton and his Democratic allies in the Senate would be willing to sacrifice the payment of U.N. arrears--one of their top foreign policy priorities--just to preserve the ability of nongovernmental organizations to use American tax money to lobby foreign governments on the question of abortion. I refuse to believe that the President is going to ``pick up his pen,'' as Ronald Reagan used to say, and veto it. If he does, some of us are going to react. But that is exactly what a lot of people are proposing in the Senate: ``Oh, I can't vote for it because of that abortion language.'' They don't care anything about all the millions of dollars this legislation is going to save, or about the elimination of the duplication of bureaucracy. Instead, two or three little lines involving, what I regard anyhow, an abuse of American taxpayers' money, are the grounds for voting against this bill. Some on the other side have been heard going around calling section 1816 the ``Mexico City'' policy. It ``ain't'' the Mexico City policy, not a bit of it. I helped write the Mexico City policy way back when Ronald Reagan, by Executive order, made it part of this country's position. But don't take my word for it. I want every Senator to read the bill or the conference report, especially section 1816. And to help them look for it and find it, section 1816 is on page 102 of this conference report. If you can't find page 102 of the conference report, come right here, and I will find it and put it in your little hot hands. But let's not play games about it. Put up or shut up, show and tell. What did Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy do? It forbade any expenditure of U.S. taxpayer money going to any organizations that performed abortions abroad. Ronald Reagan was a strong and sincere, genuine pro-life President. You do not see many of them coming along. The provision in this conference report does not do what the Mexico City policy did. As much as I wish it were otherwise, section 1816 will not cut off funding to organizations that perform abortions as required under President Reagan's original Mexico City policy. All section 1816 does is simply prohibit population control groups from using American taxpayers' money,--which they will receive under current law anyhow--to lobby foreign countries to overturn their laws pertaining to abortion. That is it, sum total. If anybody in the press or the media doubt it, come on down here; we will talk about it. No, they are not even here. There is one lonely soul sitting up there in the media gallery. Initially, last year, the House did include or try to include President Reagan's full Mexico City language in this bill. When the House did that, the Clinton administration said, ``No. The President will veto this bill.'' And there ensued a months-long standoff which lasted until the waning hours of the last session of Congress. Now, then, Mr. President, despite my personal support--my personal support--for the Mexico City policy, I urged my House colleagues to remove that provision from the bill. I said, ``We can fight that battle on another battleground. Let's not kill this one opportunity we are going to have to revamp and consolidate and shape up the foreign policy apparatus of this country.'' I did this because I knew that the President would never accept a full reversal of his administration's stand on the Mexico City policy which was totally at odds with those of the stand of Ronald Reagan. Last November, in an effort to reach a compromise, the House of Representatives' leaders watered down the abortion language in the bill to the point that I have stated over and over this morning--simply to ban the use of U.S. dollars to lobby foreign governments to change their abortion laws. But despite an exceedingly reasonable offer from the House, this was still not good enough for the administration. The administration rejected this compromise as the session came to an end last year, citing nonbinding report language that they claim would have barred the U.S. groups from even attending international conferences aimed at changing abortion laws. This they said would amount--get this, Mr. President--this would amount to a ``gag rule.'' Come this spring, House leaders offered a second compromise. They agreed to remove the offending report language, softening it simply to prevent the use of U.S. tax dollars to sponsor such conferences. So it is all right to attend them, but do not use tax money to sponsor them. In fact, I have to say this about the House leadership. They have been so reasonable in their efforts to reach a compromise that today the abortion language before us in this legislation is so limited that its approval would be little more than a symbolic concession on the part of the Clinton administration. But even that appears to be too much from what I hear because the lobbyists say all Democrats must vote against this bill. That is the word I am hearing floating around. And we will see when the roll is called on it. We will see. At this point it is unreasonable, I think, to suggest that it is the House leaders who have been exhibiting intransigence. While the House has offered compromise after compromise, giving up 90 percent of their ground, the administration still, to this day, is demanding total and complete capitulation. What they are saying is: ``Kill the conference report. Forget it. Don't do away with any of these irrelevant, unnecessary Federal agencies and the bureaucracies. Let's keep on keeping on.'' They do not seem to care what the costs are. I have not heard that mentioned one time--not one time--by the administration. Mr. President, I am not going to take any more of the Senate's time discussing this issue, because I do not view it as central to the reforms contained in the conference report. I want to get back to that before I turn over the podium to my good, fine friend, Senator Biden. Mr. President, not anybody--not the administration, not the Democrats, certainly not Jesse Helms--got everything any of us wanted in this conference report. I acknowledge that. But we did work together in a remarkably novel way to cooperate, and to craft the legislation that is before the Senate today that forms the conference report. This legislation, save for one single provision on international abortion lobbying, is the result of strong bipartisan consensus. And that is a novelty around this place. And that is the reason it passed the Senate the first time around 90-5. I think, Mr. President, it will be a terrible mistake for the Senate Democrats and the White House to kill these absolutely imperative, essential, necessary reforms in order to defend the bureaucratic status quo at the United Nations, not to mention within our own executive branch, to defend the bloated foreign policy apparatus. So let me be candid. This legislation represents quite possibly the last chance to bring true, deep-seated change to the United Nations in return for U.S. arrearages payments. If Democrats succeed in voting down this conference report or if the President chooses to veto this legislation, then they together will decide what is going to happen in the future; they will bear sole responsibility, I think, for the unpaid dues to the United Nations. And nobody is going to tell Kofi Annan, if this conference report goes down in the Senate or if it is vetoed by the President, ``The check's in the mail,'' because it is never going to be in the mail, certainly not if I have anything to do with it. This Senator, for one, will delay crying, weeping, when the White House complains that funding has not been made available to the United Nations. Next time I see the President I am going to say, ``Mr. President, you did it. You did it.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor. Thank you very much. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, do not be misled by the modesty of the distinguished Senator from Delaware. He knows as much about tactics as anybody I have ever seen. It is true that we came here the same day. I think we have learned at the feet of certain masters that we have known. Some have gone--departed. But, anyway, it has been great working with the Senator. I appreciate his kind comments, and we will have to see how it comes out. Mr. President, how much time remains? I believe we had, at the outset, a total of 6 hours allocated. Is that correct?

Mr. HELMS. How much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Parliamentarian. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I know the Senator from Delaware will agree--that any quorum call that occurs during this allotted time be charged equally.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the resolution that I am offering today, along with 28 other Senators, is intended to commemorate the 90th Anniversary of the United States Army Reserve and to honor the soldiers who have served in the USAR, including our good friend and Senate President pro tempore, Senator Strom Thurmond, who served with distinction as an Army Reservist for 36 years. Winston Churchill once remarked that ``the reservist is twice the citizen.'' Indeed, the accolade ``twice the citizen'' serves as the title of the definitive history of the U.S. Army Reserve that was written by the late Colonel Richard B. Crossland and Colonel James T. Currie, whose assistance was invaluable in drafting this resolution. The concept that reservists fulfill multiple roles as citizens in their community while simultaneously training for war and other military operations was never more true than today. Today's Army Reserve of almost 487,000 Ready Reserve and Standby Reserve soldiers and 600,000 Retired Reserve soldiers is a far cry from its predecessor, the Medical Reserve Corps, which was authorized by statute on April 23, 1908. On that date, President Theodore Roosevelt signed an act ``to Increase the Efficiency of the Medical Department of the United States Army.'' The act provided for the commissioning of a few hundred Reserve medical doctors, in order to avert future shortages of officers, such as the one that had occurred during the Spanish- American War. Mr. President, since that modest beginning, the USAR has grown to become a community-based force with over 1200 facilities across the United States and more than 2000 units in the United States and its territories. While comprising only about 20 percent of the Army's organized units and receiving only about 5 percent of the Army's budget , today's Army Reserve includes 46 percent of the Army's combat service support (CSS) assets and more than a quarter of the Army's combat support (CS) assets. These assets include medical, engineer, transportation, civil affairs, legal, military police, and psychological operations units which are essential to any military operation. From World War I when the USAR contributed more than 160,000 soldiers to the United States Army, through World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the soldiers of the USAR have been ready when the President called upon them. Even today, as we spend more and more of our limited defense resources on so-called ``contingency operations'' and ``operations other than war,'' the soldiers of the USAR and their families are making the sacrifices necessary to serve their country. Each year, the Army Reserve deploys approximately 20,000 soldiers to 50 countries worldwide on a variety of missions. In Bosnia alone, the Army Reserve has contributed almost 15,000 citizen-soldiers, representing more than 70% of the Army's reserve component mobilization. Mr. President, I recently received a letter from Colonel Herbert N. Harmon (USMCR), National President of the Reserve Officers Association, who suggested that I introduce this resolution. I am honored to do so. Mr. President, it is appropriate that Senator Thurmond and the citizen-soldiers of the USAR be honored on the occasion of the Army Reserves 90th Anniversary on April 23, 1998. For, in many ways, Senator Thurmond's service as a reservist is the story of the consummate citizen-soldier. His remarkable record of service as a reservist began in 1924 when he received a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the Infantry. By the time he transferred to the Retired Reserve in 1965, Senator Thurmond had risen to the rank of Major General, the highest rank available to a Reserve Officer. Then First Lieutenant Thurmond volunteered the day war was declared against Germany even though his position as a South Carolina Circuit Judge exempted him from service in World War II. He received a commission in the active Army, became a member of the First U.S. Army and was attached to the 82nd Airborne Division for the Normandy invasion. It was during that action that he sustained an injury for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. While serving in Europe, Senator Thurmond served in all battles of the First Army, which fought through France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. In addition to the Purple Heart, he received numerous other awards and commendations for his heroism and valor, including the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with V device and the Army Commendation Ribbon just to cite a few. Mr. President, it would be difficult to overstate Senator Thurmond's contribution to the security of our country and our gratitude for his exceptional service. Suffice it to say that he is, perhaps, the single most qualified person ever to serve as the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and that I am honored to have had the privilege of serving with him for these past 25 years. I am also grateful for the service and the sacrifices of the soldiers who willingly serve in, and the families who support, the Army Reserve. Their dedication, commitment, and accomplishments are properly noted on this occasion. Mr. President, I urge Senators to support this resolution and to join me in honoring Senator Thurmond and the soldiers of the United States Army Reserve. It's the right thing to do and I am confident that Senators will agree. I ask that the letter from Col. Herbert N. Harmon be printed in the Record. The letter follows: Reserve Officers Association of the United States, Washington, DC, April 14, 1998. Hon. Jesse Helms, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Helms: On April 23, the United States Army Reserve will observe the 90th anniversary of its founding as the first federal Reserve force established by the Congress. During those 90 years the Army Reserve has served proudly and effectively as a full partner in our nation's Army. Indeed, today it is no exaggeration to say that the Army cannot conduct any sustained operation without the support of the Army Reserve. It is appropriate that the contributions of our Army Reserve be recognized on this occasion. Enclosed is a draft resolution that congratulates the Army Reserve on its 90th birthday; commends the citizen-soldiers of the USAR for their service and sacrifice; and recognizes Senator Strom Thurmond, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and former national president of this association, who served with distinction for 36 years in the Army Reserve, rising to the rank of major general. We ask that you introduce this resolution honoring the Army Reserve and Senator Thurmond. We thank you for your support of our men and women in uniform and for your support of this resolution honoring the Army Reserve and Senator Thurmond. If we may be of assistance to you in this matter, please let us know. Sincerely, Herbert N. Harmon, Colonel, USMCR, National President.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 21, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,518,978,332,463.05 (Five trillion, five hundred eighteen billion, nine hundred seventy-eight million, three hundred thirty-two thousand, four hundred sixty-three dollars and five cents). One year ago, April 21, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,352,734,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred fifty-two billion, seven hundred thirty-four million). Five years ago, April 21, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,257,526,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred fifty-seven billion, five hundred twenty- six million). Ten years ago, April 21, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,499,121,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred ninety-nine billion, one hundred twenty-one million). Fifteen years ago, April 21, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,243,863,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred forty-three billion, eight hundred sixty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,275,115,332,463.05 (Four trillion, two hundred seventy-five billion, one hundred fifteen million, three hundred thirty-two thousand, four hundred sixty-three dollars and five cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 20, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,514,299,725,342.15 (Five trillion, five hundred fourteen billion, two hundred ninety-nine million, seven hundred twenty-five thousand, three hundred forty-two dollars and fifteen cents). Five years ago, April 20, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,254,483,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred fifty-four billion, four hundred eighty-three million). Ten years ago, April 20, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,512,569,000,000 (Two trillion, five hundred twelve billion, five hundred sixty-nine million). Fifteen years ago, April 20, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,251,499,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred fifty-one billion, four hundred ninety-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, April 20, 1973, the federal debt stood at $454,840,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-four billion, eight hundred forty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,059,459,725,342.15 (Five trillion, fifty-nine billion, four hundred fifty-nine million, seven hundred twenty-five thousand, three hundred forty-two dollars and fifteen cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I was regrettably late in learning about the inevitable death of former U.S. Senator Terry Sanford this past Saturday, April 18. I say inevitable because it was. All of us, especially Terry himself, knew what was coming when last December the fatal inoperable cancer was discovered. Terry faced up to the reality of it all with his typical courage. He told reporters at the time that he would continue to be active as long as he could, and take every day as it came. Then he plunged into a whirlwind fund-raising schedule on behalf of a project near and dear to his heart. It was impossible not to like and admire Terry Sanford. He was never one of my supporters, nor was I ever one of his. But we were friends and there was never a hint of discord during his six years in the Senate--or before, for that matter, or since. As Senators who were here during Senator Sanford's six years will testify, Terry was a respected colleague. For my part, I always had the feeling that he had been vastly more comfortable being Governor. He could push a button then and things happened. Not so with the Senate. We sort of canceled each other's vote in the Senate much of the time he was here but there never was an instance when we didn't work together for the betterment of North Carolina. And there was never the slightest hostility. In short, Mr. President, I liked Terry Sanford. He has undeniably left his mark upon the destiny of the state he loved--and certainly upon Duke University which was the multi-million dollar beneficiary of his skillful fund-raising ability. He lived life to the fullest; he was a man who loved his family and his country. If he ever wasted a moment, I am not aware of it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that The Washington Post report of Senator Sanford's death, published April 19, 1998, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, last week we passed Tax Day 1998. All across the nation, the IRS reported millions of taxpayers suffered confusion and animosity over filing their 1997 taxes. While no confusion exists--in fact, the financial amount is too clear--every man, woman and child should feel animosity at the more than $20,000 bill issued them to pay off the federal debt. In the same vein, Mr. President, May 10th will be Tax Freedom Day 1998. While the name speaks for itself, Tax Freedom Day was not always such a landmark day because the federal debt was neither so monstrous nor so cumbersome. Tax Freedom Day comes one day later than last year. It is fortunate that so many reminders that the federal debt will continue to escalate unless and until Congress restrains its desire to spend, spend, spend. Hopefully one day Congress will wake up. Madam President, with this in mind, let's begin where we left off: At the close of business Friday, April 17, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,512,826,076,386.32 (Five trillion, five hundred twelve billion, eight hundred twenty-six million, seventy-six thousand, three hundred eighty-six dollars and thirty-two cents). One year ago, April 17, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,350,647,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred fifty billion, six hundred forty-seven million). Twenty-five years ago, April 17, 1973, the federal debt stood at $455,209,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-five billion, two hundred nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,057,617,076,386.32 (Five trillion, fifty-seven billion, six hundred seventeen million, seventy-six thousand, three hundred eighty-six dollars and thirty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, April 2, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,540,086,164,177.98 (Five trillion, five hundred forty billion, eighty-six million, one hundred sixty-four thousand, one hundred seventy-seven dollars and ninety-eight cents). One year ago, April 2, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,376,710,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-six billion, seven hundred ten million). Five years ago, April 2, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,233,931,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred thirty-three billion, nine hundred thirty-one million). Fifteen years ago, April 2, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,246,551,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred forty-six billion, five hundred fifty-one million). Twenty-five years ago, April 2, 1973, the federal debt stood at $457,874,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-seven billion, eight hundred seventy-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,082,212,164,177.98 (Five trillion, eighty-two billion, two hundred twelve million, one hundred sixty-four thousand, one hundred seventy-seven dollars and ninety-eight cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 30, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,545,895,416,499.33 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-five billion, eight hundred ninety-five million, four hundred sixteen thousand, four hundred ninety-nine dollars and thirty-three cents). Five years ago, March 30, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,225,653,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred twenty-five billion, six hundred fifty-three million). Ten years ago, March 30, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,487,434,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred eighty-seven billion, four hundred thirty-four million). Fifteen years ago, March 30, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,235,145,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred thirty-five billion, one hundred forty-five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,310,750,416,499.33 (Four trillion, three hundred ten billion, seven hundred fifty million, four hundred sixteen thousand, four hundred ninety-nine dollars and thirty-three cents) during the past 15 years.