Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point the actual record of the gross Federal debt beginning in 1945 going right on down to the estimated 1996 debt, and the real deficit going from 1945 down to 1996 with the gross interest costs, which has only been computed to be included since 1962.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We have no objection.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Republican budget, the Kasich budget, the Gingrich budget, or whatever budget you want to call it that they are talking about balancing, has never been scored. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is here and we worked together when he was ranking member and I was chairman. I can tell you here and now, after we passed that budget in May, we sent over the assumptions so that the Congressional Budget Office could score it. Those scores have never been sent over. From time to time they have asked questions: If we do this, we save that; if we do this, we save that. But we do not have a CBO-scored figure for President Clinton's budget and we do not have a CBO figure for the Republican budget. Watching all of this as it occurs, at this particular time, I can guarantee you that it will not be balanced in the year 2002. And anybody who wants to bet me, pick out the odds and the amount. I will jump off the Capitol dome if this budget is balanced by the year 2002. I can tell you that here and now. What happens is exactly what happened, as the distinguished Presiding Officer and I viewed it this morning in the Committee of Commerce. We were allocated $15 billion. What did we do? We took $8.3 billion that we have already allocated in the telecom bill. So we double-counted that already. Talk about smoke and mirrors. We are not going to have smoke and mirrors. I understand, of course, that in the Finance Committee they were $80 billion shy last week. Someone said, no, they got up, meeting last night, to about $15 billion, and they are still trying to find it. But if they go through with the contract and do away with the Social Security tax increase, they will have to find another $25 billion. They are shy there. I can go to welfare reform. We passed welfare reform. It was a $63 billion savings. The budget that they say is going to be balanced called for a $113 billion savings. That is $50 billion shy there. The agricultural and everything crowd said, no, we had not met our figure. It is smoke and mirrors. So what you see now is the moment of truth. And I only mention this to get that moment of truth out. We ought to level with each other. You cannot get on top of this cancer of interest costs on the national debt unless you do all of the above. All of the above includes spending cuts, spending freezes, loophole closings, tax increases, and denying new programs. We just voted earlier this week--I hated to vote against the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, and her AmeriCorps Program--but I can tell you now that that program was going to cost billions and billions. I did not think we ought to start new programs that we could not afford and specifically not start an AmeriCorps Program for education whereby in order to get 25,000 scholarships we had to do away with 346,000 student loans. That is what we did. We took the money from the student loans and put it into a new program and talked about voluntarism. I happen to have been down there the Sunday after Hugo hit us in our own backyard in South Carolina. There was the mayor and me and we had 1,500 to 2,000 volunteers that were working in the rain. We asked for a show of hands and we had them from 38 States. People volunteer. When little Mr. Segal called me about this particular program and said we already have 2,000 out there working in the flood year before last, I said, ``Young man, you have 2 million out there working without this program. You do not need a program at the Federal Government level to start voluntarism.'' So the pressures brought on this particular budget are really politically manufactured where we are not going to balance anybody's budget. We are just going to get rid of the Government. That has been the cry of the contract--that the Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem, the Government is the enemy. So what you have here is a $283 billion estimated deficit for 1995. That is the accurate figure as between what we will take in and what we will spend. So let us not get high and mighty and start criticizing about how I got a balanced budget 7 years from now when people will be lucky to be around 7 years from now and they will know good and well they will come again. I remember when we used to balance the budget year to year. In fact, President Reagan said, ``I'm going to balance that budget in a year.'' He got into Washington and said, ``Whoops, this is going to take me 3 years. I did not realize it was so bad.'' Here was a gentleman who was going to do it in a year. Then we got to 3 years. Then under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings we got to 5 years. Now, this crowd comes with 7 years. And I can tell you within the next election we will come and have--excuse me, President Clinton has already gotten to 10 years. Now he has come back to 9. We are going up, up, and away; 15 years. Say anything except to do the job and tell the American people that we have to deny programs and we have to raise taxes. We have to cut spending. We have to freeze spending. We have to close loopholes. We have to do all of the above to save $1 billion a day. This particular budget that we have that we are working on at this particular time does not come near to saving $1 billion a day to get us really rid of any kind of deficit at any time during that 7-year period. Now, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee talks about philosophy--and I must touch on that and then we can go to these amendments--the philosophy here that they are trying to justify these programs to get things back to where they can do it as they please. They said, if they really want to buy equipment, then they can do that. If they want to put policemen on the beat, then they can do that. It is the old adage that the best government is that closest to the American people, the Jeffersonian philosophy. And I generally adhere to that except through hard experience. Within the field of law and law enforcement, we have had our experience. We had what you call the legal assistance enforcement program, LEAA, and that particular program gave block grants back to the States and communities. And when we looked around, we had--please, my gracious--down in Hampton, VA, they bought a tank and put it on the courthouse lawn and thought the courthouse was going to be attacked. The sheriff down in Alabama, he bought a tank because he was going to have crowd control. The Governor in Indiana, he bought an airplane so they could fly to New York and buy clothes. And they had all kinds of embarrassments where the money never got through to the policemen on the beat. Now, there is no education in the second kick of a mule. We learned from hard experience. So we came around with community policing and policemen on the beat and said, in order to qualify, you have to come with a match of 25 percent. And it is working extremely well. Now they come with the philosophy of getting the grants back, which reminds me--and I have, of course, a memory that is resented many, many [[Page S 14499]] times. But I am referring to the stimulus bill where when President Clinton came to town, we were going to stimulate the economy. And the distinguished chairman of my subcommittee, now who believes in block grants, said, heavens above, ``We are going to use it for cemeteries, for whitewater canoeing, for fisheries, atlases, for studies of the sickle fin chub,'' and all these different other programs back at the local level. And the Senator slaughtered President Clinton's stimulus program--just killed it dead in its tracks here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Now we come with the philosophy: Whoopee, let us get the money back to the Government; we are not smart enough to do anything here in Washington; only the people back home are smart enough. So here we go again. Here we go again, changing the formative law and making it into block grants. Taking working programs like policemen on the beat and the Legal Services Corporation. Abolishing these laws in that sense and providing monies for a program that has already been derided in the most expert fashion by my distinguished chairman. I can tell you now that we could not possibly go along with the block grants. I think the President said he is going to veto that particular approach. Maybe we can reconcile it. I hope some of the defects of this particular bill can be cared for in Senator Hatfield's and my amendment. We worked until 1 in the morning on this particular amendment. I think it will meet generally with the approval of the colleagues. And a reallocation here, I am grateful for that help. Of course, there are fundamentals still involved. And I will say it right to the point. We will be debating these things, as the distinguished chairman says. What we have done is really savaged Commerce and its programs, the State Department, and, more or less, force-fed a goose in Justice. When I say ``force-fed a goose in Justice,'' I look at the particular figures. I can see that it took us from 1789 to 1983 or 1984 to get to a $3 billion Justice Department budget. But it has only taken us the last 15 years to quadruple, quintuple--excuse me--and go up, up and away to $16.95 billion in this particular 1996 appropriation. I know we have had various crime bills. I know we have had the problems and everything else of that kind. But I can tell you now that we have, with all the budgetary constrictions, to get a little bit better balance in this particular measure. And in some of these, I am definitely of a mind where the Senator from Texas and I agree that you should not abuse the use of legal services money to sue the State and Governor and Legislature of New Jersey over welfare reform. We agreed that we could work the prisoners. I have worked prisoners as a Governor. I put in a laundry program. I put in a furniture repair program. I even had a Jaycee chapter as well as our educational programs behind the wall. We agree on many, many things. But generally speaking, we did not have a chance to debate these things. Unfortunately, we had not conformed the appropriations to the basic statutes, whatever. We have just run willy-nilly through the programs trying to abolish departments and the working programs that have done so much for our society. I yield the floor. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill. For me, this is unprecedented. Never in my 25 years on the Appropriations Committee--or my 18 years as serving as either the chairman or ranking minority member of this subcommittee--have I opposed this bill. And never in my career here have I seen an appropriations bill prepared in such a partisan manner and voted out of committee on straight party lines. I am against this bill because I simply cannot go along with its recommendations and because of its extreme nature. This bill represents a 180-degree departure from the way we on this committee have approached our job when senators Rudman, Weicker, Pastore, Laxalt, and Domenici and I were chairman or ranking member. In the past, we focused on the business of governing. We worked together to ensure that the agencies under our jurisdiction are well-run and appropriately funded. Our job always was to see to it that the taxpayers' dollars were well spent. If a program was worth it, we sought to fund it adequately. At the same time, we conducted budget scrubs to ensure that we achieved savings from delayed contracts, program changes, and other technical matters. But Mr. President, that is not what today's bill is about. It is not about governing. It is about politics and making philosophical policy statements. It is about picking winners and losers. It is about throwing money at one part of this bill, the Department of Justice, and about wreaking havoc on the rest of the bill. In many ways, this bill seems more like a budget resolution than an appropriations bill. Mr. President, government is not a dirty word. I know that there are some who have come to Washington intending to have a fire sale. Well, those people will probably like this bill because it is a bonfire. Agency after agency is eliminated or subjected to unprecedented reductions of 20 percent or more. This bill slashes programs with little description or detail of what is being cut. For example, the International Trade Administration is cut by $47 million below a freeze. But the report does not direct how the reduction should be made. Should it be from the Import Administration that protects U.S. industry from foreign dumping? Or should it come from the foreign commercial service that promotes U.S. industry overseas or from trade and industry sector analysis? This bill just does not say. So, we have wholesale elimination of agencies. And we will have wholesale reductions in force and office closures. They are not being highlighted in this report, but mark my words on that. [[Page S 14495]] Take the Small Business Administration. My friend SBA Administrator Phil Lader tells me that his appropriation for salaries and expenses means that the SBA will have to lay off 1,200 of their 3,100 employees. Mr. President, maybe I am old fashioned, but I will not join in this fad that denigrates public service. In the 25 years I have worked on this bill, I have learned that much of it supports what we in the budget game call salaries and expenses. What that means is that most of this bill funds people. And I have come to have great respect for the dedicated public servants who work hard to serve the people of this country. I think of Emilio Iodice, of the International Trade Administration, our senior commercial officer in Madrid, Spain, who is hustling day in and day out to get contracts for American business. I think of Dr. Neal Frank and Bob Sheets, of NOAA, who have run the hurricane center in Miami, FL, and who worked around the clock to warn us of killer storms. I think of Ambassador Princeton Lyman in South Africa who is helping that nation build a lasting democracy and of the many foreign service officers I have met. In my view, these State Department and USIA foreign service officers truly are the best and the brightest. I sometimes wonder how many of us could pass their stringent entry requirements. And of course, I think of the many professional comptrollers who with us on a day-to-day basis--people like Mike Roper at Justice, Mark Brown at Commerce, and Stan Silverman at USIA. With this bill, I worry about the message that we are sending to these dedicated public servants and young people who might want to enter government service. I think we should be praising these people for their service, not denigrating them. Justice Increases In the Commerce, Justice and State hearing room in the Capitol, there is a painting of Edmund Randolph, our first Attorney General. I think about him when I look at what is happening to this Justice budget in this bill. We are throwing money at a problem without being responsible. Do my colleagues know when funding for the justice department hit the $3 billion level? It was 1983. In other words, it took 194 years for the Justice Department's budget to reach $3 billion. And that is how much the increase is for Justice in this bill for just 1 year. That is nothing short of amazing. I think most of us who were around in the early 1980's realize that we tried to throw too much money at Defense too quickly. And as some will remember, I was one of those who pushed hard to increase Defense in 1980. But, I fear that this is exactly what we are doing with Justice in the 1990's. This year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is unable to spend almost $50 million that we gave it last year to hire more agents. Of course, the bureau will find other uses for the money. But this bill before us plans to give the FBI an increase of almost half a billion dollars above this year--an increase of 20 percent in one year. I am all for my good friend Judge Freeh and the dedicated agents who serve us. But a 20-percent increase in 1 year? And when I look at the Immigration Service, we are adding 1,300 border patrol agents per year, which again, is more than a 20-percent annual increase. Now I stand second to none in my support for the Justice Department. During the span that I last served as subcommittee chairman of this appropriations subcommittee, the Justice Department grew from $3.9 billion in 1986 to $13.7 billion in 1994. In the Senate, Attorney General Janet Reno probably does not have a bigger fan than me. But we have got to slow down and take a look at where all this money is going. We have got to stop the bidding war to see who can throw more money at law enforcement to rack up political points. Mr. President, this bill is largely the story of two bills. For Justice and judiciary, it represents increases and for the remainder of the bill it will cause destruction. It did not have to be done this way. I would urge my colleagues to look at how much more reasonable and moderate the bill is that the House sent to us. The Contract With America crowd developed a much more responsible bill. I would like to describe some of the recommendations for my colleagues. For the Commerce Department, the bill: Eliminates entirely several Commerce technology programs: the Technology Administration, new Advanced Technology Program and manufacturing extension program grants. It eliminates previous funding to modernize National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories. The bill eliminates the Minority Business Development Agency, a program created during the Nixon administration to empower minority entrepreneurs, and to expand minority-owned businesses. The bill eliminates the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration. The bill cuts the International Trade Administration by $45 million or 17 percent below a freeze. This would result in office closures around the country and overseas, and debilitate our trade promotion efforts for U.S. industry. It cuts the Economic Development Administration [EDA] from its current level of $410 million to $100 million. It reduces one of the only programs with a direct charter to assist communities impacted by defense base closures and realignments. It severely reduces the National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] operations, the public broadcasting and facilities program, and it terminates the information infrastructure grant program and the children's educational television program. Mr. President, the bill authorizes and appropriates funds for a new Commerce Reorganization transition fund which finances personnel separation costs and termination costs for the various agencies proposed for elimination. It provides $395 million for economic statistics and the Census Bureau, an increase of $84.5 million above the House bill, and $70.4 million above this year. It provides $1.867 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], a decrease of $45 million below the current year, but $92 million above the House bill. Like the House, the NOAA fleet modernization program is terminated. For the State Department and international affairs agencies, the bill severely cuts State Department operations funding $340 million below this year's level. This will result in the closing of many embassies and consulates around the world and the layoff of 1,100 foreign service and civil service employees. The bill rescinds $140 million in prior year appropriations for embassy construction, repairs and maintenance. This will likely result in the cancellation of our new embassy in Ottawa, Canada, and the elimination of repairs, maintenance and security improvements around the world. The bill assumes S. 908, Senator Helms' authorization, which never proceeded in the Senate because of its controversial provisions. This bill, however, provides $890 million less funding for the State Department than Senator Helms proposed to authorize. The bill authorizes and funds a new Foreign Affairs reorganization transition fund and provides $26 million for this account. Bill language directs the director of OMB rather than the Secretary of State to consolidate programs under State, USIA and ACDA. Funding for international organizations is cut by 37 percent below current levels. This year the United States paid $873 million to the United Nations, the Organization of American States and 49 other international organizations. These assessments are based on treaty obligations. In 1996, the administration requested $923 million for these obligations. The bill provides only $550 million. We would have to pull out of a lot of international organizations or simply refuse to pay our bills. The U.S. Information Agency [USIA] is devastated under the recommended bill. USIA is cut $364 million below the current year and $53 million below the House bill. This bill cuts international educational exchanges, like the Fulbright program, by $43 million below the current year. The bill provides $355 million for international broadcasting--the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe Liberty, and Radio and TV Marti. It is far below last year's level, but above the House. For independent and regulatory agencies, the bill terminates the Legal [[Page S 14496]] Services Corporation, current funding of $400 million, and replaces it with a civil legal assistance block grant under the Justice Department. The bill carries 13 pages of legislation including a long list of restrictions on the use of these funds. For example, the block grant could not be used for helping a poor person seek a legal separation from an abusive spouse. The Corporation was created during the Nixon Administration. I worked closely with Lewis Powell in the endeavor, and I stood with my friend, Warren Rudman, in his yeoman efforts to save the LSC. Like the Senator from Texas, I have had concerns about the LSC being involved in class- action suits. But the House bill had already dealt with that, and it retained funding for the LSC. The bill cuts all regulatory agencies at least 20 percent below a freeze. In each case, the bill uses fee collections to cut appropriations even though these fees often were created to enhance operations. The recommended bill will result in significant reductions in personnel and operations. The Federal Trade Commission [FTC] is proposed to receive $79 million instead of $98 million as proposed by the House and provided currently. The FTC is charged with consumer protection and anti-trust duties. Again, we are looking at a one-third reduction in staff and cancellation of many important programs such as the FTC's efforts to combat telemarketing fraud. The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] is proposed to receive $166 million instead of the current level of $185 million. We keep giving new responsibilities to the FCC under the communications bills, but here we are cutting them below current levels. The Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] is funded at $238 million instead of the current level of $297 million. Further, the bill reduces charges to individuals registering securities and shifts $60 million in costs to the federal taxpayers. So I guess that says we want to combat violent crime in Justice, but white-collar crime by Ivan Boesky is fine. The Competitiveness Policy Council is eliminated. The Maritime Administration is funded at $70.6 million instead of $94.7 million, the current level, and far below the administration's request of $309 million. The Small Business Administration [SBA] is funded at $558 million, $359 million below this year, and $73 million below the request. SBA says that they will have to reduce over a third of their workforce based on the committee's report language direction to fund grants and loans instead of personnel. This ignores many of the streamlining efforts that Erskine Bowles and Phil Lader have already accomplished, resulting in reduction of 500 positions during the past 2 years. Rewriting the Crime bill/legislation Finally, I oppose this bill because it proposes to terminate the successful Cops on the Beat program and other authorized Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund programs. In their place, the appropriations bill essentially authorizes a new Crime bill. Talk about breaking new ground for legislation on an appropriations measure. The Cops on the Beat or Community Oriented Policing program is one of the most efficient and effective programs that has ever been created. Within a year of passage, 25,000 additional police are on the street in America. We will be debating this program soon, in more detail. But I must say that I simply do not understand why any member would want to terminate this program. Drug courts is another authorized program. It was Janet Reno's creation, based on her experience in Miami. This is not a soft prevention program. Drug courts work and are getting non-violent defenders off of illicit substances and back into society. This bill is block grant crazy. Legal services--They say, ``Let us make it into a block grant.'' Community policing and drug courts--They say, ``Let us make it into a block grant.'' I guess I do not understand. I remember the Republican filibuster against the President Clinton's stimulus package in the spring of 1993. As I recall, the principal argument against that bill was that it was funding block grants and recipients had a wide discretion of how they could use block grants. In law enforcement in the past, we had a block grant program-- LEAA--and it was a disaster. Mr. President, this bill contains many other pieces of legislation. It takes the limits off of sales from prison labor, and it changes affirmative action and procurement regulations. I hope that my colleagues will carefully examine this bill. Many have said, ``Yes, it is a travesty, but the President will veto it.'' That may be true. All indications are that it could not be signed in its current form. I, for one, hope that the Senate will not go on record by supporting such an extreme, irresponsible measure. I hope we can make some changes to this bill and improve it. Mr. President, obviously I am not disposed to speak at length, but I have to comment about my distinguished colleague and his opening statement on two or three items. Just in closing, he said: This is open. This is the way we do it. It is open to debate. We debate these things, and we vote on them and we make decisions. Unfortunately, having been on this committee for over 25 years, in this subcommittee we did not debate, we did not discuss, and we did not do anything other than vote. That is why the bill comes on a bipartisan split, so to speak, of 15-13. It reminds me of Mao Tse-tung when he got a birthday wish. It said, ``From the Central Committee, by a vote of 15 to 13, we wish you a happy birthday.'' This bill is an atrocity. In my experience in particular measures, it is voted that way because, very conscientiously, we did not have a chance to debate and rectify certain things. But I do not want to dwell on that too much at length because the distinguished chairman of the full committee is henceforth coming to the floor to try to give us an additional allocation and correct some things, like the elimination of the Minority Business Enterprise Administration--an entity that started out with President Nixon back 25 years ago in 1970--and various other things like that which were eliminated. The bill is called an atrocity because the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for whom I have great respect, says we overturned laws. He is dead right in this particular measure. It is not the function of an Appropriations Committee to overturn laws. On the contrary, we are supposed to conform to the authorized law, or the law authorizing the amounts, and thereupon appropriate within those particular amounts. Here we see a measure that takes a bill that has been debated fully and voted three readings in the House, three in the Senate--with respect to cops on the beat--signed into formal law, the law of the land, and participated in with enthusiasm by the overwhelming majority of the police forces over the entire country. It is a program that is working and working extremely well. Without any authorization, that law, as provided by way of money in this measure, is overturned. It is just repealed. The formal law is totally disregarded, and in its place, we have a so-called block grant approach. Similarly, with respect to the Legal Services Corporation, that was more or less created by the distinguished former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Powell, when he was president of the American Bar Association. Here is a corporate entity, the Legal Services Corporation, worked in by the private sector, by the professional attorney sector and by the Federal Government in a most successful fashion, but it is not within this bill. That endeavor that has been going on successfully for years is totally overturned and repealed. A new program is put in. It is not authorized. Of course, the parliamentary tactic is to raise a point of order. But in the spirit of trying to move along, we can have some votes around here on points of order and everything else. But I am not trying to turn back anything parliamentarily. I am trying to turn it back on the basis of merit. But if you go through this particular measure, they come down real hard on the future of this country with respect to, for example, the programs within the Department of Commerce and the Department of State. The Department of State is not really left with an operating budget. We have been closing consulates and closing down various [[Page S 14497]] endeavors on behalf of the Department of State over the last 15 years. Somehow, somewhere, people have forgotten that, after all, we had President Reagan come to town with spending cuts, and then President Bush. After 8 years of President Reagan and President Bush for 4 years, we had 12 years of spending cuts. Then we had, of course, President Clinton come to town and cut out another $500 billion in spending cuts. So what we are on to is the tail end, so to speak, of 15 years of various spending cuts whereby programs like WIC, Head Start, title I for the disadvantaged, and many others, are only half funded, as are many programs in health research. That is the reason we just rejected, by way of extended debate, the Labor, Health, and Human Resources appropriations bill. For every dollar we spend over at NIH, we save the taxpayers $13.50. So these money-saving programs have run into a frontal assault of a so-called political contract that is devastating to the functioning of our society. I almost wish when it comes to the Department of Commerce that President Clinton had said we ought to get rid of the Department of Commerce. If President Clinton said we have to get rid of the Department of Commerce, the whole business community--all of that crowd that runs under the white tent for NAFTA and for GATT, and all the Republican crowd, all of those executives, that Business Round Table-- would come running up here: ``What do you mean this Democratic President is trying to do away with the voice of business at the Cabinet table?'' You cannot find them today. Why? Because the Republicans thought of that idea. Yes, labor is to have a voice at the Cabinet table, but not commerce, the business leadership. Agriculture is to have a voice at the Cabinet table, but they want to do away with the Department. You will not find agriculture in the Constitution. You will not find the Labor Department there. But you will find, under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, that the Congress is hereby authorized to regulate foreign commerce. We are doing away with constitutional responsibilities in a willy-nilly contract fashion. Now with the fall of the wall, we really look upon the State Department to promulgate our values the world around and capitalism the world around along with the Department of Commerce. Very interestingly, that is exactly what they are doing. Secretary Christopher and Secretary Brown have been doing an outstanding job, but there is no acknowledgment or recognition of it whatever in this particular appropriation. Rather, they tried to do away with the technology, the advanced technology program, the manufacturing centers, the Office of Technology and all, as we go on down the list--these various endeavors to keep America competitive. Our foreign policy, our security as a nation, our success in this global competition, rests like a stool on three legs. We have, on the one leg, the values of a nation which are very strong and are unquestioned. America voluntarily will try to feed the hungry in Somalia, voluntarily will try to set up democracy in Haiti, and now is trying to help, of course, in Bosnia and in the Mideast where they are meeting right now. With respect to our values, it is very strong, and with respect to our military leg, it is unquestioned. But with respect to the economic leg, over the past 45, almost 50 years, it is fractured and willingly so. We set up the Marshall plan. We sent our money and our technology and our expertise to countries abroad in the conflict between capitalism and communism, and capitalism has won out. And we are all very grateful for that. But during that 50-year period, what we had to do was sort of sacrifice our economy and give up markets with the assault on market share. We had to give up markets to our friends in the Pacific rim, in Europe, and otherwise around, with a sort of nudist trade policy-- running around here like ninnies hollering ``free trade, free trade''-- when there was not any such thing, and it is not now. We all understand that. But now with the fall of the wall comes the opportunity to rebuild the strength of the economy. Yes, in many instances, that means more government. I want a Senator to say that on the floor of this U.S. Senate. What we need is more in education, more in the inner-city restructuring, more in transportation, more in science and technology, and more in medical research. That is exactly what we are not doing in this particular measure here. Let me go right to the point about the President's budget for which we get a gratuitous statement from our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. He said again that the President's budget would not be in balance at the second coming, and had $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. If you want to read the gratuitous statement, you just look at the committee report of State, Justice, Commerce, and on page 4. I will quote this one sentence: The administration's request in a budget that made no attempt to balance the budget, not in 7 years, not in 10 years, not ever. Here comes a committee report from a crowd that we could not get a single vote from to cut $500 million in spending and raise revenues to pay for some of these programs. Yes, we raised taxes on Social Security, and $25 billion of the increased revenue on Social Security we gave to what? To Medicare. They are running all over the Hill. ``It is going broke. It is going broke.'' Last year they said, ``What is the matter? Nothing is wrong with America's health programs. It is the best health system in the world. What is the matter? I can show you the same crowd that they quote now as saying it is going broke in the year 2002. Last year, that same entity reported it was going broke in the year 2001. At least we got one year's grace out of the discipline that we set for spending cuts and revenue increases and foregoing programs. Let me qualify. I speak about this budget because I can tell you here and now they act like they have a budget that we have to conform to so their budget balances in the year 2002. Absolutely false. For one, this particular Senator voted against that silly Reaganomics which at the time was called by the then majority leader a ``river boat gamble,'' the then Vice President as ``voodoo,'' and now we have ``voodoo'' all over again--going on all over this Hill. We do not have a sense of history whatever. I opposed that voodoo and proposed instead a budget freeze like the mayor of a city or the Governor of a State. What they do is just take this year's budget for next year. We would save billions. We could not succeed. I then joined with the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and we said let's have not only freezes, but we are going to have automatic spending cuts across the board. And that worked. Mr. President, it worked, until 1990, when they repealed it. And at 12:41 a.m., October 19, 1990, I raised a point of order against the repeal. And let the Record show who voted to repeal it. Now they are running around and saying it did not work. They repealed it because it was working. It was going to cause cuts across the board. I went along in 1988 with tax reform in order to close loopholes. So we had budget freezes, we had budget cuts, and we had loophole closings. And then, if you please, Mr. President, I came with increased taxes, a value-added tax proposed in the Budget Committee where I got eight votes, and I got Republican colleagues to go along. And we had a discipline trying to offset this deficit and an end of increased deficits as far as the eye can see. Right now, the deficit that is projected--we will get it --but it is not 100 something, not 200. It is near $300 billion. I will enter the exact figure in the Record. All you need do is figure out how much the Government takes in and how much it spends and find the difference. I do know that as a result the interest costs for the fiscal year beginning on Sunday, October 1, fiscal year 1996, the interest costs on the national debt--as a result of that voodoo and that riverboat gamble--is $348 billion. We only have 365 days a year, so that is $1 billion a day practically that we go down to the bank the first thing in the morning and borrow--$1 billion a day. None of these plans, neither the Republican nor the Democratic plan, saves $1 billion a day. I try my best to keep pointing this out to get level so we all speak the same language. Only this past week, I [[Page S 14498]] wrote the Congressional Budget Office. I said that my friends on the other side of the aisle continued to talk in terms of a balanced budget by the year 2002. I ask unanimous consent that I may include the letter in the Record dated September 25 from the Congressional Budget Office, June E. O'Neill.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this procedure has been agreed to, so I hope we can proceed along that line.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me rise in gratitude to our distinguished full committee chairman and also the subcommittee chairman for allowing us to proceed, and to note a softening and thawing on behalf of the distinguished subcommittee chairman, which is very becoming. Senator Hatfield has really saved us. I read Mary McGrory this morning, and she said Ross Perot had given [[Page S 14504]] President Clinton oxygen. I feel like, in this amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, we are getting oxygen. It keeps some very important programs alive. The distinguished full committee chairman, Senator Hatfield, has been very sensitive and very understanding and very realistic. There is none of this kind of pork or any of these other kind of things. This amendment adds back funds to high priority commerce programs--$46.5 million for the International Trade Administration--we just had lunch on yesterday with the Special Trade Representative. We are trying to get more competitive and more realistic in a trade policy in this country, and we need these additional funds to just bring them up to where they would be at a freeze. There is $32 million for the Minority Business Development Agency; $25 million for NIST--the National Bureau of Standards, manufacturing centers, the information technology centers; $8.1 million for the Export Administration; and finally for the front line--after the fall of the wall--namely, our State Department, which the distinguished ranking member, Senator Pell, has just addressed. $177 million is added to their operating accounts to bring them back to the level proposed in S. 908, Senator Helms' Foreign Relations Authorization Act. For the USIA, we are adding back $20 million for the international education exchanges, including $10 million for the Fulbright program. We also add back funds for the USIA operations, international broadcasting, and technology modernization. And for the independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Small Business Administration and others, we have added back certain funds that could be available now with this new allocation. I thank particularly the staffs on both sides, Scott Gudes, Mark Van Der Water, David Taylor, Scott Corwin, and Steve McMillen, who worked until about 2 o'clock this morning, trying to bring this about. I am very much appreciative to Senator Hatfield, and I hope we can adopt this amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to particularly thank Mark Van de Water of Senator Hatfield's staff. We really appreciate it very, very much.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I hope not to object, but to be able to answer the McCain amendment we need a little time, 10 minutes to explain that amendment--if the Senator will put that in the unanimous consent, that we have 10 minutes to explain it.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I understand now, in the unanimous- consent agreement, Senator Biden will commence at 7 o'clock. To try to save a little time, I was off the floor momentarily at the time of the presentation of the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona as he relates it could be very accurate. On the other hand, I have heard different facts. What occurs here is, as the Senator from Arizona has outlined the amendment, the FCC is asking for guidance. Whenever that occurs, beware, for the simple reason that we have an FCC to have full hearings to hear both sides of a particular case and issue and thereupon make a decision. I have heard from both sides spasmodically. I have not called the FCC myself. I wanted to stay out of the case. But right to the point, it is my understanding there is sort of a split down there. And there is a definite difference of opinion with respect to due diligence being used on the granting of a particular license to an entity out there, I think, in Arizona. The Arizona folks, it is related, did use due diligence, and came back twice to the Federal Communications Commission and were granted on both occasions extensions, because what is involved here is a satellite spectrum usage encompassing quite a commitment of financial support. That commitment of financial support was finally obtained and committed, and there is related $1 billion that has been committed, and there is a launch date for that particular satellite in April of next year. Now, this is in issue. And as the Commission was temporarily making a ruling, the parties involved appealed that particular ruling. And it is now under appeal. So what happens is that the case comes to the Congress, and some of us Senators on the Commerce Committee who are interested, of course, and disposed to Federal Communications matters, but without any hearing, and without knowing what is best to be done, I have always come down, because this occurs every time we get up to a particular bill or something, somebody brings up a fix, if you please, Mr. President, of a case down at the FCC. I have been very cautious and astute not to join in those particular fixes. Specifically, I was asked if I could go along with an amendment that would do as is indicated by Senator McCain. And I said no. I think we ought to leave it with the Commission. Thereupon, I was asked if I would go along with an amendment on the other side. Go along with it and allow them to set fees and whatever it was. I said no. We are not giving authority for the FCC to become more or less a Congress setting fees. And I withheld my approval of that. I said I simply think, under the circumstances, that it is best that the Congress not be involved in a half-of-a-hair-cut situation here whereby we have not had a single hearing. The Chairman of the Commission has not asked my guidance. If somebody says they are asking guidance, I do not have any written letters or anything else like that on this particular matter. Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment. I want to talk it out with the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I know his intent is sincere. But I think this is the kind of amendment that ought to be tabled. I only state this to use up some of the time. I see others want to use some time prior to 7, but I wanted to say that I am sorry I could not respond at the particular time that the Senator from Arizona presented his amendment. I left the floor with the understanding that the Senator from New Mexico was going to present his. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague for raising this issue. As he noted, I offered an amendment on the State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations bill in 1992 on this issue. The electric utilities, oil pipelines, and railroads must have reliable communications systems. The FCC initially proposed to move these utilities' communications systems from the 2 gigahertz band to the 6 gigahertz band without ensuring that the 6 gigahertz band would provide reliable communications. My amendment, which the FCC subsequently adopted in its rules, guaranteed that the utilities could only be moved out of the 2 gigahertz band if they are given 3 years to negotiate an agreement, if their costs of moving to the new frequency are paid for, and if the reliability of their communications at the new frequency is guaranteed. Now I understand that some of the incumbent users may be taking advantage of the negotiation period to delay the introduction of new technologies. It was certainly not my intention to give the incumbent users an incentive to delay moving to the 6 gigahertz band purely to obtain more money. I agree with my friend that the parties involved in this issue should try to work out an acceptable solution to this issue. If the parties cannot agree to work out a compromise, I believe that Congress or the FCC may need to revisit this issue. women's business programs Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. President, I would like to address an important portion of the Hatfield amendment, preservation of Small Business Administration funding for women's business programs. I believe the issue of women in business needs to be placed in the clearer context. [[Page S 14534]] The new dynamics of the American economy have brought about a sea- change in society. Thirty years ago, when most women entered the work force, they did so to supplement their families' incomes. Most often, women working outside the home did so in clerical and support roles. Thirty years ago, a young couple could live on the income of one professional. On that income, a schoolteacher could buy a nice house in a good neighborhood. Young families could hope to save, drive a nice car, educate their children, and take vacations. Today many cannot. Economic restructuring and societal changes have accelerated the entry of women into the work force, into the professions and into business. We see the challenges these changes have generated all around us. Nothing has been more exciting and challenging, though, than the emergence of women as business builders and entrepreneurs. Without exception, every aspect of business offers extraordinary opportunities for women. Women-owned firms are an increasingly dynamic sector of our economy. According to the most recent census data available--1982-87--the number of women-owned firms increased by 57 percent--more than twice the rate of all U.S. businesses. These businesses employed 35 percent more people in the United States than the Fortune 500 companies employed worldwide, and had a payroll of nearly $41 billion. More women-owned businesses have staying power--over 40 percent have been in business for 12 or more years. Businesses owned by women tend to hire more women. It is not unusual to find that two-thirds of their employees are women. In 1993, the Small Business Administration's flagship lending program, the 7(a) program, guaranteed 25,000 loans totaling $6.4 billion to women-owned businesses. While women-owned businesses accounted for nearly one-third of all small businesses, they only made up about 10 percent of loan recipients that year. In 1994, that total rose to 24 percent. In spite of their successes in getting started in providing employment, one of the biggest impediments that women-owned businesses face today is constraints on their growth--they remain small. Women- owned businesses average annual sales of $67,000, compared to $140,000 in sales for all small businesses. That is why, Mr. President, the National Women's Business Council and the Women's Business Ownership Development Program are so important. The National Women's Business Council monitors plans and programs developed in the private and public sector which affect the ability of women-owned businesses to obtain capital and credit. The council also develops and promotes new initiatives, policies and plans designed to foster women's business enterprises. It has conducted: symposiums on getting access to capital, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve; and informational meetings on Federal Government procurement contract opportunities for women-owned businesses. In November, the council plans to initiate a project with Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management to develop an agenda for national research on women's entrepreneurship. The continuation of current funding for this council's salaries and expenses at a level of $200,000 represents a modest--but prudent-- investment in our Nation's business sector. There is an urgent argument to be made for well-thought-out initiatives aimed at encouraging more women to create their own businesses: Here are some disturbing facts: half of all working women are sole support for themselves and their families; and women and the children they support comprise more than 75 percent of people who live in poverty in the United States. Mr. President, if we as a Nation want to reduce the reliance of women and children on welfare and social service programs, these women must become economically self-sufficient--and the opportunity for self- sufficiency will most likely come from women-owned enterprises. The Women's Business Ownership Development Program addresses these problems in constructive ways. It is a public-private partnership whose goal is the creation of new jobs, increasing the earning potential of women, and forging a larger pool of skilled women entrepreneurs. There are 38 demonstration sites in 20 States, with plans for more. More than 25,000 clients have been served in urban and rural locations. Each center tailors its program to the particular needs of the community. Training activities include: assistance in accessing capital; management assistance; marketing and procurement assistance; and specialized programs that address home-based businesses and international trade. The North Texas Women's Business Development Center, which is being dedicated tomorrow, is a shining example of the promise this program holds. It is a collective effort of the National Association of Women Business Owners, the North Texas Women's Business Council, the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce, the Dallas-Fort Worth Minority Business Development Corp. and the Dallas County Community College. Under the auspices of the Women's Business Consortium, this broad- based, private-sector supported initiative will help start-up and growing women-owned businesses. One of the areas on which they will concentrate is Government contracting opportunities for women. Four million dollars will help establish demonstration sites like the one in Dallas in cities all across this country. Programs like the National Women's Business Council and the Women's Business Ownership Development Program--modest in scope but breathtaking in the possibilities they hold out to those willing to work hard--have the potential to turn America around. I am pleased my colleagues saw their value and agreed to continued funding.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, is it also understood that we can follow as we originally intended to stack the Domenici vote; namely, after the 10 a.m. vote on the Biden amendment, we would have the Domenici vote? [[Page S 14537]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would hope so. Pending that, Mr. President, I would have to object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chairman. amendment no. 2824 Table the Committee amendment on page 79, lines 1 through 6. On page 79, line 22, delete ``$42,000,000'' and insert ``$37,000,000''.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for including in his amendment an additional $25 million for the Industrial Technology Services account at the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. That funding is for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP] program, which supports locally run manufacturing extension centers around the country. I would like to enter into a brief conversation with the chairman to clarify that this funding is provided for three purposes. First, $22 million is provided to support new centers that are now close to be chosen, under an ongoing centers competition. The amendment restores funding that had been provided in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act for new centers but which the present bill would shift to other purposes. This amendment therefore overrides the committee report language which says that no funds can be used to open a new center during the coming year. Second, $3 million is provided for fiscal year 1996 support services for the existing 42 manufacturing extension centers. These are services such as materials for training extension agents, provided to centers through MEP's National Programs account. This $3 million is in addition to funds which the bill already provides for fiscal year 1996 support of the existing 42 centers, including the eligible centers originally supported by the Defense Department's Technology Reinvestment Project. Third, with this amendment the amount of new appropriations for the MEP program now totals $76.3 million, and the amount of prior year appropriations and new appropriations for meeting prior Advanced Technology Program [ATP] commitments totals $109,138,000. The ATP is intended to receive $83,838,000 in prior year appropriations and $25.3 million in new appropriations. I would like to ask the chairman if this three-part interpretation of the MEP portion of his amendment is correct.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No, when you say it is going to be balanced.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. All right. Get it up.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We cannot agree to the time limit.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask Senator Gramm, there will be no amendments to the Biden amendment?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the issue before us is not striker replacement, but education. I supported the striker replacement provision in committee and hope it survives. However, I continue to fight to cool the fever to cut education that has gripped this Congress. I want to cool that fever and break it. Both parties have supported education funding in the past, but now the Republicans [[Page S 14451]] think they have a mandate to cut reading and math assistants for kids in school. They find a mandate to reduce college student aid while tuitions rise faster than inflation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Specifically, in May, the Senate debated and passed a budget resolution that would cut education by 33 percent over the next 7 years while delivering a tax cut before the next election. During the debate, I, along with Senators Harkin, Kennedy, and others offered an alternative that better fits with what the American people want. We proposed to protect the 2 percent of the budget now devoted to education by providing a smaller pre-election tax cut. Unfortunately, our proposal to protect education was voted down, and today we are considering an appropriations bill that takes the first step to implement the wrongheaded budget plan that passed. Specifically, this bill cuts $2.1 billion in fiscal year 1996 from the discretionary education budget. It cuts Head Start, college grants, vocational education funds to help high school students move into higher-wage jobs, subsidies targeted largely to elementary schools with disadvantaged children, and school reform funds. It cuts antidrug education in the schools, magnet schools, adult literacy funds, and grants to improve the academic programs of 2- and 4-year colleges that are strapped for funds and that serve many lower-income students seeking to improve their economic independence. In short, it takes a $2.1 billion step backward while everyone knows we have to press forward in the current economic climate. Because of these cuts, I am opposing the motion to proceed to this bill. Many of our constituents have felt the sharp edge of economic downsizing. In the government sector, we are cutting the Navy Base in Charleston, and the private sector has done even more to downsize and cut benefits. Traditionally, Americans have relied on a system of public education and college assistance to prepare them and their children to weather such transitions and gain economic independence. We learned after World War II that it pays to help people attend college, and we have learned for more than the past century that free public schools are essential. Congress now seems to have forgotten these lessons of history, despite continuing evidence that education spending has been critical for economic growth. The Department of Labor estimates that 20 percent of U.S. economic growth since 1963 has stemmed from increased education in our work force. Where would our country be now, relative to Japan and Europe, if its economy were that much smaller? Congress should be fighting to ensure this kind of growth in the future, not fighting to cut education and give families making over $100,000 per year a tax cut before the next election. After rushing to bail out Mexico and refusing repeatedly to stop exporting American jobs, we should now work hard to invest in the future, not to give away the public store as a political goodie. On the individual level, too, voters know that education makes a difference for the future. A recent study of identical twins found that the more educated twin makes 13 percent more on average. Why is this Congress implementing plans to cut back on the long-term individual achievement of the 44 million children in U.S. public schools and the more than 6 million college students receiving student financial aid in order to quickly provide tax cuts to a smaller set of people who already have made it? No political payoff is worth such a plan that will hurt individual achievement and the economic potential of this Nation. Aside from denying history and current research, this plan flies in the face of the basic facts about school enrollments. It is not rocket science: The number of children is rising. There will be 5 million more children in school in the United States 7 years from now. Thus, public school attendance will rise more than 10 percent, but Congress plans to cut education funding by 33 percent. At the college level, not only are enrollments rising, tuition is going up faster than inflation while we debate $10 billion in cuts to student aid on reconciliation. I do not know what else I have to say to prove that the education part of the current budget plan is perverse. We do not need a pollster to tell us that it is not the best effort that this Congress should make for the people. The average voter probably would find it hard to believe that we are really pursuing it. Far from keeping a Contract With America, this bill represents a broken promise to educate our children.