Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess for 7 minutes, so the Senate may greet him.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today is the publication date of a book of prison letters by Wei Jingsheng, ``The Courage to Stand Alone: Letters From Prison and Other Writings.'' Wei's book is the subject of a May 5 editorial in the New York Times; I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am proud to present the President of the Czech Republic, His Excellency, Mr. Vaclav Havel. He is here on the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 12, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,344,444,824,118.40. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-four billion, four hundred forty-four million, eight hundred twenty-four thousand, one hundred eighteen dollars and forty cents) Five years ago, May 12, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,886,829,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty-six billion, eight hundred twenty-nine million) Ten years ago, May 12, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,271,664,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred seventy-one billion, six hundred sixty-four million) Fifteen years ago, May 12, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,060,830,000,000. (One trillion, sixty billion, eight hundred thirty million) Twenty-five years ago, May 12, 1972, the federal debt stood at $427,349,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-seven billion, three hundred forty-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,917,095,824,118.40 (Four trillion, nine hundred seventeen billion, ninety-five million, eight hundred twenty-four thousand, one hundred eighteen dollars and forty cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 9, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,331,940,681,736.92. (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-one billion, nine hundred forty million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred thirty-six dollars and ninety-two cents.) One year ago, May 9, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,088,829,000,000. (Five trillion, eighty-eight billion, eight hundred twenty-nine million) Twenty-five years ago, May 9, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $426,455,000,000 (four hundred twenty-six billion, four hundred fifty- five million), which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,905,485,681,736.92 (four trillion, nine hundred five billion, four hundred eighty-five million, six hundred eighty-one thousand, seven hundred thirty-six dollars and ninety-two cents), during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, May 8, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,330,417,059,281.37. (Five trillion, three hundred thirty billion, four hundred seventeen million, fifty-nine thousand, two hundred eighty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents) One year ago, May 8, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,094,597,000,000. (Five trillion, ninety-four billion, five hundred ninety-seven million) Five years ago, May 8, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,881,282,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty-one billion, two hundred eighty-two million) Ten years ago, May 8, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,270,169,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred seventy billion, one hundred sixty-nine million) Twenty-five years ago, May 8, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $426,287,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-six billion, two hundred eighty- seven million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,904,130,059,281.37 (Four trillion, nine hundred four billion, one hundred thirty million, fifty-nine thousand, two hundred eighty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents) during the past 25 years. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, May 7, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,336,081,916,565.07 (five trillion, three hundred thirty-six billion, eighty-one million, nine hundred sixteen thousand, five hundred sixty-five dollars and seven cents). One year ago, May 7, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,093,910,000,000 (five trillion, ninety-three billion, nine hundred ten million). Five years ago, May 7, 1992, the federal debt stood at $3,883,035,000,000 (three trillion, eight hundred eighty-three billion, thirty-five million). Ten years ago, May 7, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,272,537,000,000 (two trillion, two hundred seventy-two billion, five hundred thirty-seven million). Fifteen years ago, May 7, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,057,931,000,000 (one trillion, fifty-seven billion, nine hundred thirty-one million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,278,150,916,565.07 (four trillion, two hundred seventy- eight billion, one hundred fifty million, nine hundred sixteen thousand, five hundred sixty-five dollars and seven cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably five nomination lists in the Foreign Service which were printed in full in the Congressional Record of February 13, April 8, and April 25, 1997, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators. The following-named persons of the agencies indicated for appointment as Foreign Service Officers of the classes stated, and also for the other appointments indicated herewith: For appointment as Foreign Service Officer of Class One, Consular Officer and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America: department of state Kathleen Therese Austin, of the District of Columbia For appointment as Foreign Service Officers of Class Two, Consular Officers and Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America: department of state John Wesley Harrison, of Virginia Carol R. Kalin, of New York Karen Eastman Klemp, of Illinois Ronna Sharp Pazdral, of California Robert Walter Pons, of New Jersey For appointment as Foreign Service Officers of Class Four, Consular Officers and Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America: department of agriculture Brian D. Goggin, of Virginia department of state Gregory Jon Adamson, of California Cherrie Sarah Daniels, of Texas Martha J. Haas, of Texas Paul Horowitz, of Oregon John Kevin Madden, of Arkansas Deborah Rutledge Mennuti, of Texas Manish Kumar Mishra, of Pennsylvania William E. Moeller, III, of Florida William E. Shea, of Florida Marco Aurelio Ribeir Sims, of the District of Columbia Mark L. Strege, of Florida Joni Alicia Treviss, of Massachusetts David H.L. Van Cleve, of California The following-named Members of the Foreign Service of the Department of Commerce and the Department of State to be Consular Officers and/or Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America, as indicated: Consular Officers and Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America: James Robert Addison, of Virginia Amy Marie Allen, of Arizona Emily Jane Allt, of Connecticut Gregory R. Alston, of Virginia Margaret Jane Armstrong, of Virginia William H. Avery, of Florida Charles R. Banks, of Virginia Stephen B. Banks, of Virginia Stephen A. Barneby, of Nevada William G. Basil, of Maryland Stephan Berwick, of Virginia Mark W. Blair, of Virginia Joshua Blau, of California Christopher J. Bort, of Maryland Bridget A. Brink, of Michigan Jennifer Chintana Bullock, of Pennsylvania David W. Carey, of Virginia Paul M. Carter, Jr., of Maryland Joseph F. Chernesky, of Virginia Rachel M. Coll, of Virginia Colin Thomas Robert Crosby, of Ohio Robert Clinton DeWitt, of Texas Ali Diba, of Virginia Joseph A. Dogonniuck, of Virginia Fred D. Enochs, of Florida Naomi Catherine Fellows, of California Barbara J. Fleshman, of Virginia Mary Anne Flauta Francisco, of Virginia Robert R. Gabor, of California Jeffrey E. Galvin, of Colorado Katherine Gamboa, of Virginia Roger Z. George, of Virginia Lisa M. Grasso, of Virginia Gregory S. Groth, of California Edward G. Grulich, of Texas Douglas E. Haas, of Virginia Mark W. Jackson, of Virginia Kipling Van Kahler, of Texas Craig K. Kakuda, of Virginia Yuri Kim, of Guam Jennifer A. Koella, of Virginia Henry P. Kohn, Jr., of Virginia Paula J. Labuda, of Virginia John T. Lancia, of Pennsylvania Jennifer M. Lee, of Virginia Glenn A. Little, of Virginia Gregory Michael Marchese, of California William M. Marshall III, of Virginia Robert B. Mooney, of California Kevin L. O'Donovan, of Virginia Ann A. Omerzo, of Pennsylvania Robert Anthony Pitre, of Washington Jennifer L. Savage, of Virginia Brandon P. Scheid, of Virginia Carmen A. Seltzer, of Virginia Russell Schiebel, of Texas Micaela A. Schweitzer, of the District of Columbia Stefano G. J. Serafini, of the District of Columbia Robert E. Setlow, of Washington Andrew Shaw, of New York Scott A. Shaw, of Illinois David William Simons, of Colorado James Douglas Smith III, of Virginia Matthew Alexander Spivak, of California Daisy D. Springs, of Virginia Cheryl S. Steele, of Massachusetts Hector J. Tavera, of the District of Columbia Martina Anna Tkadlec, of Texas Bonnie J. Toeper, of Virginia Bryant P. Trick, of California Mark E. Twambly, of Virginia Patrick Timothy Wall, of Alabama Mark A. Weaver, of Washington Michael Edward Widener, of Virginia Christine Williams, of Virginia Thomas A. Witecki, of Virginia William H. S. Wright, of Virginia Ronda S. Zander, of Maryland The following-named career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States Information Agency for promotion in the Senior Foreign Service to the classes indicated: Career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister: Kenton W. Keith, of California Career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor: George Frederic Beasley, of Maryland John P. Dwyer, of Connecticut Harriet Lee Elam, of Maryland Mary Eleanor Gawronski, of New York David P. Good, of New York Terrence H. Kneebone, of Utah John K. Menzies, of California The following-named career members of the Foreign Service of the United States Information Agency for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service as indicated: Career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor: John H. Brown, of the District of Columbia Guy Burton, of New Jersey Helena Kane Finn, of New York Stedman D. Howard, of Florida Gerald E. Huchel, of Virginia Mark B. Krischik, of Florida Nicholas Robertson, of California Charles N. Silver, of Virginia Marcelle M. Wahba, of California Laurence D. Wohlers, of Washington Mary Carlin Yates, of the District of Columbia The following-named career member of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, and for appointment as Consular Officer and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service, as indicated: Career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor: Terrence W. Sullivan, of New York The following-named career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of Agriculture for the promotion in the Senior Foreign Service to the classes indicated: Career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister. Daniel B. Conable, of New York Career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister-Counselor: William L. Brant II, of Oklahoma Warren J. Child, of Maryland Mattie R. Sharpless of the District of Columbia The following-named career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of Agriculture for the promotion in the Senior Foreign Service to the class indicated: Career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America. Class of Counselor: Norval E. Francis, of Virginia Francis J. Tarrant, of Virginia The following-named career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of Commerce for promotion in the Senior Foreign Service to the classes indicated: Career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister: Kenneth P. Moorefield of Maryland Career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor: Jonathan M. Bensky, of Washington John Peters, of Florida The following-named career members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as indicated: Career members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor: Thomas Lee Boam, of Utah Stephen K. Craven, of Florida Lawrence I. Eisenberg, of Florida Edgar D. Fulton, of Virginia Samuel H. Kidder, of Washington Bobette K. Orr, of Arizona James Wilson, of Pennsylvania The following-named career members of the Foreign Service of the United States Information Agency for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service to the class indicated, and for appointment as Consular Officer and Secretary in the Diplomatic Service, as indicated: Career member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor: Susan B. Aramayo, of Maryland Joy Boss, of Texas Robert S. Morris, of California

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I am pleased to join Senator Moynihan today in introducing a bill that would for the first time place in statute the Government system for the classification of information. To date this has been accomplished solely through Executive order. The statute is based on the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission to Protect and Reduce Government Secrecy chaired by my colleague Pat Moynihan, the senior Senator from New York. The Secrecy Commission achieved a unified report of recommendations--a feat that should not be underrated, especially in Washington. The Commission, by law, had the twin goals of studying how to protect important Government secrets and simultaneously reducing the amount of classified documents and materials. All Commissioners began their deliberations with the premise that Government secrecy is a form of regulation that, like all regulations, should be used sparingly, and certainly never for the goal of keeping the truth from the American people. Commissioners also began the process recognizing that over- classification can actually weaken the protections of those secrets that truly are in our national interest. All the same I am obliged to begin with a reiteration of the obvious--that the protection of true national security information remains vital to the well-being and security of the United States. The end of the cold war notwithstanding, the United States continues to face serious and long-term threats from a variety of fronts. While Communist and anti-American regimes, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq, continue to wage a war of espionage against the United States, new threats have arisen as well. Most alarming, perhaps, is the growing trend of espionage conducted not by our enemies but by American allies. Such espionage is on the rise especially against U.S. economic secrets. According to a February 1996 report by GAO, classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high priority targets for the intelligence agencies of U.S. allies. At first blush, a push to reduce Government secrecy may seem at odds with these increasing threats. I am convinced it is not. The sheer volume of government secrets--and their cost to the taxpayers and U.S. business--is staggering. In 1996 the taxpayers spent more than $5.2 billion to protect classified information. We know all too well from our own experiences that when everything is secret nothing is secret. Secrecy all too often then becomes a political tool used by executive branch agencies to shield information which may be politically sensitive or policies which may be unpopular with the American public. Worse yet, information may be classified to hide from public view illegal or unethical activity. On numerous occasions I, and other Members of Congress, have found the executive branch to be reluctant to share certain information, the nature of which is not truly a national secret, but which would be potentially politically embarrassing to officials in the executive branch or which would make known an illegal or indefensible policy. I have also found that one of the largest impediments to openness is the perverse incentives of the Government bureaucracy itself in favor of classification, and the lack of accountability for those who do the actual classification. I strongly endorse the Commission's recommendation of adding individual accountability to the process by requiring original and derivative classifiers to actually identify themselves and include within the documents a justification of the decision to classify. The only way to change a bureaucracy is to reverse the incentive to classify. A good example of how to change this lack of bureaucratic accountability is a provision contained in H.R. 3121--legislation which we approved in the Foreign Relations Committee last year that was signed into law. Previously, details on U.S. commercial arms sales to foreign governments were not made available to the public unless a citizen requested that the State Department make it public. The incentive therefore was to keep the information closely regulated. H.R. 3121 provides that all arm sales will be made public unless the President determines that the release of the information is contrary to U.S. national security interest. Although this may appear to be a small nuance, the bureaucratic incentive is changed enormously to favor openness. Shifting the burden in this way can introduce more openness into the system and force the bureaucracy to identify true national security threats. I am convinced, however, that the single most important recommendation of our Commission that Congress should focus on is the concept of creating a life cycle for secrets. This means that all information, classified and unclassified alike, has a life span in which decisions must be made regarding creation, management, and use. This kind of rationalization would shift the burden to favor openness and reduce some of the costs associated with declassification. I would add a note of caution to the Commission's work on declassification, however. In the course of the 2 years of its work, the Commission became very interested in the declassification of existing documents and materials. In a perfect world, if information remains relevant to true U.S. national interests it should remain classified indefinitely. Information that does not compromise U.S. interests and sources should be made public. We all realize, however, that this is a tremendously costly venture. In fact, the Commission was unable to come up with solid data on the true cost of declassification. In this era when Congress has finally begun to grasp the essential need to reduce Government spending and balance the budget, the issue of balancing costs and benefits is an essential one. The financial costs to the American taxpayers must be balanced against the necessity of the declassification. The real lesson to take from the work of this Commission is the need to redress for the future the problems of over classification and a systematic process for declassification, so that the costs and timeliness of declassification does not pose the same economic and regulatory burdens on future generations. At the same time, it may be too costly to declassify all of the countless classified documents now in existence. With this caveat in mind, I hope the Congress will focus on bringing government-wide rationalization to the classification process. It is an area where tough congressional oversight is long overdue.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, May 6, the Federal debt stood at $5,337,028,737,421.51. One year ago, May 6, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,096,257,000,000. Five years ago, May 6, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,882,040,000,000. Ten years ago, May 6, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,278,744,000,000. Fifteen years ago, May 6, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,057,151,000,000, which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion (4,279,877,737,421.51) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending May 2, the United States imported 8,106,000 barrels of oil each day, 805,000 barrels more than the 7,301,000 imported during the same week 1 year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 55.9 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 8,106,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I am pleased to join Senator Moynihan today in introducing a bill that would for the first time place in statute the Government system for the classification of information. To date this has been accomplished solely through Executive order. The statute is based on the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission to Protect and Reduce Government Secrecy chaired by my colleague Pat Moynihan, the senior Senator from New York. The Secrecy Commission achieved a unified report of recommendations--a feat that should not be underrated, especially in Washington. The Commission, by law, had the twin goals of studying how to protect important Government secrets and simultaneously reducing the amount of classified documents and materials. All Commissioners began their deliberations with the premise that Government secrecy is a form of regulation that, like all regulations, should be used sparingly, and certainly never for the goal of keeping the truth from the American people. Commissioners also began the process recognizing that over- classification can actually weaken the protections of those secrets that truly are in our national interest. All the same I am obliged to begin with a reiteration of the obvious--that the protection of true national security information remains vital to the well-being and security of the United States. The end of the cold war notwithstanding, the United States continues to face serious and long-term threats from a variety of fronts. While Communist and anti-American regimes, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq, continue to wage a war of espionage against the United States, new threats have arisen as well. Most alarming, perhaps, is the growing trend of espionage conducted not by our enemies but by American allies. Such espionage is on the rise especially against U.S. economic secrets. According to a February 1996 report by GAO, classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high priority targets for the intelligence agencies of U.S. allies. At first blush, a push to reduce Government secrecy may seem at odds with these increasing threats. I am convinced it is not. The sheer volume of government secrets--and their cost to the taxpayers and U.S. business--is staggering. In 1996 the taxpayers spent more than $5.2 billion to protect classified information. We know all too well from our own experiences that when everything is secret nothing is secret. Secrecy all too often then becomes a political tool used by executive branch agencies to shield information which may be politically sensitive or policies which may be unpopular with the American public. Worse yet, information may be classified to hide from public view illegal or unethical activity. On numerous occasions I, and other Members of Congress, have found the executive branch to be reluctant to share certain information, the nature of which is not truly a national secret, but which would be potentially politically embarrassing to officials in the executive branch or which would make known an illegal or indefensible policy. I have also found that one of the largest impediments to openness is the perverse incentives of the Government bureaucracy itself in favor of classification, and the lack of accountability for those who do the actual classification. I strongly endorse the Commission's recommendation of adding individual accountability to the process by requiring original and derivative classifiers to actually identify themselves and include within the documents a justification of the decision to classify. The only way to change a bureaucracy is to reverse the incentive to classify. A good example of how to change this lack of bureaucratic accountability is a provision contained in H.R. 3121--legislation which we approved in the Foreign Relations Committee last year that was signed into law. Previously, details on U.S. commercial arms sales to foreign governments were not made available to the public unless a citizen requested that the State Department make it public. The incentive therefore was to keep the information closely regulated. H.R. 3121 provides that all arm sales will be made public unless the President determines that the release of the information is contrary to U.S. national security interest. Although this may appear to be a small nuance, the bureaucratic incentive is changed enormously to favor openness. Shifting the burden in this way can introduce more openness into the system and force the bureaucracy to identify true national security threats. I am convinced, however, that the single most important recommendation of our Commission that Congress should focus on is the concept of creating a life cycle for secrets. This means that all information, classified and unclassified alike, has a life span in which decisions must be made regarding creation, management, and use. This kind of rationalization would shift the burden to favor openness and reduce some of the costs associated with declassification. I would add a note of caution to the Commission's work on declassification, however. In the course of the 2 years of its work, the Commission became very interested in the declassification of existing documents and materials. In a perfect world, if information remains relevant to true U.S. national interests it should remain classified indefinitely. Information that does not compromise U.S. interests and sources should be made public. We all realize, however, that this is a tremendously costly venture. In fact, the Commission was unable to come up with solid data on the true cost of declassification. In this era when Congress has finally begun to grasp the essential need to reduce Government spending and balance the budget, the issue of balancing costs and benefits is an essential one. The financial costs to the American taxpayers must be balanced against the necessity of the declassification. The real lesson to take from the work of this Commission is the need to redress for the future the problems of over classification and a systematic process for declassification, so that the costs and timeliness of declassification does not pose the same economic and regulatory burdens on future generations. At the same time, it may be too costly to declassify all of the countless classified documents now in existence. With this caveat in mind, I hope the Congress will focus on bringing government-wide rationalization to the classification process. It is an area where tough congressional oversight is long overdue.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I certainly am not alone in having strong feelings that the senior citizens of America must not be deprived of their right to choose their own doctors. Senator Grassley's Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act of 1997, which I'm cosponsoring today, ensures choice, access, and quality care for senior citizens by guaranteeing enrollees the option of choosing a point-of-service plan at the time they enroll in a Medicare HMO. Five years ago, I had a close but fortunate encounter with some remarkable medical doctors in my home town of Raleigh. My heart surgery and the very effective subsequent rehabilitation made it clear that I had been cared for by some of the most capable people in the medical profession. I was free to choose the surgeon who performed the operation. Senior citizens enrolled in Medicare should have the same choice, and the bill I'm co-sponsoring today will enable senior citizens who join HMO's to preserve their right to choose their doctor. America's senior citizens depend on the health care coverage provided by the Medicare system, and those of us in Congress have a duty to make sure they will not be forced to give up their right to choose their doctors. Mr. President, the Health Care Financing Administration--which, of course, administers Medicare--is now the largest purchaser of managed care in the Nation, accounting for about 18 million Americans. As of February 1997, 5 million Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in managed care plans. This represents a 108-percent increase in managed care enrollment since 1993. Increased migration of the elderly into health maintenance organizations, and other types of managed care plans, will surely lower the costs of operating the vast Medicare system. And citizens who belong to a Medicare-supported HMO may increase their benefits for prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and hearing aids coverage not available through fee-for-service plans. Without some moderating legislation, however, senior citizens could very well find themselves locked into coverage that limits them to services provided by HMO-affiliated doctors, other professionals and hospitals. No longer would senior citizens have the freedom to choose their own doctor. Mr. President, consider, if you will, the predicament of a patient who requires heart surgery, and whose HMO will not approve the cardiologist with whom the senior has built up a longstanding relationship. Should that patient be required to wait for a year's time to change to a plan that will cover the cardiologist whom the patient knows and trusts? We must provide a safety valve to protect seniors who find themselves in that position. A point-of-service option would enable patients to see physicians and specialists inside and outside the managed care network. If senior citizens are satisfied with the care they receive within the network, they will feel no need to choose outside doctors and specialists. Without such options, however, these senior citizens will be locked into a rigid system which may, or may not, give them the health care they need from people they most trust to provide it. Mr. President, most Americans, whether their health is insured by private firms or by Medicare, enjoy their freedom to decide which medical professional will provide their care and treatment. According to polls I have seen, patients are willing to pay a little more for the ability to go out of network to be assured of seeing the doctors of their choice. As many as 70 percent of Americans over 50 years old declared in one poll that they would be unwilling to join a Medicare managed plan that denied them the freedom to choose their own physicians. Building a point-of-service option into all health plans under Medicare will not interfere with the plan's ability to contain cost, nor will it limit their efforts to encourage providers and patients to use their health care resources wisely. It simply will ensure that health plans put the patient first. The CBO indicated that a built-in point-of-service feature would not increase the cost of Medicare. In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, CBO stated that: the point of service option would permit Medicare enrollees to go to providers outside the HMO's panel when they wanted to, and yet it need not increase the benefit cost to HMO's or to Medicare * * * The Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act also includes patient protections and provisions ensuring Medicare participants' timely access to specialists and provides an expedited appeals process which requires patient grievances to be resolved within 30 days. Lastly, this bill expands the consumer information which must be provided to beneficiaries to help patients compare health plans. Unfortunately, although the Health Care Financing Administration collect vast amounts of data, virtually none of it is currently accessible to consumers. So, Mr. President, I urge Senators to support the Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act, which will provide senior citizens with real patient protections and real choice in health care.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, May 5, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,332,472,495,590.76. (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-two billion, four hundred seventy-two million, four hundred ninety-five thousand, five hundred ninety dollars and seventy-six cents) Five years ago, May 5, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,880,040,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty billion, forty million) Ten years ago, May 5, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,277,361,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred seventy-seven billion, three hundred sixty-one million) Fifteen years ago, May 5, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,055,630,000,000. (One trillion, fifty-five billion, six hundred thirty million) Twenty-five years ago, May 5, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $426,078,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-six billion, seventy-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,906,394,495,590.76 (Four trillion, nine hundred six billion, three hundred ninety-four million, four hundred ninety-five thousand, five hundred ninety dollars and seventy-six cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I certainly am not alone in having strong feelings that the senior citizens of America must not be deprived of their right to choose their own doctors. Senator Grassley's Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act of 1997, which I'm cosponsoring today, ensures choice, access, and quality care for senior citizens by guaranteeing enrollees the option of choosing a point-of-service plan at the time they enroll in a Medicare HMO. Five years ago, I had a close but fortunate encounter with some remarkable medical doctors in my home town of Raleigh. My heart surgery and the very effective subsequent rehabilitation made it clear that I had been cared for by some of the most capable people in the medical profession. I was free to choose the surgeon who performed the operation. Senior citizens enrolled in Medicare should have the same choice, and the bill I'm co-sponsoring today will enable senior citizens who join HMO's to preserve their right to choose their doctor. America's senior citizens depend on the health care coverage provided by the Medicare system, and those of us in Congress have a duty to make sure they will not be forced to give up their right to choose their doctors. Mr. President, the Health Care Financing Administration--which, of course, administers Medicare--is now the largest purchaser of managed care in the Nation, accounting for about 18 million Americans. As of February 1997, 5 million Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in managed care plans. This represents a 108-percent increase in managed care enrollment since 1993. Increased migration of the elderly into health maintenance organizations, and other types of managed care plans, will surely lower the costs of operating the vast Medicare system. And citizens who belong to a Medicare-supported HMO may increase their benefits for prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and hearing aids coverage not available through fee-for-service plans. Without some moderating legislation, however, senior citizens could very well find themselves locked into coverage that limits them to services provided by HMO-affiliated doctors, other professionals and hospitals. No longer would senior citizens have the freedom to choose their own doctor. Mr. President, consider, if you will, the predicament of a patient who requires heart surgery, and whose HMO will not approve the cardiologist with whom the senior has built up a longstanding relationship. Should that patient be required to wait for a year's time to change to a plan that will cover the cardiologist whom the patient knows and trusts? We must provide a safety valve to protect seniors who find themselves in that position. A point-of-service option would enable patients to see physicians and specialists inside and outside the managed care network. If senior citizens are satisfied with the care they receive within the network, they will feel no need to choose outside doctors and specialists. Without such options, however, these senior citizens will be locked into a rigid system which may, or may not, give them the health care they need from people they most trust to provide it. Mr. President, most Americans, whether their health is insured by private firms or by Medicare, enjoy their freedom to decide which medical professional will provide their care and treatment. According to polls I have seen, patients are willing to pay a little more for the ability to go out of network to be assured of seeing the doctors of their choice. As many as 70 percent of Americans over 50 years old declared in one poll that they would be unwilling to join a Medicare managed plan that denied them the freedom to choose their own physicians. Building a point-of-service option into all health plans under Medicare will not interfere with the plan's ability to contain cost, nor will it limit their efforts to encourage providers and patients to use their health care resources wisely. It simply will ensure that health plans put the patient first. The CBO indicated that a built-in point-of-service feature would not increase the cost of Medicare. In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, CBO stated that: the point of service option would permit Medicare enrollees to go to providers outside the HMO's panel when they wanted to, and yet it need not increase the benefit cost to HMO's or to Medicare * * * The Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act also includes patient protections and provisions ensuring Medicare participants' timely access to specialists and provides an expedited appeals process which requires patient grievances to be resolved within 30 days. Lastly, this bill expands the consumer information which must be provided to beneficiaries to help patients compare health plans. Unfortunately, although the Health Care Financing Administration collect vast amounts of data, virtually none of it is currently accessible to consumers. So, Mr. President, I urge Senators to support the Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act, which will provide senior citizens with real patient protections and real choice in health care.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 2, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,331,758,952,154.60. (Five trillion, three hundred thirty-one billion, seven hundred fifty-eight million, nine hundred fifty-two thousand, one hundred fifty-four dollars and sixty cents) One year ago, May 2, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,100,093,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred billion, ninety-three million) Twenty-five years ago, May 2, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $425,052,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-five billion, fifty-two million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,906,706,952,154.60 (Four trillion, nine hundred six billion, seven hundred six million, nine hundred fifty-two thousand, one hundred fifty-four dollars and sixty cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, April 30, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,353,971,314,439.39. (Five trillion, three hundred fifty-three billion, nine hundred seventy-one million, three hundred fourteen thousand, four hundred thirty-nine dollars and thirty-nine cents) Five years ago, April 30, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,891,974,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred ninety-one billion, nine hundred seventy-four million) Ten years ago, April 30, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,268,145,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred sixty-eight billion, one hundred forty-five million) Fifteen years ago, April 30, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $1,065,660,000,000 (One trillion, sixty-five billion, six hundred sixty million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion-- $4,288,311,314,439.39 (Four trillion, two hundred eighty-eight billion, three hundred eleven million, three hundred fourteen thousand, four hundred thirty-nine dollars and thirty-nine cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 29, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,348,144,848,321.78. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-eight billion, one hundred forty-four million, eight hundred forty-eight thousand, three hundred twenty-one dollars and seventy-eight cents) Five years ago, April 29, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,887,187,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty-seven billion, one hundred eighty-seven million) Ten years ago, April 29, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,266,610,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred sixty-six billion, six hundred ten million) Fifteen years ago, April 29, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $1,063,005,000,000. (One trillion, sixty-three billion, five million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion-- $4,285,139,848,321.78 (Four trillion, two hundred eighty-five billion, one hundred thirty-nine million, eight hundred forty-eight thousand, three hundred twenty-one dollars and seventy-eight cents) during the past 15 years. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending April 25, the U.S. imported 7,983,000 barrels of oil each day, 69,000 barrels less than the 8,052,000 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 55.5 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf war, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 7,983,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 28, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,347,125,099,434.10. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-seven billion, one hundred twenty-five million, ninety-nine thousand, four hundred thirty-four dollars and ten cents.) Five years ago, April 28, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,884,477,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty- four billion, four hundred seventy-seven million.) Ten years ago, April 28, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,265,888,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred sixty-five billion, eight hundred eighty-eight million.) Fifteen years ago, April 28, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,062,161,000,000. (One trillion, sixty-two billion, one hundred sixty-one million.) Twenty-five years ago, April 28, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $425,304,000,000 (four hundred twenty-five billion, three hundred four million), which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,921,821,099,434.10 (four trillion, nine hundred twenty-one billion, eight hundred twenty-one million, ninety-nine thousand, four hundred thirty-four dollars and ten cents), during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, April 25, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,345,392,363,906.29. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-five billion, three hundred ninety-two million, three hundred sixty-three thousand, nine hundred six dollars and twenty-nine cents) Twenty-five years ago, April 25, 1972, the federal debt stood at $428,301,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-eight billion, three hundred one million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,917,091,363,906.29 (Four trillion, nine hundred seventeen billion, ninety-one million, three hundred sixty-three thousand and, nine hundred six dollars and twenty-nine cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, April 24, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,343,216,863,246.54. (Five trillion, three hundred forty-three billion, two hundred sixteen million, eight hundred sixty-three thousand, two hundred forty-six dollars and fifty-four cents) One year ago, April 24, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,110,704,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred ten billion, seven hundred four million) Five years ago, April 24, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,879,889,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred seventy-nine billion, eight hundred eighty-nine million) Ten years ago, April 24, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,264,943,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred sixty-four billion, nine hundred forty-three million) Twenty-five years ago, April 24, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $427,998,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-seven billion, nine hundred ninety-eight million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,915,218,863,246.54 (Four trillion, nine hundred fifteen billion, two hundred eighteen million, eight hundred sixty-three thousand, two hundred forty-six dollars and fifty-four cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. How much time remains, Mr. President?

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to abbreviate my statement in the interest of time, hoping that we can help Senators get out a little bit earlier, including the distinguished occupant of the Chair. Mr. President, this condition is very important. It forbids the deposit of the United States instrument of ratification until Russia has made significant progress in implementing the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement and has resolved concerns over its incomplete data declarations under the Wyoming memorandum of understanding, ratified the convention and has committed to forgo the clandestine maintenance of chemical weapons production capability. That sounds like a lot but more than anything else it is a measurement of how Russia is playing games in terms of not doing things to live up to its agreement. I have the highest hope that Russia one day will have a free enterprise economy and all the rest of it, but such commitments by Russia are absolutely imperative and essential to the success of this CWC, this treaty, in securing a truly global ban on possession and use of chemical weapons. If Russia continues to drag its feet, this convention will be worth almost nothing. And for my part, as one Senator, I am extremely concerned that Russia, the country that possesses the largest and the most sophisticated chemical weapons arsenal in the world, has refused consistently to agree to implement its commitments to eliminate its chemical weapons stockpile despite the 1990 United States-Russian Bilateral Destruction Agreement. Now, put any face on it you want, but if Russia fails to do that, then Russia is telling this Senate, this Government, the American people, we don't care what you want; we are going our way. And that is a pretty dangerous position for Russia to take in terms of world peace. This coupled with the Russian withdrawal from the BDA and the Russian Parliament rejection of the chemical weapons destruction plan portend ominous things to come in terms of Russia's ratification of this treaty. Now, I hope Senators are aware, and if they are not aware, that they will become aware, that Russia is by far and away the world's largest possessor of chemical weapons. If the United States in eliminating its own chemical stockpile could assure that Russia also destroyed its stockpile through the Bilateral Destruction Agreement, 99 percent of the world's chemical arsenal would be eliminated independently of this treaty. So that gives you some idea of the enormity of this situation which has been passed over and over and over. I think enough is enough. Now, of course, Russia has signed the CWC but it has not ratified this treaty. Evidence has come to light recently, by the way, suggesting that Russia may not pursue ratification of this treaty in the near term and does not intend to abide by the CWC even if it ratifies it. I just want Senators to understand what they are doing. It is all very well and good to succumb to the imaginative suggestion that we are doing something about chemical weapons when we pass this treaty. We are not. It is not going to do one bit of good until the United States is able to persuade some other people to do things that they have already agreed to do. So the danger is how the American people are being misled by those who have endorsed this treaty into believing that something is being done about chemical weaponry. I hope, if we do nothing else in our opposition to this treaty, we can make the American people aware that nothing is being done for their safety by this treaty. I wish it were different. I wish I did not have to stand here and say this. But those are the facts. This treaty is absolutely useless in terms of giving the American people any security at all. According to a May 6, 1996, letter from the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, to the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: There are several factors affecting Russia's actions regarding its CW programs and arms control commitments. Russian officials probably believe they need a CW capability to deter other nations from chemical warfare. They cite a potential threat from purported CW programs in the United States, other Western nations, and several countries on or near Russia's borders. Now, the DIA continued: In addition, Russian officials believe that dismantling the CW program would waste resources and rob them of valuable production assets. They maintain that the CW production facilities should not be destroyed but be used to produce commercial products. Well, la-de-da. Every nation that has some ulterior motives with chemical weapons can say the same thing. Moreover, these officials do not want to see their life's work destroyed, their jobs eliminated, and their influence diminished. And here we are probably going to ratify this treaty in spite of the great concern about the views of Russia's senior military leadership on the Chemical Weapons Convention and on the elimination of Russia's chemical warfare capability in general. On numerous instances, the United States has received indications that key elements within the Russian Government staunchly oppose the CWC. Back in 1994, October 25, Dr. Lev Fyodorov--I never met him, do not know how to pronounce his name--head of the Union for Chemical Security, told Interfax news service that key officers from the Russian Ministry of Defense had spoken against the treaty during the Russian Duma defense committee's closed hearings on October 11 1994. Now, my concerns about the two Russian generals responsible for Russia's chemical warfare elimination program have been well documented in a series of letters to President Clinton, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.