Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. With respect to Senator Kerrey and Senator Danforth's recommendations, fine--I support their particular report. It is not a question of fixing Social Security. It is a question of not using the surpluses to obscure the size of the deficit and using them for Social Security. I am sure the Senator was with me, on October 18, 1990. And I am sure he supports that law. You and I act like there is some difference. There is no difference in our belief that changes will have to be made to protect the integrity of social security. But the law says thou shalt not use the Social Security moneys to obscure the size of the deficit? That is the law, 13301. The chairman of the Budget Committee is here, he is totally familiar with it. Isn't that correct?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how would it be if we had IOU's for the same time, I ask the Senator?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. I voted for a balanced budget. I wish to vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. But I will not vote to repeal the firewall that we have in the law for the Social Security trust fund. Let us have really truth in budgeting. I commend the distinguished Senator from North Dakota in bringing his amendment up in this particular fashion. It is unfortunate that we had no other option. We are not trying to delay the immigration bill. I commend the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Massachusetts on their leadership on immigration. I am ready to vote for their bill. We are ready to agree to a time agreement. But we want to vote on this issue to really fix into the conscience of the body that when we say it is a trust fund, we mean to protect it and not dip into those surpluses. That is what the chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side said they did last evening. They dipped once again into our children's piggy bank. That piggy bank is there to protect retirement. Senator Thurmond and I, we are going to get ours. In fact, we are getting ours now. But I can see some young folks around here; when their time comes, they are never going to be able to receive it. Why? Because we have got this nonsense about a unified budget. Here is the budget law. If you can find the word unified in there, I'll jump off the Capitol dome. There is no such thing as a unified budget in the budget law, but the administration goes along with it; the Congress goes along with it. They violate the law. Let us join with the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and stop violating the law. I yield back the remainder of my time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished leaders of this measure.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 minutes as if in morning business to respond to the majority leader on the issue of broadcast spectrum auctions.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I must take exception with the statements by the distinguished majority leader. What really occurred 5 years ago is that hearings both in our Committee of Commerce, which I was chairing at the time, and the Federal Communications Commission as to how to bring about high-definition television, going from the analog signal to the high-definition digital television signal--similar to how we went earlier from AM radio to FM radio and we gave away the licenses, and now most of the radio audience predominates in FM. On this particular score, there are all kinds of problems. First, there is a problem faced by the local broadcasters. To change over from their analog signal to a digital signal is going to be a cost of somewhere between $2 and $10 million. They are not going to put that $2 to $10 million in changing over unless and until there are digital TV sets. The people who are going to purchase the sets are not going to purchase them until the broadcasters bring about digital television. So working as the public body in the public interest, we reasoned, after these hearings, that there ought to be a transition to change over, to certainly not penalize established free broadcasts in America--it is not a gift, if you please, but, on the contrary, we need to get them to switch from analog to digital and then we'll take the one that they relinquished and auction it. Nobody is getting anything free. It is necessary to bring about that particular switch from the analog to the high-definition television that will truly benefit consumers. Chairman Sikes, a Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, enunciated this policy. We had 2 years of hearings in our Commerce Committee. We, in a bipartisan fashion, got the movement going with respect to the broadcasters. You have to sort of sell this idea to move them along. We are trying now to get the criteria for high-definition television agreed upon by all the technical entities that are interested in this particular move. And the Federal Communications Commission is having hearings to determine the technology that should be used. Once that is done this spring, we hope to move forward and, as best we can, accelerate this improved television viewing for the American public. And now this thing about balancing the budget, this crowd is running up $1 billion a day in interest costs. You raise spending $1 billion a day while we are talking that you do not want to pay for. I put in a value-added tax bill to pay for it, but nobody else around here wants to pay for it--talking about paying the bills and balancing the budget. But right is right and fair is fair. The broadcasters have not been going around soliciting or asking for a giveaway of billions of dollars or whatever it is. We have to maintain free over-the-air broadcasting. They used to have almost 100 percent of the broadcast audience. They are down to 60 percent. Cable television and direct broadcast satellites are taking over and everything of that kind. In a very real sense, we are very careful about the regular analog stations that you and I watch every day and every evening. So the air should be clear. You can have 100 hearings. You can go back on it. You can come up with the sale and make a lot of money, but the American public is not going to be served. Auctioning the second channel would only disadvantage the American consumer. You should not reverse a well-studied and well-thought-out policy by a Republican administration and a Democratic administration, a Republican committee and a Democratic committee. We should stick with the FCC plan--it is the best way to ensure free over-the-air television and the taxpayer will benefit when the original channel is auctioned. This peripheral attack about I am Horatio at the bridge here and I am standing up and I am protecting the public, and we want to pay the bills and we want to balance the budget, is all hogwash. If you want to pay bills, then I say to the Senator, it is in your Finance Committee. Pull it out of the Finance Committee and let's vote up and down, because you cannot balance the budget without increasing taxes. I will make my challenge one more time. I make it time and again. I would be delighted to jump off the Capitol dome if you can give me a 7- year balanced budget without increasing taxes. You cannot do it. I gave that to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and he did not do it. That was over a year ago. And I am still ready to jump. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to pay my respects to a dear friend, F. Nordhoff Hoffman, who died on Friday, April 5, 1996. Nordy Hoffman was a truly good man. He was a big man with a big faith-- faith in his church, faith in his beloved alma mater Notre Dame, faith in his wonderful family and, perhaps most importantly, faith in his fellow men and women. In the early 1970's, I had the honor of serving as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee while Nordy was the executive director. He was excellent in that capacity, as he was in all of the endeavors he undertook. As Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, Nordy showed his talents to their fullest. He drew upon his experience with the steelworkers Union, his military background and his political acumen to provide a rare style of leadership. Not only was he an excellent organizer with an aptitude for strategy, he related well to his co-workers and especially to his employees. Following his Senate service, Nordy founded and maintained a political consulting firm, F. Nordy Hoffman and Associates. Nordy was a man who demonstrated his commitment to organizations and issues that he cared about. He was an involved member of the Notre Dame University community in several capacities. In his undergraduate years, he was an All-American guard with the championship football team, coached by Knute Rockne--Nordy was later inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1978. Nordy's deep love of Notre Dame continued through the years. He served as president of the Alumni Association and as a member of the Board. Several years ago, the F. Nordy Hoffman scholarship was established. The funds are used to aid young men and women who suffer financial reversals during their time at Notre Dame. Nordy also was an active member of the board of directors of the Stone Ridge School in Bethesda, the board of regents of the Center for Congressional and Governmental Relations at Catholic University, and the board of directors of the credit union here in the U.S. Senate. In addition, he gave unstinting support to numerous local charities. Nordy spent his life in service to his fellow Americans. Those of us who were privileged to have known and worked with him saw this day after day. He truly made a difference and there can be no higher tribute. Peatsy and I and the staff join in heartfelt condolences to Nordy's wife Joanne and his entire family.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Public Law 13301, status of the Social Security trust funds.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Hollings-Heinz amendment Social Security trust funds budget deficit vote of October 18, 1990, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman of our committee, the Senator from Wyoming. I say a word about immigration in that we opened up a school this morning for some 525 additional Immigration and Naturalization agents-- the plan and plot as we work in the appropriations side of this particular problem. And I serve on the what we call the State, Justice, Commerce Subcommittee of Appropriations. For the past 25 years we have been trying to keep up with the problem as we have seen it. We work with the leadership of the Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. And this morning, as I say, we opened up that school for some 525 agents at the old Navy yard facility in Charleston that we closed a couple of years ago. A word should be said about our distinguished Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Doris Meissner. She could not be with us, of course, because of the loss of her husband in that fatal crash going into Dubrovnik last week. Chuck Meissner, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce in charge of International Trade, was on that plane, that tragic loss. I talked to Commissioner Meissner and said that I know we have the scheduled opening of the school, but we ought to call that off. She said, ``No, it is really an emergency situation. While I cannot be there, I will be represented by Ms. Sale, Chris Sale, the Deputy Commissioner, and the other authorities, and we are ready to go, and we want to make sure that we have at least these agents trained and ready to go to work by August.'' Chris Sale was there, and we opened the school in the most adequate fashion. The American public and the U.S. Senate should understand that this problem is much like trying to drink water out of a fire hydrant. Go down to San Ysidro, CA, down there by San Diego where 46 million automobiles and 9 million pedestrians were stuck and inspected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service last year. We are totally understaffed for the problems of the illegal immigrants coming into the Nation and making their demands upon State and Federal spending. So it is not a casual commendation that I give to the leadership of the Senator from Wyoming because I worked with him on the Simpson- Mazzoli bill years back. He has been in the trenches working for years trying to bring the National Government ahead and on to the problem, so that it would not increase into this emergency, more or less, at this particular time. Having said that, Mr. President, let me say a word about an underlying amendment of Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, myself, and others relative to spending Social Security trust funds. I can go into detail which I will to make the record here, but let me bring it right up to the spending habits of the National Government with respect to trust fund amounts. When we passed in 1983 the increase in Social Security taxes, we could not have possibly voted that tax increase save and excepting to maintain the integrity of the Social Security trust fund. In fact, the intent was not only to maintain its integrity but to maintain a surplus. We talked openly, and you refer back to the record, of the Greenspan commission report, that if these increases in taxes were carried out, we would have a surplus that would easily take care of the baby boom generation into the year 2050. But otherwise has occurred. What we have been doing, in a shameless fashion, is spending the Social Security trust moneys on the deficit. We have been obscuring the size of the deficit by the use of those trust funds. It was $63 billion last year, if I remember correctly. Last year the CBO report was a $481 billion surplus. So if you add the $63 billion I guess it would be in the terms of a $544 billion surplus, over one-half trillion surplus funds in the Social Security trust. But, ah, now we have today's, or last week I should say but it is dated April 15, Time magazine, and I wish to quote because here is what really happens to the so-called trust funds. It is on page 27 of April 15, 1996, Time magazine, entitled ``Odyssey of a Mad Genius.'' I refer to the article on page 27, ``Beltway Robbery.'' This has to do with highway trust funds, not Social Security, but the similarity is so stark in its reality that it must be brought to the attention of my fellow Senators here this afternoon. I quote: In a Washington out to cut Federal spending, 12-term Congressman Bud Shuster is an unrepentant pork barrel spender. Now it appears the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has converts. More than half his colleagues including a heavy majority of those reform-minded GOP freshmen, are backing a bill that would lift constraints on highway and airport projects. If the trust and budgeting act is passed by the House next week, it would give Shuster's committee great latitude to tap some $33 billion in transportation trust funds. The measure has mobilized a formidable lobbying coalition, uniting organized labor and big and small business, State and local governments, and such an esoteric trade association as the Precast-Prestressed Concrete Institute. Their goal is not only to pass it but also a vetoproof 289 votes. Supporters argue rightly that the money would go where it was intended-- building roads and upgrading the airports. But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an accounting figment. Using them would increase the deficit or force greater cuts in other programs. Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich and Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston are vehemently opposed. Attempts by Newt Gingrich to reconcile them and Shuster have come to naught. Meanwhile, Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan broke with his custom of staying neutral to advise against passage. Now, is that not a remarkable report? One line in there, and I quote it again: But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an accounting figment. This is exactly what Senator Heinz and I were fighting against when we had enacted section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act on November 5, 1990, signed into law by President George Bush, voted by a vote of 98 to 2 in this Senate. We did not want Social Security trust funds to become an ``accounting figment.'' That is what they do when they continue to use funds. When we try to debate it in the Chamber, it does not matter; we have the money there, but it has to be used by the Government somewhere so we will just borrow the moneys there and everything else of that kind and tell the youth of America do not worry--well, do worry, it is going broke--when it is not going broke and when we got the moneys there and run around about going broke because in their mind it has become an accounting figment. Now, let me mention a book by James Fowler. It is called ``Breaking The News.'' This is the problem in Government today. Years back, none other than Thomas Jefferson as between a free Government and a free press, he would choose the latter, and why? Because he said and reasoned that you could have a free Government but would not remain free long unless you had a free press to keep us politicians honest. What has happened is that the free press no longer keeps the politicians honest. They in turn have joined into the dishonesty. Here it is. I read again. One sentence: But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an accounting figment. Thirty-three billion in the highway trust funds. The article quotes it. It is not an accounting figment. And instead of keeping the trust for highways, who comes out against spending highway moneys for highways? The chairman of the Budget Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and of all people, the head of the Federal Reserve because he is part and parcel of the conspiracy for a so-called unified budget. Now, let's go to unified. Wall Street and Alan Greenspan love unified budgets so long as the Government is not coming in to the bond market with its sharp elbows borrowing. Then they can make more money on stock sales. Bond sales, their interest rates stay down so borrow from yourself. Well, that is pretty good for the irresponsible business leadership but for the public servant down here in Washington that has to do his job, he is going to meet himself coming around the corner and today we have met ourselves coming around the corner. But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an accounting figment. That is the charade and fraud that has been going on. I more or less dedicated myself to paying the bill. Earlier today when we were opening up this school, I said when we handled this Justice Department budget back in 1987, 1988, it was only about $4.2 billion. Now, this year, it is $16.7 billion. It has gone up, up and away, and we do not pay for it. I cited an editorial in my own hometown newspaper about April 15, here we were, the day to pay taxes, and up, up and away was the national debt to $5 trillion. And they said: You know the reason for this was entitlement funds. They said that it was the military retirement, the Social Security, the Medicare. Wait a minute, Mr. President. Let us go to these so-called entitlement funds. As I mentioned a moment ago, Social Security is over one-half trillion dollars in the black. Medicare, everybody agrees, is in the black. They are talking about going broke in 7 years, but many adjustments can be made and should be made and will be made. We will keep Medicare solvent. We do not have to cut it to get a tax cut to buy the vote for November. I have opposed that. Similarly, with the military and civil service retirement fund, it is in the black. It is not these entitlements, it is paying for the immigration border patrol, the immigration inspectors, all the other things; the Justice Department, FBI, for the defense, for all these things for 15 years. We have not been paying for general government. Oh, this cry over entitlements started in the Appropriations Committee when my friend Dick Darman came in there, talking about ``entitlements, entitlements, entitlements.'' And you have that same Concord Coalition, ``entitlements, entitlements, entitlements,'' and my friend Pete Peterson up there in New York, ``entitlements, entitlements, entitlements.'' Let us talk about general government. I was a member of the Grace Commission against waste, fraud, and abuse. And we have constituted the biggest waste, the biggest fraud, the biggest abuse in the last 15 years by spending $250 billion more each and every year, on an average, without paying for it. That is why the debt has gone to $5 trillion. That is why the interest cost has gone to over $350 billion. We will get a CBO estimate here on Wednesday. Today is Monday. But let me tell you what the estimate was earlier in the year. I will ask unanimous consent later that this be printed in the Record. The estimated 1996 interest cost on the national debt, gross interest paid is $350 billion. Interest has gone up since then, so it is going to be over $1 billion a day. When President Reagan took over, the gross interest cost was exactly $74.8 billion. Get into a little arithmetic. Subtract 75, in round figures, $75 billion from $350 billion and you get $275 billion. Mr. President, 275 billion extra dollars spending for nothing, for nothing. I remember President Reagan. I will show the talks, if you want me to put it in the Record. He was going to balance the budget in 1 year. Then he came to town and said, ``Oops, 3 years.'' Then we had the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, 5 years. Now they have proposed 7 years. If they get past the November election, the next crowd will say 10 years. As long as they can continue the charade, as long as the press fails to keep us honest and fails to engage the public in the truth, it continues the charade, calling it truth in budgeting. Mr. President, the actual cost of domestic discretionary spending at this minute is $267 billion. But the increase in spending for interest on the debt has been $275 since President Reagan took office. Point: We have doubled domestic discretionary spending without getting a double Government. We could have two Presidents, two Senates, two Houses of Representatives, two Departments of Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior. Domestic discretionary--we could have two for the money we are spending. But we are not getting it. Talk about increased spending? ``I am against increased spending.'' They are all running around in this Congress saying, ``I am against increased spending.'' Well they have increased spending $1 billion today, on account of this fraud, this charade. Or, like taxes, for April 15 they have sent their minions all around the land, talking about tax day, ``Let us have a special bill over in the House.'' It is all theater. And we will have that, ``You have to have a two-thirds vote in order to increase taxes.'' Increase taxes? You cannot avoid death. You cannot avoid taxes. And you cannot avoid interest costs on the national debt. Interest is like taxes. You have already increased taxes today of $1 billion and you will increase taxes tomorrow, and on Saturday, and on Sunday and on Christmas Day, every day this year--not on increased program spending, but on interest on the debt. The crowd that says they are against increasing taxes is increasing taxes and not wanting to do a thing about this central problem. I tried and I am going to continue. They are not going to get rid of me. I came here with a AAA credit rating for my State. I increased taxes to get it. I knew as a young Governor I could not go to those industry leaders in New York and ask them to come down and invest in Podunk. I had to have a solvent operation. So we did balance the budget and we put in a little device, which later, in the Federal Government, was called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. It was cuts across the board. I went to the distinguished Senator from Texas. I said, ``This device that you have that cuts Social Security, it will not get to first base.'' I said, ``Speaker O'Neill and Congressman Claude Pepper will run us off the Capitol steps. We have not got a chance. Forget it. Let us talk sense.'' I helped write Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sensibly, and we enacted automatic cuts across the board. Then, when, as they say, the rubber hit the road in 1990, we abolished the cuts across the board. On October 19, at 12:41 a.m., I raised the point of order, and my distinguished colleague from Texas voted to abolish the cuts across the board of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Do you know what they did? They went for spending caps. Well, this place has a ceiling, but the spending caps have not. Spending has gone up, up and away and that is why poor President Bush lost his reelection. There is no kidding around. I mean, we were up to $400 billion deficits at that particular time. The exact figure, according to the schedule here of the real deficit was $403.6 billion. So they said we will try this little Governor from Arkansas. He has balanced the budget for 10 years. Give him a try. I voted for a balanced budget under Lyndon Johnson. Under Lyndon Baines Johnson, the interest costs on the national debt in his last year, when we voted that balanced budget, was $16.6 billion. Now it is over $350 billion, over $1 billion a day. That is the biggest waste consciously caused by us. I have been a party to it. Yes, I tried to enact a freeze. Then I tried Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Then, even in the Budget Committee I had a value-added tax. It was bipartisan. I had the distinguished Senator from Missouri join me. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota joined. We had eight votes for a value-added tax of 5 percent allocated to ridding us of the deficit and debt so we would not have this increased spending on automatic pilot. But, somehow, somewhere along the line, we have gotten into a contract of nothing but procedural nonsense. We have gotten into term limits, when the Constitution already says I have to run for every 6 years. Incidentally, I have been elected to the U.S. Senate six times. We have procedural talk about unfunded mandates, line-item vetoes, anything except enacting a balanced budget. We are not providing; the size of the Federal work force is smaller now than it was 10 years ago. We are spending more and getting less. No wonder the body politic is disillusioned with their Government in Washington. Somehow, both Republican and Democrat, keep on spending more and more while we get less and less. And they all give us this same pollster pap of, ``I am against taxes and for the family. I am against crime and for jobs.'' You know, get the hot button items and try to fool the people. And that is why the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has offered this amendment, which states: It is the sense of the Senate that because section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act prohibits the use of the Social Security trust fund surplus to offset the budget deficit, any proposal for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget should contain a provision creating a firewall between the receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust funds and the rest of the federal budget, and that the constitutional amendment should explicitly forbid using Social Security trust funds to balance the federal budget. Mr. President, if acted on that idea, we would have passed the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by at least 5 votes in March of last year--March of last year. Again, about 6 weeks ago, I tried to bring it up, and they raised a technicality that it was not relevant. Five Senators wrote a letter to Majority Leader Dole. We went on record in favor of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as long as it did not repeal section 13301. But they want that unified budget. Keep spending the billions and billions and billions from the Social Security trust fund and then come around at the end of the day when my children and the distinguished Presiding Officer's children and grandchildren come for their particular retirement, and they are going to say the untapped funds are actually an accounting figment. Who in the year 2002 is going to raise a trillion dollars in taxes to make good on the IOU's in the Social Security draw? Nobody, nobody, and they do not have any idea of doing it. But ``I'm against taxes,'' they say. Oh, it is a wonderful luxury to run around and fool the American people, and who allows it? The American free press. Read ``Breaking the News'' by James Fallows, an authoritative writer. He has been up here. He has watched the operation. I can tell you, time and time again, it has been a very, very difficult fight. Let me give credit to the late Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz. John Heinz and I worked on taking the Social Security trust fund off budget. It was bipartisan. It was called the Heinz-Hollings amendment-- we wanted him to lead it at the time because the Republicans were in control--and we called it the Heinz-Hollings-Moynihan amendment. Our distinguished Senator Moynihan had been the ranking member on the Finance Committee and, admittedly, is still the authority on Social Security in this body. But on October 18, 1990, Senator John Heinz said: Mr. President, in all the great jambalaya of frauds surrounding the budget, surely the most reprehensible is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund in order to mask the true size of the deficit. Another quote on October 18, 1990 by Senator John Heinz: Since 1983, when we may have saved the Social Security goose, we have systematically proceeded to melt down and pawn the golden egg. It does not take a financial wizard to tell us that spending these reserves on today's bills does not bode well for tomorrow's retirees. I make these quotes to the body this afternoon for the simple reason that it is bipartisan, and I am appealing to the Senators on the other side of the aisle, the Republican colleagues, because I know the chairman of our Budget Committee, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, does not believe in busting the budget. He got caught off base last November when he held up the good housekeeping award and said, ``Here's a balanced budget certified by the Director of the CBO.'' Then 2 days later, ``CBO said, as you were, ``we have a deficit of $105 billion.'' It was not balanced at all. Let us not go through that charade again. We can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Senator Dole is put under tremendous pressures with the goofy right that he has to respond to in order to get the nomination. But now that he has it, he should revert to the old Dole, as he was as chairman of the Finance Committee when he joined in the sentiment of George Bush who called Reaganomics voodoo, and former Republican majority leader, Senator Baker, who said it was a riverboat gamble. I know Senator Dole. I have tremendous respect for him, and I know he is solid on paying bills. But he has a crowd that runs rampant saying, ``We don't want to pay the bill.'' Remember what happened to Fritz Mondale? He was honest enough to come out and say we are going to have to have an increase in taxes in order to pay the bills, but he did not add ``in order to pay the bills.'' He said, ``Yes, it looks like we are going to have to increase taxes.'' He had ahead of time said, ``By the way, I'm a Democrat in the image of Hubert Humphrey.'' When he said he was a Democrat in the image of my friend Senator Humphrey from Minnesota, everybody took it to mean we really were going to start some spending. I understand the call that has been put out to call the Democrats tax-and-spend, tax-and-spend. Let me enter something in the Record now for President Clinton. In all of these 15 years, the only time the deficit has been decreased is under President Clinton. He came to town and cut spending $500 billion. He came to town and with a $500 billion deficit reduction plan--equally split between spending cuts and taxes. I voted for it in order to try and get on top of these interest costs, this waste. He came to town and cut $57 billion out of Medicare and had proposed another $124 billion. But there was no $250 billion for a tax cut. So he was acting responsibly until the Post and you folks just pulled him off base, and then he came for a tax cut, too, which nobody can afford. That is one grand fraud on the American people. We do not have any taxes to cut. We have been cutting the spending. Eliminate the domestic discretionary spending. Eliminate welfare, eliminate foreign aid and the entire domestic discretionary spending and not cut it, and you still have a deficit. That is the serious problem. The ox is in the ditch, and we have to sober up in this Government of ours and quit talking pollster politics games which the press joins in: who is up and who is down and who is silly enough. I recommended a value-added tax in the Finance Committee. I want to pay for new immigration inspectors. I want to pay for 5,000 new border patrol. I want to pay for the extra FBI, the crime bill. I want to pay for the commitment in Bosnia. But this crowd comes up here and gets away with the worst I have ever seen. I hope that we can salve the conscience, if there is one left amongst us, where we adopt the amendment of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the sense of the Senate that we not use Social Security trust funds to balance the Federal budget. That was not the intent when we adopted those taxes, but you can see from the way they are treating highway trust funds--I would like to do it for the highway trust funds. I would like to do it for airport and airway trust funds. Out there in Colorado, we need some new airports, but we have not been spending the money on airports, we have been spending them instead on masking the size of the deficit, sacrificing future investment for present consumption. I would like to spend these moneys for their intended purpose. I would like to pay the bill so that we will not saddle the next generation with our excesses. Where all they can do in Washington and is to pay for a little bit of defense, a little bit of domestic discretionary, cannot promote technology, cannot promote any competitiveness, cannot have any research and health care, and everything else that Government is supposed to do. I believe in Government. I do not think Government is the problem. I think this charade is a problem. I think they know it is a problem. But they go along with this silly contract and its procedural nonsense, guaranteed every day to put on a show here. ``Here is April 15. Here is tax day. Let's remind them about a tax cut that they could have gotten.'' So they automatically call it a President Clinton tax cut that you did not get, and all those kinds of things, when they could not give it to save their souls. They do not have taxes to cut. In fact, their solution is Reaganomics and growth--please do not come back here with that growth. Senator Mathias on the Republican side and I were 2 of 11 votes against Reaganomics and that mantra of growth, growth, growth. The only thing that has grown is the deficit and spending, spending on automatic pilot of $1 billion a day--$1 billion a day. And nobody wants to talk about it. They want to talk about tax cuts. It's like saying, ``I want to buy your vote.'' Campaign financing. The biggest fraudulent campaign financing occurs on the floor of the U.S. Congress, because we mislead the American people that their Government is being paid for. We act like all we need to do is cut back a little on welfare and on foreign aid eliminate the Commerce Department. Yes. Since I have the time--I talked the week before last with former Secretary Ron Brown. He and I were trying to work votes, in all candor, over on the Republican side. We were having a difficult time. We did not know whether or not the administration was going to veto the bill, should it pass. I take it now that the distinguished President would not hesitate in vetoing it because the Commerce Department is not a grab bag. I have been through over a dozen Secretaries of Commerce, and I am laying it on the line. Ron Brown was the one Secretary of Commerce that did the work. Maurice Stans up to Mosbacher, all they did was collect money. But here was a fellow out hustling business rather than funds for the campaign, actually doing an outstanding job. When I heard of the recent tragedy, I had just with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen. We were in Beijing at the time of the plane crash. They did not ask about the President because he has never been to the largest and perhaps one of the most important countries in the entire world. In fact, the Secretary of State, he has been 34 times to the Mideast but only one visit to Beijing. They did not ask about the Secretary of State. They asked about Ron Brown. He made a wonderful, favorable impression. I really believe, Mr. President, that we can really bring about more human rights through capitalism and market forces than we can through sanctions. I have learned the hard way, as we did back in the old days at the beginning of the war and the artillery. There was a saying then that no matter how well the gun was aimed, if the recoil was going to kill the gun crew, you did not fire the gun. The recoil of sanctions has killed the gun crew. It is killing off our business. Just recently, France picked up a $1.2 billion Airbus contract rather than the United States of America. Well, we all believe that the Government should take a stand. But the way we have taken it is in a general loud- mouth fashion without any result. We should have targeted sanctions, clearly understood in the first instance. Let our businesspeople go and prosper and bring about more capitalism over communism. That is how we really defeated it in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, with capitalism itself. What we are doing is taking the largest, most important nation in the Pacific--I can see that front cover of another magazine, ``Friend or Enemy?'' We are making them an enemy. There is not any question about it. They like America. They like our technology. They have 100,000 Chinese students. They know we stand for freedom and everything else. I was on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1966, the Kitty Hawk. We could not control 20 million North Vietnamese. I do not know how an aircraft carrier running around the Straits of Taiwan is going to control 1.2 billion Chinese. We need to sober up. Government--the art of the possible, not responding to these pollster pap things. ``Are you against Red China?'' or ``Are you against communism?'' and all those things. You have to live in the real world. You have to get the best results you can. I am absolutely persuaded you are going to do it through capitalism and not through running around confronting on every turn and letting that other crowd pick up the marbles. If you could do it unilaterally, fine business. But you cannot. So the French go in and the Germans go in or the Japanese, and they pick up our marbles and we are left behind. If I put myself in control--if I had to control 1.2 billion, the one concern I guess I would have to have would be Taiwan. They are moving toward democracy. They have, after 48 years, a free election for a President for the first time. But having had it, the more they talk about democracy and independence, coming to Cornell and asking for diplomatic recognition. But we need to be honest, Mr. President, about what that means in China. Any strong movement toward democracy right is a sensitive subject because if the Taiwan get democracy, then some crowd down in Guangzhou, will want democracy and everything else. Give me one man one vote today in Beijing and I have chaos. But the politician here in the National Government does not stop looking, listening, or thinking about it. I do not believe that the rulers in Beijing have any idea of continuing so-called Communistic government. Some call it Market-Leninism rather than Marxist-Leninism. I do not know what it is, but I do know, having been there in 1976 and 1986 and now in 1996, that they have brought about 180 million into the middle class. I would daresay, if I were Nick the Greek and had to bet, that I would bet that 10 to 20 years from now you are going to find more hungry fed in China than you are going to find in democratic India. I think that is a mistake in Russia, and that is why the President is going to be there the day after tomorrow. Why? Because they gave political rights before they gave economic rights. We in the U.S. Senate ought to stop looking and listening to those pollsters who have never served a day in government. They are wonderful. I have the best. I trust their polls and predictions, and they have been on target, but they still really do not know government. They never have thought about doing things in the long term. They are only thinking bam, bam towards the next election. I could fault us all. We are all looking to November. Nothing will happen in this body this year. Why? On account of November. Each day we are trying to find out who is on top in the 7 o'clock news. Irrespective of who is on top, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these tables, since President Truman, 1945 to 1996, of the U.S. budget outlays in billions, the trust funds, the real deficit, the gross Federal deficit, and the gross interest.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will have other things to be printed in the Record tomorrow when we debate this. This is not a casual thing. This is not a political thing. I will vote for Senator Dole's Senate Resolution No. 1, if he will not repeal, just do not repeal the present law. At least we have it into law. But the media disregards the law. The media quotes a unified budget, but sometimes the media does show some sense--instead of unified, saying the money is all in the Federal Government, they say, and I finally close in the sentence here on April 15, 1996, Time magazine, ``But the supposedly untapped funds are actually an accounting figment.'' Tell that to the media. From now on, that is what they call it, an accounting figment. We ought to have truth in budgeting. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to express my thanks and congratulations to a member of my staff, Ms. Jane Bergen. As we all know, here on Capitol Hill, we have a lot of very bright people who join our staffs and work tirelessly for our constituents. However, it is truly rare to have someone as gifted, dedicated, and loyal as Jane. Yesterday was Jane's 25th anniversary with my office, and I am honored to have had her with me for all this time. One of the many benefits of being a seasoned Senator is the opportunity to form strong relationships with one's staff. My office is, in many ways, a family, and Jane has done a great deal toward making it that way. In addition to being intelligent and capable, she is one of the most good-natured people I've ever met. Jane gets along with everyone, and I know that every member of my staff would do anything for her. Over the course of 25 years, Jane has come to know just about all there is to know about the workings of the Senate. She has trained more legislative assistants in my office than I can count, and she has become an invaluable resource in the process. These days, the word ``dependable'' has become a somewhat banal adjective. Well, I would like to redefine that word and apply it to Jane Bergen. She is uniquely trustworthy, and my staff and I have come to rely on her knowledge, judgement, and goodwill on a daily basis. As much as Jane participates in the family life of the office, she has just as full and successful life outside of it. She and her husband, Les, are the parents of two great children, Leah and Joel, who are the priority in their lives. Jane and Les are community leaders who have been active in local politics, the PTA and their synagogue. Although Jane has attended college, married, raised children, and pursued a career here in Washington, she is a native of my hometown, Charleston, the daughter of dear friends, Rita and Dr. Leon Banov. And she still retains the best of the traits of southerners: a strong sense of family and community, a perpetually friendly disposition, and loyalty. On behalf of Peatsy and all the staff through the years, I thank Jane for her many and excellent contributions to our office. I look forward to working with her for years to come.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, now that the initial shock of the horrific jet crash in Croatia has passed, we are forced to accept the fact that my friend Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 34 other talented professionals have perished. Today, almost 2 weeks later, it's still hard to describe the echoing sense of loss and deep sinking sorrow that still remains in all of us--man, woman, black, white, Republican, Democrat. There has been much written and said about Ron Brown over the last few days, and that is fitting, because there is so much to say. He was many things: key strategist, mesmerizing speaker, wily politician, savvy businessman, superb lawyer. Most of all, he was an exemplary public servant for this country. On his last day, he was on the road in a faraway place aggressively promoting U.S. business interests abroad. And, in this case, he was trying to bring peace and economic recovery to the war-weary Bosnian people. He took very seriously his responsibility to preserve the American dream for the next generation of Americans, so that they will have economic opportunity rather than a declining standard of living. To him, championing the economic interests of the United States was tantamount to championing the people of the United States, and so, in a very literal way, he died serving his country. Ron Brown was the most effective Secretary of Commerce I have known in my years in the Senate. It is fair to say that he was the most energetic and outstanding individual to ever serve in that post. Throughout his distinguished career in private industry, politics and the executive branch, Ron Brown served as a role model for all Americans. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, international business has become the new realm for competition. Ron Brown understood that and worked tirelessly to promote U.S. exports and business overseas. It was quite typical for Secretary Brown and me to meet after he had returned from a long trip abroad. Lack of sleep and shifting time zones never set him back. Jet lag wasn't in his vocabulary. It just was not in Ron's nature to take time to rest up. Ron Brown was an especially strong role model for African-Americans. He never forgot his roots, and he took special pride in his efforts to make Commerce Department programs more inclusive and to provide equal opportunity in the work force. He took pride in his efforts to revitalize the Minority Business Development Agency and the Economic Development Administration. Most of all, he set an example for those who would follow in his footsteps with his determination, his intelligence and his optimism. Secretary Brown came into the Commerce Department with a tremendous task: to shake one of the Government's largest and most diverse departments out of its dormancy, and turn it into forceful, focused, and effective agency. At his confirmation, he expressed the following among his priorities for the Department of Commerce: ``Expanding exports, promoting new technologies, supporting business development-- these all require integrated action, crossing old lines between business, labor and government.'' Ron Brown was an expert in crossing old lines, whether racial or bureaucratic, whether he was rejuvenating the Democratic Party or reinvigorating the Department of Commerce. He could see potential where others couldn't, and he had that unbeatable combination of vision and determination that was contagious. He inspired those around him. In addition to his political acumen and leadership abilities, Ron Brown was extremely likable. I remember walking down the corridors in the Hoover Building seeing signs on employees' office doors that read ``Ron Brown Fan Club.'' Even those misguided few in Congress who spent the last year trying to abolish the Commerce Department found their efforts thwarted by the simple fact that so many businessmen and Members of Congress not only believed in the importance of Commerce-- but also that everyone simply liked Ron Brown. This is a tragedy that hits home for me, Peatsy, and my staff. Ron Brown was a good friend. Our heartfelt sympathies go out to Alma, his children, and all the families of the passengers and crew of the aircraft. Mr. President, let's all remember Ron Brown for his firebrand style of engaged public service. We'll all miss him. I wish we had more like him.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the nomination of Stuart Eizenstat to be the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. In Stu Eizenstat, President Clinton has chosen a real winner. Ambassador Eizenstat brings a wealth of experience and talent to the administration's economic policy team. In Ron Brown we have had the most energetic and effective Secretary of Commerce that has ever held office at the Hoover Building. And, with the selection of Stu Eizenstat, we finally will have an Under Secretary of Commerce for trade who will serve as an aggressive advocate for U.S. business overseas, and an individual who will help defend American business against unfair competition. Ambassador Eizenstat is a native of Georgia and, in this period of March madness, I should also note that he developed quite a reputation as an exception basketball player. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina and Harvard Law School. As a young man Stu served in the White House under President Lyndon Johnson. And, from 1977-80 he served as President Carter's domestic policy advisor. Since leaving the White House, he has served as a lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and as a guest scholar at the Brookings Institute. He is an expert in trade law and he made a name for himself in private practice in Atlanta and Washington. President Clinton named him to serve in Brussels as the United States Ambassador to the European Union. And, in that role he has championed the cause of U.S. business regarding tariff and nontariff barriers to work toward a level playing field for American business. Stu Eizenstat is outstanding member of our Jewish American community. Throughout his life he has been very active in the Jewish community in Atlanta. While in Brussels, he also served as Special U.S. Envoy for Property Claims in Central Europe, seeking restitution of Jewish communal and private property confiscated by the Nazis during the Second World War. Mr. President, the International Trade Administration is the cornerstone in our U.S. trade programs. It is the principal agency responsible for promoting U.S. business and exports overseas. It staffs the U.S. Trade Representative, conducts trade missions, and provides policy makers with necessary information on industry and trading partners. And, through the Import Administration and the Office of Textiles and Apparel, ITA is responsible for protecting our markets from unfair competition, like dumping. ITA has typically been the Commerce Secretary's right hand; it has been the most important bureau in Commerce, regardless of who holds office, whether Mac Baldridge or Bill Verity or Pete Peterson or Elliot Richardson. I have no doubt that Stuart Eizenstat will make ITA even more effective as he assumes command. I have no doubt that Ambassador Eizenstat will hit the ground running when he gets over to the Commerce Department. I know his first objective will be to strengthen our trade enforcement activities. He intends to create a new center to monitor foreign countries compliance with trade agreements. Another principal goal of his is to get Asian nations to open their markets to U.S. products. During this recess, I will be reviewing his efforts to build a new American business center in Shanghai, China. Mr. President, Stu Eizenstat is a man of superb intellect and high integrity. I can tell you that he knows how to get the job done. I know that he will be an effective leader at ITA and Commerce and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a very happy birthday to Gertrude Mallard Pritcher of St. George, SC. Mrs. Pritcher will turn 100 years old on April 13. The 11th of 12 children, Gertrude Pritcher was born in Colleton County in 1896 to John Behlin and Annie Eliza Liston Hucks. In the history of her life, one can trace the history of the South Carolina Lowcountry. She grew up in Smoaks, where she taught school in a one- room schoolhouse, and Sunday school at a Methodist Church. Throughout the 1930s,'40s and '50s, she lived in Beaufort County where she was active in home demonstration clubs, specializing in gardening, cooking and sewing. A member of Daughters of the American Revolution, Mrs. Pritcher has three daughters and one son by her first husband, William Daniel Mallard of Summerville. They were married for almost 50 years, until his death in 1965. Mrs. Pritcher married Asbury Pritcher of Beaufort County in 1972 who has also passed away. Like a true Southerner, she has a love of and flair for storytelling. With her knowledge of the counties of South Carolina, and with all the family and friends she has, you can bet she has some good ones to tell. She enjoyed a healthy and active life for 85 years, until a stroke in 1981. The condition curtailed her activity somewhat, but she continues to live comfortably in St. George where her children and grandchildren enjoy her company, and her tales. Let's all hope that we can have as rich a life.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to the 1996 farm bill. Although the conferees have worked hard on this legislation and have obtained many good things for rural America, overall the bill is a bad bill, it is bad policy, and it is bad for the small family farmer in South Carolina. With this bill, Congress isn't the goose that laid the golden egg. It's the goose that is laying the rotten egg. And like rotten eggs, this bill stinks. As I said, this farm bill does have some positive aspects. We establish the Fund for Rural America to infuse $300 million into research and rural development--something that South Carolina and other rural States can definitely use. We create a new Environmental Quality Incentives Program that will help smaller farms with conservation projects. We also reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program, a program which is extremely popular among farmers and which improves millions of highly erodible acres across the country. Finally, we reauthorize several nutrition programs for 7 years. I am disappointed that the conference committee chose to reauthorize food stamps for only 2 years, but I hope we will revisit this issue soon. Despite the few good portions in this farm bill, it remains bad farm policy. Here's how absurd the bill is. Instead of the current price support system in which we help farmers recover their losses with deficiency payments, this bill allows the Government to pay farmers in each of the next 7 years--regardless of whether they have a good or bad year, regardless of whether they plant anything at all or regardless of market prices. Do you know what that means to the budget? It means we'll have to spend a lot more money than we currently spend on farm programs. It is estimated that this farm bill will cost the taxpayers an additional $4 billion over the next 2 years compared to current law. The current system works--why fix it? Current law provides that farmers do not receive Government subsidies in good years. But under this bill, we'll essentially give farmers a bonus in good years--like this year. That makes no sense to me in this environment of fiscal responsibility in which everybody and his brother is trying to find ways to save money. The small family farmer--especially the South Carolina farmer--comes under attack in this wrong-minded legislation. Through this bill, payments to farmers will decline over the next 7 years. But farming, like history, occurs in cycles. This bill doesn't take the cyclical nature of farming into account. Over the next 7 years, prices almost certainly will decrease from the high prices we now enjoy. But, at the end of this 7-year farm bill, prices likely will be low at the same time that payments are low. In other words, farmers who might be living high on the hog now will be scraping to make ends meet later on. I am worried that this will have catastrophic effects on the small farmer in my State and that many small farmers will have no choice but to harvest their fields for the last time. And that, in turn, could lead to the expansion of corporate farming. While I do believe there is a place for corporate farming, I don't believe that their successes should come at the detriment of small family farms. These folks, including many of my friends in Mullins, Dillon, Manning, Kingstree, Bamberg, Hampton, Orangeburg, and Charleston, have faithfully cultivated their land for many years. I believe they should be able to continue their profession, not be forced out of it by ill-conceived legislation. This bill is shortsighted. Down the road, it will hurt farmers. Mr. President, we should have passed a farm bill last year and farm policy should never have been considered as part of the budget package. The hour, however, is late. Farmers need to know where they stand for the coming crop year. For this reason, I understand that the Secretary of Agriculture has reluctantly recommended that the President sign this legislation, and that the President has agreed to sign it with serious hesitation. The President, however, also has indicated that he will continue to work with Democrats in the Congress to propose more farmer friendly legislation next year. I look forward to working with the President on this issue because, as sure as I stand here today, I guarantee that this farm bill won't be around for the 7 years it stipulates. The so-called freedom to farm concept has been flawed from the start. This piece of legislation, although it may have a different name, follows in the same disastrous direction. I refuse to turn my back on the family farmers of South Carolina and I believe it is wrong for us to pay money to farmers when they do not need it. As a result, I will vote against the farm bill this afternoon. I look forward to revisiting this issue again next year. I thank the chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a truly admirable woman, Laura Toliver Jefferson, known affectionately and respectfully as Mother Jefferson. She was a tireless advocate for her community as well as a source of inspiration to those who knew her. Mrs. Jefferson will be remembered by all as the woman who fought over the course of nearly 30 years to get public sewer service for her community of Arthurtown, Little Camden, and Taylors. This was the area of South Carolina in which she was born, raised 10 children, and where she died at the age of 93. She will be greatly missed. Mother Jefferson came to my attention when she was lobbying for a sewage system to be built in her community. To say that this development was long overdue would be an understatement. We tried several different avenues year after year, but the funding kept getting denied or held up. Over the many years, the citizens of Arthurtown, Little Camden, and Taylors found themselves caught in a complicated and often frustrating bureaucratic process. Where another person might be enraged by the redtape, Mrs. Jefferson remained undaunted, focused, and incredibly polite. Without ever complaining, she voiced the concerns of herself and her community. A local newspaper, the State, captured her humility and humor in an interview in 1985, ``It ain't no disgrace to be poor. It's just inconvenient.'' After nearly three decades of fighting, the community finally received $3.9 million in Federal and State grants, and the construction began. On July 12, 1995, the people of Little Camden, Arthurtown, and Taylors got a sewage system. They also got the opportunity to thank Mother Jefferson, in the form of a celebration at her house. As the crowd squeezed into her bathroom to share the communities' very first toilet flush, She said ``I'm so grateful that I'm lost for words.'' Mother Jefferson was one of the more articulate, gracious, determined people I have met. She was a truly good woman who participated in community affairs and made an enormous difference in people's lives. Her involvement and her spirit serve as a lasting lesson to us all. When writers or politicians talk about what makes America great, they are talking about people like Mother Jefferson. I send my sincere condolences to her family and friends. Like them, I will not forget her.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, when the Senate passed the line-item veto back in March of 1995, taxpayers across the Nation applauded the bipartisan efforts of the 69 Democrats and Republicans that worked shoulder to shoulder for the common good. What a difference a year makes. A year later with Presidential politics well underway, Republican conferees have engaged in an outrageous bait-and-switch operation designed to win political points and push meaningful reforms onto the back burner. Gone is the carefully crafted compromise bill offered on the floor by the distinguished majority leader that Republicans embraced after deep divisions arose in their own ranks regarding the appropriateness of expanding Presidential rescission powers. Instead, conferees have substituted legislation based on the McCain-Coats enhanced rescission proposal--a measure that in 1993 received only 45 votes. In abandoning the Senate approach, the Republican majority has dangerously eroded bipartisan support for the Senate line-item veto and now threatens to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Mr. President, I have been in this fight for too long to accept such circus tricks. For well over the last decade, I have touted the line- item veto as a meaningful way to restore responsibility and accountability to the budget process. Specifically, I have supported the separate enrollment legislative line-item veto which avoids the constitutional objections that are evident in proposals that seek to change the President's constitutionally prescribed veto powers. Under the separate enrollment mechanism, after legislation had passed both Houses of Congress in the same form, the enrolling clerk would enroll each appropriations item, targeted tax benefit, or new entitlement spending provision as a separate bill. In allowing these items to be considered as separate bills, the President would be able to use his existing veto power as defined in the Constitution to reject legislation. Currently, some 43 States provide their chief executive with some version of the veto pen. As a Governor of South Carolina, I used the line-item veto to balance four State budgets and win the first AAA credit rating of any Southern State. As a United States Senator, I have worked tirelessly to pass the line-item veto. In 1985, working with former Republican Mack Mattingly of Georgia, we rounded up 58 votes in the Senate for a line-item veto that was the prototype for the Senate passed version. In 1990, I offered similar legislation before the Senate Budget Committee and we adopted my bill by a vote of 13 to 6-- the first time ever that the line-item veto had ever been favorably reported out of the Budget Committee. In 1993, Senator Bill Bradley and I offered an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill that would have applied the line-item veto to wasteful tax breaks as well as unnecessary spending and garnered 53 votes. But instead of fighting for the proposal that has been gaining ground, the Republican majority, in resurrecting the enhanced rescission proposal, has backed the wrong horse. First, the conference report's enhanced rescission approach damages the fundamental balance of power between the coordinate branches of Government that is the cornerstone of our constitutional system of Government. Under current law, Presidential rescissions are suggestions. They have no force of law until Congress, as the legislative branch, enacts those changes. However, under new enhanced rescission powers, Presidential spending cuts and loophole closings would have immediate force and thus, affirmatively change the existing law just passed by Congress. To reinstate those provisions, Congress would have to reenact the specific proposals in a rescission disapproval bill, itself subject to a Presidential veto requiring two-thirds of both Houses to override. In my view, giving the President such legislative power amounts to an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power. Second, the conference report's definition of a limited tax benefit would do little to focus scrutiny on special interest tax breaks. The original Senate bill, like the legislative language in the Republican Contract With America, appropriately recognized that pork is pork, be it of the tax or spending variety. But under the conference report, the definition becomes a tax lawyer's dream. It States that an item will be considered to be a limited tax benefit only if it is a tax benefit that goes to 100 or fewer beneficiaries or a transitional relief provision that accrues to 10 or fewer beneficiaries. This numerical distinction bears little relation to the relative wastefulness of a tax break and, if valid, might just as well apply to appropriations or new entitlement spending. By setting numerical thresholds, Congress does little to close outdated tax loopholes and a lot to encourage the Gucci gulch crowd to abuse the system and make sure that any newly proposed tax break has at least 101 beneficiaries. Moreover, additional restrictions further reduce the scope of qualifying tax benefits and erode the effectiveness of the line-item veto far beyond earlier versions. Third, the conference report promises to give the President the veto pen, but withholds the ink. If conferees were really concerned about deficit reduction and not politics, why not make the act effective immediately rather that wait until either 1997 or the enactment of a balanced budget plan? It is a sad truth, that politics are now more important than policy to this crowd. Having brought the line-item veto through the Senate on a bipartisan basis, the Republican majority has now retreated, fearing that a bipartisan line-item veto would leave no one over whom to claim victory. I do not know whether the Republican majority has the votes to prevail today, but ultimately this enhanced rescission approach will be found to be unconstitutional, which will bring us right back to where we started. As I have stated earlier, it does not have to be that way. The bipartisan proposal that I and others have advocated, and that the Senate adopted last year, allows Congress to consider individual items in enacted legislation as separate bills. The Founding Fathers entrusted our Nation's chief executive with the power of the veto to provide our Government with the benefits of reconsideration and to promote legislative self-control. Unfortunately, over time, congressional construction of legislation has eroded that veto power where disparate spending and tax provisions are bundled in large omnibus bills. As a result, the President is forced to take it or leave it. Thus, the separate enrollment item veto eliminates this all or nothing choice and allows the President to apply his veto power in considering each item on its own merits. More importantly, by maintaining congressional control over the process, the separate enrollment approach avoids the constitutional infirmities of enhanced rescission bills. As Lawrence Tribe, Constitutional Law Scholar at Harvard University, wrote in a letter to Senator Bradley, The most promising line-item veto by far is the suggestion . . . that Congress itself begin to treat each appropriation, and each tax measure, as an individual `bill' to be presented separately to the President for his signature or veto. Such a change could be affected simply, and with no constitutional difficulty, by a temporary alteration in Congressional rules regarding the enrolling and presentment of bills. Mr. President, this struggle will continue. And I will be willing in the future to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as I have in the past, to develop a responsible, workable, constitutional, and bipartisan legislative line-item veto. I wish that day were today, but with the Presidential races in full swing, I fear once again that politics, not policy, is the driving force behind today's controversy.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Kerry in introducing the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996, which will implement the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The protocol was signed by the United States 5 years ago and approved by the Senate in the 102d Congress; yet implementing legislation remains to be completed. In the 103d Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported implementing legislation, but differences among key agencies and interests prevented further action. Now that those differences have been reconciled, it is timely to complete the implementation effort. I had the opportunity to visit Antarctica in 1988, and can attest both to its pristine beauty and to the unique scientific activities being conducted there. As many of my colleagues know, the activities of U.S. citizens and interests in Antarctica are almost exclusively those of federally sponsored scientific expeditions, together with their Federal logistics support. These activities are concentrated at the edge of the ice shelf and are based at the three U.S. research stations: McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer. The peak of activity occurs at the height of the Antarctic summer, when there are about 1,200 personnel at McMurdo, 140 at South Pole, and 40 at Palmer. Occasional U.S. tourists visit as well, under the overall responsibility of the National Science Foundation [NSF]. NSF and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] are the main scientific agencies, and the logistics and icebreaking support is provided by the Navy and Coast Guard. The Antarctic provides scientists with a truly unique laboratory to conduct research that cannot be carried out anywhere else. During my visit I was impressed by a number of dedicated scientists operating under difficult circumstances to help us to understand better our global environment. I witnessed NOAA's ozone hole research at the South Pole, the sampling of ice cores at the Newell Glacier along the coast, and marine biology investigations at McMurdo. Much of this research has implications for the long term survival of human beings. We must recognize, however, that such scientific endeavors need to be carried out with great care in an environment as fragile as Antarctica's. This is essential if Antarctica is to remain a natural reserve that is of great scientific value for generations to come. While much has been done in recent years to improve the environmental soundness of U.S. operations there, the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996 will help to ensure that present and future U.S. activities comply with the highest environmental standards. Implementation of the protocol is long overdue, and I am hopeful that we can enact this bill very soon.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a colleague and friend of mine who has just recently passed away. To those of us who were here during the sixties and seventies, Edmund Muskie was more than a fellow legislator, he was a model of what a Senator should be. He was well liked and respected by all, and he listened to his constituents closely, and he effected change on their behalf. To put it simply, Ed Muskie was the best. Today, with all the talk about the Government being too big, and all the public scorn for the establishment, it is easy to lose sight of the optimism that used to be a driving force of politics. Senator Muskie embodied that optimism; He looked upon government as an opportunity, as a solution to problems. Characteristically, he acted on these beliefs to get things done. He led the demand for fiscal responsibility. As the first chairman of the Senate Budget Committee in 1974, he virtually created the budget process. He will also be remembered as a great environmental legislator. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act: these were not a part of Muskie's political agenda due to pressure from lobbyists or special interest groups. They were things that he believed were necessary, and so he made them happen. I knew Ed Muskie long before I came to the Senate, and he always felt things keenly. I used to joke with him about what I called his righteous indignation, but I always respected the moral conviction and strength that lay behind it. Senator Muskie detested the influence of lobbies and partisanship, and what they were doing to politics. He was in government to do a good job, not to play games. He was--and in this city, this is a great compliment--a man who got things done. The principles that he lived by came through in his work, whether as a Senator, a Secretary of State or as a lawyer and statesman. He knew the importance of character and of listening to the voter. In 1970, Senator Muskie gave a memorable speech in which he said: ``There are only two kinds of politics. They are not radical and reactionary, or conservative and liberal, or even Democratic and Republican. They are only the politics of fear and the politics of trust.'' As we head into another election year and another century, these are words to remember. Ed Muskie was a champion of the politics of trust. We will remember him fondly.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Kerry in introducing the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996, which will implement the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The protocol was signed by the United States 5 years ago and approved by the Senate in the 102d Congress; yet implementing legislation remains to be completed. In the 103d Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported implementing legislation, but differences among key agencies and interests prevented further action. Now that those differences have been reconciled, it is timely to complete the implementation effort. I had the opportunity to visit Antarctica in 1988, and can attest both to its pristine beauty and to the unique scientific activities being conducted there. As many of my colleagues know, the activities of U.S. citizens and interests in Antarctica are almost exclusively those of federally sponsored scientific expeditions, together with their Federal logistics support. These activities are concentrated at the edge of the ice shelf and are based at the three U.S. research stations: McMurdo, South Pole, and Palmer. The peak of activity occurs at the height of the Antarctic summer, when there are about 1,200 personnel at McMurdo, 140 at South Pole, and 40 at Palmer. Occasional U.S. tourists visit as well, under the overall responsibility of the National Science Foundation [NSF]. NSF and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] are the main scientific agencies, and the logistics and icebreaking support is provided by the Navy and Coast Guard. The Antarctic provides scientists with a truly unique laboratory to conduct research that cannot be carried out anywhere else. During my visit I was impressed by a number of dedicated scientists operating under difficult circumstances to help us to understand better our global environment. I witnessed NOAA's ozone hole research at the South Pole, the sampling of ice cores at the Newell Glacier along the coast, and marine biology investigations at McMurdo. Much of this research has implications for the long term survival of human beings. We must recognize, however, that such scientific endeavors need to be carried out with great care in an environment as fragile as Antarctica's. This is essential if Antarctica is to remain a natural reserve that is of great scientific value for generations to come. While much has been done in recent years to improve the environmental soundness of U.S. operations there, the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996 will help to ensure that present and future U.S. activities comply with the highest environmental standards. Implementation of the protocol is long overdue, and I am hopeful that we can enact this bill very soon.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a South Carolina family and the heroes who struggled to rescue them. On one side, we have a tragedy that boggles the mind. On the other, there are dozens of quiet heroes whose courage is a blessing and reminder of what makes our people strong. On March 17, a small plane crashed off Key West, FL. Five people--the pilot and four members of the Blackburn family--died. A son, 10-year- old Matthew Blackburn, miraculously survived. Our prayers are with both families. We mourn their deaths and pray for a speedy recovery for young Matthew. At the same time, we should all feel a deep sense of gratitude for Americans who risk their lives everyday for others. In this tragedy, trained rescue workers, lifeguards, police officers, and paramedics put their lives in danger to save the pilot and family. Even more noteworthy are other volunteers, such as a boat captain and diver, who went out of their way to help as much as possible. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record the March 24 article from the Miami Herald to pay tribute to these heroes and to leave a lasting memorial to those who perished. The article follows: [From the Miami Herald, Mar. 24, 1996] Heroes in the Moment (By Susana Bellido and Ozzie Osborne) Key West.--In one sickening moment, a seaplane bound for the Dry Tortugas crashed into five feet of water off key West's busiest road last Sunday, trapping a family of five and the pilot under water. In the seconds and minutes that followed: One by one, tourists and Key West resident, police officers and paramedics, students and workers jumped into the water. Despite the horrid scene, the sting of fuel in the eyes, the despair of seeing children die in their hands, they did what they could. In an unsynchronized maneuver, they cleared the way for each other, they yielded to the most experienced, they fetched equipment, they formed a human chain to get the victims to shore, they did what had to be done. The did all the could. When it was all over, five people were dead: Lynn and Pamela Blackburn, a couple from Charleston, S.C, who had arrived in Key West the night before on vacation; their 6- year-old son Jonathan and 3-year-old daughter Martha; and the pilot, Keith Bellow of Gretna, La., father of three. The only survivor was Matthew Blackburn, a 10-year-old who defied the odds and is recovering from broken bones and other injuries. With him are the hopes of the everyday people who reacted to an extraordinary situation with selfless courage. With him is their sympathy, for he was the only one they could save. They are the heroes. Here are some of their stories. Andy Matroci--boat captain was one of the first in murky water. Andy Matroci heard it hit. Something big, in the water. A boat captain and diver who searches for Spanish galleons, Matroci had been riding his bike along North Roosevelt Boulevard. He looked back. The wreckage was just 60 feet away. Instantly, it seemed, people were wading toward the wreckage. He took off his shoes and joined them. The water was still murky from the crash. He put his hand into the plane and felt Pamela Blackburn's leg. He couldn't reach her seat belt. He yelled to a guy on the other side to try to get her out. ``I got one here,'' another man yelled. He asked for a knife to cut loose a child. Somebody brought a mask out. Somebody asked for a pair of shears. Someone was walking from shore with a pair. Matroci fetched them. He carried one of the children to shore. He thought of administering CPR, but water poured the child's mouth. He handed the wilted body up the sea wall. We're not working fast enough, he thought. The seat belts were slowing them down. After the last body was out, he retreated, climbed on his bike and headed home. ``I keep thinking about that kid, Matthew, what he's got to go through. Rusty Wayne--Dive master used knife to free victims Rusty Wayne, a dive master with Holiday Cat, left a boatload of tourists and zipped to the crash on a water bike. ``You could see them inside, and they weren't moving.'' They were belted in. He got his diving knife to cut them free. He helped free Pamela Blackburn and one of the children. When two paramedics arrived, he went back to shore for diving equipment. Returning, he saw about 15 people helping. A human chain had formed; strangers were passing victims to shore and rescue gear to the plane. ``I was a little afraid it was going to get congested, but I could even hear people onshore calling, `Clear the way!' Everybody did a small part, and it all worked out.'' shane chapman--lifeguard yelled: i got one! i got one! Shane Chapman, a lifeguard from Anaheim Hills, Calif., was poolside across the street at the Comfort Inn. He dashed across the street and into the water. ``I swam underwater to see if I could find anyone . . . I felt what I thought was a handbag. I went back up for air and suddenly realized: It was a boy. ``I yelled that I need a knife. Some guy handed me one. ``I went back down, cut the seat belt and hollered: `I got one! I got one!' Steve Hubler helped me drag him ashore, and we realized he was alive when we turned him on his side and saw he was breathing. ``I rushed back to the plane and swam back in the hole. This time the water had settled and was cleared. I saw this boy with yellow hair and a T-shirt, undid his seat belt and pulled him up and someone helped us ashore.'' steve hubler--ex-firefighter has nightmares about pilot Steve Hubler, a former volunteer firefighter from New Jersey, was by the pool of the Econo Lodge. He ran over with his scuba gear. He helped carry the three children to shore. Matthew, the survivor, showed no signs of life at first. His arm was shattered into the shape of an S. ``The part I'll never forget was the pilot, the last one. We had a hell of a time getting him out. It was so dingy and dark in there. He was trapped in there good. His face was so frightening. I knew he was dead.'' Hubler shivers when he remembers the rescues. He has nightmares about it. ``It's going to stick with me for the rest of my life. I wish to God we could have saved six lives, but at least we saved the boy's life. If I know that Matthew has a chance to live, I'm happy.'' kristy kreidler--lifeguard on break struggled to free mom Kristy Kreidler, a spring breaker from Ohio State University and a lifeguard, was having lunch across the street at Denny's. She dashed across North Roosevelt Boulevard and jumped in. As precious seconds ticked away, she struggled to free those trapped within. ``We got the door open, pulled on this woman's leg. Then we found her seat belt, unbuckled it and pulled her out.'' michael kurant--disappointed that we couldn't save anyone else Michael Kurant, a hardware delivery driver and volunteer Monroe County firefighter, was on his way out of town. He pulled his Jeep up on the sea wall. Half a dozen people were around the plane. ``The first thing I thought was everybody was dead,'' he said. ``I didn't expect to get anybody out of the plane alive.'' He helped pull Pamela Blackburn out. She took a breath that surprised them all. They found her pulse. They held her head out of the water. They put her on a backboard lifted her up the seawall and gave her first aid. When it was all over, he was disappointed and angry. ``I was madder than hell. We had done so much, and it didn't do any good. With everything the people in the street did, and the police and fire and paramedics * * * we couldn't save anyone else.'' al rodriguez--officer made call: Come fast, lights and sirens Al Rodriguez, first police officer on the scene, pulled up at 12:34 p.m. He keyed his microphone: ``10-18,'' he told his dispatcher, the code for come fast, lights and sirens. He took off his gun belt and jumped in, shoes and all. Rodriguez held on to a paramedic trying to free the victims. The children in the accident gave everyone involved an increased sense of urgency, Rodriguez said. ``You think about your own, and you put more effort into saving them.'' gary armstrong, david lariz, ed stress--gave mouth-to-mouth to one child, then another Key West Police Lt. Gary Armstrong pulled up. The crowd was growing. He yelled for everybody to get back. They did, making room for the victims. Paramedics were busy trying to revive Jonathan and Martha at the sea wall or pulling bodies out of the wreckage. With the help of Deputy Chief David Lariz and officer Ed Stress, Armstrong gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to one child and then the other. ``Everybody was working at top speed,'' Armstrong said. ``It was chaotic, but everybody jumped in and worked and worked and worked and worked. It just seemed like everybody clicked in and set aside very difficult feelings. It was impressive.'' kunko celcer--medical tech fought to get air to boy Kunko Celcer, emergency medical technician, was working at her second job at a car rental company when she heard the commotion. She hurried over to help her fellow paramedics. The first thing she noticed was that someone was trying to put a mask on Matthew. She helped work on him. ``He was looking at me,'' she said. ``He was trying to breathe on his own.'' On the way to the hospital, the boy fought back efforts to insert a tube in his airway. ``I've got to get this kid some air,'' she kept thinking. ``It was scary, but you don't really think of that until it's over.'' alvah raymond sr.--this was the worst thing I'd ever seen Alvah Raymond Sr., a member of the Coast Guard, was riding with an ambulance as part of his training for emergency medical technician. Eight other classmates at Florida Keys Community College participated in the rescue. Raymond helped perform first aid on Matthew. As a volunteer firefighter, Raymond had seen plenty of tragedies, but nothing quite like this. ``This was the worst thing I'd ever seen.'' paul scott, carl cleary--paramedics help gasping boy Pamela and Matthew Blackburn were out of the water when Paul Scott, an Atlantic Key West Ambulance paramedic, arrived. While his partner, Carl Cleary, got equipment ready, he handed his radio to a bystander and jumped in the water. Scott helped with Jonathan. Another paramedic worked on Martha. At the ambulance, Matthew was gasping. Cleary gave him oxygen and tried to clear his airway. Scott tried to keep Jonathan alive. ``You don't really think about other things but whatever you're doing. You want to do so much,'' Cleary said. ``There wasn't a whole lot of time to be thinking,'' Scott said. ``It was all on autopilot.'' pablo rodriguez--paramedic couldn't see for ``blood, silt, gasoline'' Pablo Rodriguez, another paramedic and the crew's supervisor for the day, grabbed his fins, mask and snorkel and jumped in the water. He found a small cramped opening in the plane's fuselage and started to pull people out. He took Jonathan to the sea wall, swam back to help untangle others. ``You couldn't really see because there was blood and silt and gasoline.'' In all, he helped to free four, including the pilot who was strapped in. ``It was one of the saddest things I've ever experienced. The only thing that I can gain is the importance of teamwork and how grateful I am that we have such an experienced crew. ``It truly has devastated everyone, everybody that was involved.'' paul hansen, jim kavanaugh--paramedics hopscotch from victim to victim Paul Hansen and Jim Kavanaugh, also paramedics, were at the emergency room when they got the call. They got some Coast Guard trainees at the hospital to join them. ``When we got there it was pretty chaotic,'' Kavanaugh said. Several bodies were out of the plane. Two groups of people were giving first aid to two of the victims. A kid was coming out of the water. ``It was like nothing I'd ever seen before,'' Hansen said. ``There is nothing that prepares you for anything like that. You can read the book till you're blue in the face.'' Kavanaugh made sure every patient was cared for, and then carried backboards out to the plane. Hansen worked on Martha, then her father, then her mother, then back to the little girl. He took her to the hospital, where everyone was busy, so he stayed and helped out. Kavanaugh radioed the hospital: three children and a woman on the way, more to come. He asked firefighters and police officers to drive ambulances so paramedics could tend to patients. Within 15 minutes of transporting the victims to the hospital, the paramedics had four other emergency calls. It wasn't until that night that they had time to reflect. Throughout the ordeal, the paramedics said, they kept their thoughts focused on the job. ``If you sit there and start to flip out about it, you're really not going to help anybody,'' Hansen said. harold gordon--maintenance man helped with cpr Harold Gordon, a Stock Island maintenance man, was taking his wife to bingo when he saw the crowd. He pulled over. Two boys were in the ambulance. A paramedic asked for help with Jonathan. ``Push down on his chest! Harder! Do it again, harder,'' Gordon remembers. ``I said to myself, `This little kid is too small.' I had a feeling he was dead already.'' He rode to the hospital with the brothers, then went home. ``There was nothing else I could do. I just felt terrible. ``Grown people are bad enough, but little children really hurt.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. How much, Mr. President?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut is very persuasive and I wanted to answer these pleading comments about ``walking down the street'' and ``everybody knows the litigation system is in disrepair.'' Absolutely false, with respect to the civil justice system. We have all seen the O.J. case and that jury of 12 let him go. But the American public jury did not let him go. Everybody knows that. We have, here, just this past week, March 18, U.S. News & World Report: In New York City, a movement is under way to impeach Criminal Court Judge Laurin Duckman. A 33-year-old woman sought court protection from a former boyfriend, a convicted rapist, who had attacked her three times. Despite the beatings, Judge Duckman coolly noted that the woman was ``bruised but not disfigured,'' lowered bail in the case and suggested that the man would stop bothering the woman if she gave back his dog. Three weeks later, the man shot her to death. In another case: Police in a high-activity drug area at 5 a.m. noticed a slowly moving car with out-of-state plates. The car stopped, the driver popped the hood of the trunk and four men placed two large duffel bags inside. When police approached, the men moved away rapidly in different directions. One ran. Police searched the trunk and found 80 pounds of cocaine. The driver, a Michigan woman, confessed in a 40-minute videotaped statement, saying that this was just one of more than 20 large drug buys she had made in Manhattan. But Judge Baer ruled that police had conducted an unreasonable search. What about the men bolting from the scene? Since residents in the area regard cops as corrupt and abusive, opined the judge, it would have been unusual if the men hadn't run away, so fleeing was no cause for a search. In other words, the perps had reason to be suspicious of police, but police had no reason to be suspicious of the perps. Come on. I ask unanimous consent to have this list of cases printed in the Record

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me just for a minute respond.