Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, March 27, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,547,110,706,640.96 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-seven billion, one hundred ten million, seven hundred six thousand, six hundred forty dollars and ninety-six cents). One year ago, March 27, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,378,489,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-eight billion, four hundred eighty-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, March 27, 1973, the federal debt stood at $458,073,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-eight billion, seventy-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,089,037,706,640.96 (Five trillion, eighty-nine billion, thirty-seven million, seven hundred six thousand, six hundred forty dollars and ninety-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, March 26, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,546,161,688,949.53 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-six billion, one hundred sixty-one million, six hundred eighty-eight thousand, nine hundred forty-nine dollars and fifty-three cents). One year ago, March 26, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,377,852,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-seven billion, eight hundred fifty-two million). Five years ago, March 26, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,224,085,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred twenty-four billion, eighty-five million). Twenty-five years ago, March 26, 1973, the federal debt stood at $457,356,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-seven billion, three hundred fifty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,088,805,688,949.53 (Five trillion, eighty-eight billion, eight hundred five million, six hundred eighty-eight thousand, nine hundred forty-nine dollars and fifty-three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am confident that all Senators--indeed millions of Americans--are deeply grateful to the able Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, for his remarkable leadership on the drug issue. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over international narcotics affairs, Senator Coverdell has developed an expertise here at home and overseas. He is a credit to both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate. The joint resolution that Senator Coverdell and I have brought before the Senate today concerns a very complex issue. But, it can be boiled down in terms of its significance to 6 words: ``The President should tell the truth.'' The subject before us is Mexico--specifically, the President's unwise and unjustified decision to certify to the U.S. Congress that the Government of Mexico is ``cooperating fully'' with America's anti-drug efforts. That is precisely what Mr. Clinton told us on February 26. Since then, we have heard the rest of the story. Regarding the role Mexico plays in the drug trade, the President's own State Department tells us that ``Mexico is a major transit point for U.S.-bound cocaine shipments from South America,'' and ``(Mexico) is a major producer of marijuana and a significant producer of heroin, most of which is destined for the U.S.,'' and ``Criminal organizations based in Mexico are now the most significant wholesale and retail distributors of methamphetamine.'' These facts warn us that the United States simply cannot let the Mexican government off the hook when it comes to fighting drugs. When the President certified Mexico's full cooperation, he told us, ``The U.S. is convinced of the Zedillo Administration's firm intention to persist in its campaign against the drug cartels.'' A few weeks later, the story changed. Mary Lee Warren, a senior Justice Department official, told a House Committee on March 18, ``None of the senior members of the (Tijuana Cartel) has been arrested.'' She also noted that charges dating from 1992 against the head of the Sonora Cartel ``were dismissed.'' And, she said that ``Mexico had not charged or apprehended any principal'' of Mexico's third cartel (the Amezcua organization). Senators surely will ask themselves, why does the President tell us that Mexico will ``persist in its campaign against the drug cartels'' when his own Justice Department and his own DEA tell us that Mexico is not waging such a campaign? In certifying Mexico, the President told us, ``Drug seizures in 1997 generally increased over 1996 levels.'' Not true. The State Department's statistics tell a different story. Mexico's 1997 seizures of heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine are at, or well below, 1996 levels. Although cocaine seizures are up from last year, they total well below the 50 metric tons of cocaine seized in 1991. And, despite the growing role of Mexican traffickers in the methamphetamine market, Mexico's seizure of that product has dropped significantly to one-fifth of 1996 levels and one-tenth of 1995 levels. Another troubling subject is extradition. Most of us believe that Mexico will become a safe-haven for drug kingpins as long as that government refuses to turn over Mexican drug lords to face justice in American courts. All told, there are about 120 requests for ``provisional arrest'' and ``extradition'' pending in Mexico. But, not one Mexican national was extradited and surrendered to U.S. custody on drug charges throughout 1997 and so far this year. In fact, no Mexican has been surrendered to U.S. custody on any crime since April 1996. The State Department reports that all 5 Mexican nationals approved for extradition on drug charges have appealed their extradition orders. There is, obviously, a pattern here. A Mexican wanted for child molestation can be surrendered to U.S. justice. A foreigner wanted for drug crimes may be handed over, as well. But a Mexican drug trafficker is made to feel very much at home in Mexico. Another problem is corruption. Mr. President, we must not forget the February 1997 scandal when Mexico's drug czar was found to be on the payroll of one of Mexico's most blood-thirsty cartels. The Administration has cited repeatedly Mexico's handling of this scandal as evidence of Mexico's commitment to ferreting out corruption. Indeed, a senior Justice Department official told Congress just law week, ``The [corrupt drug czar's] arrest is a noteworthy testimony to President Zedillo's anti-corruption commitment.'' In light of these rosey commendations, we were surprised by a report in today's New York Times that U.S. law enforcement officials have concluded privately that this scandal and the way the Mexican government handled it may be just the tip of the iceberg of drug corruption in Mexico's military. One unnamed U.S. official told the New York Times that this news of deeper corruption ``point to much of our work in Mexico being an exercise in futility.'' According to this published report, U.S. officials discussed these findings with Attorney General Janet Reno more than 2 weeks before the President's certification of Mexico. The fact that this assessment comes to Congress' attention through the media and not in the President's ``certifications'' to the Congress suggests an appalling lack of candor on the part of the Administration. The Committee on Foreign Relations intends to investigate this revelation. More recent examples of alleged corruption border on being countless. Mexico's attorney general admitted last September that he had to turn to the military for law enforcement because, in his words, he ``couldn't find civilians who could demonstrate the honesty and efficiency for the work.'' But military men--as well as civilian police--have themselves been accused of stealing cocaine that had been seized by the government. Also, last year, the federal police commander in charge of intelligence for the border task forces--which are supposed to cooperate closely with our DEA--was accused of taking bribes and trafficking in drugs in Arizona. Such flagrant examples of corruption remind us that meaningful anti- drug cooperation will never be possible without honest, competent people with the skills and resources to do their job. Beginning 12 months ago, Mexico's anti-drug forces were dismantled entirely. It takes time to put these units back in place--which is what we have been helping the Mexicans do for most of last year. Today, fewer than one-third of the 3,000 employees of the special anti-drug prosecutor's office are on duty. About one-third of the 300 staff members of the organized crime unit are in place. And only two- thirds of the small border task forces staff have been cleared for duty. It is fair to point out that these new anti-drug units also lack the experience and the resources to do their jobs. It is fair to ask whether Mexico has the ability to ``cooperate fully'' to fight drugs--even if it had the political will to do so, which it obviously does not. Finally, Mr. President, let's turn to an issue that speaks eloquently to the Mexican government's lack of political will to work with us. Despite numerous threats and several attacks on U.S. and Mexican police, President Zedillo has insisted that our DEA agents cannot carry weapons for their self-defense while in Mexico. The Mexicans argue that this is a question of ``sovereignty.'' Baloney. I have two questions for the officials in Mexico City: Where were these questions of sovereignty in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Mexican government allowed Marxist Central American guerrillas to operate freely in Mexican territory? And, why does that government fear having a couple of dozen American DEA and FBI agents carrying weapons for their own protection? Mr. President, I hope Senators will consider the facts so clearly evident. Under the law, the President of the United States has the duty to certify a country's full cooperation when there has been ``full cooperation.'' The sad truth is that there has been no ``full cooperation.'' Therefore, Senate Joint Resolution 42 deserves the support of all Senators who truly want to bring drug trafficking under control. This will send a message to the Mexican government that it can no longer be A.W.O.L. in the war on drugs.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 25, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,544,337,068,114.14 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-four billion, three hundred thirty-seven million, sixty-eight thousand, one hundred fourteen dollars and fourteen cents). One year ago, March 25, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,374,777,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-four billion, seven hundred seventy-seven million). Five years ago, March 25, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,222,072,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred twenty-two billion, seventy-two million). Ten years ago, March 25, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,480,270,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred eighty billion, two hundred seventy million). Fifteen years ago, March 25, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,223,791,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred twenty-three billion, seven hundred ninety-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,320,546,068,114.14 (Four trillion, three hundred twenty billion, five hundred forty-six million, sixty-eight thousand, one hundred fourteen dollars and fourteen cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HELMS. Are the yeas and nays ordered, Mr. President?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2130 and ask that its text be read in full and the cosponsors identified. I hope the full text of the amendment will appear in the Congressional Record at this point, following which I shall continue my discourse.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, instead of complaining that the United States is not handing over even more millions and millions of dollars, the United Nations and its members should be thanking the American taxpayers for their generosity for the past 50 years and the support of the United States, which continues to provide it. I doubt that anybody will seriously argue that the United Nations would even exist today had it not been for the United States and for the generous support provided by the American taxpayers through good times and bad times. So the pending amendment stresses this obvious truth and suggests that the United Nations tone down its crybaby rhetoric and acknowledge the plain truth. The amendment also calls upon the United Nations to adjust its peacekeeping assessments to reflect the 25 percent U.S. support for peacekeeping costs that the Congress and the administration have agreed to pay. The amendment further asks that the administration introduce a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to require the United Nations to report the total amount of money the United States has paid in supporting and/or implementing Security Council resolutions since 1990 and for the Secretary of State to inform all United Nations members of this report. Finally, the amendment requires the President of the United States to detail all actions taken by the United States to carry out the aforementioned recommendations. Mr. President, let me offer several examples of why the pending amendment is essential. First, a scandalous situation in which the United States is treated unfairly involves the assessment for regular operations of the United Nations. This past December, the United Nations General Assembly voted to reduce the minimum assessment a country must pay to be a member of the United Nations. They reduced it from one-hundredth of 1 percent, that's 0.01, to one-thousandth of 1 percent, 0.001, and the Clinton administration went along with this giveaway. Of course the U.S. assessment was not reduced 1 cent, not a farthing, not a penny. Under this new formula, 29 countries now pay just one-thousandth of 1 percent, .001 of the regular U.N. budget, amounting to $10,516 a year for each of the 29 countries for the year 1998. Mr. President, 41 other countries pay between two-thousandths of 1 percent, that is .002, and .009, nine-thousandths of 1 percent. That is between $21,032 and $94,647 of the regular U.N. budget for 1998. Four countries pay one- hundredth of 1 percent, that is .01 of the budget, U.N. budget, for an assessment of $105,163 each. Another 84 countries, like Red China, for example, which regularly undermines U.S. interests in the Security Council, will pay less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent--of the U.N. budget. But the American taxpayers, they will foot the bill for 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget, and that is $297,727,256, or 28,312 times more than what 29 countries pay, and it is far more than what all the rest pay. Mr. President, 7 years ago I asked my lifelong friend, Adm. Bud Nance, with whom I grew up in Monroe, NC, to assume the responsibilities of chief of staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. Bud Nance had completed a distinguished 38-year career in the Navy. Among other things, he was skipper of the U.S.S. Forrestal, an aircraft carrier that had more sailors aboard than we had people in our hometown. He later served as President Reagan's Deputy National Security Adviser. But the point is, Bud Nance, my friend, agreed to serve his country and his friend--that is the way he put it--on one condition. He would come and work as chief of staff if he received no pay. He did not want to be paid a cent because, he said, his country had paid him well while he was in the Navy and now he wanted to return something to his country. So he came. The admiral and I learned, after he came, that no staff person in the Senate can hold a security clearance, which is essential for holding a job, unless he or she is paid at least a minimum salary, just over $1,000 a year. Several years later Congress applied the laws it forces the rest of America to live under to itself. It was made applicable to Bud Nance, and we had to give Bud a pay raise. It was forced upon him, and he was therefore paid the minimum wage for being chief of staff with one of the Senate's most important committees; that is to say, Bud Nance earns $10,712 a year. That is all he earns. He does not want to accept that. In any case, when Bud Nance told me that the United Nations reduced the assessment of 29 countries to just $10,560 apiece annually, he reminded me that the minimum annual wage in this country, the $10,712 the Senate pays him, is more than these sovereign countries pay in annual dues to the United Nations. Mr. President, how about another example? Compare Russia's 2.8 percent U.N. assessment, compare it with the United States 25 percent assessment. And Egypt? Egypt is one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid, and it will receive $2.1 billion in foreign aid from the American taxpayers this year. Yet Egypt will pay just 69-hundredths of 1 percent of the regular U.N. budget, far less than $1 million. By the way, Egypt voted against the United States 61 percent of the time in the United Nations in 1997. India, which will receive approximately $143 million in foreign aid from the United States, that is to say the American taxpayers--India will pay just three-tenths of 1 percent of the regular U.N. budget. India voted against the United States 76 percent of the time in 1997. So it is obvious that the United States pays far more than its fair share. And what about the U.S. support for peacekeeping operations? The amount that I mentioned earlier for this, $210 million, really is only a fraction of the amount the United States will pay for U.N. peacekeeping in fiscal year 1998. As a part of the 1997 appropriations for the Armed Forces, Congress required the Pentagon to report on the costs incurred by the U.S. military in implementing or supporting U.N. Security Council resolutions. Heretofore, the U.N. payment by the United States has been off the books and intentionally hidden from the American taxpayers. This chart will be very interesting to American taxpayers, I think, because it has some rather precise arithmetic, and I hope the camera can focus upon it. The information on this chart came from the official Department of Defense report for fiscal year 1997: $2,972,938,000 was stripped away from the training and the readiness of our U.S. armed forces and handed over to support the U.N. Security Council resolutions. This is nearly $3 billion, mind you, and it is in addition to the $902,102,000 the American taxpayers provided to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies and other international organizations, also, in addition to the $334,780,000 that the American taxpayers were forced to fork over for U.N. peacekeeping in fiscal year 1997. So, while the U.N. crybabies whine about not receiving enough of the American taxpayers' money, the real truth is that the United States volunteered more than three times what we were asked to pay; that is a total of $4,209,820,000 to the United Nations in fiscal year 1997. That is almost $3 billion which was taken off the books, courtesy of the American sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines. It was taken from them in terms of what should have been spent for their development in defense of this country. Most Americans do not even realize that billions of dollars are being siphoned away from the shrinking U.S. military budget to support the United Nations. In fact, most Americans have not the vaguest idea how much money the United States provides for the United Nations. In 1995, the United States--that is to say the American taxpayers--provided 30.7 percent of all of the United Nations peacekeeping costs, far more than any other country. That may have seemed fair in the 1950s, but it is out of line today. That is why Congress and the administration agreed to scale back U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping to 25 percent, and that is still far more than any other country pays. Yet, the crybabies continue to whine at the United Nations. But the United Nations ignores the will of Congress and continues to demand--not anything courteous about it at all--continues to demand that the United States pay the 30.7 percent of the peacekeeping costs. The United Nations calls this extra 5.7 percent add-on an ``arrear.'' They talk about arrearages, even though it represents hundreds of millions of dollars that we do not owe and that we should never pay, and I respectfully suggest that somebody should inform the international diplomatic corps that the United States controls the U.S. Government purse strings, not the United Nations. All of which reminds me of Sam Ervin, that great Senator from North Carolina, with whom I was honored to serve a couple of years before he retired. Senator Sam Ervin quoted a Latin proverb that seems apt. He said: ``Small gifts make friends; great gifts make enemies.'' And I can imagine what Senator Sam would be saying if he were still sitting right over there, if he were still around as a Member of the Senate, about what little impact the United States has had on the operations of the United Nations, in light of the total amount of millions and millions of dollars that we have paid to the United Nations, especially since Americans are being smothered under a $5,531,793,429,306.24 Federal debt as of March 23. Some Americans would mistakenly suppose that at least 25 percent of United Nations employees are American citizens, since the United States provides 25 percent of the budget and that the United Nations headquarters is in New York City. But only 7.1 percent of U.N. employees are U.S. citizens. Surely it is obvious that the Congress needs to pass and President Clinton needs to sign into law the U.N. reforms that Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and I negotiated and which were approved by this Senate last year by a vote of 90 to 5. Mr. President, I am going to close with one final thought. The administration spends a lot of time talking about how the United States has become the indispensable Nation in the post-cold war era, and I agree with that. But at the same time, the administration acts as if America is powerless to act in our own people's interest unless the United Nations is calling the tune. Small wonder that so many Americans are confused about U.S. foreign policy and the direction this country is heading internationally. No; let the record be clear--let the record be clear--America is anything but a deadbeat nation. The real problem is an administration that has allowed too many handout artists at the United Nations to go unchallenged in their arrogance. Mr. President, enough is enough. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. As I was saying, I, first, want to offer my personal assessment of some of the red hot rhetoric coming from and by critics of the United Nations, and even from this administration, regarding the decision by the Congress to withhold a portion of the funding for the United Nations until genuine reforms are implemented by the United Nations. I happen to know quite a bit about this as a result of my having spent months and hundreds of hours in painstaking negotiations with Members of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and the administration in coming up with a legislative package to pay the so- called ``U.S. arrearages'' to the United Nations in exchange for meaningful reform of the United Nations. That package of reforms passed the Senate twice--once by a vote of 90 to 5. And the conference report has been filed with the House and Senate. But, unfortunately, by an astounding display of administration priorities, the White House chose to block this reform bill at the end of the first session of this Congress after the House of Representatives added one single provision protecting unborn babies from deliberate mass destruction. Amidst all of that, our able and distinguished Secretary of State was reported as having claimed that not paying the United Nations would result in what she called a ``shutdown of our national security policy.'' That statement, by a lady whom I admire and respect, surprised and saddened me, Mr. President, because Madeleine Albright is bound to know better than almost anybody else that U.S. national security policy is run out of the White House, along with the State Department, which Madeleine Albright, of course, heads. And also it is run by the Defense Department. But, Mr. President, Congress has a critical role in all of this as well--``this'' being a tripartite system of government that we have in our country. The security policies of the United States are not run by the United Nations, nor by the U.N. Security Council, nor by Kofi Annan. Thus, holding out a portion of U.S. funds for the United Nations in exchange for long overdue significant reforms designed to strengthen the U.S. national security certainly will not result in a ``shutdown of our national security policy.'' It is not surprising, however, to hear the familiar anti-American drumbeat out of the United Nations and from some of its members. I find it interesting that some diplomats at the United Nations undiplomatically tossed around the name ``deadbeat,'' referring to the United States. In fact, the U.N. Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, implied as much in his March 9 New York Times op-ed piece entitled, ``The Unpaid Bill That's Crippling the U.N.'' I have a chart here showing that article by the Secretary General, and I hope the people operating the cameras will make that clear. I like Kofi Annan fine. He has visited me a number of times--one time recently in my office in the last 10 days. But in this piece, the Secretary General made the absurd declaration, a non sequitur, if I ever heard one. And I quote him: ``Fiji has done its part. What about the U.S.?" Well, Mr. President, the Secretary General is a man, I must reiterate, whom I have regarded and have often described as an honorable man. I brought up his statement when he visited me in my office 2 weeks ago. And, by the way, Mr. President, just for the record, Fiji's United Nations' assessment for 1998 was precisely $47,636. The assessment for the United States, our country, on the other hand, was billed for $297,727,256. But that is not the all of it. The U.S. taxpayers will pay a total of $901 million to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies and other international organizations in fiscal year 1998. And that does not include another $210 million that American taxpayers are being demanded to pay for U.S. peacekeeping. And that all adds up to $1.110 billion. So, it goes without saying that our friend, the U.N. Secretary General--I suppose in trying to be a little bit cute --in fact ended up both absurd and untruthful. And I do hope that it was his staff, not the Secretary General himself, that came up with that quip. Because, as I say, I have always regarded Kofi Annan as a sensible man. Nevertheless, it is a perfect example of the disingenuous, even dishonest arguments being floated to misrepresent the United States of America, designed to make us pay even more than what we are willing to or obliged to pay in support of the United Nations. Clearly, it is time for Congress to meet head on such outrageous charges from those who do not represent American taxpayers. That is what my amendment is intended to do. Amendment No. 2130 (Purpose: To recognize the generous support of United States taxpayers towards international peace and security)

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his remarks, as I do Senator Gregg, and particularly Senator Byrd, who is always eloquent. Now, Mr. President, I want to be sure that all of the cosponsors are identified. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, be listed as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Gregg, Senator Grams, Senator Hollings, Senator Byrd, Senator Faircloth, and Senator Ashcroft.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk that I want to call up momentarily, but not at this minute.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute's report for the week ending March 20, that the U.S. imported 8,724,000 barrels of oil each day, 2,318,000 more barrels than the 6,406,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 57.6 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 8,724,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 24, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,542,617,421,989.90 (Five trillion, five hundred forty-two billion, six hundred seventeen million, four hundred twenty-one thousand, nine hundred eighty-nine dollars and ninety cents). One year ago, March 24, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,370,449,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred seventy billion, four hundred forty-nine million). Five years ago, March 24, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,222,103,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred twenty-two billion, one hundred three million). Ten years ago, March 24, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,480,220,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred eighty billion, two hundred twenty million). Fifteen years ago, March 24, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,223,450,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred twenty-three billion, four hundred fifty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,319,167,421,989.90 (Four trillion, three hundred nineteen billion, one hundred sixty-seven million, four hundred twenty- one thousand, nine hundred eighty-nine dollars and ninety cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me. I think at this point it would be appropriate to insert in the Record--and in a moment I shall ask that it be done--a piece written jointly for the Wall Street Journal by three distinguished people, all of whom are friends of most of us: First, Bill Simon, who was Secretary of the Treasury, and George Shultz, who was Secretary of State; and Walter Wriston, who was former chairman of City Bank. Now, I will make no comment except that I share the views of my distinguished colleague from North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned article published in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. A couple minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 23, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,539,832,909,123.38 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-nine billion, eight hundred thirty-two million, nine hundred nine thousand, one hundred twenty-three dollars and thirty-eight cents). Five years ago, March 23, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,219,501,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred nineteen billion, five hundred one million). Ten years ago, March 23, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,481,367,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred eighty-one billion, three hundred sixty-seven million). Fifteen years ago, March 23, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,229,199,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred twenty-nine billion, one hundred ninety-nine million). Twenty-five years ago, March 23, 1973, the federal debt stood at $457,287,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-seven billion, two hundred eighty- seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--$5,082,545,909,123.38 (Five trillion, eighty-two billion, five hundred forty-five million, nine hundred nine thousand, one hundred twenty-three dollars and thirty-eight cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, March 20, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,538,571,184,190.64 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-eight billion, five hundred seventy-one million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, one hundred ninety dollars and sixty- four cents). One year ago, March 20, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,369,250,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-nine billion, two hundred fifty million). Twenty-five years ago, March 20, 1973, the federal debt stood at $456,695,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-six billion, six hundred ninety- five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,081,876,184,190.64 (Five trillion, eighty-one billion, eight hundred seventy-six million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, one hundred ninety dollars and sixty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, March 19, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,537,630,079,097.83 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-seven billion, six hundred thirty million, seventy-nine thousand, ninety- seven hundred dollars and eighty-three cents). One year ago, March 19, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,369,097,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-nine billion, ninety-seven million). Five years ago, March 19, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,216,608,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred sixteen billion, six hundred eight million). Twenty-five years ago, March 19, 1973, the federal debt stood at $456,926,000,000 (Four hundred fifty-six billion, nine hundred twenty- six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion-- $5,080,604,079,097.83 (five trillion, eighty billion, six hundred and four million, seventy-nine thousand, ninety-seven dollars and eighty- three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 18, 1998, the federal debt stood at $5,537,178,813,514.71 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-seven billion, one hundred seventy-eight million, eight hundred thirteen thousand, five hundred fourteen dollars and seventy-one cents). One year ago, March 18, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,367,674,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-seven billion, six hundred seventy-four million). Five years ago, March 18, 1993, the federal debt stood at $4,215,542,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred fifteen billion, five hundred forty-two million). Ten years ago, March 18, 1988, the federal debt stood at $2,481,414,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred eighty-one billion, four hundred fourteen million). Fifteen years ago, March 18, 1983, the federal debt stood at $1,227,793,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred twenty-seven billion, seven hundred ninety-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,303,380,813,514.71 (Four trillion, three hundred and three billion, three hundred eighty million, eight hundred thirteen thousand, five hundred fourteen dollars and seventy-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 17, 1998, the Federal debt stood at $5,536,663,723,483.42 (Five trillion, five hundred thirty-six billion, six hundred sixty-three million, seven hundred twenty-three thousand, four hundred eighty-three dollars and forty-two cents). One year ago, March 17, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,363,307,000,000 (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-three billion, three hundred seven million). Five years ago, March 17, 1993, the Federal debt stood at $4,214,956,000,000 (Four trillion, two hundred fourteen billion, nine hundred fifty-six million). Ten years ago, March 17, 1988, the Federal debt stood at $2,482,751,000,000 (Two trillion, four hundred eighty-two billion, seven hundred fifty-one million). Fifteen years ago, March 17, 1983, the Federal debt stood at $1,227,720,000,000 (One trillion, two hundred twenty-seven billion, seven hundred twenty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4, (Four trillion, three hundred and eight billion, nine hundred forty-three million, seven hundred twenty-three thousand, four hundred eighty-three dollars and twenty-four cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I commend to the attention of my colleagues a significant book entitled, ``Death Knell of the Panama Canal?'', by Capt. G. Russell Evans (USCG, Ret.). In this, his second book on the subject, Captain Evans sets forth the facts and his analysis of the skullduggery that led to the ill- conceived 1977 Panama Canal Treaties. The Panama Canal Treaties were a foolish giveaway of a critical waterway built with U.S. taxpayers' dollars. I vigorously opposed the 1977 treaties, and to this day I regret that the United States Senate approved them--by one vote. Madam President, the Panama Canal is essential to the continued economic and strategic health of the United States and many of our allies. In his introduction to the book, distinguished former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas J. Moorer (USN, Ret.), writes that ``about 95% of our routine logistics support goes by sea.'' These military vessels, like their commercial counterparts, rely on the Canal to move quickly between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Since the United States began to hand over the Canal and its operations to Panamanian authorities, the maintenance of the Canal has slipped noticeably. The Canal is showing the effects of the neglect, and is now in a shocking state of disrepair. This essential maritime passage, a vital connection for international trade, is falling apart, and I fear that the deterioration of Canal facilities will increase as the Clinton Administration, following in the misguided path of the 1977 treaties, continues to hand over the Canal to Panamanian authorities. In light of the Panama Canal's critical importance, the United States simply cannot afford to squander the opportunity to secure access to facilities in the Canal Zone for our military to carry out essential missions and defend the security of the Canal. It is clearly in the best interests of both the United States and Panama to maintain a U.S. military presence there. The people of Panama consistently show, through opinion polls, that they do not want the United States to abandon its military bases. Without a U.S. presence, the Canal will be left undefended, this cannot be allowed to happen. Today, many former Carter Administration officials who engineered the Panama Canal giveaway in 1977 are serving in the Clinton Administration. Nevertheless, I will continue to press the Administration to reach a new agreement with the government of Panama to secure a U.S. military presence in that vital area. On September 5, 1996, the Senate approved my legislation, Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, urging the President to do just that. As Admiral Moorer states succinctly, ``the clock is ticking,'' and I believe Senators will find Captain Evans' book an invaluable reference to understanding the importance of the Canal--and the risks we run should the Canal fall into the wrong hands--or into disrepair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, the American Petroleum Institute's report for the week ending March 13, that the U.S. imported 6,636,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,213,000 fewer barrels than the 7,849,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. While this is one of the rare weeks when Americans imported slightly less oil than a year ago, Americans nonetheless relied on foreign oil for 50.8 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 6,636,000 barrels a day.