Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. This may be the best speech I ever made, Mr. President. I want to compliment the distinguished Senator from Alabama for the lucid presentation he has made. I want to say to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, he is one of my favorites. I am glad he is in the Senate. I know he is sincere. But, on this matter, he is sincerely wrong. Mr. President, I must oppose the Santorum amendment because it will do grave harm to thousands of small farmers in North Carolina and other peanut-producing States. The issue here is the future of the peanut program--and thousands of jobs. The importance of this modest program can be measured statistically by emphasizing that it provides $1.2 billion in farm revenue, 150,000 jobs, while generating $200 million in exports. Peanut farmers also provide America with a safe and abundant supply of peanuts. Mr. President, in North Carolina, peanuts are a major commodity that produces more than $100 million in revenue, while directly and indirectly employing more than 200,000 people in the various aspects of the industry. Moreover, the subject of reforming the peanut program was considered and debated in the Senate Agriculture Committee. Interestingly enough, peanut farmers have already voluntarily reformed the program. They have cut their budgets, agreeing to a 10- percent cut in their pockets, and going to a no-net-cost program to eliminate any cost of the program to the taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates these reforms will save taxpayers over $400 million during the next 7 years. So, Mr. President, I must oppose the Santorum amendment, and urge other Senators to do likewise and support the distinguished majority leader in his motion to table this amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest all Senators will be greatly interested in an article by Robert H. Pines, ``Smile when you compare our countries,'' which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail several weeks ago. While the United States and Canada share many common interests, including the longest undefended border in the world, they also differ in many ways. Bob Pines, who served with distinction as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Canadian Affairs in the Bush administration, eloquently identifies some of the differences between the United States and our neighbor to the North. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this article be printed in the Record. [From the Toronto Globe and Mail, Nov. 30, 1995] Smile When You Compare Our Countries (By Robert H. Pines) Perhaps the holiday season is a good time to dissect a cliche. Earlier this month I attended my fourth biennial conference of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS). About 40 percent of those in attendance were Canadians. Almost all the rest were Americans who make their living teaching about Canada. There were a few others like myself who have had a long love affair with your country in non-academic pursuits. The Canadian contingent frequently launched into the familiar self-congratulatory litany of differences between the two countries. Heads wagged in reflexive agreement at mention of superior Canadian civility (undoubtedly true), the famed United Nations report about Canada being the world's best place to live (conceivably true if real meaning can be assigned to sociological statistics), and on and on through invidious comparisons of descending degrees of validity. Raymond Chretien, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., orated that ``we have a low crime rate and you have a high crime rate.'' As noted, the American contingent numbered few of the Pat Buchanan stripe. One intrepid soul at a symposium was rewarded with icy stares when he diffidently mumbled something about southward emigration dwarfing that from the U.S. to Canada. Another politically incorrect type daringly asked a question approximately along these lines: If your country is so great and ours so awful, how come you are on the verge of breaking up and we are not? (Actually, being an academic, he put it more politely.) Therein lies the point of this essay. I submit to Canadian readers that the American political system (not necessarily American people or American society) holds one enormous advantage over that of Canada; that of decisiveness. There is no ``notwithstanding clause'' in the U.S. Constitution. When the U.S. Supreme Court renders one of its frequent 5-4 decisions, the minority has been known to grumble; however, stare decisis, the decision stands, and by and large the country just goes on to the next problem. Several Canadian speakers patted themselves on the back in reference to the sanguinary American Civil War. To be sure, more than 400,000 people died before their time, and the result nowhere nearly approximated the end of history. However the Civil War was as decisive as history gets: The abomination of human slavery ended. When I visit my grandchildren in Florida I do not go to a foreign country. Well-intentioned monstrosities such as the Charlottetown accord are virtually unknown south of the border. One of my Manitoba political friends characterized it as ``everybody shouting `gimmie gimmie' '' until nothing was left for the country. The ability to respond to special-interest groups with a brusque no is not in the long run destructive of a country's civility and livability. When grievances are genuine, experience shows that the best compromise derives not from liberal guilt but from self-respect, with a fair offer of ``thus far and no further.'' A 19th-century American humorist told the story of the fellow who was so kind he amputated his dog's tail by inches. A cruel inability to solve problems is the obverse of mindless kind intent. The usual disclaimer: This somewhat harsh analysis does not presume to offer advice to sovereign Canadians. The only point is that perhaps there is something to be said for the United States.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a lot of folks do not have the slightest idea about the enormity of the Federal debt. Every 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 about $13 billion shy of $5 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business yesterday, February 5, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,987,400,986,833.50. Another sad statistic is that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,930.61. So, Mr. President, how many million are there in a trillion? There are a million million in a trillion, which means that the Federal Government will shortly owe 5 million million dollars. Sort of boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there has never been a greater champion of ballistic missile defense than that great American, Ronald Wilson Reagan, and today happens to be President Reagan's 85th birthday. I decided this morning to introduce the Strategic Anti-missile Revitalization and Security Act of 1996--for short we call it the ``STARS Act''--legislation proposing to begin the timely and complete withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and to clear the way for implementing President Reagan's vision of a national strategic missile defense system to protect the American people from ballistic missile attack. Today's greatest emerging threat to America's national security lies in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We all know that. According to the CIA, at this moment more than 30 countries possess ballistic missiles, and more than 25 others either have, or are in the process of acquiring, nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Many of these nations--for example, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea--are clearly hostile to the United States. It is indeed probable that in the not-too-distant future a hostile tyrant will possess ballistic missiles capable of reaching major population centers in the United States. Obviously, Mr. President, with such an ominous threat emerging, one would assume that the United States would be actively developing defensive technology to protect the American people against this danger; and one would assume that the Clinton administration surely is working, in cooperation with a bipartisan majority in Congress, to make certain that the United States is never, never exposed to the danger of a hostile nuclear attack by a terrorist regime. Well, such assumptions are wrong. The Clinton administration in fact has aggressively blocked every effort by Congress to implement a national missile defense system to protect the American people from this very real threat. Why? Because, the administration argues weakly, developing such defenses would violate an antiquated arms control agreement--a relic of the cold war known as the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, the ABM Treaty is not only out-of-date and unnecessary--it has become a threat to America's national security. Like latter-day Luddites, the opponents of ballistic missile defense are now using the ABM Treaty as a tool to obstruct any and all progress toward the deployment of missile defense technology. During debate over the defense authorization bill, for example, the opponents of ballistic missile defense stood on the Senate floor and used the ABM Treaty in a last-ditch effort to prevent Congress from passing legislation to deploy a national system to protect U.S. citizens against weapons of mass destruction. When they lost, President Clinton then used the ABM Treaty as an excuse to veto the defense authorization bill, thus preventing approval of funding for national missile defense. Mr. President, this treaty has become nothing more than an excuse for inaction. But the time for excuses is over. The United States needs a national missile defense. And if the ABM Treaty is preventing us from building and deploying essential defenses to protect the American people from even the most limited ballistic missile attack, then the time has come for the United States to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, my legislation will do just that. The STARS Act does three things: First, it directs the President to notify Russia of United States intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty 1 month after enactment of the act, as legally permitted by the ABM Treaty. Second, it prohibits the use of Federal funds to enforce the ABM Treaty beginning 7 months after the bill's enactment. Finaly, it requires the President to certify to Congress that the United States has abrogated the ABM Treaty on the date of U.S. withdrawal. Mr. President, through its blind allegiance to this obsolete treaty, the Clinton administration appears to be ready to leave the American people strategically naked as hostile nations rush forward to their relentless pursuit of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Indeed, in their zeal to stop Congress from deploying national missile defenses, this administration seems willing to say or do anything to argue that the ballistic missile threat does not exist. I must say I was stunned when I noted the politicization of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] to support the administration's position in this regard. The 1996 National Intelligence Estimate declared that no country other than the ``declared nuclear powers'' would threaten the ``continental United States'' with a ballistic missile for 15 years. Note carefully that they said the ``continental United States''. First, this is simply not so. The 1995 estimate concluded, for example, that North Korea may be able to threaten the United States in 5 years because it is an indisputable fact that North Korea is developing a series of missiles with ranges in excess of 3000 kilometers. Second, I am astonished that this administration has somehow managed to write two of the 50 States of the Union completely out of the Union. I cannot understand why this administration draws a distinction in the 1996 NIE 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. Are these people less deserving of protection than people living in Arkansas, or Michigan for that matter? I think not. Third, it boggles the mind that this administration can make decisions about the ballistic missile threat to this country, while explicitly ignoring the arsenals of declared nuclear powers. Communist China not only fields two dozen submarine launched ballistic missiles, several hundred heavy bomber warheads, and roughly 24 long- and medium- range ballistic missiles, but has several modernization initiatives underway. China is developing for deployment by the end of the millennium four intermediate-range and long-range ballistic missile systems, and we have unambiguous evidence that China is pursuing MIRV- technology. Nor can we afford to dismiss Russia's massive nuclear capabilities. Russia still has 12,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, as it slips and slides back down the slippery-slope of political reform. When President Clinton declared in his State of the Union address that today, for the first time no Russian nuclear missiles are pointed at the United States, he just happened to omit the fact that it requires only about 8 minutes of reprogramming to turn those Russian missiles right back at us. We must not ignore in such cavalier fashion the trends to reinstate and restore communism in Russia. It is growing increasingly possible that Russia's massive nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of authoritarian leaders with uncertain intentions before the end of this century. We of course hope this will not happen, but we must prepare for the possibility. Even those who unwisely discount the possibility of direct conflict with potentially hostile regimes in Moscow and Beijing, must not discount the possibility of an accidental launch, nor the cooperation and collaboration between countries engaged in the development of ballistic missiles. We know, for example, that China has sold extensive missile technology to Iran, Syria, and North Korea; we know that Iran is working with North Korea and Syria on various missiles. We know that 14 countries around the globe have the capability to field some type of Soviet-made missile, and we know that Russia recently was detected shipping ballistic missile parts to Iraq. These are all real threats that the administration would ignore at the peril of the American people, because the fact is, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology is rampant, the threat of ballistic missile attack on the United States is a present and growing danger, and nothing is being done to protect the American people from it. The administration has an almost messianic devotion to the ABM Treaty which I find bizarre. There is, you see, far more concern about protecting a treaty not worth the paper it is written on, than with protecting American citizens against horrible nuclear attacks. So, Mr. President, the STARS Act, which I am introducing today, will remove the ABM Treaty as an obstacle, and instead pave the way for the deployment of defenses when necessary to protect American citizens against weapons of terror. And the sooner, the better. We cannot afford to wait until the administration wakes up and opens its eyes. By then, it may be too late. It takes years to move from the enactment of legislation in Congress to the deployment of a defensive system. If Congress passes legislation funding such a system this year, it may take as long as eight years before the system is operational. It may, in fact take longer. Think back. Did any Senator predict 8 years ago the advanced stages of North Korea's nuclear program? Did anyone here know, before the fact, how close Iraq was to obtaining a nuclear weapon just prior to the start of the Gulf War? Is any Senator prepared to stake the security of the American people on blind faith? Thee are questions that we must confront. I am not. We must begin consideration of the STARS Act. Removing the ABM Treaty is critical to any strategy for protecting U.S. citizens against chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles. In the coming months, I anticipate the introduction, under the auspices of the distinguished majority leader, of a comprehensive bill identifying the critical aspects of a ballistic missile defense. In support of this effort, and in connection with the STARS Act, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will of which I am chairman, will hold hearings as soon as practicable to undertake a comprehensive review of the ABM Treaty. Providing for the defense of America against these weapons must be among our highest priorities during this session of Congress. Mr. President, Ronald Reagan said it best back in 1993, in one of his last public speeches--he had learned of the Clinton administration's decision to gut the Strategic Defense Initiative: ``I may not be a Rhodes Scholar'' he told the graduating cadets at The Citadel, ``but I do know one thing: if we can protect America with a defensive shield from incoming missiles, we should by all means do so. . . . (And) if the new Administration thinks we are no longer at risk, they need to open their eyes and take a good hard look at the world.'' Amen, Mr. President, and, again to you, sir, out there in California, happy birthday. It was a joy to hear your voice today on the telephone. God bless you--and as you always used to say--God bless America. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there has never been a greater champion of ballistic missile defense than that great American, Ronald Wilson Reagan, and today happens to be President Reagan's 85th birthday. I decided this morning to introduce the Strategic Anti-missile Revitalization and Security Act of 1996--for short we call it the ``STARS Act''--legislation proposing to begin the timely and complete withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and to clear the way for implementing President Reagan's vision of a national strategic missile defense system to protect the American people from ballistic missile attack. Today's greatest emerging threat to America's national security lies in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We all know that. According to the CIA, at this moment more than 30 countries possess ballistic missiles, and more than 25 others either have, or are in the process of acquiring, nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Many of these nations--for example, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea--are clearly hostile to the United States. It is indeed probable that in the not-too-distant future a hostile tyrant will possess ballistic missiles capable of reaching major population centers in the United States. Obviously, Mr. President, with such an ominous threat emerging, one would assume that the United States would be actively developing defensive technology to protect the American people against this danger; and one would assume that the Clinton administration surely is working, in cooperation with a bipartisan majority in Congress, to make certain that the United States is never, never exposed to the danger of a hostile nuclear attack by a terrorist regime. Well, such assumptions are wrong. The Clinton administration in fact has aggressively blocked every effort by Congress to implement a national missile defense system to protect the American people from this very real threat. Why? Because, the administration argues weakly, developing such defenses would violate an antiquated arms control agreement--a relic of the cold war known as the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, the ABM Treaty is not only out-of-date and unnecessary--it has become a threat to America's national security. Like latter-day Luddites, the opponents of ballistic missile defense are now using the ABM Treaty as a tool to obstruct any and all progress toward the deployment of missile defense technology. During debate over the defense authorization bill, for example, the opponents of ballistic missile defense stood on the Senate floor and used the ABM Treaty in a last-ditch effort to prevent Congress from passing legislation to deploy a national system to protect U.S. citizens against weapons of mass destruction. When they lost, President Clinton then used the ABM Treaty as an excuse to veto the defense authorization bill, thus preventing approval of funding for national missile defense. Mr. President, this treaty has become nothing more than an excuse for inaction. But the time for excuses is over. The United States needs a national missile defense. And if the ABM Treaty is preventing us from building and deploying essential defenses to protect the American people from even the most limited ballistic missile attack, then the time has come for the United States to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, my legislation will do just that. The STARS Act does three things: First, it directs the President to notify Russia of United States intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty 1 month after enactment of the act, as legally permitted by the ABM Treaty. Second, it prohibits the use of Federal funds to enforce the ABM Treaty beginning 7 months after the bill's enactment. Finaly, it requires the President to certify to Congress that the United States has abrogated the ABM Treaty on the date of U.S. withdrawal. Mr. President, through its blind allegiance to this obsolete treaty, the Clinton administration appears to be ready to leave the American people strategically naked as hostile nations rush forward to their relentless pursuit of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Indeed, in their zeal to stop Congress from deploying national missile defenses, this administration seems willing to say or do anything to argue that the ballistic missile threat does not exist. I must say I was stunned when I noted the politicization of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] to support the administration's position in this regard. The 1996 National Intelligence Estimate declared that no country other than the ``declared nuclear powers'' would threaten the ``continental United States'' with a ballistic missile for 15 years. Note carefully that they said the ``continental United States''. First, this is simply not so. The 1995 estimate concluded, for example, that North Korea may be able to threaten the United States in 5 years because it is an indisputable fact that North Korea is developing a series of missiles with ranges in excess of 3000 kilometers. Second, I am astonished that this administration has somehow managed to write two of the 50 States of the Union completely out of the Union. I cannot understand why this administration draws a distinction in the 1996 NIE 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. Are these people less deserving of protection than people living in Arkansas, or Michigan for that matter? I think not. Third, it boggles the mind that this administration can make decisions about the ballistic missile threat to this country, while explicitly ignoring the arsenals of declared nuclear powers. Communist China not only fields two dozen submarine launched ballistic missiles, several hundred heavy bomber warheads, and roughly 24 long- and medium- range ballistic missiles, but has several modernization initiatives underway. China is developing for deployment by the end of the millennium four intermediate-range and long-range ballistic missile systems, and we have unambiguous evidence that China is pursuing MIRV- technology. Nor can we afford to dismiss Russia's massive nuclear capabilities. Russia still has 12,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, as it slips and slides back down the slippery-slope of political reform. When President Clinton declared in his State of the Union address that today, for the first time no Russian nuclear missiles are pointed at the United States, he just happened to omit the fact that it requires only about 8 minutes of reprogramming to turn those Russian missiles right back at us. We must not ignore in such cavalier fashion the trends to reinstate and restore communism in Russia. It is growing increasingly possible that Russia's massive nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of authoritarian leaders with uncertain intentions before the end of this century. We of course hope this will not happen, but we must prepare for the possibility. Even those who unwisely discount the possibility of direct conflict with potentially hostile regimes in Moscow and Beijing, must not discount the possibility of an accidental launch, nor the cooperation and collaboration between countries engaged in the development of ballistic missiles. We know, for example, that China has sold extensive missile technology to Iran, Syria, and North Korea; we know that Iran is working with North Korea and Syria on various missiles. We know that 14 countries around the globe have the capability to field some type of Soviet-made missile, and we know that Russia recently was detected shipping ballistic missile parts to Iraq. These are all real threats that the administration would ignore at the peril of the American people, because the fact is, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology is rampant, the threat of ballistic missile attack on the United States is a present and growing danger, and nothing is being done to protect the American people from it. The administration has an almost messianic devotion to the ABM Treaty which I find bizarre. There is, you see, far more concern about protecting a treaty not worth the paper it is written on, than with protecting American citizens against horrible nuclear attacks. So, Mr. President, the STARS Act, which I am introducing today, will remove the ABM Treaty as an obstacle, and instead pave the way for the deployment of defenses when necessary to protect American citizens against weapons of terror. And the sooner, the better. We cannot afford to wait until the administration wakes up and opens its eyes. By then, it may be too late. It takes years to move from the enactment of legislation in Congress to the deployment of a defensive system. If Congress passes legislation funding such a system this year, it may take as long as eight years before the system is operational. It may, in fact take longer. Think back. Did any Senator predict 8 years ago the advanced stages of North Korea's nuclear program? Did anyone here know, before the fact, how close Iraq was to obtaining a nuclear weapon just prior to the start of the Gulf War? Is any Senator prepared to stake the security of the American people on blind faith? Thee are questions that we must confront. I am not. We must begin consideration of the STARS Act. Removing the ABM Treaty is critical to any strategy for protecting U.S. citizens against chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles. In the coming months, I anticipate the introduction, under the auspices of the distinguished majority leader, of a comprehensive bill identifying the critical aspects of a ballistic missile defense. In support of this effort, and in connection with the STARS Act, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will of which I am chairman, will hold hearings as soon as practicable to undertake a comprehensive review of the ABM Treaty. Providing for the defense of America against these weapons must be among our highest priorities during this session of Congress. Mr. President, Ronald Reagan said it best back in 1993, in one of his last public speeches--he had learned of the Clinton administration's decision to gut the Strategic Defense Initiative: ``I may not be a Rhodes Scholar'' he told the graduating cadets at The Citadel, ``but I do know one thing: if we can protect America with a defensive shield from incoming missiles, we should by all means do so. . . . (And) if the new Administration thinks we are no longer at risk, they need to open their eyes and take a good hard look at the world.'' Amen, Mr. President, and, again to you, sir, out there in California, happy birthday. It was a joy to hear your voice today on the telephone. God bless you--and as you always used to say--God bless America. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, about 4 years ago I commenced these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of 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 close of business the previous day. The point is, the Federal debt has escalated by $1,161,545,065,098.40 since February 26, 1992. As of the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, January 31, 1996, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,987,436,358,165.20. On a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,930.74 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate finally is going to pass this important telecommunications bill (S. 652). There have been many attempts down through the years to reform the telecommunications law, and I am happy that the Republicans have been able to get the job done this year. This bill will remove barriers to competition and lead to lower prices for consumers. It can create as many as 100,000 jobs in North Carolina, help spur the economy, lead to innovative developments in technology, and provide children with greater access to educational opportunities. In addition, in the near future, millions of consumers will be able to shop and bank from their homes through the use of their computers or television sets. Mr. President, one study conducted by the WEFA group projected that open competition could very well lead to 3.4 million new jobs in 10 years. It further concluded that consumers could pay $550 billion less in communications rates. There have been many hard fought battles on this bill. But in the end this legislation is a very carefully crafted balance. For example, earlier versions of this bill would have allowed for an unhealthy concentration of media power. These proposals could have made local community broadcasting a thing of the past; but this concern has been resolved. Perhpas most importantly, this bill will help protect children from computer pornography, which today is readily accessible on the Internet and elsewhere. I have been notified of numerous instances in which unscrupulous, sleazy individuals have used the Internet as a tool to distribute pornography to minors. This legislation provides tough prison terms for any smut peddler who uses a computer to send or display child pornography. This bill upholds standards of morality and decency as well as protects children and families from the peddlers of sleaze. This is a victory for families and children. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 provides the American consumer with less expensive prices, more competitive opportunities, and better service. Chairman Larry Pressler and all of his colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee deserve the gratitude and respect of all Americans for a job well done.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that, for the week ending January 26, the U.S. imported 6,895,000 barrels of oil each day, 5 percent more than the 6,550,000 barrels imported during the same period 1 year ago. 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. Since a barrel of oil is 55 gallons, this means that the United States purchased 379,225,000 gallons of oil from foreign countries this past week. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil--by U.S. producers using American workers? If the American people don't become concerned perhaps they had 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 6,895,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before discussing today's bad news about the Federal debt, how about ``another go,'' as the British put it, with our pop quiz. Remember--one question, one answer. The question: How many millions of dollars in a trillion? While you are thinking about it, bear in mind that it was the U.S. Congress that ran up the enormous Federal debt that is now about $13 billion shy of $5 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Tuesday, January 30, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,987,589,544,052.52. Another depressing figure means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,931.32. Mr. President, back to our quiz (how many million in a trillion?): There are a million million in a trillion, which means that the Federal Government will shortly owe five million million dollars. Now who's not in favor of balancing the Federal budget?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business Monday, January 29, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,704,420,651.53, 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 $18,931.76 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled that the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 contains not a syllable of the decisive language regarding ballistic missile defense so prominent in the original bill. When he vetoed the original authorization, President Clinton gutted provisions designed to ensure the protection of American citizens against attack by ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads. So, Mr. President, America is being held hostage to an outdated concept of deterrence that is truly MAD. I have come to this floor to challenge the wisdom of the ABM Treaty innumerable times, and I feel obliged to do it again. The frenzied, fanatical defense of the ABM Treaty by some is rooted in the mentality of the cold war. The truth is, the threat to the United States has changed, and a lot of folks have missed the boat. The intent of the ABM Treaty, formulated in the midst of the cold war, was to circumvent the possibility of an expensive and potentially dangerous action-reaction spiral whereby the United States and the Soviet Union sought to overcompensate for one another's ballistic missile defenses by increasing their offensive arsenals. But, Mr. President, I find all of the evidence pointing to a contrary conclusion. The ABM Treaty did not stop the explosion in offensive arsenals between the two sides. The Soviets increased the number of deliverable nuclear warheads in their arsenal from 2,000 in 1972, to 12,000 today. Furthermore, it was robust missile defense programs that proved conducive to arms control--not arms control itself. Above all else, the Strategic Defense Initiative broke the logjam on offensive reductions. SDI forced the Soviets to the table on the Intermediate- range Nuclear Force Treaty, and contributed to START and the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe. But--and I say this emphatically--the administration has forgotten, or chosen to ignore, these facts. Today we are being asked to consent to ratification of the START II Treaty when this country has suffered a massive blow to its plans to defend its citizens against nuclear weapons. This is completely at odds with the intent of START II. I urge Senators to recall that the Joint Understanding of June 17, 1992--which created the framework for the START II Treaty--was concluded simultaneously with a Joint Statement on a Global Protection System against ballistic missiles signed on the same day. This fact is explicitly referenced in the Preamble to the START II. Yet United States-Russian discussions on cooperation on defenses against ballistic missiles have fallen by the wayside. And today, with both the Defense Authorization Act and START II before us, I see neither hide nor hair of any protection against these abhorrent weapons. At the heart of this matter is the perverse logic of the ABM Treaty, which argues that vulnerability to these weapons is essential to stability. There are a number of factors that bring into question the value of this line of reasoning in the post-cold-war world. Thanks in no small part to SDI, we have made major technological advances in the last quarter of a century which make ballistic missile defenses both feasible and affordable. Also, there has been a considerable improvement in relations between the two countries following the dissolution of the soviet Union. At its most basic level, the logic of the ABM Treaty assumes hostility between Russia and the United States. Clearly, while there are movements afoot in Russia that are exceedingly troublesome, we are no longer grappling in a cold war embrace. Most important, the mounting problem of WMD and ballistic missile proliferation, the uncertainties of the new security environment which complicate the role of deterrence, and continuing concerns over the potential for turbulence in the former Soviet Union all suggest that-- in a world of multiple potential nuclear threats--the most likely nuclear danger to the United States is not a massive, preemptive Russian strike, but the deliberate or accidental launch of a few warheads. Such a danger is unpredictable, undeterrable, and something to which the United States--currently without any national missile defense whatsoever--is completely vulnerable. Ironically, though the possibility of an outright nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States is at an all-time low, the risk of mishap has not decreased proportionately to reductions in the Russian nuclear arsenal. In fact, the post-START II Russian force will be far more mobile than its predominantly silo-based predecessor. This poses a potential problem for command and control of the arsenal in the event of internal turmoil in Russia. Mr. President, I believe that the reduction of the U.S. strategic offensive arsenal under START and START II can only be conducted in connection with a review of U.S. deterrence doctrine and the value of strategic missile defenses in ensuring U.S. national security. A clearly articulated defense strategy and credible national missile defense system possess a deterrent value of their own, and need not threaten the viability of the Russian nuclear deterrent. For this reason I have directed the Committee on Foreign Relations, in consultation with the Committee on Armed Services and other appropriate committees, to undertake a comprehensive review of the continuing value of the ABM Treaty. In this regard, I reiterate my opposition, as I stated it this past September, to the creation of yet another special Select Committee replete with bureaucratic trappings, staff, and cost to the American taxpayer for the purpose of reviewing this treaty. We already have standing committees with the responsibility for making these determinations and recommendations, and we are not going to add another layer of bureaucracy to this task. Mr. President, in conclusion, I support this Defense Authorization Act since I shudder to think what this administration might do without the guidance that is contained in this bill. I do not, however, regard the issue of national missile defense to have been resolved, and will actively work to see that Americans are protected against attack by ballistic missiles.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business Thursday, January 25, the Federal debt stood at $4,988,163,912,933.72, 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 $18,933.50 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been deeply troubled for most of the 23 years I've been a Member of the Senate about the United States having become more and more deeply dependent upon foreign countries-- many in the highly volatile Middle East--to supply the bulk of the energy needs of the American people. I held hearings on this perilous problem when I was chairman of the Agriculture Committee a decade ago, and more recently in my capacity as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The administration acknowledges that this is a national security concern, but, Mr. President, there obviously is a lot of fiddling while Rome burns--the administration has done precisely nothing about U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Mr. President, Americans now are forced to rely on foreign oil for more than 50 percent of our needs. Not too long ago, 50 percent was pegged as the perilous threshold which must not be crossed. But, it was crossed, under President Clinton's watch, after U.S. blood was spilled in the Middle East in Desert Storm. So, Mr. President, I begin today a report on this matter, a report that I will make to the Senate regularly. The American Petroleum Institute has confirmed that, for the week ending January 19, the United States imported 7,696,000 barrels of oil each day, 12 percent more than the 6,488,000 barrels imported daily 12 months ago. Mr. President, as I say, I shall report to the Senate--and to the American people--on a regular basis regarding the increasingly dangerous U.S. dependency on foreign oil. We must not delay in seeking to solve this troubling problem.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the impression will not go away: The $4.9 trillion Federal debt stands today as a sort of grotesque parallel to that energizer bunny that appears and appears and appears on television in precisely the same way and to the same degree that the Federal debt keeps going up and up and up. Politicians talk a good game--and ``talk'' is the operative word-- about reducing the Federal deficit and bringing the Federal debt under control. But watch how they vote. Mr. President, as of the close of business, Wednesday, January 24, the total Federal debt stood at exactly $4,987,847,422,144.35 or $18,932.30 per man, woman, child on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitur. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Federal Government is, as the saying goes, living on borrowed time, not to mention borrowed money--nearly $5 trillion of it. As of the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, January 23, the Federal debt stood at $4,987,963,203,048.04. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,932.74 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, almost 4 years ago I commenced these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of 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 increased by more than $1.1 trillion-- $1,162,159,313,063.99--since February 26, 1992. As of the close of business yesterday, Monday, January 22, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,988,050,606,130.79. On a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,933.07 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Helms and Mr. Faircloth pertaining to the introduction of S. 1520 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a bill that Senator Faircloth and I are joining to offer. It is sponsored by many other Senators. It is at the desk.

Mr. HELMS. No, sir, it is to be appropriately referred.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before I begin, several Senators have already asked to be identified as cosponsors of this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch; the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Simpson; the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner; the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski; the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison; the Senator from Kansas, Mrs. Kassebaum; and Senator Abraham; and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania be added as cosponsors, and I ask that the bill be held at the desk until the close of business today for Senators to add their names as cosponsors.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Faircloth and I are genuinely honored to offer this legislation to award a congressional gold medal to two wonderful North Carolinians, Dr. Billy Graham and his remarkable wife of 52 years, Ruth Graham. I have known them for years. Billy Graham was born not far from where I was born, and I have known him very, very well since the early 1950's, when I attended his very first crusade right here at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. When the bill is signed into law, Congress will be paying tribute to a deserving couple who have spent their lives exemplifying the miracle of America--faith in God, morality, charity, and family. Most Senators have met the Grahams; many are personal friends, as are Senator Faircloth and I. Billy and Ruth are marvelous servants of the Lord. Anybody even vaguely familiar with the Grahams' witness will agree that Billy's and Ruth's relationships with God, their love for each other and their family, and their deep-seated compassion for humanity are unsurpassed. This is the genuine spirituality that has led literally millions of Americans, and millions of others around the world, to grasp the meaning and hope of salvation. The incredible millions who have heard the message of salvation through Billy Graham's evangelistic campaigns are testimony to his devout magnetism. For the past half century, more than 100 million people in 180 countries have personally heard Billy Graham's thrilling messages in person when they attended his rallies. Others have worshipped with him by television. An estimated total of more than 2 billion people have worshipped with Billy Graham on television. Countless others have sought spiritual help and counsel through his books, magazines, newspaper editorials, radio broadcasts, and the Billy Graham Training Center at Black Mountain, NC. The Grahams have responded to the physical needs of people around the world through a legacy inherited from Ruth Graham's father, the distinguished Dr. L. Nelson Bell, who was a missionary to China. Dr. Bell and his family served as medical missionaries to China for nearly 25 years before returning to the Memorial Mission Hospital in Asheville, NC. Today, the Grahams continue Dr. Nelson Bell's legacy through the ministry of the Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Health Center where the children of western North Carolina and the surrounding area receive special medical care that was unavailable before the advent of the Graham Children's Health Center. Moreover, the Grahams, through their various ministries, have extended their love and their caring by extending their loving and helping hands to the victims of disasters, the medical needy, and the disadvantaged. Mr. President, it is fitting and proper, I think, for the U.S. Congress to honor Billy and Ruth Graham, who if anybody ever has, they have earned not only the respect of the Congress, they have earned the keys to the kingdom.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a bill that Senator Faircloth and I are joining to offer. It is sponsored by many other Senators. It is at the desk.

Mr. HELMS. This is a bill to authorize a congressional gold medal to Billy Graham and Ruth Graham, his wife of 52 years.