Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I want to defer to the Senator from Florida. But before I do, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous unanimous consent, when these proceedings are completed and before we recess for the policy meetings of the two parties, that I be given 10 or 12 minutes to speak on a joint resolution that I am introducing.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 2, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,336,777,463,335.09. (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-six billion, seven hundred seventy-seven million, four hundred sixty-three thousand, three hundred thirty-five dollars and nine cents) Five years ago, June 2, 1992, the federal debt stood at $3,940,929,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred forty billion, nine hundred twenty-nine million) Ten years ago, June 2, 1987, the federal debt stood at $2,300,635,000,000. (Two trillion, three hundred billion, six hundred thirty-five million) Fifteen years ago, June 2, 1982, the federal debt stood at $1,077,417,000,000. (One trillion, seventy-seven billion, four hundred seventeen million) Twenty-five years ago, June 2, 1972, the federal debt stood at $427,622,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-seven billion, six hundred twenty-two million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,909,155,463,335.09 (Four trillion, nine hundred nine billion, one hundred fifty-five million, four hundred sixty-three thousand, three hundred thirty-five dollars and nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I are submitting today a Senate concurrent resolution in support of Taiwan's admission to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. There is simply no reason that Taiwan should be excluded from these multilateral economic institutions. Taiwan has one of the largest trading economies in the world. In fact, in the time it took me to draft this concurrent resolution, Taiwan went from the 20th largest gross domestic product, to the 19th largest. Moreover, Taiwan is a democracy and a responsible member of the international community. This is more than one can say about many other nations who are currently members of these multilateral institutions. Mr. President, the purpose of this resolution is straightforward. It expresses the sense of the Senate that Taiwan deserves to belong to these organizations. This resolution is not directed against any other nation. It simply puts the Senate on record in favor of justice for Taiwan.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, May 22, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,344,819,275,286.24. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-four billion, eight hundred nineteen million, two hundred seventy-five thousand, seven hundred eighty-six dollars and twenty-four cents) One year ago, May 22, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,117,440,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred seventeen billion, four hundred forty million) Five years ago, May 22, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,926,208,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred twenty-six billion, two hundred eight million) Ten years ago, May 22, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,289,817,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred eighty-nine billion, eight hundred seventeen million) Twenty-five years ago, May 22, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $428,608,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-eight billion, six hundred eight million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,916,211,275,286.24 (Four trillion, nine hundred sixteen billion, two hundred eleven million, two hundred seventy-five thousand, two hundred eighty-six dollars and twenty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 21, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,348,057,972,766.87. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-eight billion, fifty-seven million, nine hundred seventy-two thousand, seven hundred sixty-six dollars and eighty-seven cents) One year ago, May 21, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,115,827,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred fifteen billion, eight hundred twenty-seven million) Five years ago, May 21, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,923,950,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred twenty-three billion, nine hundred fifty million) Ten years ago, May 21, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,289,948,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred eighty-nine billion, nine hundred forty-eight million) Fifteen years ago, May 21, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,068,477,000,000 (One trillion, sixty-eight billion, four hundred seventy-seven million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,279,580,972,766.87 (Four trillion, two hundred seventy- nine billion, five hundred eighty million, nine hundred seventy-two thousand, seven hundred sixty-six dollars and eighty-seven cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending May 16, the U.S. imported 7,834,000 barrels of oil each day, 52,000 barrels more than the 7,782,000 imported each day during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 54.8 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. 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 7,834,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 20, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,346,367,814,885.12. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-six billion, three hundred sixty- seven million, eight hundred fourteen thousand, eight hundred eighty- five dollars and twelve cents) One year ago, May 20, 1996, the federal debt stood at $5,114,233,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred fourteen billion, two hundred thirty-three million) Five years ago, May 20, 1992, the federal debt stood at $3,921,030,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred twenty-one billion, thirty million) Ten years ago, May 20, 1987, the federal debt stood at $2,291,944,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred ninety-one billion, nine hundred forty-four million) Fifteen years ago, May 20, 1982, the federal debt stood at $1,068,510,000,000 (One trillion, sixty-eight billion, five hundred ten million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion-- $4,277,857,814,885.12 (Four trillion, two hundred seventy-seven billion, eight hundred fifty-seven million, eight hundred fourteen thousand, eight hundred eighty-five dollars and twelve cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Domenici is absolutely correct. If the Senator from Massachusetts wants to render nugatory the work of all the Senators who labored so long to produce a budget, his amendment is the way to do it. At stake, Mr. President, are the livelihoods of this country's tobacco farm families as Senators Kennedy and Hatch attempt to extract an additional $30 billion tax increase from the American taxpayers by upping the existing 24-cent excise tax to 67 cents. The impact of this proposal, if enacted, would not only devastate the Southeastern economy; it will harm the entire country. It will be harmful to the lives of thousands of farm families, to the manufacturing workers who stand to lose their jobs, to the retail-store owner and his employees, to the truck driver who delivers the product to market, to the farm implement dealer who supplies the tobacco farmer, to the schools financed by taxes levied on tobacco farmers, and on and on. Mr. President, this tax increase will cost thousands of fine North Carolinians their jobs; it will effectively destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small family tobacco farmers. According to American Economics Group, Inc., nearly 662,402 citizens are employed in the production, manufacturing, and marketing of tobacco. If enacted, the 43-cent excise tax on tobacco products would abolish 43,000 jobs nationwide, and North Carolina alone would lose 17,849 jobs. Furthermore, any increase in the cigarette excise tax will fall disproportionally on lower- and middle-income consumers--the citizens least able to pay it. Those earning less than $30,000 annually already pay 5 times more in excise taxes than those earning $60,000 or more. Those families earning less than $30,000 pay a staggering 47 percent of all tobacco excise taxes, yet these families earn only 16 percent of national family income. Make no mistake about it--the tobacco tax is not a user fee as so often claimed by the proponents of this amendment--it is a tax increase. We all know that when excise taxes are increased on any product, sales of that product decrease. If tobacco revenues fall short of projections--which will certainly be the case because there will be a substantially smaller tax base--how will the shortfall be made up? More taxes? What other group will be singled out to shoulder this financial burden? Tobacco has been targeted for enormous tax increases because it is an easy way for this Government to take even more money out of the taxpayers' pockets. Smokers, tobacco farmers, and those who work in the tobacco industry should not be singled out to shoulder the burden of paying for the health care of uninsured children. The anti smoking zealots have made clear that they are willing to do almost anything in order to tax tobacco right out of existence. They do not care about the 18,000 people in North Carolina alone who stand to lose their jobs. The proponents of this amendment talk about all the children they are trying to insure with the revenues from this tax. Well, I can guarantee that they'll be able to add more uninsured children to that list if this tax is enacted. There will be a number of folks without work, and a number of children who will suffer because of it. Once we head down this road of using the taxing power of Government to discourage Americans from undertaking activities Congress and the White House find objectionable, or politically incorrect, where will it stop? This tax discriminates against an entire region, an entire industry, and all people who use tobacco products.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. What is the pending business?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 19, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,344,451,048,224.65. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-four billion, four hundred fifty-one million, forty-eight thousand, two hundred twenty-four dollars and sixty-five cents) Five years ago, May 19, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,920,456,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred twenty billion, four hundred fifty-six million) Ten years ago, May 19, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,291,418,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred ninety-one billion, four hundred eighteen million) Fifteen years ago, May 19, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,066,133,000,000. (One trillion, sixty-six billion, one hundred thirty-three million) Twenty-five years ago, May 19, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $428,331,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-eight billion, three hundred thirty-one million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,916,120,048,224.65 (Four trillion, nine hundred sixteen billion, one hundred twenty million, forty-eight thousand, two hundred twenty-four dollars and sixty-five cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have just presented a bill to the clerk, S. 763, the goal of which is to strike a decisive blow in the war against drugs by protecting America's schoolchildren from the scourge of drugs in their classrooms. Before anyone says, ``Here we go again,'' I counsel all to consider the differences between this bill and anything which was enacted before. Incidentally, I am honored to be joined in the sponsorship of this measure by several distinguished Senators--Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Sessions. Specifically, this legislation will require each school accepting Federal education funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding illegal drugs and illegal drug paraphernalia in schools. Zero tolerance means what it sounds like. It requires the expulsion, for not less than 1 year, of any student who possesses this contraband at school. This will send a clear message to students, parents, and teachers: Drugs and schools do not mix. Illegal drug use is, in my judgment, the most insidious and destructive influence in our country today. Its cost to society, in terms of crime and wasted lives, is enormous. Just think of the innocent babies born already addicted to drugs; think of the families destroyed because fathers, mothers, or children care more about where they will get their next fix than they do their loved ones; think of the neighborhoods that have been devastated by swaggering drug dealers peddling poison. These terrible things are going on right in the shadow of this Capitol in which the U.S. Senate operates. Mr. President, Americans have heard these tragic stories so often that some citizens have questioned the wisdom of waging war against drugs. Last fall, California and Arizona voters took the unprecedented step of legalizing the so-called medicinal use of drugs, such as marijuana, heroin, and LSD, and in an outrageous decision reported recently, a Federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Fern Smith, ruled that the Federal Government cannot impose sanctions on doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients, despite the fact that such use remains illegal under Federal law. Is it not time to say enough is enough? Is it not time to go all out in the drug war? Mr. President, the answers to these questions are obvious: It is time and we must do it. It is time to take every possible step to reverse this retreat from responsibility, and eliminating drugs from America's classrooms is the imperative, inescapable first step. Anybody wondering if this bill is needed should take a look at the results of the latest ``Monitoring the Future'' [MTF] study of drug use among America's 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-graders and ``The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse'' study which measures drug use among the general population. Both studies dramatically confirm what many of us have known: We have lost ground in the war against drugs over the past 4 years. Most disturbing is the shocking increase in illicit drug use by our school-age children. The findings in the ``Monitoring the Future'' study are eye-opening: 50 percent of 12th-graders have used illicit drugs during their lifetime; about 25 percent have used drugs during the past 30 days; almost one-third of 8th-graders have used illegal drugs during their lifetime; with about 15 percent of 8th-graders using it in the last 30 days. Marijuana use among 8th- and 10th-graders almost tripled from 1992 to 1996, while 5 percent of 12th-grade marijuana users are daily users. But perhaps the most distressing finding is that the youngest students surveyed, our 8th-graders, report the highest rate of heroin use. Moreover, the percentage of actual drug use may be even greater than reported, because the MTF does not survey school dropouts. Instead, it relies solely on student self-reporting. Similarly, ``The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse'' found startling increases in drug use among teenagers over the last 4 years. For example, the survey found that teen cocaine use increased 166 percent in 1 year, 1994-95; teen use of LSD and other hallucinogens skyrocketed 183 percent from 1992 to 1995; and the use of marijuana among teenagers soared 141 percent over the same period. So, Mr. President, it is no coincidence that drug use among our children has skyrocketed. Drug dealers deliberately target our young people to be both consumers and distributors of illicit drugs because our children are our most precious and vulnerable resource. As a result, students report that drugs are now the No. 1 problem they face, far outdistancing any other concern. That, by the way, was the finding of a recent survey conducted by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. And what an alarming conclusion it was, that it is our students who are on the front lines of the war against drugs. Today, students of all ages have immediate access to a wide variety of drugs that are cheaper and more powerful than those of the past. According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 69 percent of 17-year-olds report going to schools where students keep, use, and sell drugs. Here in the Nation's Capital authorities have closed unsafe schools for fire code violations, yet thousands of children still attend drug-infested schools. Billions of dollars spent on schools will accomplish little, Mr. President, if we do not first ensure that our children are safe there. The relationship between violence and drug use is clear. The most recent national Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education [PRIDE] survey found that students who carried guns to school were 20 times more likely to use cocaine than those who did not bring a gun to school. Gang members were 12 times more likely to use cocaine, and students who threaten others were 6 times more likely to be coke users. The findings of a recent Department of Education report prepared by the Research Triangle Institute, in my home State of North Carolina, confirmed the findings of the PRIDE study. The Research Triangle Institute, found--and I quote--``[t]he use of drugs was related to violent behavior in schools. A much larger percentage of current users of alcohol and/or other drugs (32 percent of them) reported being involved in school fights as the aggressors than did current nonusers (14 percent of those students) or students who had never tried drugs (6 percent).'' Mr. President, that report went on to say that 37 percent of the students reported that they are afraid of attacks at school while 29 percent said they feared attacks when traveling to and from school. And, sadly, we must acknowledge that those fears are too often justifiable. According to the North Carolina Center for the Prevention of School Violence, over 8,100 incidents of school violence were reported in North Carolina during the last full school year. Possession of a controlled substance, possession of a weapon other than a firearm, and assault on a school employee together accounted for 85 percent of those incidents. That study concluded: ``[t]he high number of reported weapon possessions may be reflective of student concern for their own safety, even in schools, since the most often cited reason for carrying weapons * * * is `protection'.'' Parents and Government have a duty to do everything we can to protect children from the ravages of illegal drugs and the crimes spawned by the drug trade. Up until now--I think we ought to be frank with each other and acknowledge that we have failed miserably. It is not enough to prohibit students from taking guns to school if we do not address the reasons why they do so. Mr. President, Congress addressed the issue of school violence in 1994 with the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act, which required States to adopt a law mandating the expulsion of any student who brings a gun to school. During debate on that bill, it was argued that we should state, as a matter of policy, that children should not bring guns to school. In my opinion, the Senate should also state, as a matter of policy, that drugs have no place in school. That is why I am offering today S. 763, a bill which I believe to be a logical and commonsense extension of the 1994 law. Like that act, the bill sponsored by myself and several other Senators conditions the receipt of Federal education dollars, that is to say, Federal funds, on a State's adoption of a policy requiring the expulsion, for not less than one year, of any student who brings illegal drugs to school. Now, like the Gun-Free Schools Act, this bill does not create a new criminal offense, but it does require schools to refer violators to proper law enforcement authorities. Both the 1994 act and the bill I am introducing today are flexible. Each bill allows the chief administrative officer of a school district to grant an exemption on a case-by-case basis, and permits, but does not require, school districts to establish alternative education facilities for violators. So I think the policy is firm, yet fair. The drug trade and the violence associated with it have no place in America's classrooms. Schools should provide an environment that is conducive to learning and supportive of the vast majority of students who are in school to learn. Children and teachers alike deserve a school free of the fear and violence caused by drugs. Mr. President, on the issue of drugs, many speeches have been made citing respected authorities and a lot of impressive statistics as I have done today. However, nothing any Senator has said on this floor speaks quite as eloquently of our responsibilities as the statement of one of the students involved in the Research Triangle Institute study who said--and get this, I say to the Chair and other Senators--this student said, ``I don't like how dangerous it is at this school. I just wish the teachers and the rest of the school staff would have better control over their students and keep kids like me safe.'' Isn't it time for us to give the teachers and school administrators the support they need to remove violence and drug offenders from our schools? I think the answer to that is obvious. Therefore, Mr. President, the removal of drugs and violence from our schools surely are goals that everybody agrees with. The President, during his State of the Union Address, said that ``we must continue to promote order and discipline'' in America's schools by, as he put it, ``remov[ing] disruptive students from the classroom, and hav[ing] zero tolerance for guns and drugs in school.'' Obviously, I think the President was right on that one. I do not always agree with him, but you can't get any clearer than that. I commend him for that statement, and I hope he will support this effort by several of us who are concerned about the safety of our youngsters. I believe that working together, we can eliminate illegal drugs and illegal drug paraphernalia from America's classrooms. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the complete text of the aforementioned bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 16, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,343,648,869,296.26. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-three billion, six hundred forty-eight million, eight hundred sixty-nine thousand, two hundred ninety-six dollars, and twenty-six cents) One year ago, May 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,113,663,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred thirteen billion, six hundred sixty-three million) Twenty-five years ago, May 1972, the Federal debt stood at $427,214,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-seven billion, two hundred fourteen million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,916,434,869,296.26 (Four trillion, nine hundred sixteen billion, four hundred thirty-four million, eight hundred sixty-nine thousand, two hundred ninety-six dollars, and twenty-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have just presented a bill to the clerk, S. 763, the goal of which is to strike a decisive blow in the war against drugs by protecting America's schoolchildren from the scourge of drugs in their classrooms. Before anyone says, ``Here we go again,'' I counsel all to consider the differences between this bill and anything which was enacted before. Incidentally, I am honored to be joined in the sponsorship of this measure by several distinguished Senators--Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Sessions. Specifically, this legislation will require each school accepting Federal education funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding illegal drugs and illegal drug paraphernalia in schools. Zero tolerance means what it sounds like. It requires the expulsion, for not less than 1 year, of any student who possesses this contraband at school. This will send a clear message to students, parents, and teachers: Drugs and schools do not mix. Illegal drug use is, in my judgment, the most insidious and destructive influence in our country today. Its cost to society, in terms of crime and wasted lives, is enormous. Just think of the innocent babies born already addicted to drugs; think of the families destroyed because fathers, mothers, or children care more about where they will get their next fix than they do their loved ones; think of the neighborhoods that have been devastated by swaggering drug dealers peddling poison. These terrible things are going on right in the shadow of this Capitol in which the U.S. Senate operates. Mr. President, Americans have heard these tragic stories so often that some citizens have questioned the wisdom of waging war against drugs. Last fall, California and Arizona voters took the unprecedented step of legalizing the so-called medicinal use of drugs, such as marijuana, heroin, and LSD, and in an outrageous decision reported recently, a Federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Fern Smith, ruled that the Federal Government cannot impose sanctions on doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients, despite the fact that such use remains illegal under Federal law. Is it not time to say enough is enough? Is it not time to go all out in the drug war? Mr. President, the answers to these questions are obvious: It is time and we must do it. It is time to take every possible step to reverse this retreat from responsibility, and eliminating drugs from America's classrooms is the imperative, inescapable first step. Anybody wondering if this bill is needed should take a look at the results of the latest ``Monitoring the Future'' [MTF] study of drug use among America's 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-graders and ``The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse'' study which measures drug use among the general population. Both studies dramatically confirm what many of us have known: We have lost ground in the war against drugs over the past 4 years. Most disturbing is the shocking increase in illicit drug use by our school-age children. The findings in the ``Monitoring the Future'' study are eye-opening: 50 percent of 12th-graders have used illicit drugs during their lifetime; about 25 percent have used drugs during the past 30 days; almost one-third of 8th-graders have used illegal drugs during their lifetime; with about 15 percent of 8th-graders using it in the last 30 days. Marijuana use among 8th- and 10th-graders almost tripled from 1992 to 1996, while 5 percent of 12th-grade marijuana users are daily users. But perhaps the most distressing finding is that the youngest students surveyed, our 8th-graders, report the highest rate of heroin use. Moreover, the percentage of actual drug use may be even greater than reported, because the MTF does not survey school dropouts. Instead, it relies solely on student self-reporting. Similarly, ``The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse'' found startling increases in drug use among teenagers over the last 4 years. For example, the survey found that teen cocaine use increased 166 percent in 1 year, 1994-95; teen use of LSD and other hallucinogens skyrocketed 183 percent from 1992 to 1995; and the use of marijuana among teenagers soared 141 percent over the same period. So, Mr. President, it is no coincidence that drug use among our children has skyrocketed. Drug dealers deliberately target our young people to be both consumers and distributors of illicit drugs because our children are our most precious and vulnerable resource. As a result, students report that drugs are now the No. 1 problem they face, far outdistancing any other concern. That, by the way, was the finding of a recent survey conducted by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. And what an alarming conclusion it was, that it is our students who are on the front lines of the war against drugs. Today, students of all ages have immediate access to a wide variety of drugs that are cheaper and more powerful than those of the past. According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 69 percent of 17-year-olds report going to schools where students keep, use, and sell drugs. Here in the Nation's Capital authorities have closed unsafe schools for fire code violations, yet thousands of children still attend drug-infested schools. Billions of dollars spent on schools will accomplish little, Mr. President, if we do not first ensure that our children are safe there. The relationship between violence and drug use is clear. The most recent national Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education [PRIDE] survey found that students who carried guns to school were 20 times more likely to use cocaine than those who did not bring a gun to school. Gang members were 12 times more likely to use cocaine, and students who threaten others were 6 times more likely to be coke users. The findings of a recent Department of Education report prepared by the Research Triangle Institute, in my home State of North Carolina, confirmed the findings of the PRIDE study. The Research Triangle Institute, found--and I quote--``[t]he use of drugs was related to violent behavior in schools. A much larger percentage of current users of alcohol and/or other drugs (32 percent of them) reported being involved in school fights as the aggressors than did current nonusers (14 percent of those students) or students who had never tried drugs (6 percent).'' Mr. President, that report went on to say that 37 percent of the students reported that they are afraid of attacks at school while 29 percent said they feared attacks when traveling to and from school. And, sadly, we must acknowledge that those fears are too often justifiable. According to the North Carolina Center for the Prevention of School Violence, over 8,100 incidents of school violence were reported in North Carolina during the last full school year. Possession of a controlled substance, possession of a weapon other than a firearm, and assault on a school employee together accounted for 85 percent of those incidents. That study concluded: ``[t]he high number of reported weapon possessions may be reflective of student concern for their own safety, even in schools, since the most often cited reason for carrying weapons * * * is `protection'.'' Parents and Government have a duty to do everything we can to protect children from the ravages of illegal drugs and the crimes spawned by the drug trade. Up until now--I think we ought to be frank with each other and acknowledge that we have failed miserably. It is not enough to prohibit students from taking guns to school if we do not address the reasons why they do so. Mr. President, Congress addressed the issue of school violence in 1994 with the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act, which required States to adopt a law mandating the expulsion of any student who brings a gun to school. During debate on that bill, it was argued that we should state, as a matter of policy, that children should not bring guns to school. In my opinion, the Senate should also state, as a matter of policy, that drugs have no place in school. That is why I am offering today S. 763, a bill which I believe to be a logical and commonsense extension of the 1994 law. Like that act, the bill sponsored by myself and several other Senators conditions the receipt of Federal education dollars, that is to say, Federal funds, on a State's adoption of a policy requiring the expulsion, for not less than one year, of any student who brings illegal drugs to school. Now, like the Gun-Free Schools Act, this bill does not create a new criminal offense, but it does require schools to refer violators to proper law enforcement authorities. Both the 1994 act and the bill I am introducing today are flexible. Each bill allows the chief administrative officer of a school district to grant an exemption on a case-by-case basis, and permits, but does not require, school districts to establish alternative education facilities for violators. So I think the policy is firm, yet fair. The drug trade and the violence associated with it have no place in America's classrooms. Schools should provide an environment that is conducive to learning and supportive of the vast majority of students who are in school to learn. Children and teachers alike deserve a school free of the fear and violence caused by drugs. Mr. President, on the issue of drugs, many speeches have been made citing respected authorities and a lot of impressive statistics as I have done today. However, nothing any Senator has said on this floor speaks quite as eloquently of our responsibilities as the statement of one of the students involved in the Research Triangle Institute study who said--and get this, I say to the Chair and other Senators--this student said, ``I don't like how dangerous it is at this school. I just wish the teachers and the rest of the school staff would have better control over their students and keep kids like me safe.'' Isn't it time for us to give the teachers and school administrators the support they need to remove violence and drug offenders from our schools? I think the answer to that is obvious. Therefore, Mr. President, the removal of drugs and violence from our schools surely are goals that everybody agrees with. The President, during his State of the Union Address, said that ``we must continue to promote order and discipline'' in America's schools by, as he put it, ``remov[ing] disruptive students from the classroom, and hav[ing] zero tolerance for guns and drugs in school.'' Obviously, I think the President was right on that one. I do not always agree with him, but you can't get any clearer than that. I commend him for that statement, and I hope he will support this effort by several of us who are concerned about the safety of our youngsters. I believe that working together, we can eliminate illegal drugs and illegal drug paraphernalia from America's classrooms. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the complete text of the aforementioned bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there are many times when I am so inclined to pay my respects to Senators who have gone out of their way to take a somewhat different stand. And I imagine that during the past week--and throughout the days of debate on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the 104th Congress, as a matter of fact--that if unborn children had a vote or a message of communication and a way to deliver it, they would be sending their love to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum; and to the distinguished occupant of the chair, Mr. DeWine of Ohio; and to the able Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith as well as to the able Senators from Texas and Tennessee, Mr. Gramm and Mr. Frist; and on and on. It has not always been easy to take the pro-life position on this floor, but it is a lot easier and a lot more comfortable now, thanks to these great Senators and others. I personally pay my respects to all who have participated in the debate on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act up to this point. By the way, as one who has participated in the abortion debates since the Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade decision in 1973, and as one who has been condemned by many in certain quarters, I am so thankful that the cavalry has arrived in the Senate and now other Senators are standing up to be counted on an issue that involves the survival of this country. I have long felt if our country cannot reconcile with morality and decency and honesty, the position on the deliberate destruction of the most innocent, the most helpless of human life, that may be at peril--lying just down the road--is the survival of this country. In any case, the abortion debate shifted dramatically when legislation was introduced in the 104th Congress to spare unborn babies from a merciless procedure known as a partial-birth abortion. Because of the debate in Congress and the heightened concern of the American people, the spotlight no longer is focused on the sanctimonious, so- called right to choose; instead, the debate now centers around the ultimate question: Does an innocent, defenseless, unborn child have a right to live? Senators have cast their votes for and against legislation outlawing partial-birth abortions on two previous occasions--first on December 6, 1995, when 54 Senators voted to ban partial-birth abortions. But the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, saw fit to veto that bill. The Senate, on September 26 of last year, failed to override that Presidential veto. Fifty-seven Senators voted to override, but the 57 were 10 votes fewer than the two-thirds necessary and required to override. Which brings me to where we are now and the reason I stand here to pay my respects to Senators like the distinguished occupant of the chair, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Smith, and others. The Senate has been considering whether an innocent baby--partially born, just 3 inches from the protection of the law--deserves the right to live, to love, and to be loved. Interestingly enough, the House of Representatives has already passed H.R. 1122, which is the bill now before the Senate. In my judgment, the Senate must not squander this opportunity to outlaw partial-birth abortions, and I cannot believe it will. Those who oppose the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, as it is named, have again asserted the necessity of the procedure that enables doctors to deliver babies partially, feet first from the womb, only to have their brains brutally removed by the doctor's instruments. This procedure has prompted revulsion across this land, even among many who previously have been vocal advocates of the right to choose. Well-known medical doctors, obstetricians and gynecologists have repeatedly rejected the assertions that a partial-birth abortion is needed to protect the health of a woman in a late-term complicated pregnancy. Dr. Pamela E. Smith, who is director of medical education in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Chicago's Mount Sinai Hospital, in a letter to Senators described these assertions as--in her words, not mine--``deceptive and patently untrue.'' Also, Mr. President, there is much to be said about the facts surrounding the number of partial-birth abortions performed annually and the reason they are performed--or at least the given, stated reason. It is hard to overlook the recent confession of Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted that he, himself, had deceived the American people on national television about the number and the nature of partial-birth abortions. Mr. Fitzsimmons now estimates that up to 5,000 partial-birth abortions are conducted annually on healthy women carrying healthy babies. This is a far cry from the rhetoric espoused by Washington's pro-abortion groups who maintain that only 500 partial-birth abortions are performed every year, and only in extreme medical circumstances. Mr. President, I could go on and on, but Senators throughout this debate have provided ample evidence affirming the need to rid America of this senseless, brutal form of killing. And it is also important to note that the American people recognize the moral significance of this legislation. The continued outpouring of letters and phone calls from across the country in support of a ban on partial-birth abortions has been nothing short of remarkable. I remember so vividly the day in January 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down the decision to legalize abortion. It was hard to find many people to speak up, certainly on the floor of the Senate, on behalf of unborn babies. But it is time, once again, for Members of the Senate to stand up and be counted for or against the most helpless human beings imaginable, for or against the destruction of innocent human life in such a repugnant way. The Senate simply must pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and I pray that it will do it by a margin of at least 67 votes in favor of the ban.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on May 19, 1997, at 2 p.m. for the purpose of a hearing.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 763 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, May 15, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,344,063,176,240.27. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-four billion, sixty-three million, one hundred seventy-six thousand, two hundred forty dollars and twenty-seven cents) One year ago, May 15, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,115,694,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred fifteen billion, six hundred ninety-four million) Five years ago, May 15, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,918,654,000,000. (Three trillion, nine hundred eighteen billion, six hundred fifty-four million) Ten years ago, May 15, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,290,946,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred ninety billion, nine hundred forty-six million) Twenty-five years ago, May 15, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $427,283,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-seven billion, two hundred eighty-three million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,916,780,176,240.27 (Four trillion, nine hundred sixteen billion, seven hundred eighty million, one hundred seventy-six thousand, two hundred forty dollars and twenty-seven cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 14, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,339,781,396,107.91. (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-nine billion, seven hundred eighty-one million, three hundred ninety-six thousand, one hundred seven dollars and ninety-one cents) One year ago, May 14, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,096,217,000,000. (Five trillion, ninety-six billion, two hundred seventeen million) Five years ago, May 14, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,893,082,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred ninety-three billion, eighty-two million) Ten years ago, May 14, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,272,137,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred seventy-two billion, one hundred thirty-seven million) Fifteen years ago, May 14, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,062,129,000,000 (One trillion, sixty-two billion, one hundred twenty-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,277,652,396,107.91 (Four trillion, two hundred seventy- seven billion, six hundred fifty-two million, three hundred ninety-six thousand, one hundred seven dollars and ninety-one cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending May 9, the United States imported 7,566,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,057,000 barrels less than the 8,623,000 imported during the same week a year ago. While this is one of the few weeks that Americans imported less oil than the same week a year ago, Americans still relied on foreign oil for 53.9 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 7,566,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator. During the past 4 years, the Clinton administration has remained silent while Russia has encroached upon the territory and sovereignty of its neighbors. It was the lack of a foreign policy--not a lack of tools--that allowed this to happen. I have confidence that the new Secretary of State will correct the course of our policies toward Russia, and I gladly support this treaty to aid the Honorable Madeleine Albright in that endeavor. The collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the finest moments of the 20th century. To allow even a partial restoration of the Soviet Union before the turn of the century would be a failure of an even greater magnitude. Senator Lott, I believe, is standing by. I thank the Senator.