Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``Impact: Stop Playing Games With Social Security'' be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This article is entitled ``Line-Item Veto Can Cut the Nonsense.'' We put this article in our own hometown newspapers back in July 1991. We have been working many years now to get a line-item veto. I have used it, and 43 Governors use it today. I commend the leadership on the other side of the aisle for bringing this matter to the attention of our colleagues. As I understand it, when the Republican leadership presents their so-called compromise at 5 p.m. today, they will put before the body legislation that includes the separate enrollment mechanism that I have long championed. You should not be misled by this political rhubarb about 2,000 items and 2,000 vetoes. That has not been the experience of any Governor, and it is not going to be the experience of the National Government. The fact of the matter is that Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard gave to our good colleague, Senator Bradley from New Jersey, a letter supporting the constitutionality of the separate enrollment mechanism. I know the chairman of our Budget Committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, has been trying hard to get a line-item veto of some ilk or character Senate. If the compromise is based on the separate enrollment approach, then bless them all, because that is exactly what we voted out of the Budget Committee, Republicans and Democrats, 5 years ago. That is what 53 Senators including Senator Bradley and myself voted for on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That is what stands constitutional muster. It allows the President to use his existing constitutional authority to approve or disapprove; and upon disapproval by veto, a two-thirds vote is required of both Houses to override. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Perrin Griffin, a good friend who passed away last year. Bobby Griffin was a native son of South Carolina. Born in Bishopville in 1992, he served as a U.S. Senate page for our beloved former colleague, Senator ``Cotton Ed'' Smith of South Carolina, from 1937 to 1939, and as chief page for Vice President John Nance Garner of Texas. He graduated from the Citadel in 1943, 1 year after I did. After college, Bobby joined the Army. As a soldier, he distinguished himself as a brave leader. As a patrol officer in World War II under Gen. George Patton in the 3d Army, 26th Division, Captain Griffin led his men into the first occupation of many enemy towns in Europe. In fact, he commanded his company in the first contact with German troops in the Ardennes campaign of 1944. Madam President, Bobby Griffin was a man of enormous courage. He served our country with great distinction and prisoner of war twice. He was captured at the Battle of the Bulge in 1994 and was a German prisoner of war. He then escaped, but was recaptured. For his bravery, Bobby was awarded numerous medals and honors including: the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, four Purple Hearts, a P.O.W. medal, the American Campaign medal, the World War II Victory medal, and the European African Middle Eastern Campaign medal. Following the war, he continued to serve our country as commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post, 3181, in Florence and as State commander of VFW in 1951. Many around South Carolina remember Bobby best from his racing days. In 1950, he ran the first stock car in the first Southern 500 in Darlington. He was also one of the original owners of the Darlington International Raceway and past member of the board of directors. Bobby was an auto dealer from the 1950's through the mid-1960's. In the Pee Dee, you can still spot an Oldsmobile from Griffin Motors that Bobby probably sold. After retiring from the car company, as a vice president, he spent many years in Myrtle Beach as a real estate developer. Madam President, I would like to extend my thoughts and prayers to Bobby Griffin's friends and family. We will all miss him every much.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, this article brings right into true focus exactly what is going on. If, as Mr. Krauthammer says in this particular article, it was just ``a fiction'', then why not just include this exception in the language of the constitutional amendment? The distinguished leaders of the legislation willingly accepted an exception for borrowed funds. The distinguished leaders of the balanced budget amendment willingly accepted the provision dealing judicial enforcement in order to pick up the one vote of the Senator from Georgia. Why, Madam President, did they not accept five votes when all they had to do was put in black and white what they were publicly saying? There are five Senators who are ready, willing, and able to vote for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget if they include a provision protecting Social Security funds. The real flip-floppers are those who have abandoned their position taken in 1990 that Social Security funds should not be used in deficit calculations. It is very difficult to get that message out, but we will keep hammering. The distinguished majority leader says that he will continue to bring this up. I look forward to that debate and can likewise promise that this Senator will continue to push for language that excludes Social Security from deficit calculations. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, it really disturbed me when I saw our two distinguished Senators from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad, described as being tricky, or outright fraudulent. It's getting difficult to serve in the Senate. You have the Speaker of the House calling some Senators ``liars.'' You have some of our colleagues parading in front of the Capitol with a poster containing the pictures of some Senators and a headline at the top saying, ``Wanted for flip-flopping.'' But if we want to get past the grandstanding and get to the truth of the matter, what we were trying to do was to keep our word by protecting Social Security. The American people should know that the real flip-floppers are those who voted in 1990 to protect Social Security but were willing to sacrifice it under the language of Section 7 in House Joint Resolution 1. Charles Krauthammer's Social Security article is, to use his own language, the single most fraudulent article that our friend, Mr. Krauthammer, has written because he equates an individual with a $100,000 debt with the Government having a $100,000 debt. He claims that an individual borrowing $25,000 from a retirement account and borrowing the remaining $75,000 from the bank is in the same position as the Government borrowing its $25,000 from the Social Security account and the remaining $75,000 from the markets. But here's the difference. In borrowing $25,000 from his retirement, the individual is truly at zero because he has borrowed his own money. In the Government's case, the budget is not balanced because the $25,000 has been borrowed from future retirees. Madam President, the Social Security surpluses were planned in 1983 with a special FICA tax to bring in funds in excess of the immediate need. We were not just trying to balance the Social Security budget. There was an affirmative intent that more moneys than were necessary would be collected so that we could build up surpluses and provide for the baby boomers that will retire early in the next century. The idea of the Greenspan Commission was that a sufficient Social Security reserve or trust be built up so that there would not be a call on general revenues. Of course, what has been happening, Madam President, is that administrations, Congresses, and columnists have all engaged in the deceptive reporting by using the Social Security surpluses to diminish the size of the deficit. This charade does not eliminate the deficit, it merely moves the deficit from the Federal Government over to the Social Security fund. Of course, this trick does not eliminate the deficit. Already, $464 billion has been moved--by the year 2000 the Government will owe Social Security $1 trillion. As a result, the baby boomers, who are presently being taxed to pay for the Social Security of persons who have reached 72 years of age, like this particular Senator, will have to be taxed again to receive their benefits. In addition, Mr. Krauthammer's claims that the Social Security system is a pay-as-you-go program. But as the record will show, that is not the case. In fact, Senator Patrick Moynihan and I were the ones who offered an amendment to put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis, but that effort was defeated. Moreover, in 1990 the distinguished former Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator John Heinz, and I, were successful in passing legislation forbidding the use of Social Security trust funds to mask the size of the deficit. It remains on the books as section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act. Thus, I might point out that what Mr. Krauthammer calls a fiction and a fraud is actually a law that was signed by President George Bush on November 5, 1990. Mr. Krauthammer knows full well the Congress would never have voted the tax increases for Social Security in 1983 if these revenues were to be used to spend on foreign aid, welfare, or the deficit. He disregards the representation by the sponsors of the balanced budget amendment that Social Security trust funds will be protected. He disregards the formal resolution by Senator Dole, the majority leader, requiring that the Budget Committee demonstrate how the budget can be balanced without using Social Security funds. He disregards the formal statutory law that requires this, and he fails to mention that the two Senators he chastises joined with three others in a formal letter of commitment to vote for the balanced budget amendment if the protection for Social Security were included. To quote Mr. Krauthammer, ``A neat trick. A complete fraud.'' That is the trick and that is the fraud that has ensued here within the National Government. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point an article entitled, ``Stop Playing Games With Social Security'' yesterday, March 12, 1995.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to comment on the Record made earlier this morning by my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, the chairman of our Budget Committee. Let me say at the outset that I have the highest regard for Senator Domenici. He is very conscientious, very hard-working, and very honest in his beliefs and his work in the Senate. So in rising I do not intend to reflect on him, but rather to reflect on Charles Krauthammer's recent article concerning Social Security that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico included in the Record. So there will not be any trouble referring to it, I ask unanimous consent that the article of Charles Krauthammer entitled ``Social Security `Trust Fund' Whopper'' of last Friday, March 10 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 10 additional minutes, and that I be recognized for that period of time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me join in the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the distinguished Senator from Florida, and commend my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Helms. I have heard, I do not know where, stated that ``The sands of history bleach the bones of countless thousands who, on the eve of victory, hesitated and, having hesitated, died.'' Such is the case with Cuba. The sanctions are working. Now is not the time to get fanciful ideas of world policy and peace on Earth. Now is the time to look at the realities of this particular situation. If Castro would renounce communism and replace it with perestroika in Cuba, as Gorbachev did in Russia, it would be a different thing. But instead, Castro says, ``Oh, no; I have let tourists in, let the farmers sell to keep the Communist system afloat.'' Mr. President, I just do not believe in financing the opposition. I almost am tempted to digress on the subject of Mexico, but I will attest to that tomorrow before the distinguished Banking Committee. Enough on that particular point, Mr. President. I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is ready to move along on this subject.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I read: Accepts the President's proposed reductions in the Medicare program and indexes the current $100 billion part ``B'' deductible for inflation. Total Medicare savings would reach $80 billion over the next 5 years. Now, with respect to that $80 billion, the President struggled to find budget savings within the context of health care reform. For that effort, he and the First Lady got ridiculed. If I was his lawyer, this year I would say, for Heaven's sake, do not do it this year. Let them come up with it. You tried and lost Democratic seats in November as a result. Let them try. You did it. So let's not talk about taking a walk. Mr. President, it is clear to me that Republicans want to come back and accept the President's cut so that they can run around with demonstrations in front of the Capitol and say that it was the President that cut Medicare. Do they think we were born yesterday? They talk about walking all they like, but where is the budget? During the debate on the constitutional amendment I asked, ``Where is the budget?'' I said rather than showing us 7 years, just give me 1 year. That is my request this morning. Where's the budget? It is the middle of March, and under the rules we are suppose to complete the hearings and complete conference by April 15. Are we just going to come in with a fixed vote and say, ``All right, no use offering amendments; we have to report it out now. No use to hear from you, you can be heard on the floor.'' That is not the way to run things; that is terrible government. Now, with respect to the other matter, that the balanced budget constitutional amendment failed by one vote. Mr. President, in the next 10 minutes, they could get five votes. The five votes were offered to them time and time again if only they would do what they said they wanted done--namely, protect Social Security. I notice my friend, James Glassman, on the front of the business page of the Washington Post, wrote an article which was the truth, but it was not the whole truth. Section 13301 of the Congressional Budget Act, signed by President George Bush on November 5, 1990, says that Social Security shall be protected. Unless we honor that law, we will continue to move the deficit, not eliminate it. That is the game, not to eliminate the deficit, but to move it from the Federal Government to the Social Security trust fund. If they violate section 13301, Mr. President, they can move $636 billion in the next 7 years from the deficit over to the trust fund. And who flip-flopped? It is really at best ironic to see Senators meet in front of a placard, and I laugh because I got calls on it, that says I am in a rogues' gallery for keeping my word. They claimed that there were six Senators who flip-flopped. Could it be that I could cast the same stone at those who voted in 1990 for section 13301, and then for the balanced budget amendment to repeal section 13301? Should I get the pictures of all those Senators and go in the front of the Capitol and holler, ``Flip-flop, flip-flop, they broke the trust with Social Security''? Under the rules, as the distinguished former President pro tempore knows, we are supposed to have the courtesy and decency to call each other distinguished. But 10 minutes later, they have me in a rogue's gallery. It is wonderful serving up here now. The devil take the hindmost and forget about the truth. The truth is that the majority leader wanted to protect his troops. The truth is that while saying that they were going to protect Social Security, the Republicans were running around saying: ``We cannot do it without Social Security funds.'' I can tell you--you cannot do it with Social Security funds, because all you do is you move the deficit over from the Government over to the trust funds. You are not paying anything. You are taking credit and misleading the people. And with that, the creativity is just starting. years are acknowledging that they are going to use Social Security trust funds. If we take Social Security out, it should be $1.7 trillion. Today's creativity is to get rid of the Department of Commerce, get rid of the Department of Education, get rid of the Department of Energy. Send welfare, send food stamps, send everybody else back to the States; give them the deficit. Give it to Social Security to the tune of $636 billion. In addition, they say, ``We will not raise taxes and we will not cut Social Security benefits, but we are going to recompute the CPI.'' But check the fine print. Changing the CPI will force many Americans to pay higher taxes and will cut Social Security COLA's for retirees. They are meeting themselves coming around the corner. But with a lower CPI, they can pick up another $150 billion. Next, they can go to dynamic scorekeeping and pick up another $150 billion. If they need more money, they can start selling assets, like the electric power grid, or move to a capital budget. Oh, we know all the tricks. We ought to get our friend Stockman, who wrote about Dunkirk, and let him come and write about duplicity. There is no discipline coming to this tricky crowd who will not take five votes, or more. All they have to do to get my vote is to let me keep my word, keep section 13301, and keep it there for the next generation. My crowd--Senator Thurmond and I--are getting our money. It amazes me, but at 72 years of age, you have to take it. But be that as it may, the next generation is going to pay more. When it comes their time to retire, Mr. Parliamentarian, they are going to raise your taxes. Now, that is what is happening. That is what is happening, and it ought to stop. They ought to quit running around making these silly statements. The distinguished majority leader was on ``Face the Nation'' Sunday, and I saw him categorically say we are going to protect Social Security. If he really means it, accept this little amendment. You accepted an amendment on the courts. You accepted an exception for borrowed funds. Just except Social Security trust funds rather than repeal section 13301. That is all you have to do to pass a balanced budget to the Constitution. But do not go around moaning and groaning all over Washington that all we need is to get one vote, get one vote, get one vote. He can walk out here this afternoon and pick up five. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I cannot let pass two particular items that occurred here this morning. One was made by my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. He claimed that the President had ``taken a walk'' with respect to budgetary matters. Now, Mr. President, let's set the record straight. In the last 12 years, we have seen the ills of our reckless fiscal policies manifested in exorbitant, extravagant, obsessive budget deficits. But, when Members talk about who it was who ``took a walk,'' certainly it was not President Clinton. He was not even here. Talk about taking a walk, when the current President came to town and inherited a financial basket case of a nation, it was he who had the courage and willingness--not walking, but working--to put in a $500 billion deficit reduction package that included taxes. It was not unfair. It was really making things more fair by proposing the cuts and revenues needed to reduce the deficit. As part of that plan, he put in motion a program that is over half complete of reducing 272,000 employees from the Federal work force. When complete will have the smallest Federal work force since the Kennedy administration, and for what? To balance the budget, not walk. Mr. President, I remember to December 18, 1994, when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and his House counterpart, Congressman Kasich were on ``Meet the Press.'' At that time they were crowing. They were going have three budgets in January, ready, willing, and able to go with the understanding that we would put the spending cuts in the bank to pay for tax cuts. But we did not get those spending cuts in January. We did not get those spending cuts in February. And March is marching by. Mr. President, before they talk about the wonderful record that President Clinton made year before last without a single Republican vote in the Senate or the House of Representatives, we should straighten the history about who is walking and who is talking. Where is the budget? I remember my friend, former Senator Hart from Colorado, wanting to know, ``where's the beef?'' It's high time we asked, ``Where's the budget?'' I outlined one in January to show the hard task ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that seeks to accomplish two goals: first, to make sure that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority [MWAA] can continue to operate and prosper; and second, to ensure that appropriate input into the decisions of the MWAA is maintained. The bill thus protects the interests of the travelling public and maintains many well-developed and defined compromises on which many of my colleagues have worked over the years. I had initially considered legislation recreating a board of review with authority to oversee the actions of MWAA. That was part of the original arrangement in transferring these airports--Congress would be able to oversee actions of the airports because they are critical resources, not just for Virginia, but for all of the States. Such an approach also would have protected the traveling public and maintained the resolution of difficult issues accomplished with the transfer. This bill does not take that step, but instead is intended as a compromise, and one that is workable for all concerned. I want to put this matter in perspective for my colleagues. In 1986, I spent many days on the Senate floor debating the transfer of Washington National and Dulles Airports. I believed then, as I do now, that we have a responsibility to ensure that Federal assets are properly used, are properly valued, and are able to provide benefits to their users. These airports are important to all of us and our constituents. As a result, when Congress created the MWAA, a number of critical and interrelated compromises were made, including assurances that access to the airports would be appropriately maintained and that the Federal Government would retain its authority and oversight of the airports. In addition, Congress specifically recognized the historic use of the airports and legislated that the number of operations, or slots, and the rules governing flights would be frozen. The local community, including Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia, recognized that National Airport would be allowed to continue to serve cities that it had traditionally served, and Dulles would be given a chance to grow into a major domestic and international airport. This meant that noise problems would be minimized at National, and growth would occur at a then-distant facility some 22 miles from the Capital. As my colleagues know, both Washington National and Dulles International are undergoing major renovations. The airports floated more than $1.3 billion in bonds and currently have underway about $700 million in construction projects. All of us have seen first hand the major construction going on at these airports. That construction came about because Congress recognized that the airports served different purposes, and we facilitated future planning and growth opportunities. National Airport has a perimeter rule, which ensures service to communities within the perimeter rule. That was part of the original deal. The former Governor of Virginia, Gerald Baliles, at a hearing before the Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee, recently reiterated how carefully balanced the transfer legislation was. Dulles, without a perimeter rule, has the benefit of a superhighway with door-to-door access from downtown Washington to the airport, to facilitate its growth. And it has grown. We need to make sure that we keep our commitments to all of the States involved. Congress also recognized that these airports are more than just local airports, and because the underlying land is Federal property, we established a congressional board of review and an Airports Authority-- two separate bodies, appointed in different ways, and with different responsibilities. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed with our method of oversight, and on January 23, 1995, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Hechinger versus Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. The Court of Appeals had struck down as unconstitutional the congressional board of review. The appellate court's decision has been stayed until March 31, 1995. Under the existing legislation, because the board of review has been found to be unconstitutional, the Airports Authority is unable to move forward on major decisions. As a result, Congress must now take action to address the problem. There are many options available, but our goal should be to ensure appropriate oversight of a facility on Federal property being operated under a long-term lease, without creating a maze of oversight. This is a fine line, but a responsibility we must accept. Therefore, today I am introducing legislation that will add six Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed members to the MWAA board of directors. This will ensure that the Federal Government continues its active participation in the decisions of these airports, but also will recognize that the communities have an important and critical role in shaping the future of these airports. The bill eliminates the congressional board of review. The legislation goes to the heart of the problem--and does so in a way that Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, at last week's markup of the defense supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 889, Subcommittee Chairman Senator Gramm and I found ourselves both opposed to specific domestic rescissions that were included in the House-passed bill. Since that committee meeting, we have been working on a substitute amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State chapter that we can both support, with the ground rules that we must propose a rescission in place of any rescission currently in the bill that is deleted. Our amendment restores all but $10 million of the Immigration Emergency Fund appropriation and most of the appropriation in the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program. The House had proposed cutting $70 million from the Justice Fund and $107 million from the Commerce Department's ATP Program. All of the alternative offsets that this amendment proposes are from accounts within our subcommittee's jurisdiction, and we have retained the $177 million in deficit reduction proposed in both the House bill and the committee recommended bill. This amendment, which I will describe, represents a bipartisan response to the reductions in Justice and technology programs proposed by the House. The amendment restores all but $10 million of the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service's Immigration Emergency Fund to the level provided in last year's CJS appropriation bill. This fund was established for possible immigration emergencies, and we provided a $75 million appropriation last summer to deal with the Cuban and Haitian immigration crisis. Use of the fund, which has current balances of $111 million, requires a Presidential declaration of an emergency and congressional notification. Given the current state of affairs along our Southern border, it is prudent that the account balances be maintained at a level of at least $100 million. advanced technology program The amendment restores $75 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program [ATP]. The committee amendment would retain a rescission of $32 million from this account, instead of the $107 million proposed in the committee reported bill. The ATP is an important investment in American economic competitiveness. It supports American industry's own efforts to develop new cutting-edge, next-generation technologies--technologies that will create the new industries and jobs of the 21st century. The ATP does not fund the development of commercial products. Instead, it provides matching funds to both individual companies and joint ventures for pre- product research on these high-risk, potentially high-payoff technologies. These technologies include promising new ideas in manufacturing, advanced electronics, and new materials. Why do we need the ATP? The answer is simple: to keep America competitive and create jobs. Long-term technology has become the key to future U.S. prosperity at precisely the time that global competition, downsizing, and shareholder pressures now force American companies to focus scarce research dollars on short-term projects. The Commerce Department estimates that these market pressures now push companies to spend up to 90 percent of their research funding on projects that will pay off in 1 to 5 years. As a result, U.S. companies, small and large, now have serious trouble funding long-term, next-generation technologies that will build new industries but will not pay for 10 to 15 years. Moreover, historically the U.S. Government has supported long-term research in only a few key sectors--an approach very different from our foreign competitors. The ATP's sole aim is to develop new basic technologies that would not be pursued or pursued soon because of technical risks and other obstacles that discourage private-sector investment. The ATP does not support product development, and is modeled on similar Federal research programs which have long helped a few sectors such as agriculture, the aircraft industry, and the energy technology. The program particularly helps small technology companies. To date, the ATP has made 177 awards, involving 480 companies and research partners in 38 States. The ATP is new, but already has begun to make a real difference. Diamond Semiconductor Group's story is not atypical. It had a new idea for reliably producing larger, more-cost effective semiconductor wafer--about the size of an LP record as opposed to today's small wafers. But the company did not have the resources to fully test out its idea. ``Winning the ATP award was absolutely critical to us,'' says President Manny Sieradzki. The ATP award helped the company provide the proof needed for varian associates, as major semiconductor equipment manufacturer, to provide development funding. I want to mention three other points about the ATP. First, the ATP is part of a long American tradition of supporting industry efforts to develop new technologies. To date, most of those efforts have been in defense or a few key civilian areas. But those older U.S. investments have been substantial and effective. USDA helped create modern agriculture, the Government has supported aeronautical research since 1915, and the NIH helped create biotechnology. The ATP simply extends this proven model of long-term investments in technology to the rest of U.S. industry. And, while the ATP assists a wide range of American industries, it costs less than comparable programs which serve specific sectors. In fiscal year 1995, the ATP and NIST's manufacturing extension program cost a total of $522 million--compared with $1.675 billion at USDA for research and extension, $882 million at NASA for aeronautics, and $3.757 billion at the Department of Energy for civilian energy technology. Second, this is not interfering with the marketplace or having the Government pick winners and losers. The ATP is without doubt the most market-driven technology program supported by the Government. Industry, not government, proposes both specific projects and key areas of technology to focus on. Industry, not Government, runs the projects and contributes the majority of the funds. As mentioned, the ATP supports only long-term pre-product research, never product development. And awards are made by peer-review panels of technical experts and retired business executives--not by the White House, not by the Secretary of Commerce, and not by Congress. Third, the ATP has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. The Bush administration wrote the regulations for the ATP, and in his fiscal year 1993 budget President Bush requested substantial increases for the program. In addition, on June 25, 1992, Senate Republicans--through the Senate Republican Task Force on Adjusting the Defense Base Chaired by Senator Warren Rudman--endorsed both the ATP and the NIST Manufacturing Extension Program. This program has had strong bipartisan support in the past, and deserves strong bipartisan support now. noaa procurement savings The amendment proposes a rescission of $2.5 million of funds appropriated in fiscal year 1995 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] for modifications and procurement of aircraft radar. NOAA has procured and is installing the radar, but has informed the subcommittee that $2.5 million is excess to requirements. The agency recently proposed to reprogram these funds for administrative overhead. The subcommittee recommends applying these resources instead for deficit reduction and restoring the ATP program. information infrastructure grants The subcommittee recommends a rescission of $34 million for Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Information Infrastructure Grants. This program was created in fiscal year 1994, and the first grant awards recently were made. Funding for this program increased from $26 million in fiscal year 1994 to $64 million in fiscal year 1995. It has yet to be authorized, and we have continued to oppose rescissions from the Public Broadcasting Facilities Program in NTIA that the administration keeps proposing. Accounting for departmental transfers and reprogrammings, this rescission restores the program to its fiscal year 1994 level. economic development assistance programs The amendment would rescind $40 million for the Economic Development Administration [EDA]. This is $20 million more than the committee reported bill. I reluctantly agreed to this rescission. Following our fiscal year 1995 appropriation bill, the EDA proposed a reprogramming of $40 million from Defense economic adjustment/conversion and regular title IX programs to initiate a new Competitive Communities Program. As I understand it, this new program would provide grants to intermediaries to provide loans to industries locating or expanding in impacted communities. THe subcommittee was unable to reach agreement in order to approve the reprogramming request--and under our guidelines both the majority and minority must agree for a reprogramming to go forward. In light of that, we have agreed to use these resources in lieu of House rescissions. small business administration tree-planting The amendment proposes to rescind $15 million from the Small Business Administration's [SBA] salaries and expenses account. This rescission is proposed in the President's budget. This action would terminate the SBA tree planting program. This is a nice governments to plant seedlings and small trees. But, it has little to do with the mission or purpose of the SBA, and we have never supported funding in a Senate appropriations bill. In fact, it has never been authorized by the Small Business Committees. It has been an annual House Appropriations Committee add-on-the budget. legal services corporation The amendment proposes to rescind $15 million of the $415 million appropriated in last year's CJS appropriations bill for the Legal Services Corporation [LSC]. This amendment would reduce the payment to the LSC to the level recommended by the Senate last year. We fought hard in conference last year to contain the growth of the Legal Services Corporation, which had grown each year due to pressure from the House. With the political see change in the House, I'm sure that they should be willing to return to the lower Senate-passed funding level. state department unobligated balances The amendment proposes to rescind $28.5 million from unobligated balances in the Department of State's foreign buildings account. Again, it is with great reluctance that I recommend this rescission. This is an area in which the Senate-passed CJS appropriations bill exceeded the House last year, and we got them to come up to our level. Each year the Department of State's program changes due to delays, scope and priority changes, and contract savings. Normally, we would support retaining these balances to further the overseas construction program. But, in the current environment, these balances are being proposed for rescission to offset restoring House rescissions. conclusion This is unpleasant business. I think everyone should realize that the House is driving this game. These rescissions are not going to offset Department of Defense readiness spending; instead, they will be used, at least for the time being, for deficit reduction. The ground rules, as laid out by chairman Hatfield and the leadership, are that we must meet or exceed the amount of rescissions that the House has proposed. And, I should note that our House counterparts recently approved a second, much larger rescission bill. Both chairman Gramm and I agree that this amendment provides for a vastly improved package than what the House sent to the Senate. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a couple of minutes, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership and particularly both Senators from North Dakota for their leadership on this issue. We are talking about truth in budgeting. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer believes in the truth. And the truth is, that when Republicans point fingers and talk in terms of a flip-flop, they should examine their own records and realize that many on there side who previously voted to protect Social Security have now flip-flopped to voting against it. The Record will show that the Senator from South Carolina voted for practically the same language in voting for the constitutional amendment in 1993. As I stated long before the vote, at that particular time I had not carefully focused on the details of the Simon amendment. I was told: Fritz, this is the same balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is not going anywhere. They talked about protecting Social Security, and I thought, frankly, it did. When I saw the House of Representatives pass this legislation for the first time this year, I began to study in detail whether or not the language complied with the 1990 Hollings-Heinz law, section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, that we struggled to put on the books. Why the struggle? Because I have been down this road before. I remember Arthur Burns, who was then Director of the Federal Reserve back in the 1970's, talked the need for a unified budget. I went along with the unified budget in 1983 because there were not any surpluses. That was the problem, the dilemma that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is pointing out. We were trying to make up, with a tax on payrolls, not only the short-term deficit in Social Security, but also to protect the fiscal soundness of Social Security into the middle of the next century. But then, during the late 1980's, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum--the Federal deficit exploded. The Social Security surpluses were growing as a result of the increased payroll tax. But to hide our fiscal profligacy Congress, Republican and Democrat, used those funds to mask the true size of the problem. Rather than changing course and taking steps to reduce our spending habits, we were content to move the deficit from the Federal Government over to the Social Security trust. That bothered Senator Heinz, the late Senator from Pennsylvania, and this Senator. Senator Heinz was not on the Budget Committee, but I was. So I brought it up and on July 10, 1990, we had, by a vote of 20 to 1-- where the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] was the lone vote against. Thereafter, by a vote of 98 to 2 on the floor of this body, we passed my amendment and saw it signed into law by President Bush on November 5, 1990. So comes this particular amendment. I checked closely, and I read and reread it. As I said, we went to better constitutional experts than myself, but everybody knows that you cannot amend the Constitution by statute. As President Washington said in his Farewell Address: If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification under the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the constitution designates--But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. So I knew it. I had been into this court before. I said, ``Wait a minute. When it says that all receipts and all outlays will be included in this deficit, that means that all Social Security receipts and all Social Security outlays will be included in calculating the deficit, thereby repealing section 13301.'' Now that got my attention. If I am flipping and flopping, at least, as Adlai Stevenson said years ago, it is not a question of whether I am conservative or I am liberal. The question is whether I am headed in the right direction. I am headed in the direction of complying with the law. I will yield, because I did not intend to speak until I had my lunch, but I was disturbed by this nonsense that I heard a little while ago. I will ask our distinguished friends, at least in The Washington Post, to report that five Democratic Senators are ready, willing, and able to vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget if they protect Social Security. The majority leader said they are going to protect it. I heard him yesterday on ``Face the Nation''. He said, ``We are going to protect Social Security.'' All I am saying is that they need to put it in black and white. They need to put it in writing for the American people. We wrote a formal letter so there would be no misunderstanding. We said that you can pass a constitutional amendment with 70 votes if you only protect Social Security. I honor the representations made by the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota today on the floor about the need for truth in budgeting. The five votes were there that could have easily passed the amendment. They acted like the offer was never made. It was formally made. I am still prepared, and make the same offer, as one of the particular five. You could get one vote and pass it right now. It is 1:30 now. You could do it at 1:35 p.m., in the next 5 minutes; anytime. But that is not the position they take. The Record is clear. If they wanted to pass it, they could have passed it in a flash. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a leader in the law enforcement field, Sheriff Johnny Mack Brown from Greenville, SC. Sheriff Brown's community-oriented approach to law enforcement has proved an effective and innovative way to help maintain law and order. Thanks to Sheriff Brown, agencies from across the country travel to observe this concept of bringing law enforcement back into the community. Mr. President, it gives me great pride to see South Carolinians hard at work insuring that our State remains a safe place to raise a family and conduct business. Sheriff Brown has taken a bold stance against crime. ``We must not, we cannot fall into the trap of believing we are there to do law enforcement work for the community. We are there to do law enforcement work with the community,'' advised Sheriff Brown in a 1993 newsletter for the National Sheriff's Association. Johnny Mack Brown has been recognized as a leader by his colleagues both at the national and State level. In 1993 he served as president of the National Sheriff's Association and from 1989-91 he was commissioner for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. And, under the leadership of Sheriff Brown, the Greenville County Sheriff's Department was the first to achieve accreditation from the commission in 1988. He also served as president of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association in 1983. Mr. President, I am delighted to commend Sheriff Johnny Mack Brown's dedication to improving the community. His efforts will have a lasting effect not only in South Carolina but across the country. Recently, the Greenville News wrote of the Greenville County sheriff's exemplary law enforcement methods as a model for the country. I ask unanimous consent that the article be made a part of the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter dated March 1, 1995, to the distinguished majority leader along with an accompanying compromise proposal concerning Social Security which I and four of my colleagues delivered to the distinguished leader yesterday afternoon at 5 o'clock. Had we voted on this proposal, we could have passed the balanced budget amendment in a flash.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have included this information at this point because it marks the first opportunity that we have had to clear the record. I would like to clarify what I think were misleading statements made earlier by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mr. President, in 1982 I worked with the distinguished Senator from Utah and voted for a balanced budget amendment that time. It was not identical to the balanced budget amendment voted on today. Mr. President, I am a senior citizen as is my colleague, Senator Thurmond. We, at age 72, have to take the benefits. And I can tell you, our contemporaries are not worried about receiving our benefits, because the books show almost one-half trillion dollar surplus in Social Security reserves. Indeed, seniors are more concerned about the fight to come on Medicare. So let us put to rest the notion that we are trying to frighten senior citizens. Rather, what we are attempting to do is to try and keep a solemn trust with middle America. Everybody says we need to do something for middle America. It is middle America that is paying for me to receive Social Security benefits now, and it is middle America who, come their time in the next century, will be taxed again when they become eligible to receive benefits. The issue here should be about stopping government deficits and not simply moving the general fund deficit over to the Social Security deficit. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have specifically articulated the latter idea. Indeed, my friend, the Senator from Mississippi said on ``Face the Nation'' on February 5: Nobody--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate--is even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Mississippi. But the actions of some of my Republican friends seem to indicate otherwise. Like John Mitchell, the former Attorney General, used to say, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' Just last evening on ``Larry King Live,'' the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, said: I think we ought to balance the budget counting Social Security first, and then if we want to balance it without counting it, do it second. Clearly, this statement reflects an intent to use Social Security surpluses. In addition, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has said: ``You can't leave the biggest American program off budget.'' However, my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, voted to leave it off budget both in committee in July 1990 and later on the floor in reference to the Hollings-Heinz amendment which passed 98 to 2, and was signed into law by President Bush. I ask unanimous consent that the law be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Next, Mr. President, I refer to Senator Grassley of Iowa who said: The leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate have promised not to touch the Social Security retirement program for at least 5 years. Do they have it in mind after 5 years? On March 1, my distinguished colleague, Senator Craig said: Without access to the Social Security surpluses, you would create a much higher hurdle in trying to balance the budget. That is true, but not requiring that higher hurdle means that you are going to use Social Security funds. Finally, on February 5, 1995, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole said: I also believe that we can't keep Social Security off the table forever. Mr. President, that is not the promise we made in 1983. When this Senator and others raised Social Security FICA taxes, we promised otherwise. We must keep the contract made by President Roosevelt in 1935; we must keep the promise made back in 1983 that these taxes would not be used to pay for foreign aid, welfare, or any other Government program; and we must continue in our resolve to keep our commitment to middle America intact. I thank the Chair. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Emerald Ayes, official number 986099, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, United States Code. The Emerald Ayes was constructed in Canada in 1992, and is a sailing catamaran for use as a recreational vessel. It is 36.4 feet in length, 18.2 feet in breadth, has a depth of 9.4 feet, and is self-propelled. The vessel was purchased by Dr. Stephen D. Michel of Mount Pleasant, SC, who purchased it with the intention of chartering the vessel for short sailing tours. However, because the vessel was built in Canada, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. He first sought to purchase a U.S.-built vessel, but this type of sailboat is not built by any U.S. shipbuilders. He has invested a considerable amount of money in this vessel, and without a Jones Act waiver for the boat, he will be forced to sell it. The owner of the Emerald Ayes is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel for 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 Emerald Ayes to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing legislation that will protect children from the harmful effects of gratuitous television violence. As the President said in his State of the Union Address, the entertainment industry has a ``* * * responsibility to assess the impact of [its] work and to understand the damage that comes from the incessant, repetitive mindless violence that permeates our media all the time.'' I do not believe the industry has done its best to honor that special responsibility. My approach is the most reasonable and feasible way to deal with the reality that television has become the permanent babysitter and some- time parent. The television does not simply occupy a child's time; it has become one of the more powerful influences in a child's life. Yet it continues to be nothing but a vast wasteland. We've heard all the commitments to reduce the level of violence on television. We've heard the commitments to improve the quality of children's programming. But what has been the result? More violence. The industry's primary focus continues to be the bottom line--not on the quality of the programming and its educational value. The evidence is overwhelming. Arnold Goldstein, the Director of the Center for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, has done extensive research in the area of violence and its impact on youth. His research conclusively finds a link between TV violence and real-world violence and adds support to congressional efforts to curb the amount of violence on television. The Commerce Committee's hearing record last Congress provides further evidence of the extent of violence in society. Each year, over 20,000 people are murdered in the United States--1 person is killed every 22 minutes. Violence is the second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 15 and 24. The Centers for Disease Control now considers violence to be a public health problem. According to several studies, television violence increased in the 1980's both during prime time and during children's television hours. Evidence shows that children spend more time watching television than they spend in school. For example, children between the ages of 2 and 11 watch television an average of 28 hours per week. Furthermore, a University of Pennsylvania study documented that a record 32 violent acts per hour were shown during children's shows in 1992. The American Psychological Association [APA] estimates that a typical child will watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence before finishing elementary school. The Commerce Committee has been looking at the issue of television violence and its impact on youth. Last Congress, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on this issue and found that there is indeed a compelling governmental interest to protect children from the harmful effects of violence on television. To address this interest, my bill directs the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to adopt rules to require the networks and cable industry to channel violent programming into times of the day when children are not likely to comprise a substantial part of the audience. This is consistent with Supreme Court decisions recognizing the compelling nature of the Government's interest in helping parents supervise their children and in independently protecting the well being of its youth. I am sensitive to the constitutional concerns raised by this issue. However, I believe the safe harbor mandated by my bill is sound public policy and is the least restrictive means to protect children. The courts have found many deficiencies in past legislative efforts to curb indecent programming. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the safe harbor timeframe for indecent broadcasts from 12 midnight to 6 a.m. was unconstitutional. The court said the timeframe mandated by Congress and adopted in the FCC's rules was overly broad and not based upon a sufficient record. My bill avoids the deficiencies found in prior legislative efforts. In Action for Children's Television versus FCC (Act IV), the court said the FCC's effort to implement a safe harbor for indecent programming failed because its regulations attempted to protect every person-- adults and children--from the to balance properly the first amendment considerations necessary to restrict indecent broadcasts since the FCC's rules did not exclude adults from the persons to be protected from indecent broadcasts. In his concurring opinion, Judge Edwards asserted that violent programming is more harmful to children than indecent broadcasts and that a more compelling case can be made for regulating violence--if the regulation is narrowly tailored. Judge Edwards stated that ``the strength of the Government's interest in shielding children from exposure to indecent programming is tied directly to the magnitude of the harms sought to be prevented. The apparent lack of specific evidence of harms from indecent programming stands in direct contrast, for example, to the evidence of harm caused by violent programming--a genre that, as yet, has gone virtually unregulated.'' My bill does not ban programs with violence, and it does not regulate the content of any program. Rather, it directs the FCC to adopt rules to require the networks and the cable industry to channel violent programming into time slots when children are not likely to comprise a substantial part of the audience. The programming that children watch today is no longer produced by a few Hollywood studios and broadcast by three networks. We now have an established fourth network, several emerging networks, independent television stations, and cable television, all of which have multiple sources of programming. Therefore, we can no longer hold just the three networks responsible for what children watch. That is why my bill adopts a broad approach directed at all providers of video programming. I am convinced this bill is the least restrictive means by which we can limit children's exposure to violent programming. I urge my colleagues to consider it carefully. I ask unanimously consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. That was almost a year ago. I said at that time: Watch what they do, not what they say. Congress gets very creative. Point: Right this minute, section 7 gives them creatively $636 billion that they will not have to find in order to comply with the literal wording of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Thus, in the year 2002, the budget will not be balanced. There will be trillions of dollars worth of IOU's in the Social Security trust fund. But they will say, ``we have complied literally with the wording.'' That is one particular creativity that you see going on now through the violation of the Hollings amendment--a reason for calling this a fraud. I have made the tough votes. Just yesterday I voted to table Senator Rockefeller's amendment to exempt veteran's programs from deficit calculations. I helped coauthor the WIC Program, education programs, but I would likewise vote against amendments to exempt them from deficit calculations. Those programs do not have trust funds; we do under Social Security. There are other ideas of creativity around this town. Mr. Greenspan has given cover to those who want to redefine CPI. Reducing it by 1 point would forgo the need for an additional $150 billion in spending cuts over 5 years. Similarly, there's a move not to continue with the pay-as-you-go provisions requiring legislation outside the budget resolution to be deficit neutral over 10 years. When President Clinton wanted a 5-year rule so he did not require the 60-vote margin on GATT, I held fast. I said, ``We have to maintain the discipline.'' When I offered an amendment to make the 10-year rule part of the Congressional Budget Act last week before the Budget Committee, Republicans said, ``No, no, not now, maybe a later time would be better.'' They are going to get it a later time, that you can be sure of. So there it is. You can see what is on course. The distinguished Speaker of the House said earlier this year at a town meeting in Kennesaw, GA: We have a handful of bureaucrats who all professional economists agree have an error in their calculations. If they cannot get it right in the next 30 days or so, we will zero them out. We will transfer the responsibility to either the Federal Reserve or the Treasury or tell them to get it right. That is what they are going to do. They are going to do away with the Secretary of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics because, if they do not do it the way we want, we will get a different referee. It is my hope that we will amend section 7 excluding Social Security so that we will pass this balanced budget amendment. They think they can pressure old Hollings. But I stood for the truth in public service all my life. I found out it paid off. Let us sober up in this town, speak the truth, and come under the auspices of the first thing we passed last month which puts Congress under the same rules as the people outside this beltway. Let's have truth in budgeting. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is high time we had some truth in budgeting. Look at the record that I have made here of some 110 proposed spending cuts, eliminations, or retrenchments of different programs. You will see the savings that it gives in 1996 and 1997. I struggled, taking some of the CBO cuts, the Concord Coalition cuts, the Kasich spending cuts and others. And you will see there are 110 of them here, amounting only to $37 billion in the first year and $58 billion in the second year. This 2-year projection is important because it underscores the fact that the Congress will have to have further cuts next year and each year thereafter to stay on the glide path. Thus, the reality is that you are not going to balance the budget from spending cuts and growth alone. Aversion to higher taxes is usually a necessary, healthy impulse in a political democracy. But when the alternative becomes self-evidently threadbare and groundless, as has the growth argument, we are no longer dealing with legitimate skepticism, but with what amounts to, in the words of David Stockman, ``a demagogic fetish.'' We will have to do the best we can on spending cuts. We will have to freeze spending. That is what President Clinton had in his budget along with spending cuts of $144 billion. We will have to close tax loopholes and prevent the transitional rule crowd from putting in $200 million for airlines out in St. Louis. That provision was part of GATT but had nothing to do with international trade. We have to curb such practices and tell the American people the truth. I once took a lie detector test, but the after first question--I flunked. They asked a question, and I started my answer, ``Well, in my humble opinion,'' and the needle just went right off the chart. Luckily, the fellow gave me a second chance and after 2 hours I passed. Well, here we go with the truth. We have to have taxes. This predicament did not develop overnight. President Bush was a good man but he was misled on the critical need to bring the deficit under control. I made my own efforts appearing before the Finance Committee and introducing a value-added tax for the deficit and debt. Today, with a 5-percent value-added consumption tax and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 7 years, we can put Government back into the black by the year 1999 and start paying off our $4.8 trillion debt. You do not have to wait for the year 2002. I have just been informed that the proponents of the constitutional people tell me, why don't you go along now and save your record? Mr. President, I want to save my record. That is why I am talking. We have a record of a contract started in 1935. We have a record of a trust. I want to save that record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield.