Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to engage the Senator from Florida in a colloquy.

Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to accommodate the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. GREGG. My colleague from Michigan makes a strong case in support of this initiative and the work of the National Commission. I, too, appreciate the importance of NIJ programs and of nonprofit organizations that provide a better understanding of correctional health care.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would be pleased to join in a colloquy with the senior Senator from Vermont.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Vermont is correct. The funding provided for immigration examinations fees does include $3.325 million to fund the Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont. federal law enforcement dependents assistance act of 1996

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania has raised an important issue. The Federal Government has a responsibility for helping the families of Federal law enforcement officers who are lost or disabled in the line of duty. Educational and job training assistance is one appropriate response and deserves the support of the Congress. I would encourage the administration to consider reprogramming funds to support this effort.

Mr. GREGG. I am aware of these difficulties.

Mr. GREGG. I would say to the Senator that the committee will obviously make appropriations in a way that reflects any changes in the authorizing legislation. But given the bipartisan view that the JJDPA must be extensively changed, and the likelihood that the Congress will change the authorizing language next year, it is unlikely that the program will be funded in its current form for fiscal year 1998.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to make a difficult statement. Scott Corwin will be leaving the Appropriations Committee staff at the end of this Congress to return to his home State of Oregon. Since taking over the chairmanship of this subcommittee a year ago, I have come to rely on Scott's advice and counsel. He has worked long hours under difficult circumstances to meet what many would view as impossible deadlines--and he met them all. He handled controversial issues fairly and directly. I appreciate Scott's hard work, and I admire his dedication to public service. Although we will miss Scott, I am sure that Senator Hollings and Chairman Hatfield will join me in wishing Scott and his new bride Kristen well in their future together.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take one last opportunity in this Congress to discuss on the floor of the Senate a matter that is of high priority to me: reform of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. As I have stated many times, FDA reform is critical if the United States is going to continue to be the world leader in the field of medical technology, and I, for one, plan to pick up the mantle that was dropped in relation to this legislation this year. And I believe the amendments that I offered that were adopted during consideration of Senator Kassebaum's bill by the Labor Committee represent some important principles on which we will need to build a new reform bill in the 105th Congress. One of these amendments dealt with the dissemination of new information relating to health discoveries uncovered by other authoritative Government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Academy of Sciences. I believe the American public has the right to be as informed as possible about the nutritional value--or even the scientific potential value--of the food they eat. Another amendment adopted would allow a system of national uniformity for the regulation, labeling, and marketing of nonprescription drugs. This is an important, pro-consumer provision. It would put an end to the confusing requirements that various States and localities choose to impose on these common products, ensure more efficient interstate commerce of these products, and will not force manufacturers to bear the cost of such mandates which are generally passed on to purchasers. This amendment also contributes to a higher standard of safety by exempting compelling State or local requirements, and creating a mechanism to make truly worthy requirements national. Mr. President, I was especially pleased to see report language included by the committee acknowledging that other FDA-regulated products, ``may also lend themselves to such a comprehensive system.'' I would hope that the starting point of this provision next year will include cosmetics, prescription drugs, and biologics along with nonprescription products. The value of governing these products by a single, nationwide system is potentially vast. And, Mr. President, I think that discussion of such a comprehensive system for the regulation of food and food additives should be part of the debate. This provision also dovetails nicely with another amendment that was accepted by the Labor Committee. For example, there is a global trend of international harmonization for products such as cosmetics: The countries in the European Union, Latin American, and various Asian countries are working toward regulatory cooperation. The Labor Committee, recognizing the significance of mutual recognition agreements [MRA] and the on-going negotiations the U.S. Commerce Department and others are involved in, accepted my amendment urging the continuation and completion of such MRA's. I am concerned by reports that many times, when the folks negotiating these agreements are very close, it is the FDA that throws a wrench into the works. I hope that the agency will take the instruction passed as part of the Labor Committee bill seriously in regard to these international agreements. We need to see them demonstrate a greater willingness to recognize the standards used in other countries. As I have stated many times, the Food and Drug Administration in this country does not have a corner on the ability to regulate well. These are the sort of FDA reforms that I believe will promote a more efficient, higher quality regulatory process at the Food and Drug Administration. I look forward to revisiting these issues, and all of the other aspects of FDA reform, early in the 105th Congress.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Pryor has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2700 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for a period up to 30 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2153, which was introduced earlier today by Senator Cohen.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

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

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning there will be a period for morning business, and we will be awaiting possible House action on the omnibus appropriations bill, which is a result of negotiations completed early this morning. The Senate may also be asked to turn to consideration of any other items cleared for action, including the Presidio-parks bill conference report and the FAA reauthorization conference report. Rollcall votes are possible today, and if votes should prove to be necessary, the leader will attempt to give Members as much notice as possible prior to those rollcall votes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are now in the final hours, it appears, of the process of wrapping up this session of Congress and putting together an omnibus appropriations bill, which I understand late last night was agreed to between the White House and the Congress. I want to talk a little bit about this process and specifically about sections of that bill which I have responsibility for, or had responsibility for as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State. I have to say, I was startled by the manner in which these proceedings went forward. I was discouraged. The taxpayers, to put it quite simply, have been fleeced. It is beyond my most pessimistic anticipations that the events that occurred in the spending of taxpayers' dollars over the last few days would have occurred under a Republican Congress. I can understand that they have occurred under a liberal Presidency, a Democratic Presidency, but to have them occur under a Republican Congress is, I think, a sad and trying day for the American taxpayer who has traditionally looked to the Republicans for fiscal responsibility. The budget, as it was proposed by the Republican Congress, basically flat funded discretionary spending accounts of the United States for the next year. We were, however, put in the very difficult position-- and the blame does not really lie with the Congress here; it lies with the Presidency--we were put, I should say are put, in the very difficult position by the President that if we did not spend a heck of a lot more money in a heck of a lot of other accounts, he would veto the proposals of our Congress. The Congress had put together proposals, the purpose of which was to institute financial responsibility. You have to understand that not only ourselves, but especially our children will be facing a nation which will end up being fiscally bankrupt if we do not undertake some responsibility. We have been spending more money than we have been taking in for a long period of time. Although the number is going down, the fact is, it still is a considerable number, over $100 billion of deficit this year, and as we move into the outer years here, as we move into the year 2000 and beyond, it goes back rather sharply. So the need for fiscal responsibility has not left, or should not have left, the agenda of American Government. Yet, the White House told us that if we did not spend a great deal more money in a number of accounts which they were interested in, that they would veto the bills and they would force us into a shutdown of the Government. The leadership of the Congress, appreciating the fact that the last time the Government was shut down--the Congress came out with a pretty black eye--decided to try to accommodate the White House. Every time a decision was made to accommodate the White House and the administration, more money was demanded. It became a process of goal posts moving, which has become the term around here that most adequately describes how this spending has occurred. But what it has meant is basically a geometric progression, the spending of which the American taxpayers have to bear. Some of these accounts which the White House has asked to spend money on are just classic liberal, profligate spending undertakings, and they are dollars which the American people, if they knew about them, if they were put in the context of disclosure, simply would not accept that type of spending. Some of those accounts, unfortunately, were in categories which were under my auspices with the Commerce, Justice, and State Subcommittee, and I want to discuss a few of them because I think they should at least be on the record as to what has happened here, how American tax dollars are being spent by this administration. This is the most liberal administration that I have ever seen during my term in Government. You know, this President wanders around the countryside talking as a moderate, but the simple fact is that this administration is governing on the far left of the spending when it comes to spending American tax dollars. Let me cite a few examples that I think confirm this. Let us begin with the United Nations. In the bill which we proposed, which Congress proposed, we had limited the amount of spending to the United Nations. We had decided that we would not pay what is known as arrearages in peacekeeping and we would not pay what is known as arrearages to the various international organizations. Why? Because the United Nations is an institution that is penetrated throughout with patronage. It is an institution which has wasted millions and millions of dollars, and every dollar that is wasted at the United Nations, every time some friend of some friend or some cousin of some leader from some country is hired by the United Nations to fill a nonexisting job or a job that is basically nonfunctional at some outrageous pay level, every time that occurs, 25 percent of the dollars spent on that individual come out of an American taxpayers's wallet. The record is replete with abuses and with mismanagement and with waste which has become the character of the United Nations management. The average U.N. salary for a mid-level accountant is $84,000-- $84,000 for a mid-level accountant. That same person living in New York City working for a non-United Nations entity would be paid on the average $41,000. Twice as much is paid to the U.N. individual, plus they do not pay taxes. The man or woman who is working in New York City has to pay taxes. The average U.N. computer analysis person receives $111,000 tax free--$111,000. The average American doing that same job, and probably does a lot better job and I bet works a lot more hours, gets $56,000. An assistant to the Secretary-General, of which there are innumerable, gets $190,000. That is $60,000 more than we pay the Mayor of New York who actually works for a living. The fact is that this institution is mismanaged and is dominated by patronage. Now the administration wants us to spend an extra $225 million to pay back fees, back payments and to pay operating costs so that we can reimburse them for this mismanagement and we can fund this mismanagement out into the future. In order to try to get some hold on this, the Congress said to the administration, well, before we are going to pay anything more of any significance, we want a certification that the United Nations is living within the agreement which was reached as a result of the pressure put on it by us that it would have a no-growth budget. In an act of a very serious--I think very serious--question of integrity, we have now received such a certification that the United Nations has a zero-growth budget. Well, that is impossible because the United Nations is already over its budget. We know it is over its budget. It is over its budget, by our estimates, by over $100 million. Yet, we received this certification from the administration. So you have to even question the atmosphere in which this administration is functioning relative to the United Nations. It appears they are willing not only to throw money at it, but they are willing to stand up for their dishonesty within the United Nations. They are willing to stand up for the mismanagement within the United Nations. They are willing to stand up for the patronage within the United Nations at the expense of the American taxpayer. Then, of course, we also know that this administration, on a number of occasions, has expressed their willingness to have American troops fight under the command of the United Nations, which is a mistake in and of itself. What is more classically liberal--what is more classically liberal--than funding an agency like the United Nations at an excessive level? I do not argue with the need to have the United Nations. I happen to think the United Nations makes a great deal of sense. My disagreement here goes to the fact that we are essentially paying for its mismanagement, gross mismanagement, and that we are doing it with blinders on. This administration takes the attitude that anything that is a world community exercise, the United States taxpayers should pay for it, and pay dearly for it. When they came to us after we had raised the level of reimbursement to the United Nations to a level which I felt was unacceptable--but I went along with the House--the administration came back and said that we were $220 million short--$220 million short--of what they wanted for the United Nations. In fact on my bill, they said we are a half a billion short, let us throw another half billion dollars into these programs. Why? Because they knew they had the Congress between a rock and a hard place. They wanted to fund all their favorite little interest groups, in this case, interest groups within the international community, different international organizations, some of which are only marginal in their worth. They wanted to fund all these little different interest groups, and they knew they could do it because they recognized they had won the last battle about closing the Government down, and now they figured, well, the Congress is going to have to fold on all these issues. And unfortunately we have. So, out of the taxpayers' pocketbooks and wallets in New Hampshire and Arizona, hard-earned dollars--people working 40, 50 hours a week trying to make mortgage payments, trying to send their kids to school, having to pay their taxes now at a rate barely as high as a result of the tax increase under the first 2 years of this administration--those dollars are now going to fund John Jones, I suspect the person's name is not John Jones, some name I probably could not pronounce, from some country because John Jones had a cousin in the government who could get him a job at the United Nations where he would get paid x thousands of dollars more than an American doing the same job, and the person does not even have to show up to work. In fact, ironically, one of the reforms we asked for and which was put in at the United Nations was a turnstile. We ask for a turnstile so we could figure out who was going to work. It turns out the returns were so bad that the United Nations staff forced the administration to take the turnstile out because they did not want to have people keeping track whether they ever showed up for work. The fact is the United Nations is an institution, is an institution that is good, relative to its purpose, but as a practical manner, the matter in which it practices, the manner in which it manages itself, and the manner in which it spends its money is horrible. It is the American taxpayer that bears the burden, and the administration at the last minute, because they had the Congress by the throat, came in and said we need hundreds of millions--not hundreds, but $200 million. That is a lot. In fact, we could run the State of New Hampshire for quite a while on $200 million--more money to take care of their activities and to fund an agency which has not shown any fiscal discipline at all. That is only one example of this liberal agenda which has caused the White House to come in here and dump all sorts of new dollars into different interest groups. This administration uses the Federal Treasury as its own little campaign financing mechanism. They used something called SCSEP (Senior Community Service Employment Program) to finance some of the most activist labor groups, and they use something called ATP to finance the friendships with the corporate world. ATP you probably have never heard of that. Well, it is something called the Advanced Technology Program where we go out and pick winners and losers in the technology communities--not with a lot of dollars, but we go out and we pick them. It is ironic who gets picked, ironic who gets picked. The idea here was we would set up a pool of money and people with good ideas that could not get it funded in the private sector would be able to come to the Government and the Government would fund those ideas. That, in concept, is good, a good idea I suppose. If you happen to believe the Government should be in the business of deciding winners and losers in the marketplace and in the technology arena and there are certain technologies which the private sector is not going to fund, then it probably makes sense to do that. I suspect there are some instances where a technology concept-- remember, this is commercialization, this is not R&D. I should make that point. This is not R&D activity, but for items which will commercialize. We have literally billions of dollars committed to research, billions of dollars in all sorts of different accounts. This is purely an R&D, purely an applied research effort. The expectation is that almost all this will go to some sort of commercialization. The argument was that the opportunity for return on these undertakings was so low or the likelihood of return was so low that nobody would fund them. First, that assumes that the marketplace cannot pick winners and losers in the technology field. That is a position that is hard to defend in America today where we see such an explosion of technology activity, literally billions and billions of dollars going into research which is applied and presumed going to go to commercialization, where we see billions and billions of dollars going into IPO's, where we see major corporations spending billions and billions of dollars on research. The concept that an idea which really has a commercial applicability, which has a potential, will not find a place to be funded, within the private sector is, I think, hard to argue, but that was the argument that was made. So we set up this thing called the ATP. You would presume if that was the case, we are going to fund technology which has only a marginal likelihood of success, so marginal that the private sector is not willing to fund it, but has commercial applicability. You would think if that were the case, then the logical recipients of those funds would be small entrepreneurial efforts. That should be the case. Obviously, if someone cannot get funded, the odds are that they are a small entrepreneurial effort. You would not expect that General Motors, Ford, Exxon, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, the biggies, the international organizations, a few Japanese organizations, a few German organizations, you would not expect those types of companies would be in line for this type of a grant program. In fact, I think, most Americans if they were told this type of program existed, would say, sure, Mary Mason down the road, who happened to be a brilliant computer person, should have a right to compete for that. But General Motors, are you kidding me--General Motors? I just bought a car from them and it was an outrageous price. They make tons of money. This program has become a little piggy bank, a little cookie jar is a better term, a cookie jar into which the Fortune 500 companies stick their hands. This is the list of how the awards under this program went in 1994 and 1995. I will read down through the companies that received these awards because I think it is important, because it shows the nature of this program and what it is really being used for, which is to basically try to buy friendships in the business communities: General Motors, Ford, Exxon, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, Mobile, Chrysler, DuPont, Texaco, Chevron, Hewlett-Packard, Amoco, Motorola, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, Dow Chemical, Boeing, Xerox, U.S. Steel, Bell South, 3M, Caterpillar--the list goes on. You get the idea. The fact is this program has become an outrage. It is corporate pork at its worst. However, the administration comes in and says we must continue this program. You would think, listening to the administration, especially this President, that the Republican Party was the voice of corporate America. Well, it happened to be the Republican Senate which zeroed this program out, and it happens to be the Democratic liberal Presidency which wants to continue this program at excessive levels of funding--$265 million was their demand for next year's funding of this program, $265 million. Now, why? Well, because, basically it takes care of their friends in the corporate community. It is a way for the Secretary of Commerce to be able to communicate. We have corporate America--send in a grant, we will send you some money; now, what do you want to talk about? It is done with the tax dollars of the American people and the American people should be outraged. It is classic liberal government, spending their money on programs that picks winners and losers in the marketplace, which goes to the Fortune 500 leadership, dollars which are scarce and which could be used much better by an American to go out and buy a product that was important to them and their family, or maybe help them go to school, or maybe help pay their mortgages, but instead this President wants to take those dollars out of your pocketbook and give them to these corporations to do things which obviously companies of this size, if they want to do it, they can do it. The idea that these companies need help in deciding their priorities on research and spending money on research is so absurd it should not even be discussed. So it is not an argument for the substance of the program that generates this funding, because the substance cannot be defended. The only reason this funding exists is because under the liberal form of leadership which this administration represents they like to be able to pick winners and losers in the marketplace and they like to spend tax dollars. Now, this bill overall that I had jurisdiction over until I was unceremoniously removed because I was too disruptive to the process, because I kept saying we should be concerned about our tax dollars, this bill spends $500 million more. It does not spend it yet, that is what the administration wants, $500 million more than what was offered to the administration, which happened to be $1 billion more than what the bill was when it left this Senate Chamber. It never left the Chamber. It never got out. When it left the Senate subcommittee that I chair, we were a billion dollars below our offer to the White House, as we brought up all these different accounts to try to satisfy the profligacy of the White House spending condition over some significant frustration of my own. And then the administration came in and said that is not enough. They wanted another $500 million. I wish that that were all that were in this package, $500 million. We could live with that. This is true across the board, in account after account. The administration came in and demanded massive more dollars in spending, and because they know that we have the Congress in a position basically where politically they have us by the throat, to be very honest, where they know that they have set up a scenario where if this Government is shut down, they feel they win politically and the American people will take their frustrations out on the Congress--that the Congressional leadership decided that they are going to allow the White House to get away with this raid on the American Treasury and, therefore, the American taxpayer. I think it is a mistake, and I think we ought to take this issue to the American people. I think the American people will understand that there is a big difference between the shutdown that occurred a year ago and the desire of this administration to spend money like it is water. The fact is that this President is now in the middle of a Presidential election. He is campaigning on the theme that he is a moderate. In fact, I heard Al Gore in New Hampshire call himself of a ``fiscal conservative''--the Vice President of the United States. Well, this is not fiscal conservatism, spending this type of money. Spending $220 million more on the United Nations so they can hire patronage is not fiscal conservatism. Picking winners and losers in the marketplace and having the winners be Fortune 500 companies, who can take care of themselves when it comes to R&D, is not fiscal conservatism. Spending $6.5 billion more of the American taxpayers dollars and putting it, for all intents and purposes, on the deficit is not fiscal conservatism. It is liberalism. It is the classic situation where you buy votes with tax dollars and you spend money without regard to where it is going or how it is being accounted for, but only with regard to what the political pluses are from it. It comes back to roost--not to us, maybe, in our generation immediately, but certainly to our children, as they have to pay the bills. It is a mistake. I felt it should be on the record from somebody, because nobody seems to want to talk about it around here. So I am taking these few minutes to make these points. I yield back my time. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill due for its second reading.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. President. _______________________________________________________________________