Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 18, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,634,686,176,609.17, five trillion, six hundred thirty-four billion, six hundred eighty-six million, one hundred seventy-six thousand, six hundred nine dollars and seventeen cents. Five years ago, June 18, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,118,201,000,000, five trillion, one hundred eighteen billion, two hundred one million. Ten years ago, June 18, 1991, the Federal debt stood at $3,496,571,000,000, three trillion, four hundred ninety-six billion, five hundred seventy-one million. Fifteen years ago, June 18, 1986, the Federal debt stood at $2,044,497,000,000, two trillion, forty-four billion, four hundred ninety-seven million. Twenty-five years ago, June 18, 1976, the Federal debt stood at $610,653,000,000, six hundred ten billion, six hundred fifty-three million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion, $5,024,033,176,609.17, five trillion, twenty-four billion, thirty-three million, one hundred seventy-six thousand, six hundred nine dollars and seventeen cents during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Dr. Constantine Menges has a distinguished career in the field of national security. He has written a timely piece on the growing alliance between Russia and China. I hope my colleagues will read this article and heed his expert advice. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Times, June 14, 2001] China-Russia: Preventing a Military Alliance (By Constantine Menges) An important item on the agenda of President Bush as he meets President Putin of Russia should be the new 30-year treaty of cooperation which the leaders of Russia and China are scheduled to sign in July 2001. This treaty will formalize the ever-increasing Chinese- Russian strategic coordination of recent years, which is intended to counter the United States around the globe. Why would the leadership of China and Russia believe they need to join for this purpose? At their summit meeting in July 2000, Mr. Putin endorsed China's view as expressed in their joint statement that the U.S. ``is seeking unilateral military and security advantages'' in the world. Mr. Putin also criticized the ``economic and power domination of the United States'' and agreed with China on the need to establish a still undefined ``new political and economic order.'' The new China-Russia treaty will not only mean a significantly increased political-strategic challenge to the U.S., it will also pose additional military risks. These are illustrated by Russia's sale of advanced weapons systems to China which it is aiming at U.S. forces and by the February 2001 Russian military exercises that included mock nuclear attacks against U.S. military units viewed as opposing a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The relationship between Russia and China went from alliance in the 1950s to deep hostility from 1960 to 1985 followed by gradual normalization during the Gorbachev years. After 1991, Boris Yeltsin continued negotiations to demarcate the disputed border but kept a political distance because China remained communist and had publicly welcomed the 1991 coup attempt by Soviet communist hard-liners and also opposed Mr. Yeltsin's democratic aspirations. Mr. Yeltsin and the first President Bush had three summit meetings in 1992 and 1993, and Russia declared its intention to move toward a ``strategic partnership and in the future, toward alliance'' with the U.S. The mutually positive and hopeful initial relationship with the new, post-Soviet Russia, also included a signed agreement on reductions in offensive nuclear weapons and a joint decision on modifying ``existing agreements'' (including the ABM treaty) to permit global missile defense which both Presidents Yeltsin and Bush acknowledged were needed. Unfortunately the Clinton administration did not pursue the opportunity for Russian- U.S. agreement on missile defense. In April 1996, Mr. Yeltsin decided to agree with China on a ``strategic partnership'' and increased Russian weapons sales. Through a series of regular summit meetings, China moved the ``partnership'' with Russia toward strategic alignment marked by an ever-larger component of shared anti- U.S. political objectives (e.g. support for Iraq, opposition to missile defense) along with increased Russian military sales and military cooperation. This was ignored by the previous administration. As a result, for the first time in 40 years the U.S. faces coordinated international actions by China and Russia. This could have six principal negative implications starting, first, with the fact that Russia has accepted and repeats most of communist China's views about the U.S., for example that the U.S. seeks to dominate the world. Second, the Chinese view of the coming July 2001 treaty emphasizes that, when one of the parties to the treaty ``experiences military aggression,'' the other signatory state should when requested ``provide political, economic, and military support and launch joint attacks against the invading forces.'' As the American public has learned from the April 2001 reconnaissance aircraft event, China defines not only Taiwan but also most of the international South China Sea and all its islands as its sovereign territory. If the United States should threaten or take any type of counteraction (political, economic or military) against China to uphold the rights of US aircraft or ships in that international air and sea space or to help allies or other countries defend themselves against coercion by China, which has territorial disputes with 11 neighboring countries including Japan and India, China could define this as ``blackmail'' and a violation of its ``sovereignty''. It would then hope to draw Russia in militarily, if only as a potential counter-threat as suggested by the February 2001 Russian military exercise. A third negative consequence is ever-increasing Russian military sales and other support for the buildup of Chinese advanced weapons systems specifically targeted at U.S. air, sea and electronic military capabilities and vulnerabilities in the Pacific. For example the Russian anti-ship missiles that accompany the two Russian destroyers already delivered (and the four more to come) skim the ocean at twice the speed of sound, can carry nuclear warheads and were designed to sink U.S. aircraft carriers. In the 1990s, Russia sold China about $9 billion to $20 billion in advanced weapons systems aimed at U.S. forces (jet fighters, submarines, destroyers, anti-air/missile systems) with another $20 billion to $40 billion in weapons and high-technology sales planned through 2004. The income from these sales also helps Russia further modernize its strategic nuclear forces that currently have 4,000 warheads on about 1,000 ICBMs. A fourth negative result is that Russia and China are working together and in parallel to oppose any U.S. decision to deploy national or Asian regional missile defenses; they are seeking to persuade U.S. allies to oppose this and refuse cooperation. At the same time Russia has sold China one of its most advanced weapons (S-300), originally designed to shoot down the Pershing medium range missile as well as aircraft and cruise missiles, along with a similar medium- range system (Tor-M1) in such quantity that China is now in effect already deploying its own missile/air defense system on the coast. Fifth, Russia and China have been providing weapons of mass destruction components, technology and expertise to a number of dictatorships such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya which are hostile to the United States and its allies. Russia and China have also established military supply links with Cuba and the pro-Castro Chavez regime in Venezuela. The risk of conflict increases as all these dangerous regimes become militarily stronger and also believe they are backed by both China and Russia. The sixth negative result is that the ever-closer relationship with China strengthens the authoritarian tendencies with Russia, thereby increasing the risk it will become more aggressive internationally. While the Chinese government develops relations with the Putin government and military, the Chinese Communist Party has revived direct relations with the Communist Party in Russia. At their June 16, 2001, meeting in Slovenia, it is urgent that President Bush seek to persuade President Putin that Russia should assure the U.S. and the world that there is no open or secret military component to the July 2001 China- Russia treaty. Mr. Bush should remind Mr. Putin that the U.S. has no territorial or other claims of any kind on Russia. In contrast, communist China has on numerous occasions during the 1950s and through 1992 formally demanded that Russia ``return'' virtually all of the Russian Far East that China alleges was stolen by an ``illegal'' 1860 treaty. Russia is arming a potentially very dangerous country, perhaps making the same mistake Josef Stalin did in selling weapons to arm Germany which then attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. Unless Russia excludes such a military component in the new treaty, Mr. Bush should indicate that the U.S. will view this as a China-Russia military alliance and a potentially grave threat to be met by the significant reductions in U.S. economic support for Russia directly, through debt restructuring, international institutions and trade access. Further the U.S. would see the need to immediately accelerate movement toward missile defense. The U.S. and its allies need to give the China-Russia strategic alignment effective attention. With skill and foresight it is still possible to turn back the momentum by hard-liners in both Russia and China toward more confrontation while adopting realistic U.S. policies that maintain deterrence and peaceful relations.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, June 15, 2001, the Federal debt stood at $5,632,910,105,449.16, five trillion, six hundred thirty-two billion, nine hundred ten million, one hundred five thousand, four hundred forty-nine dollars and sixteen cents. One year ago, June 15, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,644,607,000,000, five trillion, six hundred forty-four billion, six hundred seven million. Twenty-five years ago, June 15, 1976, the Federal debt stood at $612,128,000,000, six hundred twelve billion, one hundred twenty-eight million, which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion, $5,020,782,105,449.16, five trillion, twenty billion, seven hundred eighty-two million, one hundred five thousand, four hundred forty-nine dollars and sixteen cents during the past 25 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to deliver my remarks at my seat.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia (Mr. Allen) last week emphatically called the hands of various media for having inaccurately reported the Senator's position on the World War II Memorial and the American firm (and its German parent company) selected to build the memorial. I feel obliged to comment as well, not only to commend the able Senator from Virginia for speaking out, but to emphasize that the lead contractor for the World War II Memorial is a distinguished North Carolina company. J.A. Jones Construction Company is a 112-year-old Charlotte enterprise which deserves better than to have bitter fringe groups try to impugn the integrity and historic citizenship of such a well- established firm. Business is business, and it's understandable that losing bidders on any project will be disappointed. But for such a prestigious U.S. company as J.A. Jones to be unjustifiably criticized certainly is an inappropriate exercise on the part of the losing bidders. For the purpose of rejecting the activities by fringe groups, I feel it appropriate that the Congressional Record reflect the specific role that J.A. Jones Construction Company has played in supporting the United States and its national defense during the 112 years that J.A. Jones Company has been in business. While this is not a complete list, it is sufficiently detailed for me to make clear the kind of corporate citizen J.A. Jones Construction Company has been: The construction of nine American military bases that trained U.S. troops for World War II; The construction and operation of the Navy Shipyard in Panama City, FL, and the operation of the Navy Shipyard at Brunswick, GA. Between the two facilities, J.A. Jones employees built more than 200 Liberty Class warships during World War II; Selection as one of the first American companies to work in a war zone, constructing air bases and other facilities in and around Saigon during the Vietnam war; Construction of the Washington Mall Reflecting Pool, the West Wing of the White House, the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art, the East and West Fronts of the Capitol, the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, the Natural Museum of History addition and renovation, and the National Gallery of Art Sculpture; The continued involvement in building and maintaining military bases and facilities across the country; and The current reconstruction of the two U.S. Embassies in Africa destroyed by terrorist bombings. Considering the circumstances, I feel it only fair that a statement issued by the president of J.A. Jones Construction Company be made a part of the Record at this point. President John D. Bond III identified significant aspects of his company's service to America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. That is correct. But the presidency resides in the United States.

Mr. HELMS. I don't recall.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HELMS. I think the Record should be clear as to the German firm. I don't know anything about that. But the allegations were made about J.A. Jones Construction Company, and it is that North Carolina firm that I came to defend this afternoon. I welcome anything that the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has been my friend for a long time, can add about the German firm. But I want the Record to be clear about J.A. Jones Construction Company. That is the reason I came to the Senate Chamber this afternoon.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HELMS. I say to the Senator, I commend you for the position you have taken. And I join you in making clear all of the relevant facts about this matter, specifically those involving the German firm.

Mr. HELMS. But I want to separate the J.A. Jones Construction Company from that. Incidentally, I talked to Senator Dole right here on the floor of the Senate last week about it. And it was he who called me to look into the matter and to come here today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to make my remarks from my seat.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe the pending business has already been announced by the Chair; is that correct?

Mr. HELMS. Is it my understanding that the amendment became the pending business by unanimous consent? Is that correct?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. As the largest and most universally acclaimed youth-serving organization in the world, the Boy Scouts of America has led millions of young boys to respect and abide by the fundamental virtues of duty to God and respect for individual beliefs, loyalty to their country and respect for their country's law, service to others, voluntarism, training of boys in responsible citizenship, in physical and mental development, and in character development. This came about early in the last century. It was a curious turn of events that brought Scouting to America in the year 1910. The year before, in 1909, a Chicago publisher, William D. Boyce, had been traveling in Europe.

Mr. HELMS. I am delighted. I didn't know anyone wanted to listen to it.

Mr. HELMS. Does the Chair suggest I start over?

Mr. HELMS. It was a curious turn of events that brought Scouting to America in 1910. The year before that, in 1909, a Chicago publisher, William D. Boyce, had been traveling in Europe and got lost in a dense fog while he was in London. It was a Scout--not by that name but a Scout--who came to Boyce's aid and guided him through the fog to his hotel. Afterwards, the boy refused a tip from Mr. Boyce explaining that as a Scout, he would not and could not take a tip for doing a good turn. Since that time, almost a century has elapsed, and the character and the reputation and the admiration that people have for the Boy Scouts of America has intensified year after year. Last June, a year ago, the Supreme Court found it essential to uphold constitutional rights of Boy Scouts of America, oddly enough, to abide by and practice the Boy Scout moral guidelines for membership and leadership, including no obligation to accept homosexuals as Boy Scout members or leaders. Yet in spite of the Supreme Court's landmark decision, radical militants continue to attack this respectable organization--the Boy Scouts of America. Specifically, these militants are pressuring school districts across the country to exclude the Boy Scouts of America from federally funded public school facilities based on what they did in one instance. They decided to press for exclusion of the Boy Scouts from the schools because the Boy Scouts would not agree to surrender their first amendment rights and because they would not accept the agenda of the radical left. I asked the Congressional Research Service, among others, to inform me as to how many school districts have already taken such hostile action against the Boy Scouts. The Congressional Research Service reported to me that at that time at least nine school districts were known to have attacked the Boy Scouts of America, and, in the majority of the cases, they had done so in outright rejection of the Supreme Court's ruling protecting the Boy Scouts' rights, which is now the law of the land. Which is precisely why I again decided to offer the amendment entitled ``The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act.'' This pending amendment--which unanimously passed the House of Representatives--would for once and for all put a complete end to the arrogant treatment being directed by various school districts across this Nation at the Boy Scouts of America, Specifically, the pending amendment stipulates that if a public elementary school, or a public secondary school, discriminates against the Boy Scouts of America--or any other youth group similar to the Boy Scouts--in providing equal access to school facilities, then that school will be in jeopardy of losing its Federal funds. Now, before opponents work themselves into a frenzy, it may be well to make clear on exactly how this proposed amendment would work: it stipulates that the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education be given statutory authority to investigate any discriminatory action taken by school authorities against the Boy Scouts of America. The Office of Civil Rights was established to handle discrimination problems that occur within the public school system. My amendment would direct the Office of Civil Rights to handle cases of discrimination against the Boy Scouts precisely the same as the Department of Education currently handles other cases of discrimination--barred by Federal law and which may result in termination of Federal funds. It should be noted, Mr. President, that according to CRS, ``historically, the fund termination sanction has been infrequently exercised--by the Office of Civil Rights--and most cases are settled at . . . the investigative process . . .''. In other words, when the Office of Civil Rights warns a school to get its act together, the school usually listens. Therefore, it is not likely that any school will be in fact ever that its funding eliminated; unless it adamantly refuses to provide the Boy Scouts of America equal access to school facilities. It will not be handled willy-nilly. It will be based on specific evidence. Needless to say, I do hope that the Senate will uphold the constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America to have equal access to school facilities. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. As the Chair knows, I obtained unanimous consent that I might deliver my remarks from my chair for obvious reasons. I have listened in fascination to the discussion on the Senate floor this morning and this afternoon. It bears out exactly what I was told was going on in the way of the lining up of opposition on the other side to this amendment by the homosexual-lesbian leaders in this area. Let me say at the outset that I don't like the corruption of a once beautiful word ``gay'' which has been adopted as a description of conduct that is anything but that. It is all right with me if the other side wants to make a political football out of this thing, but they were not prepared and they had not been energized when this amendment came up the first time. In any case, I have heard here that the Boy Scouts are not being discriminated against and all of this is false, and so forth and so on. Let me give a few examples. On May 11 of this year, the Associated Press reported that the Iowa City school board voted to prohibit the Boy Scouts of America from distributing any information in schools because of the Scouts' membership criteria. A spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America: We simply ask to be treated the same way as any other private organization and that our free speech and right to assemble be respected just as we respect the rights of others. On February 8 of this year, the Asbury Park Press reported that the State of New Jersey is considering a rule change that would bar school districts from renting space to the Boy Scouts of America because of their position on homosexuality. On February 7 of this year, the Arizona Republic reported that the Sunnyside School District in Tucson decided to charge the Boy Scouts of America fees to use school facilities, even though no other groups have to pay for use. The ACLU executive director said: While Boy Scouts, atheists, Nazis, even satanists have a right to express their views, Government should not use public money to promote them. What goes on here? Is this not really an attack by one group on the Boy Scouts of America? Of course, it is. Why do you think these people have been standing up and telling how long they served in the Girl Scouts in a tearful sort of way? The goal here is the goal of the organized lesbians and homosexuals in this country of ours. On January 28 of this year, the Boston Globe reported that the Acton School Committee in Massachusetts decided to prevent the Boy Scouts from distributing literature at school even though all other groups can do so. In defending its actions, Acton School Committee cited Massachusetts law that says schools cannot sponsor Boy Scouts. On January 14 of this year, the New York Times reported that New York Chappaqua School District officials were able to coerce two local Boy Scout troops into signing a document that denounced the national policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a condition for allowing these troops access to school property. Don't you see what is going on here? The Supreme Court knocked them in the head. The Supreme Court stood up for the Boy Scouts of America, exactly as I am trying to stand up for them. I am a little bit sick at my stomach at some of the mewling and puking that has gone on in this debate this morning and this afternoon. On January 11 of this year, the News and Observer, my favorite newspaper in Raleigh, NC, said that the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board voted to give Scouts until June--la-di-da--either to go against the rule of their organization or lose their sponsorship and meeting places in schools. I have two or three more pages. If anybody is interested, Madam President, I will be glad to read them into the Record. Otherwise, I am going to place them in the Record so they can be examined when the vote has been taken, and if the other side manages to defeat this amendment, as has been advocated and worked for by the organized groups to which I have been referring, then it will be there for the public to see who is who and who is for what. I am going to pause momentarily, but I will be back, because Senator Kyl has been waiting to address this amendment. I thank the Senator for coming. I yield to him.

Mr. HELMS. I would say not more than 4 more hours.