Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are spending $422 million this present year in testing back home. We have been testing since you were a little boy and I was a little boy. The folks back home know what is really needed. But here we come and say they don't know what they need and they never have had any accountability. We want to discover for them what schools are flunking and close those schools down, and in the meantime hurt the students who have never even had the course, so to speak. If you did not benefit, as a poor child, from the Women Infants and Children Program, you don't have a strong mind coming into this world. If your school did not receive Title I funding, if you didn't have access to a Head Start program, if you didn't get a good teacher, if your class was so big that you were unable to listen and learn, you are unprepared. All these programs figure into giving students the course and they are less than 50-percent funded. Now we are going to test students because we know from the debate they have not had the course. We haven't really gotten to the crux of the matter. Congress has decided what is needed. So we have had testing. Right to the point, if you really believe in harming students, as my distinguished colleague from Minnesota points out so vividly and forcefully, and you are merely trying to give yourself political credit, then vote against the amendment. That crowd that has been trying to abolish the Department of Education now comes in saying they are going to get responsibility in education, accountability, and set up a straw man and knock it over with a 7-year bureaucracy of $2.7 billion to $7 billion. That is what it costs. Mr. President, yesterday I had printed in the Record this particular survey by the National Association of State Boards Of Education. If you believe in bureaucracy at the cost of some $7 billion, if you believe that Washington knows best, that the people back home don't know what they need--while we have heard on the floor about needs ranging from libraries to curricula to teachers to reducing class sizes to school construction to after-school programs--then don't vote for this amendment. Every Senator over the 7 weeks has put out the needs. But what we need to do is take that money, like revenue sharing, send it back to the local folks, and say: If you want to have testing, test. If you want to have further testing, do that. If you really think you need to increase the teachers' pay, if you need to hire more teachers, those kinds of things, then do it. But that is really assisting; not spending extra money. This is not an increase, this is giving flexibility to the money under the bill to address the needs back home. It is playing as if, fast forward 3 or 4 years, we have had the testing, we know what is needed, and we know what schools are flunking. I could flunk 30 or 40 in South Carolina this afternoon with this so-called quality test, and students do not have another school to go to and you cannot close their school down. So we spend billions, and we are in the same place as we are this minute. If you believe in that bureaucracy, if you believe in unfunded mandates, if you believe in one size fits all, if you believe in harming the children just to get political credit on the floor of the Senate, then vote against this amendment. But if you want to help the children back home and help the local school boards, if you want to help America advance education, then take this same program money and send it back on a revenue-sharing basis so that schools can address their needs, whether those needs be testing or otherwise. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, this Senate, and I say it advisedly and respectfully, in a sense, we are the best off-Broadway show. We engage in these charades, set up these straw men and then knock them down, taking the credit for being so effective politically. We say we have a surplus; we don't have a surplus. The CBO projected in March a $23 billion surplus for this fiscal year. Mark it down, it will be between a $50 billion and $70 billion deficit. We haven't even passed an appropriations bill. We have not passed any kind of supplemental and already we can foresee, less than a week after the signing of the so-called tax cut--where we had no taxes to cut--a deficit of $50 billion to $70 billion. Now here is what we set up. We say: Wait a minute. In education there is no accountability; there is no testing. The people back home do not know what they need. If we can get some accountability and testing, we will learn what they need. Such fanciful nonsense. We have testing coming out of our ears. You mention the State, and I will give you the millions they are spending. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this schedule printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it shows the cost of this particular approach. Then we hear Senator after Senator saying curriculum, and the other one is class size. The other one is better teacher pay. The other one is more reading after school, and on down the list of particular needs. But this Washington, one-size-fits-all, unfunded mandate says do as we say do, and go through our $7 billion exercise in futility. And come up with what? Let's assume it works. Let's assume that 30 or 40 schools in my State are closed. You can't go from one county to the other. You can't just waltz from Allendale over to Hampton. You would have to change the laws in South Carolina. We act like we know what is going on. We are the ones who do not know what is going on. We are the ones who ought to be tested. Come on. Then, of all things, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has been going over and over again, we have given them the test without giving them the course. Sure, I believe in testing. We all believe in testing. But give them the course, and test them on the course. But if you give them the women, infants, and children nutritional program, they would come into this world with strong minds. If you do not give them Head Start, which is only 30 percent covered right now, they aren't prepared to learn when they enter school. If you do not give them Title I for the disadvantaged--which we only fund at 33 percent of its authorized level--they haven't had the course. If you do not give them a prepared teacher, they don't receive quality instruction. I have had tutors go into some of the schools, and say they were rather embarrassed because the teacher spoke English poorly. So the student hasn't had the course. But in Washington, we know what to do. We are going to mandate as much as $7 billion in standardized tests before they have had the course. Can't we spend $7 billion giving them the course, giving them good teachers, giving them the small classrooms, curriculum, remedial reading and math, afterschool programs, and give them a good building? Let's take the money and assume we have had the test in effect over the past 4 years. Let's assume it proves schools are failing. So we have schools that are closed down. Let's take the closed-down or about- to-be-closed-down schools, because they are not going to do it. Let's assume they are the poor schools. We need revenue sharing. I put that first bill in on February 1, 1967. It worked well until the Senators found out that the Governors were using it to distribute money around the States to run against Senators. Senator Howard Baker and some others repealed it. But it worked. My distinguished colleague from California, Senator Boxer, says there is no silver bullet. But there is silver money. What they need is revenue sharing and financial assistance for all these particular endeavors that everybody has. The side-by-side amendment is curriculum. I tend to support Senator Santorum on that curriculum, and all the other Senators around. But let's not try to dignify this flawed approach to public education. It is just downright pollster politics. They haven't been able to do away with the Department. They have haven't been able to get tuition tax credits, vouchers, or charter schools, or any way to divert money to the private sector. Incidentally, I have had children that have gone to both private and public schools. I have a daughter who graduated from Woodrow Wilson High, and another one who went to Cathedral right here in the District. I know the value of both of them. But the duty of the Congress, the United States Senators and the United States Government is to provide, as John Adams and James Madison and Horace Mann said, public education, not private. That isn't how to do it. We cannot oversee the private schools. We cannot dictate to the private schools. We should not dictate to the private schools. But we have a duty. Do not give me this ``private approach'' like somehow we don't know what works or what works better. We know. Right to the point, if we use this money, we can get something done rather than go through an exercise in futility. We are already testing in all 50 States. You can't show me a State in the United States that does not have testing. You can't do it. What we really need to do--and I will yield to my distinguished colleague from Minnesota in a moment--is fund what works. But now that has to really be upgraded with respect to globalization, the technology that is needed in these classrooms, the good teachers and everything else of that kind. That is what we need to do. Let's not waste money. In the last campaign in 1998, my challenger took me on before all the principals and talked about the bureaucracy in Washington--the Washington nanny, the Washington approach. That is exactly what this is. This is not helping the local schools at all. This is saying, we are putting you on trial, and you are going to have to pay for a good part of it. That is an unfunded mandate. Can you imagine such a thing really being signed by the President or suggested by a mature body such as the Senate? I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am obviously very grateful for the more than laudatory, exaggerated remarks. We are good friends. We are working the same side of the street. Let me emphasize, with respect to our minority schools, endeavors have been made there. In 1950-51 in South Carolina, we passed a 3- percent sales tax that I authored. We were trying to play catchup ball. When we increased the sales tax, under Governor Riley, to 5 percent, we were supported by the Black Caucus. I want to emphasize that we were opposed at the time by the Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina Association of Textile Manufacturers, and the other business groups. Minorities know there is one way to really try to catch up and get a piece of this American dream. That is public schools, public education. Wherever you can give them the support and the means to really implement it, they support public education. I did not want to infer, when I talked about my Allendale school, that they were not for it. In fact, I have other reports in here, with which I will not belabor the Senate, on the tremendous improvements already made in the takeover of that particular school. We have worked year in and year out, and we still are trying our best. One of the things that goes into the calculation is the quality of the teacher. If you go to the institutions of higher learning in this country, public and private, the education degree, in large measure, is to take care of the football team. If you have a big, old, hefty 280- pounder who is not too quick upstairs but very quick with his legs and everything else downstairs, then you put him in education. Let him get into an education major. I have discussed this with college presidents. We have been into every facet of this thing. The one big waste is this bill. It is a tremendous waste of time and money. It should not be. Yes, I agree on the disabilities provisions in there. All of us are frustrated because we all know about the needs. We have been pointing out different needs. So we should address these needs directly instead of creating costly tests that tell us what we already know. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the documents I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to conform to the unanimous consent agreement. Accordingly, I ask my amendment at the desk be called and reported. I take it it is an amendment in the first degree?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be considered as a first degree. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, following the debate here for the last 7 weeks, one would think the public school system of this Nation is in terrible, terrible disrepair. In fact, you'd think it should be closed down, a good bit of it. That is the thrust of the so-called testing approach given here, whereby for $7 billion over a 7-year period, all who have not done so will do so immediately. In other words, third to eighth grade pupils will be tested and then found inadequate and the trustees found unresponsive. Thereby, what we have is a closing down of the public school system. So we are going to show them from Washington. It is all out of whole cloth. The fact is, at the Federal level, we only provide some 7 cents of every education dollar. So we are not closing down the schools. And we ought to understand, at the outset, the public school system is one of the geniuses of the Founding Fathers. It was James Madison: A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is about a prologue to a farce or a tragedy. In the earliest days, there was Madison. John Adams: The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expense of it. The reason I start in this vein, to make these quotes, is because I have observed the 20-year effort to close down public schools: put in tuition tax credits, put in vouchers, put in charter schools--anything but give to the public schools and the pupils of America what they need. Thank heavens for the wonderful Senator from Minnesota, Senator Paul Wellstone. I had not been in on the early parts of this 7-week debate. But watching his zeal, his brilliance, and the way he has approached this particular problem, he has really been an education to all of us in the Senate. Let's look, for example, at the Land Ordinance of 1785, whereby 4 years before the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. They divided up in the western lands of Minnesota, 6 miles by 6 miles square, 36 squares, with the provision that square 36, in the middle, be reserved for public education. And Horace Mann, the father of public schools in America, said that this law laid the foundation of the present system of free schools: The idea of an educational system that was at once both universal, free, and available to all the people, rich and poor alike, was revolutionary. This is the great thing about America. No other nation ever had such an institution. Three centuries later it is a stranger to the bulk of the people of the world. The free public school system which the Puritans conceived, has been, in large measure, the secret of America's success. In these classrooms, children of all ages, nationalities, and tongues, learned a common language and became imbued with one central idea: The American conception that all men are created equal, that opportunities are open to all, that every minority, whether respected or despised, has the same guaranteed rights as the majority. Parents who landed here often brought with them the antagonisms, the rivalries, the suspicions of other continents, but their children became one and united in the pursuit of a democratic ideal. Mr. President, what Mann said and persists today is what he calls the large measure of the secret of America's success--not failure, success. I emphasize that because in the hinterlands 70 years ago, I was tested. We have been having tests, tests. The fact of the matter is I looked it up. This past school year, they spent $422 million on testing. Let's go to the little State of South Carolina where we have been having tests for the third through eighth grades, complete, at the cost of some $7.8 million. The superintendent of education in South Carolina, Ms. Inez Tenenbaum, said students under her testing system made significant and, in some cases, dramatic improvements in the latest round of tests. South Carolina increased greatly, met or exceeded the international average in the Third International Math and Science Study. The national report card, Quality Counts 2001, published by the respected national magazine, Education Week, recognized South Carolina's efforts to improve teacher quality and raise academic standards. South Carolina was ranked among the top six States in the Nation in both categories. My little State is not affluent with a low per capita income, and with a large minority population who, for 200 years, did not have public schools. The first thing I did the week I was elected back in 1948 was to attend the Freedom School across the Cooper River in my county in November. It was one big square building with a potbelly stove in the middle, with classes in each of the four corners, and one teacher. That is what the minorities had in 1948. We didn't start providing adequate educational opportunities for minorities until 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education, and we are still playing catchup. It is not because we haven't made the effort or we do not know what is going on. I really get annoyed when I hear the Senator, not to be identified, say what we want to do is find out what works. Come on, Washington, ha- ha. We are going to find out what works. Mr. President, I have a school that has been taken over by this distinguished superintendent. It has almost a totally black population. They have the zeal. They have the interest. They don't have the wherewithal. Now, we are helping at the State level. But to find out what works, they only have to go up to the junior high school in Columbia, SC, which was extolled in last week's issue of Time magazine, or to the Spartanburg High School in Spartanburg, SC, which was the first 4-time Blue Ribbon School. We know what works. We are working on what works. What really gets this Senator is potentially spending $3 to $7 billion on testing, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Hebrew Orphan Society of Charleston, SC has a long, rich history that deserves to be celebrated. On June 24, a reception and dinner will be held at Charleston's Middleton Place Gardens in honor of the society's 200 years of good works. Founded in 1801 by a small group of Jewish men at K.K. Beth Elohim synagogue, the society flourished in culturally and religiously tolerant 19th-century Charleston. Its members reached out to widows and their families and to Jewish youth who could not afford a proper education. Membership was initially limited to 18, or ``chai,'' the number representing life in the Jewish faith, but has now doubled and includes women as well as men with a distinguished record of service in the Jewish community and the larger Charleston community. Today, the society assists Social Services clients with transportation and medical bills and meets requests from Hospice and Jenkins Orphanage in North Charleston. A quiet, yet diligent effort by The Hebrew Orphan Society may often go unnoticed by the public. However, rest assured of the many grateful citizens throughout history who have experienced its munificence. My wife, Peatsy, and I send The Hebrew Orphan Society our heartfelt congratulations on this milestone and best wishes in the years ahead.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to commemorate the life of Robert W. Knecht, who passed away on Sunday at Georgetown University Hospital from colon cancer. Mr. Knecht's passing is a great loss to the coastal and marine policy community. Mr. Knecht began his public service career not in the coastal management field, but working as an Upper Atmosphere Physicist for the National Bureau of Standards. He then went on to serve as Laboratory Director of the Environmental Services Administration. It was after holding those two posts, that he joined NOAA in 1967 as the Deputy Director of the Environmental Research Laboratories in Boulder, CO. Working with him in the early 1970s, I recall Mr. Knecht's valuable contributions in crafting the Coastal Zone Management Act. It was with the passage of this landmark legislation in 1972, that Mr. Knecht was appointed as the first Director of the National Coastal Zone Management Program at NOAA. Working in this capacity for 7 years, he served to shape the first generation of State coastal zone management programs which continue today to protect our Nation's valuable coastal resources. Mr. Knecht was instrumental in the design and implementation of the National Coastal Management Program, particularly in enlisting coastal States to participate in this federal-state partnership. He also played a key role in the development of the coastal energy impact program amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1976 that dealt with oil and gas development. In 1979, he became a Special Representative to the Secretary of Commerce on the United Nations Law of the Sea Negotiations. It was in this position that he developed and negotiated positions on the international management of seabed mineral resources. In 1980 and 1981, he was Director of the Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy at NOAA, working on the implementation of new legislation for ocean thermal energy conversion and deep seabed mining. In 1981, Mr. Knecht left government service for academia, where he held positions at the University of Virginia, University of Rhode Island, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the University of California at Santa Barbara. In 1989, he joined the University of Delaware Graduate College of Marine Studies where he was the Co- director of the Center for the Study of Marine Policy for 12 years. During his tenure at the University of Delaware, Mr. Knecht was a leader in promoting integrated coastal zone management, particularly on the international level where he also served as a consultant to the World Bank. He served as the Vice President of the International Coastal and Ocean Organization and was a member of the Marine Area Governance Committee of the Marine Board of the National Research Council. He also served as the Co-Editor-in-Chief for the international journal, Ocean and Coastal Management. Mr. Knecht co-authored two books on ocean policy and integrated coastal zone management. In his most recent book on ocean policy, he identified the need for government integration of currently fragmented ocean policies, calling for a National Ocean Council that could set integrated national goals and ocean policies. I am pleased to say that this idea became a reality with the Oceans Act of 2000. One of Mr. Knecht's most recent accomplishments was receiving the 1999 Julius A. Stratton Award for Leadership. This national award is bestowed biennially to the person or group that has made the greatest difference in leading the cause for the coast. Mr. Knecht was a true champion for the coast, fostering the development of the fledgling Coastal Zone Management Program in the early part of his career, to the latter part of his career that focused on developing integrated coastal zone management approaches at both national and international levels. With Mr. Knecht's passing we have lost a great leader in marine and coastal protection. I would like to offer my deepest appreciation for Mr. Knecht's contributions to the Nation and send my sincerest condolences to his wife, Biliana Cicin-Sain, and to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for accepting amendment No. 624, an amendment to continue the Blue Ribbon Schools program and authorize a demonstration program to investigate how we can implement the best practices of Blue Ribbon Schools in schools that this bill identifies as needing improvement. The United States Department of Education awarded the first Blue Ribbon designations to middle and high schools in 1982. The first elementary schools received the designation in 1985. Since that time, we have identified thousands of exemplary schools that have undergone a thorough self-assessment involving parents, teachers, and community members; evaluated their practices in areas such as school leadership, professional development, curriculum, and student support services; and proven that these practices work through performance on standardized tests and other indicators. I think every member of this body can attest to the quality of the Blue Ribbon Schools in his or her state. The legislation before the Senate would create two new awards programs, the Achievement in Education Awards and the No Child Left Behind Awards. Mr. President, I did not offer this amendment in opposition to the Department offering these awards. In fact, I support the recognition of schools that significantly improve student achievement. However, these two awards are outcomes-based, focused on which schools improve test scores from one year to another. The Blue Ribbon program offers a contrast. It recognizes schools that work with parents and community members to identify shortcomings within the school and design programs to successfully address those shortcomings. I believe that we should continue to recognize these schools. For the Blue Ribbon Program to continue and thrive, we must commit to applying the information we gather from Blue Ribbon designees to offer schools in need of improvement. This process works. Beaufort Elementary School was included in a list of the 200 worst schools in South Carolina during the 1994-95 school year. Yet instead of relying on an academic or bureaucratic improvement process, the school constructed a road map for reform using the successful practices of Blue Ribbon Schools. Less then six years later, Beaufort Elementary received a Blue Ribbon designation of its own, symbolizing a 180-degree turnaround. Another school that has successfully used this process to generate positive school reform is Handle Middle School in Columbia, SC. I hope all of my colleagues will take the time to read the May 21, 2001 issue of Time magazine that recognizes Hand Middle School as the Middle School of the Year. The article does a much better job than I could of describing a school that implemented changes based on the successful practices of Blue Ribbon schools and rallied the community to create a better, more productive learning environment for students. These schools now serve as a model for other low-performing schools who are working tirelessly to reverse their fortunes. I have included new authorization in my amendment to allow the Department of Education to initiate demonstration projects that would use the best practices of Blue Ribbon Schools to turn around schools that fail to make average yearly progress. This is an area that the Department has neglected since the inception of the Blue Ribbon Program. As we speak, filing cabinets full of Blue Ribbon applications containing information on research-based educational practices that work are doing little else but gathering dust. Let's take this information and get it out to schools in need of improvement and see how it works. This is not a bureaucratic or regimented process. This is not a process that involves Federal or state governments mandating one approach over another. This is not a process that attempts to reinvent the wheel. This would be a process that disseminates information on practices that we know are effective. I envision schools first identifying an area for development--whether it be a new reading curriculum, teacher mentoring or a dropout prevention program. Next, they are able to examine records from Blue Ribbon Schools that have implemented similar programs and decide which approach best fits their own needs. Because these programs come from Blue Ribbon Schools, they are researched-based and have been favorably reviewed by educational experts. I have also required the Secretary to report to Congress on the effectiveness of these demonstration projects 3 years after the demonstration begins, so we will know if this process is working.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, It is official. The Richland County Public Library is the best library system in the country. Library Journal magazine and the Gale Group, the Nation's largest publisher of reference works for libraries, recently named the Richland library the National Library of the Year 2001. The library's executive director, C. David Warren, will accept the award on June 18 at a ceremony in San Francisco during the annual conference of the American Library Association. This honor is the latest in a string of honors bestowed on Richland County's system. In 1999, the American Library Association chose the library as the No. 1 large library system in the Southeast and, in 2000, Hennen's American Public Library Ratings ranked it fourth among urban libraries serving populations of 250,000-499,999. It was only a matter of time before it earned top billing nationwide. Three key factors influenced selection of the Library of the Year: service to the community, creativity in developing community programs and leadership in creating programs that other libraries can emulate. The Richland library shines in each of these areas thanks to the hard work of Mr. Warren, his staff, the Friends of the Library group, the County Council and voters. In 1989, voters approved a $27 million bond referendum used to build a striking new main library on Assembly Street and seven new branches. Many Richland County residents already knew they had a gem on their hands, but it sure is nice to have that pride substantiated by such a prestigious honor. I commend the Richland County Public Library for its outstanding service and wish Mr. Warren and his staff the best of luck as they continue to build an exemplary library system.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, just a couple words. The fact is, Mr. President--and I speak advisedly--this is a travesty; it is a travesty economically and, more than that, a travesty procedurally with respect to the Senate. I speak as having served on the Budget Committee since its institution--and as having been its chairman--and I have never seen such a gross abuse of the process. Specifically, Mr. President, in 1993, which has been compared by the present chairman of the Budget Committee to the action just recently on the floor, in 1993, President Clinton presented his budget. We had hearings on that budget, and we had a markup within the Budget Committee under the rules. There were some 30 votes--and 1 more vote for final passage. Thereafter, when we brought it to the floor of the Senate, we had an additional 52 votes on amendments. Compare this with the majority leader's bragging now about 54 votes--like that was really a task. The truth of the matter is we didn't get to reconciliation until August. At that particular time, they were really gloating with glee at the passage of the bill and reconciliation, stating that when we increased taxes on Social Security, they were going to hunt us down in the street like dogs and shoot us. They said, when we passed that bill, it was going to cause a depression. The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Packwood, said if this procedure worked back in 1993, which we voted for without a single Republican vote either in the House or in the Senate, that he would give us his home downtown here in the District. And Congressman Kasich, later chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side said, if this thing worked, he would change parties. I want to be a good memory. I will never forget a conversation once with Bernie Baruch, when he talked about President Truman. He said Truman had a good memory, but he said he had a good, bad memory. That crowd over there has a good, bad memory for the simple reason that they know it is an abuse. They rammed it. Instead of the President presenting a budget, we in the Budget Committee went through make-work hearings--just blather. They could not hear on the President's budget because the President would not submit it. Of course, when we debated the so-called budget on the floor of the Senate, it was merely a tax cut. It wasn't a budget. The President had yet to submit his budget. It had not been submitted when they voted on it in the House; it had not been submitted when they voted on it in the Senate. Then, of all things, we did get appointed to the conference committee--only to be told: Get out, we are not going to confer. So we got out. Then, of all things, they abused the reconciliation process, bringing the tax bill to the floor--not to reconcile, not to lower the deficit, as was intended--and I know because I helped write it--the reconciliation process was used as an abuse to ram it. I know of one Parliamentarian who said it could not be used that way, and then I know of that same Parliamentarian who changed his mind. Oh, yes. Anything to go along and ram it through and give us the bum's rush, and then have the unmitigated gall to call us bums. They have been putting it out that we are just delaying and delaying. But we're not delaying. This is our first opportunity on this bill to financially discuss education, housing, defense, which are all important matters; we are trying to get some break in this bum's rush from leadership. When I turned on the Republican Policy Committee's channel, channel 2, they said, ``Votes will continue ad nauseam.'' The votes were just nauseous. I have never seen such arrogance. I have been here 34 years, and it is the worst that we have ever experienced. I can tell you that. But, more importantly, Mr. President, this is a travesty economically. Of course, they make no bones about it. When we did increase Social Security taxes, they complained, but you don't find a decrease of Social Security taxes now. When we increased the gasoline tax, they complained, but you don't find a decrease of the gasoline tax now. You do not find anything in this bill for working Americans only paying payroll taxes. Instead, they are indirectly increasing the burden on these people by giving everyone but them relief and taking away Government resources. We approached the budget process in 1993 in a very deliberate fashion. We said: Look at these rising deficits in the national debt and the interest costs on the debt. In 1992, President Bush ran a $403.6 billion deficit. Ergo, the Government was spending over $400 billion more than it was taking in, and, yes, we are for tax cuts. I have been in politics for a long time, and I have not found a politician yet who was not for tax cuts. But we said the way to give a better tax cut was to lower these long-term interest payments. Alan Greenspan can play around with the short term, but only the fiscal policy of this Senate can change the long term. In the 1993 package, we downsized the Government by reducing the federal workforce by almost 300,000; we cut spending by $250 billion; and we increased taxes by slightly less than $250 billion--and it resulted in the greatest prosperity in the history of the entire Nation for an 8-year period. The reason why the present President Bush cannot sell tax cuts--he has been to over half of the States in America trying to sell them and giving us the bum's rush--is because the people know, the financial markets know, the bankers know, the automobile salesmen know that government borrowing will explode, and everybody is uptight. This is not a wonderful thing that has occurred in this Chamber and to be congratulated. Economically, it is a travesty. We did it before in 1981. Yes, we picked up 38 votes today. We only had 11 votes then. We had one Republican, Mack Mathias of Maryland, but we did have, as they call now with even one vote--we had a bipartisan opposition. I say that with tongue in cheek, but that was all, just 11 votes, against so- called Reaganomics which the first President Bush called voodoo. Now, Mr. President, you have voodoo II. There is no education in the second kick of a mule. That first kick within 4\1/2\ years put the economy into the dumps. That is when we had no resources and we were trying to hold on, and we were cutting spending under President Reagan. I know, yes, during the Reagan administration we increased defense, and I supported those increases. But after eight years of Reagan's domestic cuts and four years of cuts under President Bush, we ran enormous deficits because of the $750 billion revenue loss from the Reagan tax cut. Now we are on course for at least a $1.35 trillion tax cut, but they say after the alternative minimum tax, after the interest costs, that this ought to be in excess of $2 trillion, compared to $750 billion. There it is. We passed the bill and everybody is going to champion it. We have agreed on this side that it will be conferenced and it will go to the President, but let's not have a third kick of the mule, with more of these coming across the deck as if we had the resources. Look at the public debt to the penny today on the Treasury Web site and you'll see that currently we are running a $19 billion surplus. However, this tax cut means at least $10 billion in lost revenues this year--with defense, under Secretary Rumsfeld, asking for an additional $10 billion, and agriculture, $10 billion. Then, June comes and we make the big interest payments to the trust funds, the likes of $79 billion. Instead of bringing Government back down to the black, like under the Democrats with President Clinton for 8 years, we are now starting back up today with this vote. Somewhere in the Congressional Record there ought to be registered that what we have done, in essence, is increased taxes and not lowered them because we are going to increase the debt and we are going to increase the interest costs, already at $366 billion, which are taxes for nothing. If I pay a gas tax, I get a highway. If I pay a sales tax, I get a schoolhouse. If I pay interest taxes, just profligacy, absolute waste. I will never forget last year when President Clinton was giving his State of the Union Address, the distinguished majority leader remarked: That man is costing us a billion dollars a minute. He talked for an hour and a half. That was $90 billion. President Bush wants to cut taxes $90 billion a year. We can pay for the Clinton and the Bush programs, $180 billion, and still have $186 billion left over to increase defense, to increase research at the National Institutes of Health. We are spending the money, and no one is talking about it. We are not getting anything for it. In 1968-1969, when we balanced the budget last under President Lyndon Johnson, the interest cost was only $16 billion. We have increased the interest costs without the cost of a war incidentally--$350 billion a year. We cannot afford it. When the Budget Committee meets, first, before we tackle defense and anything else in the budget, we have to immediately spend $366 billion. The economy is cool, people are not going to be able to save enough money to send their kids to college, they are not going to make their house payments, and we in the Government are thinking that what we have done is really good--the Government is too big, the money belongs to the people and all that childish gibber. Come on. What we have done has, by gosh, sidelined the people and sidelined this Government and, in essence, politically bought the vote. I do not know where my friend Senator McCain is, but he ought to hasten to the Chamber because the biggest campaign finance abuse has just been voted through the Senate. The majority has bought the people's vote because they would not go back home and explain to the people what is going on here. They went along with the singsong--the money belongs to the people, surplus, surplus, surplus. We cannot find a surplus. We have not had one in 40 years, and we will not have one this year, and if anybody believes differently, tell them to come see me and we will make the bet and give them the odds. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, S. 805, introduced on May 1, is a vital step toward the day when advanced research will find ways to halt, and even to cure, the maladies of muscular dystrophy. Muscular dystrophy is a genetic disorder, actually, nine separate genetic disorders, that cause wasting of muscle tissue throughout the body. A quarter of a million Americans of all ages suffer from the disease. One form of it, Duchenne's, strikes young boys, and usually takes their lives before they reach their twentieth birthday. All forms of it are disabling and costly. Many millions of Americans know about muscular dystrophy and contribute to its relief because since 1966 the entertainer Jerry Lewis has conducted a telethon on Labor Day, calling the nation's attention to muscular dystrophy, and asking help for its victims and their families. The Muscular Dystrophy Association, which Jerry Lewis chairs, has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the treatment and relief of this disease. It supports over two hundred clinics, and makes wheelchairs and braces available to people suffering from muscular dystrophy. Part of the money the association raises, about $30 million yearly, goes to support research projects. But if the breakthroughs are to occur that will enable scientists not just to treat, but to halt the disease, research funding must be substantially increased. This is the purpose of S. 805. It calls upon NIH and the Centers for Disease Control to establish Centers of Excellence, in which intensified clinical research can be conducted that will speed the discovery of cures for the various forms of muscular dystrophy. It provides the Director of the NIH, and the Directors of the several institutes within NIH where research into muscular dystrophy is being conducted, with authority and responsibility to concentrate and intensify that research effort, with the funds needed to conduct clinical trials. In short, it gives NIH the organization and the mandate to exploit recent advances in gene therapy. The goal is the swiftest possible rescue for children and adults whose lives will otherwise be lost or badly damaged by muscular dystrophy. I commend my colleagues for introducing S. 805, and I ask that my name be added as a co-sponsor of the bill at its next printing.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me commend President Bush on his appointment of former Senator Howard Baker as the Ambassador to Japan. I guess, since we came to the Senate together, I know him about as well as any. I have traveled with him. I have seen him in action on trips. I have his photography in my home. I visited in his home at Huntsville, TN, with his former wife Joy and, since he lost Joy, he is now married to our great friend and distinguished former Senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum. They are a wonderful family, Nancy's son, daughter-in-law, the grandchildren. They are right down there in my hometown of Charleston, so I get to see them fortunately from time to time. There is an old wag about coming to the Senate. You wonder how in the world, when you first get here, you got into this exclusive body. Then after a couple of years, you lose all humility and you wonder how the rest of them got here. You observe them. Everyone here has a talent, all of high intellect and experience or they would not have been selected by their several States. But what I really look for is that judgment. There is no question, more than a balanced budget we need balanced Senators around here, and that was Howard Baker. When I ran for President, I know no one remembers that----

Mr. HOLLINGS. You and I were out there together--to be forgotten. We were asked that question, when you get along to a stage in your campaign, who would you select as Secretary of State? This is back in the early 1980s. And I said Howard Baker because of his sense of history, his capacity for reasoned judgment, and his intellect. He knows the world. He knows Japan. He knows our defense needs, our security needs in the Pacific rim, our trade problems and opportunities there and everything else. Since others are here and ready and I take it we are ready to vote, let me simply say I am enthused about this particular appointment. I think the country is very fortunate to have him as our Ambassador. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I had the pleasure of attending the Kirk O'Donnell Memorial Lecture on American Politics last month to hear our distinguished former colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. No one worked harder on public policy or served with a more distinguished record than he. His lecture offered an enlightening perspective on current discussions about Social Security and I ask unanimous consent that it be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia said: Tell your mother on Mother's Day that you increased taxes. If you turn to page 4 of the conference report, you will find that the debt goes up from $5.6 trillion to $6.7 trillion--$1.1 trillion. As we left the last fiscal year, we ended with a $23 billion deficit, which we had reduced, over the 8 years, from $403 billion, and now this very minute we are running a slight surplus. But when you vote for this particular measure, and this is our main reason for appearing here this morning, it is to remind everybody that this is Reaganomics II. It is happening here today. Let me speak advisedly. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia reminded us, I have been on the Budget Committee since its institution 25 years ago. I have been the chairman. I hasten to comment that our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from North Dakota, has done an outstanding job under the most difficult of circumstances. Let me tell you about the difficult circumstances, because the very reason for our budget process 25 years ago was to give all the Members a look-see at every facet of Government spending here in Washington. Prior to that time, we had 13 appropriations bills, we had 13 authorizing bills, and the authorizers authorized without regard to appropriating and the appropriators appropriated without regard to the authorization and the one--namely, defense--didn't know what education was doing, or housing didn't know what the highways were doing. So we got together in a comprehensive look-see, where the President would submit his budget, we would go before the Budget Committee, and in detail, each one of the particular appropriations measures would be debated, marked up, reported out, and then come to the floor of the Senate. Here we passed this budget without having the President's budget. He didn't give it until it had passed the House, until it had passed the Senate--absolutely ridiculous. Why? Because he couldn't sell his tax cut. He knew the great reason for the prosperity and comeback of our Democratic Party is that we showed we were fiscally responsible. For 8 years we gave us the greatest prosperity. But it is a sophomoric approach, this ``tax cuts, tax cuts, the Government is too big, the money belongs to you'' and all that nonsense--and not paying the bills. So the President went to 28-some States. You can't sell a tax cut? He couldn't sell beer on a troop train, I can tell you that right now. He went everywhere, and he didn't sell his tax cut, so he rammed it, and the leadership on the other side of the aisle went along with it, and the media didn't report it. That is another reason I appear here, because this instrument is an atrocity, a clear, absolute abuse of the process. We had a deliberate debate back when President Clinton came to office to find in what direction the country was going to head. Lyndon Johnson used to say: It is not whether I am conservative or whether I am liberal, it is whether I am headed in the right direction. We debated. The President submitted his budget. We had 30 amendments before that Budget Committee. We reported it out, and the last instrument--namely, reconciliation--was not passed until August. We had a real old hoedown, and we said we were going to cut the size of Government. Yes, we were going to cut spending. And, yes, we were going to increase taxes. When we increased Social Security taxes, the distinguished Senator from Texas said: They are going to hunt you Democrats down like dogs in the street and shoot you. Where is the Republican tax cut for Social Security? Instead, they are going to spend the Social Security trust fund. If you don't think so, come on up and I will give you a bet. Congressman Kasich, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said: If this thing works, I'll change parties. Senator Packwood, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said: If this thing works, I'll give you my house in downtown Washington. But it worked. We made a great comeback paying down the debt. Now some strayers want to go along with this ``Cut taxes, cut taxes,'' and buying the people's vote, when in essence the debt increases. It goes up. We had no debate. We had no markup. We had no report. We passed it without all that. Then we got to the conference to be told we were not going to be conferees. Oh, they invite you to the White House when you cannot vote, you just stand up and grin and smile and bow. But when you got a vote in the conference committee, they said no, you are not invited back because you're not going to vote with us. Thank God we weren't parliamentarians. He wouldn't agree. They fired him. They would like to fire us. That is why they said we will give you all the rhetoric about education, because you look at the report after it comes out: Zero increase for education. What does that mean to us in the game? It means you are going to have to get a majority of 60 votes in order to get your increase, whether it is for class size or whether it is for construction or whether it is for teacher counseling or any of these other things that we need in public education--namely, teachers' pay. No, you are not going to get it. All of this exercise has been the best off-Broadway show, as they see it, because they are just smiling to themselves: We are going to destroy this Government and we are just as much against education as we were for that 20-year crusade to abolish the Education Department. What happens on the so-called immediate rebate to get the economy going? By 94 votes to 6, every Republican voted for my $85 billion rebate plan. But instead of the instant rebate of $85 billion, they came in here with $100 billion over 2 years, and they are going to go to the Finance Committee--you can read the reconciliation instructions, and they translate: We are going to use the stimulus dollars for tax cuts. The main thing to be said this morning in the few minutes given me is that we have tried our best under Senator Conrad's leadership. We have called their hand at every turn. We have been very courteous, very tactful in trying to get the report. We know the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has to practically do what the Senator from Texas tells him. And the Senator from Texas is tied into the Office of Management and Budget. And the Office of Management and Budget tells the President what he wants. So you want to get on the record how it is being worked this year: It is a total abuse, an absolute atrocity. There is no question about it. Everybody seems to go along. And the headline will say: We passed the budget. No. We don't even have a defense figure. We don't have a budget. We have a tax cut. That is what the President wanted. That is what they had back with Reaganomics I: $750 billion. Now this is going to go up to about $1.6 trillion. If you analyze it carefully, it will probably be nearer to $2.6 trillion.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, The Wilson Center for Leadership in the Public Interest at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia annually presents the Patrick Henry Award to alumni whose lives have been distinguished by dedication to public service. I'm proud to congratulate Colonel Joe Maupin, U.S. Army retired and my Lowcountry Representative in Charleston, SC, who is among the three who will be receiving the 2001 Patrick Henry Award this evening. Some of my colleagues may remember Colonel Maupin from his time as Chief of Army Liaison here in the Senate, his last assignment before retiring from the Army after 22 years of service. During those 22 years, Joe attended Officer Candidate School, commanded several Field Artillery Batteries, was selected as a Major for Battalion Command and was inducted into the Field Artillery Hall of Fame. I am fortunate to have benefitted from Joe Maupin's dedication to public service, his willingness to get the job done, his ability to relate to people from all walks of life, his sense of humor, and, most of all, his friendship. I can think of no one more deserving of the Patrick Henry Award than Joe Maupin. My heartfelt congratulations go out to him and to his wonderful wife, Shirley, who made it possible for him to pursue not one, but two careers in public service.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, innovation, undeniably, has been the cornerstone of this nation's competitiveness. What is often overlooked, however, is that the precursor to innovation is basic, fundamental research. An agency that has been essential to this kind of research is the National Science Foundation, NSF. Through the NSF, the United States has invested in world class basic research at our colleges and universities. Today, we are introducing a resolution to commemorate 50 years of accomplishment by the National Science Foundation. The NSF is the Federal agency mandated to support overall academic science and engineering in the United States. To fulfill this responsibility, it supports both (1) university and college research in all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics, and (2) science, engineering, and mathematics education, including precollege as well as university education. NSF provides grants for these purposes, as opposed to operating research laboratories of its own. NSF supported researchers have won Nobel Prices and have made discoveries that have significantly affected our daily lives. From understanding DNA to the development of web browsers, the science that NSF sponsors has enormous impacts. Moreover, NSF helps support the graduate students who become the next generation of researchers, teachers, and practitioners in the Sciences. Specifically, I would like to draw attention to NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR. This program is helping to develop the research infrastructure in states like South Carolina that have traditionally been left behind in Federal research funding. I encourage the NSF to continue its support for EPSCoR. NSF will complete its 50th year on May 10. I salute the agency's contribution to U.S. prosperity and scientific inquiry and hope that the next 50 years are just as productive as the first 50.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for the past 22 years, men's basketball at the College of Charleston has been charmed by the unique powers of head coach John Kresse. Last week, the native New Yorker earned a berth in Palmetto sports history when he was inducted into the South Carolina Athletic Hall of Fame. Coach Kresse's remarkable statistics speak for themselves. He has compiled a 539-134 record with the Cougars for an .801 winning percentage that trails only Jerry Tarkanian and Roy Williams among active coaches. With a December 1999 victory over Tennessee Tech, he also became the second fastest coach in NCAA history to record 500 wins. That same year, the College of Charleston became the only team in Southern Conference history to post a 19-0 season. Under his leadership, the Cougars have earned four NCAA and two NIT tournament bids and have won 22 or more games in 17 of the last 21 seasons. Coach Kresse arrived in Charleston in 1979 after successful stints as assistant coach under Lou Carnesecca at his alma mater, St. John's, and the New York Nets of the American Basketball Association. Over the next two decades, he groomed Charleston's modest basketball program to become a nationally-recognized competitor and source of tremendous state pride. ``I'm not a showy guy,'' Kresse told The Post and Courier newspaper about his transformation from city slicker to Southern sports hero. ``I'm a basic meat and potatoes guy who fell in love with this city, this State and the hospitality.'' The home arena now bears Coach Kresse's name, but fans bear his testimony every time they cheer a Cougar squad to victory. I can't think of anyone who deserves to be a Hall of Famer more than John Kresse.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Wilton ``Skinny'' McKinney first swung a tennis racket in 1930 while giving his Greer neighborhood's new red clay court a try. He and his buddies scrounged up one ball and a rule book and, before you know it, Skinny had caught the tennis bug. Skinny served as captain of his Greenville High and University of South Carolina tennis teams, and then served his country for three years in the Pacific fleet during World War II. Although he went on to capture the South Carolina doubles championship five times, Skinny found his true talent when he began coaching at his high school alma mater in 1948. For 25 years, he worked as an accountant by day and volunteer coach in the evening, leading Greenville High to an unprecedented 16 State titles. He continues to give weekly lessons in Greenville. Many of his former students have won athletic scholarships, including a handful of All-Americans, and two became world-class players. Skinny's success has earned him numerous accolades, including the Order of the Palmetto and Rotary International's Paul Harris Fellow award, as well as elections to the Southern Tennis Hall of Fame and the South Carolina Tennis Hall of Fame. For many years, he was also chair umpire at the Family Circle Cup tennis tournament on Hilton Head. The center tennis court at the Greenville Country Club, where he is a former director of tennis programs, bears his name, as does an annual award presented by The South Carolina Tennis Association. Yet most of his students would argue his greatest asset is an inspired coaching style that tempers hard work with a caring attitude. Last week, friends and students paid tribute to the 60-year coaching veteran with a surprise 80th birthday party. ``Skinny'' McKinney is a credit to the sport of tennis, to South Carolina and the nation. Peatsy and I wish him a happy belated birthday and best wishes out on the court.