Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield such time as I may have.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, July 17, the Federal debt stood at $5,162,069,897,551.43. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,456.14 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it would be helpful if I can discuss, for the Record, with the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, a matter of importance concerning the readiness of the Airborne units of my State.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished chairman for his support. I will, of course, work with him as he considers this issue with Members of the House. Raid Funding

Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished Senator. I think it is obvious that my goal is to make certain that the Army has the ability to use the operations and maintenance funds appropriated within this bill to contract for parachute repair and maintenance work, as well as the cargo repacking efforts. Can the Senator give me that assurance?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the able Senator. At the outset, let me state I am proud that my State is home to several important military installations and thousands of fine members of the Armed Forces of our Nation. North Carolinians are especially proud that the U.S. Army's XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82d Airborne Division call Ft. Bragg home. These men and women are the front line of our Nation's defense and they are among the best trained, most dedicated and professional soldiers in the world. When there is a need for equipment or technology to make these soldiers' tasks easier or safer, it is the responsibility of the Congress to provide for it. The modification of the Army's T-10R reserve parachute is an example of one such initiative. A study showed that a modified design would increase effectiveness to almost 100 percent. This modification was developed by the Army through a partnership between the Army and a private company. As a result of this successful partnership, Airborne troops now have a highly effective, low cost parachute that should help save lives. I ask the able Senator from Alaska if my understanding is correct that there is a backlog in the performance of repair and maintenance work on cargo and personnel parachutes. To alleviate this backlog and thereby enhance readiness, would it be a wise use of Army resources to contract out the repair and maintenance of these chutes to a qualified manufacturer of similar parachutes? Would this not allow the backlog to be addressed in a cost-efficient manner?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending July 12, the United States imported 7,300,000 barrels of oil each day, 800,000 barrels less than the 8,100,000 barrels imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 53 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that this 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 7,300,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think so often of that November evening long ago in 1972 when the television networks reported that I had been elected as a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. I remember well the exact time that the announcement was made and how stunned I was. It had never really occurred to me that I would be the first Republican in history to be elected by the people of North Carolina to the U.S. Senate. When I got over my astonishment, I thought about a lot of things. And I made some commitments to myself one of which was that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. I have kept that commitment and it has proved enormously meaningful to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the 23 years I have been in the Senate. A large percentage of them are greatly concerned about the total Federal debt which back in February exceeded $5 trillion for the first time in history. Congress created this monstrous debt which coming generations will have to pay. Mr. President, the young people who visit with me almost always are inclined to discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 25, 1992. I decided that it was important that a daily record be made of the precise size of the Federal debt which, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, July 16, 1996, stood at $5,158,429,724,926.15. On a per capita basis, the existing Federal debt amounts to $19,442.95 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis. The increase in the national debt in the 24 hours since my report yesterday--which identified the total Federal debt as of close of business on Monday, July 15, 1996--shows an increase of more than $2 billion--$2,116,065,511.60, to be exact. That 1-day increase alone is enough to match the total amount needed to pay the college tuitions for each of the 313,770 students for 4 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this amendment will help restore equitable treatment for Fort Bragg-based military personnel and dependents who live in and attend school in nearby Harnett County, NC. To achieve this, my amendment authorizes $1,000,000 from fiscal year 1997 Army O&M funds to be applied to the costs of Harnett County schools' providing quality education to dependent children of Fort Bragg personnel. This amendment will remedy the gross disparity that now exists in the distribution of impact aid dollars intended to help defray the costs of the schooling of military-connected dependents. Over the years, and despite a substantial increase in Fort Bragg-connected student populations, the Federal Government has provided a declining amount of impact aid dollars to Harnett County. Under current law, Harnett County no longer qualifies for any impact aid funding. Mr. President, much of the growth in Harnett County's public school system is directly attributable to the influx of military personnel. According to one housing developer in Harnett County, 98 percent of the families buying in one of his communities are military families. During the past few years, thousands of students have been added to the rolls of Harnett County's school system. Many of them are children of Army personnel and DOD civilians employed at Fort Bragg. This growth has caused severe school overcrowding in Harnett County. Many children attend classes in temporary facilities, such as cafeterias, gymnasiums, auditorium stages, libraries and trailers. In some schools, students must wait in line up to an hour to use the bathroom. Mr. President, projections indicate that Harnett taxpayers will have to spend $87,000,000 for new schools within the next decade merely to keep up with this growth. The county simply does not have the resources to build another school without substantial assistance. The Federal Government has an obvious obligation to provide for the education of military dependents. Because of the nature of military service which requires frequent moves and reassignments, military families seldom have an opportunity to establish strong roots in a community and to become active in local schools. The Federal Government has a duty to ensure that these parents need not worry about the quality of education afforded their children. To further exacerbate the education funding crisis, Fort Bragg is now seeking to purchase an 11,000-acre property--known as the ``Overhills property''--which will nearly double the amount of land the Federal Government presently owns in Harnett County--7,000 acres of the Overhills property are in Harnett County. This purchase by Fort Bragg will cause Harnett County to permanently lose an additional $24,000 in annual tax revenues. Some may ask why Harnett County should be singled out to benefit from this amendment. It is because it's the right thing to do. Harnett is the only county in the Fort Bragg Impact Area that suffers an economic loss due to its location near Fort Bragg. According to 1990 figures, Harnett County has been losing $122,000 per year because of Fort Bragg. Since then, impact aid funding has been eliminated, the number of military dependents has soared, and the Army has proposed to erode further the tax base. Without help, the situation will worsen further. Let there be no doubt, I fully support the acquisition of the Overhills property by the Army--provided that Harnett County's school system is given the assistance it needs and deserves. Mr. President, North Carolinians are proud of the several great military installations within our borders. For more than 50 years, North Carolinians have been especially proud of Fort Bragg, home of the United States Army's XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Division. These units and other units stationed at Fort Bragg are on the front line of our Nation's defense; standing ready to deploy anywhere, any time, to preserve freedom in the world. Mr. President, I spent four non-heroic years in the Navy during World War II. I have great affection and respect for the soldiers and defense support personnel who are devoting their lives to the defense of our country. I will do anything in my power to ensure that they are provided everything they need to do their jobs. This includes not merely providing an adequate training area, equipment and hardware; they also deserve the quality of life and peace of mind to enable each soldier to focus on his mission, accomplish it, and return home safely. Unmistakably essential to that quality of life is the proper education of their children. Mr. President, I urge Senators to support this amendment which takes a small step towards addressing the educational needs of the children of our Nation's finest soldiers. I ask unanimous consent that ``Education Equity Fact Sheet'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, early this afternoon President Clinton turned his back on the people of Cuba with an announcement which revealed that he had decided to try to doubletalk his way into appearing to be taking a tough stand against Fidel Castro. But when one examines this charade, Mr. President, Mr. Clinton had in fact delayed the enforcement of the Libertad Act which Congress passed and the President immediately signed into law earlier this year when it would have been politically disastrous for him not to do so. The Associated Press reported, correctly, that today's decision by the President could help Clinton to buy time knowing that his refusal to impose sanctions on Castro would risk losing Cuban-American votes in Florida and New Jersey, two key States in Mr. Clinton's reelection bid. So, Mr. President, once again Mr. Clinton has taken a firm stand on both sides of an important issue. While today's announcement contains tough anti-Castro rhetoric, it is all talk and no substance. The truth is, Mr. Clinton has capitulated to Fidel Castro and his foreign business collaborators, who not only condone Castro's cruel dictatorship, but want to help it flourish. But the President's problem is not going away. The Libertad Act is Clinton-proof. The President could not muster the courage to implement title III today, but the threat of lawsuits still hangs over the necks of Castro's business partners like the blade of a guillotine. Even before today's decision, businesses were fleeing Cuba because of the threat of such lawsuits. This will continue, and the law will not be mitigated by the President's lack of courage. At a time like this, Mr. President, one is obliged to wonder: Is there no Teddy Roosevelt, no Winston Churchill ready to stand up for freedom? There was none on Pennsylvania Avenue today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 4 years ago when I commenced these daily reports to the Senate it was my purpose to make a matter of daily record the exact Federal debt as of the close of business the previous day. In my very 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. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, July 15, a total of $1,330,422,366,347.75 had been added to the Federal debt since February 26, 1992, meaning that the exact Federal debt stood at $5,156,313,659,414.55. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,435.50 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, July 11, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,152,639,995,932.57. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,423.80 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is important legislation that will be beneficial to an enormous number of Americans because it will open foreign markets to U.S. products and countries that engage in dishonest activities in international trade. Those that violate trade laws and trade agreements will pay for it. This bill establishes a level playing field for U.S. textile companies and takes an unmistakable stand for American workers. If foreign markets can be opened, and U.S. trade with countries overseas increased, it will be a tremendous boost for U.S. jobs. Mr. President, the economic name of the game as we approach the 21st century lies in increasing our exports. This bill addresses a pressing need. American workers, as matters now stand, are being squeezed from every direction. Many countries, especially Mainland China, are deliberately violating their trade agreements; they are transshipping their goods through other nations deliberately to circumvent United States textile import laws. American workers should not be forced to compete against foreign companies that deliberately engage in illegal and immoral trade practices. Such countries, Communist China, India, Macau, Hong Kong, to name a few, pump billions of dollars of products into our markets, cheating every step of the way. The Winston-Salem Journal pointed out the other day that the United States Customs Service estimates that China alone illegally transships $4 to $6 billion per year. This banditry costs American businesses--and, therefore, consumers--up to $4 billion a year, not to mention the loss of countless thousands of American jobs. Mr. President, S. 1951--the Textile and Apparel Global Competitiveness Act of 1996--will, when it becomes law, impose stiff sanctions on countries that transship textile products into the United States. Current penalties will be doubled--in some cases tripled--and more reliable proof of the country of origin will be required for textile imports entering the United States. S. 1951 enables the Customs Service to seize goods imported illegally by the use of false or misleading statements or acts. So, Mr. President, this bill S. 1951, of which I am a principal cosponsor, is about fair trade and reciprocity. Since U.S. markets are open, it is only fair to demand that other countries open their markets. As matters now stand countless countries close their markets to American products while pouring their exports through our open doors. China, Pakistan, and India together ship 9.4 billion dollars' worth of goods to United States markets--more than 100 times the $92 million in United States goods that were, at last reports, allowed into their countries. S. 1951, when enacted, will require United States negotiators to secure effective access to foreign markets for United States textile and apparel products; in other words, it will press open markets of countries that have shut their doors in Uncle Sam's face. If we are going to be hospitable to foreign imports, it's only fair to require the same of them. One specific benefit of this bill is that it will deny to China the free trade benefits of the World Trade Organization until China dismantles her iron fence against United States textiles. China must not be permitted to hold membership in the WTO until China removes her arrogant trade barriers. Moreover, Mr. President, Communist China competes with American workers with unspeakable use of slave labor and child labor. Chinese slave laborers are often political prisoners. Exploitation of children as workers is rampant, especially in Asia. Mr. President, the United States must never forget that we become a part of what we condone. Therefore, the need for this bill is obvious in the light of the tremendous loss of U.S. jobs inflicted on American workers--particularly in North Carolina--by the illegal practices of foreign countries. The United States lost 53,000 textile jobs last year. North Carolina lost as many as in the 3 previous years combined, with plant shutdowns and layoffs costing 11,316 North Carolina jobs. Fruit of the Loom alone was forced to abolish 3,200 jobs in 1995, and a Fruit of the Loom spokesman blamed it on ``the cumulative impact of NAFTA and GATT'' trade agreements. Headline after headline has announced major company shutdowns or job layoffs. An eye-popping review article in the Winston-Salem Journal provided a long list of companies--including, among others, Sara Lee, Fieldcrest Cannon, Dupont, and Tultex--that have closed plants and laid off workers in North Carolina in the first part of this year. Overall, 2,918 layoffs in 26 North Carolina cities and towns were announced in the first 4 months of 1996. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned Winston-Salem Journal article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, while foreign imports are pouring in like a tidal wave, North Carolina workers are being forced onto the unemployment lines. This obviously is having a devastating impact on families and communities across America. Mr. President, this bill isn't ``protectionism,'' it's ``survivalism.'' United States business should--and must--demand access to the international market so that American workers can have a fair shot in world competition. Exhibit 1 [From Winston-Salem Journal, July 7, 1996] Sock It to 'Em? congress takes aim at asia in textile bill (By John Hoeffel) Washington.--Stories of textile plants closing and laid-off workers scrambling to find scarce low-skilled jobs in this high-tech world have been commonplace for at least 20 years. The number of textile employees has been in a steady slide. But the news appears to be getting worse. Last year, North Carolina lost as many textile jobs as in the previous three years combined. Plant closing and layoffs cost the state 11,316 jobs. In the first four months of this year, 22 companies announced 2,918 layoffs in 26 North Carolina cities and towns. North Carolina is the nation's No. 1 textile-producing state, and it has almost a third of the employees. Nationwide, 53,500 textile jobs were lost in 1995. Even with those stunning losses, textiles and apparel are still the top manufacturing industry in North Carolina, with annual sales averaging about $25 billion. Three of the state's top five employers are textile companies, including Sara Lee Corp., which has several divisions based in Winston- Salem. At the end of last year, 261,641 North Carolinians still worked in the industry, which is concentrated in the Piedmont. Forsyth, Guilford and Surry counties all rank in the top 10 counties for textile and apparel employment. The politically powerful companies have a long record of looking to Washington for help, and the South's congressmen have an equally long record of hastening to erect barriers to cheap imports. But this is a new economic era. Free trade is now the mantra of centrists in both the Republican and Democratic parties. The North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade dismantled many trade barriers, including protectionist textile quotas that will be completely eliminated by 2005. Faced with mounting job losses, congressmen from the South cast about for another avenue and found it with a bill that was introduced last month. That bill, called the Textile and Apparel Global Competitiveness Act, aims not at keeping imports out, but at cracking open foreign markets that are closed to American exports. ``We expect their door to be more than slightly ajar,'' said Rep. Howard Coble, the 6th District Republican who is the chairman of the House textile caucus and an original co-sponsor of the bill. ``We're not building a wall around ourselves and trying to block imports.'' The bill also aims at ending transshipments, the illegal practice of sneaking textiles from one country into the United States under another country's quota by diverting them through that third country. The bill is targeted at Asia in general and China in particular. The United States exported $1.96 billion in textiles to the top 14 textile producing countries in Asia. Those countries exported $24.79 billion in textiles to the United States. A source with the U.S. Customs Service says that China transships $4 billion to $6 billion through such places as Hong Kong and Macau, where the products are relabeled ``Made in Hong Kong'' or ``Made in Macau.'' Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who is no fan of China and has railed against transshipping, plans to sponsor a version of the bill in the Senate. ``It requires retaliation against countries that just flout honest and decency in international trade and countries that are closed to us and do business in our country,'' he said. ``It's time for us to stand up for American workers.'' The bill strengthens the roles of the U.S. trade representative in negotiating agreements and the Customs Service in investigating illegal shipments. It establishes steep penalties for violations. It doubles some fines and reduces quotas by an amount equal to three times the volume of transshipped goods when a country is caught transshipping for the third time. Textile importers, who could be socked with stiff penalties for importing illegal products, oppose the bill. ``It's the same industry coming back after many, many years of protection wanting more special favors from government,'' said Laura E. Jones, the executive director of the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. ``They still don't want to compete.'' The bill's supporters, sensitive about their protectionist past, react defensively, bringing up the subject of protectionism on their own. ``We're going to have to do a good marketing job in making it clear that this is not a protectionist proposal,'' Coble said. But Jones said that the bill amounts to back-door protectionism, making it easier for a select industry to pursue sanctions against importers and foreign countries. ``They do not need to have standards lowered for them so they can go around harassing our industry,'' she said. As with the old protectionist legislation, Jones said, the consumers lose. ``I just think the consumers end up paying more in the end.'' she said. She also charged that Customs has not discovered massive transshipment because they don't exist. ``The Customs Service can find cocaine and heroin, but they can't find bras and underpants,'' she said sarcastically. ``If they can't find it now, this isn't going to be an incentive to them to find it later.'' The bill is not expected to pass this session because the schedule is too crowded. ``We just don't want this shoved off the table,'' Coble said. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., was the main author and introduced the bill. But in an election-year press release, Rep. Richard Burr, the 5th District Republican and an original co-sponsor, claimed credit for introducing it. By all accounts, Burr worked hard to collect co-sponsors to help demonstrate wide support for the bill. It has more than 100. Some in the industry have criticized the Clinton administration, arguing that it has done little to enforce textile treaties. Helms, though, was more expansive in directing his criticism. ``I have got to be honest and say that previous administrations and the present administration have not done enough. It's a bipartisan folly,'' he said. Work on the bill seemed to rattle the administration's cage. Customs announced last month that it was taking measures designed to stem Chinese transhipments through Macau and Hong Kong, requiring greater verification that textiles shipped from those countries were made there. Customs just this month received the power to block shipments from factories that won't allow Customs investigators inside. Whether the bill and this Customs effort, will half the job losses is unclear. Burr said that it is imperative to introduced the bill because of continuing plant closings, citing the two that Sara Lee Knit Products announced in Sparta, costing 250 jobs, and in Jefferson, costing 589. But Sara Lee officials said that both plants closed because of weak domestic sales and that opening foreign markets would not have prevented the move. ``It's really completely unrelated,'' Nancy Young said. Textile and apparel companies are suffering through an extended retail slowdown. But the companies are also cutting jobs, as Gordon A. Berkstresser III notes, because of continuing automation and other efficiencies. And Berkstresser, a professor of textile and apparel management at N.C. State University, also questioned whether the companies are prepared to sell in Indonesia or Malaysia. ``We haven't gone over and done the kind of market research to see what kind of products we can sell in Asia,'' he said. But Dennis M. Julian the executive vice president of the N.C. Textile Manufacturers Association, said he thinks that the bill would help stabilize the industry. Jerry Cook, the director of international trade for Sara Lee Knit Products, said: ``Anything that helps open market access, I think we'd be really supportive of. It's a tough market out there.'' textile trade with asia [In millions of dollars] U.S. Exports to: Bangladesh...................................................... China..........................................................63.0 Taiwan.........................................................93.5 Hong Kong.....................................................268.3 India..........................................................14.9 Indonesia......................................................21.4 Japan.........................................................145.6 South Korea...................................................136.7 Macau........................................................... Malaysia.......................................................23.0 Pakistan........................................................ Philippines....................................................53.1 Singapore.....................................................103.6 Thailand.......................................................41.3

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, while foreign imports are pouring in like a tidal wave, North Carolina workers are being forced onto the unemployment lines. This obviously is having a devastating impact on families and communities across America. Mr. President, this bill isn't ``protectionism,'' it's ``survivalism.'' United States business should--and must--demand access to the international market so that American workers can have a fair shot in world competition. Exhibit 1 [From Winston-Salem Journal, July 7, 1996] Sock It to 'Em? congress takes aim at asia in textile bill (By John Hoeffel) Washington.--Stories of textile plants closing and laid-off workers scrambling to find scarce low-skilled jobs in this high-tech world have been commonplace for at least 20 years. The number of textile employees has been in a steady slide. But the news appears to be getting worse. Last year, North Carolina lost as many textile jobs as in the previous three years combined. Plant closing and layoffs cost the state 11,316 jobs. In the first four months of this year, 22 companies announced 2,918 layoffs in 26 North Carolina cities and towns. North Carolina is the nation's No. 1 textile-producing state, and it has almost a third of the employees. Nationwide, 53,500 textile jobs were lost in 1995. Even with those stunning losses, textiles and apparel are still the top manufacturing industry in North Carolina, with annual sales averaging about $25 billion. Three of the state's top five employers are textile companies, including Sara Lee Corp., which has several divisions based in Winston- Salem. At the end of last year, 261,641 North Carolinians still worked in the industry, which is concentrated in the Piedmont. Forsyth, Guilford and Surry counties all rank in the top 10 counties for textile and apparel employment. The politically powerful companies have a long record of looking to Washington for help, and the South's congressmen have an equally long record of hastening to erect barriers to cheap imports. But this is a new economic era. Free trade is now the mantra of centrists in both the Republican and Democratic parties. The North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade dismantled many trade barriers, including protectionist textile quotas that will be completely eliminated by 2005. Faced with mounting job losses, congressmen from the South cast about for another avenue and found it with a bill that was introduced last month. That bill, called the Textile and Apparel Global Competitiveness Act, aims not at keeping imports out, but at cracking open foreign markets that are closed to American exports. ``We expect their door to be more than slightly ajar,'' said Rep. Howard Coble, the 6th District Republican who is the chairman of the House textile caucus and an original co-sponsor of the bill. ``We're not building a wall around ourselves and trying to block imports.'' The bill also aims at ending transshipments, the illegal practice of sneaking textiles from one country into the United States under another country's quota by diverting them through that third country. The bill is targeted at Asia in general and China in particular. The United States exported $1.96 billion in textiles to the top 14 textile producing countries in Asia. Those countries exported $24.79 billion in textiles to the United States. A source with the U.S. Customs Service says that China transships $4 billion to $6 billion through such places as Hong Kong and Macau, where the products are relabeled ``Made in Hong Kong'' or ``Made in Macau.'' Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who is no fan of China and has railed against transshipping, plans to sponsor a version of the bill in the Senate. ``It requires retaliation against countries that just flout honest and decency in international trade and countries that are closed to us and do business in our country,'' he said. ``It's time for us to stand up for American workers.'' The bill strengthens the roles of the U.S. trade representative in negotiating agreements and the Customs Service in investigating illegal shipments. It establishes steep penalties for violations. It doubles some fines and reduces quotas by an amount equal to three times the volume of transshipped goods when a country is caught transshipping for the third time. Textile importers, who could be socked with stiff penalties for importing illegal products, oppose the bill. ``It's the same industry coming back after many, many years of protection wanting more special favors from government,'' said Laura E. Jones, the executive director of the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. ``They still don't want to compete.'' The bill's supporters, sensitive about their protectionist past, react defensively, bringing up the subject of protectionism on their own. ``We're going to have to do a good marketing job in making it clear that this is not a protectionist proposal,'' Coble said. But Jones said that the bill amounts to back-door protectionism, making it easier for a select industry to pursue sanctions against importers and foreign countries. ``They do not need to have standards lowered for them so they can go around harassing our industry,'' she said. As with the old protectionist legislation, Jones said, the consumers lose. ``I just think the consumers end up paying more in the end.'' she said. She also charged that Customs has not discovered massive transshipment because they don't exist. ``The Customs Service can find cocaine and heroin, but they can't find bras and underpants,'' she said sarcastically. ``If they can't find it now, this isn't going to be an incentive to them to find it later.'' The bill is not expected to pass this session because the schedule is too crowded. ``We just don't want this shoved off the table,'' Coble said. Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., was the main author and introduced the bill. But in an election-year press release, Rep. Richard Burr, the 5th District Republican and an original co-sponsor, claimed credit for introducing it. By all accounts, Burr worked hard to collect co-sponsors to help demonstrate wide support for the bill. It has more than 100. Some in the industry have criticized the Clinton administration, arguing that it has done little to enforce textile treaties. Helms, though, was more expansive in directing his criticism. ``I have got to be honest and say that previous administrations and the present administration have not done enough. It's a bipartisan folly,'' he said. Work on the bill seemed to rattle the administration's cage. Customs announced last month that it was taking measures designed to stem Chinese transhipments through Macau and Hong Kong, requiring greater verification that textiles shipped from those countries were made there. Customs just this month received the power to block shipments from factories that won't allow Customs investigators inside. Whether the bill and this Customs effort, will half the job losses is unclear. Burr said that it is imperative to introduced the bill because of continuing plant closings, citing the two that Sara Lee Knit Products announced in Sparta, costing 250 jobs, and in Jefferson, costing 589. But Sara Lee officials said that both plants closed because of weak domestic sales and that opening foreign markets would not have prevented the move. ``It's really completely unrelated,'' Nancy Young said. Textile and apparel companies are suffering through an extended retail slowdown. But the companies are also cutting jobs, as Gordon A. Berkstresser III notes, because of continuing automation and other efficiencies. And Berkstresser, a professor of textile and apparel management at N.C. State University, also questioned whether the companies are prepared to sell in Indonesia or Malaysia. ``We haven't gone over and done the kind of market research to see what kind of products we can sell in Asia,'' he said. But Dennis M. Julian the executive vice president of the N.C. Textile Manufacturers Association, said he thinks that the bill would help stabilize the industry. Jerry Cook, the director of international trade for Sara Lee Knit Products, said: ``Anything that helps open market access, I think we'd be really supportive of. It's a tough market out there.'' textile trade with asia [In millions of dollars] U.S. Exports to: Bangladesh...................................................... China..........................................................63.0 Taiwan.........................................................93.5 Hong Kong.....................................................268.3 India..........................................................14.9 Indonesia......................................................21.4 Japan.........................................................145.6 South Korea...................................................136.7 Macau........................................................... Malaysia.......................................................23.0 Pakistan........................................................ Philippines....................................................53.1 Singapore.....................................................103.6 Thailand.......................................................41.3

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is important legislation that will be beneficial to an enormous number of Americans because it will open foreign markets to U.S. products and countries that engage in dishonest activities in international trade. Those that violate trade laws and trade agreements will pay for it. This bill establishes a level playing field for U.S. textile companies and takes an unmistakable stand for American workers. If foreign markets can be opened, and U.S. trade with countries overseas increased, it will be a tremendous boost for U.S. jobs. Mr. President, the economic name of the game as we approach the 21st century lies in increasing our exports. This bill addresses a pressing need. American workers, as matters now stand, are being squeezed from every direction. Many countries, especially Mainland China, are deliberately violating their trade agreements; they are transshipping their goods through other nations deliberately to circumvent United States textile import laws. American workers should not be forced to compete against foreign companies that deliberately engage in illegal and immoral trade practices. Such countries, Communist China, India, Macau, Hong Kong, to name a few, pump billions of dollars of products into our markets, cheating every step of the way. The Winston-Salem Journal pointed out the other day that the United States Customs Service estimates that China alone illegally transships $4 to $6 billion per year. This banditry costs American businesses--and, therefore, consumers--up to $4 billion a year, not to mention the loss of countless thousands of American jobs. Mr. President, S. 1951--the Textile and Apparel Global Competitiveness Act of 1996--will, when it becomes law, impose stiff sanctions on countries that transship textile products into the United States. Current penalties will be doubled--in some cases tripled--and more reliable proof of the country of origin will be required for textile imports entering the United States. S. 1951 enables the Customs Service to seize goods imported illegally by the use of false or misleading statements or acts. So, Mr. President, this bill S. 1951, of which I am a principal cosponsor, is about fair trade and reciprocity. Since U.S. markets are open, it is only fair to demand that other countries open their markets. As matters now stand countless countries close their markets to American products while pouring their exports through our open doors. China, Pakistan, and India together ship 9.4 billion dollars' worth of goods to United States markets--more than 100 times the $92 million in United States goods that were, at last reports, allowed into their countries. S. 1951, when enacted, will require United States negotiators to secure effective access to foreign markets for United States textile and apparel products; in other words, it will press open markets of countries that have shut their doors in Uncle Sam's face. If we are going to be hospitable to foreign imports, it's only fair to require the same of them. One specific benefit of this bill is that it will deny to China the free trade benefits of the World Trade Organization until China dismantles her iron fence against United States textiles. China must not be permitted to hold membership in the WTO until China removes her arrogant trade barriers. Moreover, Mr. President, Communist China competes with American workers with unspeakable use of slave labor and child labor. Chinese slave laborers are often political prisoners. Exploitation of children as workers is rampant, especially in Asia. Mr. President, the United States must never forget that we become a part of what we condone. Therefore, the need for this bill is obvious in the light of the tremendous loss of U.S. jobs inflicted on American workers--particularly in North Carolina--by the illegal practices of foreign countries. The United States lost 53,000 textile jobs last year. North Carolina lost as many as in the 3 previous years combined, with plant shutdowns and layoffs costing 11,316 North Carolina jobs. Fruit of the Loom alone was forced to abolish 3,200 jobs in 1995, and a Fruit of the Loom spokesman blamed it on ``the cumulative impact of NAFTA and GATT'' trade agreements. Headline after headline has announced major company shutdowns or job layoffs. An eye-popping review article in the Winston-Salem Journal provided a long list of companies--including, among others, Sara Lee, Fieldcrest Cannon, Dupont, and Tultex--that have closed plants and laid off workers in North Carolina in the first part of this year. Overall, 2,918 layoffs in 26 North Carolina cities and towns were announced in the first 4 months of 1996. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned Winston-Salem Journal article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, July 10, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,148,771,318,656.40. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,409.73 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Maybe one of these days Congress will pay attention to 80 percent of the people. Mr. President, the National Right to Work Act stipulates that employers and unions may no longer force American workers to pony up union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. It is about freedom, purely and simply. It does not discourage union membership. The National Right to Work Act merely says that unions have to garner their support the old-fashioned way--they have to earn it. Of course, there are those who suggest that this legislation is somehow antiunion, those who parrot the apocalyptic pronouncements of the AFL-CIO that this is union-busting legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would suggest that those union bosses opposing the National Right to Work Act are insecure about their ability to earn the support of the workers they purport to represent. Opponents of the National Right to Work Act may also suggest that it is fair to require employees who enjoy the so-called benefits of union membership to share in their costs. Union leaders will complain that this Congress should not change this policy. Mr. President, union leaders, having bought the horse, are just complaining about the price of oats. Union bosses lobbied for and jealously guard the privilege of exclusive representation. They will not give it up. And if you have any doubts about that, then the answer is not to oppose this modest effort to limit union coercion, but to repeal exiting provisions of Federal labor law providing for exclusive representation. I recall that union lobbyists say that this is a free-rider bill. The National Right to Work Act is not so much a free-rider bill as existing Federal labor law is forced-rider legislation. Doubtless, too, we will hear complaints that there are more important issues facing Americans. There will be claims that this issue is being pursued by a narrow special interest. My colleagues should bear in mind that polls indicate that fully 76 percent of the American people--including a clear majority of union members--support the principle of right to work. Just yesterday, the administration and various lobbying groups were telling us that an increase in the minimum wage should be passed because 70 percent of the American people support it. My suspicion is that that they find this high level of support for right to work to be less persuasive, just as they have failed to support our efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment, notwithstanding the support of overwhelming majorities of Americans. After all, this administration's Secretary of Labor seems more interested in advancing the agenda of organized labor, rather then the rights and interests of all American workers. This is, after all, the administration which attempted to rewrite Federal labor law for Federal contractors, to deny to Federal contractors the right permanently to replace striking employees. The courts have rightly voided this usurpation of congressional authority. Furthermore, the Secretary of Labor said, and I quote, ``In order to maintain themselves, unions have got to have some ability to strap their members to the mast. The only way unions can exercise countervailing power is to hold their members' feet to the fire.'' Whether or not that mast is attached to a sinking ship in something that the Secretary seems not to have considered. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, those who oppose this bill today oppose freedom. They make clear their ratification of Secretary Reich's sentiments, that this Congress believes that union bosses know better than individuals what is in the interests of individual American workers. I would respectfully suggest that this is a concept foreign to the American way of thinking. And does anyone seriously suggest that Republican majorities were sent to both Houses of this Congress in order to perpetuate the power of union bosses to force Americans to support their narrowly radical social and political agenda? But perhaps there is another explanation. After all, look at the most vocal of opponents to this act. Is it mere coincidence that they benefit from the forced-dues, soft-money political contributions of big labor? Is it just an accident that the bulk of union political activities and contributions benefit my friends on the other side of the aisle almost to the exclusion of contributions to the GOP? Is it surprising that an administration which promises to veto this bill, if passed, has the nearly unanimous support of the leaders of the AFL-CIO? I urge my colleagues to support the National Right to Work Act because it is the right thing to do. It is a vote for worker freedom, a vote for responsible unions. American workers deserve the protection of a National Right to Work Act, the protection of a basic personal freedom. American working men and women deserve to be able to work and feed their families without paying tribute to anyone, much less a class of specially protected organizations. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, July 9, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,151,106,744,723.87. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,419.07 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending July 5, the U.S. imported 8,000,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,500,000 barrels more than the 6,500,000 barrels imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 55 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that this 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? Shouldn't more attention be paid to this perilous situation in light of the June 25 bombing which killed 19 American servicemen in Saudi Arabia? American troops are in Saudi Arabia to protect United States petroleum interests. 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 U.S.--now 8,000,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. We are supposed to begin voting at 12?

Mr. HELMS. How many votes in tandem, three?

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have been around this place for almost 24 years now, and I have never participated in the occasional turf battles that occur, and I do not particularly enjoy making the comments I am about to make but I feel obliged to make them for the record. Mr. President, S. 1745, as introduced and reported by the Armed Services Committee, contains, in my judgment, several significant provisions falling clearly within the primary jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee. And I have disclosed now my interest in that because I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not think there can be a clearer case of imposing upon the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee than section 1005 of the bill, entitled ``Use of Military-to-Military Contacts Funds for Professional Military Education and Training.'' That is a lot of gobbledygook perhaps, but it is a provision that represents an obvious effort by some to commandeer a longstanding foreign policy instrument of the Department of State, that being the International Military Education and Training program known familiarly as IMET. Section 1005 of this bill does not even pretend to differ substantively from the existing IMET program. The proposed authority would allow the Department of Defense to engage in a back-door foreign assistance program without the supervision of the State Department or the oversight of the Foreign Relations Committee by conducting ``military education and training for military and civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Mr. President, why should the United States establish this duplicative program as identical authority already exists under chapter 5 of the Foreign Assistance Act which authorizes the President of the United States to furnish ``military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries.'' Now, again, I am not going to get into any fight about the turf, but I must point out that this is the second year that an attempt has been made to seize foreign policy tools belonging solely to the Secretary of State. At a time when we should be considering consolidating the foreign affairs apparatus of the of the United States into the Department of State, it makes no sense to me to proliferate the number of foreign assistance programs outside the control of the Secretary of State. It makes even less sense in light of the drastic budget cuts undergone by the Department of Defense to pay for foreign aid in the defense budget and from defense funds. The result will be more nondefense spending in the 050 account. This authority--and I have checked on this--was not requested by the administration. It has not been agreed to in the administration's interagency process, and I daresay that it likely is not supported by the Secretary of State. However, I have not talked with or to Warren Christopher about that. Because this provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee, I respectfully request that this provision be removed from the bill during conference. That action I believe would recognize appropriately the jurisdictional responsibilities of both of our committees. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. And if I have any time I yield it to the Senator from Maryland.