Jesse Helms

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. Madam President, may I inquire of the Chair if there is another amendment pending?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, September 11, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,414,576,336,750.83. (Five trillion, four hundred fourteen billion, five hundred seventy-six million, three hundred thirty-six thousand, seven hundred fifty dollars and eighty-three cents) One year ago, September 11, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,219,274,000,000. (Five trillion, two hundred nineteen billion, two hundred seventy-four million) Five years ago, September 11, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,032,390,000,000. (Four trillion, thirty-two billion, three hundred ninety million) Ten years ago, September 11, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,353,045,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-three billion, forty-five million) Twenty-five years ago, September 11, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $435,983,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-five billion, nine hundred eighty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,978,593,336,750.83 (Four trillion, nine hundred seventy- eight billion, five hundred ninety-three million, three hundred thirty- six thousand, seven hundred fifty dollars and eighty-three cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as always, we are sometimes called on to be two places at one time with two or three committee meetings going on. I was recorded--and it was my fault. It was not the clerk's fault. It was my fault because I thought it was a tabling motion when it was not. In any case, on rollcall vote No. 234, I voted ``yea,'' and it was my intent to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, which will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 9, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,408,443,156,374.66. (Five trillion, four hundred eight billion, four hundred forty-three million, one hundred fifty-six thousand, three hundred seventy-four dollars and sixty-six cents) Five years ago, September 9, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,038,419,000,000. (Four trillion, thirty-eight billion, four hundred nineteen million) Ten years ago, September 9, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,359,979,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-nine billion, nine hundred seventy-nine million) Fifteen years ago, September 9, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,110,794,000,000 (One trillion, one hundred ten billion, seven hundred ninety-four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,297,649,156,374.66 (Four trillion, two hundred ninety-seven billion, six hundred forty-nine million, one hundred fifty-six thousand, three hundred seventy-four dollars and sixty-six cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, September 8, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,411,318,696,295.51. (Five trillion, four hundred eleven billion, three hundred eighteen million, six hundred ninety-six thousand, two hundred ninety-five dollars and fifty-one cents) Ten years ago, September 8, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,360,222,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred sixty billion, two hundred twenty-two million) Fifteen years ago, September 8, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,107,230,000,000 (One trillion, one hundred seven billion, two hundred thirty million) Twenty-five years ago, September 8, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $435,645,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-five billion, six hundred forty- five million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,975,673,696,295.51 (Four trillion, nine hundred seventy-five billion, six hundred seventy-three million, six hundred ninety-six thousand, two hundred ninety-five dollars and fifty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and I ask it be read in its entirety.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I offered this resolution just now regarding Hong Kong, it occurred to me that it is a coincidence that Hong Kong's Chief Executive, the Honorable C.H. Tung, is visiting in the United States this week. I confess the hope that he will get the message everywhere he goes on Capitol Hill, and everywhere else in Washington, that the provisional legislature's attacks on civil liberties, which Mr. Tung has defended, along with a new plan for an undemocratic legislature for Hong Kong, are totally unacceptable. Incidentally, Mr. President, I am grateful to the several cosponsors who are joining in the offering of this resolution: Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Mack of Florida. Last July 1, when Hong Kong was returned to China, in accordance with the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, the joint declaration made absolutely clear that Hong Kong was to be autonomous and have an elected legislature, among many other things. But, Mr. President, in the past few weeks, new rules for Hong Kong elections have been prepared that clearly violate the joint declaration and threaten to cause irreparable damage to Hong Kong's autonomy. New rules being prepared by the provisional legislature--a body that itself is a violation of the joint declaration because it is unelected, and this provisional legislature, it will be remembered, is the body chosen last December in a process tightly controlled by Beijing. Though the people of Hong Kong had no say whatsoever, yet, it is this very provisional legislature that is writing the rules for Hong Kong's elections. Mr. President, this provisional legislature is now planning to adopt election rules for a new body comprising 40 totally undemocratic seats. Thirty of these seats will be ``functional constituency'' seats, as they have been described. The functional constituencies allow small numbers of trade, professional and other groups to choose a representative. In many cases, these functional constituencies are tiny--about 1,000 members. Britain introduced this system during its colonial rule, and it was a mistake. Britain's last governor, Chris Patten, attempted to improve upon the system by adding new, larger constituencies. Reportedly, even these broader functional constituencies will be slashed, drastically reduced in terms of the number of voters. The functional constituencies belong, as the Wall Street Journal stated, ``on the ash heap of history.'' Ten more seats will be chosen by an election committee comprised of pro-Beijing groups. Finally, the real motives of the provisional legislature can be discerned in their treatment of the 20 democratically elected seats. These seats will be chosen according to a proportional representation scheme expressly designed to reduce the number of prodemocracy candidates in the legislature. Mr. President, this is by no means inadvertent. It is deliberate. It is a deliberate attempt to reduce the influence of the most popular and ardently prodemocracy candidates and parties. The resolution just offered urges C. H. Tung and the Government of Hong Kong to schedule and conduct elections for the first legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region according to the rules approved by the Hong Kong people through an election law convention, referendum, or both. If the United States is to have a relationship with an autonomous Hong Kong, Hong Kong must have the democratically elected legislature it was promised--it was promised, Mr. President--in the joint declaration. The provisional legislature, which the United States has rejected as illegitimate and unjustified, is simply not intended to produce a legitimate electoral law. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I yield back such time as I may have.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, September 5, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,414,427,865,442.08. (Five trillion, four hundred fourteen billion, four hundred twenty-seven million, eight hundred sixty-five thousand, four hundred forty-two dollars and eight cents) One year ago, September 5, 1996, the federal debt stood at $5,225,564,000,000 (Five trillion, two hundred twenty-five billion, five hundred sixty-four million) Twenty-five years ago, September 5, 1972, the federal debt stood at $435,268,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-five billion, two hundred sixty- eight million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,979,159,865,442.08 (Four trillion, nine hundred seventy-nine billion, one hundred fifty-nine million, eight hundred sixty-five thousand, four hundred forty-two dollars and eight cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, as in morning business, I be allowed no more than 7 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, too many Americans have not the foggiest notion about the enormity of the Federal debt. Every so often, I ask various groups, how many millions of dollars are there in a trillion? They think about it, voice some estimates, most of them not even close. They are stunned when they learn the facts, such as the case today. To be exact, as of 10:08 a.m. today, September 5, 1997, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $5,414,792,993,913.96. Another astonishing statistic is that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $20,203.80. As for how many millions of dollars there are in a trillion, there are a million in a trillion, which means that the Federal Government owes more than five million million dollars.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, another tragedy struck the people of Israel today. Three Palestinian suicide bombers attacked a crowded pedestrian mall in the center of Jerusalem. At least three Israelis were killed; many more were wounded. There was another bombing in the center of Jerusalem on July 30, in which 17 people were killed. Those murders were also claimed by the Palestinian terror group, Hamas. As in July, all the requisite people will issue the required condemnations, and comfort themselves that they have responded adequately. But how can we pretend that enough is being done about Palestinian terrorism? How can we look at pictures of Yasser Arafat embracing a terrorist on the front page of the New York Times and still maintain the fiction that this is a man committed to fighting terror? The answer, Mr. President, is simple: we cannot. Last month, in the wake of the most recent Jerusalem bombing, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she would travel to the Middle East if the PLO took the necessary steps to crack down on terrorists. Those steps clearly have not been taken. More innocent civilians lie bleeding in the streets. But the administration still clings to the fiction of a peace process. I have said many times, and I say again today: There is no peace in this process. How long will we be expected to play along with this charade, pretending that meetings, consultations, and formalities can substitute for genuine attempts to deliver peace and security to the people of Israel? In the coming months, the Congress will reconsider the provision of assistance to the Palestinians. At that time, we must ask ourselves whether the PLO has complied with its commitments, not only to Israel, but to the United States. We must ask ourselves whether Palestinian territories have become a beachead for terrorists. We must ask ourselves if the PLO and Yasser Arafat are partners worthy of the confidence of the United States. Mr. President, all we need do is look at the pictures on our television screens to see that the answer to each of those questions is no.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 3, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,413,621,503,580.39--five trillion, four hundred thirteen billion, six hundred twenty-one million, five hundred three thousand, five hundred eighty dollars and thirty-nine cents. One year ago, September 3, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,226,657,000,000--five trillion, two hundred twenty-six billion, six hundred fifty-seven million. Five years ago, September 3, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,035,387,000,000--four trillion, thirty-five billion, three hundred eighty-seven million. Ten years ago, September 3, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,361,615,000,000--two trillion, three hundred sixty-one billion, six hundred fifteen million. Fifteen years ago, September 3, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,110,240,000,000--one trillion, one hundred ten billion, two hundred forty million--which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion, $4,303,381,503,580.39--four trillion, three hundred three billion, three hundred eighty-one million, five hundred three thousand, five hundred eighty dollars and thirty-nine cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending August 29, the United States imported 8,513,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,786,000 barrels more than the 6,727,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 57.4 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 8,513,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 2, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,424,368,836,901.08. (Five trillion, four hundred twenty-four billion, three hundred sixty-eight million, eight hundred thirty-six thousand, nine hundred one dollars and eight cents) Five years ago, September 2, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $4,044,021,000,000. (Four trillion, forty-four billion, twenty-one million) Ten years ago, September 2, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,358,780,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred fifty-eight billion, seven hundred eighty million) Fifteen years ago, September 2, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,109,939,000,000 (One trillion, one hundred nine billion, nine hundred thirty-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,314,429,836,901.08 (Four trillion, three hundred fourteen billion, four hundred twenty-nine million, eight hundred thirty-six thousand, nine hundred one dollars and eight cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, August 29, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,404,420,294,885.51. (Five trillion, four hundred four billion, four hundred twenty million, two hundred ninety-four thousand, eight hundred eighty-five dollars, and fifty-one cents). One year ago, August 29, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,213,489,000,000 (Five trillion, two hundred thirteen billion, four hundred eighty-nine million dollars). Twenty-five years ago, August 29, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $436,812,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-six billion, eight hundred twelve million dollars) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,967,608,294,885.51 (Four trillion, nine hundred sixty-seven billion, six hundred eight million, two hundred ninety-four thousand, eight hundred eighty-five dollars and fifty-one cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, July 30, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,372,436,799,991.80. (Five trillion, three hundred seventy- two billion, four hundred thirty-six million, seven hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-one dollars and eighty cents) One year ago, July 30, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,183,983,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred eighty-three billion, nine hundred eighty-three million) Five years ago, July 30, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,999,118,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred ninety-nine billion, one hundred eighteen million) Ten years ago, July 30, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,304,965,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred four billion, nine hundred sixty-five million) Fifteen years ago, July 30, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,089,616,000,000 (One trillion, eighty-nine billion, six hundred sixteen million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,282,820,799,991.80 (Four trillion, two hundred eighty-two billion, eight hundred twenty million, seven hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-one dollars and eighty cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, since 1920 there has been a Federal law on the books that, while perhaps well intentioned, nonetheless forbids a vast segment of the farming community in North Carolina and other States from obtaining reasonably-priced grain from the Midwest. It has long prevented Midwestern grain producers from delivering much needed grain to grain deficit states which experience difficulty in feeding their livestock. That is why I am today introducing S. 1138 which I have titled ``The Freedom To Ship Act of 1997.'' I am pleased to have Senator Brownback, Senator Burns, Senator Hagel, and Senator Roberts as original cosponsors. Mr. President, the Jones Act, as it is commonly called, prevents a large sector of the Agricultural community in North Carolina from obtaining grain from the Midwest at reasonable prices. Furthermore, it is preventing grain suppliers in the Midwest from supplying grain deficit states, such as North Carolina, with grain needed for their livestock. Under the present system, a few waterborne carriers have a monopoly on shipping, and my folks in North Carolina tell me that those shippers have no certified Jones Act ships to meet their demands. My poultry and pork farmers tell me they can't get enough grain for their farms to feed their animals. My State cannot, and will never be able, to produce enough grain for the poultry and pork producers in North Carolina; so, as a result, they must, I repeat, they must have grain shipped in from the Midwest. They tell me the railroads can't guarantee enough rail cars to get the supplies of grain needed from the Midwest. And the costs of these shipments that are available are very high. The increase in transportation costs coupled with the price of grain leads to higher overhead for my farmers. This shortage of grains and shortage of trains means higher costs and higher prices which threatens the jobs of many farmers. According to the 1996 North Carolina Department of Agriculture report, North Carolina was first in the nation in turkey production with 59.5 million heads; our State was number two in hog production, exceeded by Iowa, at 9.8 million heads; and in commercial broilers North Carolina was fourth with 681 million heads, exceeded by Arkansas, Georgia, and Alabama. While we slightly dropped off in turkey production in 1996, we increased hog production by 1.5 million head and increased commercial broiler production by 37 million heads over the last statistical reporting period. That is a tremendous number of poultry and livestock to feed, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Dependence on one mode of transportation, the railroads, is not good. In times of severe weather, such as heavy snows in Winter and flooding from heavy rains, many times railroads can't get through mountain passes or flooded areas of the country. We've seen quite a few severe winters and floods in the past few years. Even a delay of one day can be critical to farmers. Mr. President, the problem is that the Jones Act restricts shipping between ports in the United States. It requires that merchandise being transported by water between U.S. points be shipped on U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, U.S.-manned, and U.S.-citizen owned vessels that are documented by the Coast Guard for such carriage. The problem is that there are not enough Jones Act certified vessels to transport grain to North Carolina farmers. As a matter of fact, my farmers are now faced with being forced to go to foreign sources of feed grain. According to a report in the September 12, 1995, Journal of Commerce, Murphy Family Farms brought in a cargo of 1 million bushels of Canadian wheat to the port of Wilmington, North Carolina on Canada Steamship Lines. Mr. President, the Jones Act is not fair to grain producers in the Midwest. It penalizes them for being American farmers. Those that would protest this legislation would say that it would destroy American shipping. If we maintain the status quo, my farmers will have no choice but to buy foreign grain from countries like Canada and Argentina and it will be transported on non U.S. flagged vessels. Mr. President, this legislation requires any non-U.S. flag shipping company that wishes to do regularly scheduled business in the coastwise trades to: set up a United States Corporation, use U.S. Labor, comply with all state and federal law and--for those of us who are worried about the budget deficit--pay state and Federal Taxes. More importantly, it would create more long shore jobs. The more ships you have in the trade the more you have to load and unload, hence you need more workers. According to a report, issued in December of 1995, by the United States International Trade Commission, ``The economy wide effect of removing the Jones Act is a U.S. economic welfare gain of approximately $2.8 billion. This figure can also be interpreted as the annual reduction in real national income imposed by the Jones Act. A primary reason for the large gain in welfare is a decline of approximately 26 percent in the price of shipping services formerly restricted by the Jones Act.'' It is strange circumstance where we are the breadbasket of the world and there is a lid on the basket of the domestic market placed by the Jones Act. Mr. President, the Jones Act placing restrictions on shipments of a whole host of other non-agricultural goods and commodities, such as coal, fuel oil, steel, kaolin clay, in the United States. Our legislation would help lower shipping costs for many other industries as well. So I urge my colleagues to join us in correcting this inequity to allow American grain to be shipped unhindered to those grain deficit states that are in need of it; and all other non-agricultural commodities and goods to be shipped by water at reasonable costs where they are needed. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending July 25, the U.S. imported 8,138,000 barrels of oil each day, 585,000 barrels more than the 7,553,000 imported each day during the same week 1 year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 56.3 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 U.S.--now 8,138,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, July 29, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,373,127,138,499.91. (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-three billion, one hundred twenty-seven million, one hundred thirty-eight thousand, four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-one cents) One year ago, July 29, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,182,455,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred eighty-two billion, four hundred fifty-five million) Five years ago, July 29, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,995,312,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred ninety-five billion, three hundred twelve million) Ten years ago, July 29, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,298,353,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred ninety-eight billion, three hundred fifty-three million) Fifteen years ago, July 29, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,089,771,000,000 (One trillion, eighty-nine billion, seven hundred seventy-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,283,356,138,499.91 (Four trillion, two hundred eighty- three billion, three hundred fifty-six million, one hundred thirty- eight thousand, four hundred ninety-nine dollars and ninety-one cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this morning, the Foreign Relations Committee approved and sent to the Senate an original resolution-- Senate Concurrent Resolution 46--condemning the terrorist attack in Israel at 1:15 p.m. Wednesday afternoon, Israel time, when two terrorists entered a market in the center of Jerusalem and blew themselves up, killing at least 12 Israelis, and leaving 120 wounded, at least 20 of whom are described in critical condition. Mr. President, the reason for this attack was probably yesterday's announcement that the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians were about to resume. Clearly, the terrorists decided to try to derail the peace process by murdering innocent people. They perhaps have succeeded, because the peace process, Mr. President, is meaningless if there is no security for the people of Israel. It is reported that Yasser Arafat telephoned Prime Minister Netanyahu to apologize for the bombing. He has had ample practice in issuing apologies and regrets for Palestinian attacks on Jews. But rhetoric is cheap. The question all of us must ask is: ``Has Yasser Arafat done what it takes to rid the territories under his control of terrorists?'' The answer to that is obvious: no. The United States has done a great deal, too much, some contend, to support the Palestinian Authority. What has the Authority done to crack down on terror? Not nearly enough. Palestinian police officials are implicated in murders; terrorists are operating freely in areas under the Palestinian Authority's control. Now dozens of innocent people lie dead and wounded. Not soldiers. Not military or police personnel. Just innocent people--mothers, fathers, children. There is no peace in this process.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, July 28, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,369,966,109,620.66. (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-nine billion, nine hundred sixty-six million, one hundred nine thousand, six hundred twenty dollars and sixty-six cents) Five years ago, July 28, 1992, the federal debt stood at $3,993,518,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred ninety-three billion, five hundred eighteen million) Ten years ago, July 28, 1987, the federal debt stood at $2,299,649,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred ninety-nine billion, six hundred forty-nine million) Fifteen years ago, July 28, 1982, the federal debt stood at $1,088,071,000,000. (One trillion, eighty-eight billion, seventy-one million) Twenty-five years ago, July 28, 1972, the federal debt stood at $435,641,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-five billion, six hundred forty- one million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,934,325,109,620.66 (Four trillion, nine hundred thirty-four billion, three hundred twenty-five million, one hundred nine thousand, six hundred twenty dollars and sixty-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, July 25, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,369,530,452,476.10. (Five trillion, three hundred sixty-nine billion, five hundred thirty million, four hundred fifty-two thousand, four hundred seventy-six dollars and ten cents). One year ago, July 25, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,181,309,000,000 (Five trillion, one hundred eighty-one billion, three hundred ninety million). Twenty-five years ago, July 25, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $434,583,000,000 (Four hundred thirty-four billion, five hundred eighty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,934,967,452,476.10 (Four trillion, nine hundred thirty- four billion, nine hundred sixty-seven million, four hundred fifty-two thousand, four hundred seventy-six dollars and ten cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 submitted earlier today by Senators Grassley, Lugar, and Harkin.