Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I also agree with Senator Harkin.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Arizona and look forward to working with him on this issue this year.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, it is the Committee's intent that $2.0 million in ATP carry-over funds be provided to the EPSCoT program for FY 2000 grants. Distribution of technology funds to Burlington, Rutland, and Saint Johnsbury

Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with my colleague from New Hampshire. I understand the importance of this funding for states impacted by high rates of criminal alien incarceration and I am hopeful we can provide an adequate funding level for SCAAP during conference.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with the Chairman.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, regarding the $1 million appropriation for the Western Wisconsin Methamphetamine Law Enforcement Initiative in S. 1217. As the Senator from Wisconsin knows, the domestic manufacture and importation of Methamphetamine, also know as Meth, has become a continuing public health threat to the United States and most recently to the Midwest. Senate Kohl, what is the extent of the Meth problem within the State of Wisconsin? Also, would you please describe how the proposed $1 million will be used to address the problem?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, the Chairman is correct.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. We can have hearings and find that out.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will use just a minute or two, Mr. President. The word ``competitive'' intrigued this particular Senator. As they congratulate each other over there with respect to this particular attempted fix, let me remind the Senate that we are talking about monopolies. Monopolies do not have general accounting principles because they are not in the field of competition. They are monopolies. They are guaranteed a return. And extra accounting principles have been long since established for these companies and for small ones in that the independent, local exchange carriers--there are many small ones-- they are monopolies, too. So these accounting methods and principles have been in force for a long time. And here without a hearing, and just, bam, and to start talking about small--and there is a $30 million tax, and so forth, that is just spurious reasoning and fanciful notions, if I have ever heard them. The opposite is true. We are trying, with respect to a monopoly, to make sure that it does not go to the ratepayer because the monopoly is guaranteed a return. So if any true costs are there, they are going to have to be reflected in their guaranteed rate of return. So this amendment is totally out of order in the sense of procedures here in the Senate where we have a committee and we can have hearings on it and we can find out if there is any infringement with respect to the concern of the Senator from Wyoming. Because he knows all about accounting. But I can tell you now, general accounting principles do not apply to monopolies--and should not apply to monopolies--because there is no competition. They are guaranteed that return, and that is why they have the special accounting system. I thank the Chair. At the end of this, if my distinguished chairman would permit, I think we ought to move to table this one.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Oh, yes. I think whatever accounting system they have, I do not find a difference in it. I would go with having a hearing and give you a definite return. We are not trying to delay or anything like that, but I would have a hearing before the subcommittee of the Senator from Montana, and the full committee, and we would be glad to report something out. But we never have had hearings, and you just say ``little and small.'' The United States Telephone Association, that is big. I know from hard experience that is big. That is a ``Big Bell" company. In relation to the chairman of this so-called company that has the accounting system, and so forth, do you know what they reported in USA Today the other day? The chairman of Bell South made last year $55.9 million-- either $56 or $57 million. Can you imagine the head of a monopoly guaranteed a return, with no competition, making $55 million? Come on. And you are talking about little things? Don't give me that. They are not little. In just agreeing to little and big, we have a different idea basically of what is big and what is little in this particular debate.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I don't know of a reason for a separate accounting system. If there is less of an accounting system for the smaller one, I tend in that direction. I agree with the sentiment that you have to look out for the small so they are not gobbled up by the big. So I would almost agree to less of an accounting system for the small rather than the same required for the big. I am trying to go in your direction.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is acceptable on both sides, and we urge its adoption.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine. It is very important. We agree with it. We appreciate her leadership on this.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from California--I think she makes an outstanding case--as I remember it, isn't this the compromise agreement made with the opposition, that these amounts would be paid by these countries, some 2 years ago?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. No points of order, no second degrees.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We are prepared to accept it. And as I said, no points of order.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have all heard the expression stand and be counted for democracy. Come on, give me a break. No one really thinks a Senator obviously elected to office is against democracy. No one in his right mind could think that the Department of State is against democracy and is incapable. What we have is a deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates at this particular moment we are spending over $100 billion more than we are taking in this year. I didn't know this was coming up, but since I get questioned about there being no surplus for the year 1999, the Congressional Budget Office, as of June 30, estimated that we will spend this fiscal year, which ends at the end of September, $103 billion more than we take in. The President's own document, the OMB projection, not only states we will have a deficit for the next 5 years, but the deficit and the debt will continue for a 15-year period, the debt going up from $5.6 trillion to $7.7 trillion. It is going up to 2.1 trillion bucks and everyone is running around talking about surplus, and we are getting 602(b) allocations at the Subcommittee on State, Justice, Commerce, of $1.3 billion less than we have this year. We are spending more than we are taking in, and otherwise trying to find $1.7 billion in the census. Faced with those constrictions, I wonder where in the world do you find money for the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party and Republican Party--how do you justify it? Back in the eighties we had Lech Walesa and they did have a wonderful labor movement and they did bring democracy there in Poland. But I don't know of the labor movement that is going on in the People's Republic of China. I have been there three times now and I have yet to meet a labor leader, much less the likes or ilk of Lech Walesa. So, yes, we stand up to be counted for democracy. We are hoping to sustain the economic credibility of this particular republic by saying we have to make choices. I tried to pay for these programs. I have even introduced a value-added tax allocated to reducing the deficit and the debt and taking care of Social Security. But these friends who come to the floor and talk in fanciful terms about they are for democracy and independent movements for democracy--the inference being, of course, the State Department is not--on the contrary. I hear about taking it from the Capital Investment Fund. I remember working some 4 years ago with Under Secretary Moose, Dick Moose, who used to be the director of our Foreign Relations Committee who the distinguished Senator from Indiana would remember well. Everybody is talking about security of the Embassies and facilities in the Department of State. The communications computerization of the Department of State and the Embassies overseas and around the world is in terrible shape. It is similar to the Pony Express. So 4 years ago we instituted the Capital Investment Fund to get Y2K compliance. The Chamber of Commerce, that crowd that was running all over the floor fixing the votes for Y2K--a problem that could not possibly happen for 6 months and everybody is beginning to comply and they wanted to upset 200 years of tort law back at the State level where they know how to administer it best--they came in to do that. And now they want to make darn sure the Department of State is not Y2K compliant. Tell the Chamber of Commerce to look for democracy somewhere else and money somewhere else. The same for all these other entities that want to get NED, the National Endowment for Democracy. It is a political sop. It has been that for several years and everybody knows it. We would like to give it all to desirable things. There have been some good things that happened under the National Endowment for Democracy years back, but they continue to embellish and run around with responsibilities they try to find, makeshift and otherwise, so they know it is going to be in trouble when they come to the floor. They get distinguished leadership to bring these amendments. I take it I will be in a minority, but I have gotten used to being a minority of the minority. With that said, I hope we can save this amount of money somehow, the $30 million. It is not easy to get the moneys we need all over for the Department of State. I can tell you now, we are on course. To take $30 million from the telecommunications upgrades and computerization upgrades we are now about doing, and start cutting that back for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, is out of the whole cloth for this Senator who stands here in the well for democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I also agree with Senator Harkin. Mr. GRAHAM: I would like to address the chairman of the subcommittee. Does the chairman also agree to strike the language or page 15 and or page 25 of Senate Report 106-76 relating to funding for tobacco litigation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished leader will yield, the truth is, on the contrary, we were given notice. We were told this particular violent crime trust authorization was just a place setter, a gatekeeper, so to speak, in the first degree, and we were going to voice vote it. We were given notice that it was going to be voice voted and not use this particular maneuver to have a time agreement and, thereby, not be able to debate the rule change. So we were given notice in the other direction. We were totally misled. We were totally misled. I resent it. Let me go back--there is no use in getting all excited. I am going back to Mississippi with the Governor, Ross Barnett. He was the first fellow to take the door off the capitol on Wednesday afternoon, and he lined them all up. Any and every citizen could come in and express his grief. And one day the trustee who cleaned up the capitol stood in line, and he said: I have to go to a funeral; my aunt just died. And Governor Barnett said: When is that? He said: Saturday. I am hastening it along. He said: All right. You can go Saturday; be back here on Monday. And the trustee, Phillips, said: Yes, that is the truth. I will be back. And so 2 months had passed. Phillips hadn't come back, and the press all agreed, let's just jump on Ross and get him this time. And so they said: Governor, wait a minute; where is the trustee and everything else? And old Ross just laid back and said: If you can't trust the trustee, who can you trust? If I can't trust the chairman and the chairman can't trust the ranking member, then who can I trust? We were given notice wrongly.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum under the same arrangement, the time charged to both sides.