Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio, the former chairman of our Governmental Affairs. He lead the sober consideration of this particular issue in the committee, and we are all indebted to him. Specifically, the Department of Commerce gives the businessman Cabinet-level status and voice at the Cabinet table. What the Senator wants to do with this academic percentage argument and otherwise is say, yes, Labor should have a voice. No one has intimated we should do away with the Department of Labor. The farmer, he should have it. No one has intimated we should do away with the Department of Agriculture. But the businessman in the global competition should lose his voice and leadership. I do not know where the Senator got the 8 percent, but I can tell you 90 percent of the job creation has come through Secretary Ronald Brown. He has traveled tirelessly the world around getting different deals for the manufacturing jobs here in the United States of America. I wish I just had more time to go down the list--the International Trade Administration, which was recommended and instituted by President Nixon; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is nothing more than the extension of the Environmental Science Services Administration. I believe the Chair is indicating that my time is up. But I have been handling the financing part for 25 years on the Appropriations Committee. We have cut back because the pressure has been brought in State, Justice, Commerce for a great endeavor in law enforcement, and as a consequence we have been cutting back on State's budget and particularly in the Department of Commerce. Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, at least for me.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That would suit this Senator, if we can have 5 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. You are going to voice vote it?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will join him in the motion to strike then. We have unlimited time right now, is that correct?

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is why, if he is going to make a motion, I want to make sure we are not playing games.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have seen a lot of remarkable things occur, and when they occur in our favor, I do not want to object. But the distinguished Senator from Michigan is the one that wants to get rid of this Department.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield a minute to my distinguished chairman, Senator Moynihan.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 2 minutes 50 seconds to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the choice before the Senate is actually very simple and stark. It is a matter of priorities. Either we back our companies and workers, or we do not. Either the United States gets into the global economic fight, or we do not. DOC supporters believe that our Government, like every other major government in the world, should take prudent steps to support its industries and workers--to help win at exports, technology, and other areas. This Department is fighting every day for American business, and it is succeeding. We should not break up the cooperative effort of business and government that has developed in recent years. Opponents of the Commerce Department would leave American business out there with no backing, no assistance, and fewer economic prospects. It makes one wonder whether or not export jobs and high-tech jobs are a priority with these opponents. In the final analysis, does anyone really believe that the American people want the Government to do less to promote American exports and export-related jobs? Does anyone really think that the American people want less effort to enforce our laws against unfair trade practices? Does anyone really believe that the American people want none of the Government's $72 billion annual research budget used to help create new breakthrough technologies that will create the industries and jobs of the future? Does anyone really believe that the American people want to call a halt to modernizing our weather stations, or completing economic development projects in hard-hit rural communities across the land? Of course not. It is time that we get past trophy-hunting and start thinking about the economic interests of our people. I urge our colleagues to strip this provision from the debt limit legislation now before us, and I urge them, as well, to drop the entire idea of killing the Commerce Department. We should want to win in the global economy, not quit the field. If Senators and Representatives feel they must kill a cabinet department, let them pick one whose elimination will not leave our companies and workers more vulnerable to economic competition. Let them not break faith with the millions of Americans who want Government to promote their economic interests in this harsh new world economy, not abandon them. As for myself, I will continue to oppose this foolish and destructive proposal. Exhibit 1 National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC, November 8, 1995. Hon. Robert J. Dole, U.S. Senate, 141 Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Bob: The effort to bring the federal budget into balance by reducing the size of government is one that the NAM strongly supports. We feel equally strongly that the goal of such a reduction should be a government that can deal effectively with the demands of the 21st century global economy. We agree with Peter Drucker's observation that the government should be giving ``primacy to the country's competitive position in an increasingly competitive world economy.'' The Congress will not be able to meet this challenge if it tries to do so in a piecemeal fashion, taking on one agency or program at a time with the hope that everything will fit together in the end. A coalition of companies and associations sent the entire Congress a letter on November 7 making this same point. The NAM is in broad agreement with the views expressed in this letter. A piecemeal approach to restructuring will yield fewer satisfactory results--and less budget savings--than a comprehensive approach that maps out where we're going from the start. This is why the NAM supports the establishment of a bipartisan commission to recommend how to restructure the government, particularly in those areas dealing with our international economic interests and responsibilities. The key to the success of such a [[Page S 16897]] commission is to make sure that something happens once its work is finished. There must be event-forcing mechanisms to ensure that its recommendations are acted upon. Accordingly, the NAM believes that the Congress should explore ways to provide a government reform commission with powers similar to those provided to commissions dealing with the closing of military bases. Combined with the significant steps already taken in 1995 to reduce departmental and agency budgets, the establishment of such a commission would underline the continuing commitment of this Congress to downsize the government and increase its effectiveness. The efforts to accomplish this goal come at a time when the global economy and our role in it are increasing. In restructuring the federal government, we need a long-term plan to be implemented over the next several years that reconciles these complex and conflicting trends. The NAM believes that a bipartisan commission could develop such a plan and that this could be done in such a fashion to ensure that the work of the commission is acted upon and not just buried. We urge you to support this recommendation. Sincerely, Jerry J. Jassnowski.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, there is a saying that a man's opinion is still a man's opinion. I wonder. My [[Page S 16894]] colleague from Michigan has a motion to strike title II, which I agree with. But in all candor, I believe his sincerity and that it is still his intent that we abolish or repeal the Department of Commerce. I, though, want to see that title II is stricken from this bill and any other measure. I have never seen legislation and Congress itself reach such a ludicrous position of trying to rid itself of one of the most formative departments. I never say that lightly. Under article I, section 8, the first designated duty to the National Congress is to collect taxes, the second one is to borrow money, and the third one is to regulate commerce. You will not find the Department of Agriculture, you will not find the Department of Energy, you will not find Housing in these measures in the National Government's Constitution. You find commerce. Here, right in the midst of what you might call the economic war, we want to dismantle the front line entity that is really waging the battle to rebuild the economic strength of the United States of America, and Secretary Ronald Brown is doing an outstanding job. To dismantle or strike or eliminate this particular Department at this hour would be like in the middle of the Cold War getting rid of the Pentagon. Madam President, you just could not understand the history of the United States if you did not go back into the original debates with respect to the Declaration and the Constitution itself and the exchange taking place soon after between the Founding Fathers and the former mother country, and especially with what corresponded at that particular time with Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The British said, now that you have became a little fledgling nation, you trade with us what you produce best and we trade back with you what we produce best. That nonsense that you continually hear to this day--``free trade, free trade.'' Alexander Hamilton wrote his views on that suggestion in a booklet called Report on Manufactures. It is over in the Library of Congress. And without reading that, I only say that it can be summed up in two words: ``Bug off.'' Hamilton told the British that we are not going to sit and remain your colony, shipping back our natural resources, our grain, our iron, our foodstuffs, and bringing in the manufactured products. It carries me immediately to Akio Morito, the founder of Sony, some years ago before his death, in Chicago where he was lecturing about emerging nations. He said emerging nations must build up a strong manufacturing sector, and that power that loses its manufacturing power ceases to be a world power. That is the position we are in at this particular moment. At this particular moment, we have come from having at the end of World War II 50 percent of our work force in manufacturing down to, 10 years ago, 26 percent, and now today at 13 percent. We are going out of business. The thrust of eliminating the Department of Commerce is nothing more than the thrust that America go the way of England --specifically, a delightful Parliament, debating each other with scandal sheets and everything else to read but losing, generally speaking, its influence. And we do. If we lose our economic power, we lose our international foreign policy power, if you please. No one cares today any longer about the 7th Fleet or the threat of a nuclear attack. Money talks in the global competition and in global politics. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to these proposals to dismantle the Department of Commerce [DOC]. To begin with, I strongly object to the process being used. A major piece of authorizing legislation does not belong on the debt limit bill. Moreover, the version before us now has been available to Senators only since this morning. The House Republican leadership rewrote the bill and only published it last night--38 densely-packed pages of the Record that no one here has had time to review. Finally, no version of the DOC dismantling legislation has ever been presented to the Senate for full and regular debate. In short, adding this dismantling proposal to the debt limit bill is the worst possible way to consider major legislation. Second, I strongly disagree with the substance of this proposal. It is astounding that in the middle of the global economic fight some of our colleagues propose to abolish the Federal agency that promotes exports, enforces our trade laws, works with industry to create new job-creating breakthrough technologies, and otherwise does so much to promote economic growth. I know that many of our Republican colleagues do not like the current Secretary of Commerce, since he helped the President win the White House in 1992. And I know that some Republicans want a trophy, and have therefore gone after the Cabinet department with the smallest budget. But to abolish the Commerce Department in the middle of the economic fight is like abolishing the Pentagon at the height of the cold war. This is the last department we should abolish in this post-cold war world. The proposal is utter nonsense, and it is nonsense that will hurt every American company and worker. The bottom line is that in today's global economy almost every American job is at risk. Nearly every company, and nearly every worker, faces growing foreign competition. Millions of jobs depend on exports, and millions in the future will depend on whether the United States stays at the cutting edge of new technologies. These are bread-and- butter issues to American families, and we need to strengthen--not weaken--American exports and competitiveness. According to the November 6, 1995, issue of Business Week, a new report compiled by the U.S. intelligence community for the Trade Policy Coordinating Committee, chronicles the bare knuckles brand of capitalism employed by our competitors. Here are some examples: The French Government warned an African government that it would withdraw government guarantees on outstanding loans if Acatel did not win a $20 million telecommunications switching equipment contract. A Japanese company won a $30 million supercomputer order from Brazil after the Bank of Japan said it would credit the purchase against Brazilian debt to Tokyo. Officials at Airbus Industries threatened to block Turkey and Malta from entry into the European Union unless they purchase Airbus jets rather than jets from Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas. In the face of this brutal competition, some of our colleagues in the House want U.S. business to walk down this dark alley unarmed and unaided. We need a Cabinet department, and a Cabinet Secretary, whose job is to fight for exports, fight to keep America's lead in technology, and provide important support services to business. The proposal before us, however, is a giant step backwards. We also should note that this proposal does not reduce bureaucracy. It creates bureaucracy. House and Senate Republicans have discovered that many of DOC's functions are important after all, so while they abolish the Department they create several new independent agencies. Of course, each new agency has to have its own budget office, personnel office, congressional relations office, and inspector general. The result is more bureaucracy. It would be much cheaper and more effective to keep these functions where they are, in the Commerce Department. Finally, major government reorganizations should not be done piecemeal. This House-passed proposal is ad hoc box-shuffling, with no great attention to either today's national priorities or the functions of other departments and agencies. Just blowing up one department without attention to all the others is a poor and backward way to reorganize our Federal Government. some background Madam President, before we consider abolishing the department that does the most to promote American jobs and profits, we should remind ourselves of some important history. For 45 years we were engaged in a life and death struggle against the forces of totalitarianism. Through steadfast commitment and sacrifice we emerged triumphant. During the cold war we willingly subordinated our economic interests to sustain the western alliance. Now, in the post cold war era we must channel the same energy and [[Page S 16895]] commitment into rebuilding our economic strength. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism, this nation has entered into a new era of competition, one in which the exercise of power and influence will be determined by economic strength. Madam President, our strength as a Nation is analogous to a three legged stool. One leg is our military strength, which remains preeminent. One leg is our values as a Nation. From feeding the hungry in Somalia to supporting democracy in Haiti, our values as a nation remain strong. When we look at our economic strength, however, that leg is fractured. A recent OECD report discovered that the United States has the worst income distribution in the industrialized world. Three- quarters of our citizens in the age group of 18 to 25 cannot find a job that pays more than the official poverty level. We have one of the lowest savings rates in the industrialized world. In private sector capital spending, the United States lags behind our competitors. We have fallen behind in key technologies including flat panel displays, laser diodes, and ceramic packages for the semiconductor industry. We have a $9.9 billion trade deficit in computers and peripherals and $3.7 deficit in telecommunications equipment. Over the last decade we have posted nearly $1.4 trillion worth of trade deficits. The reason for this is clear. For too long we have been held back by slavish adherence to an outmoded 19th Century view of capitalism. This view was appropriate for David Ricardo's British Empire but has no place in an era of ``high tech'' competition where government provides the comparative advantage for industry. This ``hands off'' notion of economic development flies in the face of our own history. From Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, to Henry Clay's ``American System'' of manufacturing, to Lincoln's development of the American rail system, to NASA's technological breakthroughs, the government has played a crucial role working with industry to stimulate economic development. While some in Congress foolishly propose dismantling DOC, our economic competition around the world does not share our shortsighted desire to tear down government. The dynamic economies in Asia have evolved into economic powerhouses by developing close links between business and government with one goal in mind, to become export super powers. The invisible hand of the market did not develop Korea's world class semiconductor industry. Instead, the iron fist of decrees laid down by Korea's Ministry of Trade kept out foreign competition unless they licensed their technology to Korean companies. That iron fist was complemented by the largesse of Korea's Treasury which provided subsidies in the form of below market loans and closed the markets to United States computer chips while Korean manufacturers dumped chips into the United States market below the cost of production. Europe is nurturing the information technology industry courtesy of billions in subsidies from the European Community for massive research projects like JESSI, ESPRIT, and EUREKA. The law of comparative advantage no longer applies in America's top export industry where Airbus captured 30 percent of the market by flaunting international trade rules, and China forced Boeing to build planes in the Guan Zhao province rather than Seattle, Washington. This is the competition we face. In today's new world economy, it makes absolutely no sense to eliminate the one cabinet department that looks out for the business community and for one of our Nation's most important functions--interstate and foreign commerce. We need to strengthen the Department of Commerce, not blow it up into ineffective fragments. Strong U.S. Government backing for U.S. companies and workers in trade, technology, and other areas is vital if the United States and our constituents are to prosper. The facts show that the Department of Commerce is working, fighting for American business. Today, in fact, DOC is more successful at promoting exports and other activities than we have seen in decades. Its various units support and benefit each other, making the Department's total much more than the sum of its parts. It would be a grave mistake to break up this winning team of business and Government working together. If we retreat now, we will lose exports, we will lose much of our technological edge, and we most assuredly will lose jobs. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of a Federal role in support of commerce. In the first days of our Republic, Alexander Hamilton wrote his famous Report on Manufactures and called for Government policies to assist U.S. industry. Theodore Roosevelt created the Commerce Department, and in the 1920's, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover turned the Department into an export powerhouse. commerce department successes Today, the Commerce Department provides the needed tools for helping Americans to succeed in the new global, high-technology world. Consider a few of its successes: The Department's export promotion efforts have been a huge success, helping American companies over the past 2 years to sell over $24 billion in American goods and services, and creating or saving over 300,000 jobs. Its export control program will allow billions more in export sales while successfully preventing the sale of sensitive technologies to unfriendly governments. Yet the House-passed dismantling bill would downgrade these export efforts, eliminating the Cabinet officer responsible for export promotion and burying these functions under an official whose main responsibility is trade negotiations, not exports. In technology, the central economic battleground of the future, DOC supports industry's own efforts. DOC-supported manufacturing extension centers, begun under the Reagan Administration, have helped over 15,000 small firms to improve their operations and profits, leading the firms themselves to calculate that each $1 of DOC investment leads to $8 in company revenues or savings. The House-passed DOC dismantling legislation abolishes the centers program. The Advanced Technology Program, started under the Bush administration and still new, is already helping dozens of companies, most of them small businesses, to develop new breakthrough technologies that the private capital markets will not finance because they are not guaranteed to make short-term profits. New developments will reduce the costs of computer chips, lead to cheap compact color TV displays, and create machines that can safely hold human bone marrow cells outside the body and use that bone marrow to create new blood cells. The House- passed bill would terminate the ATP. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories have existed since Theodore Roosevelt established them in 1901. They help the FBI and the Nation's law enforcement crime labs ensure accuracy in drug analyses and DNA fingerprinting. They help industry with a wide range of new measurement techniques which help many companies improve precision and quality and cut costs. Yet the House-passed language would reduce the NIST labs to first 75 percent, and then 65 percent, of their fiscal year 1995 funding. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] is steadily improving the warning time and accuracy of weather and climate forecasts, with economic and safety benefits ranging from improved flood forecasts to safer airline flights. NOAA also assists the Nation's $50-billion-a-year commercial fishing industry and $70 billion-a-year marine recreational fishing industry by monitoring fishery harvests and collecting management information. Yet the House DOC dismantling language would reduce NOAA's budget drastically--first to 75 percent of its fiscal year 1995 appropriation, and then to 65 percent the second year after enactment and in all subsequent years. These draconian reductions will affect weather and fisheries services throughout the country. The Economic Development Administration is one of the few Federal programs that give rural areas a chance to share in economic growth. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is now substantially improving economic and trade statistics, to give both business and government a more accurate [[Page S 16896]] picture of where America stands in the new world economy. a department that is working Madam President, contrary to what some may believe, these various parts of the Department work closely together and reinforce each other. NIST, for example, works with the International Trade Administration [ITA] and U.S. industry to monitor new product standards in other countries. They identify when foreign product standards are used not to protect local safety but as nontariff barriers against American products. Similarly, the Patent and Trademark Office advises ITA when foreign governments appear to use their patent policies in ways which hurt U.S. technology companies. There are other examples. NIST and ITA's United States and Foreign Commercial Service are working closely with several friendly countries, including Saudi Arabia, to ensure that their new product standards are compatible with American goods and services. NIST and NOAA, in turn, are developing new measurement techniques for helping the fishing industry to locate fish stocks. The Census Bureau regularly provides important information on the state of U.S. manufacturing to companies and the trade and technology units of the Department. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA] performs a critical role in forcing government users to become more efficient in their use of spectrum radio frequency and overseeing the governmental uses of the spectrum. NTIA has played a critical role in identifying frequency bands for reallocation to the private sector, which ultimately led to auctions that brought in over $9 billion to the U.S. Treasury. In this era of economic competition, the Commerce Department is the arsenal of business. It is the Commerce Department through the ITA that rings up sales for U.S. business--from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas airplanes in Saudi Arabia to Raytheon radars in Brazil. It is the Commerce Department that enforces the trade laws that enabled the steel and semiconductor industries to beat back predatory trade practices. In the critical technologies that are the battleground of the 21st Century, it is the Commerce Department that is leading the way in developing and commercializing new and emerging technologies. While the Commerce Department is at the cutting edge of technological development, its Export Administration is walking the fine line between promoting U.S. exports and keeping our critical technology out of the hands of terrorists. Finally, it is the Commerce Department's economic statistics that provide the date which drive America's financial markets. This Department is not only working. Its units are working effectively together and with American business to save and create jobs. a piecemeal approach Madam President, finally we should oppose this proposal not only because it does not belong on the debt limit extension and because it is substantively wrongheaded. We should also oppose it because it is a piecemeal approach to government reorganization, a proposal written without apparent attention to the rest of the government's operations. In the 1950's, I had the privilege sitting on one of President Hoover's commissions on government reorganization. Believe me, there is a right way--a comprehensive, thoughtful way--to consider government reorganization. And the proposal before us is not the result of a comprehensive, thoughtful process. It is far too piecemeal. industry views Madam President, these objections to the House language are not just my views or the those of other Senators. They also are the views of a very large portion of the American business community. For example, I have letters from the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and a major ad hoc industry coalition consisting of over 60 major corporations and trade associations. Let me quote from the NAM letter: We feel equally strongly that the goal of such a reduction [in the size of government] should be a government that can deal effectively with the demands of the 21st century global economy. We agree with Peter Drucker's observation that the government should be giving ``primacy to the country's competitive position in an increasingly competitive world economy.'' The Congress will not be able to meet this challenge if it tries to do so in a piecemeal fashion, taking on one agency or program at a time with the hope that everything will fit together in the end. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of these remarks these three letters be printed in the Record, as well as a copy of the Business Week article I cited earlier.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to remember one of America's greatest friends--my friend Yitzhak Rabin-- who was tragically murdered Saturday in Israel. His sudden death is even more shocking because he was assassinated just after making an impassioned speech for peace in the Mideast. Mr. President, Yitzhak Rabin was the strongest leader in today's world. Period. As he guided the ship of Israel through a sea of hostility, he forcefully led the troubled Mideast toward peace. We can only hope that we continue to seek the Prime Minister's goal--peace among Moslem, Christian, and Jew--and continue to turn away from the violence that always bubbles just under the surface in that part of the world. Yitzhak Rabin trained to be a farmer. Like one of our greatest Presidents, Harry S. Truman, Prime Minister Rabin had the plain- speaking, straightforward, blunt common sense of farmers. But also like Truman, Rabin's destiny led him to the army and to becoming a world leader whose strategic intellect was respected all over. Just 6 years ago, Senators Daniel Inouye, Jake Garn, and I spent several hours with Rabin when he was Israel's Defense Minister. To this day, I will not forget the time that Mr. Rabin spent showing us the intricate desert defense preparations made by Israel. His courtesy, combined with his intense attention to detail, made our mission a learning success. Mr. President, if there is one thing that I have realized in recent years, it is that Yitzhak Rabin was a warrior for peace in the Mideast. When Israel's security was in grave danger, he fought and led military battles, notably the Six-Day War in 1967. But over time, he came to embrace peace as the only way for Mideast stability. Just 90 minutes before he was gunned down in Tel Aviv, Prime Minister Rabin stood before more than 100,000 people at a rally to implore them to harvest the fruits of peace. He said, ``I waged war as long as there was no chance for peace. I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and we must take advantage of it for those standing here, and for those who are not here.'' A few moments later, he added, ``The people truly want peace and oppose violence. Violence erodes the basis of Israeli democracy.'' Mr. President, today, in our grief, as we remember our friend Yitzhak Rabin, let us all look to his last words for the guidance to achieve the greatest legacy we can give our friend--a lasting peace. Mr. President, an editorial in today's edition of the State of Columbia is a fitting tribute to Prime Minister Rabin. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to three outstanding South Carolina teachers: Barbara Weston, Abraham Funchess and Jeanne Sink. Recently, they were recognized by the Milken Family Foundation of California for outstanding work in their South Carolina classrooms. Barbara Weston is a 20-year educator who now teaches at the Five Points School in Columbia. This school is an alternative program designed to prevent students from dropping out of high school. It is at that school that Mrs. Weston has taken on the role of teacher, counselor, and mentor with relish. The school is small--just 50 students. And Barbara Weston knows them all by name--and more. She exchanges phone numbers with parents of her students and encourages contact. As her students have learned, it is hard to get away with nonsense when your teacher knows your parents and knows how to find you. Barbara Weston, a native of South Carolina who was raised in Eastover, teaches English. Her students say she is a caring teacher who lives by the creed: ``There's nothing you can't do.'' You cannot expect much more of a teacher than that. The Milken Foundation is not the first to recognize her achievements. Last year, she was named the Richland District I Teacher of the Year and was a State finalist for the South Carolina Teacher of the Year Award. Mrs. Weston, a graduate of South Carolina State College, is married to Samuel Weston and they have two sons. Mr. President, Abraham Funchess is a sixth-grade science teacher at John Ford Middle School in St. Matthews, the town where he was born, raised, and educated. Mr. Funchess has been a fixture in the education system of Calhoun County for 28 years. He has touched the lives of thousands of children there. He teaches them the joys of nature in his outdoor laboratory where students plant a garden and watch it grow. On other occasions, they uncover the mysteries of the forest's sights and sounds during nearby nature walks. In the classroom, Mr. Funchess guides his students through laboratory experiments and watches their excitement as they compare answers with students in other cities through a link-up on the Internet. ``I don't teach books; I teach students,'' is the way Mr. Funchess describes his teaching philosophy. His is a hands-on teaching style that shows every student the joy of learning. There is a motto in large letters above his chalkboard that says: ``I see; I hear; I forget. But when I do, I understand.'' It is a motto Mr. Funchess has embraced and one for which his students are thankful. Abraham Funchess has been named Teacher of the Year at John Ford Middle School for the past 2 years. He received his undergraduate degree at South Carolina's Claflin College and his master's at South Carolina State. [[Page S 16701]] He also has served on the State Board of Education. Mr. Funchess is married to the former Bernice Legette of Rains, SC, and they have three children. Mr. President, last but certainly not least, we recognize Jeanne Sink--a teacher at St. Andrews Parish High School in Charleston where my wife Peatsy used to teach. Mrs. Sink teaches a subject that was not around when I was in high school. She guides students through the world of technology. As we move into the 21st century, this is certainly a subject that our students need to understand, and no one explains it better than Jeanne Sink. She teaches all kinds of practical technology lessons. Gone are the old days of written reports. In Jeanne Sink's class, students learn how to give multimedia presentations. They have become pros with today's computer systems and use sophisticated programs to scan pictures, add sound and type in text. The presentations they give are polished and to the point. Students in Mrs. Sink's class also employ their technology lessons to publish the school newspaper on the Macintosh. As such, they are able to practice their English, grammar, journalism, and computer skills all at once. Mrs. Sink also teaches special classes for students with a history of academic difficulties and has piloted a program to work closely with students who have been expelled and are enrolled at other schools. Mrs. Sink has been teaching for 17 years and credits the kudos she has received to her philosophy that all students can be successful. Her students have not always had great academic track records, but she does not let that discourage her--or them. She tries to turn them on to education by showing them affection, respect, and lots of patience. It should come as no surprise to learn that Jeanne Sink has been named South Carolina Teacher of the Year and has won several other teaching awards. She received her undergraduate and graduate degrees at the College of Charleston. She and her husband Eddie have three children. Mr. President, these three teachers demonstrate the incredible impact that committed teachers can have. Combined, they have 64 years of classroom experience and have made a tremendous contribution to South Carolina. I appreciate this opportunity to express my respect and gratitude and to wish them all the best.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the accomplishments of a Washington, DC, activist whom we should all emulate. If each American had 1 ounce of the intense commitment that Zora Kramer Brown brings to her mission of seeking real solutions to breast cancer, we would live in a stronger America. Zora Brown, a native of Oklahoma City, OK, is founder and chairperson of Cancer Awareness Program Services [CAPS] and the Breast Cancer Resource Committee, both located in Washington, DC. With CAPS, which [[Page S 16511]] was organized in 1992, Ms. Brown started a comprehensive program to build cancer awareness and education efforts among women. Three years earlier, she started the Breast Cancer Resource Committee to cut breast cancer mortality rates in half among African-Americans by the year 2000. Ms. Brown also has been appointed to the National Cancer Advisory Board of the National Cancer Institute. Last year in my hometown, she brought unbounded energy to Charleston as she emceed the First Annual Race for the Cure. More importantly, she now is a member of the board of the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina where her leadership and enthusiasm is contagious. On October 27, 1995, McDonald's recognized Ms. Brown's efforts in a large ad featuring ``Portraits of the City.'' Her story of hard work and zeal shows how one person can make a difference in improving the lives of Americans. She is most deserving of this honor and the dozens of others that have been bestowed on her. Mr. President, we need more Zora Browns across the Nation. I hope as Americans recognize how successful Zora has been, we all will be motivated to follow in her footsteps.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, start in the year 1995; we are going to try to balance the budget. Starting in the year 1995, you start with a deficit of $1.518 trillion in outlays, so you have a deficit here of $283 billion for 1995. And a debt of $4.927 trillion. If you start with a deficit and a debt of almost $5 trillion and you look at the increased spending over revenues during each of the fiscal years, using Congressional Budget Office figures, you will find that cumulatively, from 1996--and each year is listed in this particular document to 2002--there is an increase of spending of $12.06 trillion over revenues received over each of those years--cumulatively, now, of $11.008 trillion. So you are spending $1 trillion more than you are taking in over this GOP budget plan. Specifically, you can look at last month. September ended the fiscal year 1995. If you look at the outlays for that year and for this year, 1996, and you see the increase from the $1.530 trillion to $1.583--or a $53 billion increase in spending. Now we are going to cut spending, balance the budget, cut spending-- yet the very first year here we have increased spending $53 billion. Then you go down to the debt and it is listed there of $1.801 trillion in the debt. And you found out over the 7-year period, you are not only increasing the National debt by $1.8 trillion to a level of $6.728 trillion, but you have increased interest costs on the national debt to $100 billion. I have listed there what is owed to the trust funds, what is owed to the Government accounts, and what is owed to additional borrowing because, in my limited time, I am trying to talk about the public debt, which is No. 3, ``owed to additional borrowing.'' But we borrow from the trust funds. We owe them, at this particular point, $1.361 trillion. And if we look at the owed to the Government accounts, such as the bank insurance funds, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, the credit union share insurance fund, and these other accounts, as of next year, we will owe some $81.9 billion there. So we are moving deficits from one pocket to the other. We are not eliminating them. And, yes, we are borrowing at the public till, for a total, of course, of, as we have indicated there, a debt of $6.728 trillion. So the question is, starting in 1995 with a deficit of $283 billion and a debt of $4.9 trillion, and increasing mandatory spending for interest costs by $100 billion, how do you balance the budget that way? Of course, you do not. Go right to the next list of figures. My authorities are none other than the chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side, Mr. Kasich, because he was the chairman of our budget conference that got up this GOP budget and so-called reconciliation. On page 3 of the conference report by Mr. Kasich, you will find the word ``deficit'' for the year 2002: a $108 billion deficit. Then you go to the letter last week from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Miss June O'Neill, and find on October 20, she determined a deficit of $105 billion; whether it is $105 or $108-- as the old expression goes, continuing deficits as far as the eye can see--it is over $100 billion. So, if you cannot do it, what do you do? You fabricate a paper balance, by smoke and mirrors and borrowing more. You fabricate a balance. This Senator knows as a member of the Commerce Committee, by simply borrowing again moneys that have already been represented in legislation as having been consumed. In our telecommunications bill, we came up with a budget point of order. We needed to raise some $8 billion so we put in there the auctions of $8 billion. Now we come again to the Commerce Committee for their reconciliation responsibility of raising $15 billion and we list again the $8 billion that has already been included in the telecommunications bill. Or, go to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee, struggling and straining under Medicare, trying to find the money, put in what they call a BELT. The BELT says--for example, on the House side they were $35 billion shy. So it is just rhetoric or language to the effect that, with $35 billion, that the next Congress will have to make it up. That is no way to balance the budget, but that is part of the smoke and mirrors. You can pick up $19 billion as they have with the Consumer Price Index being reduced by .2 percent, thereby reducing, of course, the Social Security benefits and increasing taxes because what you do is hit bracket creep, as they call it. Then you go with the impossible spending cuts of $270 billion in Medicare, $182 billion in Medicaid, and $83 billion in welfare. Just take the one--welfare. Suppose you are a Governor and you are assigned the welfare responsibility with a traumatic cut. Now you have added responsibilities. What you have to do is start a training program. Two-thirds, of course, of those on welfare are children but the other one-third are those who are unskilled or untrained, generally female adults who have not had the advantage of schooling. So you have to set up schooling and a training program. Thereupon, you institute a hiring or a Government job program of last resort. Then, to get to work, you have to institute, if you please, a child care center because they have to leave the children at home to take the job. And on down the list. You are not going to save that amount, of course, on welfare. Another way, of course, in subsection C shows backloading the plan, whereby all the real cuts are made in the last 2 years. The last year alone, for example, in the year 2002, they have to cut $347 billion. Here now, we are struggling and are not going to obtain $45 billion this year with the best of intent and the contract and the headlines and everything else and cannot even reach the $45 billion cut. But in the last year under this GOP budget, balanced budget plan, you have to cut $347 billion. Then of course, you increase your revenues by decreasing revenues. That sounds like double talk but that is the tax cut. You get into this growth argument that we have heard, now, for the last 2 weeks. All we need is a tax cut. It is going to give us growth, growth, just like Reaganomics said back in 1981 that put us into these horrendous deficits, debt and interest costs on automatic pilot. It is going up, up and away, the spending is. That tax cut is $245 billion. Then you look of course at the--and by borrowing from the public and from the trust funds, another $1.8 trillion. And that borrowing includes $636 billion embezzlement from Social Security. At the present time, we have a $481 billion balance in Social Security. That is not the problem. Under Social Security, it is paid for, for a good 25 to 30 years, easily. Yes, you have $481 billion there and you are going to borrow another $636. At the end of the particular budget plan, 2002, you are going to owe Social Security over $1 trillion. So, Social Security is not the problem, 25 or 30 years out; Medicare is not the problem here, 7 years out, The problem is now. We have spending on automatic pilot. Interest costs on the national debt--like death, like taxes--cannot be avoided. In fact, treat it as a tax increase, as I do in a sense. What we have is taxes being increased automatically each day $1 billion a day. That is the real problem. What happens here is both the Republican Congress and the Democratic White House, as well as the media--and I hope they will read this--are afraid to tell the American people the truth: That is, you cannot do it without a tax increase. So, what we need to do is cut spending, freeze spending, tax loopholes closing, withholding on new programs. I had to vote against AmeriCorps. Everybody is for voluntarism. In fact, I was party to the institution of the Peace Corps. We can make that record sometime. But you cannot go into these new programs when you are trying to get rid of the deficit and the debt and decrease spending on automatic pilot. So you need all of that plus, I suggest, a 5-percent value-added tax. Mr. President, that is the point. We have seen this exercise. In the early 1980's, I went with the Republican leadership and with Senator Howard Baker for a freeze. We could not get it. Then we realized by 1985 that we had--in order to get this deficit and debt down for it was growing by leaps and bounds--to have automatic cuts across the board. We had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and we looked at it. We said we still need to close the loopholes. In 1986, we got tax reform. Then, listen to this, in 1990, a bipartisan group of eight Senators, who hate taxes as much as anybody else, got together in the Budget Committee and voted for a value-added tax. Why? Because you cannot balance the budget without all of the above--namely, spending cuts, spending freezes, loophole closings, denying new programs, and a tax increase. We have heard this thing about balanced budgets. I really regret it because I hear it on the floor. I see it on the screen on my TV about a balanced budget. Those working the discipline know there is no idea of balance the budget. I heard it just 15 years ago. President Reagan presented a budget--the document shows it, and I have it here--that the budget would be balanced by 1984. Again, under President Reagan, in late 1985 under Gramm-Rudman- Hollings we pledged that balance--and we got awards for this one--that the budget would be balanced by 1991. In 1990--at that time they had gone out to Andrews Air Force Base and vetoed, abolished, Gramm-Rudman- Hollings cuts across the board and put in spending caps. Under that budget--I will show you the document--they said that by 1995, just last month, you would have a $20.5 billion surplus. Has anyone ever heard the word ``surplus'' in Washington? Balanced budgets by 1984, balanced budgets by 1991, and then, finally, in 1995-- we could look at the documents--a surplus of $20.5 billion. Here, instead of a surplus of $20.5 billion, we have a $283.3 billion deficit. So there it is. ``Here we go again,'' as our fearless leader, President Ronald Reagan, said. ``Here we go again.'' I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, last Friday in the wee hours of the night there was a total abandonment of any kind of truth in budgeting. There is no better way to express it. Under this entire charade, once again, we have lied to the American people. There is no question that in those wee hours, Mr. President, that they were trying their dead-level best and finally succeeded in buying off the votes of certain of the Senators with respect to Medicaid. In order to purchase it, what they did was use Social Security funds. That was a use and violation--not only of the rule but of the law. The rule was called by the distinguished Senator from Florida and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin. If you ever want to see distortion, obfuscation, and abandonment of responsibility by the Parliamentarian in the U.S. Senate, I wish you would read that Record. Be that as it may, the Chair would say, I do not know. We will refer to the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, and say, well, I like what the Chair has ruled. Ruled and on and on and back and forth but no idea of a parliamentary ruling or recognition of the law. That is why I take the floor today. What really happens is that they constantly are talking about a balanced budget when everybody--both at the White House, the Democratic White House, and the Republican Congress--know that it cannot be done. It cannot be done without increasing taxes. Here in the extreme, they are talking about decreasing taxes--about tax cuts. Let me go right to the point here, so I can make a coherent record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this little two-page summary of budget tables be printed in the Record at this particular point.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the role Evergreen Marine Group has played in the economic development of my home city, State, and region over the past 20 years. The M/V Ever Spring sailed into Charleston harbor on October 21, 1975. This first vessel began what was to become a long and prosperous relationship. In its first year of operations in Charleston, Evergreen carried 45,000 tons of cargo on 19 ships through the port. Last year, Evergreen carried over 1.5 million tons on more than 100 ships through Charleston. Cargo ships reflect incredible investments by the ocean carrier and provide many opportunities for economic development in the regions they serve. They represent the equivalent of floating factories, adding value to products by delivering them where they are needed, when needed. Few Americans realize that 95 percent of our international trade moves by ship. Evergreen's services in Charleston have allowed business and personal relationships to grow and prosper. The trading relationships forged between companies in geographically distanced nations work to bind our world. More than just raw materials, parts and finished goods flow across the oceans--ideas, culture and shared personal experiences make us more aware and considerate of the world in which we live. Evergreen began its first scheduled container service in 1975, linking Asia with Charleston and the U.S. east coast. Ten years later, Evergreen began the industry's first two-way, round-the-world service. Today, the company operates in almost every trading market on our globe. Evergreen has also diversified into other areas, such as real estate and aviation, becoming the first private, international air carrier in Taiwan. Yung-fa Chang, Evergreen's founder, has used hard work, tireless dedication to the customer and support of those who are working toward the common goal as the cornerstones of Evergreen's success. This past spring my home State's University of South Carolina, site of the Nation's highest ranking international business program, awarded him an honorary doctor of business administration, a testament to his achievements. Charleston is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing regions in the country, attracting capital investment and interest from around the globe and we are proud to have Evergreen be a part of our community. We are appreciative of the commitment Evergreen has made to our area and look forward to continued success together. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a column in today's Washington Post that is a good remembrance of the early 1960's when black students integrated Southern colleges. In touching remarks, South Carolina native Charlayne Hunter- Gault, public television's national news correspondent, weaves an excellent reflection of the history of the times as she remembers the life of Hamilton Earl Holmes. Together in 1961, Ms. Hunter-Gault and Mr. Holmes became the first two African-American students to attend the University of Georgia. Back in the early 1960's as the University of Georgia integrated, the State of South Carolina was employing every means to keep Clemson University segregated. We ran out of courts. But fortunately, we had people like Mr. Holmes and Ms. Hunter-Gault who were willing to show us the way in South Carolina. Their courage and ability to stand up led to Clemson's peaceful admission of Harvey Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte and a former candidate for U.S. Senate. With the death of Hamilton Earl Holmes, it is important for us to remember the struggles of the past and to find the courage to move forward--and not fall further into the bitterness of racism and make mistakes of the past. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Ms. Hunter- Gault's column to be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again, we are lying to the American people. Instead of a serious attempt to get our fiscal house in order, the reconciliation bill that we are now considering is little more than a political document. It is more about getting a Republican in the White House than getting rid of red ink. The American people will not be fooled. The Republican reconciliation bill does not balance the budget--it merely front loads goodies such as the tax cuts and back loads all the tough decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two tables that I have prepared exposing the realities of the GOP budget be included in the Record at this time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, first I want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his great leadership on preserving student aid. He has moved quickly at every opportunity to stick up for students and parents, and his amendment today is sorely needed. Mr. President, student aid has a proud history in this country. Much of my generation went to college on the GI bill. Then we passed the Higher Education Act of 1965, helping boost college attendance to today's levels. Of the 13 million students in college today, half of them receive Federal grants and loans under that Act. Economically, budgetary, morally, this bipartisan policy of making student aid a priority has been right. Economic analysis shows that we have benefited 8 for 1 on our GI bill investment. Recent analysis shows that the investment in education is twice as productive as other workplace investments. And the lower income people in our society should not be shut out of an affordable college education. We need to make every effort every year to make sure that our higher education assistance policy builds our country rather than dividing it. But Republicans have come this year with the proposition to students that everyone has to help balance the budget. Students should take some time in the library and study this bill. Everyone does not pay. Students--particularly low-income students--are asked to pay $10.8 billion more. But others--particularly those who can pay for college out of their pockets--get new tax breaks. These tax breaks and increased spending in other parts of the budget are much larger than the student loan cuts. In other words, this Congress could easily choose not to make students pay more, but the Republican leadership thinks it is more important to give more to certain constituencies before the next election, all the while crying balancing budget. Let me be specific about how Congress could avoid cutting student aid in this bill: First, we could lower the brand new tax break in this so-called budget-balancing bill from $245 billion to $235 billion. Second, we could trim back the proposed defense increase of over $50 billion. Third, we could refuse to provide a new tax break for corporations currently paying the minimum allowed, which is what is offered in this amendment. The fact is, all of these alternatives--and many others--are unacceptable to the Republicans that wrote this budget because student aid was a much lower priority to them than new tax breaks. Mr. President, these student aid provisions are shameful. If students and parents knew what was in this bill, they would think we had gone off the deep end. This is not the way we balance the budget, it is the way we pander for the next election and put the budget out of balance in the long run. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment to maintain our investment in education. Mr. AKAKA Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about cuts in education programs included in the reconciliation bill. The bill before us cuts $10.8 billion from the student loan program. These proposals include a 1 percent fee hike in PLUS loans, elimination of the grace period for recent graduates, the imposition of a 20 percent cap on direct student loan volume, and an .85 percent school tax based on the institution's student loan volume. If you wanted to undermine deliberately higher education, it would be difficult to come up with a more destructive list of proposals. Plain and simple, these education cuts are irresponsible. Mr. President, the 1 percent fee hike for PLUS loans is regressive and could add $5,000 to a family's indebtedness for a college education. This may not mean much, but to a family struggling to make it on $25,000 a year, it could deprive a student of a college education. Moreover, this measure discriminates against families who haven't achieved the dream of home ownership, and who cannot take out home equity loans to finance college. Eliminating the grace period for recent graduates is similarly ill- conceived. This provision would saddle graduates with additional financial burden at the most critical time in their careers. It could force graduates to settle for lower paying, less desirable jobs immediately upon graduation rather than providing them a reasonable opportunity to secure higher paying employment that better matches their skills and desires. The proposal to cap the direct loan program at 20 percent of the total student loan volume is misguided in three respects. First and foremost, it would discourage additional schools from participating in the program and reduce the opportunities for thousands of economically disadvantaged students who would not be able to qualify for guaranteed loans. Second, the 20 percent cap will ultimately drain the Treasury of billions of dollars because reinsurance fees and other subsidies will be paid to banks, secondary markets, and guaranty agencies. Direct loans have been a money saver because they cut out the middleman, reduce administrative overhead, and increase accessibility. Only the banks and other financial institutions stand to profit from the changes in this bill. Third, capping direct loans will effectively limit one of the most important side benefits of the program--providing competition to the banks. Without the direct loan program, the lending industry would be free to raise interest rates on their own student loan instruments, increasing borrowing costs to those who choose, or are forced to choose, private lending sources. This in turn is likely to lead to additional defaults, the costs of which will be borne by the taxpayer. I would be curious to learn how proponents of free enterprise explain this clearly anticompetitive initiative. Mr. President, the last major GOP education initiative is the proposed 0.85 percent tax on schools. Like the other proposals, this is a regressive inititaive that will discourage schools from participating in the direct loan program, force them to pass on the costs to students through increased tuition, and require them to tap into their already dwindling student financial aid budgets. Again, as with the other initiatives, this provision will disproportionately impact students from low- and middle-income families. It is ironic that as Republicans trumpet a $245 billion package of tax cuts that largely favor wealthier Americans, they seek to impose an indirect tax on students and families who can least afford it. Mr. President, these are some of the reasons why I oppose the education provisions contained in this measure. When added to the proposed wholesale reductions in discretionary education programs--from Head Start to Goals 2000, to campus-based aid--they constitute a plan to reduce access to quality education and harm our ability to compete in an increasingly sophisticated international marketplace. Reducing investment in education, which is already inadequate, will inevitably limit economic growth and undermine the standard of living of middle-class Americans in the 21st century. And it will close the window of opportunity for the economically disadvantaged among us who are pursuing the American dream. Mr. President, reducing our commitment to an educated, skilled work force in the name of deficit reduction is shortsighted and terribly misguided. As this country struggles to find its way in a global marketplace dominated by cheap foreign labor and high technology, withdrawing our investment in education amounts to economic suicide. This budget proves that Republicans are more committed to protecting the interests of the haves than in accommodating the aspirations of the vast majority of Americans who want only to improve the quality of their lives through hard work and education. Again, I believe this is a pennywise, pound-foolish approach that is shortsighted, mean spirited, and will cost the taxpayer money in the long run. If this budget is implemented, students of modest means may have to forgo a college education; others who are fortunate enough to achieve their baccalaureates may have to forgo their dreams of pursuing graduate study. And those students who leave college in the future will be saddled with huge debt burdens at a time when they are least likely to be able to afford payments. The proposals contained in this measure, in concert with the proposed reductions in fiscal year 1996 education appropriations measure, will ensure that our future work force is less educated, less productive, and less well off. This in turn will reduce the Nation's tax base, placing further upward pressure on the deficit--exactly the opposite effect from the stated purpose of this budget plan. This wholesale disinvestment in our most important resource, our young people, is not merely shortsighted, it is blind. Blind to the imperatives of the new global marketplace, blind to the effect that cuts in education will have on our ability to prosper in an increasingly complex world, and blind to the effect it will have on our deficit. But competitiveness, economic viability, and individual opportunity will not be the only victims of the proposed cutbacks in education. Our sense of civil community, of history, of tolerance, the ability to conduct informed, rational discourse--these are also the potential victims of this harsh and ill-conceived budget plan. For education is not just about making enough to feed the kids or to buy a new car or to own a home--it is also about preparing ourselves to carry out the responsibilities of citizenship in the world's oldest republic. Mr. President, no sane nation embraces ignorance. Yet, this is what the proposed resolution would have us do. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this war on knowledge by opposing the education proposals contained in this measure that threaten our future.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Focus, U.S. Official Number 909293, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The Focus was constructed in Kowloon, Hong Kong, in 1983 and is a sailing vessel presently used for recreational purposes. It is 47.8 feet in length, 15.8 feet in breadth, has a depth of 6.5 feet, and is self-propelled. The vessel is owned by John Passaloukas of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Mr. Passaloukas would like to utilize his vessel in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. However, because the vessel was built in a foreign shipyard, it does not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. The present owner purchased the Focus in a state of disrepair, after the vessel had been neglected for ten years, and has totally refurbished the vessel in U.S. shipyards. Coastwise documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owner of the Focus is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel for recreational and ecotourism charters. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Focus to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.