Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

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

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have just been informed that the Acting Secretary of State has taken an action that seemed to me to be a direct affront to the Foreign Relations Committee and to the future of relations between the United States and Taiwan, the Republic of China. The Acting Secretary has just named three men to sit on the board of the American Institute in Taiwan, under a procedure that is not normal. Under a longstanding agreement between the Department of State and the committee, specifically between the then-chairman of the committee, Mr. Church, and then-Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, the Department of State is to notify the committee of appointments to the board. Under the terms of the agreement, the committee is to be able to voice its concerns about any of these appointments and these concerns are to be satisfied before the Department proceeds with the appointments. Today, the Acting Secretary of State abrogated that agreement, in my judgment. Now, since 1979, the committee's role in the appointment process was that the committee could have an opportunity to voice its concerns about any individuals appointed to the board of the American Institute in Taiwan, our de facto embassy. We do not recognize Taiwan as a nation. I think we should, speaking as one Senator, but we do not. The American Institute in Taiwan is our de facto embassy. These concerns were to have been worked out through the department before the appointees are identified. I have just been informed that the department has proceeded with three appointments the day before the committee was scheduled to meet these gentlemen, for the first time. Mr. President, this action, I believe, is an especially strong affront in light of the fact that this very week the Department of State is receiving confirmation of 18 of its ambassadorial appointees and four Foreign Service officer promotion lists. I am astounded by this decision and have determined that the committee will hold a hearing on the role of the American Institute in Taiwan at which we will compare its role today to the role agreed to previously when it was established in the late 1970's or early 1980's, whenever it was. Amendment No. 3100 (Purpose: To authorize the transmittal of a reorganization plan or plans streamlining and consolidating the Department of State and the independent foreign affairs agencies, to make technical amendments to the bill, and for other purposes)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am not going to debate the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I will say, he has a very selective memory. And like all of us, I suppose he remembers things that have not happened. But that is all right. The Senator forgot, for example, to mention the continuous efforts on our part to persuade the administration to engage in negotiations. On August 11 of this year I had persuaded, through a friend in the White House, the White House to have the President invite me and our staff to the White House to brief the President on our legislative proposal. What it in fact proposed and what the critics of it said it would propose were two different things. President Clinton was entirely gracious when we arrived. We did not meet him on the first floor. He took us up to the family quarters. And we spent 1 hour and 20 minutes demonstrating the details of the proposal. Vice President Gore was there, as was the Secretary of State, the White House Chief of Staff, and the Deputy National Security Adviser. I sat between the President and the Vice President, as a matter of fact. Several times during the briefing the President leaned over to me and said, ``Who could be against that? Who could be against that?'' disclosing clearly that he had not been informed about what the bill in fact proposed and now proposes. Acting in his name had been a concert of the bureaucrats heading the three agencies, the three agencies that five Secretaries of State, plus Warren Christopher, the President's Secretary of State, had stipulated ought to be abolished and folded into the State Department because they had become anachronisms of a bygone era. Senator Biden is also wrong about this bill having anything to do with the cancellation of the Foreign Service examination. The closing of diplomatic missions was not only a recommendation of the last two administrations, as I said in my opening remarks, but also of the President of the United States. So it is unfair--and I know that the Senator from Delaware does not intend to be unfair--but he is following the same line that the news media have followed from the very beginning. Why did five former Secretaries of State help us draft this bill and publicly endorse it? Why did the present Secretary of State go down to the White House and propose, in large measure or in some measure, what we are proposing with this S. 908? Those are things that the Senator from Delaware just smooths over. And I know he does not intend to be unfair because he is a fair individual. He and I came to the Senate the same day. This bill is intended to strengthen the Secretary of State organizationally speaking. Warren Christopher wanted it done but he was rebuffed. Now, if you disagree with Mr. Christopher, that is your business, I will say to the able Senator from Delaware. But the fact is, there have been changes in this world, as I tried to emphasize in my own remarks. And the U.S. foreign policy apparatus must change with the times. Let me address a statement that is so often made by the State Department and various others and political operatives who support the status quo. Senator Kerry said over and over again in his remarks that spending on the U.S. foreign affairs budget takes up only 1 percent of the Federal budget, I believe he said 1 percent. Well, the 1.3 is correct, but it is not incorrect to say that that is what is spent on operating the foreign policy apparatus because the foreign policy apparatus reaches out and utilizes the rest of Government, and the cost of what they reach out and get greatly increases that figure because the 1.3 does not include spending on foreign policy objectives from our domestic accounts. That figure does not include the money usurped from the Department of Defense. I mentioned the $2 billion spent on Somalia. I mentioned the nearly $2 billion that has been spent on Haiti, thus far, and much more is going to be spent in Haiti before we are through. The Lord only knows how much is going to be spent in and on Bosnia; $2 or $3 billion has been mentioned. It is going to be at least that much, and probably substantially more. Thirty-two Federal agencies run almost $2 billion in international exchanges every year. The point is, the American people must not be deceived or misled into believing that we only spend 1.3 percent, or 1 percent, of the Federal budget on our foreign policy. It simply is not so, and that deception ought to be brought to an end. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS. Here we are, Mr. President. As I was saying a few minutes ago, at long last, S. 908 is the pending business before the U.S. Senate--S. 908 being the plan to reorganize the State Department--a plan much maligned by all the bureaucrats who do not want to be folded into the State Department. They do not want to save any money. To their chagrin, it looks to me like we are going to save some money, not as much as we would have liked, but that is an issue we can work on in conference with the House. S. 908 was reported to the Senate more than 6 months ago, and I have never seen as many erroneous news reports about a piece of legislation in all of my 23 years in the Senate. The administration at every turn has vowed--and I use the administration's words--vowed to ``delay, postpone, obfuscate and derail'' S. 908. They made no bones about it. All of that was ignored by the great media of this country. There was just one Senator who was holding up the whole works--that fellow from North Carolina, Helms--and they went after Helms with a feverish attitude. Our Democratic colleagues signed up and have refused to allow the Senate to work its will, but that did not make any difference to the news media. They reported that it was Helms doing the holding up, when actually it was the administration and the Democrat Members of the Senate. Now, there was one Senator who was willing to negotiate and participate in the process, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, to whom I shall forever be grateful. It needs to be made clear that the Senator from North Carolina has never, never demanded that I get my way as press report after press report after press report claimed. I have never demanded that the Senate accept this authorization bill or that the administration agree to downsize Government by eliminating a few Federal agencies. I have never demanded that the Senate accept this authorization bill or that the administration agree to downsize Government and abolish some Federal agencies. I had hoped all of that would happen, and the bill was drafted for that purpose, but I never made any demand for anything--except that the Senate be allowed to vote on S. 908. I said from the very beginning, ``Let me have a vote and you will have your ambassadors.'' I have asked only that the Senate be allowed to conduct its legislative responsibilities and vote. Not once did I stipulate that S. 908 had to pass but just that it be voted upon. But the Democrats were afraid that if it were put up for a vote, the Senate would agree to abolish three Federal agencies--what a tragedy that would have been. Since this process began months ago, the Foreign Relations Committee has acted on at least 58 of President Clinton's ambassadorial nominees--most of them political appointees, I might add. The committee has acted on six tax treaties and assorted other international treaties in that same time period. I have asked myself many times, what have we received in return? Until this date, nothing; nothing. There goes that obfuscation, delay, postponement, derailment. I take issue with those in the administration and with my colleagues, especially the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], who at one point asserted that it was the ``height of irresponsibility to hold up nearly all other committee business over one piece of legislation.'' Chris Dodd knows better than that, Mr. President. He is in charge of the political wing of the Democratic Party. He is perhaps experiencing a convenient amnesia, forgetting that as chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere in 1992, Senator Dodd himself refused to schedule any subcommittee ambassadorial nomination hearings for an entire year. So when Senator Dodd made his extravagant statement, I respond, ``Look who is talking.'' I could go on, but suffice it to say many of my Democrat colleagues have engaged in a bit of injured innocence when they weep such copious tears about the delay in Senate confirmation of several nominees. Now, were it not for Senator Kerry's commitment, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, his commitment to negotiate common ground, we would still this very afternoon be at an impasse. Everybody knows that there needs to be streamlining and consolidation of the whole Federal Government. It is one of the big reasons we have a $5 trillion debt hanging over the people of this country. Senator Kerry recognized early on and said, ``Yes, one or more of the three agencies stipulated in this legislation have outlived their usefulness.'' That is putting it the nice way. The truth of the matter is that all three of the agencies, ACDA [U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency], AID [Agency for International Development], and the U.S. Information Agency [USIA] need serious pruning and, in my opinion, should be put on the short list to be abolished. I note that in reference to USIA, it was never our intention to undermine our international broadcasting capability, such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. But I repeat, the ancillary agencies that cost billions of dollars have got to be toned down. That is what this bill is all about. I remind my colleagues that it was Secretary of State Christopher who proposed to Vice President Gore's much-publicized Reinventing Government Office that the United States was obliged to restructure the U.S. foreign affairs apparatus for the 21st century. Secretary of State Christopher himself advocated the elimination of the Agency for International Development, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Mr. President, Secretary Christopher went almost hat in hand down to Vice President Gore's office to plead that our foreign affairs apparatus needed a serious rethinking for the post-cold-war era. I remind my colleagues that is was Vice President Gore, the former U.S. Senator, who was chosen to be the No. 2 officer of this country and has spent much of his time in office proclaiming his intent to reinvent Government, to downsize Government, and to save the taxpayers money. I know of very few successful efforts of the Vice President in that regard, because somewhere along the line Vice President Gore, decided all of a sudden that the status quo was just fine, and Vice President Gore rejected out of hand Secretary of State Christopher's proposal. In doing so he became a captive of the very Federal bureaucracy he was supposed to reinvent. By the way, this past January, it was the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, who promised that he was going to save $5 billion in 5 years by cutting the U.S. International Affairs budget. S. 908, under the terms of the manager's amendment, mandates $1.7 billion in savings over 5 years. If $1.7 billion in savings ``jeopardizes the national interest'', what are we to have said about $5 billion? The local press would call such a draconian cut the policy of an isolationist if it were made by anybody on this side. They all applauded when the Vice President said it. But look at the facts. How did Mr. Gore come up with those figures? He yanked them out of thin air. Even Senate Democrats acknowledge that they cannot figure it out. They have asked for months--all of us have been asking for months--for the Vice President's proposals for all of these savings. Finally, some of the more candid Senators on the other side of the aisle confessed. They admitted that the Vice President's plan had no basis in reality and it must have been the result of bad staff work down at the White House. So the emperor had no clothes. It is worthy of note that the Vice President's book entitled ``Common Sense Government'' asserts that his recommendations on restructuring the U.S. foreign affairs agencies would be announced in the fall of 1995. Mr. President, it is now the winter of 1995, and we are still waiting. The fact is, we are never going to hear from him. We are never going to hear from his associates. They just do not have a plan. They do not know how to produce any savings. They do not have a clue. All they have are press releases, and those press releases, as it turns out, are not--and were not--worth the paper they were printed on last January. S. 908, the committee's plan to abolish three Federal agencies and save $3 billion has been available to the administration in writing for more than 6 months. By the way, I stress that the largest of these agencies--the Agency for International Development [AID]--is a temporary Federal agency, even though it was established a half century ago. Ronald Reagan used to say that ``There is nothing so near to eternal life as a temporary Federal agency.'' I think that is correct. The Clinton administration, the State Department, and the Vice President of the United States have yet to provide an alternative to S. 908. The administration has not even bothered to submit an authorization bill to the Congress this year. So here we are. S. 908 is the pending business in the Senate. What goes around, comes around. As I indicated at the outset, 6 months after committee consideration of the bill, no thanks to the administration, the Senate Democrats have proposed an amendment to our bill. Senator Kerry has just arrived on the floor. And I do not know whether he knows that I paid my respects to him while he was on the way over here. But I have, and I meant it. And I am grateful to the Senator. The Kerry amendment, as I said earlier, mandates cost savings of $1.7 billion over 5 years. That is less than one-third of what Vice President Gore promised that he would save, and what S. 908 proposed to save at the outset. We are not saving enough in my judgment. Senator Kerry knows how I feel about that. We have been candid to each other. But I want to get started on this business of saving the taxpayers' money, and I think John Kerry does as well. I have had to console myself with the fact that saving the taxpayers $1.7 billion is better than saving the taxpayers nothing. Of course, it would have been far better if Senator Kerry had been permitted to fulfill his original offer in committee to abolish one agency and save $2 billion over 4 years. In fact, at the markup of S. 908, the able Senator from Massachusetts strongly stated that he was prepared to move forward on the one agency abolition, and that he would not back down on that proposal. I thinks it is too bad that he did. Remember, Mr. President, the original intent of the pending bill, S. 908, was to abolish three agencies. The Democrat's compromise proposal was to maintain status quo--leave all three agencies fully functioning and just ask them to save a few billion dollars. The managers' amendment requires the President of the United States within 6 months to send up a plan to downsize, consolidate, and streamline. And, if the President fails to do it, three Federal agencies will be abolished just as we proposed in the beginning. The ball is going to be in the President's court. The clock on that 6 months starts ticking when S. 908 (or H.R. 1561) is enacted. So as I said at the outset, Mr. President, here we are. While the main focus of this managers' amendment is on reauthorization, it needs to be borne in mind that this is a 4-year authorization bill for the Department of State. Also, the managers' amendment modifies several other sections of the bill. For example, we agreed to modify some provisions relating to the U.S. relationship with the United Nations. One in particular that has bothered me is the provision restricting the share of U.S. intelligence with the United Nations. At the administration's insistence we have replaced that provision with a much less stringent one. I, for one, agree with Senator Snowe of Maine. The original provision was proposed by Senator Snowe and it was much tougher. I agree with her that the administration should be required to make the case to Congress as to why it is crucial for the United States to share intelligence with the United Nations which includes in its membership countries such as Iraq and Cuba. We also agreed to remove section 603 which is a provision dear and near to my own heart. The provision would provide asylum for immigrants who are fleeing the policies of their home countries that will force them to abort their unborn children or force them to be sterilized, as the case may be. The silver lining in this decision is that this provision is included in the House bill and, therefore, I expect to strongly support the House language in the House-Senate conference on this bill. We modified section 604 to authorize payments from frozen Iraqi assets for United States claimants. A similar provision was approved in committee by a bipartisan vote of 10 to 8. Section 168 restricting the issuance of visas to those who traffic in expropriated property was deleted at the behest of Senator Dodd of Connecticut who has stated that he would prefer that issue be dealt with in the conference on the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act, H.R. 927. Mr. President, another important aspect of this agreement is that the Senate will provide for the appointment of conferees upon final passage of this measure sending H.R. 1561--the House companion bill--to the House, and requesting a conference. On Tuesday, the Foreign Relations Committee reported out--true to my promise--18 pending nominees, and the START II treaty. The previous unanimous consent agreement provides for en bloc consideration of the nominees upon final passage of S. 908. The majority and minority leaders have agreed to make every effort to finish START II as expeditiously as possible. A few more thoughts and I will be through. Early next year the Foreign Relations Committee will begin active consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention, including additional hearings and additional steps necessary to full committee consideration of this treaty by April 30. I feel obliged to assert that I remain opposed to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Until this administration comes forward with a public explanation of precisely how this treaty can be verified, which it cannot do and has not done yet, I cannot imagine that the Senate will be prepared to take action on the treaty. But that remains to be seen. The road to redemption was not traveled in one day. It began with one step in the right direction, and that is where we find ourselves today. The Democrats have taken this step by recognizing the necessity of consolidating the U.S. foreign affairs agencies and agreeing to mandate cost savings and by concurring that the Secretary of State should be the primary foreign policy adviser to the President of the United States. Ultimately, the President and our Nation's foreign policy will benefit from this reorganization which has been endorsed by five former Secretaries of State, who, in the process, one after another, conferred with us and helped us in the drafting of the bill. Let me say this, and I shall yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. The world has changed dramatically during the past 10 years. The State Department has not. The issue of consolidation and restructuring is not going away this year, and it is not going away next year either. I pledge that. Brian Atwood, for example, will have to rethink his jubilant declaration this past October when he said, ``AID has survived a bruising political battle.'' That remains to be seen. Down on the Archives building, not far from the Capitol, is a piece of marble that has the words, ``What is past is prologue.'' Somebody asked a friend of mine what that means, and he said, ``That means `You ain't seen nothing yet.' '' So, Mr. Atwood, I would say, ``You ain't seen nothing yet.'' What has happened here is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning. Eventually--eventually--the American people are going to have their say. And to the length of my cable-tow, they also will have their way. I yield the floor, and I assume the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts wishes to make a statement.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, citizens all over the world are protesting--and after all major Western countries have complained to the Chinese Government--about the mistreatment of a courageous Chinese citizen named Wei Jingsheng because Wei has spent most of his life trying to bring democracy and decent human rights to his 1.2 billion fellow Chinese citizens. In return, the Chinese Government has sentenced him to another 14 years in a jail after a trial that lasted 6 hours and to which no officials representing the United States Government were allowed to attend. The Wei Jingsheng trial follows on the heels of last week's Communist Chinese Government's announcement that for the first time in Tibetan history, Red China has selected a successor to the Panchen Lama, the second highest-ranking official in Tibetan Buddhism, His Holiness the Dalai Lama being the No. 1, of course. Madam President, these significant events deserve the attention of all Americans and other citizens around the world. Senate Joint Resolution 43 is a sense-of-the-Congress resolution objecting to the treatment of Wei Jingsheng, who, by the way, is known as the father of democracy in China. Senate Joint Resolution 43 expresses regret concerning the Chinese Government's decision to name its own Panchen Lama of Tibet for the first time in Tibetan history. The resolution calls upon the United States Government to sponsor, and aggressively push for, passage of a resolution at next spring's meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission condemning Red China's human rights record. In drafting this resolution, I decided that it is important to highlight both the plight of Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Government's invasion into the religious freedoms of the Tibetan people. Both issues--religious freedom and political freedom--are human rights issues and should therefore be linked. This is not the first linkage of these two issues. In fact, when President Clinton and Jiang Zemin met in New York, it was emphasized to the Chinese leader that it is imperative for China to make progress on these two human rights issues. In fact, at that meeting, the Chinese were requested to give special attention to the fate of Wei Jingsheng, and of other political prisoners. Did the Chinese believe that charging Wei Jingsheng with attempting to overthrow the government and sentencing him to 14 years in jail was what was when the United States specified special attention? Of course not; the Chinese actions are mere examples of the in-your-face attitude of the Beijing government. Madam President, Senate passage of this resolution is vital. If the Senate fails to make a clear definitive statement protesting these actions, the Chinese will decide that the American people don't care. That, of course, is simply not the case. If the U.S. Congress does not act now on Wei Jingsheng's behalf, we will be forfeiting the opportunity to make a difference. I further understand the Clinton administration is to decide in the near future, whether the United States should support a China human rights resolution at the next meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. We have supported a China/human rights resolution for the past 3 years. This year should not be different. I encourage the President to think long and hard about that decision. President Clinton has said over and over that the best way to pressure the Chinese on human rights issues is to pursue them in international arenas. The U.N. Human Rights Commission is an opportunity that should not be missed. Some Senators maintain that quiet diplomacy will work better than a congressional resolution. I differ. Since July, the United States Congress, and effectively the United States Government, have engaged in quiet diplomacy and has shied away from strong statements about events in China. Look where those efforts have gotten us on issues about which we care deeply. That brave young man fighting for democracy in Communist China and that poor 6-year-old boy and his parents who have disappeared because he was chosen as the next Panchen Lama of Tibet need our help. I encourage Senators to support this resolution and say a prayer for all Chinese citizens who one day could be mistreated just as these young men have been.

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 (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 $1,162,547,561,447.99 since February 26, 1992. As of the close of business Tuesday, December 12, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,988,438,854,514.79. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,936.20 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Hutchison-Inhofe resolution opposing President Clinton sending American troops to Bosnia, I am obliged to note that the administration's problem is that it lacks a coherent policy for resolving the war in the former Yugoslavia. That is it, pure and simple. A coherent policy must be based upon a clear-eyed assessment of the United States national interest in the Balkans. It must employ a means to address our national interest, calculated in direct proportion to the threat posed to the United States. Most of all, a coherent policy must have an end, a goal, a point at which we can define when the mission is accomplished. The administration's plan has none of these elements. The foundation of President Clinton's policy in Bosnia is not the national interest--it is desperation. This desperation to fill the vacuum of American leadership in Bosnia has led the President to make a disastrous decision. In a last, desperate act he is demanding that the U.S. military rescue his foreign policy. The American people should be prepared for the possibility that American lives will be lost any time our national interest is at stake. I am certain that if asked to go to war our brave men and women in uniform would, without hesitation, heed the President's call. I salute those who would serve the Nation so readily, but I cannot and will not support the President's decision to ask them to make this sacrifice. The risk to the lives of our troops far exceeds any national interest the United States could possibly have--particularly as defined by President Clinton--any national interest we could possibly have in the Balkans. The question will not go away: ``Mr. President, what precisely is your goal? What is your objective in Bosnia? Is it the creation of an inviolable Bosnian nation?'' If so, the Dayton Agreement assuredly does not accomplish that goal. The agreement--pure and simple--is the partitioning of a sovereign nation on ethnic lines. Is Mr. Clinton's goal to provide the people of Bosnia the means of defending themselves? If so, the President has so far shown no inclination to do so. Is it to save his own foreign policy and salvage his administration's standing on the world stage? If so, it is too late, and a disastrous military campaign in the Balkans can only do harm to the reputation and prestige of the United States far beyond what the 3 years of inaction by the administration already have. The Bosnian people do not deserve war. Americans do not deserve to die in support of a policy that will not bring peace to the Bosnians. What we can and must do is help the people of that nation help themselves. If we truly want to guarantee lasting peace in the Balkans, we need to give the Bosnian people the tools of peace: the means to defend themselves from renewed Serb aggression. Mr. President, more than 3 months ago I introduced legislation to provide the Bosnian people with American arms and training that they need to defend themselves. That legislation calls upon the administration to lead an international effort to coordinate contributions from those countries who wish to join in helping the Bosnians acquire the means of self-defense. I will do everything in my power to help the Bosnians acquire the means to defend themselves. But I cannot, I do not, and I will not support sending American soldiers to fight, and to die, in Bosnia for the sake of an agreement that offers no more than a brief pause while all sides prepare for the next round of Balkan wars. Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have the honor, along with Senator Pell from the Foreign Relations Committee, of presenting the new Prime Minister from Israel, Shimon Peres. I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess for 6 minutes.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably four nomination lists in the Foreign Service which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of September 5, September 22, and October 31, 1995, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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 yesterday, December 11, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,988,568,481,765.63. Another depressing figure means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,936.69. 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 in favor of balancing the Federal budget?

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 Friday, December 8, the Federal debt stood at $4,988,945,631,994.24. On a per-capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,938.12 as his or her share of the Federal debt. More than two centuries ago, the Constitutional Convention adopted the Declaration of Independence. It's time for Congress to adopt to a Declaration of Financial Independence and meet an important obligation to the public that it has ignored for more than half a century--that is, to spend no more than it takes in--and thereby begin to pay off this massive debt.

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 7, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,989,071,101,377.59 or $18,938.60 on a per capita basis for every man, woman, and child.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I am grateful for the opportunity to work for him and with him in reaching this agreement. And I have only the observation that this could have been achieved many, many weeks ago if there had not been such intransigence. But that is behind us. I hope from this point on that we can work together in good faith, not question each other's good faith, and work for the American people, saving money and improve the foreign policy apparatus of this country, which badly needs improving. And I pledge that I shall work with the Senator as long as he is willing to work with me. And I thank the Senator. And I thank the Chair. I want to send to the desk, Madam President, a printed review of the items that Senator Kerry has just discussed for the benefit of the reporter. I know he tried to take it down, but it is easier to have it in writing. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the review be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, it goes without saying that I am grateful, as I always am, for the remarkable staff of the majority on the Foreign Relations Committee. Beside me is Steve Berry, who has worked arduously and continuously, and he still has a little bit of his hair left. And then there is Randy Scheunemann, who once was on our staff and is now associated with Senator Dole. He has been of invaluable help. I cannot go down the long list, but I am obliged to mention my Monroe, North Carolina colleague, the chief of staff of the Foreign Relations Committee, retired navy admiral Bud Nance. He calls himself ``Bud,'' but his name is James Wilson Nance. I must insert the personal note that Bud and I were born 2 months apart, two blocks apart in the little town of Monroe. He served 38 years in the Navy, and after that, he served Ronald Reagan as his foreign affairs advisor.

Mr. HELMS. That is very kind of the Senator. I know they appreciate that.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 2539, a bill to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled ``An Act to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and for other purposes'', and ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That the following Members be the managers of the conference on the part of the House: From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Shuster, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Petri, Mr. Coble, Ms. Molinari, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Lipinski. From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Mr. Hyde, Mr. Moorhead, and Mr. Conyers.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendment, agree to the request of the House for a conference, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 198 submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and McCain.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the navy nominations beginning with Brian G. Buck (Reference PN715), which was favorably reported by the Committee on Armed Services and placed on the executive calendar on December 5, 1995, be re-referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. For the information of all Senators, by a previous consent agreement, the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to Senate Joint Resolution 31 was withdrawn earlier, and the Senate will begin debate on the constitutional amendment regarding flag desecration at 10 a.m. tomorrow. There will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate. It is hoped that during Friday's session of the Senate, we will reach a consent agreement in which all amendments to the flag desecration bill would be debated on Monday. If an agreement can be reached, it may be possible that there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session, and any vote ordered on Monday will occur on Tuesday. If an agreement cannot be reached on the constitutional flag amendment on Friday, then votes will be possible during Monday's session on amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 31, but those votes will not occur before 6 p.m. Monday.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. If there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that if the Chemical Weapons Convention has not been reported by the close of business on April 30, 1996, that convention be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee and placed on the Executive Calendar.