Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I yield 10 seconds.

Mr. HELMS. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the Senate begins final consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the immortal words of Yogi Berra come to mind. Everybody remembers them. ``It's deja vu, all over again.'' If anyone is wondering why Jesse Helms, Senator from North Carolina, is quoting a New York Yankee, it is because I always liked Yogi. And we have been here before, meaning the Senate. The point being that the Senate scheduled a time certain last September to take up this very same treaty. But, on the day of the scheduled vote, the White House asked to withdraw the treaty. Why? Well, because there were not 67 votes necessary to pass it. The White House stonewalled and refused to address the key concerns raised by Senators about the treaty, concerns relating to its universality, its verifiability, and crushing effect on business because they had opposed even the most reasonable modifications proposed by this Senator and many others. That is why the treaty was withdrawn last year. So, here we go again, with most of those critical concerns remaining in the treaty: The Chemical Weapons Convention certainly is not global, it is not verifiable, and it will not work. Even its proponents admit it cannot effectively prevent the spread of chemical weaponry. Time and time again, the administration has portrayed this agreement as one that will provide for a global ban on chemical weapons. I recently read a poll showing that 84 percent of the American people believed that this body should ratify a treaty which would ``ban the production, possession, transfer and use of poison gas worldwide.'' That was the question asked in the poll. I quoted it verbatim. If this treaty accomplished such a ban, I would be the first Senator on this floor, along with Senator Kyl, urging its approval. Had the pollster called me at home, I--if I knew nothing about the treaty, as most Americans do not--I probably would have been among the 84 percent. In any event, more than 8 years ago, at the confirmation hearing of Jim Baker to be Secretary of State, I noted President Bush's statement that he wanted to be able to tell his grandchildren that he, ``was able to ban chemical and biological weapons from the face of the Earth.'' Quote, unquote, George Bush. I remarked at that hearing that I, too, would like to be able to tell my grandchildren that I helped the President and the Secretary of State attain such a goal. And that statement that I made then is just as true today as it was on the day that I made it. But I cannot and will not sign off on a multilateral treaty that accomplishes none--n-o-n-e--none of the goals it purports to address. I have, on 5 January first days of the Senate, stood right over there by the dais, raised my right hand, and pledged to support and defend our country and its Constitution. I have presided over many hearings dedicated to the careful examination of this treaty. Earlier this month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony by and from four former U.S. Defense Secretaries--Dick Cheney, Cap Weinberger, Jim Schlesinger, Don Rumsfeld, all four urging the Senate not--not to ratify this dangerously defective treaty. These distinguished Americans are by no means alone. More than 50 generals and admirals and senior officials from previous administrations have joined them in opposing this chemical weapons treaty--convention--call it what you will. And why have all these great Americans urged that the Senate reject this treaty? I will tell you why. Their case can be summarized this simply: It is not global, it is not verifiable, and it will not work. No supporter of this treaty can tell us with a straight face how this treaty will actually accomplish the goals that they have advertised so profusely for it. The best argument they have mustered to date is, as I understand it, ``Oh, yes, it is defective, but it is better than nothing,'' they say. Or they tell us that ``It creates an international norm against the production of these weapons.'' But, in fact, this treaty is worse then nothing. But, in fact, Mr. President, this treaty is worse than nothing, for this treaty gives the American people a false sense of security that something is being done in Washington, DC, to reduce the dangers of chemical weaponry when, in fact, nothing is being done with or by this treaty. If anything, this treaty puts the American people at greater risk. That is why the administration wants to avoid at all costs a real debate on the merits of this treaty. They know that they cannot defend it. They say it is better than nothing. No, it is not. So they have resorted to a number of assertions that simply do not hold up under scrutiny. They have put forward, for example, the ``America as a rogue state'' argument. They have said it over and over again. ``Rogue state, rogue state.'' They say if we don't ratify the CWC, we will be left ``in the company of pariah nations, like Iraq and North Korea,'' who have refused to join. And then they have hit us with, ``Well, everybody's doing it. It is going to go into effect anyhow,'' they say, and have said over and over again, ``with or without the United States, so we might as well go with the flow and sign up.'' Sorry, Mr. President--and I mean the distinguished Senator who is presiding, Mr. President, and I mean the President down on Pennsylvania Avenue as well--sorry, Mr. President, the oath that I have taken five times standing right over there forbids my taking part in such sophistry. Anyhow, since when did America start letting Belgium and Luxembourg and France and Bangladesh dictate our national security policy? The Senate should decide whether or not to approve this treaty on the basis of whether it is in the national interest of the United States and the American people, not to respond to diplomatic momentum of the moment. Frankly, I take offense at the argument that this administration is making widely and frequently, that rejecting this dangerous and flawed treaty would make America the moral--get this--the moral equivalent of terrorist states-- that means governments, countries--terrorist governments like Syria and Iraq and Libya and North Korea. These pariahs are, at this very moment, manufacturing chemical weapons to use against us. Don't make any mistake about that. That is what they are doing right now as we meet. We are unilaterally destroying our chemical stockpiles with or without the Chemical Weapons Convention, and I think that such rhetorical blackmail may offend the American people. We will see. The polls are already turning around, by the way. Mr. President, I made a commitment to the American people that I would bring this chemical weapons treaty to the Senate floor only if it contained all the key protections necessary to ensure that this treaty does no harm, even if it can do no good, and that is exactly what is happening. That is exactly why this treaty is the pending business in the U.S. Senate at this moment. The resolution of ratification that is now pending before the Senate addresses all the inherent weaknesses of this treaty. With this resolution of ratification, I can vote for this treaty in good conscience, and I would dissuade no Senator from doing the same, obviously. But if those key protections are removed, taken out--and the administration says it is going to happen, they are going to be taken out, they boast--then we should refuse to ratify this treaty for the reasons that we will discuss in greater detail in the hours ahead. I doubt that there is a Senator in this body who has not heard a great deal about the 28 conditions in this resolution of ratification that have been agreed upon by the distinguished Senator Biden, who is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the administration, and me. I commend my friend, Joe Biden, for his willingness to work with me in good faith to address those issues. I have told him so privately, and I now tell him so publicly. As Joe Biden has pointed out, he spent many hours in my office in direct negotiations with me and my staff in an effort to reach some common ground. Many of the 28 conditions contain commonsense provisions that never should have been contested by the administration in the first place. For example, these conditions, among other things, require the creation of an inspector general. They limit the burden on the American taxpayer. They preserve the Australia Group. They assert the right to use tear gas in combat situations. Let me tell you something, if they had not yielded on that question about our using tear gas to help our downed pilots escape from the enemy, this treaty would never have come to the floor. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has made clear--made clear--that it intends to remove five vital protections that Senator Lott and I and others have included to address the defects of the treaty, or some of them. By stripping those key conditions from this resolution, the administration is asking the Senate to ratify a treaty which, first, will affect almost none of the terrorist regimes whose possession of chemical weapons actually threatens the United States, such as Libya, Iraq, Syria, and North Korea; second, which the administration admits that they can't verify, and they can't verify this treaty. Do you remember what Ronald Reagan used to say? Trust but verify. Ronald Reagan is sort of halfway implicitly credited with this treaty. I think I knew Ronald Reagan as well as anybody. I was the first sitting Senator to support Ronald Reagan's candidacy, and I knew how he felt about treaties because he felt then as I feel now about treaties. Third, the administration knows that Russia is already violating the chemical weapons treaty, even before it goes into effect, by pursuing an entirely new generation of chemical agents specifically designed to circumvent the CWC, as we call it around this place, violating Russia's existing bilateral chemical weapons agreement with the United States signed some years ago and--I have to use this word--lying about their chemical stockpiles. And we are supposed to trot in and ratify this treaty? Not this Senator. Not this Senator. Fourth, the administration is supporting a treaty which allows inspectors from China and rogue states, such as Iran, to descend upon American businesses, rifle through the business confidential documents in each of these places, to interrogate the employees of the business, and to remove secret business information and chemical samples whenever they want to. A law enforcement officer in the United States cannot do that. You have to get a search warrant issued by a court. Fifth, the administration feels that under articles X and XI, which involve the transfer of dangerous chemicals, chemical manufacturing technology and advanced chemical defense gear to any nation who signs on, including terrorist states like Iran and Cuba and known proliferators, such as Russia and China, the administration said, ``No, no, we can't have that. We can't have that.'' That's what they say. We are going to find out tomorrow, or perhaps earlier, how the U.S. Senate feels about that, because there is going to be a vote on that specific question. We have protections in the current resolution of ratification which address all of these issues, as I have said before, and while all of these matters are vitally important, the final concluding issue, I believe, is the key to this entire debate. What is it? The proponents of this treaty have been telling the American people over and over and over again that this treaty will ``ban chemical weapons from the face of the Earth.'' How many times have I heard that by some very good friends of mine in the administration? Let me tell them something, and let me tell you something, Mr. President. With articles X and XI intact, this treaty will, in fact, do the exact opposite. It will, in fact, facilitate the spread of poison gas to the very rogue countries most likely to use it against American citizens. So I guess the question is, who would give the terrorist crowd in Iran chemical agents and chemical technology that they can use to build chemical weapons? Who would do that? Who would vote to give Iran the secrets to our most advanced chemical defensive equipment, the technology we have designed to protect our troops from poison-gas attack? Not this U.S. Senator. I will never, never vote to do that, because I stood over there five times and said I would not. But that is exactly what the Clinton administration is asking us to do by insisting that we ratify this treaty with articles X and XI intact. Do not take my word about all of this. Heed the warnings of some people that I believe most Americans admire and respect. Let's take Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who served in a previous administration, the Bush administration. Dick Cheney provided written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month. Let me quote him. This is Dick Cheney talking: Articles X and XI amount to a formula for greatly accelerating the proliferation of chemical warfare capabilities around the world. I have heard Dick Cheney make many a speech, but I never before heard him as emphatic in his declaration about anything previous to this. Mr. President, anybody who wants a road map for how this will work need only examine how Russia has taken advantage of similar provisions in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Today, Russia is using the NNPT to justify, what? To justify Russia's sale of nuclear reactors under a provision known as atoms for peace. Under the chemical weapons treaty, articles X and XI, or poisons for peace provisions, as we call them, Russia and/or China could decide, for example, to build a chemical manufacturing facility in Iran and argue not only that are they allowed to give Iran this technology, but that they are obligated to do it under a treaty, mind you, that a lot of people are advocating that the United States Senate ratify tomorrow before dark. Worse still, the Chemical Weapons Convention also requires that we share our latest advanced chemical defensive gear with all of these countries. What that means is that, through reverse engineering, Iran could figure out how to penetrate our chemical defense, increasing not only the risk of American troops being exposed to poison gas but the chances of a chemical attack actually taking place by undermining the defensive deterrent value. The administration has agreed that it will not give such American technology to Iran. I think they mean it as far as it goes, but this agreement with the President will not stop other countries from doing it. Articles X and XI still facilitate trade in these technologies with more than 100 countries, many, if not most, of which do not share our policy of isolating Iran, don't you see. If they get access to United States defensive technology under the chemical weapons treaty, they will share it with other signatories, like Iran. And they could do so lawfully without violating the treaty. Further, they will share their own defense technology against dangerous dual-use chemicals regardless of what the United States says or does. What will happen once we put a plethora of chemical and defensive secrets out on the world market? I think you know, Mr. President. It will be only a matter of time, and a short time, before these rogue states which do not sign the treaty will get access to these defensive secrets. Iran will certainly share them with Syria and Libya. And who knows who they will, in turn, share them with. Ronald Reagan, as I said earlier, said that our policy in arms control--arms control of all types--must be ``trust but verify.'' With the Chemical Weapons Convention we can do neither. So why would we agree to a treaty which would share advanced chemicals and know-how and defensive gear with unworthy regimes? That is precisely the question before the U.S. Senate today. We can ratify the CWC with these key protections in place. But if the administration insists on stripping them out, taking them out, then they will have invited the Senate to refuse to ratify the chemical weapons treaty. It is up to them. Unless we include protections on these issues, any agreement we have reached on other matters amounts to little more than adding sweetener to hemlock. They may make the treaty easier to swallow, but it remains, Mr. President, just as deadly as ever before and just as injurious to the national security interest of the United States of America. Mr. President, we know Senators plan to address important aspects of this convention; therefore, at this time I shall defer to my colleagues who may wish to discuss this convention in greater detail, beginning with my distinguished friend, Senator Biden. For the reasons I have discussed and for the reasons that Senators will hear in the hours ahead, obviously, I am strongly urging the Senate to oppose any amendments to strike key protections from the resolution of ratification. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Manufacturing and Competitiveness subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on April 23, 1997, at 10 a.m. on the current state of manufacturing in the United States.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Reauthorization of Higher Education, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing on ``Gangs--A National Crisis.''

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Wednesday, April 23, 1997, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on S. 261, Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Go right ahead.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, allow me to thank the able Senator from Arizona. He is a walking encyclopedia on the details of this treaty, and he has been enormously helpful to me and to many other Senators in understanding the implications of a great many provisions of the treaty. I thank him now publicly for all he has done to be helpful. I am deeply grateful.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect that had there been a recorded vote on the previous two voice votes, that Senators Ashcroft and Grams would have voted ``aye'' on both votes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, tomorrow, down in Hampton, GA, a highway will be dedicated to one of our former colleagues, the distinguished former Senator Herman Talmadge. It would be fun to be there tomorrow and see Herman's reaction when the honor is announced at a luncheon in the ballroom of the Atlanta Motor Speedway. Fewer than one-fourth (23) of today's Members of the Senate were here when Senator Talmadge was. Because of that, I have decided to include in the Record an extensive interview with former Senator Talmadge published by The Macon, GA, Telegraph. That newspaper's Randall Savage conducted the interview. Mr. Savage asked good questions and Herman Talmadge gave great answers. His assessment of many things about America reflect the fact that Herman Talmadge still has the good judgment that he possessed while in the Senate. Mr. President, accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the February 11, 1997, interview, headed ``Hummon'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 21, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,352,733,602,413.77. (Five trillion, three hundred fifty-two billion, seven hundred thirty-three million, six hundred two thousand, four hundred thirteen dollars and seventy-seven cents.) Five years ago, April 21, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,885,690,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty-five billion, six hundred ninety million.) Ten years ago, April 21, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,271,325,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred seventy-one billion, three hundred twenty-five million.) Fifteen years ago, April 21, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,066,640,000,000. (One trillion, sixty-six billion, six hundred forty million.) Twenty-five years ago, April 21, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $427,853,000,000 (Four hundred twenty-seven billion, eight hundred fifty-three million), which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,924,880,602,413.77 (four trillion, nine hundred twenty- four billion, eight hundred eighty million, six hundred two thousand, four hundred thirteen dollars and seventy-seven cents), during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, April 16, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,386,017,997,799.85. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-six billion, seventeen million, nine hundred ninety-seven thousand, seven hundred ninety-nine dollars and eighty-five cents) One year ago, April 16, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,142,251,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred forty-two billion, two hundred fifty-one million) Five years ago, April 16, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,882,706,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred eighty-two billion, seven hundred six million) Ten years ago, April 16, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,269,312,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred sixty-nine billion, three hundred twelve million) Fifteen years ago, April 16, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,064,889,000,000 (One trillion, sixty-four billion, eight hundred eighty-nine million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,321,128,997,799.85 (Four trillion, three hundred twenty- one billion, one hundred twenty-eight million, nine hundred ninety- seven thousand, seven hundred ninety-nine dollars and eighty-five cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 15, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,383,116,230,748.81. Five trillion, three hundred eighty-three billion, one hundred sixteen million, two hundred thirty thousand, seven hundred forty-eight dollars and eighty-one cents. One year ago, April 15, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,140,011,000,000. Five trillion, one hundred forty billion, eleven million. Five years ago, April 15, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,902,117,000,000. Three trillion, nine hundred two billion, one hundred seventeen million. Ten years ago, April 15, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,281,470,000,000. Two trillion, two hundred eighty-one billion, four hundred seventy million. Fifteen years ago, April 15, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,064,434,000,000. One trillion, sixty-four billion, four hundred thirty-four million--which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,318,682,230,748.81--four trillion, three hundred eighteen billion, six hundred eighty-two million, two hundred thirty thousand, seven hundred forty-eight dollars and eighty-one cents--during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when the able Senators Ashcroft and Dorgan invited me to cosponsor S. 304, a bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for assisted suicide, I unhesitatingly accepted. Now today, I do hope the Senate will promptly approve H.R. 1003, now pending which is nearly identical to S. 304 and which was passed overwhelmingly by the House this past Thursday. The Supreme Court's tragic Roe versus Wade decision in 1973 established that human beings--unborn children--at one end of the age spectrum are expendable for reasons of convenience and social policy; euthanasia is now the next step. Many, including this Senator who in 1973 had just been sworn in, argued that if we can justify in our own minds the destruction of the lives of those whose productive years are yet to come, what is to prevent our destroying or agreeing to end the lives of men and women who can no longer pull their own weight in society? That day may arrive as early as this summer. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing two circuit courts of appeals decisions which, if upheld, will affirm the constitutional right of individuals to terminate their own lives with the assistance of Dr. Kevorkian or other like-minded physicians. But inevitably, those who demand that this become an acceptable right are also expecting the taxpayers to furnish the money for it. At a minimum, Mr. President, surely the Senate will reject the notion that tax funded programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, should be used to terminate the lives of human beings. Despite anybody's looking with favor on euthanasia, it is absurd to suggest that the American people must sponsor it with their already-high taxes. The American people emphatically reject this idea. A poll conducted last year by Wirthlin Worldwide revealed that 87 percent of people oppose Federal funding of assisted suicide. So, Mr. President, the bill under consideration will not outlaw euthanasia. But it will forbid the use of Federal tax dollars to fund assisted suicides. And more importantly, the Senate will heed the American people's belief that paying for such a morally objectionable procedure is just going too far.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 14, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,378,600,468,556.80. (Five trillion, three hundred seventy-eight billion, six hundred million, four hundred sixty-eight thousand, five hundred fifty-six dollars and eighty cents.) Five years ago, April 14, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,895,238,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred ninety-five billion, two hundred thirty-eight million.) Ten years ago, April 14, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,280,863,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred eighty billion, eight hundred sixty-three million.) Fifteen years ago, April 14, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,063,287,000,000. (One trillion, sixty-three billion, two hundred eighty-seven million.) Twenty-five years ago, April 14, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $430,716,000,000 (four hundred thirty billion, seven hundred sixteen million) which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,947,884,468,556.80 (four trillion, nine hundred forty-seven billion, eight hundred eighty-four million, four hundred sixty-eight thousand, five hundred fifty-six dollars and eighty cents) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business, Friday, April 11, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,378,191,895,041.28. Five trillion, three hundred seventy-eight billion, one hundred ninety-one million, eight hundred ninety-five thousand, forty-one dollars and twenty-eight cents. One year ago, April 11, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,143,688,000,000. Five trillion, one hundred forty-three billion, six hundred eighty-eight million dollars. Twenty-five years ago, April 11, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $429,624,000,000. Four hundred twenty-nine billion, six hundred twenty- four million dollars, which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion--$4,948,567,895,041.28. Four trillion, nine hundred forty- eight billion, five hundred sixty-seven million, eight hundred ninety- five thousand, forty-one dollars and twenty-eight cents, during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, April 9, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,380,948,025,320.90.--Five trillion, three hundred eighty billion, nine hundred forty-eight million, twenty-five thousand, three hundred twenty and ninety cents. One year ago, April 9, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,130,578,000,000--Five trillion, one hundred thirty billion, five hundred seventy-eight million. Five years ago, April 9, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,894,405,000,000--Three trillion, eight hundred ninety-four billion, four hundred five million. Ten years ago, April 9, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,283,040,000,000--Two trillion, two hundred eighty-three billion, forty million. Fifteen years ago, April 9, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,061,116,000,000--One trillion, sixty-one billion, one hundred sixteen million--which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,319,832,025,320.90--Four trillion, three hundred nineteen billion, eight hundred thirty-two million, twenty-five thousand, three hundred twenty dollars and ninety cents--during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending April 4, the United States imported 8,330,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,534,000 barrels more than the 6,796,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 56.5 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf war, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 8,330,000 barrels a day. Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, April 8, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,384,125,088,631.94. (Five trillion, three hundred eighty-four billion, one hundred twenty-five million, eighty-eight thousand, six hundred thirty-one dollars and ninety-four cents) One year ago, April 8, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,134,564,000,000. (Five trillion, one hundred thirty-four billion, five hundred sixty-four million) Five years ago, April 8, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,893,440,000,000. (Three trillion, eight hundred ninety-three billion, four hundred forty million) Ten years ago, April 8, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,288,725,000,000. (Two trillion, two hundred eighty-eight billion, seven hundred twenty-five million) Fifteen years ago, April 8, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,061,093,000,000 (One trillion, sixty-one billion, ninety-three million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion ($4,323,032,088,631.94) (Four trillion, three hundred twenty-three billion, thirty-two million, eighty-eight thousand, six hundred thirty- one dollars and ninety-four cents) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, April 7, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,385,190,477,419.92. Five years ago, April 7, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,891,976,000,000. Ten years ago, April 7, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,288,906,000,000. Fifteen years ago, April 7, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,060,872,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, April 7, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $429,202,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion ($4,955,988,477,419.92) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, April 4, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,384,750,396,046.34. One year ago, April 4, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,137,761,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, April 4, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $428,814,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion ($4,955,936,396,046.34) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am genuinely grateful to the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] and the distinguished Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] for their excellent work on this issue. They deserve credit for keeping the Senate focused on the question of Mexico's counterdrug cooperation with the United States. Through this resolution, Senators Coverdell and Feinstein, in a very fair and very essential way, have made clear the Senate's dissatisfaction with the status quo. Mr. President, I know of no Senator who was pleased with the President's decision to certify Mexico as cooperating fully with the United States; the evidence clearly supports a different conclusion. This resolution gives both the President of Mexico and President Clinton an opportunity for redemption. Mexico's President Zedillo has made numerous declarations against drug trafficking--which we applaud. Moreover, we recognize that President Zedillo is no Ernesto Samper. But, as for the two countries, Colombia and Mexico, the only difference between the two is that, in Colombia, the Presidency was bought and paid for by drug lords, while, in Mexico, the Presidency may be the only level of government not bought and paid for by the drug lords. Mr. President, U.S. law requires more than well-meaning statements for a nation to be certified as cooperating fully. Our law requires performance. In the case of Mexico, performance has fallen far short of the rhetoric. While the creation of bilateral commissions perhaps satisfies the bureaucratic need for meetings, meetings are meaningless unless they produce tangible results--arrests, convictions, and seizures. The same can be said of laws: The passage of new laws does not stop drug trafficking; enforcement of laws does. We are still waiting for any implementation whatsoever of the laws against organized crime and money laundering. Indeed, the latter's effect may have already been negated when Mexico expanded legalized gambling, a time-honored way for criminals to launder money. Corruption with impunity remains the modus operandi for the Federal Judicial Police, which more often resembles a criminal enterprise than a law enforcement agency. At the January wedding of drug kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes' sister, for example, policemen were guarding Carrillo's family and friends. This is further evidence that Mexican police are more likely to protect than arrest drug traffickers and their interests. Impunity is also the unwritten law for drug traffickers and their allies in official positions, such as Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Zedillo's drug czar. Here was a case in which the senior Mexican counternaroctics official was protecting the biggest Mexican drug kingpin, Amado Carrillo. The administration argues that the arrest of General Gutierrez Rebollo is evidence of the Mexican Government's commitment to fight corruption. My questions are: Why was he ever hired in the first place as Mexico's senior counternarcotics official? Was this an intelligence failure? What damage has Gutierrez Rebollo done to compromise law enforcement and intelligence operations against the drug cartels? And are U.S. law enforcement agents now at greater risk because of this fiasco? Mr. President, this is not an isolated incident. Just this past Monday, on March 17, another Mexican Army general was arrested for drug corruption. It seems that on the day the administration certified the Mexican Government's cooperation with United States counterdrug efforts, this general was offering a Mexican official $1 million in exchange for allowing cocaine shipments to pass through Tijuana. In Mexico, corruption is not confined to the federal government. It is equally pervasive at the state and local levels. Just last week, a judge in Guadalajara dropped charges against a major drug trafficker. Also, according to credible reports, a number of state governors, who are also prominent within the ruling PRI party, have been on the drug traffickers' payroll. As long ago as 1989, I cited one of these governors, Manuel Bartlett, as one senior official compromised by drug traffickers. Mr. President, I won't cite all the statistics that show that, over the past 6 years, arrests of drug traffickers and cocaine seizures have decreased significantly in Mexico, while the volume of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine going through or coming from Mexico increases. Despite this record, the United States has continuously pretended that the Mexican Government has been a faithful partner in the fight against illegal drugs. The vast majority of the Mexican people are our allies; but I have grave reservations about most of the Mexican Government. The President and Barry McCaffrey, amongst others, have spoken eloquently about the horrors of drug use on our streets, recognizing that this scourge is destroying lives throughout this hemisphere. The American and Mexican people deserve better. Silence is tacit consent to this corruption which allows the drug trade to flourish. Only by exposing the corruption can we begin to make a genuine difference in attacking this evil. In this light, Mr. President, the refusal to recognize the marriage between Mexican Government officials and drug traffickers is all the more troubling. Congress must make known its disagreement with the conclusion that the Mexican Government is cooperating fully.