Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, criticism of and attacks on the tobacco industry--and, by implication, tobacco growers--has become a sort of one-upmanship cottage industry among politicians who, in earlier days, scrambled to pay their respects to those engaged in growing tobacco and manufacturing it. The name of the game is ``piling on'' and the political types are doing it with gusto. Last month, Mr. President, Dot Helms and I attended a meeting of the Burley and Dark Leaf Tobacco Association at Williamsburg. The distinguished speaker at the dinner was Fred Barnes, one of today's most respected journalists. Presiding at the dinner was an impressive young lady, Pem Pfisterer Clark, general manager of the Stemming District Tobacco Association in Henderson, KY. During the program, Ms. Clark recited a touching poem she had written about tobacco farmers. To those of us whose States produce tobacco, so heatedly maligned by its turncoat one-time friends, Pem Clark's tribute to these farmers was something that needed saying--and she said it well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pem Clark's poem be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Tribute To Growers Ladies . . . gentleman . . . My mission now tonight Is to share from my perspective My thoughts on this ``Tobacco Fight''. I represent a group of folk Who dedicate their lives To producing the very plant On which this industry survives. Here's a billion dollar business That we hold to our hearts, That's sprouting from God's smallest seed. Now, that's a very humble start! It's not by chance or accident That from the well-worked earth, A rich and leafy plant springs forth That boasts of quality and worth. A farmer can't put on his crop By tossing out some seeds. Even a ``city slicker'' knows That all that guy will grow are weeds. The work is toil, the labor long. He plants and hoes and sprays. And weary, he goes in at night And sighs, and bows his head and prays. At this point he's done all he can; Now it's not up to him. A lot of what will happen now Depends on Mother Nature's whim. The drought will come, pests and disease. It's like a game of craps. The sun, the wind, the rain, the hail . . . But farmers, see, are used to that. Relief! The crop is made. It's good. The first fight fought he wins. His crop stands healthy in the field, But now the real hard work begins. The harvest is back-breaking work. Good help is hard to find. The farmer says his prayers again . . . ``No mold, house burn. Good cure, this time''. The curing season has been good He takes it from the barn. The second fight he also wins . . . His crop emerges safe from harm. Lovingly the leaves are handled. He prepares for the sale. These will serve to feed his family-- These leaves hand-tied or in a bale. His legal crop goes to the floor And now the prayer that's prayed, ``Oh God, please let demand be high, A good price given by the trade.'' And so he wins fight number three. He's paid for all he's done. He did his best and it paid off. He thinks this season's battles' won. WRONG!!! Now enter fight number four: His goose may well be cooked! In talks of politics ans suits The farmers' fate is overlooked! That status doesn't last for long. Parties soon see the light. Leave out the guy who grows the plant?!? That's just plain dumb! And far from right! Now talks of settlement include The man who has the chore Of growing the tobacco plants, And so he wins fight number four. But he worries for his family. It's how his family's fed. The money from tobacco sales Buys shelter, clothes and bread. The plant the farmer nourishes . . . He tries to keep alive . . . There are those who want to kill it Watch if wither up and die Deep in his soul he wants to help This industry survive. And now he bows his head and pleads, ``God help us win fight number five.''--Pem Pfisterer Clark, Copyright pending.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business, Friday, October 3, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,411,881,420,892.37. (Five trillion, four hundred eleven billion, eight hundred eighty-one million, four hundred twenty thousand, eight hundred and ninety-two dollars and thirty-seven cents) One year ago, October 3, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,222,192,000,000. (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-two billion, one hundred and ninety-two million) Twenty-five years ago, October 3, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $434,091,000,000 (Four hundred thirty four billion, ninety-one million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion ($4,987,790,420,892.37) (Four trillion, nine hundred eighty seven billion, seven hundred ninety million, four hundred thousand, eight hundred ninety-two dollars and thirty seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 30, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,413,146,011,397.34. (Five trillion, four hundred thirteen billion, one hundred forty-six million, eleven thousand, three hundred ninety- seven dollars and thirty-four cents) One year ago, September 30, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,224,811,000,000. (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-four billion, eight hundred eleven million) Five years ago, September 30, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,064,621,000,000. (Four trillion, sixty-four billion, six hundred twenty-one million) Ten years ago, September 30, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,350,277,000,000 (Two trillion, three hundred fifty billion, two hundred seventy-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $3 trillion--$3,062,869,011,397.34 (Three trillion, sixty-two billion, eight hundred sixty-nine million, eleven thousand, three hundred ninety-seven dollars and thirty-four cents) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending September 26, the U.S. imported 8,262,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,726,000 barrels more than the 6,536,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 56.5 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 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America s oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil? By U.S. producers using American workers? 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 United States--now 8,262,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 29, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,388,315,809,652.79. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-eight billion, three hundred fifteen million, eight hundred nine thousand, six hundred fifty-two dollars and seventy-nine cents) Five years ago, September 29, 1992, the federal debt stood at $4,045,289,000,000. (Four trillion, forty-five billion, two hundred eighty-nine million) Ten years ago, September 29, 1987, the federal debt stood at $2,340,446,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred forty billion, four hundred forty-six million) Fifteen years ago, September 29, 1982, the federal debt stood at $1,118,989,000,000. (One trillion, one hundred eighteen billion, nine hundred eighty-nine million) Twenty-five years ago, September 29, 1972, the federal debt stood at $433,946,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-three billion, nine hundred forty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,954,369,809,652.79 (Four trillion, nine hundred fifty-four billion, three hundred sixty-nine million, eight hundred nine thousand, six hundred fifty-two dollars and seventy-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I am grateful to the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] and the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] for their having introduced the pending amendment. They are to be commended for offering this proposal, which will improve the circumstances of many students who live in the District of Columbia, and who want to escape--and no other word really fits--escape the horrific conditions that exist in so many local public schools. I would say to my friends from Indiana and Connecticut that it takes a lot of courage to stand up against the public education establishment. They're a powerful bunch, the National Education Association crowd, and they're not afraid to use all of their muscle to oppose any effort to help parents find alternatives to failing public school systems. Those who have examined the appalling state of the D.C. public schools are fully aware that parents need an alternative to the status quo. On February 20 of this year, even the Washington Post reported the following dismaying statistics: Sixty-five percent of D.C. public school children tested below their grade levels for reading in the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. Seventy-two percent of fourth-graders in the D.C. public schools tested below the ``basic proficiency'' level on the National Assessment of Education Progress test given to students every 2 years--this was the lowest score of any school system in the country. The dropout rate among D.C. public schools students is an astounding 40 percent. Meanwhile, even those that graduate are unprepared. More than half of D.C. public school graduates who take the U.S. Armed Forces Qualification Test scored below 50 percent on the test--that's a failing grade, Mr. President. That might be the saddest statistic of all. These young people--who want to better their lives through association with our armed forces--cannot pass the vocational aptitude exam given to aspiring recruits because the D.C. public schools are not properly preparing them. So, Mr. President, the list goes on and on. The Heritage Foundation reports that 11 percentage of students in the D.C. public school system avoid school because they fear for their own safety. Isn't that sad, Mr. President? Children in our Nation's Capital are afraid to go to school. Then again, why wouldn't they be afraid? Sixteen percent of the students in the D.C. public schools have at one time carried a weapon into their school. There are metal detectors at many if not all schools to prevent pistols, switchblade knives and narcotics from being smuggled into the classrooms. Nor is it just the students who are afraid. Almost one in five D.C. public school teachers report that verbal abuse from their students is a serious problem. With conditions like these, no wonder student performance is so low. Mr. President, again I congratulate Senator Coats and Senator Lieberman for offering this amendment, which opens up the alternative of private or parochial schools to parents whose family income is below 185 percent of the poverty level. Their plan provides opportunity scholarships of up to $3,200 for parents who are fed up with the education--or, rather, the lack of education--provided by the D.C. public schools. Mr. President, there is a lot of misinformation swirling about concerning the high cost of private and parochial schools. When the words private school are mentioned, the image of elite and high-priced education often springs to mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is a vast and accessible network of private schools in the Washington area. My friend, the Senator from Indiana, informs me that there are 60 private schools in this area that cost less than $3,200 a year--the amount that families living below the poverty level can receive under the Coats/Lieberman amendment. Of these 60 schools, many are the remarkable Catholic schools that operate in the most poverty-stricken parts of Washington, DC. These schools are willing and able to provide true quality education to poor students; in fact the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington reports over 1,000 spaces are available in its 16 Washington schools. They want to do the job, Mr. President. But first, Congress must stand up to the teachers' unions and the rest of the public school establishment that doesn't want to answer for the poor performance of public schools. The Coats/Lieberman amendment is a day of reckoning for the failure of the D.C. public school system--and an outstanding way for Congress to help school children receive the education they deserve.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, September 26, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,387,382,191,644.62. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-seven billion, three hundred eighty-two million, one hundred ninety-one thousand, six hundred forty-four dollars and sixty-two cents) One year ago, September 26, 1996, the federal debt stood at $5,198,325,000,000 (Five trillion, one hundred ninety-eight billion, three hundred twenty-five million) Twenty-five years ago, September 26, 1972, the federal debt stood at $437,507,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-seven billion, five hundred seven million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,949,875,191,644.62 (Four trillion, nine hundred forty-nine billion, eight hundred seventy-five million, one hundred ninety-one thousand, six hundred forty-four dollars and sixty-two cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, September 25, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,387,703,781,934.24. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-seven billion, seven hundred three million, seven hundred eighty-one thousand, nine hundred thirty-four dollars and twenty-four cents) One year ago, September 25, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,198,791,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred ninety-eight billion, seven hundred ninety-one million) Five years ago, September 25, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,045,041,000,000. (Four trillion, forty-five billion, forty-one million) Ten years ago, September 25, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,336,074,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred thirty-six billion, seventy-four million) Twenty-five years ago, September 25, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $437,412,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-seven billion, four hundred twelve million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,950,291,781,934.24 (Four trillion, nine hundred fifty billion, two hundred ninety-one million, seven hundred eighty-one thousand, nine hundred thirty-four dollars and twenty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 24, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,384,224,726,974.01. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-four billion, two hundred twenty-four million, seven hundred twenty-six thousand, nine hundred seventy-four dollars and one cent) One year ago, September 24, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,195,855,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred ninety-five billion, eight hundred fifty-five million) Five years ago, September 24, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,043,587,000,000. (Four trillion, forty-three billion, five hundred eighty-seven million) Ten years ago, September 24, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,336,418,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred thirty-six billion, four hundred eighteen million) Fifteen years ago, September 24, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,110,360,000,000 (One trillion, one hundred ten billion, three hundred sixty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,273,864,726,974.01 (Four trillion, two hundred seventy- three billion, eight hundred sixty-four million, seven hundred twenty- six thousand, nine hundred seventy-four dollars and one cent) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending September 19, the United States imported 8,526,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,230,000 barrels more than the 7,296,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 57.3 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 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil? By U.S. producers using American workers? 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 United States--now 8,526,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have at hand an impressive article detailing the oppression that the people of Cuba have long suffered, and still suffer to this day. It was written by Carrol Fisher of Salisbury, NC, and I decided that it should be made available to all Senators--and to others who are concerned about the dictatorship 90 miles off our shores. Carrol Fisher is a World War II Navy veteran whose first visit to Cuba was in 1944. He fell in love with the island and its people, including the young lady who became his wife 40 years ago. He and Mrs. Fisher [Sonia] returned to Cuba recently to visit his seriously ill sister-in-law. During that visit, he observed the degrading state of affairs in Cuba, the results of Castro's oppressive military government. When he returned to Salisbury, Mr. Fisher wrote a detailed account of what he had witnessed in Cuba. The article, published in the Salisbury (NC) Post, counsels that the United States under no circumstances should yield in its opposition to Fidel Castro's brutal regime. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Fisher's article be printed in the Record and the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably one nomination list in the Foreign Service which was printed in full in the Congressional Record of September 4, 1997, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 23, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,382,650,076,978.81. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-two billion, six hundred fifty million, seventy-six thousand, nine hundred seventy-eight dollars and eighty-one cents) One year ago, September 23, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,192,406,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred ninety-two billion, four hundred six million) Five years ago, September 23, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,042,399,000,000. (Four trillion, forty-two billion, three hundred ninety-nine million) Ten years ago, September 23, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,354,292,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-four billion, two hundred ninety-two million) Fifteen years ago, September 23, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,110,216,000,000 (One trillion, one hundred ten billion, two hundred sixteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,272,434,076,978.81 (Four trillion, two hundred seventy-two billion, four hundred thirty-four million, seventy-six thousand, nine hundred seventy-eight dollars and eighty-one cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 22, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,378,803,586,241.44. (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-eight billion, eight hundred three million, five hundred eighty-six thousand, two hundred forty-one dollars and forty-four cents) Five years ago, September 22, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,040,323,000,000. (Four trillion, forty billion, three hundred twenty-three million) Ten years ago, September 22, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,353,878,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-three billion, eight hundred seventy-eight million) Fifteen years ago, September 22, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,107,571,000,000. (One trillion, one hundred seven billion, five hundred seventy-one million) Twenty-five years ago, September 22, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $437,448,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-seven billion, four hundred forty-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,941,355,586,241.44 (Four trillion, nine hundred forty-one billion, three hundred fifty-five million, five hundred eighty-six thousand, two hundred forty-one dollars and forty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, September 18, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,374,488,603,408.56. (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-four billion, four hundred eighty-eight million, six hundred three thousand, four hundred eight dollars and fifty-six cents) One year ago, September 18, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,193,857,000,000 (Five trillion, one hundred ninety-three billion, eight hundred fifty-seven million) Five years ago, September 18, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,036,814,000,000. (Four trillion, thirty-six billion, eight hundred fourteen million) Ten years ago, September 18, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,353,225,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-three billion, two hundred twenty-five million) Twenty-five years ago, September 18, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $436,926,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-six billion, nine hundred twenty- six million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,937,562,603,408.56 (Four trillion, nine hundred thirty-seven billion, five hundred sixty-two million, six hundred three thousand, four hundred eight dollars and fifty-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 17, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,394,894,064,595.35. (Five trillion, three hundred ninety-four billion, eight hundred ninety-four million, sixty-four thousand, five hundred ninety-five dollars and thirty-five cents) One year ago, September 17, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,190,808,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred ninety billion, eight hundred eight million) Five years ago, September 17, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,035,824,000,000. (Four trillion, thirty-five billion, eight hundred twenty-four million) Ten years ago, September 17, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,354,373,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-four billion, three hundred seventy-three million) Fifteen years ago, September 17, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,106,720,000,000. (One trillion, one hundred six billion, seven hundred twenty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,288,174,064,595.35 (Four trillion, two hundred eighty- eight billion, one hundred seventy-four million, sixty-four thousand, five hundred ninety-five dollars and thirty-five cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I certainly appreciate it. I would have been here earlier but we had a meeting on China in the Foreign Relations Committee. I couldn't leave. The witnesses were long-winded, as well as some others. But I compliment the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I have been in the same position that he has been in for several years. It is pretty lonely. But the people all across this country will admire the Senator from Missouri for it, and the Senator will hear from them-- people who believe in high principles and morality. I just want the Senator to know that he is not being overlooked. I want a few minutes this afternoon to reflect upon an Associated Press report published Tuesday morning quoting NEA spokeswoman Cherie Simon as claiming that ``legislative restrictions'' and ``internal reforms'' have solved the NEA problem and that the NEA ``didn't fund some of the programs as Helms condemned''. Mr. President, isn't it interesting? You have a little lady --and I know she is a nice lady because she is somebody's daughter, but I never heard of her--make this statement, which is not true in the first place, that the NEA is not furnishing taxpayers' money for a whole plethora of rotten material. No other word will fit. This dissembling has been going on, but every year they come up, and say, ``Oh, no. Not us. We just fund nice things.'' It is sort of like the farmer who heard some noise in his chicken house. He said, ``Who is out there?'' He heard a voice say, ``Just us chickens.'' And that is all the NEA says. I like Jane Alexander. I have met with her. But they are evading the issue every year. They are getting money that they ought not to get every year. If spokeswoman Cherie Simon, whoever she is, believes that ``legislative restrictions,'' as she put it, and ``internal reforms,'' as she put it, have, as she put it, ``solved'' the problem, she needs to wake up and smell the coffee because she obviously didn't understand the problem in the first place. The truth is that legislative restrictions and internal reforms mean simply that the NEA has been using subterfuge and sophistry to spend the taxpayers' money on programs that every year outrage the taxpayers. So the NEA wants to deny funding this filthy book, with all of their double talk about who is paying for it, or who has paid for it. This book, called ``Blood of Mugwump'' by a fellow named Doug Rice--the saints have been good to me; I have never heard of him before--the most filthy thing I believe I have ever read. And I have not read but about half a page of it. But down here it says--what do you guess? The National Endowment for the Arts. Up here it says that the National Endowment for the Arts is furnishing the money through the English Department for Contemporary Literature of Illinois State University, Illinois Arts Center. That is the way it always is--subterfuge about what is going on with the taxpayers' money. I am informed that while I was over in the Dirksen Building presiding in the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Harkin inserted a letter from the NEA disavowing NEA connection with the book. Yet, even the letter acknowledges that it was published by FC2. That is the publishing company, FC2. And FC2 put the NEA seal of approval on the copyright page of this book. All I am doing is reading it to you. The point, Mr. President, is this: The NEA and the FC2 can cook the books all they want to, but they know what this publishing company is all about, and they know about the filth that they have published, particularly in this book. There is not a Senator in this body who will take this book home and show it to his wife, or her husband, let alone their children. It is filth. And the taxpayers paid for it. No matter what Cherie Simon says about it, the taxpayers of America paid for this book. On June 24 of this year--long after the Senator from Iowa claimed that the NEA disavowed ``Blood of Mugwump''--Jane Alexander wrote that FC2--get this--``FC2 has sustained a commitment to intellectual challenge. . .'' That is the lady who heads the agency. That is the lady whom I like personally. She is a nice lady. But I don't know where she is when all of these decisions are made. This book sure is an intellectual challenge, isn't it?. I wish every citizen of America would take a look at it; they'd want to throw it in the furnace. Perhaps we should examine another example of how these legislative restrictions and internal reforms work. The other day on this floor I mentioned a grant--for fiscal year 1997--for a project by choreographer Mark Morris. This is the same guy who once staged a version of The Nutcracker Suite complete with cross- dressing and other unsavory themes. If the folks at the NEA want to say that the taxpayers didn't fund that piece of work, they might be accurate. But, knowing this fellow Morris and his background, the NEA will nevertheless--nevertheless-- funnel $150,000 of the taxpayers' money this year to support his future work. That is what is going on. They come forth with obfuscation and confusion, Mr. President, and they hoodwink a lot of Senators. They didn't hoodwink them over in the House of Representatives. The amendment of the Senator from Missouri deserves to be approved on a unanimous vote. It won't be, because there are enough weak sisters sitting around that will find some excuse for not voting for it. But I commend the Senator, and I praise him for taking the time to address this subject. One final note. I think it is time to end the charade at the NEA and just acknowledge to the taxpayers once and for all that Congress will no longer waste money on this Federal agency. So the Senate of the United States ought to do the right thing today by adopting the amendment of the Senator from Missouri. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back such time as I may have. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I hope the Senator will yield to me 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending September 12, the United States imported 9,371,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,799,000 barrels more than the 7,572,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 59.6 percent of their needs last week, and there is no sign 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 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil? By U.S. producers using American workers? 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 United States--now 9,371,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 16, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,391,866,026,111.66. (Five trillion, three hundred ninety-one billion, eight hundred sixty-six million, twenty-six thousand, one hundred eleven dollars and sixty-six cents) One year ago, September 16, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,217,327,000,000 (Five trillion, two hundred seventeen billion, three hundred twenty-seven million) Five years ago, September 16, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,036,030,000,000. (Four trillion, thirty-six billion, thirty million) Ten years ago, September 16, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,353,294,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-three billion, two hundred ninety-four million) Fifteen years ago, September 16, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,105,897,000,000 (One trillion, one hundred five billion, eight hundred ninety-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,285,969,026,111.66 (Four trillion, two hundred eighty-five billion, nine hundred sixty-nine million, twenty-six thousand, one hundred eleven dollars and sixty-six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 15, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,388,983,472,859.37. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-eight billion, nine hundred eighty-three million, four hundred seventy-two thousand, eight hundred fifty-nine dollars and thirty-seven cents) Five years ago, September 15, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,033,874,000,000. (Four trillion, thirty-three billion, eight hundred seventy-four million) Ten years ago, September 15, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,353,169,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-three billion, one hundred sixty-nine million) Fifteen years ago, September 15, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,113,183,000,000 (One trillion, one hundred thirteen billion, one hundred eighty-three million) Twenty-five years ago, September 15, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $436,866,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-six billion, eight hundred sixty- six million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,952,117,472,859.37 (Four trillion, nine hundred fifty-two billion, one hundred seventeen million, four hundred seventy-two thousand, eight hundred fifty-nine dollars and thirty-seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, Senator Ashcroft of Missouri is on an airplane at this moment, which I hope is approaching Washington. It has been delayed, but he will be here shortly to offer the amendment on which I desire to speak. I am honored to cosponsor this amendment, which would eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Other Senators will voice their support, I believe, for the Ashcroft-Helms amendment; certainly the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], and the senior Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback]. In any case, I commend Senator Ashcroft's willingness to exercise strong leadership on this issue. We will proceed while looking forward to his arrival on the Senate floor. The other day, John Ashcroft and I were visiting on this subject, and we were reflecting upon the fact that more than 8 years have passed since an award-winning, blasphemous, and--how to put it--stomach- churning photograph of a crucifix soaked in urine alerted this Senate to the disgusting decision by the National Endowment for the Arts to reward the so-called artist who conceived the concept and submitted it for a grant with a substantial amount of the taxpayers' money. Along about the same time I came into possession of copies of the so- called, now well-known, Mapplethorpe artistry, which was a homosexual display. I recall bringing that to this floor. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia was sitting right over there, and another Senator was speaking. I don't remember which one. I asked Senator Byrd if he would consider an amendment to outlaw something that I thought was grievously blasphemous, and I thought that he might think so, too. I remember that I showed Senator Byrd the Mapplethorpe photos. I will say that he exclaimed very definitely that he found them repulsive. The bottom line is that he took my amendment and it was accepted on the legislation. That is when the hard feelings developed with certain people who favored not restraining the National Endowment for the Arts. During the 8 years that have elapsed since that evening that I came and spoke to Senator Byrd, the Senate has learned a very great deal about the way the National Endowment for the Arts conducts its affairs, and, thank the Lord, so have many millions of Americans found out about it across the land. They constitute loud voice to echo exactly what the House of Representatives did the month before last, I believe it was, in cutting off all funding, zeroing the National Endowment for the Arts. For one thing, it is self-evident that many of the beneficiaries of NEA grants are contemptuous of--how to say it--traditional moral standards. Now, we have stripped the phony veneer from the curiously elitist nature of those people who are self-selected arts experts. I run into them frequently. I hear from some in North Carolina, one in particular--he was born rich, never did a day's work in his life. He spends much of his time writing letters to me complaining about my not caring about the arts. Well, of course I do care about the arts. I have grandchildren who participate, and I think very well, in the arts. But they don't participate in the kind of things that I am talking about here today. We have stripped, as I say, the phony veneer from those people. Above all, we have learned the lengths that this crowd supporting the National Endowment for the Arts will go, and has been going, in order to preserve their access to millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. I am going to get down to the nitty-gritty. It is going to offend some people here and there. Once the true nature of the National Endowment for the Arts became clear, more and more Senators have joined in supporting simple, commonsense measures to ensure that the NEA is operated in a reasonable manner. We have endeavored, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, to put an end to Federal grants, spending the taxpayers' money rewarding obscene or patently offensive work. We have worked to try to make sure that the NEA grants go to institutions rather than to individual artists. At every step, the arts establishment and its defenders in the left wing media--and in Congress, I might add--have vigorously opposed those reasonable reforms, often implying or downright declaring that anybody opposing such Federal grants is ignorant and indifferent to culture and art. There is a fellow in Massachusetts who used the words, phony baloney, the other day. I am going to borrow those two words from him and apply it to that kind of stand. I suppose this sort of opposition will continue just as long as the Congress allows the National Endowment for the Arts to cater to phony, self-appointed artists who insist on using the American taxpayers' money to finance anything they want to drag up from the sewer and declare to be art. But enough is surely enough. Millions of Americans have come to the conclusion that the National Endowment for the Arts is beyond salvation as a reasonable Federal agency. The amendment which the Senator from Missouri will a little later on send to the desk proposes to fund the NEA at a deserving level, exactly what it deserves--zero. To put it bluntly, I propose that none of the taxpayers' money be wasted by this agency anymore. I have done my best to work in good faith with administrators, past and present, of the National Endowment for the Arts. The present administrator, Jane Alexander, is a gracious lady. I like her personally, and I think she means well. But the problem persists: Despite all of the rhetoric, despite all the promises, the National Endowment for the Arts continues to underwrite projects that offend the sensibilities of millions of American taxpayers who resent the NEA's giving the taxpayers' money to self-styled artists whose art comes straight from the gutter and the sewer. So, this amendment that Senator Ashcroft and I will formally offer shortly keeps faith with the courageous decision of the House of Representatives to withhold funding from the National Endowment for the Arts during the House consideration of H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations bill. The Senate, simply said, ought to do what is right and follow suit. Following that vote in the House of Representatives, the NEA's supporters did the usual thing. They trotted out their customary absurdities in describing an America without art, an America without culture unless the Senate restores full funding to the NEA. And they did that with violins being played and weeping voices. Baloney. Perhaps the Senate will default on its responsibilities, but it will have to do it after a number of Senators have made clear why the House action with reference to the NEA was entirely justified. Madam President, Americans watching and hearing this Senate session this afternoon on C-SPAN should be prepared, sooner or later, for another dose of the same old, tired rhetoric about how the survival of arts in America depends upon the NEA--when the truth of the matter is that American arts were thriving long before the agency received its first penny, its first appropriation, back in 1966, and the arts will continue to flourish and flower long after the NEA has disappeared from the radar screen. In any event, the American people may be forgiven for wondering precisely how do the powers-that-be at the National Endowment for the Arts define--define--American arts and culture. Let's do a little thinking about that. The agency's recent grant to the Whitney Museum may provide a useful clue. On July 15, 1997, the news program ``Dateline'' NBC reported that the NEA had given a grant of--now get this--$400,000 to the Whitney Museum. As NBC pointed out, the Whitney Museum is the beneficiary already of an unusually large private endowment. Yet the museum is nevertheless deemed by the NEA to be a worthy recipient for Federal taxpayers' dollars. What exactly is it about the Whitney Museum that makes it so worthy? Certainly, one must hope, not the 1997 biennial exhibition. The average taxpayer sitting in North Carolina or Idaho, or wherever, will never know anything about this unless the news media tells them or unless they are watching C-SPAN at this moment. But this year's biennial--and this is just an example --this year's biennial featured an exhibit that launched an attack on Santa Claus. The Kansas City Star newspaper reviewed the show and included this observation: The myth of Santa propounded by Disney and Hallmark is rendered all but unrecognizable by Paul McCarthy's video installation of a wildly perverted Santa's workshop. The main players, raunchy art-girl elves dressed in skimpy elf tunics and sticky-dirty with chocolate sauce, alternately devote themselves to creating confections and performing lewd acts with stuffed animals, one of them large and animate. Oh, boy, Madam President, if that is art, then the sewer is a swimming pool. In awarding the show's ``booby prize'' to Mr. McCarthy, the Wall Street Journal's Deborah Solomon wrote this: Reader, I can only hope you're not eating your breakfast when I tell you that his ``Santa's Workshop'' revolves around the theme of Christmas personalities doing weird things with excrement. Indeed. And I hope anyone listening to this debate in this audience this afternoon will inquire of the Senators from their States why they approve of a Federal agency that awards $400,000 of the taxpayers' money to the curators of a museum who countenance such an exhibit. Oh, I can hear it, Madam President. I have been hearing it for over 8 years. ``Oh,'' they say, ``such grants of questionable taste are purely isolated incidents.'' The trouble with that is that the evidence suggests otherwise, because last year, $150,000 of the NEA's funds went to a project by a choreographer named Mark Morris, and he is the very same Mark Morris who once staged a homosexual version of ``The Nutcracker Suite,'' called ``The Hard Nut.'' The taxpayer will be forgiven for wondering whether Mr. Morris' future work will deal with similar material. I believe we already heard all we want to hear about last year's $31,500 grant for the production of the film ``Watermelon Woman,'' to which two or three Senators have already alluded on this floor this afternoon. This film was made by and about lesbians and featured in the words of the reviewer ``the hottest lesbian sex scene ever recorded on celluloid.'' And this is one of the art projects that the National Endowment for the Arts, Madam President, said we must have in order to preserve art and culture in our society. Perhaps worst of all, however, is a travesty that emerged from a $25,000 grant to an organization called FC2, a bunch of weirdoes responsible for publishing, among other sickening things, Doug Rice's book entitled ``Blood of Mugwump: A Tiresian Tale of Incest.'' Oh, boy, what an artistic achievement that is. According to the back cover of the book, the plot, if you can call it a plot, describes ``[a] member of a clan of Catholic, gender-shifting vampires [setting] out to discover himself in his sister's body.'' Twenty-five thousand dollars of your money, Mr. and Mrs. America, goes so we can keep art flourishing in the United States. That is not the half of it, Madam President. Suffice it to say that our staff members were--and I am talking about the folks I work for in my office, the finest young people you ever saw--they were just about ready to throw up earlier today after they had glanced through this wretched book's description of incestuous sexual activity, paid for with the taxpayers' money, mind you. Whether all this garbage is metaphorical or literal or whatever, I don't know, I don't care, and I don't want to know. What I want to know is how long we are going to tolerate the National Endowment for the Arts continuing to fund this kind of garbage. I do know, and I have known this for a long time, and I have said it a thousand times on this floor--and maybe if I live long enough I will say it another thousand times: the American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for stuff like this. But if one opens this book to the copyright page, there it is: The seal of approval from and by the National Endowment for the Arts. Let me say that again--and I like Jane Alexander, she is a nice lady--but she is not controlling that shop down there. I cannot believe that she is. Let me be clear. I am not calling for censorship. I come from the news business. I made my living that way for most of my life before I came here. But this is not censorship to say we are not going to pay for this kind of mess anymore. I say again what I have said many times, I don't have any problem with some guy going in the men's room and scrawling dirty words on the wall, provided he pays for his own crayons and provided he owns the men's room. Making the taxpayers pay for it is what I object to. This Doug Rice is entitled to write whatever he pleases. He may try to shock and offend whatever poor souls across America run across his foul literary pretense, but let me reiterate, again and again, the American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize such sewage as this work. But you know, Madam President, many Americans believe--and I agree with them--that grants such as these are sufficient reason to end, once and for all, funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I suspect that the American people would be even more resolute in their opposition to the NEA if they were aware of other practices of the NEA that bring the NEA's legitimacy into question. To begin with, the American public needs to know about the NEA's practice of carefully rewarding its supporters and past beneficiaries. For example, even the New York Times, liberal as it is, loving the NEA as it does, has reported that 85 percent of this year's recipients have previously fed at the NEA trough. How have they done it? I will tell you. The NEA does not consider the financial position of its applicants. That would step on some toes, you know. Instead, the NEA continues to hand out money to institutions that have a conspicuous lack of need--they don't need it--for being handed large sums of the taxpayers' money. Harvard University--now get this, Harvard, which has in its bank accounts an endowment of more than $6 billion--billion with a ``b''--$6 billion; nevertheless, it was sent $150,000 by the National Endowment for the Arts. What for? I will quote it to you: To support augmentation of the Harvard University Art Museum's endowment. Doesn't that grab you? That just makes me tearful with joy. If you believe that, you will believe anything. Phillips Academy, one of the most prestigious boarding schools in the country, received $125,000 from the NEA this year. The University of California at Berkeley received $135,500. Princeton University, with its total endowment exceeding $2.6 billion that they have already gotten from private sources, nevertheless the good old NEA sent them $20,000 of taxpayers' money. Now, how do you like them apples? Yale University--I am not going to let them get off the hook--with a total endowment fund of $3.5 billion which it had gotten from private sources, received $100,000 from the NEA for the Yale Repertory Theater for--I want you to guess what for--a celebration of the 100th birthday of a Marxist playwright, Bertolt Brecht. Boy, I know the people in Shetland Switch will be delighted to hear that their money was sent there. That is exactly what we count on our Federal Government to do. Additional scrutiny of NEA grants provides countless examples of such financial judgment. For one example, bureaucracy being piled upon bureaucracy. How do they do it? Very simple. The NEA gives grants to the Federal Government itself. That is a neat trick, isn't it? For example, the Federal Facilities Council of the State Department--and I am going to speak to Madeleine Albright about this--will receive from the NEA up to $10,000--now stay with me--up to $10,000 ``to support a partnership of Federal agencies convened to identify and advance technologies, processes and management practices that improve the planning, design, construction, operation, and evaluation of Federal facilities and enable more effective utilization of limited resources.'' Madeleine, you better come home. Seriously, Madam President, what does all of this mean? For those of us not fluent in the language of bureaucrats, your guess would be as good as anybody's, but only in Washington would one Federal agency fund another Federal agency for a study on how to increase efficiency. Finally, there are the so-called planning and stabilization grants for which the NEA spent more than 10 million bucks this year. And what is the purpose of those grants? Mostly for giveaway gambits like the $125,000 grant to Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc., in Lee, MA, which was given the money not because it needed the money, but they wanted to increase their cash reserve a little bit. Well, I expect there are some Senators around here who would like to have their cash reserves increased a little bit. This, to be serious about it, I say to Senators and ladies and gentlemen who may be listening, this is your tax money. And I want to ask you, How's your cash reserve? But let us be very clear about what the NEA is doing. It is putting your tax dollars--no questions asked--into the bank accounts of artists and institutions for which there is simply no precedent--no precedent-- for these handouts. Even disadvantaged businesses that qualify for low-interest loans from the Government must pay back the money, but not these rich folks. If any of these struggling small businesspeople asked for a cash-direct handout from the Federal Government, they would be laughed off the premises and they would be recommended for a medical examination. Madam President, I am not going to belabor the subject anymore except for one closing observation. I say this with all seriousness. What does or does not constitute art is not decreed from on high by the National Endowment for the Arts. Art and culture--for better or worse--should remain in the hands of the American people, not bureaucrats. Continued funding of the NEA not only wastes the taxpayers' money on a small contingent of wealthy elitists, it also continues the arrogant assumption that a Government-funded arts establishment must--must-- determine what art is fit for public consumption. I think there is no exaggeration involved in saying that this assumption is contrary to the Founding Fathers' notions of freedom and liberty on which I was taught as a little boy that this Nation was built. In fact, I think that if Jefferson and Franklin and all the rest came around here one of these afternoons, I suspect they would agree with millions of Americans who have so little regard for the entity known as the National Endowment for the Arts. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I am sorry, I did not understand the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. That is subject to amendment?

Mr. HELMS. I am sorry, I just walked into the Chamber. Is it necessary to set aside that amendment?