[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16892-S16913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to H.R. 2586, the debt limit; that there be two amendments in 
order, the 

[[Page S 16893]]
first to strike the Department of Commerce elimination, to be offered 
by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], and the second, a clean 
debt limit to be offered by Senator Moynihan, or his designee, and that 
following the disposition of those amendments, the bill be advanced to 
third reading and final passage, to occur all without any further 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, I wonder if the majority leader would have any interest in 
entering into a time agreement to give our colleagues some indication 
of what the schedule might hold. I know there is very little 
disagreement on the first amendment. And while there may be 
disagreement on the second amendment, it is not our intention to debate 
it for a great deal of time. So we might be able to enter into a time 
agreement on that one and stack the three votes to accommodate Senators 
tonight.

  Mr. DOLE. On the first amendment to strike the Department of Commerce 
elimination, I will just ask that there be a motion to strike and a 
voice vote, without debate. That will not take any time. I do not think 
the second will take long. I have talked to the Senators from New York 
and Delaware.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest 20 minutes, 10 minutes per side.
  Mr. DOLE. On the Moynihan amendment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have 
seen a lot of remarkable things occur, and when they occur in our 
favor, I do not want to object. But the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan is the one that wants to get rid of this Department.
  Mr. DOLE. He still does, but not tonight.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is why, if he is going to make a motion, I want to 
make sure we are not playing games.
  Mr. DOLE. It is coming out.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will join him in the motion to strike then. We have 
unlimited time right now, is that correct?
  Mr. DOLE. We hope that if we proceed on this basis, it will be a very 
quick disposal of that provision in this particular bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You are going to voice vote it?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That would suit this Senator, if we can have 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. On a side?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, at least for me.
  Mr. DASCHLE. How about 20 minutes on a side for both amendments.
  Mr. DOLE. Twenty minutes equally divided on each amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. As I 
understand it, then, after the one motion to strike the Commerce 
Department provision, which will take very little time, there will be 
one other motion to strike everything else, so that those of us--at 
least myself--would not have an opportunity to express my support for 
including a balanced budget within a 7-year timeframe and a prohibition 
against delving into any Social Security and pension funds, and limited 
to that, I would have to accept the other provision added by the House. 
In other words, it is either all or nothing after we delete the 
Commerce Department provision.
  Mr. DOLE. Then it goes back to the House, and there will probably be 
some negotiations. Some would say there would be progress. I hope the 
Senator from Maine can support progress.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am told that we have a request for an additional 10 
minutes on our side on the Commerce Department, so that would require 
20 minutes on our side on Commerce.
  We would be satisfied with 10 minutes on the second amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. So there would be 10 minutes additional time for Senator 
Byrd on the Commerce Department?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, is it then in order that we would have 
three votes stacked--two amendments and final passage?
  Mr. DOLE. Part of the agreement is we dispose of the first amendment 
by voice vote. The other two would be rollcalls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be 50 minutes on the agreement. The 
yeas and nays have not yet been ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Moynihan amendment and 
on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the first vote at 8:50 be a 
regular 15-minute vote; final passage will be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for a temporary increase in 
     the public debt limit, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3052

       (Purpose: To preserve the Department of Commerce)
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment to 
strike title II of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3052.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike title II.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, the section of the bill which I am 
moving to strike is quite an important section and quite an important 
policy issue to me and to a number of Members of this body. It pertains 
to the Department of Commerce. It pertains to efforts a number of us 
have launched this year in separate legislation to basically eliminate 
the umbrella we call Department of Commerce and reassign a number of 
the programs and functions of that Department to other areas of 
Government, but dramatically reduce the overhead and the bureaucracy by 
eliminating the umbrella called the Department of Commerce.
  Obviously, I am a strong advocate of this legislation in that I am 
the chief sponsor of the freestanding bill which was introduced earlier 
this year. I support very much the effort to dismantle the Department 
and reassign its relevant functions.
  It had been my hope--and it remains my hope--to find the right time 
and the right vehicle to pursue this objective. Indeed, in the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the bill, which was initially my bill, 
has gone through hearings, and it has been marked up and reported out 
of committee with favorable report to the full Senate.
  It is my hope that at another time--hopefully very soon--we will have 
the opportunity to look either at the package that came out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee as a freestanding bill or some 
combination of that package and the one that was included in the bill 
that I am seeking to strike tonight.
  Madam President, the simple fact is that this is not the right time 
and this is not the right vehicle for us to consider this important 
question of the Department of Commerce. There are many compelling 
arguments, some of which I will make during our brief time tonight to 
discuss this issue. But I think the purpose of giving concentration of 
focus of the Senate on this very vitally important issue tonight is not 
the right time. For that reason, I send this motion to the desk.
  I yield the floor. I retain the remainder of our time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, there is a saying that a man's opinion 
is still a man's opinion. I wonder. My 

[[Page S 16894]]
colleague from Michigan has a motion to strike title II, which I agree 
with. But in all candor, I believe his sincerity and that it is still 
his intent that we abolish or repeal the Department of Commerce. I, 
though, want to see that title II is stricken from this bill and any 
other measure.
  I have never seen legislation and Congress itself reach such a 
ludicrous position of trying to rid itself of one of the most formative 
departments. I never say that lightly. Under article I, section 8, the 
first designated duty to the National Congress is to collect taxes, the 
second one is to borrow money, and the third one is to regulate 
commerce.
  You will not find the Department of Agriculture, you will not find 
the Department of Energy, you will not find Housing in these measures 
in the National Government's Constitution. You find commerce.
  Here, right in the midst of what you might call the economic war, we 
want to dismantle the front line entity that is really waging the 
battle to rebuild the economic strength of the United States of 
America, and Secretary Ronald Brown is doing an outstanding job. To 
dismantle or strike or eliminate this particular Department at this 
hour would be like in the middle of the Cold War getting rid of the 
Pentagon.
  Madam President, you just could not understand the history of the 
United States if you did not go back into the original debates with 
respect to the Declaration and the Constitution itself and the exchange 
taking place soon after between the Founding Fathers and the former 
mother country, and especially with what corresponded at that 
particular time with Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The British said, 
now that you have became a little fledgling nation, you trade with us 
what you produce best and we trade back with you what we produce best. 
That nonsense that you continually hear to this day--``free trade, free 
trade.''
  Alexander Hamilton wrote his views on that suggestion in a booklet 
called Report on Manufactures. It is over in the Library of Congress. 
And without reading that, I only say that it can be summed up in two 
words: ``Bug off.''
  Hamilton told the British that we are not going to sit and remain 
your colony, shipping back our natural resources, our grain, our iron, 
our foodstuffs, and bringing in the manufactured products. It carries 
me immediately to Akio Morito, the founder of Sony, some years ago 
before his death, in Chicago where he was lecturing about emerging 
nations. He said emerging nations must build up a strong manufacturing 
sector, and that power that loses its manufacturing power ceases to be 
a world power.
  That is the position we are in at this particular moment. At this 
particular moment, we have come from having at the end of World War II 
50 percent of our work force in manufacturing down to, 10 years ago, 26 
percent, and now today at 13 percent. We are going out of business.
  The thrust of eliminating the Department of Commerce is nothing more 
than the thrust that America go the way of England --specifically, a 
delightful Parliament, debating each other with scandal sheets and 
everything else to read but losing, generally speaking, its influence.
  And we do. If we lose our economic power, we lose our international 
foreign policy power, if you please. No one cares today any longer 
about the 7th Fleet or the threat of a nuclear attack. Money talks in 
the global competition and in global politics.
  Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to these proposals to 
dismantle the Department of Commerce [DOC].
  To begin with, I strongly object to the process being used. A major 
piece of authorizing legislation does not belong on the debt limit 
bill. Moreover, the version before us now has been available to 
Senators only since this morning. The House Republican leadership 
rewrote the bill and only published it last night--38 densely-packed 
pages of the Record that no one here has had time to review. Finally, 
no version of the DOC dismantling legislation has ever been presented 
to the Senate for full and regular debate. In short, adding this 
dismantling proposal to the debt limit bill is the worst possible way 
to consider major legislation.
  Second, I strongly disagree with the substance of this proposal. It 
is astounding that in the middle of the global economic fight some of 
our colleagues propose to abolish the Federal agency that promotes 
exports, enforces our trade laws, works with industry to create new 
job-creating breakthrough technologies, and otherwise does so much to 
promote economic growth. I know that many of our Republican colleagues 
do not like the current Secretary of Commerce, since he helped the 
President win the White House in 1992. And I know that some Republicans 
want a trophy, and have therefore gone after the Cabinet department 
with the smallest budget.
  But to abolish the Commerce Department in the middle of the economic 
fight is like abolishing the Pentagon at the height of the cold war. 
This is the last department we should abolish in this post-cold war 
world. The proposal is utter nonsense, and it is nonsense that will 
hurt every American company and worker.
  The bottom line is that in today's global economy almost every 
American job is at risk. Nearly every company, and nearly every worker, 
faces growing foreign competition. Millions of jobs depend on exports, 
and millions in the future will depend on whether the United States 
stays at the cutting edge of new technologies. These are bread-and-
butter issues to American families, and we need to strengthen--not 
weaken--American exports and competitiveness.
  According to the November 6, 1995, issue of Business Week, a new 
report compiled by the U.S. intelligence community for the Trade Policy 
Coordinating Committee, chronicles the bare knuckles brand of 
capitalism employed by our competitors. Here are some examples:
  The French Government warned an African government that it would 
withdraw government guarantees on outstanding loans if Acatel did not 
win a $20 million telecommunications switching equipment contract.
  A Japanese company won a $30 million supercomputer order from Brazil 
after the Bank of Japan said it would credit the purchase against 
Brazilian debt to Tokyo.
  Officials at Airbus Industries threatened to block Turkey and Malta 
from entry into the European Union unless they purchase Airbus jets 
rather than jets from Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas.
  In the face of this brutal competition, some of our colleagues in the 
House want U.S. business to walk down this dark alley unarmed and 
unaided.
  We need a Cabinet department, and a Cabinet Secretary, whose job is 
to fight for exports, fight to keep America's lead in technology, and 
provide important support services to business. The proposal before us, 
however, is a giant step backwards.
  We also should note that this proposal does not reduce bureaucracy. 
It creates bureaucracy. House and Senate Republicans have discovered 
that many of DOC's functions are important after all, so while they 
abolish the Department they create several new independent agencies. Of 
course, each new agency has to have its own budget office, personnel 
office, congressional relations office, and inspector general. The 
result is more bureaucracy. It would be much cheaper and more effective 
to keep these functions where they are, in the Commerce Department.
  Finally, major government reorganizations should not be done 
piecemeal. This House-passed proposal is ad hoc box-shuffling, with no 
great attention to either today's national priorities or the functions 
of other departments and agencies. Just blowing up one department 
without attention to all the others is a poor and backward way to 
reorganize our Federal Government.


                            some background

  Madam President, before we consider abolishing the department that 
does the most to promote American jobs and profits, we should remind 
ourselves of some important history.
  For 45 years we were engaged in a life and death struggle against the 
forces of totalitarianism. Through steadfast commitment and sacrifice 
we emerged triumphant. During the cold war we willingly subordinated 
our economic interests to sustain the western alliance. Now, in the 
post cold war era we must channel the same energy and 

[[Page S 16895]]
commitment into rebuilding our economic strength. With the fall of the 
Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism, this nation has entered into 
a new era of competition, one in which the exercise of power and 
influence will be determined by economic strength.
  Madam President, our strength as a Nation is analogous to a three 
legged stool. One leg is our military strength, which remains 
preeminent. One leg is our values as a Nation. From feeding the hungry 
in Somalia to supporting democracy in Haiti, our values as a nation 
remain strong. When we look at our economic strength, however, that leg 
is fractured. A recent OECD report discovered that the United States 
has the worst income distribution in the industrialized world. Three-
quarters of our citizens in the age group of 18 to 25 cannot find a job 
that pays more than the official poverty level. We have one of the 
lowest savings rates in the industrialized world. In private sector 
capital spending, the United States lags behind our competitors.
  We have fallen behind in key technologies including flat panel 
displays, laser diodes, and ceramic packages for the semiconductor 
industry. We have a $9.9 billion trade deficit in computers and 
peripherals and $3.7 deficit in telecommunications equipment. Over the 
last decade we have posted nearly $1.4 trillion worth of trade 
deficits. The reason for this is clear. For too long we have been held 
back by slavish adherence to an outmoded 19th Century view of 
capitalism. This view was appropriate for David Ricardo's British 
Empire but has no place in an era of ``high tech'' competition where 
government provides the comparative advantage for industry. This 
``hands off'' notion of economic development flies in the face of our 
own history. From Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, to Henry 
Clay's ``American System'' of manufacturing, to Lincoln's development 
of the American rail system, to NASA's technological breakthroughs, the 
government has played a crucial role working with industry to stimulate 
economic development.
  While some in Congress foolishly propose dismantling DOC, our 
economic competition around the world does not share our shortsighted 
desire to tear down government. The dynamic economies in Asia have 
evolved into economic powerhouses by developing close links between 
business and government with one goal in mind, to become export super 
powers. The invisible hand of the market did not develop Korea's world 
class semiconductor industry. Instead, the iron fist of decrees laid 
down by Korea's Ministry of Trade kept out foreign competition unless 
they licensed their technology to Korean companies. That iron fist was 
complemented by the largesse of Korea's Treasury which provided 
subsidies in the form of below market loans and closed the markets to 
United States computer chips while Korean manufacturers dumped chips 
into the United States market below the cost of production.
  Europe is nurturing the information technology industry courtesy of 
billions in subsidies from the European Community for massive research 
projects like JESSI, ESPRIT, and EUREKA. The law of comparative 
advantage no longer applies in America's top export industry where 
Airbus captured 30 percent of the market by flaunting international 
trade rules, and China forced Boeing to build planes in the Guan Zhao 
province rather than Seattle, Washington.
  This is the competition we face. In today's new world economy, it 
makes absolutely no sense to eliminate the one cabinet department that 
looks out for the business community and for one of our Nation's most 
important functions--interstate and foreign commerce. We need to 
strengthen the Department of Commerce, not blow it up into ineffective 
fragments. Strong U.S. Government backing for U.S. companies and 
workers in trade, technology, and other areas is vital if the United 
States and our constituents are to prosper. The facts show that the 
Department of Commerce is working, fighting for American business. 
Today, in fact, DOC is more successful at promoting exports and other 
activities than we have seen in decades. Its various units support and 
benefit each other, making the Department's total much more than the 
sum of its parts. It would be a grave mistake to break up this winning 
team of business and Government working together. If we retreat now, we 
will lose exports, we will lose much of our technological edge, and we 
most assuredly will lose jobs.

  Article I, section 8, of the Constitution says that Congress shall 
have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the 
several States. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of a Federal 
role in support of commerce. In the first days of our Republic, 
Alexander Hamilton wrote his famous Report on Manufactures and called 
for Government policies to assist U.S. industry. Theodore Roosevelt 
created the Commerce Department, and in the 1920's, Secretary of 
Commerce Herbert Hoover turned the Department into an export 
powerhouse.


                     commerce department successes

  Today, the Commerce Department provides the needed tools for helping 
Americans to succeed in the new global, high-technology world. Consider 
a few of its successes:
  The Department's export promotion efforts have been a huge success, 
helping American companies over the past 2 years to sell over $24 
billion in American goods and services, and creating or saving over 
300,000 jobs. Its export control program will allow billions more in 
export sales while successfully preventing the sale of sensitive 
technologies to unfriendly governments. Yet the House-passed 
dismantling bill would downgrade these export efforts, eliminating the 
Cabinet officer responsible for export promotion and burying these 
functions under an official whose main responsibility is trade 
negotiations, not exports.
  In technology, the central economic battleground of the future, DOC 
supports industry's own efforts. DOC-supported manufacturing extension 
centers, begun under the Reagan Administration, have helped over 15,000 
small firms to improve their operations and profits, leading the firms 
themselves to calculate that each $1 of DOC investment leads to $8 in 
company revenues or savings. The House-passed DOC dismantling 
legislation abolishes the centers program.
  The Advanced Technology Program, started under the Bush 
administration and still new, is already helping dozens of companies, 
most of them small businesses, to develop new breakthrough technologies 
that the private capital markets will not finance because they are not 
guaranteed to make short-term profits. New developments will reduce the 
costs of computer chips, lead to cheap compact color TV displays, and 
create machines that can safely hold human bone marrow cells outside 
the body and use that bone marrow to create new blood cells. The House-
passed bill would terminate the ATP.
  The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
laboratories have existed since Theodore Roosevelt established them in 
1901. They help the FBI and the Nation's law enforcement crime labs 
ensure accuracy in drug analyses and DNA fingerprinting. They help 
industry with a wide range of new measurement techniques which help 
many companies improve precision and quality and cut costs. Yet the 
House-passed language would reduce the NIST labs to first 75 percent, 
and then 65 percent, of their fiscal year 1995 funding.
  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] is 
steadily improving the warning time and accuracy of weather and climate 
forecasts, with economic and safety benefits ranging from improved 
flood forecasts to safer airline flights.
  NOAA also assists the Nation's $50-billion-a-year commercial fishing 
industry and $70 billion-a-year marine recreational fishing industry by 
monitoring fishery harvests and collecting management information. Yet 
the House DOC dismantling language would reduce NOAA's budget 
drastically--first to 75 percent of its fiscal year 1995 appropriation, 
and then to 65 percent the second year after enactment and in all 
subsequent years. These draconian reductions will affect weather and 
fisheries services throughout the country.
  The Economic Development Administration is one of the few Federal 
programs that give rural areas a chance to share in economic growth.

  The Bureau of Economic Analysis is now substantially improving 
economic and trade statistics, to give both business and government a 
more accurate 

[[Page S 16896]]
picture of where America stands in the new world economy.


                      a department that is working

  Madam President, contrary to what some may believe, these various 
parts of the Department work closely together and reinforce each other. 
NIST, for example, works with the International Trade Administration 
[ITA] and U.S. industry to monitor new product standards in other 
countries. They identify when foreign product standards are used not to 
protect local safety but as nontariff barriers against American 
products. Similarly, the Patent and Trademark Office advises ITA when 
foreign governments appear to use their patent policies in ways which 
hurt U.S. technology companies.
  There are other examples. NIST and ITA's United States and Foreign 
Commercial Service are working closely with several friendly countries, 
including Saudi Arabia, to ensure that their new product standards are 
compatible with American goods and services.
  NIST and NOAA, in turn, are developing new measurement techniques for 
helping the fishing industry to locate fish stocks. The Census Bureau 
regularly provides important information on the state of U.S. 
manufacturing to companies and the trade and technology units of the 
Department.
  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] 
performs a critical role in forcing government users to become more 
efficient in their use of spectrum radio frequency and overseeing the 
governmental uses of the spectrum. NTIA has played a critical role in 
identifying frequency bands for reallocation to the private sector, 
which ultimately led to auctions that brought in over $9 billion to the 
U.S. Treasury.
  In this era of economic competition, the Commerce Department is the 
arsenal of business. It is the Commerce Department through the ITA that 
rings up sales for U.S. business--from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas 
airplanes in Saudi Arabia to Raytheon radars in Brazil. It is the 
Commerce Department that enforces the trade laws that enabled the steel 
and semiconductor industries to beat back predatory trade practices.
  In the critical technologies that are the battleground of the 21st 
Century, it is the Commerce Department that is leading the way in 
developing and commercializing new and emerging technologies. While the 
Commerce Department is at the cutting edge of technological 
development, its Export Administration is walking the fine line between 
promoting U.S. exports and keeping our critical technology out of the 
hands of terrorists. Finally, it is the Commerce Department's economic 
statistics that provide the date which drive America's financial 
markets.
  This Department is not only working. Its units are working 
effectively together and with American business to save and create 
jobs.


                          a piecemeal approach

  Madam President, finally we should oppose this proposal not only 
because it does not belong on the debt limit extension and because it 
is substantively wrongheaded. We should also oppose it because it is a 
piecemeal approach to government reorganization, a proposal written 
without apparent attention to the rest of the government's operations.
  In the 1950's, I had the privilege sitting on one of President 
Hoover's commissions on government reorganization. Believe me, there is 
a right way--a comprehensive, thoughtful way--to consider government 
reorganization. And the proposal before us is not the result of a 
comprehensive, thoughtful process. It is far too piecemeal.


                             industry views

  Madam President, these objections to the House language are not just 
my views or the those of other Senators. They also are the views of a 
very large portion of the American business community. For example, I 
have letters from the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
Chamber of Commerce, and a major ad hoc industry coalition consisting 
of over 60 major corporations and trade associations. Let me quote from 
the NAM letter:

       We feel equally strongly that the goal of such a reduction 
     [in the size of government] should be a government that can 
     deal effectively with the demands of the 21st century global 
     economy. We agree with Peter Drucker's observation that the 
     government should be giving ``primacy to the country's 
     competitive position in an increasingly competitive world 
     economy.''
       The Congress will not be able to meet this challenge if it 
     tries to do so in a piecemeal fashion, taking on one agency 
     or program at a time with the hope that everything will fit 
     together in the end.

  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of these remarks these 
three letters be printed in the Record, as well as a copy of the 
Business Week article I cited earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)


                        what are our priorities?

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the choice before the Senate is 
actually very simple and stark. It is a matter of priorities. Either we 
back our companies and workers, or we do not. Either the United States 
gets into the global economic fight, or we do not.
  DOC supporters believe that our Government, like every other major 
government in the world, should take prudent steps to support its 
industries and workers--to help win at exports, technology, and other 
areas. This Department is fighting every day for American business, and 
it is succeeding. We should not break up the cooperative effort of 
business and government that has developed in recent years.
  Opponents of the Commerce Department would leave American business 
out there with no backing, no assistance, and fewer economic prospects. 
It makes one wonder whether or not export jobs and high-tech jobs are a 
priority with these opponents.
  In the final analysis, does anyone really believe that the American 
people want the Government to do less to promote American exports and 
export-related jobs? Does anyone really think that the American people 
want less effort to enforce our laws against unfair trade practices? 
Does anyone really believe that the American people want none of the 
Government's $72 billion annual research budget used to help create new 
breakthrough technologies that will create the industries and jobs of 
the future? Does anyone really believe that the American people want to 
call a halt to modernizing our weather stations, or completing economic 
development projects in hard-hit rural communities across the land? Of 
course not. It is time that we get past trophy-hunting and start 
thinking about the economic interests of our people.
  I urge our colleagues to strip this provision from the debt limit 
legislation now before us, and I urge them, as well, to drop the entire 
idea of killing the Commerce Department.
  We should want to win in the global economy, not quit the field. If 
Senators and Representatives feel they must kill a cabinet department, 
let them pick one whose elimination will not leave our companies and 
workers more vulnerable to economic competition. Let them not break 
faith with the millions of Americans who want Government to promote 
their economic interests in this harsh new world economy, not abandon 
them. As for myself, I will continue to oppose this foolish and 
destructive proposal.

                               Exhibit 1

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 1995.
     Hon. Robert J. Dole,
     U.S. Senate, 141 Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: The effort to bring the federal budget into 
     balance by reducing the size of government is one that the 
     NAM strongly supports. We feel equally strongly that the goal 
     of such a reduction should be a government that can deal 
     effectively with the demands of the 21st century global 
     economy. We agree with Peter Drucker's observation that the 
     government should be giving ``primacy to the country's 
     competitive position in an increasingly competitive world 
     economy.''
       The Congress will not be able to meet this challenge if it 
     tries to do so in a piecemeal fashion, taking on one agency 
     or program at a time with the hope that everything will fit 
     together in the end. A coalition of companies and 
     associations sent the entire Congress a letter on November 7 
     making this same point. The NAM is in broad agreement with 
     the views expressed in this letter. A piecemeal approach to 
     restructuring will yield fewer satisfactory results--and less 
     budget savings--than a comprehensive approach that maps out 
     where we're going from the start.
       This is why the NAM supports the establishment of a 
     bipartisan commission to recommend how to restructure the 
     government, particularly in those areas dealing with our 
     international economic interests and responsibilities. The 
     key to the success of such a 

[[Page S 16897]]
     commission is to make sure that something happens once its work is 
     finished. There must be event-forcing mechanisms to ensure 
     that its recommendations are acted upon. Accordingly, the NAM 
     believes that the Congress should explore ways to provide a 
     government reform commission with powers similar to those 
     provided to commissions dealing with the closing of military 
     bases.
       Combined with the significant steps already taken in 1995 
     to reduce departmental and agency budgets, the establishment 
     of such a commission would underline the continuing 
     commitment of this Congress to downsize the government and 
     increase its effectiveness. The efforts to accomplish this 
     goal come at a time when the global economy and our role in 
     it are increasing. In restructuring the federal government, 
     we need a long-term plan to be implemented over the next 
     several years that reconciles these complex and conflicting 
     trends. The NAM believes that a bipartisan commission could 
     develop such a plan and that this could be done in such a 
     fashion to ensure that the work of the commission is acted 
     upon and not just buried. We urge you to support this 
     recommendation.
           Sincerely,
     Jerry J. Jassnowski.
                                                                    ____



                                    Ad Hoc Industry Coalition,

                                                 November 7, 1995.
     Hon. Robert J. Dole,
     Senate Hart Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: We would like to convey our strong 
     support for a thorough and comprehensive review of the 
     federal government's organization and functions. We consider 
     this an essential step in the development of a successful 
     strategy to reduce the federal budget deficit and increase 
     the overall effectiveness of government.
       We are greatly concerned, however, by present congressional 
     efforts to effect budgetary savings through the dismantlement 
     of a single department. Our concerns about this approach rest 
     primarily on two factors. First, adverse competitive effects 
     are likely to arise from the splintering and/or elimination 
     of several important functions presently performed by the 
     Commerce Department. Second, such a piecemeal approach to 
     restructuring will likely encounter more serious hurdles--and 
     ultimately yield less cost savings--than a more comprehensive 
     approach to such an important task.
       We are not writing to defend the status quo. The many 
     changes that have occurred in the international economy in 
     recent years justify a review of the structure and functions 
     of the federal government to ensure that the United States is 
     well-prepared to compete in the 21st century. There are 
     undoubtedly various activities now performed by the U.S. 
     government that require streamlining, consolidation and, in 
     some instances, elimination. At the same time, there may be 
     other functions in which increased activity may be justified.
       These matters have an impact on the ability of the United 
     States to create jobs, sustain its economic growth, and 
     participate effectively in the international marketplace. It 
     is, therefore, vital that any moves to restructure or 
     reorganize the federal government be undertaken only after a 
     thorough and careful analysis of all of the functions 
     performed by government. A hastily crafted or piecemeal 
     approach to such an important task is bound to yield a sub-
     optimal result and could even have unintended adverse 
     effects.
       Questions regarding the role of the federal government in 
     sustaining our nation's economic growth and international 
     competitiveness demand a comprehensive review through a 
     process that is open to all who have a stake in the outcome, 
     and such matters involve more than a single department's 
     functions. Accordingly, we urge you to refrain from 
     moving forward in the present manner and to work instead 
     toward the establishment of a non-partisan commission 
     whose task would be to develop within a specified 
     timeframe recommendations on how to restructure the 
     Federal Government overall to best support the Nation's 
     competitive and strategic needs in the coming decades.
       Together with present steps to trim existing agencies' 
     budgets, such a review process would clearly reflect a 
     seriousness of intent to tackle Federal Government spending 
     while also ensuring that all who have a stake in the outcome 
     have the opportunity to be heard in the course of a 
     thoughtful and rational debate.
       We stand ready to work with you toward this end. We believe 
     there is much to be gained from such an approach. In the 
     meantime, we appreciate your consideration of our views and 
     would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you 
     further in the coming days.
           Sincerely,
       ABB Inc., Aerospace Industries Association, Aetna Life and 
     Casualty Company, AlliedSignal Inc., American Iron and Steel 
     Institute, American Textile Manufacturers Institute, ARCO, 
     Armstrong World Industries, Inc., AT&T, Bedell Associates, 
     Bethlehem Steel Corporation, The Boeing Company, Burlington 
     Industries, Inc., Computer & Communication Industry 
     Association, Corning, Incorporated, Cray Research, Inc., 
     Dresser Industries, Inc., Economic Strategies Institute, 
     Enron Corp., ENSERCH Corporation, FED Corporation.
       Floral Trade Council, Florida Partnership of the Americas, 
     Fluor Corporation, Footwear Industries of America, General 
     Electric Company, Guilford Mills, Inc./Guilford 
     International, Honeywell, Inc., Hughes Electronics 
     Corporation, IBM Corporation, Institute of Electrical & 
     Electronics Engineers--United States Activities, Institute 
     for Interconnection and Packaging Electronics, International 
     Business-Government Counsellors, Inc., Litton Industries, 
     Inc., Loral Corporation, LTV Steel Company, McDermott 
     Incorporated, Mission Energy Company, Motorola, Inc., Nelson 
     Communications Group.
       NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing and 
     Publishing Technologies, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, 
     Oracle Corporation, Pro Trade Group, Raytheon Company, 
     Rockwell International Corp., Samsonite Corporation, 
     Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Institute, Small 
     Business Exporters Association, Software Publishers 
     Association, Springs Industries, Stone & Webster Engineering 
     Co., Stratus Computer Inc., Summa Four, Inc., Tandem 
     Computers Inc., Tenneco Inc., Textron Inc., The Timken 
     Company, Torrington Company, United Technologies Corporation, 
     U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, USX Corporation, Varian 
     Associates, Inc., Western Atlas, Inc., Westinghouse Electric 
     Co.
                                                                    ____


  Statement of U.S. Chamber of Commerce on International Commerce and 
                          Trade Reorganization

       The U.S. Chamber reaffirms that enactment of legislation to 
     achieve a balanced federal budget by 2002 is among the most 
     important tasks facing the 104th Congress. All actions to 
     restructure or reorganize U.S. agencies and programs, 
     including those relating to U.S. competitiveness in 
     international commerce and trade, must be taken in a manner 
     that is consistent with the U.S. Chamber's balanced-budget 
     objective.
       The U.S. government should approach the task of 
     restructuring the international commerce and trade sector by 
     considering what its objectives are before determining how 
     best to proceed. Any reorganization of such government 
     functions should only be initiated after a careful and 
     thorough analysis that includes consideration of inputs from 
     involved officials and potentially affected private parties.
       The U.S. Chamber believes that the U.S. government should 
     avoid a piecemeal approach to restructuring and should 
     consider instead the full range of issues relating to any 
     reorganization. Such a comprehensive approach will facilitate 
     achievement of greater streamlining and reduction in overhead 
     costs through the consolidation or elimination of duplicative 
     functions than would occur under an approach that addresses 
     selected portions of U.S. government activity affecting 
     international commerce and trade.
       To this end, Chamber supports the bipartisan establishment 
     of a process to (1) examine comprehensively the matter of 
     restructuring and reorganizing all of the international 
     commerce and trade functions of the U.S. government, and (2) 
     within a specific time frame, make recommendations on how to 
     proceed in a manner that ensures the enhanced effectiveness 
     of U.S. government functions critical to U.S. competitiveness 
     in the international marketplace while contributing to the 
     achievement of U.S. budget-balancing objectives.
       To determine what, if any, consolidation, streamlining and/
     or elimination of programs/functions is appropriate, this 
     process should adhere to the following objectives:
       Approach this task with no preconceived notion about the 
     outcome, but rather, should weigh all available information 
     in making its recommendations.
       Maintain a strong voice for U.S. commercial interests at 
     all levels within the U.S. government alongside those of 
     labor, human services, foreign policy, national security and 
     other critical elements of our society and government. The 
     U.S. government cannot afford to relegate commercial 
     interests to secondary status.
       Recognize and give high visibility to both the role of 
     advocacy of U.S. commercial interests within the U.S. 
     government and abroad and the coordination/balancing of U.S. 
     policy among the several affected U.S. government agencies 
     within and without the international commerce and trade 
     sector.
       Require a cost-benefit analysis and justification of all 
     U.S. government international commerce and trade functions. 
     This should include an analysis of whether the programs/
     functions can be made available by the private sector.
       Avoid consolidation of programs into government entities 
     whose missions are not dedicated primarily to the advancement 
     of U.S. commercial interests at home and abroad.
       Harmonize Congressional oversight to correspond to the 
     international trade and competitiveness-related functions.
       Maintain a strong relationship among all entities engaged 
     in international trade and competitiveness-related functions 
     and strengthen private-sector consultative mechanisms.
       Maintain and improve the independent credit management 
     integrity of all financial service functions within the U.S. 
     international commerce and trade sector.
       Recognize the importance of the strong enforcement and 
     implementation of trade agreements and laws.
       Background.--The U.S. Chamber, since 1983, has advocated a 
     focused, cost-effective, coherent U.S. government 
     international trade policy and infrastructure. Such a policy 
     and 

[[Page S 16898]]
     infrastructure does not now exist. U.S. government international 
     commerce and trade functions are presently administered and/
     or supported by more than fourteen agencies driven by often 
     conflicting policy objectives and, while costing more than 
     $3.5 billion per year, without a singularly focused budget 
     discipline.
       The national interest requires the attainment of a ``level 
     playing field'' for the commercial interests of the U.S. in 
     global markets. That interest can best be served while 
     addressing the national interest of balancing the federal 
     budget if the President and the senior advisors and officials 
     of that office are supported by a cost effective, focused 
     infrastructure. Such an infrastructure must put the U.S. 
     government in a position to:
       Negotiate and enforce trade agreements that require the 
     reduction or elimination of unfair foreign trade barriers and 
     distortions;
       Use access to the U.S. market as leverage to obtain access 
     to foreign markets; and
       Enforce U.S. trade laws to remedy the adverse effects of 
     foreign dumping, subsidization and other unfair trade 
     practices;
       Provide appropriate export development services and 
     advocacy to counter foreign government-supported competitors;
       Limit the imposition of export and other trade controls to 
     those absolutely necessary to achieve legitimate U.S. 
     national security objectives.
       The President and Congress, with the support of the private 
     sector, should articulate an international trade policy and 
     create a responsive supporting infrastructure that will.
       Provide support services that are critical to a competitive 
     U.S. commercial position internationally, but are not 
     available from the private sector;
       Subject federal export-oriented programs and/or activities 
     to quantifiable cost-benefit evaluation featuring the U.S. 
     employment consequences, the dollar-value of exported U.S. 
     goods and services, and the ``value-added'' content of 
     exported U.S. goods and services.
       Maintain the capacity, where appropriate, to effectively 
     match subsidization and other forms of assistance offered by 
     our major trade competitors on a selective basis;
       Provide assistance to capital projects in other countries 
     that have enduring value to the host country and are 
     distinguished by substantial U.S. company participation.
       More specifically, a successful U.S. commerce and trade 
     infrastructure should incorporate programs and activities 
     that:
       Recognize the importance of a strong voice for commercial 
     interests in the development of U.S. policies. The commercial 
     interests of the U.S. must not be relegated to secondary 
     status. The nation cannot afford to reduce the effectiveness 
     of U.S. international trade programs that are a linchpin of 
     the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
       Recognize the crucial role that only the U.S. government 
     can play in providing in-country support to American 
     exporters of goods and services. U.S. government support in 
     the form of foreign market information-gathering and official 
     advocacy in necessary if U.S. exporters are to enjoy a level 
     playing field in competing for a share of these emerging 
     growth markets.
       Provide competitive financial services, e.g., financing and 
     insurance that are not otherwise available but are required 
     to help U.S. companies remain competitive and penetrate 
     foreign markets. To maintain a broadly competitive position, 
     the United States must preserve or expand the contribution of 
     those federal agencies that help U.S. exporters compete and 
     prosper.
       Recognize that as part of the U.S. government's strategic 
     plan to selectively match the subsidization assistance 
     offered by our major competitors, the U.S. government should 
     be prepared to fund project-related feasibility studies and 
     planning activities.
       Recognize that the U.S. government must be prepared to take 
     meaningful actions to provide American companies an 
     opportunity to compete fairly in the global marketplace. 
     Negotiation and enforcement of trade agreements to remove 
     trade barriers and open markets, and enforcement of U.S. 
     trade laws against dumping, subsidization, intellectual 
     property violations and other unfair trade practices are 
     necessary complements to a successful export promotion and 
     job growth strategy.
       Recognize that to the extent that there is a requirement 
     for U.S. export controls, such controls should not deter the 
     export of U.S. products when other nations are freely 
     marketing competitive products.
                                                                    ____


   A World of Greased Palms--Inside the Dirty War for Global Business

       Intrigue fairly leaps off the pages of the classified U.S. 
     government report. A German electronics giant pays bribes to 
     win export sales. France demands 20% of Vietnam's 
     telecommunications market in exchange for aid. A European 
     aerospace company threatens to block European Union 
     membership for Turkey and Malta unless their national 
     airlines purchase its planes.
       It's all part of a nasty, multibillion-dollar war being 
     waged over global markets. A secret Commerce Dept. study, 
     newly prepared with the help of U.S. intelligence agencies, 
     catalogs scores of incidents of bribery, aid with strings 
     attached, and other improper inducements by America's trading 
     partners. In the case of strings-attached foreign aid, the 
     deals may violate international trade pacts. And the cost of 
     such practices to the U.S. economy appears enormous. In 1994 
     alone, U.S. intelligence tracked 100 deals worth a total of 
     $45 billion in which overseas outfits used bribes to undercut 
     U.S. rivals, the study says. The result: Foreign companies 
     won 80% of the deals.


                             sanctimonious?

       Among the main culprits are some of America's staunchest 
     political allies: France, Germany, and Japan. The 
     corporations involved aren't cited by name in the study, 
     which has been in the works for months and key parts of which 
     were reviewed by Business Week. But government sources 
     identify premier European hightech companies--including 
     Germany's Siemens, France's Alcatel Alsthom, and the European 
     airframe consortium Airbus Industrie--as among the major 
     practitioners. Foreign governments and companies, of course, 
     gripe that the Clinton Administration has been doing lots of 
     aggressive advocacy of its own to win deals for U.S. 
     business. ``Each time we win a deal, it's because of dirty 
     tricks,'' says an Airbus official with bitter sarcasm. ``Each 
     time Boeing wins, it's because of a better product.''
       Indeed, many officials overseas view the U.S.'s holier-
     than-thou attitude about shady business practices as naive 
     and hypocritical. As word of the report's contents gradually 
     leaks (some 50 copies recently were distributed to Congress 
     and key agencies), U.S. trading partners may be angered to 
     learn how closely American spies are tracking their dealings. 
     Indeed, the growing role of the CIA and its sister shops in 
     commercial information-gathering already is controversial, 
     with critics contending that the spies are inappropriately 
     trying to justify $28 billion budget in the post-cold-war 
     era. But former CIA General Counsel Elizabeth J. Rindskopf 
     says the CIA is simply responding to demands from other U.S. 
     government agencies for information to help level the global 
     playing field.
       There's more to it than that. ``As the importance of 
     geopolitical struggle has declined, conflict has found a new 
     home,'' says Edward N. Luttwak, senior fellow at the Center 
     for Strategic & International Studies. ``Commercially, the 
     atmosphere has become envenomed.'' Economic trends tell the 
     tale: The U.S. is more dependent than ever on exports to fuel 
     its economic growth. Europe and Japan are saddled by slow 
     growth.
       Heightened global competition adds to the temptation to 
     seek advantages through questionable tactics--particularly in 
     key sectors such as aerospace, where demand is weak, 
     ``Companies and governments are more willing to resort to 
     unconventional methods to make a sale because any sale is 
     precious,'' says Joel Johnson, international vice-president 
     for Aerospace Industries Assn. of America.
       During the next decade, the pervasiveness of such practices 
     spells trouble for U.S. companies girding to compete for an 
     estimated $1 trillion worth of overseas infrastructure 
     projects. American business already is handicapped by the 
     U.S.'s comparatively puny spending on export promotion. The 
     Commerce report, which also reviews legitimate competitive 
     practices such as trade missions and financial aid to 
     exporters, revels a stark gap. In 1994, for every $1,000 of 
     gross domestic product, France spent more than 17 cents on 
     export-promotion programs; Japan, more than 12 cents. In 
     contrast, the U.S. spent 3 cents.
       Even so, Republican trade hawks on Capitol Hill want to 
     slash funds for Commerce's trade programs. Commerce officials 
     hope the competitive-practices report will help derail those 
     moves. It's certainly a timely showcase for Commerce 
     Secretary Ronald H. Brown to reemphasize his role as roving 
     advocate for American business. ``The findings are 
     alarming,'' Brown told BUSINESS WEEK. ``There is no question 
     that we have been dramatically outgunned by our global 
     competitors, and many of those competitors use, to be kind, 
     unsavory practices.''


                              Wads of Cash

       But to some European executives, the Clinton Administration 
     doesn't shy away from questionable arm-twisting. An Airbus 
     official calls President Clinton's 1993 phone call to King 
     Fahd of Saudi Arabia to lobby for Boeing Co. and McDonnell 
     Douglas Corp. a ``blatant'' disregard for the rules. ``The 
     power of the American government is far greater than any 
     European government,'' the official says. Too bad, retorts 
     one U.S. official: ``If we're going to provide a security 
     umbrella for a country, it's reasonable to expect our 
     companies to get treated fairly.''
       Certainly, not all U.S. companies have clean hands. In 
     October, a former vice-president at Lockheed Martin Corp. was 
     sentenced to 18 months in prison and a $125,000 fine for 
     bribing a member of the Egyptian Parliament to win an order 
     for three C-130 cargo planes. The case is surprising because 
     Lockheed was at the center of a bribery scandal in Japan 
     nearly 20 years ago and has signed a consent decree to 
     refrain from such practices. That paved the way for the 1977 
     Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars U.S. companies from 
     paying bribes to win business.
       Some U.S. companies find creative ways to skirt the law. To 
     secure a mining venture in a developing nation, an American 
     company recently flew officials from the country to the U.S., 
     put them up in a fancy hotel for a week, and gave them a wad 
     of cash for a shopping spree. A U.S. intelligence source says 
     the trip is problematic: ``What's the difference between 
     giving an official shopping money and handing him an envelope 
     of cash in his office?''
       But U.S. and other trade experts have little doubt that 
     overseas companies are more 

[[Page S 16899]]
     likely to offer bribes because their cultures and legal systems permit 
     it. In France, foreign payments to middlemen are considered 
     legitimate business tax deductions. Germany has similar 
     rules, though officials in Bonn say they might junk them if 
     there were an international accord to outlaw bribery.
       Even so, there's little U.S. support for easing antibribery 
     laws. Instead, many American executives are urging the 
     Administration to mount an aggressive campaign to get 
     foreigners to play more by U.S. rules. For starters, open up 
     to public scrutiny the contracting process for projects 
     funded by multilateral development banks, says Calman J. 
     Cohen, vice-president of the Emergency Committee for American 
     Trade, a group of 60 chief executives of America's leading 
     exporters.
       U.S. officials vow to fight for reform. And foreign trading 
     partners may find that a good idea. As long as everyone--
     including the U.S.--promises to play by the rules.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing 
opposition to including this provision to eliminate the Commerce 
Department on this measure.
  Regardless of the position one takes on the issue of eliminating the 
Commerce Department, I do not believe it is proper for it to be 
included in the measure before us today.
  Personally, I have strong concerns about one section of this proposal 
to eliminate Commerce--that is the section which reorganizes the trade 
functions.
  I take a second seat to no one in my desire to cut government 
spending and eliminate the budget deficit. Removing this huge burden 
from the backs of our children and grandchildren should be our top 
priority.
  I believe that one way to reduce the deficit is to eliminate and 
downsize agencies--and there are several agencies which I have 
suggested for elimination.
  Certainly, the Commerce Department can stand some severe downsizing 
and reorganization. No one can argue that it is a well-thought-out, 
streamlined agency. That does not, however, mean we ought to do that 
trimming with a meat-axe.
  Instead, we must do it carefully--in a way that ensures we do not 
destroy programs critical to our national or economic security. I am 
concerned that the proposal before us today will have just such an 
impact--that is, it will harm our economic security and it will cost 
jobs.
  Exports are absolutely critical to our Nation's economic health and 
security, and they will become even more so in the global economy of 
the 21st century. If we are to maintain our place as the world's 
leading economy, we will have to increase our share of the world 
market. The competition will be tough and other companies will come to 
the field armed with a wide array of tools provided by their 
governments--from high-level sales assistance to concessional 
financing, and even in some cases, outright bribes.
  American firms need at least a helping hand if they are to remain 
able to compete in this rough atmosphere. Providing that edge is the 
job of our trade promotion and finance agencies, led by the 
International Trade Administration of the Commerce Department.

  Generally, I would be the last one to argue that government ought to 
be playing a more active role in any aspect of business. As chairman of 
the Senate Small Business Committee, I hear daily from business owners 
who have suffered at the hands of government bureaucracy and 
overregulation. The fact is, however, that if smaller firms are to 
enter and be successful in the global marketplace, they will, in many 
cases, need the support and encouragement of the government. Companies 
entering the international marketplace are vying with foreign 
competitors who have the active assistance and involvement of a wide 
range of government agencies and officials. Without the support of 
agencies such as the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, the Export-
Import Bank, OPIC, and TDA, American firms would often be left behind.
  I would note, however, that it is not only small firms that need this 
assistance. Even huge companies cannot compete if their foreign 
competitors are getting special assistance from their home governments 
in terms of financing and marketing help.
  In many parts of the world, customers are used to dealing with 
government officials and private firms need the added help of a senior 
official--such as the Secretary of Commerce--to win sales.
  And it is important to remember that the support of government is 
critical in other areas, as well--ensuring a level playing field in 
trade with other countries, for example, as we saw earlier this year 
with the Japanese auto parts talks; and in the type of hands-on, high-
level marketing we have seen by Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 
President Clinton. Government can also play a role by ensuring that our 
laws and regulations do not impede exports. For example, in the 
International Finance Subcommittee which I chair, we are working on a 
rewrite of the Export Administration Act, a step which is badly needed 
to eliminate outdated and unnecessary controls and ensure that controls 
are doing the job they were intended to do--keeping critical technology 
out of the hands of our enemies, rather than keeping U.S. firms from 
being competitive.
  Certainly, government cannot--and should not--do it all. But it is 
clear these agencies can provide the extra little bit needed to turn a 
near loss into a win.
  Unfortunately, the debate in Washington this year has not focused 
on the importance of exports or the importance of ensuring that 
American firms remain competitive. Instead the debate has turned to the 
need to eliminate ``corporate welfare,'' and unfortunately--and I 
believe wrongly--these programs have been labeled corporate welfare.

  Members can criticize these programs, but the fact is they are 
responsible for creating and saving thousands of good-paying American 
jobs that would otherwise go to Paris, Ottawa, London, or Osaka. I 
don't want to see that happen, and I am certain most other Senators do 
not either.
  This is not just an abstract argument I am making--we are talking 
here about real contracts and real jobs.
  Earlier this year, Secretary Brown testified before my subcommittee 
in a closed session to present a classified report detailing some of 
the activities that other countries are using to win deals for their 
companies. The report noted activities that are widely accepted such as 
high-level marketing. However, it also detailed questionable and 
illegal activities such as threats of aid cutoffs and outright bribes.
  It is a fascinating report, and I urge my colleagues to go to S-407 
and read it before voting to weaken our trade promotion and finance 
agencies which I would note, are funded at the lowest level of any 
major trading nation.
  The proposal before us today is significantly better than proposals 
that were offered earlier this year, at least with regard to the trade 
portions.
  Instead of eliminating huge parts of the trade promotion and finance 
staff, it eliminates only a portion, and consolidates them into a 
single agency--the new Office of the Trade Representative.
  This new organization would bring together the existing Office of the 
Trade Representative, the Trade and Development Agency and the Commerce 
Department's International Trade Administration and Bureau of Export 
Administration. It would be headed by the U.S. Trade Representative, 
who would be designated a Cabinet officer by this administration. It 
would not, however, be a department.
  There are a number of problems I see with this proposal. First, it 
brings together under one roof our good cop and bad cop on trade. I 
believe it will be very difficult for the head of this agency to do 
both jobs--to travel to a country and beat up on them at one meeting 
for not buying enough U.S. automobiles and then turn around and 
offering to sell them American built airplanes. It just does not seem 
like it will work as well as the current system where Mickey Kantor 
negotiates and enforces, and Ron Brown sells.

  Second, this proposal would downgrade the status of many of our trade 
official which will have significant consequences in other countries 
where rank and face are important.
  Third, this provision mandates spending cuts that would have a 
devastating impact on our export agencies. Already this year, I had to 
fight off an attack on the funding for these trade agencies--cuts that 
would have brought 600 layoffs out of the International Trade 
Administration alone 

[[Page S 16900]]
and which would have forced us to close nearly half of all domestic 
offices, and which would have left us without Commercial Officers in 
many parts of the world. There was overwhelming support for restoring 
the money when the bill was considered on the floor.
  I would note that the funding cuts would also hit the Bureau of 
Export Administration--the agency charged with enforcing our export 
control laws on high-tech exports. That is a problem for two reasons. 
First it will mean U.S. firms selling computers, telecommunications 
equipment, machine tools and other high-tech products will likely have 
to wait longer for licensing--likely losing sales as a result. Just as 
important, however, it is likely to result in poorer enforcement of the 
export laws designed to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. That is precisely the wrong way to go at a time when we 
are seeing the growth of groups such as the AUM sect in Japan.
  Perhaps we ought to be considering reorganization of our trade 
agencies. If we do, however, I think it should be with a clear 
understanding of what we are doing. And, I for one, am not convinced 
that we have that understanding.
  Thus, I urge my colleagues to reject this provision and to allow the 
Senate to get on with the pressing business at hand.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I oppose the attachment of the House 
Commerce dismantling bill to the debt limit bill. This is not the way 
to consider how to organize trade and technology functions. The 
President has requested a clean debt limit bill without extraneous, 
unrelated bills attached to it. Clearly the inclusion of the Commerce 
dismantling legislation weighs down the debt limit bill and should not 
be considered as part of it.
  This is a backdoor attempt to make economic growth the victim of our 
budget axe. Trade, telecommunications, technology, weather services. 
That is what is at risk. The House's intent to eliminate this 
department is just not rational. In our enthusiasm to make cuts to 
balance the budget we are losing sight of the reason we want to balance 
the budget in the first place--to make our economy stronger. The irony 
is that by cutting the trade and technology programs we are cutting 
programs that are already making our economy stronger. We will be 
defeating our own purpose.
  I am particularly concerned about keeping the technology and trade 
functions integrated in the Department of Commerce. Within the 
Department of Commerce there are programs that work with the private 
sector to foster new ideas that may underpin the next generation of 
products. This is one of the few places where there are information 
channels that ensure that the ideas generated in our world class 
research institutions find their way into the marketplace. Previous 
administrations had the foresight to realize that we are entering a new 
era, an era where economic battles are as fiercely fought as any 
previous military actions. New kinds of technology programs were begun 
with bipartisan support to make sure that the United States was well 
armed for these economic battles. I do not want to see us lose our 
technology edge in the marketplace, because this edge translates 
directly into jobs for our work force, new markets for American 
business, improvements in our balance of trade, and from this economic 
success, needed revenues for our treasury. The home of technology is 
with our trade programs where they will have the most impact and do the 
most good for our economy. The Technology Administration is a critical 
component of the Department of Commerce and we need to make sure its 
key functions are maintained. Yet the pending legislation would scatter 
Commerce agencies and slash technology spending.
  Making changes in technology and trade functions at this juncture in 
time must be done extremely carefully. New markets are emerging in 
developing countries. Conservative estimates suggest that 60 percent of 
the growth in world trade will be with these developing countries over 
the next two decades. The United States has a large share of imports in 
big emerging markets currently, in significant part because of the 
efforts of the Department of Commerce. While we are making changes in 
the Department of Commerce, our foreign competitors are increasing 
their investment in their economies. Competing advanced economies are 
just waiting for us to make a move that will weaken our economic 
capacity. We cannot afford to dismantle successful programs that are 
making and keeping the United States competitive. We should be sure 
that changes we make will be improving the Government's efficiency and 
improving the taxpayer's return on investment.
  The kind of technology programs that I am advocating are not 
corporate welfare. I find the term in this context not only inaccurate, 
but offensive. American industry is not looking for a handout. Quite 
the contrary. These programs are providing incentives to elicit support 
from the private sector for programs that are the responsibility of the 
government. Times are tough and the government needs to cut back, so we 
are looking for the handout from private industry, not the other way 
around. Let me explain.

  Our goal should be, not to try and categorize research, but to make 
investments that are appropriate, and that strengthen our economy. I 
believe that there is an important and legitimate role for government 
to play in technology research. The National Association of 
Manufactures has spoken out strongly in favor of the kind of technology 
programs that are run by the Department of Commerce. I would like to 
read some quotes from their statement about Federal technology 
programs:

       The NAM is concerned that the magnitude and distribution of 
     the R&D spending cuts proposed thus far would erode U.S. 
     technological leadership.
       A successful national R&D policy requires a diverse 
     portfolio of programs that includes long- and short-term 
     science and technology programs, as well as the necessary 
     infrastructure to support them. The character of research 
     activities has changed substantially in the past decade, 
     making hard and fast distinctions between basic and applied 
     research or between research and development increasingly 
     artificial. R&D agendas today are driven by time horizons not 
     definitions. In short, rigid delineations between basic and 
     applied research are not the basis on which private sector 
     R&D strategies are executed, not should they be the basis for 
     Federal R&D policy decisions.
       The NAM believes the disproportionate large cuts proposed 
     in newer R&D programs are a mistake. R&D programs of more 
     recent vintage enjoy considerable industry support for one 
     simple fact: They are more relevant to today's technology 
     challenges. For example, ``bridge'' programs that focus on 
     the problem of technology assimilation often yield greater 
     payoff to a wider public than programs aimed at technology 
     creation. Newer programs address current R&D challenges for 
     more effectively than older programs and should not fall 
     victim to the ``last hired, first fired'' prioritization.
       In particular, partnership and bridge programs should not 
     only not be singled out for elimination, but should receive a 
     relatively greater share of what Federal R&D spending 
     remains. These programs currently account for approximately 5 
     percent of Federal R&D spending. The NAM suggests that 15 
     percent may be a more appropriate level . . .
       Given the critical importance of R&D, far too much is being 
     cut on the basis of far too little understanding of the 
     implications. The world has changed considerably in the past 
     several years, and R&D is not different. Crafting a Federal 
     R&D policy must take stock of these changes; to date this has 
     not happened.
       As the major funder and performer of the R&D in the U.S., 
     industry believes its voice should be heard in setting the 
     national R&D agenda. The Congress and the Administration 
     should draw on industry's experience and expertise in 
     determining policy choices. For example, as a guide to 
     prioritizing Fedeal R&D programs, the NAM would favor those 
     programs that embody the following attributes: Industry-led; 
     cost-shared; relevant to today's R&D challenges; partnership/
     consortia; deployment-oriented; and dual use.
       We believe these criteria provide the basis for creation of 
     a template for prioritizing federal R&D spending.
       In sum, the NAM remains firmly committed to a balanced 
     federal budget. But we also firmly believe that the action 
     taken thus far in downsizing and altering the direction of 
     U.S. R&D spending is tantamount to fighting hunger by eating 
     the seed corn. We urge the Congress to consider carefully the 
     impact of R&D on U.S. economic vitality and to move forward 
     in crafting an R&D agenda that will sustain U.S. 
     technological leadership far into the future.

  I would like to describe two programs in which I have taken a 
particular interest, the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] and the 
Manufacturing Extension Program [MEP], both eliminated by the pending 
bill. 

[[Page S 16901]]



                                  atp

  Dr. Alan Bromley, President Bush's Science Advisor in 1991, 
determined a list of 20 technologies that are critical to develop for 
the United States to remain a world economic power. There has been very 
little disagreement among analysts and industry about the list. No one 
company benefits from these technologies, rather a variety of 
industries would benefit with advances in any one of these areas. These 
are the kinds of areas that form the focus areas of the ATP. The focus 
areas are determined by industry, not by bureaucrats, to be key areas 
where research breakthroughs will advance the economy as a whole not 
single companies.
  There is no doubt that industry benefits from partnering with the 
Government. The nature of the marketplace has changed, and 
technological advances are a crucial component in maintaining our 
stature in the new world marketplace. Product life cycles are getting 
more and more compressed, so that the development of new products must 
occur at a more and more rapid pace. The market demands products 
faster, at higher quality and in wider varieties--and the product must 
be delivered just in time. Innovative technological advances enhance 
speed, quality, and distribution, to deliver to customers the product 
they want, when they want it. Ironically, the competitive market 
demands that companies stay lean and mean, diminishing the resources 
that are available for R&D programs that foster the kind of innovation 
necessary to stay competitive. Because of all of these pressures, 
industrial R&D is now focused on short-term product development at the 
expense of long-term research to generate future generations of 
products.
  The conclusion is clear. This short-term focus will lead to 
technological inferiority in the future. Our economy will suffer. Some 
of my colleagues in Congress believe that basic research will provide 
the kind of innovation necessary to generate new generations of high 
tech products. On the contrary, we have seen historically that basic 
research performed in a vacuum, that is without communication with 
industry, is unlikely to lead to products.
  In this country, we have the best basic research anywhere in the 
world. There is no contest. Yet, we continue to watch our creative 
basic research capitalized by other nations. We must improve our 
ability to get our brilliant ideas to market. Basic research focuses on 
a time horizon of 10 to 20 years. Product development focuses on a time 
horizon of less than 5 years, and sometimes much shorter than that. It 
is the intermediate timescale, the 5 to 15 year timeframe that is 
critical to develop a research idea into a product concept.
  We have a responsibility to make sure that our private sector does 
not fall behind in the global economy. Diminishing our technological 
preparedness is tantamount to unilateral disarmament, in an 
increasingly competitive global marketplace. Government/industry 
partnerships stimulate just the kind of innovative research that can 
keep our technological industry at the leading edge. These partnerships 
help fill the gap between short term product development, and basic 
research.

  American companies no longer survive by thinking only about the 
national marketplace. They must think globally. Familiar competitors 
like Japan and Germany, continue to compete aggressively in global 
markets. New challenges are coming from India, China, Malaysia, 
Thailand, some of the leading Latin American nations and more. We 
cannot afford to let jobs and profits gradually move overseas to these 
challengers, by resting on our laurels, complacent in our successes. 
Other countries, seeing the success of the ATP, are starting to imitate 
it, just as we are considering doing away with it. Our competitors must 
be chuckling at their good fortune, and our short-sightedness. We 
simply cannot afford to eliminate ATP, as the bill proposes.


                                  MEP

  The state of manufacturing in this country is mixed. On the one hand 
our manufacturing productivity is increasing, but on the other hand we 
are losing manufacturing jobs by the millions. Manufacturing which once 
was the life blood of our economy is bleeding jobs overseas. We need to 
provide the infrastructure that insures that our manufacturing industry 
flourishes.
  As I look at our manufacturing competitors, I am struck by how little 
we do to support this critical component of our economy. In the United 
States we are sued to being the leaders in technologies of all kinds. 
Historically, English words have crept into foreign languages, because 
we were the inventors of new scientific concepts, technology, and 
products. Now when you describe the state-of-the-art manufacturing 
practices you use words like kanban and pokaoke. These are Japanese 
words that are known to production workers all over the United States. 
Kanban is a word which describes an efficient method of inventory 
management, and pokaoke is a method of making part of a production 
process immune from error or mistake proof thereby increasing the 
quality of the end product. We have learned these techniques from the 
Japanese, in order to compete with them.
  In a global economy, there is no choice, a company must become state-
of-the-art or it will go under. We must recognize that our policies 
must change with the marketplace and adapt our manufacturing strategy 
to complete in this new global marketplace. The Manufacturing Extension 
Program [MEP] is a big step forward in reforming the role of Government 
in manufacturing. This forward looking program was begun under 
President Reagan, and has received growing support from Congress since 
1989.
  The focus of the MEP program is one that historically has been 
accepted as a proper role of government: education. The MEP strives to 
educate small and mid-sized manufacturers in the best practices that 
are available for their manufacturing processes. With the MEP we have 
the opportunity to play a constructive role in keeping our companies 
competitive in a fiercely competitive, rapidly changing field. When 
manufacturing practices change so rapidly, it is the small and mid-
sized companies that suffer. They cannot afford to invest the necessary 
time and capital to explore all new trends to determine which practices 
to adopt and then to train their workers, invest in new equipment, and 
restructure their factories to accommodate the changes. The MEP's act 
as a library of manufacturing practices, staying current on the latest 
innovations, and educating companies on how to get the best results. At 
the heart of the MEP is a team of teachers, engineers, and experts with 
strong private sector experience ready to reach small firms and their 
workers about the latest manufacturing advances.

  Another benefit of the MEP is that is brings its clients into contact 
with other manufacturers, universities, national labs and any other 
institutions where they might find solutions to the problems. 
Facilitating these contacts incorporates small manufacturers into a 
manufacturing network, and this networking among manufacturers is a 
powerful competitive advantage. With close connections, suppliers begin 
working with customers at early stages of design and engineering. When 
suppliers and customers work together on product design suppliers can 
provide the input that makes manufacturing more efficient, customers 
can communicate their specifications and timetables more effectively, 
and long-term productive relationships are forged. These supplier/
customer networks are common practice in other countries, and lead to 
more efficient and therefore more competitive, design and production 
practices.
  The MEP is our important tool in keeping our small manufacturers 
competitive. We are staying competitive in markets that have become 
hotbeds of global competition, and we are beginning to capture some new 
markets. More importantly, companies that have made use of MEP are 
generating new jobs rather than laying off workers or moving jobs 
overseas. These companies are growing and contributing to real growth 
in the U.S. economy. For each Federal dollar invested in a small or 
mid-size manufacturer through the MEP, there has been $8 of economic 
growth. This is a program that is paying for itself by growing our 
economy.
  Each MEP is funded after a competitive selection process, and 
currently there are 44 manufacturing technology centers in 32 States. 
One requirement 

[[Page S 16902]]
for the centers is that the States supply matching funds, ensuring that 
centers are going where there is a locally supported need. In summary, 
the MEP provides the arsenal of equipment, training, and expertise that 
our small and mid-sized manufacturers need to keep them in the new 
global economic battlefield.
  The ATP and the MEP are critical technology investments. They are 
both run under the auspices of the National Institutes of Standards and 
Technology, NIST. This legislation would completely cut these programs. 
In addition to these NIST programs, NIST itself is at risk. NIST would 
be renamed to its previous title, National Bureau of Standards and 
merge with NOAA. The research programs at NIST would be drastically 
cut. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention, a recent letter 
sent by 25 American nobel prize winners in physics and the presidents 
of 18 scientific societies. As the New York Times put it ``Budget 
cutters see fat where scientists see a national treasure''. These 
scientists are shocked and appalled that we could think of making major 
cuts in NIST and its programs. According to the scientists ``It is 
unthinkable that a modern nation could expect to remain competitive 
without these services'' and they continue ``We recognize that your 
effort to balance the budget is forcing tough choices regarding the 
Department of Commerce, however the laboratories operated by NIST and 
funded by the Department of Commerce are a vital scientific resource 
for the Nation and should be preserved in the process of downsizing the 
Federal Government.'' These scientists are the leaders of the 
scientific community and we should not ignore their advice.
  The rush to obliterate the Department of Commerce is senseless. In an 
attempt to streamline government function, the House proposal takes one 
agency and creates three: OUSTR [Office of US Trade Representative], 
the Patent and Trademark Office, which becomes a separate government-
owned corporation, and NSOAA [National Science, Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration]. This dismantlement effort in the end is box shuffling. 
It will scatter a consolidated agency among a long series of other 
agencies and cost money to enact, not save money. Creating such chaos 
only to achieve fragmented programs is irresponsible. Investments in 
the trade and technology functions in Department of Commerce are 
investments in our future economic health, in high wage jobs for our 
workers, in the American dream. To dissolve or reorganize it should not 
be taken lightly.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this debt ceiling legislation also includes 
an entirely new regulatory reform overhaul, language which we have not 
seen before it was sent over from the House today. The effort to force 
a comprehensive and complex proposal through on a debt ceiling bill is 
irresponsible.
  We have been working on regulatory language for months in the Senate. 
As much as I am a strong proponent of regulatory reform, I cannot 
understand how we can be asked to legislate language dropped upon us 
under the time pressure of a bill which is necessary to protect the 
full faith and credit of the United States. Such an effort is 
unprecedented and unwarranted. Its inclusion in the debt limit 
legislation threatens this necessary bill and does not advance the 
cause of regulatory reform.
  No responsible Member of Congress should be playing Russian roulette 
with the full faith and credit of the United States, but that's exactly 
what's going on here today.
  By sending us a bill loaded with proposals that the House knows the 
President will find unacceptable, it is asking the Senate to join it in 
forcing the President to play the game of Russian roulette. The House 
has handed the Senate a loaded gun and dared us to send it on to the 
President.
  It is Russian roulette with five bullets in the six chambers.
  We should not do it. We should unload the bullets and send a clean 
bill to the President that does nothing more than provide the debt 
limit increase needed to meet this country's financial obligations.
  The bill sent to us by the House makes default more likely. It risks 
not only our credit around the world, but also people here at home. 
This is a game that could blow up in our faces, with tighter credit, 
higher rates for business, higher mortgage and car loan rates for 
consumers. No responsible legislator should play this game with the 
American economy.
  Besides playing with the full faith and credit of the United States, 
the bill includes legislative bullets that are unrelated to debt 
management. The debt ceiling legislation is merely used as a means to 
wall these provisions off from thoughtful debate and amendment. These 
measures are unprecedented and extreme proposals to change the way we 
issue Federal regulations, promote business through the Commerce 
Department, and limit access to the courts.
  Mr. President, I support the motion to strike from the debt ceiling 
bill the provisions that would dismantle the Department of Commerce.
  Dismantling cost-effective programs that support U.S. trade and 
industry defies common sense. It is foolhardy. It is bad for the 
country and bad for my home State of Michigan.
  The Department of Commerce is the Federal agency that is in the 
trenches, on a day-to-day basis, fighting for American business and 
American jobs in the global trade wars.
  These trade wars are ones we can't afford to lose. Trade means 
growth, profits and jobs. U.S. exports, 90 percent of which are 
manufactured goods, provide many of the high-wage jobs American 
families need to survive.
  The Commerce Department advances U.S. trade by helping U.S. firms 
meet export requirements, find new market lower manufacturing costs and 
develop new technologies. Its programs provide practical, cost 
effective and proven ways to increase U.S. trade. Slashing these 
programs strikes at the heart of American competitiveness.
  The bill's proponents claim that ending this agency would shrink 
government and save money. In reality, this bill would replace one 
agency with two, cut trade programs by 25 percent eliminate successful 
industry programs, and dictate a raft of bureaucratic box-shuffling 
that would cost money rather than save it.
  The Commerce Department is a Federal agency whose mission isn't to 
regulate business, but to assist American firms build exports, profits 
and American jobs. This bill threatens each and every one of the 
Department's trade and industry programs.
  When legislation to dismantle the Department of Commerce was first 
referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I sit, 
I went to businesses across my State of Michigan to ask how they felt 
about it. The business community let me know in no uncertain terms how 
foolhardy they think dismantlement is.
  Michigan is the third largest exporting State behind California and 
Texas. Last year, $35 billion in exports supported 100's of 1000's of 
Michigan jobs. Ninety-eight percent of Michigan's exports were 
manufactured goods. Literally thousands of Michigan companies use 
Department of Commerce trade and industry programs to increase their 
exports, improve their operations and grow their businesses.
  These trade and industry programs don't proved handouts, but cost-
effective support for some of the hardest working companies in our 
State--companies providing the high-wage jobs Michigan families need.
  The chorus of praise for these programs from the Michigan business 
community include terms not often applied to government programs. Here 
are a few samples taken from letters.
  ``I cannot begin to comprehend the thought processes behind the 
abolishment of the one governmental agency that is so in tune and 
involved with the United States taking its rightful place in the * * * 
global economy,'' wrote Second Chance Body Armor of Central Lake, MI.
  ``[O]pponents to the Department of Commerce must have their heads in 
the sand * * *'' wrote Electro-Wire Products of Dearborn, MI.
  ``(Abolition) would not save any tax dollars and would result in less 
effective enforcement of U.S. unfair trade laws,'' wrote Medusa Cement 
of Charlevoix, MI.
  ``[Dismantling programs to develop U.S. and international industry 
standards] is misguided and completely detrimental to the future of the 
entire manufacturing sector,'' wrote Redco Corporation of Troy, MI. 

[[Page S 16903]]

  Letters supporting Department of Commerce programs have flowed in 
from a wide variety of businesses and organizations, including 
the World Trade Club of the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce; Ann 
Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce; The Right Place Program in Grand 
Rapids; Michigan Quality Council in Rochester; Perceptron in Farmington 
Hills; Whirlpool Corp. in St. Joseph; Masco in Taylor; and more.

  That's just a few from Michigan. The Department of Commerce has 
thousands of letters from businesses across the country opposing 
dismantlement of its trade and industry programs.
  Right now, the United States is dead last among its major trading 
partners in spending to build exports. Germany, for example, spends 
twice as much as we do. Japan currently invests 35 percent more than 
the United States on a per capita basis in civilian technology and 
plans to double the country's R&D spending by 2000. But this bill would 
slash U.S. spending on exports, manufacturing, and technology 
development by significant amounts.
  The bill would slash 25 percent from all trade programs, for example, 
endangering enforcement of unfair trade laws, export assistance for 
small business, and trade negotiations. Export assistance offices in 
four Michigan cities that help thousands of Michigan companies break 
into foreign markets and build exports, might be lost.
  The bill would eliminate altogether the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program that helps small- and mid-sized manufacturers get 
lean and mean enough to compete globally. It would close centers like 
the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center which helps 1,000 small- 
and mid-sized Michigan manufacturers each year. Earlier this year, when 
asked to eliminate funding for this program, the House and Senate 
refused on a bipartisan basis to do so.
  The bill would eliminate the Advanced Technology Program which 
encourages research into state-of-the-art, cross-cutting technologies 
critical to future exports. Since 1990, this program has pumped over 
$73 million into Michigan firms, promising competitiveness gains, new 
markets, and new high-wage jobs. Under this bill, that investment in 
our future would be seriously diminished.
  The bill would also play havoc with the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, a little known but key agency in the fight to 
lower trade barriers to U.S. goods by negotiating international 
industry standards and winning acceptance of U.S. standards. The bill 
would transfer it to a new agency, give it new responsibilities and 
then cut its budget by 25 percent. The end result would be nothing less 
than a serious blow to the technical infrastructure supporting U.S. 
industry, research, trade, and competitiveness.
  We've spent weeks here on the Senate floor talking about the need for 
cost-effective Federal programs. Well, here's an agency that has them, 
and we're being asked to cut them by a fourth or eliminate them 
altogether.
  The export assistance offices targeted for 25-percent cuts, for 
example, cost $27 million annually. Studies show that for every dollar 
spent, new exports generate $10 in new tax revenue. In 1994, this $27 
million investment generated $25 billion in new U.S. exports and $2.5 
billion in new tax revenues. Not to mention the jobs and income 
generated for U.S. workers.
  The Manufacturing Extension Partnership targeted for elimination cost 
$71 million in fiscal year 1994. A study of just 500 manufacturing 
companies that used the program to modernize their operations found 
that these companies had experienced $167 million in new sales, 
investments, and cost savings and generated 3,400 new jobs. Taxpayers 
are getting an 8 to 1 return on every dollar spent on this program.
  The Advanced Technology Program, also targeted for extinction, has 
been in operation for only a few years, but initial data shows the 
program is accelerating technology development, encouraging productive 
partnerships between American firms, and producing new jobs at 90 
percent of the small firms surveyed. Why eliminate this effective spur 
to American competitiveness?
  The Commerce Department trade and industry programs represent a small 
percentage of the Department's entire budget, yet produce enviable 
results and the praise of business and community members alike. These 
are exactly the low-cost, high customer satisfaction programs that we 
want from government. So why are these the programs on the chopping 
block?
  Dismantling these programs is not the only problem with the bill 
provisions in this area. There are many more, including abolishing the 
Economic Development Administration, eliminating a whole host of marine 
and Great Lakes research programs, fundamentally changing the Patent 
and Trademark Office, eliminating important telecommunications and 
broadcasting programs, alerting a key NAFTA implementation office; the 
list goes on.
  The bill impacts a very large number of programs and agencies. It 
proposes, in effect, a fundamental restructuring of our trade agencies, 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, key statistics 
agencies, and others. I don't disagree with all of the changes being 
proposed. The problem is that these changes would be made without the 
benefit of an overall government reorganization plan, a plan that is a 
key part of the Senate bill that passed the Governmental Affairs 
Committee on this topic. Making the fundamental changes called for in 
this bill before an overall reorganization plan has been devised is 
putting the cart before the horse. It's a mistake.
  The final point I would like to make is to repeat what I have said 
elsewhere. The proposal to dismantle the Commerce Department has no 
business on the debt ceiling bill. It has nothing to do with ensuring 
that the United States is able to meet its financial obligations, and 
it is being presented in a context that shortcircuits both debate and 
amendment.
  For reasons of both policy and process, I urge my colleagues to 
reject this bill's unthinking and short-sighted demolition of trade and 
industry programs important to American business, American workers, and 
American jobs.
  Mr. President, the habeas corpus provisions added to this bill in the 
House of Representatives have no place in a continuing resolution 
either.
  Under current law, an unconstitutional State court decision may be 
overturned in Federal court. For a violation of the Federal 
Constitution, there is a Federal court remedy. Under the bill before 
us, that would no longer be true.
  Under this bill, the Federal courts would be powerless to prevent 
unconstitutional State court actions unless the Supreme Court has 
already ruled on the specific type of violation at issue--even if every 
single Federal Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled that such 
actions violate the plain words of the Constitution.
  Under this bill, the Federal courts would be powerless to grant a 
constitutional claim that was wrongly denied by a State court, as long 
as the State court acted in a ``reasonable'' manner. This standard 
establishes a whole new concept--the ``reasonable'' violation of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  Under this bill, the Federal courts would be powerless even to help 
those who were found guilty because the prosecution withheld evidence 
proving their innocence. In its simplest terms, this bill would render 
Federal courts powerless to defend the U.S. Constitution and to protect 
the innocent from imprisonment or even execution.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes fifty-two seconds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 2 minutes 50 seconds to my distinguished 
colleague from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my good friend, the Senator from South 
Carolina, who has fought for these issues for a long time.
  I am very glad that the Senator from Michigan does not want to 
eliminate the Department of Commerce because, as the Senator from South 
Carolina says, it seems to me that is the closest thing to unilateral 
disarmament as this country could accomplish. There is an enormous 
battle going on right now, and we are not winning. Just exactly at the 
time that the United States is reducing our defense civilian research 
and development, the Japanese--whose 

[[Page S 16904]]
economy is not in particularly good shape--are doubling their 
nondefense research and development. Either we are going to be training 
the next generation of engineers who will manufacture products which 
will in fact be the kind of products that give high wages--in fact, if 
you look at 1992 and the high-technology products, those wages in the 
manufacture of those products were $41,000, and other wages that did 
not relate to that were closer to the upper 20's. So are we going to be 
producing the next generation of engineers, or is it going to be the 
Japanese?
  One of the arbiters of that--not the entire arbiter of that, but 
one--is the work done by the Department of Commerce. The concept of 
eliminating the Department of Commerce is just so fundamentally 
shocking to me, because it works every day with small businesses and 
large businesses in very creative ways.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment to clean off what I call the 
graffiti that has been scrawled onto the debt ceiling measure before 
us. In the other body, something called Department of Commerce 
Dismantling legislation was tossed onto this debt limit bill. This is 
an embarrassing way to deal with something as profoundly important as 
the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The 
amendment to erase the Commerce Department Dismantling part from this 
bill should be adopted; and I truly hope it will be delivered with the 
kind of strong, bipartisan signal that I am convinced exists among us.
  Everyone in the Senate knows that Americans want us to insist on a 
more effective, better-managed, better-organized federal government. I 
would not even try tonight to recite how I believe both the 
Administration and many of us here in the Senate have pursued that goal 
in the past several years.
  But Americans are not asking us to insult them. If you look at what 
the Commerce Department Dismantling bill would actually end up costing 
us--and how much it would end up hurting us--this idea is one to stop, 
and stop now.
  Actually, the elimination of the Department of Commerce is a terrific 
way to strengthen our foreign competitors and weaken the United States 
economically. The supporters of such a move may not intend to do that--
but the effect would be the same. The Department of Commerce is the 
agency that day-in and day-out is working with America's businesses--
from the smallest in size to our major corporations--to research the 
latest technologies, export our products to every conceivable market, 
enforce our laws against unfair and destructive trade practices that 
hurt American workers and businesses, and perform a series of other 
missions that we cannot afford to abandon for a single minute.
  Look at what happened in the other body when they took the Department 
of Commerce into their operating room. They did not simply wipe out an 
agency. They were forced to take division after division and actually 
create new agencies with new addresses and new bureaucracies to make 
sure the work still gets done. The legislation in this debt limit bill 
would waste taxpayers' money and many years' effort on taking apart 
many parts of the Commerce Department only to transplant them someplace 
else.
  The dismantling legislation does try to eliminate completely a few 
aspects of the Commerce Department's work. Among the major targets are 
the programs that invest in technology and represent a significant part 
of this country's commitment to research and development.
  Mr. President, this is exactly the wrong time to back away from R&D, 
especially in the emerging technologies that determine whether this is 
the country that will make the new type of computer chip or whether it 
will be Japan * * * whether ours will be the country to stay ahead in 
telecommunications or whether we just hand our competitive edge and 
markets over to Europe. Will we continue to manufacture the products 
that pay our people higher wages and support a middle-class, or will we 
trade places with other countries scrambling to claim our place in an 
increasingly competitive world--and watch wages in America go down and 
down?
  A report just released by the President's Council of Economic 
Advisors rang some clear warning bells about this country's economic 
future. They are warnings, they are not a death notice--yet. The 
Council looks at the budget cuts being proposed this year in Federal 
non-defense research, amounting to a 30-percent cut by the year 2002, 
and flashes a glaring red light to alert us of the danger we face. As 
we speak, Japan is planning to double its government support of non-
defense R&D. We simply cannot retreat from investing in science, in 
technology, in innovation, and expect to produce the prosperity and 
standard of living that supports the American way and the American 
dream. It is just not possible.
  This country has such a proud, long history of innovation and 
optimism about the future through our commitment to education, to 
research, and to knowledge. When we think of ourselves as a nation, we 
think of ourselves as intellectual pioneers and entrepreneurs. We think 
of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, the space 
program, and, now, the new pioneers like Bill Gates. American support 
of technology and research has led to the success of the airplane, the 
jet engine, computers, and even the Internet.
  This is what the Department of Commerce is about--it operates a 
series of programs that do everything from working as a partner with 
industry to developing new path-breaking technologies, to running a 
series of manufacturing extension centers that exist to help small- and 
medium-sized businesses in every single State learn how to take 
advantage of technology. These are the programs that generate jobs, 
exports, and opportunity in West Virginia and in every other State of 
the Union.
  The Commerce Department is the missionary agency for exporters, 
small, medium, and large. Anyone who has worked with the U.S. & Foreign 
Commercial Service knows how hard they fight for the best interests of 
American firms abroad. They have done yeoman's work on trade missions I 
have led for West Virginia companies in Japan and Taiwan. It is my 
strong belief that we were so effective in those missions, in large 
part, because FCS officers put business first. The dismantling 
legislation would eliminate their presence in this country and merge 
the foreign offices with the United States Trade Representative's 
office. USTR does not want or need to be burdened with having to 
negotiate on the one hand and promote and enforce on the other.
  This dismantling is not about better government. It is not about 
improving our trade promotion. It is not about making the enforcement 
of our trade laws work more efficiently. And it is certainly not about 
making it easier for our trade negotiators to do their jobs.
  If this were about better government, we would not be burdening the 
U.S. Trade Representative with a big and unfamiliar bureaucracy. If 
this were about better government we would not be creating a bunch of 
new agencies. If this were about better government, we would not be 
asking our trade agency to balance trade negotiation, trade law 
enforcement, and trade promotion. If this were about better government, 
we would not be relegating our Nation's trade agenda to a lower level, 
taking it out of the Cabinet, and moving the business of American 
business off the Nation's agenda.
  Again, abolishing the Department of Commerce is an excellent way to 
strengthen our foreign competitors and weaken the United States 
economically. I find it hard even to conceive how the proponents 
concocted such a notion.
  At a time when our country has to compete with more than 120 other 
nations for markets and jobs, where is the logic in eliminating the 
single agency dedicated, day-in and day-out, to outdoing our 
competitors in exports and trade?
  At a time when technology is the proven key to America's economic 
growth, to success in selling products in foreign markets, and to 
defining our national belief in progress and innovation, where is the 
sense in killing off our already-modest support for American 
technology? The Department of Commerce provides a set of useful and 
necessary tools to help small and medium-sized businesses get a better 
handle on technology and to invest in longer-term R&D aimed at making 

[[Page S 16905]]
major technological advances and ensuring that the U.S.--not our 
competitors--will have the high-wage jobs and high-tech industries.
  When we are fortunate to have one agency focused on American business 
and industry, with a voice in the Cabinet, a direct link to the 
President, and proven clout in the world, how does one come up with the 
idea of getting rid of it?
  If I believed in conspiracies, I would find myself thinking that this 
back door effort, this attempt to attach a lame piece of legislation to 
the debt ceiling--a piece of legislation that could not get through the 
Congress on its own--was some kind of foreign plot to steal American 
jobs, break our trade laws, and force a technological and economic 
surrender. That is what this bill is--surrender on the field of 
economic and technological competition--and that is why proponents know 
that if they tried to ride this broken down horse of legislation 
through on its own, the Senate in its good sense would put it out of 
its misery.
  I say to my colleagues, resist the temptation to flash in front of 
the American people an easy symbol of your commitment to deficit 
reduction and shrinking government. Resist making a vague ideological 
point at the expense of your Nation's best interests. Think of what you 
would feel about abolishing the Department of Defense at the height of 
the cold war. This legislation before you is the same lunacy--
suggesting economic disarmament at the very time when the United States 
should be beefing up our arsenal of trade enforcement, export 
promotion, technology investment, and local economic development.
  So I am glad that the Senator from Michigan is going to wait until 
another day to try to do this. I will be here at that time to try to 
defeat that effort. But I am glad it is not taking place this evening.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield a minute to my distinguished chairman, Senator 
Moynihan.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, almost as an aside but a serious one, 
I note that a part of the provision that we are about to strike would 
combine the Bureau of the Census with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
And as the Senator from South Carolina knows, in article I, section 2 
of the Constitution, we provide for a decennial census and that has 
been our great strength and source of data for this country. But there 
has come a time when consolidating makes sense. The Canadians have done 
this, with Statistics Canada, at considerable success, something I 
think in time we ought to do. I simply make that observation.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield myself such time as I need.
  I appreciate some of the points that have been made. We have had 
these discussions in the context of committee debates and so on on this 
issue, but I think it is important to make two points.
  First, my position with respect to the Department of Commerce has not 
changed. As the prime sponsor of this legislation, I remain committed 
to it. Tonight is just not the night I think this debate should occur.
  There are a lot of arguments made which suggest that somehow the 
Department of Commerce makes the engine of this country's free 
enterprise system function. I have talked to business people in my 
State and business people across the country. They do not share that 
opinion. In fact, a recent poll that was conducted by the Chamber of 
Commerce of Detroit, MI, which is a very bipartisan organization, 
indicated 47 percent of those polled supported eliminating the 
Department of Commerce, only 6 percent were opposed, and the rest just 
did not have an opinion.
  The fact is that the Department of Commerce as currently comprised is 
not a Department that deals exclusively with, or for that matter in 
large measure with, commerce and creating jobs and opportunities. In 
fact, the largest operation within the Department is NOAA, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is, indeed, the largest 
subunit of the Department of Commerce, and while it has some connection 
with activities relating to commerce, not much of it does. In addition, 
a large part of the Department of Commerce is what I guess we would 
term duplicative of other aspects of the Federal Government.
  In fact, a GAO study recently indicated that the Department of 
Commerce shares its mission with at least 71 Federal Departments, 
Agencies, and offices. Indeed, that overlap is what we should be trying 
to eliminate in Washington, and the purpose of the bill which I have 
introduced is designed to eliminate that duplication, to save the 
taxpayers' money while retaining those parts of the Department of 
Commerce that make the most sense.
  Indeed, as former Secretary of Commerce Bob Mosbacher has indicated, 
``The Department is nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in 
everything that you don't know what to do with.''
  Indeed, that is what the Department of Commerce has become. It was 
not intended to be that type of a department, but that is what we find. 
We find trade functions in the same place as the weather bureau. And 
while many Americans, I think with justification, complain about what 
is going on here in Washington, as I tell people what the various 
functions of the Department of Commerce are, they scratch their heads 
in total puzzlement: Why would you be putting all these different, 
diverse, unconnected, and unrelated activities under one roof? The 
answer is that the Department has survived simply as the catchall of 
things that do not seem to fit in other places.

  The legislation which I will be bringing back to the floor finds the 
right place for the different functions of Commerce that ought to be 
retained and eliminates those that do not.
  Let me just speak about one special area because I know it is one of 
concern to people on both sides of the aisle, and that is the trade 
responsibilities of the Department of Commerce or more broadly the 
trade activities of the Federal Government.
  Much has been made of the role that Commerce plays with regard to 
trade. Indeed, it does play a role. But interestingly enough, only 8 
percent of the total Federal spending on trade promotion in this 
country is actually directed by the Department of Commerce. The other 
92 percent falls under other Agencies of Government and other 
Departments. So, in fact, as with many other things in the Commerce 
Department, Commerce is not in charge of trade. It just plays one of a 
number of governmental roles with respect to trade.
  Our legislation is designed to try to bring these trade functions 
together under one roof where there can be coherence and strategy, 
people pulling together to try to help our country be more effective. 
Indeed, I would say to those who would say we have to have the 
Department of Commerce because of the great trade deficit, if that is 
the case, why are we running these huge deficits?
  One of the goals I have is to bring these trade functions together 
more coherently so that we can try to address trade issues not just in 
the competition sense, not just in the ways the U.S. Trade 
Representative's office does, but also in the strategic sense as I 
think can better be done where the trade functions are comprised in one 
area of Government rather than across many, many different areas.
  Finally, the people in my State think all the bureaucracies in 
Washington are too large, but they especially find it puzzling as to 
why we have to have the Commerce Department with 37,000 employees 
making an average salary of, I think it is about $42,000 a year. That 
is more than the average salary of the families in Michigan; 37,000 
people represents more people than live in cities such as Traverse 
City, MI; Port Huron, MI, Jackson--almost all the cities of Michigan. 
It is a huge bureaucracy that is a very well-paid bureaucracy, and 
while many of the people there are doing good jobs, some of these 
functions are no longer needed and many would run more efficiently and 
effectively and help produce in fact more positive results if they were 
better assigned than is currently the case. 

[[Page S 16906]]

  Later we will get to these issues in more detail, and I look forward 
to that debate at a future point.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to 
dismantling of the Commerce Department as part of the debt limit.
  First of all, as a matter of process, the debt limit should be kept 
clean, and strictly limited to its purpose--to provide the Federal 
Government legal authority for a specified period so that it can meet 
its debt obligations. We should not be considering Commerce 
dismantlement as part of the debt limit. Nor should it be part of some 
``catch-all'' bill like the continuing resolution or reconciliation 
bill.
  In taking this action, I believe that the republican majority is 
engaging in a high-stakes poker game where the fate of our economy and 
the Federal Government's ability to pay its debts is being wagered in 
an effort to win the prize of shutting down the Commerce Department. 
This is precisely the type of political brinkmanship that leaves the 
American people with such a sour taste about Congress and about 
government. It is completely and utterly irresponsible to use the 
threat of a Federal default to force the shuttering of a Cabinet 
Department. This proposal represents a total perversion of the 
legislative process.
  I also object to it on substantive grounds as well.
  We live in a economically inter-dependent world--a world in which 
trade and technology--the two primary missions of the Commerce 
Department--are playing an increasingly important role. I am a strong 
supporter of the current Commerce Department for those reasons. We need 
a strong advocate for U.S. business at the Cabinet table, and I believe 
that Secretary Brown has been very effective in playing that role. 
During the 2 days of hearings before the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs, he was praised by both Republicans and Democrats alike for his 
performance. The Majority even notes in the Committee report that 
Secretary Brown ``has received high marks for his active promotion of 
American exports.'' Under his leadership, the Commerce Department has 
been transformed from a bureaucratic backwater into an export promotion 
dynamo. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported just over a month 
ago how he and the Department made an all-out effort to secure a $1.4 
billion contract in Brazil for a consortium of U.S. companies. If you 
ask the executives in those companies, they will tell you that they 
would have lost that contract to foreign competition if it had not been 
for the personal efforts of the Secretary.
  The Department spends about $250 million a year in trade promotion, 
which in 1994 yielded $20 billion in exports for U.S. companies. That 
amount supports about 300,000 U.S. jobs. The Department's International 
Trade Administration has done an outstanding job back in our home 
States--it has a network of 73 U.S. offices and 130 offices overseas--
and ITA estimates that for every taxpayer dollar it spends on export 
promotion, $10.40 is returned to the Federal treasury through tax 
revenues generated by exports. Also, the Department has very capably 
assisted the USTR in our Uruguay Round and NAFTA trade negotiations on 
issues ranging from auto parts, to textiles, to international copywrite 
law. Not surprisingly, these efforts, combined with a sound Clinton 
administration economic policy, have helped lead to a 17 percent 
increase in U.S. exports for the first 5 months of this year.
  We are entering the information age, spurred by rapid changes in 
information technology. It is an exciting time. The private sector is 
leading the way into the information economy. And that is as it should 
be. But are our colleagues aware that the Federal Government 
established the first computer information network? It was developed by 
the Department of Defense and was called the ARPAnet. The ARPAnet was 
the predecessor to today's Internet. In so many other areas of 
technological advancements that we readily take for granted, the 
Federal Government took the initial role of funding the R&D for 
technologies that later ended up powering our economy and improving our 
way of life. The Commerce Department is playing a key part in this 
development. NIST's Advanced Technology Program has been funding R&D in 
a cooperative partnership with the private sector to develop the 
technologies of tomorrow. The National Telecommunications Information 
Administration has been providing grants to develop the National 
Information Infrastructure, the so-called Information Superhighway. And 
the Technology Administration is coordinating interagency R&D on 
building the automobile of the 21st century. But this measure rejects 
the approach in investing in the technologies of the future by cutting 
and terminating a number of technology programs. These cuts and 
terminations reflect 19th century ``know nothing'' or Luddite thinking, 
not 21st century wisdom and foresight. They disregard the fact that our 
most competitive industries, from computers to agriculture to 
aerospace, were developed with Federal R&D assistance. And they fail to 
recognize that Japan, our foremost competitor, is planning to double 
its non-defense R&D spending by 2000 and will surpass the U.S. in total 
nondefense R&D spending by 1997. I can imagine that Tokyo's leaders are 
raising toasts of sake as they watch us on CSPAN today.

  This is not to say that the Commerce Department could not be 
reorganized so as to strengthen its mission and improve its 
effectiveness. I have sponsored legislation in the past to reorganize 
the trade and technology functions of the Federal Government, to bring 
them together under one roof in a Department of Industry and 
Technology. However, I did not propose destruction of the Department 
and the scattering of its component parts.
  I am an advocate of looking at the need to restructure and reorganize 
the entire Federal Government, and to do it carefully and in an 
integrated way, not just on a piecemeal basis. That is why I favor the 
establishment of a bi-partisan commission to design the government of 
the 21st Century. The basic structure of the Federal Government really 
has not changed much over the last 25 years. And I do not believe its 
current structure reflects the changes that our economy and society has 
undergone recently. So it needs to be examined and a bi-partisan, 
expert commission is really the best approach to take. Two years ago 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs supported the creation of such a 
commission to submit legislative recommendations on restructuring the 
Federal Government that Congress would have to consider on a ``fast-
track'' basis. I still support this approach, and I offered an 
amendment in markup to establish such a commission as a substitute to 
the Commerce dismantling bill. Unfortunately, that amendment lost on a 
party-line vote.
  If this legislation were about reorganizing the Commerce Department, 
or about implementing a rational downsizing plan for the Department, 
then I believe that we could work together with the majority to produce 
good legislation. But this legislation is not about reorganizing the 
Federal Government's trade and technology programs to better coordinate 
them and improve their efficiency. Nor is this legislation about a 
rational downsizing of the Department. That is underway now. 
The Department is reducing its 35,000 person workforce in line with the 
President's plan to reduce the overall Federal workforce by 272,000 
positions by 1999. Under the leadership of the National Performance 
Review, the Department is examining the privatization of the National 
Technical Information Service, parts of NOAA, as well as other 
programs. It is phasing out the Travel and Tourism Administration and 
modernizing Census collection.

  What this debate is about is the elimination of a Cabinet Department 
for purely symbolic and political reasons. It is about tacking a hide 
on the wall, putting a trophy on the mantle.
  Further, this proposal applies a blowtorch to $1 billion worth of 
Federal agencies and programs in the Department, melts them down and 
terminates them. Agencies that survive will be hobbled by a large cut.

[[Page S 16907]]

  Most of that cut will fall on NOAA, at $1.9 billion the largest 
remaining agency and the home of the National Weather Service. And we 
are considering these draconian cuts at a time when the Florida coast 
continues to be battered by hurricanes. That is just plain foolish. The 
House Bill also ends many of the Great Lakes programs important to the 
midwest. Further, both House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 
rejected such deep cuts in NOAA's budget. Those Committees also 
preserved the Economic Development Administration, recognizing its 
value to economically-distressed regions of the Nation, especially 
those that have been negatively impacted by base closing. Yet this 
measure terminates the EDA.
  This measure transfers some of the Federal Government's trade 
agencies into the U.S. Trade Administration, consolidations that I have 
supported in past legislation. But unfortunately these agencies are 
being transferred into an administration and not a Cabinet Department. 
When our companies are fighting for large government contracts overseas 
and are competing against a Team Japan, or a Team Germany, I think it 
makes a difference when the respective foreign government gets the call 
from a U.S. Cabinet Secretary, as opposed to a lower ranking 
administrator.
  In the Committee report on the Senate bill, the majority discusses 
how downsizing and streamlining has been taking place in the private 
sector. I believe that an examination of the restructuring undertaken 
by the private sector is relevant in this context. Independent studies 
of private sector restructuring efforts show that their success is a 
hit or miss proposition and depends on several factors. A 1993 survey 
of over 500 U.S. companies by the Wyatt Company revealed that only 60 
percent of the companies actually were able to reduce costs in their 
restructuring efforts. Both the Wyatt Survey and a similar one 
conducted by the American Management Association concluded that 
successful restructuring efforts must be planned carefully with a clear 
vision of their goals and objectives, and that proper attention be 
given to maintaining employee morale and productivity. Otherwise, the 
costs of reorganization may outweigh its benefits.
  I believe that government reorganization is a complicated task that 
cannot be successfully accomplished without serious study and 
deliberation, especially if it is going to achieve the dual goal of 
improving government efficiency and reducing costs. That means Commerce 
reorganization should follow, not precede the recommendations of a 
bipartisan commission. We should not be reorganizing the Commerce 
Department first and then forming a government commission to 
restructure the rest of government, as has been proposed. That does not 
make any sense. My hope is that the majority will abandon its narrow 
focus on the Commerce Department and focus instead on the more 
important issue of reorganizing and streamlining the Federal Government 
to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Until then, I will 
continue to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio, the former 
chairman of our Governmental Affairs. He lead the sober consideration 
of this particular issue in the committee, and we are all indebted to 
him.
  Specifically, the Department of Commerce gives the businessman 
Cabinet-level status and voice at the Cabinet table.
  What the Senator wants to do with this academic percentage argument 
and otherwise is say, yes, Labor should have a voice. No one has 
intimated we should do away with the Department of Labor. The farmer, 
he should have it. No one has intimated we should do away with the 
Department of Agriculture. But the businessman in the global 
competition should lose his voice and leadership.
  I do not know where the Senator got the 8 percent, but I can tell you 
90 percent of the job creation has come through Secretary Ronald Brown. 
He has traveled tirelessly the world around getting different deals for 
the manufacturing jobs here in the United States of America. I wish I 
just had more time to go down the list--the International Trade 
Administration, which was recommended and instituted by President 
Nixon; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is nothing 
more than the extension of the Environmental Science Services 
Administration.
  I believe the Chair is indicating that my time is up. But I have been 
handling the financing part for 25 years on the Appropriations 
Committee. We have cut back because the pressure has been brought in 
State, Justice, Commerce for a great endeavor in law enforcement, and 
as a consequence we have been cutting back on State's budget and 
particularly in the Department of Commerce.
  Do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let us voice vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, could I inquire how much time we have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 2 minutes, 25 
seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield as much time as he may need to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. First, Madam President, I congratulate my distinguished 
colleague from Michigan for the leadership he has demonstrated in 
helping develop this most important piece of legislation to dismantle 
the Commerce Department. This basic legislation is important, and I 
think it is also workable.
  During my tenure as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I 
held hearings to determine the best way to prepare the Federal 
Government for the 21st century, the best way to streamline and make it 
more efficient and effective. Our hearings came to two certain 
conclusions: First, that the Federal Government is obsolete in its 
present form, a 50-year old relic that is structurally incapable of 
meeting the needs of the 21st century. And it is so rife with 
duplication and fragmentation that, according to the GAO, some six 
agencies perform each major mission.

  Our second conclusion was that the Commerce Department is a microcosm 
of almost everything that is wrong with the Federal Government as a 
whole. There is no better place to begin eliminating wasteful 
bureaucracy and restructuring core missions to meet the needs of the 
21st century.
  This proposal contains restructuring actions with broad bipartisan 
support. The bill transfers the Census Bureau and the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, as a first step toward creating a single Government 
statistics agency. It unifies critical trade functions within a single 
Cabinet-level agency, the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative.
  For almost two decades now, I have personally advocated the 
elimination of Commerce and the creation of a trade agency. The 
Governmental Affairs Committee has passed similar bills to achieve this 
same purpose in previous sessions of Congress.
  This provision also creates a bipartisan ``Citizens Commission on the 
21st Century Government'' to move from Commerce to the bigger picture 
of what the government of the future should look like and how it should 
perform. The Commission is directed to reexamine missions and functions 
of the Federal Government in the 21st Century, and fundamentally 
restructure the bureaucracy to improve productivity and service 
delivery. The Commission will produce its first report by July 31, 
1996, for fast-track consideration before the end of the 104th 
Congress. This time frame is ambitious, but it must be kept to meet the 
public's mandate for change.
  The issues to be addressed by the Commission will require bold, 
bipartisan action. The Governmental Affairs Committee has reported 
restructuring commission bills in previous sessions of Congress. The 
last one, sponsored by Senators Glenn, Lieberman and myself, passed the 
Committee nearly unanimously in 1993.
  It preserve important funding authorities of the Economic Development 
Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency by 
transferring them to other agencies which perform very similar 
functions.

[[Page S 16908]]

  This will allow us to meet our budget targets while eliminating 
wasteful bureaucracy. It will also allow the best programs from EDA and 
MBDA the chance to compete for continued life within new agencies.
  What we have before us this evening is an excellent starting point 
for the comprehensive, government-wide restructuring the public 
demands. Today's government is characterized by huge, hierarchical 
bureaucracies. As we heard from GAO, during our hearings, there is 
wholesale duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in functions and 
spending.
  In a nutshell, the taxpayers are paying for one agency to set a 
policy or perform a function, another agency to contradict that agency, 
plus several other agencies who receive funding to perform some related 
role. As a result, an extensive patchwork of coordinating committees 
has been created to prevent the bureaucracy from grinding to a halt.
  The Commerce Department has been described as a loosely knitted 
``holding company'' of agencies pursuing unrelated missions. Its 
management systems and controls are on GAO's high risk list.
  It directly serves only a small number of favored American firms and 
industries. Many in the business community have serious doubts that it 
adds sufficient value to justify its continued existence. Almost all of 
the experts agree: Commerce should be restructured to eliminate 
wholesale duplication and fragmentation and bring coherence to the 
management of its important functions.
  Let me be clear about one thing, with this provision we are not on a 
warpath to arbitrarily terminate agencies. We are not out to collect 
scalps to mount in a trophy case.
  Nor are we engaged in a superficial shell game which merely redraws 
boxes on an organization chart. Our objective is to reduce costs and 
improve services throughout our government
  Commerce has no single mission or function as an exclusive province. 
The GAO found that it shares its four major functions with 70 other 
federal organizations. We must change this organization structure, if 
we are to give the taxpayers efficient and effective performance of the 
functions now being performed by Commerce.
  Sadly, the Commerce Department is typical of the waste and 
inefficiency that pervades our government. That is why it makes an 
ideal starting point in the government wide restructuring that is 
necessary to prepare America for the next century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3052.
  The amendment (No. 3052) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3053

(Purpose: To provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit)

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3053.
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

       During the period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and ending on the later of--
       (1) December 12, 1995, or
       (2) the 30th day after the date on which a budget 
     reconciliation bill is presented to the President for his 
     signature,

     the public debt limit set forth in subsection (b) of section 
     3101 of title 31, United States Code, shall be temporarily 
     increased to $4,967,000,000,000, or, if greater, the amount 
     reasonably necessary to meet all current spending 
     requirements of the United States (and to ensure full 
     investment of amounts credited to trust funds or similar 
     accounts as required by law) through such period.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I ask that the measure be read in its 
entirety to define and illustrate its brevity and its purpose, which is 
to send to the President a clean extension of the debt ceiling.
  There can be no question in my mind that we put in jeopardy the 
interests of the United States if we restrict the ability of the 
Treasury to redeem its debts. One of the greatest assets we have is 
that the U.S. Treasury bond is the firmest, most solid debt instrument 
in the world.
  I have a letter from Alan Greenspan, our distinguished, revered 
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
saying, ``Our word is among our most valuable assets.'' It is essential 
that we honor our obligations in order to make our securities the 
keystone of world financial affairs.
  I ask unanimous consent that Chairman Greenspan's letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       Federal Reserve System,

                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 1995.
     Hon. Alfonse D'Amato,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: You have asked me about the effects of a 
     default on U.S. Treasury obligations should the Treasury run 
     out of cash as a consequence of the debt ceiling not being 
     raised in a timely manner.
       As I stated before your Committee in September, I do not 
     think the issue of default should be on the table. Without 
     question, the federal government must take steps to assure 
     that its budget will be in balance by early the next century. 
     The vitality of our economy depends on accomplishing this 
     goal. If, for some unforeseen reason, the political process 
     fails and agreement is not reached, it would signal that the 
     United States is not capable of putting its house in order 
     and would have serious adverse consequences for financial 
     markets and economic growth.
       Nonetheless, there are many avenues to an agreement, and 
     the full faith and credit of the United States need not be 
     part of the process. The United States has always honored its 
     obligations. Our word is among our most valuable assets. It 
     is an essential element in making our securities the keystone 
     of world financial markets. A failure to make timely payment 
     of interest and principal on our obligations for the first 
     time would put a cloud over securities that would dissipate 
     for many years. Investors would be wondering when we would 
     next allow our credit worthiness to become embroiled in 
     controversy. Breaking our word would have serious long-term 
     consequences. There are much better ways to bring our budget 
     credibly into balance.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Alan Greenspan,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I also ask unanimous consent that an excerpt from a 
report by the Congressional Budget Office stating that the debt ceiling 
is an extraneous issue as regards Federal spending in a day when 
entitlement spending comprises two-thirds of our outlays, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update

                 (From the Congressional Budget Office)

       * * * At one time, the debt ceiling may have been an 
     effective control on the budget when most spending was 
     subject to annual appropriations. But discretionary spending 
     is now a much lower proportion of total spending, amounting 
     to only 36 percent in 1995. Under the recently adopted budget 
     resolution, discretionary outlays will continue to fall 
     further to 27.5 percent by 2002. The rise in mandatory 
     spending and growth of the trust fund surplus has turned the 
     statutory limit on federal debt into an anachronism. Through 
     its regular budget process, the Congress already has ample 
     opportunity to vote on overall revenues, outlays, and 
     deficits. Voting separately on the debt is ineffective as a 
     means of controlling deficits because the decisions that 
     necessitate borrowing are made elsewhere. By the time the 
     debt ceiling comes up for a vote, it is too late to balk at 
     paying the government's bills without incurring drastic 
     consequences.
       As a result, because raising the debt ceiling is considered 
     to be ``must pass'' legislation, the debt limit is frequently 
     used as a device to force action to obtain some other 
     legislative goal. For example, in 1990, the Congress voted 
     seven times on the debt limit between August 9 and November 5 
     as the budget summit meetings progressed and the Congress 
     considered the resulting budget resolution and reconciliation 
     bill.


        what are the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

       Financial markets find the debt limit a periodic source of 
     anxiety. The government has never defaulted on its principal 
     and interest payments, nor has it failed to honor its other 
     checks. However, even a temporary default--that is, a few 
     days' delay in the government's ability to meet its 
     obligations--

[[Page S 16909]]
     could have serious repercussions in the financial markets. Those 
     repercussions include a permanent increase in federal 
     borrowing costs relative to yields on other securities as 
     investors realize that Treasury instruments are not immune to 
     default.
       Failing to raise the debt ceiling would not bring the 
     government to a screeching halt the way that not passing 
     appropriation bills would. Employees would not be sent home, 
     and checks would continue to be issued. If the Treasury was 
     low on cash, however, there could be delays in honoring 
     checks and disruptions in the normal flow of government 
     services. Carried to its ultimate conclusion, defaulting on 
     payments would have much graver economic consequences--such 
     as loss of confidence in government and a higher risk premium 
     on Treasury borrowing--than failing to enact discretionary 
     appropriations by the start of a fiscal year.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Finally, Madam President, I call attention to one of 
the many extraordinary measures we are adding to this bill--the repeal 
of habeas corpus. The great writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, 
``produce the body before the court,'' is the foundation of our legal 
system of liberties.
  I have commented that if I had to live in a country which had habeas 
corpus but not free elections, or vice versa. I would take habeas 
corpus every time. It is article I, section 9, of the U.S. 
Constitution.
  The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, 
unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may 
require it.
  Nothing in our circumstances requires the suspension of habeas 
corpus, which is in effect what this provision would do. To require a 
Federal court to defer to a State court judgment unless the State 
court's decision is ``unreasonably wrong'' will effectively preclude 
Federal review in these matters. This it seems to me is appalling. It 
would transform our State courts--not the Federal courts established 
under article III of the Constitution--into the ultimate arbiters of 
constitutionality. Very few Senators share that view. We had a vote in 
this regard last summer. There were eight of us who voted against the 
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995, which contained an 
almost identical habeas corpus provision.
  In addition to the other extraneous matter that has been added to 
this legislation, we also have before us a provision to radically alter 
the ancient writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. One would have hoped 
it would be self-evident that the U.S. Congress should not pass a major 
revision to the Great Writ of Liberty in the form of an amendment to a 
bill to temporarily extend the Government's borrowing authority.
  Five months ago, I was one of eight Senators to vote against the 
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995. I voted against that 
bill because it contained the same habeas corpus provision that is 
attached to the legislation before us. For unrelated reasons, the 
terrorism bill was never enacted, and so we are again presented with 
this undesirable proposal.
  Fortunately, one does not need to be a lawyer to understand why this 
habeas corpus provision is such an awful idea. Article I, section 9 of 
the U.S. Constitution provides that:

       The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be 
     suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the 
     public Safety may require it.

  For well over a century--since the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867--we have 
honored the right of State prisoners to challenge in Federal District 
Court the constitutionality of their imprisonment. The habeas corpus 
amendment before us departs from that tradition by requiring our 
Federal courts to defer to State court judgments unless a State court's 
application of Federal law is unreasonable. Under this new standard of 
review, our Federal courts will be powerless to correct State court 
decisions--even if a State court decision is wrong. The new standard 
will require deference by the Federal courts unless a State court's 
decision is unreasonably wrong. This is a standard that will 
effectively preclude Federal review.
  Senators need not take my word for this, for I have it on the best 
available legal advice. Last summer, prior to the Senate's 
consideration of the terrorism legislation, I received a letter from 
the Emergency Committee to Save Habeas Corpus, a group of 100 of the 
Nation's most distinguished attorneys, scholars, and civic leaders. The 
co-chairs of the Emergency Committee are four former Attorneys General 
of the United States, two Republicans and two Democrats. They are 
Benjamin Civiletti, Edward H. Levi, Nicholas DeB. Katzenbach, and 
Elliott L. Richardson. They strongly oppose this proposal and have 
labeled it ``extreme.''
  This proposal will in many cases transform the State courts--not the 
Federal courts established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution--
into the arbiters of Federal constitutionality. It will eviscerate the 
writ of habeas corpus, and that is something this Senator in good 
conscience must again oppose. I need hardly add that the debt limit 
legislation is obviously the wrong vehicle for such a proposal.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
Emergency Committee to Save Habeas Corpus, and the list of its members, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Emergency Committee


                                        To Save Habeas Corpus,

                                     Washington, DC, June 1, 1995.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan:
       We understand that the Senate may act next week on the 
     habeas corpus provisions in Senator Dole's terrorism 
     legislation. Among these provisions is a requirement that 
     federal courts must defer to state courts incorrectly 
     applying federal constitutional law, unless it can be said 
     that the state ruling was ``unreasonably'' incorrect. This is 
     a variation of past proposals to strip the federal courts of 
     the power to enforce the Constitution when the state court's 
     interpretation of it, though clearly wrong, had been issued 
     after a ``full and fair'' hearing.
       The Emergency Committee was formed in 1991 to fight this 
     extreme proposal. Our membership consists of both supporters 
     and opponents of the death penalty, Republicans and 
     Democrats, united in the belief that the federal habeas 
     corpus process can be dramatically streamlined without 
     jeopardizing its constitutional core. At a time when 
     proposals to curtail civil liberties in the name of national 
     security are being widely viewed with suspicion, we believe 
     it is vital to ensure that habeas corpus--the means by which 
     all civil liberties are enforced--is not substantively 
     diminished.
       The habeas corpus reform bill President Clinton proposed in 
     1993, drafted in close cooperation with the nation's district 
     attorneys and state attorneys general, appropriately 
     recognizes this point. It would codify the long-standing 
     principle of independent federal review of constitutional 
     questions, and specifically reject the ``full and fair'' 
     deference standard.
       Independent federal review of state court judgments has 
     existed since the founding of the Republic, whether through 
     writ of error or writ of habeas corpus. It has a proud 
     history of guarding against injustices born of racial 
     prejudice and intolerance, of saving the innocent from 
     imprisonment or execution, and in the process, ensuring the 
     rights of all law-abiding citizens. Independent federal 
     review was endorsed by the committee chaired by Justice 
     Powell on which all subsequent reform proposals have been 
     based, and the Supreme Court itself specifically considered 
     but declined to require deference to the states, in Wright v. 
     West in 1992.
       We must emphasize that this issue of deference to state 
     rulings has absolutely no bearing on the swift processing of 
     terrorism offenses in the federal system. For federal 
     inmates, the pending habeas reform legislation proposes 
     dramatic procedural reforms but appropriately avoids any 
     curtailment of the federal courts' power to decide federal 
     constitutional issues. This same framework of reform will 
     produce equally dramatic results in state cases. Cutting back 
     the enforcement of constitutional liberties for people 
     unlawfully held in state custody is neither necessary to 
     habeas reform nor relevant to terrorism.
       We are confident that the worthwhile goal of streamlining 
     the review of criminal cases can be accomplished without 
     diminishing constitutional liberties. Please support the 
     continuation of independent federal review of federal 
     constitutional claims through habeas corpus.
           Sincerely,
     Benjamin Civiletti.
     Edward H. Levi.
     Nicholas DeB. Katzenbach.
     Elliot L. Richardson.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the tally 
on the vote to repeal habeas corpus indicating the eight Senators who 
voted ``no'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Democrats: Feingold, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Pell, Simon, 
     and Wellstone.
       Republicans: Hatfield and Packwood.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to 
our gallant and distinguished sometime 

[[Page S 16910]]
chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague from New York. I will 
be brief because I know the hour is late, but I cannot help but comment 
on one part of this debt limit bill that came over to us, and that is 
on regulatory reform.
  I am somewhat dismayed, Madam President, to report that the debt 
limit bill passed by the House contains an amendment by Representative 
Walker that, if enacted, could end up removing the protections for the 
American people on health and safety and the environment that have been 
painstakingly built up over decades. The amendment takes up 13 pages in 
the Congressional Record, new proposals, many of them, sprung on us, 
being introduced over there, just came out in the Record today, not 
time enough to really analyze these things, and purports to be a 
regulatory reform bill. It is not regulatory reform. It is regulatory 
dismantlement. It is regulatory elimination.
  The amendment does contain all the buzzwords associated with reg 
reform like cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, judicial review and 
the like. But this amendment is not meant to reform anything. It is, in 
fact, an extremist approach to regulation. And I do not use that word 
lightly. It is an extremist approach to regulation that would overturn 
existing environmental law and tie up in endless litigation the 
agencies whose missions are to ensure we have clean air, clean water, 
and safe food.
  Madam President, the documented deaths of innocent children and 
adults from E. coli poisoning that would have been prevented if there 
had been tough standards and regulation provides stark and deadly 
evidence of what the stakes are with respect to this issue.
  I am in favor of regulatory reform, fought for it, fought for it in 
committee, fought for it here on the floor, as all my colleagues will 
remember. And I worked hard in committee and on the floor to get a 
reasonable regulatory reform bill before the Senate. We passed a 
reasonable bill out of the Governmental Affairs Committee with more 
Republican support than Democrats because it was a unanimous vote of 
our 8-7 committee. And on the floor we almost passed it. It got 48 
votes.
  But this amendment, the Walker amendment, is not reform. The Walker 
amendment borrows from the original House bill that many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not stomach either. 
They did not like it either. It also borrows from the Dole-Johnston 
bill that we debated for weeks, which is a seriously flawed bill 
itself. The Walker amendment contains, for instance, a supermandate 
that the proponents of the Dole-Johnston bill said they were opposed 
to. That provision would override existing health, safety, and 
environmental laws by prohibiting the issuance of health-based 
standards that may not meet harsh cost tests.
  The Walker amendment would make it difficult to issue health-hazard 
assessments and would create new defenses for lawyers to use to prevent 
enforcement over Federal health and safety laws.
  The Walker amendment would repeal the difficult Delaney clause 
without providing any appropriate substitute.
  Finally, the Walker amendment contains judicial review provisions 
that are applicable to the detailed procedural steps of the amendment 
that amount to a lawyer's dream. The lawyers' full-employment bill is 
what this Walker bill should be called. And anyone concerned about tort 
reform would find the judicial review procedures in this amendment 
truly a nightmare.
  Madam President, when the Dole-Johnston bill was being debated both 
privately and on the floor, it was frequently claimed that if the 
Senate passed a moderate reg reform bill, the House would go along with 
it in conference. Well, the Walker amendment certainly gives lie to 
that idea. It gives us a measure of the validity of that claim. The 
House in this case took a not-so-moderate Senate bill which is 
seriously flawed in many respects and could not resist turning it into 
an extremist proposition. I use that word not ill-advisedly. It is an 
extremist proposition that is riddled with special interest provisions 
harmful to the American people.
  Madam President, I repeat, I want reg reform, but not at the expense 
of the health and the safety of the American people or of the 
environment. There is no justification for the Walker amendment, 
particularly on this particular debt limit bill that is so important. 
If it survives in the Senate, the President will just have to veto the 
debt limit bill on this ground alone, and we will fight that battle 
another day.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I believe we have used up our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 43 seconds.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. We will withhold and reserve that for purposes of 
rebuttal.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I have just had an opportunity to 
look at the amendment of the good Senator from New York. This is 
essentially to make moot the entire exercise. He makes moot the 
shifting of the date to December 12. The language reads, ``or * * * the 
30th day after the date on which a budget reconciliation bill is 
presented to the President for his signature * * * ''
  And then he makes moot the cap in the extension of the debt limit 
which reads, ``$4,967,000,000,000,'' but then it says--here is another 
one of these famous words--``or, if greater, the amount reasonably 
necessary to meet all current spending requirements of the United 
States.''
  You have, in effect, made moot the concept that we would extend it to 
the 12th, and then we would set a fixed amount and then it would snap 
back. This is totally unacceptable.
  It then proceeds to say bring in the Social Security trust fund, as 
if this making moot what we are trying to achieve here is necessary to 
protect the fund.
  The extension or the resolution that has come to us from the House 
specifically sets a date, specifically sets an amount and specifically 
says that you may not use the trust funds to deal with this issue--
protecting.
  This is just a totally unacceptable amendment, and I encourage all of 
our colleagues to oppose it. I think given the circumstances that we 
are faced with that the date should be specific and the amount should 
be specific and we should not be moving to this clever technique of 
adding ``or,'' ``except.''
  There has been a lot of discussion about the cooperation between the 
Senate and the House and the President over this issue. The President 
has alluded to the fact we have not cooperated. I just have to say the 
President has not been here long enough to cooperate. He is getting 
ready to leave the country right in the midst of this to go to Japan, 
and then he comes back and turns around and goes to Europe.
  This administration is going to have to come to the table and deal 
with the Congress on balancing the budget, on welfare reform, on the 
tax policy and on the Medicare questions. I just think he has failed to 
do so, and I do not believe the amendment of the Senator from New York 
helps to bring that real collaboration together.
  I yield back my time to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I yield such time as I may use.
  The temporary debt increase we propose this evening will allow the 
Treasury to make benefit and interest payments for another month. It 
will allow the Government to meet its obligations and that, I believe, 
is the right decision. For that reason, I must oppose the Moynihan 
amendment.
  I oppose the Moynihan amendment because, first, it would strike 
provisions that would protect the Social Security, Medicare and other 
trust funds. Not only would it strike those provisions, but it provides 
discretion, as my distinguished colleague from Georgia pointed out, it 
provides discretion to the administration to exceed even the temporary 
debt limit for amounts reasonably necessary to meet current spending 
requirements. 

[[Page S 16911]]

  To sum it up, there is really no dollar limitation under this 
temporary increase as provided under the Moynihan amendment, nor is it 
clear as to what period of time it would cover.
  Madam President, beyond this, I want to emphasize our legislation 
would protect the integrity of trust funds, like Social Security and 
Medicare, by requiring the Treasury to automatically invest FICA 
receipts.
  Further, it would only allow the disinvestment of these trust funds 
for benefits paid. In other words, the Treasury will not be allowed to 
use these protected funds to discharge other financial obligations of 
the Government. In the past, Treasury has allowed these trust funds to 
be underinvested. This will no longer happen, and our legislation will 
ensure that Social Security benefits are paid on time. This is 
important. The right decision is to keep the obligations Government has 
made. The right decision is to protect the integrity of these trust 
funds.
  The Secretary of the Treasury will not be allowed to sell or redeem 
securities, obligations or other assets of the trust funds and special 
accounts during this period. The only exception will be when it is 
necessary to pay benefits and administrative expenses of the cash 
benefit programs, and these programs not only include Social Security, 
but Federal Civil Service and military requirements, as well as 
unemployment insurance.
  Again, these are important contracts Government has made with the 
people. As an added measure of security for those who depend on these 
programs, this legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
report to Congress and the GAO 3 days before making a sale or 
redemption of securities from the trust funds or special accounts 
during this period of debt limitation, and it would also require the 
GAO to monitor compliance with these provisions and report its 
findings.
  Madam President, we must pass this legislation. We must increase the 
debt limit on a temporary basis. This is the only way to let the 
Federal Government continue its smooth operation. It is the only way we 
can follow through with our historic work of getting a balanced budget 
without disrupting financial markets.
  I point out, there are other provisions included in this legislation, 
but time does not permit me to speak about each of these at this time. 
However, because of the importance of these provisions, especially 
those that restrict the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to 
underinvest or to disinvest trust funds, I oppose the amendment of the 
Senator from New York.
  I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I inquire, after this time has expired, is there 
any time left on other amendments, or are we finished for the evening?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time will have expired but for the 1 
minute 40 seconds left for the Senator from New York.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wanted to talk about the comments of 
the Secretary of the Treasury today. They bear on what we are talking 
about here. The Secretary is doing his dead level best to make the 
markets respond adversely to what is going on in Washington, even 
though there is no reason for them to do that. I was glad to read in 
the papers this morning that many of the bond people--those who sell 
bonds, and the like, in New York City are up to him; they decided that 
is what he is trying to do--to scare the market into reacting 
adversely, so that, in turn, he will scare the Republicans so they will 
not react so tough on the President in terms of insisting that we get a 
balanced budget and some negotiations out of this President. That is 
what this is all about.
  So now they are going to veto this bill, and the principal reason 
must be that we are saying you cannot disinvest funds in the Social 
Security trust fund and in the civil service retirement fund and use 
that to pay our debt as it comes due. If it is not that, why else were 
they going to veto the bill that the Finance Committee reported out? 
The only thing on it of substance was that.
  So it seems to me that in saying, ``We are going to veto it because 
it ties our hands,'' they are acknowledging there is no problem with 
default. If we do not tie his hands, he has all those other moneys to 
use to pay the debt, so there will not be a default. So who is he 
kidding? He is not kidding us. We want them to get serious about 
negotiating for a balanced budget. That is what he ought to be doing. 
Instead of planning to close the Government, he ought to be planning 
with us how to keep it open.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, to conclude the discussion on this 
succinct and, I hope persuasive proposal, I plead with my fellow 
Senators to understand what my friend of so many years, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, has just said. The President will veto this 
measure. He has to do it for the reasons set forth by the Senator from 
Ohio about regulatory reform, the repeal of habeas corpus, a horrendous 
measure, and so on. He will veto it, and then we will have a crisis and 
put in jeopardy the credit worthiness of the United States. The great 
asset that Alexander Hamilton secured for us in the end of the 18th 
century will have been squandered for no purpose whatever.
  Can we not simply get on with our reconciliation bill, work out these 
issues there instead of on the debt ceiling? Or do we need a crisis in 
mid-week? Surely, Madam President, we do not.
  I plead with the Senate, do not create a crisis. Let us govern as the 
orderly body that we have been for two centuries. It is far beyond the 
realm of the imagination what we might do.
  I understand the yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I move to table the Moynihan amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 3053.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] and the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 568 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Lugar
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3053) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the pending bill 
to increase the debt limit.

[[Page S 16912]]

  I think it is fair to say this session of Congress has been as 
partisan as any in history. We have had a lot of disagreement, and 
there have been a lot of games. Fortunately, in this Chamber, there 
have been occasional demonstrations of rational bipartisan consensus. I 
am pleased when that happens, because it means we are taking care of 
the peoples' business.
  Well, if there is one issue that should be above partisanship, it the 
Federal debt limit. This issue goes to the very core of our economy.
  A couple years ago, I was a housewife and a mother living on the west 
coast, so I have a pretty good sense of how most people view issues 
like this. Most of my friends and family know this is a pretty 
complicated issue. They may not know how to completely explain it, but 
they do know it makes our economy work. And because of that, we have a 
responsibility as elected officials to deal with this issue clearly and 
decisively.
  As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I have listened to the 
complex issues that affect the ups and downs of our economy. The debt 
limit issue affects the Treasury Department's ability to buy and sell 
bonds, to pay interest, and to manage the economy in the most positive 
direction possible.
  Nearly everything that happens on Wall Street, or in the real estate 
markets, is pegged to Government bond rates. Nearly every low-risk 
investment portfolio, every adjustable rate mortgage, every savings 
plan in the country is tied to Government bonds and interest paid on 
those bonds.
  Every single person in this country--from the average working family, 
to the top-flight stock broker--has an interest in seeing this issue 
held above partisan bickering, and protected from the kind of political 
shenanigans we have seen all year long.
  We should be considering a straight, clean debt limit extension to 
keep the economy going, and to allow the Treasury Department to meet 
its obligations to bond holders. But unfortunately, we are not.
  We are considering a Christmas tree, Mr. President. This bill is 
loaded down with provisions that have nothing to do with Treasury 
bonds. Everyone on this floor is aware of it.
  This bill has reg reform provisions, something the Senate has 
defeated three times before. It eliminates the Commerce Department, 
when export promotion is more important than ever. And it changes the 
law to loosen up death penalty guidelines.
  What does any of this have to do with Treasury bonds and the economy? 
Nothing.
  This bill is simply another in a long line designed solely to score 
partisan political points. It makes a mockery of commonsense; at best, 
it amounts to political extortion, wit an increasingly healthy economy 
held hostage. At worst, it is reckless endangerment of the national 
economy and the household budget.
  Mr. President, it is time for us to put aside hot-button political 
agendas, and start focusing on solving the Nation's problems.
  This Senate passed a bill to balance the budget almost 3 weeks ago. 
And nothing has happened since then. We have had no debate. No 
conferees have been appointed. No progress has been made. Why? So the 
majority can back us up against the debt limit, and play an elaborate 
political game with the President, with the economy at stake.
  What happens if we pass this bill? With so much unnecessary baggage 
attached, this bill will be vetoed. And rightly so, in my opinion. And 
unless we can get our act together by Monday, the Government will 
default on its loans for the first time in history.
  At the end of the day, the people will feel worse about Congress than 
ever, and with good reason. All because partisan politicians could not 
get together to solve problems, but had to play politics instead. It's 
a pretty sad scenario.
  I have heard my colleagues say the Senate is the saucer that cools 
the cup. Well, we need a little cooling off. We need a clean debt limit 
extension, and then we need to return to the budget debate. In short, 
we need to take care of the peoples' business. But with this bill, we 
are not even close. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to address an issue of 
tremendous importance to our Nation. It does not involve the arcane 
details of the Federal budget, but does touch directly the lives of 
every one of our citizens.
  Mr. President, it is the issue of personal safety. It is the issue of 
reducing crime on our streets by imposing swift and appropriately 
strong punishment on those who prey on our streets.
  Last June, I spoke to my colleagues in support of the habeas corpus 
provisions included in the anti-terrorism bill. I think it is 
unfortunate that I must say again, five months later, that habeas 
corpus reform is still needed, now, just as much as it was then, in the 
immediate aftermath of the tragic and reprehensible bombing in Oklahoma 
City.
  Habeas corpus reform is still needed because our streets are still 
unsafe and those who commit the most heinous crimes still abuse the 
court system to prevent their sentences from being carried out.
  It is needed because swift punishment--including the death penalty 
where appropriate--is critical in our efforts to ensure the personal 
safety of all of our citizens.
  It is needed because the deterrent effect of the death penalty is 
weakened when it cannot be imposed swiftly after a verdict has been 
reached in a fair trial.
  Mr. President, habeas corpus reform is needed because since the death 
penalty was reinstated in California in 1978, more prisoners on death 
row have died of natural causes than have been executed.
  Let no one doubt the magnitude of this problem. For example, in 
California there are currently 428 convicted criminals on death row--
that is 18 more than when I last spoke to the Senate on the immediate 
need for habeas reform.
  This problem is not unique to California, however. According to the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, during the year ending June 
30, 1995, there were 14,637 prisoner petitions for habeas corpus review 
in U.S. district courts alone. 156 of these cases were death penalty 
cases.
  On June 7, on the same day the Senate overwhelmingly passed habeas 
corpus reform as part of the anti-terrorism bill, the longest serving 
member of California's death row population, Andrew E. Robertson, 
marked the 17th anniversary of his incarceration. Five months later, he 
still avoids punishment. Mr. President, that is unconscionable.
  Another case deserves scrutiny as well. Seventeen years ago, Keith 
Daniel Williams was convicted of fatally shooting Miguel and Salvadore 
Vargas and Lourdes Meza in Merced, CA while stealing a $1,500 check 
that he and his friends had used to buy a car from Miguel Vargas.
  Williams was found guilty of planning the killings and, after 
shooting the two men, raping Lourdes Meza in the back of the car before 
shooting her and leaving her naked body in a field.
  This vicious killer told a psychiatrist that after one of his 
accomplices broke down when Williams had ordered him to shoot the 
woman, Williams intended to kill him, too, but decided not to when, and 
I quote, ``the dude started sniveling and crying.''
  Keith Daniel Williams admitted killing these three innocent people, 
but 18 years of courtroom maneuverings have kept this cold-blooded 
murderer from receiving the punishment he deserves for his horrible 
crimes.
  Just last spring, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Williams 
was not denied a fair trial by the actions of his lawyer--who failed to 
hire a psychiatrist, obtain Williams' medical records or present any 
favorable evidence at the penalty phase.
  Following this decision, his lawyer said he would seek a rehearing 
before an 11-judge panel and, if that failed to stop the execution, 
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to California's Deputy 
Attorney General, those appeals could take a year to 18 months, even if 
no new hearings are granted.
  A newspaper article on this case published 7-months ago was titled, 
``Triple Killer a Step Closer to Execution''. Mr. President, that final 
step may take another year. That is just plain wrong.
  Sadly, there are many other cases similar to the one I just described 
and their crimes are among the most horrific imaginable. I will not 
burden my 

[[Page S 16913]]
colleagues with the gruesome details, but I do believe the Senate, and 
the American people, need to know of the abuse of the legal system by 
individuals convicted in courts of law for the most vile and violent 
crimes and I think it necessary to mention one more example.
  Bernard Hamilton murdered a woman--the mother of two boys, one of 
whom was only 3 weeks old--in San Diego in May 1979. His victim 
disappeared on her way to class. She was last seen in her van in the 
parking lot of the school she attended.
  Her body was later found with the head and hands removed; they have 
never been recovered. The body was clothed only in bra, underpants, and 
socks.
  Bernard Hamilton was arrested in Oklahoma in possession of his 
victim's van and had been using her credit cards. He was convicted of 
first degree murder for this brutal crime.
  After his first State habeas petition was denied he went to Federal 
court and last year two judges on the 9th Circuit ordered the sentence 
vacated on a claim that was rejected by six Justices on the California 
Supreme Court and one dissenting judge on the 9th Circuit.
  This cold-blooded killer is now in the midst of a new penalty trial--
more than 16 years after the murder.
  To add insult to injury, Hamilton represented himself at his penalty 
retrial and blamed the victim's husband, who never recovered 
emotionally from the death of his wife before his own death last year.
  For the victims of the kind of violent crimes I've just described, 
justice will not fully have been done until those responsible have been 
tried, convicted and the death penalty imposed and swiftly carried out.
  I am very pleased to say that the habeas provision included in the 
bill currently under consideration by the Senate is designed to do just 
that. The habeas corpus provision is identical to those included in the 
anti-terrorism bill passed the Senate by a vote of 91 to 8 last June, 
and one I believe which strikes an appropriate balance between the need 
to assure due process to those convicted of both capital and non-
capital crimes and the need of any rational judicial system to bring 
cases to closure.
  Indeed, Mr. President, that is particularly important not only the 
integrity of our judicial system, but for the victims of capital cases.
  Most importantly, Mr. President, this bill provides habeas 
petitioners with ``one bite at the apple.'' It assures that no one 
convicted of a capital crime will be barred from seeking habeas relief 
in Federal court, and appropriately limits second and subsequent habeas 
appeals to narrow and suitable circumstances.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, the bill requires States which provide 
for counsel that habeas appeals must be filed within 6 months of when a 
State prisoner's conviction becomes final, or in States where standard 
for the adequacy of counsel are not adopted, such appeals must be filed 
within 1 year.
  Third, Mr. President, time limits are also imposed upon courts. The 
bill requires that Federal courts must act promptly on habeas appeals 
and establishes a mechanism by which courts of appeals will screen 
habeas petitions before they are permitted to go to a Federal District 
Court for resolution.
  Finally, Mr. President, unlike the crime bill proposals that I and 
the Nation's law enforcement officials opposed two years ago, this bill 
does not dictate to the States precisely what counsel competency 
standards are adopted. Rather, it properly provides states with an 
incentive to formulate their own plans by making expedited time tables 
I have just described available for states to do so.
  Mr. President, the time for habeas corpus reform is long overdue. Too 
many of our streets are dangerous, too many of our citizens are scared, 
too many of our courts are clogged with endless, meritless prisoner 
appeals. I urge my colleagues to support the habeas corpus reform 
provisions in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The question is on the 
engrossment of the amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], and 
the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 569 Leg.

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Lugar
  So the bill (H.R. 2586), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________