Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Federal Government is running on borrowed money--more than $5 trillion of it. As of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, January 21, the Federal debt stood at $5,310,267,076,516.85. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,919.19 as his or her share of the Federal debt. More than two centuries ago, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. It's time for Congress to adopt a Declaration of Economic Responsibilities and an amendment requiring the President and Congress to come up with a balanced Federal budget--now.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a housekeeping matter and ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, today the Senate will fulfill its constitutional duty on the nomination of Madeleine Albright to serve as Secretary of State of the United States. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations met for more than 6 hours on January 8, to consider this nomination. During that hearing, the committee heard from then Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who presented Ambassador Albright, and I think that is the first time in history that an outgoing Secretary has presented to a committee the nominee to succeed him. In any case, Secretary Christopher presented her, and the nominee, Mrs. Albright, was questioned extensively by all members of the committee on a broad range of national security issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, it was agreed to keep the record open until the close of business on January 10, so Senators could submit written questions to the nominee. And twelve Senators did submit more than 200 such questions, all of which were answered in writing by Ambassador Albright. The committee still has an outstanding document request concerning Somalia, and we fully expect that the administration will cooperate and comply with that request, as the administration has promised to do. In any case, this past Monday, January 20, after members had spent several days examining the written responses to questions, the committee met in a business meeting to consider the nomination. By a vote of 18 to nothing, unanimously, the Committee on Foreign Relations favorably reported the Albright nomination. There are Senators who support this nomination but who, nonetheless, have honest disagreements with Ambassador Albright on major foreign policy issues. As I mentioned in the hearing myself, while I do not doubt that Ambassador Albright is sincere, on some issues I believe her to be sincerely wrong. Some of those differences were discussed during the hearing, others in private. And we will continue to discuss them after she is confirmed, which I am certain she will be. Notwithstanding our differences, Mrs. Albright is a lady who understands Congress. She understands the important role that Congress must play in developing U.S. foreign policy. However, my support for the nominee should in no way be misconstrued as an endorsement of the administration's conduct of foreign policy. It would be insincere of me if I pretended otherwise. Many Americans, among them myself, hope that in the area of foreign policy, the next 4 years will not produce a sequel to the travail of the first 4 years. After 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the White House, the United States had once again become the undisputed leader of the free world. Our friends followed us, and our enemies, the enemies of freedom, thanks to Presidents Reagan and Bush, feared and respected the United States, because we were strong. The emphasis was on our constitutional requirement as a tripartite Government, to make sure that this Nation would lead the world as a strong, strong democracy. Many of those important gains have been neutralized by a foreign policy too often vacillating and insecure; a foreign policy that has responded to world events, rather than shaping world events. And it is quite revealing when this administration, as it often does, boasts that the invasion of Haiti was a great foreign policy accomplishment. Mr. President, sending American soldiers into harm's way on a tiny Caribbean island with no vital interest at stake to replace one group of thugs with another group of thugs does not seem to me to be much of an accomplishment. In any event, the Haiti excursion, at last count, has cost the American taxpayers more than $2 billion. From there the list goes on and on: from Bosnia, where the United States subcontracted to the terrorist regime in Iran our responsibilities to help the Bosnians defend against genocide; to China, where vacillation led Beijing to believe it could get away with bullying Taiwan; to Somalia, where an uncertain United States policy resulted in the tragic and unnecessary deaths of 18 American Rangers; to Iraq, where our CIA Director himself admitted that Saddam Hussein is now politically stronger than ever before. Time and time again, during the past 4 years, a message of weakened resolve was sent around the world, and with tragic results. History teaches us one unmistakably clear lesson, I think, Mr. President, that being that the security of the American people is always less certain when our adversaries doubt our resolve, and our adversaries very much doubt our resolve at this moment. If confirmed, Ambassador Albright must move swiftly and decisively to reverse that trend, and we have discussed it. As I said earlier, she is a strong lady, she is a courageous lady. She has proved that, and she is going to have to continue to push for strength of the United States. She must bring strength and courage and coherence and direction and fresh ideas to America's foreign policy. Let's face it, one of her most critical responsibilities, if confirmed--and she will be--will be that the responsibility of advising the President when and where and under what conditions to commit American forces to combat or to dangerous missions abroad. Senator Chuck Hagel, a distinguished veteran of the Vietnam war and one of the newest members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, properly pressed nominee Albright on this very point during the hearing, as did another distinguished Senator, John Ashcroft. I applaud these two Senators for their perseverance on this issue, because their concerns are shared by many Senators and millions of the American people. We must make certain that never again will American troops be sent into harm's way unless and until there is a clearly defined and precise mission and exit strategy and a clear American national security interest at stake. The debacle in Somalia vividly demonstrated that assertive multilateralism is no way to promote any conceivable American national security interest. Mr. President, Ambassador Albright, based on her testimony, and I think on her career, appears to understand that concern. We have discussed it, and I am sure other Senators have discussed it with her as well. She acknowledged to the committee that with respect to the use of U.S. troops overseas, she has, and I quote her, ``learned many lessons.'' And I thank the Lord for that. She further said she is ``deeply regretful of the lives lost in Somalia.'' Moreover, she assured the committee that she would ``never advise using American forces where other means are available, where there is not the support of Congress and the people, where there is not a possibility of or where there is no exit strategy, and where there is not the likelihood or the reality of winning.'' End of quote, Ambassador Albright. Actions speak louder than words, of course, and we will be watching her closely. She knows that. She expects that. We will watch her to ensure that this administration has, in fact, learned from the disasters of the past 4 years. Another key responsibility of the next Secretary of State will be to reform and restructure the antiquated foreign policy bureaucracy. The 104th Congress passed major legislation to streamline our foreign policy apparatus and eliminate three unnecessary, bloated, and outdated Federal bureaucracies, one of which was described by its proponents in the 1960's as a ``temporary'' Federal agency. It is like Ronald Reagan said: Nothing is so near eternal life as a temporary Federal agency. But these agencies were promised to be in the 1950's and 1960's temporary, and they are still around spending money, in so many, many cases, unwisely. Our plan last year, and the plan that will be submitted this year, will save the American people more than a billion dollars. Instead of endorsing that legislation last year and the year before, which was vigorously supported and endorsed by five former Secretaries of State, the administration opposed it every step of the way. In fact, the administration, while trashing our proposal, never came forward with a proposal of its own, despite promises to do so by the administration. Vice President Gore, who served in the Senate and whom all of us like, issued a statement on January 27, 1995, promising the American people a plan to streamline the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy and save, in his words--these are not my words, these are Al Gore's words-- to save $5 billion over 5 years. But 2 years have passed and the distinguished Vice President has yet to put forward any such proposal. I am hopeful that Madeleine Albright will prod our friend and former colleague, Al Gore, and get to work with us on this problem, because it is a jointly realized problem. We must work together, and I hope I have indicated already, and some of the rest of us, that we want to work together. I pledge to do that. The support for our plan has not diminished, it has grown, among the American people. If Madeleine Albright is confirmed, I intend to schedule an early meeting with her and other key Senators for the purpose of working together and reaching agreement on a bipartisan plan to restructure our foreign policy institutions to meet the new challenges we will face in our next century. The point is this: Republican or Democrat--it doesn't matter--none of us should be willing to stand by and allow America to enter a new millennium with antiquated foreign policy institutions built, let's face it, to fight the cold war. And mark my words, if I have anything to do with it, we will not do so. Mrs. Albright assured the committee that she will keep an open mind as she discusses this matter, and others. I intend to hold her to that commitment to work with us, to consult with us and cooperate with us so that we can work together for the goals that she and we have discussed and mutually agreed to. Mrs. Albright must also work with Congress to achieve serious and lasting reform at the United Nations. The selection of a new Secretary General is an important first step, but it is only one step. I think the American people are tired of all the rhetoric from the international community and the State Department blaming the United States for the United Nations' so-called fiscal crisis. One quarter of every dollar that the United Nations receives for its budget comes from the taxpayers of the United States. Over all, American taxpayers contribute upwards of $3.5 billion to the United Nations. By contrast, more than half of the United Nations members pay just one-hundredth of 1 percent of the United Nations regular budget. Senators must keep that in mind as we begin discussions on U.N. reform. Many countries have no incentive to reform because they gain more from the United Nations than they put into it. So let me summarize in conclusion, Mr. President. Mrs. Albright knows that I intend to work with her. I think she understands that the entire Foreign Relations Committee intends to work with her. I intend to also work with the new Secretary-General, Mr. Annan, and with Senator Rod Grams, who is our congressional delegate to the United Nations, who has developed an important expertise on this issue. We will work with all of these and other Members of Congress to bring true reform to the United Nations, which is long overdue and badly needed. I believe that on balance Mrs. Albright is well qualified for the post of Secretary of State. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of things on our agenda, and I look forward to working with her in moving our agenda forward. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. If you want, more than that.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest we let a quorum call be charged equally.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. HELMS. Certainly. Certainly.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, am I correct there is a 2-hour time agreement on the nomination?

Mr. HELMS. Second, Mr. President, following his remarks on the nomination, Senator Dodd has requested a couple of minutes in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that that be granted and not charged to either side.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today I will introduce a series of eight bills to: First, restore the right of our children to pray; second, restore the rights of the unborn; third, strengthen the penalties for drug dealers and violent acts of crime; fourth, restore the supremacy of the individual over Government-imposed quotas; and fifth, protect the constitutional right to hold and express moral beliefs. Mr. President, our traditions, our children, and our institutions which made this country great, are all under assault. They are not threatened in the military sense--instead they are threatened by moral decay. This Nation simply must regain its moral footing. We are less than 4 years away from a new century full of promise for this great country. New technologies abound and unprecedented discoveries in medicine are within our grasp. Yet, if America is to continue to prosper in the next century, Americans must retain the values and traditions established by our Founding Fathers. Since the beginning, America has been protected by the moral foundations on which she was established. Values like personal responsibility, liberty, respect for human life, and an abiding faith. These values have made America a shinning beacon on a hill and the envy of the world. Sadly though, we have seen a steady erosion of these values and beliefs. This raises a significant question: Where are we headed? Quo vadis America? Mr. President, I believe we are in a battle--in the sense that we are engaged in a struggle for the soul of America. The moral decay has also chewed away at the institution of the family and led to soaring rates of illegitimacy and drug abuse. The liberal establishment has turned a blind eye to what has been going on in America. Their supporters from the Hollywood crowd to Planned Parenthood set forth an agenda that eroded the values of this country. We live in an era when it is fashionable to pretend that our Founding Fathers did not build this country upon biblical principles. Mr. President, on September 7, 1864, Abraham Lincoln thanked a group of citizens for a Bible he was given saying, ``In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to this world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong.'' It is imperative, that as we look to the next century, we not forget what brought us to this point in history--the faith and ideals of our forefathers. Alexis de Tocqueville, after traveling throughout this country, found the source of America's strength. He stated that America's greatness lies in its churches and synagogues. Mr. President, the legislation that I will introduce today will go a long way to ensuring that America's foundations remain secure. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send the bills to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the statements with each be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XIV, I shall shortly send to the desk eight bills to be considered en bloc and considered to have been read for the first time and be objected to following their second reading en bloc. I ask unanimous consent that be in order.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 2 years ago--and on five occasions prior to that--I have offered the Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act, proposing that the Senate go on record in favor of reversing the Roe versus Wade decision. That wrongful U.S. Supreme Court decision, handed down 24 years ago tomorrow, paved the way for the destruction of more than 35 million innocent children--1.5 million little innocent, helpless lives every year. An enormous number of men and women of all ages will descend upon Washington tomorrow--as they have every year since the fateful Roe versus Wade decision--pleading with Congress to remember that a nation which fails to value the God-given gifts of life and liberty will one day find itself in the dustbin of history. So, as the 105th Congress begins its work, I do hope that all Senators will give thought to the need to put an end to the legalized deliberate destruction of the lives of innocent, helpless little human beings. The Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act proposes four things: First, to put Congress clearly on record as declaring that one, every abortion destroys deliberately, the life of an unborn child; two, that the U.S. Constitution sanctions no right to abortion; and three, that Roe versus Wade was improperly decided. Second, this legislation will prohibition Federal funding to pay for, or to promote, abortion. Further, this legislation proposes to defund abortion permanently, thereby relieving Congress of annual legislative battles about abortion restrictions in appropriation bills. Third, the Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act proposes to end indirect Federal funding for abortions by one, prohibiting discrimination, at all federally funded institutions, against citizens who as a matter of conscience object to abortion and two, curtailing attorney's fees in abortion-related cases. Fourth, this legislation proposes that appeals to the Supreme Court be provided as a right if and when any lower Federal court declares restrictions on abortion unconstitutional, thus effectively assuring Supreme Court reconsideration of the abortion issue. Mr. President, it has become fashionable today for America's courts to discard the Constitution in order to create rights and protect freedoms founded upon mankind's depraved nature instead of God's eternal and moral truths. Yet, never has a court handed down such a misguided decision than when it created the right of a woman to choose to terminate the life of her child. Roe versus Wade has no foundation whatsoever in the text or history of the Constitution. It was a callous invention. Justice White said it best in his dissent: Roe, he declared, was an exercise in raw judicial power. Why has this Supreme Court's exercise in raw judicial power been allowed to stand? Why has Congress stood idly by for 24 years while 4,000 unborn babies are deliberately, intentionally destroyed every day as a result of legalized abortion? The answer is simple, Mr. President. Even though Roe versus Wade was and is an unconstitutional decision, Congress has been unwilling to exercise its powers to check and balance a Supreme Court that deliberately allows the destruction of the most defenseless, most innocent humanity imaginable. So, Mr. President, Roe versus Wade still stands; millions of children continue to be deprived of their right to live, to love, and to be loved. It is not a failure of the U.S. Constitution. It is a failure of both the Supreme Court and the Congress for 24 years to overturn Roe versus Wade.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on December 6, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion that has undermined the prosecution of literally hundreds of violent and drug trafficking criminals. There could not have been a worse time to go soft on criminals, but when the Supreme Court's decision was announced, hardened convicts across America were overjoyed by the prospect of prison doors swinging open for them. Sure enough, since the Court's decision just over 1 year ago, hundreds of criminals have indeed been set free. The bill I am introducing today will correct the Supreme Court's blunder, and it will crack down on gun-toting thugs who commit all manner of unspeakable crimes. I am advised that my bill is being numbered S. 43, and it provides that a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence shall be imposed upon any criminal possessing a gun during and in relation to the commission of a violent or drug trafficking crime. If the criminal fires the weapon, the mandatory penalty is elevated to 10 years. If there is a killing during the crime, the punishment is life imprisonment or the death penalty. This is just common sense, Mr. President; violent felons who possess firearms are demonstrably more dangerous than those who do not. This legislation, of course, does not apply to anyone lawfully possessing a gun. Current Federal law provides that a person who, during a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, uses or carries a firearm shall be sentenced to 5 years in prison. That law has been used effectively by Federal prosecutors across the country to add 5 additional years to the prison sentences of criminals who use or carry firearms. But along came the Supreme Court's unwise decision thwarting prosecutors' effective use of this statute. The Court, in Bailey versus United States, interpreted the law to require that a violent felon actively employ a firearm as a precondition of receiving an additional 5-year sentence. The Court held that the firearm must be brandished, fired or otherwise actively used; so if a criminal merely possesses a firearm, but doesn't fire or otherwise use it, he escapes the additional 5 year penalty. Someone put it this way: As a result of the Court's decision, any thug who hides a gun under the back seat of his car, or who stashes a gun with his drugs, may now get off with a slap on the wrist. The fact is, Mr. President, that firearms are the tools of the trade of most drug traffickers. Weapons clearly facilitate the criminal transactions and embolden violent thugs to commit their crimes. Mr. President, this Supreme Court decision poses serious problems for law enforcement. It has weakened the Federal criminal law and has already led to the early release of hundreds of violent criminals. After the word got out about the Bailey decision, prisoners frantically began preparing and filing motions to get out of jail as fast as they could write. Prosecutors were inundated with petitions from criminals. One example is a man named Lancelot Martin, who ran a Haitian drug trafficking operation out of Raleigh, my hometown, the capital city of North Carolina. Martin used the U.S. Postal Service to receive and sell drugs. Police seized his drugs and recovered a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol that Martin used to protect his drug business. Lancelot Martin was convicted of drug trafficking charges and received a 5-year sentence for using the gun. But on March 11 of last year, years before his sentence expired, Martin walked free, simply because while his gun and a hefty supply of drugs were found--the gun was not actively employed at the time he was caught. So, Mr. President, this bill will ensure that future criminals possessing guns, like Lancelot Martin, serve real time when they possess a gun in furtherance of a violent or drug trafficking crime. The Supreme Court, recognizing the consequences of its decision, issued this invitation to us: ``Had Congress intended possession alone to trigger liability * * * it easily could have so provided.'' That, Mr. President, is precisely the intent of this legislation--to make clear that possession alone does indeed trigger liability. Mr. President, a modified version of this legislation passed the Senate last year, only to be blocked in the House of Representatives. This bill is a necessary and appropriate response to the Supreme Court's judicial limitation of the mandatory penalty for gun-toting criminals. According to Sentencing Commission statistics, more than 9,000 armed violent felons were convicted from April 1991, through October 1995. In North Carolina alone, this statute was used to help imprison over 800 violent criminals. We must strengthen law enforcement's ability to use this strong anticrime provision. Fighting crime is, and must be, a prime concern in America. It has been estimated that in the United States one violent crime is committed every 16 seconds. We must fight back with the most severe punishment possible for those who terrorize law-abiding citizens. Enactment of this legislation is a necessary step toward recommitting our Government and our citizens to a real honest-to-God war on crime.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there's a significant question about the use of the American taxpayers' money. Should State and local health departments, hospitals, and other family planning organizations funded under title X of the Public Health Services Act, be specifically allowed to offer adoption services to pregnant women? The answer, Mr. President, is: Absolutely. And Congress should be unmistakably clear in expressing our judgment that public and private health facilities can and should offer adoption services. The vast majority of the American people agree. Many polls have shown that people approve of their tax dollars being used by clinics to promote and encourage adoptions instead of the heinous destruction of unborn children. Statistics emphasize the merit of the proposal that clinics and agencies receiving title X funding should explicitly be authorized to offer adoption services. The National Council for Adoption asserts that an estimated 2 million couples are today hopefully and prayerfully waiting to adopt a child. Yet, 1.5 million babies are refused the right to live every year. Mr. President, if every abortion in this country could be prevented this year there would still be 500,000 couples ready and waiting to adopt children. Small wonder that adoption is called ``the loving option.'' But it is even more tragic, Mr. President, that women with unplanned or unwanted pregnancies are unaware of the wonderful opportunities available to their child through adoption. These women, states Jeff Rosenberg, formerly of the National Council for Adoption, ``are not hearing about adoption, and thus [are] not considering it as a possibility. Young pregnant women are frequently not told by counselors and social workers that adoption is an alternative.'' With this in mind, I offer today the Federal Adoption Services Act of 1997, a bill that proposes to amend title X of the Public Health Services Act to permit federally-funded planning services to provide adoption services based on two factors: No. 1, the needs of the community in which the clinic is located, and No. 2, the ability of an individual clinic to provide such services. Mr. President, those familiar with the many Senate debates of the past regarding title X will recall the excessive emphasis placed on preventing and/or spacing of pregnancies, and limiting the size of the American family. I hope that this year, we can refocus this debate, emphasizing the need to affirm life rather than preventing or terminating it. Sure, the radical feminists and other pro-abortionists will voice their hysterical objections. So before they raise their voices, let's make clear what this legislation will not do. For example: No woman will be threatened or cajoled into giving up her child for adoption. Family planning clinics will not be required to provide adoption services. Rather, this legislation will make it clear that Federal policy will allow, or even encourage adoption as a means of family planning. Women who use title X services--one-third of whom are teenagers--will be in a better position to make informed, compassionate judgments about the unborn children they are carrying. Mr. President, I contend that it is not the responsibility of civilized society to protect the rights of the most innocent and most helpless human beings imaginable. Furthermore, shouldn't we do our best to provide couples willing to love and care for these children an opportunity to do so? That question, Mr. President, answers itself--in the affirmative.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation I first submitted in amendment form on June 25, 1991--which I subsequently introduced as a bill in both the 103d and 104th Congresses. But as I introduce once more the Civil Rights Restoration Act, I recall that similar antidiscrimination legislation passed this body long before 1973, when I first became a Member of the Senate. Thirty-three years ago, Congress passed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. The intent of that legislation was to prohibit discrimination based on race in a broad variety of circumstances, including hiring practices. Proponents of the Civil Rights Act proclaimed that there was nothing in the bill that would require any quotas or preferential treatment. Well, three decades later, the Federal Government's quota establishment--aided and abetted by an activist Federal judiciary--have so perverted the plain language and intent of the Civil Rights Act that it is unrecognizable. My proposal today is intended to ensure that all civil rights laws are consistent with the goal of a color-blind society. Specifically, this legislation prevents Federal agencies, and the Federal courts, from interpreting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow an employer to grant preferential treatment in employment to any group or individual on account of race. This proposal prohibits the use of racial quotas once and for all. During the past several years, almost every Member of the Senate--and the President of the United States--have proclaimed that they are opposed to quotas. This bill will give Senators an opportunity to reinforce their statements by voting in a rollcall vote against quotas. Mr. President, this legislation emphasizes that from here on out, employers must hire on a race neutral basis. They can reach out into the community to the disadvantaged and they can even have businesses with 80 or 90 percent minority workforces as long as the motivating factor in employment is not race. This bill clarifies section 703(j) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it consistent with the intent of its authors, Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen. Let me state it for the Record: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any entity that is an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group with respect to selection for, discharge from, compensation for, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of, employment or union membership, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group, for any person, except as provided in subsection (e) or paragraph (2). It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an entity described in paragraph (1) to recruit individuals of an underrepresented race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, to expand the applicant pool of the individuals seeking employment or union membership with the entity. Specifically, this bill proposes to make part (j) of section 703 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act consistent with subsections (a) and (d) of that section. It contains the identical language used in those subsections to make preferential treatment on the basis of race--that is, quotas--an unlawful employment practice. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this legislation does not make outreach programs an unlawful employment practice. Under language suggested years ago by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole, a company can recruit and hire in the inner city, prefer people who are disadvantaged, create literacy programs, recruit in the schools, establish day care programs, and expand its labor pool in the poorest sections of the community. In other words, expansion of the employee pool is specifically provided for under this act. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary because in the 33 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Government and the courts have combined to corrupt the spirit of the act as enumerated by both Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen, who made clear that they were unalterably opposed to racial quotas. Yet in spite of the clear intent of Congress, businesses large and small must adhere to hiring quotas in order to keep the all-powerful Federal Government off their backs. Several times before, I have directed the attention of Senators to the Daniel Lamp Co., a small Chicago lamp factory harassed by investigators from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The CBS news program, ``60 Minutes,'' did a story several years back that exposed the mentality of the quota-enforcing bureaucrats at the EEOC to the Nation. The Daniel Lamp Co. was a small, struggling business which employed 28 people when ``60 Minutes'' began its investigation--8 of whom were black and 18 of whom were Hispanic. But this obviously nondiscriminatory hiring practice was simply not enough for the EEOC. According to the ``60 Minutes'' reporter, Morley Safer, the EEOC told the owner of the Daniel Lamp Co. that ``based on other larger companies' personnel, Daniel Lamp should employ 8.45 blacks.'' In other words, this small company--which had never had over 30 people on its payroll--had failed to meet the Federal Government's hiring quotas. The Daniel Lamp Co., which was justifiably proud of its mostly minority workforce, decided to stand up to the EEOC. For their troubles, they were forced to pay a fine of $148,000, meet the quota set by the agency, and spend $10,000 on newspaper advertisements to tell other job applicants that they might have been discriminated against--and to please contact the Daniel Lamp Co. for a potential financial windfall. Yet through all of this outrageous conduct, the EEOC continued to insist that the agency does not set hiring quotas. And although one would have reasonably expected that ``60 Minutes'' exposure of the Daniel Lamp Co.'s predicament would embarrass the Federal Government's quota establishment into mending its ways, it is still business as usual among the bureaucrats. For example, on November 21, 1996, my office received an unsolicited facsimile transmission from the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program [OFCCP]. For those unfamiliar with the OFCCP, this is the branch of the Department of Labor that engages in race and gender nose-counting for private businesses who have contracts with the federal government. This facsimile was titled ``OFCCP Egregious Discrimination Cases.'' Curious as to what constituted egregious in the eyes of the Labor Department bureaucrats, I reviewed this document--and one particular case caught my eye. During June 1993, OFCCP investigators conducted a so-called compliance review of the San Diego Marriott and Marina. In the course of their walk-through, the OFCCP officers believed they did not see enough African-American women in visible jobs to satisfy their notion of an acceptable workplace. This unscientific observation prompted a massive investigation of the San Diego Marriott's hiring practices. After a year-long inquiry--paid for by the American taxpayer, I might add--the OFCCP uncovered only this unremarkable revelation: that of the hotel's 1,579 employees, 950 were minorities and/or women, including 101 African-Americans. Instead of being satisfied that over 60 percent of the workforce were minorities or women, the OFCCP found this an egregious case of race discrimination--because not enough black women were employed to suit their idea of diversity. In the view of the OFCCP, a 60 percent minority workforce is insufficient unless the ``right'' kind of minorities are represented. Mr. President, if that is not a quota, I don't know what is. In any event, rather than trying to fight the Department of Labor, the San Diego Marriott settled to the tune of $627,000. And Mr. President, the Marriott Corporation could at least afford such an extravagant settlement. Thousands of small businesses across the country would be bankrupt by such a fine--and all it would take is one Federal bureaucrat failing to see what he or she considers the right kind of faces in the workplace. Well, this bill is designed to put an end to all this nonsense bandied about by the Federal Government's power-hungry quota establishment. Mr. President, as I have said at outset, this legislation should be familiar to students of history. This legislation will bring our civil rights laws full circle, putting America back on the course that Everett Dirksen and Hubert Humphrey envisioned when they sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Speaking of Hubert Humphrey, Mr. President--he was a man admired by all of us who served with him. Senator Humphrey was one of the principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He hated the idea of quotas and preferential treatment based on race. Senator Humphrey stood right here on the floor of this chamber and said in the strongest terms possible that the Act could not possibly be interpreted to permit quotas: ``if there is any language [in the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which provides that any employer will have to hire on the basis of percentages or quotas related to color, race, or religion or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another because it is not there.'' Those words have become so familiar to us during the course of our debates regarding this issue, that they perhaps need a little added emphasis. The authors of the Civil Rights Act explicitly stated that the bill was not to be interpreted to require any quotas or percentage- based hiring. Well, Mr. President, tell that to the Daniel Lamp Company. Tell that to the San Diego Marriot. Tell that to all the policemen, firemen, or small businessmen across this country who have found that, in the United States of America, merit and achievement is sometimes not good enough. Mr. President, after 30 years, it is obvious that the social experiment known as affirmative action has outlived its usefulness. It is time for the Congress to return the civil rights laws to their original intent of preventing discrimination, and restore the principles upon which our country was built--personal responsibility, self-reliance, and hard work. The Civil Rights Restoration Act aims to do just that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a March 20, 1995 article by Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton, Jr. in National Review be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, many readers of the Washington Times on December 31, 1996, were offended when they read an article, ``Postal Inspectors' Bias Code Seen as Silencing Anti-Gay Views.'' The article reported that the U.S. Postal Service's law enforcement branch had recently issued a new code of conduct forbidding employees from expressing their personal and religious beliefs regarding homosexuality--even during off-duty hours. When asked about the Postal Service's decision, Robert Maginnis, an analyst at the Family Research Council, asserted correctly that ``People who have deeply-held moral beliefs * * * need not apply for the Federal jobs. Talk about discrimination! This is reverse discrimination of the worst kind.'' Mr. Maginnis was right on target: Freedom of speech is not permitted to those who deplore the favoritism shown people who have the morals of alley cats. I recall the 1994 episode in which the Senate came to the defense of a faithful and longtime employee of the Department of Agriculture, Dr. Karl Mertz, whose freedom of speech was callously violated after he dared to stand up against sodomy. Dr. Mertz did so on his own time, when he opposed his government's giving special rights to homosexuals. Mr. President, during the incident involving Dr. Mertz, it because abundantly clear, at least to me, that the Clinton Administration had conducted and continues to conduct a concerted effort to give homosexuals special rights, privileges, and protections throughout the Federal agencies--rights not accorded to most other groups and individuals. The fact is, no other group in America is given special rights based on its sexual behavior. To grant special rights to homosexuals would be redundant--the 1964 Civil Rights Act already protects every American from discrimination. Moreover, the Senate, on September 10, 1996, defeated attempts by Senator Kennedy and others to amend the Civil Rights Act in order to extend special rights to employees based exclusively on the employees' sexual preferences. Mr. President, after Dr. Mertz's plight was brought to light in 1994, my office began to hear from Federal Government employees throughout Washington and the country who were personally concerned about the Administration's attempts to defend and promote special rights for homosexuals in the workplace. And we continue to hear from them. These are not hate-filled or mean- spirited; they are understandably disturbed by the government's attempts to sanction and protect a lifestyle they--and many Americans-- regard as immoral. Mr. President, let's look at statements issued by three of the Administration's cabinet members regarding efforts by the Clinton Administration to confer special rights and protections upon homosexuals and lesbians. On April 15, 1993, then-Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy, issued a Civil Rights Policy Statement in which he stated that the USDA would ``create a work environment free of discrimination and harassment based on gender or sexual orientation.'' On December 6, 1993, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, issued her agency's directive to celebrate cultural ``diversity'' in a workplace free of discrimination against gays and lesbians. On August 30, 1994, Henry Cisneros, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, likewise informed all HUD employees that his department would not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, Mr. President, Leonard Hirsch, president of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Employees of the Federal Government (GLOBE), told the Washington Times that every Cabinet-level department, excluding the Pentagon, now has rules barring discrimination based on sexual orientation. Which brings us to the issue of whether the Federal Government intends to expand the definition of discrimination to include suppression of the constitutional rights of its employees to voice personal and religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. The fact is, it is already happening. To the delight of the homosexual community, Federal employees are required to leave their moral and spiritual views at home every morning since Federal agencies and departments have unilaterally adopted a policy to treat homosexuals as a special class protected under various titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congress must not remain silent as the executive branch creates special protections for homosexuals without regard to the constitutional right of freedom of speech enjoyed by all Federal employees. That is the purpose of the legislation I offer today. Under this bill, no Federal department or agency shall implement or enforce any policy creating a special class of individuals in Federal employment discrimination law. This bill will also prevent the Federal government from trampling the first amendment rights of Federal employees to express their moral and spiritual values in the workplace. Finally, this bill will turn back the tide of the homosexual community in its efforts to force Americans to accept, and even legitimize, moral perversion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, something more than 7 years ago, I first reported to the Senate some evidence that a war was then being waged against America's standards of decency by some self-proclaimed ``artists'' funded by the national Endowment for the Arts. When I came to the Senate floor that day, July 26, 1989, and suggested that Senators should examine some examples of the material that the taxpayers were being required to subsidize, and that I had an amendment to put an end to it, the distinguished manager of the bill took one look and said, ``We'' take your amendment.'' And that's when the battle began. Since that time some of the know- it-all media have tried in vain to make a silk purse out of the NEA's sow's ear. They failed miserably to persuade the American people that such so-called ``art'' deserved the taxpayers' money allocated to the arrogant artists whose minds belonged in the sewer. The names of these self-proclaimed ``artists'' consist of a wide range of curious individuals who have no regard for decency--Annie Sprinkle, Holly Hughes, and Karen Finley performing their live sex acts; Andres Serrano sticking a crucifix in a jar filled with his urine, taking a picture of it, and choosing for its title a mockery of Jesus Christ. Then there was Robert Mapplethorpe, who became noted for his filthy homosexual photographs; Joel-Peter Witken who used bodies of dead men and women to produce stomach-churning photographs; and many others. From burning the American flag to flouting their own bodies and those of others, such depravity knows no bounds. The only religiously- oriented ``art'' funded by the NEA were scurrilous attacks on the Catholic church or blasphemous insults to the deity of Jesus Christ. More recently, The Washington Times, in an article last June, reported that the National Endowment for the Arts had, in 1995, awarded $31,500 to a lesbian film director for her production of the film titled, ``Watermelon Woman''. In her description of the film to the NEA, the film's director boasted that with the NEA's support, she would ``be one of the first African American lesbian film makers who promotes our rarely seen lifestyles.'' Mr. President, I will not waste the Senate's time further detailing the outrageous abuse of Federal tax dollars by the National Endowment for the Arts. But it continues, despite the efforts by those in Congress to reform the agency. Sadly, the real travesty is found in the efforts of a few misguided souls to defend requiring the American taxpayers to finance the attempted to glorify perversion and immorality. When I came to the Senate floor that day in 1989, I told Senators that the arts community and the media--because they balked at any restriction on Federal funding--had left Congress with two choices: First, absolutely no Federal presence in the arts; or second, granting artists the absolute freedom to use tax dollars as they wish, regardless of how vulgar, blasphemous, or despicable their works may be. I said at the time that if we indeed must make this choice, then the Federal Government should get out of the arts. But, I felt then that Congress could make another choice--to clean up the NEA, and merely prevent the use of Federal funds to support the creation or production of vulgar or sacrilegious works. Well, Mr. President, as Paul Harvey says, now you know the rest of the story. For more than 7 years, I offered numerous amendments to put an end to the taxpayer-subsidized obscenity I've detailed today. But without fail, every year, the American people are shocked to hear of another instance in which the NEA has given its blessing--and the taxpayers' money--to an organization or individual determined to cross the lines of decency and morality. The last card was played out, Mr. President, when a liberal Federal appeals court, on November 5, 1996, usurped the right of Congress to put any semblance of restrictions on the way the NEA uses the money granted to it by Congress. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court thumbed its nose at Congress--and the American people--when it upheld the right of so- called ``artists'' such as Karen Finley and Holly Hughes to continue to be subsidized for their decadent acts. Mr. President, no more choices or compromises remain. I have concluded, as have so many Americans, that the only way Congress can stop the irresponsible use of the taxpayers' money by the NEA is to abolish it. Moreover, there is much to be said for the priority to confront the existing $5.3 trillion Federal debt and the effect that it will have on the futures of today's young people. The sky will not fall if the Congress votes to privatize the NEA as the arts already swim in an ocean of private funds--more than $9 billion annually. Bruce Fein wrote in his editorial, ``Dollars for Depravity,'' that ``NEA funds are but a tiny fraction of national art expenditures. Thus, a denial of an NEA grant is far from tantamount to a professional death sentence.'' For these reasons, I today introduce The National Endowment for the Arts Termination Act of 1997. The bill mirrors the legislation offered in the House of Representatives this year by Phil Crane, Sam Johnson, and Charlie Norwood. This bill finally alleviates the burden, shouldered by the American taxpayers, of allocating money every year to an agency whose mission has been sorely mistreated. The strings will be cut and the Federal government will no longer be in the business of propping up ``artists'' such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano. Furthermore, Congress will rid itself of the annual fight to defend the cultural high ground against a group of people who are in a lifelong crusade to destroy the Judeo-Christian foundations of this country. Mr. President, this bill is the only solution to end the irresponsible use of the taxpayers' money by this agency. Efforts to reform it have failed. It is time to put the National Endowment for the Arts to rest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Robert Smith, introduced legislation in the 104th Congress prohibiting the destruction of helpless, unborn babies by a procedure called partial-birth abortions. Congress heeded the outcry of the American people against this shameful abuse of the most innocent humans imaginable; the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed by both the House and the Senate only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. Mr. President, another stalwart Senator of New Hampshire, Mr. Humphrey brought to the attention of the Senate in 1989 incredibly brutal practice in America--abortions performed solely because prospective mothers prefer a child of a gender from the babies in their womb. Senator Humphrey, in the 1989 debate called attention to the New York Times article published Christmas morning the year before. It was titled ``Fetal Sex Test Used as Step to Abortion.'' Sadly, Senator Humphrey's remarks and subsequent legislation were met with general disinterest among those who sanctimoniously defend what they regard as a woman's right to destroy her unborn child. Those holding such views never discuss an unborn child's right to live, to love and be loved. Mr. President, it was typical for The New York Times, that the Times article which Senator Humphrey deplored began as follows: In a major change in medical attitudes and practices, many doctors are providing prenatal diagnoses to pregnant women who want to abort a fetus on the basis of the gender of the unborn child. Geneticists say that the reasons for this change in attitude are an increased availability of diagnostic technologies, a growing disinclination of doctors to be paternalistic, deciding for patients what is best, and an increasing tendency for patients to ask for the tests. Many geneticists and ethicists say they are disturbed by the trend. Mr. President, this rhetorical horseradish is simply another measurement of how far the moral and spiritual priorities of America have fallen. Professor George Annas of the Boston University School of Medicine was quoted as saying: I think the [medical] profession should set limits and I think most people would be outraged, and properly so, at the notion that you would have an abortion because you don't want a boy or you don't want a girl. If you are worried about a woman's right to an abortion, the easiest way to lose it is not set any limits on this technology. Mr. President, how sad it is that any mother in a civilized society would be willing to destroy the unborn female child she is carrying simply because she happens to prefer a male child--or vice-versa. But believe it. It is happening without the Government of the United States lifting an eyebrow, let alone a finger. And that, Mr. President, is why I am again offering legislation to limit this incredibly inhumane practice. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the 104th Congress acted on legislation to outlaw the brutal killings of unborn babies subjected to partial-birth abortions. I pray the 105th Congress will take action to end another callous cruelty against the unborn--gender-selection abortions. Specifically, the legislation I have sent to the desk proposes to amend title 42 of the United States Code governing civil rights. Anyone who administers an abortion for the purpose of choosing the gender of the infant will protect unborn children as title 42 presently protects any other citizen who is a victim of discrimination. Mr. President, the American people are clearly opposed to this practice. A Boston Globe poll reports that 93 percent of the American people reject the taking of life as a means of gender selection. Another poll conducted by Newsweek/Gallup showed that four out of every five Americans oppose gender selection abortions. Even radical feminists cannot ignore the absurdity of denying a child the right to life simply because the parents happened to prefer a child of the opposite gender. The Associated Press reported on August 22, 1996, that the platform adopted by last year's U.N. women's conference in Beijing included a provision condemning sex-selection abortions. Of course, feminists proclaim that gender selection abortions are atrocities in China--or in India where a survey was taken 7 years ago which revealed that of 8,000 abortions, 7,999 were female. Now, Mr. President, I do not believe--even for a minute--that the pro-abortion crowd and its amen corner in Congress would want to see action on this legislation. I deliberately stated that the feminists in Beijing--led by the American coalition--could not ignore this cruel practice. But lip service is all that will be paid to this violent practice by most of those who call themselves pro-choice. Just as they did during debate on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, I suspect NOW and NARAL supporters in the Senate will do their best to stop the Civil Rights of Infants Act. Cries will go up and the charge will be made that the Senate is somehow trying to take away the freedom of American women. In the meantime, the freedoms of life and liberty are being denied to thousands of unborn children. Nonetheless, those of us who support the rights of the unborn must do our best. Hopefully, this 105th Congress will take early action to fulfill the desires of the overwhelming majority of the American people who rightfully believe it is immoral to destroy unborn babies simply because the mother demands freedom-of-gender choice.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this year marks the 200th anniversary of George Washington's departure from public life. A few months before the end of his Presidency, in his farewell address to the Nation, he included a parting word of advice--and a final warning--that is just as significant and relevant today as it was then. Washington counseled the new Nation: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. Our Founding Fathers understood well the intricate relationship between freedom and responsibility. They knew that the blessings of liberty engendered certain obligations on the part of a free people-- namely, that citizens conduct their actions in such a way that society can remain cohesive without excessive government intrusion. The American experiment would never have succeeded without the traditional moral and spiritual values of the American people--values that allow people to govern themselves, rather than be governed. Not long ago, my friend, Margaret Thatcher, highlighted for us the words of another of our Nation's founders, John Adams, who said, ``Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.'' Yet over the last 30 years, our society has evidenced increasing apathy--and, in some cases, outright hostility--toward the spiritual principles upon which our Nation was founded. Mr. President, Bill Bennett once observed to me that America has become the kind of country that civilized countries once dispatched missionaries to centuries ago. If we care about cleaning up the streets and classrooms, if we care about the long-term survival of our Nation-- how could there be anything more important for Congress to protect than the right of America's children to participate in voluntary, constitutionally protected prayer in their schools? Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today will ensure that student-initiated prayer is treated the same as all other student- initiated free speech--which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as constitutionally protected as long as it is done in an appropriate time, place, and manner such that it ``does not materially disrupt the school day''. [Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503.] Under this bill, school districts could not continue--in constitutional ignorance--enforcing blanket denials of students' rights to voluntary prayer and religious activity in the schools. For the first time, schools would be faced with real consequences for making uninformed and unconstitutional decisions prohibiting all voluntary prayer. The bill creates a complete system of checks and balances to ensure that school districts do not shortchange their students one way or the other. This proposal, Mr. President, prevents public schools from prohibiting constitutionally protected voluntary student-initiated prayer. It does not mandate school prayer and suggestions to the contrary are simply in error. Nor does it require schools to write any particular prayer, or compel any student to participate in prayer. It does not prevent school districts from establishing appropriate time, place, and manner restrictions on voluntary prayer--the same kind of restrictions that are placed on other forms of speech in the schools. What this proposal will do is prevent school districts from establishing official policies or procedures with the intent of prohibiting students from exercising their constitutionally protected right to lead, or participate in, voluntary prayer in school. Mr. President, this bill is especially noxious to school prayer opponents because it explodes the myth popular among school administrators and bureaucrats--a myth perpetuated by liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union--that the U.S. Constitution somehow prohibits every last vestige of religion from the public schools. Seldom is it heard on the issue of school prayer that the Constitution also forbids governmental restrictions on the free exercise of religion, or that the Constitution protects students' free speech--whether religious or not--and that student-initiated, voluntary prayer expressed at an appropriate time, place and manner, has never been outlawed by the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I find it more than a little ironic that I am forced to revisit this issue on the floor of the Senate. I remind Senators that in 1994, this same proposal--offered in amendment form by Senator Lott and myself--passed this body overwhelmingly, 75 to 22. In the House of Representatives, this language was approved on two different occasions by similar 3-to-1 margins. Yet this simple protection of constitutional rights was dropped in the closing 60 seconds of a conference with no debate, no discussion, and no vote--just a wink and a nod between the senior Senator from Massachusetts and his counterpart on the House side. So I am obliged to offer this measure once again to protect the constitutional rights of America's children to participate in voluntary school prayer. Indeed, standing here brings to mind the words of the legendary New York Yankee catcher, manager, and philosopher Yogi Berra: ``it's deja vu all over again.'' Well, this time, Mr. President, I hope Congress will accede to the wishes of a huge majority of the American people, and enact this legislation. A Wirthlin poll reported in Reader's Digest indicates that 75 percent of our citizens favor prayer in public schools. My legislation ensures that the American people's will to protect constitutionally sanctioned prayer in our Nation's schools is accomplished--and shows Congress's respect for the moral and spiritual values that make our Nation whole.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Defend America Act of 1997 is a vital piece of legislation--one which provides a clear and concise blueprint for protecting the American people from the growing threat of attack from ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads. It is critical that the United States begin immediately the 8-year task of building and deploying a national missile defense. I am grateful to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, for introducing this bill and I am honored to join him as a cosponsor. Just over a year ago the Clinton administration vetoed the 1996 Defense Authorization Act. In his veto message, the President explicitly objected to the missile defense provisions of the act. At that time, along with others, I found it beyond belief that the administration could arrive at the decision to block the deployment of a national missile defense. I remember wondering, given the fact that North Korea is known to be developing a missile capable of striking United States cities, how such a decision could be made. The chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Richard Cooper, testified before the House National Security Committee on February 28, 1996, that ``. . . North Korea is developing a missile, which we call the Taepo Dong 2, that could have a range sufficient to reach Alaska. The missile way also be capable of reaching some U.S. territories in the Pacific and the far western portion of the 2,000-km-long Hawaiian Island chain.'' What Mr. Cooper did not add was the fact that nations can and have increased the ranges of their ballistic missiles by reducing payloads. Mr. President, a September 29, 1995, article in the Washington Times reported that the Defense Intelligence Agency has estimated that the Taepo Dong 2 could, in fact, have a range of 4,650 miles and, with a smaller warhead, could reach 6,200 miles--approximately 10,000 km. Similarly, a September 11, 1995, article in a South Korean newspaper stated that Russia believes that once the Taepo Dong 2's inertial navigation system, warhead weight, and fuel injection devices are improved, the missile could reach over 9,600 kilometers. At those ranges, the Taepo Dong 2 could drop a nuclear or biological warhead on U.S. cities as far east as Denver or Minneapolis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two articles be printed in the Record. Second, I cannot fathom why the Clinton administration objected to the deployment of a national missile defense in light of Red China's bellicose words and deeds. China fields of dozens of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hundreds of warheads on heavy bombers, roughly 24 medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, and has several crash modernization initiatives in progress. Moreover, China intends to deploy, by the end of the century, four new types of ballistic missiles. Furthermore, the United States has very clear indications that Red China is at this moment pursuing MIRV-technology. Mr. President, this is the same country, mind you, that flexed its military might by conducting live missile-firing exercises in the Strait of Taiwan in an obviously intentional effort to bully and cower a valued and longstanding ally of the United States. This is the same country that issued thinly-veiled threats this spring suggesting that nuclear weapons would be used against the United States if the United States intervened on behalf of Taiwan. Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord acknowledged that Chinese officials had declared that the United States ``wouldn't dare defend Taiwan because they--China--would rain nuclear bombs on Los Angeles.'' Now, if this was not nuclear blackmail, it will do while the Clinton administration folds its hands until the first nuclear missile hits the West Coast of the United States. China's ability to hold the United States hostage to such threats is made possible by the fact that a band of latter-day Luddites here in Washington have consistently refused even to consider building the very strategic missile defenses necessary to protect the American people from such an attack. Mr. President, it is time for the defenders of the ABM Treaty to give up their pious devotion to an antiquated arms control theology, and to come to grips with the realities of the post-cold-war world. Dr. Henry Kissinger--the architect of the ABM Treaty--put it best when he recently wrote: ``The end of the cold war has made * * * a strategy [of mutually assured destruction (MAD)] largely irrelevant. Barely plausible when there was only one strategic opponent, the theory makes no sense in a multipolar world of proliferating nuclear powers.'' Dr. Kissinger went on to note specifically that MAD would not work against blackmail with nuclear weapons. Yet that is exactly what we faced when China blatantly threatened Los Angeles. The truth of the matter is that no amount of policy reformulation by the Clinton administration can change the fact that the United States is vulnerable to nuclear-tipped missiles fielded by China, or any one else. Rectifying this dangerous deficiency requires leadership and action. It is an all the more pressing issue because the current course charted by the administration fails to recognize the inherent danger in China's pursuit of an advanced nuclear arsenal. Mr. President, any further delay in the development of the United States of a flexible, cost-effective national missile defense is unconscionable. I am honored to be a cospsonor of the Defend America Act and urge Senators to support this legislation to ensure that the American people are protected from attack by ballistic missiles.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it was not quite 12 months ago--on Friday, February 23, 1996--that the Federal debt broke the $5 trillion sound barrier for the first time in history. The records show that on that day, at the close of business, the debt stood at $5,017,056,630,040.53. Just 20 years earlier, in 1976, the Federal debt stood at $629 billion--and that was after the first 200 years of America's history had elapsed, including two world wars. Then the big spenders really went to work and the interest on the Federal debt really began to take off--and, presto, during the past two decades the Federal debt has soared into the stratosphere, increasing by more than $4 trillion in two decades from 1976 to 1996. So, Mr. President, as of the close of business Friday, January 17, 1997, the Federal debt stood--down-to-the-penny--at $5,309,774,506,681.99. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,917.66 as his or her share of that debt. This enormous debt is a festering, escalating burden on all citizens and especially it is jeopardizing the liberty of our children and grandchildren. As Jefferson once warned, ``to preserve [our] independence, we must not let our leaders load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.'' Was Mr. Jefferson right, or what? _______________________________________________________________________