Jesse Helms

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 won the Senate race in North Carolina. It was 9:17 in the evening and I recall how stunned I was. I had never really anticipated that I would be the first Republican in history to be elected to the U.S. Senate by the people of North Carolina. When I got over that, I made a commitment to myself 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, Wednesday, June 19, 1996, stood at $5,120,985,354,306.65. On a per capita basis, the existing Federal debt amounts to $19,316.20 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 Tuesday, June 18, 1996--shows an increase of more than $2 billion--$2,784,604,782.12, to be exact. That 1-day increase alone is enough to match the total amount needed to pay the college tuition for each of the 412,901 students for 4 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending June 14, the United States imported 8,400,000 barrels of oil each day, 400,000 barrels less than the 8,800,000 barrels imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 57 percent of their needs last week. 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? U.S. producers provide jobs for 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 8,400,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, June 18, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,118,200,749,524.53. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,306.24 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 17, the Federal debt stood at $5,137,826,225,531.03, which amounts to $19,306.97 per man, woman, and child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, June 13, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,139,481,774,943.05. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,389.23 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in making these daily reports about the Federal debt, which I began on February 27, 1992, I have tried to avoid partisan comment. But if I were a young American, just beginning my career, or just beginning to set up my family, I would be greatly concerned at the breakdown of the Senate vote on the budget resolution earlier today. No, I would be more than concerned. I would be angry. The American people have demonstrated a hundred times in countless different ways that they want the tragic finances of the Federal Government cleaned up. They want a balanced Federal budget. They want Federal spending to be brought under control. But in all fairness, Mr. President, when one looks at the 53 to 46 vote today on the budget resolution, it is apparent that the finances of the Federal Government are not going to be cleaned up, and the Federal budget is not going to be balanced, and Federal spending is not going to be brought under control. Not by the 104th Congress in any event. Mr. President, the budget resolution approved today by the votes of 53 Republicans is not really going to help the young people of America who are now moving into maturity. The best that can be said of it is that it's better than doing nothing. None of the 46 Senators who today voted against the resolution has made any noticeable effort to cut Federal spending except for occasional efforts to try to downgrade our Nation's national defense. As a result, the Federal debt, which today exceeds $5 trillion by more than $100 billion, will stand at a minimum of $6.5 trillion shortly after the turn of the century. Even under the resolution approved today, the interest on the Federal debt in 1997 will cost the taxpayers more than $282 billion; and in the year 2002, the American taxpayers will be socked for a minimum of $302 billion just to pay the interest on the debt that the Congress of the United States will have run up by that time. Where did I get these figures? I got them by calling the Congressional Budget Office which acknowledged that the sad story I've outlined here probably will be even worse on the taxpayers than today's CBO's computations. 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 that first report on February 27, 1992, the Federal debt at the close of business the previous day stood at $3,825,891,293,066.80. Fast forward to yesterday when, at the close of business, a total of $1,315,395,536,138.33 had been added to the Federal debt since February 26, 1992. Yesterday, Wednesday, June 12, 1996, the exact Federal debt stood at $5,141,286,829,205.13 at the close of business. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,396.59 as his or her share of the Federal debt. But since the majority of Americans are children, or are unemployed, or pay only a small amount of taxes, the ``per capita'' computation is almost meaningless. You might want to ponder what your share of the debt really is. And today's young people really have an enormous burden facing them in the 20th century.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending June 7, the United States imported 8,000,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,100,000 barrels more than the 6,900,000 barrels imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 56 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? U.S. producers provide jobs for 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 8,000,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, too many Americans have not the foggiest notion about the enormity of the Federal debt. Every so often, I ask various groups, how many millions of dollars are there in a trillion? They think about it, voice some estimates, most of them not even close. They are stunned when they learn the facts, such as the case today. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, June 11, 1996, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $5,136,928,256,903.23. Another astonishing statistic is that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,380.69. As for how many millions of dollars there are in a trillion, there are a million in a trillion, which means that the Federal Government owes more than five million million dollars.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business yesterday Monday, June 11, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,134,653,489,857.86. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,372.70 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, June 7, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,133,885,689,631.55. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,703.31 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Thursday, June 6, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,139,284,273,926.72. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,392.31 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression will not go away: The $5 trillion Federal debt stands today as an increasingly grotesque parallel to the TV energizer bunny that keeps moving and moving and moving--precisely in the same manner and to the same extent that the President is sitting on his hands while the Federal debt keeps going up and up and up into the stratosphere. Same old story. Some politicians talk a good game--``talk'' is the operative word here--about cutting Federal spending and thereby bringing the Federal debt under control. But watch what they do when efforts are made to balance the Federal budget. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 5, the Federal debt stood at exactly $5,141,669,992,686.17, which amounts to $19,401.82 per man, woman, child on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, inasmuch as I believe Senators ought to take a position on the very significant question of a most-favored- nation designation of China by the United States, I, today, along with Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, and others, offer a resolution of disapproval of President Clinton's renewal of most-favored-nation treatment for China. As I indicated earlier, Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, Senator Smith of New Hampshire are principal cosponsors of this resolution of disapproval. Now then, if there is somehow a valid reason for the United States-- the world's leader in freedom--to offer the same trading terms to China that the United States offers to other nations that do honor their citizens' human rights and that do respect the rule of law, I cannot think of such a reason. None come to mind. Mr. President, this is President Clinton's fourth renewal of MFN status for China. The President has covered the waterfront on this issue. He has been all over the lot. He has had his customary array of positions on MFN, as with countless other issues, and it is almost impossible to follow the President's ever-changing position without, as the saying goes, a printed program. As a candidate running for the Presidency in 1992, Mr. Clinton condemned the Bush administration for what candidate Clinton alleged was ``coddling dictators.'' But when Mr. Clinton took office in 1993, he decided, no, it was all right with him to support MFN to China--provided that China ``made progress'' in respecting human rights. The following year, 1994, when the President was forced to acknowledge that there had been no progress by China in human rights, President Clinton decided that human rights should not even be a factor in the annual MFN renewal. Instead, the President said that he would advance human rights through a set of principles for United States businesses, enhanced international broadcasting to China, and what the President described as ``increased support for nongovernmental organizations working on human rights in China.'' That was 2 years ago, and we are still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that any of the Clinton initiatives have gone anywhere or accomplished anything. The business principles announced by the White House did not even mention China or its flagrant labor abuses. We are still waiting for Radio Free Asia, which the administration has apparently renamed and is now calling it the Asia Pacific Network, or some such thing, because apparently somebody in the Clinton administration perhaps decided that the name Radio Free Asia may be a little bit confrontational insofar as the Communist Chinese are concerned. Well, as for the aid to nongovernmental groups supporting human rights in China, perhaps the administration would be willing at least to give us a hint as to what, if anything, has been done. They certainly have made no report on the matter one way or the other. I do not believe one thing has been accomplished. This year, when the President announced his intention to renew MFN, he said the MFN decision ``isn't a referendum on all China's policies.'' I say, the heck it is not. Whether Mr. Clinton likes it or not, when the United States extends MFN to China, we are treating China like virtually all of our other trading partners. There are, of course, many other countries that deserve a stern line from the United States, but China is in a class by itself when it comes to the violations of human rights. The fact is, Mr. President, that China's record on human rights, since the most recent MFN renewal, has continued to be disgraceful. Even the State Department's latest annual report on human rights stated that the Chinese regime ``continued to commit widespread and well- documented human rights abuses,'' abuse, I might add, which affect every kind of fundamental human rights imaginable. According to many observers, religious persecution in particular intensified with the Government moving against independent Christian churches and Muslim groups. Challenges to the regime were not tolerated. Quoting the State Department, ``By year's end, almost all public dissent against the central authorities was silenced by intimidation, exile or imposition of prison terms or administrative detention.'' The annual MFN debate has become more than a mere referendum on China's policies; it is now a referendum on the Clinton administration's policies, and President Clinton made it so. In the future, in addition to requiring report on China's human rights record, perhaps we should consider an annual report on the Clinton administration's China policy. During the past year alone, the Clinton administration decided to look the other way while China sent nuclear material to Pakistan because, the administration says, the Chinese leadership didn't know anything about it. Now come reports that China is seeking to acquire components of SS-18 missiles from Russia and the Ukraine. And I discussed that subject on this floor this past Tuesday. China has fired missiles over the Taiwan Strait in a reckless and bellicose attempt to intimidate Taiwan's people as they established the first Chinese democracy. Despite explicit commitments to preserve Hong Kong's institutions and autonomy after 1997, the Chinese Government has announced it will abolish the elected legislature and made threats against the independent judiciary and civil servant of Hong Kong. On Trade, it is the same story. Last year, the administration agreed to let China have a year to crack down on dozens of pirate compact disk factories. In April, the administration let it be known in news reports that President would be hard pressed to renew MFN if Beijing didn't follow through on its promise to end the pirating of copyrighted material. The regime has not followed through and the President renewed MFN anyway. Now we are waiting to see if the administration imposes $2 billion in sanctions against Chinese products, imported with United States. Despite all of these egregious examples of Chinese misbehavior, we still pay China's bills. Our trade with China is one-way. The United States buys 40 of China's exports, but China severely limits United States access of United States exports to their markets. Last year, our exports to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and even Belgium were greater than our exports to China, even though those countries have a tiny fraction of China's population. Still some businessmen contend that we need to trade with China. It will open up their society, they say. But what is going on in China is not free trade. The regime is turning over enterprises to the military so it can make money for itself and acquire technology from foreign businesses. There is no rule of law to protect Chinese or foreign investors. Official corruption is widespread. A disagreement with a business partner who has official connections can land you in jail. Renewing MFN again this year will be a sign to Beijing that the United States will do business as usual with China no matter what the consequences. I trust that Senators will bear this in mind as the days go by.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, inasmuch as I believe Senators ought to take a position on the very significant question of a most-favored- nation designation of China by the United States, I, today, along with Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, and others, offer a resolution of disapproval of President Clinton's renewal of most-favored-nation treatment for China. As I indicated earlier, Senator Feingold, Senator Mack, Senator Smith of New Hampshire are principal cosponsors of this resolution of disapproval. Now then, if there is somehow a valid reason for the United States-- the world's leader in freedom--to offer the same trading terms to China that the United States offers to other nations that do honor their citizens' human rights and that do respect the rule of law, I cannot think of such a reason. None come to mind. Mr. President, this is President Clinton's fourth renewal of MFN status for China. The President has covered the waterfront on this issue. He has been all over the lot. He has had his customary array of positions on MFN, as with countless other issues, and it is almost impossible to follow the President's ever-changing position without, as the saying goes, a printed program. As a candidate running for the Presidency in 1992, Mr. Clinton condemned the Bush administration for what candidate Clinton alleged was ``coddling dictators.'' But when Mr. Clinton took office in 1993, he decided, no, it was all right with him to support MFN to China--provided that China ``made progress'' in respecting human rights. The following year, 1994, when the President was forced to acknowledge that there had been no progress by China in human rights, President Clinton decided that human rights should not even be a factor in the annual MFN renewal. Instead, the President said that he would advance human rights through a set of principles for United States businesses, enhanced international broadcasting to China, and what the President described as ``increased support for nongovernmental organizations working on human rights in China.'' That was 2 years ago, and we are still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that any of the Clinton initiatives have gone anywhere or accomplished anything. The business principles announced by the White House did not even mention China or its flagrant labor abuses. We are still waiting for Radio Free Asia, which the administration has apparently renamed and is now calling it the Asia Pacific Network, or some such thing, because apparently somebody in the Clinton administration perhaps decided that the name Radio Free Asia may be a little bit confrontational insofar as the Communist Chinese are concerned. Well, as for the aid to nongovernmental groups supporting human rights in China, perhaps the administration would be willing at least to give us a hint as to what, if anything, has been done. They certainly have made no report on the matter one way or the other. I do not believe one thing has been accomplished. This year, when the President announced his intention to renew MFN, he said the MFN decision ``isn't a referendum on all China's policies.'' I say, the heck it is not. Whether Mr. Clinton likes it or not, when the United States extends MFN to China, we are treating China like virtually all of our other trading partners. There are, of course, many other countries that deserve a stern line from the United States, but China is in a class by itself when it comes to the violations of human rights. The fact is, Mr. President, that China's record on human rights, since the most recent MFN renewal, has continued to be disgraceful. Even the State Department's latest annual report on human rights stated that the Chinese regime ``continued to commit widespread and well- documented human rights abuses,'' abuse, I might add, which affect every kind of fundamental human rights imaginable. According to many observers, religious persecution in particular intensified with the Government moving against independent Christian churches and Muslim groups. Challenges to the regime were not tolerated. Quoting the State Department, ``By year's end, almost all public dissent against the central authorities was silenced by intimidation, exile or imposition of prison terms or administrative detention.'' The annual MFN debate has become more than a mere referendum on China's policies; it is now a referendum on the Clinton administration's policies, and President Clinton made it so. In the future, in addition to requiring report on China's human rights record, perhaps we should consider an annual report on the Clinton administration's China policy. During the past year alone, the Clinton administration decided to look the other way while China sent nuclear material to Pakistan because, the administration says, the Chinese leadership didn't know anything about it. Now come reports that China is seeking to acquire components of SS-18 missiles from Russia and the Ukraine. And I discussed that subject on this floor this past Tuesday. China has fired missiles over the Taiwan Strait in a reckless and bellicose attempt to intimidate Taiwan's people as they established the first Chinese democracy. Despite explicit commitments to preserve Hong Kong's institutions and autonomy after 1997, the Chinese Government has announced it will abolish the elected legislature and made threats against the independent judiciary and civil servant of Hong Kong. On Trade, it is the same story. Last year, the administration agreed to let China have a year to crack down on dozens of pirate compact disk factories. In April, the administration let it be known in news reports that President would be hard pressed to renew MFN if Beijing didn't follow through on its promise to end the pirating of copyrighted material. The regime has not followed through and the President renewed MFN anyway. Now we are waiting to see if the administration imposes $2 billion in sanctions against Chinese products, imported with United States. Despite all of these egregious examples of Chinese misbehavior, we still pay China's bills. Our trade with China is one-way. The United States buys 40 of China's exports, but China severely limits United States access of United States exports to their markets. Last year, our exports to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and even Belgium were greater than our exports to China, even though those countries have a tiny fraction of China's population. Still some businessmen contend that we need to trade with China. It will open up their society, they say. But what is going on in China is not free trade. The regime is turning over enterprises to the military so it can make money for itself and acquire technology from foreign businesses. There is no rule of law to protect Chinese or foreign investors. Official corruption is widespread. A disagreement with a business partner who has official connections can land you in jail. Renewing MFN again this year will be a sign to Beijing that the United States will do business as usual with China no matter what the consequences. I trust that Senators will bear this in mind as the days go by.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending May 31, the United States imported 8,700,000 barrels of oil each day, 900,000 barrels more than the 7,800,000 barrels imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 57 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 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 8,700,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Dole, has scheduled for the Senate a reconsideration of the enormously important issue of amending the U.S. Constitution to require that Congress return to the principle of a balanced federal budget. One of my heroes, Thomas Jefferson, put it this way: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. That, Mr. President, tells it all, and that is one of the many reasons that I so strongly support the balanced budget amendment. It is indeed wrong--in fact, it is criminal, for Congress to mandate the Federal Government to spend more than it takes in. It is demonstrably destructive to the economy, and ultimately to our society. It is a horrible legacy to impose upon our children and grandchildren. The Congress has a moral duty to stop the charade of out-of-control deficit spending which has shackled future generations with a debt that causes wage stagnation and anemic economic growth. For too long, the Congress discarded its duty and responsibility, and has shamelessly supported bloated appropriations for political expedience. For a very long time, this institution has condoned the free-lunch syndrome, which has never existed, and never will. Mr. President, as of the close of business Tuesday, June 4, the Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at exactly $5,139,963,594,008.65, or $19,395.97 for every man, woman, and child in America. A deliberate debt of this magnitude, knowingly run up by Congress, is bizarre. It is, in fact, a con-game. And that is what the 1994 election was all about: restoring integrity and accountability to Government. To their credit, Republicans in Congress delivered on their commitment when the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 was enacted, cutting Federal spending by $961 billion over 7 years. And although the budget proposed annual increases in spending--over and above the $1.6 trillion appropriated for fiscal year 1996--President Clinton vetoed it because it didn't spend enough. Mr. Clinton, after having himself proposed a Federal budget that projected deficits as far as the eye could see, engaged in a comical series of proposed budgets that, he asserted, would balance the Federal budget in 10, 7, 9 or 8 years--take your pick. Even the Washington Post declared that the proposed Clinton budget ``relies on gimmicks that almost no one believes would survive.'' This illustrates why it's imperative to have the U.S. Constitution mandating a required balanced budget. On March 2, 1995, the Senate failed, by one vote, to approve this amendment. All but one of the Republican Senators supported it. But only 13 Democrat Senators supported it, which doomed the balanced budget amendment last year. Today we have one more opportunity to approve the amendment in this, the 104th Congress. Again, Thomas Jefferson said it best: 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. Will the Senate heed Jefferson's wise counsel? We shall shortly see.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Federal Government is existing on borrowed money--more than $5 trillion of it. As of the close of business yesterday, June 4, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,139,963,594,008.65. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,395.97 as his or her share of the Federal debt. More than two centuries ago, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. It's time for Congress to adopt a declaration of economic responsibilities--and an amendment requiring the President and Congress to come up with a balanced Federal budget-- now.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think so often of that November evening long ago--it was in 1972--when the TV commentators network reported that the people of North Carolina had elected me to the Senate. It was 9:17 p.m. and I recall 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. Needless to say, it was a memorable moment in my life and I, that evening, made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. Keeping that commitment for almost 24 years, it has proved enormously meaningful to me. I have been inspired on countless occasions by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the more than 23 years I have been in the Senate. A large percentage of them are understandably concerned, and greatly so, about the total Federal debt which back in February of this year crossed the $5 trillion mark for the first time in history. It is Congress that has 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, on February 22, 1992, I began making these daily reports to the Senate. 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--Monday, June 3, 1996--stood at $5,136,903,015,098.32. On a per capita basis, the existing Federal debt amounts to $19,384.92 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 Friday, May 31, 1996--shows an increase of more than $8 billion--$8,394,510,205.52, to be exact. That increase alone is enough to match the total amount needed to pay the college tuition for each of the 1,244,737 students for 4 years.

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Let me emphasize that I regard the Defend America Act of 1996 as a vital piece of legislation--one which provides a clear and concise blueprint for protecting the American people from the growing threat of attack from ballistic missiles carrying nuclear chemical or biological warheads. I am also convinced, Mr. President, beyond peradventure, that it is critical that the United States begin immediately the 8-year task of building and deploying a national missile defense. Finally, I am disappointed that this legislation is being subjected to a filibuster. This past winter, shortly after the Clinton administration vetoed the missile defense provisions in the 1996 Defense Authorization Act, I, along with others, questioned the wisdom of the administration's stated assumption that no country ``other than the declared nuclear powers'' would threaten the ``continental'' United States with a ballistic missile for at least 15 years. An incredible statement. I was astonished then and I am astonished now, when I think about it, by the intellectual bankruptcy of such a statement. Mr. President, I shall make four points in this regard: First, I continue to wonder how the administration could so cavalierly make decisions about the deployment of a national missile defense, while explicitly excluding declared nuclear powers from the threat calculus. One has only to consider China, which fields dozens of submarine- launched ballistic missiles, hundreds of warheads on heavy bombers, roughly 24 medium and long-range ballistic missiles, and has several crash modernization initiatives in progress. Moreover, China intends to deploy, by the end of this century, four new types of ballistic missiles. Furthermore, the United States has very clear indications that Red China is, at this very moment, pursuing MIRV technology. Now, then, Mr. President, this is the very same country, mind you, that has just finished flexing its military might by conducting live missile- firing exercises in the Strait of Taiwan, in a clear effort to bully and cower a valued and longstanding ally of the United States. This is the same country--China--that issued thinly veiled threats this spring suggesting that nuclear weapons would be used against the United States if the United States intervened on behalf of Taiwan. Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord acknowledged that Chinese officials had declared that the United States, ``wouldn't dare defend Taiwan because they [China] would rain nuclear bombs on Los Angeles'' if we did. Now, if this is not nuclear blackmail, it will do while the Clinton administration folds its hands until the first nuclear missile hits the west coast. China's ability to hold the United States hostage to such threats is made possible by the fact that a band of latter-day Luddites here in Washington have consistently refused even to consider building the very strategic missile defenses necessary to protect the American people from such an attack. Mr. President, it is time for the defenders of the ABM Treaty to give up their pious devotion to an antiquated arms control theology and come to grips with the realities of the post-cold-war world. Dr. Henry Kissinger, the architect of the ABM Treaty, put it best when he recently wrote, ``The end of the cold war has made . . . a strategy of mutually assured destruction largely irrelevant. Barely plausible when there was only one strategic opponent, the theory makes no sense in a multipolar world of proliferating nuclear powers.'' He went on to say that MAD, mutually assured destruction, would not work against blackmail with nuclear weapons. Yet, that is exactly what we are faced with when China blatantly threatens Los Angeles, U.S.A. Second, I cannot fathom the administration's sensibilities when it drew a distinction between threats to the United States and threats to the continental United States. The last time I checked, nearly 2 million U.S. citizens live in Alaska and Hawaii. These people and their families are no less deserving of protection than anyone living in Arkansas or North Carolina or Washington, DC, or anywhere else. It is simply incredible that those who oppose ballistic missile defense are doing so based on their view of the threat to only 48 out of the 50 States of the Union. This is all the more galling since it is an indisputable fact that North Korea is developing a series of missiles capable of striking both Alaska and Hawaii. Third, I call Senators' attention to a key caveat in the much publicized 1996 threat assessment that has been largely overlooked. That assessment declared that ``foreign assistance is a wild card that can sometimes permit a country to solve difficult developmental problems relatively quickly. Such external assistance can hinder our ability to predict how soon a system will become operational.'' Good Lord, Mr. President, this one statement alone unravels the whole ball of yarn. Foreign assistance is the norm in the development of ballistic missile systems, not the exception. The Soviet Union collaborated on ballistic missiles with 14 countries around the globe, all of whom can now field some type of Soviet-made missile. Russia recently was caught shipping entire missile sections to Iraq. Both Libya and Egypt have transferred missiles to other countries. China has sold intermediate-range missiles to Saudi Arabia and missile technology to Iran, Syria, and North Korea. In turn, Iran is working with North Korea and Syria on various missiles, and North Korea is supplying both missiles and missile production facilities to anybody who is prepared to pay for them with cash. Recently, Mr. President, I was astounded to discover that Russia and Ukraine may be concluding a secret deal with China to transfer ICBM components. A report by the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that Communist China is seeking to enhance its strategic arsenal with components from Russia's most lethal type of intercontinental ballistic missile--the SS-18. Dubbed ``Satan'' by Western intelligence services, the SS-18 is the world's most destructive weapon to date. It has the ability to drop 10 megaton-rated warheads within 600 feet of their targets. Acquisition of just the booster stage of this missile would give China the ability to launch nuclear warheads against any and every city in the United States of America--a strategic reach of up to 6,820 miles that China, thank the Lord, does not yet possess. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled that Secretary of Defense Perry has held open the door to the possibility that SS-18 boosters could be used commercially by the Chinese to boost satellites into orbit. He stated during an interview with reporters from the Washington Times that ``I guess our answer would be only if it's very tightly controlled, so you can have great confidence this technology is not being diverted to some other application. That would be the only exception I would make.'' Well, speaking just as one Senator, I must say, in no uncertain terms, that I believe any such exception would be made at the peril of the national security of the American people. The Defense Intelligence Agency has specifically noted that ``China's interest in using SS-18 boosters in its civilian program seems odd because the SS-18's engine characteristics may be incompatible with many sensitive satellite payloads.'' I might add that the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am chairman, recommended Senate ratification of the START II Treaty subject to the understanding that the treaty would rectify a longstanding inequity of previous arms control agreements by completely eliminating this monster missile forever. Secretary Perry's comment appears to open the door for Satan's coming under the red flag of Communist China. For the record I should mention that the START II Treaty specifically prohibits Russia from transferring SS-18's to any recipient whatsoever or whomever, and does so from the date of START II's signature. The Foreign Relations Committee even attached a condition stating that ``space-launch vehicles composed of items that are limited by the START Treaty or the START II Treaty shall be subject to the obligations undertaken in the respective treaty.'' Case closed. In my judgment, there should not be any question about whether the transfer of SS-18 technology to China is acceptable. I contend that it absolutely is not. The truth of the matter is that no amount of policy reformulation by the administration can change the fact that the United States is vulnerable to nuclear-tipped missiles fielded by China, or anyone else. Rectifying this dangerous deficiency requires leadership and action. It is an all the more pressing issue because the current course charted by the administration fails to recognize the inherent danger in China's pursuit of an advanced nuclear arsenal. Mr. President, any further delay in the development by the United States of a flexible, cost-effective national missile defense is unconscionable. I am honored to be a cosponsor of the Defend America Act and urge Senators to support this legislation to ensure that the American people in all 50 States are protected from attack by ballistic missiles.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, May 31, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,128,508,504,892.80. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,353.72 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Thursday, May 23, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,120,583,551,676.66. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,329.45 as his or her share of that debt. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, since 1920 there has been a Federal statute in force in America that, however well intentioned, has nonetheless prevented a vast segment of the farming community in North Carolina and other States from obtaining reasonably much-needed and priced grain from the Midwest. In doing so, of course, it has long prevented Midwestern grain producers from delivering grain to grain deficit States which repeatedly experience difficulty in sustaining their livestock. North Carolina is one of the those States. That is why I am today introducing S. 1813, the Coastal Shipping Competition Act, which will eliminate a harmful anachronism that enables a few waterborne carriers to cling to a monopoly on shipping. The victims of this system, in North Carolina and elsewhere, assert accurately that those shippers have no certified Jones Act ships to meet the demands of producers who need the gain. In fact, Mr. President, poultry and pork farmers in North Carolina say they can't get enough grain for their farms to feed their animals. North Carolina cannot now, nor ever be able, to produce enough grain to satisfy the urgent needs of the poultry and pork producers in North Carolina. As a result, they must rely upon grain shipped in from the Midwest. The railroads can't guarantee enough railcars to move this grain from the Midwest, and the costs of such shipments as can be arranged are enormous. The increase in transportation costs, coupled with the price of grain, inevitably leads to excessively high overhead costs for North Carolina farmers. To put it succinctly, the shortage of grains and shortage of trains means sharply elevated costs and prices that threaten the livelihoods of many farmers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from two highly respected North Carolina farmers, both of whom urge introduction and passage of this legislation, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, according to the most recent North Carolina Department of Agriculture statistics, North Carolina was, in 1995, No. 1 in the Nation in turkey production with 61.2 million birds; in hog production, North Carolina was No. 2, with 8.3 million heads--Iowa was No. 1--and in commercial broilers North Carolina was No. 4 with 644 million birds--Arkansas, Georgia, and Alabama ranked first, second, and third. Mr. President, this past Saturday an article in the May 18 edition of the Raleigh News and Observer, reported that 800 poultry jobs in Chatham County, N.C., were threatened by, among other things, high-feed grain prices. I ask unanimous consent that this article ``800 Perdue Jobs in Danger'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, additionally, in times of severe weather--such as this past winter--railroads often are unable to get through mountain passes because of snow or flooding. Mr. President, the Jones Act unfairly and unreasonably restricts shipping between ports in the United States because it requires that merchandise and produce shipped by water between U.S. points be shipped only on U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, U.S.-manned, and U.S.-citizen owned vessels specifically documented and authorized by the Coast Guard for such shipments. But, Mr. President, the problem with that is that not nearly enough certified vessels exist to transport grain to farmers in North Carolina and other States. As a matter of fact, my farmers are now being forced to go to foreign sources for feed grain. Last year, according to a report in the September 12, 1995, Journal of Commerce, Murphy family farms brought in a cargo shipment of 1 million bushels of Canadian wheat to the port of Wilmington, NC, aboard Canada steamship lines. Mr. President, the Jones Act is simply not fair. It's not fair to farmers in the Midwest and it is unfair to countless producers in my own State and in other States. Those who may protest this legislation are likely to claim that it will somehow destroy American shipping. That simply is not so. Moreover, if the status quo is maintained, my farmers will have no choice but to purchase their foreign grain from Canada, Argentina, and other countries--and all of it will be shipped on foreign flagged vessels. According to a December 1995 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission, The economy wide effect of removing the Jones Act is a U.S. economic welfare gain of approximately $2.8 billion. This figure can also be interpreted as the annual reduction in real national income imposed by the Jones Act. A primary reason for the large gain in welfare is a decline of approximately 26 percent in the price of shipping services formerly restricted by the Jones Act. Mr. President, isn't it ironic that the United States--the breadbasket of the world--has such an unwise and unfair lid on that bread basket? That lid, Mr. President, is the Jones Act. That is my reason for offering this legislative remedy, Mr. President. If Senators truly believe in the free enterprise system, they will support this proposal to allow American grain to be shipped unhindered to grain deficit States that are in need of it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, too many Americans have not the foggiest notion about the enormity of the Federal debt. Every so often, I ask various groups, how millions of dollars are there in a trillion? They think about it, voice some estimates, most of them not even close. They are stunned when they learn the facts, such as the case today. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, May 22, 1996, the exact Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $5,117,440,103,398.93. Another astonishing statistic is that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,318.08 as his or her share of the Federal debt. As for how many millions of dollars there are in a trillion, there are a million million in a trillion, which means that the Federal Government owes more than 5 million million dollars.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending May 17, the United States imported 7,782,000 barrels of oil each day, 256,000 barrels less than the 8,038,000 barrels imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 54.9 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 certain to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our oil supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 7,782,000 barrels a day.