Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I can assure the distinguished majority leader that consideration of this will be rapid, and I think I can predict the outcome of the Foreign Relations Committee's action on it. It is an interesting thing about Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Dot Helms and I had dinner with the Secretary General, and his wife some weeks back, and he discussed with me a number of problems he was having with the United Nations, including financial problems. But he certainly did not mention anything about giving the U.N. authority to impose taxes upon the American people. I think that maybe the Secretary General has overspoken himself in asserting his belief that the United Nations should be allowed to collect taxes directly from American citizens. I was astonished, Mr. President, when in an interview with the BBC, U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali made the absurd suggestion that the United Nations should be allowed to collect taxes directly from American citizens--and citizens of other sovereign nations--to finance the operation of the United Nations. His stated reason for creating such a U.N. tax, Mr. Boutros-Ghali said, would be so that the U.N. ``would not be under the daily financial will of member states.'' In the first place, the gentleman obviously has scant knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. I have heard a lot of disturbing suggestions coming out of the United Nations over the years, but this one--with all respect to the Secretary General--is among the most unacceptable yet. The United Nations will never be able to tax the American citizens, certainly not as long as Senator Dole is in the Senate or elsewhere in the Government, nor as long as I am here. And I am happy to join Senator Dole in offering this legislation today, S. 1519, bearing the title of the Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act, requiring the United States to cut off all funding to the United Nations if the United Nations does intend or attempt to impose such a scheme. Despite what the U.N. Secretary General and the international bureaucrats may want to believe, the United Nations is not a sovereign entity. It is not a world government, and the Secretary General is not president of the world. No Secretary General in the future should entertain or even express such foolish notions. The United Nations is purely a consultative body, made up of sovereign nations, who did not check their sovereignty at the U.N. door when they sent representatives to the functions and deliberations of the United Nations. Furthermore, the American people absolutely would not stand for any form of U.N. taxation; they are already paying more than 24 percent of their income to the U.S. Federal Government. They do not need nor will they accept paying another dime to fund a world government in New York led by a nonelected bureaucrat. The Secretary General has several times advocated a standing U.N. military. His idle sugestion giving the United Nations the power of direct taxation is a matter that invites a worldwide rejection and distrust of the United Nations. Mr. President, I again assure the majority leader that I will schedule hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the purpose of investigating this matter, and to make clear that the United States must oppose any and all efforts to give the United Nations such unprecedented powers. And, Mr. President, if the Secretary General somehow succeeds securing either the powers of direct taxation, or a standing military, then the United States must withdraw immediately from the United Nations. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I can assure the distinguished majority leader that consideration of this will be rapid, and I think I can predict the outcome of the Foreign Relations Committee's action on it. It is an interesting thing about Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Dot Helms and I had dinner with the Secretary General, and his wife some weeks back, and he discussed with me a number of problems he was having with the United Nations, including financial problems. But he certainly did not mention anything about giving the U.N. authority to impose taxes upon the American people. I think that maybe the Secretary General has overspoken himself in asserting his belief that the United Nations should be allowed to collect taxes directly from American citizens. I was astonished, Mr. President, when in an interview with the BBC, U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali made the absurd suggestion that the United Nations should be allowed to collect taxes directly from American citizens--and citizens of other sovereign nations--to finance the operation of the United Nations. His stated reason for creating such a U.N. tax, Mr. Boutros-Ghali said, would be so that the U.N. ``would not be under the daily financial will of member states.'' In the first place, the gentleman obviously has scant knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. I have heard a lot of disturbing suggestions coming out of the United Nations over the years, but this one--with all respect to the Secretary General--is among the most unacceptable yet. The United Nations will never be able to tax the American citizens, certainly not as long as Senator Dole is in the Senate or elsewhere in the Government, nor as long as I am here. And I am happy to join Senator Dole in offering this legislation today, S. 1519, bearing the title of the Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act, requiring the United States to cut off all funding to the United Nations if the United Nations does intend or attempt to impose such a scheme. Despite what the U.N. Secretary General and the international bureaucrats may want to believe, the United Nations is not a sovereign entity. It is not a world government, and the Secretary General is not president of the world. No Secretary General in the future should entertain or even express such foolish notions. The United Nations is purely a consultative body, made up of sovereign nations, who did not check their sovereignty at the U.N. door when they sent representatives to the functions and deliberations of the United Nations. Furthermore, the American people absolutely would not stand for any form of U.N. taxation; they are already paying more than 24 percent of their income to the U.S. Federal Government. They do not need nor will they accept paying another dime to fund a world government in New York led by a nonelected bureaucrat. The Secretary General has several times advocated a standing U.N. military. His idle sugestion giving the United Nations the power of direct taxation is a matter that invites a worldwide rejection and distrust of the United Nations. Mr. President, I again assure the majority leader that I will schedule hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the purpose of investigating this matter, and to make clear that the United States must oppose any and all efforts to give the United Nations such unprecedented powers. And, Mr. President, if the Secretary General somehow succeeds securing either the powers of direct taxation, or a standing military, then the United States must withdraw immediately from the United Nations. I yield the floor.

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 $12 billion shy of $5 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Friday, January 19, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,988,397,941,589.45. Another depressing figure means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,934.39. 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 $5 million million. Now who's not in favor of balancing the Federal budget?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business January 4, the Federal debt stood at $4,988,799,676,202.14, 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 $18,937.57 as his or her share of that debt.

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 $12 billion shy of $5 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Wednesday, January 3, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,988,377,902,358.91. Another depressing figure means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,935.97. 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 $5 million million. Now who's not in favor of balancing the Federal budget?

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 $1,162,604,087,046.50 since February 26, 1992. As of the close of business Tuesday, January 2, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,988,495,380,113.30. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,936.41 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business December 29, the Federal debt stood at $4,988,664,979,014.54, 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 $18,937.06 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I support ratification of the START II Treaty because it will serve America's national security interests in at least three critical respects. First, when fully implemented, START II will ban the deployment of all intercontinental ballistic missiles with more than one warhead--traditionally these missiles have been the mainstay of Russia's nuclear forces. Second, this treaty rectifies a dangerous deficiency of the START I Treaty by completely eliminating all of Russia's heavy ICBM's. Third, START II creates a managed process for nuclear arms reductions. While no one will deny that much of Russia's motivation to engage in deeper cuts stems from its economic woes, I cannot in good conscience rely solely upon economic forces for reassurance that Russia's nuclear arms reductions will be undertaken in a sustained or stabilizing fashion. START II ensures that Russia will eliminate those weapons of greatest concern to the United States, leaving nothing to chance. Now of course, Mr. President, there is a quid pro quo for these benefits. The effect of the START II Treaty for the United States will be the elimination of our MX missile, significant reductions in our nuclear bomber fleet, and limits on the number of warheads we can deploy on submarine launched ballistic missiles. However, these changes do not fundamentally alter the deterrence value of our nuclear forces. In fact, reductions under START II will result in a more survivable U.S. force structure than what we would have with just the START I Treaty. Furthermore, START II preserves the triad of U.S. strategic offensive forces. We will continue to rely upon this combination of ICBM's, SLBM's, and heavy bombers to complicate any would-be aggressor's attack and to offer flexibility in any U.S. nuclear response. In fact, START II will improve the viability of the triad by eliminating those elements of the Russian force which directly threatened its integrity throughout the cod war--namely all of its SS-18 heavy ICBM's and its newer, mobile SS-24 ICBM's. We should recall that in 1983, the Scowcroft Commission declared: ``The Soviets now probably possess the necessary combination of ICBM numbers, reliability, accuracy, and warhead yield to destroy almost all of the 1,047 U.S. ICBM silos, using only a portion of their own ICBM force.'' One of the problems with the START I Treaty was that it did little to alleviate this concern. Although it reduced the number of deployed SS-18's by one-half, it also reduced the number of U.S. silo- based ICBM's by roughly half. Thus the ratio of SS-18 warheads to U.S. silos remained virtually unchanged. START II fixes this problem. Now I would be remiss not to mention several areas where I continue to have misgivings. For example, I am concerned that Russia--at some point--might upload warheads on its SS-19 missiles, and that they might deploy their bombers with more warheads than the treaty allows. I also am concerned over the inherent difficulty of tracking mobile missiles. Yet even in the most serious cheating scenarios, Russia would be hard- pressed to achieve a military significant advantage over the United States. However, we should not enter into this arrangement starry eyed. To those who say Russian cheating is implausible, or that Russia lacks the motivation to engage in such activities, I only need ask: ``What arms control agreement have they not cheated on?'' If the Senate decides to ratify START II, we must demand that Russia break with its lackluster record of treaty compliance. We should not agree to a new arms control measure while at the same time tolerating Russia's ongoing biological weapons program, its refusal to implement the bilateral destruction agreement for its chemical weapons program, its failure to comply with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, or its persistent violation of the ABM Treaty. The burden of proof is upon Russia to demonstrate that it is capable of breaking with the arms control legacies of the cold war. We also must realize the limitations of this arms control treaty. START II is bilateral in nature, and does not address the growing strategic arsenals of other countries such as China. Neither have we heard hide nor hair from this administration regarding United States- Russia cooperation on ballistic missile defenses as a stabilizing complement to the well-structured reductions under START II. I therefore will resist any further efforts to reduce U.S. strategic nuclear arms to the point where the equilibrium between our strategic capability and our targeting requirements is disrupted, or to the point where the coherency of any leg of the U.S. nuclear triad is threatened. Finally, I am concerned over the reckless abandon with which this administration raced to fully implement the START Treaty before it even had entered into force. That exuberance created a serious imbalance in the sizes of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals. Given the deep levels of reductions contemplated under START II, we must proceed very cautiously with implementation. That said, even with these concerns, START II will enhance significantly our national security. The resolution of ratification transmitted to the Senate from the Foreign Relations Committee contains six conditions and seven declarations that go to the heart of the issues I have mentioned here. And even in the event of serious Russian noncompliance, the United States will retain a mix of survivable nuclear forces more than sufficient to deter Russia. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I reiterate my support for ratification of the START II Treaty. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt is now slightly in excess of $11 billion shy of $5 trillion. As of the close of business Thursday, December 21, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,989,393,165,359.35 or $18,939.82 on a per capita basis for every man, woman, and child.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, December 20, the Federal debt stood at $4,988,966,775,602.69, a little more than $11 billion shy of the $5 trillion mark, which the Federal debt will exceed in a few weeks. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,938.20 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam 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--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 $1,163,199,095,296.10 since February 26, 1992. As of the close of business Tuesday, December 19, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,989,090,388,362.90. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,938.67 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Federal Government is running on borrowed time, not to mention borrowed money--nearly $5 trillion of it. As of the close of business Monday, December 18, the Federal debt stood at $4,989,213,998,043.63. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,939.14 as his or her share of the Federal debt. More than two centuries ago, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. It's time for Congress to adopt a Declaration of Economic Responsibilities and an amendment requiring the President and Congress to come up with a balanced Federal budget-- beginning right now.

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 $11 billion shy of $5 trillion. To be exact, as of the close of business Friday, December 15, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,989,584,833,636.17. Another depressing figure means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,940.55. 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 yesterday, December 14, the Federal debt stood at $4,989,708,383,241.14, a little more than $10 billion shy of the $5 trillion mark, which the Federal debt will exceed in a few weeks. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,941.02 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I am grateful to the chairman of the Subcommittee on State-Commerce-Justice appropriations, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, for his kind remarks. And I am very grateful to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. Mr. President, I had to take a telephone call on a very important matter involving North Carolina. But while I was talking, I heard Senator Sarbanes. I like Senator Sarbanes. I do not like everything he says. Sometimes he reminds me of a pregnant cobra, but I know he feels deeply what he has said, and I know he thinks it is correct. But the trouble is that it is not correct. I think Senator Sarbanes, if he will forgive me, forgets that at the close of the Bush administration, the Democrats held up 12 ambassadors that President Bush had sent to the Senate. They were not given hearings. They were given no consideration for 6 months--6 months. They, frankly, said, ``We do not want any ambassadors appointed by a Republican President.'' So it is not exactly a novelty to hold up an ambassadorial nomination, or a group of them. But I know that Senator Sarbanes did the best he could with his argument. But this business of fairness is in the eye of the beholder. You do the best you can in the Senate when you have a strong and effective opposition, such as Senator Sarbanes. And, of course, it was Senator Sarbanes who was micromanaging, to a certain extent, I believe, the negotiations between Senator Kerry and me. That is all right. I have no objection to that. Senator Sarbanes has been around this Senate for a while, and he is entitled to be recognized for his seniority. Now, President Clinton, let me remind anybody who heard Senator Sarbanes' criticism that, just last week, after Senator Kerry and I reached our final agreement--and we reached a ``final'' agreement a number of times during these negotiations, but last week, when it was the final-final agreement, there came the White House saying, ``We have one little thing more we want to do.'' It was the White House, do you not see, Mr. President, that held the ambassadors hostage because they delayed any action on negotiations because they wanted to include a guarantee that a nominee to the Environmental Protection Agency be confirmed by the Senate in order for this agreement between Senator Kerry and me to occur. Well, I said, ``I have nothing to do with that nomination, and I will defer to the majority leader.'' I think they worked it out with Mr. Daschle and others. Now, let me say again that I was ready at any time--and I said so repeatedly--to have a vote. I did not ask to be assured of this or that; just let the Senate vote. Senator Sarbanes was unyielding on that. He did not do so publicly, but he was unyielding that I was not going to get a vote because, as he has said, he does not like this bill. He thinks we are not spending enough money on the foreign policy apparatus as it is. He is in contradiction of the opinion of the American people, who pay the taxes. Senator Sarbanes and I only pay a small part. But the people who pay the bulk of it do not agree with him, and maybe they do not agree with me. I do not have any pull one way or another. I suppose it ought to be said, in all fairness, that there are good ambassadors and there are some who are not so good. Various Senators have had various experiences with how embassies are not run by the ambassadors but are run by the ambassador's assistant. I have about reached the point that I wonder if having an Ambassador in Paris is essential, because is it not an anachronism in a day when we have such instant communication. When we sent Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson over to Paris, they had to go over on a ship, and they had to understand the administration's policy on this, that, and the other. But I do not think that the relations with China went to pot because Jim Sasser was held up. Somebody said that Jim Sasser is a nice guy and he was a good Senator. I like him and all that. But U.S. relations with Beijing did not go to pot because Jim Sasser was not over there. As a matter of fact, somebody commented that China was making a number of concessions while we had no Ambassador. So it is OK to take a hit at Helms. I am used to it, but those taking the hit better look at the history of what both parties have done when they have been in the majority. Now, I confess that I may be the first chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who does not really care what the editors of the New York Times feels about foreign policy. I do not run to the Washington Post to say, ``Please, is this all right?'' I try to use my own instincts and try to base my judgments on what I think the American people want in terms of decisions. If Senator Sarbanes does not like that, that is fine. The Council on Foreign Relations is not going to run the Foreign Relations Committee as long as I am chairman of it. I say that with all due respect to the organization. As far as letters inserted in the Record, I could put 50 pages of letters into the Record right now, Mr. President, from people all over the country, who have written to me and said, ``Jesse, hang in there.'' So we can all play that game and insert letters from lots of organizations. I can insert letters from businessmen, who say, ``You are doing the right thing.'' So it is a matter of opinion. Some of it may be partisan, some of it may not be. I do not know that it is entirely useful to excoriate another Senator with whom you disagree. I say again, I like Paul Sarbanes, and I thought our relationship was better than it apparently is. Foreign Service officers and ambassadors are expressing strong, unequivocal support for this bill. So I do not want to hear all this ``moaning and puking,'' as Shakespeare put it, about how we are tromping on the Foreign Service. I have not done it, and I am not going to do it. They have been some of the loudest advocates of the reorganization of the State Department. Five former Secretaries of State have said this is a great piece of legislation. They helped us with various points on it. Warren Christopher went down and tried to sell it to Al Gore, who was busily announcing in press release after press release that he was going to ``reinvent'' Government. So it is time we stopped talking and start doing something. I am not going to go any further. I think enough has been said on that. end strengths

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I do not see the distinguished Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe] in the Chamber, but I wish to thank her for her unwavering commitment to seeing this reorganization bill through to this point. In fact, all of the Republican members of the Foreign Relations Committee have stood in unison throughout, from the very beginning, in support of this bill. I wish to pay my respects to Admiral Nance, the chief of staff of the Foreign Relations Committee; Steve Berry and Elizabeth Lambird, Chris Walker, and Kristin Peck and, as always, the able floor staff for their help, Elizabeth Greene and the rest. I thank Senator Kerry for his cooperation in these difficult times the past few weeks, and I especially thank his staff person, Nancy Stetson, for her continued work on this bill. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back my time if Senator Kerry could yield back his. This back and forth like two sore-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs is not serving the Senate well, and I do not intend to participate in it any further. And I am a little bit sorry that I did at all. But I accept the Senator's criticism. I know how he feels, and he knows how I feel, too. So, tentatively, I yield the remainder of my time pending whether Senator Kerry yields his back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, U.S. policy regarding Haiti is another example of throwing good money after bad. In order to keep a sinking foreign policy ship afloat, the Clinton administration has handed over, in less than a year and a half, more than $2 billion of the American taxpayers' money in propping up the regime of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. This enormous sum of money has gone to a tiny, corrupt country representing less than 1 percent of this hemisphere's population. Within the past month, I have received new requests from the administration to send additional millions of dollars to Haiti. President Clinton's enormous spending spree in Haiti has not produced the stability, security, and democracy promised by the Clinton administration. I possess no crystal ball but it was apparent to me then, and still is, that politically motivated assassinations and increased mob violence would result if Aristide were reinstated as President to be propped up by American soldiers. But, just as was the case early in the 20th century when the United States Marines occupied Haiti for 19 years and did not bring democracy to Haiti, the present military occupation has not transformed Aristide into a leader who believes in and practices democratic ideals. Mr. President, whatever Aristide and his cronies are committed to, it certainly isn't democracy. Their primary interest is U.S. dollars. Aristide has flatly refused to implement free market reforms, and has warned that the first person who ``dares sell the state's possessions on behalf of privatization'' will be ``arrested immediately.'' In fact, Aristide's hostility toward free market economic reform resulted in a political crisis which led to the resignation of his Prime Minister in October and the suspension of all World Bank programs. In June's legislative elections, fraud was rampant, and several opposition candidates were threatened and intimidated. Poll workers were largely untrained, voting secrecy was rare, ballots were burned or dumped, and tally sheets were widely doctored. Even with 6,000 international troops and a new U.S.-trained police force in place, dozens of politically motivated murders have occurred since the Clinton administration restored Aristide to power last October. In March, a woman was gunned down in retaliation for criticizing President Aristide. Another Port-au-Prince murder is remindful of the Old Testament account of King Abel who coveted the property of his subject, Naboth. When Naboth refused to sell, King Abel had him poisoned and took the property. History is repeating itself in Haiti. Michel Gonzalez and his American wife were Aristide's neighbors in the Port-au-Prince suburbs. When Aristide wanted to add on to his villa, several neighbors accepted his offer to buy their property. However, despite several offers from Aristide, Mr. Gonzalez declined to sell his home. So, on May 22, as Mr. Gonzalez entered his driveway with his teenage daughter, he was gunned down. Sources in Haiti assert that soon after the assassination, the wall dividing the properties was knocked down. Aristide got his way. On November 11, President Aristide incited mobs to violence at a funeral of a political crony and relative. His bloodthirsty syncophants responded immediately, and across Haiti, buildings were burned, houses were ransacked, and dozens were murdered. Yet violence has not abated. Recently, the bodies of seven men and women were found in a dump near Port-au-Prince, gagged and shot in the head. Mr. President, not one person has been prosecuted and sentenced for any of at least 22 politically motivated murders committed between January and October of this year. In fact, I am unaware of any serious investigation into these assassinations, much less into the more recent murders last month. When asked by a Creole newspaper about killings sparked by his speech, Aristide said that ``If Jesus was so angry when he entered the temple that he took up a whip, turned over the tables and talked harshly to the hypocrites, all the more reason for us to do so who are Jesus' servants.'' For this man to compare himself to Jesus is disgustingly blasphemous. Aristide opposes every principle for which our country stands. For the United States to spend over $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to prop up this man is unconscionable. Mr. President, Aristide threatened to send a flood of refugees to the United States if additional millions of the American citizens' dollars are denied him. And the Clinton administration has capitulated to this blackmail. But this Senator, for one, cannot stomach using U.S. tax money to sponsor a tyrant who has demonstrated no concern for justice or democracy. If the December 17 elections proceed, Aristide's hand-picked successor, Rene Preval, will almost certainly win, inasmuch as 10 of the 12 largest political parties are boycotting the election. Aristide declares that he and Preval are twins--an allusion to their ideological similarity. It is, to be sure, an indication of what a Preval president will be. The deteriorating situation in Haiti is clear: Unless Aristide and his successor fulfill their promises to the Haitian people, to the United States Government, and to the international community, neither United States troops nor additional billions of United States taxpayers' dollars can ever bring democracy to Haiti.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I can see why the Senator was eager to make a speech and make a reference to Montana. I congratulate him.