William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. All right. The Senator wants me to give him some time then.

Mr. COHEN. I am just curious; the Senator is going to speak for the amendment or against it?

Mr. COHEN. I assume it will take about 5 minutes after the time?

Mr. COHEN. I have no objection.

Mr. COHEN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to add a few comments. First, let me add my distinguished colleague, Senator Thurmond, as a cosponsor to the amendment. Let me try to respond briefly to the comments that have been made. It seems to me these are the very same arguments that AT&T made 30 years ago: ``If you do not allow us to control the phone, we will lose our signal. We will have people who will be getting access to our telephone service without paying for it.'' The objective of this amendment is to make sure the FCC calls upon the private sector to develop the standard that will protect the cable signal. I do not want to see the cable companies lose the benefit of programming and the costs of doing business by having people engage in thievery. What we want to do is make sure that they are, in fact, protected. That is precisely the wording and the intent of the language of the amendment. The Senator from South Dakota said competition will force change. But that is the problem. There is no competition in the set-top box market; there is a monopoly. We want to have competition. We want to force change. We want to have 10 different types of boxes or whatever other devices might be developed in the future, and not grant a monopoly to any one of the cable companies. Yes, competition does force change. We have seen it in virtually every aspect of our lives, from the telephones, the VCR, to the computers, to everything. We go to Circuit City, Radio Shack, any of these major malls, and we see an absolute abundance of electronic devices by virtue of having a free market. There is no free market today with set-top boxes. Take, for example, one cable company in Arlington, VA. Here is what they say in their ``Policies and Procedures'': Please remember . . . that channel selector boxes with descrambling capability can only [[Page S7994]] be obtained from Cable TV Arlington. In fact, should you see advertisements for cable equipment that have descramblers in them (so-called ``pirate boxes'' or ``black boxes'') you should understand these devices are illegal to sell or to use, unless authorized by CTA [Cable TV Arlington]. Because of the need to protect our scrambled services, Cable TV Arlington will not authorize the use of any descrambler not provided by CTA. CTA does not recommend purchasing channel selector boxes from other sources. Companies say ``Rent our boxes.'' People cannot buy them. If you have more competition, you obviously will have greater consumer choice. You will have more manufacturers. You will have diversity. You will have quality, as well. Our amendment has a security provision, and for those who are concerned about whether the FCC is now going to interject itself and take over, we have also added a sunset provision. I do not want to see the FCC have long-range regulatory authority. But we are talking about breaking up the monopoly by saying the FCC shall go to the private sector, give them enough time to develop a standard, and if they do not develop a standard, propose a temporary standard. And it is temporary under this legislation as drafted. Who supports this, Mr. President? Well, I have a letter here from the Information Technology Industry Council [ITI]. I will have it printed for the Record. We also have the support of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association [CTIA]. They were originally concerned with the bundling provision in my earlier legislation. Because of this concern, I deleted the bundling provision in the amendment. So they are now in support and do not oppose the amendment. Who is opposed to it? Obviously, the cable companies are opposed to it. They are the ones who are saying no; we like having this monopoly. We want to control the boxes. We want to rent them. We do not have to worry about competition. We do not have to worry about it at all. The companies, obviously, who manufacture the boxes like going to a couple of cable companies and saying, ``Here is our product.'' They do not want to be forced to engage in competition for the manufacture of these devices, be they boxes or some other type of device that the future will show us. I think we have also addressed the issue of security. We have addressed the issue of limited FCC regulatory power by saying it is only temporary. The core of this amendment is more competition, lower prices, better quality, and more choice. Mr. President, I make these comments on behalf of many of my colleagues who have served on the Judiciary Committee, as well. Perhaps they will be coming to the floor before debate is concluded. The notion that somehow we have to be concerned that if we allow any competition, this will actually increase the theft of cable signals, I think is precisely the same argument that was made by the telephone industry 30 years ago. I think we have come a long way since then by virtue of competition. The consumer certainly has benefited. I think that this is precisely what needs to be done with this area of telecommunications that is now controlled by monopolies. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the material previously mentioned.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise this evening, along with Senator Snowe, to offer an amendment that is a pro-consumer amendment. It is a pro-competition amendment that is focused on one narrow area of telecommunications that I truly believe needs more competition. Basically, what we have is a situation in which cable companies will offer their cable service and offer the so-called set-top boxes, a cable box essentially, that you need to rent in order to carry the cable signal. Obviously, cable companies are in the business to sell their signals and their programming, and they want to protect the integrity of that signal and that programming. I think that is not an unreasonable request. It is one that we ought to protect. The difficulty, however, is that there is little, if any, competition in the set-top box market. As a matter of fact, what you have is an essential monopoly that has been granted to the cable companies. We had a situation in Maine a short time ago where one company increased the monthly charge by almost $3, just for the privilege of renting a box in order to carry signals that subscribers were already carrying. A furor erupted over that. There is no real way to deal with this situation other than introducing competition. What I am seeking to do by this amendment is to allow the FCC the authority to call upon the private sector to develop a standard that would say, ``Here is the technology whereby we can protect our signals but also allow for competition in the manufacture and distribution of these set-top boxes.'' If we go back historically, we look at what happened to telephone companies. Decades ago, telephone companies would say, ``You have to rent our telephone. If you don't rent our telephone, you don't get any telephone service.'' Of course, times have changed. We now can walk into Circuit City, Radio Shack, Best Buy, or any of the supermalls, and we can find 20 or 30 different types of telephones. The signal has been protected. We can plug the telephone into the wall. We still have to pay the Bell companies, AT&T, MCI or whoever is carrying the signal. But the signal is protected. As a result of competition, we have a wide variety of choices in other markets--VCR's, television sets, computers, video game players, and stereo systems. In these markets, we have competition. What this amendment seeks to do is introduce competition into the set-top box market. Mr. President, I really believe that those who are opposed to this amendment--I have seen a letter circulated--argue that somehow this amendment represents more regulation. Those who argue against this amendment are for monopoly, not for more competition. What we seek to do is to allow the FCC to call upon the private sector to develop the standards, and those would come--they should come--in a reasonably short period of time. We can do it today with analog technology. I am told that digital technology is moving along very rapidly. For example, one [[Page S7992]] could take a credit card, or something that looks like a credit card, and the cable company that is sending the signal would have their code on that card. You could not receive the programming without inserting that card into the set-top box. That is something that is not too far away on the horizon. It may not even be necessary to have a set-top box the way technology is running today. But even if we are dealing with analog technology, competition can exist in the manufacture and distribution of the boxes, just as we have competition in the manufacture and distribution of telephones today. So for those reasons, I am submitting the legislation. I am hoping that the Members of the Senate will agree that if we are trying to stimulate more competition, give consumers more choices at lower prices--which, after all, is the goal of this legislation--then it should be accepted. I understand there are several States where these set-top boxes are manufactured, and the manufacturers like being able to go to the cable companies and say, ``Here, buy our box.'' If I were they, I would enjoy that as well. But if we are really talking about competition and giving consumers greater choices and lower prices, there is absolutely no reason why this amendment should not be accepted by the overwhelming majority of those people who are supporting deregulation, who are supporting this telecommunications revolution, and who want to see more competition. With that in mind, Mr. President, there may be others on our side. I know Senator Snowe is here, and she is a chief cosponsor of the legislation. It is something that is long overdue. The problem we have today is there is no free market. If we were back 30 years ago in the telephone industry, we would still have the old black phone and still be paying rent to AT&T. If we had this information superhighway, we would say basically you cannot own a car, you have to rent one of our cars. What this amendment says is we are going to give the consumer the opportunity to buy set-top boxes from any source they choose and, at the same time, allow for the protection of the signal by the cable company that is sending it forth. I believe this represents a reasonable approach. By the way, there were questions raised about my earlier legislation (S. 664) on this issue. Was I really trying to bring in the computer industry? The answer is no. Was I trying to bring in the cellular phone industry? Again, the answer is no. To address the concerns of these industries, our current amendment focuses on the lack of a competitive market for cable boxes. We have excluded cellular telephone communications. We have excluded anything relating to computers. The legislation is designed solely for set-top boxes. We have no desire or intent to regulate cellular phone or other telecommunications markets. I urge those who are now advocating competition in order to give consumers lower prices and more choice to support the amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COHEN. I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree amendments.

Mr. COHEN. A 7:30 vote.

Mr. COHEN. If it can occur sooner, can Senators be on notice that if time is yielded back we will vote prior to that time?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have agreed to an hour and a half equally divided, expecting a vote no later than--I would say what--a quarter of 8?

Mr. COHEN. That is correct.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I do not want to take the time of Senator Hatch.

Mr. COHEN. Reserving the right to object, I might indicate to the Senator from Utah that Senator Biden indicated he will allow me to have an additional 15 minutes separate and apart from this agreement.

Mr. COHEN. No.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from Utah for allowing me to use 15 minutes of his time. I will try and cut it down if I can, because I do not want to trespass on his time, especially since I am going to be speaking in opposition to his position. So it is kind generosity on his part, superimposed by the majority leader, I might add, but nonetheless I appreciate it. Mr. President, I have in my past life been both a prosecutor and defense counsel. I believe firmly that some reform of habeas corpus is necessary. Successive and repetitive petitions, appeals and Supreme Court reviews have led to excessive delays and imposed costs on State prosecutors' offices that otherwise would be dedicated to law enforcement. I think these delays have rightly been perceived by the American people as an abuse of the judicial process by those opposed to the death penalty. I also want to point out that I oppose the death penalty, but I cannot support a system that allows respect for the law to be undermined. Consequently, I believe many of the procedural reforms contained in S. 735 are appropriate and necessary. I support limits on successive, repetitive petitions. I support a statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions. And I support time limits on judicial consideration of habeas cases. I think these reforms should be sufficient to eliminate the abuses of the habeas system that have led to decade-long delays in many capital cases. But the goal of habeas corpus reform ought to be that prisoners have one complete bite at the apple. The bill before the Senate gives prisoners one bite at the apple but changes the law so that the bite is incomplete. It weakens the standards under which Federal courts review constitutional errors that take place in State courts by requiring a Federal court to defer to a State court's reasonable interpretation and application of constitutional law. By weakening the effectiveness of the writ in this way, I think it is going to erode what has been a cherished procedure over the centuries, the hallmark [[Page S7839]] of Anglo-American jurisprudence. The writ of habeas corpus is the last line of defense for constitutional rights. An effective habeas remedy is especially necessary in modern times because of the poor caliber of legal representation capital defendants are being provided in capital trials. Many of the States that produce a large number of capital cases have no minimum competency standards for defense counsel. One State limits the compensation for court-appointed counsel to $1,000 for all pretrial preparation and trial proceedings--I repeat, $1,000 for all pretrial preparation and trial proceedings. Another State pays a maximum of $2,500. A survey by the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association estimated that the average capital defense attorney is compensated at a rate of $11.75 an hour, just 2\1/2\ times the minimum wage. There are reported cases of trial counsel sleeping during trial, not presenting any mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of the trial, having only 6 months of legal experience and no criminal trial experience, or filing a one-page brief on appeal. In one of his last opinions from the bench, Justice Blackmun listed six egregious examples of the poor representation many capital defendants receive. One case Justice Blackmun described was that involving John Young, who was represented in his capital trial by an attorney who was addicted to drugs and who a few weeks after the trial was incarcerated on Federal drug charges. The court of appeals of the eleventh circuit rejected Young's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on Federal habeas review and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Young was executed in 1985. In another case, Larry Heath was represented on direct appeal by counsel who filed a six-page brief before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The attorney failed to appear for the oral argument before the Alabama Supreme Court and filed a brief in that court containing a one- page argument and citing a single case. The eleventh circuit found no prejudice, and the Supreme Court denied review. He was executed in 1992. The bill before the Senate does nothing to remedy the serious problem of incompetent counsel in State court capital cases. But in light of this, I think the Biden amendment is all the more imperative to maintain the effectiveness of habeas under these circumstances. When trial counsel has done little to protect a capital defendant's constitutional rights at trial, at the very least, it seems to me the Federal Government ought to provide effective Federal court review of the State court conviction and sentence to ensure that the core constitutional requirements have been satisfied. Mr. President, I think Senator Biden has already talked at some length about the case of Rubin ``Hurricane'' Carter. I read a book that was written some time ago called ``The 16th Round.'' In ``The 16th Round,'' we have a description of what happened to Rubin ``Hurricane'' Carter, the one time the middleweight prizefighter. It was not a death penalty case, but it was a case of an innocent man being convicted for a crime he did not commit, primarily because he was a black man who was in the vicinity when a triple murder was committed. It was way back in June 1966. Two light-skinned black men, one described as thin, about 5 feet 11 inches, shot and killed three people in a Paterson, NJ bar. Carter, a very dark-skinned, stocky, prizefighter, 5 feet 8 inches tall, was driving in the vicinity with two other people. They were stopped by the police and then released because they did not match the description of the killers. Later that night, Carter and a man named John Artis were again picked up by the police, but the survivor of the shooting failed to identify them as the killers. They were given lie detector tests and they passed. In the meantime, a small-time thief who was robbing a factory nearby the murder site told the police he had seen the commission of the crimes, and in an attempt to curry favor with the police, he told them Rubin ``Hurricane'' Carter was the killer. Based on that information, Carter and Artis were tried, convicted, and sentenced. Carter himself was sentenced to life in prison. Ten years later, after the thief recanted his trial testimony, Carter and Artis were given new trials. Then at the time of trial the thief recanted his recantation. Carter and Artis were convicted again. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed Carter's conviction by a vote of 4-3. Then a habeas corpus petition was filed in Federal court. In 1985, the court issued an opinion finding two serious constitutional violations: The prosecutor's misuse of a lie detector test and the denial of equal protection due to the prosecutor's unfounded racial allegations against the defendants. The prosecution argued that the defendants were simply out to murder white people when, in fact, the evidence was that they both had many white friends. The third circuit upheld the lower court's decision to grant the petition. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. And the State of New Jersey finally dismissed the indictment. Here we have a situation where a person spent over 20 years in prison over charges that were false. The attorney for Mr. Carter has written to Senator Hatch to point out that if a proposal similar to the one on the floor right now were law today, Carter's habeas corpus petition would have been dismissed. He said, ``I do not see what legitimate criminal justice purpose would be achieved by such a result.'' Indeed, the 16th round never would have occurred. The 15th round would have knocked Carter out for the rest of his life, without him ever having a legitimate opportunity to challenge the injustice that took place 20 years ago. So let us not fool ourselves. The substantive changes to the habeas bill being proposed are not designed just to eliminate frivolous cases. They are designed to weaken the Federal courts' role in scrutinizing State court verdicts for constitutional error. Prof. Henry Monaghan from Columbia University said it very well in a letter to Senator Hatch. He acknowledged that he is ``no fan of habeas corpus.'' But he was satisfied that the changes in the Supreme Court law and the procedural reforms in this bill ``would go a long way to eliminating abuses.'' He went on to urge that the substantive standards not be altered: I believe the writ's core function of affording independent Federal review to mixed questions of law and fact should be retained and that the deference provision in S. 735 should be withdrawn. The deference provision in S. 735 would keep habeas corpus from serving any meaningful role. Effectively, it would repeal the habeas corpus statute. Similarly, a former State prosecutor recently wrote to me that the ``reasonableness'' rule of deference in this bill is not the way to speed up habeas corpus review. It is not a way to prevent the same prisoner from filing more than one petition. Rather, ``it is an unprecedented attack on the rule, as old as the Republic, that Federal courts have the last word on what the Federal Constitution means and how it is to be applied. It would require Federal courts to stand by and do nothing even if presented with a State court ruling that was wrong, and the cause of the person being unjustly imprisoned or even executed.'' So, Mr. President, I think it is important that those accused of serious capital crimes have one complete bite at the apple. I believe the Biden amendment will make sure that one bite is complete and not incomplete. I hope that it will receive the endorsement of the Senate, because habeas corpus without it will become a hollow remedy, one that I do not think would be worthy of the title ``the Great Writ.'' A strong case has been made for the procedural reforms in this bill. They will increase respect for the law by stopping the endless delays and appeals of capital sentences. But no case has been made for changing the substantive standards applicable in federal courts for well over a century. When we are making such radical changes in our legal system, we should act prudently. We can always cut back on habeas in the future if the procedural reforms in this bill do not work. But we may never recover the habeas process once it has been effectively been repealed by the substantive changes being proposed. I yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, recently Senator Margaret Chase Smith suffered a severe stroke and is now in critical condition at her home in Maine. I just want to take a few moments to express my deep regret over this recent turn of events and to spend a few moments talking about Senator Margaret Chase Smith. I think as the Senator from Alaska knows, and virtually all the Members of this Chamber know, Senator Smith served with distinction in the Senate from 1949 to 1973 in the seat I now occupy. Directly before that she served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. [[Page S7649]] Many in this Chamber know of this wonderful woman's accomplishments. She was the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for President by a major political party; she cast an impressive 2,941 consecutive roll call votes; she delivered her famous Declaration of Conscious speech in 1950 criticizing Senator Joseph McCarthy and his stormtrooper tactics in exposing suspected communists. During her Declaration of Conscience speech, Senator Smith remarked that Senator McCarthy's investigation was playing on Americans' worst fears and was chipping away at the soul of the country. She said the Senator and his supporters were parceling away individual freedoms and liberties in the name of a fight that history has proved to be wrongheaded. In that speech, she noted, Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism--The right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest; the right of independent thought. The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. To understand the significance of the speech, and the courage of the woman who delivered it, we must remember the times during which it was delivered. These were days when it would have been easy to join the crowd--days when many were barking at every shadow, challenging and accusing anyone who disagreed with popular opinion as being disloyal. It was a phenomenon we have not seen since in American politics. It was not simply a group or a movement or a passing fad--it was a tidal wave of hatred and suspicion that engulfed many of the supposedly thoughtful politicians of the day. There have been many occasions when I also invoke the name of Joan Benoit. Joan Benoit, who hails from Maine, was the great marathon runner. Many of us can recall that moment when she broke out in that marathon, and she began so fast she moved away out ahead of the crowd and every one of the commentators said, ``She can never maintain that pace. She will fall behind.'' To the astonishment of virtually everyone who watched that historic event, she not only maintained the pace but she continued it throughout the entire marathon race. Throughout her career, Margaret Chase Smith has set her own pace, charted her own course, ignored her critics and never looked back at those who followed far behind her leadership. She has known the glory and loneliness, I should say, of the long distance runner. When thinking of Senator Smith, I am reminded of an ancient proverb that says, ``When drinking water, don't forget those who dug the well.'' Americans are, by nature, a forward-looking people. But, as the proverb suggests, we should also pay tribute to those who have gone before us, those who have paved the way for us and for future generations. We should remember those who have dug the well. Margaret Chase Smith dug the well for me and for many Maine politicians. Senator Smith has also remained politically active following her retirement from the Senate. With the Senator's support, the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy was created in 1989 to serve as a nonpartisan public service organization at the University of Maine. Through the center, university students and other scholars study public policy and work to improve the quality of dialog on policy issues. It has greatly enhanced the study of politics at the University of Maine, and it is a fine testament to the impact that Senator Smith had on Maine and the country. In America, every person stands equal before the law, but in politics, the aristocracy of talent is supreme. Maine can rightfully take pride in the fact that Margaret Chase Smith has stood at the top of that aristocracy. I thank the Chair and Senator Dole for yielding this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 1130

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, much of the debate over the defense budget in recent weeks and months has been based on misperceptions and half- truths. A good example can be found in one editorial entitled ``Grasping the Obvious,'' which lashed out at defense spending, claiming that President Clinton wanted to increase the defense budget and that: The Defense Department has somehow become untouchable, taking a place alongside Social Security and Medicare in the pantheon of sacrosanct Federal enterprises. The editorial went on to argue that defense budgets should be reduced just as much if not more than other areas of Federal spending, and that the Pentagon and the White House would have to realize that in a time of ``diminishing military threats,'' deep cuts would have to be made. The writer is not alone in failing to grasp the obvious. The post- cold-war period has seen a proliferation of efforts to cut American defense budgets dangerously deeply. These efforts have been accompanied by accusations that, in an era of budget balancing and deficit reduction, the military is not absorbing its fair share of cuts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being placed on a pedestal, protected from America's budget cutting zeal, defense spending has already been subjected to a frenzy of profound and often damaging reductions. The defense budget has been cut every year for the past decade, for an overall real decline of some 35 percent. In contrast, real spending on Medicare and Social Security over the same period has increased 63 and 23 percent, respectively. The portion of the defense budget used to buy weapons and other equipment has already suffered a reduction of more than two-thirds over the past decade: A decade ago we purchased 720 tanks a year. Today, we buy none. Annual purchases of ships and aircraft have declined 80 and 87 percent respectively. Dozens of major weapons programs and more than a hundred smaller ones have been terminated. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has put it, the Pentagon has entered a ``procurement holiday.'' For the past decade, it has been defense that has borne the blows of the budget cutting axe as domestic spending has steadily grown. The very real reductions in defense budgets over the past decade may not seem important from the vantage point of defense spending critics, but for those whose job it is to ensure military readiness and to guarantee American security, the cuts have already made their tasks difficult to the point of being almost impossible. The question for these professionals is whether minimum levels of reliability and readiness can be ensured, given current spending cuts. Earlier this year, Gen. Carl Mundy, Commandant of the Marine Corps, warned: We are stretched thin. Actual operational commitments over the past 3 years have actually grown steadily and have greatly exceeded those predicted by either the Marine Corps assessment or the Bottom-Up Review * * *. We have not to date received sufficient resources to fund * * * minimum essential requirements * * * to provide a reasonable assurance that we can meet our commitments with operationally ready and effective forces, not only today, but throughout the program years.* * * This assessment has been echoed by senior officers in all of the Nation's armed services. It illustrates the well-founded concerns of those who understand the importance of readiness and modernization in military planning, especially in today's uncertain world. The past few years have shown that the end of the cold-war standoff with Soviet Russia has not simplified and brought harmony to the world, rather it has increased uncertainty and made the world more susceptible to a host of festering regional conflicts. Many of these conflicts have the potential for escalation, spillover, and major destabilization in areas critical to the security and interests of the United States and our closest allies. While the United States is not the world's policeman, we are the only global power, and we have global interests that can be threatened by regional powers, great and small. Defending our interests requires us to station forces abroad and to be able to project power around the globe. A brief glance around the world shows the variety of dangers the United States must be prepared to meet: Russian troops are turning Chechnya into a wasteland and Russian neighbors into colonies, while Russian engineers prepare to build nuclear reactors in the terrorist theocracy of Iran and Russian officials threaten the independence of the Baltics; China also plans to sell Iran nuclear reactors and seems intent on becoming a regional hegemon, claiming sovereignty over the strategic South China Sea, extending its coastal defense perimeter 10-fold out to 2,000 miles, and backing these claims up with military deployments; Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons while also deploying Russian-built submarines and Chinese- and North Korean-built missiles in order to gain control of the Persian Gulf and dominate its neighbors; North Korea has violated last October's nuclear agreement and continues to mass troops and artillery on the DMZ, making an Asian nuclear arms race and another Korean war real possibilities. NATO is edging closer to intervening in Bosnia in order to rescue the U.N. troops deployed there, which would put some 25,000 United States troops in the midst of a seemingly intractable war. Those who view this as merely a list of hypothetical risks unlikely to require American military deployments would do well to recall that since the end of the cold war, U.S. Armed Forces have been sent into action repeatedly on some 2\1/2\ dozen operations. While members of the Armed Services Committee are on record as favoring increases in the defense budget, this amendment would merely slow the decline in defense spending over the next 7 years. Even if this amendment is adopted, defense spending will continue to decline in real terms for another 7 years, resulting in 17 straight years of cuts in the defense budget. Given the tremendous cuts imposed on the defense budget in recent years [[Page S7189]] and the great uncertainty we face around the world, we cannot continue to gut America's Armed Forces. The military is already strained by the unprecedented number of peacetime operations it is being ordered to undertake. Mr. President, listening to the leaders of our Armed Forces and looking around the world, we are compelled to conclude that putting the brakes on military spending cuts is not merely a wise position, it is a national security imperative. I urge my colleagues to support the Thurmond amendment.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, Abraham, Grassley, Brown, Kassebaum, and others in offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution to restore funds to valuable education programs by reducing funding for Federal building projects by 50 percent. I strongly support this amendment and believe that it represents a much better use of scarce Federal resources. I am very concerned about the cost of Federal construction projects. Last Congress, I introduced legislation to [[Page S7213]] reform the way the Federal Government manages its office space. I was concerned that the Government had billions of dollars in construction projects in the works and did not seem to be focusing enough attention on whether these projects were being constructed or renovated in the most cost-effective manner, whether the Federal Government was building in areas already glutted with commercial real estate, or even whether projects were truly needed. Numerous General Accounting Office [GAO], and General Services Administration [GSA], Inspector General [IG] reports over the years have consistently identified problems in GSA's real estate portfolio and its chronic history of wasteful spending and mismanagement. The agency's long standing problems have significantly impaired its ability to meet the property needs of the Federal Government in a cost- effective and business-like manner. My legislation directed OMB to review Federal property management policies and implement changes to ensure better coordination among Federal agencies, focus on longer term cost-effectiveness, and achieve cost savings. While my legislation was passed by the Senate, it was amended in conference to require GAO to do a study to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of establishing a single Federal agency responsible for selling and otherwise disposing of real property owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC], and the Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC]. This report is due out later this year. In July 1993, I held a hearing in the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management to examine how GSA manages its real estate. The results were quite disturbing. The hearing highlighted the fact that the Federal Government was constructing it did not need and leasing buildings it could not afford. Last May, the full Governmental Affairs Committee examined waste in the Federal courthouse construction program. The hearing illustrated that the Federal Government was wasting millions of dollars on courthouses that were padded with extravagant features such as brass doorknobs, kitchenettes, custom lighting, and expensive wood paneling. During these hearings, R.S. Means, a Boston company that surveys construction costs, reported that the Federal Government was paying at least two to three times as much to build a Federal courthouse or office building than it cost to build a State courthouse or construct a building for the private sector. The GAO also found major flaws in the methodology used by the Federal judiciary for estimating future court space needs. As a result, future space needs for a 10-year period were overestimated by more than 3 million square feet which, if authorized, could result in $1.1 billion in unneeded courthouse space. I, along with a number of my colleagues, wrote GAO to request an audit of the Federal courthouse construction program. That report is due out later this year. Last March, Senator Kerrey and I offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the fiscal year 1995 budget resolution calling for a 1- year moratorium on construction of new Federal courthouses. Although it passed the Senate, the provision was dropped in conference and a number of courthouses and other Federal office buildings were subsequently funded. More recently, I joined Senator Kerrey in offering an amendment to the rescission bill that would have added over $300 million in deficit reduction to be taken from wasteful or unnecessary GSA projects. The amendment would have scaled back projects that were not authorized or that the GSA itself has either never asked for or said are unnecessary or lavish. Senator Shelby offered a second degree amendment which expanded the projects covered to all Federal new construction, repair and alteration projects, including those that had gone through the normal authorization process, eliminating $1.9 billion in funding for Federal construction projects. Unfortunately, much of the $1.9 billion cut by the Shelby amendment was restored in conference. Mr. President, at a time when we are looking at cuts in education and many valuable programs, I find it hard to believe that we cannot find the means to cut funds for Federal building projects first. I have commended GSA Administrator Roger Johnson in the past for his efforts to reform GSA and save taxpayers' dollars. At his confirmation hearing, I asked Johnson to suspend and review all Federal construction projects to determine if the projects were truly needed. GSA Administrator Roger Johnson's time out and review looked at about 200 construction and leasing projects and recommended changes with potential savings of $1.2 billion. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, more still needs to be done. As Congress looks for ways to address the Federal budget deficit, we must ensure that Government programs and agencies are operating in the most cost effective manner possible. In these times of tight budgetary constraint, this amendment makes sense. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment which will reduce funding of Federal buildings projects by 50 percent, on top of the 25 percent already assumed in the budget resolution, and target these funds to helping students go to college. This amendment represents a better use of scarce Federal dollars and puts money back into important education programs. I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join Senator Gregg and Senator Reid to introduce legislation to eliminate the sugar program. The Federal Government has been meddling in the sugar market for over 200 years, and I believe the time has come to end what has become a wasteful practice. The supporters of the sugar program argue that the system operates at no cost to the Federal Government, and therefore there is no need to eliminate this harmless program. Technically speaking this assertion is true; the Federal Government does not send checks to sugar growers. But the federal government does artificially raise the price of sugar by limiting imports, and, as a result, American consumers pay an additional $1.4 billion each year for sweetened products, according to the Government Accounting Office. So while Americans may not pay for this program through higher taxes, they do pay for it every time they buy a soda, or a candy bar, or anything else which contains sugar or other sweeteners. The supporters of the sugar program argue that this program is vital to the livelihoods of family farms. Unfortunately this program, like many other agricultural subsidies, was designed to help family farms, but actually tends to support big businesses. Seventeen of the over 1,700 sugarcane farms received roughly 58 percent of the benefits of this program in 1991. One family in florida receives an estimated $65 million a year as a result of the artificially high prices. Mr. President, this certainly does not fall within my definition of a ``family'' farm. Finally, the supporters of the sugar program argue that the elimination of this program will kill the domestic sugar industry. While there will likely be some changes to the industry if this program is eliminated, I take issue with the argument that there is no life after subsidies. During World War II, a price support system was established for potatoes. Several years later Congress abolished the program. But the potato industry remains vibrant in the United States to this day. From Maine to California, farmers continue to grow potatoes without the benefit of a subsidy they once enjoyed. Mr. President, the time has come to end the sugar program. Simply stated, its benefits go primarily to a select few, while its costs are borne by every consumer in America. Because food accounts for a higher share of the household budget of low-income families, these higher costs are especially regressive. For the sake of these families, I hope the Senate will pass this important legislation.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.