Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I especially appreciate the Senator's comments, because there is so much confusion, so many extravagant statements have been made, Madam President, about how much good this convention will do, this treaty. As I mentioned yesterday, Senator Sam Ervin, my first colleague from North Carolina when I came to the Senate--a pretty good constitutional lawyer--used to comment that the United States had never lost a war or won a treaty, meaning that we got short shrift by accepting so many treaties that didn't do the country any good. But the thing that bothers me, I say to my colleague, and I am sure it does to him, is that so many--even in this Chamber, I am sorry to say--are willing to disregard the fact that the White House has stonewalled about allowing the Senate to have documents that the Senate is entitled to have with respect to this treaty. They refused, in some cases, they have obfuscated, they have made all sorts of excuses, and I am happy that the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, has talked to Mr. Panetta, and there is some indication that these documents are going to be made available to the Senate.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. The Senator is most thoughtful. Of course, on behalf of the people of North Carolina, I thank her. I will say that the southeastern part of North Carolina and northeastern part of South Carolina, the people in both areas, as the saying goes, are living on a diet of finger nails right now. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. There is no amendment to the bill pending?

Mr. HELMS. Therefore, it is open to amendment?

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HELMS. Needless to say, I am so grateful to both managers of this bill for their kind comments about the amendment. Just to be sure that the amendment is modified as agreed to with the distinguished Senator from Maryland, I send a modification to the desk and ask that the amendment be modified.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment will markedly increase efforts to eliminate the scourge of drugs and crime in public housing project by increasing funding by $20 million for local housing authorities to stimulate the fight against drugs. These programs help curb crime within public housing neighborhoods by providing funds to housing authorities that can be used to employ more law enforcement or security personnel, to establish voluntary tenant patrols and to sponsor programs designed to reduce illegal drug use in and around public housing developments. Most public housing residents are law-abiding citizens who deserve to live in a community free of crime, drugs, and fear. Unfortunately, this is not the reality for many public housing tenants who instead are faced with daily assaults by drug dealers and criminals who not only rob them of their freedom, but also rob them of their dignity. Many public housing projects are incubators for crime and drug dealing. Children sell and use drugs and, even worse, children shoot other children. This violence spreads throughout our cities and jeopardizes all citizens. The Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am chairman, held a hearing recently on international drug trafficking and its effect on local communities. Among the witnesses were two law-enforcement officers from my home State and a member of the ``blood'' gang, who described the effects of street-level drug dealing in detail. One thing that was clear after their testimony was that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. While there is no one solution to the problem of illegal drug use, it is clear that any long-term solution must empower the residents to take back their streets and enable them to live safely in their homes. The epidemic of drug use among juveniles has been confirmed by recent statistics which show that since 1992, teenage drug use in general has increased by 105 percent, marijuana use by 141 percent, and cocaine use by 166 percent. Drug abuse and the crime it spawns are rampant in public housing projects. The war against drug use and drug-related crime in public housing communities must be fought and won in the neighborhoods themselves. Enhanced law enforcement is critical to prevailing in the war on drugs. Towards that end, the additional funds provided by this amendment will allow local housing authorities to hire more cops and security guards to protect their residents. Recently, there have been a number of stories that have documented the crime that occurs in these neighborhoods. Here are just a few examples: March 30, 1996--``Already this month, two young men have been shot and killed in Durham's public housing communities, one in front of a crowd of young children.'' (The News & Observer) July 24, 1996--``There is evidence that increased trafficking along the U.S. 64 corridor from Raleigh is occurring, and that public housing is a target for drug dealers.'' (The News & Observer) August 17, 1996--``When Durham police found 18-year-old Germaine DeMarco Ansley shot and bleeding to death in Few Gardens last month, they knew there must be a witness in the crowd gathered around his body, but no one at the public housing complex would talk.'' (The News & Observer) It's time to stand up with the folks who live in these communities and help them to rid themselves of the fear and crime in their neighborhoods. Experience has shown that the residents themselves--who are most directly affected by drugs and drug-related crime--can do a lot to turn the tide against drugs when given the opportunity. The success of the drug elimination grants is rooted in the fact that people who live in public housing are encouraged to save their own neighborhoods. And maybe, just maybe, we can prevent a few murders, stop a few drug deals, and give children the opportunity to grow up in a safe environment. Mr. President, this program is effective, and it is working well in my home State of North Carolina as well as across the Nation. Through the use of this grant the following areas have shown marked success: The Durham Housing Authority reported that in 1994, there were 33 drug- related evictions in Durham public housing. The Charlotte Housing Authority reported that in 1994, the crime rate fell by 8.7 percent overall, and by 12.4 percent in the target neighborhoods when the drug elimination program was implemented. There were 104 drug arrests and 26 drug-related convictions. The Greensboro Housing Authority reported that in 1993--the first year of administering a Police Neighborhood Resource Center at the Hampton Homes Development--violent crime dropped by more than 40 percent. Similar statistics have been shown across the Nation indicating the effectiveness of combating the war on both drugs and crime. Mr. President, with these programs in place, local housing authorities and residents are doing their part to rid cities of drugs and their terrible consequences. I urge Senators to support this amendment, which will be offset by reductions taken from general administrative expenses, that will increase funding for this necessary and successful drug-fighting venture. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, September 3, the Federal debt stood at $5,226,657,169,759.06. Five years ago, September 3, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,617,116,000,000. Ten years ago, September 3, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,110,332,000,000. Fifteen years ago, September 3, 1981, the Federal debt stood at $979,575,000,000. Twenty-five years ago, September 3, 1971, the Federal debt stood at $414,181,000,000, an increase of more than $4,812,476,169,759.06 in the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, August 30, the Federal debt stood at $5,208,303,439,417.93. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,607.09 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr HELMS

Mr HELMS. Mr. President, this bill will help to close a major gap in our Federal criminal law by permitting American servicemen and nationals, who are victims of war crimes, to see the criminal brought to justice in the United States. Before addressing the need for this legislation, let me thank and commend the distinguished Walter Jones, who so ably represents the third district of North Carolina, for his commitment and hard work toward the passage of this bill. I'd also like to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator James Inhofe, for his support of this important bill. Many have not realized that the U.S. cannot prosecute, in Federal court, the perpetrators of some war crimes against American servicemen and nationals. Currently, if the United States were to find a war criminal within our borders--for example, one who had murdered an American POW--the only options would be to deport or extradite the criminal or to try him or her before an international war crimes tribunal or military commission. Alone, these options are not enough to insure that justice is done. While the Geneva Convention of 1949 grants the U.S. authority to criminally prosecute these acts, the Congress has never enacted implementing legislation. The War Crimes Act of 1996 corrects this oversight by giving Federal district courts jurisdiction to try individuals charged with committing a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, whenever the victim or perpetrator is a U.S. serviceman or national. The bill would also allow an American, who is charged with a war crime, to be tried in an American court and to receive all of the procedural protections afforded by our American justice system. Mr. President, at a time when American servicemen and women serve our Nation in conflicts around the world, it is important that we give them every protection possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and reaffirm our commitment to our country's servicemembers. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, H.R. 3103, the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996, could very well sound the death knell for the past years of liberal efforts to socialize medicine. The truth is, it puts us well on our way to providing a meaningful health care reform for millions of working Americans. H.R. 3103 guarantees that American workers can keep their health coverage if they change or lose their jobs, which will be greatly reassuring to millions of American workers having pre-existing conditions. Now they will be able to change jobs without fear of losing their health insurance. The portability provision, as it is called, enables employees to be covered immediately upon taking another job-- regardless of their health status. Mr. President, American dissatisfaction with the existing health care system has gained much of its momentum from the spiraling costs of medical care in the United States. In 1993, nearly $940 billion was spent on health care, more than 14 percent of the GDP; this percentage has been rising steadily for years. Tax relief and medical savings accounts provide the best of all solutions by enabling patients to make their own choices with their own money. Workers and their families--not government bureaucrats--should decide how much to spend on health care and which health care benefits best meet their needs. This bill, H.R. 3103, will partially correct a senseless disparity in the Tax Code concerning the deductibility of health insurance premiums. Whereas under current law businesses are allowed to deduct such premiums, fully, as a business expense, self-employed workers receive only a 30-percent deduction--thereby increasing the cost of doing business. This bill raises to 80 percent the amount of health insurance they can deduct from their Federal income taxes, it allows the deductibility of premiums for long-term care policies. Medical savings accounts [MSA's] expand consumer choice and ultimately will reduce health care costs by spurring competition and greater cost-consciousness in the use of health care. MSA's confer upon individuals financial incentive to spend their health care dollars wisely by turning part of the savings over to employees, in effect rewarding efficiency. Mr. President, many private businesses are already using cash incentives to reduce health care costs while, at the same time, achieving great employee satisfaction with the health care afforded them. MSA's provide workers with a great deal of choice and freedom. A study by the Rand Corp. estimates that MSA's could help low-income workers reduce health care spending by up to 13 percent. In a truly American way, MSA's harness free enterprise to promote sorely-needed efficiencies in the health care economy. The fight over MSA's is fundamentally about power. MSA's return power to the American worker. Proponents of socialized medicine recognize that once MSA's are passed, they will dramatically become a bulwark against the liberals' hopes for a government-controlled health care system. Although this limited MSA program will not and cannot instantly solve the problem of the affordability and availability of health insurance, it will be a major step in the right direction. Mr. President, the majority of Americans are calling for health care reform. I believe further progress can be made by further changes in the Tax Code. But this legislation puts us on the right track.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, next week, August 5-11, marks the 23d annual observance of Celebrate Hosiery Week. It always gives me great pride to join in recognizing an industry which has contributed so much to the free enterprise system of our country and so much to the economy of North Carolina. Mr. President, National Hosiery Week is of special importance to me because North Carolina is the leading hosiery State in the Nation. North Carolina is proud of the leadership of the hosiery industry and the fine quality of life that it has provided for so many people. In fact, the hosiery industry plays a substantial role in the economy of more than half of the States of the Union. There are 343 companies in the hosiery business, operating 456 plants employing 62,300 people in 28 States. The statistics are staggering: these 62,300 people produce and distribute 22 million dozens pairs of hosiery a year. They contributed a record $7.2 billion to the U.S. economy in 1995. The hosiery industry has made great strides in improving productivity and the quality of its product. These efforts to make the hosiery industry more competitive have resulted in significant technological and design improvements in the manufacture of hosiery. As a result, the hosiery industry has likewise made enormous gains in the area of foreign trade. Exports in 1995 grew by 9 percent over 1994 levels to 22 million dozen pairs--and that, Mr. President, is a lot of hosiery exports. Mr. President, my hat's off to the hosiery industry because it is making a real difference in many small communities where the hosiery plant is often the main employer, providing good, stable jobs for its employees. I extend my sincere thanks and congratulations to the hosiery industry and to its many thousands of employees for their outstanding contribution to our State and Nation.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, August 1, the Federal debt stood at $5,183,636,383,503.29. Five years ago, August 1, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,577,200,446,910.06, hence an increase of more than $1.6 trillion dollars--$1,606,435,936,593.23 to be exact--in the past 5 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, future historians are likely to regard this as a momentous occasion in Congress--a welfare bill is finally about to be approved by Congress and signed by the President--a bill which will effectively drive a nail in the coffin of the Great Society. This welfare reform bill proposes to set welfare policy on the right course. It requires welfare recipients to work; It promotes family and the work ethic; and It exercises sound fiscal responsibility. In addition, this legislation will insist that illegal aliens must not receive welfare and that non-citizens cannot hereafter lawfully receive most Federal welfare benefits during their first 5 years in the United States. These legislative goals are tough, but fair. Requiring welfare recipients to work provides the hammer that can break the cycle of poverty and dependency. As matters now stand, the average welfare recipient stays at the public trough for 13 years. This bill reverses that folly; it proclaims for all to hear that welfare must not be a way of life. Equally important, Mr. President, this legislation is fair to taxpayers because it saves $55 billion of taxpayers' money. The average American worker in 1993 paid $3,357 in taxes just to support welfare recipients. Taxpayers are sick and tired of working hard, paying taxes and watching folks on welfare get a free ride. Mr. President, the taxpayers can be thankful that this bill contains tough work requirements for food stamp recipients. On several occasions, including during the conference, I took the position that Congress should require able-bodied food stamp recipients go to work before they receive free food stamps. The original Senate welfare bill allowed recipients to receive free food stamps for 6 months every year with no work requirement. Now, Congress is sending a bill to the President that will require food stamp recipients to work 20 hours per week for an average of 11 months per year or be thrown off the welfare rolls. This is a giant step forward from current law which gives folks a free lunch at taxpayer's expense. Mr. President, when the liberal politicians pushed through their welfare system more than 30 years ago, the American people were assured that welfare would not become a way of life. And when Lyndon Johnson signed the war on poverty legislation in 1964, he promised, ``The days of the dole in our county are numbered.'' Unfortunately, 30 years after this war began, the days have numbered to about 11,680--and we're still counting. Since Congress obediently embarked down the road called the Great Society, the result has been the most massive Federal spending in history, increased poverty and untold millions of Americans trapped in the welfare cycle. The Great Society has been a monumental failure, but it got a lot of promising politicians elected because they promised everything to everybody. But with the enactment of the bill, the days of the Great Society are coming to a close. The cost of welfare programs has now reached a budget-busting $345 billion a year. During the past three decades, welfare spending has cost the American taxpayers $5.4 trillion. It may come as a surprise that welfare programs have cost 70 percent more than the war against Germany and Japan in World War II. What, Mr. President, do we have to show for these exorbitant expenditures? An increase in the poverty rate. As of 1993, 15.1 percent of Americans were in poverty, compared to 13 percent in 1964, a 2- percent growth. Mr. President, the human devastation caused by rising illegitimacy rates and the breakdown of the family is even more troubling than the cost of welfare programs. Government programs of any magnitude carry with them a cargo of unintended consequences. In welfare, like most other things, you reap what you sow. For 30 years, the welfare system rewarded idleness and illegitimacy and there has been a marked increase in both. Mr. President, I emphasize that nobody is opposed to helping those who are less fortunate. Americans, as individuals and communities, have a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves. That responsibility cannot and should not be abdicated. But we must help them by teaching them to ``help themselves'' as President Kennedy once stated. This legislation will help those on welfare because it restores the American work ethic which once was one of the cornerstones of this Nation. In addition, this bill takes a step in the right direction in helping reduce the rising illegitimacy rates by providing funds for abstinence education, and by allowing States the option of denying benefits to welfare recipients who already have children living on the public dole. An Associated Press poll showed recently that 69 percent of Americans favor a 5-year limit on welfare payments. Likewise, most Americans obviously don't think it's right that working people are required to give up a substantial percentage of taxes to support people who refuse to work. Mr. President, the majority of Americans are calling for welfare reform. Welfare entitlements must be replaced by limited handouts conditional on self-improvement and work.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, July 31, the Federal debt stood at $5,188,888,625,925.87. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,550.80 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I present to the Senate of the United States, the distinguished and honorable President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak. [Applause.] Recess

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess in honor of President Hosni Mubarak, so Members might meet our friend from Egypt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending July 26, the United States imported 7,500,000 barrels of oil each day, the same amount imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 53.9 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 7,500,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, July 30, the Federal debt stood at $5,183,982,827,241.61. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,532.86 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, four years ago when I commenced these daily reports to the Senate I wanted to make a matter of daily record the exact Federal debt as of the close of business the previous day. In my first report on February 27, 1992, the Federal debt the previous day stood at $3,825,891,293,066.80, at the close of business. The Federal debt has, of course, shot further into the stratosphere since then. (At the close of business yesterday, Monday, July 29, an additional $1,356,563,675,813.41 had been added to the Federal debt since February 26, 1992.) That means, Mr. President, that the exact Federal debt stood yesterday at $5,182,454,968,880.21, which on a per capita basis means that every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,527.65 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it was 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. Twenty years earlier, in 1976, the Federal debt stood at $629 billion, after the first 200 years of America's history, including two world wars. The total 1976 Federal debt, I repeat, stood at $629 billion. 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 2 decades the Federal debt has soared into the stratosphere, increasing by more than $4 trillion in 2 decades--from 1976 to 1996. So, Mr. President, as of the close of business Friday, July 26, the Federal debt stood--down-to-the-penny--at $5,181,675,045,058.46. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,525.25 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.'' Isn't it about time that Congress heeded the wise words of the author of the Declaration of Independence?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, July 25, the Federal debt stood at $5,181,309,194,639.37. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,525.39 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, what the distinguished Senator from Vermont has said is not applicable at all. He knows--anybody who has read the amendment knows that nothing happens until the United Nations begins to talk about taxing the American people. That is clear in the amendment. It does not need any obfuscation from the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HELMS. I say to the Senator from Vermont, what we are doing, you read to me from the amendment what gives you a problem and I will answer a question about that. I do not want you characterizing any provision of the amendment. I want you to quote from the amendment itself, and then ask me any question you want to.