Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished friend, the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate and I cannot keep up with everything going on. I hear different things--such as a ``Reconciliation Act of 1975''--which are totally false. I also heard someone refer to Senator Long as having been chairman of the Budget Committee--also totally false. When I hear these things I remember very, very clearly the history of reconciliation. I can tell you in the late 1970's we used to kid about reconciliation over on the House side; they said they could not even pronounce it. And if you go to the Record you will find that back in 1975, the Revenue Adjustment Act to which they are now referring was not a Reconciliation Act.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield just 1 minute. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a page from the ``Major Congressional Action'' of the Congressional Quarterly Almanac of 1980.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I read the first three paragraphs: For the first time in the six-year history of the congressional budget process, lawmakers in 1980 approved ``reconciliation'' legislation designed to trim the fiscal 1981 budget deficit by more than $8.2 million. The bill . . . cut back programs already on the books to achieve outlay savings of $4.6 billion in the year that began Oct. 1, 1980. It included revenue-raising provisions expected to yield $3.6 billion during the year. Congress completed action on the reconciliation bill Dec. 3 when the Senate adopted the conference report on the measure . . . by an 83-4 vote. The House had approved the conference report earlier that day 334-45. . . And on. The rest of it, of course, is printed in the Record. The facts themselves support the position taken here. The authority for this absurd ruling is totally out of context from the idea of the budget process and restrictions thereof. It was in response to the concurrent resolution instructions to the Finance Committee. It was not a reconciliation bill. The title of the bill itself said:

Mr. HOLLINGS. Wrong as it can be.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can find the first two pages of the budget resolution conference report for fiscal year 1976 referred to as the authority for the Parliamentarian's rule about reconciliation back in 1975. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record. The report dated April 21, 1975 was submitted by Mr. Muskie, from the committee of conference. It is only a few pages, but I think it ought to be included.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, a careful reading of this particular budget resolution finds no reconciliation instructions. How can you have reconciliation without reconciliation instructions? I referred in my original comments to the fact that our distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee at the time, Senator Long, wanted it to appear as reconciliation because he was trying to limit debate and limit amendments. He was probably the cleverest of all Parliamentarians around here. He always stood in the well there: ``Yes, yes, Senator, I will take your amendment.'' He just took all these amendments, went over there, and you would never see them again. I remember it well. But there was, as the record will show, no reconciliation--he called it and they gave him limited time, but it was not reconciliation. As chairman of the Finance Committee, he was complying with a particular bill. Just like now, under this concurrent resolution that we direct the Commerce Committee or the Armed Services Committee or any other committee, and they comply. They come up with their particular bill. That is not reconciliation. As further authority, Mr. President, I refer to the statement made at that particular time by myself on December 3, 1980. I quote: Every Senator who signed the conference agreement, and every Senator who votes to adopt it, has earned a share of the credit for this first historic exercise of the reconciliation power. That was the first time we were able to pass a reconciliation bill, December 1980--there was not any kind of authority for reconciliation back in 1975. Let me quote Mr. Henry Bellmon, ranking member at that particular time on the Republican side: Mr. President, this truly is a historic occasion. Today we complete for the first time an important part of the Budget Act called reconciliation. Mr. President, you cannot be more clear than that. They are using 1975, the actions taken by the chairman of the Finance Committee and a spurious ruling at that particular because there was no such thing as reconciliation instructions. Senator Long put in, as I said, and I read the particular title, a tax bill. It is a separate bill. It is not reconciliation. It is ``a bill (H.R. 5559) to make changes in certain income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.'' That is not a reconciliation bill. Now, Mr. President, I am continually hearing from my distinguished colleague from Texas, and they run him out every now and then with the little charts, about the biggest tax increase. It is all Presidential politics--the biggest tax increase, the biggest tax increase. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent again that we include in the Record from the Washington Post an article by Judy Mann back in 1995, January 1. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a revered and respected community figure, a gifted teacher and a good friend. This week, Bishop David B. Thompson celebrates three anniversaries at once: that of his birth, May 29, 1923; his priestly ordination May 27, 1950, and his episcopal ordination May 24, 1989. It is a truly significant week of the year for him, the Diocese of Charleston, his family and friends. Bishop Thompson was born in Philadelphia to David B. and Catharine A. Thompson. He has two siblings: a sister, Elizabeth Jane Hutton and a twin brother, also a priest, The Reverend Monsignor Edward J. Thompson, who is retired. The Bishop's studies for the priesthood began immediately after he graduated from High School. He attended St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, Overbrook, PA, where he earned a bachelor of arts and a master of arts degree in history. He earned a licentiate in canon law (J.C.L.) from the Catholic University of America while serving as an assistant pastor at Our Lady of Pompeii over the summers of 1951 and 1952. In September 1952 he was appointed a professor at St. Thomas Moore High School in Philadelphia. He continued to take courses through Villanova University. The Bishop also served the school as a guidance counselor. In 1957, Monsignor Thompson was named the founding principal of Notre Dame High School in Easton, PA, where he served for 4 years. During that time, he made a name for himself, or rather, the students made a name for him. The students had expressed to Bishop Thompson the need for a similar social outlet to American Bandstand. He responded by establishing a Notre Dame Bandstand and hiring Gene Kaye, a disc jockey from Allentown. Mr. Kaye helped to make it a nationally known event; he also gave Bishop Thompson the name ``Father Bandstand.'' Among the people to appear on stage at Notre Dame were Frankie Avalon, Chubby Checker, Connie Frances, Fabian, Annette Funicello, and Brenda Lee. When Paul Anka performed in the summer of 1960, more than 2,300 teenagers were there to hear him. In January 1961, the Diocese of Allentown was created by Pope John XXIII. Monsignor Thompson was named the first chancellor of the new diocese and served as the moderator of an $11 million educational building campaign. For 22 years, he would serve in the capacity of Vicar General. In 1967 he was named the pastor of Immaculate Conception Church, the oldest Catholic Church in Allentown. Over the years, he was given tremendous and varied responsibilities within the diocese, and he brought to each new challenge the wisdom and energy which has become his trademark. He served as the pastor of the Allentown Cathedral Church of St. Catherine of Siena from 1975 to 1989. In 1989, Pope John Paul II appointed Bishop Thompson the 11th Bishop of Charleston. He succeeded Bishop Ernest L. Unterkoefler upon his retirement in February 1990. Of the numerous accomplishments in Bishop Thompson's life, from his educational achievements to his high honors within the church, it is the effect he has on individuals as he carries out his life's work that truly sets him apart. During the years of his incumbency, Bishop Thompson has traveled thousands of miles to visit every parish and mission in his diocese, which encompasses the entire State of South Carolina. He has reinvigorated the Diocese of Charleston, vocations have increased 400 percent, and in 1994 alone there were over 30 building projects in the 114 parishes and missions. He has set parochial education standards that have improved the quality of diocesan schools throughout South Carolina, and he has encouraged youth participation in the life of the church. He has given so much of himself to the State, being active in local events, and a constant presence. On every level, from local to national, Bishop Thompson has been a tireless champion of Christian values and humanism. He has been awarded the Tree of Life Award, the Jewish National Fund's highest honor, for his efforts on behalf of interfaith harmony. Under his leadership, the diocese sponsored the Palmetto Project Community Relations Forum, an effort to erase racism through friendship. And he continues to inspire every individual and group with whom he comes into contact. I am truly honored to know this man, and, along with my wife Peatsy, I wish him a joyous anniversary celebration.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. If any Members want to, they can get the entire record of each one of the particular Presidents. What happened is--let me quote David Stockman: The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax-cutting that shattered the nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans have willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance, and their own culpability in it, ever since. Instead, they have incessantly poisoned the political debate with a mindless stream of anti-tax venom, while pretending that economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the deficit. So they have given the Senator from Kansas the chant, ``Growth, growth; tax cuts, tax cuts; growth, growth; tax cuts.'' Will we ever learn? The debt from the beginning--from 1776 up until 1981--the debt was less than $1 trillion. With all the wars, the Revolution, 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American, Mexican War, World War I, II, Korea, Vietnam, the costs of all the wars were less than $1 trillion--$903 billion. Now, in 15 years, without a war--without a war, because the other crowd are supposed to have paid for the gulf war--in 15 years, we have gone up to $5 trillion and automatic tax increases, because that is what the automatic spending of interest costs amounts to. You cannot evade death, you cannot evade taxes, and you cannot evade interest costs or interest taxes on the national debt. So those who say that ``I am against increasing taxes,'' is the crowd that comes in here without shame and derides President Clinton and this particular budget. President Clinton came to town, and he is the only President to reduce the deficit. Since 1968, President Nixon did not. President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, and President Bush all increased the deficit. The one man in town not responsible for this nonsense, President Clinton, the only man in town that has done anything about it, has reduced the deficit in half, and is derided now with all these monkeyshine charts. ``Look at how he said this. Look how he did this. Look how he did that.'' The economy is working, is it not? Unemployment is down. Job creation is up. Interest is down. How do we get the truth out to the American people? The truth is, as I said before, that Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was repealed. But we continue to read suggestions that we have already tried, suggestions that totally ignore the track record of some of us who have tried. A couple days ago our distinguished friend, Mr. Dave Broder, allowed that what we ought to do is do away with the payroll tax with a flat tax, recommended by Senators Domenici and Nunn. Well, in April 1991, the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kasten, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, we all said, ``Look, if you are going to continue to violate section 13-301 and rob the Social Security trust fund, then, Heavens above, let's put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis so they will know it,'' we were completely against an increase in the Social Security taxes at the time. It would have been a tax cut, Mr. President, of $190 billion. But they voted against that tax cut. They say they are for tax cuts for the rich, for capital gains, but not for the wage earner, the fellow who is pulling the wagon. But Congress is in the wagon. We have to get these Senators and Congressmen out of the wagon. We are the ones using the trust funds, not paying the bills, and wrecking the economy. Mr. President, for the poor wage earner, who is pulling the wagon, we said, ``Let's cut their taxes,'' the payroll taxes suggested by Mr. Broder, we had that vote in 1991. But they do not want it that way. They want to continue the charade. So, Mr. President, I only hope there is a free press. Jefferson said it better than anyone. He said, if it is between the free press and a free Government, I would choose the former --intoning, if you please, that you can have a free Government, but it is not going to be free long unless you have a free press. It is supposed to keep us honest, supposed to keep us politicians honest. Instead, as Jim Fallows says in his wonderful book, ``Breaking the News,'' the press has joined in the post-party pap of ``I'm against taxes. And we can balance the budget by just cutting spending.'' I have made my point on that. I wish it could be done. I have tried. We tried, first, cuts across the board. We tried spending cuts. We continue to try spending cuts where possible. We have tried a value- added tax. We have tried everything possible, but we cannot get the truth out to the American people. Yes, I am voting for President Clinton's budget. His track record is true. He is the only President we have had around here that has done something about this deficit. He has cut it in half. He has done it with tax increases as well as $500 billion in spending cuts. And the ones that caused this deficit--there ought to be ashes in their mouths--the ones that caused this rotten dilemma of spending $1 billion a day for nothing, have the audacity to be running around saying how honest they are and how true they are and how balanced their budget is. Read page 5: Deficits. It does not say ``balance'' in their document. It cannot under the law. In fact, it is really more than the $108 billion listed, because the law does not require them to list robbing the distinguished Chair's retirement, robbing the military retirees, still robbing the Medicare trust fund, and others. All told, it is $151.9 billion. That is why these funds are not being used for the highways, the airports, or workers' retirement. We are robbing them. It is a shabby act. But they know no shame. They come around with their little charts. We hadn't seen their budget or anything else. They had the President's budget for 4 months, so they would work up their charts. And we would go into the Budget Committee, and they would go through their little acts. They had the Senator from Texas complaining about exactly what they have in defense. They had the Senator from Missouri talk about veterans, the next one talked about defense and came on with all his charts. It was just all applesauce, just a show on C-SPAN. We had no choice except to take their plan or leave it. What they offered was a three-way breakdown of the reconciliation process and ultimately, in my opinion, a violation of the Byrd rule. For the first time to my knowledge, they are using the reconciliation process to actually increase the deficit. By at least $122 billion. You can read it again in this document, in section (c) on page 51, that if the legislation is enacted pursuant to sections A and B no later than September 18, the Committee on Finance shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill proposing changes in laws with any jurisdiction necessary to reduce revenues. That is so they can go around to the rich crowd in New York and say, ``We will give you capital gains.'' It is in their contract but it will not work. The one that should have set himself aside and be done with that silly contract is the distinguished Speaker. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield such time as is required for the moment. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Missouri talks about assumptions. With respect to assumptions, I only have to point out that when I asked the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, about the budget assumptions, he said, ``No. That is no magic asterisk. Assumptions are not binding on anyone. Use the assumptions in the President's budget. Do what you want to be bound by it. It does not make any difference.'' With respect to the trigger, I remember that trigger when they had it last year in the Republican Medicare assault. Unfortunately, the distinguished President of the United States, coming from Arkansas, having balanced budgets for 10 years, had taken on some of the bad habits of this Republican crowd. Right to the point, Mr. President: I was listening this morning to the chatter on the early morning shows, and the pundits were all allowing that the distinguished Senator from Kansas was having to retire from the Senate because he wanted to get away from the Senate itself; that the Senate had such a bad reputation. I take exception to that, Mr. President. It is the Republican program that has such a bad reputation. I feel for the distinguished Senator from Kansas as the Republican nominee going around the country because, though he physically removes himself, he still has to carry that load. I told him so yesterday afternoon. It is a ridiculous contract. Get rid of plans that are working and the programs on crime. The policemen on the beat; they were all here yesterday in support of those programs. That is what is really frightening the American people. It is a ridiculous plan: let us get rid of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing, the Department of Education. Whoever heard of being elected to public office and then trying to tear down the office itself? We are elected to come to Washington to make the Government work. But this pollster party is running on hot button items like 5-cent gas taxes and that kind of thing, trying to throw the long pass play. They are not really giving the American people a program of responsibility and direction, a sense of where we are headed in the next 4 years. The truth of the matter is that the wrong man resigned from the Congress. We ought to have gotten the distinguished Speaker to be gone with that silly contract. Let him move out and maybe the pollster party would have a chance in November. But my point this morning is that yes, I am going to vote for the President's budget. It is the nearest to a factual approach to this particular dilemma. It does not use the CPI. It does not have these mammoth tax cuts that are down to $8 billion. We do not have any taxes to cut. That is another flaw in the contract, it leads the American people to believe that you can balance this budget by merely cutting spending. I have voted for many, many cuts in spending. I voted, as did a third of the Senate, to do away with a good part of the payroll tax--$190 billion in tax cuts to put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis. But I do not believe in cutting taxes when we are running these horrendous deficits, when the debt is going up and the interest cost on the debt ruining the land. And so what I am trying to do is get the nearest as I can. We tried every approach. In January 1993, we put in what would be required of a really true, honest balanced budget. It included both the horrendous cuts that would be necessary in discretionary spending and taxes. I challenge and continue to challenge. At the Commerce Committee the other day, the distinguished Senator from Texas said that she believed the budget could be balanced by spending cuts. I challenge her. I challenge anyone in the Congress to give me a 7-year balanced budget without a tax increase. I want to see it. You can eliminate the Government as they call it, but we have worked our way into such a dilemma that, if you did away with Government as the people know it to be--foreign aid, the Department of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Justice Department, the FBI, the DEA, do away with the President, the Congress, the courts--it would still only be $228 billion. Now, look at the bottom line, what are we spending? This pollster party has got us to the point that we are required to spend $353 billion in interest costs on a national debt that they quintupled. They did it, not President Clinton--$353 billion, $1 billion a day spending on automatic pilot for absolutely no Government. We do not get anything for it. It is merely the carrying charges. If they had not engaged in that misconduct, we could have two Departments of Commerce, two Departments of Energy, two Departments of Education--double the Government. We are spending the money for it, but we are not getting the Government. And that is this particular Senator's dilemma. We are supposed to be rebuilding our economy in the wake of the cold war, putting more into education, more into technology, more into the Department of Commerce. Instead the Republicans pursue their political endeavors solely for reelection purposes. They are not looking at the next generation but at the next election. And we have to go through this false nonsense of a budget fraud because it is their contract. Unfortunately, we Democrats, to get any kind of results, have to go along with this kind of thing. President Clinton put out a good budget when he first came. We had to cut $500 billion in spending. We had to increase taxes on cigarettes, beer, liquor, gasoline. Yes, we voted to increase taxes on Social Security, we performed a real act of fiscal discipline and responsibility without a single Republican vote in the Senate, without a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives. And they have the audacity, the unmitigated gall to come around here talking about hoaxes. Let me get everybody to turn to pages 4 and 5 of this wonderful document, Senate Concurrent Resolution 57, by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for the Committee on the Budget. This is the budget resolution now in debate. Look on pages 4 and 5 under ``Deficits.'' For fiscal year 2002 you will see a deficit of $108,300,000,000. Mr. President, for Heaven's sake, you pick up the morning paper, the Washington Post, and it is talking about the ``Republican Balanced Budget Proposal.'' There is no idea of balancing this budget by Republicans or Democrats. It is one big political exercise, one grand budget fraud. And that is what everybody is running on. I am trying to get them to state what the law is and what the truth is. The fact is here in the budget book itself: ``Budget Process Law Annotated,'' up to date, 1993 edition. You will find in this book no such word as ``unified.'' That is a political gimmick that the press, the money market in New York and politicians use. We have to hear about fraud; we have to hear about hoaxes; we have to hear about trickery, but the truth of the matter is there is no such thing as unified. There is such a thing as not being able to rob the Social Security trust fund. Look at it. Section 13301 of this particular document says thou shalt not use the Social Security funds to obscure the size of the deficit. We owe Social Security at this moment $503 billion, and in this particular budget that I hold up, this document here, they continue to rob the Social Security trust fund in violation of the law. They are robbing other trust funds as well that are not written in the law. I wish they were. But we continue to rob the Social Security trust fund of approximately $500 billion over a 6-year period and over $600 billion over 7 years. So that by the year 2002, 2003, we come around, under this political drama--the best off-Broadway show you are going to find, running currently on C-SPAN--and they will say, ``Oh, we have balanced the budget. We are the party of responsibility and we balanced the budget.'' Even if it were true, using their own figures we have decimated-- decimated, exhausted the Social Security trust fund. We will owe it over $1.1 trillion. Then we will not have to hear the arguments about the year 2012 or 2023--just by that year 2002 we will already owe that money. Who is going to raise $1 trillion to make Social Security solvent? You should have heard it--I wish I had that record before me-- the distinguished chairman of our Budget Committee in his prepared statement stated: We are making Medicare solvent for 10 years. Under this budget we are making Medicare solvent for 10 years; we are making Social Security totally insolvent in 6 years. It will be totally insolvent in 6 years. And they want credit for their so-called fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, both sides are guilty. Why? Why do I say that about this budget fraud? I have not seen a budget yet that does not immediately start off by moving deficits--not eliminating deficits-- moving them from the general Government over to the Social Security trust fund to the tune of $500 billion. The Republican budget does it. The President's budget does it. And the so-called centrist coalition does. They think it is wonderful they can get together, Republicans and Democrats, in a fraud. I did not join them. I told them: It is a fraud on the face of it. You can see it. You know it. Look at it. You are not only robbing trust funds to the tune of what will amount to almost $1 trillion, but we owe the civil service retirement, the military retirees. You go down the list. Medicare is solvent right now. They have been robbing the Medicare trust fund and on down the line to highway trust funds. Finally, over on the House side, they have been robbing the airport funding. There are not enough inspectors. We just had a hearing on that. Why? Because we have been taking the money that the traveling public has been putting in. While they have been paying their taxes in order to provide those inspectors, Congress has been using the moneys to politically obscure the size of the deficit. This way they can say, ``Reelect me, I am fiscally responsible up there in Washington but the other crowd is a bunch of bums.'' They know what they are doing. Not only do they rob trust funds, but all of their spending cuts are backloaded. There is the gimmick. That is why, when President Reagan first came to office, he said he was going to balance the budget in 1 year. After he got here he said it was such a disaster that it would take him 3 years. When Congress saw that was not working with the so-called Reaganomics, that we were going in the exact opposite direction, we tried the spending cut approach with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. But all along, then after Gramm-Rudman- Hollings--and I'm talking about the crowd that voted to repeal it on October 19 at 12:41 a.m--they are now all writing books now how responsible and how against deficits they were. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings worked. The reason the Senator from South Carolina asked for a divorce is that instead of using Gramm-Rudman-Hollings as a spear to prod fiscal responsibility, they were using it as a shield to obscure fiscal irresponsibility. When they started doing that, I said let me out of this thing. We raised the point of order, made cuts across the board. And Gramm- Rudman-Hollings worked. Do not say it did not work. It was about to work too well, until they got into that cabal to reelect the President in 1992. Everybody knows what happened there, in 1990, when they voted for its repeal. But they all, then, started backloading. Now, instead of 5 years of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, we are going up to a 7-year budget. If this crowd can get reelected they will come back next year and they will have a 10-year budget. They keep moving the goalposts and getting the good government award. The fact of the matter is, two-thirds of these cuts occur after two Presidential elections. They come out here and talk about the President--a hoax. But it is not a hoax--come on. Everybody can see what is going on. Every one of them, including the centrist budget, uses tax cuts. If you look at the centrist document, the centrist document says the President cuts $8 billion in 6 years. The Republicans cut $122 billion, the Breaux-Chafee in 7 years cuts $105 billion. We do not have any taxes to cut. So the closest to responsibility is President Clinton's budget. They are running around still trying to lead rather than demand. The consultants will demand. Poor Presidential nominee Dole will have to respond, run all over the land trying to tell people that which he knows not to be the case. He was chairman of the Finance Committee. He did not favor that Reaganomics. It was Kemp-Roth at that time. I know him, but now he is caught up with the Gingrich contract and he has to go around and sell it. That is his dilemma, not the Senate as a body. They will be here long after we are gone, long after the contract crowd is gone. Mr. President, we finally see the free world voting in free elections. We witness the spread of, not only capitalism, but democratic representative government; which is, according to Arthur Schlesinger, the greatest gift of the American people to free men the world around. And it has taken root, Mr. President, in 14 different countries. Over in Russia now, the Communists are getting ready for a vote. Over in China, where I recently traveled with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, in the provinces they are beginning to have local elections. Now, when free democratic government is just taking root, the contract crowd says, ``Get rid of the Government. The Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem. The Government is the enemy.'' And they wonder why they are down in the polls. Back to the point: tax cuts. They talk about a dividend. I speak as the former chairman of the Budget Committee. I speak as an original mover, along with Senator Muskie. I am the last of the Mohicans on the House or the Senate side who was in on the game back in the mid-1970's. I voted for a balanced budget in 1968. I worked there with George Mahon. We said, ``Talk to President Johnson. Can we cut another $5 billion?'' We cut another $5 billion. The entire Great Society and the cost of the war in Vietnam was $178 billion. Interest costs on the national debt is $353--double the amount. And you wonder at the trouble we are in? They do not want to talk sense. They want to engage in another fraud. A $254 billion dividend. That came up in 1990. We called it into question. They say, ``Oh, no, you look at the 1990 budget.'' They have their charts and everything else. The 1990 budget said that by 1995, last year, we would not only be balanced we would have a $20 billion surplus. Can you imagine the word surplus in a Government document? They put it in there. Instead, the real deficit was in the neighborhood of $277 billion. There was not any surplus--using the dividend. So they play more games. Now the centrist coalition crowd has come up with a new one, the CPI. They come in and want to monkey around with the Consumer Price Index. So if you do one, you have to do the other, but they only do one. They are not only going to cut the benefits of the Social Security recipient, which could be done--this Senator has recommended a freeze, a freeze, if you please. But instead of inuring to the benefit of the Social Security trust fund, they take even more money, robbing Social Security and allocating it to the deficit. All the Medicare plans call for an increase in the premiums in order to get the benefits. Then they come around with this lower CPI and give them less money. A double whammy. They are doing it. But it is a political year and the media is supposed to cover Congress and give the American people the truth. And what is the headline? ``Balanced Budget.'' A balanced budget, come on. There is not any balance in the budget before us, and they know it. For Heaven's sake, deliver me from this characterization of the President's character. A hoax. The pollster says they have to attack President Clinton on his character. So every 10 seconds the Republicans get up: ``Hoax,'' ``Character.'' One Senator even said, ``Liar.'' ``We'll just get in on a true-false quiz in November, and we are the truth and the Democratic Party is false.'' I do not think the American people are going along with that nonsense. Deliver me from that, particularly when they are the ones engaged, with the misrepresentation. That is the nicest word I can think. Yesterday, May 15, 1996, I heard it again in the Budget Committee. This is a statement by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee: This budget will restore America's fiscal equilibrium. It will balance the budget by the year 2002 without touching Social Security. Absolutely false. He said that in the Budget Committee. I called his hand on it, but they continue to insist on it and the news media will write it. It touches Social Security. The best rationale the chairman can give is, ``We didn't cut, momentarily, the benefits.'' But he means the benefits for me at 72--old Strom and I are going to get ours. But that Parliamentarian is not going to get his money. And I have to ask the Parliamentarian if this really is a budget resolution. Because section (C) where they have in there a provision for tax cuts in September, will actually increase the deficit. But the truth of the matter is, Mr. President, they not only touch it, they emasculate the fund. I made that clear. Do not come along and say ``without touching Social Security.'' They know what they are doing. We have had a group of off-the-record sessions to try to get together on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I favor such an amendment, and said I would vote for it in a flash. I voted for it before. But I am not going to vote by repealing section 13301. The proposal has been made time and again, ``Well, let's just use up Social Security until 2002 and stop using it.'' I remember when I had Clement Haynesworth before the U.S. Supreme Court--he had been charged with using his office in conflict with the stock investments that he had. They said that under the law, he should have recused himself. One day, unbeknownst to me and Attorney General Mitchell, he came and said, irrespective of what occurred, he was going to take all these stock holdings and put them in a trust fund. The next morning, Herblock had that cartoon with the Congress as the court. The Attorney General is the lawyer and a little client who looked like a school boy with a school bag with stock tape and tickets streaming out on the floor. ``But Your Honor,'' said Mitchell, the Attorney General, ``my client hasn't done anything wrong, and he promises to stop doing it.'' No, they have not done anything wrong--``We do not touch Social Security''--they just take Social Security to mask the deficit. Government is borrowing from itself and writing IOU's from $503 billion to $1.1 trillion. But they promise to stop doing it in 2002. By that time, who is going to put on the taxes to pay back $1.1 trillion? The New York crowd keeps talking about entitlements, entitlements, entitlements. In Time magazine and other major papers, they say: ``The trouble is, we have to get a bridle on this Social Security causing the deficits.'' Social Security has not caused a deficit. It is in the black. Every one of the 100 Senators would have to agree with that. What is causing the deficit, I say to the distinguished Presiding Officer, is all these general uses of Government, from defense to education to housing to foreign aid to law enforcement. I happen to handle the law enforcement budget. Everybody is for more policemen on the beat, everybody is for more FBI, more DEA, more Border Patrol, more immigration control, more this, more that. In 1987, it was just at $4 billion. Now it is at $16.7 billion. They are complaining about the growth of Government, saying ``cut spending, cut spending.'' Do you think they ever recommended a dime to pay for it all the programs they demand? No. I joined with Republicans back in 1987. We saw the dilemma. We put in a value-added tax of 5 percent to get rid of this monster deficit growing and growing, the interest costs growing up to where we cannot have Government. But that is the effect of pollster politics. The pollster party says, ``Get rid of the Government.'' They succeed. If we do not have a Department of Commerce, they are happy. If we do not have a Department of Education, they are enthralled. If we can get rid of the Department of Energy and Department of Housing and just leave them all on the streets, so be it; let the market forces operate. That is why they are down in the polls, and leaving this august body does not release the distinguished Senator from Kansas from that silly contract of getting rid of the Government. That is what he has try and sell today as he goes around in Chicago. The contract is frightening the American people. At least he had the excuse of trying to keep us organized here in this particular body. Now he has to sit back and listen on the hot line to Speaker Gingrich saying, ``Wait a minute, you've got to stick with the contract, stick with the contract.'' All this chatter. Meanwhile we face the largest deficit in the history of the Republic. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from January 1, 1995, by Judy Mann in the Washington Post.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I quote: A dollar now is less than a dollar was back then-- Talking in the eighties under President Reagan. so that a tax increase of, say, $10 billion in 1992 would be a tax increase of $15 billion now. . . In fact, if you adjusted for the 48 percent change in price level, the 1982 tax increase would become a $325.6 billion increase in 1993. That makes it the biggest tax increase in the history by $85 billion. Nominally then, it is true that the 1993 tax bill was the biggest in history. However, the biggest tax increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under President Reagan. And the Senator from South Carolina voted for it. I voted against Reaganomics. Senator Dole was against it in the original instance. The then-majority leader Howard Baker called it ``a riverboat gamble.'' Then-Vice President Bush called it voodoo. But they want to forget that. Read Warren Rudman's book. He lays it all out. A substantial group of Republicans said this could not possibly work. But I ask, Mr. President, to include in the Record the budget tables. If you look at the budget tables, back when President Reagan came into office, the key figure is the Gross Interest Cost, which at that time was $74.8 billion. Today it is $353 billion. This crowd is against increasing spending--I'm against spending increases; I'm against spending increases. We have put spending increases on automatic pilot to the tune of $1 billion a day. I ask unanimous consent that those tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in today's Record an unusually clear article on the complex subject of school vouchers. Ms. Claudia Smith Brinson at the State newspaper in Columbia, SC, has made the case eloquently that the choice of taxpayer funding for private and religious schools is a bad one. Specifically, she points out its history as a means of minimizing desegregation, its lack of results, and its lack of promise compared to other proven education reforms. I commend her for her eloquence and hope my colleagues will benefit from her column. The column follows: [From the State, May 15, 1996] Let's Decide Just Exactly What School Choice' Means (By Claudia Smith Brinson) The concept of school choice has been around a long time. In the '60s, it was promoted in the South as a means of minimizing court-ordered desegregation. In the '70s, economist Milton Friedman talked up what he called the ``free-choice'' model. In the '80s and early '90s, as dissatisfaction with public schools grew, experimentation kicked in. School choice covers an enormous range. At its most basic, parents exercise choice when they buy a house in a certain neighborhood. When a school provides school-within-a-school options, choice is offered. When a school district provides alternative or magnet schools, choice is offered. Some districts allow parents with a need for flexibility regarding work or child care to use intra-district choice. While, in this state, we have few magnet schools, half of our school districts offer alternative schools or second- chance programs; more than half allow high-school students to take college courses; almost two-thirds permit inter-district transfers. Our governor's schools for arts and mathematics and science increase choice statewide for our brightest students. Nationwide, choice is often employed to help with the urban suburban desegregation issue. In St. Louis, Mo., inner-city children can apply to attend mostly white suburban schools. To improve schooling for Hispanic students in San Antonio, the Multilingual Program provides a language and cultural focus for academically successful students. In Montgomery County, Md., a magnet school program was introduced to improve integration. In Moniclair, N.J., all schools are magnet schools, and transportation is provided. In Cambridge, Mass., parents can choose, with the help of an information center, any public school in the district. In Minnesota, the whole state allows open enrollment, although students must supply transportation. Charter schools, in which parents and teachers contract with the state to provide a particular kind of education, are another option. Just over 100 charter schools are in operation nationwide. Here, the House has passed legislation allowing charter schools; a Senate subcommittee is discussing it. Vouchers are rare. In Milwaukee, to desegregate schools and improve urban children's schooling, low-income parents were invited to apply for public funds to send their children to private or public suburban schools. An attempt to add church schools is on hold because the state Supreme Court deadlocked on its constitutionality. In Boston, private money is used to send low-income children to parochial schools. In San Antonio and Indianapolis, private businesses pay low-income students' tuition at private schools. The favorite arguments for using vouchers (sending public money through parents) for private schools rest on three faulty premises. The first is that children make great academic strides in private and parochial schools. When you take out those oh-so-important factors such as parents' income and education, what remains is a very small advantage in scores for parochial and private school students. The second faulty premise is that education can be compared to car-making. The premise goes like this: Education is just another manufacturing process; vouchers will create competition; competition will automatically improve product quality. But children and learning are far more complicated than autos and welding. Education is a service, and public education is a service with important democratic goals, such as preparing children for full citizenship, minimizing social inequities and promoting cultural unity. It's not much better an analogy, but compare education, instead, to a service like public hospitals. No one in need is turned away, and yes, those who can afford to do so shop around. However, the patient (both consumer and product, like our students) cannot be cured at any location if destructive behaviors persist. Even with some of the magical pills our technology has created, radical changes in lifestyle are often required. Likewise, poverty, parental disengagement, behavior or discipline problems that many of our children bring into the schoolhouse cannot be quickly and permanently cured by shifting locale. (In Milwaukee, where vouchers are being tried, academic scores haven't improved and attrition remains high.) So vouchers are not a miracle cure. And that is the third faulty premise, that any one new step, such as increased choice or vouchers, will suddenly remake education. The funding equity issue, raised by 40 of our districts, has yet to be ruled on in court. How much good would intra-district choice currently serve in some of the suing, impoverished counties such as Clarendon, Lee, Williamsburg or Jasper? How much help is a $1,700 voucher to an impoverished family in a rural community without transportation or in an urban community where private schools cost $6,000-plus a year? What happens then is not that parents are offered more choice, but that private schools are. If our community, and our Legislature, want to consider choice, first the conversation has to get honest. It can be a legitimate discussion given public dissatisfaction with public schools and a universal desire by parents to do the best possible for their children. But if we're going to talk about choice, what are we talking about? Increasing variety? Or resegregating? If our state and national constitutions forbid public money supporting church schools, why on Earth is our conversation about choice starting in forbidden territory? In a state with limited funds, why begin with vouchers when encouragement for more magnet schools, school-within-a school programs and inter- and intra-district transfers would offer more choices to more children at no extra cost? With limited funds, why not start small and emulate programs that work, like the language option in San Antonio or the controlled- choice program in Cambridge? Why take giant, expensive leaps into ideas, such as vouchers, that have barely been tested anywhere? We have a summer to think this out.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill introduced yesterday to establish a U.S. Tourism Organization, S. 1735. I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation. Tourism is the second largest employer in my State and a critical component of my State's economic development. It is unfortunate that the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration [USTTA] has become a victim of budgetary constraints, and I am pleased that S. 1735 will preserve a Federal role in crafting a coherent policy to promote the United States as a tourist destination. The bill will also provide for a repository of information to enable the tourism industry to develop a strategy to compete for the international tourism dollar. I hope that this new organization will become a model for public-private partnerships and will fill the void left by the elimination of USTTA

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Senators, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a dedicated Senate worker, a courageous woman and a wonderful person. Gayle Fitzgerald Cory worked in the Senate for 35 years, serving in many capacities. She was indispensable to the late Senator Muskie for 22 years, holding positions from receptionist to executive assistant and making the transition to the State Department with him in 1980. She was also a valued member of Senator George Mitchell's staff as his personal assistant. A person who has filled these roles can't help but accumulate a tremendous amount of knowledge on the workings of the Senate. Gayle Fitzgerald Cory was exceptionally qualified to take on the position of postmaster in 1989. Up until her retirement in 1995, Mrs. Cory worked hard for the U.S. Senate, she was experienced, organized and capable of handling any task or crisis that came her way. Most of all, she was a great person. The post office employees--indeed, everyone with whom she came in contact-- appreciated her warmth and her sense of fairness. An extremely professional woman, she had an almost uncanny understanding of the special needs of the Senate, and she was instrumental in making it work. My condolences go out to her husband, Don, her three daughters, Laurie, Melissa, and Carol, and all the members of her large and loving family. She was a courageous, strong person and we will all miss her.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a man who set the example for excellence and competitiveness in the textile industry. Walter Montgomery, Sr., was the godfather of textiles in South Carolina. He is the reason that we have an outstanding textile industry today. Anyone who came into contact with Mr. Walter could tell you that he was a real legend--and not only as a force in the Nation's textile industry. An outstanding figure in the field of community service, he helped countless numbers of people in his native Spartanburg County during his 95 years. Walter Montgomery was born in Spartanburg in 1900. He began working at Spartan Mills, founded by his grandfather, Captain John H. Montgomery, in 1922. In 1929, after the death of his father, Walter Montgomery became president. He passed on the title to his son in 1972, and took his place as the chairman of Spartan Mills. In this capacity, he was one of the Nation's top textile executives and led the industry toward modernization. Mr. Walter, as he was known affectionately, was a firm believer in the value of associations and institutes. He served as the president or chairman of just about every textile group there was, from the South Carolina Textile Manufacturers Association to what is now called the American Textile Manufacturing Institute. In 1989, Montgomery was named ``Textile Leader of the Year'' by Textile World Magazine. It selected him not so much for his impressive management skills within his own company, but for his unselfish leadership of the industry as a whole. Talk to anyone about Walter Montgomery and they will tell you about his outstanding leadership. Through his tireless efforts in the industry and the boundless energy he dedicated to the community, Mr. Walter earned the respect of everyone. Working with organizations such as the Spartanburg County Foundation, United Way, Junior Achievement, and Wofford College, he created a bridge between business and humanitarianism. He was also an active member of the Episcopal Church of the Advent, and once served as scoutmaster of the church's Boy Scout troop. If it sounds unusual for one of the Nation's top textile executives to have this active an extracurricular schedule, it is. Walter Montgomery was an extraordinary man. He had a sincere love for the textile industry, and he passed on his enthusiasm to all the workers and executives he knew. He believed in education, and contributed time and money to the establishment and maintenance of educational institutions. Among his beneficiaries were Wofford College, Converse College, the University of South Carolina-Spartanburg and what is now the Spartanburg Methodist College, which his father had been instrumental in forming. I will miss his vigor, drive, and wise advice. He was an example to me of how one can balance work and charity. Peatsy joins me in sending our condolences to his family along with our gratitude for the many lives he touched in South Carolina.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3019, the Omnibus Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Bill which includes five separate appropriations bills for the balance of fiscal year 1996. This bill provides full year funding for the Veterans, Housing Urban Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill, and the Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill. It also includes emergency funding to deal with the floods in the Pacific Northwest and other disasters. Mr. President, I serve as ranking member on the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee. I have served in that capacity or as Chairman of that Subcommittee since 1977. And, I want to speak today most of all in support of the conference agreement as it pertains to the departments, agencies, programs and people covered by that important appropriations bill. We need to keep in mind that we have had 13 stop-gap ``continuing resolutions'' since October 1, 1995 when the fiscal year began. In the case of the CJS bill, the Senate completed action on the bill on September 29, 1995, and passed the conference report to H.R. 2076 on December 7, 1995. I voted against that conference report as did 48 of my colleagues. The President then vetoed H.R. 2076 on December 19, 1995. While the President's official veto message mentioned many problems with the CJS bill, in his actual statement he mentioned only the elimination of the Cops on the Beat program and the Advanced Technology Program as his reasons for finding the bill to be unacceptable. So, we have now gone through this somewhat difficult process and conferenced what is essentially a new Commerce, Justice and State bill. During the past weeks, we have had negotiations between the White House and the Congressional leadership. And, during the past week, we have had intensive negotiations going on between the White House represented by President's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, his able assistant Martha Foley, and Jack Lew of OMB and the Congressional leadership represented by our distinguished Chairman, Senator Hatfield, Senator Byrd, House Chairman Mr. Livingston, and Mr. Obey. They have had to work long hours on a number of difficult, controversial issues. I think that they have done an excellent job. I think that our Congressional team deserves special praise. They conducted these negotiations in a bipartisan manner, something that has been seriously lacking in the 104th Congress. Mr. President, the Commerce, Justice and State portion of this agreement represents a good, realistic compromise that responds to our spending priorities at the same time that it cutbacks overall spending. This conference report provides $27.8 billion for the CJS bill. This is $3.2 billion BELOW the level requested in the FY 1996 President's Budget request. This agreement restores funding for several high priority programs and makes several other changes that lead me to conclude that it is a vast improvement over the CJS bill that the President vetoed. I will just mention a few. First, and most important to me, this agreement provides $221 million for the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program (ATP). I authored this program in the 1988 Trade Act and I can tell you that it is strongly supported by the President and was a high priority for our late Secretary of Commerce. Ron Brown. ATP provides cooperative agreements that are cost-shared with industry. These ATP awards are intended to help industry take leading edge technologies from the drawing board to the marketplace. It is intended to develop entirely new industries, create high-paying jobs, and to help us compete with the Japanese, French, and Germans who maintain quite similar programs. This conference agreement is $221 million above the vetoed CJS bill, H.R. 2076, but is still about $210 million below the level enacted for the ATP program in fiscal year 1995. Report language notes that the highest priority should be to continue ATP awards made in fiscal year 1995 and prior years--but, the new Commerce Secretary, Mickey Kantor, is allowed under this agreement to continue to make new ATP awards. And, I should note, that the agreement includes an additional $2 million for the Office of our Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, Mary Lowe Good. She is the best. And report language expresses our commitment to continue the U.S./Israel Science and Technology Agreement which is overseen by her office. Second, this conference agreement includes $1.4 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services program or ``COPS'' as it is commonly known. This is $100 million above the fiscal year 1995 level, $1.4 billion above the level included in H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice and State bill that the President vetoed last December. I should note that it is almost the identical amount that was restored on the Senate floor in September when the Senate considered H.R. 2076. The conference report reiterates, for the first time since the Republicans won a majority in the House and Senate, that the Congress remains committed to deploying one hundred thousand additional police officers on the beat across America by the year 2000. The conference agreement also provides $503 million for a new local law enforcement block grant. This program is intended to meet other law enforcement needs that communities may have, such as equipment. It is my hope that this latter program will not simply become a new Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) program. On another crime issue, the conference report includes $403 million for a new State prison grant program, sometimes called ``Truth in Sentencing.'' This program, which will provide grants to States to build or renovate or expand prisons. Senator Gregg, our Chairman, and his staff director, David Taylor, worked very, very hard on this issue. I think they have come up with a program that is much better than the existing program which is authorized in the 1994 Crime Bill. This new prison program will now really address the needs of small states, and will help all states add prison cells to incarcerate violent offenders. Third, this conference agreement includes $1.254 billion for Department of State international organizations and conferences. For the most part this represents assessed contributions to the United Nations and other international organizations, for example the World Health Organization and Organization of American States, and for United Nations Peacekeeping. The conference agreement represents an increase of $326 million above the vetoed CJS bill, H.R. 2076. While this is not a personal priority of mine, I know that the Administration's view was that these funds would have to be restored for the President to sign this bill. Fourth, the agreement waives Section 15a of the State Department basic authorities Act, so the State Department can continue to obligate appropriations even in the absence of a fiscal year 1996 authorization. Only in this CJS bill do we have this crazy situation where an agency is told that it legally cannot obligate appropriations if an annual authorization has not been enacted. The Department of Defense doesn't live under this ridiculous rule. Nor does the Justice Department or Health and Human Services, or anyone else. I'm all for the importance of the authorization process--I am ranking minority and former Chairman of an authorization committee. But, I would never think of trying to stop NASA, or the Transportation Department, or the National Science Foundation or other agencies from obligating appropriations that the Congress and the President considered, approved, and enacted. I also should note that the bill language regarding Vietnam allows the State Department, USIA, and Foreign Commercial Service to maintain a presence in that nation. We have opened diplomatic relations with Vietnam and have an Embassy in that nation. It's time to move forward in our relations with Hanoi. I'm glad that Senators Hatfield, Kerry, Kerrey, McCain, and Lautenberg were able to prevail on this issue. Fifth, this bill includes some very important appropriations for disaster assistance: $100 million is provided for the SBA for disaster loans. This ensures that parts of the United States that are hit by disasters in the future, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, can receive assistance. And, $18 million is provided to EDA to help the Northwest and North Dakota deal with flooding and to address other disasters if necessary. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. What is most important to note is that this bill will become law unlike the previous appropriations bills that were vetoed. This is happening because members from my side of the aisle were included in the appropriations process. The role of the Presidency was recognized and the administration's views were considered in making spending decisions. This is not the way the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee started business in the 104th Congress. I truly hope it is the way we now will continue to do business as we embark on fiscal year 1997. In conclusion, I think there are many people who deserve credit for getting this bill to this point. But, no one deserves more credit than our distinguished Chairman, Senator Hatfield. He and I have been Governors and know what it means to run a government. We have been legislators together in this Senate for some thirty years. Senator Hatfield understands the responsibilities of being a Senator and what it means to be Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a Committee with such an important tradition and mission. Senator Hatfield took control a few months ago and literally brought the appropriations process back from total chaos. During this fiscal year, he has repeatedly tried to bring some sanity, and bipartisanship to the appropriations decisions. I think the President and the many Federal employees in the Executive Branch owe him a real debt of gratitude. But, most of all, I think he has done this Senate, this Congress, and this Nation a very real service and I, for one, want to express my appreciation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Obviously, I do not take any pleasure in correcting the record made by my distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I served as chairman of the Budget Committee and had the best of cooperation from the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. I hope we can cooperate again in getting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that protects social security. Last year on March 1, 1995, five Senators signed a letter to the majority leader stating that we were ready, willing and able to vote ``aye'' on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so long as we did not repeal the statutory law of the United States that prohibits the use of Social Security trust funds in computing either deficits or surpluses of the Federal Government. Now my distinguished friend from New Mexico says that both sides use it, and he starts, of course, with President Lyndon Johnson. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a budget table of the deficits and surpluses for the past 40 years.

Mr. HOLLINGS. If you look at this table, you can refer to 1969 when we had the last budget balanced. I happened to have been here and to have voted for it. That is a unique experience. If you look down to the 1997 budget that we will be working on, you can see the intent to use $127 billion--$127 billion in trust funds. Up, up and away. I hold in my hand this light blue book entitled ``Budget Process Law Annotated.'' You will not find the word ``unified'' in it. You, will, however, find section 13301 of the statutory laws of the United States. I ask unanimous consent to have that section printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, when the both sides continued to use the surpluses--I teamed up with Senator Moynihan. I said, ``Look, you are using these moneys for defense, education, housing, foreign aid, for everything but Social Security. Let us just stop the increase in taxes on Social Security.'' So exactly 5 years ago, on April 24, 1991, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico moved to table the Moynihan-Kasten-Hollings amendment that would have reduced Social Security revenues in the budget resolution by about $190 billion. I ask unanimous consent that that vote be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, after our success in the Budget Committee, I worked with Senator Heinz to offer the same amendment on the Senate floor on October 18, 1990. The vote was 98-2, and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico voted both in July, and in October to not use Social Security trust funds. I ask unanimous consent that that vote be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, section 13301 says you cannot use Social Security. In our failure to follow that law, we should not wonder why the people do not have any faith or trust in their Government. Let us go back to Social Security. In 1983, we increased the Social Security payroll taxes in order to save the program. We said these moneys would be used only for Social Security. We were going to balance the budget for general government and build up Social Security surpluses to ensure that money would be there when they baby boomers retire. However, working in the Budget Committee with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, you could see what was happening. Budget deficits went up, up and away. We had less than a trillion-dollar debt when Reagan came to town. It is now $5 trillion. So in the Budget Committee, on July 10, 1990, I offered an amendment to protect the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. It was my amendment that passed the committed by a vote of 20-1. I ask unanimous consent to have the vote printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on November 13, 1995, the Senator from New Mexico again joined with us on a vote of 97-0 not to use Social Security trust funds. But in March of last year they were trying to get a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that used an additional $636 billion in Social Security trust funds. Under that approach, we would come around to the year 2002 and say, ``Whoopee, we have finally done our duty under the Constitution and we have balanced the budget.'' But we would have at the same time caused at least a trillion-dollar deficit in Social Security. Who is going to vote to increase Social Security taxes, or any other tax, to bring in a trillion dollars? That is our point here. That is why we have offered this sense of the Senate. What happens is the media goes right along. I want to quote from an April 15 article in Time magazine which talks about the surpluses in the highway trust fund: Supporters argue, rightly, that the money would go where it was intended--building roads and operating airports. But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an accounting figment. That is what we will have to say about Social Security in 2002 because the money will not be there. Let us cut out this charade, stop the fraud, and be honest with each other. Let us get truth in budgeting. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to the contribution of Sea-Land Services to the city of Charleston over the past 30 years. Not only my hometown, but the entire State of South Carolina has benefited from the services of this company. Sea Land's founder, Malcolm McLean, is the father of modern containerization. It was his idea to use standardized boxes for shipping goods internationally by sea. By limiting the handling of a container's contents, this technique afforded rapid, safe, and inexpensive transportation of goods all over the world, thus having a profound impact on world trade and economic development. It is a simple concept, containerization of goods to be handled only at their origin and their destination, but it is one of the more important innovations in recent history. Since its arrival in 1966, Sea-Land has enjoyed a prosperous relationship with the city of Charleston. It has expanded to meet the growing trade needs of South Carolinians, and now moves cargo to and from more than 35 countries. In 1966, Sea-Land's containership, Gateway City, first sailed into Charleston harbor; 30 years later, Charleston's container cargo has grown from 80,000 tons to over 8.2 million tons, with the value growing from $512 million to more than $20 billion. Charleston's efficient inland links and close access to the open sea led other steamship companies to follow Sea-Land's lead and make the city their south Atlantic base of operations. The trading potential offered by these ocean carriers has opened markets around the world for U.S. products. Cargo ships provide many opportunities for economic development in the regions they serve. Due to the relatively transparent movement of goods these days, few people realize that 95 percent of our international trade moves by ship. This is a tribute to the success of containerization and the transportation industry. The effects of Sea-Land's contribution to the shipping industry go beyond Charleston to the entire State and the Southeast. Manufacturers in 26 States use the extensive shipping services in Charleston. The trade relationships that Sea-Land makes possible bring countries together across the world. The State of South Carolina has enjoyed tremendous economic growth recently, attracting interest and investments from all over the globe. Without the capital commitments of our ports and ocean carriers like Sea-Land, this would not be possible. We appreciate the continued commitment Sea-Land has made to our area and look forward to another 30 prosperous years.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. How can it be invested and become an IOU? If it is invested, it is presumably going to be paid back? That is our problem, it is being spent on the deficit. That is my point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from North Dakota. We have been working in the vineyards together in trying to end the practice of applying Social Security surpluses toward the deficit. Everyone is interested in balancing the budget. But what happens in all of these budgets, both the Republican and the administration budgets, is that they use Social Security trust funds to obscure the size of the deficit. This minute, we owe $502 billion to Social Security. Over the next 6 years, we will borrow another $600 billion from that trust fund. So even if we succeed in enacting these so-called balanced budget plans, by 2002 we will have destroyed the Social Security program; we will owe Social Security over $1 trillion. No one is going to raise taxes some $1 trillion to make good on the Social Security trust fund. The time to stop that nonsense is here and now. In order to do so, 98 Senators in this Chamber, as the Senator from North Dakota stated, voted for the Heinz-Hollings-Moynihan amendment on October 18, 1990. President George Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act into law. Republicans charge that offering the Dorgan amendment is delaying action on the immigration bill. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. On yesterday afternoon, in the middle of the terrorism bill, the distinguished majority leader saw fit to come to the floor to talk about balancing the budget through spectrum auctions. Fine. That is his privilege and no one disrespects it. But we should not cry foul when other members talk about Social Security and balancing the budget. The truth of the matter is that we are in a Catch-22. This Senator has produced balanced budgets. I had a AAA credit rating as the South Carolina's Governor. I voted for a balanced budget in 1968-69. Since that time, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I have proposed freezes, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and, yes, tax increases to try and balance the budget. So this is not a casual political maneuver to get high ground in any political campaign. It is done in an attempt to get us to keep our word--to not use Social Security trust funds in calculating the deficit. We cannot keep it when the leadership, in considering the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which this Senator has voted for already three times----