Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 19, 1997, the federal debt stood at $5,367,674,335,377.56. One year ago, March 19, 1996, the federal debt stood at $5,058,839,000,000. Five years ago, March 19, 1992, the federal debt stood at $3,862,284,000,000. Ten years ago, March 19, 1987, the federal debt stood at $2,243,959,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 19, 1982, the federal debt stood at $1,050,933,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion ($4,318,164,231,511.65) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, March 20. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, with the time for the two leaders reserved unless it is used.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the remarks I am about to make will probably be the best kept secret in Washington, DC, tomorrow morning in the Washington Post or whatever. Instead, I am sure there will be ample coverage given to the various statements made by several Senators earlier in the day about how they are having trouble getting a treaty through the U.S. Senate. And certain comments were made that just had no basis in fact whatsoever. So this is a speech that I am going to make to set the record straight so that it will be in the Congressional Record tomorrow morning in the hopes that some soul somewhere may decide to look to see what the facts really are. In any case, I listened with great interest to the--what do we call it--the colloquy this morning regarding the Chemical Weapons Convention, and I think it is important to remind the Senate of some facts about the debate surrounding this controversy and, I believe, this dangerous treaty, which is perilously flawed. First of all, I am puzzled at the insistence of some of my Democratic colleagues on a date certain for a vote on this treaty. It appears that the supporters of the treaty want only a date certain when it suits their needs, their desires. I remember last year, they wanted a date certain for hearings on this very same subject, the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty. They wanted a date certain for committee action on the treaty; they insisted on it. The committee took action on the treaty. Then they wanted a date certain for floor debate and consideration of the treaty --this was last year--and we obliged them in every instance. But hours before the vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention, on their date certain, that was supposed to happen, it was announced by the majority leader the night before, but what happened? The White House called up and said, ``Please withdraw the treaty.'' Now, it was not this Senator from North Carolina or any other Senator who asked it be withdrawn. It was not Trent Lott, the majority leader. It was the Clinton administration who asked the Senate not to vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention. Do you know why? Because they didn't have enough votes to ratify the treaty. And why did they not have the votes to ratify the treaty? Because in their zeal to force this treaty down the throats of Senators, they refused flat out to address any of the serious concerns that I had and a growing number of other Senators had about this treaty. I remember thinking last year, and I am thinking now, about what Sam Ervin said so many times. He said, ``The United States had never lost a war or won a treaty.'' And you think about the treaties that we have gotten into, and Sam Ervin--I think he got that from Will Rogers--but wherever it came from, it is true, and particularly in a document such as the Chemical Weapons Convention. So the suggestion, whether stated or implied, that we are somehow holding this treaty hostage is not only fraudulent, it is simply untrue. You will not read about that in the Washington Post in the morning and CBS will not have it. They might say something about Jesse Helms holding up consideration of this treaty. But the fact is that I met for 4 hours yesterday evening with the distinguished Senator, Joe Biden, and we went down a list of many issues in that proposed treaty. And we resolved most of them. Let me talk a little bit about the suggestion that the committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am chairman, is failing to fulfill its responsibilities to address the Clinton administration priorities. That simply is not so. The Foreign Relations Committee was the first to convene a confirmation hearing for a Cabinet-rank official this year. In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee expeditiously considered and reported both of the President's Cabinet-rank nominations by the end of January. Indeed, we have cleared the calendar of nearly all of the administration's appointees, including one Assistant Secretary of State and several Ambassadors. Let us set the record straight with respect to negotiations concerning the Chemical Weapons Convention. I personally met with the National Security Adviser in my office on February 5 of this year. In that meeting, I told him that my staff was prepared to begin discussions with his staff immediately. Well, day after day after day passed, and I received not one syllable of reply whatsoever to that offer. In an effort to get around the impasse, I wrote a seven-page letter to Mr. Berger, dated February 13, reiterating my request to begin staff-level negotiations and proposing concrete solutions for addressing the concerns that I and other Senators have about this treaty. Another 2 weeks elapsed before I finally received a response from Mr. Berger--four paragraphs long--in which he did not respond to one single proposal contained in my letter. Indeed, he reiterated his refusal to send any of his staff to meet directly with the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. Then, on February 27, the chief of staff of the Foreign Relations Committee, Adm. Bud Nance--who, by the way, is recovering nicely from a near-fatal automobile accident that occurred last December, just before Christmas--came from his home in McLean to the Senate for the sole purpose of attempting to bridge this impasse. On that day, Admiral Nance met with the heads of legislative affairs of both the State Department and the NSC. Well, then, we move forward to March 5. Mr. Berger finally allowed the NSC staff to begin discussion with the staffs of interested Senators. So those Senators who are counting every day from now until April 29 should ask Mr. Berger why he dillied and dallied away the month of February and refused to work with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee or the committee staff. Notwithstanding all of that, since March 5, the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee has participated in more than 50 hours of negotiations with the administration and other proponents of this treaty. And I must add that the distinguished majority leader, to his credit, has already devoted an extraordinary amount of time and energy to this issue. Last night, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and I, as I said earlier, spent 4 hours in my office negotiating specific provisions with some success. So, in light of all those efforts, I am perplexed as to how anyone could conclude that we are not working in good faith to resolve this matter. Having said that, I think the time has come for the administration to address several key concerns. Thus far, I regret to report we have not had as much success as I would have hoped. Indeed, it is becoming clear that the administration is treating these negotiations as an empty exercise, a perfunctory hurdle over which they must jump so that they can argue that they ``tried to negotiate'' with me and with the Foreign Relations Committee. As a result of this unfortunate attitude on the part of the White House, very little progress is being made to bridge the wide gap between us on a number of important provisions of the chemical weapons treaty. Our staffs have been able to reach definitive agreement with the administration on only 8 of 30 provisions. Of those, three are simple reporting requirements and one is a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate declaration. Not one of the issues that can be regarded as critical has yet been resolved. But, Mr. President, having said all that, I am still determined to work with the administration and others to see if we can resolve our differences on a chemical weapons treaty. But if we are going to do that, the administration needs to return to the bargaining table and negotiate with my staff and with me in good faith. The way they have been acting, they said, ``Well, we'll work it out.'' ``I'll do what I think is right,'' they say. ``And you do what we think is right.'' So that does not make it a 50-50 proposition, which I am not going to accept. The administration needs to realize, in no uncertain terms, that unless and until they satisfy the number of concerns that various Senators, including this Senator, have relating to the treaty's universality, verifiability, constitutionality, and crushing impact on business, I am not going, personally, to move on the CWC, period. The chemical weapons treaty, as it now stands, is not global, as it is claimed to be. It is not verifiable. And it imposes costly and potentially unconstitutional regulatory burdens on American business. This treaty will do nothing--will do nothing--to reduce the dangers of poison gas. Almost none of the rogue nations that pose a chemical weapons threat to us--such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea--are signatories to the treaty. They are free to pursue their chemical weapons programs unimpeded by this treaty. And the intelligence community has made clear--I do know whether it has been reported in the news or not--but the intelligence community says it is not possible to monitor the compliance of signatory nations with a high level of confidence. This is a matter of record. This is a matter of testimony before the Senate. By the way, Russia is already violating its existing bilateral chemical weapons treaty with the United States. And the Russian military is reportedly working to circumvent the CWC with a new generation of chemical agents that are specifically crafted to evade the treaty's verification regime. So if the chemical weapons treaty will not do anything to reduce the dangers of chemical weapons, what will it do? Good question. Well, for one thing, it will, in fact, increase access to dangerous chemical agents to those terrorist states that do sign the treaty. Now, Douglas Feith, a chemical arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration, pointed out last week in the New Republic that the CWC will give the terrorist regimes in Iran and Cuba the right to demand access to the chemical markets of the United States and all other signatory nations and will create a treaty obligation for signatory nations to sell or give them chemical defensive gear, which is essential for any offensive program. Well, the treaty will also endanger American troops by its forbidding commanders in the field from using tear gas and other ground control agents. Worst of all, on top of all of these other deficiencies, it will impose dozens of new regulations and unprecedented and unconstitutional inspections on between 3,000 to 8,000 American businesses. Under the chemical weapons treaty, foreign inspectors will be authorized to swoop down on American businesses--without a criminal search warrant or even probable cause--and they can rifle through the records of these businesses, interrogate the employees, and even remove chemical samples. That is not only an infringement on the constitutional rights of Americans, it is an invitation to industrial espionage. Any treaty that gives foreign inspectors greater powers of search and seizure than those granted American law enforcement officials under the U.S. Constitution is a treaty in need of serious modifications. Last, this treaty has already begun to lull the United States and our allies into a false sense of security by creating the false impression that something is being done about the problem of chemical weapons when, in fact, nothing, nothing is being done by the treaty. I could come up with no other explanation for why the then-Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Owens, would try to strip more than $800 million in chemical defensive funding from the fiscal years defense plan, or why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvilli, would recommend that $1.5 billion be taken out of our defense spending. Do not take my word for it. Listen to constitutional scholars such as Robert Bork, Ed Meese. Listen to foreign policy experts such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Alexander Haig, and former Secretaries of Defense Dick Cheney, Caspar Weinberger, Donald Rumsfeld, and James Schlesinger, or ask Henry Kissinger about it. Defense Secretaries of every Republican administration since Nixon have come out against this treaty, along with literally dozens of generals, admirals and senior officials from the Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Ford, and even the Carter administrations. If the Clinton administration chooses not to address the concerns that these distinguished experts and a number of Senators have enumerated, that is their decision, but they will not get the CWC unless they sit down and talk about the problems that some of us have. Now, we have already sat down. We have begged to sit down before. We have scheduled. We have written letters, all to no avail. One other myth about the treaty, the myth of this April 29 deadline. We hear over and over again, ``If we miss this deadline, it will be terrible.'' Now, let me say, Mr. President, there has to be an end to the administration's Chicken Little pretense that the sky is going to fall if an agreement is not reached by April 29. This artificial deadline is a fraud created by the administration when they gave the Hungarian Government the green light to drop its instrument of ratification. The Hungarians had sought U.S. guidance on how to proceed, and the administration expressly told the Hungarians to go right ahead. The administration has one purpose, and that was to manufacture, to contrive, to pretend, to have a drop-dead date to blackmail the Senate into rubberstamping this dangerously defective treaty. Now, I for one am not going to be blackmailed into permitting a flawed treaty to be approved by such tactics. Further, the administration is disingenuous in arguing that the United States will be ``shut out'' of the Executive Council that implements this chemical weapons treaty, and that the U.S. personnel will be barred from the inspection regime if the United States does not ratify by April 29. Horse feathers. As former Defense Secretaries James Schlesinger, Caspar Weinberger, and Donald Rumsfeld noted recently in an Op-ed in the Washington Post, ``In the event that the United States does decide to become a party to the CWC at a later date--perhaps after improvements are made to enhance the treaty's effectiveness--it is hard to believe its preferences regarding implementing arrangements would not be given considerable weight. This is particularly true,'' this is what they wrote in the op- ed piece, ``This is particularly true since the United States would then be asked to bear 25 percent of the total cost of the implementing organization's budget.'' Now, Mr. President, it will be a concession of diplomatic incompetence to try to argue that the U.S. Government is incapable of negotiating a seat on the Executive Council and the U.S. participation in the inspection regime of a treaty for which the American taxpayers are footing 25 percent of the bill. In fact, U.S. inspectors will be hired if and when the Congress agrees to fork over millions upon millions of American taxpayers' dollars to finance this new organization. As for the effects on industry, Secretaries Schlesinger, Weinberger, and Rumsfeld made very clear there will be very few, if any. ``The preponderance of trade in chemicals would be unaffected by the CWC's limitations, making the impact of staying out of the treaty regime, if any, fairly modest on American manufacturers.'' It turns out that the Chemical Manufacturers Association has acknowledged that it will not lose, as it had previously claimed, $600 million in export sales. The Chemical Manufacturers Association now admits that less than one-half of 1 percent of U.S. chemical exports will be affected by this treaty, and even that number, even that number is highly suspect. Mr. President, it is time that the contrived myth of cataclysmic consequences of April 29 be put to rest once and for all. More important than any artificial deadline is the need to resolve the substantive issues that divide us. Without significant changes governing U.S. participation, agreed to in a resolution of ratification, there is no point in ratifying the CWC. In that case, what happens, if anything, after April 29, is academic. On the other hand, if the administration does come to agreement with us on these and other matters after April 29, or even before, I am confident that the distinguished Secretary of State Madeleine Albright can and will ensure the United States' interests are protected. Madeleine Albright is a tough lady and a capable negotiator. Mr. President, if the administration really wants this treaty by the artificial deadline that they deliberately created, they will have to return to the negotiating table and begin working in good faith with the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee and with me. Let me reiterate that I spent 4 hours last evening with the distinguished Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Biden]. He operated in good faith and so did I. That is what it is going to take. But there is going to have to be a lot of action going a long way in our direction on a number of substantive issues. For the information of anybody who may be interested, I remain of the opinion, as I indicated in my January 29 letter of this year to the majority leader, that once we have succeeded in having comprehensive reform of U.S. foreign affairs agencies, reform of the United Nations, and once the modification of the ABM and CFE treaties are submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, I will be more than willing to turn my attention to the matter of the CWC. I might be persuaded to turn to it earlier than that. Even so, any resolution of ratification for the CWC must provide key protections relating to the treaty's verification, lack of applicability to rogue states, constitutionality, and its impact on business. Now, I am very sincere when I say that I hope we can work out our differences. I am certainly willing to try. I hope I demonstrated that last evening and on occasions earlier than that. But, in the end, whether or not we reach agreement is a decision that only the Clinton administration can make. I think they ought to get about it and let us see what we can work out together on a fair and just basis. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I was able to hear part of the brief address by my friend from Delaware. What he apparently does not know is that I was a part of the Lott group to which he referred. I attended the meetings. I participated. That group did accomplish a few things of minor significance, but they could not do anything of importance, not in the really serious issues. So then they fell back, and there have been no more meetings of the Lott group. My suggestion has been followed about trying to do it on the staff level. But if the Senator from Delaware, or anyone else, thinks they can drive a stake between the majority leader and me, they will have to think again. I am not going to try to answer the many erroneous statements he has made. And I know he was ad-libbing and he was not hearing his staff whisper to him, and so forth. So he was operating under difficult circumstances. But I say, again, I want this treaty to be made into an instrument that will be beneficial to the American people and to this country. It is my intent to continue to insist upon that. It is my intent, along with the approval of the distinguished majority leader, inasmuch as we have so many new Senators who were not here last year, the distinguished occupant of the Chair being one of them, and did not have the benefit of the testimony of witnesses, pro and con, who are highly respected in the foreign relations community.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Thursday the Senate may consider a resolution relating to the decertification of Mexico. The Senate may also proceed to the consideration of the nuclear waste legislation. Senators should be aware that rollcall votes may occur at any time during Thursday's session of the Senate. The Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items that can be cleared.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me say that I always enjoy my friend, Senator Biden--all of it. You have to wait awhile sometimes, but the enjoyment is nonetheless sincere.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 18, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,367,674,335,377.56. One year ago, March 18, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,055,610,000,000. Five years ago, March 18, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,859,480,000,000. Ten years ago, March 18, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,246,620,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 18, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,050,784,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion ($4,316,890,335,377.56) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending March 14, the U.S. imported 7,849,000 barrels of oil each day, 704,000 barrels more than the 7,145,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 55 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf war, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America s oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the U.S.--now 7,849,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 17, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,363,306,532,631.89. Five years ago, March 17, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,858,355,000,000. Ten years ago, March 17, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,247,176,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 17, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,049,729,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, March 17, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $429,286,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion ($4,934,020,532,631.89) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, March 14, 1997, the Federal debt stood at $5,362,748,754,102.53. One year ago, March 14, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,035,166,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, March 14, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $428,412,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,934,336,754,102.53--during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, March 13, the Federal debt stood at $5,362,035,571,060.06. Five years ago, March 13, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,854,493,000,000. Ten years ago, March 13, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,246,983,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, March 13, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $428,380,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,933,655,571,060.06--during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending March 7, the United States imported 7,510,000 barrels of oil each day, 195,000 barrels more than the 7,315,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 53.8 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 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 7,510,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 12, the Federal debt stood at $5,361,482,510,992.32. One year ago, March 12, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,017,284,000,000. Five years ago, March 12, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,854,311,000,000. Ten years ago, March 12, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,247,042,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 12, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,048,967,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,312,515,510,992.32--during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 11, the Federal debt stood at $5,357,359,481,153.10. One year ago, March 11, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,017,404,000,000. Five years ago, March 11, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,848,675,000,000. Ten years ago, March 11, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,249,369,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 11, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,048,663,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion ($4,308,696,481,153.10) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 10, the Federal debt stood at $5,354,330,021,048.50. One year ago, March 10, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,017,404,000,000. Five years ago, March 10, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,848,675,000,000. Ten years ago, March 10, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,249,369,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 10, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,048,663,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion, $4,305,667,021,048.50 during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Ngawang Choephel is lonely, locked up in a Chinese prison in Tibet. I do hope, Mr. President, that somehow, through Radio Free Asia or other means, he will learn that the Senate of the United States is sincerely concerned about him and will continue to work for his freedom--as we will for all prisoners of conscience in China and Tibet. Senate Resolution 19 proposes to put the U.S. Senate on record in support of the release of Mr. Choephel, a strong resolution on China and Tibet at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva and access to Tibet for internationally recognized human rights group. This resolution assures Tibetans--those in Nepal and India where they wait for the day they can reclaim their homeland, and those inside Tibet where they resist the cultural, religious, and political oppression of the Chinese Central Government--we in the United States have not forgotten you. We are with you. We will always be with you. Yesterday, March 10, was Tibet National Uprising Day, the anniversary of Tibet's 1959 uprising against the Chinese occupation. For almost 40 years, the Tibetan people have been resisting Chinese occupation, while working to preserve their culture in exile in India and Nepal. Repression inside Tibet has been raised to a level not seen since the Cultural Revolution. China has absorbed large portions of Tibet into neighboring provinces and conducted a concerted campaign to dilute Tibet's population through the relocation of Han Chinese. Tibet's leaders fear that Tibetans are now in the minority inside Tibet. China seeks to limit the number of young people who enter religious life. Monks are forced to undergo political indoctrination and to renounce the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama himself is the focus of virulent attacks. His photograph is banned. China has detained the Panchen Lama, a young boy who is the reincarnation of Tibet's second most important religious figure, and selected its own rival Panchen Lama. The number of political prisoners has increased dramatically--Ngawang Choephel, the subject of this resolution is just one case. There are many, many others. Yesterday was also the opening day of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Mr. President, Senate Resolution 19 reminds President Clinton and his administration of their responsibility to support and bring about the passage of a strong resolution on China and Tibet at Geneva, and to raise relentlessly Mr. Choephel's case, and other cases, with the Chinese Government, while pressing for access to Tibet by human rights monitors. The administration must take this responsibility seriously and sincerely. However, according to news reports, the administration's position on a China resolution at the Commission is just a bargaining chip in United States-China relations. There are frequent reports that the United States may drop, or soften, a resolution at Geneva in exchange for some future progress on human rights in China. We have been down this road before with the administration. It is difficult to fathom what the administration believes it is achieving by rushing to entice China with softer positions on human rights, on proliferation, or on Hong Kong. Last year, the administration itself reports, human rights in China deteriorated. The President himself admitted that his engagement policy has not brought results. It makes no sense to mute or abandon our objections to China's record at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in exchange for nebulous commitments. The administration must tell the truth at Geneva. In Burma, as well, the administration has recognized a marked deterioration in human rights over the past year. For several months, the administration has been reviewing its policy toward Burma in order to determine whether to impose a ban on new United States investment. The administration last year signed into a law specifying criteria for imposing an investment ban--first, restrictions on, physical harm to, or the exile of Aung San Suu Kyi, or second, widespread repression of the democratic opposition. The SLORC regime is doing both, and the administration knows it. Since last summer, the SLORC has conducted a campaign of intimidation, arrests, disappearances, and some executions of democratic activists, and those close to them. Aung San Suu Kyi has repeatedly been kept from meeting and communicating with her supporters. Her phone service has been periodically cut. Her car was attacked. Throughout all of this, the administration continued to review the law. It's time to follow the law. By failing to do so, the administration has signaled both the SLORC and our allies in the region that the United States isn't serious about supporting democracy or combating drug trafficking in Burma. Now comes a new tragedy in Burma. For the past few weeks, the SLORC has been waging a campaign against the ethnic Karen rebels, the only major ethnic army which has not yet signed a cease-fire with the regime. The Karen, who are Christian, will not submit to SLORC's control. The Thai Army has been repatriating refugees to Burma--in violation of international law. The carnage on the border provides yet another reason to invoke sanctions on the SLORC regime not just because it's the decent thing to do, but because U.S. law requires it. The Karen National Union was one of several ethnic nationalities which agreed in January to a common platform of support for democracy, opposition to Burma's membership in ASEAN, rejection of the rigged constitutional convention and the SLORC's cosmetic actions against narcotics production and trafficking, and opposition to foreign investment. The Karen National Union is part of the democratic opposition in Burma. The massive and brutal attacks on the KNU by the SLORC regime clearly trigger the Cohen-Feinstein condition on widespread repression of the democratic opposition.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, March 7, the Federal debt stood at $5,353,405,261,722.26. One year ago, March 7, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,017,741,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, March 7, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $427,832,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion ($4,925,573,261,722.26) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, March 5, the Federal debt stood at $5,359,515,287,678.12. One year ago, March 5, the Federal debt stood at $5,016,462,000,000. Five years ago, March 5, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,849,118,000,000. Ten years ago, March 5, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,258,090,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 5, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,045,007,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,314,508,287,678.12--during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 4, the Federal debt stood at $5,363,582,891,993.50. One year ago, March 4, the Federal debt stood at $5,016,596,000,000. Five years ago, March 4, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,845,731,000,000. Ten years ago, March 4, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,260,529,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 4, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,052,613,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,310,969,891,993.50--during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending February 28, the United States imported 7,105,000 barrels of oil each day, 776,000 barrels more than the 6,329,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 52.5 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 7,105,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably one nomination list in the Foreign Service which were printed in full in the Congressional Record of January 21, 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 Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Agency for International Development 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: Terrence J. Brown, of Virginia Kelly C. Kammerer, of the District of Columbia Linda E. Morse, of Virginia Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor: Rose Marie Depp, of Maryland Gregory F. Huger, of the District of Columbia George Jones, of Colorado Linda N. Lion, of Virginia Carlos E. Pascual, of the District of Columbia Eric R. Zallman, of Florida The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service of the Agency for International Development for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service: Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor: Harry F. Birnholz, of New York Paul A. Bisek, of Illinois Douglas A. Chiriboga, of Virginia Paul R. Deuster, of Virginia William J. Garvelink, of Virginia Viviann Gary, of Washington Gene V. George, of New York Richard H. Goldman, of Florida Richard J. Goughnour, of Florida Frederick J. Guymont, of Florida John Van D. Lewis, of the District of Columbia John R. Martin, of Illinois Louis Mundy III, of Florida Everett B. Orr, of Florida Karen M. Poe, of Virginia Thomas Lee Rishoi, of Florida Terrence P. Tiffany, of Oregon

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Monday, March 3, the Federal debt stood at $5,358,956,534,107.64. Five years ago, March 3, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,830,561,000,000. Ten years ago, March 3, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,260,323,000,000. Fifteen years ago, March 3, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,051,000,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, March 3, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $424,645,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion ($4,934,311,534,107.64) during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, February 28, the Federal debt stood at $5,349,937,360,942.68. One year ago, February 28, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,016,626,000,000. Five years ago, February 28, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,829,059,000,000. Fifteen years ago, February 28, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $426,934,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,923,003,360,942.68--during the past 15 years.