Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, allow me to address one more objection raised by opponents of this bill. In fact, the National Abortion Federation raised it with me in a November 3 letter, complete with pictures of severely abnormal babies. The NAF claims that it is the tragedy of deformed and abnormal babies that has produced a need for partial-birth abortions. Without this procedure, they portend, a pregnant woman's health will be threatened--Dr. Smith and other doctors have already refuted this point--and such abnormalities are ``incompatible with life.'' Now, Mr. President, nobody, in their right mind, would ever wish for a mother and father to face the heartbreaking experience of their newborn being delivered with a severe abnormality. Nobody would ever want a child to endure the physical and emotional scars of a physical deformity. Yet, for these reasons, they claim partial-birth abortions should remain legal. Again, I disagree and ask opponents of the bill to consider the reasons given by Dr. Martin Haskell, a noted proponent and practitioner of partial-birth abortions, as to why this procedure is conducted. Dr. Haskell, in a 1993 interview with American Medical News, states that 20 percent are conducted for genetic reasons, and the other 80 percent are purely elective--purely to get rid of the child. And according to materials presented to a House Judiciary subcommittee, the non-elective reasons given for a partial-birth abortion conducted by the late Dr. James McMahon included such ``flaws'' as a cleft palate. Are these the type of genetic reasons these babies suffer painful deaths? Mr. President, the facts are in and I will not belabor them further. But they clearly prove that partial-birth abortions are unnecessary to preserve the health of a woman in a late-term complicated pregnancy. Simply put, a partial-birth abortion is another means for a woman to terminate her unwanted child very late in pregnancy. I urge my colleagues, do not be deceived by the pro-abortion rhetoric which would have you believe that this cruel procedure is needed. Instead, listen to the advice of medical experts. Consider the outcry of the American people who recognize partial-birth abortions as inhuman and stand up for the most helpless and innocent human beings imaginable. I thank the distunguished Senator from New Hampshire, and I admire him and the great work he has done. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 November 4, 1995. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: I am a medical doctor, board certified in the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology. I am also in the process of completing a master's in public health with enhanced analytical skills in maternal and child health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. For the past 15 years I have practiced in the inner city of Chicago and currently I am the Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital; a member of the Association of Professors in Gynecology and Obstetrics; and the President Elect of the American Association of Profile Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It has recently been brought to my attention that on November 7th the Senate will consider the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. As a fellow citizen I urge you to support this legislation. As you are probably aware the partial birth abortion procedure involves delivering a human fetus by breach extraction until only the head remains inside the birth canal. The practitioner then kills the baby by inserting a pair of scissors into the base of the skull and removing the baby's brains with a vacuum. This is the procedure the proposed bill seeks to ban. Last week, despite a tremendous amount of medical misinformation given by the opponents of H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban received strong support in its passage in the House. As this measure is now being presented for Senate consideration please be aware of the following medical facts: 1. Opponents insinuated that aborting a living human fetus is sometimes necessary to preserve the reproductive potential and/or life of the mother. Such an assertion is deceptive and patently untrue. Even if the fetus is grotesquely malformed, a living intrauterine pregnancy is not a health risk to its mother unless the woman suffers from extremely rare medical problems that would preclude pregnancy under any circumstances. 2. Partial birth abortion is a surgical technique devised by secluded abortionists in the unregulated abortion industry to save them the trouble of ``counting the body parts'' that are produced in dismemberment procedures. It is not a ``standard of care'' for anything. Equally important is the fact that the risks involved in dismemberment procedures and partial birth abortion include istrogenically produced cervical incompetence and uterine rupture. Medical alternatives (like prostaglendine) do not pose these risks but have the undesirable ``side effect'' of sometimes producing a living child. Women who were ``counseled'' by abortionists that they were submitting themselves to a procedure that was ``safe'' and that would insure their future reproductive potential were deceived and lied to. These women actually risked losing their uterus or their lives by submitting to these dangerous intrauterine extractions. 3. In breach extractions frequently the baby's head ``slips out.'' Since the practitioners of this procedure (who by their own reports up until 1993 had performed at least 3,000 of these procedures) have never reported a survivor you can be assured that some of these fetuses were constitutional persons who were murdered. 4. The baby is alive throughout the entire procedure until the scissors are jammed into the base of the skull. 5. There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. Additionally, given the recent attempts by the ACGME to coerce OBGYN residents into becoming abortion providers, many profile and prochoice physicians in training are concerned that they will be forced to witness and/or participate in gruesome abortion [[Page S 18077]] techniques. Most of these individuals support the decriminalization of abortion . . . but are extremely uncomfortable with procedures that destroy a life that is undeniably human. I therefore urge you to consider these factors during the deliberations on this bill. The health status of women and children in this country can only be enhanced by banning partial birth abortions. Sincerely, Pamela E. Smith, M.D., FACOG.

Mr. HELMS. Even Dr. Warren Hern--author of ``Abortion Practice,'' considered by the American Medical Association as the Nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures--boldly disputes the safety of this late-term abortion, calling it ``potentially dangerous.'' Ask Dr. Hern what he thinks about partial-birth abortions as a safe option for late-term abortions. Let me repeat Dr. Hern's comments from a November 20 article in the American Medical News. He says, ``You really can't defend it,'' referring to a partial-birth abortion. He continues, ``I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. But I'm not going to do it.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the November 20, 1995, American Medical News article titled, ``Outlawing Abortion Method,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. First of all, Mr. President, I think all of us who understand this issue are grateful to the Senator from New Hampshire for his courage and his tenacity in standing up for the unborn, particularly those who have been and otherwise may be destroyed in the most gruesome and horrible way--a partial-birth abortion. I personally am indebted to Senator Smith, and I admire him very much. Mr. President, about a month ago, the Senate decided to send H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, to the Judiciary Committee with instructions that Senator Hatch and his committee hold at least one hearing and then return the bill to the Senate calendar within 19 days. The Judiciary Committee has held that hearing and despite the rehashed charges of opponents of this bill, the U.S. Senate can no longer shirk its responsibility. Senator Dole, by offering a life-of- the-mother exemption to H.R. 1833, has offered a provision that preserves the innocent lives of babies but also answers charges that the original bill did nothing to preserve the lives of the mothers. Mr. President, Senators have no more excuses. Senators must decide, and should decide soon, whether they will approve a gruesome procedure that is both inhuman and heartless. Senators have heard the partial- birth abortion procedure described. They have seen the graphic depictions. It can easily and factually be said, as Senator Smith and I discussed when the bill first came to the Senate on November 7, that these innocent, tiny babies are just 3 inches from the protection of the law, only to be mercilessly deprived of their right to live and to love and to be loved. Senators should also decide whether they will disregard the medical facts and enlightening testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee which confirmed what proponents of the original bill have argued in the House of Representatives and in the Senate--that the voices of tiny babies are being silenced so that a woman can continue to choose to have an abortion in the third trimester. Let me add, if Senators miss this opportunity to criminalize partial- birth abortions, they will be thumbing their noses at the American public whose outcry against partial-birth abortions is overwhelming. Mr. President, I was pleased as the House of Representatives listened to the American people and overwhelmingly passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by a vote of 288-139 on November 1. If the Senate now follows, as it should, the House's example--and I sincerely hope that the Senate will--the burden then will shift to President Clinton who is more than ready, he says, to use his veto pen in order to appease the pro-abortion lobby unless weighty restrictions are added to the bill. And that is where we stand today as the Senate has heard from the chorus of Senators, many of whom have taken their marching orders from the powerful abortion lobby. Opponents of the bill have done their best to explain the medical necessity of a procedure that legally allows a doctor to partially deliver a baby, feet-first from the womb, only to have his or her brains brutally removed via the doctor's instruments. However, Mr. President, these objections by the bill's opponents are hollow attempts to whitewash a hideous wrong. For instance, they continue to persuade Senators that partial-birth abortions are medically necessary in order to preserve the health of pregnant women. Of course, ask NARAL and the other proabortion groups to define a ``medically necessary'' situation and you'll hear a variety of answers including ``emotional stress,'' ``depression,'' or ``psychological indecision.'' NARAL even defined ``medically necessary'' abortions as ``a term which generally [[Page S 18076]] includes the broadest range of situations for which a state will fund abortion.''--``Who Decides? A Reproductive Rights Issues Manual-- 1990''. Mr. President, I suggest we ask the American people who are ringing the phones off the hooks of Senate offices whether they see eye to eye with NARAL and other pro-abortion groups. They are not fooled. They recognize these semantic games as a smokescreen to demand abortion at any time, for any reason. More importantly, the medical evidence declares that this procedure is not needed to protect the health of the mother in a late-term crisis pregnancy. Don't take it from me. Take it from Dr. Pamela E. Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Chicago's Mount Sinai Hospital. Dr. Smith, in her November 4 letter to me, states that assertions implying that a partial-birth abortion is needed to protect the health of a woman in a late-term complicated pregnancy is ``deceptive and patently untrue.'' Dr. Smith even goes as far to explain in her October 28 letter to Congressman Charles Canady that such a procedure, in fact, presents medical risks to the patient. In her testimony before the Judiciary Committee on November 17, Dr. Smith asks an important question that I wish every opponent of this bill would attempt to answer, and it is this: Why would a procedure considered to impose a significant risk to maternal health when it is used to deliver a baby alive, suddenly become the ``safe method of choice'' when the goal is to kill the baby? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Smith's letter from November 4, 1995, her letter from October 28, 1995, and her November 17 testimony before the Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that November evening in 1972 when I was first elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It has proved enormously beneficial to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate. Most of them have been concerned about the Federal debt which is slightly in excess of $11 billion shy of $5 trillion--which will be exceeded later this year. Of course, Congress is responsible for creating this monstrosity for which the coming generations will have to pay. The young people and I almost always discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 25, 1992. I wanted to make a matter of daily record the precise size of the Federal debt which, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, December 5, stood at $4,988,766,009,862.29 or $18,937.44 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis. The increase in the national debt since my report yesterday--which identified the total Federal debt as of close of business on Monday, December 4, 1995--shows an increase of $125,665,418.83. That increase, I'm told, is equivalent to the amount of money needed by 215,311 students to pay their college tuitions for 4 years.

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 4, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,988,891,675,281.12. Another depressing figure means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,937.92. Mr. President, back to our quiz--how many millions in a trillion?: There are a million million in a trillion, which means that the Federal Government will shortly owe five million million. Now who is not in favor of balancing the Federal budget?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business Friday, December 1, the Federal debt stood at $4,989,268,168,883.55. We are still about $11 billion away from the $5 trillion mark. Unfortunately, we anticipate hitting this mark sometime later this year or early next year. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,939.35 as his or her share of that debt.

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 television's Energizer bunny that appears and appears and appears in precisely the same way 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, November 29, the total Federal debt stood at exactly $4,988,882,588,134.46 or $18,937.88 per man, woman, child, on a per capita basis. Res ipsa loquitur. Some control.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago I began these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of close of business the previous day. As of the close of business Tuesday, November 28, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,989,008,629,825.32. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,938.36 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It is important to recall, Mr. President, that the Senate this year missed an opportunity to approve a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regrettably, the Senate failed by one vote in that first attempt to bring the Federal debt under control. There will be another opportunity in the months ahead to approve such a Constitutional amendment.

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 quiz. 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, November 27, the total Federal debt--down to the penny--stood at $4,988,885,320,472.65. Another depressing figure means that on a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,937.89. 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 is in favor of balancing the Federal budget? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt is now slightly in excess of $13 billion shy of $5 trillion. As of the close of business Friday, November 24, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,989,260,237,257.80 or $18,939.32 on a per capita basis for every man, woman, and child.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in early October John Scali died, the obituaries stated, of heart failure--which is interesting because John Scali was a gentleman known by his friends as being ``good-hearted.'' I had known John for many years in many ways and I never heard him boast, even once. John Scali had a quiet greatness that carried him to a distinguished career as an honorable and objective journalist for ABC television, later as an adviser to President Nixon, and then as successor to George Bush as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I first met John Scali during his and my television days; he with ABC-TV in Washington and I with WRAL-TV in Raleigh. When I was elected to the Senate in 1972 John was one of the first to call. When I arrived in the Senate in January 1973 as a new boy on the block, I saw John Scali more often. He stopped by many times, seldom for an interview but mostly as a friend. There were a few lines in a few obituaries about John that deserved more attention than they got concerning John Scali's remarkable involvement [[Page S 17521]] in pulling back the Soviet Union and the United States from what may have been the brink of war in 1962. Mr. President, John Scali kept this episode a secret, and at this point, I shall bring to the Senate's attention a column by my longtime friend, Max Freedman, himself an erudite gentleman whose very credible thoughts appear regularly in the Jewish Journal published in New York City. At this point, Mr. President, let Max take over. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Max Freedman column of November 24 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago I began these daily reports to the Senate to make a matter of record the exact Federal debt as of close of business the previous day. As of the close of business Friday, November 17, the Federal debt stood at exactly $4,989,662,795,523.25. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,940.85 as his or her share of the Federal debt. It is important to recall, Mr. President, that the Senate this year missed an opportunity to implement a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Regrettably, the Senate failed by one vote in that first attempt to bring the Federal debt under control. There will be another opportunity in the months ahead to approve such a constitutional amendment.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on that evening in 1972 when I first was elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. It has proved enormously beneficial to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the nearly 23 years I have been in the Senate. Most of them have been concerned about the total Federal debt which is slightly in excess of $11 billion shy of $5 trillion (which will be exceeded later this year). Of course, Congress is responsible for creating this monstrosity for which the coming generations will have to pay. The young people and I almost always discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 25, 1992. I wanted to make a matter of daily record the precise size of the Federal debt which, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, November 16, stood at $4,989,792,104,452.15 or $18,941.34 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis. The increase in the national debt since my report yesterday (which identified the total Federal debt as of close of business on Wednesday, November 15, 1995) shows an increase of $1,452,054,077.58. That increase is equivalent to the amount of money needed by 215,311 students to pay their college tuitions for 4 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the close of business yesterday, November 15, the Federal debt stood at $4,988,340,050,374.57. We are still about $12 billion away from the $5 trillion mark. Unfortunately, we anticipate hitting this mark sometime later this year or early next year. On a per capita basis, every man, woman and child in America owes $18,935.82 as his or her share of that debt. [[Page S 17182]]

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the settlement was subject to ratification of an Interstate compact by both State legislatures and approval by the Congress. According to the officials in North Carolina, this agreement protects the interests of the three North Carolina counties that surround the lake. As of now, neither State has ratified the compact. The communities that surround the lake in Northampton, Warren, and Halifax Counties in North Carolina are greatly dependent on it to support their economies. According to a November 2, 1993, article in the Lake Gaston Gazette, property owners around the lake paid over $253 million in 1993 real estate and personal property taxes. Also it is estimated that there has been $125 million in new home construction each year. Mr. President, North Carolina and Virginia have a history of cooperation on matters affecting both States. For example the joint North Carolina and Virginia efforts to stem Lake Gaston's having been infested by hydrilla, an aquatic weed similar to kudzu. These five counties and both State governments have worked together to bring this nuisance weed under control. If Virginia and the city of Virginia Beach object to this legislation, there is a way out; this proposed law will not apply if and when the June 26 settlement is resurrected and there is an interstate compact. So each State can urge its Governor and legislature to ratify the agreement and the compact. This will give everyone a chance to take a second look at North Carolina's environmental concerns. This legislation is narrowly drawn to apply only to this particular situation and would not adversely affect our western friends. We realize how sensitive our western friends are on the issue of water rights. Senator Faircloth's and my staffs have consulted with numerous experts in western U.S. water rights and have been assured that this legislation exempts western water projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today Senator Faircloth and I are introducing the Lake Gaston Protection Act of 1995. The States of North Carolina and Virginia have been locked in a dispute for a decade as to whether the city of Virginia Beach should be able to withdraw water from Lake Gaston, which straddles both States. Our bill stops the withdrawal of water from the lake until Federal officials listen to the concerns of countless thousands of citizens of both North Carolina and Virginia. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] approved a permit allowing the daily withdrawal of 60 million gallons from Lake Gaston-- but the FERC officials did not look closely enough at the potential negative environmental effects of withdrawing 60 million gallons a day from the lake. In short, they failed to consider either the environmental problems or the adverse impact on striped bass and other fish species. A sharply reduced quantity of water flowing through the lower Roanoke River basin may very well be harmful to the estuaries of the Albemarle Sound in the spawning of many fish species. And, Mr. President besides the environmental impact, the withdrawal could very well pose dire consequences to the commercial and recreational fishing industry that depends so heavily on an adequate exchange of fresh water and salt water in the estuary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have obtained certification from the State of North Carolina that there would be no degradation of water quality or the environment. Instead, FERC ran roughshod over the concerns of North Carolina. Mr. President, Senator Faircloth's and my bill would require FERC to obtain certification from North Carolina that this project will have no, and I emphasize, no adverse impact on the environment or the local economy. Mr. President, for the record, I believe a brief history of this dispute may be helpful. Virginia Electric Power Co., on behalf of Virginia Beach, applied to the FERC for permission to construct a water intake on Pea Hill Cove of Lake Gaston and a 76-mile pipeline to withdraw up to 60 million gallons per day. Both the City of Virginia Beach and the State of North Carolina have marched back and forth in the Federal courts over this issue. North Carolina raised many concerns of water quality and the adverse effects on the downstream ecosystems. North Carolina officials assert that FERC did a far too hasty job on its environmental analysis. FERC allowed only 2 months for the review of the reams of environmental data. Furthermore North Carolina asserts that FERC staff failed to conduct studies requested by several Federal agencies, including the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, and independent biologists. After much litigation, a Federal mediator was appointed by the Federal courts within the past 18 months, to look into the possibility of bringing the State of North Carolina and the city of Virginia Beach to an agreement on the issue. A final settlement agreement was reached on June 26, and was supported by both Virginia Senators. I have a copy of a letter signed by both Senators to the Governors of North Carolina and Virginia in support of the agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be placed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, first I ask the distinguished Senator from Texas if she and Senator Simpson would add my name as a cosponsor.

Mr. HELMS. Just so the time is not charged to me.

Mr. HELMS. I am sorry, I did not hear.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am going to have to object. Senator Faircloth is the cosponsor of the bill that I am about to introduce. I think he is entitled to be heard, too.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today Senator Faircloth and I are introducing the Lake Gaston Protection Act of 1995. The States of North Carolina and Virginia have been locked in a dispute for a decade as to whether the city of Virginia Beach should be able to withdraw water from Lake Gaston, which straddles both States. Our bill stops the withdrawal of water from the lake until Federal officials listen to the concerns of countless thousands of citizens of both North Carolina and Virginia. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] approved a permit allowing the daily withdrawal of 60 million gallons from Lake Gaston-- but the FERC officials did not look closely enough at the potential negative environmental effects of withdrawing 60 million gallons a day from the lake. In short, they failed to consider either the environmental problems or the adverse impact on striped bass and other fish species. A sharply reduced quantity of water flowing through the lower Roanoke River basin may very well be harmful to the estuaries of the Albemarle Sound in the spawning of many fish species. And, Mr. President besides the environmental impact, the withdrawal could very well pose dire consequences to the commercial and recreational fishing industry that depends so heavily on an adequate exchange of fresh water and salt water in the estuary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have obtained certification from the State of North Carolina that there would be no degradation of water quality or the environment. Instead, FERC ran roughshod over the concerns of North Carolina. Mr. President, Senator Faircloth's and my bill would require FERC to obtain certification from North Carolina that this project will have no, and I emphasize, no adverse impact on the environment or the local economy. Mr. President, for the record, I believe a brief history of this dispute may be helpful. Virginia Electric Power Co., on behalf of Virginia Beach, applied to the FERC for permission to construct a water intake on Pea Hill Cove of Lake Gaston and a 76-mile pipeline to withdraw up to 60 million gallons per day. Both the City of Virginia Beach and the State of North Carolina have marched back and forth in the Federal courts over this issue. North Carolina raised many concerns of water quality and the adverse effects on the downstream ecosystems. North Carolina officials assert that FERC did a far too hasty job on its environmental analysis. FERC allowed only 2 months for the review of the reams of environmental data. Furthermore North Carolina asserts that FERC staff failed to conduct studies requested by several Federal agencies, including the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, and independent biologists. After much litigation, a Federal mediator was appointed by the Federal courts within the past 18 months, to look into the possibility of bringing the State of North Carolina and the city of Virginia Beach to an agreement on the issue. A final settlement agreement was reached on June 26, and was supported by both Virginia Senators. I have a copy of a letter signed by both Senators to the Governors of North Carolina and Virginia in support of the agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter be placed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the settlement was subject to ratification of an Interstate compact by both State legislatures and approval by the Congress. According to the officials in North Carolina, this agreement protects the interests of the three North Carolina counties that surround the lake. As of now, neither State has ratified the compact. The communities that surround the lake in Northampton, Warren, and Halifax Counties in North Carolina are greatly dependent on it to support their economies. According to a November 2, 1993, article in the Lake Gaston Gazette, property owners around the lake paid over $253 million in 1993 real estate and personal property taxes. Also it is estimated that there has been $125 million in new home construction each year. Mr. President, North Carolina and Virginia have a history of cooperation on matters affecting both States. For example the joint North Carolina and Virginia efforts to stem Lake Gaston's having been infested by hydrilla, an aquatic weed similar to kudzu. These five counties and both State governments have worked together to bring this nuisance weed under control. If Virginia and the city of Virginia Beach object to this legislation, there is a way out; this proposed law will not apply if and when the June 26 settlement is resurrected and there is an interstate compact. So each State can urge its Governor and legislature to ratify the agreement and the compact. This will give everyone a chance to take a second look at North Carolina's environmental concerns. This legislation is narrowly drawn to apply only to this particular situation and would not adversely affect our western friends. We realize how sensitive our western friends are on the issue of water rights. Senator Faircloth's and my staffs have consulted with numerous experts in western U.S. water rights and have been assured that this legislation exempts western water projects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, when the Senate first considered the amendment in disagreement, regarding abortion funding with foreign aid money, advance notice was given only to those who opposed the House position. Today, no notice was given to anyone. It was I who urged a rollcall vote on the issue. I urge Senators to support the House position. I heard it mentioned that the Senate already has defeated this language, but that is just not the case. The Senate has never voted directly on this provision and it won't today; previously, it voted on a Kassebaum provision which, in essence, gutted the House provision. I have heard assertions that pro-life Members refuse to budge on various amendments or provisions. But, Senators should understand that the House position has already changed substantially from its original position in order to meet concerns of the Senate. The original ``Mexico City'' language as passed by the House has been modified to cover only foreign private and voluntary organizations. This is an important distinction that Senators on the other side of the aisle ignore. Furthermore, the provision relating to the U.N. Population Program [UNFPA] was modified by the House in several ways. First, more time was provided to UNFPA to terminate its operations in China, thus allowing it more flexibility. Second, the term ``motivate'' was redefined so as not to prohibit family planning counseling. The House has tried to accommodate Senate concerns. It is pro- abortion Senators who refuse to compromise. And I urge my colleagues to oppose the tabling motion and thereby support the House position. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the equally able Presiding Officer. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to defer to the distinguished Senator from Texas, after which I shall be recognized.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, now slightly in excess of $13 billion shy of $5 trillion, has been fueled for a generation by bureaucratic hot air--sort of like a hot air balloon spinning out of control--which everybody has talked about, but almost nobody even tried to fix. That attitude began to change however, immediately after the November 1994 elections. The 104th Congress promised to hold true to the Founding Fathers' decree that the executive branch of the U.S. Government should never be able to spend a dime unless and until it had been authorized and appropriated by the U.S. Congress. So, when the new 104th Congress convened this past January, the U.S. House of Representatives quickly approved a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the Senate side, all but 1 of the 54 Republican Senators supported the balanced budget amendment. That was the good news. The bad news was that only 13 Democratic Senators supported it, and that killed the balanced budget amendment for the time being. Since a two-thirds vote--67 Senators, if all Senators are present--is necessary to approve a constitutional amendment, the proposed Senate amendment failed by one vote. There will be another vote during the 104th Congress. Here is today's bad debt boxscore: As of the close of business Tuesday, November 14, the Federal debt-- down to the penny--stood at exactly $4,987,139,764,503.11 or $18,931.27 on a per capita basis for every man, woman, and child.