Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, regular order. What is the pending business?

Mr. HELMS. I do not know if there is further debate, Mr. President. That is up to the managers.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. First of all, I commend the distinguished assistant majority leader, Mr. Nickles. He has made some excellent points that have floated like a ship passing in the night by a lot of Senators. I hope Senators who did not hear him by way of television in their offices will have the Senator's remarks called to their attention by their assistants tomorrow morning.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, during my years in the Senate I have been privileged on many occasions to work with a substantial number of ministers whose Washington churches today are referred to as ``African- American.'' These fine ministers have almost unanimously supported efforts by myself and Joe Gibbs and others to restore school prayer to the Nation's classrooms. They are, in the main, opposed to abortion. In fact, I do not recall even one of these ministers ever describing himself or herself as ``pro-choice.'' But that perhaps is neither here nor there in terms of what I am here this evening to speak about. The day before the Senate adjourned for the August recess, I ran into one of these fine ministers over in the Russell Building. His church is Baptist. He has a booming, cheerful voice. And when I heard that voice, I knew who it was. He was saying, ``Are you going home tomorrow?'' And I told him I thought I was since the Senate probably would recess for the month of August. I asked him, Mr. President, if he had a message for the folks back home. And he said, ``I sure do. Tell them that God created Adam and Eve--not Adam and Steve.'' Some may chuckle at this good-natured minister's humor. But he meant exactly what he was saying. In fact, it was a sort of sermonette. The truth is, he was hitting the nail on the head, if you want to use that cliche, or telling it like it is. However one may choose to describe this minister's getting down to the nitty-gritty, it was no mere cliche, Mr. President. There could not have been, as a matter of fact, a better way to begin this debate in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is H.R. 3396. The formal debate will begin tomorrow morning in this Chamber, the U.S. Senate. Now then, let there be no mistake about it, this bill in no way, to any degree, is the kind of legislation which homosexual and lesbian leaders have disdainfully described as a, to use their words, ``hate- driven bill.'' In fact, it is precisely the critics of H.R. 3396 who are demanding that homosexuality be considered as just another lifestyle--these are the people who seek to force their agenda upon the vast majority of Americans who reject the homosexual lifestyle. Indeed, Mr. President, the pending bill--the Defense of Marriage Act--will safeguard the sacred institutions of marriage and the family from those who seek to destroy them and who are willing to tear apart America's moral fabric in the process. Isn't it disheartening, Mr. President, that Congress must clarify the traditional definition of marriage? But inch by inch, little by little, the homosexual lobby has chipped away at the moral stamina of some of America's courts and some legislators, in order to create the shaky ground that exists today that prompts this legislation being the subject of debate tomorrow morning in the U.S. Senate. Just think, the prospect of a sovereign State's being compelled to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned in another State is incredibly stark. If Hawaii's supreme court legalizes same-sex marriages in Hawaii, does the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution compel the other 49 States to recognize the new marriage law within their jurisdictions? I say no. Such a suggestion, Mr. President, is a cockeyed interpretation of the Constitution; and this is one of so many times that I have wished the late, great Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., were here to cut it down to size. Homosexuals and lesbians boast that they are close to realizing their goal--legitimizing their behavior. Mr. President, Bill Bennett has championed the cause of preserving America's culture; he contends that we are already reaping the consequences of the devaluation of marriage. And he warns that ``it is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone and the arch of civilization.'' Bill Bennett is everlastingly right, and I believe the American people in the majority understand that the Defense of Marriage Act is vitally important. It will establish a simple, clear Federal definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, and it will exempt sovereign States from being compelled by a half-baked interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to recognize same-sex marriages wrongfully legalized in another State. If the Senate, tomorrow, makes the mistake of approving the Employment Nondiscrimination Act proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, it will pave the way for liberal judges to threaten the business policies of countless American employers, and, in the long run, put in question the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The homosexual lobby knows this and that is why there is such a clamor favoring adoption of the Kennedy bill. Mr. President, at the heart of this debate is the moral and spiritual survival of this Nation. Alexis de Tocqueville said a century and a half ago that America had grown great because America was good. Mr. de Tocqueville also warned that if America made the mistake of ceasing to be good, America would cease to be great. So, we must confront the question posed long ago: ``Quo Vadis, America?'' The Senate is about to answer that question. We will decide whither goeth America. It is solely up to us.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, September 6, the Federal debt stood at $5,220,377,655,156.41. One year ago, September 6, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,969,749,000,000. Five years ago, September 6, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,623,922,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $1,596,455,655,156.41 during the 5 years from 1991 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, September 5, the Federal debt stood at $5,225,564,391,083.90. One year ago, September 5, 1995, the Federal debt stood at $4,968,613,000,000. Five years ago, September 5, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,623,548,000,000. Ten years ago, September 5, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,112,803,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $3,112,761,391,083.90 during the 10 years from 1986 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair for recognizing me.

Mr. HELMS. Half hearted responses in a few cases. In large measure, the administration has stonewalled the matter and refused to release the actual documents. The intelligence community of our Government unanimously say that this treaty has many aspects that are perilous to the security of the United States. But in any case, I thank the Senator for his comments and for his role in trying to protect the people of this country from a treaty or a convention that is unwise, as in this case. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Certainly.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I do hope the Senate will approve this resolution urging the President to negotiate an agreement with Panama to permit United States Armed Forces to maintain a presence in that country beyond the year 2000. The Panama Canal treaties state that unless we pursue an agreement with Panama, the United States military must complete the withdrawal of its forces from Panama by the date. Imagine, if you can, the U.S. flag coming down for the last time on December 31, 1999--ending a special and unique relationship that has lasted almost a century. This must not be allowed to happen. The Panama Canal treaties provide for a continued United States military presence--if both parties express an interest. I feel strongly that it is in the best interests of both the United States and Panama to maintain a United States military presence in Panama. United States forces in Panama help promote stable democracies throughout the region and serve as a critical component for United States counter-drug monitoring and interdiction efforts. Without question, United States forces offer the best protection for the Panama Canal. If the United States leaves, the canal will be left literally undefended. Although the United States is engaged in a drawdown of our forces, both overseas and in the United States, there are, nevertheless, more than 135,000 United States troops remaining in Europe and almost 100,000 in the Pacific. By early 1998, fewer than 6,000 troops will remain in Panama--that is, basically 6,000 troops for the entire hemisphere. If total United States military withdrawal from Panama were to be allowed to happen, this nation will be left with no major military presence in the region. Mr. President, I have had a number of meetings with Panamanians. They want us to stay. Polls in Panama show that about 75 percent of Panamanians want the United States to maintain military forces there beyond the year 2000. It is time to negotiate a new base rights agreement. Congress should urge the President to negotiate a continued United States military presence in Panama. The House of Representatives approved this resolution in June 1995; and it was voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously in December 1995. Now is the time to pursue an agreement with Panama.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, September 4, the Federal debt stood at $5,228,998,407,724.89. Five years ago, September 4, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,617,415,000,000. Ten years ago, September 4, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,113,008,000,000. Fifteen years ago, September 4, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $979,768,000,000. This reflects an increase of more than $4,249,230,407,724.89 during the 15 years from 1981 to 1996.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending August 30, the United States imported 6,700,000 barrels of oil each day, 500,000 less than the 7,200,000 imported during the same week a year ago. Nevertheless, Americans relied on foreign oil for 51 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 about 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 6,700,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it was called to my attention that last evening there must have been some confusion. I take responsibility for it. I don't know what happened. I was incorrectly identified as voting against the motion involved in vote No. 267. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to have my vote recorded as voting in the affirmative in that instance instead of in the negative.

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. I am so glad Senator Bradley came to me sometime back in October about this legislation and asked if I could become a cosponsor, which I readily did. I have not been a mother myself, but I have been around mothers. I am the husband of one, the father of two, and potentially the grandfather of five. In any case, this Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act, as it is formally titled, will be beneficial to countless mothers and their newborn children, because it will restore health care decisions to those best suited to make them--the mothers and their doctors-- while making certain that new mothers and their babies are allowed to remain in the hospital at least 48 hours following natural births and 96 hours after Caesareans. As Senators have already pointed out several times, in some instances new mothers and their babies are forced to leave the hospital as early as 8 hours after delivery because insurance companies often refuse to pay the bills otherwise. It simply is unconscionable to require a new mother and her doctor to make this decision based on arbitrary insurance deadlines. That is what the distinguished Senator from New Jersey had in mind. I compliment him on this amendment and I am honored to be a cosponsor. I am not alone in my contention that mothers and their physicians are better able to determine what is needed to promote a mother's and child's health rather than some arbitrary insurance deadline. As a matter of fact, a Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center study concluded that babies released earlier than 48 hours after birth had a 50-percent greater chance of needing readmission to the hospital and a 70-percent increased risk of emergency room visits. Mr. President, the too-early discharges so often lead to jaundice which afflicts approximately one-third of newborns, dehydration resulting from breast-feeding difficulties and infections. Although these conditions are of course treatable, each must be diagnosed quickly, within 3 to 5 days, lest they result in brain damage or worse. Mr. President, in recent years hospitals around the Nation have reported an increasing number of babies being readmitted to hospitals with complications of dehydration and jaundice. A Virginia infant suffered dehydration-induced brain damage, and severe dehydration of a Cincinnati baby led to the amputation of his leg. The truth is that these tragedies could have been prevented with longer hospital stays. Back in the 1970's, postbirth hospital stays were about 4 or 5 days for routine normal births, and 1 to 2 weeks for Caesareans. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the median length of hospitalization between 1970 and 1992 for mothers having normal births declined by 46 percent, from 3.9 to 2.1 days, and by 49 percent for mothers having Caesareans, from 7.8 to 4 days. There is broad agreement, I think, about the importance of reducing health care costs and I agree with that. While I am convinced that this goal can best be accomplished through less, not more, Federal regulations, I also insist that the well-being of mothers and babies must not be compromised in the process. This amendment addresses a unique, isolated problem which can be addressed by a carefully crafted Federal rule. And that is exactly what Senator Bradley has done. And I compliment him for offering this amendment. In short, Mr. President, the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996, will ensure that arbitrary insurance guidelines do not override the objective of healthy births. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Yes. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond, Senator Coverdell, Senator Faircloth, and Senator McCain be identified as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Yes, and I have a few remarks.

Mr. HELMS. That is the amendment that was submitted.

Mr. HELMS. It is certainly no problem. I suppose we are talking about on page 39, after line 10 * * * ``developments supported by'', inserting the words ``nonprofit private sources''. Is that it?

Mr. HELMS. I think it already has been.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I believe the pending amendment has been approved on both sides.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, what is the pending business?