Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it was projected on May 19 by the Congressional Budget Office that the actual deficit for this fiscal year would be $180 billion. Now, I hasten to add that the picture has improved. We find that the revenues are coming in even better than what was originally anticipated. So the actual deficit, if it stays on course, would be down to $140 billion and, if it continues, let's say it would be right at $100 billion next year. That is what I was told this morning by those at the Congressional Budget Office. Now, the unified deficit that everyone refers to is down to under $40 billion and could be balanced next year. The term ``unified'' is, of course, just a shibboleth for, ``don't bother, we are just running around spending all the pension funds, which we made illegal in 1990.'' We are spending the pension funds to allocate against the deficit itself. So what is really happening is that we are on the course, under the unified deficit, toward getting into the black. But it is not on account of passing anything here this week in the midst of this wonderful jubilation atmosphere that everybody won this morning with the agreement last night. The truth of the matter is that we are on course as a result of the 1993 budget plan, whereby we on this side of the aisle, without a single vote on the other side of the aisle, voted for real deficit reduction that worked. I emphasize the fact that it was this side of the aisle, because we were told that if we increased the Social Security tax, they would be hunting us down like dogs in the street and shooting us. I am one of the dogs to be shot in the street. They said that we were going to have a catastrophe and a depression, not just a recession, and all sorts of other things, which were totally off-base. Without a single vote on the other side, we cut some $255 billion in spending, increased taxes $241 billion. We increased taxes on the highest income tax bracket. We increased gasoline taxes. We increased Social Security taxes. We eliminated over 250,000 Federal jobs and reduced the size of the Government itself, and it is working. I guess, by way of emphasis, the point is that the thrust here today and last night is to stop the bickering and to show that we can get together. This Senator would say, in the extreme, of course, let's continue the bickering because, with the bickering, we are bound to get, under a unified budget, the Government back into the black. Stay the course. In fact, I offered an amendment earlier this year to not cut any taxes and not increase any spending. Now, what has been done in this particular agreement? Well everybody admits we are spending more than $100 billion more than we are taking in. If that's the case, what you want to do is cut spending and increase your revenues. Instead, we increased spending some $52 billion, under this agreement last night, and we cut the revenues--instead of $85 billion, we cut the revenues some $90 billion. So, as a result of the 1993 budget agreement and enactment, we are momentarily on course, having reduced the deficit each year for 5 years. Yet you are hearing shouts in the halls that, ``this is the first tax cut since 1981.'' We ought to say we got the first tax cut since the disaster of 1981, because the result of 1981, of Reaganomics, is that we are still spending over $100 billion more than we are taking in. So we are still in the red. The debt increases, the interest costs increase. So, under this so-called balanced budget agreement, the debt continues to grow, and our Government continues to borrow more and more money. We are talking now about how we helped families with the child credit and by cutting taxes, but, in actuality, we have increased the taxes for children because we, the senior citizens, are going to move right along and leave them with the bill. My distinguished chairman is here. I will be able to elaborate, Mr. President, in a more appropriate fashion at an appropriate time. I think there ought to be a note of sobriety with the ``Santa Claus in July'' that we are now experiencing here this morning that everybody won. The truth of the matter is that we have changed course, once again, to cutting taxes and increasing spending. Under a budget of that kind, there is no way for us to get really into the black and start reducing that debt and the carrying charges that are some $285 billion more than back in 1981. We are spending $285 billion more in interest costs than we were in 1981 for absolutely nothing. As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished Presiding Officer, would realize, if we had that $285 billion, we could satisfy every subcommittee chairman on the 602(b) allocation, we could build many bridges, we could do all the research at NIH we need, we could double the President's request on education; we could have better housing, highways, and everything else of that kind. So that is not the case. I think what we ought to do is look at the reality. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, pending the approach to this Chamber of our distinguished chairman and the original sponsors of some amendments, including the Senator from Minnesota, let me note the environment of Santa Claus in July. It seems a lot of us are not here this morning. Instead, they are out selling their homes so they can make that $500,000 and go back home and live comfortably. We have the so-called agreement for a balanced budget. What a wonderful instrument. Everyone with a home can make up to $500,000 from this agreement. Couples in the $110,000 bracket and below would get $600. And, of course, the rich will all get richer with the capital gains tax reduction. My comment is to bring a note of reality. It is somewhat like when you are up to your neck in the swamp with the alligators and the original intent was to drain the swamp. Here, the original intent, of course, is to balance the budget and get us out of the red and into the black. And, of course, let's see exactly where we are at the present time. I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimates be included in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. As I understand from my distinguished chairman, we are awaiting the leader's approval of resuming proceedings as if in morning business because on our particular bill, State, Justice, Commerce, there has been an agreement that we vote at 3:30. There could be a couple of amendments that have a couple minutes a side to explain prior to the vote. So pending the approval there, I would ask unanimous consent for just a couple of minutes for comments to be connected with the earlier comments I made on the budget. Is that all right?

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1033 (Purpose: To require the Legal Services Corporation to conduct a study regarding persons prohibited from receiving legal representation regarding efforts to reform welfare systems)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify report language on page 65 concerning the committee's willingness to permit the technology administration to undertake certain international economic development initiatives, particularly as it affects the United States/ Israel Science and Technology Commission. I have long been a supporter of the work of the Commission, a binational program that promotes economic and technological collaboration between the United States and Israel that has already provided numerous benefits to both countries. It was not our intention to affect in any way the current or future activities and operations of the Commission, and I would like to clarify with the chairman of the subcommittee that it was not his intention either.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it shows the public debt for the fiscal year 2001 at $6,307,300,000,000, and it shows for fiscal year 2002 the public debt has increased to $6,481,200,000,000, an increase of $173.9 billion. It does not show a balanced budget. It does not show, I emphasize, a balanced budget in the fiscal year 2002. We all know from the agreement last evening that rather than cutting taxes only $85 billion, it was a net tax cut of $90 billion. So we have increased the loss of revenue some $5 billion. We also know that the spending under the particular 1998 budget agreed to last evening increased some $52 billion. So what we have done since we made that agreement--and the conference report was adopted last month--is to actually increase spending more, and reduce the revenues more. So we know that come the year 2002, we will not have the first balanced budget in 33 years. The document itself shows it is in deficit because the debt increases that last year. Why will the debt increase if we had a balanced budget? It is quite obvious that we have not taken significant steps for the middle class or the working Americans as has been described here. If we really wanted to help working Americans, we could have cut payroll taxes. But the truth of the matter is that we cut capital gains taxes for the rich. We cut the inheritance tax for the rich. So we didn't do it for working Americans. We kept that high payroll tax up. We left out the working Americans, and we agreed on both sides to call it balance, which is a total fraud. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has now arrived. Let me just remind colleagues once again. When we look at the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998--we wouldn't put that entire conference report in the Record, obviously. But I ask unanimous consent that section 5 on page 4, which only contains some seven lines, be printed in the Record at this particular point.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I wanted to comment with respect to the usual smoke and mirrors of this year's budget. I wish, of course, our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], was still in the Chamber because he initiated the actual spectrum auctions discussion for the simple reason that we have pretty well drained the pot there. On our last auctions, billions were expected, but we only received millions. Some of those bidding have now been put into receivership and have not responded to their particular bid. So we know now that under this particular agreement, when it calls for some $26.3 billion to come from spectrum actions, we will be lucky to get half of that amount. There again is more smoke and another mirror. Specifically, they who designed it agreed that it was smoke and it was a mirror in that they then backed it up with the universal service fund provision. This, of course, is a private fund, gotten together by the particular entities in communications where they measure each month the amount of traffic that they have had and the amount necessary to go into the universal service fund. It is a private fund, and there is a question legally whether you can even account for it. I don't know how CBO would score it, but we know that the agreement between the President and the leadership last evening leaves this space blank. Because, whatever is needed and is not allowed by the Congressional Budget Office in its measurement with respect to spectrum auctions, they then put into that particular blank space, whether it is $3 billion, $4 billion, $5 billion or otherwise. The entitlement cuts, of course, are back loaded with 75 percent of the entitlement cuts to occur the last 2 years. And, of course, the most smoke and the biggest mirror of all is using, if you please, pension funds to make the budget appear balanced. Actually, we spend the money out of the pension funds. We spend the money out of Social Security; we spend the money out of the military retirees' fund; we spend the money out of the civil service retirees' fund; we spend money out of the airport and airways trust fund; we spend money out of the highway trust fund, and allocate that in the accounting to what they call a unified budget to make it look or appear balanced. That is the most smoke, that is the biggest mirror, that is the biggest shibboleth that is accepted by the free press. I don't know whether those in journalism ever had an arithmetic course, but the question is whether are you spending more than you are getting in each year in Government. At the State level, we measured it more specifically. We had to not only to balance the budget but also have reserves before Moody's and Standard & Poor's and other groups would give us our AAA credit rating. We have that in my particular State, but no such approach is used here at the Federal level. They use, continually, the smoke, the mirrors, and the biggest one of all which is to include, by the year 2000, over $100 in trust fund surpluses to make the budget appear balanced. So I think this completes my comments on the reality of this particular budget agreement that is called balanced when the very authors themselves know there is no chance of it being balanced. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the Senator's support and would point out that the TCC Program provides a unique curriculum to educate young people about crime risks and prevention with the aim of reducing or eliminating specific crime problems in their school or community. Over 500,000 young people in over 1,000 different schools and communities all across the country have participated in the program. It has proven to be an effective strategy for reducing crime, preventing delinquency, and involving youth in community crime prevention efforts.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like the attention of my colleagues to point out what I see as an unintentional omission. Last year's Commerce, Justice, State appropriations' conference report contained language which provided $1.0 million for the National Crime, Prevention Council's Teens, Crime and the Community Program otherwise known as TCC. The Senate supported this provision last year and it was my intention that it be included in this year's bill. Unfortunately, it was inadvertently left out of the committee report. For my part, I believe it should be the Senate's intent that funding for The Teens, Crime, and the Community Program be included when the bill reaches conference.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Withholding, and I do not intend to object, I understand it is pretty well worked out, but there was one language inclusion.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I too would like to know if the Bureau of Justice Assistance can help.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to thank again the distinguished chairman, Senator Gregg, from New Hampshire. He has worked these issues very hard and studied these programs with great deliberation. He has done a really, really superb job on this State, Justice, and Commerce bill. He has put this bill together in a bipartisan fashion, considering Members' interests from both sides of the aisle. You know that is the way appropriations bills have worked in the past. Mr. President, that is the way they are supposed to work. It has enabled us to pass this bill through committee with overwhelming support. It has enabled us to quickly complete action in just a little more than 1 day. And, I believe that this spirit of bipartisanship will be reflected shortly in the vote on final passage. Of course, I would also like to recognize the support and guidance from our new Committee Chairman Ted Stevens and his right hand man, our committee staff director Steve Cortese. They are getting the trains to run on time. In fact, we are way ahead of the House, which hasn't even taken up the State, Justice, and Commerce bill. Steve Cortese has taken on the job of running our full Appropriations Committee as well as continuing to serve as staff director of the Defense Subcommittee. That is incredible. And, we, of course, very much appreciate the support of our leader, Senator Byrd and his staff director, Jim English. Senator Byrd and Jim English know these 13 appropriations bills thoroughly. They work tirelessly and continue to watch out for our committee and for our Senate as an institution. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to recognize the subcommittee staff. On the majority side they are led by Jim Morhard. Jim is level headed and experienced. He knows appropriations and how to put together legislation and build consensus. I can tell you that Chairman Stevens and Senator Gregg know they can rely on Jim's counsel. His staff includes Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, Dana Quam, Vasiliki Alexopoulos, and Carl Truscott, who is on detail from the U.S. Secret Service. These individuals have been working night and day putting together this bill. They are all new this year to the subcommittee. Jim Morhard moved over from military construction appropriations; Paddy Link joined us from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; and Kevin Linskey worked for the distinguished former leader, Senator Dole. They each bring unique backgrounds and perspectives to their positions. And, they have each had to learn about the agencies and programs in this very diverse and important State, Justice, and Commerce appropriations bill. They have had to be quick studies. They have done a truly outstanding job, and they have done a real service for the committee and the Senate. I especially want to recognize Paddy Link for her dedication. I have known Paddy for years. She was, of course, Larry Pressler's chief of staff on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. She has experience over in the House Science Committee and during the Reagan and Bush administrations Paddy was at Commerce and served as director of legislative affairs at NOAA. During the same week that this bill went before the subcommittee, Paddy's father suffered a severe stroke and tragically passed away. Paddy continued to lend a hand even under such trying circumstances. I think she knows that all the Members' hearts go out to her and her family in their loss. She went far beyond the call of duty to help out in the production of this bill. It is a tribute to her sense of public service and professionalism. Finally, I want to recognize the staff on our side. Scott Gudes, our subcommittee staff director, has been with me now for almost 7 years after 4\1/2\ years on Defense appropriations. He has been with me so long that I've got him automatically thinking of USC as meaning the University of South Carolina instead of another institution in his native southern California. Karen Swanson Wolf, who is on detail to us from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has been doing a great job for the subcommittee. She has been dealing with justice and judiciary issues, and has been working on patent and trademark issues. And, finally, Emelie East who helps out this subcommittee as well as the Defense, Military Construction and Foreign Operations Subcommittees. Senator Byrd has picked a winner there. Every subcommittee, even the majority staff, keep putting in requests for Emelie to help out in markup, on the floor, and in conference. She is our utility player on the Appropriations Committee going from one bill to another. And, with this bill she will be seeing her fourth get through the Senate and be sent to the House of Representatives. Ms. East is as professional as they get and we all appreciate the outstanding work she does day in and day out. So Mr. President, I just wanted to recognize these fine public servants. We don't do that enough around here. I, for one, appreciate their hard work. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will not object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as we say at home, let the record speak. I have been with this bill 26 years and, as the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire said, it was the first time we ever passed the bill unanimously. I thank the Senator for his cooperation and wonderful help on both sides.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am reminded of a little ditty they used to have on the radio each Saturday morning for my children: ``All the way through life, make this your goal; keep your eye on the donut and not the hole.'' The distinguished Senator from Kansas is really, with this amendment, trying to reduce it to a corporate welfare program. The goal, and the eye ought to be on it, was commercialization of our technology, not research. In fact, the research arm of the Defense Department, DARPA as we call it, which has billions of dollars that come over--Greg Fields, working with the National Institutes of Standards and Technology--this is now back in the late seventies because I authored this particular program--in the late seventies in talking with Mr. Fields and the authorities at the National Bureau of Standards, at the time we called it, found that we had all kinds of technology backed up in research at the National Bureau of Standards on the civilian side that was not being commercialized. In fact, what they call the rapid acquisition of manufacturing parts--it is a wonderful type program--was developed and came really out of the Bureau of Standards. A ship broke down in the Persian Gulf that was 25 years of age, and they weren't making the parts anymore, so the ship couldn't function. It took several months or a year to get the part back out to get the ship moving again and everything else. The computerization and manufacturing at the defense level of all parts are immediately on the board. Within days, they knew how to punch the computer, get the particular manufacturer, get the part back and going again. That came out of the Department of Commerce that my distinguished colleague has been bent on trying to abolish. Back to the commercialization. In the late 1970s, down in Houston, TX, they developed the superconductor, and right to the point, with the research initiative, these particular scientists won the Nobel Prize. But the actual commercialization was caused by our Japanese friends who correlated some 22 entities and immediately started developing and commercializing it. Oh, yes, the American scientists won the Nobel Prize; the Japanese entrepreneurs won the profits. We are going out of business in this country. This has nothing to do with small companies or large companies. The staff, of course, has provided me--but I do not want to get into that because I support DARPA very much. But if we had this particular amendment and it took, then we could put it to DARPA and all other research over in the Defense Department, and then we could grind research to a halt. Because the reality is that the larger companies do have the better research entities. And the larger research companies also have the stock-market- turnaround, get-in-the-black, get-your-stock-increase kind of pressure. Talk to the CEO of AT&T, a multibillion dollar company. One of the largest corporations ever in the world is in trouble because the chairman that they had momentarily, barely a year, could not turn it around and get it into the black and get it going. He is gone. Now, Senator Danforth and I, working on this commercialization, said now we are not going to have welfare and we are not going to have pork. So we put in unusual safeguards which this Senator from South Carolina has had to fight personally to maintain. One safeguard coming with the particular research endeavor was that we had to have this particular request approved, bucked right over to the National Academy of Engineering, and saying, ``Wait a minute. Does this really contribute to the Nation's particular research?'' We did not just want company research to increase the profits of a particular company; we wanted a research endeavor that meant something to the basic research technology advancement of the United States of America. This is a national program; it is not a welfare program; it is not a corporate-profit program. So this is No. 1. The corporation has to come with at least 50 percent of its money. They have to have upfront money they are willing to put in, then bucked over to the National Academy of Engineering for its approval on a national basis, then going back for a third particular test of competition of which were the most deserving because this has been very, very, very limited. Look at our agricultural boards. They have multimillions in there for California raisins and ``Don't drink the wine before its time,'' Gallo, and all of those other things. The farm boys around here know how to get things done, but the technology boys are out researching and making money and continuing to research. Then, like GE coming through my office and saying, ``We don't have time to turn this particular around,'' so go sell it to the Saudis because they have the money and they can develop it. Mr. President, 15 years ago, I put in a bill to cut out the quarterly reporting. That is one of the real bad devices--all this quarterly reporting. The market is going up; the market is going down. Greenspan says something, it goes up billions, it goes down billions, costs or whatever it is. We have to understand the global competition has to steady the boat in this land financially. One of the great initiatives to have it steadied is to do away with quarterly reports. We all fault the American entrepreneur and corporate leader in saying, oh, he won't invest in the long range. Our Japanese competition, they know how. In Korea, Japan, the competition in the Pacific rim, they get long-range planning. The American corporate head cannot do it under this structure. He has to get in and somehow take the best profits, the bigger profits, go for it. You might have a technology, but if it takes over 3 years, forget it, ``We don't have time. We don't have the money. Sell it to somebody else, get a joint venture with the Germans or the Brits or whatever it is.'' We are exporting our technology. And the security of the United States of America depends on our superiority of technology. We do not have as many Americans as they do Chinese. Someday we are going to find that out, Mr. President. Running around with a little boat in the Taiwan Straits, I was on one of those aircraft carriers up in the Gulf of Tonkin 30 years ago. We did not stop 30 or 40 million little North Vietnamese coming down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I do not know how, with a couple of these boats in the Straits of Taiwan, that we are going to stop 1.2 billion Chinese. So we better sober up in this land, emphasize our technology, get it developed. That is the thrust of the Advanced Technology Program. So we had all the tests. Like I had commented, I had personally taken it on over on the House side. We had a distinguished colleague over on the House side that every time we got to the State, Justice conference, he wanted to write up one of these particular programs for himself. I said, ``This is not corporate welfare. This is not pork. We're going to stand by.'' We held this bill up in conference for weeks on this one particular point, that it was not corporate welfare, it was not pork. It was a studied program to commercialize, develop, and commercialize the technology that we could get financed. It is a solid program with strong bipartisan support. Mr. President, I remember when we had the particular--if you can remember. I can hardly remember when the Republicans were in a minority, but there was a day. It was just about 4 years ago. They had a Republican task force in the U.S. Senate at that time chaired by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole. They had over a dozen Senators endorse this program as it is, which includes, of course, our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott; the former Secretary of the Navy, Senator Warner; the chairman now of our Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens; the chairman of our Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch--you can go right on down the list--the chairman of our Budget Committee, Senator Domenici; and others. I just want the distinguished colleague and friend that I have here from Kansas to understand coming over from the House side with that Walker disease--we had a fellow over there named Bob Walker from Pennsylvania who just took on a personal kind of vendetta against doing anything about commercialization or development of technology or research except in his district. He held up the authorization for this particular measure for several years. Now it has been passed over on the House side. I thank the distinguished Republican leadership for passing that authorization bill and do not want to stultify it now by resolving it into big-little, 2\1/2\ billion or whatever it is. I can tell you here how they move on these large entities here. They move on and do not put the money to it. They sell it. I can give you example after example where I have worked with them in this particular field, and they come by the office and say, ``I am headed to so and so just for a joint venture. I will just take it to Japan and get a 49-51 deal. At least I can get my money back out to do some more research.'' But this has been draining, veritably, the security--not just the technology, but the security--of the United States of America. It is a well-conceived program, well-administered, just updated by our distinguished Secretary of Commerce. He has come along. I do not have the exact breakdown. I wish I had the Fortune 500 approach. We know about half of it goes to small companies. I have no objection to it going to small companies. I just have a distaste and would have to vote against that kind of division because if this kind of thing sells, then we are going to begin the big-little and it is really going to miss out on some very, very valued technological programs. I have example after example that we could get in. I see other Senators wanting to speak. But the point here is, big, little, small, or otherwise, you have to first put up some money, at least half of it. You have to have it reviewed nationally. Some of the smaller companies, they are engaged in research, but they are not engaged in basic research. The smaller companies, by their very nature, only have the moneys for their particular endeavor, their particular profits. Therefore, they do not come. We tried to get the small companies going because that is where jobs are created, trying to get small business. We have a specific program for that. We have in here the Small Business Administration program in Senator Gregg's bill right here and now. So we take care of that when it comes to small business. I know the administration, under Secretary Daley and his particular study here that we could put in the Record, says let us give even again more emphasis to it and require more than the 50 percent from the larger corporations. That particular guideline would be good. I would have hoped that the gentleman would have come with a sense of the Senate to confirm that guideline. But to actually put in law this initiative begins to develop in the minds of everyone that this is a welfare program and what we are trying to do is finance research. We are not trying to finance research at all. We are trying to finance the development and commercialization of already established research. That really comes for the more affluent larger corporations. They come in with the great innovations because they have basic research. The small company--incidentally, I do not know that I have any--of course, down in my home State it is not welfare. I do know this. In the debate, it ought to be understood that I had my textile folks come to me and they said that they had a technology program and they knew that I had been the father of the Advanced Technology Program, the ATP, and the manufacturing extension centers. So they said, ``We need your help over at Commerce to get this particular''--it had a computerization of the supplies coming in and going out so they would not end up with a warehouse full of bluejeans that they could not sell, whatever it was. Mind you me, I said, No. 1, ``I'll not call over there.'' I never have called over there to talk to a Secretary about it. ``This is not pork. It's not corporate welfare.'' I told that to my own textile leaders. Mr. President, you know what they did? They went out to Livermore Labs, through the Energy Department, and got started a $350 million program in textile research. You see, with the closedown, fall of the wall and the closedown of some of the defense research and what have you, to keep Energy's budget livable and alive, they said, ``Sooey, pig. You all come. We've got money. Anybody that can do it, we are ready to go.'' That is what happened. They did not qualify at the National Academy of Engineering for this computerization. It was an advancement. It would have helped out my home industry and that kind of thing, but it had nothing to do with the overall commercialization of a national kind of research unique to the security of the United States itself. So it was turned down. So we ought to be looking now and do not start this particular kind of initiative for defense, because we have the large companies here that do all--we put this under research in the Defense Department. United Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Texas Instruments, IBM, MIT, Hughes Aircraft, Carnegie Mellon, Northrop Grumman, Loral, Honeywell, GE. I can go down the list of millions and millions and millions. If this particular applied, I can tell you you would not get any defense research, you would not be getting the F-22, the advanced plane, and others of that kind that have come on now to maintain the national defense of the United States. So I hope that colleagues will understand the genesis of ATP, the practical reality of financing and developing and commercializing the research. The large corporations who developed the unique research in this land of ours can make more money elsewhere, and they have been doing it like gangbusters by exporting it right and left everywhere, and we have been losing out. And we are wondering why we still have a deficit in the balance of trade. We have gone and manufactured the actual production and commercialization. We have gone from 26 percent of our work force, 10 years ago, and manufactured down to 13 percent. Oh, yes, we are getting the software, we are getting the wonderful jobs at McDonald's and the other hamburger places and the laundries. But the actual production and high-paying jobs are going elsewhere. We are exporting them as fast as we can. We ought not to toy around with the solid nature of the Advanced Technology Program. It is not pork. It is not corporate welfare. The distinguished Senator has come up with an arithmetic formula, and if we begin to apply that to research in America, we are gone goslings. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also, on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, send an amendment to the desk and ask the clerk to report it.