Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress, it is my pleasure to acknowledge the 125th anniversary of the statute which centralized our Nation's copyright registration and deposit system in the Library. This law, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant on July 8, 1870, was the single most important factor in ensuring that Congress' library would eventually become the Nation's library and, in fact, the greatest repository of knowledge in the world. Today, Dr. James Billington, our Librarian of Congress, will recognize the role of the copyright in building the Library's unsurpassed collection over the past 125 years in a program being held in the Jefferson Building's Great Hall. I join with Dr. Billington in celebrating the anniversary of this important statute. The act required both that all works be registered in the Library and that the Library be the repository of these copies. The Library could hold the copy of the work as a record of the copyright registration, but it also had the opportunity to make the work available as a resource for others. The joining of copyright and the Library was, and continues to be, a mutually beneficial arrangement. Then-Librarian of Congress Ainsworth Spofford believed that bringing copyright to the Library could help it become a great library, and he strongly urged passage of the 1870 legislation. However, I think even he could not have foreseen that the Library of Congress would become the great institution it is today. It is hard to overemphasize the importance of copyright deposits to the collections of the Library and the resulting growth of the institution. Within a decade after the 1870 statute, the Library's collections tripled. When foreign works were granted U.S. copyright protection in 1891, many works from other countries were brought into the Library through copyright deposit. Among the works the Library has received through copyright deposit are: the first edition of a Dvorak opera; an unpublished composition by the 14 year-old Aaron Copland; all the network news programs since the 1960's; rare performances by artists such as Martha Graham captured on videotape; and important Civil War and Spanish-American War photographs. The importance of the copyright deposits to the Library continues today. Some of the Library's most heavily used collections, such as the local history and genealogy collection, would hardly exist were it not for copyright deposit. In fiscal year 1994, the value of works received through copyright deposit was estimated at more than $15 million. The acquisition of these works could not have been accomplished through purchasing and gifts. Mr. President, the Library of Congress provides valuable and unique services to the Congress and the Nation. Copyright continues to play an important role in the Library's work and I once again join in commemorating the 125th anniversary of the act which brought our national copyright system to the Library of Congress.

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. If the Senator will yield, just to make certain the Record is correct, this bill does not change this program, so it is not for the worse.

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator was aware of the specifics that have been extrapolated, that increased in this particular new rescissions package: Adult job training, by $40 million; school to work, another $20 million; Goals 2000, by another $60 million; safe and drug free schools, $220 million; drug courts, $5 million; community schools, $10 million; TRIO, $11 million; child care block grant, $8 million; housing for people with AIDS, $15 million; national and community service, $105 million; safe drinking water, $225 million; community development financial institutions, $14 million; community development grants $39 million, for a total of an add-back of $772 million over the first rescissions package. That is after weeks of working with the White House, after working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives. Sure, the glass is half full or half empty, depending on what you look at. Again, there has not been a word said about the Senator from Minnesota or the Senator from Illinois that I would not endorse 100 percent. My views precisely. But let me also say to the Senator that he has talked about low-income energy assistance. No one has gone cold for a lack of money in that account. We do not predict the weather ahead. What we do in the appropriations is we set forth $1.3 billion in 1995 appropriations for low-income energy assistance for this coming winter. We cannot predict that winter. Anytime in the past on the record where we have had less money than required to keep people warm, we have appropriated a supplemental. So the fear that the Senator is expressing on the basis of the figure here is not a justified fear. We appropriate supplementals. Now, let me say also to the Senator that in dealing with the White House, they had a higher figure for low-income energy assistance rescission than we had that they were willing to have rescinded. Was it because they were interested in people of low income? Not at all. They understood the funding mechanism. They knew that we would always put that appropriation out there in a supplemental form to keep those people warm. Therefore, that money was not yet obtained because we had no knowledge of the requirement of the amount of that money. I can say to the Senator, I participated in that time after time, leading the battle, in some instances, of putting that money in the supplemental to keep people warm. We cannot predict what that winter weather is. The Senator said a while ago he might lose on this. No, the Senator will not lose. The people of Minnesota will lose, the people of Illinois will lose, and anybody else who blocks this action at this time. Again, the fundamental bottom line that the Senator cannot escape--I cannot, the Senator cannot--is requiring the Appropriations Committee to gut $1.3 billion more in the 602(b)'s for 1996 if we do not pass this and get this acted upon today.

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a minute?

Mr. HATFIELD. I will be happy----

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATFIELD. Let her have a chance to answer.

Mr. HATFIELD. I say to the Senator, that is not the question. I got the bill, too, the same time the Senator did. That is not the question I asked. I asked, what in this timeframe would the Senator instruct me to do? I am happy to hear any new idea that gives me an option, and I am just asking the Senator, other than protesting this particular time and this particular action, which I agree with the Senator, but tell me, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, what the Senator would do today.

Mr. HATFIELD. Did I hear the answer to my question is the Senator does not have an answer?

Mr. HATFIELD. I say to the Senator, I was giving those speeches 25 years ago on this floor, and it was valid then, and it has been proven to be more valid today, as the Senator gives the same remarks about our priorities--our lack of priorities--our failure to put the focus where the needs are by our overwhelming lust and willingness to vote for greater capacity to destroy life than to sustain and improve life, namely the military versus the nonmilitary spending. But in all due kindness and respect, I ask the Senator, what is the option? I ask the Senator to put herself in my shoes and tell me what she would do as of this moment in this timeframe with 1996 upon us and having to make that decision, and every day we lose the money, the baseline in the rescissions--right or wrong rescissions--every day we lose that money. We come back here July 11, and it is all over. We will have not had this action. Now, in that timeframe, what is the Senator's option or alternative that she would take?

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. Is the Senator aware that the B-2 bomber was killed last night by the Armed Services Committee? According to this morning's paper, the committee voted not to fund any additional B-2 bombers, which I hail as a great achievement. But I would also like to add there is no way we can take the savings of that B-2 bomber and transfer it into nonmilitary discretionary programs. We, on the Appropriations Committee, have our hands tied on that. I could not agree with the Senator more. I will not take a back seat to the Senator nor to any other Senator in fighting for the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, and all these other programs that represent people's needs. But what I am saying to the Senator is that this speech is a little late. It should be repeated and repeated. But I am saying it is a little late as it relates to the current issue we have before us. The die is cast. What are we going to salvage out of this circumstance? I say to the Senator in all respect, that, if this is not acted upon today, the Senator will have led the appropriators and forced the appropriators into cutting $1.3 billion out of the subcommittee on Labor-HHS for 1996, over and above what we would otherwise have to do. If the Senator wants to take on that responsibility, keep that in mind. You are hurting the very people you are trying to help. That is not your making. It is not my making. It is the decision of the total body of this Senate, and we lost. We lost. But do not compound that terrible, terrible thing onto those very people by saying to the appropriators you have to cut another $1.3 billion. I say to the Senator with all due respect, that is reality. That is the reality we face. I find it a very, very unpleasant experience to have to cut any out of the Labor-HHS subcommittee of appropriations. The House cut $10 billion from, $70 billion and $60 billion. We are going to be forced into allocations to cut further, if we do not get this passed today. That is the reality. Like it or not, that is the reality. That is the position the Senator from Minnesota is pushing the Appropriations Committee into. I do not want any part of it. I am wanting to ease the pain that we have already created. I do not want to increase them, and the Senator from Minnesota will be escalating that burden on the very poor of this Nation by $1.3 billion more out of the Labor-HHS that we do not get out of 1995.

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HATFIELD. So I just want to correct the Record. It is not for the worse.

Mr. HATFIELD. It is not for the worse. It is the same level as the vetoed bill. I can give you a list of the better parts of this bill, of the vetoed bill, if the Senator would be interested in that, too?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like the attention of the Senator from Minnesota. Mr. President, before I engage in an opening statement, I would like to make one observation and describe a very unique situation we are in. In this rescissions package, we have, in effect, made cuts at current 1995 appropriations counts that represents about $3 billion in outlays in the outyears. I want to make very clear to the Senator from Minnesota and others who may be interested in this--knowing of his concern for nonmilitary discretionary programs that involve people, children, poor people, needy low-income energy assistance, other such programs--if we cannot put this bill through before we adjourn at this time, let me indicate the time program and consequences. Anything that stalls this at this time to move on this and act upon this, puts the Senate into July 10 returning. On that date, and the day following, the Appropriations Committee will be, then, in a process of making allocations under the 602(b) of the Budget Act for 1996 accounts. If we cannot make that $3 billion outlay action now, that means we are going to have to add that to the 1996 allocations in order to stay within the budget resolution. What any Senator would be doing would be taking the responsibility of cutting further, deeper, into those programs he or she may be interested in, by holding up this action today, because we are not going to be able to delay the 1996 action any longer. The House has already passed four of six out of their committee. If we cannot absorb in the 1995 period that $3 billion outlay, we will be absorbing it in the 1996. Any Senator would be compounding the very thing they are trying to defend. The Senator is creating a higher cut in 1996. We cannot escape that. Let me say, we also lost the battle of cutting out the Seawolf or the B-2 bomber or something and taking that money and putting it into programs of nonmilitary. We lost that battle. We are precluded in the appropriations in our 602(b) allocations of transferring money from defense discretionary to nondefense discretionary. Do not be misled with the idea that somehow we will face the battle on the Seawolf or the B-2, and we will reduce those commitments in the defense appropriation discretionary programs and be able to use them for low-income energy assistance or other welfare or people's need programs. That battle we have lost, much to my chagrin. I want to just add a word of caution. The very things that the Senator may feel he would defend in the 1995 rescission, the Senator will compound it in 1996 by the very action of this Senate in the budget resolution and other decisions we have made. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator from Minnesota permit the Senator from Illinois to yield for just a moment?

Mr. HATFIELD. That is not an option today. This body already passed the budget resolution. You may not have voted, I say to the Senator, for the budget resolution, but the body did. I have to function under the body, not under how I voted, but under the body's decision. So what is the option----

Mr. HATFIELD. Well, I say to the Senator, that is a fine statement, if I could----

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator supported it, and in this package it is $272 million, the precise same figure that the Senator supported in the Daschle-Dole compromise.

Mr. HATFIELD. The cut for youth job training centers was $272 million.

Mr. HATFIELD. This must be a protest statement, which is perfectly legitimate, and I join in addressing the protests both Senators are making toward the priorities in this budget, but that is not our option today.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. I was wanting to ask the question, did the Senator support the Daschle-Dole compromise in the rescissions package that originally passed the Senate?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as a member of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, I am pleased to extend my thanks and best wishes to James D. Wolfensohn as he prepares to leave the chairmanship at the close of the year. The vision of Jim Wolfensohn when he came to the Kennedy Center 5 years ago was to see the center become the national center for the performing arts. Since l990, the Kennedy Center has developed into one of the strongest artistic presences in the country and continues to gain prestige throughout the world. Jim has secured for the center the artistic expertise of Leonard Slatkin and Placido Domingo. He has heightened the profile of the center through a vast array of educational programs operated through the center. He has worked diligently to stabilize funding for the center at a time when budgets in the private and public sectors are strained. The energy, enthusiasm, the wealth of knowledge and interests Jim Wolfensohn has brought to the Kennedy Center have all contributed to its rejuvenation for the benefit of the entire Nation. While the guidance of Jim Wolfensohn will be difficult for the Kennedy Center to replicate, the bittersweet timing of his departure was fortunate in one important regard. Jim was chairman long enough to see fully implemented during his tenure the Kennedy Center Fellowships of the Americas program. The program, envisioned and developed by Jim Wolfensohn, will provide 20 fellowships annually to artists from central and South America to study at institutions across the United States. The first award recipients will be announced this fall. With the continued input of the program's founder, the distinguished program will no doubt gain international acclaim. Jim Wolfensohn will prove to be a stellar head of the World Bank. Assuming his new post will involve sacrifices for Jim, with time away from his family perhaps the most trying. But he took the position because, quite simply, he wanted to help people. I have no doubt he will succeed. Mr. President, a true leader inspires others to service through his own conduct and example. Jim is a superior leader and an extraordinary man. I am honored to call him my friend and wish him well in the years ahead.