Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. My understanding is that that consultation has occurred because I was handed this unanimous-consent request.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, are the papers on the nomination at the desk?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Yes.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have not been obtained for this nomination, have they?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Cloakroom would do well to advise Senators that there shortly will be a rollcall vote. I will explain to the Chair, while we are delaying just a little bit, Senator Domenici, who is a New Mexican, as is Mr. Richardson, is on his way to the floor and he wants to say a few kind words about his fellow New Mexican. So, pending the arrival of Senator Domenici, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending January 31, the United States imported 7,140,000 barrels of oil each day, 246,000 barrels more than the 6,894,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 52.4 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that the upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf war, the United States obtained approximately 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970's, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America's oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 7,140,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, February 7, the Federal debt stood at $5,301,813,739,040.73. One year ago, February 7, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,177,000,000. Five years ago, February 7, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,797,118,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, February 7, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $423,588,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,878,225,739,040.73 during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, February 6, the Federal debt stood at $5,302,957,481,388.92. One year ago, February 6, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,289,000,000. Five years ago, February 6, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,801,444,000,000. Ten years ago, February 6, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,232,746,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $3 trillion ($3,074,337,787,977.17) during the past 10 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, February 5, the Federal debt stood at $5,302,957,481,388.92. One year ago, February 5, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,401,000,000. Five years ago, February 5, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,800,008,000,000. Ten years ago, February 5, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,233,219,000,000. Fifteen years ago, February 5, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,030,621,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion, $4,272,336,481,388.92, during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, February 4, the Federal debt stood at $5,300,797,430,319.62. Five years ago, February 4, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,797,723,000,000. Ten years ago, February 4, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,232,429,000,000. Fifteen years ago, February 4, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,038,710,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, February 4, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $423,427,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,877,370,430,319.62--during the past 25 years. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, one of the disappointing aspects of serving in the Senate is the inescapable and unintended detachment we so often unknowingly experience in our efforts to keep up with the joyful things happening to our friends back home and elsewhere. But it is downright discouraging to discover sometimes long after the fact, that sadness has come to our friends and their families. For example, the death this past December 29 of a remarkable American, Robert J. Morris, who immediately earned my admiration when I came to Washington in 1951 as administrative assistant to a fine North Carolina Senator. I had a note the other day from Bob Morris's widow, Joan, about his death. Mr. President, when I arrived in Washington years ago, Bob Morris was the very bright and talented chief counsel of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The New York Times on January 2 of this year reported Bob Morris's death. The headline read: ``Robert J. Morris Is Dead at 82; Crusader Against Communism''.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, February 3, the Federal debt stood at $5,297,382,328,731.42. Five years ago, February 3, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,795,010,000,000. Ten years ago, February 3, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,231,437,000,000. Fifteen years ago, February 3, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,036,317,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, February 3, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $423,272,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--$4,874,110,328,731.42--during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably four nomination lists in the Foreign Service which were printed in full in the Records of January 21, and 28, 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.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, January 29, the Federal debt stood at $5,319,575,822,990.65. One year ago, January 29, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,704,000,000. Five years ago, January 29, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,799,219,000,000. Ten years ago, January 29, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,222,608,000,000. Fifteen years ago, January 29, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,038,379,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion ($4,281,196,822,990.65) during the past 15 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, one troubling aspect of our determining national security is the manner in which the United States has become more and more deeply dependent upon foreign countries to supply the bulk of our energy needs for the American people. I was holding hearings on this perilous situation a decade ago when I was chairman of the Agriculture Committee; and again this past Congress in my present capacity as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The administration does acknowledge that this is a national security concern, but, the administration has done precisely nothing about U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending January 24, the U.S. imported 7,840,000 barrels of oil, 945,000 barrels more than the 6,895,000 imported during the same week a year ago. To put it another way, Americans relied on foreign oil for 54.7 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. Which raises the inevitable questions: is anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians would do well to ponder the economic calamity certain 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 7,840,000 barrels a day. Mr. President, as I say, I shall continue to report to the Senate-- and to the American people--on a regular basis regarding the increasingly dangerous U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in offering today the Oregon Inlet Protection Act of 1997, I must emphasize that this legislation is vital to thousands of North Carolinians, especially citizens who work along the northeastern coast of North Carolina known as the Outer Banks, where commercial and recreational fishermen risk their lives every day trying to navigate the hazardous waters of Oregon Inlet. These fishermen have been pleading for this legislation for decades because it is a matter of life or death for them. At last count, 20 fishermen have lost their lives in Oregon Inlet during the past 30 years, the latest tragedy having occurred on December 30, 1992, when a 31-foot commercial fishing vessel sank in Oregon Inlet. This was the 20th vessel to be lost in those waters since 1961. Fortunately, both crewmen were rescued, but the Coast Guard never found the wreckage. Mr. President, this legislation proposes neither the appropriation of money nor the authorization of new expenditures and projects; it merely requires the Secretary of the Interior to transfer two small parcels of Interior Department land to the Department of the Army so that the Corps of Engineers may begin work on a too-long-delayed project authorized by Congress in 1970--25 years ago. In doing so, 100 acres of land, adjacent to Oregon Inlet in Dare County, will be transferred to the Department of the Army. Reviewing the legislative history involving this project, in October 1992, then Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan issued conditional permits for the Corps of Engineers to begin the construction process; the Clinton administration unwisely revoked those permits. Therefore, the bill I'm offering today serves notice to the self-proclaimed environmentalists who have for so long stalled this project that I will continue to do everything I can to protect the lives and livelihoods of the countless commercial and recreational fishermen who have been denied greater economic opportunities because of the failure of the Federal Government to do what it should have done more than a quarter of a century ago. Consider this bit of history, Mr. President: In 1970, Congress authorized the stabilization of a 400-foot wide, 20 foot deep channel through Oregon Inlet and the installation of a system of jetties with a sand-bypass system designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But ever since 1970, this project has been repeatedly and deliberately stalled by bureaucratic roadblocks contrived by the fringe elements of the environmental movement. As a result, many lives and livelihoods have been lost. North Carolina's once thriving fishing industry has deteriorated, and access to the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore has been threatened. Since 1970, critics of this project have repeatedly claimed that more studies and time were needed. This was nothing more than stalling tactics, pure and simple, Mr. President, while men died unnecessarily and livelihoods were destroyed. Mr. President, surely a quarter of a century devoted to deliberate delay is enough. The proposed Oregon Inlet project is bound to be the most over-studied project in the history of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. Note this, Mr. President: Since 1969, the Federal Government has conducted 97--count them--97 major studies and three full-blown environmental impact statements; but, always environmentalists have demanded more and more delay. As for the cost-benefit factor, the Office of Management and Budget-- as recently as March 14, 1991--found the project to be economically justified. Then, in December 1991, a joint committee of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior recommended to then- Interior Secretary Lujan and subsequent to that, to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Page that the jetties be built. The people of the Outer Banks have waited in vain. And they still wait, Mr. President. Congress must act soon. Too many lives have been lost; the continued existence of the Outer Banks is now in question because nothing has been allowed to be done to manage the flow of sand from one end of the coastal islands to the other. If much more time is wasted, the self- appointed environmentalists won't have to worry about turtles or birds on Cape Hatteras, because a few short years hence, Oregon Inlet will have disappeared. To understand why this project has become one of the Interior Department's most studied and controversial projects, the October 1992 edition of The Smithsonian magazine is highly instructive. In an article titled, ``This Beach Boy Sings a Song Developers Don't Want to Hear,'' the magazine chronicles the adventures of a professor at a major North Carolina university who has made his living organizing opposition to all coastal engineering projects on the Outer Banks-- Oregon Inlet in particular. The article further relates the confrontation between the professor and an angry Oregon Inlet fisherman, a man whose livelihood has been made more hazardous by the bureaucratic failure to keep open a safe channel at Oregon Inlet. When questioned about his motives and actions this university professor retorted that he and his radical friends boasted that they would not be satisfied until all the houses are taken off the shore to leave it the way it was before. Mr. President, this is the response from a professor whose home occupies a large plot of land 200 miles west in the middle of North Carolina, a professor who is all too ready to deprive other North Carolinians of their rights to live and prosper. That is not environmental activism. It is environmental hypocrisy. Mr. President, the issue is clear. The time for delay is over. This legislation will mark the beginning of the end of the jetty debate on the Outer Banks, and will address the long-neglected concerns of North Carolina's coastal residents. Congress should not delay further in doing what it should have done a quarter of a century ago.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, January 28, the Federal debt stood at $5,317,192,254,267.62. Five years ago, January 28, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,796,222,000,000. Ten years ago, January 28, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,223,438,000,000. Fifteen years ago, January 28, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,037,631,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, January 28, 1972, the Federal debt stood at $426,168,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,891,024,254,267.62--during the past 25 years. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in offering today the Oregon Inlet Protection Act of 1997, I must emphasize that this legislation is vital to thousands of North Carolinians, especially citizens who work along the northeastern coast of North Carolina known as the Outer Banks, where commercial and recreational fishermen risk their lives every day trying to navigate the hazardous waters of Oregon Inlet. These fishermen have been pleading for this legislation for decades because it is a matter of life or death for them. At last count, 20 fishermen have lost their lives in Oregon Inlet during the past 30 years, the latest tragedy having occurred on December 30, 1992, when a 31-foot commercial fishing vessel sank in Oregon Inlet. This was the 20th vessel to be lost in those waters since 1961. Fortunately, both crewmen were rescued, but the Coast Guard never found the wreckage. Mr. President, this legislation proposes neither the appropriation of money nor the authorization of new expenditures and projects; it merely requires the Secretary of the Interior to transfer two small parcels of Interior Department land to the Department of the Army so that the Corps of Engineers may begin work on a too-long-delayed project authorized by Congress in 1970--25 years ago. In doing so, 100 acres of land, adjacent to Oregon Inlet in Dare County, will be transferred to the Department of the Army. Reviewing the legislative history involving this project, in October 1992, then Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan issued conditional permits for the Corps of Engineers to begin the construction process; the Clinton administration unwisely revoked those permits. Therefore, the bill I'm offering today serves notice to the self-proclaimed environmentalists who have for so long stalled this project that I will continue to do everything I can to protect the lives and livelihoods of the countless commercial and recreational fishermen who have been denied greater economic opportunities because of the failure of the Federal Government to do what it should have done more than a quarter of a century ago. Consider this bit of history, Mr. President: In 1970, Congress authorized the stabilization of a 400-foot wide, 20 foot deep channel through Oregon Inlet and the installation of a system of jetties with a sand-bypass system designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But ever since 1970, this project has been repeatedly and deliberately stalled by bureaucratic roadblocks contrived by the fringe elements of the environmental movement. As a result, many lives and livelihoods have been lost. North Carolina's once thriving fishing industry has deteriorated, and access to the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore has been threatened. Since 1970, critics of this project have repeatedly claimed that more studies and time were needed. This was nothing more than stalling tactics, pure and simple, Mr. President, while men died unnecessarily and livelihoods were destroyed. Mr. President, surely a quarter of a century devoted to deliberate delay is enough. The proposed Oregon Inlet project is bound to be the most over-studied project in the history of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. Note this, Mr. President: Since 1969, the Federal Government has conducted 97--count them--97 major studies and three full-blown environmental impact statements; but, always environmentalists have demanded more and more delay. As for the cost-benefit factor, the Office of Management and Budget-- as recently as March 14, 1991--found the project to be economically justified. Then, in December 1991, a joint committee of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior recommended to then- Interior Secretary Lujan and subsequent to that, to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Page that the jetties be built. The people of the Outer Banks have waited in vain. And they still wait, Mr. President. Congress must act soon. Too many lives have been lost; the continued existence of the Outer Banks is now in question because nothing has been allowed to be done to manage the flow of sand from one end of the coastal islands to the other. If much more time is wasted, the self- appointed environmentalists won't have to worry about turtles or birds on Cape Hatteras, because a few short years hence, Oregon Inlet will have disappeared. To understand why this project has become one of the Interior Department's most studied and controversial projects, the October 1992 edition of The Smithsonian magazine is highly instructive. In an article titled, ``This Beach Boy Sings a Song Developers Don't Want to Hear,'' the magazine chronicles the adventures of a professor at a major North Carolina university who has made his living organizing opposition to all coastal engineering projects on the Outer Banks-- Oregon Inlet in particular. The article further relates the confrontation between the professor and an angry Oregon Inlet fisherman, a man whose livelihood has been made more hazardous by the bureaucratic failure to keep open a safe channel at Oregon Inlet. When questioned about his motives and actions this university professor retorted that he and his radical friends boasted that they would not be satisfied until all the houses are taken off the shore to leave it the way it was before. Mr. President, this is the response from a professor whose home occupies a large plot of land 200 miles west in the middle of North Carolina, a professor who is all too ready to deprive other North Carolinians of their rights to live and prosper. That is not environmental activism. It is environmental hypocrisy. Mr. President, the issue is clear. The time for delay is over. This legislation will mark the beginning of the end of the jetty debate on the Outer Banks, and will address the long-neglected concerns of North Carolina's coastal residents. Congress should not delay further in doing what it should have done a quarter of a century ago.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a week or so ago--it was on January 13, 1997, to be exact--I was among those present at what proved to be a delightful memorial service for a gentleman whose life had demonstrated his understanding of, and his fidelity to, both the miracle and the meaning of America. His name was Jeffrey St. John who had died on January 3. I attended the memorial service not because I was a close personal friend of Jeffrey St. John--I wish I could claim to have been, but because I admired so very much his remarkable talent and his unyielding courage in defending principles that deserve to survive. So just about everybody else present that afternoon had known Jeffrey St. John, and everybody else was equipped with personal anecdotes that more often than not demonstrated the good humor of their departed friend. Mrs. St. John, Kathryn is her name, was there, of course--a charming lady who undoubtedly was a great source of strength to her husband during the years that he so unfailingly stood in defense of conservative principles. Mr. President, following this occasion, which Mr. St. John would have enormously enjoyed--and, who knows, there's a better than even chance that he was indeed sitting on a cloud up there somewhere--I asked Paul Weyrich, one of America's most effective defenders of conservatism and freedom, to prepare for me a brief personal history of Jeffrey St. John. Mr. Weyrich readily agreed to do so despite his own hectic schedule as president of the Free Congress Foundation and its myriad of activities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Weyrich's review of Mr. St. John's life be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, January 27, the federal debt stood at $5,222,049,625,819.53. Five years ago, January 27, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,793,601,000,000. Ten years ago, January 27, 1987, the Federal debt stood at $2,223,227,000,000. Fifteen years ago, January 27, 1982, the Federal debt stood at $1,034,824,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, January 27, 1972, the federal debt stood at $426,004,000,000 which reflects a debt increase of nearly $5 trillion-- $4,796,045,625,819.53--during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Ford's introduction of the Tobacco Products Control Act of 1997 is a good first step toward addressing the problem of youth access to tobacco products. I shall work with Senator Ford and other colleagues in solving it. Mr. President, the tobacco industry has made it absolutely clear that the choice to smoke must be for adults only to make. There is not one tobacco farmer in North Carolina who approves of children and teenagers smoking. However, the transparent vendetta waged by overzealous bureaucrats in the Food and Drug Administration against the tobacco family has been outrageous. It is a misguided attempt to expand the jurisdiction of FDA at a time when the agency is clearly failing in its stipulated mission, and is an obvious attempt to usurp congressional authority. Congress has considered--and rejected--numerous FDA attempts to regulate tobacco. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague, Senator Ford, who has worked so faithfully on behalf of America's tobacco farmers. Once again, I am honored to stand with him.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Ford's introduction of the Tobacco Products Control Act of 1997 is a good first step toward addressing the problem of youth access to tobacco products. I shall work with Senator Ford and other colleagues in solving it. Mr. President, the tobacco industry has made it absolutely clear that the choice to smoke must be for adults only to make. There is not one tobacco farmer in North Carolina who approves of children and teenagers smoking. However, the transparent vendetta waged by overzealous bureaucrats in the Food and Drug Administration against the tobacco family has been outrageous. It is a misguided attempt to expand the jurisdiction of FDA at a time when the agency is clearly failing in its stipulated mission, and is an obvious attempt to usurp congressional authority. Congress has considered--and rejected--numerous FDA attempts to regulate tobacco. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague, Senator Ford, who has worked so faithfully on behalf of America's tobacco farmers. Once again, I am honored to stand with him.