Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on numerous occasions I have mentioned to friends that evening in 1972 when I first was elected to the Senate. When the television networks reported that I had won the Senate race in North Carolina, I was stunned. Then I made several commitments to myself, one of them being 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 beneficial 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 have been concerned about the Federal debt which recently exceeded $5 trillion. Of course, Congress is responsible for creating this monstrous debt which coming generations will have to pay. Mr. President, the young people and I almost always 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, March 13, stood at $5,025,887,532,178.79. This amounts to $19,076.70 for every man, woman and child in America on a per capita basis. The increase in the national debt since my report yesterday--which identified the total Federal Debt as of close of business on Tuesday, March 12, 1996--shows an increase of nearly 9 billion dollars-- $8,603,940,268.76, to be exact. That 1-day increase is enough to match the money needed by approximately 1,275,792 students to pay their college tuitions for 4 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished friend, Senator Pell, the able ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, in recalling the massacre of thousands of Kurdish civilians 8 years ago at the town of Halabja. On March 16, 1988, Iraqi jets, without warning, dropped chemical weapons on Halabja, a Kurdish village in northern Iraq. The attack, horrific even by Iraq's barbaric standards, killed thousands of unarmed men, women, and children. The massacre at Halabja drew attention to Saddam Hussein's campaign of genocide directed against the Kurds of northern Iraq. However, that attention was not enough to prevent the systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish civilians by the Government of Iraq. Mr. President, I must commend Senator Pell for being one of the few willing to speak out about the plight of the Kurds. I worked with him in 1988 to sanction Iraq for its reprehensible behavior. Had more people around the world, and especially here in the United States, heeded Senator Pell's pleas to protect the Kurds, perhaps more could have been saved. The final act of this tragedy, however, has not yet played out. Saddam Hussein has not abandoned his crusade against the Kurdish citizens of Iraq. If he cannot eliminate them, he will do all he can to deprive them of their basic human rights. Mr. President, thanks to Senator Pell, the plight of the Kurds has the attention of the world. They must never be forgotten.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Kentucky asserted, section 3001 of the pending bill is unacceptable to the House. And unless that section is dropped, it will surely lead to another Federal shutdown. Simply put, section 3001 is another enormous additional gift of the American taxpayers' dollars to various pro-abortion organizations, and the House will never agree to it. Because of this issue, the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations bill bounced back and forth between the House and Senate for several months until a compromise was worked out on the previous continuing resolution. And unless section 3001 is changed, Congress will be in precisely the same predicament as before; section 3001, as currently drawn, will grind the Federal Government to a halt, and the blame will perch squarely on the shoulders of section 3001's supporters in the Senate. Mr. President, I am bewildered at suggestions that section 3001 of the pending bill is somehow pro-life. The author of section 3001, Chairman Hatfield, stated on the Senate floor this past month, and repeated in Saturday's Washington Post that ``For those of us who take a pro-life position, this is the most effective way to reiterate our profound opposition to the practice of abortion.'' Mr. President, I have constantly sought to protect the lives of unborn children throughout my 24 years in the Senate. I respectfully disagree with my good friend, Senator Hatfield's statement--I find it difficult to understand his conclusion that section 3001 is even remotely a pro-life position. After all, the loudest proponents of Senator Hatfield's so-called pro-life language are the leaders of the abortion industry and their lobby. Any statistics purporting to claim that the compromise worked out in the previous continuing resolution would cause more abortions and more unintended pregnancies are bound to be contrived, and are based on studies produced by recipients of international population control funding--which was reduced substantially in the previous CR. In fact, it occurs to me that the numbers were cooked up to ensure that these groups can receive even more of the American taxpayers' money. The best that can be said of them is that they are purely hypothetical estimates based on guesses. Mr. President, I wonder about the groups coming up with these statistics, who are they and how did they obtain such doubtful statistics? Among the groups cited in Saturday's Washington Post was the Futures Group which just happens to be the recipient of substantial funding from the Agency for International Development's population control program. Another group cited by the Washington Post was the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America--an active promoter of abortion. Then, of course, there is the International Planned Parenthood Federation whose role in this massive lobbying campaign is perhaps the most transparent because as currently drawn, section 3001 will guarantee that the International Planned Parenthood Federation will receive 100 percent of its U.S. taxpayer funding--with no strings attached. The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a major force behind efforts to overturn the compromise worked out in the previous CR, which was agreed to by the House and the Senate and by President Clinton. This is because the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and many of its affiliates, are in the business of promoting and performing abortions. They make no bones about it. Consider, if you will, excerpts from the Federation's own 1994-95 annual report supplement: Where it was suspected that abortion was likely to be made illegal/or delegalized in a country, FPAs [family planning affiliates] should act immediately to raise awareness and, with IPPF's [International Planned Parenthood Federation's] regional and international support, lobby where possible to prevent this from occurring. * * * * * The FPA [family planning affiliate] of Nepal has initiated efforts aimed at liberalizing abortion law. * * * * * The FPA [family planning affiliate] of Sri Lanka's recent research into attitudes toward abortion was a major factor in the successful lobby of the Government to change the law to permit abortion for victims of rape and incest in 1994, a major step forward for the Region. The FPA is continuing to push for further liberalization. * * * * * Under the project ``Motivation of Leadership,'' AUPF [IPPF's affiliate in Uruguay] held several meetings with parliamentarians from different political parties interested in promoting a law to legalize abortion. It is likely that a new attempt to liberalize the abortion law may succeed before the end of 1995. * * * * * The FPAs [family planning affiliates] of Swaziland, Burkina Faso, Zambia and Senegal have conducted research to identify existing laws on abortion. The research findings are expected to be used for advocacy for legal and policy reform [that is, to liberalize abortion laws]. Finally, Mr. President, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America boasted in its 1994-95 annual report about having performed 133,289 abortions in the United States. There is no telling how many abortions International Planned Parenthood affiliates are responsible for worldwide. How could anybody be duped into believing that the International Planned Parenthood Federation seeks to protect the lives of unborn children? Of course, it does not. The Federation is in the business of destroying the lives of helpless, innocent unborn children. It is, in fact, the world's leader in promoting abortions, and that crowd is thrilled by Senator Hatfield's proposed language in this bill. Clearly, the primary supporters of this provision are pro-abortion. Having read Senator Hatfield's characterization of section 3001 as pro- life, one is obliged to wonder what the pro-life groups have to say? They strongly oppose the current language in section 3001. In the same Washington Post article, the Christian Coalition asserted that ``We consider Senator Hatfield's argument preposterous, that somehow, giving money to International Planned Parenthood organizations is going to reduce abortions. That is absurd.'' National Right to Life has informed me that they are appalled at section 3001 and the claims that is somehow represents the pro-life view. Mr. President, I must say to those who may be inclined to support section 3001, that if they genuinely want to ``reiterate [their] profound opposition to the practice of abortion,'' they should vote for the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. This entire effort is orchestrated by a handful of powerful organizations in the abortion business and their well-heeled lobbyists--including the Agency for International Development. The Senate should stand up to these groups and reject their tactics by supporting the pending amendment. Mr. President, a vote for the pending amendment--not section 3001 of the continuing resolution--will protect the lives of unborn children. A vote against the amendment is a boon for the abortion industry and its lobby, and will very likely result in another Government shutdown. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles be printed in the Record. The first is the March 9, Washington Post article and the second is an article by Nicholas Eberstadt that appeared in the March 11, Washington Times. Mr. Eberstadt's analysis refutes the statistics used to support the language in the bill, and should be required reading.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 7 minutes while we formally welcome the distinguished Prime Minister of Ireland, John Bruton. [Applause.] Recess

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that, for the week ending March 8, the United States imported 7,315,000 barrels of oil daily, 506,000 barrels less than the 7,821,000 barrels imported during the same period 1 year ago, but 986,000 barrels more than the 6,329,000 barrels imported the previous week, March 1, 1996. Americans now rely on foreign oil for more than 50 percent of their needs, and there are no signs that this upward trend will abate. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? Politicians better ponder the economic calamity that will 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 7,315,000 barrels a day.

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 that first report (February 27, 1992) the Federal debt the previous day stood at $3,825,891,293,066.80, as of close of business. The point is, the Federal debt has since shot further into the stratosphere. As of yesterday at the close of business, a total of $1,191,392,298,843.23 has been added to the Federal debt since February 26, 1992. This means that as of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, March 12, 1996, the Federal debt total was exactly $5,017,283,591,910.03. (On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,044.03 as his or her share of the Federal debt.)

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a drug trafficker who in 1992 was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina was released from prison 2 days ago, Monday, March 11, as the tragic result of an unfortunate and unwise Supreme Court decision. Although the drug trafficker had 5 more years to serve, the U.S. Supreme Court, using the flimsiest of reasoning, set this convicted drug trafficker free. So, Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today will prevent future criminals from being set free. I am advised that my bill is being numbered S. 1612. Mr. President, S. 1612 provides that a 10-year minimum mandatory sentence shall be imposed upon any criminal possessing a gun during and in relation to the commission of a violent or drug trafficking crime. This, of course, does not apply to lawful possession of a gun. This bill will obviously crack down on gun-toting thugs who commit violent felonies and drug trafficking offenses and other felonies. Moreover, it will ensure that criminals possessing a firearm while committing a violent or drug trafficking felony shall receive a stiff punishment. This is just common sense, Mr. President; violent felons who possess firearms are more dangerous than those who do not. Current Federal law provides that a person who, during a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, uses or carries a firearm shall be sentenced to 5 years in prison. That law has been used effectively by Federal prosecutors across the country to add 5 additional years to the prison sentences of criminals who use or carry firearms. However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision threatens to undermine the efforts of prosecutors to use this statute effectively. The Supreme Court's decision, Bailey versus United States, interpreted the law to require that a violent felon actively employ a firearm as a precondition of receiving an additional 5 year sentence. The Court in Bailey held that the firearm must be brandished, fired or otherwise actively used before the additional 5 year sentence may be imposed. So if a criminal merely possesses a firearm, but does not fire or otherwise use it, he gets off without the additional 5 year penalty. Mr. President, this Supreme Court decision poses serious problems for law enforcement. It weakens the Federal criminal law; it is leading to the early release of hundreds of violent criminals. Before this Supreme Court's error of judgment, in the Bailey versus U.S. decision, armed criminals committing violent or drug trafficking felonies were jailed for an additional 5 years, regardless of whether they actively employed their weapons. Now, as a result of the Court's decision, the prison revolving door is in full swing. Yet another roadblock has been erected between a savage criminal act and swift, certain punishment. Mr. President, now that the word is out, prisoners already are preparing and filing motions to get out of jail as fast as they can write. U.S. attorneys are receiving petitions from criminals every day--for example consider the case of Lancelot Martin, who ran a drug trafficking operation out of Raleigh, NC: In 1992, Martin had attempted to use the U.S. Postal Service to receive and sell drugs. Martin was arrested by a Raleigh crime task force. The authorities obtained a warrant, searched his apartment, seized his drugs and recovered a 9 mm. semi-automatic pistol that Martin used to protect his drug business. Martin was convicted of drug trafficking charges and received a 5 year sentence for using the gun. But Monday, well before his sentence expired, Martin walked free, simply because his gun and a hefty supply of drugs were found--but the Court somehow held that the gun was not actively employed during his drug trafficking crime. So, Mr. President, my bill will ensure that future criminals possessing guns, like Lancelot Martin, serve real time when they use a gun in furtherance of a violent or drug trafficking crime. There are many other examples similar to the episode involving Lancelot Martin. As a result of the Court's decision, any thug who hides a gun under the back seat of his car, or who stashes a gun with his drugs, may now get off with a slap on the wrist. Or if a criminal stores a sub- machinegun in a crack-house where he runs a drug trafficking operation, he can now avoid the additional penalty. The fact is, Mr. President, that firearms are the tools of the trade of most drug traffickers. Weapons clearly facilitate the criminal transactions and embolden violent thugs to commit their crimes. I believe that mere possession of a firearm, during the commission of a violent felony--even if the weapon is not actively used--should nonetheless be punished--because of the heightened risk of violence when firearms are present. In its opinion, the Supreme Court observed, ``Had Congress intended possession alone to trigger liability . . . it easily could have so provided.'' That, Mr. President, is precisely the intent of this legislation--to make clear that ``possession alone'' does indeed ``trigger liability.'' This legislation will increase the mandatory--repeat, mandatory-- sentences for violent armed felons from 5 to 10 years--and if the firearm is discharged, the term of imprisonment is 20 years. This legislation also increases to 25 years the mandatory sentences for second and subsequent offenses. Mr. President, this bill is a necessary and appropriate response to the Supreme Court's judicial limitation of the mandatory penalty for gun-toting criminals. According to Sentencing Commission statistics, more than 9,000 armed violent felons were convicted from April, 1991, through October, 1995. In North Carolina alone, this statute was used to help imprison over 800 violent criminals. We must strengthen law enforcement's ability to use this strong anticrime provision. Fighting crime is, and should be, a top concern in America. It has been estimated that in the United States one violent crime is committed every 16 seconds. And with youth-related violent crime at an all-time high, we must fight back with the most severe punishment possible for those who terrorize law-abiding citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a drug trafficker who in 1992 was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina was released from prison 2 days ago, Monday, March 11, as the tragic result of an unfortunate and unwise Supreme Court decision. Although the drug trafficker had 5 more years to serve, the U.S. Supreme Court, using the flimsiest of reasoning, set this convicted drug trafficker free. So, Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today will prevent future criminals from being set free. I am advised that my bill is being numbered S. 1612. Mr. President, S. 1612 provides that a 10-year minimum mandatory sentence shall be imposed upon any criminal possessing a gun during and in relation to the commission of a violent or drug trafficking crime. This, of course, does not apply to lawful possession of a gun. This bill will obviously crack down on gun-toting thugs who commit violent felonies and drug trafficking offenses and other felonies. Moreover, it will ensure that criminals possessing a firearm while committing a violent or drug trafficking felony shall receive a stiff punishment. This is just common sense, Mr. President; violent felons who possess firearms are more dangerous than those who do not. Current Federal law provides that a person who, during a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, uses or carries a firearm shall be sentenced to 5 years in prison. That law has been used effectively by Federal prosecutors across the country to add 5 additional years to the prison sentences of criminals who use or carry firearms. However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision threatens to undermine the efforts of prosecutors to use this statute effectively. The Supreme Court's decision, Bailey versus United States, interpreted the law to require that a violent felon actively employ a firearm as a precondition of receiving an additional 5 year sentence. The Court in Bailey held that the firearm must be brandished, fired or otherwise actively used before the additional 5 year sentence may be imposed. So if a criminal merely possesses a firearm, but does not fire or otherwise use it, he gets off without the additional 5 year penalty. Mr. President, this Supreme Court decision poses serious problems for law enforcement. It weakens the Federal criminal law; it is leading to the early release of hundreds of violent criminals. Before this Supreme Court's error of judgment, in the Bailey versus U.S. decision, armed criminals committing violent or drug trafficking felonies were jailed for an additional 5 years, regardless of whether they actively employed their weapons. Now, as a result of the Court's decision, the prison revolving door is in full swing. Yet another roadblock has been erected between a savage criminal act and swift, certain punishment. Mr. President, now that the word is out, prisoners already are preparing and filing motions to get out of jail as fast as they can write. U.S. attorneys are receiving petitions from criminals every day--for example consider the case of Lancelot Martin, who ran a drug trafficking operation out of Raleigh, NC: In 1992, Martin had attempted to use the U.S. Postal Service to receive and sell drugs. Martin was arrested by a Raleigh crime task force. The authorities obtained a warrant, searched his apartment, seized his drugs and recovered a 9 mm. semi-automatic pistol that Martin used to protect his drug business. Martin was convicted of drug trafficking charges and received a 5 year sentence for using the gun. But Monday, well before his sentence expired, Martin walked free, simply because his gun and a hefty supply of drugs were found--but the Court somehow held that the gun was not actively employed during his drug trafficking crime. So, Mr. President, my bill will ensure that future criminals possessing guns, like Lancelot Martin, serve real time when they use a gun in furtherance of a violent or drug trafficking crime. There are many other examples similar to the episode involving Lancelot Martin. As a result of the Court's decision, any thug who hides a gun under the back seat of his car, or who stashes a gun with his drugs, may now get off with a slap on the wrist. Or if a criminal stores a sub- machinegun in a crack-house where he runs a drug trafficking operation, he can now avoid the additional penalty. The fact is, Mr. President, that firearms are the tools of the trade of most drug traffickers. Weapons clearly facilitate the criminal transactions and embolden violent thugs to commit their crimes. I believe that mere possession of a firearm, during the commission of a violent felony--even if the weapon is not actively used--should nonetheless be punished--because of the heightened risk of violence when firearms are present. In its opinion, the Supreme Court observed, ``Had Congress intended possession alone to trigger liability . . . it easily could have so provided.'' That, Mr. President, is precisely the intent of this legislation--to make clear that ``possession alone'' does indeed ``trigger liability.'' This legislation will increase the mandatory--repeat, mandatory-- sentences for violent armed felons from 5 to 10 years--and if the firearm is discharged, the term of imprisonment is 20 years. This legislation also increases to 25 years the mandatory sentences for second and subsequent offenses. Mr. President, this bill is a necessary and appropriate response to the Supreme Court's judicial limitation of the mandatory penalty for gun-toting criminals. According to Sentencing Commission statistics, more than 9,000 armed violent felons were convicted from April, 1991, through October, 1995. In North Carolina alone, this statute was used to help imprison over 800 violent criminals. We must strengthen law enforcement's ability to use this strong anticrime provision. Fighting crime is, and should be, a top concern in America. It has been estimated that in the United States one violent crime is committed every 16 seconds. And with youth-related violent crime at an all-time high, we must fight back with the most severe punishment possible for those who terrorize law-abiding citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, March 11, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,017,403,575,141.97. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,044.49 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a vast percentage of Americans don't have the slightest idea about the enormity of the Federal debt. Ever so often, I ask groups of friends: How many millions of dollars are there in a trillion? They think about it, voice some estimates, most of them wrong. One thing that they do know is that it is the U.S. Congress that ran up the enormous Federal debt that now exceeds $5 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Friday, March 8, the total Federal debt stood at $5,017,686,664,137.86. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,045.56 of this 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 energizer bunny that keeps moving and moving and moving on television--precisely in the same manner and to the same extent that the President is allowing the Federal debt to keep going up and up and up into the stratosphere. A lot of politicians like to talk a good game--and talk is the operative word--about cutting Federal spending and thereby bringing the Federal debt under control. But watch how they vote on spending bills. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, March 6, the exact Federal debt stood at $5,016,347,467,901.57 or $19,040.48 per every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Federal debt now exceeds $5 trillion. Twenty years ago, in 1976, the Federal debt stood at $629 billion, after 200 years of America's existence, including two world wars. After all of that, the total Federal debt, I repeat, was $629 billion. Then the big spenders really went to work and the interest on the debt really began to take off--and, presto, during the past 20 years the Federal debt has soared into the stratosphere, increasing by more than $4 trillion in 2 decades--from 1976 to 1996. So, Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, March 5, 1996, the Federal debt stood--down-to-the-penny--at $5,016,462,295,493.85. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,040.91 as his or her share of that debt. This enormous debt is a festering, escalating burden on all citizens and especially it is jeopardizing the liberty of our children and grandchildren. As Jefferson once warned, ``to preserve [our] independence, we must not let our leaders load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.'' Isn't it about time that Congress heeded the wise words of the author of the Declaration of Independence?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that, for the week ending March 1, the United States imported 6,329,000 barrels of oil each day, 3 percent more--169,000 barrels more--than the 6,160,000 barrels imported during the same period 1 year ago. Americans now rely on foreign oil for more than 50 percent of their needs. There is no sign that this upward trend will abate. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? The political primary season has forced the political and media establishment to take seriously American's deep-felt concern about economic insecurity and loss of jobs to foreign competition. It's about time they caught on. All it takes is a trip through North Carolina to see the scores of textile mills closed due to foreign competition to understand why Americans have a legitimate fear of losing their job or see their hard earned wages fall. Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity that will surely 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.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me first say with the friendliest of intent to our neighbors to the north, Canada, who have overspoken themselves in criticism of the United States--and particularly of this bill-- declaring that they think it is all right for them and others to continue to deal with Castro. Let me remind them that Castro has had a murderous regime from the very beginning. More Cuban citizens have been killed, murdered, locked up, imprisoned, robbed--you name it--than anybody can imagine. They advocate making a deal with Castro. That is precisely what Neville Chamberlain advocated about dealing with Hitler. Mr. Chamberlain went to Munich, was wined and dined by Hitler. When he came back, he declared, ``We can do business with Hitler. We can make a deal. We can have peace in our time.'' Well, Neville Chamberlain was wrong; one man, Winston Churchill, rebuked Chamberlain and declared that he was wrong. Winston Churchill was right. Furthermore, I will say to our critical friends in Canada that some of us in the United States are a bit weary about Canada's flagrant transshipment of Cuban sugar and other things which are brought into Canada and then unlawfully shipped into the United States. So, if the Canadians want to discuss what's right, what's moral, they should bear in mind that all of us become a part of what we condone. And by their advocacy in this matter, by their opposition to this bill, the Canadians are condoning Fidel Castro. Shame on them. Mr. President, about a year ago, on February 9, 1995, I introduced legislation to hasten the day when Fidel Castro no longer can inflict terror and hardship upon the people of Cuba. Today, the Cuban people have reason to hope that Castro's days are indeed numbered: The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act is on its way to the White House for the President's promised signature. So, we are today one step away from seeing the long-awaited legislation signed into law. This conference report has broad bipartisan support, and the President has endorsed the bill and is urging all Members of Congress to support it. The Libertad Act may very well persuade Fidel Castro to withdraw his stranglehold on the Cuban people. It is difficult to see how Castro can sensibly continue to hope that his dictatorship can survive the tough provisions of this legislation, for example, the strengthening of all international sanctions by putting into law all the scores of Cuban embargo Executive orders and regulations enacted and imposed since President Kennedy. Simply stated, the embargo cannot and will not be lifted until Castro has departed and a democratic transition is underway in Cuba. In short, it is time for Mr. Castro to wake up and smell the coffee. Most importantly, the Libertad Act forces foreign investors to make a decision, a choice: They can trade with the United States or they can trade with Cuba, but not with both without paying a serious price. This legislation specifically creates a right of action for American citizens to sue those who traffic in property stolen from them by the Castro regime. The bill also makes it mandatory that the Secretary of State deny entry into the United States to individuals who are enriching themselves with confiscated American properties. Mr. President, it may be hard to believe but there are still a few voices calling for the United States to lift the embargo. In the past 2 weeks, those arguments have been completely, totally, and utterly discredited. For during these past 2 weeks, the Castro regime deliberately, intentionally, and in violation of international law, blew two unarmed civilian planes out of the sky. Castro has launched the most brutal crackdown on dissidents in more than a decade. There have been wholesale arrests in the middle of the night, followed by show trials; there have been illegal searches that have shown what Fidel Castro is--a brutal dictator. These atrocities have not surprised the Cuban people who, for three decades now, have witnessed brutal atrocities every day of their lives under Castro's tyrannical regime. Fidel Castro has also launched a crackdown on members of the independent news media in Cuba. Since early 1995, Castro and his agents have arrested and jailed journalists who made the mistake of trying to make objective reports regarding Cuban Government activities. They arrested Olance Nogueras Roce for trying to protect the health and well-being of his fellow Cubans by detailing the perilous violations of safety regulations and the faulty construction of the Cuban nuclear powerplant. Perhaps the most despicable attacks made by Castro, Mr. President, were against Cuba's blossoming religious community. After years of persecution and open hostility by the Castro regime, the Cuban people, especially the young people, are flocking to the church in record numbers. But, fearful that the church will tell the truth about Fidel Castro, his security agents have closed churches, arrested clergy, and harassed church-goers. Freedom to worship is nonexistent in Castro's dictatorship. So, Mr. President, this conference report recommending that the Libertad Act become law is more desperately needed by the people of Cuba than ever before. The enactment of the Libertad Act will give these beleaguered Cuban people hope. This is the light at the end of the tunnel for which the Cuban people have prayed--those poor souls locked in Castro's gulags, those desperate people who attempt to cross the dangerous straits to Florida, the journalists and clergy who have sought the freedom to shed light on Castro's lies, and the average Cuban citizen struggling to survive under Castro's tyranny. Now that they are about to have this new law on their side, surely it will be only a matter of time before the Cuban people enjoy the freedoms that too many Americans take for granted. Mr. President, earlier I mentioned that President Clinton supports the Libertad Act. I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter to the distinguished majority leader be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from Georgia. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. Coverdell, of Georgia. I yield the floor. I yield such time as I may have.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 4 years ago I commenced these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of the close of business the previous day. In that report of February 27, 1992, the Federal debt stood at $3,825,891,293,066.80, as of close of business the previous day. The point is, the Federal debt has escalated by $1,190,704,977,476.86 since February 26, 1992. As of the close of business yesterday, Monday, March 4, 1996, the Federal debt stood at exactly $5,016,596,270,543.66. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,041.42 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending February 23, the United States imported 6,094,000 barrels of oil each day, a 6.5-percent increase over the 5,698,000 barrels imported during the same period 1 year ago. Americans continue to rely on foreign oil for more than 50 percent of their needs, and there are no signs that this upward trend will abate. According to the January 30, New York Times article ``Odds of Another Oil Crisis: Saudi Stability Plays a Large Role,'' Saudi Arabia, which sits on 25 percent of the world's proven oil reserves--that's approximately 260 billion barrels--is politically vulnerable. There is increasing tension between the Sunni majority and the Shiite minority; tensions within the royal family have been widely reported. Mr. President, a power struggle could easily lead to violence with a disastrous effect on the price of oil. Of course, we all pray that Saudi Arabia remains stable, politically, economically, and otherwise. This is a concern that has bothered me for years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks and, needless to say, I hope Senators and their staffs will heed the very explicit warning in it.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it is with profound regret that I feel obliged to offer another resolution condemning an act of terrorism in Israel. Early this past Sunday, suicide bombers from the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas slaughtered 25 innocent human beings in two separate terrorist attacks. In Jerusalem, two young Americans, a young man and his financee, were among those who died. Shock waves from the bomb blast reverberated around Jerusalem. I am confident that decent people the world over were dismayed. Mr. President, we hear much oratory about the sacrifices that must be made for peace, but surely, however, there are mothers, fathers, and brothers and sisters throughout both Israel and America who are asking themselves how much more they must sacrifice; indeed when will they know peace? When Yasser Arafat tours his new domain, when he pays condolence calls on the families of suicide bombers, does he ask himself what kind of man boards a crowded bus with pounds of explosive, specially packed with shards of metal to cause the maximum carnage? Is Arafat willing himself to continue to be identified as the leader of such brutal men? If not, he must do more. Hamas and other such groups must be outlawed, and their members prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For peace hangs in the balance. If Yasser Arafat expects Gaza and other areas under his control to be known as anything more than a breeding ground for terrorists, he must move swiftly, and decisively against the terrorists in his midst. Only then can mourning Americans and Israelis believe that peace has real meaning.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 4 years ago I commenced these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of the close of business the previous day. In that report (February 27, 1992) the Federal debt stood at $3,825,891,293,066.80, as of the close of business the previous day. The point is, the federal debt has escalated by $1,190,735,080,843.14 since February 26, 1992. As of the close of business yesterday, February 28, 1996, the Federal debt stood at exactly $5,016,626,373,909.94. On a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $19,041.54 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a lot of folks don't have the slightest idea about the enormity of the Federal debt. Ever so often, I ask groups of friends, how many millions of dollars are there in a trillion? They think about it, voice some estimates, most of them wrong. One thing they do know is that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the enormous Federal debt that is now over $5 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Tuesday, February 27, the total Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at $5,016,697,045,327.39. Another sad statistic is that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America now owes $19,041.81.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on January 8, 1835, in the 58th year of our Republic, a distinguished native of North Carolina, Andrew Jackson, hosted a banquet to celebrate the Nation's deliverance from economic bondage. The national debt had been paid. There was cause for great celebration, because the payment of the national debt was considered to be a triumph of republican government. President Jackson delivered the following toast: ``The Payment of the Public Debt--Let us commemorate it as an event which gives us increased power as a nation, and reflects luster on our Federal Union, of whose justice, fidelity and wisdom it is a glorious illustration.'' Fast-forward 161 years, Mr. President: Today it is my sad duty to report that on this past Friday, February 23, 1996, the Federal debt passed the $5 trillion mark--a new world record. Never before in history had a nation encumbered itself with a debt so enormous. The sheer arithmetic of the Federal debt is so immense that it boggles the mind. Consider these figures: As of the close of business this past Friday, February 23, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,017,056,630,040.53. Let me run that by once more a bit more slowly--5 trillion, 17 billion, 56 million, 630 thousand, 40 dollars and 53 cents. The enormity becomes more clearly in focus when one bears in mind that there are a million million dollars in a trillion--so the Federal debt of the United States has now passed five million million dollars. Let's look back 23 years. The day I was first sworn in as a U.S. Senator, on January 3, 1973, the Federal debt stood at less than one- tenth of today's total Federal debt. On April 18, 1973, for example, the April 15 tax deadline had just passed; the taxpayers' money was flowing into the Internal Revenue Service; and the Federal debt stood at 455 billion, 570 million, 163 thousand, 323 dollars and 85 cents. I should add that the Federal budget deficit that year was about $15 billion--one-tenth of the present Federal deficit. Mr. President, one of the first pieces of legislation I offered in early 1973 was a resolution to require the Senate to balance the Federal budget. I did that several times in the weeks and months to follow. I lost every time. Then I offered a resolution stipulating that the salaries of Senators and Congressmen be reduced by the same percentage that Congress failed to balance the budget. As I recall, I got seven votes for that proposition and a lot of angry expressions. Since then, the Federal debt has exploded tenfold. I recently reviewed a publication entitled ``Historical Tables of the Fiscal Year l995 Budget.'' Guess what this document revealed about one significant aspect of the Federal debt. It showed that the interest on the money borrowed and spent by the Congress of the United States, over and above income, during the fiscal years l973 through l993, cost the American taxpayers $3,006,417,000,000.00. Three trillion dollars just to pay the interest on excessive spending authorized and appropriated by the Congress of the United States over a period of a couple of decades. Just suppose Congress had agreed back in 1973 to discipline itself and hold fast to a balanced Federal budget. We would be on Easy Street today. But, Mr. President, it is so easy to spend somebody else's money. As a result of all this Federal deficit spending, the share of every man, woman and child in America averages out to be roughly $19,043. Every child born today will be taxed $187,000 during his or her lifetime to pay just the interest on the Federal debt. Think of what has been done to our children and grandchildren. The burden of a $5 trillion debt is a weight on the shoulders of future generations, as well as on our economy today. The Federal Government annually spends approximately 15 percent of its budget paying the interest on the Federal Government's debt. Last year the Federal Government spent approximately $1.5 trillion, much of it entirely unnecessary, duplicative, or just plain wasteful. We must return fiscal sanity to the Federal Government and discard the foolish notion that all problems can be solved by more intrusive Government programs and yet more spending. It's time, Mr. President, to make some hard choices. We can make the tough decisions now, or leave them for someone else to make later, when they'll be even tougher. The honorable, sensible policy is to cut spending and cut it now. Only when we reign in the out-of-control spending of the taxpayers' money can we, like President Andrew Jackson, who was born in Union County, NC, get about the business of returning the luster to our Federal Union which has become so dim.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Thursday, February 22, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,959,914,205.44, about $13 billion shy of the $5 trillion mark, which the Federal debt will exceed in a few months. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,932.73 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, February 8, the Federal debt stood at $4,988,549,905,457.27, about $12 billion shy of the $5 trillion mark, which the Federal debt will exceed in a few months. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,934.97 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business Tuesday, February 6, the Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,987,288,825,759.77 or $18,930.18 on a per capita basis for every man, woman, and child in America.